Scientists believe the world will end.

[Classik]

What I'd propose is a sterility plague that renders 90% or so of the human population infertile. while it would cause some severe effects such as a generational bottleneck in the long term it's a much more humane option to complete biosphere collapse caused by unstoppable human consumption.

People that think like you are dangerous... You scare me.

Is that a kind of Noahnic-Flooduic elimination of evil people as recorded in the OT? Just kidding

90% is quite high. The 10% might not survive. 0.1% out of the 10% might be sterile. Diseases, natural disaster etc might further reduce the population as low as 7%. Of course we would have fewer doctors.


-----
In fact, expect a population that would breed like rabbits: Incest - of course, rape, spread of diseases - STDs etc

 

[Classik]

Over 150,000 people die everyday day and over 250,000 people are born every day (These statistics are probably questionable). The number of abortions has no measurable effect on world population. Sadly for them and their families, but fortunately for the rest of the population, vast numbers of those babies die from hunger, polluted water and lack of effective medical care.

Don't minimize abortion... It's murder. In the US, Iam sure that there are more people who die via Abortion than die from hunger, polluted water or lack of effective medical care.

That sounds like you are saying America has many quack doctors, or, most of the women invloved met quacks;)

 

[stovebolts]

Is that a kind of Noahnic-Flooduic elimination of evil people as recorded in the OT? Just kidding

90% is quite high. The 10% might not survive. 0.1% out of the 10% might be sterile. Diseases, natural disaster etc might further reduce the population as low as 7%. Of course we would have fewer doctors.


-----
In fact, expect a population that would breed like rabbits: Incest - of course, rape, spread of diseases - STDs etc

Eh, good points ;)

 

[Aardverk]

Don't minimize abortion... It's murder. In the US, I am sure that there are more people who die via Abortion than die from hunger, polluted water or lack of effective medical care.

I was not minimizing it Stovebolts, I said, 'it is not statistically significant'. I am sure you will agree with that unless your understanding of the term is unusual. Do remember that I was talking in world terms.

Here's a novel idea.... it has been shown that they can extract the most hydrogen out of Ethenol, so to have a good hydrogen supply means that we need a good Ethenol supply.

What is the point of getting hydrogen from Ethanol? Ethanol is already a valid, flexible fuel. The important step we must take is to extract Hydrogen from water. The result of using the hydrogen in an engine is --- water! An endless cycle. All you need to make it work is electricity.

 

[Chris]

I think the world will end soon, immediately after when the sun sets in the east and as we watch the silhouettes of the pigs flying backwards in the sunset.

 

[Pebbles]

Pretty radical Pebbles - assuming that you mean a deliberately engineered virus. Whilst I understand your logic I think most people would have insurmountable difficulties being involved with such a project.

Realistically, mankind will suffer natural 'plagues' such as bird-flu etc which will wipe out significant numbers. The problem is that even if the population were to drop to a sustainable level, we would breed back in no time if there was enough food. The real 'killer' is when we get repeated crop failures around the world due to something like volcanic activity, nuclear winter or asteroid strike. That could really be a new beginning for mankind. A sort of 'Noah's nuclear winter'.

Your right to an extent yeah it's certainly the case that populations effected by disease (or war in human cases) usually bounce right back the reason for that is the abundance of resources encourages a demographic baby boom.

But consider I'm not suggesting a Mass cull of humanity infact such a horrendous disaster and inhumane loss of life is the one thing I'm trying to avoid.

As the existing population isn't killed thus isn't any encouragement for a baby boom.

However you are completely correct in that natural selection will naturally select for those random individuals who were immune/resistant to such a virus which is why the initial sterility levels would be so high as 90%.

Because I don't doubt after our current generation whitch would be effected by 90% sterility the F2 generation would only suffer by 40% or so and the F3 generation would only be effected 20% or so. thus such a sterility effect would only be "temporary" In that the engineered virus would be made extinct to human adaptation in a hundred years or so.

However I think that giving people an extra 100 years or so create a viable solution evade the awful inhumane catastrophe of billions dying of starvation and war caused by biosphere collapse and energy crisis is a worthy venture.

Of course I can imagine that many would disagree with me and see me as crazy.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist

90% is quite high. The 10% might not survive. 0.1% out of the 10% might be sterile. Diseases, natural disaster etc might further reduce the population as low as 7%. Of course we would have fewer doctors.

