War with Iran

[Atilla]

IMO, Global pollution is caused by world demand for fossil fuels. We are going back to using coal because there is nothing else. What is science going to achieve before the 22nd century to replace fossil fuel consumption? I know that something will have been invented, but will it be in sufficient use to reverse the situation that we are facing today?

Your example of 4 billion people is history. We are on the way to 9 billion and science is not doing enough to solve the problem. In fact, science is supposed to be helping us to get oil out of deep ocean deposits and BP has shown us how advanced that is.

The planet is not waiting for science and engineering anymore. It is dying.

Planet has no concept of living or dying... It will continue but simply that as you pointed out - type of life forms and quantity will be 'naturally' adjusted.

I like to think of the planet and human beings as evolving - not dying...


I think a number of blogs here point out how very subjective opinions are. Very short sighted as I guess that's all that matters to individuals. View points range from - they are taking our jobs to nuke em. It was only approx 120 years ago the so called advanced civilised world went over there and pretty much took everything including the life and soul of individuals into slavery.

As for failed states - I think capitalism is fast becoming the biggest failure known to man. Somalia and Yemen pales into insignificance compared to the US and Europe going tits up. What are PIGS if not failed states?

 

[Splitlink]

You are more optimistic than me----on all fronts.

The planet is evolving. They do say that cockroaches can outlive anything but I believe come my reincarnation time, I'll pass---if I'm given the opportunity.


Hey!!!! What's the matter with me. I am a miserable ******* this morning!

Can you imagine me saying to you "Hey, did you see the antenae on her! :clap:

 

[Atilla]

You are more optimistic than me----on all fronts.

The planet is evolving. They do say that cockroaches can outlive anything but I believe come my reincarnation time, I'll pass---if I'm given the opportunity.


Hey!!!! What's the matter with me. I am a miserable ******* this morning!

Can you imagine me saying to you "Hey, did you see the antenae on her! :clap:

Anybody see Stephen Hawkins prog on TV??? He was talking about if life could exist on other planets - what it would take and what they may look like? Really good show imo. There is another this week 2/3 shows. One to watch imo.

Also, water is a crucial element in supporting life forms and likewise to planet Earth. I believe a natural balance will be achieved through disasters of one kind or another coupled with humans evolution on earth.

As it happens I'm reading a book my son gave me about a chimney sweep boy from back in the 1900s. Quite an eye opener how people were treated back then in childrens work houses. All very grim and dark. I also found out that more people have died from scurvy than those that were killed in sea battles. That was because they were pressed ganged into joining the navy and then had to endure months on end on long journey's with no fresh food.

We have certainly come a long way and I feel the future will be even better as we are finding out with the human reaction and response to politicians waging self itnerest wars.

I feel the world can support and sustain even 20bn popullace as most places are not habited by humans at all. The problem is humans end up living in small highly dense areas due to economies of scale and capitalism. Once oil runs and and people go back to horse and card there will be a natural deflux away from cities to the good life in the country. Bees and chickens coupled with a cow or two would be ample to survive with our current level of knowledge. Distribute land ownership back to small farm holdings and watch humanity flourish... In summary I feel the market pricing system can sort out the distribution of scarce resources. There will be no need for wars.

I certainly wouldn't be miserable... We are at the cusp of a new era with so much to look forward to...

Personally, I find wing flapping and waving of the abdomen more of a turn on when it comes to cockroaches - but you know, if antenae rocks your world that's fine too...

 

[Pat494]

You are such an optimist At

rock on buddy

:clap:

 

[dcraig1]

IMO, Global pollution is caused by world demand for fossil fuels. We are going back to using coal because there is nothing else. What is science going to achieve before the 22nd century to replace fossil fuel consumption? I know that something will have been invented, but will it be in sufficient use to reverse the situation that we are facing today?

Your example of 4 billion people is history. We are on the way to 9 billion and science is not doing enough to solve the problem. In fact, science is supposed to be helping us to get oil out of deep ocean deposits and BP has shown us how advanced that is.

The planet is not waiting for science and engineering anymore. It is dying.

Agreed, the biggest source of CO2 pollution is coal burning, followed by oil and gas, land use (deforestation etc) and industrial processes (eg iron and steel making, cement etc).

The easiest of these to tackle is fossil fuel burning for electricity generation (and possibly land use). The electricity problem is solvable. I did a bit of a back of the envelope calculation for Australia, and I reckon for about 3/4% of GDP every year for 25 years Australia could almost entirely cleanup electricity generation with sufficient expansion to handle projected demand growth. Some of that expenditure will have to happen anyway through replacement of existing plants that have to be retired. The technology - nuclear power.

