We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

Tech WILL contribute to the mitigation of human suffering, as it always has.

I agree that tech will contribute to the mitigation of human suffering.

However, we are in overshoot, with the planet quickly being trashed faster than it can recover. We do not need a mere contribution to the mitigation of human suffering. We need something that will end the overshoot.

 

[Merle]

Where do you imagine the stuff we already found has gone?

The first law of thermodynamics should give you a hint.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics has more than one law.

 

[Elixir]

Steady state means no permanent changes--but new technology is a permanent change

New tech is not permanent - that’s why there’s new tech. It replaces old tech. Which was once new tech. Change is the constant, not the tech. The relatively steady state social component is population numbers, not in tech level.

 

[steve_bank]

Where do you imagine the stuff we already found has gone?

The first law of thermodynamics should give you a hint.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics has more than one law.

I am getting old and have been away from it for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could refresh my memory on laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Merle]

I reference other peer-reviewed articles that say the same thing [we need to limit consumption].

What do you offer as a counter? What do you have to prove that Wiedmaan et. al. are wrong? We have nothing but your quips and cartoons declaring that you are right, and the opposing evidence cannot possibly be right.

If Wiedmann, et. al., are right then we need to limit consumption. If we need to limit consumption, and consumption is equal to the population times the average consumption-per-capita, then we would need to decide if we would address this by limiting population, limiting consumption-per-capita or both.

Both. We already did the first; And we can do the second without limiting affluence.

No, we have not limited population. It is still rising at the rate of 1 billion people every 12 years.

The United Nations says population will increase 30% in the next 50 years. After that they suggest that it may slowly decline, but nobody knows. It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

Predicting that it will level off in 50 years is not the same thing as "we already did it".

But lets assume they are correct, and we level off at something over 10 billion in 2075. That is a lot more people. We are already in overshoot.

If we need to cut our total impact in half, then a 30% increase in population makes it harder.

Regarding your assertion that we can limit consumption without limiting affluence, in what way is a life that consumes little affluent? Are we all just going to sing high quality songs to each other, than bask in our great affluence of hearing such high quality songs without needing to consume anything?

 

[Merle]

Where do you imagine the stuff we already found has gone?

The first law of thermodynamics should give you a hint.

Unfortunately, thermodynamics has more than one law.

I am getting old and have been away from it for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could refresh my memory on laws of thermodynamics.

In layman's terms:

First law of thermodynamics: You can't win.
Second law of thermodynamics: You can't even break even.

Regarding materials, they are becoming mixed up in things like integrated circuits. Once that circuit goes bad, the ingredients are so badly mixed up it is not practical to salvage them.

Similarly, constantly heating and processing of materials breaks up the crystal structure, eventually making them unusable. Many materials simply cannot be recylcled. (https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/death-cults-doomers-and-an-end-of)

 

[Merle]

I am getting old and have been away from it for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could refresh my memory on laws of thermodynamics.

A more serious answer:

The first law says energy cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

The second law is stated many ways including this: "Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit, i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the entropies remains unchanged".

Basically that says the net result of all reactions is a deterioration of the order of the universe. But, of course, given enough energy and the availability of the right processes, one can cause the ordered transformation he wants at the expense of a more disorganized result in another part of the process.

 

[bilby]

I don't really count fossil fuels because they can be replaced. Minerals, though, are the sticking point. I disagree on deteriorate with recycling--that's the realm of organics. Minerals can be purified. But in time we aren't going to be able to find enough.

Why not?

Where do you imagine the stuff we already found has gone?

The first law of thermodynamics should give you a hint.

Dispersed into the environment at concentrations we are not currently capable of recovering it.

But we don't disperse mineral resources into the environment. We concentrate them.

Mineral ores are generally pretty low in the target metals. Ore processing is the process of concentrating the resources until they're usable.

 

[bilby]

Ok, so we just keep raising our standard of living with the same population but with less impact on the Earth.

Great. We have been trying that for a century.

We haven't. We have started working towards that, about sixty years ago; It became clear that it was working - that birthrates were declining substantially - about forty years ago; and due to demographic lag (the people born in the 1970s and '80s had their children in the '90s and 2000s, but won't die until the 2050s and '60s) we are not going to be able to START trying that until the middle of this century, without killing people.

