<lfam>It's an interesting question. The sack of Baghdad was quite comprehensive, from the accounts that I've read <xentrac>Yeah, I'd read about it previously in the context of the destruction of the House of Wisdom <xentrac>world human population density is about 50-60, so maybe universal pastoralism is actually feasible? I'd think not ***terpri_ is now known as terpri
<OriansJ`>christianbundy: farming is one of the most advanced technologies we have. Literally thousands of years of select genetic engineering, combined with location specific optimizations compounded for generations with very specific nitrogen availability requirements to get crop yields into the desired range. Rotation of the crops to minimize external inputs and reduce crop failure risks. Literal terraforming to enable controlled flooding and <OriansJ`>artifical reduced moisture to maximize yields for specific crops. Even if one started now it might take multiple generations before crop yields reach those of the an 1800s low yield farm. <OriansJ`>Our best bet is to preserve individuals with the traditional farming knowledge who could save us a great deal of trouble; because they were actively farming using traditional methods right now (The amish are a standard example) <OriansJ`>Then the next hard skill set is of the craftsman; few people know how to build anything these days. It takes considerable work to develop the fine motor control needed to create things with precision; even on a lathe <OriansJ`>Then people good at finding raw materials and retrieving them, such as wood/iron/copper/etc <OriansJ`>Then we have the energy problem which our ancestors did not. <OriansJ`>easy access coal, nitrates and oil is long gone <OriansJ`>Which means either we need large forests of trees to generate charcoal and thus work around that detail or preserve the technical knowledge of how to extract uranium from rare earth deposits and the technical knowledge of uranium seperation and nuclear reactor construction (specifically how to deal with the xenon gas problem) <OriansJ`>But then we would have to deal with the problem that most chemistry today depends *HEAVILY* on carbon sources to provide the energy and thermal properties required for many reactions. ***terpri_ is now known as terpri
<xentrac>well, a lot of the problems you're talking about only become difficult at large scales <xentrac>making a thousand tonnes of ammonia requires a mass-production plant. making a tonne of ammonia requires a lot of work. making a kilo of ammonia requires careful attention to laboratory safety procedures. making a gram of ammonia can be done by accident. making a milligram of ammonia is unavoidable <Profpatsch>But what purity grade is the gram of ammonia gonna have … <xentrac>you can purify it pretty easily, I think, but possibly not by accident <xentrac>I mean there aren't that many bases that evaporate from fermenting urine <bauen1>OriansJ`: there are additional resource problems, most of the resource patches with a high yield and easy to access location have probably been exhausted a long time ago (afaik) <bauen1>oh you already talked about easy access <bauen1>i think there's still coal and other things with easy acess, but the yield is terrible <Profpatsch>bauen1: If you are in mainland asia in a climate where bamboo grows, you are pretty much set though <Profpatsch>But agree, rebooting Europe might be hell. There’s a lot of brown coal in accessible mines, but idk how much postprocessing that requires and if it’s useful for anything other than burning for electricity <bauen1>yeah, and doesn't steel require charcoal aka a lot of wood anyway ? <bauen1>europa was quite good at removing forrests during the last 2-3k years <xentrac>you can make steel with coke from coal rather than charcoal; that's how it's usually done nowadays *vagrantc is amused at recent conversation :) <OriansJ`>bauen1: well that is of course assuming we completely ignore the ultra pure minimal sources we have around us (like cars and buildings) <OriansJ`>The big problem with any civilization is the required EROI and the available EROI <christianbundy>I have to admit that I'm really happy to see this conversation still going. <OriansJ`>as all civilizations require a certain percentage of energy to be spent on things others than collecting energy; the more complex the civilization the higher the number. <OriansJ`>Modern civilization is estimated to have an EROI requirement of 50:1 which matches well with the 100:1 ratio we previously got from fossil fuels. The problem is that the EROI of fossil fuels is heading towards 1:1 and once it gets below 20:1 we either must switch quickly or collapse. <Profpatsch>world-nulear.org is a pretty good resource for these topics, because they actually show some numbers instead of FUD <OriansJ`>thank you Profpatsch for proving my point. We can either embrace nuclear power or collapse as a civilization. <OriansJ`>well collapse comes with lots of people dying. and I tend to believe probable things are likely to occur. In which case collapse probably means my death and thus taking steps to prevent that seem a correct course of action. <Profpatsch>The 500 Mil recommendation on the Georgia Guidestones is probably a little low, but I don’t expect that the planet can support more than 2–5 Billion people at the current level of technology. <OriansJ`>I'd argue our planet could support 100 Billion at our current level of technology but it would require diet and lifestyle changes for large segments of the population. (Not to mention the ecological destruction that would result) <OriansJ`>But one could certainly argue that a certain level of ecological preservation is wise and reducing the cap artificially to allow that is certainly a point that could be argued. <OriansJ`>easy gimmies are things such as the 17:1 EROI requirement of a box of corn flakes <OriansJ`>Going carbon negative to reduce ocean acidification and walk back global warming are also options one