Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

POLL: How Many Years of Oil Do You Believe We Have Left, At Current Usage Levels?


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
Pretty cool movie.

Yeah. I saw that guy in another documentary once.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In this poll, does the majority rule? If we decide there is 500 years left, does that make it so?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the power of Paizo!!

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

Yeah, I was watching a documentary where there was an initiative to do this...sorta. It was an initiative to retrofit houses with solar panels using home equity loans guaranteed by the city. The labor was free because it was people doing community service (often for drug offenses, IIRC, though I could be mistaken), and those people were learning a trade while doing that community service.

Reduce energy consumption, boost the economy, help homeowners keep their homes by saving money on energy, provide a community service and vocational training for people trying to put their life back together. It's not often you see a project that just got everything right like that.

The high heating/cooling costs you have are a by product of the low housing construction costs. As a European visiting the US I was amazed by how flimsy are most of your building are. My home is a apartment made in the '70, so without advanced insulation, but it still is better insulated than most modern US houses.

As far as I can see it, US houses are made in a way that will reduce construction costs at the expense of higher maintenance costs. A valid choice if the house is seen as something temporary and you know that you will change several of them in your life but most European will live for several decades in the same house, generally bequeathing it to sons and grandchildren, so we tend to build houses that will last with moderate maintenance costs.
Our way is more sustainable on the long run, but you first need to have the long run.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gark the Goblin wrote:
meatrace wrote:
If we threw as much money at solar research as we do in oil company subsidies, I'd bet my left [redacted] that we'd have a sustainable energy solution within a decade.

Damn, I only have one [redacted].

And yeah we can keep finding (generally less efficient) things to extract, but even then we are going to run out eventually. Population growth and industrialisation and overconsumption don't look to be stopping any time soon.

Now, if we stop one of those (not industrialisation, hopefully) we could probably keep going for a while longer. Or we could invest in some water-sucking algae biodiesel, some rare earth-sucking solar panels, or some bird-sucking wind turbines. And get some better batteries going. We're putting our faith in that s+~# (in fact some of the federal stimulus is going into some promising places), but it's definitely not a priority.

I'm not sure if we're switching too slow, but we're not really going all-out. People are clamoring for cheaper gas - and it would be nice if oil companies would stop hoarding - but sustainable energy is rarely on the agenda and often triggers derision.** spoiler omitted **

The fun part is that we can't even switch to uranium as primary energy source (converting that energy to other mediums for motive power) as uranium isn't so abundant. It would last for only a few decades.

Thorium reactors would do the trick for a couple of centuries, but they were mostly abandoned as they don't produce military grade plutonium, so the military establishment wasn't interested in them.
Another "fun" fact is that thorium reactor are a bit more intrinsically sure as if they are left uncontrolled the nuclear reaction will stop without causing a meltdown. On the flip side that mean that they will require more work to keep going.


Zmar wrote:

Huh?

EDIT2: That Huh link is exactly pointing on such thing :)

.

I thought that was pretty good too.

.


Thorium.


meatrace wrote:
Lithium is the new gold, my friend.

And we Chileans are sitting over 57% of the world supply.

It'll be the Salpeter Rush all over again, just that I hope the Germans won't screw us over this time!

As for the subject, I have no idea how long we have left. But I'm pretty sure we'll figure out an alternative before it goes critical; it's what we do. All it takes is the appropriate economical incentive to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Lithium is the new gold, my friend.

And we Chileans are sitting over 57% of the world supply.

It'll be the Salpeter Rush all over again, just that I hope the Germans won't screw us over this time!

As for the subject, I have no idea how long we have left. But I'm pretty sure we'll figure out an alternative before it goes critical; it's what we do. All it takes is the appropriate economical incentive to do it.

That's the kind of naive optimism that scares the hell out me. Because it's magical thinking. "When the economic stars are right, the market will fix everything." Markets can fail. Resource depletion takes down civilizations. It's done it before. Never on a world wide scale, but we've never been dependent on a world wide scale before.

When the price really spikes, "appropriate economical incentive", there won't be the resources available to do the R&D and to deploy replacements for all the infrastructure. We have to prepare. The more gradual we can make the transition, the less destructive it'll be.

