Is humanity fucked?

[Darth Yan]

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity- ... d-animals/

Seriously, because this is not good.

[Broomstick]

Honestly, I don't know.

We're pretty damn numerous, we've spread all over the planet, and arguably too clever for our own good. So that's a factor in at least some of us surviving.

I do anticipate a massive die-off is rising in likelihood.

What's the situation in the Pacific and Antarctic oceans?

I also want to know why reading about stuff like this makes me hungry - is it some weird survival reflex kicking in?

I used to wonder what it was like living through the end of the Roman Empire. Now I feel like I may get something like first-hand experience.

[Crazedwraith]

Why did you post this in two forums?

And pretty much, yes.

[loomer]

It mostly depends on how you define 'humanity' and 'fucked'. If by 'humanity' you mean our current industrial civilization and way of life, and 'fucked' you mean 'will it collapse off hard'? Yes, absolutely. We're already doing that. There is simply no viable way to continue with our way of life in the mid to long term, and our only choice is do we want to keep hitting the accelerator or try and bail out before we go over the cliff. The best case is that we manage over the next five years, or are forced by an externality, to massively scale back down greenhouse gas emissions and do so in a way that avoids mass die offs. If we do that, we can look forward to a few centuries of progressive catabolic collapse-plateau-lesser resurgence-collapse cycles and a return towards appropriate technologies with vastly lower emergy footprints than we currently insist on, in a world with significantly harsher conditions.

This process will be unpleasant during the collapse periods, but not unsurvivable or even necessarily all that unpleasant during the plateaus and minor resurgences. What remains at the end, however, may be 'fucked' if you mean 'can we keep going forwards (in a strictly industrial sense)'. We've rather missed the boat for anything else, barring some sudden miraculous invention that the smart money isn't betting on. The upshot is that what remains at the end, if we do it right, will be a mostly tolerable existence, and one in which we'll have opportunities to pass down important lessons like avoiding cholera, embracing ecojurisprudence and systems theory en masse, and the importance of safeguarding human and natural rights - again, provided we do it right, which the smart money isn't on at the moment due to the resurgence of fascism. This is actually where my work is focused these days, along with a few other academics I know - we're trying to get out ahead of the curve and create ways of understanding law that can be grasped as common sense and avoid a complete collapse into totalitarian arbitrary rule-by-crisis.

If however you mean 'will the species go extinct', the answer is probably not (from climate crisis, starvation, and disease, at least. Nuclear war is another matter...), at least for a few centuries, even in the worst case scenarios. The human being is adaptable in the extreme and even with the worst predicted climate disruption coming, will probably survive in isolated pockets where local conditions are sufficient to enable small, marginal populations to remain by hook and by crook. After that? Who can say.

EDIT:
I know it sounds weird to say I'm part of a secret ring of law-and-humanities academics working to end-run the apocalypse, and it's a very weird sentence to type out! I was even at a damn doomsday conference while COVID was first breaking out en masse and the country was on fire. One of the fringe benefits of living through the collapse is that there are plenty of opportunities to test one's sense of humour...

[Broomstick]

Under such circumstances a sense of humor - likely a dark and macabre one - is likely to be a survival trait.

[Darth Yan]

I can see the current world order changing definitely (or an increase in outer space colonization). I don't see things becoming communes or embracing an anarchist way of life.

[Solauren]

More than likely, we'll see the following -

- Massive Starvation in low-developed countries
- Probably some wars in that area
- Wide scale implimentation of factory-farming (i.e growing crops in buildings, meat in vats)
- pulling out of countries that can't implement factory-farming.
- Eventually, things might end up looking something like a post-semi-apocalyptic setting. Visually like say, Cyberpunk, Judge Dredd, or Bladerunner.
Beat-up, kind of barren/arid terrain surrounding walled cities where food is grown in vats. So, kinda like how early space colonies will probably look.

[Broomstick]

I can see the current world order changing definitely (or an increase in outer space colonization). I don't see things becoming communes or embracing an anarchist way of life.

Not by choice, no, but there are scenarios where that sort of thing becomes what remains of civilization and the highest form of social organization left.

[loomer]

More than likely, we'll see the following -

- Massive Starvation in low-developed countries
- Probably some wars in that area
- Wide scale implimentation of factory-farming (i.e growing crops in buildings, meat in vats)
- pulling out of countries that can't implement factory-farming.
- Eventually, things might end up looking something like a post-semi-apocalyptic setting. Visually like say, Cyberpunk, Judge Dredd, or Bladerunner.
Beat-up, kind of barren/arid terrain surrounding walled cities where food is grown in vats. So, kinda like how early space colonies will probably look.

