Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
sch_peakoiler wrote:
if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).
so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.
Of course, it is meaningless to talk of periods that are outside the timescale of humans. Other species may have interests beyond that, however. Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
Renewable is different from sustainable. Renewable means that the resource can be renewed. The rate of renewal then become the critical factor. Consuming renewable resources beyond their renewal rates is unsustainable.
sch_peakoiler wrote:
If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%
But what is the practical lifetime and what is the production profile over that time? No-one knows, it is a leap of faith.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.
What probability would you place on the human species outlast the solar system, yesplease? If it is tending towards infinitesimally small, then "know" is sufficient for everyday conversation.
Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.
What probability would you place on the human species outlast the solar system, yesplease? If it is tending towards infinitesimally small, then "know" is sufficient for everyday conversation.
There isn't enough information to derive anything regarding probability IMO. We might as well start a debate about whether or not the big G exists. For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time. _________________
pstarr wrote:
I regularly call on my "Mother" and her ample bosom
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time.
No, that is the only thing we can state without fear of a pedant taking issue with it. What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.
It's amazing the minutiae that you take issue with, yesplease.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.
Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?
P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either. _________________
pstarr wrote:
I regularly call on my "Mother" and her ample bosom
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.
Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?
You rail against Albert Bartlett because you think he believes in infinite time for using resources and now here you are, arguing that humans may survive the end of the solar system.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.
That's easy.
At some point it will either evaluate into more (or less...) intelligent species or as an alternative it will go extinct.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.
Cuz our crystal ballz said so. Or was it tea leaves this time?
You rail against Albert Bartlett because you think he believes in infinite time for using resources and now here you are, arguing that humans may survive the end of the solar system.
What a contrary person you are.
Nope. Try again. Stating I, and likely you IMO, don't know if we will survive, is not the same as stating we will survive. Otoh, assuming we have infinite time, in order to use resources forever, is quite cornucopian. If whatshisfuzz had stated that using a certain amount given whatever would allow for resource use for a very long time, up to when the Earth as a sustainable habitat for humans/whatever they change into, then sure... But they were very specific regarding the wording/etc...
All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
yesplease wrote:
P.S. If a pedant in your opinion is someone who has a reasonable idea of what they can and can't predict than perhaps it's a reasonable label. I cannot predict what will happen to the human race and I sincerely doubt you can either.
That's easy.
At some point it will either evaluate into more (or less...) intelligent species or as an alternative it will go extinct.
In any case it will not outlive Solar System.
If you're basing it off that then sure, but it's kinda arbitrary given that it depends on our classification. For instance, if we choose sufficiently strict criteria, we could evaluate within the next few years. In any event, what will happen to the human race, or what we view as the descendants of that race, that far into the future, is unpossible to know AFAIK. _________________
pstarr wrote:
I regularly call on my "Mother" and her ample bosom
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.
I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand? All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.
I have no idea why you'd argue that point anyway. The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.
I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
TonyPrep wrote:
All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.
It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future. The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future. If you have significant evidence that we will not outlast the solar system, whatever that means, I would like to see it.
TonyPrep wrote:
The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.
Depends. What do you mean by demise of the solar system you speak of? _________________
pstarr wrote:
I regularly call on my "Mother" and her ample bosom
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.
I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%". It was poetic licence, for effect. However, it is simply redundant, and doesn't misrepresent what you said. Unless, of course, that you think less than 100 % accurate is the same as accurate, but, knowing you, I doubt that. So why are you putting so much emphasis on a bit of effect? You argued against my reasonable statement that the human species would not outlive the solar system. I claimed that it was reasonable, not a 100% mathematical certainty. So why go on about what can be accurately predicted?
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.
It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future.
There you go again with "accurate", after berating me for denying accuracy.
yesplease wrote:
The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future.
Uh? Of course it's reasonable for me to say what I said. It may not be a certainty, but it is reasonable. You appear not to be arguing with it, in specific terms (i.e. you deliberately do not predict that our species will outlast the solar system), but get hot under the collar about a reasonable statement to the contrary.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
The only way that our species would outlast the solar system would be for it to have populated other star systems. Whether you think that is a real possibility or not is irrelevant, since any who remained in the solar system, at the time of its demise, would no longer exist and the subject of sustainability in this star system would be irrelevant.
Depends. What do you mean by demise of the solar system you speak of?
Demise: a cessation of existence. Don't you have a dictionary or can you honestly not fit one of the meanings to the context of my post? Also, could you really not see that I was referring to the solar system in which you live? After all, the subject was the longevity of the human species.
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:28 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
All I'm stating is that given how little we know about the future, especially that far into it, I don't think anyone is in a position to accurately predict what will happen to the human race or whatever we become.
I've never claimed 100% accuracy, yesplease. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I never stated you claimed 100% accuracy, TonyPrep. And I would appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth so to speak, which you have been doing through a significant portion of our interaction. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
Quote:
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
And since there is no degree specified, any quantity isn't redundant.
TonyPrep wrote:
However, it is simply redundant, and doesn't misrepresent what you said. Unless, of course, that you think less than 100 % accurate is the same as accurate, but, knowing you, I doubt that.
Like I stated, above, accuracy does not imply a degree. Since you didn't understand this, according to a definition of the word, you hardly seem to know me. Given how little you "know" of someone who you communicate with, I wonder if you'll have any accurate information as to the fate of humanity and the solar system.
TonyPrep wrote:
You argued against my reasonable statement that the human species would not outlive the solar system. I claimed that it was reasonable, not a 100% mathematical certainty. So why go on about what can be accurately predicted?
Your statement is not reasonable unless you have some way of predicting the future. That is what I am stating. There need not be 100% accuracy, but considering that no one has predicted the future over much smaller time periods with even the slightest degree of accuracy, I doubt you can predict anything accurately over a larger time period.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
All I've said is that it is reasonable to state that the human species will not outlast the solar system and work on that assumption. If you don't think that's a reasonable statement, then you must be allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system.
It is not reasonable unless you have significant evidence that you can somehow accurately predict what will happen in the future.
There you go again with "accurate", after berating me for denying accuracy.
I am not berating you, I am simply stating that saying one can predict the future is not possible AFAIK. If you have evidence to the contrary, that shows you can in fact do this, please present it. Show me how you "know", not suspect or think, but "know" that humans won't outlive/outlast the solar system.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
The only reasonable thing to say is that we don't know what will happen, which isn't to say that I'm allowing for the possibility that our species will outlast the solar system, just that I don't have any nutty notions about my abilities to predict the future.
Uh? Of course it's reasonable for me to say what I said. It may not be a certainty, but it is reasonable. You appear not to be arguing with it, in specific terms (i.e. you deliberately do not predict that our species will outlast the solar system), but get hot under the collar about a reasonable statement to the contrary.
It isn't reasonable unless you can predict the future. AFAIK, no one, including you and I, can. It doesn't have to be certain, simply reasonable. If you state you "know" the human species will not outlast/outlive the solar system, then I would like you see how you came to this conclusion. If it's true, you'll probably rock the scientific community to it's core.
TonyPrep wrote:
Demise: a cessation of existence. Don't you have a dictionary or can you honestly not fit one of the meanings to the context of my post? Also, could you really not see that I was referring to the solar system in which you live? After all, the subject was the longevity of the human species.
There is no context, only what you state. How are you defining a cessation of existence? If the sun seeks to exist as we know it, is it the end of the the solar system? If we loose planets, is that the end of the solar system? What are your quantitative criteria?
That being said, if you wish to "fit" illogical "meanings" out of thin air that is fine by me... Perhaps you "know" this just like you "knew" what I was thinking or "implying" in the past.
TonyPrep wrote:
we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
Jeez, I don't know why I bother. Like I said before, you may not want to hear it from me, but I still think brushing up on some logic/math would be a good idea. You may come out with a better idea of what you "know" and what you "don't know". _________________
pstarr wrote:
I regularly call on my "Mother" and her ample bosom
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1930 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
Quote:
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.
I'd already accepted that there is no 100% accuracy in stating that humans will not outlive the solar system, but it is a reasonable statement to make. Since you think reasonableness implies total accuracy then I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I might even say it's a good working assumption but you would probably say that we can't assume anything until it has happened.
Let me offer you a way out of this, yesplease. You are absolutely right that the word "know", in its strict meaning, implies 100% knowledge and so was the incorrect word for me to use. In my defence, let me say that I was using conversational English. In normal, everyday, English we often use the word "know" to mean having a high degree of confidence that something is true.
I'm sure you'll argue about that also, yesplease. If so, please argue with yourself. I'm done.
Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
Quote:
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.
Accuracy has different definitions. The one pertaining to logic/math is...
Quote:
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
If you had simply asked what I had meant perhaps we wouldn't have gone on this long about this.
TonyPrep wrote:
Since you think reasonableness implies total accuracy then I don't think we're going to get anywhere.
No I don't. I've already told you several times, including a quote of the definition I was using, what I meant. Words have different definitions, and if you were unsure about the definition I don't see why you wouldn't ask about it before flying into paragraph long statements about something I wasn't talking about in the first place.
TonyPrep wrote:
You are absolutely right that the word "know", in its strict meaning, implies 100% knowledge and so was the incorrect word for me to use. In my defence, let me say that I was using conversational English. In normal, everyday, English we often use the word "know" to mean having a high degree of confidence that something is true.
Why wouldn't you just say that in the first place? And even then, while you and Miss Cleo may have a high degree of confidence about your abilities to predict the future, I don't. As rational and logical beings, the only thing we could say about the future, especially that far into it, discounting of course trivial examples (short time periods and stuff that has to happen by definition), is that we don't know what will happen. You can assume the human specieis won't outlive/etc the solar system, but that's a long way from "know" or even a high degree of confidence, unless of course you aren't guided by rationality/logic and your high degree of confidence in your predictive abilities comes from a source that doesn't depend on the accuracy of those predictions.
TonyPrep wrote:
I'm sure you'll argue about that also, yesplease. If so, please argue with yourself. I'm done.
M'kay. Like I said before, I ain't arguing with you. I'm just typing/communicating and pointing out what I feel is an unreasonable statement for a logical/rational being to make. If you're arguing w/ me, that's fine I suppose, but all I'm doing is typing along *clickity clackity noises* expressing my views. If you dislike them to the point where you feel I am arguing with you, that's fine too. _________________
pstarr wrote:
I regularly call on my "Mother" and her ample bosom
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time.
