Feeds

back to article Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!

Extremist green campaigning group WWF - endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency - has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world's wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

WTF?

Re: @Lord of Cheese (was: Whatever.)

Been there. Done that. My mother keeps some hens for eggs, and she even raised a couple of pigs for their meat a few years ago. (Bloody hard work and, to be brutally frank, not worth the energy and resources. There's a reason why phrases like "economies of scale" exist.)

Mechanised farming is a damned sight easier and more efficient than doing it all the hard way, with oxen, carts, and wooden ploughs.

Also, the population densities around here are much, much higher than in the US; there are parts of the US where you won't see a soul for 300 miles. Ditto in Australia. In the UK, 300 miles is the distance from London to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, so good luck trying to find enough acreage for every single human being in England to become self-sufficient, 'cos it's just not going to happen. The last time the developed nations in the Old World were all completely self-sufficient, the global population was well under a billion.

Most communities, even in the medieval period, would trade with others in order to improve their local staple diets. Livestock would be driven as much as 20 miles in a single day to reach a good market. Money wouldn't have been invented if trade didn't happen.

If you have to barter or trade with others, you are not fully self-sufficient. That requires doing it all yourself. If you have to trust in others to help you meet your lifestyle needs, that's not self-sufficiency. That's just "farming".

12
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Whatever.

So you can subsistence farm AND fly light aircraft at the same time (see your recent comments re Heathrow)? Me thinks you are being economical with the actuality. Even if you'd be forbidden from flying.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @AC 11:14 (was: "Learn how to be a human being")

The total arable land in the world is 3411327598 acres.

Divided among 7Billion people is just under half an acre each.

You are very fortunate to have access to 56 acres.

The reality is there is not enough land to go round, leaving 2 options:

1. Kill off a load of people.

2. Advance technology to support those people.

I think you are the one needing a dose of reality.

12
0

Re: Whatever.

Jake also knocks over people at the local shopping center while they are texting in the presence of his policeman friend -- and then they have a good laugh about it. I would wager he is one of the more interesting denizens here at The Register since amanfrommars has been replaced by the less outrageous amanfrommars2. For an interesting view into Jake's personality, click on his name and look at his previous rants...er...um...I mean posts.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Whatever.

53-ish acres, about 20 hectares, is enough land to make you rich.

I think subsistence farming is one 20th of that.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Whatever.

1 acre is enough to feed a person, eating chicken once a week.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Whatever.

Any farmers out there??? Is it true that if you spread your field with baked beans you get a Bumper Crop?

0
0
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

There's massive differences between:

a. what one person can grow on a quarter acre large back garden digging the soil by spadework,

b. what someone with a horse ploughing five acres can grow,

c. someone with a medium sized rotavator cultivating 10 acres,

d. and what someone with a biodiesel driven small and simple tractor cultivating 30 acres can grow.

My weekly organic box come from mostly local smallholdings and farms doing c. or d. System c. isn't such a bad match for wind or solar charged battery power, or flexible mains leads on such a small cultivated area. System d. probably needs biodiesel to be fully sustainable - the area is too great for battery recharge or trailing mains cables to be practical. Biodiesel is easy to make in small quantities from old chip oil and methanol, but there's only so much used chip oil.

If you use system a. the energy output is less than the energy input (i.e. food calories less than what the man doing the digging needs to eat). With system b, the horses traditionally used to eat 25% of the land area cultivated for grazing. With option d. once you're out of chip oil, 10% of the land acreage is needed for growing the biofuel.

Sure, I didn't mention option e. where the minimum arable farm size is about 5000 acres and you need a highly developed technology infrastructure to service the machinery and produce the pesticides and fertilisers and breed the seeds. Option e. is the only system which requires massive external fossil energy inputs. The point is, we don't need to depend on it.

You produce about twice as much vegetable food energy per acre that way as option d. But it's tasteless, vitamin and mineral deficient crap food tasting of chemicals, so you'll probably end up throwing nearly all of it through hormone and antibiotic pumped factory pigs and cows to make crap burgers. If crap factory burgers are considered fit for human consumption, the meat cycle will then cost you about 80% of this vegetable food energy. Using option d. and making better use of resulting farm biodiversity and wastes to produce less meat and eggs but at top quality, and some manure digested methane to drive small farm machinery or grain dryers will result in everyone eating better and being healthier, because the corporate capital and technology-driven food produced by option e. is such crap that people overeat and get seriously obese on that diet.

