Subscription Center
This Web-only article is a special rich-media presentation of the feature, "How Much Is Left?," which appears in the September 2010 issue of Scientific American. The presentation was created by Zemi media. Find all our other interactive offerings here.
August 24, 2010 | 107
See what we're tweeting about
David_Bressan May 21, 1799:: Birthday of fossilist Mary Anning http://t.co/QY3x9HCzfU & here a rock-song dedicated to her http://t.co/8U2ybw6LLb David_Bressan Happy Birthday to Dr. Carin Bondar - Blogger & Biologist With a Twist , also host of "Wild Sex" http://t.co/v9AunPaClF
TetZoo Time to leave for #Rio #pterosaur symposium. Discussing reproductive strategies in pterosaurs, also #Vectidraco. Will try & tweet! #fossils
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
107 Comments
Add Commentso isn't it obvious, we gotta figure this whole solar thing out soon, the sun will outlast everything in that chart and probably the planet itself!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is silly. Biodiversity is ending in 2010?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack when I was in elementary school, the San Diego Zoo told us that 10,000 species a day were going extinct. If I'm doing my math right, that means there's something like a negative billion species left on Earth by this point.
There was obviously a miscommunication. The extinction rate is on the order of 10,000 species per YEAR, not day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, your both wrong. Historically, on average, using the best calculations and fossil records available, 1-5 species would go extinct every 100-1000 years. Now, 1-5 species goes extinct every year. This is 100-1,000 times higher than the average rate, before man. By 2030, they expect 10-50 species will go extinct every year, which is 10,000 times the normal rate. The extinction rate is expect to continue to increase no matter what we do at this point, ripples in the food chain. The hope is we can stop killing the planet and, eventually, the planet will heal... But we may have already gone to far... it may take a million years to recover at this point. There is also the dangers of runaway, exponential or positive feedback effects which, if approached, may take billions of years to recover.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few of many sources:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/humans-pushing-extinction-rates-faster-than-species-evolve.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve
Inefficient 'green' energy can be more expensive than fossil fuels. Foolish government policy to have taxpayers subsidize a backyard wind turbine that may be 1/4 as efficient per dollar spent than an industrial scale wind turbine means a great deal of resources and energy are wasted to make a homeowner 'feel' good about his footprint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile progressives are advocating state sponsored eugenics - the prevention of growth of a part of the underclass so as to 'preserve the Earth'.
As for resources, our reserves are increasing as long as new technology improves efficiency and recovery. For example, a new report added considerably to America's known oil and gas reserves because new technology helps extract resources from deposits before unavailable.
Our limit is only from our imagination.
How many species are created every 100 years? Humanity has introduced plants and animals that were millions of years hadn't been mixed. Why must every discussion talk about what we've lost, and not of what we've gained?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you truly believe in Darwin, then you must accept change in our flora and fauna, not assume things should be static. We will lose and gain animals, shorelines, agricultural land, skylines, forests, mountaintops, and civilizations.
If you think Earth should be frozen in time, then you are a fatalist.
It isn't about the earth being frozen in time, but it is about Homo sapiens killing everything in our pathever since we crawled out Africa. We're consuming faster than the world can replenish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2008RealityCheck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rates were, historically, the same. 1-5 species would go extinct every 100-1,000 years and 1-5 new species would evolve into something distinguishably new, with it's own nitch, every 100-1,000 years.
New species numbers haven't changed. The extinction rate is 100-1,000 times higher.
you need to start thinking on a somewhat geological timescale.
"If you think Earth should be frozen in time, then you are a fatalist."
-No one thinks this, you are intentionally distorting the opinion of your opposition. We think the earth should continue to evolve as it would without mankind or, at least, that man kinds presence would be a possitive and not a negative effect.
Why talk about what we've lost? because it's a big freaking deal man. when the dinosaurs died out, 1-5 species was going extinct every 10-100 years. In other words, we are causing a mass extinction event that will be larger and faster than the one that killed the dinosars. Don't think about this issues along your own personal timeline, think 100s or 1000s or 10,000s of years. If you don't care what happens after you die, just stay out of it.
As to your previous comment about resources being limited by imagination, consider this. Originally, 70% of the atmosphere was CO2 and it remained that way for about a billion years. Eventually, plant life converted the large majority of this into oxygen and fossil fuels. Where do you think all that CO2 went? Where do you think all the fossil fuels came from? What's your plan budy, keep burning till we reach 70% again? We have already DOUBLED the amount of CO2.. IN ONLY 100 YEARS! There is also a positive feedback effect. When we reach 4deg rise in global temperatures, permafrost may melt and give off rediculous quanitities.. So there is a theoretical point of no return.
I just hope someone scientists come up with some meaningful breakthroughs because very few people care about doing anything to help the environment "For the greater good" if it involves reducing their standard of living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just hope someone scientists come up with some meaningful breakthroughs because very few people care about doing anything to help the environment "For the greater good" if it involves reducing their standard of living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one is actually addressing the problem. We have had the technology to fix our mess it is us, the people. It is simple, stop wasting, stop buying junk you'll never use. Stop living in one town and driving 60 miles to work each day. It's not hard, we don't need computers and PhD scientists to tell us the obvious. Just stop being pigs. And it is going to take a lot of effort and a lot of time to clean up this sty we've made, but it is that loving care that brings back hope and life to devastated areas. I am no hippy, I am a realist. Instead of pointing fingers why don't we look at ourselves and ask ourselves what we are doing to make our planet a better place. I can bet nine out of ten of you reading this run the water when you are brushing your teeth. Seems like a small thing but it is the little things that add up. Start recycling, stop the newspaper that you never read, go for a walk on a nice day. There are just so many little things you can do to make this world a better place and all you guys can do is criticize each other on the little issues. Face the big issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the BIG issue, is that America's richest one percent are turning America into a third world country and we will have squandered our resources making that 1% even richer instead of creating a livable society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is terribly done and difficult to use. I hope that article itself has been put together more clearly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPermafrost melting? Its been melting for several years at least. Take the Inside Passage between Anchorage and Vancouver and observe dead trees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecies come and go whether dinosaure or homo sapiens. Just when is the question. Had Bush not censored Goddard scientists, we'd have 8 years more of a head start to save ourselves. New technology is coming but in the meantime the folks here in Fredericksburg read about area drought due to big time expansion (for DC) but we celebrate water shortage by adding a freaking water park with water and sewage fees being "given away" so we can eat cake when there is no bread. We're going out in a flame. People just don't get it.
John Cragin, 08/24/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems I read something up yonder about warmth being a threat to Wheat life and therefore a threat to bread. And goodness knows about those oil eating germs. Such pessimism! May I add that bread may become the staph of
life?
Relativistic Perturbation Mantle The next energy source for earth. It made our Atmosphere and Ionosphere and can be used to make new ones on other planets and repair or own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHIS IS IT!
In the peak oil video it was claimed that a prediction made in the 50's that US oil production would peak in 1970 and it did. This is pretty disingenuous as it was more public policy then and now that restricts oil production. It is also hard to know what resources are still to be discovered. After the Northridge earthquake (which had been on a previously unknown fault) a geologist was asked by a reporter "How many unknown faults are there in California?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully, a massive supervolcano will erupt before we kill EVERYTHING on the planet. This will spew millions of tons of ash into the sky, blotting out the sun, and will most likely result in enough chaos that either humanity will die out or we'll all kill ourselves in a mass hysteria. The blotting out of the sun thing will also have the unfortunate side effect of killing many many other species, but if this happens before biodiversity is too diminished there are bound to be some species that will live through it until the atmosphere corrects itself. With the sun blotted out, global warming will at least get a temporary halt, too. THAT's what the planet needs to save itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a problem with this hypothesis, first proposed in the Club of Rome report in the 1960's, and best illustrated by the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1945, we had 25 years of oil left
By 1970, we had used up all that oil, but there was 30 years left
By 2000, we had used up all that oil, but there was 40 years left
In 2010, we still have 40 years left.
