Then what's the point in existing if we are doomed to never get to days better than today?

There is no point. The universe is ateleological. No meaning or purpose or point whatsoever. It just is. Whatever inspired people to believe or expect otherwise is beyond me. Just accept the pointlessness and get on with your life.

Then what's the point in existing if we are doomed to never get to days better than today?

Is it really impossible to imagine a better life than today, without ruining our habitat or denuding it of energy?

By oxidizing organic substances that could be sequestering carbon in the soil as refractile humic & fulvic substances, you contribute to atmospheric warming...

Actually, I sequester carbon for a living. I suspect that my own carbon footprint looks better than yours...

Are you truly evil or merely a fool, Robert?

While I prefer to think of myself as truly evil, it could be that you just don't know what you are talking about. And in fact, that is the case. (That doesn't mean I am not truly evil, though).

Carbon contained in biomass comes mostly from the air, not the soil. It is possible to grow it in a sustainable manner. I have seen it done - with the residual ash returned to the soil. In fact, I recently stood on top of a pile of biomass 100 feet high, and a football field long. It contained almost no nutrients, and the owner was asking me to please help him find a way to get rid of it - other than just burning it. But there will always be impotent hand-wringers who don't understand the difference between strip-mining soil - which I have argued strongly against for many years - and the possibility of sustainable biomass.

Perhaps you could critique more effectively if you commented on what has actually been said, rather than your own distortion of it.
The proposals Robert has put forward clearly state that this is a solution which is limited in scope, appropriate to provide power where the use of electricity is difficult, for instance to power agricultural machinery which would be very difficult otherwise, thus providing more of the food you are ostensibly concerned about.
The use of animals for the same purpose would use far more cropland, around a third of all agricultural land.
He also clearly stated that the production of biogas and biodiesel would be acceptable only if done in a sustainable way.
You are obviously unaware that many sources of biogas currently produce only pollution, for instance the effluent both from humans and intensively farmed animals.

You, on the contrary, propose nothing of any worth to help.
Giving up is apparently your preferred option.
Before you make false accusations, perhaps you would present your own proposals.

darwinsdog, grow up. Get off your flippin' high horse, already.

I know nothing about you, but based on your postings here on TOD in the last couple months, I'd guess you are a university student, probably in ecology or related science, and definitely no older than your mid-20s. Your perspective is so extreme, it speaks of a profound immaturity. You remind me of that character in the "Twas the Night Before Christmas" (1974) cartoon special: the precocious, mechanically gifted mouse Albert, who spends so much time telling other people how little they know. Albert was smart, but he was not wise. And that's what he learns about himself in the course of the story. The jury's still out on you.

Look in the mirror, boyo: you're an "ecocidal ape" just like the rest of us. How much non-renewable energy do you eat up using the Internet? Even if all your tech is plugged into robust solar energy systems, or some treadle-driven mechanism you pedal as you type, all the infrastructure that traffics your thoughts into the glowing pixels we read is not only built on non-renewable energy, most of it is made with highly toxic materials that will not break down into more "natural" states until long after even our culture is no longer remembered.

You're deeply embedded in the system you profess to hate -- to varying degrees whether you want to be or not.

If you're so hard core and so pure: log off, stop using any cultural artifacts made of non-renewable/toxic molecules, then either go join the Old Order Amish or move into a forest and live off the land like a sannyasin.

If you're not willing to do that, then at least spare us all your insufferable editorializing. I, for one, already share your sense of eco-crisis and concern, and wonder if Homo sapiens will turn out to be no wiser than yeast in a jar of grapejuice. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that I am so much better than everyone else.

Robert is one of the most lucid voices on the web when it comes to Peak Oil and related issues. He is deeply concerned about the challenge represented by peak oil, yet thoughtful and measured in his responses. He spends a great deal of time, time taken away from his family and the rest of his life, sharing the fruits of his highly trained thinking and considered perspective with the Internet community. He is a valuable member of the TOD community. You, on the other hand, are so far little more than an extremist gadfly (if a well-educated one).

Quite simply there are too many people on the Earth.
They are only being maintained by industrialized agriculture.
By your reasoning it's a catch 22.
Since we are depleting the soil by our unsustainable practises then we're doomed.
BUT
If we try to maintain the soil then our productivity will drop so much that we're doomed too.

Which choice do you make Hobson?