I don't know how the arithmetic on flint works out, so just checking here... You guys know that when Loren says "sustainable" he means sustainable until the oceans boil away in a billion years, right?
No. I mean "sustainable" as in not going to be the cause of our downfall. Earth will be uninhabitable to humanity long before the oceans boil.
Same diff -- my point was to check whether, when your critics talk about how plentiful deposits are, they understand they need to be mentally multiplying the consumption rate by millions of years, not thousands.
Yeah, the standard "green" approach envisions humanity on a decline out to the end of their predictions. And with no reason to think the decline will do anything but continue to accelerate. I do not consider that sustainable, just prolonging things.
Why does green mean continual decline, and of what? What do greenies envision declining indefinitely? Numbers of humans? We will be lucky if we reach a static global population soon; high percentage declines globally usually have to do with natural events like volcanoes and impacts, pestilences and nasty stuff like that. Wars kill a lot but they’re usually mostly men. Men are replaceable. In fact that’s a big reason they (we) try to wipe each other out.
But back to prolonging things, Loren.
I see predictions that oceans will evaporate over the 500 million years following the demise of humans, which is expected in about 500 my from today.
If the species makes it another 500 THOUSAND years it will defy the odds for a mammalian species. If it’s gone in 500 years I won’t be surprised (I’ll be dead).