Schroedinger
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 22
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Oil production has peaked in several countries - Australia and the US included - and imported oil sources from the Gulf have supplemented declining domestic product. When Arab oil peaks, oil prices will rise and usage will have to decline. Oil shale, hydrogen and all that junk is not viable. This is all predicted to go down within the next decade or so.
Fertilizer is produced via the Haber process which uses hydrogen gas sourced from methane - a by product of oil production. Without this plentiful source of hydrogen, fertilizer prices will skyrocket in price - food production at current rates will be impossible.
Making matters worse - phosphorus production, originally set to peak 300 years in the future, is predicted to peak in less than 30 years. This compounds the fertilizer problem.
---
This is not an economics discussion which I, admittedly, know little about. It is a discussion about how we will have to overcome the imminent depletion of irreplaceable resources.
The way I see it, 7 billion people (and counting) cannot live together in a world of lesser standards than we currently enjoy. Competition for scarce resources is not viable. We can either let the population naturally decline (a decline is inevitable), or we can take matters into our own hands.
I advocate the mass extermination of humans. How to do this requires thought. I have come up with a few scenarios:
1. Dense populations ought to be wiped out quickly and efficiently. Fertile areas ought to be left alone. This means nuclear warheads could be detonated above densely populated urban centres such as Shanghai, Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires etc. Other areas such as farms through the US midwest or in Provincial China - would remain untouched. This would take no account of race or wealth of citizens. Instead, it would target a quick and efficient reduction in human numbers where it impacts least on regions of high fertility.
Advantages: Easy, quick, effective, little ethnic or racial discrimination
Disadvantages: Nuclear fallout, inevitable extermination of productive members of society. Large populations exist in some fertile areas such as in India or China, where populations are also largest.
2. Population redistribution, followed by scenario 1. Governments could herd poor and unproductive members of society into cities away from fertile areas, and then exterminate these large and concentrated populations.
Advantages: Possible racial and ethic discrimination
Disadvantages: Difficult to herd populations
3. Kill the richest because they consume the most. Check out any graph showing how much oil the US uses. This is absurd. If we wish to curb consumption of resources, exterminating those who use the most could prove beneficial. Rich people tend to congregate in urban centres with poor people, making extermination easy.
---
DISCUSS
---
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4193017.ece
Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malthusian catastrophe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fertilizer is produced via the Haber process which uses hydrogen gas sourced from methane - a by product of oil production. Without this plentiful source of hydrogen, fertilizer prices will skyrocket in price - food production at current rates will be impossible.
Making matters worse - phosphorus production, originally set to peak 300 years in the future, is predicted to peak in less than 30 years. This compounds the fertilizer problem.
---
This is not an economics discussion which I, admittedly, know little about. It is a discussion about how we will have to overcome the imminent depletion of irreplaceable resources.
The way I see it, 7 billion people (and counting) cannot live together in a world of lesser standards than we currently enjoy. Competition for scarce resources is not viable. We can either let the population naturally decline (a decline is inevitable), or we can take matters into our own hands.
I advocate the mass extermination of humans. How to do this requires thought. I have come up with a few scenarios:
1. Dense populations ought to be wiped out quickly and efficiently. Fertile areas ought to be left alone. This means nuclear warheads could be detonated above densely populated urban centres such as Shanghai, Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires etc. Other areas such as farms through the US midwest or in Provincial China - would remain untouched. This would take no account of race or wealth of citizens. Instead, it would target a quick and efficient reduction in human numbers where it impacts least on regions of high fertility.
Advantages: Easy, quick, effective, little ethnic or racial discrimination
Disadvantages: Nuclear fallout, inevitable extermination of productive members of society. Large populations exist in some fertile areas such as in India or China, where populations are also largest.
2. Population redistribution, followed by scenario 1. Governments could herd poor and unproductive members of society into cities away from fertile areas, and then exterminate these large and concentrated populations.
Advantages: Possible racial and ethic discrimination
Disadvantages: Difficult to herd populations
3. Kill the richest because they consume the most. Check out any graph showing how much oil the US uses. This is absurd. If we wish to curb consumption of resources, exterminating those who use the most could prove beneficial. Rich people tend to congregate in urban centres with poor people, making extermination easy.
---
DISCUSS
---
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4193017.ece
Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malthusian catastrophe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
