Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Main Doomer Fallacy

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

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Newfie » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 13:12:42

Sorry Ibon, you lost me on that whole "meme" thing. Not making sense to me.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ibon » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 14:36:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'S')orry Ibon, you lost me on that whole "meme" thing. Not making sense to me.


Newfie,

If you are interested here is a book that explains memes. I read it about 10 years ago and it is very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meme_Machine

A gene is the replicating unit in genetics that is passed on.
a meme is a play on the gene word and refers to how culture is also past on in replicating units. This can be stories, nursery rhymes, books, movies or now digital media. Religions are memes. Our morals and ethics are formed by memes.

As a biologist I am skeptical about drawing too many analogies between our biological genetics and culltural evolotion but having said that the book is still compelling.

The point of my post is that cultural evolution will be determinant and not our biological evolution in how we eventually succeed or fail as a civilization to live within carrying capacity.

Cultural evolution happens faster than genetic evolution that is dependent on the passing on of genes through generations. But culture is carried forward in replicating units just as genes are. Genetics is internal within our cells and memetics is external and follows the lineage of story telling around the fire, to scribes, to the off set printer to mass produced books to recorded music and movies to digital media...
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 14:58:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')By the way I do not believe in any notion that the upcoming crisis has to weed out the genetic weak so that only those with the "right stuff" carry forward. Of course some selection will occur in terms of disease resistance etc. but again the "right stuff" in terms of managing ourselves within carrying capacity will be a complex set of cultural memes and not some weeding out of genetically less fit.

Sometimes I am getting frightened when I think how this "right stuff" might look in practice.

It may easily take a form of bash on regardless attitude.

Grab whatever you can, exploit whoever you can, rape whatever does not escape fast enough, observe no contracts, regret nothing etc.

Funny enough individuals with this type of attitude would be evolutionarily favored if subjected to resource bottleneck.

Needless to say, that approach would teach us nothing, certainly it would not teach us to consciously live within carrying capacity.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby efarmer » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:11:22

The people you describe always see the bottleneck and maneuver to win regardless of the size of the neck on the bottle. They are on top right now, and they intend to stay there.

They don't play the bottleneck game from necessity or as needed, it is a way of life and they fight for supremacy with the smaller group of people who emerge on the other side of the bottle neck.

You don't wake up in a panic and then get good at this at the point where the skill becomes demanded.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby yeahbut » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:16:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'S')election for dealing with complex systems will happen on the cultural "meme" level. Meme replication is free from the slow process of genetic modification. The evolution of cultural memes for dealing with overshoot will have the "opportunity" when consequences start to act as catalyzing agents but it will still all happen within the confines of our genetic wiring which will only undergo modification through deep time way beyond the scope of our current crisis to play any role.


Call them 'memes', or call it changing social norms, I agree that this is where hope lies. The glacial speed of most genetic change is of little use for the challenges we face.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example the impulse to breed and have children is rooted deep in our genes not only the desire for sex but also the maternal nurturing impulse. For cultural memes to impose enough taboos and rules around this impulse to channel it only within carrying capacity the consequences will have to be severe enough as in the case of our tribal ancestors who buried a twin in an act of infanticide to better nuture and the remaining offspring.


Well, no, actually. The social trends(or memes, if you like) for population reduction are already well underway in a steadily increasing percentage of the world. The causes vary from place to place, but the fact is that the list of countries with sub-replacement levels of reproduction is long, and growing. According to this wikepedia article, 42% of the world's population live in countries where there are not enough children born to maintain their population. Japan, Italy, UK, China, Russia, South Korea, Germany, Australia and on and on. It's not reflected in total population yet because of 'population momentum': a previous high birth rate results in a bulge of child-bearing age parents who will have a lot of children in total, even if their birth rate is low.

This is an established trend in world population, and could be described as a meme I suppose, although the reasons for it seem to vary from place to place.
In 'capitalist, developed' nations the reasons seem to have to do with people having children later, with children being incredibly expensive to raise, and a raft of other factors which are open to conjecture.
In some of the 'ex-socialist, developed' nations of Central and Eastern Europe, a drop in quality of life and a lack of confidence in the future seems to have contributed to low birth rates, and has been combined with an unprecedented increase in the death rate, especially in the 1990s.
In China, of course, the birth rate has been imposed by the state.

