Lemond1985

It was discovered to be a mis-translation, the actual command was to "multiply like Rabbis".

tandempower

His view is that it's a lost cause until the population is at levels that he believes are sustainable. So that makes his options an easy choice for him: 1) don't bother to change anything at current population levels, because it won't matter anyway 2) wait until population levels come down to what he considers sustainable, and then he thinks people will be free to drive or do whatever else they want; because there won't be enough people doing all those climate-unsustainable things for it to cause climate problems anyway.

win-win for M155 in his mind

cooker

It's not even about him - he's hardly a high energy consumer - it's the pass he give his neighbours - I mean if those damn Bangledshis would only do something!

Mobile 155

I had allowed myself a rabbit trail because someone attempted to justify HSR because it will make life sustainable. To me HSR has to fight its way against the other industries because it is more customer friendly not green. Because I don't see driving as the number one issue. If it is agreed the top concern is too many people to feed and too many people to find water for and everything else comes second that might be worth talking about.


I agree I have opposed the California HSR ever since they changed the line going for San Francisco to L.A. to going from Merced to Bakersfield. To me killing it off was a mercy undertaking. But that is a business objection about where my tax dollars go.


Besides the study we have been discussing I have been reading extensively about overpopulation and the number of countries today that are suffering from food stress. Just as many countries are suffering from lack of water. That is today with 7,3 to 7.7 billion people. No we aren't going to control it, stop it or reverse it under our current world leadership any more than we will get people out of their cars in the next twenty years. We might change to EVs but I have not seen people willing to get together their wants for the greater good of the planet yet.


I actually spend a lot of time researching what is being done as opposed to what is being talked about and I believe 7.5 billion was one of the original tipping points. Things will not get better unless some technological almost miracle advancement comes for food production. HSR will not help one bit with the food and water shortages we are already seeing today. Google homeless in L.A, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and tell me what you see. I have been down to some of these encampments and I see third world living in a first world country.


So people can talk about what we could do, what might work and when we may start anything but as I said no one wants to be the first one to give up what we have in the western world to live like a sustainable third world country. I do see it and I don't blame people for not wanting to live like that. I still say anything that doesn't address overpopulation is simply not sustainable even eating roots and leaves and living in a cave.


But rather than explain my opinion to the few that might listen and wonder here are two references for you that more or less put things in my perspective. and the one from David Attenborough surprised me.


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...verpopulation/


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cl...urs-2013-10-12

cooker

Okay, let's talk about that. If 20 Bangladeshi families consume the same resources as 1 American family, then the most efficient way to use population control to improve the resource situation, would be to start culling American (or Canadian) families - that's where you'd get the biggest bang for the buck.

However, I don't think draconian enforcement of population limitations on resource squandering westerners will go over well. I'd rather just encourage them to use (and waste) a lot less, to get the same effect.

Mobile 155

Fine with me. You will have as Attenbourough and market watch say 9-12 billion people to feed by 2050. Well not really one or two billion will starve and die of thirst. We can't feed 7.5 billion we sure cannot feed 10 billion even if they take the bus. Did anyone start conserving yet? Have you looked at the consumer index? Has consuming slowed? How many times will someone say, if we don't start now we are doomed before people ignore them?


Will western mass transit solve any of this? https://www.concernusa.org/story/wor...est-countries/ How about this https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml


Read the first two links I posted earlier and then see how much encouraging 340 million people to consume less will help several billion that don't have anything to conserve.

By the way I agree getting western society to conserve at a third world level is draconian. I also agree it isn't going to happen and so population will continue to grow till the earth shakes us off. Rome, Eqypt, The Aztecs, Inca and Maya come to mind.

KraneXL

I'm confused. Are we talking about mass high-speed transit? Population control? Or conservation of natural resources?

cooker

One aspect of discussing mass is discussing why we would build it.

Mobile 155

I admitted to trekking off subject. But the side track comes because someone wants to connect sustainability to HSR and Mass transit. I don’t believe mass transit will add a day to sustainability and have explained why.

Trains and buses vs planes and cars comes down to personal preferences and what the majority wants to spend their money on. You have a right to your choice but that doesn’t make it moral and the other opinions immoral.

