It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peak Phosphorus more serious than peak oil - It will happen in 2033

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Phosphorus is a basic building block of life, playing a vital role in the structural framework of DNA and RNA. Found in the cell membranes of animals and plants, it is essential for the transfer of energy. A main component of fertilisers, it helps plants to survive temperature changes, water changes and water deficiencies. This chemical is fundamental to the modern growing of crops.

Phosphorus is a finite resource on Earth and it cannot be replaced by anything else. This is the major difference with oil, since oil can be replaced.
This issue has always being overlooked, ignored by governments.

In 2030s , price of food will increase exponentially. Crops will never grow fine as before.

An idea to fight this issue is the recycling of human urine, since is rich of phosphate, but this can only be a temporary solution. Phosphorus can be extracted from seabed, but with major technological challenges.

Some say peak oil has never been a real issue, a real source of concern. Well, this may be the real source of concern for humanity.

I imagine, if we reached a tipping point for oil in 2006 and some say oil will be terminated by 2054, we can say that, reached a tipping point for phophorus in 2033, by 2081 there will be no more of it. No more. We won't be able to produce food for the mass, 9 billion people by that time.

2033 is just 20 years away. What we should do?

www.youtube.com...
edit on 20-8-2012 by Zagari because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
We're all gonna die!

Honestly though, we have no idea what life will even be like in 20 years so let's just wait and see and worry about more pressing matters.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Socrato because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I don´t think you understood that the phosphorus for example in plants is not lost. Its in the earth, like before.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Just as long as people dont find out whats in soylent green. Also doesnt the world end in 3 months?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


I heard about this about 6 months ago and then promptly forgot all about it so thanks for bringing it back to my attention.


This really is a serious issue that seems to be being downplayed or simply ignored by the mass media. Not really sure why!

Another serious issue (whilst we are at it) is the depletion of stocks of Helium (essential for things like MRI's, etc). This is also due to run in a pretty similar timeline to Phosphorous. Plentiful in space though, probably why we are seeing such a wide array of media articles on mining in space!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zagari
2033 is just 20 years away. What we should do?
According to that video maybe saving our urine in jars like Howard Hughes did, until the phosphate can be extracted from it? (joking).

Seriously, the video recommends changing our diet to consume less meat...which is probably healthier anyway, so that's one thing we could do (I already have).

The phosphate can be recovered, but the cost will go way up when we can't get it from rock anymore:

Phosphate

Reserves refer to the amount assumed recoverable at current market prices, and, in 2012, the USGS estimated 71 billion tons of world reserves, while 0.19 billion tons were mined globally in 2011.[6] Phosphorus comprises 0.1% by mass of the average rock[7] (while, for perspective, its typical concentration in vegetation is 0.03% to 0.2%),[8] and consequently there are quadrillions of tons of phosphorus in Earth's 3 * 10^19 ton crust,[9] albeit at predominantly lower concentration than the deposits counted as reserves from being inventoried and cheaper to extract.
No doubt food will get more expensive. We probably have too many people on Earth to sustain economically. A population of 1 billion is a lot more sustainable than 7-10 billion so the best answer would be to lower birth rate (voluntarily have fewer children). More educated people already do have lower birth rates, but more of the population needs to be educated about aiming for a sustainable population on Earth.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Or kill 6 billion people. Which is more fun for tptb?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 

If you project forward current consumptions of commodities almost everything will run out by then...
...the end is nigh.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I saw a real solution for growing crops using hydroponics systems. I couldn't find the correct video but using the red and blue led lights and having plants growing in pots, apparently the water use was half of normal hydroponics, and the plants grew twice as fast and they were only getting the light spectrum they normally use. They didn't have to cope with the extra heat of the sun dehydrating them.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Or kill 6 billion people. Which is more fun for tptb?
Actually the other option isn't genocide, it's starvation. If you live in the west you probably won't starve, but people living in third world countries making $2 or $5 a day who can now afford food will be hardest hit by dramatic food price increases caused by market forces (increasing demand and reduced supply). So obviously lowering the birth rate voluntarily is preferable to the other option, of starvation. China had their one child policy but I don't think the rest of the world has the stones to do something like that so it will have to be done through education and volunteering (or eventual starvation of third world populations).



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
if we can get our act together we can mine asteroids and the planets for minerals.

if not....ummm k!?

not cool. need more love
edit on 20-8-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zagari
Phosphorus is a basic building block of life, playing a vital role in the structural framework of DNA and RNA. Found in the cell membranes of animals and plants, it is essential for the transfer of energy. A main component of fertilisers, it helps plants to survive temperature changes, water changes and water imagine, if we reached a tipping point for oil in 2006 and some say oil will be terminated by 2054, we can say that, reached a tipping point for phophorus in 2033, by 2081 there will be no more of it. No more. We won't be able to produce food for the mass, 9 billion people by that time.