The answer to this strange phenomenon is that the oil in 1945 was $1/barrel oil; in 1970 it was $5/barrel; in 2000 it was $40/barrel and today it is $50/barrel. So what we have in reserve is an economic concept, not an absolute. What are we prepared to pay for the benefit the resource brings? If it is too high, then we will tap another resource
Purple dragon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno drop in the standard of living is required buddy, all we have to do is switch fuel sources. We've mastered the power of the atom, which is far greater than any chemical reaction like burning.
facepalm,
conservation can only go so far, especially when you only force it on consumers and not the manufacturers. Serious, conservation can play a roll if you really want it to, but all we need is to switch fuel sources.. no more burning of million year old dead fermented dinosaurs... use the power of the atom. I think at best cunsumer conservation will only reduce emissions by 3-5%, and thats with a 90% reduction in quality of living. If conservation is part, it has to start with the manufacturers to be effective; every AC unit, hotwater heater, etc need increasingly stringent energy standards
sagan
I would love to worry more about water quality, it's all polluted and yes, it is running out. We are draining aquifers far faster than they can replenish. By the air is far more import, the first priority. Bad air creats bad water. Breathing takes 10% of the vulumn breathed, and puts it right into the blood stream... digestion is at least slightly less dangerous.
Greg T,
I somewhat agree. If we cannot maintain a balance with our environment we will be wiped out like all other species who cannot do this. I just hope that, if it comes to that, it happens soon and quickly so the planet can recover and, maybe, in a million years create another intelligent being who will learn from our mistakes.
Don't dismiss science just because you hate Al Gore. The earth is a small speck in an unimaginably vast universe. The earth is very small - we will use up what little resources we have very soon. To ignore this, and to ignore our impact upon our tiny planet is a suicidal game of denial; and it is selfish beyond belief. So, you will have your cheap gas and cheap electricity because you do not want to make the sacrifices necessary to try and save a future for those that come after you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernment is the only entity that can fill the role of strategic implementer. Business (or "the market") has only limited self-interest and their only goal is more profit. Business has neither the scope, nor the motivation to make even a little difference in our struggle to survive.
First, instead of wasting our time and bandwidth, just show us the charts. We don't need silly animated graphs or talking heads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, it's amazing how people can complain that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then want to run the whole planet that way. Because "we'll find more somewhere" is the essence of a Ponzi scheme. We'll take profits today and use future income to cover the shortfall. And population growth is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. We need more people today to keep labor costs down and pensions afloat, and we'll figure out how to feed them later. And have you noticed that people who are skeptical of overpopulation don't volunteer to live in crowded inner cities?
tulcak & Steve D,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! great stuff guys, very insightful. Never thought of population growth like that but you are 100% right. I always realized we are living in a false capitalistic society... to me, it's more like corporate run socialism, and Oil Barrons love it! They got us by the balls. All they have to do is say, no more oil for the US and we'll be wimpering and begging within a month. This is why they resist the push for renewables, electric/hydrogen cars and even Nuclear.. The first two are decentralized... they will lose that complete control over us. Even though they are all more profitable with less overhead, they want the control more than the money.
Wow! you mean we can't escape math as a species.....darn that war of Northern Aggression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey , don't you care about your children , when
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey , don't you care about your children , when 1kg of rice will cost about 25 usd or maybe you'll have to kill for it ,,.. it's not far if we don't act with Responsibility soon Enough
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear SciAm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are peaching to the choir! The parameter you need to plot is the projected profitability of top 500 companies + GDP of the top 10 economies in the world under current patterns of consumption vs more prudent/intelligent usage of those resources. That's the one that will get people's attention.
Dear SciAm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are preaching to the choir! The parameter you need to plot is the projected profitability of top 500 companies + GDP of the top 10 economies in the world under current patterns of consumption vs more prudent/intelligent usage of those resources. That's the one that will get people's attention.
I just read the 29 comments so far, and what struck me is that conservatives see themselves as solid, rational, feet-on-the-ground folks, while they see liberals as just the opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet many or most conservatives--certainly all the ones here--come across as flaming Polyannas. Everything's fine! We don't have to give up anything--and if a problem does come up, well them science fellas will fix it right up fer us'n.
I will agree with them in one regard: most American liberals are nearly as much in denial about our nonrenewable resources as conservatives are.
If people really understood how much we're cantilevered over the abyss they'd realize that at the very least every single nation on Earth needs to adopt Communist China's One Child policy. All our resource consumption issues stem from there simply being waaay too many of us.
But American liberals went into denial about this when people started accusing them of racism--as one conservative commenter here did, actually--when they spoke about overpopulation. And liberals would just about rather die than be seen as racist, so they fell into lockstep with the most reactionary fundamentalist Bible-thumpers about overpopulation.
And so we busy ourselves rearranging the deck chairs as our little boat called Earth sweeps closer and closer to the brink.
Based on the posts here, it is obvious to me SciAm is a liberal leaning magaizine... Go Fox, "Fair and balanced"...........LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....JUST KIDDING... Hey yall, SERIOUSLY, check this out....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the best exposure of Foxes manipulation I have seen to date, it shows how blaitently obvious their manipulations are (watch the eniter thing orthe first 15 minutes):
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-23-2010-rod-blagojevich
A Connecticut man has spent the past six years searching for the cause of a lightning event that produced two twelve foot diameter spheres of high energy that NASA said are as powerful as a nuclear power plant found floating in his backyard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Marriotts search has led him to many of the elite scientific institutions around the world to no avail. What he has put together is a collection of evidence data and videos that when combined together unveiled a new aspect of lightning that is as powerful as a nuclear power plant contained in just one sphere of high energy or Earth sacred Mantle. Mr. Marriott named it Relativistic Perturbation Mantle.
Mantles internal structure is the cause of what NASA calls a Sprite which has the same wave signature as a nuclear power plant. Mantle is responsible for sustaining our air, water and our atmosphere and ionosphere. This unexplored new property of lightning normally occurs above thunderstorms and only visible briefly when a storm turns upside down or inverts itself, then they return in other parts of our atmosphere. The space shuttle Columbia had recorded images of these and sprites and could not explain the cause of either. Mr. Marriott states he has witnessed them three times from watching violent storms in upstate NY and in Connecticut.
This researcher believes such high energy spheres can be used to replace conventional oil, coal and nuclear energy sources with clean, self contained sphere of charged particles. They are surrounded with electrically charged liquid oxygen to control their internal nuclear reactions to produce a totally new non-polluting sustainable energy solution. This is new untapped energy source which can make space travel a reality and may enable Man to give other planets artificial atmosphere with these powerful Mantles. There are also ancient historical ramifications, Caveman, Babylonian, Egyptian and Maya all had religious art works showing Mantles arrays.
All claims are supported by existing theories.
Contact: Event is being considered for Wardenclyffe at Long Island NY at the Tesla factory
Ronald Patrick Marriott 860-559-2400 Simsbury, Connecticut 06089
A Connecticut man has spent the past six years searching for the cause of a lightning event that produced two twelve foot diameter spheres of high energy that NASA said are as powerful as a nuclear power plant found floating in his backyard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Marriott’s search has led him to many of the elite scientific institutions around the world to no avail. What he has put together is a collection of evidence data and videos that when combined together unveiled a new aspect of lightning that is as powerful as a nuclear power plant contained in just one sphere of high energy or Earth sacred Mantle. Mr. Marriott named it Relativistic Perturbation Mantle.
Mantle’s internal structure is the cause of what NASA calls a Sprite which has the same wave signature as a nuclear power plant. Mantle is responsible for sustaining our air, water and our atmosphere and ionosphere. This unexplored new property of lightning normally occurs above thunderstorms and only visible briefly when a storm turns upside down or inverts itself, then they return in other parts of our atmosphere. The space shuttle Columbia had recorded images of these and sprites and could not explain the cause of either. Mr. Marriott states he has witnessed them three times from watching violent storms in upstate NY and in Connecticut.
This researcher believes such high energy spheres can be used to replace conventional oil, coal and nuclear energy sources with clean, self contained sphere of charged particles. They are surrounded with electrically charged liquid oxygen to control their internal nuclear reactions to produce a totally new non-polluting sustainable energy solution. This is new untapped energy source which can make space travel a reality and may enable Man to give other planets artificial atmosphere with these powerful Mantles. There are also ancient historical ramifications, Caveman, Babylonian, Egyptian and Maya all had religious art works showing Mantle’s arrays.
All claims are supported by existing theories.
Contact: Event is being considered for Wardenclyffe at Long Island NY at the Tesla factory
Ronald Patrick Marriott Simsbury, Connecticut 06089
The answer is localized direct-current from large production green energy sources. The oil, gas, and utility industry will never say it. It means that Tesla was correct and Edison was wrong. It means that arbitrarily controlling profit streams on a whim will be over for them. It means that the global economy will become localized, and noone, not democrat or republican nor dictator will allow that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is localized direct-current from large production green energy sources. The oil, gas, and utility industry will never say it. It means that Tesla was correct and Edison was wrong. It means that arbitrarily controlling profit streams on a whim will be over for them. It means that the global economy will become localized, and noone, not democrat or republican nor dictator will allow that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer is hard work and a positive outlook
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer, is hard work and a positive outlook. The fact that we are realizing this now is of note, but the ability to share the information around the world is paramount. Our grasp on what is possible and impossible is purely based upon our understanding. Does anyone know for sure what happens to you when you die? Does your energy travel to some amazing place where all your dreams come true? The Scariest thing for most people is the fear that we have lost control and are headed for certain death, when not a single person on this planet can tell you with 100% certainty what happens after you die. It is very important to collect data and to study our tracks, it helps us know which step leads in the right direction, but people must remember at this moment their are intangible pieces of data that are completely beyond our understanding. The life expectancy of a person is about 78 years, this means if you are 20, you have 58 summers left in your life, and you aren't even guaranteed them. Live your life, if you struggle ask for help, if you don't struggle, help someone. Chase the limits of your imagination follow your dreams, laugh and cry and love..... everything else is for the birds
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, realitycheck2008 needs a reality check. It's not politics and I know it's overwhelming but mankind has the ability to destroy or save life on earth. As long as people have the attitude you have we will definitely lean towards destruction. Hopefully, we'll kill ourselves off before we can destroy life which is so very rare in our universe. Humans are very much like a cancer. We consume our host but unlike cancer we know we are killing the host but we just can't seem to stop ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh I get it. Humor. Food prices will go up because of global warming? I don't think so. Food production will increase due to a more favorable growing season over a larger portion of the globe and more CO2 . Farming methods become more efficient every year, especially in poor countries that begin to access agricultural technology from wealthy countries. Cheaper food production and more food means--guess what?--lower prices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour premises and projections are wrong on this subject. I wonder what else you got wrong. Hmmmm....
We've survived several decades of worriers "warning" us of all kinds of apocalypses: the population explosion, the ozone hole, nuclear winter, global warming, insufficient food production, dwindling oil reserves, dwindling freshwater supplies. We'll survive your worrying too. You can keep it.
Luckily humans are much more creative and resourceful than the enlightened worriers. The one factor--and it's a big one--that the chronically worried never account for is the collective ingenuity of humans.
The real global problem that needs solving is unleashing human ingenuity by promoting freedom around the world. Billions live oppressed and impoverished because of their governments. Free people are great problem solvers.
You can see the reason for our illegal Iraqi invasion right at 2015!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2008realitycheck: "Meanwhile progressives are advocating state sponsored eugenics - the prevention of growth of a part of the underclass so as to 'preserve the Earth'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[CITATION NEEDED]
Seriously. You can't just say something like that without backing it up. So YOU better back the F*CK up right now.
who were you talking to at the Zoo, the janitor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho were you speaking to at the Zoo, the janitor? I have never heard that figure given as an extinction rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should protect our planet from now ,or our earth would be really "game over"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe shoule protect our planet from now, the earth is our single home!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKnow what? It seems not to matter. Comments ranging from total denial of reality to, "We are only limited by our imagination," also a denial of reality, illustrate that, as usual with humans, the political will to do something about a crisis will not exist until we all agree there is a crisis. For whatever reason, we do NOT agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement that, "We are only limited by our imagination," is maybe the best example of denial. As if there are no real limits of resources, no real limits of fossil fuels, no real limits to the laws of physics or other laws of the univers for that matter.
Real human ingenuity doesn't reside in denial of limits, but in recognizing that there are limits and learning how to deal with them. Science is all about finding limits, and engineering is making tools. Denial of limits is denial of nature and denial of the laws of the universe.
Meanwhile, since we do not agree, I propose that we ALL do nothing until it becomes clear that there is a crisis. Why should those of us who are intelligent enough to recognize that there's a crisis stop contributing to the gene pool, when, by doing so, we are effectively breeding conscience out of the human gene pool?
We're all in this together, so let's stay in it together. The science deniers and history deniers are eventually going to need someone to come to their aid, and it's not going to be the energy fairy.
If we're going to breed conscience out of the gene pool, we may as well just shoot ourselves now and get it over with.
like your handle kid, do I know you? Your ideas are very good also. I'm just another liberal tree hugging gunslinger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad the gent on energy talked about wind power (30% availability) and solar power (about 5% efficiency) but completely omitted the one clean reliable source - nuclear. Political correctness will be the death of us all. There's more energy in the radionucleides in the fly ash than we get from burning the coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou're all gay NO OFFENCE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou're all gay
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur limit is only our imagination? Yeah, if your referring to the limit on destruction and out indefinite collective imaginary for consumption. These uncomfortbale facts are a reality that we need to confront head on. In some instances we are too late to do much, in others, we were never going to be able to affect much change, but your comment seems ignorant, at best, or dangerous and irresponsible at worst. Even our own drive for more advanced technology still comes at the expense of our world's resources and environments. Albeit that is a very myopic, first-world persepective, because developing countries still haven't found a miracle way around industrialization and mechanization that is somehow less destructive or resource-intensive than first world countries' was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNative American philosophy contends to use natural products that are renewable. More of our products should be made out of wood instead of plastic. We will run out of oil soon, and it is time to look at natural energy sources such as sun and wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article seems to ignor the USGS that has identified more oil in the basin in Western North Dakota and eastern Montana than all the reserves in the Arab world combined. Of course with no available refining capacity in the US any oil would have to be shipped overseas for refining and then it would likely never return to the US. in addition the world economy relies on the trillions of dollars invested in world wide shipping and refining of other poeples oil and would be seriiously impacted by the US becoming a major oil source and refiner. That ignors all the vast reserves on oil and natural gas in the Perdoe basin in Alaska that Russia is preparing to tap from off shore for us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did the Article go??? (I have the print version. This is "Extra".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one will every imagine their way around the laws of thermodynamics, the laws that shape evolution in nature and that set limits to what we can and can't do economically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Nalinsday,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it not nice just to make up things?
I voted no on the poll because I think that there should be more urgency in solving the ecological crisis that we(the world) are currently going through. I can only hope that we still have a future to look forward to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny half-wit can see that humans on earth have entered a crisis period in our history. The only people who deny our current path is destructive, are those who gain financially under the current policies and practices sponsored by both governments and corporations. This is not to say these institutions are always knowingly responsible, but their bottom line is either being elected or making money; and neither of those objectives will reverse the current environmental and population trends. Science can only offer so many solutions for the misdirection of these institutions. When I was born, there were about 2.4 billion people on earth; in a short 66 years, there are now 6.8 billion people. The 6.8 billion people represents about 5% of all the humans to have ever existed! How many of you out there really think earth can support the same rate of population increase to 19.2 billion in another 66 years? This whole thing about limited resources isn't a tomorrow problem; its a today problem. The Peoples Republic of China has limited population growth to one child per married couple. Japans population is in decline due to restrictive economic conditions. Hopefully, neither of these events will cause population reduction in America. In America the talk by governments and corporations is usually about growth because growth normally yields more money for both the tax base, and the corporate bottom line. The growth culture really needs to be curtailed in virtually all aspects of life. I realize some people will call this attitude un-America because we all know that money can always solve any problem. However, the dilemma we are in cant be solved by money alone, but by a cultural change starting with each individual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSO!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar Power is, sadly, mostly hype. It is not easy to convert the sun's energy. Solar Cells convert less than 1 percent to electricity (the solar cell industry is clever, they report conversion percent basen on a particular wavelength making the numbers look bigger). Plants converted solar power for millions of years at a higher efficiency, and we are burning it up in a 100 years. Oil was a gift of nature (or god), and America showed the world how to waste it. Now the chinese want their hummers too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut when petroleum is gone, there will be no replacement. There are too many humans on the planet, -a few billion will have to go.
