Poetry Forum

Full Version: food: soylent green etc:
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
i just left the end of the world is nigh thread and thought a little about it.

hence this thread. we have scientists creating new strains of grain and seeds that withstand extreme weather patterns, will that be enough?
we can irrigate deserts with salt water but the cost is huge. will there come a time when soylent green is the only option other? if so how far in the future will it be? if not, why not?
just read an article,stating that if everybody on earth would have the same living standards as,say,england today,we need 3 planets to sustain it
gives us a source sj, that sounds interesting.

of course a good infrastructure using rolling roads etc would see the end of cars as we know them and lots of other stuff could be done to cutback on resources. the use of bamboo etc. i read that there would be a tipping point where we no long expand as a race, i think it round the 10 billion mark. once we hit that amount it becomes a constant. but even so, that's a lot of people to house, cloth and feed. i think eventually we'll have two choices. one will come about by the reclamation of arid ground, (dust bowl of america, some of the worlds desert areas etc) and the use of modified crops. the other by the lack of the first options. then i think the soylent green scenario will be thought of as a way out of a growing food crises.
How nutritious is soylent green anyway? Smile

Okay, in all seriousness, I really can't predict how easy or hard it would be to overcome that particular taboo once you're faced with the need to feed 10 billion people. If it's institutionalized, like, corpses are shipped en masse to a government facility and processed, so you don't actually have to think about how you might be eating grampa? I'm guessing it's still way too disturbing for everyone, but what do I know.
i presume it would be as nutritious as dried meat or meat extract Wink

in a state where starvation is rampant, i doubt people would care to know where their next meal came from. hunger has that kind of effect on people. as you imply; it wouldn't go down so well (excuse the pun) in any semi affluent society.
I have no data to support this, but I think we are very close to the sustainability limit right now in terms of potable water, because hotter places have a higher rate of evaporation, however the optimal places are long since filled up. The places that will be used in the future will require a higher rate per capita of water usage.
sorry,no source
on the point Dale made: an excerpt from wiki.

Quote:According to Nature (2010), about 80% of the world's population (5.6 billion in 2011) live in areas with threats to water security. The water security is a shared threat to human and nature and it is pandemic. Human water-management strategies can affect detrimentally to wildlife, such as migrating fish. Regions with intensive agriculture and dense population, as the US and Europe, have high threat to water security. The researcher estimate that during 2010-2015, ca US$800 billion will be required to cover the annual global investment in water infrastructure. Good management of water resources can jointly manage biodiversity protection and human water security. Preserving flood plains rather than constructing flood-control reservoirs would provide a cost-effective way to control floods while protecting the biodiversity of wildlife that occupies such areas.[5]

The New York Times article, “Southeast Drought Study Ties Water Shortage to Population, Not Global Warming”, summarizes the findings of Columbia University researcher on the subject of the droughts in the American Southeast between 2005 and 2007. The findings were published in the Journal of Climate. They say the water shortages resulted from population size more than rainfall. Census figures show that Georgia’s population rose to 9.54 million from 6.48 million between 1990 and 2007.[6] After studying data from weather instruments, computer models and measurements of tree rings which reflect rainfall, they found that the droughts were not unprecedented and result from normal climate patterns and random weather events. “Similar droughts unfolded over the last thousand years, the researchers wrote. Regardless of climate change, they added, similar weather patterns can be expected regularly in the future, with similar results.”[6] As the temperature increases, rainfall in the Southeast will increase but because of evaporation the area may get even drier. The researchers concluded with a statement saying that any rainfall comes from complicated internal processes in the atmosphere that are very hard to predict because of the large amount of variables.

Lawrence Smith, the president of the population institute, asserts that although an overwhelming majority of the planet is composed of water, 97% of this water is constituted of saltwater; the fresh water used to sustain humans is only 3% of the total amount of water on Earth (Hoevel). Therefore, Smith believes that the competition for water in an overpopulated world would pose a major threat to human stability (Hoevel); indeed, world wars may be fought over the control of thinning ice sheets and nearly desiccated reservoirs.[7] 2 billion people have gained access to a safe water source since 1990.[8] The proportion of people in developing countries with access to safe water is calculated to have improved from 30 percent in 1970[9] to 71 percent in 1990, 79 percent in 2000 and 84 percent in 2004, parallel with rising population. This trend is projected to continue.[8]

