Environment & Energy

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

31. Thanks for the clarification, but I disagree -- there should be some room for technology.

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:49 PM

Mar 2013

Yes, to build a solar array in the desert we would have to use metal that had been mined at some point -- but one of our technological improvements is in recycling. I'll make a wild unsupported guess that all current U.S. electricity consumption could, if need be, be met from renewable facilities built entirely of materials scavenged from dumps and landfills. Of course, it would be more expensive to do it that way, but it's obvious that there'll be some adjustments to living standards in the scenarios we're discussing.

I will, with somewhat more confidence, predict that our descendants (perhaps c. 100 years from now?) will be mining our dumps and landfills for useful materials, chiefly metal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How overpopulated is the planet, really? [View all] GliderGuider Mar 2013 OP

I thought our population was 6,000 times too big. wtmusic Mar 2013 #1

G'day, mate! I wonder how many ways there are to say, GliderGuider Mar 2013 #2

What is the percentage of people across the globe LWolf Mar 2013 #3

Pretty much. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #4

To summarize: LWolf Mar 2013 #11

Pithy and succinct. I like it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #13

No it isn't. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #36

Well, now... chervilant Mar 2013 #21

Yes. LWolf Mar 2013 #25

Need to start eating bugs. Neoma Mar 2013 #5

That's why they're called meal-worms, isn't it? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #6

I was being serious. Neoma Mar 2013 #9

I know, just trying to lighten up an other wise deadly-serious topic. nt GliderGuider Mar 2013 #10

Best I can do is recycle and be vegetarian. Neoma Mar 2013 #15

Recycle, Freecycle, and chervilant Mar 2013 #22

I live in a condo, no room for that stuff. Neoma Mar 2013 #23

Have you finalized which 50 million get to continue breathing? FBaggins Mar 2013 #7

Nope. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #12

I've been saying this for decades BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #8

Could I advise you to save your breath, energy and friendships? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #14

I know too. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #16

Hey!!! chervilant Mar 2013 #24

"can't hear you. They will resent you for saying it. " stuntcat Mar 2013 #17

This morning I did a little thought experiment on involuntary population decline GliderGuider Mar 2013 #20

hmm... chervilant Mar 2013 #26

I wonder if your students.. stuntcat Mar 2013 #29

Can I just point out there's no 'data' in the OP at all muriel_volestrangler Mar 2013 #33

I think that if you're right, you should take it up with the OP poster. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #34

Why is your upper limit "a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners"? Jim Lane Mar 2013 #18

Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables GliderGuider Mar 2013 #19

Thanks for the clarification, but I disagree -- there should be some room for technology. Jim Lane Mar 2013 #31

If that turns you on, by all means go for it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #32

I think your numbers are low, but the gist is right. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #27

I'm not trying to present this as some kind of "population target". GliderGuider Mar 2013 #28

So, even the Georgia Guidestones figure of "500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature", is high. NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #30

My assumption about the number that represents sustainability is just that - an assumption GliderGuider Mar 2013 #35

"1500% into overshoot" ... should be 14900%. nt eppur_se_muova Mar 2013 #37

Yeah, I realized that later. My web article has it corrected. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #38