NationStates Jolt Archive

From 1970's

*We should've run out of oil creating a Mad Max Society
*Global Warming should've killed us off by now
*Global Cooling should've sent us in an ice age
*We should all be dead by now because of one reason or another
*Earth should be barren by now

The point of this is to show that the chicken little people are always wrong, and that really, Humanity has lasted for millions of years, we've changed, we've adapted. Why the hell do you think we're on top of the food chain? Sure we may hit a snag here and there, but we've survived millions of years, we'll survived millions more. Just thought I should let y'all know this.

Chicken people... you mean scientists?

Yep. It hasn't happened yet, so it'll never happen.

From 1970's

*We should've run out of oil creating a Mad Max Society
*Global Warming should've killed us off by now
*Global Cooling should've sent us in an ice age
*We should all be dead by now because of one reason or another
*Earth should be barren by now

The point of this is to show that the chicken little people are always wrong, and that really, Humanity has lasted for millions of years, we've changed, we've adapted. Why the hell do you think we're on top of the food chain? Sure we may hit a snag here and there, but we've survived millions of years, we'll survived millions more. Just thought I should let y'all know this.

do you actually have sources from the 70s that said these things would occur by the turn of the 21st century?

Yes, stick your head in the sand and ignore those problems so you can stomach your lifestyle. That's sure to make them go away.

Modern humans have only been around for about 200 000 years, not millions, but other than that you are right. I particularly like that global warming has replaced the inpending Ice age as the current scare tactic.

Chicken people... you mean scientists?

Rent the movie Chicken Little.

You guys can't ignore global dimming!

That's what this is about, right?

Modern humans have only been around for about 200 000 years, not millions, but other than that you are right. I particularly like that global warming has replaced the inpending Ice age as the current scare tactic.

I found that interesting too. I mean from the 50's to the 70s people actually thought we were going to be in an ice age by now.

Yes, stick your hand in the sand and ignore those problems. That's sure to make them go away.

I think you mean "your head in the sand", by hand sounds good too :D

EDIT: ooh you sneaky boy!

Just because they where wrong then doesn't nescessarily mean we are wrong now.

do you actually have sources from the 70s that said these things would occur by the turn of the 21st century?

They did actually say those things, my old science teacher talks about it all the time, he used to do lessons on this sort of stuff.

Yes, stick your head in the sand and ignore those problems so you can stomach your lifestyle. That's sure to make them go away.

Don't fall off that high horse there Fass. We wouldn't want your ego getting bruised.

Rent the movie Chicken Little.

You mean the movie Chicken Little where a Chicken believes that aliens are on Earth, and everyone ridicules him, and then it turns out he was right?
That movie?

Perhaps you mean the folk tale, Chicken Little, which has Chicken Little/Licken believing that the sky is falling because of an acorn falling on her head, which leads her to her death in a fox's den.

I agree that humanity can change and adapt, and global warming is hardly going to destroy the human race or even current civilisation as we know it. However, considering pretty much every reputable scientist in the field agrees that global warming is occuring and that it's bad, you can't exactly ignore it.

I agree that humanity can change and adapt, and global warming is hardly going to destroy the human race or even current civilisation as we know it. However, considering pretty much every reputable scientist in the field agrees that global warming is occuring and that it's bad, you can't exactly ignore it.

and yet, back in the 50's and early 70's scientist has also stated that they were sure we would be going into an ice age. curious.

From 1970's

*We should've run out of oil creating a Mad Max Society
*Global Warming should've killed us off by now
*Global Cooling should've sent us in an ice age
*We should all be dead by now because of one reason or another
*Earth should be barren by now

The point of this is to show that the chicken little people are always wrong, and that really, Humanity has lasted for millions of years, we've changed, we've adapted. Why the hell do you think we're on top of the food chain? Sure we may hit a snag here and there, but we've survived millions of years, we'll survived millions more. Just thought I should let y'all know this."A similar inversion trapping smog in the city of London would cause about 5000 deaths." -Comments on the Liege disaster. When it happened in London, there were more than 5000 deaths.