The idea that options a. and e. are the only alternative ways food can be produced is so ignorant it's breathtaking.

5
2
Silver badge

Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

With the world's population as it is we should be using our arable land in the most efficient way possible. You say yourself option E is more efficient than option D. So why aren't you advocating it? Your argument seems to come down to taste (the bit about more vitamins and minerals is nonsense*,) something which has no bearing on the nutritional value of food.

To me this is the same bizarre middle class snobbery that motivated Jamie Oliver's most recent campaign. I was quite happy to see him get some of the fat filled burgers and sausages taken off school dinner menus as children shouldn't be eating these things every day. What makes less sense is his campaign against 'pink slime'. Essentially this is just mechanically recovered meat treated with ammonia gas to kill off any bacteria.

Meat is expensive to produce in terms of energy so we should be stripping as much of it as we can from every carcass. Yet Jamie Oliver and his middle class following want it banned in the US (as it already is in the EU), not because it poses any health risks, but because "it's a bit disgusting".

*http://www.caseperformance.com/19/nutrient-content-of-organic-vs-conventionally-grown-foods

3
2
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

"With the world's population as it is we should be using our arable land in the most efficient way possible. You say yourself option E is more efficient than option D. So why aren't you advocating it?"

Because we don't need it and can't sustain it.

The world population is probably less than 10% of what it would have to become for us to need to use system E to feed everyone using a vegetarian diet, and it will almost certainly max out at less than 25% of that. Much of Africa is still subsistence farming, with outputs per hectare close to what was being produced in Europe 200 years ago: no use of field boundaries, no electricity, they've only just started using basic machinery, with barely no water management and no use of groundwater. But enough Africans are getting basic schooling and have mobile phones now and there's just no reason for many of them to stay where they are, given efforts being made in literacy and education.

It might transform your thinking for you to spend 6 minutes learning from the experience of William Kamkwamba from Malawi

So I expect agricultural output of Africa (measured as vegetable calories) to more than quadruple when the population doubles there over the next 30 years as they industrialise. Population growth everywhere else is close to topping out, as people are getting educated and rich enough in Asia, Eastern Europe and South and Central America now to have smaller families as in North America and Europe. I expect Africa to follow suit 20 - 30 years behind Asia and South America, where few now go hungry compared to 30 years ago.

If you don't believe me visit Brazil sometime and compare what you experience with reports from 30 years ago. One of my best mates has just come back from visiting a training project there where his son is working.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

Those are nice anecdotes and all but your point relies upon this:

"The world population is probably less than 10% of what it would have to become for us to need to use system E to feed everyone using a vegetarian diet"

It's complete fantasy to suggest we're all going to move to vegetarian diets, even with price increases there will always be a market for meat. Since cattle are inevitably going to be using up some of our arable land we have to use the remainder as efficiently as possible.

Organic farming usually does no more than subsidise farmers for using less efficient farming methods. The only upside of this is a warm fuzzy feeling for the middle class as they go down to their local farmers market and supposedly do there bit towards saving the planet.

2
0
Thumb Up

Re:Fibbles - Pink Slime

Interesting point there re: pink slime, whats the difference between pink slime / "lips n arseholes" ground up in cheap sausages and nose to tail eating, as advocated by the right-on middle class foodies like HFW??

Surely both respect the animal by using it as much as possible?? Yet one instigates gasps of horror and scenes of revulsion by said foodies and the other is lapped up!

1
0
Silver badge

@whoever (was: Re: Whatever.)

0) Clearly, none of you lot can read for content. I did a 3+ year experiment on subsistence level farming. To prove to myself that I could do it. That was nearly 25 years ago. I no longer live like that.

1) I said "subsistence level" not "self sufficient", and clearly I listed barter as one of my tools.

2) The entire 53 acres wasn't under cultivation, only about three acres. I also have 15 acres of 135 year old apple orchard up there, planted by my Great Grandfather. The rest is Redwood & Fir forest and about an acre and a half of horse lay-up facility.

3) I don't knock people over. They obliviously run into me. Usually I catch them before they hit the deck. There is a time and place to be fiddling about with your iFad; walking about in a busy plaza at a major tourist destination isn't one of them. To date, I have always been apologized to for their self-admitted rudeness. I have never done this with a kid or elderly/infirm person.