So the changes are happening, and quite quickly really. However, population momentum means that the effect of the changing reproductive pattern will be played out over multiple generations. We still have huge population growth ahead of us globally, and the change may well be far too slow, and too late.
User avatar
yeahbut
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby davep » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:19:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')unny enough individuals with this type of attitude would be evolutionarily favored if subjected to resource bottleneck.


Or the current global sociopathic corporatism.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ibon » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:22:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')Funny enough individuals with this type of attitude would be evolutionarily favored if subjected to resource bottleneck.


I wonder if modern humans are more like hyenas?

Humans did evolve altruism in tribal groups which was selectively favored along with aggression so they evolved side by side. A too aggressive individual could end up ostracized and not pass on his genes while the more altruistic individual would get to mate etc.

It was within the tribe that altruism evolved. Outside of the tribe in our modern civilization
(especially now where community cohesiveness is degraded along with our environment) I also fear that we can culturally evolve more like aggressive hyenas. As a biologist I see this as even being selected for since the quickest way for a species to recover from overshoot is to accelerate the depopulation by becoming less cohesive in their behavior ie. more aggressive. Grabbing and exploiting and raping whatever you can would actually accelerate the transition back down to equilibrium.

So the early cultural responses to consequences would be as ugly as the environmental consequences. This is also consistent with my belief that the catalysts toward transformation have to be consequences that are so severe that they have the power to create cultural memes that can eclipse our biological pre dispositions. If we are ever going to manage our power we will first have to burn our collective fingers way beyond the epidermis. If only we were lizards we could grow new appendages.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ibon » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:29:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '
')So the changes are happening, and quite quickly really. However, population momentum means that the effect of the changing reproductive pattern will be played out over multiple generations. We still have huge population growth ahead of us globally, and the change may well be far too slow, and too late.


This is all true what you wrote but for one important caveat. In every single country including China where population has decreased this has been accompanied by an exponential increase of consumption during the past 60 years. Which stands side by side with population in determining overshoot.

It will be interesting to see what happens when consumption levels are forced to drop due to resource constraints. Many believe we will go back to having many kids. I am not so sure. The nurturing part of parenting is to give your offspring the best preparation for success. If we collectively perceive the world as having a reduced carrying capacity we may choose to continue to dedicate more of diminishing resources to fewer children.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:40:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'M')any believe we will go back to having many kids. I am not so sure. The nurturing part of parenting is to give your offspring the best preparation for success. If we collectively perceive the world as having a reduced carrying capacity we may choose to continue to dedicate more of diminishing resources to fewer children.

This "more kids" approach would not result in longer term population increase.

Most of kids would be dying by age of 5, few would manage to the age of sexual maturity and very few (usually fittest, most resistant to disease or malnutrition) successfully breed.

You can have six kids per woman but if only one made it to set its own family, population would fall and fast.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ibon » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:48:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '.')

You can have six kids per woman but if only one made it to set its own family, population would fall and fast.


In nature both strategies work. More offspring with less survivors and fewer off spring with higher percentages surviving to breeding age. Why wouldn't humans have a broad cultural response that encompasses these two extremes.

We come back to that question of what is ignorance and what is stupidity. A society no longer ignorant of exceeding carrying capacity would probably opt for having lesser children and prudently conserving limited resources to optimize their survival.

We are closer to elephants than sea turtles.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby yeahbut » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 15:53:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')his is all true what you wrote but for one important caveat. In every single country including China where population has decreased this has been accompanied by an exponential increase of consumption during the past 60 years. Which stands side by side with population in determining overshoot.


Absolutely. I was addressing the specific issue raised of population growth rates, and the change in human behaviour in that area, rather than overshoot as a whole. As you say, what use is birth rate reduction if it is accompanied by huge increases in per-capita consumption?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t will be interesting to see what happens when consumption levels are forced to drop due to resource constraints. Many believe we will go back to having many kids. I am not so sure. The nurturing part of parenting is to give your offspring the best preparation for success. If we collectively perceive the world as having a reduced carrying capacity we may choose to continue to dedicate more of diminishing resources to fewer children.


That's an interesting area for conjecture. If some of the ex-communist states of Europe in the '90s may be used as a microcosm, perhaps we will respond to difficult times, reduced quality of life and fear for the future by having fewer children rather than more?
User avatar
yeahbut
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 16:04:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')n nature both strategies work. More offspring with less survivors and fewer off spring with higher percentages surviving to breeding age. Why wouldn't humans have a broad cultural response that encompasses these two extremes.

We come back to that question of what is ignorance and what is stupidity. A society no longer ignorant of exceeding carrying capacity would probably opt for having lesser children and prudently conserving limited resources to optimize their survival.

We are closer to elephants than sea turtles.

I suspect that once our medicine is finally defeated by Nature (you can hear more and more about antibiotic resistant strains these days, I wonder how this story will look within next 20 years...) we would be sentenced to more kids and fewer survivors future.

More kids and few survivors gives also a better chance for natural selection to make its best.

From biological point of view it is beneficial, from moral point of view... you know...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby BigTex » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 16:28:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', ' ')Evolution apparently didn't select for those who could identify and solve inter-generational problems with long lead times.


Sure it did, otherwise we couldn't be having this conversation. Here on this board, and in many other places, there are large numbers of people who are identifying and working on solutions to inter-generational problems. If we didn't arrive here through evolution, how did we get here? Even if we're a minority and mutants, we still got here through evolution. And again, other cultures had ethics which reflected an ability to identify and solve problems - the "7th Generation" ethic of the Iroquois, the population management practices of the Tikopians, and other examples not on the tip of my brain (you can read about them in books). Our culture may suppress the ability to identify and solve long-term problems, but that doesn't mean the ability is lacking in humans themselves, in my opinion.


I am thinking about it more from a logical perspective.

If evolution selects for those who are best able to survive in the current environment and who are able to make strategic plans that will position that individual most favorably over a period no longer than an average lifespan, then what possible individual survival advantage could there be in having the ability to spot problems that would not occur until a date in the future that is longer than the average lifespan?

If I am a great hunter, gatherer, leader, etc. I totally see how that would confer a survival advantage, but I don't see how there would be any survival advantage for me if I am able to identify issues and formulate solutions that will only impact generations that don't yet exist.

I think that any historical example of individuals and groups that were able to spot issues in the distant future and react meaningfully to them before they became serious problems would have to be considered anomalies.

It seems to me that the human user guide might have something like this to say on the issue: "Humans are able to make long range plans once their basic needs for food, water, shelter, security and society are met. This long range planning ability is effective to a range of approximately one generation. Once the time horizon reaches the length of approximately one human lifetime, however, the ability of the human brain to identify and react effectively to long term survival challenges drops off rapidly. When faced with crisis, the time horizon described above for strategic planning normally shrinks in proportion to the scale of the crisis, causing humans to react more primitively when faced with an inability to meet basic needs."

The fact that there may have been some unusually enlightened individuals and societies in the past doesn't help much in understanding the overall arc of humanity's cultural and social evolution and its inability to see its own flaws from a very long term survival perspective. The dinosaurs did the same thing, just with smaller brains--they dominated their landscape for an age in response to favorable environmental and ecological factors. When those factors turned against them, they disappeared.

The tiny blip of time that represents humanity's presence on Earth ought to give us pause concerning how long we will be able to stay here. OTOH, if from the perspective of geological time we are likely to be little more than a thin layer of sediment, maybe we shouldn't be so concerned about the future effects of our current actions and just try to enjoy the miracle of even being conscious of this moment.

Overall, I don't think that humans' level of intelligence relative to its survival needs strikes a good balance. It seems that we have an excess of cognitive capacity that has, on balance, led us to reduce our overall resilience as a species, as opposed to enhancing it.

If one were looking at civilization as an investment, one might say that civilized humanity has been in a 10,000 year secular bull market, and since about 1950 has been in the process of forming a blow off top.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Carlhole » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:01:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'O')verall, I don't think that humans' level of intelligence relative to its survival needs strikes a good balance. It seems that we have an excess of cognitive capacity that has, on balance, led us to reduce our overall resilience as a species, as opposed to enhancing it.


Yeah, stupid is better.

