How to help the world?

AcidHell2 said:
Rubbish, the worlds not over populated and with technology can sustain far more.
Click to expand...

Estimates vary, but the earth is reckoned to be able to sustainably support a human population of about 1 billion. It can carry 6 billion in the short term due to our ability to deplete the earths non-renewable natural resources at the rate we are doing, but that is definitely not sustainable. As for technology, forget it. Virtually all technology is built upon the rapid consumption of (you guessed it) non-renewable natural resources.

AcidHell2 said:
As for Ethiopia. in many cases it's the other way round, increase in population is need to create the wealth to buy the technology and education for intense farming.
Click to expand...

Listen to what you are saying...they need to increase the population to consume more natural resources to generate more wealth to buy more technology in order to grow more food (intensive is not sustainable) to feed the increased population which will consume more resources and so on until they can finally consume as much as we do in the west. Great!
 
bottletop said:
Estimates vary, but the earth is reckoned to be able to sustainably support a human population of about 1 billion. It can carry 6 billion in the short term due to our ability to deplete the earths non-renewable natural resources at the rate we are doing, but that is definitely not sustainable. As for technology, forget it. Virtually all technology is built upon the rapid consumption of (you guessed it) non-renewable natural resources.
Click to expand...

technology is not reliant on non renewable energy. It's simply the easiest and cheapest in the current economy.
we can build up as well as down. Farms can now be built in sky scrapers, that priduce more meat and veg due to the ability to control the climate, desalination creats clean water.

The sun gives us more than enough energy. If we decided to collect. Thats forgetting nuclear, wind, tidal, geothermal and ever increasing effeciency in all technology.




bottletop said:
Listen to what you are saying...they need to increase the population to consume more natural resources to generate more wealth to buy more technology in order to grow more food (intensive is not sustainable) to feed the increased population which will consume more resources and so on until they can finally consume as much as we do in the west. Great!
Click to expand...

It might sound stupid, but it's true. these countrys can either sustain themselves in a hunter gather fashion, very low population. Or a very high population. That creates the wealth and infrastructure needed. It's the middle ground that causes the problem.
 
bottletop said:
I'm not sure having the entire population of europe living in a desert country like Ethiopia is something we want to encourgae or pay for.
Click to expand...

Uhh...what? I'm assuming you've never been to Ethiopia. Whilst desertification is a large problem on the Eastern border, the rest country is very fertile, with large swathes of grassland and forest. Look it up on Google Earth if you don't believe me. What they need is good governance and open trade with the west, not some crazy genocide.

For the OP: I suggest educating yourself about about the world so that you can make an informed decision about how you want to help. If you're looking to just make a hand-out, I recommend the Wikimedia foundation (Wikipedia et al.). Freedom of knowledge is a commendable goal in my opinion.
 
AcidHell2 said:
technology is not reliant on non renewable energy. It's simply the easiest and cheapest in the current economy.
we can build up as well as down. Farms can now be built in sky scrapers, that priduce more meat and veg due to the ability to control the climate, desalination creats clean water.

The sun gives us more than enough energy. If we decided to collect. Thats forgetting nuclear, wind, tidal, geothermal and ever increasing effeciency in all technology.
Click to expand...

All our technological developments so far are entirely dependent on non-renewables for the simple reason that no other energy source can provide a similar quantity of energy or energy density to compete with it, with the possible exception of nuclear, the development of which was only possible because we had non-renewable resources. Can you imagine how many wind, tide, and geothermal energy sources would be required to construct 50 nuclear power stations and all ancillary factories, manufacturing capabilities, mines and the transportation involved in the construction of those reactors? Everything from the smallest nut and bolt to the uranium rods to the reactor buildings themselves....all built with renewable sources? It would never have happened.

Building farms in skyscrapers? Very energy inefficient in their construction and running costs...if at all possible. Dealination is also very energy intensive. Perhaps the most efficient collector of sunlight this planet has are plants. We could certainly not run our modern lifestyles on current plants alone, which is why we are having to dig up "solar" energy stored by plants hundreds of millions of years ago and burn it in a one-time bonanza as oil

AcidHell2 said:
It might sound stupid, but it's true. these countrys can either sustain themselves in a hunter gather fashion, very low population. Or a very high population. That creates the wealth and infrastructure needed. It's the middle ground that causes the problem.
Click to expand...

But the population of Ethiopia is already well in excess of the UK and yet they are no where near sustainability yes? The UK had a much lower population when we embarked on rapid develpment during the industrial revolution, and that was only possible because we were able to exploit an energy rich non-renewable resource (coal). Population growth lags available energy supplies - you find the energy, exploit it to grow more food and technology which then in turn allows the population to increase. You do not have a exponential explosion in population without the available energy source. Ethiopia has managed population growth so far because of imported food and technology and depletion of their limited natural resources. But that has not resulted in an increase in the quality of life for the population, only an increase in numbers.
 
