<Why oil costs over $120 per barrel The Oil Drum Oil and the future - the commuter shift to public transport>

200 comments on So - do we have answers?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Matthew on May 30, 2008 - 11:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Certainly population growth is a problem, but it is not one that can be resolved, I suspect, in the next two decades. Thus we have to find ways of resolving issues of food, fuel and shelter as the populace grows.

Heading Out, I agree with you here. At this late stage in the game, population growth will not be curtailed in many parts of the world. At least not via the cultural carrot.

Environmental impact is one of the factors that are discussed as technology moves forward, and while it is not always possible to cover all the problems that a new technology might bring, it is not a sustainable argument for stopping technical advances.

A real conundrum. Take efforts to ramp up nuclear, for example. Because of long-term security issues (e.g., terrorism) in a post-peak world, I've long been ambivalent towards nuclear: should a Mad-Max scenario come to pass, the planet could be damaged for a long, long time.

However, in the absence of nuclear, the shortfall in power/electricity would only be that much worse. This shortfall probably increases the odds of major nuclear war considerably. And a large-scale nuclear war would also wreak havoc on the biota and biosphere for a very long time.

I'm curious, what do others think about these tradeoffs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BC_EE on May 31, 2008 - 12:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Matthew, I have a very clear opinion about nuclear and security. Non-sequitur - period!

The notion of national security is a fairy tale. The threats have always been more internal than external. What good is the idea of national security when your cities are burning?

Safekeeping fissionable material has as much value as padlocks on doors. If someone really wants to get it, they will. This is the argument of the complete non-nuke proponents. Unfortunately, it is true. I am not in one camp or the other, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge their truth.

If 'Murika wants to move ahead, it has to put the boogie men to rest and deal with the uncommon common sense.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Matthew on May 31, 2008 - 1:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The notion of national security is a fairy tale. The threats have always been more internal than external. What good is the idea of national security when your cities are burning?

BC_EE,

What in the world are you talking about? There was absolutely no mention of national security in my post. I said long-term security: In the medium- to longer-term, millions of people (particularly Americans, who have so far to fall) are going to experience a plummeting standard of living. Prime breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties, such as religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological extremism. These people will pose the greatest threat to infrastructure in their immediate environments.

Next time, try to read the post before responding to what seems to be a very emotional topic for you ;)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on June 2, 2008 - 6:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I've long been ambivalent towards nuclear: should a Mad-Max scenario come to pass, the planet could be damaged for a long, long time.

First, the mad max future apocalypse fantasies are nothing more than the wet dreams of neoprimative misanthropes. Theres not the slightest possibility of such a future actually happening.

Second the fear is unfounded and wrong. Spewing radioactive waste all over the countryside as rapidly as possible does nothing to the environment, only to real estate values. See the Chernobyl exclusion zone. If you intentionally devoted significant resources to spewing radwaste everywhere, wildlife wouldn't care. Things like hydroelectric dams and coal mines have much bigger impact.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

200 comments on So - do we have answers?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version