Half way through Fiscal 2021,fewest refugees of any modern president.

And why would that be true?

 

So the alternative is stagnation and population control.. Damn, I think I saw a movie like that, didn't end well either

 

Yeah, the transition is going to be pretty ugly. The sooner we start the less terrible it will be. Population control won't be necessary. Humans for the most part will likely naturally have less children as excess energy disappears. The key will be to get the decline as shallow as possible, without turning it into a cliff.

 

So what's the plan for immigration and illegal migration.. Auto sensing turrets or a source of Soylent green?

 

Here you go, this website has a whole lot about the subject.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/

 

Lol, I have no idea. Biden sure as hell doesn't either.

 

It has a lot fo stuff on a lot of subjects.

This was an item of discussion when I studied economic fifty years ago. It came down to lack of expanding markets and lack of opportunity. The fallacy is that as long as man innovates, there will always be expanding markets to sell those innovations.

 

Note he has admitted legally 2050, several 10's of thousands more many of them children, languish in cages, and 10s if thousands more have been released on their own recognizance to show up for hearings often four years in the future, and thousands more turned lose without a shceduled hearing due to over. To say that the numbers in the article you cite are at best disengenuous is to make as much an understate as saying there is water in the Pacific Ocean

 

That is true as long as there is energy to provide growth. All growth requires energy. Growing population requires greater and greater energy consumption to support it. But every year the energy we expend to extract energy becomes greater as the easy to reach fuel sources disappear and get replaced by harder to reach sources. We are nearing the point where extracting fuels will involve more energy to get them than we actually get from them. As the energy cost to extract energy increases, there is less energy to spend on supporting the population. This will translate to loss of jobs, loss of production, and everything pretty much falls apart until we hit the equilibrium where we once again have enough energy to support the remaining population.

Right now 80% or so of our energy comes from fossil fuels. Renewable forms of energy do not come anywhere near replacing that. Nuclear energy could pick up the slack I suppose, but that many nuclear power plants is going to produce metric **** tons of radioactive waste that will quickly become a nightmare to deal with. Maybe with the exploitation of space we will be able to mine helium-3, which many believe will allow us to create stable fusion reactions to generate power. I guess time will tell.

 

Growth requires energy, but energy does not require growth.

 

Right, because all energy comes either from the sun or from geothermal. And nuclear and fusion I guess. I'm not sure what to classify those two as. The problem is the amount that we can harness. And there is different "grades of usefulness" of energy. For example, the sun emits **** tons of energy, but the vast majority of it is useless in terms of work. Plants are able to convert a tiny amount of it into a more useful form through photosynthesis, but 90% of the energy it absorbs is wasted through entropy in the form of heat. Then when an animal eats it, that energy the plant stored is transformed into even higher grade energy, in the form of nutrient rich meat, but again, about 90% of the energy is "wasted" through entropy again in the form of heat. Another way plant matter is transformed into a higher quality of energy is through the process that turns it into fossil fuels. We are able to harness the energy stored in these fossil fuels as we transform them into a more useful form of energy through machinery, but much of it again is wasted through entropy in the form of heat.

Anyways, the point is, there is tons of energy, but not all energy is equal in its ability to perform work. Millions of years worth of higher "quality" energy was stored in fossil fuels, giving us a massive increase in the amount of energy we could harness to perform work. But once that stored amount is gone, it is going to be extremely difficult to replace.

 

Not really. We are finding that we can do a lot of things with less energy than in the past. In addition, we have an earth which is massive. We have only tapped the outer skin. However, we keep finding ways to go deeper and deeper.

 

Well, I hope you are correct! I think we'll see here within the next couple decades. After that time, if things are going just fine, then I guess I am wrong.

 

During the campaign Biden had said he would raise the refugee cap per year to 62,500 from the severely slashed number decreed by Trump but to date Biden has taken no action. Elizabeth Warren and other congressional members are asking why no action has been taken by Biden to raise the refugee admittance numbers.

 

Does that include those who are coming across the border undetected?

 

I agree, this is disgraceful.

I recall, pre TRump, when we were the shining city on a hill.
No were are just another shithole country to teh world.

Thanks Donald!

 

To vote democrat.

 

NO, these are legally admitted refugees.

 

The Dems don't need more, they have plenty, they need the process to stop being perverted by the GOP.

 

No. Ridiculous.... as was your take on Capitalism.

We could replace virtually all the Fossil Fuel with nuclear if required.

Full Disclosure: I've worked in the Energy Industry and with the U.S. DOE for over a decade.

 

What are they waiting for then? What's the plan for the radioactive waste?

 

Great questions.

(1) We are waiting for the idiocy of politicians like Barbara Boxer (CA - Senate - Retired) to continue to retire and not be replaced by ignorant ideologues that don't know anything about nuclear. The closure of San Onofre and now coming Diablo Canyon are both completely stupid and force more pollution and emissions by $1 Billion a year.

(2) The waste can be used to power modern Small Modular Reactors (SMR) (Think of an aircraft carrier size nuclear power that can be scaled up). These SMR's use the waste from our current nuclear sites as their fuel. They have no meltdown potential, and can be buried virtually anywhere, or set above ground.

The economics of nuclear over fossil is huge. Fossil costs less initially, but over time, the nuclear fuel is so much less expensive that it becomes the most efficient base load energy available today.

 

But look at the problems nuclear causes as the Japanese try to get permission to dump millions of gallons of nuclear contaminated water into the pacific.