laurenra7... and how will we grow all of these wonderful crops when we run out of oil, which is the primary source of today's agricultural fertilizer? A fact directly linked to the global population explosion over the past century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere may be things we do not yet fully understand but I think it's foolish risk something as essential as the life of our planet on anyone's guesses. Without it, there is nothing for us.
unless we can create new breeds of human being, we're not going to manage very well by driving the biome to which we've evolved into extinction and replacing it with new forms of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting, and incredibly alarming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis visualization is just confusing. Good design should make an explorable thing largely self explanatory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile most of this information is roughly accurate within certain ranges of error, it is missing a very serious point. Most of the items addressed in this timeline arent necessary. All the water people will ever need can be extracted and purified with the brute force of technology today. By the time coal and gasoline run out, they will be obsolete, and it can hardly be said that the environment relies on them. Global warming combined with rising populations will never starve the human race as a whole, as this article seems to predict. This article predicts the doom of man and earth in a dozen ways, but under the assumption that humanity is a static body and that the earth relies on every shred of its mass to function. Humanity has an ability to think and change, and if the entirety of it comes under threat, it will change to live. Conversely, the earth is larger than ourselves and will survive despite any activities from us that inhabit it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile most of this information is roughly accurate within certain ranges of error, it is missing a very serious point. Most of the items addressed in this timeline aren’t necessary. All the water people will ever need can be extracted and purified with the brute force of technology today. By the time coal and gasoline run out, they will be obsolete, and it can hardly be said that the environment relies on them. Global warming combined with rising populations will never starve the human race as a whole, as this article seems to predict. This article predicts the doom of man and earth in a dozen ways, but under the assumption that humanity is a static body and that the earth relies on every shred of its mass to function. Humanity has an ability to think and change, and if the entirety of it comes under threat, it will change to live. Conversely, the earth is larger than ourselves and will survive despite any activities from us that inhabit it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOut of the 13 sources cited, only four came from peer-reviewed journals. One was a submission that was actually refused by the journal (International Journal of Coal Geology.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOut of the 5 sources cited under Biodiversity, only tw came from peer-reviewed journals: Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
As we all know humans have been around for approximately 40,000 years. In this time technology has improved a lot and has helped a lot of people. Resource's are running out in this period in time and the only thing we can rely on is technological innovation. I believe technology has done so much for us over the years that it is capable of saving us now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason my opinion is yes, is because if you don’t already know we have the technological innovation to solve this problem. The only thing stopping us in our tracks is that people need to start contributing and make an effort. There are countless ways we can use technological innovation to solve all most any problem.
A person needs at least 500 cubic metres of water a year. If Singapore only relied on rain water a person in Singapore would only receive 200 cubic metres of water a year which of course is 300 less than the minimum. Singapore uses 3 ways to increase its water supply. The first way is they import water from Malaysia their neighboring country. The second way is they turn old used water from your toilet home etc., into new water by putting it through a process that cleans water in a factory called NEWater. The third way is they use desalination plants to turn ocean water into drinkable water.
If I am not mistaken these are all examples of technological innovation saving resources, in this case water. See we can use technological innovation to save us now we just have to go global. The main reason we can’t achieve this is because
people don't want to spent money saving our limited natural resources.
But if you had to choose between the earth’s resources or money, I know I what I would choose!
Technology could help to fix some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. For example we have the technology to create clean fresh water and recycle metals. Singapore doesn't have enough natural water so they effectively use technology to solve this problem. We are also running out of various metals by throwing them away instead of recycling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater is one of the most important resources humans need. Singapore doesn't have enough natural occuring water because humans need more than 500 cubic meters per year. But technology has helped Singapore in 3 separate ways, NEWater, desalination and imported water. In 2005 they built the first desalination plant, desalination is when they turn salt water into clean water for house hold use. They can turn 30 million gallons of salt water in clean water per day. There are 5 NEWater factories in Singapore they recycle waste water for re-use. Singapore has another solution by piping water from Malaysian lakes and rivers. The rest of the world could copy Singapore in using desalination or recycled waste water (NEWater) to make sure everyone gets enough clean water.
We are running out of metal. Metal can be recycled but humans are just throwing it away. Technology can fix this problem because we can easily recycle metal and turn it into new products. Copper is one of the most used metals in the world. Copper can be made in to lots of products like pipes, electricity conductors, computers, watches and loads more. But since we only recycling a small amount, we will run of of copper mostly likely by the year 2044. Without copper people all around the world wont have phones, computers and electronic devises.
I think technology can solve some of our problems but not all. We have to use our resources more wisely like metal and water or we will run out.
SAVE THE WORLD
Technological innovation could help solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. For example technology has solved Singapore's water problem with desalination, NEWater and imported water. I think technology cant really solve problems like global warming especially if we keep using fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore doesn't have enough natural water to supply the country's needs, this is 200 cubic meters per person a year. So Singapore has solved this problem by using technology. Now they use imported water from Malaysia by pumping it across the border. More importantly they use technology to turn sewage into fresh clean water, as well as turning salt water into fresh water. Singapore has 17 water catchment areas and if you see how much clean water they have now, it is enough to supply the country. Without technology it would not be possible for Singapore to get the water it needs.
Something technology can not solve is the problem of people using fossil fuels. We have the technology to invent new ways of transportation and other sources of energy. People think the new technology is too expensive to use, so they don’t make the change. Actually we should use bikes or other things that don't use fossil fuels instead cars, buses and other outdated transportation. Another reason people don’t want to use new technology is because the companies that make money from fossil fuels attempt to prevent new technology. Technology can solve our problems of shrinking our natural resources but only if we choose to use it properly. We are not using different technology for energy and I think it is people that are causing the problem.
Although there are many ways that we can replace fossil fuels with newer Eco friendlier technology people refuse to use them. On the other hand Technology has solved Singapore’s water shortage issue by providing enough clean water in other ways. Technology can not solve all our problems because I believe people refuse to use it properly. However, if governments made changes and worked together we could make a difference.
I think technological innovation will solve our problem of shrinking natural resources because we have solved environmental problems before. When I think about the world’s problems, I would say the two hardest problems to solve are water and energy. Singapore has managed to solve it’s water problems with technology. We should be using wind, solar and nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater is the most important resource in the world. In Singapore there was a shortage of water. Singapore has a lot of rain water because it rains quite frequently. Although, this is not enough for the whole country. So the government created NEWater. NEWater uses sewage and waste water to recycle into clean drinkable water. They can do this if they process the water through three stages, then its clean. NEWater began recycling water in 1974. So now we have lots of available water. Other country's should copy Singapore's great technological ideas so they have enough fresh water.
I think in the next few years, we will run out of fossil fuels as an energy source. We should use less energy because if we run out we can never get more. Without energy people can not build houses, use transportation and electricity. Instead of using cars we can bike or just walk. Instead of fossil fuels we should use solar, wind and nuclear energy. Then we would save energy. We also make smaller changes like using energy efficient light bulbs instead of normal light bulbs. Then maybe we won’t run out of energy, but every body around the world has to make the change!
I hope that you learned a little bit about saving resources and hopefully the world will not run out of energy and clean water soon. Like I said, I think that technological innovation will solve our problems because humans are good at solving dilemmas.
WE HAVE TO SAVE THE WORLD!!!
