Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vdphr1$bi9b$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: OT ; Re: The joy of FORTRAN Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 21:05:52 +0100 Organization: A little, after lunch Lines: 31 Message-ID: <vdphr1$bi9b$1@dont-email.me> References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks> <lm3q5iF22lmU1@mid.individual.net> <vdid9i$3380h$5@dont-email.me> <lm4b3dF4bfnU3@mid.individual.net> <vdj0c1$35s7u$1@dont-email.me> <lm5bn4F93p4U6@mid.individual.net> <vdjura$39db1$16@dont-email.me> <lm602dFbv9iU4@mid.individual.net> <vdkmdn$3e4pf$3@dont-email.me> <lm6co5Fe1duU2@mid.individual.net> <vdlpnk$3m9qg$2@dont-email.me> <vdn5im$3ssv4$14@dont-email.me> <baGLO.171175$EEm7.153893@fx16.iad> <vdndep$3uaeh$2@dont-email.me> <hUULO.8947$Vuz4.2016@fx08.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 22:05:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e495bff133823aa2acdd6f619ee470d"; logging-data="379179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5C7nTlqkrA606DtimodyAdc/cmlUpsws=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:oESXcQ5eDsoeERcL0/PIgwO7CJc= In-Reply-To: <hUULO.8947$Vuz4.2016@fx08.iad> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2776 On 04/10/2024 17:40, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:55:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> Thomas Malthus figured this out over 200 years ago. >> >> He was wrong, though. Human ingenuity (i.e. science and technology) kept >> things going long after he thought they would fall apart. > > For a short time, in the context of human history. Without > the agricultural use of fossil fuels (fertilizer, mechanization), > Malthus and Ehrlich estimates would have been quite realistic. > > The EROEI for oil is has already dropped by a factor of > 10 (even more for the oil sands/tar sands/fracking plays, some > of which aren't far from unity). > > Hoping that some new paradigm comes along that allows global > energy growth to continue to grow by 2.3% p.a. is wishful > thinking, not good planning. Regardless, there is a hard-limit > on that growth as well (due simply to waste heat from energy > production and use). > Completely true. quadrupling human population would impact the environment far far more than a few tenths of a percent of CO2 in the air -- Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get. Mark Twain