how it ends (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

they'll probably make oil out of coal before they develop something else lol

 

[Richard Gilmore]

they'll probably make oil out of coal before they develop something else lol

oil shale

but even then, 6 billion people...

 

[ibbi00]

Although research is done in new alternate energy sources, it is limited due to inadequate funding. The case will not change until refining oil becomes unsustainable due to the strong influence oil tycoons hold. By then it will be too late considering our complete dependency on oil for the production of a huge range of polymers as well as energy needs. Ethanol is out of the question unless you want to trade energy for food or until we are able to utilise ethanol very efficiently. And who's to say governments haven't already found a sustainable source of energy but is holding out to maxmisie their profits, etc.

We can always migrate to Mars can't we?

 

[Richard Gilmore]

neb
hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on oil each year

with no oil, thats hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on other energy sources

greedy capitalists love money and so will invest in order to supply this demand


who the fuck are you to say that nothing could be invented to replace oil, especialyl considering the absolutely fucking MASSIVE incentives to do so?

Im mean the head of bell labs quit in 1920 because he thought tere was nothing else to invent or something fuck

also explain to me how the allocation of a scarce resource with multiple uses isn't the exact definition of economic!

I'll say it slowly so that even your money laden brain can understand.

YOU
CAN'T
GET
ENERGY
OUT
OF
MUD

and if you do, certainly not enough to continue life as we know it, for 6 billion people.

no matter how much money you throw at it. energy exists elsewhere, but throwing money at something is NOT a guarantee that it will work, you utter, utter tool.

edit: by the way im not neb, im richard gilmore.

 

[SylviaB]

no matter how much money you throw at it. energy exists elsewhere, but throwing money at something is NOT a guarantee that it will work, you utter, utter tool.

so you just somehow magically know that there are NO other feasible sources of energy out there?

Even though at no other time in history was there as much money invested in science, as much research being carried out, and as many new discoveries being made every single day

 

[Richard Gilmore]

"We have centuries of uranium"

:rofl:

 

[SylviaB]

By then it will be too late considering our complete dependency on oil for the production of a huge range of polymers as well as energy needs.

Sigh...we will be dependant upon "alternative" sources of energy before we run out of oil.

And who's to say governments haven't already found a sustainable source of energy

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Richard Gilmore]

so you just somehow magically know that there are NO other feasible sources of energy out there?

No. But I can see that nothing has been discovered yet, despite decades of research. We discover stuff, sure. Just...not a replacement for oil.

Hey but maybe we will discover some magical solution to the problem of 6 billion people (a fact you CONTINUALLY ignore) at the eleventh hour. Maybe we should prepare for the likely event that we don't find that miracle cure though.

 

[Slidey]

neb
hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on oil each year

with no oil, thats hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on other energy sources

greedy capitalists love money and so will invest in order to supply this demand


who the fuck are you to say that nothing could be invented to replace oil, especialyl considering the absolutely fucking MASSIVE incentives to do so?

Im mean the head of bell labs quit in 1920 because he thought tere was nothing else to invent or something fuck

also explain to me how the allocation of a scarce resource with multiple uses isn't the exact definition of economic!

Yes! Score one for common sense.

 

[ibbi00]

Sigh...we will be dependant upon "alternative" sources of energy before we run out of oil.

Purely looking at statistics I'd say it's a little too late for that anyway.

The American Petroleum Institute estimated in 1999 the world's oil supply would be depleted between 2062 and 2094, assuming total world oil reserves at between 1.4 and 2 trillion barrels and consumption at 80 million barrels per day.[4] In 2004, total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels and daily consumption was about 85 million barrels, shifting the estimated oil depletion year to 2057.[1] A study published in the journal Energy Policy by researcher from Oxford University, however, predicted demand would surpass supply by 2015 (unless constrained by strong recession pressures caused by reduced supply or government intervention).[5] The United States Energy Information Administration predicts world consumption of oil will increase to 98.3 million barrels per day in 2015 and 118 million barrels per day in 2030.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion#cite_note-5

SOURCE

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hey there's always the possibility xD

 

[Slidey]

Purely looking at statistics I'd say it's a little too late for that anyway.



SOURCE





Hey there's always the possibility xD

ibbi, go read up on equilibrium systems, of which supply and demand is one.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Bastardisation of an old meme but it suits my point.

So Slidey, where was my chemistry wrong exactly?

 

[SylviaB]

No. But I can see that nothing has been discovered yet, despite decades of research. We discover stuff, sure. Just...not a replacement for oil.

Honestly we could live off nuclear power.

current fast breeder reactor technology + massive incentive for innovations + capital = live forever

Hey but maybe we will discover some magical solution to the problem of 6 billion people (a fact you CONTINUALLY ignore) at the eleventh hour. Maybe we should prepare for the likely event that we don't find that miracle cure though.

3.6 billion people worldwide don't have access to electricity.Why is it that when talking about alternative sources, you expect them to be able to cover the whole world's population?

 

[ibbi00]

ibbi, go read up on equilibrium systems, of which supply and demand is one.

In what context? Too much effort. A little insight from you would suffice

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Honestly we could live off nuclear power.

current fast breeder reactor technology + massive incentive for innovations + capital = live forever

I'm not going to look it up because, tbh, I question your knowledge of anything scientific after your "centuries of uranium" blunder.

That, and your continual insistence that throwing money at a problem will just make it go away.

And your ignorance of any fact that is thrown your way. Such as the limit of uranium reserves.

3.6 billion people worldwide don't have access to electricity.Why is it that when talking about alternative sources, you expect them to be able to cover the whole world's population?

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT ELECTRICITY YOU TOTAL, TOTAL, TOTAL, TOTAL MORON.

The third world will be able to simply eat their own hands and feet to survive without access to cheap fertiliser.

And 3.6 billion my fucking ass.
Poverty Facts and Stats — Global Issues

Do you just pull figures out of your ass and hope that everyone will believe you?

 

[Optimus Prime]

solar and nuclear can/will provide electricity forever. The problem is that they aren't great in terms of power to weight. Battery technology will continue to develop, and AFAIK current rocket fuels do not use fossil fuels.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

That, and your continual insistence that throwing money at a problem will just make it go away.

Money is just a measure of resources, primarily the labor of top scientists.

Throwing pieces of paper at a problem won't solve it, but allocating millions of hours to research and development often does.

 

[Slidey]

In what context? Too much effort. A little insight from you would suffice

Basically: As oil becomes scarcer, its cost rises. As the cost of oil rises, previously non-viable technologies suddenly become economically viable. As these technologies become viable, less pressure is placed on oil (less demand), thus the price of oil will not rise as fast, and consumption of oil will slow.

Essentially, it's not a static system. You change one thing, everything else changes.

And as a side note, once a technology becomes economically viable, more research goes into refining its efficiency, making it even more viable (cheaper) as time goes by.

People like Neb don't understand this process. Which would also explain why he's a proponent of central planning.

E.g. biodiesel becomes viable when oil costs more than $80 per barrel.

 

[vanush]

yeah, he's obviously talking about how civilisation ends.

I chose economic collapse because it seems the most likely to occur, though perhaps not total destruction.

I believe that is is not unlikely in the next couple of centuries for an atlas shrugged like scenario to occur; not necessarily the whole "going on strike part", just that as there is more and more government control and debt and less freedom and production, we will eventually reach a breaking point where it will all collapse, and there will be anarchy (in the perjorative) and wars etc

but idk really

lol

fucking ayn rand

 

[meilz92]

hopefully soon