Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 00:01:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NWMossBack', ' ')Straw man. I'm not a cornucopian wingnut, and neither is davep. (as near as I can tell.)


You don't have to be either to be in denial of overshoot reality.

BTW, I don't ever use strawman arguments to try an win a debate.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

Postby Ludi » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 14:11:46

I think you and davep might be talking past each other to some extent, Monte. I wish you wouldn't put him on ignore. Certainly if you have him on ignore you're definitely talking past each other!


Maybe it's pointless for me to try to get people to talk to each other and keep trying to discuss important issues......


But, I really think there is more common ground here than otherwise.


Probably me just being naive and optimistic again! :roll:
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby Ludi » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 14:17:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '[')Reducing our footprint is meaningless if we don't reduce our population.

A 25% across the board cut would be exclipsed in 13 years by population growth alone,according to a study I read.

I'll try to find the link.


What if population is stabilized, that is, growth stopped at this point? I'm not sure how a 25% across the board cut would be eclipsed if there was no population growth. What I mean is, births equalling deaths at this point (6+ billion). Not population growth or reduction, population stabiity.

Would reducing our footprint be meaningless under those circumstances?

And I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningless." Are you saying that any efforts we make toward powerdown are meaningless at this point, in your opinion?


This isn't a debate, this is a discussion, btw. I'm asking questions for answers, not as a debate.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby JPL » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 18:39:43

At this point in the debate, I would be very interested if Monte would come in and discuss some of the issues that concern me:

For example:

The potential humanitarian disaster that will unfold in Africa, India & China as oil prices push towards treble-figures, and food costs follow likewise.

How we (in the West) are going to explain the 'growth' arguement now, seeing as we are the ones that sold it to the rest of the world in the first place. I would only have to point at modern-day China to say that they have bought into Western ideals ' big style'.

We cannot shirk our responsabilities now. There are 6+ billion people looking at the 'Developed' nations of the world and looking for help, and leadership.

In other words, what my position is, I say look at the humanitarian issues first, fancy theories second.

Speak on...

JP
JPL
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat 18 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Off with the Fey Folk
Top

Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 00:48:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') think you and davep might be talking past each other to some extent, Monte. I wish you wouldn't put him on ignore. Certainly if you have him on ignore you're definitely talking past each other!


It is pointless for me to debate someone in denial of overshoot or who still fails to grasp the concept after "boiling the ocean" to death.

Period.

It isn't my view that is up for debate.

I am just the messenger and agree with the message of the pherologists who are in a position to best estimate carrying capacity.

After all, we are on our way to 9.1 billion before even the optimistic scenario is reached based upon a continued rise in the world standard of living in the developing countries.

Not even a remote possibility, given peakoil here or on the near horizon.

If we are by some chance not in overshoot now, we surely will be after adding another 3 billion in the next 43 years.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun 23 Sep 2007, 01:14:35, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 00:51:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'O')k Monte, but this would mean having to read a book. Would you read it?


What book? And what is the point the book tries to make?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 01:05:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')What if population is stabilized, that is, growth stopped at this point? I'm not sure how a 25% across the board cut would be eclipsed if there was no population growth. What I mean is, births equalling deaths at this point (6+ billion). Not population growth or reduction, population stabiity.


As I have explained before, simple population demographics shows that it would take 50 to 70 years to stabilize the population and have no net growth.

ZPG (a couple has two children) would take 50 to 70 years to have no net growth due to the population demographics.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ould reducing our footprint be meaningless under those circumstances?


You are still in overshoot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningless." Are you saying that any efforts we make toward powerdown are meaningless at this point, in your opinion?


With regard to addressing overshoot, yes.

Without addressing population growth, it would be about as meaningful as bailing the Titanic with buckets.

Powerdown, without population reduction, is a short-term, short-sighted, selfish "fix."

Doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to powerdown. It just means we should have realistic expectations about what it will achieve.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'W')e don’t seem to grasp that any measures to avoid a die-off or postpone it, make the die-off that much worse and make it that much harder to reduce the population to a sustainable level by choice.

Thus, we choose short-term prosperity over a lasting preparation for the future, while denying the reality of overshoot and the coming population correction.

We just don't want to hear that "doomer" negativity, no matter how rooted in solid biological science and history.

We choose to be selfish, rather than learn to share.

Peak oil will force people to view the world differently, to a degree almost unimaginable to those who scarcely understand the concept just now.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby Jack » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 01:10:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', 'T')he potential humanitarian disaster that will unfold in Africa, India & China as oil prices push towards treble-figures, and food costs follow likewise.


