It's been awhile.
Nevertheless, there's not too much to update on. At least in terms of my existence.
The work has continued, luckily. It seemed like we were going to be laid off for awhile there, but things picked up and now it looks like we'll be working for at least the remainder of the month.
But not me, because I'm headed to Winnipeg for Christmas! Arrival: December 19th, Departure: December 26th. Everyone prepare for more good times!!!
The Plasti-Fab Christmas Party was Saturday night at the Rockway Golf Course Clubhouse. I had a great time, in spite of the lack of sleep. See, I wasn't scheduled to work overtime that morning, so I engaged in my usual late night marathon of Naruto episodes. Following which, I tossed and turned for awhile before finally dozing off just past 5am. The phone rang at 6:17am. Someone hadn't shown up and they needed me to come in to work. Being the holiday season, its tough to pass up OT, so I accepted the invitation. I got home around 1:30 in the afternoon, lounged around and showered. Tried to catch a bit of a nap, but it didn't last long. Alina called a little past 4 to ask if I could help her with a flat tire. Being the chivalrous type I am, of course I went to help. It was for the best, I needed to get myself woken up and ready for the evening.
I picked Alina up around 6:30, dressed up in my finest suit. It feels good to dress up once in awhile. Nevertheless, my companion for the evening looked infinitely better than I. We had a really good time, I was even in high enough spirits to make a fool of myself on the dance floor doing some hokey country dance moves. I didn't take my camera with me, but there were plenty of pictures taken and if I manage to obtain any I promise to post them here.
Still going steady at the gym, 4 times a week. The resolve hasn't faltered yet :).
We put new tires and brakes on the Grand Am, probably a good thing because the treads on the old tires were worn down to the nubs. It was almost like driving on slicks. It drives infinitely better, and I find myself looking forward to the snow even more.
Oh, how about that holiday campaigning? Tax cuts Tax cuts and Tax cuts, so we're told. I was going to write a huge rant about the national debt, but its hardly worth the time. Most people in the country seem to be dead set on sacrificing the future for the present. Each generation successively passing the buck to the next, desperately hoping that it doesn't one day catch up to us. And that goes for more than just the debt. Are any of these self-serving jackasses really worth a vote of confidence? I wish I could say yes. But it's doubtful.
3 Comments:
oho, a date eh? And yeah... I'm pondering helping the green in my riding, just to make a statement. Though the candidate still hasn't got his 100 signatures, lol.
That, and we've only got about 100 yrs of resources left to say nothing of global warming...
But on with the tax cuts!
100 yrs of resources left? Your an idiot if you believe that. Are things bad yeah, most assuredly they are ..100 years no .. thats just tree hugging hippie talk thats what that is. Actual estimates show that oil reserves will last at least till the turn of the century, maybe beyond as most offshore oil fields havnet been exploited yet. You should really be more specific when you say resources, if you mean oil then yeah I'll agree but theres more then just oil on our planet.
Idiot, eh? Hippie, eh? Heh heh heh...
Despite a certain pessimism that you will never read this, I feel morally obligated to give a response in hopes that at least those who regularly check this blog will see this. Exams are over anyway, so I have the time to waste.
I'm not sure which "actual" estimates you were looking at, but I was probably look at the same ones. If you want me to be really really specific, I refer you to the most authoritative text on the subject, MIT's "Limits to Growth" report for a group called the "Club of Rome." The club is made up of an inluential group of political has-beens and scientists, while, of course, MIT is widely regarded as one of the top research institutes in the world.
The Limits to Growth came out in the mid-70's amid great international shock and awe. The reaction quickly dissipated when skeptics from all corners of the scientific world called the models exaggerated deja-vu fairytales.
But the report launched an update last year. And guess what? They were pretty damn close. Almost dead-on. Now, I'd be the first to criticize sheer rational computation. But, given their success thus far, the report is infinintely more athoritative than either you or I.
The comprehensive computer models, complete with graphs and in-depth analysis, take into account:
-rates of non-renewable resource extraction food production
-land use
-industrial output and pollution
-technical advances
-human welfare
-material wealth
They ran eleven scenarios (starting at 0) and I will give the books synopsis of each senario now:
SCENARIO 0) If all physical limits to the world system are removed, population still peaks near 9 billion and starts a decline in a demographic transition.[!] The economy grows until the year 2080, when it is producing 30 times the year 2000 level of industrial output, while using the same annual amount of nonrenewable resources and producing only one-eighth as much pollution per year.
Translation: we reach the end of our lifestyle by about 2150. We had plenty of GM food and our material standard of living increased, until the ecosystem collapsed.
SCENARIO 1)The world society proceeds in a traditional manner without any major deviation from the policies pursued during most of the twentieth century. Population and production increase until growth is halted by increasingly inaccessible nonrenewable resources. Ever more investment is required to maintain resource flows *SOMETHING ANONYMOUS DIDN'T DISCUSS ABOVE WITH REGARD TO THE FEASIBILITY OF OFFSHORE DRILLING* Finally, lack of investment funds in the other sectors of the eocnomy leads to declining output of both industrial goods and services. As they fall, food and health services are reduced, decreasing life expectancy and raising average death rates.
Translation: It's all good till about 2050, and rapid decline (probably in the form of global depression and likely another war) ensues until non-renewable resources are virtually eliminated by 2100.
SCENARIO 2) If we double the nonrenewable resrouce endowment assumed in scenario 1 and furthermore postulate that advances in resource extraction technologies are capable of postponing the onset of increasing extraction costs, industry can grow 20 years longer. Population peaks at 8 billion in 2040, at much higher consumption levels. But pollution levels soar (outside the given graph!), depreseing land yields and requiring huge investments in agricultural recovery. The population finally declines because of food shortages and negative health effects from pollution (**which are occurring today).
Translation: We just die harder (more painfully) if we find more resources. Collapse here still occurs by 2100! Global recession begins at about 2040, about the same time as peak population.
Hope you're not tired yet, it gets better:
3)More Accessible Nonrenewable resources and Pollution Control Technology: In this scenario we assume the same ample resouce supply as in scenario 2 as well as increasingly effective polution control technology, which can reduce the amount of pollution generated per unit of output by up to 4% per year, starting in 2002. This allows much higher welfare for more people after 2040 because of fewer negative effects from pollution. But food productoin does ultimately decline, drawing capital from the industrial sector and triggering a collapse.
Translation: Prosperity till about 2075, and an extremely quick decline, especially with respect to industrial output. Resources, in this case, flatten at 2080.
SCENARIO 4) Same as 3, plus land yield enhancement: High agricultural intensity speeds up land loss. The world's farmers end up trying to squeeze more and more food output from less and less land. This proves [rather quickly] unsustainable.
Tranlation: Not much of one necessary - in fact, the graph they gave says much the same thing as the last one. Reason for this likely being the Malthusian hypothesis that the amount of food determines population, not vice-versa.
SCENARIO 5) Same plus erosion protection. The result is a slight postponement of the collapse at the end of the 21st century.
Speaks for itself. Resources here flatten at about 2075. Industrial output drops like a bloody rock at 2080.
SCENARIO 6) Same, plus resource effeciency technology... all these technologies are assumed to involve costs and to take 20 years to be fully implemented. In combination they ermit a fairly large and prosperous simulated world, until the bliss starts declining in response to the accumulated cost of the technologies.
Translation: Dear God, throw us a bone here!
SCENARIO 7) the world seeks the stable population (no technology): after 2002, all couples decide to limit their family size to 2 children and that the have access to effective birth control technologies.... slower population growth permits industrial output to rise faster, until it is stopped by the cost of dealing with rising pollution.
Translation: rapid decline at about 2060, recession begins at 2045.
SCENARIO 8) same, plus a fixed goal for industrial output per capita - it can extend somewhat the "golden period" of fairly high human welfare between 2020 and 2040 in Scenario 7. But [again], pollution increasingly stresses agricultural resources. Per capital food production declines, eventually bringing down life expectancy and population.
Translation: low peak at 2040, slow decline till about 2150, when resources and population are almost gone, but pollution remains.
SCENARIO 9) same as previous two, plus polution, resource, and agricultural technologies from 2002: Resulting society is nearly sustainable - nearly 8 billion people live with high human welfare and a continuously declining ecological footprint.
Translation: we're nowhere near this scenario. Wouldn't we like to get there?
SCENARIO 10) same as last one, if they were introduced 20 years earlier: moving toward sustainability 20 yrs sooner would have meant a lower final population, less pollution, more nonrenewable resources, and a slightly higher average welfare for all.
Translation: this is impossible, but it sure would have been nice!
The report makes a final analysis indicating that sustainability doesn't necessarily mean "zero growth" - but we just have to grow differently (without using resources the way we do now and understanding global trends).
Based upon trends from 1970 to today, we are on track with an 'overshoot and collapse' model which most resembles models 2-4 where signals and responses are delayed and, like I said to begin with, the world goes to hell by about 2100.
Is that "actual" or "specific" enough for you?
Oh, and I almost forgot - going by models 2-4, oil is actually depleted closer to mid-century, not 2100. Oil, of course, is used for pesticides and fertilizers as well as the tractors and the shipping of food, so agricultural endeavours become much more expensive and labour-intensive. Because of the prevalent denial, which you seem to personify, capital is not- cannot be re-invested (because there is none) and that facilitates our rapid decline.
Please reconsider your ignorance. It would be a pleasure to continue this conversation.
Post a Comment
<< Home