And you'll get the energy for this where?

[Tribble]

More than likely, we'll see the following -

- Massive Starvation in low-developed countries
- Probably some wars in that area
- Wide scale implimentation of factory-farming (i.e growing crops in buildings, meat in vats)
- pulling out of countries that can't implement factory-farming.
- Eventually, things might end up looking something like a post-semi-apocalyptic setting. Visually like say, Cyberpunk, Judge Dredd, or Bladerunner.
Beat-up, kind of barren/arid terrain surrounding walled cities where food is grown in vats. So, kinda like how early space colonies will probably look.

And you'll get the energy for this where?

Good question.

Theoretically, would building a sufficient number of nuclear fission plants work? Is there enough available fuel for that? Could we build them quickly enough to have a meaningful impact?

I imagine hydro/solar/wind would not be sufficient on their own, and nuclear fusion always seems 20 years off.

Mind you, even if possible that would still have its own issues like where to store all the waste that can't be reprocessed, risk of more meltdowns, terrorism, nuclear proliferation etc.

[loomer]

More than likely, we'll see the following -

- Massive Starvation in low-developed countries
- Probably some wars in that area
- Wide scale implimentation of factory-farming (i.e growing crops in buildings, meat in vats)
- pulling out of countries that can't implement factory-farming.
- Eventually, things might end up looking something like a post-semi-apocalyptic setting. Visually like say, Cyberpunk, Judge Dredd, or Bladerunner.
Beat-up, kind of barren/arid terrain surrounding walled cities where food is grown in vats. So, kinda like how early space colonies will probably look.

And you'll get the energy for this where?

Good question.

Theoretically, would building a sufficient number of nuclear fission plants work? Is there enough available fuel for that? Could we build them quickly enough to have a meaningful impact?

I imagine hydro/solar/wind would not be sufficient on their own, and nuclear fusion always seems 20 years off.

Mind you, even if possible that would still have its own issues like where to store all the waste that can't be reprocessed, risk of more meltdowns, terrorism, nuclear proliferation etc.

While fission is a very efficient source of power in isolation, it has real problems that aren't just waste and safety related. The big one is the emergy involved in the mining infrastructure, most of which can't be run off nuclear power itself, necessitating either extensive battery storage or the continued use of fossil fuels. On a smaller scale this isn't as big a problem as it sounds, but it does produce limits on the scale to which we can rely on nuclear fission to just step up and do the job without concomitant major lifestyle reform.

The real solution, as far as I'm aware, is thus not 'how do we bring sustain enough emergy to survive more-or-less as we are', but 'what is the minimum emergy needed to maintain a moderately acceptable way of life'. Our current model of existence is enormously wasteful of huge amounts of emergy because we've, more or less, been living in a wonderland of free energy. We could take that energy, stick it into a system, and waste sizeable portions of the subsequent emergy to no end whatsoever.

So, when we're looking at 'oh, walled cities with food grown in vats', our first concern must be the emergy of that system. Where is it coming from? How is it being produced, and what are the energy and emergy requirements of that production system? The emergy requirement is every input and that input's inputs and so on. For factory-building farms that includes fertilizers, soil transport if you're not doing pure aeroponic/hydroponic systems, the basic material costs of the building and systems inside themselves, lighting costs if you're not doing day-cycle light-tube growth only, and on and on and on. Sometimes, that will say 'yes, this is a good answer', and I'm hoping that's what Solauren has.

[Solauren]

Since this is no different then expanding energy infrastructure, just without some of the environmental impact concerns (hey, if something is dead, why worry about it, right?), we just need to look at current options and technology, or in development stuff, to find our energy production answers.

Note – I’ll admit some of my ideas may not be feasible.

I'll then address Energy Consumption.

Energy Production -
Hydroelectric
As the aquatic based ecosystem collapses, they're should be alot less objection to Hydroelectric power generation. Primarily the objections I've seen are environmental (i.e interferring with nature), our tourism based.
If there are now fish swimming up a river to spawn, then putting a hydro plant there isn't going to cause them problems.
If it's hot, dusty, and digusting out, people are not likely to go outside to look at enviromentally ruined scenary.