Africa will enjoy mass death, mostly by famine, partly by disease, partly by war. Africa is a done deal.

India will compete with the rest of the world for food and fuel. The wealthy few in India will do fine, for a time. The impoverished masses will not. Ultimately, India must dissolve into waring states.

China will do better than India. They may decide to take what they need by military means.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', '
')How we (in the West) are going to explain the 'growth' arguement now, seeing as we are the ones that sold it to the rest of the world in the first place. I would only have to point at modern-day China to say that they have bought into Western ideals ' big style'.


The best way is to smirk at them all, make an inappropriate gesture, and say "Sucker!"

Failing that, form several committees and do studies until famine and disease render the issue moot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', '
')We cannot shirk our responsabilities now. There are 6+ billion people looking at the 'Developed' nations of the world and looking for help, and leadership.


Sure we can. Don't be so pessimistic! I feel my inner shirker flexing muscles even as we speak. 8)
Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn! [smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 01:13:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', 'A')t this point in the debate, I would be very interested if Monte would come in and discuss some of the issues that concern me:

For example:

The potential humanitarian disaster that will unfold in Africa, India & China as oil prices push towards treble-figures, and food costs follow likewise.

How we (in the West) are going to explain the 'growth' arguement now, seeing as we are the ones that sold it to the rest of the world in the first place. I would only have to point at modern-day China to say that they have bought into Western ideals ' big style'.

We cannot shirk our responsabilities now. There are 6+ billion people looking at the 'Developed' nations of the world and looking for help, and leadership.

In other words, what my position is, I say look at the humanitarian issues first, fancy theories second.

Speak on...

JP


Carrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns.

An ecological paradigm must be embraced.

Mother Nature bats last.

We cannot save both the ability of the earth to support us and our full belly notions borne of the phantom carrying capacity.

When I say this, people call me a Nazi.

Mother Nature's laws dictate Nazi idealogy?

Pfft! I don't think so.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

Postby Ludi » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 11:12:01

Thanks for replying to my questions, Monte.


The book I would like everyone to read is "Permaculture: a designers manual" by Bill Mollison. The point of the book is to present a practical and comfortable way of life which is sustainable. It speaks a great deal about carrying capacity and how to return most land taken over by human purposes back to wild nature.

It would seem to appeal to your concerns about how much land humans need to live on. At the time it was written (late 70s I think) Mollison seemed to think humans only need(ed) about 4% of the total land area.


Anyway, it seems ot me this book covers a lot of the concerns people post about repeatedly here on po.com.


So, I'm hoping you and everyone else will read it. That's all.



This isn't a debate.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby Ludi » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 11:20:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')arrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns.



I wish you could understand how this kind of comment makes people upset.


There is no reason why humanitarian concerns can not work IN CONCERT with an ecological paradigm.


It does no good, Monte, to phrase things in the way you do above. People will pick out that one sentence (as I have done in this post) and point to it to show you are advocating doing away with our humanity.


PLEASE TRY to understand why those kind of statements make people upset and DAMAGE YOUR MESSAGE.


Alienating people DOES NO GOOD.


It doesn't matter if it is a fact, Monte. Your message will not succeed if you alienate your audience. And telling people it is the truth and saying anyone who is upset by it "in denial" DOES NOT HELP.


Your message WILL NOT GET THROUGH if you continue to say things like:



"Carrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns."



The survival of the human species IS a "humanitarian concern."


The survival of the human species depends on the survival of the Earth's life systems.


These are not mutually exclusive concerns and it does your message NO GOOD if you phrase them as though they are.


PLEASE try to understand other peoples' emotions, Monte.


Otherwise, your message will fail.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby TheTurtle » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 11:25:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '
')
China will do better than India. They may decide to take what they need by military means.


There are over one billion Chinese who are not part of China's "economic miracle". The impoverished masses will inevitably rise up in protest. Ultimately, China too must dissolve into waring states.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby TheTurtle » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 11:40:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')
PLEASE try to understand other peoples' emotions, Monte.

Otherwise, your message will fail.


Precisely. It doesn't matter how sound ones argument is if one alienates ones audience in the process of delivering the message.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 12:12:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')arrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns.



I wish you could understand how this kind of comment makes people upset.


You think I don't? I understand this better than most. And in the poll I put up about the lifeboat analogy, most people chose to to protect the carrying capacity of the boat over rescuing more survivors at the expense of all aboard.

The "right" thing to do is not always the course that works.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no reason why humanitarian concerns can not work IN CONCERT with an ecological paradigm.