I think technological innovation can solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. For example Singapore doesn’t have enough naturally occurring water but we solved this problem with technology. However, some problems cannot be solved using technology. All over the world glaciers are getting smaller because of global warming. As a global community we are not doing much to stop global warming however, if everybody tried we could make a difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore doesn't have enough water because every day we use 1.36 billion litres which is 496 billion litres a year. 50% of this water comes from collected rain water. Singapore gets the other half from sea water, Malaysian rivers and NEWater. NEWater turns dirty water (waste water from houses) in to clean water. Singapore has a total of five operational NEWater factories, at Bedok, Kranji, Seletar, Ulu Pandan and a newly opened plant at Changi. 30% of Singapore’s water comes from recycled NEWater. Singapore also uses desalination to turn 136, 000 cubic meters of sea water in to clean water every day. This technology is a good way to save water, more countries around the world should use this technology.
All the world glaciers are getting smaller because of global warming! Global warming is when the earth heats up (the temperature rises). It happens when greenhouse gases trap heat and light from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature. This hurts many people, animals and plants. Many plants and animals can not cope with the change and become extinct. Between 1976-1985 38% of glaciers lost more then 0.25m per year. But between 1996-2005 75% of glaciers lost more then 0.25m per year! In Europe and the Americas, glaciers now lose more than half a meter each year. If the all glaciers melt then it will be lot of water and the animals who live in Antarctic or the North Pole like penguin, polar bear may become extinct.
Sometimes technology can fix our problems but there are problems we can not solve using technology.
WE MUST SAVE THE WORLD!!!
I think technological innovation will solve our problems of shrinking natural resources because we have solved other environmental issues before. I think the 2 hardest problems to solve will be our use of energy and water as natural resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnough water is hard to manage in many parts of the world because more and more water is being polluted. In a city each person needs at least 500 cubic meters of clean water per year. Singapore had a big water problem because they polluted their reservoirs and rivers, so they did not have enough fresh water for all the people living in the city. Luckily Singapore solved this issue. Singapore has developed 4 solutions; NEWater changes old and dirty water in to new and clean water; rain water is collected and purified; imported water is pumped through a pipe from Malaysia; we take sea water and desalinate it into fresh water. These are 4 good solutions to get Singapore the water it needs. I think that using NEWater and desalination technology are good ideas for the whole world to use.
Energy is very important for us and our life styles. We mostly use oil and coal for energy which gives off lots of CO2 into the air. Solar and wind power work just as well as fossil fuels but the difference is that wind and solar power do not release CO2. When CO2 is put in to the air icecaps melt and some animals may become extinct. If we do not stop putting CO2 in to the air, Antarctica and other ice caps will melt, parts of the world will flood and millions of people will effected. To stop CO2 going into the air we should use solar and wind power, recycle metals, plastics and other things.
All together we are not using the technology that we have properly. Instead of burning coal and oil to make energy we should use solar and wind power. With our technology we can do a lot of things like find out how much CO2 has been in the air since 650 000 years ago. We have the technology to save our world so lets do our job.
Technology innovation can solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. For example Singapore doesn’t have enough natural water for the city. The icecaps have been melting and polar bears have been drowning because of global warming. We must stop these problems from happening. To do that we must use technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need water for almost everything. In Singapore, we use imported water from Malaysia. We are using technology to make waste water into clean water. We also use technology to turn salt water into sweet water. People need a minimum of 500 cubic meters of water every year. We now have enough clean water in Singapore. If we did not have the technology to turn dirty water into clean water then Singapore could not support its population.
Unfortunately we can’t use technology to stop the ice from melting in Antarctica. Global warming has already melted a lot of the worlds icecaps. The only way to stop making the icecaps melt is to stop global warming. Global warming has also caused other problems like floods and droughts. Around the world glaciers have been losing more than half a meter each year. Animals are affected by global warming and can become extinct. Instead of using fossil fuels we should use solar power to reduce global warming.
Technology has solved Singapore’s problems. Technology is very important to everyone. Without technology the world would have experienced many problems. With technology we can do a lot of good things to help us and the earth. Because of technology Singapore has enough clean water. We must use technology properly to make the world better, we are able too!
I think technological innovation can solve our problem of shrinking natural resources, but only a few countries use such technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAround the world we are not saving water as natural resources. In Kazakhstan people take liters of water, from rivers for their own farms. These rivers flow to the Aral Sea and the Aral Sea in getting smaller. Soon it will disappear because people are taking too much water from the rivers, which feed into the Aral Sea. Currently the Aral Sea is no longer a sea but is called the Aral Lake. In other countries, people pollute water and do not use it responsibly. We have the technology to save water, but we don’t use it. In Singapore we reuse water; by NEWater and desalination plants. There are 5 NEWater factories where people take dirty water and after many processes turn it into clean water. This is not the only way to reuse and save water. In Singapore we take water from the sea and desalinate it in to fresh water. I think all countries should copy Singapore and then everyone would have enough clean water. But not all counties have enough money to pay for technologies like NEWater and desalination plants.
We can use technology to save other natural resources such as fossil fuels. Many people use cars, which need oil to go. Very many people drive the cars, and that’s a big problem. Why? I explain it: if 20 people want go to the city, and 20 people use 1 bus to go there. That’s better than 20 people using 20 cars, which need 19 times more petrol (oil), which in turn leads to 19 times more oil being taken from the Earth. So if you don’t need a car go by bus, bike or walk. In big cities like New York, every day more than 8 million people travel. The New York metro (6’720 sq mi) is used by more than 19 million people every day. That’s very good for the environment, but not all cities have the money to build a metro and buses network. In Poland’s capital city, Warsaw only 300 thousand people use the metro per day. Many people drive their own cars. When people want to drive a car, they should use electric cars.
Today on Earth only few countries reuse water with technology. Many countries don’t effectively use a metro and buses network to save oil. Many people take too much water from rivers and pollute our fresh water. If we do not make changes, people will use up all of our natural resources on Earth. Instead all countries must stop wasting resources. We must start to reuse water and effective metro networks, buses or electric cars. This can help save our natural resources.
Technological innovation can solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. Singapore has used technology and found a way to solve the problem of not having enough natural water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore uses NEWater to turn dirty water (household waste water) into clean water. Singapore also imports water from countries like Malaysia and desalinates sea water. This way we don’t have to worry about not having enough water, the minimum being 500 cubic meters per person every year. I think if every country had technology like NEWater everyone in the world would be drinking clean water.
Another example is the Bollywood veggies farm in Singapore. Bollywood veggies grow organic vegetables and plants for people. The vegetables they grow are healthy and okay to eat. All the plants, trees and veggies have been grown with only natural things and they do not use pesticides. Bollywood veggie farm also have bees and butterflies to help pollinate the plants.
In many parts of the world, one river supplies water to multiple countries. Pollution, climate change and population growth affect water reserves and communities are endangered of dropping below the 500 cubic meters of water per person per year which is how much people in a city need. Climate change will shift weather patterns leading to a big change of how much rain falls and how and will also affect the amount of water flowing through streams and rivers. I do not think technology can not solve this problem.
Overall I think the world can only use technological innovation to solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. With the remaining problems I feel we need something more than technology, such as people changing the way they live. A lot of places have used technology to solve problems like Singapore’s water supply and organic bollywood veggies. But the world is practically running out of many natural resources. Communities and countries can help by recycling and using less. Governments should use solar power or wind power for renewable energy.
Technological innovation can solve most of our problems of shrinking natural resources. But there are some problems I do not think we can fix with technology. In this essay it will explain how technological innovation has helped fix resource issues such as clean water, pollution and metals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore only gets 200 cubic meters of water per person a year from rain water, but a single person needs a minimum 500 cubic meters per year. Singapore uses technology like NEWater to recycle our waste water (household sink, tap and toilet water). They also turn salt water into to fresh drinkable water using desalination plants. Singapore now has more than the needed 500 cubic meters of water per person per year because of technological innovation. Technology was able to be used to solve the problem of water in Singapore. If the rest of the world uses this technology then everyone would have clean water.