You yourself have repeatedly agreed that genocide isn't acceptable; The unavoidable consequence of that is that we cannot possibly have begun the experiment you claim we have conducted for a century, and won't be able to for thirty odd years.

To declare failure now is more than a little premature.

A century ago, the population was still increasing unchecked, and the people born a century ago had already had most of the children they were ever going to have, by the time the oral contraceptive was developed, much less widely available.

That wasn't what I was talking about. The issue is that we have been concerned about the environment and fossil fuel depletion for a long time. And yet the Earth is in worse condition now. Tehnology simply is not keeping up with the rate at which we trash the planet. It is little more than a statement of faith when we say that some day technology will catch up.

Technology caught up seventy years ago.

The problem here isn't technology, it's politics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Steady state means no permanent changes--but new technology is a permanent change

New tech is not permanent - that’s why there’s new tech. It replaces old tech. Which was once new tech. Change is the constant, not the tech. The relatively steady state social component is population numbers, not in tech level.

Then don't use "steady state" when you actually mean to simply hold one value constant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't really count fossil fuels because they can be replaced. Minerals, though, are the sticking point. I disagree on deteriorate with recycling--that's the realm of organics. Minerals can be purified. But in time we aren't going to be able to find enough.

Why not?

Where do you imagine the stuff we already found has gone?

The first law of thermodynamics should give you a hint.

Dispersed into the environment at concentrations we are not currently capable of recovering it.

But we don't disperse mineral resources into the environment. We concentrate them.

Mineral ores are generally pretty low in the target metals. Ore processing is the process of concentrating the resources until they're usable.

We concentrate them from areas nature has already concentrated them to some degree.

 

[Elixir]

we are in overshoot

Merle, I know. I was possibly just five, years old in 1955 and tried to articulate the “overshoot” FACT to my parents. Not from stuff I had read about “overshoot”, but about population growth, geographic challenges like planet size and my general antipathy to being closely surrounded by lots of people. put a wet towel around your head before ALL your hair burns off. Running around screaming "Overshoot overshoot!" never worked for me, and I don't think it's working well for you.

don't use "steady state" when you actually mean to simply hold one value constant.

So... 0 degrees Kelvin, or not steady state?
I think population was what was referred to as holding a relatively relatively state, but if that's confusing you I will henceforth refer to "steady population state" if I ever have occasion to refer to that again.

 

[Elixir]

I am getting old and have been away from it for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could refresh my memory on laws of thermodynamics.

A more serious answer:

The first law says energy cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

The second law is stated many ways including this: "Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit, i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the entropies remains unchanged".

Basically that says the net result of all reactions is a deterioration of the order of the universe. But, of course, given enough energy and the availability of the right processes, one can cause the ordered transformation he wants at the expense of a more disorganized result in another part of the process.

OMFG ... wake me up when we have left this low entropy region of the universe.
Bilby's point is that we are not going to run out of anything.... pretty much ever. We might put it beyond our own reach at least for a while, but with miniscule exception it literally isn't going anywhere any time soon.

 

[bilby]

I don't really count fossil fuels because they can be replaced. Minerals, though, are the sticking point. I disagree on deteriorate with recycling--that's the realm of organics. Minerals can be purified. But in time we aren't going to be able to find enough.

Why not?

Where do you imagine the stuff we already found has gone?

The first law of thermodynamics should give you a hint.

Dispersed into the environment at concentrations we are not currently capable of recovering it.

But we don't disperse mineral resources into the environment. We concentrate them.

Mineral ores are generally pretty low in the target metals. Ore processing is the process of concentrating the resources until they're usable.

We concentrate them from areas nature has already concentrated them to some degree.

Yes.

 

[DBT]

Plant and animal species that go extinct aren't coming back. Ecosystems being taken over by monoculture and suburbia with a McDonald's on every block are gone and won't come back.

 

[steve_bank]

I am getting old and have been away from it for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could refresh my memory on laws of thermodynamics.

A more serious answer:

The first law says energy cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

The second law is stated many ways including this: "Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit, i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the entropies remains unchanged".

Basically that says the net result of all reactions is a deterioration of the order of the universe. But, of course, given enough energy and the availability of the right processes, one can cause the ordered transformation he wants at the expense of a more disorganized result in another part of the process.

Amazing what you can find on the et these days.'

LOT is satedin differnt ways going back to the 19th century.

