Expert prognosis for the planet

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It isn't Waterworld, but here is our future:

Does that include the ice in people's freezer?

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Does that include the ice in people's freezer?

That's the real problem!

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

If all the ice on the planet melted we would have far worse problems than just sea level rise. Also, the timeline for such a change is likely on the order of centuries at the fastest it could possibly happen. That scenario is a bit outrageous, and distracts attention from far more likely (and moderate) scenarios which we can better plan for. Interesting visualization, but I don't see that being in our future.

Agreed. It is more of a fun animation.

It would have to be pretty bad to have year round no ice. Not in mu lifetime unless there is some runaway greenhouse effect and no intervention.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Does that include the ice in people's freezer?

People would be dead and utilities broken so yes.

[Irace86.2.0]

Good news! We will be out of oil in 50 years or less (most likely less)! Why is that good news? We will be unable to burn what we don’t have, and what is even better, the huge change in supply and demand means the price of oil will be so much that it’ll be too expensive to have for the average consumer, so even less will be utilized for burning! The car emissions problem fixes itself!

https://drillers.com/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world/

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Good news! We will be out of oil in 50 years or less (most likely less)! Why is that good news? We will be unable to burn what we don’t have, and what is even better, the huge change in supply and demand means the price of oil will be so much that it’ll be too expensive to have for the average consumer, so even less will be utilized for burning! The car emissions problem fixes itself!

https://drillers.com/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world/

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

We've been 50 years from running out of oil my entire adult life.

[soundman98]

We've been 2 years away from flying cars since the 1970's

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

We've been 50 years from running out of oil my entire adult life.

It depends on how it is calculated. If it is based on current reserves and at current usage with no prospect of finding oil or on the change in demand or rate of change of extraction or whatever then the numbers can get fudged good or bad.

We could always find more oil, but can it be extracted fast enough to keep up with demand? If more countries continue to build demand and move up the social ladder then will the reserves deplete faster and faster than supply? Regardless of whether we continue to find oil, we probably will run out of the ability to keep up with demand unless the market price reduces demand. Either way, use slows drastically.

The US is 4.25% of the world’s population, and we use 20% of the world’s current oil usage. China is 18.47% of the world’s population, and they use 14%. India is 17.7%, and they use 5%. Everyone else is lower on the list. If oil consumption increased to the level of the US for China and India then that alone would be crazy. Look how far and how fast China grew. Our lifestyle is not sustainable. Oil is just one thing of course. The world could never support our level of consumption for everyone at the given population that is begs the question what would the situation look like with another 2 or 5 or 10 billion people to feed or house or cars on the road or buildings to heat and cool, etc etc?




The poorest countries will grow the most, so Africa will take over eventually in population unless they come out of poverty and institute family planning, but that also means more consumption, typically. It is a catch 22. We are screwed either way.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is a catch 22. We are screwed either way.

That seems a little pessimistic. Sure, there are issues that need to be solved, there always have been and we've managed to figure it out over time. What is slowing the pace this time around partially are special interests that come up with reasons we "can't do it that way" and politicians that play along.

A lot of the countries you mention could very well never increase their petroleum usage by increased use of electricity from solar, etc.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That seems a little pessimistic. Sure, there are issues that need to be solved, there always have been and we've managed to figure it out over time. What is slowing the pace this time around partially are special interests that come up with reasons we "can't do it that way" and politicians that play along.

A lot of the countries you mention could very well never increase their petroleum usage by increased use of electricity from solar, etc.

If we have the time. If we are an infection on this planet then there is only so much time to deliver the antibiotics before the host dies and the infection destroys itself in the process.

They could, but they probably won’t unless others subsidize the difference in cost or make it more feasible to use solar over fossil fuels. Emerging economies will likely choose the easiest way to prosperity like others have before them.

The world just lacks motivation. Watch Seaspiracy. Imagine a solution to that problem? What if the solution to much of the methane production and feeding the world was going vegan or switching to eating bugs (probably the most sustainable animal protein sources—not necessary though)? Would the world stop eating meat or sea food? Probably not.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

If we have the time. If we are an infection on this planet then there is only so much time to deliver the antibiotics before the host dies and the infection destroys itself in the process.

Well, I don't consider us an infection on the planet, we are a product of the planet, like everything else here, and we are geared for survival as are all species. We are an invasive species with the advantage of being able to recognize we are such, so I think there is hope in the long run.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, I don't consider us an infection on the planet. We are a product of the planet like everything else here, and we are geared for survival, as are all species. We are an invasive species with the advantage of being able to recognize we are such, so I think there is hope in the long run.

Well...

Infect: Affect (a person, organism, cell, etc.) with a disease-causing organism.

Invasive: (Especially of plants and disease) tending to spread prolifically and undesirably or harmfully.

...so an infection is an invasive species that can cause disease to their host, which is spreading prolifically and undesirably or harmfully. Sounds like we agree on the part that humans are an infection. Humans don’t live in balance with our host like the bacteria in our GI tract or on our skin or like animals on this planet. We are infection, a virus or a cancer for this planet.

The more evidence I see, the more I realize we will have the impossible task of trying to change human nature in a short timeline. We are addicts that are fully aware of our addiction, but who are unable to make much progress while we destroy our bodies and lives, doing irreparable damage on a finite timeline. We are a train barreling down the tracks and heading to a cliff with not enough track to stop, with no one at the engine, and with a few passengers trying to slow the train with their clothes like they were effective parachutes.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...so an infection is an invasive species that can cause disease to their host, which is spreading prolifically and undesirably or harmfully. Sounds like we agree on the part that humans are an infection. Humans don’t live in balance with our host like the bacteria in our GI tract or on our skin or like animals on this planet. We are infection, a virus or a cancer for this planet.

No, we don't agree. Humans, in the end, will not kill the planet. The planet will "survive" us just as it has survived many other global disasters. The human race basically owes it's existence to an event that nearly destroyed life on the planet.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

No, we don't agree. Humans, in the end, will not kill the planet. The planet will "survive" us just as it has survived many other global disasters. The human race basically owes it's existence to an even that nearly destroyed life on the planet.

Well, we agree that humans are an infection on the planet, as you defined humans as an invasive species, which is a synonym for an infectious agent.

Chances are we will die out before the planet is irreparably harmed, and it would likely improve the planet’s/life’s prospects. Then again, the planet could have a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, which is hotter than Mercury, even though it is further from the Sun. This could destroy all life on the planet permanently. Maybe archaea bacteria or tardigrades could survive the heat, as the exceptions, but maybe not. Many deep sea creatures would die, but some creatures survive off chemical vents, so something would exist, assuming the water doesn’t all boil off into steam. In that case, the planet aka life is essentially dead like a virus killing its host and leaving just a dead body behind.