4) I farm more veggies here in Sonoma than I do in Mendocino ... and I give away my excess to people who need it. http://forums.theregister.co.uk/post/1226592

5) If you think you can judge my personality based on my postsrants here on ElReg, given the obvious lack of ability to read for content ... well, more power to you. Enjoy your delusion.

6) Yes, I own and fly light aircraft. It's both a hobby and a useful skill. Ever try it?

7) I'm not advocating returning to "living in caves", far from it. I worked hard to purchase and build chez jake, and I work my butt off to ensure I'll never have to going back to crappy apartments in the rat-race.

8) Yes, I could get rich from the lumber alone on the Mendocino property ... but I'd rather keep it as a private retreat and work the Sonoma property for income.

9) Ted Sturgeon said "90% of everything is crap". Personally, I feel that 99% of everything you see and/or read on TehIntraWebTubes[tm] is crap. So statistically, according to my own commentardary, I am full of it. Do with that what you will; no skin off my teeth :-)

Waddimiss?

1
3

Re: @whoever (was: Whatever.)

To quote you Jake 'I've personally subsistence-level farmed my 53-ish acres in Mendocino County, for over three years. Just to prove to myself that I could do it'

Reading your second comment you seemed to be changing your tune. If I had to guess you'll be a part of these guys http://www.capacity.org.uk/index.html along with NomNomNom who have a mandate to lurck around the Interweb and flood forums and comments with your eco-babble using twitter to call in the trolls when an article like this appears.

3
0
Silver badge

@Scott 19 (was: Re: @whoever (was: Whatever.))

The area of the property does not equal the area of cultivated land ... although I must admit we've been more into "forest management" at our place in Mendocino than "logging" since about 1970. In my mind that is farming ... farming trees. We've sold PG&E about 600 telephone poles every year for the last thirty years or so. Without spoiling the landscape. Fir is a wonderful, sustainable, commercial product. Our Redwoods are about twenty years from commercial selective harvest ...

Likewise, "subsistence level" means "enough to get by", as opposed to "self sufficient", which means "doing it all myself". Subtle, I know ... especially if you've never lived in a semi-isolated location ... and never actually worked the land. Us rural types have our own lingo, which is what I missed. The author of the original ElReg article has probably never actually done any farming.

I'm not an eco-twit. I find the entire "green" movement hilarious.

Nor do I use twitter (or any other anti-social networking system). In my mind, they all distract from actually getting useful work done. My neighbors help clear fields (and I help them), your neighbors probably invite you to join "farmville". Sad, that.

Troll? Maybe ... but I don't call anyone in to "support" me online. Folks who make that kind of noise really, really, need to take a couple steps away from the keybR0ad and reflect on what makes life important ...

I'm an independent, mostly here for my own amusement ... but underlying that, I'm trying to help people learn to think for themselves. Sarah Bee used to accuse me of tilting at windmills.

I honestly don't give a rat's ass about AC thumbs up or down ... they are really rather meaningless, when you think about it.

0
0
Facepalm

The problem being...

The problem with the WWF (and just about every other green organisation) is the people running them, while trying to be noble and protecting nature, have no clue on how to make a realistic difference.

All this crap about living at a stoneage level is so unrealistic that I don't take the authors seriously in ANY respect. They need to realise that the changes they are advocating will never happen and instead of wasting time, money, and resources spewing it out anyway, they shoud instead focus on coming up with a realistic alternative that has even a slight possibility of being considered.

8
0
Silver badge
Angel

Re: The problem being...

No, actually WWF are doing us a service by showing just how desperately dire a 'renewable' world is.

Wittingly or unwittingly they can alert is to the fact that the greatest danger the human race faces is from people like the WWF and the renewable energy lobby.

10
5

I don't have time to actually read the WWF stuff, so I can't judge whether Lewis is right or wrong.

0
0
Silver badge

Here's the link

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/

It has brain-cell explodingly controversial headers like:

How you can make changes without making sacrifices

Measure your own individual impact on your planet

What you eat can have some of the biggest impacts

Be energy efficient at home

So yeah - that's real evidence of the global depopulation back-to-the-Stone-Age eco-masterplan right there in your face.

Page is just making up random derpy shit and ranting incoherently about it, as usual.

8
6
Silver badge

Renewable energy a possiblity

Honestly I think within 38 years we very well could be getting all our electricity from renewable sources. At least in certain countries / states. The yields they're gettingo n solar panesls are constantly going up, they're finding new crops they can convert to biomass fuels etc.

