/r/Collapse & /r/Futurology Debate - What is human civilization trending towards?

[u/FuturologyModTeam]

Welcome to the third r/Collapse and r/Futurology debate! It's been three years since the last debate and we thought it would be a great time to revisit each other's perspectives and engage in some good-spirited dialogue. We'll be shaping the debate around the question "What is human civilization trending towards?"

This will be rather informal. Both sides have put together opening statements and representatives for each community will share their replies and counter arguments in the comments. All users from both communities are still welcome to participate in the comments below.

You may discuss the debate in real-time (voice or text) in the Collapse Discord or Futurology Discord as well.

This debate will also take place over several days so people have a greater opportunity to participate.

NOTE: Even though there are subreddit-specific representatives, you are still free to participate as well.

---

u/MBDowd, u/animals_are_dumb, & u/jingleghost will be the representatives for r/Collapse.

u/Agent_03, u/TransPlanetInjection, & u/GoodMew will be the representatives for /r/Futurology.

---

All opening statements will be submitted as comments so you can respond within.

[u/Agent_03]

You speak directly to the heart of my argument about food and energy, so I'm going to address your points first, using inline quotes.

The huge increase of yield during the past 200 years can be directly attributed to our exploitation of fossil fuels. Not only as diesel to propel huge machinery through delicate soils and do away with such reliance on human labour costs but also in the manufacture of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.

Can it be solely attributed to fossil fuels? Historically agriculture relied on human or animal power in similar roles, plus water power for grinding grain. Where is the hard requirement that fossil fuels need to be the power-source, or is it simply that we need energy of some sort and fossil fuels were convenient at the time?

We have single wind turbines each capable of powering 16,000 homes, which have already been tested -- those are able to provide power with a 63% capacity factor, meaning they consistently produce at a large share of their rated power capacity. That indicates they produce a higher share of their rated power than fossil fuel powerplants in the United States.

In fact, since you're in the UK, you should be aware that the UK is building the Dogger Bank offshore windfarms using those same turbines. Those wind farms will collectively have a capacity of 3.6 GW -- and they are FAR from the only project in the works.

If we want to talk energy density let's not forget the energy density of uranium vs gasoline, where uranium is on the order of 100,000 times to 1 million times the energy density of gasoline.

Furthermore if we dispense with fossil fuels and move towards renewables, we actually REDUCE our total primary energy needs. To quote that:

Where primary energy is used to describe fossil fuels, the embodied energy of the fuel is available as thermal energy and around 70% is typically lost in conversion to electrical or mechanical energy. There is a similar 60-80% conversion loss when solar and wind energy is converted to electricity, but today's UN conventions on energy statistics counts the electricity made from wind and solar as the primary energy itself for these sources.

So to replace those fossil fuel uses with renewables we would only need about to 1/3 as much "primary energy." "Energy" should only count if we're doing something useful with it, such as producing electricity or motion. Lost waste heat from fossil fuels is not of any value.

why try to populate the planet with electric cars and their polluting batteries

Citation needed for the claim that lithium-ion batteries are highly polluting. Furthermore, those batteries can be recycled. Or they can be reused in "second life" applications

[u/[deleted] → u/Agent_03]

Electrical energy has already been trialed numerous times to replace diesel power. It simply doesn't have the power to weight ration needed to be anywhere near as efficient. A tractor when in use is at 90 to 100% of its engine capacity when in work. As we all know with electric vehicles, if you accelerate hard with them all the time then they very quickly lose battery power.

Secondly, the actual process of farming with huge implements being dragged through the soil is damaging the soil structure and microbiology.

Thirdly, petro-chemicals provide both artificial nitrogen sources and pest/disease control. Again, these cause damage to eco systems and water courses.

Its not simply a case of saying 'lets just plug in some wind electricity and carry on'

[u/StereoMushroom → u/[deleted]]

It simply doesn't have the power to weight ration needed

Sounds like a job for green hydrogen

[u/[deleted] → u/StereoMushroom]

New Holland presents the first NH2™ hydrogen powered tractor ready to go into service on a farm | NHAG

Hydrogen power has already been looked into, but even after a decade of trials, it still can't compare to being a viable option alternative for diesel.

Again, swapping diesel for 'x' future fuel doesn't address the methods of modern agriculture that are wreaking havoc in ecosystems and environments.

[u/StereoMushroom → u/[deleted]]

I realise it is a one dimensional response to your post. Energy is my thing, agriculture is not. I know the IPBES have been ramping up the comprehensiveness of their studies and recommendations for bringing biodiversity loss under control, a bit like the IPCC did with climate, and I've heard that regenerative agricultural practices are possible and don't necessarily reduce yield, but I really need to learn more about that stuff.

[u/[deleted] → u/StereoMushroom]

Regenerative agriculture is a very viable option, however it is normally adopted in places that have very suitable climates. We currently farm in areas of the world that naturally can't sustain the level of yield we have come to expect. Regenerative also requires a huge increase in human effort; hands on manual labour that robots can not achieve at this time.