FiftySix

Agree.

cooker

Well, then, I guess they shouldn't have moved to Las Vegas.

Mobile 155

Could be. But where would they flee to after leaving Detroit or Flint. (Wink)

tandempower

Of course it is more sustainable, if it replaces flying and driving. Buses are more efficient than cars and planes, but they still have tires and thus more rolling resistance than trains.

The only reason buses are a better option than trains at this point is because they can use existing highways instead of building new rail corridors, which shouldn't be built through undeveloped land anyway, for environmental reasons.

Being able to link multiple buses without space in between them would greatly reduce wind drag, as it does with trains. In fact, I'm surprised Greyhound or some other long-distance bus operator hasn't come up with a system for connecting several buses in sequence with all the brakes connected on the same circuit they way a trailer's brakes are connected to the brake pedal of the truck towing the trailer.

Trains are the most efficient form of transportation, but for transitioning away from flying/driving in a society built around flying/driving, it makes more sense to put more people in buses and thus reduce congestion on highways rather than try to get rail corridors built that will only end up stimulating the automotive economy and that will get cancelled before they have a chance to actually divert any of that drive/fly traffic from the highways and skies.

Mobile 155

That is unproven and your opinion. You should have at least glanced at the two links I posted or at least the one from Market Watch. Here is a taste:

“ Get it? Earth has only one real problem, there’s the one main dependent variable in the scientific equation. But we refuse to focus on it. So, yes, even scientists are science deniers too. They know population growth is the killer issue, but are avoiding it too. Thousands of scientists have brilliant technical solutions to reducing the impact of global warming. But avoid the root cause. They keep solving the dependent variables in their climate-change science equation. But population growth is the cause of the Earth’s problem, not the result. “

FiftySix

https://www.gocomics.com/tim-eagan/2019/05/09

Mobile 155

Humor can ease the tension. Not one person’s fault however.

FiftySix

I could have gone with Soylent Green, but I was trying to keep it contemporary.

Mobile 155

You could have gone with The old Twilight Zone, To serve man.

FiftySix

A world without war, disease, and plenty of food thanks to a superior race? Who cares if I become the entree as long as I have a full belly and good health care?

To Serve Man is an uplifting story compared to Soylent Green.

Mobile 155

Common idea, Eloi and Motlocks. But none of them soften the problem of over population.

tandempower

How can you think the difference between the rolling resistance of a pneumatic tire and that of a steel wheel on a steel rail is an opinion? How can you think that wind drag is anything but a question of how many vehicles can cut through the wind following the lead vehicle that pushes the air out of the way so the rest can get through? Have you never seen race cars draft each other? Have you never seen how cyclists in a peloton take turns in the lead position because all the other positions have it easier drafting the leader(s)?

Energy efficiency is not opinion. It is physical fact.

Mobile 155

This has nothing to do with sustainability of the earth filled with too many people. Nothing wrong with believing in railroads. But that doesn’t make run away population sustainable. Nothing wrong with believing cars aren’t the best use of resources. But that doesn’t mean giving up cars will make it easier to feed people starving because of over population.


Your magic space space station or even a biosphere is “only” sustainable when the population using them is stable.

Even your race care example will not work if the race fans grow to the point where they have to move out onto the track.

I am saying your idea of what is sustainable is not proven. Not based on overpopulation.

And I have provided reasons and support for my suggestion on what keeps your solutions from being sustainable. Given you opinion and you are free to do so I just don’t agree and do not agree that a bus or a train will add to long term sustainability based on the ideas I have presented.

tandempower

Why do you post all this in response to a simple explanation of how trains have less rolling resistance and wind resistance than buses, and even buses have less than cars?

I made a simple point about physics and you go off on a bunch of social-political-economic tangents.

Mobile 155

As Shakespeare wrote, the lady doth protest too much. I wonder who made buses and trains a sustainability issue? Oh well. Carry on.

tandempower

Ok, so you refuse to acknowledge the physics of energy and space efficiency in any way. Funny, considering you are so interested in there being physical limits to population growth; but I understand why you would want to squelch any attention to efficiency considering you are a person who likes waste and inefficiency insofar as they cause more money to change hands, regardless of how inefficiently the money is employed.