"At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be
using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input
striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something
comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from now. By 2500 years,
we would use energy at the rate of the entire Milky Way galaxy—100
billion stars! I think you can see the absurdity of continued energy
growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a historical perspective.
We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I think I know what we’re
not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf"

Fortsätt gärna läsa själva om alltings orimlighet:

At
that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding
to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We
would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from
now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of the entire Milky
Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the absurdity of
continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a historical
perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I think I know
what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate
corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over
400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in
1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate of
the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I
think I know what we’re not going to be doing 2500 years hence. - See
more at:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/#sthash.NjTaNVJp.dpuf

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

## Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar