Overpopulation of Earth, and Peak oil: two myths of modern "science"

LOL, I think Fauxlaw got his Faux Science degree at Trump University.

Overpopulation depends on where you live. If you live in Bosnia, overpopulation doesnt exist and most population is disappearing and there is actually less people every year.

However, you seem to be terribly misunderstanding few things about overpopulation.

Overpopulation doesnt mean Earth cannot physically fit more people.

It means that population keeps growing constantly, and each person demands much more than food. You also need house, workplace, school, healthcare, technology, transport, entertainment...ect.

As population grows, all these resources logically must grow too. the problem is that then a lot of green surface must be destroyed to make space for these resources. this is just true mathematically.

Now, you can deny overpopulation all you want. the fact is that space on Earth is indeed limited, and each person demands not just space for itself, but space to produce food, healthcare, school, to work, and countless other things.

there is a reason why countries globally decided to sterilize their populations through contraceptions, abortions, delaying and discouraging reproduction...ect.

It is because the choice was simple: Sterilize population, or face infinite population growth where you eventually run out of space on Earth.

Everything has a breaking point.

I think Fauxlaw got his Faux Science degree at Trump University

What specific things did he say in his post that you disagree with?

Sterilize population, or face infinite population growth 

As if you can only assume two choices. There3 are more. Two types of landmass that are effectively useless to human habitation: arctic and desert. Both can, by human intelligence of innovation, be terra-formed to productive use without taking forest, meadow, ad by improving urban by more occupation of the useless land. Example: the American southwest, and other desert areas such as the Sahara, or central China. Both could be provided water. In the US, by aqueduct from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers which would also mitigate flooding to the Gulf Coast. Move more people from crowded urban conditions to developed desert areas that cannot produce food and other commodities by provision of water. Very little occupation of current wild green space. We avoid de-populating urban spread because we merely choose to do so. Choose other options.

Faux ...Being organically supplied, why should the resource be finite?

Earth is finite for starters. Duhh! Were not importing extraterrestrial biologic life from elsewhere yet, far as I know. Maybe Faux has secret stash of extraterrestials in his backyard along with the other MAGA's. Yay, thats the ticket, MAGA is training these extraterrestrials in their back yards to not only take over the world but to reproduce faster { fast breeder reactors } than rabbits or even the faster that the fastest reproducers, bacteria, and give humans endless petroleum. Damn them MAGA's are intelligent.

Biologic humans increase has lead to dying off overall biologic life on Earth. Ex coral reefs and the demise or near extinction of many differrent animals.

How much of coral die-off has been stopped or reversed by humans? Zero? Doesnt matter MAGA has fast breeder extraterrestrials in back yard. We just need more wide open planes oceans to put these fast breeders into by the MAGA's.

Lets see now how much damage have humans done to ecology of Earth? Lets see, are there any amazon forests still remaing, or did the cattle ranchers and exploding population of humans cut all of amazonian trees already.

How much danger is the humans killing off unintentioally of fish caught in fishing traulers out in the ocean. Oh hel, just as the knew in 1700's { sail boats } the life in ocean could never ever be killed off cause it is so much bigger than our damn sail boats could ever do any damage too.

I could go on and on, but damn, that MAGA Faux is so damn intelligent and has so many extraterrestials in his back yard we dont stand a chance of outwitting him or having access to as much petroleum he will be producing with his new company --Extraterrestrial Crude Oil aka Solent Green Extraterrestrials On Sale Here and Now---

LOL = frightened little girl, such as the #metoo poster woman who claimed of Harvey Weinstein in his hotel room [as if she thought that was a safe place to be alone with him by her choice], "He told me to take my clothes off, so I did." Yeah, real smart.

I do not have a science degree, though I have 3 PhDs and several baccalaureates; the last earned just a a year ago, in my old age. I do read voraciously all subjects of interest to me.

Petroleum crude is indeed a finite resource that will eventually be depleted.

1. Oil is a non-renewable resource formed millions of years ago from the decomposition of ancient organic materials, and it takes millions more years to create new reserves. 
2. At current consumption rates, conventional oil reserves are projected to last for roughly 50 years. 
3. The rate of oil formation is so slow that it cannot replenish the consumed reserves within any timeframe relevant to human civilization. 
4. As oil reserves decline, the extraction costs and energy inputs required for further extraction will increase, making it increasingly difficult to renew these resources. 
5. In summary, while there are still significant reserves available, the finite nature of oil means that it will eventually run out if current consumption rates remain unchanged.

I think Fauxlaw got his Faux Science degree at Trump University

What specific things did he say in his post that you disagree with?

Seriously, I can’t believe you need to ask me that? How about everything.

Fauxlaw is a science denier; he denies science in favor of a belief in some kind of conspiracy theory science. He asserts preposterous ideas that deny fundamental principles of many of our interrelated scientific disciplines, by simply denying the competence of the scientific enterprise whenever it suits his agenda.

It’s profoundly hypocritical that he starts out by trying to discredit the science of demography by claiming its founder, Thomas Malthus wasn’t qualified because he was not educated “in the field”, true Malthus was an economist rather than “educated in the field” of demography. But that is not “like asking a plumber for legal advice” at all. The study of population dynamics is a central discipline in the field of Economics, in the 1700s, economics is where you found the study of population dynamics, so he was educated “in the field”. Fauxlaw’s faux argument is that he was not educated in the science of “demography”, well no shit, that’s because it wasn’t around yet, Malthus pretty much invented the field in 1798 with his publication of his foundational population dynamics study. This is just uninformed nonsense coming hypocritically from someone who does not have educational credentials in the field.

This uninformed criticism is somehow used to discredit the entire field of demography and it’s 225 years of analysis, study, and development of scientific knowledge as some kind of conspiracy to misinform us. He counters the field with a single mathematical formula that is supposed to demonstrate that all of humanity just didn’t know what they were doing when the inhabited the habitable regions of the world, and agriculture and food production industries were wrong, distribution methods were wrong, pretty much the way mankind has developed societies, economics, technology throughout the world has been invalidated by his inane simplistic formula.

Then he moves on to his argument against conservation and the development of alternative energy sources, all on the basis that oil is a renewable resource. He asserts that since the process of creating oil from organic material is still happening, the earth can just make more, and we will never run out. This argument is preposterous, we know consumption rates, and we have a ballpark idea of how much we’ve taken and how much there is left, and it’s nuts to say there isn’t a supply problem coming.

As everyone knows, it takes millions of years for organic material to become oil, and we have a pretty good idea of how much organic material it takes to create enough oil to meet our growing consumption requirements, and he simply denies the validity to the scientific community and the collective analytical knowledge of trillion-dollar industries. He says it doesn’t take millions of years, and apparently, there are secrets places where the earth is converting massive amounts of organic material into oil, and doing it very quickly, those trillion-dollar industries and the scientific community just missed it, like they are all part of a vast conspiracy to misinform us.

After consideration, I came to the conclusion that; “I think Fauxlaw got his Faux Science degree at Trump University”

the problem in his argument isnt that he is wrong about oil being present in great amount on Earth.

Oil is indeed present in great amount, and yes, the Earth technically "makes more".

However, the problem is the extraction. this is why scientists make difference between "oil" and "available oil".

there is bunch of oil under the floor of some seas. As well as bunch of oil found if you dig deep enough in some places. Enough to last thousand years maybe.

Problem, however, is that it might as well be in another galaxy. We cannot reach it effectively, and price of extraction is so high than it would make entire economy collapse.

"Crude oil is made from the buried remains of ancient marine organisms (plankton, algae, plants) that, over millions of years, were transformed by intense heat and pressure deep within the Earth into hydrocarbons, a process requiring specific source rocks, reservoir rocks, and trapping layers to form recoverable deposits. This fossil fuel forms as organic matter mixes with clay and sediment, gets buried, and is cooked under rising heat and pressure, eventually migrating and getting trapped underground."

So there is probably plenty of oil anywhere where organisms and other ingredients and necessary processes were present.

However, we have no effective way to create this process artificially, and many places where oil is present are unknown, or too expensive to extract.

Its same way why converting sea water into drinkable water by evaporation (thermal distillation) makes water terribly expensive to produce, and why it isnt solution to water shortage.

Yes, you can convert sea water into drinkable water. But then water bottle suddenly costs 50$.

Much better to collect rain on mass scale.

How about everything.

He's right about Malthus and Hubbard being wrong; that's just history.

trying to discredit the science of demography

He says Malthus was wrong; that's not the same as trying to discredit the science of demography.

his argument against conservation and the development of alternative energy sources

Faux didn't directly argue against those things in this post.

enough oil to meet our growing consumption requirements

Humans are already shifting to renewables as they become more cost-effective; running out of oil isn't the critical bottleneck you are implying.

yeah whites are severely depopulating and they pretend it's overpopulation.

However, it's actually left wing policies eventually needed to stop greedy pigs taking up all the massive land and building space the others can fill and resources they can use.

Left wing deal with helping the population but push to depopulate the natives. Right wing deal with defending the natives but don't help allocate space and resources to the poor that have populated.

if you made rich manors share their land and resources, we are so far from overpopulation it's insane.

left wing pushes the lie, right wing greedy pigs enjoy the lie. neither wing is helping properly.

How about everything.

He's right about Malthus and Hubbard being wrong; that's just history.

Yes, history from the1798 and 1956, and he argues that because of a couple of bad predictions by a couple of scientists that long ago means the science behind demography and geology is discredited. (and it was Hubbert, not Hubbard, he was the scientology guy)

trying to discredit the science of demography

He says Malthus was wrong; that's not the same as trying to discredit the science of demography.

Yes, in the context of his posts, it is the same. He uses the fact that Malthus got the date wrong to support the denial of the current conclusions of the science of demography, Malthus was wrong 225 years ago so don’t listen to scientists, population growth and scarce resources are not a problem.  

his argument against conservation and the development of alternative energy sources

Faux didn't directly argue against those things in this post.

His science denial posts are all related by a common theme that argues that conservation and the development of alternatives are unnecessary, and having read all of them, I have reached the conclusion that “I think Fauxlaw got his Faux Science degree at Trump University”.

enough oil to meet our growing consumption requirements

Humans are already shifting to renewables as they become more cost-effective;

Yeah, I know, and the industries are shifting because they don’t deny the science that supports such shifts.

running out of oil isn't the critical bottleneck you are implying.

I didn’t imply that, I replied to his argument that we aren’t running out of oil, you know, the argument that tries to discredit the subject science based on the fact that Hubbert missed the date seventy years ago.  Again, a predictive miss 70 years ago doesn’t mean the entire related scientific field loses all credibility and therefore, the concept that oil is not a renewable resource is just wrong, the concept that oil takes millions of years to be produced is just wrong.

He is a science denier, and these are some incredibly weak reasons to deny science, and because of that “I think Fauxlaw got his Faux Science degree at Trump University”.

he argues that because of a couple of bad predictions by a couple of scientists that long ago means the science behind demography and geology is discredited

He didn't say that about demography or geology. The closest he gets is asking how we know how long oil reserves last, and he's more skeptical about that than I would be, but he's technically right that exact numbers are estimates.

the denial of the current conclusions of the science of demography

He didn't say anything about those current conclusions or even what they are, just that there is enough space for the current population.

a common theme that argues that conservation and the development of alternatives are unnecessary

He didn't say either of those things though; I can see how someone could come to that conclusion but that's really on them for jumping to those assumptions from Malthus and Hubbert being wrong when faux doesn't tell them to jump to those conclusions.

Over population and peak oil are only estimates.

It's no good, he won't listen.

I've tried to explain numerous times.

Show me specifically where and when I’ve said I oppose conservation and alternative energy sources. Do it and stop making asinine accusations. That’s a lost argument.

Never attended Trump U. Don’t even know where or if it still exists. I’m not the Trump suck up you assume I am.

Thzank you for your #17

It must be nice to be positive and optimistic about everything even the endless supply of finite oil fuelled by one’s religious belief in the infinite.