$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', '')$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
PeakOil is You
Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
As in the famous Monte is (how does it go???)
lost
for
words???
JP
No, just being brief and succinct for a change, rather than verbose.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
by PolestaR » Mon 24 Sep 2007, 05:05:53
Going by my "walking human robot" scenario where you remove greed, violence, jealousy AND don't want anything in your life except eating vegetables/fruit/nuts, sleeping and tending to the garden, the Earth could support around 85 billion people in a rather "sustainable" fashion going by my calcs. Probably more if you had technology/energy to increase the arable land (which includes regular rainfall of course).
http://www.doomerporn.com/polestar/?p=37
Montequest, at only 6.5billion people we are far from that number. Now the cornucopians will just need to find a way to turn humans into simple machines who only breed when required, don't eat meat, etc, because the most important thing we can do is to ensure we reach our maximum number of humans on Earth...
That's the goal "no one should die" cornucopians think we should have anyhow it seems.
When you factor in all of the "human condition" you start to realize that even getting to 3 billion people is quite an achievement for us. I think a sustainable world wide population number for the western lifestyle would be something like 100-200million people with current technology.
http://www.doomerporn.com/polestar/?p=37
Montequest, at only 6.5billion people we are far from that number. Now the cornucopians will just need to find a way to turn humans into simple machines who only breed when required, don't eat meat, etc, because the most important thing we can do is to ensure we reach our maximum number of humans on Earth...
That's the goal "no one should die" cornucopians think we should have anyhow it seems.
When you factor in all of the "human condition" you start to realize that even getting to 3 billion people is quite an achievement for us. I think a sustainable world wide population number for the western lifestyle would be something like 100-200million people with current technology.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
- PolestaR
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 955
- Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
by MonteQuest » Mon 24 Sep 2007, 10:00:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', ' ')Going by my "walking human robot" scenario where you remove greed, violence, jealousy AND don't want anything in your life except eating vegetables/fruit/nuts, sleeping and tending to the garden, the Earth could support around 85 billion people in a rather "sustainable" fashion going by my calcs. Probably more if you had technology/energy to increase the arable land (which includes regular rainfall of course).
http://www.doomerporn.com/polestar/?p=37
Montequest, at only 6.5billion people we are far from that number.
http://www.doomerporn.com/polestar/?p=37
Montequest, at only 6.5billion people we are far from that number.
Not when you add in this caveat and note we are already in the mist of the Sixth Great Extinction.
Not to mention the inability of environmental sinks to tolerate that many, no matter how marginal an existance.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('polestar', 'O')k so the earth could support 85 billion humans, if we killed 99% of the other life forms, gave up eating meat, gave up wearing clothes, had no violence and no desires to want anything else in life…..
We cannot revert to the takeover method.
$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."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