Converting all vehicles to electric not so much, but its quite possible they might be converted to biodiesel etc by the time 38 years have passed.

I agree to an extent that economic growth is a bad thing. Thanks to economic growth its now impossible for the average joe to afford a house. For the area I live in, the lowest value I would find a house which is possible to live in, in an okay neighbourhood would be around 250k I could find a house for as little as 100k but that'd be delapidated and in an area I'm likely to get shanked.

3
6
Silver badge
Alert

Re: Renewable energy a possiblity

No. are you an engineer who has spent three years determining if this is remotely possible? No?

I am. If we are generating all our energy from renewables that will be the 100 million of us hunter gatherers left globally scouring the crumbling landscape of a collapsed civilization looking for a tin of beans that someone else missed.

I am sure it will be great for biodiversity, but the main species at risk will be homo sapiens.

10
6
Silver badge

Re: Renewable energy a possiblity

That's odd. Because I know a number of engineers who have spent a lot more than three years determining if it's remotely possible.

And they all agree it is.

Considering we're talking half a life time here, with the potential for improved distribution and smart grid efficiencies - never mind economies of scale as exotic goes mainstream - I'd suggest you check your maths.

5
6

Re: Renewable energy a possiblity

Itzman, how can you have worked on this for 3 years and still have wrong numbers?

Ignoring hydro, wind & biofuels for the moment, we have more than enough solar potential in desert areas to power our current electrical needs.

Then look at biofuels. For instance, burning wood, if it's grown sustainably, is fine, using up all the available wood is not. Hence why Page's nonsense about stopping using wood as a fuel is just that - nonsense. But you can't burn up all your forests twice, they need to be managed properly so they can provide a perpetual supply.

Then there is hydro, in all it's various forms. Massive oceans with wave and tidal, big rivers, small rivers. Lots of power available there.

Then there is wind. Not for every country, but for many it can provide a huge amount of electricity.

But somehow your numbers say 100 million across the planet. Methinks you are an incompetent engineer if the highest you can perceive is 100 million supported by Renewables.

3
5
FAIL

Currently, Renewables Are NOT Sustainable

If we set out to replace all fossile and nuclear fuels by solar-, wind- and hydropower we would realize that just the food supply is highly dependent on cheap, always-available energy to create fertilizer, to power tractors, wheat mills, trucks and many more parts of food processing.

We cannot even rely on "renewable" energy to power electric lights. On a cloudy, windless day good-old coal, gas and nuclear plants have to step in.

Besides, "renewable" energy from solar and wind is at least a factor of 10 more expensive than power from fossile or nuclear fuels. The world economy would simply go to a grinding halt if fossile and nuclear fuels would be outlawed in the next few decades.

The CO2 taxation in the western countries has already had the "positive" effect of driving energy-intensive industries such as metal and glas production to China. They got the jobs, we got the good feeling and the cheap, highly CO2-intensive products for few pennies. The net effect was negative, though, as Chinese factories are more wasteful and wares must be shipped to us by emiiting CO2.

So no, currently renewables do not cut it. Insulation and Public Transport do, though.

8
1

Re: Currently, Renewables Are NOT Sustainable

@Boring Hun Coder

"Besides, "renewable" energy from solar and wind is at least a factor of 10 more expensive than power from fossile or nuclear fuels"

No, it isn't. Unfortunately you are displaying an extremely poor grasp of the subject.

3
3
Yag
Bronze badge

Keep calm and carry on!

And eventually read a bit : http://www.withouthotair.com/

Quite interesting, but a bit handwavy on the issues with solar & wind main issues...

0
0
Stop

Solar + Wind ARE 10 times more expensive than Fossile + Nuclear

Look at this:

http://www.jm-projektinvest.com/de/photovoltaik/einspeiseverguetung

And THEN, add all the costs due to the fact that solar energy is there when you typically don't need it and not there when you need it. So for each kW of solar generation capacity you need a kW of Gas-powered electricity available to be powered up in a matter of minutes.

Coal and nuclear will cost you 8 cent/kWh or less. It will produce energy according to the quite predicatable demand patterns (if no solar and wind interferes).

4
2
Boffin

Re: Solar + Wind ARE 10 times more expensive than Fossile + Nuclear

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

If you look at the daily and weekly demand, you can see that usage starts to go up by ~6:00, and stays high until ~22:00, after which it tapers down. This suggests that lighting isn't the biggest drain on the grid. Industry and trains, probably...