10% of the existing population is over 700Million It's not a adam and eve plot im proposing with back crossing or inbreeding or anything stuff like that. That's Still 3 times as much as the current population of the USA and the fertile population is still twice as large as the TOTAL population of the earth during the 1700's. Just to give some perspective on the kind of numbers we are dealing with here.

the notion of extinction due to unforeseen catastrophe is statistically insignificant Loosing that many people is unheard of at any point in entire history of earth Even during our species darkest and most violent times.

You are sterile by choice and personally I'm glad you cant' reproduce. I wouldn't want a bunch of mini-you's running around. I couldn't imagine being so disappointed in my body that I felt the need to mutilate it.

You don't understand anything do you?

You fail to understand the pain and danger that Gender Dysphora poses to those afflicted with it.
You fail to understand the gravity or difficulty of the choice I made when I transitioned
You fail to understand my motivation or thought processes.
You fail to understand the immense threat that beckons the human race in times to come.

Ignorance is a warm blanket akin to that a child might hold onto it gives them comfort but ultimately no protection.

 

[stovebolts]

You are sterile by choice and personally I'm glad you cant' reproduce. I wouldn't want a bunch of mini-you's running around. I couldn't imagine being so disappointed in my body that I felt the need to mutilate it.

You don't understand anything do you?

You fail to understand the pain and danger that Gender Dysphora poses to those afflicted with it.
You fail to understand the gravity or difficulty of the choice I made when I transitioned
You fail to understand my motivation or thought processes.
You fail to understand the immense threat that beckons the human race in times to come.

Ignorance is a warm blanket akin to that a child might hold onto it gives them comfort but ultimately no protection.

Pebbles,
I honestly stated that I could not imagine being so disappointed in my body that I would mutilate it to the point you have. If it weren't so with you, you would not have made the transition you made. Please tell me if I am wrong.

I do not sit in judgment of you, but I do state very clearly that I do not share your feelings or your views.

You are sterile by choice. Ultimately it was you who had the final say to proceed with your gender transformation and this is very clear. That I fail to understand that is not my burden to bear. I have treated you with dignity on this forum and I realize this is a hot button for you, but please understand that abortion, let alone mandated sterility is a my hot button and we are on two different ends of the spectrum on this.

My point was, who are you to dictate let alone advocate that others become sterile? When you say things like that I have to think about my son, and my grand children. You speak about ignorance being a blanket and you speak of not understanding. While I do not fully understand your feelings, you will never understand the joy that comes from holding your baby, or watching him grow, or the time spent as they grow up. Since I was a boy I wanted to be a husband and a father, to raise a family and have a white picket fence. I am already a grandfather, but I have children who have not yet had children, and your thoughts threaten that.

So when I say I am glad you can't have kids, it's because people like you scare me because you threaten something that is very near to my core and that is Family.

 

[stovebolts]

I was not minimizing it Stovebolts, I said, 'it is not statistically significant'. I am sure you will agree with that unless your understanding of the term is unusual. Do remember that I was talking in world terms.

Anytime you devalue the significance of a human life it's minimizing that life. 3,000 abortions occur each day. That is a lot of killing. Let's call it what it is... Tragic.

What is the point of getting hydrogen from Ethanol? Ethanol is already a valid, flexible fuel. The important step we must take is to extract Hydrogen from water. The result of using the hydrogen in an engine is --- water! An endless cycle. All you need to make it work is electricity.

Extracting hydrogen from Ethenol is about 90% efficient. Business is in business to make money... That's what business does. If extracting hydrogen out of water was cost effective, they would be doing it that way. But it's not cost effective because it's not efficient. And yes, I am very well versed in hydrogen vehicles and sadly, Ethenol is no longer considered a viable fuel source for them.

Did you know that when Obama first got into office he killed the Hydrogen fuel cell program? Did you know that the only thing keeping us from from Hydrogen vehicles is infrastructure? That means how do you get the Ethenol and hydrogen from where it's manufactured to it's main distribution points? That requires new pipelines from the origin of manufacturing to main distribution points. These were shovel ready projects when Obama came into office, yet they were crushed.

This crushed Ethenol as a viable and affordable fuel source. Furthermore, when they raised the MPG on cars, this was the nail in the coffin that killed Ethenol. Why? Because vehicles that are flex fuel are engineered more efficient with gasoline than e-85 because e-85 isn't readily available across the country. As a result, the cars respond poorly to e-85. However, if you design an engine around e-85, it's performance and MPG greatly increases. But when you do that, if you want to run gasoline, you'd have to run Premium gasoline and it still wouldn't run as good as e-85.

So, who'd going to buy premium gasoline at a higher cost to get less mpg because they couldn't get -85? So you have to ask yourself... Why did Obama kill e-85 and hydrogen? It's simple... Money. Do you have any idea the tax revenue that is generated by the oil companies? Besides, last time they were threatened with a serious alternative fuel, they crushed our economy by raising gasoline to 5 bucks a gallon... It's all about money. It always has been.

And that's the real deal my friend.

 

[Classik]

10% of the existing population is over 700Million It's not a adam and eve plot im proposing with back crossing or inbreeding or anything stuff like that. That's Still 3 times as much as the current population of the USA and the fertile population is still twice as large as theTOTAL population of the earth during the 1700's.Just to give some perspective on the kind of numbers we are dealing with here.
the notion of extinction due to unforeseen catastrophe is statistically insignificant Loosing that many people is unheard of at any point in entire history of earth Even during our species darkest and most violent times.

Not in this current world that has been polluted and messed up.
It'll still fall as low as 3 percent. STDs will do more harm - because we all would want to reproduce , pollution, control problem. And I see a generation with animal instict in it.

 

[Classik]

Materials are really failing.

I still have our old electric fan. It's over thirty years of age now, and still functions very well. Though it has seen much use, I still use it as if it's made of gold. It's so precious to us. Another stuff we have is our electric clock. Both devices are older than Classik;)


Now my question is: We still have sophisticated electrical devices. Good. Why don't they last as long as these old ones? Some would say, it's as a result of specification. Some would argue, 'Inferior materials could have been used'. Even the sophisticated and high quality devices rarely last as much as these old devices do.
Contamination in the atmosphere! Reversibility difficulties!


Truth is, most of the materials used have been contaminated, the reason we have low Reliability and Maintainability of these compared to the old stuff. My old radio is still functioning. The new ones are all sick in the head:bigfrown

In fact, the atmosphere has just been messed up by human activities. Take a sample of air in China and another in South Africa, for example, you could notice a significant difference.


This leads me to the question: how do you define 'destroyed'? Looking at: Laws of Thermodynamics ...conservation of mass, indestructibility jargon, transformations etc.

Truth is, once a thing has lost its use, not serving its purpose anymore, I call that 'destroyed' (although not really destroyed as we have in the laws).

Example is: I could use blocks of ice as weapons. I could decide to shoot them. But once the blocks change into water or vapor they can't be used for the same purpose again (unless you have to remove heat). This is simply a change of state. Conservation thing still applies. This is the area am going. ('Destroyed' in my own definition is when 'that' has lost its purpose.

Matthew 5:13
...but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men
This is what I call 'destroyed'. When I say, Scientists also believe the world will come to an end, it doesn't necessarily mean US Soldires would launch a nuclear device, Iraq would launch one, China, Japan etc, then the world would burn and smoke and become ashes. A time shall come when successful reversion of processes would fall very low.


We can see how materials are beginning to fail, quality , everything is messed up (although scientific methods can still help, but...).

There are certain foods and fruits that have partially lost their original taste and 'quality'. Harmful micro-organisms emerge, contaminations here and there...


Although we believe this world would come to an end, only God can really completely end it

 

[Classik]

When do we say 'destroyed' or 'the world has come to an end'? Is it when man or life goes extict? I would say NO

 

[Aardverk]

But consider I'm not suggesting a Mass cull of humanity infact such a horrendous disaster and inhumane loss of life is the one thing I'm trying to avoid...............Because I don't doubt after our current generation whitch would be effected by 90% sterility the F2 generation would only suffer by 40% or so and the F3 generation would only be effected 20% or so. thus such a sterility effect would only be "temporary" In that the engineered virus would be made extinct to human adaptation in a hundred years or so.

You actually make out quite a good case Pebbles. I believe you are talking about genetically engineered 'castration'. The forced castrations that have taken place have caused massive backlash so no government would ever dare do it. Maybe your virus could be a terrorist action as a rapidly dwindling population will have devastating effects on the financial world and maybe the country of origin will have the antidote? No, I'm not seriously suggesting that.

the notion of extinction due to unforeseen catastrophe is statistically insignificant Loosing that many people is unheard of at any point in entire history of earth Even during our species darkest and most violent times.

How about the extinction of the dinosaurs? In 2029 there is likely to be a rather large asteroid collision or in 2035 if 'Apophis' misses us first time.

You don't understand anything do you?

You fail to understand the pain and danger that Gender Dysphora poses to those afflicted with it.

Just for clarity Pebbles, that insensitive comment wasn't from me.

 

[Aardverk]

Anytime you devalue the significance of a human life it's minimizing that life.

Yes, but no one has done that Stovebolts.

Extracting hydrogen from Ethenol is about 90% efficient. Business is in business to make money... That's what business does. If extracting hydrogen out of water was cost effective, they would be doing it that way. But it's not cost effective because it's not efficient.

