In a mere fifty years time, the kind of living that we have now will be vastly different whether we like it or not. Whilst most planners plan for what they regard as a better future using exponentially more energy, practically no planners plan for a future using a person’s share of the amount of solar energy that falls on a person’s share of the Earth
Another reality on which the growth-supporting planners fail to recognise, is that the most efficient converter of solar energy to fuel is chlorophyll – especially in grasses, and the most efficient converter of grass into usable energy is animal muscle.
Without the massive amounts of energy we take for granted will always be there, cities of more than a million people cannot possibly exist. And if you believe, as I do, that we should also care for every living and non-living beautiful and wild aspect of this tiny planet if, and if you believe that they all deserve a place on this planet, then the human population must be significantly reduced, not increased. I believe that every aspect of this tiny planet deserves the care that only we humans can provide, which means that we should planning to reduce the human population to a sustainable 500,000,000 humans! Even if this premise is not accepted, planners should be debating and planning for all contingencies – this one too – just in case.
After we have squandered all of our fossil fuels by about 2060, the Sun, chlorophyll and muscle, will be the portable energy and engines we will have to use sparingly and wisely. And soon after our metal machines and tools have worn out or oxidised to dust, the basic materials of wood and rock will be the only available materials for tools and for harnessing our energy sources.
The trouble with short-sighted and unethical planners
Many of today’s planners accept the philosophy that given infinite resources and time, if something can be described, it will eventually be invented, and so plan in the expectation that by the time their schemes are put into effect, other problems that the scheme ignores will be solved by somebody else. This is a dangerous premise, because it presumes that known absolute and practical limitations can be ignored. haltonmachining
Such is the case of energy. All planners plan in the expectation that when fossil fuels are exhausted somebody will have found new energy sources, or have been able to “capture” and use solar energy.
It also presumes that the captured heat will have no Global Warming effect because the heat will be re-radiated at night. But the very act of capturing heat for warming insulated houses is preventing re-radiation, and the more people who attain our kind of warm housing in cool climates, the more heat must be retained and further Global Warming must occur. Compared with total solar radiation, such heat retention is minuscule, but it is perilously cumulative. wrdesignprint
Planning should be based on known, absolute and practical limitations, combined with practical and realistic expectations. Fine to aspire to the ultimate luxury of the imagination, but not to nihilistically dismiss the probable or possible consequences as it being somebody else’s problem.
Those who commission plans have a duty to commission a range of possible scenarios for a better future, not dump on us one ‘take it, or we’ll give it to you anyway’ plan. Even if I am wrong about when we will run out of fossil fuels, planners should be planning NOW for a society with a good, sophisticated quality of life without the prodigious amounts of energy we use. If we did this, future generations could continue with the best attributes of a sophisticated society. If we don’t, extinction of society as we know it, is probable. Are we not able to plan for a positive vision without fossil fuels? The Amish do.
The Earth already has far too many people
Scientists have been warning about the dire consequences of overpopulation for logical, responsible, environmental, humane and social reasons.
A most crucial problem that is not being addressed is that third-World families need many children because many of them die from accident, disease, starvation, and genocide, and to care for the parents in their old-age. So these people need many children to maintain a stable, two surviving children population. However, Western doctors save the people from disease, feed them in times of drought and disaster and protect them from genocidal wars, taking away the population regulators and not replacing them with real birth control. As well, many groups use the surplus people as their own armies to acquire wealth and power. For more info please visit these sites :- https://www.dkproducts.biz
https://www.coalharbour.net
https://www.nationalbankoftennessee.com
https://rubens-gomes.com
On the other hand, our Western societies have eliminated those five necessities for having large families, and socially responsible nations normally maintain a two-children style of sustainable population.
Aims for maintaining sustainable populations in third-World countries are being compromised by schemes to accommodate the exponentially growing amount of displaced people. For instance, to save excess people from overpopulated countries that refuse to maintain a sustainable population, our politicians devise schemes to bring them to Australia to live like we energy-gobblers in our style of energy-gobbling homes. That is the wrong way around. Excess people normally come from communities that have the kind of sustainable living that we fuel-squandering Western societies should be practising ourselves If any population of animals or plants exceed their sustainability, the excess die or are killed. By eliminating the population regulators within third-world countries and not replacing them with any other means of population control, we are surely killing all of us.
The push for overpopulation is mainly from selfish people who profit from it – they manipulate our culture and emotions, and ask us to provide “humanitarian” succor and use unselfish, caring people to implement their self interest.