The Earth has a limited supply of fresh water, stored in aquifers, surface waters and the atmosphere. Sometimes oceans are mistaken for available water, but the amount of energy needed to convert saline water to potable water is prohibitive today, explaining why only a very small fraction of the world's water supply derives from desalination.[10]

while we can't take anything we read as gospel, it is a possibility that water could become one of our greatest problems. what better way to deal with it than decimate certain populations and in doing so, create food at the same time Confused
fracking will help us along the way,the amount of water it uses is incredible and since most water providing companies have been privatised ,they'll sell to the highest bidder[see england where in certain parts there's a drought situation,fine for watering your lawn,1000 pounds,at the same time water is sold to the fracking industry]
what is fracking? i refuse to google it Big Grin
it is true about fines for using a hose pipe. i remember hosepipe bans 10 or more years ago.
"they'll sell to the highest bidder"

And so when two people want your service, you accept the one who can only pay half of your normal fee, rather than the one who could pay the full amount?
Are you using fracking to mean the process of forcing sand into a formation that contains liquid, in an attempt to create space for the liquid to flow into, thus making it recoverable, or do you mean "frack" to kill ones superior officer because he is an idiot and will get you killed if you don't, so you create an incident of friendly fire during the next petrol when there is an exchange of fire with the enemy, as was often the practice for removing idiot 2nd lieutenants during the Vietnam "conflict".

Thank you Billy. See there sri pissy pants, logic and deduction work quite well in the absence of "facts". "Facts", which are often corrupt because the researcher has a political ax to grind. Although in this case I will agree with the "facts" Billy found because it is supported by logic. The ax to grind was on the global warming side as it often is these days. This is especially true if what one is modeling is exceptionally complex, especially when not all the influences are known, or correctly accounted for in terms of how they affect the overall validity of the statistical model. I don't know one way or the other about global warming, except to say we do not have enough, good data from a long enough period to make any kind of deduction whatsoever (we don't even have enough to have a decent guess of all the influences that need to be included and given what weight). What I do know for certain is that whenever we have a massive volcanic eruption the global temperature decreases, it does not increase. Even with something as relatively simple as ozone depletion compared with global warming, which is at least on the level of an order of magnitude more complex, even the best statistical models of ozone depletion can account for less than 80% of what is causing the loss, and we do not know what the length of regeneration is within 150 years, and this goes up or down depending on how the rest of the data is manipulated in terms of what, and to what degree other factors are involved in depletion. To get close to the 80% mark the time to replenish the ozone has to be doubled (although it is pretty much a given that HFC's account for a majority of the loss, and this is backed by fairly firm science). To my mind it is much more a sure thing that that the heat generated as a by product of current technology, and the heat trapping and storing capabilities of concrete could represent a significant percentage of global warming, and yet most models do not even take these effects into account. Yet all one has to do is take a ride on a motorcycle from the city to the country and he will become aware of about a 7 to 8 degree (Fahrenheit) difference between the two places. Anyone who has ever taken a walk where there are areas with rock and not rock sections will easily notice a difference of around 3 to 4 degrees, and concrete is much more efficient at retaining heat than rock. One of the four people who coauthored "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars," in 1957 Margaret Burbidge is still alive, and the others have only died within the last 12 years, W. A. Fowler (1995), Geoffrey Burbidge (2010), and Fred Hoyle (2001). Even in the broad strokes our understanding about how the sun functions, as well as fluctuates is still very incomplete. It is only recently that we have stated to come to an understanding of the role of magnetic field lines in solar flares. The idea of plate tectonics was ridiculed until about a half century ago. We have no idea if Anaerobic bacteria role in past global warming events should be accounted for in our current models.
Is there Global warming? Yes, and there has been for the last 20,000 years since we entered this latest interglacial period. Regardless of humankind's effect on it, this planet will continue warm until all the glacial ice is gone. Personally, if I lived within a hundred miles of the coast, I’d sell and move further inland, and maybe start raising dragon flies to kill all the mosquitoes. or at least I would if I were thirty years younger. To show the stupidity of people, we have had a major uptick in the amount of the population of white tailed deer in Austin, because nobody wants to kill Bambi, but all of Bambi’s natural predators have been removed. People are beginning to find out that Bambi isn’t such a gentle beast when one comes bursting through their plate glass window, and starts wreaking havoc in their living room. But instead of killing and eating the things, these people want the beast to be gently captured and transported (by burning major amounts of fossil fuels) to areas of the country where their population can also get out of control and cause even worse problems.

See what you did SJJ, you got me all wound up. What was it that Karl said, politics is the THC of the masses (well at least for the left, for the right it's still religion, which of course makes sense since that is where you have your masses). Now there is a product that's improved over the last few decades. You know what they say, reality is for people who can't handle drugs, or in my case, afford them Tongue
This is nearly as dumb a topic as the Mayan calender one. BTW, did you know that the Mayan calendar is very close in structure to the Sumerian one, and of course the only person who gets wound up about the Sumerian one is Zecharia Sitchin, and since he is dead now...

deer's are people! Nah, don't really work!