We are still talking at cross purposes. You are looking primarily at the USA short term, I am looking at the world long term.

I can see no sense at all in extracting hydrogen from Ethanol. The point you make about cars not being ready for Ethanol is multiplied many times over if you consider their inability to use hydrogen. You could probably never have a dual fuel hydrogen/gasoline internal combustion engine but you can easily have a dual fuel ethanol/gasoline engine. Most cars in the USA are quite capable of running on a 20/80 mix. Bear in mind that in Brazil the legal mix is 25/75. The whole purpose of using ethanol is to reduce oil consumption so a few problems are worth tolerating. The fact that ethanol can also give a performance advantage is pretty irrelevant.

Oil will eventually run out and so will ethanol - unless we ignore the starving millions and selfishly grow plants for ethanol production! The obvious, extremely clean, alternative fuel is hydrogen made from water. Whether hydrogen fuel cells ever become viable is almost irrelevant. Hydrogen internal combustion engines have been running for many years and I see no obvious reason why gas turbine engines should not modified to run on hydrogen.

Short term - add a bit of ethanol to gasoline, get car manufacturers to improve on-board computers to modify the settings to take account of the fuel used. Mid term - run down ethanol production and grow food crops for the starving millions. Long term - hydrogen produced from water using electricity made with nuclear fusion.

 

[stovebolts]

Over 150,000 people die everyday day and over 250,000 people are born every day (These statistics are probably questionable). The number of abortions has no measurable effect on world population. Sadly for them and their families, but fortunately for the rest of the population, vast numbers of those babies die from hunger, polluted water and lack of effective medical care.

Anytime you devalue the significance of a human life it's minimizing that life.

Yes, but no one has done that Stovebolts.

Aardverk,
When you say, "The number of abortions has no measurable effect on world population." that is an insensitive remark considering around 3,000 abortions occur daily in the United States. If you go to India, the numbers are staggering as many female fetus are aborted soley based on gender. As a result many men will NEVER know what it's like to be with a woman since many women are aborted simply based on gender. Imagine a mother being forced to kill her unborn daughter based simply on gender. Imagine the woman who aborts her unborn child because she feels trapped and is doing what she thinks is the best thing she can do and later in her years it haunts her. Your remark is insensitive.

I would submit that our perceptions are based on our value system. I value each and every life more than I value any type of statistic. For me, people can be used for statistics, but they are not statistics. Each human being is first and foremost just that. A human being. And we ought to respect that and put it in it's proper place. Never should we minimize the death of a human being based on statistic.

 

[stovebolts]

Extracting hydrogen from Ethenol is about 90% efficient. Business is in business to make money... That's what business does. If extracting hydrogen out of water was cost effective, they would be doing it that way. But it's not cost effective because it's not efficient.

We are still talking at cross purposes. You are looking primarily at the USA short term, I am looking at the world long term.

I can see no sense at all in extracting hydrogen from Ethanol. The point you make about cars not being ready for Ethanol is multiplied many times over if you consider their inability to use hydrogen. You could probably never have a dual fuel hydrogen/gasoline internal combustion engine but you can easily have a dual fuel ethanol/gasoline engine. Most cars in the USA are quite capable of running on a 20/80 mix. Bear in mind that in Brazil the legal mix is 25/75. The whole purpose of using ethanol is to reduce oil consumption so a few problems are worth tolerating. The fact that ethanol can also give a performance advantage is pretty irrelevant.

I am also talking global.

The sense in extracting hydrogen from Ethenol is two fold. First it is the most efficient and cost effective means of producing hydrogen. That makes extracting hydrogen from ethenol the smart choice.

This also lays an extremely viable road map to hydrogen. In a practical sense, cars currently run on fossil fuel and you can travel from one end of the country to the other and never have a problem getting fossil fuel for your car. You can't say that with e-85 and you certainly can't say that with hydrogen.

So how do you get from fossil fuel to hydrogen? Remember, ethenol is the cheapest and most efficient way to make hydrogen so ethenol is the preferred method for producing hydrogen.

What we lack is infrastructure and all ethenol is currently being trucked from refinery to distribution points. What this means is that we have no cost effective way to move the ethenol from the refineries to our current fossil fuel distribution points where it can be moved across vast pipelines to any part of the country that needs it which would include hydrogen manufacturing.

