Economics, Resources

[MrTwosheds]

You expect people to limit their own breeding so others can do it in their place? This is pure capitalism in a wealth divided nation, children can earn money, childlessness = poverty and an early death. Vegetarians taking over the world.

[Red Devil]

well...yeah. darn us bourgeosie!

[Nielk1]

You're big on equations you don't comprehend.

Actually Malthusian equations are really small. Use Google.

And as I noted, as a civilization improves, the birth rate starts to drop. Malthusians claim its logarithmic but it isn't.

[AcneVulgaris]

It's ONE equation. Just like the Drake EQUATION. You name drop mathematical concepts, but you can't even count.

[Nielk1]

It's ONE equation. Just like the Drake EQUATION. You name drop mathematical concepts, but you can't even count.

What the hell are you on about? There are several!

First there is the food based equation, then the modified "modern" version used to try to account for the fact it was wrong (it's still wrong). Then there is the peak oil one which while derived from the first is in fact different. Then there is the one based on the "law of 70%". Then the one that tries to extrapolate from a logarithmic birth rate.

You keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about and then say something so wrong its laughable.

[AcneVulgaris]

Peak oil has nothing to do with the Malthus equation, and there is ONE Drake equation. You make it plural to make yourself sound more important. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature buys it, and everybody else just slowly edges away or wishes you would stop babbling about how the space people are absolutely going to show up and save us with truckloads of goodies like an interstellar Santa Claus.

When somebody does pin you down on something provable, you build a wall of lies, distractions, and delays so you don't ever have to acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about. You treat science and mathematics like a religion, invoking the holy equations like a catechism to rationalize your faith in the bizarre hyper-neo-con ideology you've adopted. If you had any detectable sense of humor, I would think you've been pulling my leg.

In summation, you are stuffed top-full with wild blueberry muffins, and spectacularly unaware of the fact.

[Nielk1]

Peak oil is an extrapolation of the original Malthusian equation, specifically the food vs population growth one. Simply replace food with oil, which is needed to move food around (which is why the first Malthusian equation failed to be accurate, the technology of moving food around). To get to peak oil its a matter of tweaking some variables and extrapolating a linear relation.

By your comments you have proved that you have in fact not actually read much of what I wrote because I already explained all of this. I even gave a link to a page that showed how the Peak Oil equations are derived from the Malthusian base.

If you didn't read that, you are choosing to be ignorant. If you did, at this point you are just lying through your teeth. It makes you look like a buffoon. You aren't even making counterarguments, you are just attacking me every time you get the chance.

[Warfreak]

[OT]I think I see a pattern here, and I don't like it. I see TwoSheds making a strive to keep this topic related by keeping a proper argument going and providing decent counter argument without going for people's throats. On the other end, I see Nielk and Acne going at it, or more accurately, Acne going for the jugular and Nielk trying to keep him off with a stick while he finds his boom stick.

Now, at first I thought I was just looking at the whole thing with bias, but after re-reading the posts its safe to say that Acne, you suck at arguing. You are a much better at attacking people than posing a proper counter-argument. "So... No Formula." instead of "That doesn't work because this factor and this fact" or "You misunderstand the application of this equation because this is what it implies" instead of "you're big on equations you don't comprehend" are proper ways of telling people they are wrong instead of looking like you are trying to deliberately piss people off.

That is NOT to say you are right or wrong, I just feel that this crap has gone long enough and at this point, its more you trying to attack rather than argue. You blame Nielk for being vague with his facts but you are equally as vague with your counter.
[/OT]

Anyhow, we are all doomed. So what if the U.S. has its own supply of resources, chances are we will not be putting them to use on ourselves.

That just leaves the U.S. in the precarious position of being the only source of said resources (meh, lets say oil) and still leaves the fact that there is a period of no supply while said untapped resources are extracted (unless the U.S. starts up before everything falls apart). The speed of extraction and distribution would probably not even place us in a situation better than we are in now. So 7500 years of resources or not, the pure logistics of it all means we still have a problem and given the human perception of "Oh, we will get to it later", that problem won't get solved (I.E. true alternative fuels / supplement fuels and efficient engines / use of such a "limited" resource) until everything has already fallen apart.

[MrTwosheds]

It is nonsense to reduce complex interactions such as food, oil, lumber supplies to a simple equation. There are just too many variables. Certainly as far as lumber is concerned, how you harvest is what will make a difference, using sustainable methods would produce infinitely more than the destructive methods that are used by some. A destroyed forest produces a one off big profit and then nothing more. The nations that use the destructive method will fail to maintain that industry. Some of you probably don't think lumber is that important, thing is, unlike oil it has no real alternatives and it is a critical resource in so many ways. So as well as destroying biodiversity, reducing co2 re absorption and altering the weather "Logging" will eventually destroy a nations economy too. The method that works is called forestry, it does not make allot of money, it makes allot of wood.

[Nielk1]

There are in fact many alternatives to lumber. Its just stupid to use them since lumber is better.

[Warfreak]

Now this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. Makes you think that the solution to the large chunk of all the "shortages" isn't to make alternatives but to make the sustainable method of acquisition more profitable (or to even just create the sustainable method in the case of those resources that do not have one).

[Nielk1]

I made the earlier point that a company that removes all trees to creating its lumber is a stupid company because it will die off. People are under the weird idea that capitalism is evil and any company under the aim of making money is unable to stop themselves from killing themselves.

Companies are not run by children after all, we don't need to childproof the forests.

[Red Devil]

can alternative lumber products scrub the air that you breathe and create the oxygen that you and every other creature needs to breathe?

the only way you can "save the planet" is to just go away.

[MrTwosheds]

Forestry cannot be profitable while the unsustainable method continues. Bribe the Chief and you get fully grown trees for 5$ each, who would spend 50 years growing 5$ ?
Yes there are many alternatives, but none that do the whole range of uses, you cannot make paper from concrete, but you may be able to build houses from plastic... but wood is quite unique in its many uses.

I would very much like the loggers to "go away" about 6 ft down would do.

[Nielk1]

Forestry cannot be profitable while the unsustainable method continues. Bribe the Chief and you get fully grown trees for 5$ each, who would spend 50 years growing 5$ ?
Yes there are many alternatives, but none that do the whole range of uses, you cannot make paper from concrete, but you may be able to build houses from plastic... but wood is quite unique in its many uses.

I would very much like the loggers to "go away" about 6 ft down would do.

You see, this doesn't follow, since scarcity of material (I mean processed, not the actual trees) would cause a higher demand and cause a higher price and thus sustain profit. Everyone always tries to consider their logic in a vacuum, there is always a factor someone is forgetting. The best bet is to try to identify all the higher order factors.