For that investment, you would end up with a generation infrastructure good till 2080/2090 at least as new NPPs have a 60 year design lifetime, and judging from the experience with the operating life extensions with existing NPPs, that 60 years may well be extended.

You would end up with a far more predictable electricity cost as well, as nuclear power costs have only a small dependency on fuel costs unlike fossil fuel burners. Very likely, this is the cheapest path to reliable electricity generation.

Of course this is not a trivial exercise but it is quite doable, and is in reality only a small financial burden.

I sure costs for other Western countries would be in the same ballpark. The UK which already has about 20% of electricity from nukes, and a bit of wind could probably do it a bit cheaper.

The point is that at least partial solutions are doable, practical and at very acceptable economic cost.

 

[dcraig1]

I feel the world can support and sustain even 20bn popullace as most places are not habited by humans at all. The problem is humans end up living in small highly dense areas due to economies of scale and capitalism. Once oil runs and and people go back to horse and card there will be a natural deflux away from cities to the good life in the country. Bees and chickens coupled with a cow or two would be ample to survive with our current level of knowledge. Distribute land ownership back to small farm holdings and watch humanity flourish... In summary I feel the market pricing system can sort out the distribution of scarce resources. There will be no need for wars.

20bn would be highly problematic, and will definitely NOT be living in a "horse and cart" state of technology. There wouldn't be enough trees to burn to keep them warm in winter and any number of other limits. There is no going back - either fix the problems with science and technology or eventually face collapse of civilization which incidentally would very likely be the worst outcome for life on earth as humans burn every damn thing they can down to the last car tyre for energy.

It's a matter of slowing environmental destruction, of which the most critical issues are climate change and biodiversity loss AND stabilizing population.

 

[Pat494]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of the biggest polluters are cattle farting - methane galore

 

[dcraig1]

Didn't I read somewhere that one of the biggest polluters are cattle farting - methane galore

Methane is the second most important GHG gas after CO2. Weight for weight it is over 20 times more powerful GHG than CO2. It breaks down chemically in the atmosphere after a couple of decades unlike excess CO2 which hangs around for many decades and centuries. Other sources of methane are nat gas production and leaks, and emission from coal mining. The atmospheric concentration of methane is going up. If the trapped methane in permafrost and in the shallow ocean floors starts venting in huge amounts we are in big trouble.

 

[Atilla]

20bn would be highly problematic, and will definitely NOT be living in a "horse and cart" state of technology. There wouldn't be enough trees to burn to keep them warm in winter and any number of other limits. There is no going back - either fix the problems with science and technology or eventually face collapse of civilization which incidentally would very likely be the worst outcome for life on earth as humans burn every damn thing they can down to the last car tyre for energy.

It's a matter of slowing environmental destruction, of which the most critical issues are climate change and biodiversity loss AND stabilizing population.

This goes back to Thomas Malthusian prediction of human popullation growth exceeding food production. How wrong was he? If world popullation was 1bn in 1800 and assuming it is 6 bn now - I reckon on a rough guide we could see another 6 x growth in next 200 years taking us up to 36 bn by 1200... I now this is a silly projection but who knows.

Re heating - people in the North can migrate to the South where it is warmer. Alternatively global warming may be a solution... Who knows?

Another point - reason why some people have so many children is in the hope that some may survive in areas where infant mortality is very high. This subsequently compounds the problem because there is not enough food to go round. I do believe economic growth will reduce birth rates no doubt as in the West.

With all the chemicals in the system men may become infertile who knows?

What I do know is things are getting better and we should enjoy what we do for the time left to do it in...

Don't look back... Don't look into the future... Enjoy the present... http://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Gui...r_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285009040&sr=8-1

Would also recommend his book called the New Earth.

 

[Splitlink]

Don't look back... Don't look into the future... Enjoy the present... :

We've, certainly, done that.

 

[Atilla]

We've, certainly, done that.

Yes indeed and we need to spread that joy around eh?

Let's rock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzDft0DZRUw&feature=related

 

[dcraig1]

This goes back to Thomas Malthusian prediction of human popullation growth exceeding food production. How wrong was he? If world popullation was 1bn in 1800 and assuming it is 6 bn now - I reckon on a rough guide we could see another 6 x growth in next 200 years taking us up to 36 bn by 1200... I now this is a silly projection but who knows.

Re heating - people in the North can migrate to the South where it is warmer. Alternatively global warming may be a solution... Who knows?

Another point - reason why some people have so many children is in the hope that some may survive in areas where infant mortality is very high. This subsequently compounds the problem because there is not enough food to go round. I do believe economic growth will reduce birth rates no doubt as in the West.

With all the chemicals in the system men may become infertile who knows?

What I do know is things are getting better and we should enjoy what we do for the time left to do it in...

