Planetary Resources

Sub-Human said:
zegh8578 said:
Dissecting it further: Humans do not need oil to maintain an existence on this planet.
Click to expand...

Like TorontRayne, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Yeah, thank you for pointing out, we don't need oil to survive. That was a bit... obvious?

By your logic, people shouldn't make progress because they can survive without the cutting edge technology. Because we can't just, you know, magically skip one tier. Most scientific breakthroughs were based on an existing foundation of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's basically the jist of it.
Scientific breakthrough is nice and all, but it's not imperative to our survival. That's all. A bit obvious, I guess. I will be much more careful with that from now on :)
 
Sub-Human said:
zegh8578 said:
Paeng, you are making the short-sighted assumption that "the now" is a universal constant.
Not good enough.
Click to expand...

He isn't. What you said is that we don't need oil. Do not, as far as I'm aware, refers to the present tense. I'm not sure I know anyone who's ready to go back to being a primitive tribal for some noble goal. Do you?

We might not need oil in the future, but now?
Click to expand...
depends. We believe that we need it. But as said. We do NOT need it to survive.

Again. If there would be no oil tomorrow for example (for no one), then that is how it would be. Everything how we know it today would stop, but people would not simply disappear. Life would go on. Somehow. Many would die, probably because of what ever issue humanity has to face. But some people would survive. So much for sure. Just like always.

But remove clean water for example as resource. And then you have a real problem.

I really would not be surprised if we see more wars in the distant future rather for clean water sources then oil.

Sub-Human said:
By your logic, people shouldn't make progress because they can survive without the cutting edge technology. Because we can't just, you know, magically skip one tier. Most scientific breakthroughs were based on an existing foundation of knowledge.
Click to expand...
maybe I am wrong, but I have the feeling this isn't the point as its more about how we tend to believe that we really need oil while actually when you think about it, who is the group which needs it the most?

The military and the industry/companies. The usual guy on the street? He only needs the products made of oil, and those can be after all replaced somehow, plastic is a rather new resource and it could be replaced in many situations by metal/wood or other resource

There is the story from John Webster (recipes for disaster) who decided to go without any oil or oil based products for 1 year. While it was difficult, it was not impossible. He actually managed it even quite "fine" considering how important oil seems to be for many people and every day life.

While Oil is very important we should not make the mistake here to actually believe everything. There is a really huge industry and lobby behind it. And that naturally means it will have a much higher value for those groups and they will try to explain people how it is important for their and our all survival the economy etc. While I am not an expert I have the feeling they are exaggerating.
 
we do really need oil.

we do not have a viable replacement.

modern rubber and plastics do not exist without oil.

vast majority of medicines are much more expensive to make without oil.

cars do not work without without oil and oil products.

jets do not work without oil products.

shipping boats do not work without oil products.

shipping trucks do not work without oil products.


without oil, our transportation system fails.

without our transportation system, food and other household goods stop moving.

without oil we cant fertilize the farms and grow food year round.


may there be an alternative for oil?

sure. but when gas prices start soaring due to the down slope on the bell curve for oil supply/demand, it wont matter. millions of people will die within 3 months. within 6 months the world could easily lose a billion people. within 12 months, it would be over a billion people dead.

heat stroke, exposure, life sustaining medication, inability to do a job in the "new order" of things.

think of a return to not even the mid-late 1800s. it would be a return to the 1300-1400s.

we are so reliant. that is the problem. it would take time for people to pick up the skills/habits to be sustainable.

plus most seed would be worthless for sustainable agricultre, as most "plants" grow without producing seeds due to companies wanting to make profit next year by selling the seeds to farmers again.
 
No x 10

We need oil because oil is cheaper then the altenative. It's cheaper becuse of the existing infrasructure needed to refine oil.

You made a lot of mistakes but im gonna stick to the agricultural ones. Fertilizers don't necessarily have to be made with oil but oil is cheap. We do not need modern fertilizires belive it or not stuff grows just fine on it's own. We use fertilizers to increase the gain. Oh and a lot of farmers are ditching artificial fertilizers becuse it turns out its not that healthy for the soil. Those that do manage without it are labeled as hippies. Another rumor is that without artificial fertilizers you canot compete in a free market becuse the yield is smaller. That is a lie. As far as seeds go you are close to the truth. Plants are engineered to produce less seeds but they still do. Those seeds are not worthless they will grow if you plant them. The plant from those seeds is not going to be as big and as resilient as it's parent but it will produce a fruit.
 
actually the problem with farming is the heavy industrialisation. They set a higher focus on economy and gain then sustainability. And no one should tell me it was "needed". The world has enough food around to feed 1 person 8 times each day.
 
