Logical argument to consider

[Realitycheck]

http://www.organicagcentre.ca/NewspaperArticles/na_phosphorus_glenlea_part2_jtm.asp

 

Keys to Phosphorus Management are Cycling and Recycling

Edited August 18, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Athena]

This thread has been ruined.

 

I wish Greg had used these words...

 

"You're asking me questions that I have previously answered to the best of my ability. We are at an impasse. You are unable to comprehend what I am saying and I am unable to convey it in a way so that you can comprehend it."

 

Discussions without comprehension can be most unpleasant when people who lack the ability to comprehend are allowed to attack, and repeatedly put a poster on the defensive, instead of asking polite, non offensive questions. Then in comes someone with the big guns and who settles who wins and who looses, making the victim of the attacks completely powerless. I wonder this makes the attackers feel? Are they pleased with their win? We have all lost the benefits of this thread, because of how it was ruined. Maybe a new one can be started about the global warming, CO2 and the ocean acidity problem, that is for sure a matter of life and death. I want to thank Greg for leading me to this information with his original post.

[imatfaal]

Athena - to pre-empt the moderators reasons for banning Greg - when I challenged the premises of Greg's first post in another thread; in his numerous responses he refused to admit that his use of demographic statistics were very unusual, he claimed that I and others had hidden agendas, he insulted other posters and claimed they could not be debated with, and finally contended that I and others were not qualified to comment on his theory. Arguments that might have swayed many were derailed by Greg's dogmatic insistence on defending groundless claims and his confrontational debating style. On this particular thread - the first good question based on a checkable fact was your question on phosphorus - previous to that was an argument based upon a bald assertion that did not admit to any verification; the declining stockpile of phosphorus was not something I was aware of, and I was glad to read more about.

[padren]

While I may be a little late considering, I can't help but to jump in. I think it's safe to boil down the OP's statement effectively as: "A finite quantity of materials can only support positive exponential re-arrangement of said materials for a finite amount of time before said materials are exhausted*." so I'll go with that for the moment.

 

 

Does the fact that "A finite quantity of materials can only support positive exponential re-arrangement of said materials for a finite amount of time before said materials are exhausted." really have anything to do with the challenges faced by humans?

Even if all the logic in the OP was 100% consistent, it provides zero relevant metrics to the actual situations we face - it says nothing of when this becomes a factor, or if it is a factor impacting our lives to some degree already, or even if it would become a factor before/after the sun ultimately dies out.

 

 

 

The OP really seems to be trying to provide an axiomatic truth, and then derive a philosophy of approach based on that without any regard for the actual measurable landscape of data. What's worse - where the landscape does support (at least in correlation ) the OP's general point of view, it's grasped rather blindly as if that supported the overall approach of adhering to the axiomatic philosophy.

 

 

The sad thing is that a great many scientists (and posters here) actually are concerned about population growth, resource scarcity, etc, but are concerned because of data suggesting reason for concern, not philisophical axioms. It is always fun to try and identify what sort of philisophical implications may be derived from percieved axiomatic truths that appear most consistent with observed data, but to elevate those to the status of guiding principles for policy is at best incredibly dogmatic, and at it's worst creates an inherent social bias in the collection and vetting of data.

 

 

I think most people here were rejecting the appeal to the dogmatic approach, more than contesting whether population growth is a genuine contemporary concern.

 

 

 

*without cannibalizing said arranged structures to make new ones.

Edited August 19, 2011 by padren

[CharonY]

Got it in one, Padren.

 

Edit: I should also add that people do not get their posting rights revoked due to the content, or even due to the lack of understanding topics. Usually the use of fallacies and goalpost moving are considered offenses since they do not allow a proper discussion and are more often than not just a form of soapboxing.

Note that if this was the only thread it would have not such an impact, but it was clearly one in a series of similar threads that basically all are built around a number of fallacies.

Edited August 19, 2011 by CharonY

[Peron]

And the tables turn......

 

On what supporting evidence do you base that claim?????

 

 

 

If we could just make deaslination more energy efficient and if we could just get fusion power to work and if we could just colonise the other planets and if this and if that..............

 

We don't base our spending on if we can just win tattslotto or if we could just win the jackpot on the pokies.

 

At least those humans with at least half a brain don't

 

How about we base our judgment on what is a sustainable human population on what is possible now and what we have now!

 

We can make adjustments if and when miraculous new technologies arise at some point in the future.

 

Yeah, no it wouldn't require Fusion Reactors. A 2-megawatt plant would be enough to produce 4300 cubic meters of water a day. OTEC

 

And Lockheed Martin is developing this viable technology, here's a link My link

 

Also about the declining Phosphorous; wouldn't asteroid mining solve the problem? Or any resource problem humans will face?

Edited August 22, 2011 by Peron

[Realitycheck]

Mining asteroids wouldn't be very efficient for phosphate due to the immense volumes used and relative low cost. It would be more efficient to use manure (despite the unpleasantness), rotate crops, etc. A 10,000 ton shipment would have to be multiplied by 100-1,000 to be of any substance and even then, 10,000 tons is a considerable mass to land on earth somehow.