Also, Hydroelectric generation is alot better then people seem to give it credit for.
Right now, (according to various websites), "The amount of electricity the power plants at Niagara Falls have the capacity to output is close to 4.9 million kilowatts. That's enough to power 3.8 millions homes. On the US side, plants have a capacity of roughly 2.7 million Kilowatts, while the Canadian side's combined capacity is close to 2.2 million kilowatts."
That could be expanded, both at the Falls, and on other suitable rivers, to provide power (and jobs).

Solar Power Generation
Solar Generation could be useful to take some of the load, but not as a total solution for power generation.
To start, it would have to be a requirement for every building that can have solar panels on it to have them. Office buildings, Apartment buildings, malls, stores, gas stations, homes, barns, etc. Irregardless of appearance, historical value, etc.

Next, you have to look at other places to put Solar panels. One suggestion I’ve heard is to take old oil fields, nationalize them, and cover them in solar panels. The same with large abandoned properties. Abandoned factory? Level it, solar power farm it.

Using Roads as solar panels is in development, but doesn’t look that promising.

Solar is not a solution in itself, more of an assistance to solutions.

Wind Power Generation
Well, as fields dry up, and wind picks up, you'll have more places for wind generation...

Manual Power Generation
(I’m not sure how practical this is, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is).
I will admit, I’m stealing this idea from Black Mirror. Use people to generate electrical power.
I’m not talking ‘stick them in the matrix’. I’m talking people turning turbines via treadmills, Exercise bikes, human sized hamster wheels, ‘Homer Simpson in the basement turning the food snack tray’, whatever works. Instead of prisoners sitting in jail cells all day, they could run these.


However - what I feel is the real solution, within our short-term technical grasp, is....
Non-Uranium Based Nuclear Fission Power
Replacing Coal and other Fossil Fuel plants with Nuclear plants would also increase power production. However, instead of Uranium based nuclear power generation, we need to look into Thorium based nuclear power generation.
Current research into Thorium-based nuclear power is very promising, and is considered a much better alternative to Uranium based nuclear power generation.

Benefits include - Thorium is easier to mine then Uranium and there is more of it, it's hard to make nuclear weapons with Thorium by-products, there is up to two orders of magnitude LESS nuclear waste, no enrichment of the material is needed, estimates are that 1 ton of THorium could produce as much power as 200 tons of Uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal, the designs are melt-down proof, and Thorium is much safer to mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-b ... lear_power

Another nice benefit of Thorium mining is the resulting open mine pits could be turned into underground buildings, or even storage for nuclear waste.

As for the waste materials, well, I've said old mines could be useful for food production. The ones that are not, use them to store the nuclear waste, until we have a reliable way to get that stuff off planet.
(or until someone figures out how to use the harmful radiation to generate power, then turn them into batteries/generators. Good luck with that)

Switch coal, gas and uranium based power generation over to Thorium, you'll reduce power-generated pollution down to more controllable amounts, and have alot of power generation capabilities.


If anyone wants my thoughts on other efforts we can do, say the word, and I'll try to turn it from semi-coherent rambling to ideas that are semi-articulate

[Broomstick]

Energy Production -
Hydroelectric
As the aquatic based ecosystem collapses, they're should be alot less objection to Hydroelectric power generation. Primarily the objections I've seen are environmental (i.e interferring with nature), our tourism based.
If there are now fish swimming up a river to spawn, then putting a hydro plant there isn't going to cause them problems.
If it's hot, dusty, and digusting out, people are not likely to go outside to look at enviromentally ruined scenary.

There is a problem with hydroelectric we're now seeing on the Colorado river - a simple lack of water, and entire watershed supply less water to the river. With dropping water levels Hoover and Glen Canyon dams just are producing much power this summer.

This can be mitigated by better placement of power plants and better engineering, but only so far.

Right now, (according to various websites), "The amount of electricity the power plants at Niagara Falls have the capacity to output is close to 4.9 million kilowatts. That's enough to power 3.8 millions homes. On the US side, plants have a capacity of roughly 2.7 million Kilowatts, while the Canadian side's combined capacity is close to 2.2 million kilowatts."
That could be expanded, both at the Falls, and on other suitable rivers, to provide power (and jobs).

Well, sure - we could "turn off" the Falls entirely, utilizing all the water for power generation. We don't currently because folks still want to see Niagara as a waterfall.

Solar is not a solution in itself, more of an assistance to solutions.

^ This

There are some locations where it could be a major source of power, but not everywhere, and not all year round.