PS Hey Billy, when are we going get the TNC emoticon? I tried to draw one, but I'm just not a minimalist!

water resources [among other things]should be in the hands of [responsible]governments,not private companies........didn't want to get wound up,so didn't read all that crap:angel:
Actually that article is a bit erroneous. It also has this disclaimer

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)"

What they are calling fracking is actually primary and secondary waterflooding. In the petroleum business ( I spent about 22 years working for my dad who owned an oil company) a large portion of what comes out of the ground is not oil but a highly mineralized water, generally referred to as salt water. In areas where oil production needs such help there is already an overabundance of this type of water to dispose of. Returning it to the formation from which it came, but in a location so that it pushes the oil towards your well is called secondary waterflooding. If you pump water from a different formation than the one you are pumping to put it into the one you are pumping from, this is called primary waterflooding. As the water is traveling down a minimum of a two inch pipe at a minimum of three thousand pounds pressure, there is no reason to buy water that is potable, when you can pump as much as you want, right out of the ground

"Detractors point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these."

sounds to me like someone is trying to stir up some shit. Most potable water is pumped from less than 200 feet. Even in what is called shallow well oil production, you are talking about a minimum of 1500 feet. That means that you have over a thousand feet of highly compressed material between one level and the next. I doubt there is a pump that could generate the necessary pressure it would require to push the water vertically, even if the formation was somehow blocked as to allow such a moment. The truth is it is several orders of magnitude easier to move horizontally than it would be to move vertically the distance of a thousand feet. I do think it is possible, although not highly probably, that injecting water back into the ground as is done in primary water flooding could act as lubricant to a Strike-slip fault, or a dip-sli[p fault, and thus help to create conditions favorable for an earthquake to occur. However, it would be of such low magnitude as to be only discernible by a seismograph. despite all of the high pressure water flooding that has occurred since the middle of the last century, there has never been an incident of any level of earthquake that could be correlated in any way to the water flooding. It is much more likely (and I believe there was a case recently in Pennsylvania that may support this) that Geothermal power production would create condition favorable for an earthquake that might be large enough to actually notice. This is because, unlike oil and natural gas production, Geothermal looks to exploits the fault lines as a way to more easily get to the necessary depth where there is enough heat to produce the power. Oil and gas production generally avoid such location because it fractures the zones, and is just not generally conducive to the conditions that would give rise to accessible, and producible formations.

Now back to fracking, which the article finally does address under "Fracturing fluids". There are two points. One, fracking is not a continual process and generally only last a few days at most, and often only a few hours. Two, it also does not need pure, or potable water, and in fact never uses such (the water is mixed with chemicals and frack sand, which is pushed into the formation, and it is actually the sand that is the main and most costly ingredient in this, as it has to be of the appropriate coarseness to get the results you desire), as the cost of doing so would outweigh any benefit that you would receive. generally before the process starts a dirt pit is dug and filled with water to be used in the process. Generally you are pumping hundreds to thousands of barrels per hour back into the ground, any pit used in fracking could certainly be filled in less that a day and with very little trouble gone to in order to divert the water from being put back in the ground, and instead sent down at least a 2" tube of flexible plastic hose that can be transported on a moveable spool, that is mounted on a trailer. In application, not much different than how people roll up a garden hose. Considering that there is an easily accessible supply of water that is adequate to the task, and which basically has no cost, except in the time it takes you to unroll the hose and attach it to the water supply. It would make no sense to go and buy water that you will have to transport probably many miles via tank trucks. Even for a small job this would increase your cost several tens of thousands of dollars.

So at least in terms of potable water being used in fracking I don't think you have much to worry about. Sorry.
"water resources [among other things]should be in the hands of [responsible]governments,not private companies"

So you think there is a big difference between the two?

well,there should be a big difference between the two,that's why i wrote responsible,as it is,no,not much difference
the trouble is responsible governments seldom exist. or only exist in intention.
we have the technology to create inland seas. which in turn would improve weather systems or at least change them Big Grin
will it cost a lot? of course it will but in the long run it would have been better spent money that the iraq war.
while we could feed 10 or 11 billion with proper infrastructures, i can't see it happening. in 2200 we'll be eating people.or they'll be eating people.
we won't last till 2200
So it seems the other problem is in deciding a sensible approach, since there are so many opposing schools of thought about what's "clean", what's "safe", what's "sustainable", etc. Even achieving a consensus on how we're supposed to make use of resources is getting hard
well,that's what governments are supposed to be for,a regulatory body,but since they're in collusion with big biz.nothing sensible will happen,they only will go where the money is
and in a world of starvation, eating people could be big business. Wink
absolutely,but before it comes to that,the place will be choked by rubbish
Pages: 1 2 3