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Currently, Renewables Are NOT Sustainable

"we would realize that just the food supply is highly dependent on cheap, always-available energy to create fertilizer, to power tractors, wheat mills, trucks and many more parts of food processing."

If we weren't burning so much of the fossil fuels for electricity wouldn't there be more for fertilizer, could that reduce the cost of food? Also given fossil fuels are finite if they are so important for fertilizer surely it's reckless to be burning them for electricity.

0
3
Stop

Re: Solar + Wind ARE 10 times more expensive than Fossile + Nuclear

In Germany network operators are reporting big problems with maintaining 50Hz frequency stability, as solar and wind are fluctuating wildly. A solar panel can easily change output by a factor of ten in a few minutes on a mixed cloudy/sunny day.

As a matter of fact, solar+wind generation is only half-way to "regenerative energy". The other half is A) batteries as a short-term buffer and B) fossile- or nuclear-powered "backup" generation capacity for long-term cloudy and windless days. Don't even think you can do that with hydro storage. Just too few J/kg*m in the water on the hill.

1
1
Stop

Both Lewis and WWF have some Valid Points

WWF clearly is writing extremist and irrational stuff, so Lewis is right about that. But certainly the world cannot go on with the Western Model Of Resource Consumption.

Especially Automotive Mobility in the West is at a crazy level. America consumes about 25% of the world crude oil supply just that they can move their often obese bodies comfortably from home to work and back every day. With them, they often move a 1.8 ton "SUV" vehicle. That kind of activity clearly cannot be perpetuated, as oil production cannot be increased to fuel the same activity in China and India.

There are many possibilities of reducing that activity drastically without the dystopic visions of Mr Page being implemented. Buses and trains do not have to be smelly and cramped. British incompetence does not mean it is generally impossible to have decent train and bus services. Also, novel approaches such as dynamically scheduling buses, taxis trains requested by mobile phone could greatly improve service quality and reduce waste.

Also, Western Meat Consumption Habits are both unhealthy and impossible to scale to China, India and Africa. One Joule of energy from meat requires at least six Joules of energy from grain, maize etc to feed the livestock which is used for the meat. We can already see that food prices appreciate sharply in the western world, because the Chinese have increased meat consumption. Also, eating so much meat is definitely not healthy. So if they would put it more moderately, the WWF would have a point.

In general, I do think there can be further "growth", but probably not in energy and meat consumption or the number of human beings. China's population control measures should be applied to Africa and Asia in general, if we want to avoid very serious problems. Development aid should be Distributing Condoms, not distributing wheat sacks.

"Growth" can indeed be realized in many, many fields such as software, mobile phones, internet services, teleworking, telepresence, eco-friendly technologies such as water treatment plants, home insulation. "Growth" is not necessarily related to buring more fuel or driving more miles.

Humanity is already living in a quite crowded planet and constantly building more roads, parking lots, airports and houses does not make me happy. But that does not mean I am advocating the return to stone age. There are so many ways to reduce resource consumption without selecting the extremist visions. For example, we could travel by train to Spain from Northern Europe, which could be done by using CO2-friendly train travel powered by nuclear power, thereby saving on fuel-hungry plane travel.

I sometimes think Mr Page is a British Petroleum $hill. After all, selling pertroleum is one of Britains biggest industries...

3
2
aka

38 years ?

38 years ? for goodness sake, does anyone imagine that our politicians will not have destroyed our world and its so-called economy in that timespan ? and even if they haven't, uncontrolled human procreation will probably do the trick very nicely. Get real, everyone ; this culture is doomed.

The good news ?? - well, actually, I think there is some. Our species is the first and so far only one capable of interfering measurably in planet-scale management. The fact that we've been very flipping bad at it so far doesn't mean that some future, slightly cleverer, humans may not be able to salvage something from the wreckage and influence the outcome more robustly. But our act ?? - it's going DOWN, brothers.

3
3

Re: 38 years ?

"38 years ? for goodness sake, does anyone imagine that our politicians will not have destroyed our world and its so-called economy in that timespan ? and even if they haven't, uncontrolled human procreation will probably do the trick very nicely. Get real, everyone ; this culture is doomed."

The problems are one and the same, the politicians subsidizing procreation is ruining the economy and the environment all at once. I see people daily who have 5+ kids just to get the government checks. Stop paying for it, and it will stop happening... at least on this side of the pond.

0
1
Gold badge

Re: 38 years ?

