We will have no economist in the future

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Raiden

The idiot spouting garbage on our forum.

It was a metaphor.

I thought I was the forum idiot.

[lumpinger96]

Originally Posted by Crickett

I have a few questions about your premise:

Why would abundant energy solve world hunger, poverty and most importantly, stop any kind of *population explosion*?

Wouldn't cheap abundant energy (or, in more general terms: an enormous increase in resources) feed a population explosion, not quell it?


In addition, while this might end the dependence on fossil fuels, I don't see why it would end ecological damage. It would just end (or drastically reduce) the production of Co2 into the atmosphere. That's not the world's only source of ecological damage.

Answer me with a question: what defines ,,developing nations" and ,,Industrial countries"?? the answer

Developing: Low income, short life, large Families

Industrialised: High income, long life, Small

here in austria our population growth WOULD be negative without immigrants.
the best way to stop population growth is to make the world educated and healthy. And clean abundant energy is going to do that.

watch hans roslings TEDtalk about population growth for further consultance.

I like james cameron, honestly, but he obviosly he didnt double-checked his demographics

[lumpinger96]

Originally Posted by Clarke

We know exactly what superconductors are good for: transporting large quantities of energy around.

The RDA have large quantities of energy to transport around - they use it to fuel the ISV. Other people do too, apparently.

MOVING AROUND energy is not going to solve the problem. GENERATING energy will(as long it is clean)

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Raiden

The idiot spouting garbage on our forum.

It was a metaphor.

Well go on, sink your teeth in

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by lumpinger96

Answer me with a question: what defines ,,developing nations" and ,,Industrial countries"?? the answer

Developing: Low income, short life, large Families

Industrialised: High income, long life, Small

The answer is

Developing: Country that has an underdeveloped industrial base and/or infrastructure.

Industrialised: Country that has a developed industrial base and/or infrastructure.

It's right there in the name: "Industrialized nation".


Cheap (clean) energy reduces the costs of production and some of the costs of consumption. I have yet to see a reason *why* cheap clean energy would make everyone educated and healthy. To me, it would certainly initiate an economic expansionary phase, but certainly not a neverending one and certainly not a universal one.

Or in other words....


1. Discovery of cheap clean energy.
2. ???
3. Everyone's healthy and educated!

[Exoblade]

Originally Posted by Crickett

The answer is

Developing: Country that has an underdeveloped industrial base and/or infrastructure.

Industrialised: Country that has a developed industrial base and/or infrastructure.

It's right there in the name: "Industrialized nation".


Cheap (clean) energy reduces the costs of production and some of the costs of consumption. I have yet to see a reason *why* cheap clean energy would make everyone educated and healthy. To me, it would certainly initiate an economic expansionary phase, but certainly not a neverending one and certainly not a universal one.

Or in other words....


1. Discovery of cheap clean energy.
2. ???
3. Everyone's healthy and educated!

indeed an expansionary phase would also rundown earth's limited resources at an even greater rate than we are now. So yeah cheap energy is not a final solution, it may in fact become a problem.

[Clarke]

Energy is the ultimate resource, though. You can fake everything else. (Synthesize fossil fuels from raw elements? Filter out all the Co2 from the atmosphere? If you've got enough energy, it's doable.)

[lumpinger96]

Again its the other way around :things like high life expectancy and a High standard of life
DONT CAUSE HIGH POPULATION GROWTH. its high child mortality. here in our modern industrialized world people live about 70-80 years and have child survival rate( The number of children surviving childhood up to starting school) of almost 100%. yet most families have only about 1-2 children per woman.

In developing countries you have a life expectancy of only 40-50 years, the child survival rate is much lower. the birth rate in such countries is about 4-8 children per woman.

Why, you ask?? Pragmatism. People in such countries get much more children than they actually want to raise because they know only about 2 of the 4-8 children will survive childhood and will go to school and have a job to care for their parents in old age.
This is why most of the population growth of the world happens in developing Nations


From that perspective, Child survival, Life expectancy and population growth can be seen as indicator of Progress of Nation. Those who have a Small families and high life expectancy and low population growth are in that context ,,developed" while those with big families and low life expectancy and high population growth are ,,developing"

The transition from ,,developing" to ,,developed" is called ,,demographic Transition" and is something you should have learned about in High School.

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by lumpinger96

Again its the other way around :things like high life expectancy and a High standard of life
DONT CAUSE HIGH POPULATION GROWTH.

No, no I don't have it the other way around. You're stating that (and i quote):
"The best way to stop population growth is to make the world educated and healthy. And clean abundant energy is going to do that.".

And I'm not actually disputing that, but there's sort of an intermediate step between 'discovering cheap abundant clean energy' and 'everyone is prosperous, healthy and educated forever' that you seem to be missing. Possibly on purpose. And my contention is there is no second step tying the two together.


Edit: Just to clarify, the quote I am not disputing is: "Again its the other way around :things like high life expectancy and a High standard of life
DONT CAUSE HIGH POPULATION GROWTH."

[Exoblade]

Originally Posted by Crickett

No, no I don't have it the other way around. You're stating that (and i quote):
"The best way to stop population growth is to make the world educated and healthy. And clean abundant energy is going to do that.".

And I'm not actually disputing that, but there's sort of an intermediate step between 'discovering cheap abundant clean energy' and 'everyone is prosperous, healthy and educated forever' that you seem to be missing. Possibly on purpose. And my contention is there is no second step tying the two together.

agreed, in fact the discovery of cheap alternative energy may actually be bad for many developing world's economies. Take Nigeria who's great economic worth is built on the oil industry. If fusion is evented tomorrow demand for oil dries up and economic growth stales. Bad news for everyone involved and a major barrier to development in the developing world.

[lumpinger96]

Originally Posted by Exoblade

agreed, in fact the discovery of cheap alternative energy may actually be bad for many developing world's economies. Take Nigeria who's great economic worth is built on the oil industry. If fusion is evented tomorrow demand for oil dries up and economic growth stales. Bad news for everyone involved and a major barrier to development in the developing world.

they dont have to buy it if you want Helium-3 from Uranus you will get Helium-3 from Uranus. if not, thats OK, your choice.

[Crickett]

Originally Posted by lumpinger96

they dont have to buy it if you want Helium-3 from Uranus you will get Helium-3 from Uranus. if not, thats OK, your choice.

Please, just stick to the human technology thread. You really shouldn't involve economics into the discussion when you clearly have no concept of it.