Technological innovation can only partially help us with the big problem of global warming which is produced by carbon dioxide (CO2) and other green house gasses. Technology such as hybrid cars, which do not use oil, instead they use biofeuls which do not pollute the air. Energy saving bulbs and other efficient electric appliances are examples of technologies that helps reduce pollution. Greenhouse gasses can be reduced by using public transport because if there were 20 people driving cars then that would make a lot of carbon dioxide, but if the 20 people used public transport the public transport would produce much less carbon dioxide. We should not use old technology that pollutes and instead use new technology which does not harm the environment.
For many years we have been mining metal for many uses like cover of an computer, planes, space ships and many more products. The problem is that we could run out of metal. Metal is not a renewable resource, we could melt used metal and make it to new metal. Anyways we still have lots of metal left in the ground, but soon we will run out of metal if we do not reuse metal. People throw out metal and it goes to the garbage dump. If we reuse metal then we would not run out of the resource so quickly. We should recycle our metal, then we can save this resource and keep on using it.
If we all work together and avoid all these problems we can save our earth but people will have to change the way they live.
Will technological innovation solve our problem of shrinking natural resources?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the technological innovation will solve our problems of shrinking natural resources because so far the world has solved many problems using technology. We are running out of many resources and we will need new, better technologies to solve these problems. I think the hardest problem to solve will be our reliance on fossil fuels. I think fossil fuels are hard to get because you have to dig deep into the earth and they pollute our air.
In the future I think we should develop more technological innovations so we wont waste any more resources. Singapore recycles and reuses the city’s dirty water to make clean water for drinking and other needs. Each person needs a minimum of 500 cubic meters of water each year. In Singapore a factory called NEWater cleans most of Singapore`s water. This is how Singapore uses technological innovation to solve it’s water shortage problem. Since a person needs 500 cubic meters of water Singapore also has 3 other water sources. The first one is imported water from Malaysia. The seconds one is desalinated water from the ocean and the sea and the last one is rain water. I think that every country in the world should use Singapore`s technology to supply water to people.
Some people believe that all resources are good but some resources are really bad like fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are bad because they cause global warming and if global warming continues many people might die because we wont have enough food to live and extreme weather conditions. I think that governments should make people more aware of global warming and what we can do to stop it.
Everyday we use resources that are good and bad. I think that we have to develop more technological innovations for the future because we still have to stop global warming. We can start by not using the resources that pollute our earth.
Will technological innovation solve our problem of shrinking natural resources ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnological innovation can solve most of our problems of shrinking natural resources. I also think there are some problems that technology can not solve. In this essay I will talk about CO2, Singapore's water supply and metals. I will discuss how we can recycle metals and how Singapore use technology to solve its problems and how we can stop CO2 pollution.
Singapore only gets 200 cubic meters of water per person every year from its reservoirs, this is not enough of water. Firstly Singapore has pipes coming from Malaysia, the pipes import water from Malaysian rivers and lakes. Singapore also uses sea water through desalination into fresh water. Lastly, they use NEWater factories where waste water from sink, shower and sewage water is recycled. These are the four main water supplies that Singapore uses and because of technology we were able to have enough water. If the rest of the world copied Singapore they could save lots of water and also have clean water for everyone.
We have technology to stop or reduce CO2 like energy efficient light-bulbs or hybrid cars that don’t use to much energy and biofuel. The problem is that lots of people do not choose to change how they live. There are many ways we can save energy, if enough people use renewable energy and resources we can stop CO2 and even global warming. We need to start using public transport so there are fewer cars and it will also help solve the carbon dioxide problem. If we do not stop global warming it will be really bad and ice caps will melt and the sea levels will get higher. I think new clean technologies can help us fix the problem.
For centuries years we have been digging metals out of the ground we use them in many products. The earth is running out of certain metals and soon we will have dug up most of of our reserves. If we don't start to recycle, soon we will begin to run out. The main problem is that people do not make an effort to recycle and instead throw metal products away. Metal is really important because we use it for almost everything. So if people recycle metal we will have more to use.
Will technological innovation solve our problem of shrinking natural resources ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnological innovation can solve most of our problems of shrinking natural resources. I also think there are some problems that technology can not solve. In this essay I will talk about CO2, Singapore's water supply and metals. I will discuss how we can recycle metals and how Singapore use technology to solve its problems and how we can stop CO2 pollution.
Singapore only gets 200 cubic meters of water per person every year from its reservoirs, this is not enough of water. Firstly Singapore has pipes coming from Malaysia, the pipes import water from Malaysian rivers and lakes. Singapore also uses sea water through desalination into fresh water. Lastly, they use NEWater factories where waste water from sink, shower and sewage water is recycled. These are the four main water supplies that Singapore uses and because of technology we were able to have enough water. If the rest of the world copied Singapore they could save lots of water and also have clean water for everyone.
We have technology to stop or reduce CO2 like energy efficient light-bulbs or hybrid cars that don’t use to much energy and biofuel. The problem is that lots of people do not choose to change how they live. There are many ways we can save energy, if enough people use renewable energy and resources we can stop CO2 and even global warming. We need to start using public transport so there are fewer cars and it will also help solve the carbon dioxide problem. If we do not stop global warming it will be really bad and ice caps will melt and the sea levels will get higher. I think new clean technologies can help us fix the problem.
For centuries years we have been digging metals out of the ground we use them in many products. The earth is running out of certain metals and soon we will have dug up most of of our reserves. If we don't start to recycle, soon we will begin to run out. The main problem is that people do not make an effort to recycle and instead throw metal products away. Metal is really important because we use it for almost everything. So if people recycle metal we will have more to use.
Will technological innovation solve our problems of shrinking natural resources?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that technological innovations will solve our problems because we have solved environmental problems before. We should start using environmentally friendly technology instead of fossil fuels which pollute the environment. There are many problems facing our world such as our reliance on fossil fuels to Singapore’s fresh water supply.
We humans have the right technology to reduce many problems like the water crisis. There are many ways people can use technology to help the environment, in Singapore they have solved their water shortage problem. Singapore only gets 200 cubic metres of rain water a year per person but in a city every person needs at least 500 cubic metres a year. Singapore’s NEWater plant has the the technology to clean dirty water from houses like sink water and recycle it into clean fresh water. At NEWater water molecules go through membranes which are small holed strings which bacteria cannot pass through. Then the water molecules go through reverse osmosis where small chemicals like dissolved soap cannot pass. After this the water is clean enough to drink but just to be sure they put the water under an ultra-violet light to kill any bad substances that could have somehow remained. Singapore also use desalination plants which take the salt out of the sea water and makes it clean. About half of the water in Singapore comes from rain and the other half comes from the other sources that I mentioned. I think that other countries should use Singapore as an example to stop the water crisis and have a good amount of water for generations to come.
Although natural resources are good some are terrible and cause global warming like fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are what most electric items rely on and most forms of transport also use fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not good because they are the cause of global warming and if we do not reduce our use of fossil fuels the world’s climate will drastically change for the worse. We can stop polluting the world with fossil fuels and use other things like solar, wind and tidal energy for our future.
I think that people can use new technology because if we become environmentally friendly we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to less than it was in 1970. It is up to humans to start using environmentally friendly technology before global warming becomes to serious.
We can stop global warming, we just have to make the effort.
How Much Is Left?- Enrico
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill technological innovation solve our problems of shrinking natural resources?-
Technology innovation can solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. In Singapore they use technology to produce more clean water for people to drink. With oil, we do not have the technology yet to reuse it or completely replace it and we will run out of it in the future.
Water is one of the most important resource humans use. Using technology Singapore can get more water for people to use. Singapore has this thing called NEWater. They get some dirty water such as toilet water, sewage water, sink water and even salt water, then change it to very clean water for people to drink. Also Singapore has this reservoir where they store all this water for people to drink. Singapore also has some pipes connecting water from Malaysia's rivers to Singapore. This is how Singapore gains more water using technology.
There are allot of problems with oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource, which we will run out of. We do not have the technology to replace oil yet so it is a very big problem. Oil is a fossil fuel made from once living things. Fossil fuels are made, when living things die then dirt and sand covers it up and it gets squashed and more dirt and sand covers it up then it gets squashed some more then eventually it will become oil. This takes time, like maybe a million years. People can only reach oil with a pump. People need to dig a deep deep hole and put the pump there. And because we are running out of oil under the land people are also putting pumps in the sea. And that's why there was an oil spill from the sea in Mexico. Also we will run out of oil in some time and that will have a big affect on our transportation.
