Is the Glass Half Full?

Good forecasts and fore sights.Engineering and Sustainable technologies can only tackle these issues.

The fundamental accomplishment is the viability of low cost green electricity. The rest is taken care of. It is a matter of technical optimism and guts.

More population and demands for gadgets, infrastructures and services -more scope for Engineers.

Bright future is ahead for Engineers in an assured manner.

Is the Glass Half Full? Is a matter of perspective as am I pouring in or pouring it out.

As far as world population goes engineering can elevate most problems. The one most critical to a solution to it all needs to be worked on. The Earth is a closed environment. So it can only hold and maintain so many people. We need to figure how to get off this rock. So look to the stars for an answer.

I agree strongly with tcmtech- the limitations will be defined by politics, not engineering. In fact, many of the problems are CREATED by politics...

If we do not have the resources, we will make our own, or find an alternative. If the solution is harmful to our health or environment, then we will also find alternatives etc... Technology and engineering will always have solutions to get us through and beyond what is naturally sustainable by our planet but these are all band aid solutions. The solution should not be "how do we get more water, food, electricity? etc" but more a case of "how do we slow down or reduce global population growth, or at the very least, how do we reduce the demand for things that tax our resources?" Nowadays so many westernised nations look at population growth to maintain or increase their economies. Less industrialized countries, including China and India of old did not put as much pressure on our natural resources even with some of the highest populations in the world. But today is a different story. If we have pet rabbits or dogs or cats etc... we do not let them breed to the extent that we can no longer afford to feed them all or no longer have room to keep them all sheltered etc.. I think the only thing that is assisting us with this issue at this point is that we all die sometime, but even here, we are finding ways to live longer........ and longer....

"But today is a different story. If we have pet rabbits or dogs or cats etc... we do not let them breed to the extent that we can no longer afford to feed them all or no longer have room to keep them all sheltered etc.."

This sounds remarkably like a 'political agenda' out of 'The Ethnic Cleansing Handbook for the Intellectually Handicapped Dictator'

I think you might want to research the one child policy in China. And perhaps the trends in the new middle class in India.

Hi 34point5,

I had written a long winded reply but accidently deleted it and couldn't be bothered re-writing it.

In a nutshell, I do not endorse restricting any person anywhere in the world to a set number of offsprings. I do not endorse ethnic cleansing. I do not endorse culling of animals by governments unless there is a use for the meat as food or where there is no food application such as the cane toad in Australia, an alternate application such as medicinal.

Every man and animal has a right to live on this world, but unfortunately, my belief is that one day (maybe 100 years or maybe 1000 years or more), we will overburden the planet just purely because there will be too many of us and the planet can not grow to feed us all. I like the idea of populating another planet but I don't think this will be feasible in time to assist our poor planet. We are at the top of the food chain and nothing can stop us.....except maybe mother nature.

Finally, yes I do currently walk with a limp and yes I do occassionally boss my son around when the wife isn't looking, but I am not a handicapped dictator! umph!!

PS is there really a book of that name? I must read it one day.

Ok let's look at some 'mechanisms'

When a society gains 'wealth' the "Standard of Living" is raised. That Standard includes "Health Care" (usually) which relives the need to breed "spare children" as the survival rate of progeny is greatly improved.

That "wealth" also breeds "selfish acquisitional consumerism", which again 'competes' with the 'cost of raising children' - another 'population growth down force"

Now as you mention cane toads, so Australia: at one point the government projected 70 million as the 'target population" - but then someone asked "where are you getting the water to support that number?" It was quite quickly revised down to the still unsupportable 50 million.

Yes Resources are finite - a concept many American's on this site seem not to grasp ref fossil fuels: "we have coal for at least 100 years on projected demand".

By that well 'bully for us' example, was 2000, 60 years ago, it is the "selfish acquisitional consumerism" that will lead to an un-engineer-able outcome for the Z+ generation.

Humanity has to realise everything is not theirs by 'right', or 'rite'.

The 'first world' has to raise the 'rest of the world' by first realising as parents they suck - and that is not the kids fault.

So Q1 is can you engineer the Parental Attitudes?

For some idea of how the Z's view "the glass", here is something I recently received regarding the Z's take ...

------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute-Zero : an A to Z, by Kalki Akhenaten

An Absolute Absence of Anything Abounded Around All, Before Big-Bang Beautifully Bursts into Being, Causing Creation to Coalesce into Clouds of Drifting Dust by Dutifully Densifying Energy. Eventually Every Element is Formed, From Fast Fusion Generated by the Great Gravity of Gathering Gases, - Hydrogen, Helium... - Hitherto, Humans Have Happened! However Inventive and Insightful, Ideas Induce Ideals, Intellect Incites Judgment... Jointly, Juvenile Justice and Jerks Killing Kind Kin, Kindle Laws and Legislation, Leading to a Loss of Liberty. Meanwhile Money Merely Makes Manifest a New Notion Nature Never Nurtured: Nothing(ness). Naught. Nil... Now, Old Occult Orders Open, Printing Philosophical Pamphlets Peculiarly Parallel to Previously Preached Precepts, - Perhaps Paradoxically, Priests Preside in Political Parties, Praising Queens who Quell Queer Questions Regarding Rude Religious Scandals, and Set School Syllabus' to Simplify Student Thinking, Tuning Them Through The Taking (or Topping!) of Tests -to Transit to Trade or Tertiary Training,- Toward Turning in Tax, Tolls and Tithes, Trusting Unions, Using Vehicles, Voting... Vivaciously Validating Wantonness, While Waste Washes up Waterways Worldwide, Wrecking Withering Wetlands... So for Xmas, XGeneration Xerox's YGeneration Yesterdays Yule-tide You-tube, Yielding to ZGeneration, Zilch, Zero.Zip!

The End

_{Published with permission of author © Kalki Akhenaten, 2011}

----------------------------------

... on the dregs of our 'parenting of the planet'.

I find .zip rather 'oracle' in this threads context.

34.5, you have no arguments from me on what you have just said. However, let's look at the bigger picture. We most probably wont' reach 9.5 billion people on the planet by the end of the century and we most probably won't reach 50 000 000 cane toads in queensland according to government targets. But what I am trying to say is that if we look beyond time frames as our guidline, we will see that the earths population has been, is, and will continue, to grow regardless of whether it gets to a predicted number within a set time frame or not. If we take the cane toads for example again, two things will happen, 1. the cane toads run out of water and a good portion of newborns, old and weak will die as a subsequence. This does not stop them from breeding. 2. The cane toads will adapt to using less water, find an alternate source of water, or migrate to other parts of Australia. This also does not stop them from breeding and they will continue breeding until they get back to step 1.

...or become extinct...it happens.

I am optimistic. Technology keep us improving to face the challenges. Necessity is the mother of invention. World has become a global village and together engineers will create a sustainable world for the future generations to lead a h comfortable life.

If I am realistic and it does not agree with your optimism, does that make me pessimistic? Why do we always have to wait until it becomes a neccessity before we invent something? I think a great engineer will be prepared for not what is, but for what will be required.

As the US grew there was near endless stories of "water wars". Look for that to continue as emerging market countries demand a bigger slice of pie.

When people and their children are hungry all the rules get tossed. Speculators will create bottlenecks where they can. It's already happened a few years ago with rice shortages. It's ugly but it will happen again. When you have a fixed commodity (there's only so much farmland and fresh water) and a population that's exploding something will blow.

Someone needs to invent the "intelligence increaser" so we'll realize that we can't just keep over populating our space. No amount of invention will help, and leaving this planet will just let us start to ruin another one. It's everyone's choice but everyone needs to be educated in the issue. So I believe the solution is education.

"9.5 billion by the end of the century" seems ultraconservative to me, based on what I've read before... by half I think. Perhaps he meant decade.

I've said population is at the root of most other problems on our planet for a long time. I never finished the book, but Paul Ehrlich's book, "The Population Bomb," back in the late 60's was prescient (although, China was probably already over-populated, even then).

There are other complications, of course... as 34point5 pointed out (pun intended). If Olebogile really agrees with his points, then it is a contradiction in logic to say no one should be limited in their actions regarding increasing the population. That is no different that a scenario where people from a sinking ship find themselves in a life boat in the middle of the ocean with a limited amount of food and water. Now does any one of the people in that little life boat, morally, have the right to eat and drink as much food and water as they wish, without regard to their fellow passengers? The earth is a lifeboat in space. It's so large we don't normally think of it that way, but it is. Adding another mouth to feed is adding more people to the lifeboat. The end result is no different than one of the passengers in the lifeboat scenario eating beyond a moral amount disregarding his fellow mates.

But to answer the main question, no, I don't believe we can always invent our way out of the problems we have created and/or face. There is way too much faith in man's ability to conquer and control nature.

Natural disasters will probably never be controlled. Unless you subscribe to the theory as some do, already, that there are people who can now control the weather, then, it is obvious that famine can happen at the whim of weather changes. We've already seen disruptions in weather patterns, for whatever reason. And now, as I'm posting, post earthquake in Japan, on Friday, we as a species can have large populations brought back to living on the very basic levels... no technological living with powered toys, etc. Many of these people (as well as Haiti) are not living comfortable lives. They're living in tents and shelters with no real homes.

I am optimistic about the future of "Man's" heart development. This in the end will lead to responsible behavior as a species. But I'm afraid that we may have to endure much suffering before this happens.

I do feel that global population will one day get to a point that is not sustainable. I also subscribe to the idea that we should not restrict an individuals freedom to bear young. This complicates things.

While I do not agree with restrictions, I understand that it may help slow down population growth. However, the bigger picture is that the population will still continue to grow.

In your life boat, everybody has the freedom to eat as much or as little as they want and with or without regard for other passengers. This is human. The passengers in the boat will find a way to control the behavior. But regardless of their actions or behavior, every passenger is still going to eat and drink and the boat is still going to run out of food and water eventually. Now if the food and water was to last a lot longer and a few of the passengers had died due to sickness, ill health or old age, and this was to continue, would this warrant bringing an extra younger and vibrant mouth to feed, so that the story may eventually be told (or the species continued)?

I too am optimistic about mans heart development but fear it will take one or more global catastrophes before this can happen. It is heart felt pain and suffering that breaks a man, or makes him grow. Let us hope future, younger generations will continue to develop as well for they can be led astray by what is 'here and now'.

It depends