And that's all ignoring climate change, which is a bigger threat. And the other ecological damage of the scramble for the last hard to reach/process sources.


thejeff wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Lithium is the new gold, my friend.

And we Chileans are sitting over 57% of the world supply.

It'll be the Salpeter Rush all over again, just that I hope the Germans won't screw us over this time!

As for the subject, I have no idea how long we have left. But I'm pretty sure we'll figure out an alternative before it goes critical; it's what we do. All it takes is the appropriate economical incentive to do it.

That's the kind of naive optimism that scares the hell out me. Because it's magical thinking. "When the economic stars are right, the market will fix everything." Markets can fail. Resource depletion takes down civilizations. It's done it before. Never on a world wide scale, but we've never been dependent on a world wide scale before.

When the price really spikes, "appropriate economical incentive", there won't be the resources available to do the R&D and to deploy replacements for all the infrastructure. We have to prepare. The more gradual we can make the transition, the less destructive it'll be.

And that's all ignoring climate change, which is a bigger threat. And the other ecological damage of the scramble for the last hard to reach/process sources.

You can't build the infrastructure in two minutes really.


Interestingly, in the past both Iceland and Sweden have proposed plans for transitioning to 100% renewable energy sources within a period of a decade. This is something more and more countries should be looking at. In addition, the problem isn't waiting for the oil to really look like it's running and transition then, but to do it beforehand so that use of oil can be diverted to the things it will be much harder to find substitutes for (such as air travel).

Unfortunately, this very problem - peak oil in traditional parlance - is something that governments seem very unwilling to discuss. Iceland is still making plans for it but Sweden has tabled its plans indefinitely. No other nation on Earth seems very interested in it. Which is bizarre because unlike many other issues, this is something that will definitely become a major issue within our lifetimes; hell, oil prices are a major problem right now (UK petrol prices are expected to hit a record, all-time high within the next two months).


Actually if you were truly interested in the free market wouldn't you want to create alternative energy to destroy opec a cartel and bring the wonders of the free market to all.


Coal-converted into some kind of diesel was done succesfully by pre-WW2 Germany, with initially abysmal efficiency. IIRC they got the process to a fair degree of efficiency. Coal-derived "gas" is decidedly not the answer, but it could do okay in the comparative short-term until replacements are put into place.

We definitely *have* to uncouple our snouts from the light, sweeet crude oil teat in a hurry or the world is up poop creek without a paddle.

I find it appaling that the world at large doesn't take this much more seriously than it does.

Hearing about the thorium reactor / power plant was nice. :)


doctor_wu wrote:
Actually if you were truly interested in the free market wouldn't you want to create alternative energy to destroy opec a cartel and bring the wonders of the free market to all.

.

95% of the people reading this have no idea what a cartel is.

The other 5% have no idea how to *bust* one.

.


Grand Magus wrote:


95% of the people reading this have no idea what a cartel is.

The other 4% have no idea how to *bust* one.

.

FIFY


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:


95% of the people reading this have no idea what a cartel is.

The other 4% have no idea how to *bust* one.

.

FIFY

.

Enlighten us oh great one .

(And bringing up von Neumann is an auto lose.)
.


thejeff wrote:

That's the kind of naive optimism that scares the hell out me. Because it's magical thinking. "When the economic stars are right, the market will fix everything." Markets can fail. Resource depletion takes down civilizations. It's done it before. Never on a world wide scale, but we've never been dependent on a world wide scale before.

When the price really spikes, "appropriate economical incentive", there won't be the resources available to do the R&D and to deploy replacements for all the infrastructure. We have to prepare. The more gradual we can make the transition, the less destructive it'll be.

And that's all ignoring climate change, which is a bigger threat. And the other ecological damage of the scramble for the last hard to reach/process sources.

I don't see where are we disagreeing nor why are you calling me a naive optimist. I never said we will magically fix things or that we should ignore the potential problem; I merely stated an almost universal phenomenon: Resource scarcity leads to an incentive to both innovate and find an alternative. Hell, I have more than 20% of my savings invested in solar energy projects in northern Chile and wind power in the south.

It is a well understood situation in economics that people are generaly myopic. This is because we are not good at gauging risk, particularly non-immediate risk. It's what makes people drink more than they should and students leave their homework to the last minute. It is precisely in the direst of circumstances that we make the most out of what we have. It is no coincidence that innovation skyrockets during wars and times of crisis.

The transition from oil to another energy source will very likely happen the same way, with investment and general interest in alternatives kickstarting on a large scale when the situation starts climbing into a more critical scenario. Are we already in a critical scenario? I cannot say I know for certain; right now it is hard to tell what exactly is going on with oil due to all the distortion elements taking place, and as with all predictions on resource behaviour I take them with a grain of salt. What I do know is that there does not seem to be enough critical incentive to move the economy into fully embracing an alternative to oil, which to me is the strongest indicative that we are not quite there yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grand Magus wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:


95% of the people reading this have no idea what a cartel is.

The other 4% have no idea how to *bust* one.

.

FIFY

.

Enlighten us oh great one .

(And bringing up von Neumann is an auto lose.)
.

I'm sorry, they didn't teach me who von Neumann was in public school.

But I'll give you a hint: it starts with "international" and ends with "revolution."


Grand Magus wrote:
doctor_wu wrote:
Actually if you were truly interested in the free market wouldn't you want to create alternative energy to destroy opec a cartel and bring the wonders of the free market to all.

.

95% of the people reading this have no idea what a cartel is.

The other 5% have no idea how to *bust* one.

.

You generally don't want cartels if you want free market, since a cartel is essentially a way to eliminate free competition, by grouping the competitors into an agreement to, among other things, fix prices without letting the market itself balance them out.

It's basically an oligopoly transitioning into a monopoly while still technically keeping the entities separate. For all practical purposes, though, it's the same thing as a monopoly.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm sorry, they didn't teach me who von Neumann was in public school.

.

Hurray for public school !

.


So why try to make alternative energy as a way to destroy cartels. IT seems that what people foolishly beleive an enemy needs to be destroyed than intelligent solutoins to our problems. How can the Republicans be for the free market and not be for a policy to smash a cartel. If we make oil obselete what power will the cartel hold. I have yet to meet anyone fearing a typewritter cartel such a threat would probably be laughed at. This plan does fall apart if they really don't belive in the free market and are just rent seekers. not that they would understand that


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
Grand Magus wrote:
doctor_wu wrote:
Actually if you were truly interested in the free market wouldn't you want to create alternative energy to destroy opec a cartel and bring the wonders of the free market to all.

95% of the people reading this have no idea what a cartel is.

The other 5% have no idea how to *bust* one.

You generally don't want cartels if you want free market, since a cartel is essentially a way to eliminate free competition, by grouping the competitors into an agreement to, among other things, fix prices without letting the market itself balance them out.

It's basically an oligopoly transitioning into a monopoly while still technically keeping the entities separate. For all practical purposes, though, it's the same thing as a monopoly.

The problem is free markets tend to coalesce into monopolies (or cartels or trusts or ...) unless the barriers to entry are very low.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Free markets do require rules to keep them free, after all. (anti-trust, consumer information laws, anti-callusion laws, etc.)


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That's the kind of naive optimism that scares the hell out me. Because it's magical thinking. "When the economic stars are right, the market will fix everything." Markets can fail. Resource depletion takes down civilizations. It's done it before. Never on a world wide scale, but we've never been dependent on a world wide scale before.

When the price really spikes, "appropriate economical incentive", there won't be the resources available to do the R&D and to deploy replacements for all the infrastructure. We have to prepare. The more gradual we can make the transition, the less destructive it'll be.

And that's all ignoring climate change, which is a bigger threat. And the other ecological damage of the scramble for the last hard to reach/process sources.

I don't see where are we disagreeing nor why are you calling me a naive optimist. I never said we will magically fix things or that we should ignore the potential problem; I merely stated an almost universal phenomenon: Resource scarcity leads to an incentive to both innovate and find an alternative. Hell, I have more than 20% of my savings invested in solar energy projects in northern Chile and wind power in the south.

It is a well understood situation in economics that people are generaly myopic. This is because we are not good at gauging risk, particularly non-immediate risk. It's what makes people drink more than they should and students leave their homework to the last minute. It is precisely in the direst of circumstances that we make the most out of what we have. It is no coincidence that innovation skyrockets during wars and times of crisis.

The transition from oil to another energy source will very likely happen the same way, with investment and general interest in alternatives kickstarting on a large scale when the situation starts climbing into a more critical scenario. Are we already in a critical scenario? I cannot say I know for certain; right now it is hard to tell what exactly is going on with oil due...

The problem with oil is that it's so tightly tied to the world economy and demand is quite insensitive. Which means that when supply can't grow quickly enough, the price spikes, which crashes the economy.

I'm just concerned that if we don't push hard enough before the crisis hits, we won't have time to adapt. We need oil to make the solar and wind farms and to shift to more energy efficient lifestyles. Especially in America where our whole culture is based on cheap fuel.


doctor_wu wrote:
So why try to make alternative energy as a way to destroy cartels. IT seems that what people foolishly beleive an enemy needs to be destroyed than intelligent solutoins to our problems. How can the Republicans be for the free market and not be for a policy to smash a cartel. If we make oil obselete what power will the cartel hold. I have yet to meet anyone fearing a typewritter cartel such a threat would probably be laughed at. This plan does fall apart if they really don't belive in the free market and are just rent seekers. not that they would understand that

.

Your point is penetrating and insightful. If I were you, I would begin
watching over your shoulder for vans with no windows.

.


America has one ace in it's sleeve. It mostly imports fuel to keep it's own reserves intact, which gives it extra time.

The problem with total reserves in the world is, that there are new consumers, rapidly growing amount of them really, for a resource that is known to be finite, which can only result in price steadily rising. I can also see reasons to avoid the overcoming of fuel dependency (aside from making prodigious amount of money). Not only it would result in loss of workplace in oil industry, which would create a problem with what to do with these people, but it would also destabilize regions dependent on oil/fuel export. Namely middle east and Russia, which is probably another thing the governments want to avoid. I wonder what would happen if the solution these problems was found.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Werthead wrote:

Interestingly, in the past both Iceland and Sweden have proposed plans for transitioning to 100% renewable energy sources within a period of a decade. This is something more and more countries should be looking at. In addition, the problem isn't waiting for the oil to really look like it's running and transition then, but to do it beforehand so that use of oil can be diverted to the things it will be much harder to find substitutes for (such as air travel).

Unfortunately, this very problem - peak oil in traditional parlance - is something that governments seem very unwilling to discuss. Iceland is still making plans for it but Sweden has tabled its plans indefinitely. No other nation on Earth seems very interested in it. Which is bizarre because unlike many other issues, this is something that will definitely become a major issue within our lifetimes; hell, oil prices are a major problem right now (UK petrol prices are expected to hit a record, all-time high within the next two months).

Iceland has massive geothermal access. They realistically and affordably can convert their domestic production into steam powered generators, and with enough excess to implement a hydrogen-based transportation system using electrolisis. They also do not have to worry about their infrastructure being compatible with other nations, since they are on an island and most foreignors will not be bringing their own cars.

Other nations do not have these luxuries.


Not to mention the lack of a lot of heavy industry and population.

Qadira

The Question is invalid - the idea of sustaining current levels of use is false.

Oil will in the next ten years be restricted to nations who have a billion or more citizens. So after ten years the USA will have to conduct raids like a Brigand state to secure Oil for its own personal use from those who will not sell to it.

Canada is selling oil from the oil sands because it doesn't want a war with the USA over its oil.

So lets say ten years for the USA - intersecting in a war to actually seize oil for US use. You can put it down as The USA puts in a puppet state who will sell the USA Oil cheaply (like Iraq) but it will come to a head. OPEC will terminate oil sales to small states like the USA within ten years. The Price will double overnight and it will be sold to China and India and other billion population states as they emerge. - because what is left is sufficient to build a technologically advanced billion population city capable of sustaining the future of humanity - If it is achieved - the rest of the world will decline and die on donkeys and horses like a mongolian backwater.


yellowdingo wrote:

The Question is invalid - the idea of sustaining current levels of use is false.

Oil will in the next ten years ...

.

We've been there and done this already Yellowdingo.

Check out the simulation in the Huh? link below. (And watch to the end.)

.

Grand Magus wrote:
Zmar wrote:

Huh?

EDIT2: That Huh link is exactly pointing on such thing :)

.

I thought that was pretty good too.

.

Taldor

Andrew R wrote:
So what happens if they prove too much solar is bad for the planet? The materials lead to problems, too much space needed to produce enough electricity, Climate change from too much of the sun's heat redirected, etc? Not to mention problems with batteries.....

The materials do led to problems, the slag from the rare earths production contain enough trace amounts of uranium to be hazardous.

The big problem with solar is its not cost effective (the energy output is just too small), it costs about 6 times more than fossil fuels. The game changer is natural gas, the US is on the path to be a net exporter of energy by 2020 thanks to new technologies allowing us to tap our oil and natural gas resources cost effectively.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
doctor_wu wrote:
Too many people is part of the problem if we want to use that much energy.

Are you volunteering to be one of the ones slated for reduction?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So what happens if they prove too much solar is bad for the planet? The materials lead to problems, too much space needed to produce enough electricity, Climate change from too much of the sun's heat redirected, etc? Not to mention problems with batteries.....

The materials do led to problems, the slag from the rare earths production contain enough trace amounts of uranium to be hazardous.

The big problem with solar is its not cost effective (the energy output is just too small), it costs about 6 times more than fossil fuels. The game changer is natural gas, the US is on the path to be a net exporter of energy by 2020 thanks to new technologies allowing us to tap our oil and natural gas resources cost effectively.

Technologies like Hydrofracking that have serious negative repercussions to the surrounding areas.


Caineach wrote:
Meat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So what happens if they prove too much solar is bad for the planet? The materials lead to problems, too much space needed to produce enough electricity, Climate change from too much of the sun's heat redirected, etc? Not to mention problems with batteries.....

The materials do led to problems, the slag from the rare earths production contain enough trace amounts of uranium to be hazardous.

The big problem with solar is its not cost effective (the energy output is just too small), it costs about 6 times more than fossil fuels. The game changer is natural gas, the US is on the path to be a net exporter of energy by 2020 thanks to new technologies allowing us to tap our oil and natural gas resources cost effectively.

Technologies like Hydrofracking that have serious negative repercussions to the surrounding areas.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but: Not to mention climate change.

And solar is getting better and better all the time. It's had only a fraction of the research that's been put into both making fossil fuel technology more efficient and into getting at harder and harder to reach fuels.

Qadira

Celestial Healer wrote:
In this poll, does the majority rule? If we decide there is 500 years left, does that make it so?

if it does, then I'm making a poll for "How Much Money Does Zerombr Have In His Bank Account"

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:


As for the subject, I have no idea how long we have left. But I'm pretty sure we'll figure out an alternative before it goes critical; it's what we do. All it takes is the appropriate economical incentive to do it.

I've been reading the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Suceed over the last few days. History is a graveyard of cultures who thought they'd always have a tomorrow.


LazarX wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:


As for the subject, I have no idea how long we have left. But I'm pretty sure we'll figure out an alternative before it goes critical; it's what we do. All it takes is the appropriate economical incentive to do it.

I've been reading the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Suceed over the last few days. History is a graveyard of cultures who thought they'd always have a tomorrow.

I actually own that book. Netflix also has the miniseries that was made based off that book.


Yellowdingo: Population size is irrelevant. It's about what you can offer for what you want. At the moment there are way too many people for our own good and humans are getting cheap from the resource point of view (which is rather sad) and getting cheaper by day (even sader. What will be even worse is what to do with the elderly once the population of 3rd world countries grows old which will hapen also in 50 years or so). What matters is the skills posessed by the population and infrastructure.