So that is how Technology innovation can solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. These new technologies will help us save our resources and use them again and again. We should keep on discovering new ways to reuse the non-reusable resources so we can save the environment!
Technological innovation can solve some of our problems of shrinking natural resources. Singapore already knows how to solve the problem about not having enough water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NEWater doesn’t put any bacteria and germs in the water we will drink in. We usually get our water from the sea and take the salt out of the water and after we can get the pure water and then drink it. We also get water from Malaysia (500 cubic metres per person every year).
The Bollywood veggies organic farm uses a lot of natural fertilizers of dead leaves and puts them in a bunch of trees and leaves. Bollywood veggies is an organic farm, it has a lot of bees and insects, birds and a lot of ants and a lot of mosquito's too. Since the world is running out of coal, they thought maybe about using the sugar cane leaf for bio fuel. The cane leaf is really tall. The banana tree is tall. If the banana flower is pointing down that means that the banana is eatable and if the flower is pointing up that means it is not eatable.
This example is going to be talking about not to waste and recycle every time you throw your things away. 8% of food is wasted. Many people are supposed to recycle but they still don’t listen or they don’t pay attention.
When we went to NEWater I learned a lot when they were showing us on the TV some videos of how they make the water clean and showing us the NEWater floor with water underneath the glass. The thing that I liked about it was when we went and see the factory of NEWater. We visited a lot of flowers and plants at the Bollywood veggie farm. One flower we saw was good to eat. There were these chillies that they cooked in their restaurant which was really spicy.
Technological innovation can solve some of our problems of the shrinking natural resources. Singapore has used technology to solve the problem of not enough water. Singapore is still working on recycling metal and recycling food waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore uses NEWater which turns old water into clean water. They also turn salt water into clean water, use rain water for drinking water and pipe water from Malaysia. Singapore has used technology to make sure that we have enough water.
What has happened is that we have produced two other types of electricity which is made from wind power or solar power. Wind power works better than solar power because is easier to use.
Singapore is still not environmentally perfect because they do not recycle metal. Metal is nonrenewable if we don't recycle but if we recycle metal it will be renewable and save the environment. Only 23% of metal is recycled and the rest of it is dumped.
Singapore is also not that good at recycling food waste. Only 3% of food waste in Singapore is recycled. If you can’t recycle food, you can put in the fridge and if it doesn't go out of date you can eat the food.
If the whole world used Singapore's technology there is a bigger chance for the world to solve the problem of shrinking natural resources.
Will technological innovation solve our problems of shrinking natural resources?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnological innovation can solve our problem of shrinking natural resources but not all countries have this technology. That's why richer countries (USA UK) should help the other poorer countries develop and give them the technologies (wind, solar and water power) so the world can be a cleaner, greener place.
Singapore only has 200 cubic meters of water per person per year from rain fall. But with technology they found 2 ways to get water and now they are well above the minimum 500 cubic meters of water per person per year. Those 2 new ways to get water are desalinated water (water from the sea) and Newater. Newater takes waste water from houses and factories and turns it into clean drinking water. They then clean it and send it to industrial factories. Although Newater is cleaner than most water sources in Singapore it only supplies 3% of the water for households, most of the NEWater goes to factories.They have 3 stages to clean the water. Newater began recycling water in 1974. So now Singapore has lots of available water. Other countries should copy Singapore's great ideas so they have enough fresh water for everyone to drink.
I think in the next few years our supply of fossil fuels will run out and we wont be able to use transportation, electronics and lots of other things. That will be very bad. We will not have that much food because farmers wont be able to use harvesters to harvest the food quicker and planes to spread fertilizers and pesticides. That will cause BIG problems around the world. We can stop this quite easily by recycling. Also by switching of lights when not in the room or increasing the temperature of aircon. You can also save electricity by buying energy saving light bulbs.
In my opinion technology can save us but we have to start doing it now, not in another 5 years or so.
I agree with you, when you say we have solved many problems in the world and we will find new technologies before we run out of fossil fuels. From my point of view the more interesting focus is, how do we get along with each other on that path: From an attitute like "fossil fuels are always there and pollution does no matter" to the awareness that fossil fuels are rare and there is no easy alternative: All alternatives have disadvantages, all alternatives will increase prices, decrease welfare and increase poverty. How do we reach global agreements in our global world? How can we manage a appropriate allocation of energy in the world to avoid food fights? From my perspective there are two ways: One is suffering - when people suffer they slowly start to change their mind. The other one is awareness and an inspiring common goal. So, let's get started!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that technological innovation can solve some of our problems. Take Singapore as an example, they have solved one of their resource problems by using technology. With the problem of global warming, for me there are two solutions we can adopt to help prevent it. One of them is recycling and to reduce waste. The other is to spend enough time on inventing a fusion reactor so there will never be any pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore does not get enough rainwater to support its population. Singapore has fixed that problem with technology which is very good. NEWater is one of the organisations helping to provide fresh water to Singapore. They take waste water and recycle it using a 5 step program. Marina barrage also helps with that small problem because it takes the rain water and stores it. It has nine gates in case of floods. If it is flooding they open two of the nine gates so that water can escape into the ocean.
Three quarters of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a big problem because you have to burn the oil or coal, producing carbon which pollutes our atmosphere and in turn causes global warming. Fossil fuels are basically lots of dead animals and plants that have been compressed over millions of years, and is a non-renewable resource. I think the answer to this problem is fusion energy.
Fusion power is when you take two atoms and sort of morph them together to make a new atom. Fusion is a clean form of energy where more energy is produced than what is used to create the initial reaction. We know about fusion energy because it occurs inside our sun. Humans are trying to figure out a way to efficiently create fusion energy. Scientists have created fusion reactions but have only ever managed to get 65% of the energy initially used out of the reaction. So the puzzle is not yet complete but I think fusion can solve the problem of global warming. So I think we should invest more money and people to make fusion work. It would be able to power the whole earth. It will pretty much kill global warming.
I think that technological innovation can solve some of our problems. Take Singapore as an example, they have solved one of their resource problems by using technology. With the problem of global warming, for me there are two solutions we can adopt to help prevent it. One of them is recycling and to reduce waste. The other is to spend enough time on inventing a fusion reactor so there will never be any pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore does not get enough rainwater to support its population. Singapore has fixed that problem with technology which is very good. NEWater is one of the organisations helping to provide fresh water to Singapore. They take waste water and recycle it using a 5 step program. Marina barrage also helps with that small problem because it takes the rain water and stores it. It has nine gates in case of floods. If it is flooding they open two of the nine gates so that water can escape into the ocean.
Three quarters of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a big problem because you have to burn the oil or coal, producing carbon which pollutes our atmosphere and in turn causes global warming. Fossil fuels are basically lots of dead animals and plants that have been compressed over millions of years, and is a non-renewable resource. I think the answer to this problem is fusion energy.
Fusion power is when you take two atoms and sort of morph them together to make a new atom. Fusion is a clean form of energy where more energy is produced than what is used to create the initial reaction. We know about fusion energy because it occurs inside our sun. Humans are trying to figure out a way to efficiently create fusion energy. Scientists have created fusion reactions but have only ever managed to get 65% of the energy initially used out of the reaction. So the puzzle is not yet complete but I think fusion can solve the problem of global warming. So I think we should invest more money and people to make fusion work. It would be able to power the whole earth. It will pretty much kill global warming.
I think that technological innovation can solve some of our problems. Take Singapore as an example, they have solved one of their resource problems by using technology. With the problem of global warming, for me there are two solutions we can adopt to help prevent it. One of them is recycling and to reduce waste. The other is to spend enough time on inventing a fusion reactor so there will never be any pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSingapore does not get enough rainwater to support its population. Singapore has fixed that problem with technology which is very good. NEWater is one of the organisations helping to provide fresh water to Singapore. They take waste water and recycle it using a 5 step program. Marina barrage also helps with that small problem because it takes the rain water and stores it. It has nine gates in case of floods. If it is flooding they open two of the nine gates so that water can escape into the ocean.
Three quarters of the worlds energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a big problem because you have to burn the oil or coal, producing carbon which pollutes our atmosphere and in turn causes global warming. Fossil fuels are basically lots of dead animals and plants that have been compressed over millions of years, and is a non-renewable resource. I think the answer to this problem is fusion energy.
Fusion power is when you take two atoms and sort of morph them together to make a new atom. Fusion is a clean form of energy where more energy is produced than what is used to create the initial reaction. We know about fusion energy because it occurs inside our sun. Humans are trying to figure out a way to efficiently create fusion energy. Scientists have created fusion reactions but have only ever managed to get 65% of the energy initially used out of the reaction. So the puzzle is not yet complete but I think fusion can solve the problem of global warming. So I think we should invest more money and people to make fusion work. It would be able to power the whole earth. It will pretty much kill global warming.
that is not true because its 2030 now
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am from the future and we use cows as fuel and eat fossil fuels for brakefast. every thing will be fine idiots
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaliens come to earth in the year 2016 and teach us how to speak cligon in return for cats. then prove that global warming is a lie and bring a pill that makes us live for ever!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi can traval in time because i am the doctor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi hate people who post stupid lies on the internet
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the mathematically rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics developed by Paul Dirac[8] and John von Neumann,[9] the possible states of a quantum mechanical system are represented by unit vectors (called "state vectors"). Formally, these reside in a complex separable Hilbert space (variously called the "state space" or the "associated Hilbert space" of the system) well defined up to a complex number of norm 1 (the phase factor). In other words, the possible states are points in the projective space of a Hilbert space, usually called the complex projective space
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso ه شة شى شمهثى
i lick dick
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgo to my website www.meatspin.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the resources for the technology will run out soon if we go on like this. Something must happen soon, even though the answer lies right in our hands.If we want to expand our technology we have to watch out for our future if we don't help now.The first step is actually the hardest, we have to convince earths population to do this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a short film than a minute about this issue. it raises the same question. How much is left?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxxd0XR4S3g
This is a short film than a minute about this issue. it raises the same question. How much is left?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxxd0XR4S3g
I agree that we must concentrate on solar and wind energy. If we can put a man on the moon then we can make this energy affordable to everyone and we can start to work on poverty issues after that. Instead of focusing on maximizing profits and personal wealth, we should go back to the basic, which is "keep it simple "and focus on family values and quality time with them. Greed and power need boundaries so that the rich can't have an advantage over others, especially if it effects other peoples lives. Neoliberalism must be stopped!It only creates destruction to humans and Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem reasonable. Even with the creation of green energy, we are still doing nothing but converting elements from one state to another. We haven't created or destroyed anything. We don't know how to yet. Everything that has ever been here(on earth) is still here. Everything that will ever be here, is here right now. I recently met people who believe that "oil" as we know it, is continuously created by the earth.(animals and pants have been and are still dying. It's hard to accept, but when any animal exceeds the capacity of it's range, we know what happens. We follow that rule too. However we can do something about that. FARMING.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You seem reasonable. Even with the creation of green energy, we are still doing nothing but converting elements from one state to another."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the kind words, but correction is in order. Those statements are true only for a small select few renewables, specifically biofuel, nuclear and hydrogen or other 'energy storage devices'. Most others convert 'energy', not 'elements', from one form to another. hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, etc do not use chemical energy, so no elements are converted.
"We haven't created or destroyed anything."
-actually, we have. converting chemical energy into another form of energy inherently implies you are breaking a molecule apart, thus the molecule is destroyed and often new molecules are formed... you are correct that the actual elements aren't destroyed unless your referring to nuclear, but that is basic chemistry and is an irrelevant statement when in comes to these arguments. I mean, sure, if we get a terrible solar flare that heats earths atmosphere to 2000 deg, all oxygen will burn. Sure, the elements are still there, but now life has no way to burn oxygen to keep us alive. That's a very simple example, but the real chemistry of say a coal site is much more complex. There your taking complex organic molecules and burning them in a fairly unpredictable manor. The result is a large variety of complex organic molecules of smaller size, but now in gaseous form... i.e. carcinogenic gases. Lungs will generally absorb any non-inert gas you put into them, and from there its straight to the blood stream... eating those carcinogens is not as damaging because they are typical broken down further in the stomach and the stomach is less efficient. That's one of the reasons cigarettes are so much more dangerous than chewing tabaco.
"We don't know how to yet."
-nuclear process create and destroy elements, which is a far more pure, predictable, clean and efficient way to produce energy than chemically. We understand how to do this, and we do do it daily.
"The rest of what you said..."
-Right, but in what form? Chemistry is not as simple as you imply and some forms are deadly. true, oil is always produced, but not nearly as fast as we use it. It took 4 billion years to produce the oil the earth has, and we are already running low after a mere 100 years. The US is already fully developed when it comes to farming, just look at google maps at, say, Minnesota. We have the capacity to further our reach through intelligence, but at what cost? Nature, our health, our planet.. not worth it.
That is pure insanity. New species evolve VERY slowly. And new species that may have been added are rare ones that we manage to find before we wipe them out. There's no telling how many that are destroyed before we manage to find and "add" them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's like saying we need to factor in how much oil has been created in the last 100 years.
An ever expanding population is not going to be supported much long by dwindling water sources. Increased temperatures has been found to increase to frequency and virulence of fungal and bacterial infections.
I hope you have kids (I don't) who will get to deal with your type of attitude. You are the worst kind of idiot. With so many people like you around, my only hope now is that, in our quest to wipe out the planet for our own selfish desires, that we leave enough, after we're gone, for the planet to recover and evolve a species that is not so blind, arrogant, and stupid.
I feel you brother, some people will only believe what they want to believe, oldest truth in the book. And i agree, if we do not recognize our necessary connection to the natural biosphere and truely respect it, we don't deserve to be a part of it... But there is, always, hope. Though the hope is of statistical improbability at this point and happens to be in the hand of those profiting the most from fossil fuels... There will come a day when no deniers are left and we are united in the effort... It just might be too late, when the cancer rate is 50% and people in LA are wearing gas mask for a stroll in the park. Wake up people, open your eyes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I've been debating this subject for decades now and any deniers left at this point are either paid deniers or people who are uneducated or untrusting of the evidence. The uneducated either don't understand the basics of our place in the food chain or don't care, the ones untrusting of the evidence fail numerous times to disprove the evidence, all while the paid deniers are spewing propaganda... Does kind of make me ashamed for my species, there are zero scientific deniers on which to stage a debate. But there is, always, hope.
I feel you brother, some people will only believe what they want to believe, oldest truth in the book. And i agree, if we do not recognize our necessary connection to the natural biosphere and truely respect it, we don't deserve to be a part of it... But there is, always, hope. Though the hope is of statistical improbability at this point and happens to be in the hand of those profiting the most from fossil fuels... There will come a day when no deniers are left and we are united in the effort... It just might be too late, when the cancer rate is 50% and people in LA are wearing gas mask for a stroll in the park. Wake up people, open your eyes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I've been debating this subject for decades now and any deniers left at this point are either paid deniers or people who are uneducated or untrusting of the evidence. The uneducated either don't understand the basics of our place in the food chain or don't care, the ones untrusting of the evidence fail numerous times to disprove the evidence, all while the paid deniers are spewing propaganda... Does kind of make me ashamed for my species, there are zero scientific deniers on which to stage a debate. But there is, always, hope.
Too bad we can't enlist Madison Avenue to sell us on "non-consumption" with the same level of genius and commitment to results that they sold us on over-consumption, eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoney talks ... everything else walks.
their has nothing too much left of natural minerals and resources that is left in the planet earth. in fact, some countries are already quarreling or start to fight in reclaiming some of their lands that they used to owned centuries ago through history. all i can say is that we should not exploit too much and leave something behind lots of reserves for for the next or future generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://buysoundcloud.com/">get plays on soundcloud</a>