PDA

View Full Version : Po


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Tenyu
03-08-2011, 09:56 AM
Does anyone here know the significance/implication of this graph?

http://www.jpods.com/JPods/001Plans/NetOilEnergy.jpg

George S. Ledyard
03-08-2011, 11:45 AM
Does anyone here know the significance/implication of this graph?

http://www.jpods.com/JPods/001Plans/NetOilEnergy.jpg

While I am totally all over solar and other "Green" sources of energy, the only way we will be able to supply the energy needed by the world's population and its demands for economic development going forward is by developing nuclear power starting right away.

Solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro electric, etc will barely scratch the surface in terms of the demand. Failure to supply the needed energy for development will only increase the divide between the world's rich and poor and has drastic implications for world peace etc. We are far more likely to blow each other to smithereens than to have things last until some environmental collapse.

Richard Clarke, former National Security Advisor, described Global warming as the number one security threat against our country. We need to solve the energy issue immediately, really, yesterday. However unfortunate, solar can't even come close.

Electric cars etc are just a joke until we solve the power problem. There isn't enough electricity in the grid to supply the energy needed to convert our cars to electricity. If we can get fuel cell technology going on a production scale, it would solve the car issue but nuclear is still the only form of energy production which produces the amount required to prevent economic collapse. And there is a supply issue with the materials needed to accomplish this as the current technology stands.

Keith Larman
03-08-2011, 11:59 AM
There was a very Good TED Lecture by Bill Gates (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html) on power, innovation and the future.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 01:59 PM
George,

Have you seen this? Everything should have been multiplied by 50 to show a year's worth but I guess it would have made some of the numbers too large. :o

http://www.threesources.com/ncmo01.gif

Here's a quote from someone else that did the quick math several years ago when the graph was first made:

Here's some more math. One cubic mile is
1,101,117,150,000 gallons. That's over 1.1 trillion gallons.

There are 42 gallons in a standard barrel of oil. So one cubic mile of oil is 26,217,075,000 barrels.

World oil production has stagnated at 85 million barrels per *day* for the last three years (and yet there are so many idiots who think there's no supply problem!!!). At current global production levels then, it takes approximately 308.436 days to pump a cubic mile of oil.

So to replace what we could get from 308 days of global oil production, it would take 52 nuclear power plants 50 years. Or putting it another way, as much energy as 2600 nuclear power plants will produce in one year, or 3078 nuclear power plants in 308 days. To account for fluctuations, let's say 3000 nuclear power plants.

END QUOTE

There are 442 existing nuclear power plants in the world. $10 billion plus 10 years to construct just one new plant.

From Wikipedia:

Pessimistic uranium depletion outlook

Various agencies have tried to estimate how long these resources will last.
European Commission
The European Commission said in 2001 that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. When added to military and secondary sources, the resources could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world's energy supply. If electric capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years.

Electricity can't run cars, trucks, ships, or planes either obviously, the arteries and veins of the global economy.

I'm very happy nuclear is not an option either because the planet cannot support this insanity anymore.

dps
03-08-2011, 02:09 PM
And the check is in the mail, the telephone repairman will be arrive at 9:am and Obama is the One to save us all.

I'll put that on my "Doomsday and Disaster" list and hope that these guys are right.

"Oil, is the Earth Running Out or Making More?"
http://alt-energystocks.com/blog/2008/07/02/oil-is-the-earth-running-out-or-making-more/

"Is the Earth Producing MORE Oil?"
http://blogs.motortrend.com/is-the-earth-producing-more-oil-1826.html

"Mystery still surrounds Earth's oil supply "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9663967/ns/technology_and_science-science/


dps

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 02:13 PM
There was a very Good TED Lecture by Bill Gates (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html) on power, innovation and the future.

Gates said in the presentation population's going to 9 billion. He knows that's impossible. Politician-speak is worthless regarding energy.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 02:16 PM
Yes. well I'll put that on my "Doomsday and Disaster" list and hope that these guys are right.

"Oil, is the Earth Running Out or Making More?"
http://alt-energystocks.com/blog/2008/07/02/oil-is-the-earth-running-out-or-making-more/

"Is the Earth Producing MORE Oil?"
http://blogs.motortrend.com/is-the-earth-producing-more-oil-1826.html

"Mystery still surrounds Earth's oil supply "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9663967/ns/technology_and_science-science/

dps

David,

Sorry to break it to you, but abiotic oil 'theory' was proven propaganda-garbage long time ago.

phitruong
03-08-2011, 02:30 PM
fusion power plants will probably be available in 10 years or sooner. ITER http://www.iter.org/

although, population growth still needs control. china controlled it with an iron fist, so in a way, communism worked for china. even with such control, china is paying for that today, as well as the rest of the world pay for china. other places like India, there is no such control mechanism of any kind. the rest of the world, will pay for that for years to come.

dps
03-08-2011, 02:30 PM
David,

Sorry to break it to you, but abiotic oil 'theory' was proven propaganda-garbage long time ago.

Tenyu,

This is not the first or second or last time there has been a prediction of the earth running out of oil.

The real problem with oil production and pricing is with politicians and special interest groups that profit monetarily and/or ideologically from these predictions.


‘Peak Oil’ Is a Waste of Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1

dps

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 02:49 PM
fusion power plants will probably be available in 10 years or sooner. ITER http://www.iter.org/

although, population growth still needs control. china controlled it with an iron fist, so in a way, communism worked for china. even with such control, china is paying for that today, as well as the rest of the world pay for china. other places like India, there is no such control mechanism of any kind. the rest of the world, will pay for that for years to come.

Phi,

Fusion is star trek fantasy.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 02:54 PM
Tenyu,

This is not the first or second or last time there has been a prediction of the earth running out of oil.

The real problem with oil production and pricing is with politicians and special interest groups that profit monetarily and/or ideologically from these predictions.

‘Peak Oil’ Is a Waste of Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1

dps

Michael Lynch is well-known paid shill for the oil industry.

No one in the world is saying we're running out of oil, but it is fact that we're running out of cheap oil which there is no replacement for.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5711

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 03:07 PM
Oil Crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z9T5XPrDvg

William R Catton author of:

http://www.hollygroverecords.com/catton.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXXQ1vVdsI&NR=1

Marc Abrams
03-08-2011, 03:09 PM
fusion power plants will probably be available in 10 years or sooner. ITER http://www.iter.org/

although, population growth still needs control. china controlled it with an iron fist, so in a way, communism worked for china. even with such control, china is paying for that today, as well as the rest of the world pay for china. other places like India, there is no such control mechanism of any kind. the rest of the world, will pay for that for years to come.

Phil:

I heard that if you can twirl your Bo and achieve attenuated activations from between 30 to 60 cycles, fusion energy is created! :eek: :crazy: :hypno: ;)

Marc Abrams

dps
03-08-2011, 03:16 PM
William R Catton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bXXQ1vVdsI&NR=1

A sociologist who wants revolutionary change.

Isn't that something new.. :)

dps

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 03:21 PM
A sociologist who wants revolutionary change.

Isn't that something new.. :)

dps

He doesn't talk about what he wants, he talks about what ecology demands, call it natural law, or second law of thermodynamics.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 03:24 PM
David,

You mentioned before ad homs are used when facts are absent. :p

C. David Henderson
03-08-2011, 03:33 PM
Star date, oh, whatever -- from the site Phi linked:

"Steady progress has been made since in fusion devices around the world. The Tore Supra Tokamak that is part of the Cadarache nuclear research centre holds the record for the longest plasma duration time of any tokamak: six minutes and 30 seconds. The Japanese JT-60 achieved the highest value of fusion triple product - density, temperature, confinement time -of any device to date. US fusion installations have reached temperatures of several hundred million degrees Celsius.

Achievements like these have led fusion science to an exciting threshold: the long sought-after plasma energy breakeven point. Breakeven describes the moment when plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to produce them. Plasma energy breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 70% of input power. Scientists have now designed the next-step device - ITER - which will produce more power than it consumes: for 50 MW of input power, 500 MW of output power will be produced."

Hmm.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 03:42 PM
David H,

Fusion, if it were real, would be the worst thing possible for us. What humanity needs is a recognition and a reconnection with mother nature. Please read Ascent of Humanity, the book is also available for purchase on Amazon.

Marc,

That was almost funny. :p

mathewjgano
03-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Tenyu,

This is not the first or second or last time there has been a prediction of the earth running out of oil.

The real problem with oil production and pricing is with politicians and special interest groups that profit monetarily and/or ideologically from these predictions.

‘Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1

dps
And which special interest groups stand to gain/lose the most apart from the oil industry? The fact that multiple predictions have come and been amended doesn't mean anything other than it happened. Mankind has many historical examples of presumption of bounty which turned out to be false too.
Peak oil isn't a waste of energy because it's a limited resource as of yet. I found the article to be somewhat lop-sided in its approach to the topic...though perhaps the whole point was to address PO issues and not to address the other side's issues? At the end it paid lip-service to the idea of diversification of energy resources, but the rest of the article seemed to be more of an argument against just that. It struck me as being somewhat convenient in its choices of examples. It decried fuzzy logic (which I have to take the author's word for) and then talks in terms of "not necessarily," as if that was a counter-argument. It describes the Carter Administration's loss of money on a project that was, by my standards, practically in the dark ages...that is to say, it speaks of how PO advocates forget about technology increases and then itself uses an antiquated example of wasted money. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?
I'm a skeptic of either "side" because both have invested interests. To me, the fact that oil is (thus far) non-renewable says all I need to know about why more R&D needs to be working toward other energy. That it is our society's life-blood in so many ways brings to my mind the lessons of my greatgramma: don't put your eggs in one basket. That these companies always seem to manage a profit (record profits at times) while describing the "need" to raise prices at times strikes me as rather convenient. That they make as much money as they do also pisses me off because some of it is blood money.
Competition is supposed to be the backbone of capitolism isn't it? Why shouldn't we invest in other options then? Oil companies do whatever they can to stamp out competition. F them.
I also think the political arguments surrounding where most of our oil comes from is a perfectly good basis for questioning our current way of doing things...particulalry when they're the same arguments we use to work against similarly run countries who have no oil. The whole system seems rife with BS and that's why I'm so anti-oil...as I fill up my car with some of the cheapest gas in the world, bitching about the price.
Meh...
:disgust:
That said, i recognize I'm about as ignorant as the next guy when it comes to this topic, but, for the sake of argument and education, there's my view for whatever it may be worth.
Take care,
Matt

mathewjgano
03-08-2011, 03:48 PM
Fusion, if it were real, would be the worst thing possible for us.

And why is that?
Also, by reconnecting to mother nature, are you suggesting we abandon technology efforts?

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 04:06 PM
And why is that?
Also, by reconnecting to mother nature, are you suggesting we abandon technology efforts?

Jevons Paradox.

Increasing energy technology only increases our phantom carrying capacity.

Fossil fuel extraction graph = population graph.

AGW and ecological destruction may reduce carrying capacity to zero.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3378/3203403780_d2878c0c82.jpg

dps
03-08-2011, 04:18 PM
David,

You mentioned before ad homs are used when facts are absent. :p

No ad ad hominem, stating the facts of his credentials in his words. It shows his credibility.

dps

C. David Henderson
03-08-2011, 04:21 PM
Tenyu,

Whether it is good or bad technology for humanity and the planet is a separate question from whether it is a "real" prospect.

I don't know the answer to that second question, but I think its a mistake (perhaps for someone like you, who appears passionately opposed to fusion, as much as for someone who advocates it) to overlook "progress" towards putting the technology into practice.

It may be a bad idea without being a pipe dream of a bad idea.

Respectfully

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 04:44 PM
David H,

I think it's both, and almost everyone who studies oil professionally, the biggest industry in the world, thinks likewise.