Big population actually means that there will be more people to feed, which is not an easy problem to solve for countries that are less advanced technologically. Add to that the dependance of food distribution and production on two limited resources - fuel and soil - and you have a problem. The soil is being overused and degrades, the food needs to be re-distributed. Sure, we can use less intensive methods for agriculture, but that means lesser output from the same area, so you need larger fields, revolution in agricultural technologies, or there will be hunger to reduce your population to sustainable levels. Currently we use machines for part of that output. Distribution is another part. Something can be dealt via railway development, but not everything. How long it will be till we see first regular use of subway and trams for transport of materials?


LazarX wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:


As for the subject, I have no idea how long we have left. But I'm pretty sure we'll figure out an alternative before it goes critical; it's what we do. All it takes is the appropriate economical incentive to do it.

I've been reading the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Suceed over the last few days. History is a graveyard of cultures who thought they'd always have a tomorrow.

.

I've only watched the ABC Special > Earth 2100 < on YouTube.

.


Zerombr wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
In this poll, does the majority rule? If we decide there is 500 years left, does that make it so?
if it does, then I'm making a poll for "How Much Money Does Zerombr Have In His Bank Account"

Do you really want to go bankrupt that quickly? :P


meatrace wrote:
Zerombr wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
In this poll, does the majority rule? If we decide there is 500 years left, does that make it so?
if it does, then I'm making a poll for "How Much Money Does Zerombr Have In His Bank Account"
Do you really want to go bankrupt that quickly? :P

You just need to offer only good and better choice ;)


Necessity is the mother of invention. We'll find ways to produce oil products from other materials. Heck, we already are...


Zmar wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Zerombr wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
In this poll, does the majority rule? If we decide there is 500 years left, does that make it so?
if it does, then I'm making a poll for "How Much Money Does Zerombr Have In His Bank Account"
Do you really want to go bankrupt that quickly? :P
You just need to offer only good and better choice ;)

And all we have to do is not vote at all, or vote for "END OF CHOICES"


Bah! From the start you must write that voting for end of choice or not voting means that it's assumed that you can't even describe how well should the account fare and thus you are actually harming me by choosing more modest chice above. By power of paizoboard you need to make it win/win/epic win.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Coal-converted into some kind of diesel was done succesfully by pre-WW2 Germany, with initially abysmal efficiency. IIRC they got the process to a fair degree of efficiency.

Why talk about Germany seven-plus decades ago, when Sasol's Secunda facility is producing today?


Zmar wrote:
Bah! From the start you must write that voting for end of choice or not voting means that it's assumed that you can't even describe how well should the account fare and thus you are actually harming me by choosing more modest chice above. By power of paizoboard you need to make it win/win/epic win.

Then I flag the thread for deletion BWAHAHAHAHA!


That will just bring it to paizoboard powers attention sooner! MWAHAHAHA...


.

The distribution of votes is funny: A bump at the low end, and a bump
at the high end. Too bad there are not 1,000s of people on paizo, so we
could get more data.

.

Qadira

Zmar wrote:

Yellowdingo: Population size is irrelevant. It's about what you can offer for what you want. At the moment there are way too many people for our own good and humans are getting cheap from the resource point of view (which is rather sad) and getting cheaper by day (even sader. What will be even worse is what to do with the elderly once the population of 3rd world countries grows old which will hapen also in 50 years or so). What matters is the skills posessed by the population and infrastructure.

Big population actually means that there will be more people to feed, which is not an easy problem to solve for countries that are less advanced technologically. Add to that the dependance of food distribution and production on two limited resources - fuel and soil - and you have a problem. The soil is being overused and degrades, the food needs to be re-distributed. Sure, we can use less intensive methods for agriculture, but that means lesser output from the same area, so you need larger fields, revolution in agricultural technologies, or there will be hunger to reduce your population to sustainable levels. Currently we use machines for part of that output. Distribution is another part. Something can be dealt via railway development, but not everything. How long it will be till we see first regular use of subway and trams for transport of materials?

Any Nation prepared to do right by its populace bringing them out of third world living conditions and establish self sustaining systems to support them will cause a massive price jump on global markets that will. So the availability will be more like a sudden downward drop (near vertical) as the price of oil levels off at double what it is now.


.

51 to 100 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / POLL: How Many Years of Oil Do You Believe We Have Left, At Current Usage Levels? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.