Algae To Oil - Renewed Interests from 1980's Research

[Mayhim]

Two is fine but three and you're swine?

Is the point that the people themselves are evil or that too many of them are? Is it simply a matter of degree?

[theclencher]

0, 1, or 2 kids is fine and yes, 3 or more means you are more part of the problem than the solution.

Pick any state in the Union (except maybe the Dakotas) and imagine how much nicer it would be with maybe 1/2 the population! Especially California, damn it, I was born 50 years too late, it would have been a great place then I think but now it's the pits... DUE TO STUPID EGOMANIAC BREEDERS.

[Mayhim]

Is this number 3 a researched number, generally agreed upon number, or some sort of socialogically based number?

Is the perceived greed largely thought of as anachronistic or simple stupidity?

[skewbe]

Hmm, I wonder if clencher is on to something. It has always been intuitively obvious to me that if a couple has more than two kids, then that is population growth. But if it is indeed so taboo to talk about it then maybe it isn't so obvious to others.

Exponential population growth is a natural result when predators have been removed from an ecosystem. Unfortunately with limited resources we need to rethink whatever "We must outbreed (insert religious or racial or ethnic group here)" thought we have inherited. Or the old "Hey, I can afford a billion kids, why not"? Or whatever rationales I may have missed.

The earth isn't getting any bigger but we are, and countless species are and have already been lost. The loss of biodiversity means that we are actually more vunerable to plagues, crop specific deseases, etc. And our increase in population without an increase in real estate means that we are ever increasingly dependant on science to pull another trick out of its a$$ to maintain us.

OB: Algae, I like it, but we are retarded about diesel here, and of course it is only useful as a short term solution as we either go through a giant correction in our population size or get smart about how we live. I prefer the latter because I don't want to have to reinvent a bunch of species that we trashed while waiting for our own ranks to be reduced.

[theclencher]

Originally Posted by Mr Incredible

Is this number 3 a researched number, generally agreed upon number, or some sort of socialogically based number?

Is the perceived greed largely thought of as anachronistic or simple stupidity?

I said SIMPLY:

"It's quite simple, anything more than 2 kids is more than replacement-level reproduction."

IMHO egomania is the driver of this mass stupidity.

Skewb: I think of it like any parasite/host relationship: the parasites enjoy a period of unprecedented "well being" right about the time they kill the host. Parasite = humanity, host = world.

P.S. I was just browsing an electric motorcycle site and they "featured" some gal (mother of six) as being the first in the U.S. with some electric motorcycle or other... as if she's some sort of "green" pioneer. She could walk every last mile she has on this earth and it still wouldn't be enough to undo what her ovaries did to the planet.

[skewbe]

Yah, but framing it as "we are parasites" has a lot less appeal, than "we have a serious issue here we need to look at and acknowledge".

I'm happy you got the puke smiley working though

[theclencher]

It was worth it!

To be more fair with my answer to Mr. I., it has been a while since I looked up any actuarial figure for exact replacement-level reproduction. If I recall correctly, it was 2.3 kids/couple. Since I haven't figured out how anyone can have .3 of a kid, I rounded down in the mathematically correct way.

P.S. Skewb: Parasite/host relationship doesn't always kill the host! Some parasites are beneficial to the host when their numbers are kept in balance!!! I don't think the presence of humanity is inherently evil, but I do think there needs to be balance between humanity, resources, and certainly not least, the other non-human inhabitants of this planet. As noted, humanity has long skewed the natural balance in its' favor. We've gotten away with it... so far...

[theclencher]

Good- that settles that!

[skewbe]

Lol, anyway, again the rest of the problems of the universe aside, back to the algae thing:

Our military and trucking industry could take advantage of it post haste. As mentioned in some recent threads, if there were a bolt on to make all these gas engines run deisel then there would be more market, though that would be pretty speculative at this point.

I'd love to convert a tiny motorcycle to diesel, a-la royal enfield, only not so many thousands of $$$. I've seen a couple youtube videos of RC diesels running on veggie, very messy, as are like two strokes.

So if Algae is significantly better than ethanol, (and I would say that 4000 gallons/acre/year IS significantly better), then how do we get there for the consumer market? I like the low overhead of the small scooter/cycle market, but cannot say that Americans generally think they are cool enough, not yet anyway. Can't just start making cars, so, I'm open to suggestions on how t oget started. Maybe a bolt on bike motor?

[theclencher]

I have a bolt-on bicycle engine that was widely marketed in the early '80's. I've never seen anyone else with one though. And I don't see them today either.