Elon Musk says the world needs more oil, gas, and babies

Uncle Al

Posts: 9,333   +8,532
Once again old Musky proves how out of touch and basically stupid he is and more importantly that having vast sums of wealth is no guarantee for intelligence. Maybe he should stick to designing "cave submarines" ...... LOL
 

3volv3d

Posts: 447   +236
More oil and gas ? yes. no to more babies. world is fcking overpopulated

I agree with the no babies but how do you get more fossil fuels? They deplete.

Elon musk isn't smart. He's just rich. And in fact scary. Using his influence to mess with stocks.
Thinking electric cars will save the planet.
In fact they will only help in regards to asthma bring down some co2 maybe. But overall cars are just an outdated mode of transport. And will still create more waste than their worth.
If only there was an electric vehicle that could transport a large number of people.
If only we built towns to suit our practical needs rather than aesthetic needs.

But they want you to believe in their future buy in to it. Make more babies to keep buying into it. Conform consume and obey . Welcome to communocracy.

 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
What percentage of the population are doctors, scientists and engineers? ..not a very convincing argument.
Try to walk through the logic here. Whatever number that percentage is, it's based on total population. Raise the population, and that figure rises as well. And thanks to the invention of writing -- and subsequent minor refinements such as the information age -- when a scientist makes a new discovery, when an engineer invents a new device, when an author writes a new book, or when a doctor researches a new cure -- it benefits the entire globe.

And that doesn't even cover the Econ-101 benefits of a larger world population: more specialization, more economy of scale. It's particularly ironic that we're having this discussion via an Internet forum -- something that wouldn't be possible without a world population in the billions. There's a reason that small, isolated pockets of human population are always technologically primitive. It's not because they're "less smart" than the world at large. It's because they're small..
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
how do you get more fossil fuels? They deplete.
In 1965, the world had 30 years of proven oil reserves remaining. More than a half-century later (and despite an exponential increase in annual consumption) we have nearly 50 years left.

We're still finding oil much faster than we're burning it. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

Elon musk isn't smart. He's just rich. And in fact scary.
If you're frightened of Elon Musk, you may wish to unplug your computer permanently. His memes are proven capable of crawling through those wires into your very home. Terrifying indeed!
 

3volv3d

Posts: 447   +236
In 1965, the world had 30 years of proven oil reserves remaining. More than a half-century later (and despite an exponential increase in annual consumption) we have nearly 50 years left.

We're still finding oil much faster than we're burning it. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

If you're frightened of Elon Musk, you may wish to unplug your computer permanently. His memes are proven capable of crawling through those wires into your very home. Terrifying indeed!
I don't care about oil and gas, and it's life expectancy. Using it... Feck me, COVID, lockdown, no planes, less cars on the move, cleaners skies. Case and point.
Electrical vehicle yes.
Car lame.

Elon musk, I wasn't talking about his memes FFS, talking about his ability to mess with stocks, he can make someone rich just by saying invest in my farts and then let one rip.
Mental.

If you want more oil, bury more people stop cremating them, sink them bones deep into the earth. And in a few years future people will power their lamps or vehicles with good ol' aunt Edna.
 

FaTaL

Posts: 127   +225
Try to walk through the logic here. Whatever number that percentage is, it's based on total population. Raise the population, and that figure rises as well. And thanks to the invention of writing -- and subsequent minor refinements such as the information age -- when a scientist makes a new discovery, when an engineer invents a new device, when an author writes a new book, or when a doctor researches a new cure -- it benefits the entire globe.

And that doesn't even cover the Econ-101 benefits of a larger world population: more specialization, more economy of scale. It's particularly ironic that we're having this discussion via an Internet forum -- something that wouldn't be possible without a world population in the billions. There's a reason that small, isolated pockets of human population are always technologically primitive. It's not because they're "less smart" than the world at large. It's because they're small..

economy of scale isn't the problem. its the infrastructure. we cannot support the 2 billion+ more people on this planet in the last 20 years efficiently...
 

trparky

Posts: 1,146   +1,305
So tell me, why subsidize oil if the goal is to move away from it. If you just stop subsidizing oil and heavily subsidize renewables, then Industry will take care of the problem itself because it becomes more profitable to use renewables.
Because right now, 95% of the world runs on oil and gas; if you suddenly make oil more expensive thus making gas more expensive, the only people you end up hurting the most are the people who can't take any more pain as it is.

We've seen that in the last eight months, the price of gas in the US skyrocketed and it caused damn near everything to go up at the same time hurting the people who could barely afford to live as it is.

Beto said that if you can't afford gas, get an electric vehicle. Oh sure, I'll just check my money tree... oh s**t, I don't have one of those. So yeah, if I can't afford gas with inflated prices I sure as hell won't be able to afford a fancy electric vehicle.

This process of going to cleaner sources of power is going to take decades, it's not like a light switch you can just flip. The real world doesn't work like that.
 

Michiel

Posts: 105   +62
I agree with the no babies but how do you get more fossil fuels? They deplete.

There continue to be more sources found, as well as new techniques to extract it where it wasn't previously possible (fracking). Eventually it will deplete, sure. But estimates as to when that will be have been proven overly pessimistic time after time.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
Eventually it will deplete, sure. But estimates as to when that will be have been proven overly pessimistic time after time.
Did you know that in the 1920s, US President Calvin Coolidge convened an emergency panel, based on "expert opinion" that the entire world had perhaps one decade of oil remaining?

By far the most of the world population does not live in a "big house with a garden" so I don't see your logic.
If you skip the garden, you can put every family in the world into a 10,000 sq. foot luxury mansion using just the state of Texas alone -- leaving the entire rest of the world entirely depopulated. There's still plenty of space left on the planet.
 

ET3D

Posts: 1,787   +419
Try to walk through the logic here. Whatever number that percentage is, it's based on total population. Raise the population, and that figure rises as well.

The problem is, they extra population makes them less productive. A lot more people need to be treated by doctors, and scientists spending their time dealing with all the problems caused by the extra population: pollution, global warming, food production, ...

And that doesn't even cover the Econ-101 benefits of a larger world population: more specialization, more economy of scale.

This hasn't worked for a while. Econ-101 is a terrible way to model the world. The current shortages of components are a good example of how economy of scale fails beyond a certain scale.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,270   +7,636
World need babies with good traits (like high IQ), not any babies
The traits of babies are not guaranteed. Musk's children, or any child for that matter, could easily turn out to be "crash test dummies" no matter how much he spends on their education or cyber implants to their brains.

Musk isn't saying anything that has not already been said by anyone with half a brain cell.
Well instead of regulating things then we can use the carrot and subsidize renewables to make it more attractive until technology takes care of that itself.

We already subsidize oil.. and staple grains, and dairy, and probably renewables too.

So tell me, why subsidize oil if the goal is to move away from it. If you just stop subsidizing oil and heavily subsidize renewables, then Industry will take care of the problem itself because it becomes more profitable to use renewables.

In a capitalist country we should be using the power of the free market to get things like this done.

Why did we have so much oil under trump? It's because for a year or so, the cost of extracting shale became less expensive than liquid oil to produce a barrel.

The USA has GIANT shale oil reserves, and it sparked a new oil rush. Once the price of oil went down, shale became too expensive to extract and the entire industry died. Of course Trump takes credit for these low oil prices, but it was really just good luck for him to be president when shale took off.
Ah, someone with some common sense. Refreshing!

However, you are making too much sense, IMO. I expect the heads of many making comments to this thread to explode. 🤣
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,270   +7,636
Did you know that in the 1920s, US President Calvin Coolidge convened an emergency panel, based on "expert opinion" that the entire world had perhaps one decade of oil remaining?
Using logical fallacy, are we? What happened in the past does not necessarily portend what will happen in the future.
If you skip the garden, you can put every family in the world into a 10,000 sq. foot luxury mansion using just the state of Texas alone -- leaving the entire rest of the world entirely depopulated. There's still plenty of space left on the planet.
Ah, the Rush Limbaugh postulate "everyone only needs 3-feet" or what ever it was he said.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,270   +7,636
More babies is a good thing ... as long as they grow into productive adults, of course. Many industrialized nations are already struggling with low birthrate issues: Japan, South Korea, and many European countries aren't even having enough children to maintain their current population, much less see healthy growth.
Maybe, maybe not. You cannot guarantee what the outcome will be or what these children would become.

Environmentalist have sold the overpopulation myth for far too long. More people is a good thing -- more doctors, more artists and entertainers, more scientists and engineers. By doing no more than expanding first-world agriculture to the entire planet, we can easily feed a population more than double the current level. Throw in future technological advances, and the planet may well support 60 or 70 billion of us.
Did you get that from your crystal ball or was it an "8-ball"?
 

Mister_K

Posts: 2,185   +873
By far the most of the world population does not live in a "big house with a garden" so I don't see your logic. American suburbs ≠ the world.

Never said that, first world countries tend to however. My point being, people do not like vertical buildings because they loose garden privilege (see UK for instance).
Building upwards and downwards is the answer. We can already emulate day/night cycles so fake windows would be easy to come by.

We are, indeed, very unoptimised...
 

3volv3d

Posts: 447   +236
Did you know that in the 1920s, US President Calvin Coolidge convened an emergency panel, based on "expert opinion" that the entire world had perhaps one decade of oil remaining?

If you skip the garden, you can put every family in the world into a 10,000 sq. foot luxury mansion using just the state of Texas alone -- leaving the entire rest of the world entirely depopulated. There's still plenty of space left on the planet.
Unfortunately space isn't your freaking problem. Nor is oil.
Musk has already said solar energy could do it all.
But regarding space that has nothing to do with how many people you can have.
You need to be able to calculate resources, calculate how much space you have for people roads commerce etc. Optimal settings basically.
But each person needs clean water, food. Current farms can only have a few more harvests before soils damaged and no good to grow stuff I read. And we are destroying our water supplies with chemical waste and microplastics.

You can do away with cars by rebuilding the roads and towns to have both rail and trams. Only a few electric lorries and Uber drivers, mobility for elderly.
The only reason you don't have fancy futuristic cities yet, is because they milk every drop of cash out of every invention and innovation. You can't move forward to the next cash cow until the first is absolutely dead.

People don't like change. We still have alcohol as the daily driver for stress instead of weed. How F'd up is that?

Honestly if Putin did say fk it, I think most the other governments right now would be like, oh thank fkty fk for that, we had no idea how to solve world hunger and worldwide debt while being nothing but corrupt douches.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
Unfortunately space isn't your freaking problem...Current farms can only have a few more harvests before soils damaged and no good to grow stuff I read.
You read wrong. The US today feeds 350 million people -- and is the world's leading food exporter -- using less farmland than they used to feed 1/4 as many people in the year 1900

We still have alcohol as the daily driver for stress instead of weed.
It appears you're ahead of the curve on this one.
 

3volv3d

Posts: 447   +236
You read wrong. The US today feeds 350 million people -- and is the world's leading food exporter -- using less farmland than they used to feed 1/4 as many people in the year 1900

It appears you're ahead of the curve on this one.
Ok so it sounds like farming has become far more efficient. But then you have GMO foods. Pesticides. Which have I believe shortened the life of the soil, I think I read it's like crop failure now and less food each harvest Vs less harvests but more food with each.

So in that regards nutrients in soils are a depleting resource. I don't understand how you can't put them back we have chemicals and science but in the UK 25 or so harvests.
Maybe I'll be chastised for repeating here what I've seen on TV in Amazon's Clarksons farm.

As someone said if you have 4% of people smart enough for doctors , 2% for top end scientists, more population means more doctors and scientists, the percentage stays the same, number of goes up of population goes up.

Big no on that good buddy. That's not how genetics work. More people more genetic mixing but you still need numbers down in classrooms or you risk your smart people or autistic geniuses being missed out and they go mad and can only handle life via drugs because they think the rest of humanity is living life wrong and that they're all dumb, following psycho politicians who only care about money and power.

You may have 300 more geniuses that year and 280 will be lost in the ether because the people teaching those kids aren't smart enough to teach them or spot the traits.

Is musk's thinking that science will prevail or that we have to rush to the finish line which is to get off the planet? I'm sure he's just an alien trying to find his way home and needs crowdfunding.
 

jamesphones

Posts: 20   +4
This guy suggest more kids?
Who is going to grow them up? lol
Maybe Musk can distribute his fortune and we can have the opportunity to raise kids