I want to respond to a claim you made in your most recent post. You posit, "Thus, the entire World Population of 8 Billion can be housed in Alaska at the same density of London." That statement is not entirely correct. It must be kept in mind that the size of land occupied by city dwellers is much larger than their respective share of the city. Food, clothing, goods, and resources consumed by people are produced using land away from where they live, scattered all around the world. People are connected to such land by energy, or fuel, that allows stuff to be transported to their proximity in the city. Thus, the issue of population size is not a question of available land, but, primarily, of energy available at EROI at a level that allows the just-in-time system to function. Whatever the world population crammed into Alaska would produce would have to be able to pay for the energy needed to feed and clothe them, which is hardly possible.
That brings us to– for lack of a better word - fossil fuels, the other issue you mention. What matters is not their origin but whether they're finite and if not, at what rate they replenish. It's been the discovery of coal, oil, and gas and the subsequent development of industrial technologies that have permitted humankind to improve their living standard tremendously during the past few centuries, including an unprecedented increase in population size. If the conventional theory is correct, and fossil fuels are finite, there is no question that the world's population housed in Alaska would be dead within a matter of weeks. If the abiotic theory is correct, and fossil fuels are replenished, the question is at what rate. For extraction would have to be at a maximum at that rate for the use of fossils to be sustainable. As far as I've been able to find, the abiotic theory appears to be wishful thinking; I'm not aware of any hard data on the replenishment rate, if that's how it works.
There are various other issues, such as that fossil fuels are also the source of fertilizer and other materials, and the fact that the growing human population is crowding out other biological species, which disrupts its natural habitat, but energy is the key issue.
As far as innovation and the allusion that humans will be able to solve the predicament of dwindling fossil fuels by substituting them with another source of energy, there is nothing in sight at the moment that would allow the world to go on as is if fossil fuels are no longer available or EROI goes up. Renewables, nuclear, hydrogen either do not provide the necessary energy density or are simply not feasible due to fact that include the virtual impossibility to mine and process enough materials for electric applications, even if energy could be captured in theory. A sufficient buffer for wind/solar applications is another problem. Excellent work on this subject, including detailed calculations, has been done by Simon Michaux (https://www.simonmichaux.com/). Will humans be able to find a solution? Maybe yes, maybe no. With the current knowledge, the only possible course is to slow down and downsize. Assuming that the industrial civilization will go on forever is fallacious.
Incidentally, the climate change, global warming/boiling, all sorts of green deals, and all the other stuff are pure bullshit. There might be some truth in these claims, but they reflect the utter inability of the so-called elites to understand and tackle the issues in question.
Anyway, it would be most judicious on humankind's part to consider the end of the industrial civilization a real possibility, and work toward a sustainable and as prosperous as possible existence in the post-industrial era, when the kind of manufacturing we have now is no longer available. For starters, people should preserve knowledge gained thus far by printing durable books, as opposed to converting everything into digital form. Likewise, technologies should be devised that would allow making things with minimum energy. Ditto agriculture.
Reportedly, what can be observed in the behavior of the human population in the past few hundred years is a standard biological phenomenon that occurs in nature. When a species discovers an abundant source of sustenance – in our case fossil fuels – it overconsumes the stuff and goes into a population overshoot. The more of them there are, the faster the resource is consumed and eventually the species starves to death and destroys its habitat in the process. If you take a sober look at the human civilization, that's pretty much exactly what's happening.
I had no idea that BOOM had posted an article on abiotic oil - anyway, it's above my pay grade so here's his reply - nice praise for you at the end:
Hi Peter,
"Thus, the entire World Population of 8 Billion can be housed in Alaska at the same density of London."
Sigh .... tedious. This is a hypothetical calculation, not a plan for the future (!!)
Then he gets on to the "fossil fuels are finite" argument. Oh yeah? Where is the proof?
This is Thomas Malthus speaking from the grave -- 200 years ago. "We'll all be ruined" (eventually). Then -- Abiotic oil ...........
"As far as I've been able to find, the abiotic theory appears to be wishful thinking; I'm not aware of any hard data on the replenishment rate if that's how it works."
"The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biological intermediate forms, [1] for example by Thomas Gold. [5] (Terrestrial natural gas is composed primarily of methane). Some comets contain massive amounts of organic compounds, the equivalent of cubic kilometers of such mixed with other material; [70] for instance, corresponding hydrocarbons were detected during a probe flyby through the tail of Comet Halley in 1986.[71]
Drill samples from the surface of Mars taken in 2015 by the Curiosity rover's Mars Science Laboratory have found organic molecules of benzene and propane in 3 billion-year-old rock samples in Gale Crater"
Yes --- The origins of oil and the replenishment rate are all a subject for debate.
HOWEVER .........Then he makes a lot of sense towards the end of his letter -- well done (!). I agree with the last 3 paragraphs.
"Incidentally, the climate change, global warming/boiling, all sorts of green deals, and all the other stuff are pure bullshit."
Not sure what the purpose of such a "hypothetical calculation" is. The only thing it does is demonstrate the proponent's extremely narrow view of a complex issue. It leaves just about everything out of the equation. It's irrelevant to correlate population size and land size alone. This is much more complex an issue, where the key aspect is the availability of energy/fuel. Plus resources. The guy BOOM claims that he "destroyed theories". Give me a break! Missed point fallacy! Reducing the flaws in how the human civilization is structured to population size is tunnel-vision simplistic.
The origin of energy resources, i.e. coal, oil, gas, is largely irrelevant. What's relevant is a) the rate at which they replenish (that would be the case of oil and gas; I can't see that happening with coal) if replenish they do, and b) what can be done to sustain civilization if they're finite and will eventually run out (which is probably a matter of decades, given that about a half has been consumed by now, according to conventional claims).
Where is the proof that fossil fuels are finite? Well, where is the proof that they're not? According to just about all sources, deposits are being depleted and new ones are harder to find and exploit. The only evidence to the contrary is a molecule of methane discovered on Mars. Hmmm .... Sounds like grasping at straws. Moreover, it doesn't really matter whether fuel deposits are finite or not. The issue is finding a balance between extraction, production, consumption, and waste vis-a-vis population size. Everybody does that - or at least used to when people lived locally, say, decades ago, as opposed to the globalized world today - at a personal level; why people so vehemently reject any suggestion that it be done globally, I understand not.
I wish people refrained from invoking in a knee-jerk manner this guy Malthus every time they're told something they don't like to hear. I'm not even familiar with most of what he posited, but if his thinking was along the lines of the above, what's wrong with that? This is an ad hominem fallacy. Address the issues, not some dead guy. Frankly, I'm a bit put off by BOOM's dismissive comments, especially in view how myopic the original claims were. It would behoove him to think his arguments through better.
Anyway, the problem we face, especially the "advanced" world (read: advanced on the way down the tubes), is that in the urbanized, globalized arrangement, people have lost touch with their natural habitat. They can't see how much resources there are available for consumption, how much they consume, and what their consequent behavior it should be to be sustainable. If you go back 100 or even less, people lived much more locally, and they could see how much stuff there is available for consumption, how many children they can afford to have, so on, so forth. Hence, it was possible for them to make decisions in that regard. Today, when most people have no clue where food comes from, the only measure people have to determine anything is money, which is ridiculous because money is largely meaningless, especially considering how it's been corrupted. The only way to keep such a global system afloat - if it's possible even in theory in the first place, given the energy predicament - is through technocratic management, which is equal to less freedom.
Thus, going local is the solution. Working, getting stuff, and making decisions where one lives, as opposed to traveling and transporting goods from all over the place and being controlled from a center. This way, it can be left up to people to make decision and retain freedom.
Finally, climate change, global warming, green deal, just about all the stuff in the mainstream is either pure idiocy or red herring, smoke screen intended to obfuscate reality while the powers that be are trying to figure out what to do. Forever disproving all these diversions is a total waste of time. People should not follow narratives served to them, whether they agree or not. For even if one disagrees, one's views are formulated around the narrative, albeit in a negative way, and it prevents them from formulating their own views, their own solutions.
Many thanks, Paul - exactly what I was looking for - the other side of understanding. Thanks for taking the time and effort to lay it all out for me. I shall email BOOM and see what he responds and come back to you.
I made this comment in response to BOOM's post:
I want to respond to a claim you made in your most recent post. You posit, "Thus, the entire World Population of 8 Billion can be housed in Alaska at the same density of London." That statement is not entirely correct. It must be kept in mind that the size of land occupied by city dwellers is much larger than their respective share of the city. Food, clothing, goods, and resources consumed by people are produced using land away from where they live, scattered all around the world. People are connected to such land by energy, or fuel, that allows stuff to be transported to their proximity in the city. Thus, the issue of population size is not a question of available land, but, primarily, of energy available at EROI at a level that allows the just-in-time system to function. Whatever the world population crammed into Alaska would produce would have to be able to pay for the energy needed to feed and clothe them, which is hardly possible.
That brings us to– for lack of a better word - fossil fuels, the other issue you mention. What matters is not their origin but whether they're finite and if not, at what rate they replenish. It's been the discovery of coal, oil, and gas and the subsequent development of industrial technologies that have permitted humankind to improve their living standard tremendously during the past few centuries, including an unprecedented increase in population size. If the conventional theory is correct, and fossil fuels are finite, there is no question that the world's population housed in Alaska would be dead within a matter of weeks. If the abiotic theory is correct, and fossil fuels are replenished, the question is at what rate. For extraction would have to be at a maximum at that rate for the use of fossils to be sustainable. As far as I've been able to find, the abiotic theory appears to be wishful thinking; I'm not aware of any hard data on the replenishment rate, if that's how it works.
There are various other issues, such as that fossil fuels are also the source of fertilizer and other materials, and the fact that the growing human population is crowding out other biological species, which disrupts its natural habitat, but energy is the key issue.
As far as innovation and the allusion that humans will be able to solve the predicament of dwindling fossil fuels by substituting them with another source of energy, there is nothing in sight at the moment that would allow the world to go on as is if fossil fuels are no longer available or EROI goes up. Renewables, nuclear, hydrogen either do not provide the necessary energy density or are simply not feasible due to fact that include the virtual impossibility to mine and process enough materials for electric applications, even if energy could be captured in theory. A sufficient buffer for wind/solar applications is another problem. Excellent work on this subject, including detailed calculations, has been done by Simon Michaux (https://www.simonmichaux.com/). Will humans be able to find a solution? Maybe yes, maybe no. With the current knowledge, the only possible course is to slow down and downsize. Assuming that the industrial civilization will go on forever is fallacious.
Incidentally, the climate change, global warming/boiling, all sorts of green deals, and all the other stuff are pure bullshit. There might be some truth in these claims, but they reflect the utter inability of the so-called elites to understand and tackle the issues in question.
Anyway, it would be most judicious on humankind's part to consider the end of the industrial civilization a real possibility, and work toward a sustainable and as prosperous as possible existence in the post-industrial era, when the kind of manufacturing we have now is no longer available. For starters, people should preserve knowledge gained thus far by printing durable books, as opposed to converting everything into digital form. Likewise, technologies should be devised that would allow making things with minimum energy. Ditto agriculture.
Reportedly, what can be observed in the behavior of the human population in the past few hundred years is a standard biological phenomenon that occurs in nature. When a species discovers an abundant source of sustenance – in our case fossil fuels – it overconsumes the stuff and goes into a population overshoot. The more of them there are, the faster the resource is consumed and eventually the species starves to death and destroys its habitat in the process. If you take a sober look at the human civilization, that's pretty much exactly what's happening.
Greetings Paul,
I had no idea that BOOM had posted an article on abiotic oil - anyway, it's above my pay grade so here's his reply - nice praise for you at the end:
Hi Peter,
"Thus, the entire World Population of 8 Billion can be housed in Alaska at the same density of London."
Sigh .... tedious. This is a hypothetical calculation, not a plan for the future (!!)
Then he gets on to the "fossil fuels are finite" argument. Oh yeah? Where is the proof?
This is Thomas Malthus speaking from the grave -- 200 years ago. "We'll all be ruined" (eventually). Then -- Abiotic oil ...........
"As far as I've been able to find, the abiotic theory appears to be wishful thinking; I'm not aware of any hard data on the replenishment rate if that's how it works."