But going back to our current fossil fuel cars. Modern engines are designed to run on low octane and are low compression. A purely ethenol car requires high compression. So we see that ethenol in a standard engine is not very effecient. Thus we see a performance decrease when running e-85 which is not cost effective to the consumer especially when you consider the majority of gas stations do not carry e-85. (Exxon and Mobil both refused). As a result, the demand for ethenol remains low. Now then, if the demand for ethenol remains low, then what we have is a shortage of the primary resource for creating hydrogen.

Oil will eventually run out and so will ethanol - unless we ignore the starving millions and selfishly grow plants for ethanol production! The obvious, extremely clean, alternative fuel is hydrogen made from water. Whether hydrogen fuel cells ever become viable is almost irrelevant. Hydrogen internal combustion engines have been running for many years and I see no obvious reason why gas turbine engines should not modified to run on hydrogen.

Ethenol will only run out when it's stopped being produces. As far as ignoring starving children... I believe you are talking about using corn to produce ethenol? This is a misnomer. First off it uses feed corn and it has been found that the byproduct of ethenol is better for cattle than whole corn so the corn being used for ethenol is not wasted as a food source. Also, we don't even need corn to produce ethenol as it is more efficient AND cost effective to manufacture ethenol from switch grass which currently hold NO economic value. When have you ever gone to a restaurant or the store and gotten a good ole plate of switch grass?

As far as fuel cells being a viable energy resource, it certainly is a contender. There are entire buildings in the US ran primarily on hydrogen as we speak. As far as modifying our current gasoline engines to run on hydrogen... that's not economically viable. Besides, we still have the problem of acquiring hydrogen. Also, you must remember that hydrogen is dangerous because it's a compressed gas which can explode on impact. Where would you mount the hydrogen tank safely in a standard vehicle? Also, the tanks are very large and you get relatively low mpg with them. Lets say you get 300 miles from a current tank of gas. You'll only get about 175 miles from a tank of hydrogen. So where are you going to fill up at? You see, it goes back to infrastructure. Which is why the road map to hydrogen is crucial.

Short term - add a bit of ethanol to gasoline, get car manufacturers to improve on-board computers to modify the settings to take account of the fuel used. Mid term - run down ethanol production and grow food crops for the starving millions. Long term - hydrogen produced from water using electricity made with nuclear fusion.

1. We are already adding ethenol to gasoline.
2. Car manufactures are already using onboard computers to modify the settings to take account for the fuel used.
3. You seem to think that ethenol is taking away from the global food source. I see you've drank the cool aid. This simply is not true.
4. If your solution ever becomes financially viable, I'm all for it. However, it's not an economic reality. Just like solar... it's just not an economically viable solution.

 

[Aardverk]

Aardverk,
When you say, "The number of abortions has no measurable effect on world population." that is an insensitive remark considering around 3,000 abortions occur daily in the United States. ........... Your remark is insensitive.

Where is that insensitive? Why do you assume that you are any more aware of or caring about the dying millions than me? Each abortion is a tragedy - on that we may well agree but the numbers are statistically insignificant.

The margin of error in counting the world's population is estimated to be around 3.5%. That is approximately a 245,000,000 person margin of error. Now, you tell me Stovebolts - how many abortions would there need to be every year before it had a measurable effect on world population? Do please remember that my words were - The number of abortions has no measurable effect on world population.

I value each and every life more than I value any type of statistic....................Never should we minimize the death of a human being based on statistic.

No one has done that Stovebolts. This thread is about the end of the world, not about abortion.

 

[Aardverk]

The sense in extracting hydrogen from Ethenol is two fold. First it is the most efficient and cost effective means of producing hydrogen. That makes extracting hydrogen from ethenol the smart choice.

Smart? If, we had a need for lots of hydrogen, then I may possibly agree with you. What on earth are you going to use all that hydrogen for that you have 'smarty' extracted from ethanol? It is a completely pointless exercise when we can already use that ethanol without further processing.

Whilst there are already plenty of viable, 'safe' hydrogen vehicles on the road, there is no financial incentive YET to increase the number of them. In the mean time, just keep on adding ethanol to gasoline.

I won't comment on the rest of your post as then we would both be repeating ourselves.

 

[Vic C.]

People,

PLEASE get back to the topic. Thanks. :nod

 

[stovebolts]

People,

PLEASE get back to the topic. Thanks. :nod

Sure Vic....

Aardverk, We'll continue this via PM.

 

[Drew]

Scientists believe the world will end. How different is this from the Biblical End of the World?

I do not believe the Bible predicts the world will "end". Quite the opposite, as Paul asserts in Romans 8, creation will be liberated (restored).

People have, through the centuries, misread "end of the world" language that, understood in its Biblical setting, is clearly not to be taken literally.

Such language is used metaphorically to denote socio-political change, not cosmic events.