What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
by yesplease » Thu 07 May 2009, 16:50:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hat studies are those?
Quick google search:
Here is an essay from Hardin. He does kind of speak in nerdspeak. I don't like his rhetorical style. But that's the best I can do in a 2 minute google search. There are many others that talk about how standard of living has to collectively go down in order to enable larger and larger population sizes. It's not rocket science.
So we should be shooting for a high "material quality of life", as per that essay? That doesn't sound very sustainable, or even accurate... Keeping in mind of course that material and energy consumption aren't very good indicators of quality of life. Material well being is just one part of what most consider to be a satisfying life[.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 't')here are enough resources for 10 billion people to have comfortable personal transportation, a nice climate controlled dwelling, plenty of food, and so on.
What studies are those?
In terms of studies the millennium ecosystem assessment is a great start. Contrast it to 5% of the world's population using 25% of it's energy and probably resources in the states, and half of that 5% is using most of that energy. For a good overview of energy, visit withouthotair.com. Keeping in mind of course that ~20kWh per person per day is entirely possible, just with something closer to an Aptera than a Camry, a smaller home, less meat, and so on.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here's a difference by a factor of about twenty five to fifty in energy consumption when comparing a big American lifestyle to a low energy version of the same thing.
Yes, but if you concede that the earth is in overshoot, we can't just take a snapshot of the world as it is and sigh in relief that there is such a wide gap between american lifestyle and the 3rd world. The actual average standard of living we'd have to adopt in order to not kill the planet in a matter of decades is much much lower. Powerdown is something we'd have to do with or without fossil fuel depletion.
We aren't in overshoot wrt population, just wrt SUVs and McMansions. There's still plenty of carrying capacity for a lower energy civilization, just not enough for SUVs and McMansions. Offhand I can't remember the rate of permanent degradation, but given the wasteful nature of use, it wouldn't take a lot to reach a stable state again, at least if I remember correctly.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'D')riving a small vehicle, eating less meat, and living in a smaller well built house is dystopian? Have you hugged your SUV today?
And what makes you think that's going to be enough?
The impact of all those activities. Agriculture in the states alone is about an order of magnitude larger than it needs to be due to excessive livestock and meat production. Energy consumption and pollution, both Carbon and otherwise, are tremendously inflated, since a reasonable level wouldn't make anyone w/ financial interests in FFs a billionaire. Homes are too big and too poorly designed. Too much "stuff", and so on... If you want I can break it down for you, well, whatever isn't covered or covered well enough in the above references.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by Ludi » Thu 07 May 2009, 17:50:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')We aren't in overshoot wrt population
Yes, we probably are.
Ecological footprint for Bangladesh:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'O')ffhand I can't remember the rate of permanent degradation
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')Population seems to be limiting itself
No, it isn't. Population continues to grow, just not as fast in some parts of the world.
"A 20-year United Nations plan for stabilizing the world's population at about
7.8 billion people by 2050, compared with some 5.7 billion today, is to be discussed by 170 countries at a two-week conference opening Monday."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/world ... sec=health"Under the UN’s medium variant scenario, world population will reach
9.1 billion in 2050. "
http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/ ... n-by-2050/Why is a larger population desirable?
Why is focusing on population control (birth control) undesirable? Why should population reduction (birth control + natural death of aging population) not be part of a plan to change our way of life?
It's part of my plan, anyway!
by Narz » Thu 07 May 2009, 21:33:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, we probably are.
Ecological footprint for Bangladesh:
Bangladesh is the most overpopulated place on the place, I don't think anyone here is going to argue Bangladesh isn't overpopulated. However Bangladesh doesn't represent all of Earth.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
by yesplease » Thu 07 May 2009, 23:05:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')We aren't in overshoot wrt population
Yes, we probably are.
Ecological footprint for Bangladesh:
Based on what? The millennial assessment differs in it's conclusion. Specifically, it states the the global average lifestyle, or whatever the analogous term was, was the problem, not the population. The difference of course being a population in overshoot can't change it's behavior in order to avoid a reduction in size, while problems with lifestyle can be resolved by changing lifestyle. I suppose we could say that SUVs and McMansions were in overshoot, but not population.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'O')ffhand I can't remember the rate of permanent degradation
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/ Ecological footprint is different from the carrying capacity required to sustain the population at the global average lifestyle. For instance, if a population was at one Earth, and spiked to 1.5 Earth's for one year, it wouldn't mean that the carrying capacity of that Earth had declined by half in one year, just that the ecological footprint had increased by one half. The decline is carrying capacity is coupled to the size of the footprint, but not equal to it, at least AFAIK.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Thu 07 May 2009, 23:09:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')
That site is rigged. There is no way to reduce your footprint to 1 earth even if you do dial everything back all the way.
They explain that's because of the societal footprint, which each of us is partially responsible for. Sucks.
Also, you get no points for having few or zero children. In fact, if you fill your house up with kids, you get a lower footprint!
Yeah, that's pretty broken as calculators go... More people and a smaller footprint.
