View Full Version : 4 Major things that will destroy the US: Federal Debt, Pre-Existing Commitments, etc.
yea...watch the vid. we're fucked
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/11/iousa.html
Dichromate
2008-11-25, 02:38
Yes you're all fucked.
reggie_love
2008-11-25, 02:57
Well come on.
Don't act all surprised...
Well come on.
Don't act all surprised...
lolol. Well, there were OTHER things that would fuck us over, like say environmental degradation, depletion of aquifers, climate change, oil peak, etc.
This surprised me regarding how big the debt was...I knew the increasing retiring boomers was going to provide a problem but DAMN. Apparently Bush's plan for Social Security was a warning..
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-11-25, 04:15
lolol. Well, there were OTHER things that would fuck us over, like say environmental degradation, depletion of aquifers, climate change, oil peak, etc.
Environmental degredation is the worst of those. Really, if things go south from here, all of those will be the least of our worries. If alot of people end up dying off, climate change, peak oil, and water depletion pretty much solve themselves. The only thing we gotta watch out for is nuclear winter.
It is unfortunate for you that you live in a city.
Dichromate
2008-11-25, 04:36
Environmental degredation is the worst of those. Really, if things go south from here, all of those will be the least of our worries. If alot of people end up dying off, climate change, peak oil, and water depletion pretty much solve themselves. The only thing we gotta watch out for is nuclear winter.
It is unfortunate for you that you live in a city.
It'll be a bit of a shame if civilization collapses without making possible any sort of large scale sustainable energy source in the mean time... given that it's sortof squandered most of the easy to access liquid hydrocarbon resources, it might be a bit difficult to build up much in the way of industrialization again.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-11-25, 05:24
It'll be a bit of a shame if civilization collapses without making possible any sort of large scale sustainable energy source in the mean time... given that it's sortof squandered most of the easy to access liquid hydrocarbon resources, it might be a bit difficult to build up much in the way of industrialization again.
I don't think so. I think I could build some Stirling engines out of smelted scrap metal if I could get my hands on a lathe. Even burning coal and oil shale would be a viable solution to getting humanity back on track to attaining a completely green energy economy in the short term, r even in an almost long term since there will be far fewer. Wood burning also is renewable enough on a small scale that one may see in a post apocalyptic world. Hell, wood burning and coal release alot of particulants into the air, which while they are very bad for you, they help to aggregate water vapor to forming clouds and encouraging rain.
It's really not as bad as it sounds, five billion people dying and all. It's just alot of labor pains. Hopefully enough ecological specimens survive the transision to ensure a thriving world afterwards. If not, well, maybe next time, aye? It's just a few hundred trillion years until everything decays into nothing and a bunch of energy bursts forth from the aether. Time flies when no one is around to watch it you know.
Dichromate
2008-11-25, 06:22
I don't think so. I think I could build some Stirling engines out of smelted scrap metal if I could get my hands on a lathe. Even burning coal and oil shale would be a viable solution to getting humanity back on track to attaining a completely green energy economy in the short term, r even in an almost long term since there will be far fewer. Wood burning also is renewable enough on a small scale that one may see in a post apocalyptic world. Hell, wood burning and coal release alot of particulants into the air, which while they are very bad for you, they help to aggregate water vapor to forming clouds and encouraging rain.
It's really not as bad as it sounds, five billion people dying and all. It's just alot of labor pains. Hopefully enough ecological specimens survive the transision to ensure a thriving world afterwards. If not, well, maybe next time, aye? It's just a few hundred trillion years until everything decays into nothing and a bunch of energy bursts forth from the aether. Time flies when no one is around to watch it you know.
TBH if there was a serious effort at transitioning by moving to coal, radically altering transportation infrastructure and imposing very unpopular decisions as far as where people can live, it would probably be possible to avert the worst of it deaths wise.
Lewcifer
2008-11-25, 12:18
"Many Americans have never seen a rainy day, and therefore choose not save for one".
That was a lovely way of putting it, and dauntingly accurate to boot.
An interesting video, plaudits for posting it.
Environmental degradation is the worst of those.
Yup.
The degradation of soil pretty much toppled the Inca and the Mesopotamian societies, and at this rate ours is heading the same way.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-11-25, 16:17
TBH if there was a serious effort at transitioning by moving to coal, radically altering transportation infrastructure and imposing very unpopular decisions as far as where people can live, it would probably be possible to avert the worst of it deaths wise.
The problem is that when you do it on a large scale of 7 billion people it tends to completely fuck up the environment. Coal and shale should be a last resort bootstrap before solar powered terraforming.
The degradation of soil pretty much toppled the Inca and the Mesopotamian societies, and at this rate ours is heading the same way.
It is already that way. If petroleum-derived fertilizers suddenly became impossible much of the land used to grow corn would die. There are lots of croplands that don't get rotated because the farmer just throws some fertilizer on it and plants more of what he had.
The Divinity of Racism
2008-11-25, 18:34
ArgonPlasma2000 is a fucking idiot, do you know how much solar panels cost? Do you think the middle class can afford them? Switching to solar would do nothing, no one could afford it because the providers wouldn't come down on the price a bit, there would be no profit for them. Coal and petroleum are here to stay, until they're gone. We cannot reasonably expect anything else to work out.
Dichromate
2008-11-25, 21:31
The problem is that when you do it on a large scale of 7 billion people it tends to completely fuck up the environment. Coal and shale should be a last resort bootstrap before solar powered terraforming.
It is already that way. If petroleum-derived fertilizers suddenly became impossible much of the land used to grow corn would die. There are lots of croplands that don't get rotated because the farmer just throws some fertilizer on it and plants more of what he had.
Petroleum derived fertilizers won't become impossible - the chinese make most of theirs using coal. Wouldn't be much fun trying to switch manufacturing for a very large proportion of the worlds fertilizer to coal over the course of a couple of years. Once again it's a challenge that would be solvable in isolation but not in the context that it's likely to happen.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-11-26, 04:37
ArgonPlasma2000 is a fucking idiot, do you know how much solar panels cost? Do you think the middle class can afford them? Switching to solar would do nothing, no one could afford it because the providers wouldn't come down on the price a bit, there would be no profit for them. Coal and petroleum are here to stay, until they're gone. We cannot reasonably expect anything else to work out.
Photovoltaic cells are NOT the only solar technology, dumbass. Hot water and sugar cane are two things that get power from the sun, hence they are solar energy sources.
vazilizaitsev89
2008-11-27, 05:37
ArgonPlasma2000 is a fucking idiot, do you know how much solar panels cost? Do you think the middle class can afford them? Switching to solar would do nothing, no one could afford it because the providers wouldn't come down on the price a bit, there would be no profit for them. Coal and petroleum are here to stay, until they're gone. We cannot reasonably expect anything else to work out.
wow...that's just dumb. At one time the very computer you're using was the size of an entire room and had the computing power of a calculator.
What I'm saying here numbnuts is that if demand is high enough (which it would be) or if the government gave enough incentive (which it probably will) more research would go into photovolatic cells. One company has already developed PV cells that are more like rolls of plastic, its just that they are not as efficient as the larger blocks.
It is unfortunate for you that you live in a city.
not really. Chicago has good pre-existing water, has a lot of power from nuclear and a decent public transportation system (Metra, CTA is slow as fuck).