Seft said:
Uhh...what? I'm assuming you've never been to Ethiopia. Whilst desertification is a large problem on the Eastern border, the rest country is very fertile, with large swathes of grassland and forest. Look it up on Google Earth if you don't believe me. What they need is good governance and open trade with the west, not some crazy genocide.

For the OP: I suggest educating yourself about about the world so that you can make an informed decision about how you want to help. If you're looking to just make a hand-out, I recommend the Wikimedia foundation (Wikipedia et al.). Freedom of knowledge is a commendable goal in my opinion.
Click to expand...

from the link I gave:

The environment continues to deteriorate," he said. "Not only in the vulnerable areas of the highlands of northern Ethiopia but even in the south and southwest of the country, which are considered the breadbasket of the country. A senior government official said because of population pressure, they are obliged to apportion land, not in hectares, but in square meters. He said, and I quote, the situation is 'dramatic,' end quote."

I would suggest that says that fertile land is at a bit of a premium yes? It had better be pretty fertile if they are only getting a few square metres each!
 
I don't like giving my cash to charities for the simple fact i don't know where it all goes and i doubt most of them even see half of what is donated.

I like giving blood and always get sent a letter whenever the blood donor van comes to town. And you know that its going to be used by someone who is in need of it be it an adult or child.
 
shadow4509 said:
I don't like giving my cash to charities for the simple fact i don't know where it all goes and i doubt most of them even see half of what is donated.

I like giving blood and always get sent a letter whenever the blood donor van comes to town. And you know that its going to be used by someone who is in need of it be it an adult or child.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an open-and-shut case I'm afraid :)

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9941992
 
It's common knowledge that money = power.
To change anything of a decent scale, you need power therefore money is required before you can do anything.

The best you can do is give a money to charity every month like I do.
Or do some unpaid charity work.
 
how do you know that the charity is doing some good?
Who regulates the charities?
Do they send you some photographs of X person/family in ethiopa doing better? (e.g. better health and education)

Do they organise trips for you to go over and see for yourself what good they are doing with your money?
 
bottletop said:
snip.
Click to expand...
well your totally wrong on fuel. The severn barrage would supply 10% of uk needs on it's own. There are many forms of energy we can use. It's just oils cheaper. Thats the only thing holding us back.

It's about population density, England is tiny so needs less people.
 
AcidHell2 said:
well your totally wrong on fuel. The severn barrage would supply 10% of uk needs on it's own. There are many forms of energy we can use. It's just oils cheaper. Thats the only thing holding us back.

It's about population density, England is tiny so needs less people.
Click to expand...

Wrong again I'm afraid. The severn barrage (if it's ever built) would supply 6% of our electricity needs http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4927744.stm

The only data I have is for 2001 and that indicates that electricity only comprises 8% of our primary energy use. The rest being natural gas (40%) coal (17%) and petroleum (32%)

So the severn barrage would actually supply 6% of 8% of our total usage, which is just under 0.5% of our total energy use - we'd need 200 of them to replace all our fossil fuels.

Taking our petroleum usage of 32% of the total energy we use: 95% of the petroleum we use is used in transportation. To convert from petrol vehicles to electric vehicles for example would require 4 times (32/8) as many power stations as we currently have. We currently have 24 nuclear power stations which produce 20% of our electricity. So 120 would be needed to supply all our electricity, therefore 480 would replace 95% of our petrolem.

There are only 439 nuclear power stations currently in the world, and we form 1% of the worlds population, so the world would need rougly 100x more nuclear power stations than are currently in the world just to replace the petrol at the rate we currently use in vehicles. Uranium usage is 66000 tones per year from a total of 4.7 million tons, or approxiamtely 78 years supply at current usage. The world moving to electric vehicles would therefore deplete the worlds known uranium resources in just 9 months. Figures are rough but in the correct ball park.

There are no energy sources that can supply the amount of energy we currently obtain from petroleum, let alone once you include gas and coal.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one ;)
 
Petroleum, can be replaced. The most promising is nano metal particles. That are 100% recyclable. Only modification is to the exhaust system to capture them, so they can be re-used.

Stop scaremongering. There's plenty of fuel alternatives that can and will be used.

What is the muhabee desert.

24hours light would supply the total energy needs of the world for 1 year?

Your the same as ever other scaremongering. you forget we are resourceful and inventive. Most of the technology we need is already invented. It's just not economical at the moment.

You haven't even taken into account using heat transfer units and wind turbines on every new house and grants to retro fit old houses.

believe me power is not a problem.

In the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.

We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.

Most people in Britain think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology.

Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It has been scientifically proven that those who volunteer live longer and happier lives, so get out there. I helped at a local arts centre and loved it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom