Overshoot is what happens when your sled hits a bump and goes way to fast and you speed really, really fast down a slippery slope that leads you to a tarmac that you were not expecting. Dangerous is sledding in the snow without proper preparations.
No degree required.
PeakOil is You
Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
by MonteQuest » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 22:55:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', 'A')gain monte...you are not staying focused.
Not only are you not staying focused, but you are also being passively threatening.
Good thing you are not a mod around here.
Not only are you not staying focused, but you are also being passively threatening.
Good thing you are not a mod around here.
I was when those actions were taken, so the rules still apply.
It isn't about me, it's about not allowing members to publicly question moderator's actions at any time...even after they are no longer moderators.
It is to protect the ability of the current moderators to do their job without being constantly harrassed and questioned about it.
Reminding you that you are in violation of the COC and subject to an automatic 2 week ban for doing so, is not threatening anything.
Reap what you sow.
Mods?
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 roccman » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 23:07:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', 'A')gain monte...you are not staying focused.
Not only are you not staying focused, but you are also being passively threatening.
Good thing you are not a mod around here.
Not only are you not staying focused, but you are also being passively threatening.
Good thing you are not a mod around here.
I was when those actions were taken, so the rules still apply.
It isn't about me, it's about not allowing members to publicly question moderator's actions at any time...even after they are no longer moderators.
It is to protect the ability of the current moderators to do their job without being constantly harrassed and questioned about it.
Reminding you that you are in violation of the COC and subject to an automatic 2 week ban for doing so, is not threatening anything.
Reap what you sow.
Mods?
You are pathetic Monte...absolutely pathetic.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
-
roccman - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4065
- Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
by MonteQuest » Thu 20 Sep 2007, 00:50:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', 'M')onte screwed up with the 'die-off' sketch.
Oh? I thought my sketch was quite moderate.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'T')here has been a continuous debate about whether or not there will be a die-off of the human population post-peak oil. I think there is great confusion regarding this. Will there be a massive increase in human mortality across the globe overnight? It is possible, but in my opinion, not very likely, unless we nuke the oil fields. I think that what we will see will reflect the inequity in the world today; the difference between the haves and the have nots.
The inevitable die-off necessitated by overshoot will apply differently depending upon where you are in the Petri dish. In the third-world, the inability to purchase or grow food will cause starvation, malnutrition, and markedly increase the death rate. Many starving countries rely on exports of cash crops to survive. They won’t be able to afford IMF debt, nor the energy required for irrigation, petrochemicals, or fertilizers.
In the 1st world, our standard of living will decline markedly. In some ways, modern civilization has allowed us to redirect or satisfy the desire to reproduce by allowing us to acquire things—material possessions—in place of having children. Our "material infant mortality" will increase dramatically. I see an end to NASCAR and long commutes, long-haul trucking, and an implosion of our urban sprawl and financial systems. Unemployment will rise beyond belief. People will have to actually work for a living, rather than live off investments.
This might seem, in principle, an alternative to the more literal form of die-off which is an abrupt increase in human mortality. Of course, there will be a lack of available, affordable medical care, resulting in a lower life expectancy. Poorer diets will also lower life expectancy. As the standard of living declines, more of the lower income and elderly will starve, freeze to death, or die from heat exhaustion, as do every year. Depending upon the rate of decline of available energy, the attrition could be slow or quite fast.
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
While I personally believe we're in severe overshoot, I have agreed with those who argue we don't know the carrying capacity with precision, and that it's dynamic to some extent. The reason I posted what I just did is that I believe it's important for people to understand that we are dependent on the health of the ecosystem.