Global catastrophe / SHTF "survivable locations"

[Rumpi]

I see some of you confuse eugenics, wich is the science of selection of specific genetic traits in humans (what we call selective breeding for animals) with malthusianism, wich is a social theory about overpopulation and it's effects (malthusian catastrophe). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
There are of course people who would like to achive malthusian like goals by using eugenics, but that is usually driven by separate ideologies and instrumentalises both to achieve it's goals. Racist idelogies are the most known for this kind of thinking.

Back to SHTF locations I have to wonder why most US posters seem to think some cold place up north or French Polynesia are the go to. Why not American Samoa, Micronesia or for more civilization New Zeeland? Also none mentioned wanting to go to Alaska. This is of course for the west coast members, east coast residents would have a hard time reaching those destinations by boat. The Azores, Greenland, Island, Bermuda, etc. would be more likely places for them. If SHTF on the east coast in winter how likley is it that you go north in a sailboat?

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"It isn't eugenics to note that the least productive people are reproducing most aggressively."

No but it's kind of ignorant and misleading though.

Well I'm not impressed with you either. Productive is not correlated with wealth. Auto mechanics are productive. Marine techs are productive. Teachers and professors are productive. Not generally a lot of wealth there.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Coincidentally, just came across this related article, in my weekly review of “Nature”.
“The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal” ~ Cameron Hepburn, et al
“The capture and use of carbon dioxide to create valuable products might lower the net costs of reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Here we review ten pathways for the utilization of carbon dioxide...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1681-6

There are many useful applications for CO2. Dumping it into the atmosphere is not so good.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And with development and scaling up comes improvements - eg more efficient PV designs, and economically viable reprocessing of end-of-life PV to recover and reuse the rare component elements.

Which brings to mind the famous cartoon that includes a cloud in the middle of a plan that says "then a miracle occurs."

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But the main point is that PV is just ONE way of directly harvesting the constant energy of the sun.

PV is what people think of when they hear "solar." Thermal solar hasn't gotten the consideration it deserves.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No argument that nuclear and hydroelectric are good baseload generators. I've also toured one hydro plant that services daily surge demands. But nuclear is currently hard to build and still has waste issues, and hydro is limited by geography and other considerations.

The issues that dog nuclear are political not technical.

Ultimately these are strategic issues that would help avoid SHTF. If/when it does the ground rules change.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Well I'm not impressed with you either. Productive is not correlated with wealth. Auto mechanics are productive. Marine techs are productive. Teachers and professors are productive. Not generally a lot of wealth there.

I was criticizing the statement itself, not the person.


The blanket statement "the least productive people are reproducing most aggressively." is not accurate or helpful, as you seem to be agreeing.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The blanket statement "the least productive people are reproducing most aggressively." is not accurate or helpful, as you seem to be agreeing.

My observation is that people most dependent on social services (i.e. least productive) reproduce the most.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

My observation is that people most dependent on social services (i.e. least productive) reproduce the most.

That's a VERY limited sample set.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

WRONG!
Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a tool for investigating the environmental profile of a product, or technology, from cradle to grave.
A life cycle assessment of Photo-Voltaics vs Coal reveals that PV produces about 25 times SMALLER lifetime carbon footprint than coal.
For instance, the NREL Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization Project found when comparing PV technology studies (crystalline silicon and thin film) to coal technology studies (e.g., sub- and supercritical, integrated gasification combined cycle, and fluidized bed) that approximately 40 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt hour (g CO2e/kWh) are released through the many stages of PV as compared to coal, which produces approximately 1,000 g CO2e/kWh.
➥ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56487.pdf

Total lifecycle emissions associated with photovoltaic energy production are higher than those of nuclear power, but lower than those of any fossil fuel energy production. In 2005, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of several energy generation technologies:
Silicon PV: 45 g/kWh
Coal: 900 g/kWh
Natural gas: 400-439 g/kWh
Nuclear: 20-40 g/kWh
Per ➥ http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/...back_Times.pdf

being " green " is about much more than just the co2 emissions.
You also need to look at the whole system. Pv just doesn't work on a grid level it is just to unreliable. How are you going to power the grid when the sun isn't shining? What is the environmental impact of those batteries ?

Renewable power is great on small scale the real problem is it really doesn't scale well to a grid level.

[a64pilot]

I’ll comment on the people are social creatures and have to live in civilizations, they can’t live alone.

Anyone believing that hasn’t travelled the NWT and or Alaska

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a VERY limited sample set.

actually its quite easy to see that as the wealth level goes up the birth rate goes down.

My parents for example dad was one of 5 children born of a corn farmer
Mom was one of 7 of a sheep rancher.
Me I am one of 3 born to a union carpenter and a nurse practitioner .
But it is also easy to see on a global scale .