The problem with agriculture is capitalism. People want the maximum from the little land they have. They want to invest a bit and get a lot. Thats why they use engineered seeds, artificial fertilizers pesticides and herbicidies. The thing is they don't need all that stuff all they need is a bit of knowlege.

Don't know whether we can currently feed the entire population but it doesn't matter becuse if we folow the guidelines of convetional agriculture we are going to ruin the soil and that means certain death, on the other hand alternative agriculture cannot sustain the population in its current number. So jeah, in the next 100 years we are going to see some radical changes and im not talking about the oil reserves.
 
zegh8578 said:
Paeng, you are making the short-sighted assumption that "the now" is a universal constant.
Not good enough.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I'm doing is the opposite.
 
zegh8578 said:
"Need" is relative. I hate explaining myself, when what I say is self evident, and arguing with it serves no other purpose than to nitpick...

We need oil to maintain the current situation.
We don't need oil to survive, as individuals or as a species.

Dissecting it further: Humans do not need oil to maintain an existence on this planet.

I'm sensing I'm gonna have to further dissect it: When I say "maintain the current situation" you read correctly, so I'm just repeating it. Survival can be relative also. Fossil fuel is limited. Not in any kind of nearby future, but in a relative sense, it will eventually run out. We cannot keep up with geological processes. Alternatives aren't just a utopia, but will eventually become the only solution.

Final example:
Past: no oil = survival
Present: oil = survival
Future: no oil = survival

Feel free to demand even further dissections of this very, very simple premise.
Click to expand...

Actually, your last point--that survival can be relative--makes your whole argument irrelevant, as one can argue that humanity has survived if a handful of human beings do.
 
zegh8578 said:
Yeah, that's basically the jist of it.
Scientific breakthrough is nice and all, but it's not imperative to our survival. That's all. A bit obvious, I guess. I will be much more careful with that from now on :)
Click to expand...

If "scientific breakthrough" is "not imperative to our survival," then what is?

And who does "our" refer to? Most of 7 billion people? A handful?
 
Crni Vuk said:
depends. We believe that we need it. But as said. We do NOT need it to survive.

Again. If there would be no oil tomorrow for example (for no one), then that is how it would be. Everything how we know it today would stop, but people would not simply disappear. Life would go on. Somehow. Many would die, probably because of what ever issue humanity has to face. But some people would survive. So much for sure. Just like always.
Click to expand...

Your argument is self-contradictory! "People would not simply disappear" but "many would die".

Your final point is also irrelevant because what concerns us isn't the non-existence of human beings but the fact that many would die. You yourself just admitted that!

But remove clean water for example as resource. And then you have a real problem.
Click to expand...

Do you know how much clean water we have available? Are you aware of the use of oil and other resources to make clean water available?

I really would not be surprised if we see more wars in the distant future rather for clean water sources then oil.
Click to expand...

Or both, especially given the importance of energy in cleaning and distributing water!

maybe I am wrong, but I have the feeling this isn't the point as its more about how we tend to believe that we really need oil while actually when you think about it, who is the group which needs it the most?
Click to expand...

Almost everyone does! What do you think is needed, together with phosphates and other resources, for mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, not to mention distribution of goods?

The military and the industry/companies. The usual guy on the street? He only needs the products made of oil, and those can be after all replaced somehow, plastic is a rather new resource and it could be replaced in many situations by metal/wood or other resource
Click to expand...

You won't believe it, but almost everything the "usual guy on the street" is using is made out of oil or uses it, from clothes to food containers to food. And not just oil but fresh water, phosphates, iron ore, and other resources, many of them obtained through infrastructure that involves oil.

Keep in mind that all of that was part of what powered up the Green Revolution, among others.

In fact, even renewable energy is partly dependent on oil, besides having lower energy returns.

There is the story from John Webster (recipes for disaster) who decided to go without any oil or oil based products for 1 year. While it was difficult, it was not impossible. He actually managed it even quite "fine" considering how important oil seems to be for many people and every day life.
Click to expand...

Almost all manufactured goods and processed food plus mechanized agriculture involve oil used for energy and/or petrochemicals.

While Oil is very important we should not make the mistake here to actually believe everything. There is a really huge industry and lobby behind it. And that naturally means it will have a much higher value for those groups and they will try to explain people how it is important for their and our all survival the economy etc. While I am not an expert I have the feeling they are exaggerating.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Realities of how manufacturing and mechanized agriculture work are not based on lobbying.
 
donperkan said:
No x 10

We need oil because oil is cheaper then the altenative. It's cheaper becuse of the existing infrasructure needed to refine oil.