"There are not enough nutrients to support enough agriculture to feed the human population." The problem with this is that it is wrong, if you, as many people trying to argue against Cassandras do, leave out the other bit: "So find a way to harness atmospheric nitrogen to make fertilizers!" And since without the Haber-Bosch process and the resulting fertilizers, there'd be about enough food to feed 60% of the world's current population...

Silent Spring. Nuff said.

I'm sure you can supply names and citations for the above doomsday theories, and proof that they are all made by respectable and authorative people.

Rent the movie Chicken Little.

having seen that movie some time ago, if I recall correctly, it turned out that the chicken was right.

I agree that humanity can change and adapt, and global warming is hardly going to destroy the human race or even current civilisation as we know it. However, considering pretty much every reputable scientist in the field agrees that global warming is occuring and that it's bad, you can't exactly ignore it.

There are some, a small handful of high up scientits who are begging to reject the idea slightly, but I need to go to sleep now. k;zdjfngjkzsdbngf

and yet, back in the 50's and early 70's scientist has also stated that they were sure we would be going into an ice age. curious.

....source? ANd what was going on in the 60s? Did all the scientists take a decade off to smoke pot?

....source? ANd what was going on in the 60s? Did all the scientists take a decade off to smoke pot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The only people I know who thought we would be in an ice-age now was this bunch of fantatical Christians who were certain that in 2001 there would be a pole switch. They were in an 80's "documentry" called The Jupiter Menace (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179914/). They said they were going to take their community into the sky in these massive zepplins to survive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

ahh, you mean the source that states:

The theory never had strong scientific support...It is occasionally asserted that "in the 1970's, the scientific establishment believed in global cooling" and therefore we should not believe in global warming now. However, the scientific literature does not support this (see below); there is limited support from the popular press

"global dimming is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html


"Global dimming is a killer. It may have been behind the worst climatic disaster of recent times, responsible for famine and death on a biblical scale. And Global Dimming is poised to strike again."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105


Peak Oil was, and now is, predicted to destroy our oil supplies by 1975, 1998, and 2015.

Peak Oil was, and now is, predicted to destroy our oil supplies by 1975, 1998, and 2015.

So, what, you believe oil will never run out or something?

Peak Oil was, and now is, predicted to destroy our oil supplies by 1975, 1998, and 2015.

the thing about oil estimates is that we have een finding new reserves. Every time we tap a new reserve we didn't know about, we find out we have more oil than we originally thought we did.

So yes, we've managed to extend the length of our oil reserves by finding more oil reserves (and improving technological efficiency in extracting it). However it is idiocy in the extreme to suggest it will NEVER run out. Despite finding more oil than we thought was there to begin with, it is absolutly 100% fact that he supply IS finite and WILL expire eventually.

No scientist has ever predicted that Climate Change will kill us ALL, only that it will kill several million people in the developing world who will not be able to afford to get out of the way of deteriorating climates or afford the spiralling food prices. The crux of enviromentalism is then expecting the probably survivors to care about the deaths of strangers.

You mean the movie Chicken Little where a Chicken believes that aliens are on Earth, and everyone ridicules him, and then it turns out he was right?
That movie?

Perhaps you mean the folk tale, Chicken Little, which has Chicken Little/Licken believing that the sky is falling because of an acorn falling on her head, which leads her to her death in a fox's den.

Hehe, pwned.

I found that interesting too. I mean from the 50's to the 70s people actually thought we were going to be in an ice age by now.

Wrong. We should be entering an ice age that would climax in 15000 years, but some effects would be felt by now.

And we should, except that global warming threw those calculations based on the study of past climate trends. So, actually, the only thing you're exposing is that you don't understand a thing when it comes to science.

So, what, you believe oil will never run out or something?

It will run out someday, but lets look at when oil became used widely. I'm going to use the introduction to Ford's Assembly Line as the starting point, which would be 1913. That gives us 94 years of mass oil consumption. Let's round it up to 100 just to give us some breathing room. Now, how long has dinosaurs been on this earth? Also how long was the space between the dinosaurs dying out and us starting using oil on a massive scale?

the thing about oil estimates is that we have een finding new reserves. Every time we tap a new reserve we didn't know about, we find out we have more oil than we originally thought we did.

So yes, we've managed to extend the length of our oil reserves by finding more oil reserves (and improving technological efficiency in extracting it). However it is idiocy in the extreme to suggest it will NEVER run out. Despite finding more oil than we thought was there to begin with, it is absolutly 100% fact that he supply IS finite and WILL expire eventually.
I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that we still have enough time to develop reasonable technologies.

It will run out someday, but lets look at when oil became used widely. I'm going to use the introduction to Ford's Assembly Line as the starting point, which would be 1913. That gives us 94 years of mass oil consumption. Let's round it up to 100 just to give us some breathing room. Now, how long has dinosaurs been on this earth? Also how long was the space between the dinosaurs dying out and us starting using oil on a massive scale?

Dinosaurs didn't become oil. Try again.

Arguing with globabl warming is stupid right now.

It will run out someday, but lets look at when oil became used widely. I'm going to use the introduction to Ford's Assembly Line as the starting point, which would be 1913. That gives us 94 years of mass oil consumption. Let's round it up to 100 just to give us some breathing room. Now, how long has dinosaurs been on this earth? Also how long was the space between the dinosaurs dying out and us starting using oil on a massive scale?What exactly does the existence of dinosaurs have to do with modern oil consumption?

Let's round it up to 100 just to give us some breathing room. Now, how long has dinosaurs been on this earth?

how many years of dino breeding and converting to oil equals one year of oil consumption? Without knowing how much biomass of dinosaurs turns into oil and at what rate that biomass developed, any relationship between how long dinos roamed and how long we used oil is woefully accurate.'

It also ignores the fact that most oil comes, if I recall correctly, from plant biomass.

Don't fall off that high horse there Fass. We wouldn't want your ego getting bruised.

My horse is only high compared to your gimped pony.

Arguing with globabl warming is stupid right now.He, well it just started snowing here, so the argument "I can wear friggin shorts in friggin January!" doesn't quite work anymore :p

how many years of dino breeding and converting to oil equals one year of oil consumption? Without knowing how much biomass of dinosaurs turns into oil and at what rate that biomass developed, any relationship between how long dinos roamed and how long we used oil is woefully accurate.'

It also ignores the fact that most oil comes, if I recall correctly, from plant biomass.

Oil is manly formed from plants, I think. The chemical energy gotten from the sun are then released as oil.


So in an indirect way, it's actually a form of solar energy :p

It also ignores the fact that most oil comes, if I recall correctly, from plant biomass.Oceanic organisms (usually plankton) under rare circumstances. And that's just the development of oil. It getting trapped instead of dissapating everywhere is another thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

from the first paragraph:
The theory never had strong scientific support. At present, the dominant theory amongst scientists is that Earth as a whole is not cooling, but rather is in a period of global warming attributed to human activity.

Dinosaurs didn't become oil. Try again.

Quoting because it was the last post on the last page. Anyways, oil comes from Carboniferous plants that have been subjected to massive amounts of pressure, heat, and time. Unfortunately for us, we've been mining the material that is the stage before oil. Anthracite. So once we run out of oil, there will be no more oil for millions of years.

So in an indirect way, it's actually a form of solar energy :p

All energy on Earth is either solar or nuclear.

During millions of years plants transformed solar energy into biomass. When they died some of them formed oils. We've literally gone through million of years of plants storing energy in just a bit more than 100 years.

All energy on Earth is either solar or nuclear.

Coal? Far as I understand coal is chemical energy from carbon deposits going through heat and pressure due to plate movemets, not solar heat.

Wilgrove = pwned

Coal? Far as I understand coal is chemical energy from carbon deposits going through heat and pressure due to plate movemets, not solar heat.

Coal comes from plants.

All energy on Earth is either solar or nuclear.

And all solar energy is nuclear energy.

Coal comes from plants.

yes, but solar energy isn't directly involved in the formation of coal other than through the tenuous "plants need light to live". And if you want to argue in THAT way, then even nuclear power, which comes from heav radioactive elements, is a result of solar activity, as it's pretty firmly believed that all elemenets in the universe higher than hydrogen is a result of solar activities fusing hydrogen into higher elements and expelling the as cosmic dust.

And of course since solar energy is, in fact, a form of fusion, it could thus be argued that all energy is, far enough down the line, a result of nuclear power.

Coal? Far as I understand coal is chemical energy from carbon deposits going through heat and pressure due to plate movemets, not solar heat.

That carbon used to be living things, getting their energy from the Sun. In either case, plates move because the heat produced by radioactive elements in the core (and a bit of gravity) keep it in a liquid state. So, sun or nuclear. And one could argue that the Sun is nuclear.

That carbon used to be living things, getting their energy from the Sun. In either case, plates move because the heat produced by radioactive elements in the core (and a bit of gravity) keep it in a liquid state. So, sun or nuclear. And one could argue that the Sun is nuclear.

as I said previously, all matter in the universe other than hydrogen is a result, far enough down the line, of solar activities. So you can reduce to absurdity by stating all EVERYTHING is a result of stars. And starts are basically giant fusion reactors.

So really everything is as a result of nuclear fusion, if you look at it far enough.

yes, but solar energy isn't directly involved in the formation of coal other than through the tenuous "plants need light to live".
No, the energy in the carbon comes from the sun. Plants collect the energy and place it into carbon bonds.

Quoting because it was the last post on the last page. Anyways, oil comes from Carboniferous plants that have been subjected to massive amounts of pressure, heat, and time. Unfortunately for us, we've been mining the material that is the stage before oil. Anthracite. So once we run out of oil, there will be no more oil for millions of years.Note quite. Oil mother rocks aren't anthracite. I've held both in my hands before, they are quite different. Peat, i.e. plant matter, eventually becomes coal and anthracite, while oil is mainly derived from sedimentary deposits of oceanic microorganisms, trapped in anoxic conditions and subjected to the proper pressure and heat required to form the oil shales. The oil pressed from these then needs to be trapped under an impermeable surface, most likely an anticline formed one.

So really everything is as a result of nuclear fusion, if you look at it far enough.

Yeah, pretty much. We should be cutting the middlemen.

i think this has got to be the most thorough and absolute pwnage i've witnessed so far on this forum, even despite most people getting the facts on oil genesis wrong.

Yeah, pretty much. We should be cutting the middlemen.
I know no-one likes a middle-man, but don't you think that's going too far?

:D

Note quite. Oil mother rocks aren't anthracite. I've held both in my hands before, they are quite different. Peat, i.e. plant matter, eventually becomes coal and anthracite, while oil is mainly derived from sedimentary deposits of oceanic microorganisms, trapped in anoxic conditions and subjected to the proper pressure and heat required to form the oil shales. The oil pressed from these then needs to be trapped under an impermeable surface, most likely an anticline formed one.

Huh. Well, I was going from memory, and I haven't read up on this for about ten years, so mistakes were inevitable.

Edit: I really should have known this, since now that I think about it, the book went into great detail on the subject of oil sands and oil shales.

Yeah, pretty much. We should be cutting the middlemen.

we should be invading the sun immediatly to secure access to it's rich hydrogen fields to help meet America's growing demands for heat and not be at the mercy of martian terrorists and their giant sun blocking devices.

i think this has got to be the most thorough and absolute pwnage i've witnessed so far on this forum, even despite most people getting the facts on oil genesis wrong.

To Wilgrove's credit, his terrifying concept of chicken people was quite disturbing.

Anyways, if I'm not mistaken, oil still mainly formed from deposits from the Carboniferous period, over 300 million years ago.

Huh. Well, I was going from memory, and I haven't read up on this for about ten years, so mistakes were inevitable.

Edit: I really should have known this, since now that I think about it, the book went into great detail on the subject of oil sands and oil shales.I'm still busy recovering from geology and resource management classes that I took this past year, so the scars are still fresh :D

we should be invading the sun immediatly to secure access to it's rich hydrogen fields to help meet America's growing demands for heat and not be at the mercy of martian terrorists and their giant sun blocking devices.Burns is a martian? :eek:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9356/simpsonssungj6.png

Burns is a martian? :eek:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9356/simpsonssungj6.png

Yes.

http://www.ponilla.org/Nimoy/Cartoons/Simpsons_Springfield_12.jpg

America should have destroyed Communism.

Regardless of where oil comes from, it is silly to think that we could deplete it all in 100 some odd years. Will we deplete it, of course, it's a finite source. However to say that it'll happen SOON it stupid and moronic. Also, thanks to the scare tatics of the 1970's that Earth will be barren, and that garbage will be everywhere, the earth is actually doing much better. So, why the scare tactics of today? Simply because, it sells. I mean who the hell is going to listen to someone who says "Everything is fine, go on about your business."? However if someone were to say "THE EARTH IS DOOMED TO GLOBAL WARMING/OIL SHORTAGES/ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER!" That is the guy everyone listen to, and that's the guy that's going to get the money. What's sad is that people usually buy into the scare tactics.

To Wilgrove's credit, his terrifying concept of chicken people was quite disturbing.

well it's certainly a novel debating tactic if you have a rickety argument to start with. confuse the opposition for the first few posts with obscure and unresearched references to pop-culture in order to populate the first page with a good proportion of posts backing up your own argument so that it seems like you have a weightier argument and they might just get bored and disappear. with a bit of refinement it might work...

Yes.

http://www.ponilla.org/Nimoy/Cartoons/Simpsons_Springfield_12.jpg

Good call!

That is the guy everyone listen to, and that's the guy that's going to get the money. What's sad is that people usually buy into the scare tactics.

Supply and demand. The thing is, the market always balances itself out in the end, and it always survives; we didn't descend in to anarchy in the 70's, and we're not going to do it this time.

I mean, in all honesty, 2007 with $55/bbl oil looks no different than 1998 with $10 oil. There are still cars choking the roads, giant SUVs galore, more plastics than we know what to do with and products shipped around the world for cents on the dollar...we will adapt, and oil will be yet another commodity resigned to a quiet fate of general obsolescence.

What's sad is that people usually buy into the scare tactics.

Buy what, exactly? I mean, what are they spending their money on?

Regardless of where oil comes from, it is silly to think that we could deplete it all in 100 some odd years. Will we deplete it, of course, it's a finite source. However to say that it'll happen SOON it stupid and moronic.

How is anyone supposed to believe you have any valuable insight in the amount of oil in the world when you don't know he basics of how oil develops?

How do you know it's "stupid and moronic"? By what scientific or logical evaluation do you determine how long oil reserves will last? Do you know a THING about oil science? Do you know ANYTHING solid about the topic AT ALL?

"wilgrove says so" is not fact I fear.

How is anyone supposed to believe you have any valuable insight in the amount of oil in the world when you don't know he basics of how oil develops?

How do you know it's "stupid and moronic"? By what scientific or logical evaluation do you determine how long oil reserves will last? Do you know a THING about oil science? Do you know ANYTHING solid about the topic AT ALL?

"wilgrove says so" is not fact I fear.

Well the fact that the reservoirs in which the oil resides in has been building up slowly for eons tend to lead me to think that we're just hitting the tip of the iceberg.

Regardless of where oil comes from, it is silly to think that we could deplete it all in 100 some odd years. Will we deplete it, of course, it's a finite source. However to say that it'll happen SOON it stupid and moronic. Also, thanks to the scare tatics of the 1970's that Earth will be barren, and that garbage will be everywhere, the earth is actually doing much better. So, why the scare tactics of today? Simply because, it sells. I mean who the hell is going to listen to someone who says "Everything is fine, go on about your business."? However if someone were to say "THE EARTH IS DOOMED TO GLOBAL WARMING/OIL SHORTAGES/ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER!" That is the guy everyone listen to, and that's the guy that's going to get the money. What's sad is that people usually buy into the scare tactics.Who said this?

Supply and demand. The thing is, the market always balances itself out in the end, and it always survives; we didn't descend in to anarchy in the 70's, and we're not going to do it this time.

So true.


I mean, in all honesty, 2007 with $55/bbl oil looks no different than 1998 with $10 oil. There are still cars choking the roads, giant SUVs galore, more plastics than we know what to do with and products shipped around the world for cents on the dollar...we will adapt, and oil will be yet another commodity resigned to a quiet fate of general obsolescence.

Eh that's pretty much what's going to happen. As soon as alternative fuels actually become a viable rival against fossil fuels, and becomes cheaper than fossil fuel, fossil fuel will just become obsolete, and we're still going on about our merry little lives.

Maybe one day the chicken little/alarmist crowd will shut up, but that's not likely.

Who said this?

IIRC, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were making those kinds of predictions in the early 70's.

I know his book The Population Bomb predicted hundreds of millions of deaths from overpopulation and starvation in the 1980's and afterwards.

Who said this?

http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/499/

Well the fact that the reservoirs in which the oil resides in has been building up slowly for eons tend to lead me to think that we're just hitting the tip of the iceberg.

Simply building is insufficient. My bathroom sink has a slow drip. I can put a mug in my sink and it will fill with water in a few hours. I can drink that mug of water in about 3 seconds.

what is the rate of it building versus the rate of depletion? Do you know this? Saying that "oil has been developing for eons so it's stupid to suggest we'll run out of it in a few years" is as idiotic as saying "the water in that mug has been increasing for hours, so it's stupid to suggest we could get rid of it in seconds". I promise you I can drink a glass of water a WHOLE lot faster than my slowly dripping sink will fill it.

Like wise I'm fairly confident we're using oil a WHOLE lot faster than it's developing.

http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/499/

Are you fucking kidding me? That's EXACTLY what the US looks like!

S

Like wise I'm fairly confident we're using oil a WHOLE lot faster than it's developing.

That is true, but like you said earlier, we just keep on finding new places where oil are stored, and we just keep on tapping it.

what is the rate of it building versus the rate of depletion? Do you know this? Saying that "oil has been developing for eons so it's stupid to suggest we'll run out of it in a few years" is as idiotic as saying "the water in that mug has been increasing for hours, so it's idiotic to suggest we could get rid of it in seconds".

Oil's going to peak sometime between now and 2020-2030 with current reserves. Obviously, this hinges on two factors: first, whether we've discovered all the significant oil and second whether the data as it exists now is reliable. If there has been significant inflation of paper reserves, it's likely oil will peak earlier and if the reserves are reliable, then we'll probably peak in the near future but not now. Obviously, other factors like price, technology, and substitutions will all affect it as well.

My personal guess is it will fall somewhere in the middle, around 2015-2020 or so due to the fact that investment lagged in the 1980-2000 period and also because reserves have continued to grow during that period despite rising production.

I know his book The Population Bomb predicted hundreds of millions of deaths from overpopulation and starvation in the 1980's and afterwards.

It's estimated that 25 MILLION people starved to death in 2006. So in the 27 years from 1980 I think it's safe to say that hundreds of millions have died due to starvation.

It's estimated that 25 MILLION people starved to death in 2006. So in the 27 years from 1980 I think it's safe to say that hundreds of millions have died due to starvation.

Just out of curiousity... that number is worldwide correct?

It's estimated that 25 MILLION people starved to death in 2006. So in the 27 years from 1980 I think it's safe to say that hundreds of millions have died due to starvation.

Silly you. Only Westerners are people...

He, well it just started snowing here, so the argument "I can wear friggin shorts in friggin January!" doesn't quite work anymore :p

though this (http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm) works pretty well instead

though this (http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm) works pretty well insteadOh, the records of butterfly societies in Great Britain are even better; they've been catching butterflies there for longer than 1990. A lot of species that weren't found further north because it was too cold have expanded their territories in said direction.

Rent the movie Chicken Little.

are you kidding me? after what you just said are you sure you want to use that as an example?
do you remember what happened in that movie?

Chicken Little was RIGHT. It's just that no one else believed him.

are you kidding me? after what you just said are you sure you want to use that as an example?
do you remember what happened in that movie?

Chicken Little was RIGHT. It's just that no one else believed him.

Well, let's go with the folk lore then.

Things that should've happen by now


You should've quit wetting the bed by now.

Well, let's go with the folk lore then.

well if you don't like science then it's either that or fundie religion. whatever floats your boat in the end. as long as you don't make it sink the rest of us.

So... I'm guessing you think they're wrong about avian flu and AIDS as well? I mean you said yourself they're always wrong.

Yeah. We definitely don't have a pandemic. /sarcasm

For anyone who's seen the Matrix here's something to think about

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague"

So you believe we're at the top of the food chain because we adapt? Do you believe cutting down forests to feed cows for McDonalds is adapting? Do you seriously believe dumping trash into oceans is adapting? Is that really what adapting is all about?

So... I'm guessing you think they're wrong about avian flu and AIDS as well? I mean you said yourself they're always wrong.

Yeah. We definitely don't have a pandemic. /sarcasm

For anyone who's seen the Matrix here's something to think about

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague"

So you believe we're at the top of the food chain because we adapt? Do you believe cutting down forests to feed cows for McDonalds is adapting? Do you seriously believe dumping trash into oceans is adapting? Is that really what adapting is all about?
To be honest, we aren't the only species to do anything of the sort. Deer would probably do the same things to themselves if their numbers weren't culled.

It's estimated that 25 MILLION people starved to death in 2006. So in the 27 years from 1980 I think it's safe to say that hundreds of millions have died due to starvation.

It's a terrible thing, but it's not the scenario described in that book. They were expecting the collapse of agriculture and total population collapse.

IIRC, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were making those kinds of predictions in the early 70's.

I know his book The Population Bomb predicted hundreds of millions of deaths from overpopulation and starvation in the 1980's and afterwards.

Erm... ever heard of Biafra?

There were developments in corn varieties which have helped keep hunger at bay, but a good number of people still die of starvation these days.

Well the fact that the reservoirs in which the oil resides in has been building up slowly for eons tend to lead me to think that we're just hitting the tip of the iceberg.

LOL! You're funny.

Erm... ever heard of Biafra?

Yeah, but they also had a massive civil war and were fighting a government willing to starve them in to submission. There was a lot more there than just a Malthusian limit to growth.

There were developments in corn varieties which have helped keep hunger at bay, but a good number of people still die of starvation these days.

Yes, hunger is far from vanquished even in its most dire forms.

Yes, hunger is far from vanquished even in its most dire forms.

But not because there isn't enough food.

Yeah, but they also had a massive civil war and were fighting a government willing to starve them in to submission. There was a lot more there than just a Malthusian limit to growth.



Yes, hunger is far from vanquished even in its most dire forms.Actually, some people believe that we have already reached that Malthusian catastrophe, only that it's not apparent because the effects are concentrated in certain areas and not evenly distributed.

But not because there isn't enough food.

True. Although the current food revolution is younger than the book, and something that they couldn't have predicted, since it has mostly happened with understanding of genetics. It's also one of those things that don't hit the newspaper pages.

Without the current varieties we would be in real serious trouble. With our current varieties the problem is more of distribution and politics.

Oh, the records of butterfly societies in Great Britain are even better; they've been catching butterflies there for longer than 1990. A lot of species that weren't found further north because it was too cold have expanded their territories in said direction.

yeah, that's is just one i've seen recently. and its scary how quickly the zones are trooping northwards. a couple more decade and i'll be eating coconuts on the shores of tropical lake michigan.

Actually, some people believe that we have already reached that Malthusian catastrophe, only that it's not apparent because the effects are concentrated in certain areas and not evenly distributed.

Well that's a good thing then.

So, what, you believe oil will never run out or something?

Supply will grow smaller yes. Will it ever run out? No. As long as there is decayed plant matter being produced and put under pressure there will be oil.

Supply will grow smaller yes. Will it ever run out? No. As long as there is decayed plant matter being produced and put under pressure there will be oil.

true in a very semantic sense ok, but it won't be produced at a rate anywhere near sutainability.

To go back to my leaky sink example, place a cup under a slow but steady drip, there will always be water in the cup, but not enough to hydrate someone.

I found that interesting too. I mean from the 50's to the 70s people actually thought we were going to be in an ice age by now.

No they didn't. I'm going to bed now, but if this thread is still on page one or two I'll explain what they really said in the 70's. Until then, who said we would run out of oil by now? Hubbert said oil production would peak in the 90s, but he said that in the 50s and he couldn't forsee the Arab oil embargo or the Iranian revolution which both actually drove oil production down for the first time in history so that may have delayed it until... now? He also said US oil production would peak in 1970-71 and it did.