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