How do we survive in the future when the basic natural resources extincts?
Topic: How do we survive in the future when the basic natural resources extincts?
July 18, 2019 / By Josse Question:
As we know that oil, gas, forest and clean water are becoming lesser and lesser day by day and it is becoming difficult to fullfill the desire of ever increasing World population. So is there any alternative planned out?
Best Answers: How do we survive in the future when the basic natural resources extincts?
Hardy | 3 days ago
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Reduce, re-use, recycle.
At some point it will no longer be economically feasible to use resources in such an unsustainable manner.
Maybe we'll have to re-learn how to darn our own socks rather than throwing them away and buying a new pair. Maybe planned obsolescence will become a thing of the past.
Think about it. The world over, Economy is king. How does a country keep it's economy on the rise? Keep selling/producing/exporting more and more stuff. Admittedly, plenty of the stuff produced is necessary even critical at times, but the vast majority of stuff that is produced and bought is worthless crap that will soon find it's way to a land fill.
If we discern better between our wants and our needs, we could greatly reduce the use of our precious natural resources. But the price of that is a lower GNP.
👍 154 | 👎 3
Did you like the answer? How do we survive in the future when the basic natural resources extincts?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: To preserve natural resources, which of the following should be recycled?
Coal, oil, food, and natural gas cannot be recycled in the conventional sense. I suppose carbon dioxide produced from burning coal and oil can be recycled and converted to methanol. Food waste and human and animal waste (the product of food) can be composted. Natural gas produces carbon dioxide when burnt and that could be converted to methanol and reused. In the conventional sense of recycling none of those choices is actually possible. In the unconventional sense, almost everything is recycled eventually by geologic cycles whether we make any effort or not. Nature has been recycling for about 14 billion years now.
Oil spills do contribute to increased global temperatures in the strict sense because most of the oil evaporates and is broken down by photochemical reactions in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide and water vapor, both of which are greenhouse gases. There is technically no correct choice for that question. Oh, and oil spills will continue because they are naturally occurring events that have taken place for at least the last 400 million years or so, often catastrophically, but commonly on a daily continual basis.
The third question has three examples that are not recycling: reusing plastic bags or furniture, which is actually repurposing or reusing, not recycling. Buying compact fluorescents is not any sort of recycling or repurposing. It is simply different technology that has its own serious environmental issues and can easily be argued to be much more hazardous than using an incandescent powered by solar, wind, hydropower, or natural gas fired power plants due to the mercury vapor that eventually escapes from the compact fluorescent bulb. Only in the case of coal generated electricity does the mercury become a net gain, and the distribution of the mercury emissions will be much more widely distributed and much more difficult to contain, so it represents a long-term hazard from my point of view. The whole promotion of compact fluorescents is simply a statistical lie based on the false assumption that electricity is produced only from coal and the myth that there are actually ways to prevent the mercury in them from entering the environment. I myself am stocking up on incandescents before they are banned in the US at the end of this year. I don't like mercury in my indoor environment no matter how diluted it becomes after the bulb breaks or leaks- and I've experienced both of these issues already. Hopefully the whole compact fluorescent industry will go the way of 5 1/4 inch floppy disks and whale-oil lanterns in a few years and be replaced by LED's.
Your premise is incorrect. Resources aren't dwindling at anywhere NEAR the rate that the Environmental Alarmist Movement is portraying. But when they finally do, basic laws of economics will dictate that we figure out a solution involving more renewable alternatives. There's enough to be scared about in this life other than this rubbish... If I were you, I'm worry more about the future of the world if left in the hands of some of the people that ask questions on this site such as "how do I know if a boy likes me?" or "A boy said he wants to date me... what does that mean?"
And besides, these things have a way of working themselves out in the long run... through wars, disease, pestilence, famine, etc. If our population gets out of balance with the available carrying capacity of the planet, Mother Nature will step in and 'even the score.'
👍 60 | 👎 -3
The human race will be extinct due to war, not a lack of resources. By the time it takes earth to renew itself, evolution will once again evolved into another form of humans. This cycle will continue until earth eventually dies and become a planet that cant sustain life.
👍 58 | 👎 -9
I don't think there is but that's a scary thought especailly we are now living in a world that everything can be bought in a grocery store.
Man is actually good at adapting to it senvironment ever since and I am sure that some how we will adapt to it. We have to, in order to survive.
👍 56 | 👎 -15
People lived for thousands of years without all our modern trappings. We would likely end up like Rome but with better technology and knowledge.
👍 54 | 👎 -21
Originally Answered: Can anyone show me the basic "steps" for solving this problem using basic math only.?
it would be easiest if you just knew the angles of a pentagon. If not this is what you can do
draw a pentagon (its 5 equal sides) it doesn't have to be perfect just easier to visualize that way. it kind of looks like a house but with the sides angled out a bit so its not a perfect box and hat.
now find the center of it and draw lines to each of the points of the pentagon, you now have 5 triangles. Since the distance from each corner to the center is the same, the triangles all have 2 equal sides they are isosceles triangles and the angles opposite the equal sides are the same. Also the center of the pentagon could be the center of a circle around the pentagon, so if you divide 360 by 5 you get 72 which is the other angle of the triangle. Since the angles of a triangle add up to 180 you have 180=72 +2x where x is the unknown angle. subtract 72 from both sides and divide by 2 to get 54 degrees for each angle. Notice that each point of the pentagon has 2 triangle angles, this is important for later.
so to answer the first question: pretend tad is walking down one of your pentagon lines at the corner instead of turning have him continue straight. Draw the line out so it extends past the pentagon. Now you should have 3 angles for this, the 2 triangle angles and the unknown angle that tad turns. The cool thing about a straight line is that all the angles on one side of it add up to 180 (don't believe me? Draw a circle around the line with the line as the diameter 360/2=180). so if you have 3 angles 2 are the triangle angles and 1 unknown you can solve for the unknown by setting 180=2(54) + y. y=72
so the unknown angle is 72 therefore tad turns 72 degrees
the second question, what is the measure of each interior angle of the pentagon. This goes back to what I said earlier about the corner having 2 triangle angles. the interior angle of each corner of the pentagon is the sum of the 2 triangle angles = 108 degrees. Or you can just remember that a pentagon is 540 degrees (kind of how a circle is 360 degrees) and then just divide by 5.
interior angle = 108 degrees