BOOM published an extensive paper on Abiotic/Abiogenic Oil -- https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin.html#The_geological_argument_for_abiogenic_oil
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
"The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biological intermediate forms, [1] for example by Thomas Gold. [5] (Terrestrial natural gas is composed primarily of methane). Some comets contain massive amounts of organic compounds, the equivalent of cubic kilometers of such mixed with other material; [70] for instance, corresponding hydrocarbons were detected during a probe flyby through the tail of Comet Halley in 1986.[71]
Drill samples from the surface of Mars taken in 2015 by the Curiosity rover's Mars Science Laboratory have found organic molecules of benzene and propane in 3 billion-year-old rock samples in Gale Crater"
Yes --- The origins of oil and the replenishment rate are all a subject for debate.
HOWEVER .........Then he makes a lot of sense towards the end of his letter -- well done (!). I agree with the last 3 paragraphs.
"Incidentally, the climate change, global warming/boiling, all sorts of green deals, and all the other stuff are pure bullshit."
Cheers
AP
Not sure what the purpose of such a "hypothetical calculation" is. The only thing it does is demonstrate the proponent's extremely narrow view of a complex issue. It leaves just about everything out of the equation. It's irrelevant to correlate population size and land size alone. This is much more complex an issue, where the key aspect is the availability of energy/fuel. Plus resources. The guy BOOM claims that he "destroyed theories". Give me a break! Missed point fallacy! Reducing the flaws in how the human civilization is structured to population size is tunnel-vision simplistic.
The origin of energy resources, i.e. coal, oil, gas, is largely irrelevant. What's relevant is a) the rate at which they replenish (that would be the case of oil and gas; I can't see that happening with coal) if replenish they do, and b) what can be done to sustain civilization if they're finite and will eventually run out (which is probably a matter of decades, given that about a half has been consumed by now, according to conventional claims).
Where is the proof that fossil fuels are finite? Well, where is the proof that they're not? According to just about all sources, deposits are being depleted and new ones are harder to find and exploit. The only evidence to the contrary is a molecule of methane discovered on Mars. Hmmm .... Sounds like grasping at straws. Moreover, it doesn't really matter whether fuel deposits are finite or not. The issue is finding a balance between extraction, production, consumption, and waste vis-a-vis population size. Everybody does that - or at least used to when people lived locally, say, decades ago, as opposed to the globalized world today - at a personal level; why people so vehemently reject any suggestion that it be done globally, I understand not.
I wish people refrained from invoking in a knee-jerk manner this guy Malthus every time they're told something they don't like to hear. I'm not even familiar with most of what he posited, but if his thinking was along the lines of the above, what's wrong with that? This is an ad hominem fallacy. Address the issues, not some dead guy. Frankly, I'm a bit put off by BOOM's dismissive comments, especially in view how myopic the original claims were. It would behoove him to think his arguments through better.
Anyway, the problem we face, especially the "advanced" world (read: advanced on the way down the tubes), is that in the urbanized, globalized arrangement, people have lost touch with their natural habitat. They can't see how much resources there are available for consumption, how much they consume, and what their consequent behavior it should be to be sustainable. If you go back 100 or even less, people lived much more locally, and they could see how much stuff there is available for consumption, how many children they can afford to have, so on, so forth. Hence, it was possible for them to make decisions in that regard. Today, when most people have no clue where food comes from, the only measure people have to determine anything is money, which is ridiculous because money is largely meaningless, especially considering how it's been corrupted. The only way to keep such a global system afloat - if it's possible even in theory in the first place, given the energy predicament - is through technocratic management, which is equal to less freedom.
Thus, going local is the solution. Working, getting stuff, and making decisions where one lives, as opposed to traveling and transporting goods from all over the place and being controlled from a center. This way, it can be left up to people to make decision and retain freedom.
Finally, climate change, global warming, green deal, just about all the stuff in the mainstream is either pure idiocy or red herring, smoke screen intended to obfuscate reality while the powers that be are trying to figure out what to do. Forever disproving all these diversions is a total waste of time. People should not follow narratives served to them, whether they agree or not. For even if one disagrees, one's views are formulated around the narrative, albeit in a negative way, and it prevents them from formulating their own views, their own solutions.
Many thanks, Paul - exactly what I was looking for - the other side of understanding. Thanks for taking the time and effort to lay it all out for me. I shall email BOOM and see what he responds and come back to you.
Cheers
AP