Manual Power Generation
(I’m not sure how practical this is, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is).
I will admit, I’m stealing this idea from Black Mirror. Use people to generate electrical power.
I’m not talking ‘stick them in the matrix’. I’m talking people turning turbines via treadmills, Exercise bikes, human sized hamster wheels, ‘Homer Simpson in the basement turning the food snack tray’, whatever works. Instead of prisoners sitting in jail cells all day, they could run these.[/i]

That would put us back to Medieval levels of power, or even earlier - pre-industrial age people used animals for that purpose, not other people (with the exception of roasting spits that could be turned either by dogs or small children).

As for the waste materials, well, I've said old mines could be useful for food production. The ones that are not, use them to store the nuclear waste, until we have a reliable way to get that stuff off planet.
(or until someone figures out how to use the harmful radiation to generate power, then turn them into batteries/generators. Good luck with that)

There are ways to reprocess "spent" uranium-based fuel and use it for power, basically burning the waste over again, but they have not been developed because they produce materials that are suitable for bomb building and there were/are worries about nuclear proliferation. Which is happening anyway in the world.

But yes, thorium based plants are also a potential good idea.

[Solauren]

Remember, I'm suggesting doing all of that. Hydro, Solar, Wind, Thorium-nuclear. (I could see manual set ups in peoples homes to lower their electricity)

As for turning off the Falls - When it comes to tourist going 'oh, ah, now let me buy momentos', and powering food production, my vote is shut the falls off, and tell people to shut up.

[Broomstick]

Remember, I'm suggesting doing all of that. Hydro, Solar, Wind, Thorium-nuclear. (I could see manual set ups in peoples homes to lower their electricity)

Or, you know, we could automate less - manual dishwashing instead of machine, drying laundry on lines rather than in a machine, etc. More efficient appliances and lighting (although people screamed about LED lighting it really does cut power consumption).

As for turning off the Falls - When it comes to tourist going 'oh, ah, now let me buy momentos', and powering food production, my vote is shut the falls off, and tell people to shut up.

If things get that dire I don't think there will be many tourists to complain....

[Eternal_Freedom]

Energy Production -
Hydroelectric
As the aquatic based ecosystem collapses, they're should be alot less objection to Hydroelectric power generation. Primarily the objections I've seen are environmental (i.e interferring with nature), our tourism based.
If there are now fish swimming up a river to spawn, then putting a hydro plant there isn't going to cause them problems.
If it's hot, dusty, and digusting out, people are not likely to go outside to look at enviromentally ruined scenary.

Also, Hydroelectric generation is alot better then people seem to give it credit for.
Right now, (according to various websites), "The amount of electricity the power plants at Niagara Falls have the capacity to output is close to 4.9 million kilowatts. That's enough to power 3.8 millions homes. On the US side, plants have a capacity of roughly 2.7 million Kilowatts, while the Canadian side's combined capacity is close to 2.2 million kilowatts."
That could be expanded, both at the Falls, and on other suitable rivers, to provide power (and jobs).

This does require certain geographic features though. And given the sheer mass of concrete and time needed to build something like the Hoover Dam, I doubt you could ramp Hydro up as quickly as other sources. Plus, you've got that whole energy cost of producing all the concrete and building the thing.

Also, I hate to point out the flaw (because I think hydroelectric dams are awesome) but 4.9 million kilowatts sounds great, and it is, but that's 4.9 GW, which was about 1/3rd the full (planned) capacity of the entire Chernobyl plant (six 3.2 GWe reactors), and that did not require a sodding great waterfall.

Manual Power Generation
(I’m not sure how practical this is, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it is).
I will admit, I’m stealing this idea from Black Mirror. Use people to generate electrical power.
I’m not talking ‘stick them in the matrix’. I’m talking people turning turbines via treadmills, Exercise bikes, human sized hamster wheels, ‘Homer Simpson in the basement turning the food snack tray’, whatever works. Instead of prisoners sitting in jail cells all day, they could run these.

Aside from the points Broomstick mentioned, would this not generate a lot less energy than will be needed to feed the person running this turbine?