With a sustainable population level, of course.

But we don't have that, nor are we doing anything to achieve it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t does no good, Monte, to phrase things in the way you do above. People will pick out that one sentence (as I have done in this post) and point to it to show you are advocating doing away with our humanity.


I am not concerned about the few who will not seek the full message, as I have taken the time to explain ad naseum over the last three years.

Fussing with my Nazi detractors is my biggest error on this site.

Part of the reason I took a short hiatus.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t doesn't matter if it is a fact, Monte. Your message will not succeed if you alienate your audience. And telling people it is the truth and saying anyone who is upset by it "in denial" DOES NOT HELP.

Your message WILL NOT GET THROUGH if you continue to say things like:

"Carrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns."



It is the same message that Rees, Palmer, Smail, Catton, Pimental, and others have been saying for years.

It is ecological reality. We must learn to accept that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('William Stanton', 'P')robably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world’s unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless.

But, let me rephrase ...

If we put humanitarian concerns over carrying capacity then we lead ourselves toward an 'inhuman future' where humanitarian concerns become rather moot.

As Catton reminds us:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Catton', '"')Whichever of the two historic approaches we take, either choosing to accelerate drawdown or indulging in additional takeover, our new ecological paradigm enables us to see that eventually we will end up shifting back to the other. Either traditional way, if prolonged, leads to an inhuman future ... not toward the lasting solution of temporarily vexing problems ... For any lasting solution, we must abandon both of these ultimately disastrous methods. Drawdown bails us out of present difficulties by shortening our future. Takeover was of lasting value earlier in human history, but that time is past.

"We must learn to live within carrying capacity without trying to enlarge it. We must rely on renewable resources consumed no faster than at sustained yield rates. The last best hope for mankind is ecological modesty."

As Michael Rennie as Klaatu remarked in the The Day the Earth Stood Still:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burnt out cinder. Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you."

Insert the appropriate words where necessary to reflect the current dilemma.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 12:18:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')
The survival of the human species IS a "humanitarian concern."


The survival of the human species depends on the survival of the Earth's life systems.


These are not mutually exclusive concerns and it does your message NO GOOD if you phrase them as though they are.



With regard to an overshoot population, they are exclusive.

We must choose carrying capacity over humanitarian concerns of the survival of the billions in overshoot.

We must save the species, not the population.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?

Postby Novus » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 13:06:02

When the phantom carrying capacity goes away due to peak oil and soil depletion there will be no room for humanitarian issues. If food is in a state of net world wide shortage then transferring food to one area will only impoverish another area. In essence humanitarians are asking to starve Peter so they can feed Paul. Ecologists have been writing about this doomsday for 30+ years. People are only now starting to get upset because they realize that day reckoning is now coming.
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby Ludi » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 14:13:33

Please reply to this new thread:

http://peakoil.com/post523951.html#523951
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby JPL » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 20:17:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Carrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns.

An ecological paradigm must be embraced.

Mother Nature bats last.

We cannot save both the ability of the earth to support us and our full belly notions borne of the phantom carrying capacity.

When I say this, people call me a Nazi.

Mother Nature's laws dictate Nazi idealogy?

Pfft! I don't think so.


"Carrying capacity must come before humanitarian concerns."

Reply thus:

The greatness and follies of man are not something that is borne out of religion, or out of politics, but from the simple goodness of the human spirit. The ability to see in each adversity a challenge, in each challenge a weakness to be overcome - borne out of sacrifice, of the weakness of the human heart, but also its strengths.

These challenges that face us are not born from good, or from evil, but from the one source they always came from - the human heart. Whether we make a new day of them, or an eternal night - is entirely up to us.

In the end, we will make a great showing of our strength - or also our weakness upon the Earth - but is not for us to reason, or to say who won, or lost, or who tried best - but that we tried - and that will be enough.

JP
JPL
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat 18 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Off with the Fey Folk
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 21:21:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', ' ')In the end, we will make a great showing of our strength - or also our weakness upon the Earth - but is not for us to reason, or to say who won, or lost, or who tried best - but that we tried - and that will be enough.

JP


That's all a steer can do...try.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Carrying Capacity

Postby JPL » Sun 23 Sep 2007, 21:59:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', ' ')In the end, we will make a great showing of our strength - or also our weakness upon the Earth - but is not for us to reason, or to say who won, or lost, or who tried best - but that we tried - and that will be enough.

JP


That's all a steer can do...try.


As in the famous Monte is (how does it go???)

lost

for

words???

JP
JPL
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat 18 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Off with the Fey Folk
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron