Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Earth's Resources Used Up at Quickest Rate Ever in 2016 (france24.com) 323

Posted by msmash from the save-yourself dept.
An anonymous reader writes: In just over seven months, humanity has used up a full year's allotment of natural resources such as water, food and clean air -- the quickest rate yet, according to a new report. The point of "overshoot" will officially be reached on Monday, said environmental group Global Footprint Network -- five days earlier than last year. "We continue to grow our ecological debt," said Pascal Canfin of green group WWF, reacting to the annual update. "From Monday August 8, we will be living on credit because in eight months we would have consumed the natural capital that our planet can renew in a year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earth's Resources Used Up at Quickest Rate Ever in 2016 More

Earth's Resources Used Up at Quickest Rate Ever in 2016

Comments Filter:

  • From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by almitydave ( 2452422 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @01:56PM (#52673071)

    To calculate the date for Earth Overshoot Day, the group crunches UN data on thousands of economic sectors such as fisheries, forestry, transport and energy production.

    Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions, it said, are now the fastest-growing contributor to ecological overshoot, making up 60 percent of humanity's demands on nature -- what is called the ecological "footprint".

    I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by umafuckit ( 2980809 )

      I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?

      Whether or not this particular number is "real" or "climate activism" is somewhat irrelevant. The real science is very clearly telling us that our negative impact on the planet is substantial and that this is accelerating. This is the reason for the activism.

      • Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:20PM (#52673295) Homepage

        our negative impact on the planet is substantial and that this is accelerating.

        [citation needed]

        You see population growth is rapidly decelerating [learner.org], albeit still positive. Hence our impact is likely to be decelerating too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MightyMartian ( 840721 )

          How about almost every climatology study done in the last forty years?

          I tell you what. If you don't think AGW is real, why don't you explain where all the energy being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is going. Are you advocating the "magic heat sink back into space" theory?

          • Are you advocating the "magic heat sink back into space" theory?

            That's called radiative cooling

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            When you use the word magic, I think you might try "Thermodynamic" instead.

          • How about almost every climatology study done in the last forty years?

            I tell you what. If you don't think AGW is real, why don't you explain where all the energy being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is going. Are you advocating the "magic heat sink back into space" theory?

            I think AGW is real, but I fail to see how you get from that to August 8 as a single date of an "overshoot day". Does this imply that, since on August 8 we're about 60% through the year, we'd have to reduce our CO2 output by 40% to completely stop the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels? That doesn't make any sense at all, given that the worldwide CO2 emissions were 40% lower than today roughly 30 years ago [energytrendsinsider.com], but by that time the CO2 levels had been increasing for more than a century already. So that doesn't

          • If you don't think AGW is real, why don't you explain where all the energy being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is going

            I'm in Houston right now, and it feels like it's all coming right here. Got damn, it's hot out there today.

        • Hence our impact is likely to be decelerating too.

          Nope. Rise in per-person economics leads to greater use of resources.

          The calculations are correct. The planet can support 3 billion people living at a high (US level) standard of living. Let the resource wars continue...

          • Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Coisiche ( 2000870 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:34PM (#52673405)

            I suspect that the wars over water are going to be a lot more vicious than the wars over oil ever were.

          • Rise in per-person economics leads to greater use of resources.

            That is the general trend, but it is not an iron law. Last year, GDP in America grew, but energy consumption declined. Singapore has a per capita GDP higher than America, yet consumes less than half the per capita resources. They don't have urban sprawl, they don't own SUVs, etc.

          • Nope. Rise in per-person economics leads to greater use of resources.

            Yep.
            I was waiting for someone to point this out.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by wbr1 ( 2538558 )
          Population is not the only thing that increases our use of resources. Increased standards of living do as well. 10 kids in africa probably use less resources than 1-2 in a developed nation.

        • Re:From TFA (Score:4, Informative)

          by umafuckit ( 2980809 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @03:54PM (#52674019)

          [citation needed]

          You see population growth is rapidly decelerating [learner.org], albeit still positive. Hence our impact is likely to be decelerating too.

          Population is one factor, the other is per capita emissions and resource usage. It's the latter that's increasing [google.com]. A common theme in the news recently has been the alarm expressed by scientists at the rapidity with which changes are happening [phys.org]. Nobody is saying that things are progressing at lower than expected rates. They're all shocked at how fast it's hitting home. People can make cute comments about Malthus to imply that there's nothing to worry about, but that's not what we're seeing. Just because Malthus wasn't right in his lifetime, that doesn't make him wrong. Malthus died in 1834: that's really not that long ago.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by msevior ( 145103 )

            "Just because Malthus wasn't right in his lifetime, that doesn't make him wrong. Malthus died in 1834: that's really not that long ago."

            Malthus observed a historical phenomena that kept the population of Earth more-or-less constant since the agricultral revolution which in its time increased the population of the Earth by 2-3 orders of magnitude. Since the Industrial revolution and the era of economic growth all such predictions have been dramatically WRONG. Every time time humans appear to run up against a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          People are living longer though. At the current rate we are looking at reaching a stable population of around 10-11 billion, with most of the growth in Africa. It's sustainable if we manage it well, but that really requires the developed nations to step up and make sure everyone can enjoy their standard of living without the associated environmental damage.

      • Re:From TFA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by almitydave ( 2452422 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:21PM (#52673297)

        I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?

        Whether or not this particular number is "real" or "climate activism" is somewhat irrelevant. The real science is very clearly telling us that our negative impact on the planet is substantial and that this is accelerating. This is the reason for the activism.

        Sure, but good activism needs to have a solid foundation - the world is full of people twisting numbers and facts to suit their ends, and alarmist claims revealed to be based on bogus data do more to hurt the cause than help it. I'm not passing judgment on this particular claim, just asking.

      • Thank you Malthus.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Koby77 ( 992785 )
        Yeah just like how The Population Bomb determined that the peak population will be in 1990 before it starts dwindling due to food shortages and massive starvation. And also how Peak Oil will happen in the year 2000 and the price of oil will never go down after that.

        Oooops, both of those alarmist theories didn't happen. It turns out that it DOES matter if the numbers and science are real, otherwise it's just scare tactics designed to convince people to assign more political power to those who don't deserve

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      To calculate the date for Earth Overshoot Day, the group crunches UN data on thousands of economic sectors such as fisheries, forestry, transport and energy production.

      Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions, it said, are now the fastest-growing contributor to ecological overshoot, making up 60 percent of humanity's demands on nature -- what is called the ecological "footprint".

      I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?

      Well, it's based on empirical data. You'll have to provide your personal definition of "real science" for me. Because, there's no double blind study where we instantiated multiple Earth's on January 1st and then removed all humans from one to use as the control variable. I can't believe I have to explain this but Slashdot is just getting more and more conservative lately so ... it's based on data from prior years and what is reported by country. No, it's not truly falsifiable -- then again you don't hav

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 )

        "climate activism"

        A lot of us never trust activists of any kind because they can't help but make themselves untrustworthy. This article is an example of that kind of hysteria. The verbiage used sometimes tends to anthropomorphize consumable resources in a way that begets images of hippies in a drum circle. For example "humanity's demands on nature" conjures images of a haggard old lady being asked for her second kidney because she soon won't need it anymore. That's not science, that's an emotional appeal.

        • From my standpoint the earth is here to be consumed as we see fit

          So when you make a statement like that, it really matters not what kind of language or semantics one would use, as you have already made up your mind about it.

          You know who I don't trust?
          Those who say things like "the earth is here to be consumed as we see fit", because, obviously that just smacks of a bronze/iron age monotheistic world view that has no place in the 21st century.

          • obviously that just smacks of a bronze/iron age monotheistic world view that has no place in the 21st century.

            You you would replace monotheism with some form of nature god or new spiritualism that can't be defined but we all feel, far out brother? It's all shit. I do not care much about inanimate objects beyond their value to me. I have absolutely no idea where you are going with this argument, but it sounds like we should get our drums and form a circle.

            We exist, we have the capacity and intellect to pu

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by almitydave ( 2452422 )

        To calculate the date for Earth Overshoot Day, the group crunches UN data on thousands of economic sectors such as fisheries, forestry, transport and energy production.

        Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions, it said, are now the fastest-growing contributor to ecological overshoot, making up 60 percent of humanity's demands on nature -- what is called the ecological "footprint".

        I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?

        Well, it's based on empirical data. ... Because, there's no double blind study where we instantiated multiple Earth's on January 1st and then removed all humans from one to use as the control variable....No, it's not truly falsifiable -- then again you don't have multiple runs at this.

        Well, obviously, but falsifiability and such apply to theories, not empirical observations.

        ...(evidently you aren't). The part where you said "climate activism" means you're just going into confirmation bias here anyway so even though it won't help ... Even though it doesn't matter because you've clearly already made up your mind.

        You need to get your internet mind-reading device recalibrated. You could have just posted the link (which wasn't in the article for some reason (a pet peeve of mine regarding science reporting)) without the snark: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/public_data_package [footprintnetwork.org].

      • Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:51PM (#52673547) Homepage Journal

        Well, it's based on empirical data. You'll have to provide your personal definition of "real science" for me.

        Empirical data of the rate of consumption is insufficient. Without measuring whether we're really depleting resources faster than they can be replenished, any so-called "allotment" is little more than a fiction. It's an arbitrary number.

        If you had done this study in the late 1700s, they would have said that we were at the limits for how many people the world could support, too. Since then, modern agriculture has increased crop yields, brought water to fertile soil that was previously too dry to grow crops, and provided machines that can pick crops at a rate that makes it possible to support a much larger population.

        Thus, any discussion of an "allotment" is predicated upon the false assumption that resource shortages are fundamental problems with the world that cannot be corrected through technological means of increasing those resources. It is also predicated upon the dubious assumption that resource shortages won't take care of themselves without out intervention. For example, we panic about CO2 levels, worrying about a runaway greenhouse effect, forgetting that our greenhouse gas percentages are dramatically lower than they were in the distant past. This isn't an experiment. We already have empirical data from previous periods with high greenhouse gas numbers, and we know what happened: plant life flourished, died, got buried, turned into coal, and served as a carbon sink. Anyone arguing that this won't happen again is making an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof.

        This is not to say that global warming isn't a concern. It is. It has the potential to turn fertile lands into deserts and vice versa. It has the potential to seriously disturb the geopolitical climate of our planet, and to make the U.S. become much more dependent upon foreign food sources (Canada in particular). It has the potential to raise the sea level, flooding coastal areas where lots of people live. It can make hurricanes and tornadoes more prevalent, costing human lives. But I think it is important to talk about the concern realistically instead of Chicken Littling the subject and acting like we're about to destroy the world. We really aren't. Earth was around for billions of years before us, and will probably be around for billions of years after we're gone.

        • "false assumption that resource shortages are fundamental problems with the world that cannot be corrected through technological means of increasing those resources"

          Which is also a false assumption. People have the most annoying assumptions that everything goes in straight lines or simple curves, or endless cycles.

          Technology can be used to mitigate problems. It cannot always make them go away forever, especially when on the bottom line there are only a finite amount of resources that can be exploited even a

    • Activism (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )

      You can tell from the fact that the are talking about "using up" a year's allotment of clean air. Uhhhh... No. Air doesn't work like that. While we can, and do, pollute the air we don't "use it up." What's more in terms of breathable air, pollutants in it are a local problem, not global. So in given areas there is heavy pollution that causes the air to be poor quality for breathing, however the amount is very small compared to the total amount on the planet and it doesn't cause a decrease in quality globall

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You can tell from the fact that the are talking about "using up" a year's allotment of clean air. Uhhhh... No. Air doesn't work like that. While we can, and do, pollute the air we don't "use it up."

        But there are natural systems that purify/replenish air, right? And we're not so fucking stupid that we can't estimate the rate at which we're polluting and weigh it against our estimates for how these natural systems replenish it, right?

        Estimations aren't "doing science" but for the last goddamn time they are useful to policy makers.

        Here let me turn your own stupidity on yourself: You can tell from the fact that the are talking about "doing science". Uhhhh ... No, we can't run multiple instance

        • Yes, the trees, grass, plants, and plankton breath in CO2 and release O2, converting CO2 to O2 and bonding the Carbon into carbohydrates.

          There are more trees on the planet earth than there are stars in the milkyway galaxy.

          So the real question is, how much co2 does a tree sequester? (48lbs a year)
          How many trees are there? 3,000,000,000,000

          I guess you can do the math on that one. ;)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            It isn't that simple. The growth rate of plant life depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. More CO2 leads to faster plant growth. Within a certain band (which we're likely well inside), the planet corrects for variations in levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's why we don't have a global extinction event every time a volcano erupts and belches methane into the atmosphere.

            • Within a certain band (which we're likely well inside), the planet corrects for variations in levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That's why we don't have a global extinction event every time a volcano erupts and belches methane into the atmosphere.

              Not this again. Humans produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism. That's why we're currently experiencing CO2 levels unprecedented on a human timescale.

          • Yes, the trees, grass, plants, and plankton breath in CO2 and release O2, converting CO2 to O2 and bonding the Carbon into carbohydrates.

            There are more trees on the planet earth than there are stars in the milkyway galaxy.

            So the real question is, how much co2 does a tree sequester? (48lbs a year)

            48 pounds is the highest estimate for the biggest tree under the best circumstances. And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot - otherwise it just turns back into CO2.

            How many trees are there? 3,000,000,000,000

            Also the highest available estimate.

            I guess you can do the math on that one. ;)

            I could, but why should I? We can directly measure CO2 in the atmosphere, and we do [ucsd.edu]. We know that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at slightly more than 2ppm/year at the moment, and has increased from abou

            • And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot - otherwise it just turns back into CO2.

              Ever been to a museum? Ever saw an old piece of wood in there?

              CO2 sequestered by trees takes CENTURIES to return to CO2 again - unless you burn it.
              Even left to rot it will take decades. Ever seen an old tree stump, sticking out of the ground, all covered in moss and mushrooms?
              Decades and decades.

              • And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot - otherwise it just turns back into CO2.

                Ever been to a museum? Ever saw an old piece of wood in there?

                CO2 sequestered by trees takes CENTURIES to return to CO2 again - unless you burn it.

                Yes, under carefully controlled conditions, as in a museum, wood is stable for a long time. Most wood is, however, not in a museum.

                Even left to rot it will take decades. Ever seen an old tree stump, sticking out of the ground, all covered in moss and mushrooms? Decades and decades.

                A decade is not a very long period of time in the context of the climate system. And, of course, in a mature forrest, rotting and growth are in balance. Otherwise, where would all that extra wood go? There are very limited conditions under which plant mass is permanently sequestered.

                • Most wood is, however, not in a museum.

                  Indeed, most of it actually lives to be alive for hundreds of years. Even thousands. [wikipedia.org]

                  A decade is not a very long period of time in the context of the climate system.

                  You are being deliberately obtuse.

                  If a decade (and I didn't say a decade) is not a very long time in the context of the climate system, then how come there are measurable and visible changes in the climate during last decades?
                  How come there are visible and measurable changes in the ozone layer - for the better?
                  Besides - I was talking of wood being explicitly left to the elements and the ecosystem to reclaim it. I.e. Left to

            • And even that CO2 is only permanently sequestered if the tree is neither burned nor allowed to rot

              Such as by building large wooden houses, which the left considers a waste of resources - unless Al Gore or a Clinton owns hem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dywolf ( 2673597 )

        the ability of the planet to convert of sequester CO2 from the atmosphere is actually a fairly well known concept.
        and the rate of emission of CO2 is similarly well known.
        comparing the two is fairly simple and straightforward, and yes, scientific.

        their phrasing ("using up") is weak, but the concept is communicated.

        as far as causing a decrease in global quality, it does, that's why the global CO2 avg ppm is now above 400, even if that is still almost unnoticeable in human physiologies at that concentration.

      • Re:Activism (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:53PM (#52673573) Journal

        in terms of breathable air, pollutants in it are a local problem, not global.

        False [slashdot.org].

      • What's wrong with saying we've "used up" a year's allotment of clear air? Wouldn't the allotment just be the amount of O2 generated by plant life consuming CO2? If humanity somehow raised CO2 levels to 70,000 ppm, breathing would become difficult. Yes, climate change would become seriously bad long before that. However, it would still be nice to try to live using only what the planet can recycle, until we can figure out how to cleanly recycle more if needed.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They aren't talking about literally depleting a fixed supply of clean air, they mean that we used up the "allowance" of pollutants that the atmosphere can reasonably absorb before it starts to cause serious problems. TFS doesn't explain it very well, but they are saying that to be sustainable we would need to stretch what we used, in terms of natural resources, this year up to Monday out over the whole year. CO2 emissions, oil, minerals, dumping shit in the sea etc.

        I don't know why there isn't a link to the [overshootday.org]

    • It is climate activism and completely useless.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      The implicit dichotomy you're asking us to assume is bogus: i.e., that activism can't be based on scientific knowledge. We can't answer the question the way you'd like it to be with out accepting a counter-factual proposition.

      Clearly this is activism at any rate. That doesn't make it untrue or unsupported, although obviously one could look critically at the presentation of the data and find flaws in the statistics and methods used.

      Now common sense should tell you that we're almost certainly using resources

    • It's based on bullshit. It's been determined that that's the easiest way to generate clicks and outrage from the Prius army.
    • giving a shit at all about the suatainability of your species and its planet.

      • The smartest man in the world said,

        "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

        and,

        "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!"

        and,

        "Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense."

    • I've never even heard of this metric. Is this based on real science or climate activism?

      I'm not sure what sort of 'science' anyone can expect from the World Wrestling Federation, aren't those guys a bunch of two-bit actors? *drum hit*



      In all seriousness, I don't see how anyone can say how much 'resources' the entire human race uses in a year. If their purpose is to point out how unsustainable the human race is in general then they're stating the obvious, and the human race as a whole won't know when we're out of resources until it's too late anyway. In any event it won't happen in what's lef

    • It's based on a steaming pile of turd excreted from the backside of an NGO wanting publicity for more government funding.

  • The Earth is used up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Empiric ( 675968 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:00PM (#52673113)

    Well, we had a good run.

    Or, maybe like the entire history of mankind and economics, "used up" means there's demand for more production, or alternative production.

    More CO2 is resulting in more foliage. Seems nature has it's own kind of "balancing market". [climatecentral.org]

    I'll be looking for a better arbitrary wordplay metric of impending doom.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      we are putting out more than nature is able to consume or sequester.
      the added foliage isn't the only effect: in the presence of increased CO2 or heat (or both) many plants become more disease/pest prone.
      others, particularly many staple crops, produce less of the food stuffs.
      or it becomes toxic.

    • Re:The Earth is used up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scatbomb ( 1099255 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @03:31PM (#52673837)
      It is true that CO2 stimulates plant growth, if you isolate other factors. The problem is that we are deforesting our planet, so the net change in plant biomass is negative. Furthermore, the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is about 37% of the existing 3E12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 1.13E12 tons of excess CO2 from human activities. A single km^2 of rainforest contains about 356 tons of biomass (wikipedia), so assuming it's all carbon (it's not) we'd need another 3.2E9 km^2 of rainforest to consume all of the excess CO2 in the air. The earth's surface area (including oceans) is only 5E8 km^2. So we'd need 6.2 earth surface areas of Amazon rainforest to sequester all of the extra CO2 in the air. You see, the carbon stores were saved up from fossilization over millions and millions of years and we've attempted to release all of them into the atmosphere in about 100 years. The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust. Hope that you see now this is a major problem that won't be solved by sitting back and watching. My sources are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and https://micpohling.wordpress.c... [wordpress.com] feel free to check my math.

      • The earth cannot "bounce back" from such a rapid change, it will take millions and millions of years for geological processes to bring carbon back into the Earth's crust.

        Who said it needs to go into the crust? You know what really likes carbon on this planet? Everything.

        Also, while tree-sequestered carbon can stay in that form for millennia after the tree is cut - carbon sequestered into plastic takes millions of years to become CO2 again.
        And we could just suck it out of the air [wikipedia.org] and pour it into a hole in the ground. [wikipedia.org]
        It's just that the trees are far more efficient and a LOT cheaper to produce.

        Also, forget rainforests. It's plankton that's making most of the air. [nationalgeographic.org]

    • We aren't using up any of those resources. We can get it back using clean energy such as solar or nuclear. For example we can get back fresh water by desalination of sea water or filtration/purification of dirty water. I am not sure what the problem is. Build more electricity production facilities (solar, nuclear) and we won't run out of anything. We have enough solar or nuclear potential to last millions of years. A 100km by 100km solar array in the Sahara could produce enough electrify for all of earth's

  • We ate up all the food...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nikkipolya ( 718326 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:05PM (#52673157)

    How can we end up eating all the food meant for the whole year? Who is giving the food for credit then? The Fed? Are the plants doing "Quantitative Easing" of food then?

    • Re:We ate up all the food...? (Score:5, Funny)

      by DesertNomad ( 885798 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:09PM (#52673207)

      Don't know about you, but I went through my year's supply of frozen Hot Pockets and Snickers bars back in late July. We're doomed, I say, doomed.

    • The planet can provide for 68-135 million hunter-gatherer humans in optimal conditions. Intensive farming raised that to hundreds of millions; GMO, fertilization, and pesticides raised that to billions. These strategies reduced the expended working time required to sustain a population's food supply (some economists argue that agriculture INCREASED work, but allowed humans to live in large-population communities which would otherwise need to forage over intractably-large areas and expend excess energy wa

    • FTA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by doug141 ( 863552 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @03:16PM (#52673703)

      Fishery depletion.

  • Asteroids etc (Score:3)

    by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:22PM (#52673305)

    Soon we will have to start mining asteroids. Then the other planets. Then we'll have to start harvesting the dust between the planets.

    Unless we develop technology to go through our Alderson point and survive the exit from the other Aldeson point thats in the atmosphere of a star.

  • LOL what? (Score:3)

    by ShooterNeo ( 555040 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:23PM (#52673323)

    So, uh, what about all the minerals that are on the ocean floor and deeper than current technology makes it economical to mine? Are those resources "used up"?

    Eventually we'll run out of oil and gas to burn, but last I checked we have a crapton of unused land for solar and if we really had to there's more thorium and breedable uranium than we know what to do with...

    The ecosystem may take a hit from all this increasing activity, sure. But do humans even need it to remain viable as a species? Just how close are we to being able to grow all our food with genetic engineering, and to make all our medicine with genetically engineered organisms in vats?

    I'm under the impression that this is basically possible today, it's just a matter of how much money is available to develop the strains you want. Various FUD about genetic engineering has severely curtailed the interest in it.

    • The cost of mining materials disolved in the ocean has been estimated to be over 10,000 per ounce with current technology.

      The key bit is we are consuming many resources like this.

      Magnesium, zinc, chromium (stainless steel), manganese, molybdenum, iron, coal, etc. etc. etc.

      Recycling is less to much less effective than 100%.

      The real key was holding a much lower population. We didn't do that. It's already too late.

      • I'd like to make a reasoned rebuttal...but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're an idiot and should feel bad.

  • Required reading - limits to growth (Score:5, Informative)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:25PM (#52673339)

    http://collections.dartmouth.e... [dartmouth.edu]

    Some of the items are scary spot on (like the amount of carbon dioxide we would see in the atmosphere).

    A bunch of MIT types calculated that based on total assets in the earth (not just available to extract), we would hit several "limits to growth" between 2020 and 2100.

    For example: We used as much chromium in 2014 as we did from 1900 to 2000 combined.

    here's a summary of the 30 year update.
    http://www.unice.fr/sg/resourc... [unice.fr]

    Many of their projections are following.
    Food is a little higher- but so is population.

    Here's the unavoidable situation they said we would hit.

    Using so many resources that we overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth and then permanently lower it as a result. So if 6 billion were what it could carry for a very long time, by going to 12 billion, we might reduce the capacity to 3 billion.

    And it projects a very rapid population reduction. 70 years to fall from 12 billion back to 1950s level populations.

    The projection is we'll run low on multiple indusrial metals at the same time and prices of those metals will skyrocket.

    ---

    Now the fun bit. It's too late to do anything about it. We passed the point of no return back in the 1990s. It's a genuine "bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" situation.

    And the good news... Many of us will be dead by 2040-2050 when it starts to get nasty tho we may see some signs as early as 2035 (I'll be 74 then-- my most likely lifespan is to 2038).

    • Re:Required reading - limits to growth (Score:5, Funny)

      by almitydave ( 2452422 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @02:47PM (#52673521)

      Now the fun bit. It's too late to do anything about it. We passed the point of no return back in the 1990s. It's a genuine "bend over and kiss your ass goodbye" situation.

      And the good news... Many of us will be dead by 2040-2050 when it starts to get nasty tho we may see some signs as early as 2035 (I'll be 74 then-- my most likely lifespan is to 2038).

      Don't be so pessimistic - at the rate medical science is advancing, you'll be able to live well into the apocalypse!

    • Re:Required reading - limits to growth (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday August 09, 2016 @03:17PM (#52673707) Homepage Journal

      IMO, they're probably wrong, because they're ignoring fungibility. As the cost of the rarer metals goes up, other materials will take their place, and the net impact on society as a whole will be minimal.

      In the grand scheme of things, you really only need a couple of metals to get things done—iron and copper. Fortunately, these are also two of the most plentiful metals in Earth's crust, so we're not going to run out of either one for the foreseeable future, though the cost of extracting copper may go up as the quality of ore deposits decreases.

      As for the others, right now, people use chromium because of stainless steel, but powder coats or sealants could serve the same purpose in many situations. We might run low on lithium, which is a problem for batteries, but we're also on the cusp of getting supercapacitor capacity to the point where many uses of lithium will no longer be needed, making that largely moot in the long term. And so on. And we use metal for many things that we could use plastics for, too (either oil-based or plant-based).

      Like I said, fungibility.

  • Sounds like it's time to cut out all the welfare.

  • All that solar is making the sun dimmer! Oh and all that wind power is slowing the rotation of the earth! Senator Joe Bartan (R) said it was true!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slew ( 2918 )

      All that solar is making the sun dimmer! Oh and all that wind power is slowing the rotation of the earth! Senator Joe Bartan (R) said it was true!

      On the other hand, the three-gorges dam in china apparently slowed the earth's rotation by about 0.06 microseconds, and shifted the pole position by about two centimeters.

      Of course if we extrapolate this data and we continue building dams at the current rate, we will probably cause catastrophic damage to the earth in the next million years (unless we go extinct by then). Maybe we should stop building dams now before it is too late.

      FWIW, what Mr. Barton said was actually this...

      I am going to read a paragraph which is, if true, very ironic. And this is from Dr. Apt’s paper, and I quote: ‘Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100 the resulting change in the earth’s atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade.’

      This Dr. Apt's paper was poor

  • The sun shines a continuous 175x10^15 watts on the planet, by this number we are undershooting by a few orders of magnitude. If 7.125x10^9 people each used a continuous 24.5 megawatts we could manage to eventually consume all the earths energy resources for people and nothing but people.

  • Well then I guess the planet had better buck up and start producing faster then, shant it?

    Yeah, I believe it fucking shall.

    Get to work slacker planet: I got mountains of disposable shiite to buy and discard!

  • My Campbell's soup cans are getting smaller?

  • Well, it sounds like it's time to invest in asteroid mining. Yep. There's gold in them there rocks.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close