We'll be better of than you in the deep south. Have fun with that neo-confederacy that's fundamentalist (likely NOT racist, just religious as fuck :()
It's really not as bad as it sounds, five billion people dying and all.
the problem is WHO will be dying. The Western World may have a relatively good rate of survival. I hope I can get a good career in urban geography so I can get paid to study this...I'm sure there'll be a Midwestern Federation or something
It's just alot of labor pains. Hopefully enough ecological specimens survive the transision to ensure a thriving world afterwards. If not, well, maybe next time, aye? .
in Sub-Saharan Africa (ESPECIALLY in the Rainforests where people rely on eating endangered apes for food) a LOT of species will die. Same with Brazil likely given the rate or burning through
The degradation of soil pretty much toppled the Inca and the Mesopotamian societies, and at this rate ours is heading the same way.
To be fair, in the US farmers and the like are transitioning to using things like no-till farming and other stuff.
It is already that way. If petroleum-derived fertilizers suddenly became impossible much of the land used to grow corn would die.
people can try to recycle manure and use it in growing things, that does already exist and has been used currently in some places.
There are lots of croplands that don't get rotated because the farmer just throws some fertilizer on it and plants more of what he had.
I think the farmer will do that when the times change-transfer/rotate the crops. Be forced too. I also think people might use the Great Lakes to provide irrigation to deal with some of the desertification when the aquifers end up exhausted
Mr. Dazed and Confused
2008-12-03, 22:23
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/wind-power-can-produce-one-thi
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207000819.htm
I think wind power has a legitimate chance of becoming extremely useful and I think the United States needs to jump on this. It's one of the fastest growing energy sources in the world. The major downside is the bird factor and the aesthetic qualities, but I think birds can adapt to wind farms and people need to realize that the good outweighs the bad.
I'd really like to see Obama tackle the energy crisis first. He only has a short window of time to accomplish things and the energy crisis/climate change are extremely important issues.
Wind Power>Solar Power.
I'm wondering if it might be a good time to invest in wind power, I wonder how much of a profit you could potentially make?
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-12-03, 22:40
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/wind-power-can-produce-one-thi
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207000819.htm
I think wind power has a legitimate chance of becoming extremely useful and I think the United States needs to jump on this. It's one of the fastest growing energy sources in the world. The major downside is the bird factor and the aesthetic qualities, but I think birds can adapt to wind farms and people need to realize that the good outweighs the bad.
I'd really like to see Obama tackle the energy crisis first. He only has a short window of time to accomplish things and the energy crisis/climate change are extremely important issues.
Wind Power>Solar Power.
I'm wondering if it might be a good time to invest in wind power, I wonder how much of a profit you could potentially make?
We have absolutely no clue what untold damage a wind energy infrastructure is going to do to the global climate. Energy isn't free. You can't just stick millions of windmills and expect to not disrupt the wind flows. The same goes for wave power.
Solar doesn't have nearly as big an impact since you are just depriving the ground beneath the cells of sunlight.
Geologic sources, save for geothermal, would have negligible impact on the environment when done on a small scale, but when you do it on the scale required for even a national power infrastructure as hungry as the US, let alone the entire planet, you are undoubtably going to run into some serious unforseen consequences.
Not to mention a statistic I heard recently concerning wind power which said that the 10,000 currently operable windmills in the U.S. combined still do not produce the amount of energy derived from one coal-fired power plant.
We have absolutely no clue what untold damage a wind energy infrastructure is going to do to the global climate. Energy isn't free. You can't just stick millions of windmills and expect to not disrupt the wind flows. The same goes for wave power.
Uh, a lot of the wind speeds, jet streams, etc are higher some distance ABOVE the ground. Say, 500 feet or more up in the air. I don't think those windmills will change the major climatic patterns.
PirateJoe
2008-12-04, 05:23
Geologic sources, save for geothermal, would have negligible impact on the environment when done on a small scale, but when you do it on the scale required for even a national power infrastructure as hungry as the US, let alone the entire planet, you are undoubtably going to run into some serious unforseen consequences.
Geothermal is where its at. Seriously, there's your free energy right there. Well, at least until the earth's core cools down.
Honestly, its the only sustainable, practical energy source I can see. Solar is great, but solar panels use a lot of precious metals, metals I'm told we're rapidly running out of. Wind is too unreliable to be implemented on a mass scale, and water is already tapped.