1st law says something can't go to or come from nothing. Causality is implied, an effect can not occur without a cause.

2nd law says in a bounded system things must add up. The thermodynamic boundary of your body is your skin. The mass and energy in, the mass and energy out and the mass and energy inside must always add up. Note I said a bounded system. The solar system is a a bounded system. As you expand the bounds to the entire universe it breaks down. That becomes cosmology.

3rd law says there is no such thing as a perpetual motion device, everything runs down. Entropy. There are always losses, you need to put more energy into a system then you need to put out. Entropy says when you unplug a refrigerator the temperature will go to equilibrium with the background. Whether entropy applies to the universe is cosmology.

The unverse may be unbouded, as such LOT nay not apply. There is no way to know.

The ecoomy is a thermodynami process. An isolated group has a boudary aroud it through which mass and enrgy enter, in which tere are processe inbolving mass and energy, and energy and mass leaving the system.

Why does LOT matter on the thred? Sice the first civilaztion consumption of emergy and resirces has sediy increased, ebetually something gives and te system fails.

For a steady state system all things must be in a balance IAW 1st and 2nd laws. That is why IMO a self sustaining Mars colony will not succeed.

For a steady state economic systen eveything must be in a balance IAW, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd laws.

By stedy state mean stable population, biouded use ofenergy and resurces. But 3rd law kics and everythingg tends to run down. You can recycle but it still runs down and you beed to bring in resurces.

Ther have been no known exceptins to LOT.

 

[DBT]

If one under billion represents long term carrying capacity for humans, and has remained within that benchmark throughout our history, we exceeded carrying capacity when our population went above that number.

OK. Big "if", there.

Does "under one billion represents long term carrying capacity" (sic)?

How do you know?

It's a suspiciously round number for something that has been calculated from real data, rather than being pulled from somebody's rectum.

It's not a big if.

Basically;
Hunter gatherers are generally nomadic because they exhaust the resources of their territory, animals to hunt and plants to gather become harder to find, they move on and return when the area is replenished.

The land can only support so many hunter gatherers. There is a limit.

Farming secures the food supply, enables permanent settlements, towns and cities. Even that has its limits, which is why our population never exceeded one billion for our entire existence.

It was only the advent of the industrial revolution, large scale agriculture, machinery, medicine, etc, that enabled our spike in numbers and the related issues that we have experienced.

Of course, one billion is not fixed by natural law, perhaps technology and efficiency may allow us 2 billion or 4 billion without overshoot.

So, that number was 1 billion, plus or minus four billion? That's a fairly large error bar.

That's not what I said. The former is obviously pre-industial times, the latter refers to the industrial revolution into the current era where a sustainable number is yet to play out and be determined.

I think that will be worked out sometime during this century, perhaps in the next few decades.

 

[bilby]

It's not a big if.

Basically;
Hunter gatherers are generally nomadic because they exhaust the resources of their territory, animals to hunt and plants to gather become harder to find, they move on and return when the area is replenished.

The land can only support so many hunter gatherers. There is a limit.

Farming secures the food supply, enables permanent settlements, towns and cities. Even that has its limits, which is why our population never exceeded one billion for our entire existence.

It was only the advent of the industrial revolution, large scale agriculture, machinery, medicine, etc, that enabled our spike in numbers and the related issues that we have experienced.

And how do you get from all that to "one billion represents long term carrying capacity for humans"??

The problem I have with your "if" is that it presumes a figure - one billion - that appears from nowhere. Why should the long term carrying capacity be a billion? Why not ten billion? or a hundred million?

I am seeing nothing at all that justifies your choice of a billion as the threshold. So why should we care about what happens if it is, given that it probably isn't?

 

[bilby]

That's not what I said. The former is obviously pre-industial times, the latter refers to the industrial revolution into the current era where a sustainable number is yet to play out and be determined.

There's no "obviously" involved.

Carrying capacity of a toolmaking species is determined by technology, even when that technology was flint knapping and the making of snares for game.

And you are right - a sustainable number has yet to be determined, which makes assertions that we have exceeded that unknown number, rather foolish.

 

[Merle]

Running around screaming "Overshoot overshoot!" never worked for me, and I don't think it's working well for you.

And here I had thought my level of argument was above the "running around screaming 'overshoot overshoot' " level.