"The greatest human being who ever lived" has died • Hacker News Board

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#51

Post by billswift » Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 9:22 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #46

billswift wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the declining population is temporary. Every area with declining population, except perhaps Japan which I don't know enough about to say, has sub-populations with higher growth. Eventually, those populations are going to become large enough that the population as a whole will start growing again, and will continue increasing until it reaches the rate of the high-growth formerly-sub population. It'…

Scarcity of resources is also a temporary (but serious) problem. So, pushing back the date of catastrophe far enough is exactly what's needed. Conditions are not static. Often buying more time is all that's necessary. How do you live for ever? Don't die.

Currently resources are not scarce except in the economic sense. But a growing population will eventually surpass ANY POSSIBLE resource base. Robin Hanson's most recent post on Overcoming Bias http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html discusses this in some detail.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#52

Post by petercooper » Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 4:38 PM UTC

chez17 wrote: post #48

petercooper wrote: post #24

This guy isn't famous because people who complain about GM food, the environment (or whatever ) are louder and harder to ignore than scientists quietly solving those problems. Science and technology have provided most of the solutions to our most pressing problems, typically quietly, over a long period of time, and with little fanfare. This noble work will go on even if "eco-warriors" or anti-GM activists only want t…

Did you care about this guy before he died? Or are you just using his death to grandstand on some anti-environmentalist rant?

No, I hadn't heard of him - that's sorta my point. World changing scientists are not, typically, well known. Famous environmentalists are ten a dollar. So, sure, it's an anti-environmentalist rant because I'm anti-environmentalist but I consider it a pro-science rant at heart.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#53

Post by petercooper » Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 5:20 PM UTC

clistctrl wrote: post #39

petercooper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to as long as technology keeps scaling. Pointing out that groundwater and soil aren't going to scale reminds me of the people who freaked out over the scalability of x86 in the mid 90s - we're an ingenious bunch, we find solutions. Genetically modified meat grown in vats, compact nutrition rich superfoods/tablets.. there are all sorts of technologically possible creations around the corner.

I LOVE technology (i'm a super geek) but if theres anything I love more then it, it would be food actually it would be eating food. If surviving in the future means i need a tablet to provide all my nutrition... then surviving hardly seems worth it.

I don't disbelieve it, but people have said that about hunting, meat eating, eating bread (e.g. celiac disease sufferers), and smoking (in smoking ban situations) but we tend to adapt in the main.

Re: "The greatest human being who ever lived" has died

#54

Post by petercooper » Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 5:27 PM UTC

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #44

petercooper wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global oil production has now peaked and will slide, sooner or later, into permanent and progressive decline year-over-year. When that happens, all the blue-sky technology in the world won't keep food production rates increasing. Hydrocarbons aren't the only source of energy into the future. Your complaint is like noting that a shortage of horses in the 1880s would lead to a lack of future mobility. When resources fa…

> Hydrocarbons aren't the only source of energy into the future. Okay, so name a production-ready source of energy or combination of sources that broadly matches oil's density, portability, fungibility and diversity of uses. We don't have decades to come up with something else: oil is already at its maximum production rate. As soon as this recession ends and demand for oil starts growing, we'll see triple-digit price…

Okay, so name a production-ready source of energy or combination of sources that broadly matches oil's density, portability, fungibility and diversity of uses.

I bet people were as cagey as this back when coal ruled supreme and oil was barely used. Solar, nuclear, geo-thermal, tidal, wind - sure, they all have cons compared to oil but they have pros too and technology will advance to a point where these cons are heavily reduced.

We don't have decades to come up with something else: oil is already at its maximum production rate.

That's not true. Just considering OPEC, they keep oil production below maximum to control prices. Further, this past year has been a bumper year for the oil industry with significant new field findings.

Our one-time allotment of cheap, abundant energy is already more than half-consumed

Oil's not a "one time" deal, so I assume you're talking about the Sun. The Sun is half way through its life cycle, granted, but that's a far bigger issue that we can deal with thousands of years down the line.