Do you know Paul Chefurka's work?

[brinbrin62]

If you really want to understand the issues of the decades ahead, I encourage you to read
"World energy and population - Trends up to 2100", By Paul Chefurka, October 2007 available in French here: http://www.courtfool.info/fr_Energie_et ... diales.htm

His vision is relatively pessimistic: According to his research (which I have not managed to find the flaw - And believe me, I searched), humanity will be reduced by 60% by the end of the century, then gradually, will eventually go out.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/7.png

I would like the most interested of you to look at his reflection and find the flaw. It would reassure me ;-)

The most enthusiastic will read "No really, how sustainable are we?" (http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html) from which the graph above is extracted.

[sicetaitsimple]

I would like the most interested of you to look at his reflection and find the flaw. It would reassure me ;-)

This is not really a flaw, but rather an observation: the article dates from 2007, we are 11 years later and not really a sign of the beginning of an energy crisis ..... So we should shift all the curves of about ten years, talk about 2110 instead of 2100, and redo the point in 10 years .....

[sicetaitsimple]

I specify before being stoned (which on a blog does not really hurt ....).

The difference between 2007 and 2018 is that, globally, renewable energy has reached a level of cost that is relatively comparable to that of fossil fuels in many parts of the planet.

So even if overall global energy consumption increases, we can hope that (globally here too), this increase is covered by renewable and in the long term the consumption of fossils retreats.

For this it will of course that the global production of equipment (PV panels, wind turbines, storage means ...) is progressing very significantly, but I do not really see any reason for that is not the case.

[Did67]

I did not read.

But I do not see how seriously one can argue the extinction of the species. That "geometric" growth must come to an end: in a "finite" system, it is obvious. That there will probably be a painful adjustment by a severe decrease, yes, no doubt ...

But except for a generalized nuclear explosion, except for a giant meteorite or something like that, the "regulation" of the most severe parasites (and man is one of them) does not result in their extinction, but in an oscillation of the population ... There will remain here and there a few pigmies, a few severe decreases, a few backward and bunkerized urbanites or a few alcoholic eskimos or whatever - who will give the human species a chance of survival ... Even if, by virtue of its status of "super-predator", the human species is undoubtedly more threatened than scorpions or such type of cave spiders or whatever ...

It's just my opinion. And a rather "philosophical" opinion.

[izentrop]

Hello,

I encourage you to read "Global Energy and Population - Trends to 2100", By Paul Chefurka

Energy is far from the main problem, but the safeguarding of biodiversity.

The problem of the sixth extinction is its speed.
Scientists say humans may not survive because they depend on biodiversity
There are individual and collective solutions https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/ ... es-especes.

[dede2002]

I would rather say "the lack of energy is far from being the main problem".

On the contrary, it is the abundance of energy which allows us to destroy what surrounds us, and which extends the danger further than the simple extinction of "our civilization" ...

[Ahmed]

The author links in a little speed the amount of energy consumed and population growth, which is far from being demonstrated; as it is on which rest the rest of his argument ...
On the other hand, as rightly pointed out Did et Dédé2002destruction and energy are inseparable.

[izentrop]

Responsible energy and not the man? Yet it is he who began the destruction of his environment since the Neolithic http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/degsol/irrigation-sodicite.php

We are now witnessing an acceleration due to the fact that emerging countries also want to have their share of the pie and that is normal.

[Ahmed]

Of course energy does not act on its own initiative! The destruction observed in the past, sometimes very serious, was however limited in space and time: the diversity of civilizations did not question the survival of the whole, which is observed today because of the unification of the model and its extension to the entire planet: this is only possible thanks (if we dare say!) to an unprecedented deployment of energy expenditure.

[sen-no-sen]

Responsible energy and not the man? Yet it is he who began the destruction of his environment since the Neolithic http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/degsol/irrigation-sodicite.php

We are now witnessing an acceleration due to the fact that emerging countries also want to have their share of the pie and that is normal.

To be exact "we" do not destroy our environment, we transforming.
This nuance is important because if we consider the destruction as accidental then we could deduce that an awareness could lead us to stop its terrible practices by replacing them with better ones ... by continuing in the worst, c is the (absurd) idea of ​​"sustainable development".
Outside, the more time passes and the more destructions accumulate and with them their lots of sterile protests and scientific articles on the inevitability of ecocide ... without anything changing, weird not?
In fact, no, the simple fact of changing the word destruction by transformation makes it possible to understand what drives us to act in this way and at the same time the utter helplessness to generate a virtuous change.

In reality homo sapiens are the actors, and to be precise the hosts, complex ideas (memeplexes) that colonize our brains and push us to fulfill our fate: to transform the biosphere into techno-sphere.
Rather than get lost in guesswork about "the madness of men"and the corruption of our elites, it would be rather high time to consider that the current phase is perfectly normal, that it is a determinism all that is more logical and that we are putting all our energy into its accomplishment ... unbeknownst to our own free will!

Of course energy does not act on its own initiative!

Energy is a generic term for what allows transformation within a system, ideas are in fact no more and no less than a form of structured energy ...
Although we can not attribute a personality to him, it is the energy that drives us to act, and it is this same energy that leads us to transform the world via more and more violent retro-actions.