[Tom's Style] Earth's Collapse is Imminent, Researchers Say - Page 14  

There was nothing at all in my last response that was in the least bit condescending. I was flippant earlier because despite the myriad of information I was attempting to give you all I got in return was: "Let me make my point clear - we don't know. We simply do not know. We can provide partial proof by study yet we cannot prove the theory. The evidence appears on both sides. Not just one." Not the least bit of recognition that there might've been information that you hadn't considered, or that maybe I had made some valid point, but just a blind ascension that there is no way we could ever know. I don't ever hold it against someone for not knowing something - there is way too much information out there, but I will hold it against someone whom I think is burying their head in the sand for some preconceived idea that they refuse to let go of. Again if you think my assessment is incorrect or harsh then I apologise and I don't know what else you want me to do.

You also failed to get my point about how to figure out if something is true. I know you didn't ask me to tell you, but I told you because in my experience it is far more valuable to understand the process of learning than simply relaying facts about one thing or another. Teach a man to fish and all of that. If you genuinely want to learn more about this topic don't ask some stranger who claims to be a climate scientist on an enthusiast board! Go do some searching and come to your own conclusions! That is the best advice I can give you and with that, goodnight.

So we overproduce but can't feed everyone at the same time? What?
And, well, no. It is literally ten times less efficient. A sizable part of the energy intake of an animal is directly converted to body warmth and other stuff. Only about 10 percent of the energy an animal has consumed is available for a predator higher up in the food chain. That's why you don't see any animals feeding off tigers or lions; another layer in the food chain simply couldn't feed itself given the energy input (the sun, basically) and the subsequent "watering down" of energy. I don't see what you mean by nutritionally denser, either. Figures I've found suggest that good bread (not that toast crap. Good, whole bread) has got more kJ/100g than, for example, meager beef does - unless you're eating fatter beef but well, then you're eating more fat which isn't that healthy, either.
Even then, the difference is a few tens of kcal at most.
As for the bone meal - what it serves for is as a source of phosphates. However, most fertilizing phosphates aren't actually made from bone meal but rock phosphate.

we wotn see this during our lifetimes or our kids. really dosnt matter anyways as we have been improving emission controls and such.

Just let this happen after I die.

You are making a faulty comparison. All you need to understand is that, in general, CHOs/Triglycerides/AAs have 4/9/4 calories (little c). You will become mired down endlessly comparing nutritionally inferior beefs to nutritionally superior breads and vice-versa. This also ignores the presence of ketones which have about 5 calories. There is much more to nutrition than sheer caloric density. In fact, research is showing that ketosis is a natural state for nomadic humans and most closely mimics our biochemical evolution.

I want to also address this notion that "fat is unhealthy." There is absolutely nothing wrong with fat in the diet; even in excess. This is only true, however, if you are not loading up on lots of simple sugar based foods (such as flour based breads and sweets) alongside the fat in your diet. A diet rich in protein laden meats (and the saturated fats they possess) and complex CHOs is the healthiest diet one could have. (Think a steak with a heap of green beans.) Yes, I am saying that there is nothing wrong with saturated fat either. Now, if I eat lots of bread and fatty meat I will gain weight quickly. This is not the result of fat in the diet, but rather the presence of insulin in the blood to counter the spikes in blood sugar. Insulin promotes fat storage and discourages the metabolism of fats. We evolved to forage on fruits, roots, nuts, leafy greens, and fatty animal tissue. We do not have the body chemistry to subsist mostly on grains and retain full nutritional health.
Edited by Solarin - 6/11/12 at 12:12pm

If you were to look into it, you will find that there is enough food in the world, it just isn't distributed evenly. First world countries get too much food, while third world countries don't get enough. I could swear this was common knowledge though.

Oh, and you get fat from eating grains, not from eating fats, protiens, etc. Carbs are the enemies!

Overproduce as in we're growing crops faster than the soil can replenish. Within 50 years we won't have enough soil to grow crops.


And bread is denser in energy but its much worse for you. Your body treats "whole grains" the same as it treats sugar. Two slices of whole grain bread raise your blood sugar more than a can of coke would, and its the increased insulin in your blood that makes you fat. Not the actual fat you consume.

The real issue is that most of the world's major oil sources have either peaked or already in decline (including the US which at one point was the largest producer in the world and peaked in the 70s). What we are seeing in Saudi Arabia right now is what we saw during the 70s in the United States. And when Saudi Arabia starts to decline the game is up. 10 Keystone pipelines would not make up the lost production.

Now when discussing peak oil a lot of people confuse it and respond that I'm crazy for thinking Saudi Arabia is going to run out of oil. But that's not what I'm saying what I'm saying is declining production mixed with skyrocketing demand achieves the same effect. 6 million barrels a day out of Saudi Arabia is a disaster for the rest of the world. This is part of the reason why I find the aformentioned keystone debate so funny. It's not going to make any difference at the end of the day. Not only that but this is all coming sooner then we think. Privately the oil industry and most oil industry observers have said that peak production happened in 2010. Now whether we will go through a 'rocky peak' or a steep decline is another matter entirely but for everyone's sake I hope it's a rocky peak. Of course publically everything is hunky dory but that's kind of how us humans deal with things. They are already pumping water into Ghawar to sustain current production. No one wants to recognize the problem until it's hitting them in the head with a baseball bat.


Also Nuclear suffers from the same pitfalls as oil. If every power supply in the world was switched to nuclear right now uranium production would peak in something like ten years. So yeah it could be a bridge but it can never be a full replacement.
Edited by jtom320 - 6/11/12 at 12:24pm

I never alluded to the fact that there was 'no way we could ever' know. I said we simply do not know. Ok - so maybe I should have added 'as of right now, as of current understanding, as is known up to now'.

How am I not recognizing your valid points? I stated clearly 'The evidence appears on both sides. Not just one'.

Good night.

We are in the midst of rapid climate change and a severe mass extinction, but these don't imply "Earth's collapse".