Birth rates by GDP

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
The lower the per capita income the more family members it takes to support the home ./ work the farm.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

You can't beat PV solar as part of a cruising energy system. For long-term planetary good it isn't a great solution.

I would absolutely LOVE a small, lightweight nuke reactor for the boat.

Just a couple Kw would do nicely.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually its quite easy to see that as the wealth level goes up the birth rate goes down.

My parents for example dad was one of 5 children born of a corn farmer
Mom was one of 7 of a sheep rancher.
Me I am one of 3 born to a union carpenter and a nurse practitioner .
But it is also easy to see on a global scale .

Birth rates by GDP

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
The lower the per capita income the more family members it takes to support the home ./ work the farm.

Thank you. That was my point. Especially the global part.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I would absolutely LOVE a small, lightweight nuke reactor for the boat.

Just a couple Kw would do nicely.

You might like one of these: less issue with byproducts, and you wouldn't be banned from any ports.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I would absolutely LOVE a small, lightweight nuke reactor for the boat.

Just a couple Kw would do nicely.

done and done

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I would absolutely LOVE a small, lightweight nuke reactor for the boat.

Just a couple Kw would do nicely.

Sign me up! I’ve been dreaming about something like this since I ever first had a boat. For decades.

Plenty of cooling around, you could just stock that reactor core and not worry about it for almost a lifetime. Right? Main propulsion, all your electricity, it would be incredible.

[hpeer]

Lake Effect,

I think an awful lot of what is written about the number of humans that Earth can sustain is very deeply flawed. It seems that the topic tends to bring out the depths of our ignorance and hubris. Supposedly serious studies, when you dig into them, are often based on some completely utopia Assumptions.

My finding is that once you start looking at ALL the factors involved you quickly come to a sustainable number that is a rather small fraction of what we have today. It’s the kind of thing folks who know don’t want to talk about or be quoted over.

Just to provide one example, there is the guy who created the math behind the Global Footprint. Now the footprint figures how much energy impinges in various types of land or water and how it effects its productivity. According to the foot print math we are using about 2-1/2 Earths resources. Which means that if we maintain the ratio of rich to poor the Earth could sustain 3 billion proportionate to current levels.

HOWEVER the footprint does not look at long term resource degradation. Soil, water, the lands ability to accumulate waste. According to the same scientist we are using land at 10 to 40 times its regeneration rate. Which means our crop yields will fall drastically at some rather near point. Just using 10 means our population should be 1/10th what it is to be sustainable, or 750 millions.

Now those numbers. An be moved around. If we opt for “chicken coup” earth then we can up the numbers. If we desire a high standard of living for all then the numbers come down.

It’s not a discussion about eugenics, but of choices.

Here is my desire. Get a group of small dairy farmers. Say 20 - 100. And task th em with figuring out the correct herd size for pasture available. See what they come up with.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Lake Effect,

I think an awful lot of what is written about the number of humans that Earth can sustain is very deeply flawed. It seems that the topic tends to bring out the depths of our ignorance and hubris. Supposedly serious studies, when you dig into them, are often based on some completely utopia Assumptions.

My finding is that once you start looking at ALL the factors involved you quickly come to a sustainable number that is a rather small fraction of what we have today. It’s the kind of thing folks who know don’t want to talk about or be quoted over.

Any prediction based on extrapolation from current practices is dire. And not useful, except to drive home the fact that we need to change, a lot. And you know this applies in many areas - fossil fuel use, agriculture and fishing, pollution, politics, economic fundamentals.

Of course, for many of these issues, any attempt at acknowledgement, and contemplation of necessary changes brings howls of denial, a deluge of "alternate" facts, and accusations of merely pushing a sekrit agenda for a greenie, soshulist world order. That view is quite prevalent in those of the CF demographic, as we often see. And it's made its way into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. So it's not a great time for optimism right now.

Nonetheless, I am optimistic. Things MUST change. Are changing.

There is zero percentage to dwelling on all that malthusian gloom. Unless you sell guns or prepper supplies. I save my short attention span for contemplating and investigating potential solutions, technologies and practices that could improve things.

I've run across a few scenarios about how a large but sustainable population could exist indefinitely. Most of you won't like it. For example, you won't have a steak every weekend. Maybe a couple of times a year.

Anyway, like most CFers, I'm the right combination of old, wealthy and white. I will never miss a meal or be out of my lovely home. The really bad stuff will happen to others. Others, elsewhere. And just maybe our kids and their kids. So - why waste any of your time wringing your hands over global doom? What a waste of time. It's much nicer to put that time into looking for solutions and effecting change. Or boating.

Whether we help or not, the Earth will sort all out. Would be nice if we took better care of it, though.