Don't look back... Don't look into the future... Enjoy the present... http://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Gui...r_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285009040&sr=8-1

Would also recommend his book called the New Earth.

Heating is but one part of the issue. There are many others. There is not enough fresh water to supply 20 billion people and the problem will be exacerbated by global warming causing early melting of the snows and the end of many glaciers. Massive desalination would be mandatory, and that requires a lot of energy. There is also the issue of hitting planetary boundaries with such things as the nitrogen cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impacts_on_the_nitrogen_cycle and the phosphorus cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_cycle . Then there is the issue of land use. The great enemy of bio diversity is habitat destruction.

Technical solutions *may* end up being possible - and they may not or else too late. Science and technology is not magic and technology cargo cults are very dangerous mind sets.

Malthus could very well be right - just little premature.

You are almost certainly right about economic development slowing population growth. I think this opinion is widely held.

 

[Atilla]

Love this, and I think that Bush have to state an excuses to all soldier that died in Iraq

He has already said what his regret (excuse) was...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/12/20081228012267354.html

Funny how everyone else is blamed but he gets to keep his head high???

This war with Iraq was planned since the 1990s but it seems he had no idea... I guess that's the kind of skills sets one needs to be president of the USA???

 

[Pat494]

It seems fairly certain Iran wants a nuclear bomb, depite denials.

Why they waste the country's resources on building very expensive bombs just shows how inadequate many of their leading politicians are. Good at political in-fighting and brown nosing doesn't mean they have decent policies !!
In fact just the opposite.
North Korea much the same. Power mad dictators should be sent to the loony bins to make them harmless.

 

[Atilla]

It seems fairly certain Iran wants a nuclear bomb, depite denials.

Why they waste the country's resources on building very expensive bombs just shows how inadequate many of their leading politicians are. Good at political in-fighting and brown nosing doesn't mean they have decent policies !!
In fact just the opposite.
North Korea much the same. Power mad dictators should be sent to the loony bins to make them harmless.

Err to defend them selves from USA and Israel... Colonial intervention... Have you not realised yet???

Ofcourse they will tell you otherwise like Iraq is a threat and they can launch a destructive WMD to us within 45 seconds... Stranger than fiction but nevertheless true...

 

[squall321]

Why they waste the country's resources on building very expensive bombs just shows how inadequate many of their leading politicians are. Good at political in-fighting and brown nosing doesn't mean they have decent policies !!
In fact just the opposite.

could be talking about UK government here

 

[dcraig1]

could be talking about UK government here

Indeed. It is always interesting to look at the facts:

Military spending as % of GDP:

Iran: 2.7%
Pakistan: 2.6%
Israel: 7.0%
Saudi Arabia: 8.2%
United States: 4.3%

France: 2.3%
Britain: 2.5%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Iran, which has been repeatedly threatened with "all cards on the table" ie nuclear strike, spends substantially less on it's military as a percentage of GDP than the United States and about the same as Britain and France who face no military threat whatsoever.

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Pat494]

Indeed. It is always interesting to look at the facts:

Military spending as % of GDP:

Iran: 2.7%
Pakistan: 2.6%
Israel: 7.0%
Saudi Arabia: 8.2%
United States: 4.3%

France: 2.3%
Britain: 2.5%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Iran, which has been repeatedly threatened with "all cards on the table" ie nuclear strike, spends substantially less on it's military as a percentage of GDP than the United States and about the same as Britain and France who face no military threat whatsoever.

The numbers speak for themselves.

If you were to add in the so called " peaceful nuclear Program " costs then the figure would be substantially higher

 

[Ambrose Ackroyd]

I don't see Noth Korea listed there.

It would probably be at the top at a guess.

 

[dcraig1]

If you were to add in the so called " peaceful nuclear Program " costs then the figure would be substantially higher

The Bushehr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushehr_Nuclear_Power_Plant nuclear power plant is a nuclear power station for the generation of electricity. The first reactor is a Russian VVER-1000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER pressurized light water reactor. Russia is supplying the fuel and taking back the used fuel. There is no plausible connection to a nuclear weapons program.

According to Wikipedia, the total cost is 3 billion euros which is not that bad considering it was started before the Islamic revolution by German contractors and then abandoned, until the Russians took over in 1995. That 3 billion euros is on a par with what UAE is paying Sth Korea for it's new nuclear power plants, and on a par with the cost of an Areva EPR. In fact with over three decades of delays, 3 billion looks like a bargain.

As for the uranium enrichment facilities, there is no evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran is legally entitled to engage in all aspects of nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment. Whether Iran will produce weapons grade uranium in the future is a matter of speculation, but it is extremely doubtful that they are currently doing so.