Too many people?

[Jarhyn]

The light being discussed here would be "grow lamps" for hydroponics.


I suppose that's "lighting some stuff up" but not quite what I was talking about.

Those don't make good load absorbers because they need to be run to a schedule.

Greenhouses are already being used to balance loads in electric grid. Not by lighting them up, but shutting them down on a short notice. Plants can survive a few minutes in the dark, and greenhouses get compensated for the readiness to turn the lights off when needed.

Quite where I'm going with this.

What we need is a balancing system so that we can run nuclear 24/7. The subsidy for the program is literally "cheap/free electricity, with expected downtime in off-peak hours".

Some, if you have enough, you just schedule their known downtime and uptime with your expected change in demand. So if you have a greenhouse that could tolerate a "short day", you cut them off early. As long as you have enough options between early-cutoff-tolerant users, late-start-tolerant users, short-gap-tolerant users, and properly scheduled downtime, batteries and grid capacitors would see little service.

 

[Merle]

The problem here is that it was discussed very early in the thread what solutions, and that while YOU may not be violent, people who ARE read your posts very differently, prior to page 21.

Are you endlessly going to talk about the history of this thread?

Listen, I have said nothing wrong here. There have been a torrent of lies here. When I ask people to show me where I said the things they claim, nobody can quote me as saying any of that. It is all based on lies. And yet I have been called names and my character has continuously been attacked. Then people started joking about turning my body into a living bomb to take out Putin. Finally it reached the point that sure looks to me like a death threat against me based on a lie. ( https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-22#post-1102430 )

Enough. Nobody here should be asked to deal with a torrent of lies. Nobody should be facing death threats.

Enough. If you want to see what happened in this thread, go back and read it.

 

[bilby]

What we need is a balancing system so that we can run nuclear 24/7.

It's called "pumped storage hydroelectricity", and you don't need very much of it - most OECD nations already have enough; Many have sufficient to buffer the grids of neighbouring countries who are without it.

Load balancing beyond what hydropower can deliver can come from the nuclear plants themselves. As I already mentioned, France already does this when they need to.

Load balancing should not be managed on the consumption side; Everyone who wants electricity should have access to it whenever they want it, as a fundamental part of the infrastructure of a modern society. Load shedding to keep grids stable is a characteristic of underdeveloped economies, whose generating systems are inadequate to their needs; It's the sort of thing you see in Sub-saharan Africa, or Germany.

This desperation to re-invent the wheel that's characteristic of discussions of electricity supply with supporters of "renewables" is strong evidence that they aren't qualified to be involved in the discussion at all. If people don't know how modern electrical grids work, it's passing strange that they nevertheless have strong opinions on how to solve the problems that those people imagine they might have. And even stranger that they feel comfortable in recommending large disruptive changes (such as a move to large fractions of intermittent generation) while handwaving away the objections of people who actually do know how the grids in question currently work.

 

[Jarhyn]

What we need is a balancing system so that we can run nuclear 24/7.

It's called "pumped storage hydroelectricity", and you don't need very much of it - most OECD nations already have enough; Many have sufficient to buffer the grids of neighbouring countries who are without it.

Load balancing beyond what hydropower can deliver can come from the nuclear plants themselves. As I already mentioned, France already does this when they need to.

Load balancing should not be managed on the consumption side; Everyone who wants electricity should have access to it whenever they want it, as a fundamental part of the infrastructure of a modern society. Load shedding to keep grids stable is a characteristic of underdeveloped economies, whose generating systems are inadequate to their needs; It's the sort of thing you see in Sub-saharan Africa, or Germany.

The point is to spend it not on things people "want" but on things that need to get done.

We need a surplus of earmarked energy to do carbon capture, desalination, fuel chemical concentration, automated building construction (house printing), automated mining...

The goal is to convert as much energy as we can towards things that need to be done right now, and then we have levers we can pull in the future against major issues.

 

[bilby]

batteries and grid capacitors would see little service.

Batteries and grid capacitors are strictly ultra-short term grid stability devices; They're not used to balance load on meaningful timescales in the debate about nuclear power, and are even less useful on the much larger timescales imposed by intermittent generators such as wind and solar.

 

[bilby]

The point is to spend it not on things people "want" but on things that need to get done.

How do you propose to tell the difference?

As far as I can see, the only dividing line is that we need what we want, but we can decide to defer what they want.

We don't need to earmark energy; We just need enough for our current use, plus the capacity to increase production to meet new demand as it arises.

 

[James Brown]

So I turn on a lamp. Is it because I "want" light? Or is it because I need it?

Regardless, to do so takes energy. I'd hate to think I need to submit a use case to my local utility provider before they allow me the energy to do so.

 

[lostone]

I thought it was a a problem, so I got a vasectomy.

So I turn on a lamp. Is it because I "want" light? Or is it because I need it?

Regardless, to do so takes energy. I'd hate to think I need to submit a use case to my local utility provider before they allow me the energy to do so.

It would also take energy to send and receive a response, but your point is well made.