Best case scenario for this pipe dream is ten years from now? Look at where we are in terms of net oil production in 2020 on the first graph in this thread. Not to mention you still can't power cars, trucks, planes or ships the arteries and veins of the global economy with electricity.

All agriculture, food production, food delivery requires cheap oil. There's no replacement.

mathewjgano
03-08-2011, 05:47 PM
Jevons Paradox.

Increasing energy technology only increases our phantom carrying capacity.


That's a rather broad statement...and makes some rather large assumptions. You're suggesting that if we were able to use fusion power we would only feel more empowered and use it up faster? Cotton Gin all over again?
I disagree that it is the necessary result. The cynic in me would be inclined to agree with you, but that part of me isn't exactly based on what is actually possible.
So you think no energy technology should be sought? Should we live as the other great apes do?

Dave de Vos
03-08-2011, 07:09 PM
Phi,

Fusion is star trek fantasy.

You mean nuclear fusion is out of our technological reach?

Fusion is definitely not as far fetched as Star Trek technology. Scientists don't know how devices like warp drive or transporter might be built. Such technologies may not be physically possible.

But nuclear fusion has already been done. It is not even new. But it is an enormous engineering challenge to do it in a way that the process returns more energy than it costs to keep the fusion going at a price that can compete with burning fossil fuels.

The ITER project was started in 1985. It gets funding (13 billion dollars) from several countries and it takes decades to complete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/iter_tokamak.jpg

lbb
03-08-2011, 08:18 PM
While I am totally all over solar and other "Green" sources of energy, the only way we will be able to supply the energy needed by the world's population and its demands for economic development going forward is by developing nuclear power starting right away.

I'd agree, but it's got to be in combination with stopping being so damn wasteful in our use of energy.

Unfortunately, there's so much resistance to this change that it probably won't happen in a planned, relatively painless manner. Instead, people will look at the change and think it's just too painful, being asked to carpool and turn down the thermostat and turn off appliances when they're not in use. So they won't change. And then, they'll discover what real pain is, and the rest of us along with them.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 09:34 PM
That's a rather broad statement...and makes some rather large assumptions. You're suggesting that if we were able to use fusion power we would only feel more empowered and use it up faster? Cotton Gin all over again?
I disagree that it is the necessary result. The cynic in me would be inclined to agree with you, but that part of me isn't exactly based on what is actually possible.
So you think no energy technology should be sought? Should we live as the other great apes do?

Technology is not a source of energy.

quote from MonteQuest:

As we are all learning, we are about to enter an era in which, each year, less net energy will be available to humankind, regardless of our efforts or choices. It takes energy to do any work. Energy is not the only factor we must consider, however; the operative principle in determining the carrying capacity of an ecosystem is known as Liebig's Law, which states that whatever necessity is least abundant, relative to per-capita requirements, sets the environment's limit for the population of any given species. Climate change may well be the limiting factor or water availability, but energy seems to be forefront, for now.

The Second Law of Thermo Dynamics states that whenever energy is converted from one form to another, there is an energy loss in the form of heat. This is the law of entropy as well, which is a measure of the amount of energy no longer practically capable of conversion to work. Entropy within an isolated system inevitably increases over time. Since it takes work to create and maintain order within a system, the entropy law tells us that, in the battle between order and chaos, it is chaos that ultimately wins. The only truly isolated system we know of is the universe. But there are two other system types: open and closed. The earth is an example of a closed system. It exchanges energy with the universe, but not matter, save the occasional meteorite.

Living organisms, on the other hand, are an example of an open system, where both matter and energy are exchanged. It is because of this exchange that living systems can afford to create and sustain order. Take that useable source of energy away and they soon die. This is true of human societies and technologies as well. Human societies can increase their level of order by increasing their energy flow-through; but by doing so they increase the entropy (random movement towards disorder) within the closed system. The energy available in an ecosystem is one of the most important factors in determining its "carrying capacity," which is the maximum load, that can be supported on a sustainable basis.

The limiting factor for any population may change over time. Nature prefers stable arrangements that entail self-limitation, recycling, and cooperation. Energy subsidies as the results of disturbed environments (mining, oil, coal, LNG, extraction) or colonization (invading Iraq) provide giddy moments of extravagance for the species, but crashes and die-offs usually follow. Balance eventually returns.

Man has increased his energy flow-through in many ways: colonization, tool use, specialization, globalization (trade), and the use of nature's stock of non-renewable resources: coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. This last strategy has been the most successful in increasing the carrying capacity of the environment. The human population did not reach 1 billion until 1820; so in 190 years, it has increased more than six-fold. If we were to add up the total energy consumption that keeps us in the life-style we are accustomed to, compared to the energy a human body can produce, we find that every American has the equivalent of 50 "energy slaves" working for them 24 hours a day. While we enjoy our "slaves", it has its costs: ecological destruction, pollution, climate change, and an every increasing dependency on sun-light carbon that went underground millions of years ago, which is not a part of the earth's closed carbon cycle system.

When there is lots of food-energy available, a population will flourish. Obviously, it can't go on forever, eventually there will be more numbers than there is food to support them or some other "least abundant necessity" will set a limit. Over the long-term, nature will strike a balance between the number of individuals and the available carrying capacity. However, the momentum of population increase from a sudden energy wind-fall (such as fossil fuels) will lead the population to what is referred to as "overshoot, " and far exceed the carrying capacity of their environment. Normally, Nature's feedback loops keep its populations in check. We have found ways to circumvent most of them: medicines to combat disease, increased production of food, and the exploitation of non-renewable energy sources.

A proliferating, ever-energy-hungry overshoot population, feeding off of a temporary stock of non-renewable energy, will actually reduce the natural carrying capacity, even as their numbers and energy consumption is increasing, creating a deficit. In other words, populations in overshoot continue to grow even in the face of declining food, resources, and the ability of the environment to absorb the wastes. If this occurs, the population will not simply gradually diminish until balance is achieved: instead, it will rapidly crash—that is, die-off. The human population is in severe overshoot and our phantom carrying capacity is leaving us.

At this point, depending on how seriously we have destroyed the natural carrying capacity due to overshoot, the global human carrying capacity will plummet perhaps even below its pre-industrial levels or we could die out altogether. Other species certainly have done so in the same biological situation. This is Liebig's Law and no species is immune. The party is over, the beer is gone, and the harsh light of morning is in our eyes.

Tenyu
03-08-2011, 09:46 PM
I'd agree, but it's got to be in combination with stopping being so damn wasteful in our use of energy.

Unfortunately, there's so much resistance to this change that it probably won't happen in a planned, relatively painless manner. Instead, people will look at the change and think it's just too painful, being asked to carpool and turn down the thermostat and turn off appliances when they're not in use. So they won't change. And then, they'll discover what real pain is, and the rest of us along with them.

Did you read post #4 of this thread?

Carpooling is like putting a band-aid on after having your leg cut off and thinking that's gonna prevent bleeding to death. This analogy is generous considering the scale of global energy consumption.

mathewjgano
03-09-2011, 09:44 AM
Technology is not a source of energy.

...The party is over, the beer is gone, and the harsh light of morning is in our eyes.

Hi Tenyu,
I never said technology is an energy source and I know most of these concepts fairly well (by lay standards). That still doesn't seem to answer my questions. Saying that the adoption of fusion power will necessarily lead to more and greater degrees of irresponsible behavior is a presumption. You seem to be saying it's bad because there's a risk people will become more dependent on limited energy sources; that abundance necessitates gluttony. I merely think it's a tendency based on ignorance, and one which could just as easily be shifted toward sustainability (or a modicum of sufficient balance) since we're big brained apes who are particularly good at adapting with tools and analytical/synthetic thinking, something wolf populations who overshoot their food supply don't have.
Take care,
Matt

lbb
03-09-2011, 10:26 AM
Did you read post #4 of this thread?

Did you read my post?

Carpooling is like putting a band-aid on after having your leg cut off and thinking that's gonna prevent bleeding to death. This analogy is generous considering the scale of global energy consumption.

You seem to feel that because one "band-aid", as you put it, won't cure the entire problem all by itself, it's not worth doing. I question whether there is a fix that's big enough for the problem. I don't see any indication that this is so -- but I do see a lot of lazy, wishful thinking in this direction. So, when you combine disparagement of smaller, partial solutions with the tooth-fairy belief that there's a big win total solution lurking out there somewhere, just around the corner, you have an airtight way of thinking that enables you to go on consuming, not make any changes in your lifestyle, and assume that the Easter Bunny is going to come along with some new technology to bail you out. I don't think it's going to happen that way. I don't think that the big win is there. If it isn't, what's the outcome?

The useful purpose behind carpooling, reduced consumption, local food production, alternative energy, etc. is not to solve the "how can we continue to do exactly what we're doing now" problem. The purpose is to solve the problem of how to adjust to the fact that our current lifestyle will no longer be an option -- not that it will be a little bit more expensive or a little bit less convenient, but that it will be gone altogether. When that day comes, people who haven't made adjustments in their lives and learned to live with less are going to have one hard and rocky row to hoe.

C. David Henderson
03-09-2011, 10:59 AM
David H,

I think it's both, and almost everyone who studies oil professionally, the biggest industry in the world, thinks likewise.

Best case scenario for this pipe dream is ten years from now? Look at where we are in terms of net oil production in 2020 on the first graph in this thread. Not to mention you still can't power cars, trucks, planes or ships the arteries and veins of the global economy with electricity.

All agriculture, food production, food delivery requires cheap oil. There's no replacement.

Tenyu,

I have no quarrel with you opinion on this subject, generally, though I don't agree with you.

I also remain respectfully skeptical of many of your assessments about the future, or at any rate, at your expressions of certainty.

Tenyu
03-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Hi Tenyu,
I never said technology is an energy source and I know most of these concepts fairly well (by lay standards). That still doesn't seem to answer my questions. Saying that the adoption of fusion power will necessarily lead to more and greater degrees of irresponsible behavior is a presumption. You seem to be saying it's bad because there's a risk people will become more dependent on limited energy sources; that abundance necessitates gluttony. I merely think it's a tendency based on ignorance, and one which could just as easily be shifted toward sustainability (or a modicum of sufficient balance) since we're big brained apes who are particularly good at adapting with tools and analytical/synthetic thinking, something wolf populations who overshoot their food supply don't have.
Take care,
Matt

http://peakoil.com/forums/post962535.html#p962535

Tenyu
03-09-2011, 11:02 AM
Tenyu,

I have no quarrel with you opinion on this subject, generally, though I don't agree with you.

I also remain respectfully skeptical of many of your assessments about the future, or at any rate, at your expressions of certainty.

What parts would you not agree with?

mathewjgano
03-09-2011, 01:01 PM
http://peakoil.com/forums/post962535.html#p962535
I disagree that "the" playbook has failed "us." Whether or not "it" will remains to be seen. I think a lot of good points have been put forth. There is inequity between the Haves and the Have-nots the world over, to varying degrees. I still think some of the rhetoric is a little too hyperbolic.

Big thinkers of the time, like Rene Descartes, concluded that the world was one of mathematical precision, not confusion. Science and technology were seen as the tools to rearrange the stuff of nature in a way that best advanced the material self-interest of human beings.
I believe the world is essentially just that. The difference is that the math has grown...and it is in the material self-interest of human beings to learn what they can about their environment; to foster sustainability and to think socially as well as economically. It's a balancing act. And just as every person is born ignorant and bumps into the world around it until it develops some familiarity, so too does mankind in a larger sense.
I'm all for returning to a more nature-based society. I see nothing in here that says technology approaches toward energy harvesting is necessarily bad. I still believe there is more grey to this than your black and white presentation.
I do think we agree with each other that our society in general is too greedy; that we take our standard of living for granted and don't appreciate the many luxuries we enjoy; that for all practical purposes we live within a finite system and are subject to limitation (asymptotic characteristics ne?). My view is that our sense of entitlement is ridiculous, but since I find myself wanting to stand on a soap box all of a sudden, I'll digress.