Geothermal, even with today's drilling technology is our ticket out of this mess.
Geothermal, even with today's drilling technology is our ticket out of this mess.
There isn't much geothermal power in the Midwest. Maybe there might be something aroudn New Madrid, and the Us South has Hot springs, AK and some other things but not much...mainly that would benefit the Western United States and all.
EDIT: that was a US-centric post but the point is, for the world basically how would that fit in with places with little/no geothermal power? Long-ass high-voltage power lines? Not an electrical engineer but I think the resistance and stuff builds up over those distances.
Not sure.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-12-04, 07:18
Geothermal is where its at. Seriously, there's your free energy right there. Well, at least until the earth's core cools down.
Honestly, its the only sustainable, practical energy source I can see. Solar is great, but solar panels use a lot of precious metals, metals I'm told we're rapidly running out of. Wind is too unreliable to be implemented on a mass scale, and water is already tapped.
Geothermal, even with today's drilling technology is our ticket out of this mess.
Fuck photovoltaics, at least until carbon nanotubes can bring the prices down. It's not like we are going to run out of usable carbon for a while. I like getting energy from solar heating better anyway. Stirling engine farms would kick photovoltaic cell farms asses any day.
PirateJoe
2008-12-04, 15:22
There isn't much geothermal power in the Midwest. Maybe there might be something aroudn New Madrid, and the Us South has Hot springs, AK and some other things but not much...mainly that would benefit the Western United States and all.
EDIT: that was a US-centric post but the point is, for the world basically how would that fit in with places with little/no geothermal power? Long-ass high-voltage power lines? Not an electrical engineer but I think the resistance and stuff builds up over those distances.
Not sure.
Geothermal power is, in theory, everywhere. Its all about how far you're willing to drill. Even with 1970's drilling technology we can get 12km down, which, for many parts of the world, is deep enough to reach rock the temperature of which is enough to drive steam turbines or even sterling engines.
Mr. Dazed and Confused
2008-12-04, 16:34
We have absolutely no clue what untold damage a wind energy infrastructure is going to do to the global climate. Energy isn't free. You can't just stick millions of windmills and expect to not disrupt the wind flows. The same goes for wave power.
Solar doesn't have nearly as big an impact since you are just depriving the ground beneath the cells of sunlight.
Geologic sources, save for geothermal, would have negligible impact on the environment when done on a small scale, but when you do it on the scale required for even a national power infrastructure as hungry as the US, let alone the entire planet, you are undoubtably going to run into some serious unforseen consequences.
Yeah, the theory that large scale wind farms might change wind/storm patterns is interesting, but is there any hard science facts that support this? Wind turbines aren't really effecting the atmosphere because the atmosphere is thousands of feet above the wind turbines. I don't know there might be some hidden consequences, but right now it looks like the positive attributes outweigh the negative ones.
Solar energy is interesting, but I prefer solar-thermal technology over Photovoltaic systems.
Pirate Joe, a lot of people question geothermal energy because it's hard to transport and there's a possibility that geothermal sites could temporarily run out of steam for a decade or so.
The thing about renewable energy is that we know the inputs and outputs, but no one is really sure of the long term outcomes. I think I'm more sold on wind turbines and other solar technologies (not a huge fan of Photovoltaic systems)
Geothermal power is, in theory, everywhere. Its all about how far you're willing to drill. Even with 1970's drilling technology we can get 12km down, which, for many parts of the world, is deep enough to reach rock the temperature of which is enough to drive steam turbines or even sterling engines.
Oh. Okay
Yggdrasil
2008-12-06, 02:43
I hope with every fibre of my being that Obama will renege on his promises on tax cuts and healthcare.
I love the man, and support many of his ideals, but when he says he'll reduce taxes, I can see the anguish in the poor man's countenance, and I genuinely hope it was just a ploy to attract Republicans.
This economy is a fucking sinking ship, with a tear larger than the one from goatse, and when a fucking politician promises to cut taxes, I hurl on the inside. If and when I become an income producer, I would be willing to double the amount of taxes I payed, provided the Government gets shit done.
I hate the whining right-wing bastards who complain about taxes, yet are outraged by lack of public spending.
Shut the fuck up.
We need to be paying more taxes; This whole shtick about lower taxes is thinner than the fucking Ice Caps. Our government can't be appeasing you whiners while doing shit behind your back.
I wish we had a politician that would state "We're all fucked if we don't pay up. I've got a plan, you've got the dough, fork it over" If a politician was bold enough to state what has been ignored for so long, he would get my vote any day.
He could crucify gays, kill illegals for sport, and shove Bibles up his ass for all I care. As long as the fuck was truthful enough to state our problems openly and attempt to fix them, I wouldn't give half a crock of horse shit if I didn't agree with him on social issues.
Of course, Obama was the lesser of two evils, but the poor man is burdened with so much I hope he can keep up, or at least drop the wet dream fantasies of middle class tax cuts.
P.S. This was typed in a bit of a rush, since I am feeling quite enraged, so forgive any grammatical errors; my hands can barely keep up.
ChrisVickers
2008-12-06, 09:57
^ Couldn't agree with you more! Its the same problem with the UK.
Guys you all have to watch a TV program called "Silly Money - Bremner, bird and fortune". It was a four part TV program and explains how fucked the west is. If you can get it use 4OD because it's still on their website.
vazilizaitsev89
2008-12-06, 13:12
you cannot raise taxes during a recession. you know who was the last person to do that??? Hoover. You know where that got us. Read any economics book, they will tell you its a bad idea
Yggdrasil
2008-12-06, 17:24
you cannot raise taxes during a recession. you know who was the last person to do that??? Hoover. You know where that got us. Read any economics book, they will tell you its a bad idea
Then what do you propose the government do? Fuck the baby-boomers by canceling social security? Privatize public education?
The government needs money to go on a campaign to completely remodel the way the economy is run.
A shift to alternative energy is vital; not for the environment's sake, but for the billions we give the Arabs for oil.
The infrastructure in this country is falling apart in areas, and a renewed program for this wouldn't hurt. Maybe even up a couple hundred thousand people to work on installing new, efficient power plants.
There are many, many more things the government needs to do. Reaganomics were bullshit, and those tax cuts and deregulation are what have completely disabled our economy.
We need an anal government to stifle unstable growth through regulation and oversight. The economy might not grow as it once did, but we'll be damned if we ever let it get this bad, again.
We need to be paying our government so they can pay off the national debt. They may have gotten us in a hole, but abandoning them now by allowing them to cut our taxes in unfathomably irresponsible of us. If we want to pull through this, we have to rally in hard times and make the government strong again.
This of course provided the government does a good job of handling the crisis. If they don't, our nation is utterly over, and I'll pack my bags for the Canadian border.
supperrfreek
2008-12-07, 04:12
Honestly, all we need to do is spend less than earn, simpler than it sounds, YES, but is it a necessary sacrifice, I believe so if our government wants to pay off its debts. If taxes were to be lowered the budget would need to be slashed first, it was in Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, yet the budget slashing seems to be ignored.
Slightly lower taxes will help people by giving them more money to spend. Yet we can't lower taxes too much, we have to allow the government to collect enough revenue where it has enough to keep the government running, but also pay the debt off.
The problem with Social Security is that we don't have enough workers (when the program started the working to nonworking ratio was 16:1, now it's around 2:1). I advocate a temporary citizenship program, and a quicker road to citizenship (preferably a processing center on the border). This would help solve the problem of illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes or social security. This would also help generate revenue because there are more taxable earners, and more taxable earners give the government more money.
Finally, seal up the loopholes in the tax system -> George Soros doesn't pay income tax -> he only has to pay capital gains tax, in my opinion he should pay not only capital gains but income tax on incomes derived from said capital gains.
Yggdrasil
2008-12-07, 05:47
A lot of what you said makes sense, but I don''t agree with reducing government financing to public institutions such as health care and education.
Honestly, just let them bump up taxes a bit.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-12-08, 08:53
Yeah, the theory that large scale wind farms might change wind/storm patterns is interesting, but is there any hard science facts that support this?
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/11/30/could-extreme-wind-turbine-usage-alter-weather-patterns/
If not for changing the wind patterns, bird migration routes may be forced to change which will disrupt the ecological balance in the area. That's bad enough to not want to do it. Maintenance costs are too high as well, requiring lots of heavy equipment and technicians to change out parts. It's alot easier to need a small crane to change to a turbine in a steam engine close to the ground than it is to cart a tall crane to the side of some god-forsaken hill to change out a gearbox.
stormshadowftb
2008-12-08, 09:59
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/11/30/could-extreme-wind-turbine-usage-alter-weather-patterns/
If not for changing the wind patterns, bird migration routes may be forced to change which will disrupt the ecological balance in the area. That's bad enough to not want to do it. Maintenance costs are too high as well, requiring lots of heavy equipment and technicians to change out parts. It's alot easier to need a small crane to change to a turbine in a steam engine close to the ground than it is to cart a tall crane to the side of some god-forsaken hill to change out a gearbox.
that's why you build them in cities, on top of buildings, and you build them so they are easy to maintain. it's not rocket science, windmill technology has existed for 1000 years.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-12-08, 10:49
that's why you build them in cities, on top of buildings, and you build them so they are easy to maintain. it's not rocket science, windmill technology has existed for 1000 years.
That would make things even worse. Think of the crane used to assemble the skyscraper. Now imagine a crane even taller is necessary to carry parts up there. Not only that, engineering the rooves to be sturdy enough to carry several more tons in several locations over the roof would require many man-hours to not only design, but many more millions to build the roof and then the entire building to support the now-heavier roof. Building can sway as much as several feet at the top. The movement of several tons of metal extended out several hundred feet in the air moving against the entire mass of the building requires an extremely sturdy foundation, and a sturdy foundation means lots of weight. It's just not economical to do this. (It's debatable as to whether it is economical when it's on the ground.)
Windmill technology might be as old as the hills, but water pumps and grain mashers don't have parts that easilly wear out. Those windmills don't have tight tolerances that must be kept under control so as to keep functioning. Just because technology is old, doesn't mean that it will work on your dime.
True Star Wars Fan
2008-12-08, 22:46
That would make things even worse. Think of the crane used to assemble the skyscraper. Now imagine a crane even taller is necessary to carry parts up there.
There isn't much of an extra difference though. There are cranes ALREADY tall enough to allow that. Given how they finished that Trump Building...
Not only that, engineering the rooves to be sturdy enough to carry several more tons in several locations over the roof would require many man-hours to not only design, but many more millions to build the roof and then the entire building to support the now-heavier roof.
don't people normally do things redundantly and make buildings able to take MUCH MORE in terms or strain/weight than the minimum is?
Building can sway as much as several feet at the top. The movement of several tons of metal extended out several hundred feet in the air moving against the entire mass of the building requires an extremely sturdy foundation, and a sturdy foundation means lots of weight. It's just not economical to do this. (It's debatable as to whether it is economical when it's on the ground.)
I'm not good with that, so okay. The wavelength and bending yah will be bad.
ArgonPlasma2000
2008-12-09, 02:34
don't people normally do things redundantly and make buildings able to take MUCH MORE in terms or strain/weight than the minimum is?
Yes, everything that a professional engineer touches will be overengineered. The problem is that it has to be engineered even more than before. Like I said, it all comes at a cost of weight and materials, which forces the engineer to make sure the structure can support that added weight.