Hey, wait a sec... didn't stupid say that?
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby americandream » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:13:44

Population limitation can serve a multiple of purposes depending within which context it arises. If it arises in order to liberate women generally so that they may realise their full potential as fully equal humans rather than being chained by conventions driven by narrow and elitist economic agendas, it serves certain socio-political ends that have as their natural outflow, commodity usage natural to said social equity. It is used as a tool to undermine the family and thereby destroy the foundation stone of the patriarchy that sustains the other inquities that have as natural consequences, absurdities such as limitless growth.

Where however, population limitation it is synonymous with modernity as symbolised by capitalism (as the barbarian endeavours to invent himself in the image of the "civilised capitalist"), we then find that it merely paves way for the social norms necessary to serve consumertopia and in fact is the sword that strikes at the heart of political consciousness, standing reason on its head. In that context, it is hardly surprising that population limits become more bourgeoisie window dressing rather than meaningful social change with incidental but natural resourcing benefits.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')his is all true what you wrote but for one important caveat. In every single country including China where population has decreased this has been accompanied by an exponential increase of consumption during the past 60 years. Which stands side by side with population in determining overshoot.


Absolutely. I was addressing the specific issue raised of population growth rates, and the change in human behaviour in that area, rather than overshoot as a whole. As you say, what use is birth rate reduction if it is accompanied by huge increases in per-capita consumption?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t will be interesting to see what happens when consumption levels are forced to drop due to resource constraints. Many believe we will go back to having many kids. I am not so sure. The nurturing part of parenting is to give your offspring the best preparation for success. If we collectively perceive the world as having a reduced carrying capacity we may choose to continue to dedicate more of diminishing resources to fewer children.


That's an interesting area for conjecture. If some of the ex-communist states of Europe in the '90s may be used as a microcosm, perhaps we will respond to difficult times, reduced quality of life and fear for the future by having fewer children rather than more?
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ludi » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:33:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')If one were looking at civilization as an investment, one might say that civilized humanity has been in a 10,000 year secular bull market, and since about 1950 has been in the process of forming a blow off top.


Not sure what that has to do with what you said before. Civilized people do not have more cognitive capacity than non-civilized people.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby BigTex » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:34:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'O')verall, I don't think that humans' level of intelligence relative to its survival needs strikes a good balance. It seems that we have an excess of cognitive capacity that has, on balance, led us to reduce our overall resilience as a species, as opposed to enhancing it.


Yeah, stupid is better.

Hey, wait a sec... didn't stupid say that?


I'm thinking more along the lines of having too much cleverness and not enough wisdom.

Sort of like the inmate who is smart enough to escape from prison but not smart enough to stay out of prison in the first place.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ludi » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:37:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')
I'm thinking more along the lines of having too much cleverness and not enough wisdom.

Sort of like the inmate who is smart enough to escape from prison but not smart enough to stay out of prison in the first place.



Humans seemed to do pretty well for 100,000 years or so. At what point did human cleverness change to make us as a species so incapable of being wise, in your opinion? And if humans as a species became too clever to manage, how can you account for groups of humans such as the Tikopians?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby BigTex » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:44:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')If one were looking at civilization as an investment, one might say that civilized humanity has been in a 10,000 year secular bull market, and since about 1950 has been in the process of forming a blow off top.


Not sure what that has to do with what you said before. Civilized people do not have more cognitive capacity than non-civilized people.


Right, we are just closer to the end of the civilization experiment than we were a few thousand years ago, and thus the flaws in the overall idea of civilization (especially the way it has manifested itself in industrial civilization) as a long term survival strategy are becoming easier to see.

A blow off top can last longer than people think it's going to. We could still be eating the rainbow stew of industrialization in 100 years, but I seriously doubt that we will be in 1,000 years.

Civilization is an obvious step for creatures as intelligent as we are. The problem is when the level of intelligence allows the civilization to destroy the resilience of the species. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt: "Give a cave man a big brain and he may damage the local ecology. Give a civilized man a big brain and he may contaminate the whole planet."
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Postby Ludi » Fri 27 Aug 2010, 17:50:33

I can't agree with your (apparent) proposition that civilization is humans' ultimate destiny.

Remember that until a few hundred years ago the minority of human cultures had been civilizations. "Humans" as a species did not invent civilization, just a few groups did. The rest lived other ways.

And because we're getting into this kind of philosophical discussion, not based on anthropology, I will drop out of it and leave you to your destiny. :)
Ludi
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron