While I largely agree on the money issue (though not everything is failing solely because of lack of funding), I have to adress Olaf's post in saying that it is true regarding the possibility to replace oil by other energies. The question is however if we will make the turn before we arrive at an economic energy crisis that leaves us with no money to make the change anymore. Another question is if we really want to sustain a higher population. Think of the 13 billion people in the movie and how dense this would be - there would be even less room for nature than there already is. We could all move in giant cityplexes , but would this make us happy?
Also, I have to adress again, that you cannot turn energy into food. You also need land, soil and in modern agriculture also fertilizer and pesticides. The amount of soil is diminishing as fast as we burn down rain forests to gain more, phosphorous for fertilizers is running out within decades and industrial agriculture is not exactly light on the ecology. There are many more issues than oil here. The main problem we face if oil runs out eventually (and make no mistake - we WILL use every last drop of it we can reach before costs are high enough to rather burn money for the energy) is an economic one. And please don't take a technology that produces waste which still nobody knows where to put it as a clean energy. Nuclear fission could probably be made less dangerous if effort is put into it (that just FAILed again in Scandinavia BTW), but no matter how safe you make it, you will end up with waste that better not be stored in warehouses like they do it in Russia. After 50 years there is still no solution to the waste problem and we still produce that waste in the mere hope and trust in the advances of technology which will make it go away.



Bookmarks