"I see people daily who have 5+ kids just to get the government checks. Stop paying for it, and it will stop happening... at least on this side of the pond."

Stop paying for it and you will produce a generation of kids who grew up in poverty knowing that you chose to punish *them* for their *parents* over-indulgence in unprotected sex.

Yes, I know it is annoying to think that honest, decent taxpayers are paying these idiots to have sex, but once the child is born society has an innocent child that it can either chuck on the scrap-heap (as, allegedly, was the practice in late Roman times) or pick up and look after, in the hope that it might be less useless than its idiot parents. Most civilised people don't reckon the former is an option. So we have to pay. So the next question is whether you give the money to the idiot parent or whether you introduce a new rule saying "There will be no child welfare payments. Any child that you can no longer support financially will be taken into care.".

OMG. I hope the government isn't reading this...

0
0
Bronze badge
Unhappy

meh!

From today's reg article on Nvidia:

"A cloud allows a kilowatt gaming experience on a 20-watt handheld device."

So let's cover the planet with wind turbines and nuclear reactors so that every ned can play stupid games on their iphone whilst doing fuck all else.

This won't affect the rich, they'll just be doing the usual bathing in asses' milk aboard their mega-yachts. Oh!, and playing stupid games on their iphones.

And *everyone* please remember to declare any backhanders payments from the nuke industry to the Inland Revenue. Allegedly.

0
0

Whenever I read this kind of drivel from Lewis Page, I'm always reminded of this cartoon:

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/5/6/3/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jpg

7
5
Happy

THANK YOU

I was looking for that cartoon for ages :-)

0
0
Silver badge

@kyza

Define "better world"?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

I don't get it...

... So where does Hulk Hogan fit into all this?

Shouldn't he be batting some official with a folding chair or something?

0
0
Bronze badge

Ive got no problems with the WWF and the conclusions of this report......

.....provided they go 1st.

4
0
Bronze badge

Watermelons - Green on the outside, red on the inside.

The problem I have with all these wonderful utopian ideas is (as Tony Benn used to say) that we end up being managed, rather than represented.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

WWF to provide sustainable energy

Round them up and force them to run the treadmills. Everybody's happy. People get green energy. WWF people are in poverty.

3
0
Mushroom

How would you save mankind.

So lay out your answer to save mankind. bet Itll sound as nuts as the WWF.

Go on, give it a go.

0
2

Re: How would you save mankind.

There is only on real way to save mankind in the long run. We must colonise other planets. Other solar systems. Other galaxies.

Nevermind all this renewable/nuclear/fluffy panda stuff - we need to find a way out of here.

We will, at some point, get hit by some massive piece of cosmic debris. We will all get frazzled as the oceans boil off when the sun expands - admittedly not for a long time, but not that far off in terms of earth-having-existed timescales.

Most people I say this to take it as some sort of strange Trekky nutjob fantasy, and probably drug induced. But it's true (the world eventually ending bit).

10
2
Bronze badge

Re: How would you save mankind.

easy peasy:

nuclear. biuld lots of reactors. solves energy issues overnight. and gives cheap, safe energy to all.

with regards food? stop any and all trade restrictions with 3rd world countries. whats the point growing crops if they cant sell them, and its cheaper (due to western subsidies) to buy in food?

and also a massive redistrobtion of wealth. downwards. amke the rich pay more tax. make companies pay tax. use this money to fund the above 2 plans.

and bosh. world fixed. no caves needed.

6
0
Mushroom

Re: How would you save mankind. @ Mike Brown

I'd add build massive greenhouses next to the reactors and heat them from the "waste" heat in the cooling circuit.

Mind - I also agree with getting a proportion of the population off this rock - 7billion (and counting) eggs, one basket.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: How would you save mankind.

Why does mankind need to be saved? Nothing lasts forever, and we've had a good innings. Who's going to miss us when we're gone?

2
3
Bronze badge

Re: How would you save mankind.

@Mike Brown,

Unfortunately a lot of the "3rd world" growing area has been taken over by corporations growing high value, but relatively pointless crops such as flowers.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: How would you save mankind.

"nuclear. biuld lots of reactors. solves energy issues overnight. and gives cheap, safe energy to all."

So is every country going to have access to nuclear technology?

1
0
Boffin

Re: How would you save mankind.

If thorium pans out the way it looks like it will, I see no reason why not.

Especially if it really is that difficult (nigh on impossible) to weaponise the fuel.

3
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.