 

[Merle]

If we are in overshoot, as many suggest, then

...there really should be more evidence than mere suggestion.

If Jesus is returning imminently, as many suggest, then we should all repent our sins. If aliens are visiting Earth and abducting humans for anal probing, as many suggest, then we should all wear tinfoil hats. If the Earth is flat, as many suggest, then we should fund the construction of a safety fence to stop people from falling off the edge.

We need more than "many suggest" before we take a putative threat as being worthy of action. Or even unworthy of ridicule.

I am a little surprised you would think my short comment that "many suggest" is equivalent to "mere suggestion". After all, you and I have discussed this many times on this thread. I have linked to multiple sites that are concerned about overshoot, and have mentioned the reasons for their concern. You have said my links are inadequate to support my claim, and I have said they are. We left it at that.

So no, I am not saying that "mere suggestion" is the same as doing science.

A more accurate statement of the problem, as I see it, is that we are in ecological overshoot. The global footprint network has been doing detailed analysis of this, and has determined that it would take 1.75 Earths to sustainably support the current population at the current level of affluence and human activity.

As I mentioned in another post, the impact on the planet can be expressed by the formula I=PAT, where the impact is based on the population, average affluence, and the factor T, which is a measure of the impact per unit of personal affluence. That gives us three levers we could possibly tweak to bring the impact on the Earth down to more reasonable levels.

I find the number and calculation methods given by the global footprint network to be credible, that we are in overshoot and are impacting the planet 1.75 more than what would be sustainable. Do you agree? If not, what number would you give as a better estimate of the impact we are making on the planet divided by the impact that would be sustainable?

If you think the number is higher than 1, would you suggest we do something about it? What? I see you support increased use of technological solutions that would lower our impact without reducing affluence. I agree, but I think we will do no better than reduce our impact 80% per unit of affluence in the next 30 years. What do you think it will be?

Regarding affluence, I see no way anybody will agree with limiting affluence. Poor nations want to become rich, and rich nations want to become richer. I suggested we should assume the value of A 30 years from now will be at least 125% higher than today unless disaster prevents that from happening. What value do you think we should use?

Finally, we come to population. The United Nations predicts the population 30 years from now will be about 125% of today's factor. Do you agree? I think we should seek fair and effective policies that bring this down to 90% or lower. What number do you think we should seek?

In summary, what do you suggest we use to predict our impact on the planet 30 years from now. My estimates are in red. Please feel free to write back with the numbers you think are better.

Impact today -- 175% of Earth's capacity
Future T factor/current -- 80%
Future Affluence/current -- 125%
Future population/current -- 90%

For my calculations, the net impact on the environment 30 years from now is 175% * 80% * 125% * 90% = 157% . We come down from requiring 1.75 planets for humans to 1.57. That is far from adequate, but at least we tried. That's where I am at.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am a little surprised you would think my short comment that "many suggest" is equivalent to "mere suggestion"

You are correct in a phyric way.

"Many suggest" combines "argument from suggestion" (mere suggestion) with "argument from popularity". It is an attempt to use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning.

You need to establish that what is being suggested is being suggested for sound reasons based on shared premises, if you wish to see it accepted.

The problem is that that can be really hard assuming you don't assume sneak in your conclusion somewhere along the way.

 

[Merle]

I am a little surprised you would think my short comment that "many suggest" is equivalent to "mere suggestion"

You are correct in a phyric way.

"Many suggest" combines "argument from suggestion" (mere suggestion) with "argument from popularity". It is an attempt to use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning.

You need to establish that what is being suggested is being suggested for sound reasons based on shared premises, if you wish to see it accepted.

Oh my. Now you are going to suggest out of nowhere that I am attempting to "use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning." And you get all that from one word in a post here on this forum?

Context matters. Throughout this thread I have emphasized the need for using science to determine the impact we are having on the planet and whether that is causing an overshoot condition. I have given several links arguing we are in overshoot. You can read what they write and see if you agree or disagree with their arguments.

If I had it to do over again, I would write the subject sentence as saying, "If we are in overshoot, as many suggest conclude, then leveling off at 10.4 billion might not be adequate." In context, that is clearly what I meant.

I have written a detailed follow-up post (https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-23#post-1102852), and you have responded to that follow-up. So it should be clear from that what I meant. But rather than accept that post, and respond to the argument, you quibble that a prepositional phrase taken out of the general context of what I have written here could be misinterpreted.

The problem is that that can be really hard assuming you don't assume sneak in your conclusion somewhere along the way.

You seem to live in mortal fear that somebody might try to sneak in a conclusion that they are not yet expressing, and so you write about your fears about what somebody might later say, rather than discuss what they say. Do you have any comment on what I was actually saying in the post you responded to?

 

[Jarhyn]

I am a little surprised you would think my short comment that "many suggest" is equivalent to "mere suggestion"

You are correct in a phyric way.

"Many suggest" combines "argument from suggestion" (mere suggestion) with "argument from popularity". It is an attempt to use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning.

You need to establish that what is being suggested is being suggested for sound reasons based on shared premises, if you wish to see it accepted.

Oh my. Now you are going to suggest out of nowhere that I am attempting to "use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning." And you get all that from one word in a post here on this forum?

I'm commenting on the exact implications of "many suggest" as a mode of argumentation.

When you say "many suggest", I have described what is being done. "Many suggest" is textbook form for an intersection of argumentum ad argumentum and argumentum ad populum.

 

[Elixir]

Now you are going to suggest out of nowhere that I am attempting to "use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning." And you get all that from one word in a post here on this forum?

Hmm seems like he said it straight-up. For reasons that are not addressed by your surprise at having been found to use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning.

"If we are in overshoot, as many suggest conclude, then leveling off at 10.4 billion might not be adequate."

I actually agree with that, and also think we are (and have been for the 73+ years I‘ve been alive) in “overshoot”.

You seem to live in mortal fear that somebody might try to sneak in a conclusion that they are not yet expressing

In my case it is simple annoyance at the lack of clarity and seemingly intentional ambiguity in your posts that you yourself point out.

 

[Merle]

In my case it is simple annoyance at the lack of clarity and seemingly intentional ambiguity in your posts that you yourself point out.

I certainly am not being intentionally ambiguous. I am trying to be as clear as possible.

At any rate, I have clarified what I meant in a lengthy post, https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-23#post-1102852 .

Do you have any comment on what I am actually saying?

 

[Merle]

Hmm seems like he said it straight-up. For reasons that are not addressed by your surprise at having been found to use two fallacious forms of reasoning to create a stronger-seeming but still fallacious form of reasoning.

One would think that a person who was annoyed at reading things that lacked clarity would try to write things that are obviously clear.

Are you saying that this paragraph, from the same post, is obvious clear? If you are going to get annoyed about people writing things hard to understand, I would think sentences like the one above would be a concern. What does it even mean?

 

[Merle]

I'm commenting on the exact implications of "many suggest" as a mode of argumentation.

When you say "many suggest", I have described what is being done. "Many suggest" is textbook form for an intersection of argumentum ad argumentum and argumentum ad populum.

If you will read what I post here, you will I see that I am concerned about ecological overshoot, not because of some ad populum argument, but because the scientific data shows that. See, for instance:


Bradshaw, Corey J. A et. al. , 2021 Underestimating the Challenges of avoiding a Ghastly Future

Herrington, Gaya, 2020 Update to limits to growth: Comparing the World3 model with empirical data

Lin, David, et. al. ,2018, Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012-2018.

Murphy, Thomas W. Jr. 2021, Energy and Human Ambition on a Finite Planet

Pengra, Bruce, 2012 One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity

Saier, Milton H. Jr. 2023, Save the Earth; Don’t Give Birth

Wackernagel, Mathis et. al. , 2002, Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy

Wackernagel, Mathis et. al. , 2018 Ecological Footprint

 

[Merle]

You are clearly not edging towards "do nothing", and while you keep saying "not monstrous" you also keep failing to say what you find monstrous.

Flapdoodle. I have addressed this many times. See, for instance https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262

 

[Jarhyn]

You are clearly not edging towards "do nothing", and while you keep saying "not monstrous" you also keep failing to say what you find monstrous.

Flapdoodle. I have addressed this many times. See, for instance https://iidb.org/threads/too-many-people.27312/page-21#post-1102262

You addressed it... After 20 pages of argument from me that you started needing to address it, and that you need to address it every time you claim that there is a problem for which one of the more popular solutions proposed is "genocide".

You realize you could just shut me up forever on this point by saying "oh, OK, I'll remember to mention that genocide and such are wrong, and that I'm talking about passive/indirect social approaches to reduce births whenever I bring up overpopulation"?

That's all it would take.

It is not dissimilar from me giving @Loren Pechtel flack when they talk about affirmative action being bad and then neglect to mention that they believe the solution is to instead make selective bureaucracies blind to such "bad proxies".

When there is a lead from a problem to a bad solution that is commonly suggested, you have a responsibility to explicitly exclude the bad solution.

 

[Merle]

When there is a lead from a problem to a bad solution that is commonly suggested, you have a responsibility to explicitly exclude the bad solution.

Understood. Again, I was not aware of any connection to people using the scientific base to control ecological overshoot by voluntarily limiting births with genocide. I was looking for discussion of the scientific case. When people started linking that to genocide, I was emphatic that I was not promoting genocide.

And as you know, as soon as the issue came up, I immediately emphatically took a stand against genocide.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Just like I said throughput this thread, I am empathically opposed to genocide.

How many times do I need to repeat this? Just like I said throughput this thread, I am empathically opposed to genocide.

Do you understand that yet?

 

[Jarhyn]

How many times do I need to repeat this? Just like I said throughput this thread, I am empathically opposed to genocide.

As many times as you say overpopulation is not a problem, or near to it. You should lead with it, or lead into it.

I think this is what some might call "tone setting".