We should not gather it all up when nature is doing it for us for free. She's been doing exactly that for millions of years. All that sun gathered up for photosynthesis, converted to protein steaks so we can sit around, burp, fart, fuck, craft, laugh, dance, science, innovate, and generally enjoy a garden Eden paradise. We have the technology now to make everyone live like kings, without all the negatives of tooth and claw that our forefathers had to deal with. The problem is, too many of us. That's on us. Everything we want is there for the asking. We are not as bright as we think we are when we think that we must continue to do what got us where we are because it worked so far. Edjumacations is what we need. Fewer, smarter, wiser people. — James Riley

Over-population is not a thing. The misapplication of technology is a thing. If we applied the right technologies the world could easily sustain 8 billion people. We are 8 billion people. Thus, we need to apply the technologies necessary to sustain such numbers. Simple logic!

UN mid range projections suggest global population will level out at around 10-12 bn people by the end of the century; and those numbers can be sustained if we harness massive clean energy from magma - to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc. We should do that. The alternatives are too terrible to contemplate.

Over-population is not a thing. The misapplication of technology is a thing. If we applied the right technologies the world could easily sustain 8 billion people. We are 8 billion people. Thus, we need to apply the technologies necessary to sustain such numbers. Simple logic! — counterpunch

You are wrong. Over-population is a thing. We are already (and have been for a long, long time) way past sustainability. Simple logic: We can no longer sustain hunting or gathering. We can no longer go down to the local river and drink long and deep. We can no longer trek for miles across untracked wilderness without trespass. We can no longer breath pure air.

We have to pay for everything. The world has been clear-cut, strip-mined, subdivided, paved, fenced, dammed, domesticated and lit up like a god dam Christmas tree so most people have never seen the stars at night.

I remember about forty years ago some idiot said the entire population of the world would fit in the state of Texas at a population density of New York City. He said, ergo, we had plenty of room left. But people like this fail to account for the giant sucking sound of resources being ripped from the rest of the planet into Texas just to sustain that throbbing pustule; not to mention the untold waste generated therefrom. People like this think food comes from the grocery store and heat comes from the radiator.

These are the same idiots who drive for miles down roads lined with trees and think they see a forest, so all must be well. These people have never heard of "view sheds." When they drive through Iowa, or fly over the fly-over country, they see vast farm fields and think they are looking at wilderness because they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. They see a deer in somebody's yard and consider it wildlife. They've never seen a wolf, except on T.V. They don't know what diversity is.

People are so fucked up they actually think sustainability is the ability to sustain people. What an ignorant, arrogant, simple definition of sustainability. Sustainability has left the building. The base line was what we started with, not what have left. If we want sustainability then we can't squeeze more out the Earth for people; rather, we have to get rid of people and re-wild the Earth.

Simple logic. As a little boy I remember the Fish and Game guy coming to our school and explaining the food pyramid, apex predators, and how all that worked. And how to fuck it up. We now have an upside down pyramid with seven billion apex predators at the top, trying to figure out how to drain what's under them so they can put even more up there. We should put the pyramid back right side up and have about 500k to 1m people on the planet at the top, at our current rate of individual first world consumption. The planet *might* be able to sustain that.

You are wrong. Over-population is a thing. — James Riley

No, it's really not a thing. Resources are ultimately a function of the energy available to create them. It's morally repugnant to consider people surplus; particularly given that, scientifically and technologically speaking, no-one need have a carbon footprint. Given a scientifically advised application of technology, starting with magma energy technology, to power carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling, 10bn people can live well, and sustainably.

No, it's really not a thing. It's morally repugnant to consider people surplus; particularly given that, scientifically and technologically speaking, no-one need have a carbon footprint. Given a scientifically advised application of technology, starting with magma energy technology, to power carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling, 10bn people can live well, and sustainably. — counterpunch

Over population is a real and horrible thing. It is morally repugnant and patently arrogant to think otherwise. All the clap-trap about what could be, but is not, is the proof of it. It's just more humanity spouting shit into the wind as part of an open conspiracy against the Earth and ourselves. We should really put up or shut up. Don't talk. Make it work, now.

"anyway i think an apt way to think about climate change is that there are 'no non-radical futures.' either we change everything or the earth changes everything for us. anyone selling you 'realistic' incremental change is performing the work of charlatans and denialists." roshan

As for me, what I want is already gone because our population is not and has not been sustainable. Over population and surplus people are the reason.

:100: A rant to be sure, but the best kind!

I want to commend you for an excellent post, and very informative. Nice to have someone who knows what they're talking about. Good luck getting through to the buffoon, but thank you for the reasoned responses for the rest of us.

Are you a geologist?

I can't explain why again, because I tried twice. Then again, they say third time's a charm. — counterpunch

Oh good, the crackpot is explaining something:

If you still don't get it, there's no need to contradict me again. — counterpunch

lol. Yes, because of the two of you, it's definitely he who "doesn't get it."

Over population is a real and horrible thing. — James Riley

And getting worse. But really because of the greed of only a few countries. Otherwise we could sustain our population for a while.

Still, to outright say "it's not a thing" is just more buffoonery. Much like the super-discovery of magma energy by an internet troll.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

Cool, but if you break it down by country, you can see fertility rate vs CO2 footprint.

https://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-lithium

Cool, but if you break it down by country, you can see fertility rate vs CO2 footprint. — frank

Completely irrelevant. I was discussing overpopulation, not climate change.

And getting worse. But really because of the greed of only a few countries. Otherwise we could sustain our population for a while.

Still, to outright say "it's not a thing" is just more buffoonery. Much like the super-discovery of magma energy by an internet troll. — Xtrix

Just thought you might be interested.

Cool, but if you break it down by country, you can see fertility rate vs CO2 footprint.

https://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-lithium — frank

I'm seeing an article on bipolar disorder. Is my brain falling apart?

The geothermal claims were vague. References to magma are confusing with respect to geothermal energy. I'll remind everyone of the operating temperatures of drilling equipment and what happens when you open up a hole to something under tremendous pressure.

We are 8 billion people. Thus, we need to apply the technologies necessary to sustain such numbers. Simple logic!

I don’t want to be part of a pile on, only to point out the flaw in this argument( although James Riley has already laid out the reality).

What do those 8 billion people do when the sea level has risen by 30 metres, do they all move uphill a little?
And what about the people already inhabiting the higher land, do they have a say. I would hazard a guess that at least 2-3billion live below 30m altitude, many of the worlds largest cities are below this level and a lot of fertile farmland would be lost.

Not to mention societal collapse and despotic rule, which hasn’t been mentioned yet. Our world would soon become dystopian, making the degrees of cooperation required for your scenario to work, impossible.

I’ll leave it there, for now.

Over population is a real and horrible thing. It is morally repugnant and patently arrogant to think otherwise. All the clap-trap about what could be, but is not, is the proof of it. — James Riley

You want to murder most of the population of earth and you call me unrealistic because I want to drill to harness magma energy? I asked how you plan to accomplish this mega-genocide, and you've got nothing. People won't just sit around and be killed you know. WWII - the economies of nations were turned to the purposes of mass murder, and they hardly killed 100 million people.

"anyway i think an apt way to think about climate change is that there are 'no non-radical futures.' either we change everything or the earth changes everything for us. anyone selling you 'realistic' incremental change is performing the work of charlatans and denialists." roshan — James Riley

Limitless clean energy from magma is a radical future; and one that offers hope.

The geothermal claims were vague. References to magma are confusing with respect to geothermal energy. I'll remind everyone of the operating temperatures of drilling equipment and what happens when you open up a hole to something under tremendous pressure. — Benkei

Idiots are often easily confused, and I'm wondering if that might be the problem.

There really isn't though, and herein lies the point. We'd have to cover an area of 225,000 square miles with solar panels to meet current global energy demand. Sunlight is spread over a large area, and we cannot physically gather energy from the entire surface of the earth. But we could extract enough magma energy to meet and exceed current global energy demand because magma is a concentrated, high grade source of clean energy, and there's a lot of it. — counterpunch

You keep repeating this number as if it's some sort of problem for solar energy.

Your 225 000 square miles is about 580 000 square kilometres.

Surface area of earth is 510 000 000 square kilometres.

Assuming your value is correct, it is not really a problem; it is a thousand times less than the surface of the earth. We occupy (and degrade) far more land with mono-crop agriculture than we would need with solar energy.

Solar energy devices can be placed on roofs, over roads (or replace roads that we no longer need), placed over plants that require shade, and other duel use purposes, and so the "land cost" can be close to zero in this regard.

Furthermore, by reducing and reversing large scale infrastructure (that not only occupies a lot of land in itself, such as those 20 lane highways, but also divides the ecosystem making it less efficient), would actually be a net-positive in terms of land bio efficiency (the ecosystems being the primary value of land).

Whether you are right, (you are not right) or wrong - we are close to an impasse of direct and repeated contradiction. I can't explain why again, because I tried twice. Then again, they say third time's a charm. — counterpunch

Do some calculations then, of the volume of rock/magma you need at 700 C to power the world.

I can assure you it's a huge volume of rock, and, once it's cooled (the energy extracted from it) it will recharge very slowly, either through the heat diffusion from below or the slow recharge of magma chambers. The volcanoes we have aren't taps that can be opened to release indefinite magma flows.

This the basic problem of all sources of geothermal energy.

There are "sweet spots" where the recharge rate is pretty good, like iceland, but it is no where good enough to power all of the UK, not to mention Europe.

Glad you realise you're an idiot then.

Glad you realise you're an idiot then. — Benkei

I guess I must be. There's no other reasonable explanation. I must be too stupid to understand why a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around, isn't a viable source of energy for those living on the surface, particularly given the nature and scale of the threat from climate change. I'm such an idiot, it just seems obvious to me we'd want to tap into that energy, and I get frustrated that I cannot understand why no-one else wants that.

The geothermal claims were vague. References to magma are confusing with respect to geothermal energy. I'll remind everyone of the operating temperatures of drilling equipment and what happens when you open up a hole to something under tremendous pressure. — Benkei

It is kind of frustrating though, after repeatedly talking about drilling "close to magma chambers and subduction zones" to have you say I propose drilling into a magma chamber under pressure. Also, the melting point of carbon steel drilling equipment is around 1500 degrees centigrade; so drilling rock at 700'C is not going to melt the drill.

You keep repeating this number as if it's some sort of problem for solar energy. Your 225 000 square miles is about 580 000 square kilometres. Surface area of earth is 510 000 000 square kilometres. — boethius

It's just to give an idea of how much solar you're talking about. And the sheer size of the thing is just the start of your problems. Solar only produces energy half the time, at best, and so that energy needs to be stored. Storage is expensive, both in terms of the infrastructure, and the energy cost of translating one form of energy into another. Transmitting energy from one place to another requires high voltages, and solar is low voltage - which is another huge energy cost. Solar panels are expensive, they last 20 years tops, and they're difficult or impossible to recycle because they contain toxic metals. Metals that have to be mined prior to manufacture.

Furthermore, by reducing and reversing large scale infrastructure (that not only occupies a lot of land in itself, such as those 20 lane highways, but also divides the ecosystem making it less efficient), would actually be a net-positive in terms of land bio efficiency (the ecosystems being the primary value of land). — boethius

You think we're going to rip up highways? How would your huge solar panel manufacturing plant get raw materials without roads? How will they distribute the finished product? Off road horse and cart? You cannot change everything, and you can't kill everyone. You want the least disruptive, most effective adequate intervention; and the most bang for your buck is magma energy.

It is kind of frustrating though, after repeatedly talking about drilling "close to magma chambers and subduction zones" to have you say I propose drilling into a magma chamber under pressure. Also, the melting point of carbon steel drilling equipment is around 1500 degrees centigrade; so drilling rock at 700'C is not going to melt the drill. — counterpunch

As I've pointed out it's silly to call it magma energy for obvious reasons. It's geothermal energy. But it's nice to see how you've not done any research on how drilling works. It's not about the melting point of carbon steel but making sure your equipment doesn't break. Here's 157 degrees celsius, our current record for drilling at high temperatures: https://www.hartenergy.com/ep/exclusives/high-temperature-drilling-pushes-limits-176820

Drills need lubricants. Oops.

And yeah, great fucking idea to drill close to areas proven to be under pressure (there are volcanoes) and fuck around with the structural integrity of the rock above it. And while we're at it, let's add water! That will definitely go well.

Here's 157 degrees celsius, our current record for drilling at high temperatures: — Benkei

That's not a record temperature.

World's hottest borehole nearly complete
By Rebecca Morelle
Science Correspondent, BBC News, Iceland
Published 14 December 2016

Geologists say they are close to creating the hottest borehole in the world. They are drilling into the heart of a volcano in the south-west of Iceland. They have told the BBC that they should reach 5km down, where temperatures are expected to exceed 500C (932F), in the next couple of weeks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38296251

And yeah, great fucking idea to drill close to areas proven to be under pressure (there are volcanoes) and fuck around with the structural integrity of the rock above it. And while we're at it, let's add water! That will definitely go well. — Benkei

Isn't it though!

You want to murder most of the population of earth and you call me unrealistic because I want to drill to harness magma energy? — counterpunch

I'm beginning to see why people think you are flakey. I didn't say anything about murder. I didn't say you were unrealistic. I don't want to engage with you any more.

I asked how you plan to accomplish this mega-genocide, and you've got nothing. — counterpunch

I'm sorry, but I missed where you asked me that question. Cite?

Limitless clean energy from magma is a radical future; and one that offers hope. — counterpunch

If you are here on the internet telling us about it instead of getting out there and making it happen then it's just more noise. I don't know shit about magma and I've got no truck with it, like I said. But apparently others here who are smarter than me think you of full of it. I'm not taking sides on that. I'm just saying "go to work and good luck."

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times? — Xtrix

It might be more accurate to put it this way. Climate change is a symptom of "the issue" of our times, our relationship with knowledge.

To illustrate, imagine that we somehow fixed climate change completely right now, and also developed a new method of totally free unlimited clean energy.

That fixes climate change, but the price tag would be that the economy would take off like a rocket and so we'd been burning through non-renewable resources at a faster pace, civilization expansion would accelerate leading to quicker species extinction and so on etc.

In other words, fixing climate change would just move the problem from one category to another.

Climate change is a product of the primitive relationship with knowledge which characterized the 19th century industrial revolution. Full speed ahead at all costs, more is always better, don't bother to worry about the consequences etc. We're still doing that with the current emerging technologies like AI, genetic engineering.

Until we can wrap our minds around a more mature relationship with knowledge, we're going to keep creating more and bigger problems at an accelerating rate. Take climate change off the table, something else replaces it.

I must be too stupid to understand why a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around, isn't a viable source of energy — counterpunch

Indeed. Despite it being explained to you over and over again.

I guess some people just need to believe they have a secret that solves the world's problems, despite knowing next to nothing about it. Oh well.

Indeed. Despite it being explained to you over and over again. I guess some people just need to believe they have a secret that solves the world's problems, despite knowing next to nothing about it. Oh well. — Xtrix

Despite what being explained to me over and over?

The key difference between us is, I hope humankind survives and prospers. And far from keeping it a secret - I seek to communicate my ideas.

I do believe magma energy is viable, and the only source of clean energy, large, high grade and close enough to meet and exceed global energy demand.

We need this energy if future generations are to have any chance at all of striking a balance between human and environmental welfare. I hope they can - but people like you, I can only conclude you want to see the world burn.

Cool, I wasn't aware as I'm only familiar with the oil and gas industry. That's pretty interesting.

You should work out the numbers boethius has asked for. How much square meters of rock do you need and what will be the recharge rate. Then you also need to prove it's an economical viable option aside from some obvious engineering challenges of operating equipment under high pressure and high temperatures with moving parts. Generally, engineers aren't happy with both high pressure and high temperature.

I'm beginning to see why people think you are flakey. I didn't say anything about murder. I didn't say you were unrealistic. I don't want to engage with you any more. — James Riley

I thoroughly endorse your plan of not talking to me anymore. But before you go, please explain how you would go about de-populating the planet:

We should put the pyramid back right side up and have about 500k to 1m people on the planet... — James Riley

...without murdering anyone?

I didn't say anything about murder. — James Riley

Unless you have wishes left over, you are clearly suggesting mass murder.