Economic vs. population growth
Mark Goodman
out that there is little risk of depletion of mineral resources. We can always
mine landfills (i.e. recycle) rather than resort to expensive ores.
The resources in greatest danger of depletion are the so-called renewable ones,
like soil, forests, and fisheries. But this conversation continued prattling
along about mineral resources. Apparently some people are more interested
in pursuing an irrelevant argument than in listening or learning anything.
-- Mark Goodman
Richard Vialls
>
> this conversation continued prattling
> along about mineral resources. Apparently some people are more interested
> in pursuing an irrelevant argument than in listening or learning anything.
Yeah, I noticed that. A while back, I posted that one of the limmiting
factors on our ecosystem was going to be disposal routes for waste
products. I got one comment that this was interesting and the subject was
dropped!
Richard Vialls (posting as an individual)
fathke donna
>-- Mark Goodman
I'm interested in this mining the landfill theory. I've thought of it
myself, but have not heard others talk about it. What is the cost effec-
tiveness of the process? Wouldn't it be cheaper to "mine" these resources
before they go into the landfill (i.e. recycling)? Also, isn't it less
polluting and less expensive to recycle natural resources rather than to
mine virgin materials?
Or not?
McCarthy John
There was a substantial discussion of waste disposal a year or so ago. The
amount of solid waste produced in the U.S. per year is of the order of
500 million tons. Suppose it has a density of 1.0, i.e. about that of
water. Then we are talking about 500 million cubic meters. If we were
to pile it 10 meters high, then we have 50 million square meters, or 50
square kilometers. The U.S. would be completely covered in 120,000 years.
Piling it 100 meters high would give 1.2 million years. Our descendants,
who will not be children long, will have plenty of time to decide about
what should be extracted from it, and what should be built upon. Every
kind of animal and many ancient human cultures built upon their wastes.
Perhaps Richard Viallis has something in mind other than solid wastes.
What and in what quantities.
Paul Dietz
> The resources in greatest danger of depletion are the so-called
> renewable ones, like soil, forests, and fisheries. But this
> conversation continued prattling along about mineral resources.
> Apparently some people are more interested in pursuing an irrelevant
> argument than in listening or learning anything.
Fisheries are peripheral, supplying only a small fraction of
humanity's calories; humanity could do just fine without them (which,
given the impact even current overfishing is having, is just as well.)
Forests: wood is largely substitutable. If you've been following the
news about the building industry recently, you'll find stories about
steel framed houses. This year they will comprise about 1% of the new
residential construction in the US (more in commercial construction).
Next year, they are projected to be about 5%. A house that needs 20
tons of wood framing can be built with just 6 tons of steel framing.
The steel is stronger, and resistant to fire, decay and insects.
Soil is a more serious issue, but the doomsayers have been tooting
this horn for decades, so excuse me for being skeptical. Intensive
agriculture does not necessarily always continue to reduce soil
organic matter (vigorous plants have large root systems, which
typically decay in the soil after harvesting) nor necessarily cause
unacceptable erosion (witness conservation tillage in its various
forms).
Paul
fathke donna
>Soil is a more serious issue, but the doomsayers have been tooting
>this horn for decades, so excuse me for being skeptical. Intensive
>agriculture does not necessarily always continue to reduce soil
>organic matter (vigorous plants have large root systems, which
>typically decay in the soil after harvesting) nor necessarily cause
>unacceptable erosion (witness conservation tillage in its various
>forms).
> Paul
I beg to differ with you about soil. Yes the doomsayers have been tooting
their horns for a long time. The problem is, soil is so plentiful in the
U.S. that nobody listens. And year by year more soil literally goes down
the drain (causing other environmental problems).
I just completed some research on soil erosion in Illinois. Even tho
more conservation tillage is being used, we are still losing ground (pun
intended). Erosion rates are in general getting smaller, but even in
Illinois, which has lots of good soil and is very flat, we have a couple
of counties who will have no topsoil left in 20-40 years if erosion
continues at its present rate.
As with any natyral resource, if we don't start thinking long-term, it's
not going to be a very pleasant long-term when we get there.
Sam Rushing
>
>In article <35inos$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> dfa...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (fathke donna) writes:
> References: <1994Aug16...@thuban.ac.hmc> <1466602924@cdp> <1994Sep17.1...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
>
>
> > Paul
> I beg to differ with you about soil. Yes the doomsayers have been tooting
> their horns for a long time. The problem is, soil is so plentiful in the
> U.S. that nobody listens. And year by year more soil literally goes down
> the drain (causing other environmental problems).
>
>
therefor people dont react to the matter even though we now the picture
will be totally different in 50 years. The drama is too faraway to be real.
Another drama is not far away in time, but in distance. It`s the loss of soil
in the third world. It is very dramatic and it is happening today, but because
of the distance we have a hard time believing the facts.
My question in this matter has haunted me for a long time. How do we
overcome this distance? How can we get the reality close enough to
us so that it makes us respond to the danger of letting the soil go away?
The information tecnology could be a tool to overcome some boarders, but
so far we haven`t been smart enough to take use of this tool to bring reality
closer to our decession making processes and we keep on acting as what
we know is not really true.
Lars
Oslo, Norway