You made a lot of mistakes but im gonna stick to the agricultural ones. Fertilizers don't necessarily have to be made with oil but oil is cheap. We do not need modern fertilizires belive it or not stuff grows just fine on it's own. We use fertilizers to increase the gain. Oh and a lot of farmers are ditching artificial fertilizers becuse it turns out its not that healthy for the soil. Those that do manage without it are labeled as hippies. Another rumor is that without artificial fertilizers you canot compete in a free market becuse the yield is smaller. That is a lie. As far as seeds go you are close to the truth. Plants are engineered to produce less seeds but they still do. Those seeds are not worthless they will grow if you plant them. The plant from those seeds is not going to be as big and as resilient as it's parent but it will produce a fruit.
Click to expand...

The yield is generally smaller:

"Study: Most Organic Crops Fall Short on Yields"

http://www.voanews.com/content/study-most-organic-crops-fall-short-on-yields-148887835/370365.html

If we much to such or other forms of farming, it will be so because of peak oil and similar problems.
 
Crni Vuk said:
actually the problem with farming is the heavy industrialisation. They set a higher focus on economy and gain then sustainability. And no one should tell me it was "needed". The world has enough food around to feed 1 person 8 times each day.
Click to expand...

The reason for that is because of energy employed for farming, harvesting, processing, and distribution. From what I remember, we need something like 8 to 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food:

"10 Calories in, 1 Calorie Out – The Energy We Spend on Food"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/

Is this "needed"? If you argue that eating, say, once a day is good enough, then probably not. Of course, one can argue that people in the past planted their own food and survive. Just don't mention that life expectancy rates were much lower, that there were a lot fewer people then, likely less environmental damage, and less destructive weapons.
 
Sub-Human said:
I'd like to see how long the supply would last before running out.
Click to expand...

From what I know, several countries are dependent on JIT systems and strategic stockpiles, which means they might have something like two weeks' worth of food and medicine, with remaining inventories in a few areas.
 
Paeng:
1. Oh.
2. No, because yes. Humans don't have to be many billions, in order to be regarded humans. It's as if we can't exist, if we exist in a way different than now. You're shooting a world-without-oil right down, as if impossible at all. So what if I'm imagining a world with less people? It's not like I'm planning this, I'm not a bad guy.
3. Again, yes, that's it basically. In theory a global population as low as a million could survive well, and continue humanity. Also, oil has a certain value, and there's a certain payback in refining it - and in comparison other forms of energy fall short. But remove oil from the equation, and the whole picture will change by itself. Look, here's me being completely honest:
That's all I said, no more no less: We don't need oil.
I'm not a retard. I realize cars need oil. Right?
So obviously, making such a statement, I am prepared to imagine a world sans many of todays comforts, it is self evident. And now, something simple, self evident, and not even very weighty has turned into a whole-page debate. I hope this little exchange never ends! Now, ask me if I really expect a world of a million/less global population to enjoy a lifestyle like today, or if I'm naive enough to imagine this to take place soon, or just surprise me!
 
paeng said:
Your argument is self-contradictory! "People would not simply disappear" but "many would die".

Your final point is also irrelevant because what concerns us isn't the non-existence of human beings but the fact that many would die. You yourself just admitted that! .
Click to expand...
Uh? What the hell dude. I am not going to answer to everything you posted because I see that as boring.

I don't see where it is contradicting anything because we are talking here about

SURVIVAL

Humanity managed for the last 30 000 years to do quite well without any oil. The history of oil as how we use it today is maybe 200 years old. Not to mention a large part of the world does not even use any fuel and oil. Like the tribes and populations which exist without modern civilization.

The effect would be huge for us and the modern society. So much for sure. I am not naive. But it would not mean extinction if there would be tomorrow no oil anymore.

paeng said:
Sub-Human said:
I'd like to see how long the supply would last before running out.
Click to expand...

From what I know, several countries are dependent on JIT systems and strategic stockpiles, which means they might have something like two weeks' worth of food and medicine, with remaining inventories in a few areas.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you even talking about, like there is no alternative to industrialized farming or that it would be a good solution to anything because honestly now we actually realize that it was one of the worst decision in the last 100 years. And now they also want to tell use that we "need" engineered food where the genome has been changed.

Do you even realize how big the lobby is behind all of this? The whole food industry in the US is a total mess.

Again the problem is not how much food we actually produce and manufacture. The problem is the distribution. Its like wealth. Do you realize how much food ends in the trashcan? Each day? Its terrifying when you consider how many people have actually nothing to eat at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top