could pursue if one was willing to reduce the energy allocated to the lifestyles of the human populations. <OriansJ`>But ultimately it depends upon your assumptions to determine the balance that would result. <OriansJ`>Or one could specify goals and I could determine the assumptions with which that outcome could be likely. <Profpatsch>yeah, that should be how nations should phrase their goals <Profpatsch>State them explicitely and then determine whether it’s viable. <OriansJ`>Profpatsch: the problem with that is "none of us is as cruel as all of us are" <Profpatsch>Instead you get environmental summits that never produce any outcome, and are based on nations making hollow promises on how they are gonna fight the symptoms <OriansJ`>eg I wouldn't force a child to work in a Sulfur mine for $1/day but as a civilization we do far far worse things. <Profpatsch>“You all want to live on the level of the current west. We can do that, but we are going to have to kill 5 billion people by 2050 to achieve that” <Profpatsch>Because that’s basically what’s gonna happen if nothing happens <OriansJ`>who wants to go first (because those are the people we need to preserve) <Profpatsch>It will be through wars and poor people just dying of starvation and from guns at borders. <OriansJ`>or people of the west to could just learn to eat meat less often <Profpatsch>Plus, it’s a prisoners dilemma, where you know that communist China is not gonna make the first step and is gonna exploit you to the max if you go first. <Profpatsch>I guess the nuclear weapon depots are not dusted off for no reason atm <Profpatsch>because it’s gonna get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better <OriansJ`>Profpatsch: well, yes and no. If one only thinks about how to minimize global starvation -> yes but if one thinks about the current EROI clif we are headed for -> no <Profpatsch>inb4 China lifts Africa to a 1st world level in 30 years and then Europe falls to waste in the coming war <Profpatsch>Though idk if they are just there to exploit or if they really want to make an ally <OriansJ`>you get more out if you develope a nation before you exploit it <Profpatsch>Well, I’m gonne be out of the metropolis regions before the first warheads hit <Profpatsch>(sorry if this all sounds super depressing, but that’s kinda my current idea about where this is going) <OriansJ`>no worries, I like to hope people will do what is in their long term best interest if properly educated. <bauen1>wars and migration because of ressource exhaustion are already happening (eu migration crisis) <xentrac>generally sulfur is mined by pumping water down into the ground <xentrac>nuclear energy is one significant option. enhanced geothermal is also capable of supplying far more energy than the humans use today <Darius>if you remember the 70s this doomtalk is drearily familiar <OriansJ`>xentrac: as is collecting all of the energy output by the sun. <xentrac>but wind and especially photovoltaic are the easy option right now <xentrac>yeah, we don't need to collect even close to all of it to exceed current world marketed energy consumption <Profpatsch>Darius: well, the ideas were the same. Oil is running out, gas is running <OriansJ`>Profpatsch: not if one realizes we can manufactor oil given an alternate energy source <Darius>not really the same, different worries filling the same mental niche. overpopulation, starvation, pollution, and extinctions were much bigger back then. <Profpatsch>Darius: So you are saying it’s just a mental niche of existential dread? And there is no real problem? <Darius>well, i'm not worried about running out of oil unless we regress technologically, for one. <OriansJ`>Profpatsch: think of it as civilization always trying to hedge its bets <OriansJ`>Such that when it collapses (which is always possible), recovery time is minimized. <Profpatsch>Darius: so you think we are not gonna run out of oil/gas because we are going to build Nuclear fast enough to replace all of it? <Darius>not stopping with the oilburning soon enough is the bigger worry <Profpatsch>Germany is not thinking of picking nuclear back up any time soon. They still make propaganda against nuclear. <OriansJ`>assume that 0.1% of all people are brilliant; 6 Billion people => 6 Million people are brilliant and we only need 1 to solve a given problem. <Darius>i don't know what exact transitions are going to happen. but it's a very solvable problem. it's possible we'll be collectively stupid enough to not solve it, but it's a stretch even for humans. <OriansJ`>one that could be solved at a local level first and then simply copied globally <OriansJ`>Not to mention Fusion getting an EROI of greater than 1 is quite excitingly close <Darius>sorry about my crotchety tone, btw <xentrac>Profpatsch: a big difference is that in the 1970s photovoltaic panels had an EROEI of like 0.05, and now it's more like 50 <xentrac>and yeah, people realize that pollution and starvation are avoidable; in the 1970s the neo-Malthusians had a lot of mindshare, which they have lost in the ensuing 40 years due to Norman Borlaug <xentrac>I think most people have the capacity to be brilliant, but it's almost all wasted <xentrac>traditional nuclear based on the U-235 content of natural uranium is too limited, but more creative approaches are definitely doable <Darius>the big problem i'm most worried about is misapplying our brilliance to new advanced tech like AI and biomolecular engineering as weapons or otherwise unwisely <Darius>considering the state of our social governance tech <xentrac>i'm more worried about people not being allowed to apply their brilliance to new advanced tech <xentrac>cf. the covid saliva test ban in the US <Darius>great example of the embarrassing state of coordination <xentrac>or all the people whose Mac and Android apps stop being available or even stop working because their certificates are revoked <Darius>welp, i think this channel is enriched in people interesting in fixing that :)