Planetary Resources

[zegh8578]

Alec, for the love of...

Basically you are elevating ONE author as the allknowing sage of human biology. Splendid.
All other researchers can go home, and read a comic on the can, right?

I _absolutely hate_ when people read a book, or see a docu, and think that they are well informed in the matters of the subject they are debating.

It's gonna take way, way, way more than one book to understand human biology.

We CAN survive in the jungles dude - cus we are allready doing it, our dear brothers and sisters in the amazone jungle ARE HUMANS. You can re-define them ALL you like, you can brush them aside as irrelevant, you can jump up and down and repeat your author and his book, but there they are. In the jungle. Eating monkeys.

WHY am I still responding here
I am so weak sometimes...

 

[DammitBoy]

Alec, riddle me this.

Why do you think mankind would regress back beyond say, 14th-16th century civilization, once all the oil sources are depleted?

 

[alec]

Alec, for the love of...

Basically you are elevating ONE author as the allknowing sage of human biology. Splendid.
All other researchers can go home, and read a comic on the can, right?

No, I am not. I am pointing out a title which I think would help this discussion; it is opportune to refer to it. Again you are stating things I didn't even imply.
I'd tell you of more interesting titles about this topic if I knew any, but at this point in my life I don't. Which does not mean I've read just this book in my life. I read a book/2 days and it's rarely literature, so don't start to intimidate me that way: I'm well-read on a large numbers of topics. Posting on these fora almost makes that obligatory.

Or wait... maybe you expect me to put more trust into your asinine opinions then I should put into a scientific publication?

I _absolutely hate_ when people read a book, or see a docu, and think that they are well informed in the matters of the subject they are debating.

I hate it even more if a kid like you thinks his ideas and opinions matter more than those put down by professors.

Keep on dreaming that you are important kid.

It's gonna take way, way, way more than one book to understand human biology.

No shit, Sherlock.

We CAN survive in the jungles dude - cus we are allready doing it, our dear brothers and sisters in the amazone jungle ARE HUMANS. You can re-define them ALL you like, you can brush them aside as irrelevant, you can jump up and down and repeat your author and his book, but there they are. In the jungle. Eating monkeys.

I didn't say they aren't. I actually refer to aboriginals and rainforest dwellers in my previous post.
Did you even read it?
Or can your obvious hatred for books be explained by simply concluding that you... can't read?

WHY am I still responding here

Beats me as well, man. You are posting one uninteresting post after the other. It's sad.

I am so weak sometimes...

Your words, but boy, do I ever agree.

Why do you think mankind would regress back beyond say, 14th-16th century civilization, once all the oil sources are depleted?

Maybe because you can not take care of 7 billion people with 14th-16th century technology? You can't even start to feed a tenth of them with 14th-16th century agriculture. And without oil you can't transport that food all over the globe, etcetera. Again: this stuff has been studied, I'm not kidding.

Really, kids: you would all benefit from reading books. Not just one, as zegh8578 seems to think, but books (plural). Then maybe I would not have to point out the obvious flaws in your posts.

If a person starts to think like zegh8578, i.e. starts to think that they can grasp reality without consulting previous knowledge that was published by actual scientists but by simply using the braincells they were given at birth, discussions like these become cumbersome and repetitive.

 

[donperkan]

Stop being offensive you asshole.

We have progressed far, we learned a lot. There are breakthrough in agriculture and microbiology happening every day. Every decade we increase food production wihtout increasing the land consumtion. Combustion engines and fueling are constantly improved, so is the battery efficiency. There are noumerous suitable substitutions for oil they are just too costly at the moment. When time comes, and it will, oil will be replaced with someting else, then people will come out and claim anew we will not be able to survive without it.

 

[alec]

My post was 'defensive'. Your post, however, with you calling me an 'asshole' is rather 'offensive'. The difference between defensive and offensive can be found in a dictionary.

I also wonder which exotic new form of energy will eventually replace the sheer power of oil. Maybe it'll be 'controlled gamma ray bursts in large colliders' or 'artificially produced supermassive black holes, channeling the energy they eat into a power socket'? Or maybe we'll all of a sudden discover that we forgot a couple of elements in Mendeljev's table, among which are adamantium and some sort of rock we can burn for endless energy? Maybe the aliens will come and tell us we can reach speeds up to 500km/hour by simply thinking about it?

In certain fields, science has very little surprises left for us, I'm afraid. And energy is one of them. But hey: I don't mind overly positive people with pipedreams. I like how they get disappointed quickly.

 

[Hassknecht]

I still vote for nuclear fusion as the backbone of energy production of the future, with solar and wind power when available.
Given the current state of research, though, commercially available fusion won't come for another 50 years, sadly. And given the current popular opinion on anything nuclear, funding of nuclear fusion is running out.
Solar and wind power can be nice if useful means of energy storage can be found. Especially solar power (photovoltaics) has a lot of possibilites left, getting more effective and cheaper by the day. Proper nano-production-processes can and will increase their power quite a lot I think.
Hydrogen storage is another problem that, if solved in a satisfactory way, would solve transportation. Research on light and safe hydrogen tanks is going on full throttle.
If the necessary technologies are available early enough, humanity might be able to sustain the current level of technology for a while longer.
However, oil is also needed for various chemical products, mostly plastics of all sorts. There are possible substitutes, though. Lignin-based plastics for example seem to be working quite nicely.

Here's what I think will happen:
I think that if oil would run out this instant, we'd be boned hard. The cities would begin to starve, leading to revolts, police states and civil wars. Massive deurbanization would follow. The population would reduce to sustainable levels. Technological enclaves would exist, surviving on existing renewable energy sources. Human ingenuity rarely fails, and when pushed, solutions for a world without oil will follow after the dust settles. Which might take quite a while.
Luckily we have a few years until oil runs out. As „running out“ is a process, there will be fights over the last remaining resources. If we're lucky, the aforementioned technologies will be available in time, saving the first world a certain level of prosperity.
If not, wars and then again famines, civil unrest and so on would follow. Some technological enclaves will prevail and maybe establish some sort of feudal system over the villages around what remains of the cities.
Unless we're prepared, most of the first world will fall back to a technological level comparable maybe to the 30's or so. Current generation renewable energy sources and power grids will leave an unsteady power supply, but enough for smaller technological enclaves.
Heavy industry will stop unless it's absolutely vital and enough power is available.

 

[DammitBoy]

Why do you think mankind would regress back beyond say, 14th-16th century civilization, once all the oil sources are depleted?

Maybe because you can not take care of 7 billion people with 14th-16th century technology? You can't even start to feed a tenth of them with 14th-16th century agriculture. And without oil you can't transport that food all over the globe, etcetera. Again: this stuff has been studied, I'm not kidding.

Your personal attack and insult aside, please point out where I supposed the world would continue to sustain 7 billion people?

Sorry, I just assumed your huge intellect would understand that a regression to 14th-16th century technology would also entail a regression in sustainable population numbers. Silly me!

Surely you don't think 7 billion people on the planet is a positve thing? Think of the polar bears!

 

[Crni Vuk]

DB gets the point of the debate ... how comes others don't? And still argue about it.

Like anyone of us ever claimed society would stay the same. But we are talking about survival here. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anyway. It's the last time I mention it now. Seriously this is not rocket science. History proved its possible. Many communities today prove its possible. No one claimed it would be desirable. But believe it or not, humans don't need oil just to survive.

Also thx for attacking my difficulty in language Alec. That sure gives your opinion a hell lot of more weight

 

[zegh8578]

Keep on dreaming that you are important kid.

Holy shit, thats like right from Chapter 12 of "Amazing Internet PWNS for Dummies"

Beats me as well, man. You are posting one uninteresting post after the other. It's sad.

You saw what I did there, but did you see what you did there? :0

If a person starts to think like zegh8578, i.e. starts to think that they can grasp reality without consulting previous knowledge that was published by actual scientists but by simply using the braincells they were given at birth, discussions like these become cumbersome and repetitive.

^
What?
No.
You: Bragging about the author you know
Me: Not being arsed to make a list of the authors I know. I actually DID mention to you in another thread that I have - not only read many scientific books - but been active on scientific mailing lists, in which well known researchers participated. In fact, it kindov felt icky to even brag about something like that - and to think you didn't even read it :'(
Also, the whole 3rd person mention approach is SO "I'm in my mid 20s and really getting the hang of internet pwning"

 

[DammitBoy]

DB gets the point of the debate ... how comes others don't? And still argue about it.

Alec is just toying and baiting folks - he's not debating anything.

Zegh is just taking the bait and reacting on a personal level.

It's an argument about measuring each other's penises, not debating the OP.

 

[mobucks]

Fuck living with polar bears. Oil or nothing. I say America, the best country in the United States, takes all the world's oil and keep's being awesome while the rest of the shit world lives like Aztecs. Dirty indians.

 

[.Pixote.]

America is the one place I wouldn't want to be when oil runs out. I prefer Tasmania.

 

[valcik]

I like the idea of isolated America very much. For instance, it was described perfectly in a Wer stiehlt schon Unterschenkel? sci-fi book, written by Gert Prokop. Poor people of America were oppressed by a federal agency, whilst the rest of the world was united and cooperating. One must love it!

 

[alec]

Also thx for attacking my difficulty in language Alec. That sure gives your opinion a hell lot of more weight

As if I am the only one on these boards who ridicules you for being unable to express yourself properly.

Hah.

Alec is just toying and baiting folks - he's not debating anything.

Zegh is just taking the bait and reacting on a personal level.

Uhm... if what you claim is true (I am not saying it is), then you took the bait as well, Dumbboy.

Also, the whole 3rd person mention approach is SO "I'm in my mid 20s and really getting the hang of internet pwning"

I'm old enough to be your father, kid. I was already able to read and write when you were still sperm.

That being said, I encourage all of you to persevere in your ignorance. It makes you all the more human, doesn't it?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Also thx for attacking my difficulty in language Alec. That sure gives your opinion a hell lot of more weight

As if I am the only one on these boards who ridicules you for being unable to express yourself properly.

Hah.

right. Sure you're not the first one. But still, its kinda weak, don't you think? How about this way. Why should I listen to the opinion of someone with a foot fetish and a rather perverted mind/fantasy? Hope you get the point. Because others do it its suddenly fine?. I am trying at least to improve. I am a slow learner and I have my difficulties with it, it is really no secret.

Not to mention it's rather rare that they bring it up as reason in a debate. Most actually just do fun about it or yeah, are sometimes frustrated. But they don't attack my integrity usually. You know, it's not what you say, but how you say it.

I am not angry at anyone. Just saying.

*Edit
By the way now that you mention "wise men", I guess all the greek/ancient philosophers have not been humans in your eyes (correct me if I am wrong), since they lacked our technology and resources? I am just surprised how some here argue about something which I thought is common sense. Instead lets ignore the last 30 000 years of history completely - which is where we start to see humans as "homo sapiens sapiens". Not to mention that many ideas and concepts we know today have been already at least known by a few people in the past. The concept/idea of flying, aerodynamic, gravity and space, even the idea (wikipedia ... The concept that matter is composed of discrete units and cannot be divided into arbitrarily tiny quantities has been around for millennia, but these ideas were founded in abstract, philosophical reasoning rather than experimentation and empirical observation. People made for sure many wrong decisions believing in the wrong things but that is something which happens even today as well.

 

[zegh8578]

America is the one place I wouldn't want to be when oil runs out. I prefer Tasmania.

Norway's gonna turn into a 3rd world wood-exporting dump also.
We could also go back to mining :ponder: with dynamite and picks!

I'd go hang out with this guy

 

[DammitBoy]

Alec is just toying and baiting folks - he's not debating anything.

Zegh is just taking the bait and reacting on a personal level.

Uhm... if what you claim is true (I am not saying it is), then you took the bait as well, Dumbboy.

No, I ignored your trolling and personal attacks and responded on topic with a thoughful question you have not been able to refute, address or debate.

I'll repeat it so as not to tax your brain with having to remember it.

Why do you think mankind would regress back beyond say, 14th-16th century civilization, once all the oil sources are depleted? And just so we're clear, of course one would expect population levels to at least regress to 14th-16th century levels.

I eagerly await a response from you, hopefully free of insults and personal attacks and trolling - and perhaps having at least a modicum of logic and reasoning involved.

 

[TheWesDude]

DB, you are drinking the cool-aid.

Why do you think mankind would regress back beyond say, 14th-16th century civilization, once all the oil sources are depleted?

we will not fully run out of oil for at least 100-300 years. that is irrelevant.

the IMPORTANT time is once we hit the downward slope of peak oil. THAT is the death of oil. not running out, but when people cant get what they want. at that point the price of a barrel of crude will begin to skyrocket.

anyone who thinks there wont be a problem until oil runs out is drinking the kool aid. when oil hits that point, it will crash because people wont be able to afford to drive their SUVs or trucks 20-30 minutes to work every day.

 

[DammitBoy]

What koolaid am I drinking? I merely asked a question of Alec, pertaining to the topic.

Please point out where I stated we would not have a problem prior to all the oil wells running dry?

In fact, if it's not going to run out for at least another 100 years, my personal supposition is we will have replaced oil as our primary energy source by that point - ipso facto, no problem at all.

 

[.Pixote.]

Where are people getting these so called facts about oil lasting another 100 to 300 years. Oil use has been growing exponentially since the late 19th century, and it shows little sign of slowing down, so if anything the reserves are declining increasingly. I can see the use of tar sands extending the life of oil for another few decades at most. Once crude oil dries up, tar sands will be exploited more and more, so their decline will be even more rapid than crude oil - IMO.

Such an amazing substance, and just to think people just burned the stuff to get from point A to point B...