Benefits include - Thorium is easier to mine then Uranium and there is more of it, it's hard to make nuclear weapons with Thorium by-products, there is up to two orders of magnitude LESS nuclear waste, no enrichment of the material is needed, estimates are that 1 ton of THorium could produce as much power as 200 tons of Uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal, the designs are melt-down proof, and Thorium is much safer to mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-b ... lear_power

What's your source on that 1 ton of Thorium producing as much energy as 200 tons of Uranium? I've read the Wiki article you linked to more times than I care to admit and I cannot recall seeing that particular boast in it. It sounds like the sort of boast you hear from wind power advocates about how awesome it is frankly. Unless of course you mean that the net energy generation (when factoring in mining, refining, and waste disposal) is 200 times higher per ton than Uranium. If so, I'd be interested in reading your source on that as well.

As for dealing with nuclear waste, well there is ongoing (promising) research into transuranic-burning and waste-annihilating reactors. Plus fuel reprocessing is an existing, if not perfected technology. It's just the damn Greenpeace hippies won't admit it.

[loomer]

Since this is no different then expanding energy infrastructure, just without some of the environmental impact concerns (hey, if something is dead, why worry about it, right?), we just need to look at current options and technology, or in development stuff, to find our energy production answers.

I'm going to have to disagree with your starting premise. Pretty much all environmental impact concerns will remain an issue because the environment isn't going to magically turn into a lifeless rock of perfectly smooth form - and if it did, no amount of human ingenuity is going to be able to save us! Environmental protections are as much human protections as anything else because the natural systems of the planet are our base support: everything else is a fancy layer on top of them. If we decide to continue eroding the stability and efficacy of the base to generate power, we're going to need to generate more and more power to handle the negative impacts of this. We're already in part of that feedback loop now with the increasing reliance on air conditioning to buffer against harsher summers.

Consider hydro. The issue is not just 'oh well, no more fish spawning, we can do what we like'. Riverine systems are tied to not just internal ecologies but the broader ecological systems of their surrounding biomes, especially water cycles. Dam systems are, bluntly, catastrophes for everyone: over and over again, they've been shown to reduce water quality, concentrate pollutants, and cause unexpected down-system effects with streams and rivers either dwindling or also concentrating pollutants. Where this happens, you can expect them to be more susceptible to die-offs, algae blooms, and other catastrophic events, all of which have knock-on impacts on their surrounding biomes and human communities. Healthy river systems support substantial proliferation of water-anchoring plant growth far beyond their banks, and this plant growth helps prevent desertification with its attendant impacts on surrounding systems, including human ones. Unhealthy river systems have a reduced capacity to do so, as both riverine and terrestrial animals play a role in this proliferation of plant growth. The more you degrade an already degraded or unstable system - say by allowing oxygen dead spots to spread through a river - the less capacity it has to contribute to the systems it's enmeshed in, so shrugging with 'oh well, no more fish spawning' and proceeding to build a dam is missing the forest for the trees.

Now, the alternative ROR systems are less of an issue in terms of ecological and greenhouse gas than dam systems, but in turn ROR systems have limited efficiency and don't produce considerable sums of power, requiring multiple installations to produce sizeable amounts of electricity (which doesn't rule them out, mind: their utility is higher if we stop using energy freely and they're potentially a good option for providing decentralized grids operating at vastly lower energy requirements), decreasing their energy in:energy out ratio and increasing their maintenance requirements relative to a dam system. As EF noted, both involve investing vast sums of emergy into the projects, which has to come from somewhere initially - consider the transport of construction materials: this will require, again, either continued fossil fuel use, extensive battery production, or a massive reversion to horse-and-cart logistics. Dam systems in particular have a reliance on concrete, and excessive use and production of concrete is one of the main problems we have - no joke, it's a serious contributor to the unfolding crisis.

And on top of these initial layout and efficiency concerns, there's also the issue of the systems now being in flux and instability. You've got to be able to floodproof your hydro, which sounds silly - surely a flood isn't a problem, right? Well, no. A flood can destroy both dam-based and ROR systems if they're not properly built and designed, which again, increases the energy inputs for construction and the overall emergy of the system. Where it doesn't destroy, it can degrade efficiency if not cut it off entirely for short to middling periods due to the need to shut down temporarily, repair damage, clear jams, and so on. ROR systems and smaller dams are, from my understanding, more vulnerable to this issue. Then, you've also got to consider droughts and reduced water availability in a system. While it's true that much of the current draws on major river systems are agricultural in nature, that's not true for smaller rivers and watercourses, which can go from useable to a trickle with a bad drought season, let alone more than one in succession. If that happens, the emergy used to produce the ROR or dam system is now sitting idle, requiring maintenance the crew and components of which themselves require energy inputs (and thus, increasing its emergy) until the river flows again.

I'm not targeting hydro as a worse option than fossil fuels - its definitely not, and my personal path to a future where it's not hell on earth uses limited ROR hydro to provide electricity for a substantially reduced usage footprint - but using it to demonstrate that it really isn't as simple as 'well, the environment is dead, do whatever' because not only is that premise faulty, but it doesn't address the real elephant in the room: the emergy requirements for a large-scale industrial civilization. The only way to think our way out of the present crisis is to address those emergy requirements - to remember the energy inputs of every component in the chain of the dam we want to build, and the corresponding pollution, emissions, and degradation that go with those inputs.

In the event you're unfamiliar with emergy, it is the embodied energy of a product or system. This is all the energy inputs, of every variety, that went into that product or system. Its hard to quantify, especially as you get to more esoteric inputs like the use of a bitumen road to decrease transport time and wear and tear on the vehicles used to move workers about (and yes: that really is part of the emergy of a system! Its just one that usually isn't included in conventional approaches to emergy because its small, difficult to reliably quantify, and not usually useful for the purpose emergy was first coined for.) The more technical uses of it are less relevant to our present purpose than always remembering it as a totality - a reminder we have to always look deeper, at the energy costs of the energy costs of the energy costs of a product or system: not just the immediate costs of building that dam and turbine, but the energy costs of producing the steel for the turbine's components and the energy costs of producing the mining gear used to excavate the ore and the concrete production used to build the refinery where that steel was made and the food and shelter of that refinery's workers and so on. Embracing emergy requires us to fully embrace systems-based thinking.

[Solauren]

Well, if the problems with Hydro are so, annoying, we simply focus on replacing all power generation with Thorium reactors, and treat Hydro like we will Solar and Wind - Useful assist where it's feasible.

(Actually, it might be better to turn all Hydro plants into power generating water treatment/purification plants to help deal with pollutants, since as mentioned they can actually concentrate the pollutants).

As for limited efficiency - That's going to be a concern with any solution or approach we take. No system is perfect, energy is used up and lost.
We're just going to have to build things as quickly and efficiently as possible, to be as efficient as possible.

If that means every major metropoliton area gets it's own Thorium Reactor or two (or three or four or five, whatever number is needed), then so be it.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

There are also problems like this:
Illegal gold mines poisoning indigenous communities as Amazon is destroyed.

Three years ago I flew across part of the Amazon to document the fires ravaging acres of forest.

They weren’t natural fires, they were fires set by man. A burning of the treasure nature gifted us all. Acres and acres set ablaze by those who wished to occupy protected land to build their illegal industries, graze their cattle, grow their soy.

Every blaze destroyed part of a forest upon which the world depends. A natural combatant in the battle against climate change quite literally going up in flames.

Those fires will come again, it’s a few months yet until fire season, but there is now a different menace and it is there 365 days a year, every hour of the day and night.

The illegal mines have continued to operate.
A flight over the Amazon this year is a flight over a land scarred by the blazing orange clay of illegal goldmines. The waterways, once clear, are a milky shade of gold - such is the level of pollution from the mercury used to exploit from precious lands a precious metal.

Mercury contamination is now an everyday part of life for many in the region. A World Wildlife Fund survey found every one of the nearly 500 people tested to have some mercury in their bloodstream.

Neurological problems are believed to be the most common of the health issues doctors attribute to increased levels of mercury in the body and they are being seen in the community.

All countries must be part of the solution, says Mauricio Voivodic, Executive Director of WWF Brazil

During the pandemic the number of mines increased rapidly, now hundreds and hundreds are operating. Others are abandoned, the seams exploited and emptied but the environmental impact is far from over.

Around a half of Brazilian gold exports are believed to be from illegal mines and much of that gold finds its way to the British market. The UK is the third largest market, that’s why WWF want the British government to ban any gold that can’t be traced to legal mines.

What is mined goes around the world with its high price tag. The price tag for the communities who depend on the Amazon’s water is higher than the highest market rates.

All this goes on because the Brazilian government is so totally corrupt that they look the other way. So not only is the Amazon rainforest actually being destroyed, but the people who live there are actually being poisoned.

[loomer]

Well, if the problems with Hydro are so, annoying, we simply focus on replacing all power generation with Thorium reactors, and treat Hydro like we will Solar and Wind - Useful assist where it's feasible.

(Actually, it might be better to turn all Hydro plants into power generating water treatment/purification plants to help deal with pollutants, since as mentioned they can actually concentrate the pollutants).

As for limited efficiency - That's going to be a concern with any solution or approach we take. No system is perfect, energy is used up and lost.
We're just going to have to build things as quickly and efficiently as possible, to be as efficient as possible.

If that means every major metropoliton area gets it's own Thorium Reactor or two (or three or four or five, whatever number is needed), then so be it.

So, I think you missed why I focused on hydro. It's not that its uniquely annoying or difficult (though in some respects it can be, mostly due to the necessity of the right geography and hydrography), but rather that there is no easy band-aid for just giving every major metropolitan area a lifeline of ample, cheap electricity. Fossil fuels have been essentially magical, especially oil, and there is no replacement system that can come close in terms of versatility and energy in:energy out efficiency to the pre-peak oil and coal systems.

Nuclear systems are more efficient, but less versatile (see my continual caveat that a pivot to mass nuclear still requires either the use of fossil fuels or extensive battery (or, I suppose, fuel cell) production - or a return to horse-and-cart logistics on a remarkable scale.) This is true even of thorium systems, unfortunately - much as the energy in:out ratio is fantastic on paper, you're not going to be able to use a liquid thorium reactor to run a bus or a mining rig, so you'll need to either run it off direct fuels or battery storage of some kind (even if you supplement that with onboard solar, you'll need reserve capacity), or do away with them entirely. Nearly all renewables except the largest scale projects are less efficient and less versatile (hydro is the big exception: funnily enough hydro has a great lifetime energy in:energy out ratio.) Even ongoing fossil fuel developments are almost universally less efficient because we've extracted the bulk of easily accessible high-quality coal and oil deposits (setting aside the other costs for the moment) - the figures for fracking and shale extraction can be abysmally low.

The solution to the problem is not going to be just 'oh, well, we swap sources and grow food indoors because the environment is dead'. The sheer amount of energy and emergy required in an industrial civilization of the scale and scope - to say nothing of the wanton wastefulness of emergy - we've built is too high for that to be a viable response to the mass climate crisis coming our way. Our first area of response, and most meaningful, is to immediately and sharply cut the amount of emergy we waste and the amount of energy we continue to invest.

There are also problems like this:
Illegal gold mines poisoning indigenous communities as Amazon is destroyed.
All this goes on because the Brazilian government is so totally corrupt that they look the other way. So not only is the Amazon rainforest actually being destroyed, but the people who live there are actually being poisoned.

Its a very bad scene. One of the other groups I'm affiliated with is working to improve legal protections on an international level (since the domestic level is largely fucked) for the communities affected and find ways to get them aid to fight back against the miners and loggers in both Brazil and Ecuador (which has similar issues both within and without the Amazon). Illegal mining in general is already a huge problem in all sorts of areas and we can only expect the issue to get worse with rising demand for previously uninteresting materials - Bolivia, for instance, may soon have an emerging problem industry.

[Darth Yan]

I do think people will be motivated to put more effort into space travel and colonization of other worlds if only out of self interest.

[Batman]

I don't , because space colonization is an extremely long time undertaking and most people don't think that far ahead.If it doesn't happen in their (or at best their children's) lifetime they don't really care.

[Darth Yan]

As the world burns more and more I think people are going to take notice or at least be more open to considering it. We can do a lot when our back is against the wall

[Broomstick]

I do think people will be motivated to put more effort into space travel and colonization of other worlds if only out of self interest.

Only a tiny minority of people will be able to escape to space in the foreseeable future.

Space is an insanely hostile environment. If/when we colonize it the environment will kill a crapload of people, and shorten the lifespans of those who aren't outright killed.

Although some of the technology used for space might have some applications for hostile earth environments.

[Tribble]

As the world burns more and more I think people are going to take notice or at least be more open to considering it. We can do a lot when our back is against the wall

Even if we significantly cut back on our energy/materials/pollution footprint, the total population is still growing (at the moment). Is it possible to sustain the current population with massive cut backs in our current usage, or will there also need to be large reductions to the total population as well?

And if it’s necessary that the total population be reduced, how would one go about doing that in an ethical way anyways? Perhaps a massive contraception campaign plus 1 child policy world wide for 100 years or something, long enough that a good chunk of us die off naturally? Would we have enough time for that, assuming it could actually be pulled off?

#1 way to help the environment, especially if you live in an industrialized society? Don’t have kids.