As for a societal footprint, it sounds like something a rich person would say when co-opting millions or billions in tax payer cash to build a new thingamajigger. Of course there's something associated with something like road use, if a person uses those roads, but we wouldn't break all the roads in the states up among everyone who happens to live in the country, just the people/goods that use 'em.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by Narz » Fri 08 May 2009, 17:55:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'N')o, but it's often held up as the standard of living we should all aspire to if we are to live sustainably with the current population.
I've never heard it so.
I think they whole ecofriendly lifestyle = poverty belief system is part of why so many Americans are so dumbasstastic about the environment & ecological issues. We should aspire to be even more overpopulated (like Bangledesh) just poorer, we should strive to retain quality of life while dropped the worst aspects of our behavior. That & not have over two children per family ideally. I don't think this can be forced without mass turmoil but we can at least stop rewarding women for having over two kids with more tax-breaks/welfare money.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'J')ust to be fair to the rest of the world, not even necessarily sustainable, the US would need to use 1/5 of the resources we currently use. With only 1/5 of the world's population, the US uses 25% of the entire world's resources.
Well, we're working on destroying the other 4/5 of the world.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'Y')ou can see by the map that the least populated countries tend to not be exceeding their carrying capacity. So this seems to support the idea that population is a significant factor in national (and world) ecological footprint.
It's definitely a factor. But the eco-fascist strong-arm tactics Montequest & his ilk suggest will never be implemented so it's a waste of time even talking about them. Fact is we've got nearly 7 billion people. We can't eradicate half of them nor can we forcibly sterilize them, so what's the next best thing we can do? I'd say education, social pressure & not rewarding those who breed &/or are wasteful (individuals & corporations).
by Narz » Fri 08 May 2009, 23:28:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', ' ')But the eco-fascist strong-arm tactics Montequest & his ilk
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not suggesting "eco-fascist strong-arm tactics." I'm not sure who was (in this thread anyway).......?
I didn't say you were.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
by yesplease » Wed 13 May 2009, 00:21:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')For instance, if a population was at one Earth, and spiked to 1.5 Earth's for one year,
But that's not what's happening in reality. In reality, we are using more than one Earth year after year.
I never said it was, I was just using that situation as an example. That said, even w/ in our current situation, using ~1-1.3 Earths for over a decade hasn't reduced carrying capacity proportionally. If it did, we would already be dead by now. What happens is that we will need ~1.3 Earths, or whatever the figure is, due to some limiting factor, and when that becomes an issue we change our behavior. During that time the carrying capacity declines by however much of what we use cannot be replaced by itself or some other organism moving into that niche, which clearly isn't proportional to use, at least according to the graph you posted.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Wed 13 May 2009, 00:41:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e aren't in overshoot wrt population, just wrt SUVs and McMansions.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It's my opinion that even if we were all vegan ascetics that 6.7 billion is putting too much strain on the environment. Maybe we'd buy some time, but we'd have to damn well USE that time to downsize our population before we push ourselves right up against the precipice again. I just don't see any way shape or form that 6.7 let alone 10 billion people can live sustainably on earth, and even if there IS a way, there is no way we'll get enough people to agree to live that way.
Sunday vegan ascetics? Sure, I think that could apply to most, but I don't think that you could seriously say 10 billion vegan ascetics would really have enough of a impact to be a problem. If we're at ~1.3 Earth's right now, they would be at ~.15 Earths, with population declining. If you think that .15 Earth's is too much strain, why not .015, or even .0015? Shoot, even Adam and Eve had a footprint...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I') also don't see much difference in the level of difficulty in enforcing that everybody powerdown vs. a one-child policy. Especially in america, the pursuit of happiness is written right into the declaration of independence. People are going to freak OUT over the idea of consumption taxes and other penalties and regulations.
What was it, your rights only extend as far as your own nose? People have the freedom to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't come at the expense of others. Freaking out over taxes is a given, but if that's what has to be done then that's what has to be done. We've had taxes for a long time, but we're still around. I imagine similar was said about CAFE standards, but here we are, using about half as much gas as we would have been using otherwise. Pollution, CFC emissions, law, all the same deal to some extent.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'S')o the closer to the abyss we get, and the greater the per capita powedown necessary to avoid going over the edge, the more social turmoil we'll risk in trying to force people into a sustainable sandbox. So I see no reason not to tackle population in order to give people a choice. They can either watch the sandbox contract, or they can accept population constraints in order to see the sandbox one day expand again.
If it's as close as you say, we won't have to force people into a sustainable sand box, they'll do it themselves. The amount of change is proportional to the risk and consequences of not changing. If it wasn't we probably wouldn't be here in the first place since our ancestors probably wouldn't have made it in the past.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Wed 13 May 2009, 00:46:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'J')ust to be fair to the rest of the world, not even necessarily sustainable, the US would need to use 1/5 of the resources we currently use. With only 1/5 of the world's population, the US uses 25% of the entire world's resources.
That wouldn't be too bad, at least on a per capita basis. The US has less than 1/20th of the world's population and uses ~1/4th of it's resources, a rate five times greater than the per capita rate. If we look at the richer groups in the US, we probably have something like 1/35th-1/40th of the population using 1/5th of it's resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