2033 is just 20 years away. What we should do?

on 20-8-2012 by Zagari because: (no reason given)


as the other poster said- it isn't lost but rather recycled into the earth. Screw urine- why not get rid of caskets and allow all THAT phosphorus to be recycled.
also can be found in insect-eating bat guanos: indonesia, jamaica as well as seabird guano from peru (maybe other countries)
bone meal/blood meal (from meat-processing plants)
........and those are just the organic sources off the top of my head- there are many more.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
According to the Conservation of Mass matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Phosphorus is an element unlike oil, so try again.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Zagari
 


www.miningweekly.com...

There's plenty, you just have to meet the challenges to get it.

BHP I hear has a seafloor mining monster in the works to extract large quantities off the ocean floor. They might name it "Solitario Pomona" The next one being called the "World Challenger Horizon."



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Another name in the fleet is simply "Global Challenger." That's my favorite name out of them all.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by emaildogs
According to the Conservation of Mass matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Phosphorus is an element unlike oil, so try again.


He/she is talking more about being able to bring an essential product to market effectively, cheaply and abundantly. Do you want to pay $50 for a loaf of bread because the fertilizer is outrageously expensive to bring to market?

No offense, but your line of thinking is if we needed more plastic we would then mine landfills to get it. Of course the more rational solution is to go further for the base materials. They're there, you just have to reach beyond your own mind that wants to limit its own thinking as it wants to feel all so good and green. A feeling which only can bring on a dark age, a hell on Earth in the name of goodness and false enlightenment.

Meet Satan www.mediabistro.com... a lil limited mind.

edit on 30-10-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: spelling



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Or kill 6 billion people. Which is more fun for tptb?
Actually the other option isn't genocide, it's starvation. If you live in the west you probably won't starve, but people living in third world countries making $2 or $5 a day who can now afford food will be hardest hit by dramatic food price increases caused by market forces (increasing demand and reduced supply). So obviously lowering the birth rate voluntarily is preferable to the other option, of starvation. China had their one child policy but I don't think the rest of the world has the stones to do something like that so it will have to be done through education and volunteering (or eventual starvation of third world populations).


Population control is customer limitation.

You don't understand that you can place several trillion people on this planet and we could sustain as out of such a population comes possible solutions to do so. It's a matter of numbers, odds of winning the minds that payout/off. The more people on Earth the better the chances that solution for the future will be found.
edit on 30-10-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: I added content.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
You don't understand that you can place several trillion people on this planet and we could sustain as out of such a population comes possible solutions to do so. It's a matter of numbers, odds of winning the minds that payout/off. The more people on Earth the better the chances that solution for the future will be found.
edit on 30-10-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: I added content.


Yes, but over 95% of that trillion population will be living in poverty so screw that idea.

Frankly, genocide is mercy compared to poverty. I am poor so I know! I'd rather die now than live in poverty for the next 10 years!



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


I notice that you have Christian poor themed posts in your log history. Ironically the reason why there are so many poor people like you and I are due to Protestant Christians, white southern for the most part, being brainwashed into believing that rich people should pay little to no taxes allowing for them to setup a plutocracy in the former free world where the middle class will be hollowed out and there will eventually be only the very rich and the super poor. People like white southern Christians have a bad habit of trying to handover their democratic and economic freedoms over to rich people. They become brainwashed by extreme conservative media which programs white southern Protestant Christians into believing rich people deserve everything. That they are the hard workers and everyone else should be a slave because if you are not rich you are stupid, lazy, spoiled and feel entitled. White southern Protestant Christians do not recognize that the top 1% and their media surrogates like those on Fox News for instance, you know like Mike Huckabee, who preach the sermon that progressive taxation is evil and that taking care of the poor with tax dollars is immoral. A total opposite message that the Christian Bible teaches. They even go so far as to teach that the institution of government is evil as they want a pure plutocracy eventually with no economic upward mobility for anyone. Where they alone as the top 1% elite monopolize opportunity and thus resources. An economic system where everyone who is not them are either living like animals or are their servants providing luxury goods and services to them burning up the World's resources with no solutions to mitigate the impacts from doing so because only the small brain pool of the rich have the ability to find solutions and make discussions on a global scale.

That's why there is and will be poverty in the world. It's actually the fault of white southern Protestant Christians doing and voting as they are told by by the media surrogates that serve only the interests of the super rich. I believe that makes white southern Protestant Christians fit the true definition of "useful idiots."

What do you think?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5

log in

join