[davep]

Ibon, I don't see acceptance as being acceptance of overshoot, but acceptance of the situation and my place in it.

Without wanting to dredge up old arguments, carrying capacity is variable. If I and others can help show the way to a decent carrying capacity using perennials then the local situation with respect to die-off will be potentially far better due to improving sustainable carrying capacity.

Like pops said, it's the difference between an optimistic approach and what appears to be a fatalistic approach.

[Ibon]

I also have no energy to rehash old arguments. Where you see fatalism I see realism.

Perhaps there is more honor in being hopeful even if it is in vain.

[vision-master]

It's those dang fallen angels.......

7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcher_(angel)

[lulubel]

The debate's interesting ... to a point. I am guilty of theorising myself, but I'm coming to realise we have 2 options.

Assuming we've decided that some kind of crash (slow, hard, whatever) is going to happen we can either:

a) Do whatever it is that we enjoy doing with our lives
b) Do whatever we feel we need to do to survive the crash

If a and b happen to be the same thing, we're in an ideal situation.

(And of course, this depends on us having the available funds to do either a or b.)

[SeaGypsy]

I really enjoyed reading this thread, especially Ibon's outpouring.

An aspect of current overshoot which is almost invariably overlooked is the situation from the perspective of our DNA.

It is approximated that only about 15,000 years ago the last bottleneck occured where human populations were reduced to a few tens of thousands worldwide.
Since then we have spread to every inhabitable bit of land on the planet as well as places previously uninhabitable due to our miraculous discovery of oil.
Facing the looming bottleneck/ dieoff is scary from our petty ego's perspective; but from the intelligent DNA?

Those of us who accept dieoff generally fall into 2 camps, those who believe in the complete extinction of humanity and bottleneckers.

Among bottleneckers there are those who believe economics will make all the difference to who comes out the other end and those who belief in a more Darwinian approach: the survival of the fittest.

Among those of the Darwinian appraoch there are those who think it will be brutality and psychopathology which dominate the new sequence/ resequenced DNA; then there are those (like myself) who believe it is much more subtle and complicated than that.

Overshoot has resulted in a wonderfull situation from the purely genetic human perspective. The usefullness of overshoot is getting very close to it's use by date; when we have done too much damage to our support system to make it as a species. It does not benefit a parasite to destroy the host.

We have already done what nature could not in terms of getting all that usefull carbon back out of the toomb; our geological job is almost done.

Our DNA has replicated and mixed up all over the place, undoing much of the damage done to our genetic diversity in the last overshoot.

We have clearly reached the point where we are killing our host.

It's time for the onset of the next bottleneck.
How you choose to approach it is your own decision.
But best to accept our true position sooner than later;
if that is your choice.

Live. Love. Truth.

[papa moose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I')t is approximated that only about 15,000 years ago the last bottleneck occured where human populations were reduced to a few tens of thousands worldwide.

[lulubel]

For what it's worth, it seems stunningly obvious to me that there'll be a dieoff, but the only reason it will result in extinction is if we, as humans, take some action that leads to that end. It isn't going to happen naturally.

As far as DNA is concerned, we've evolved to be good at surviving long enough to reproduce. That our numbers will be cut back has nothing to do with our DNA. It has to do with environmental constraints. Given free rein and enough available resources, our DNA would keep on pushing us to reproduce forever.

My personal view is that there will be a huge range of factors that will influence how and where most people die. Death rates certainly won't be spread evenly across the planet.

[Cid_Yama]

Papa Moose, you got the 70,000 years ago right, but the cause has been attributed to the Toba supervolcano eruption at that time.

Sea Gypsy, the 15,000 wasn't years ago, but the estimated number of humans left following the catastrophe.

[SeaGypsy]

Thank you Cid.

[Ibon]

In my idle moments here before heading back down to Panama I will continue to explore this topic. Coping with the reality of overshoot should be on the curriculum of every environmental science major in universities. It should actually be a required course for the entire human race frankly.

What we are talking about here may seem way to theoretical but isn't the psychological coping of overshoot only going to become more intense going forward? Davep's defense of hope vs what appears to be my fatalism is a worthy debate. For I have to acknowledge that transition will not be 100% that which arises from the ashes of a die-off (probably 99.9%) but also some cultural memes and technologies that will pass through that bottleneck. That is reason alone to be committed to solutions regardless of how futile it may seem. Of course my inherent optimism still shines through that last statement because I do assume that this is a bottleneck event and not the extinction of our species

I see out there in my travels whether in the US, Latin America or Southeast Asia that sustainability and green technologies is all the rage and trend. It is being packaged and marketed in 36 flavors like a fucking ice cream store. Pstar wrote a great post on this thread when he observed that everything has become packaged:

Handsome retail outlets, pretty boxes and plastic containers are packaging around simple essential goods and services. Cheap petroleum has converted essential services and luxuries into trinkets. We have been packaged. We have been marketed and segmented to become good consumers. Most of this is unnecessary. The struggle for existence has nothing to do with the wealth of the planet. It is our servitude.

This is exactly what is happening with the whole green technology movement and sustainability in general. It is yes a pathetic picture but it is not all only exploitation on the part of corporations but also related to this need to be able to psychologically cope with existence while you are a member of a species in overshoot. Who wants to really see their entire life as part of a die-off correction?

We pull the lens back to a wide angle shot and go into deep time now on this thread. Talking about DNA and the bottleneck and that which may follow after the die-off and correction. For those that accept die-off as inevitable and see the futility of mitigation than we switch into deep time mode and look at that which will follow the die-off. Focusing then on the transition and transformation that can rise out of the ashes. That is by the way how some of us cope with this topic also. As an ecologist it is only within that view that I can frame my optimism. Consequences will be the catalyst of change not what I am doing up some mountain wilderness in Panama!

Related to this theme rises other questions.

1) Is it misanthropic to wish less resiliency upon your own species?
2) Is it really misanthropic if your solutions include ways to accelerate the die-off and look for strategies to increase the death rate of our human population before we plunder the remaining eco systems.

And here is a multiple choice question for one to ponder

3) What would really preserve more of the remaining biodiversity on the planet?

a) Advancing green technologies and thus increasing the human
species resilience in extending and preserving the existing status quo.
b) Advancing war, anarchy, chaos and destabilization to accelerate
the unraveling of what is no longer an American but rather a global
voracious status quo .

There is a saying we all know, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Our we entering a chapter in overshoot were counter intuitive solutions must be considered.

What is the balance between solutions that encourage instability and solutions that encourage stability.

A last thought. It is all quaint to even pose any of these questions because it somehow maintains this illusion that it is possible to still steer our destiny. That an individual, town, state, nation or united nations can actually steer the overshoot ship to safe harbor........fancy that!!!!!!

With deep humility and acceptance I surrender myself and my species over to forces and consequences that will now steer us forward. In this regard am I not closer to a Pleistocene hunter gatherer?

[SeaGypsy]

One rare moment for me there Ibon. Reading that was like reading my own story with details changed but the fundamentals exactly the same; I appreciate this beautifully written and honest self and situation appraisal. You have a rare gift and I say that earnestly.

How will 'it' happen?
Naturally.
For as it was in the begginning so shall it be in the end.

We must not sacrifice the natural human; the compassionate human, on any altar/ even the survival of he species or the very planet.

Death controls must be left in the hands of mother nature; lest we lose our very humanity in pursuit of control of the inevitable die off.

There will be and sometimes are attempts at mass death controls.

These are dehumanising and degrading events for the victims the perpetrators and the survivors of the purge.

Yet there is no indignity in running out of water in a desert; sinking a ship at sea in a gallant adventure or in being a martyr for a worthy culture.

[mos6507]

"Is it really misanthropic if your solutions include ways to accelerate the die-off and look for strategies to increase the death rate of our human population before we plunder the remaining eco systems."

Are you evoking Monte here or are these your own feelings? Yes, I'd say it's misanthropic. Especially if I'm part of the death-rate increase. I'd much prefer some sort of draconian limits on births.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'W')ith deep humility and acceptance I surrender myself and my species over to forces and consequences that will now steer us forward.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'A')nd here is a multiple choice question for one to ponder

3) What would really preserve more of the remaining biodiversity on the planet?

a) Advancing green technologies and thus increasing the human
species resilience in extending and preserving the existing status quo.
b) Advancing war, anarchy, chaos and destabilization to accelerate
the unraveling of what is no longer an American but rather a global
voracious status quo .

[Oneaboveall]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', ' ')How about a tri-lateral war-- Pakistan and its muslim allies VS India&Bangladesh VS China and allies.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '&')quot;Is it really misanthropic if your solutions include ways to accelerate the die-off and look for strategies to increase the death rate of our human population before we plunder the remaining eco systems."

Are you evoking Monte here or are these your own feelings? Yes, I'd say it's misanthropic. Especially if I'm part of the death-rate increase. I'd much prefer some sort of draconian limits on births.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '
')We must not sacrifice the natural human; the compassionate human, on any altar/ even the survival of he species or the very planet.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')Take China, a powerhouse and perhaps the country most in need of embracing the truth of peak oil since no other country has the challenge of managing stability of 1.5 billion inhabitants. They are on the path and will overtake probably all other countries in embracing green technologies not for ideological reasons but to maintain stability going forward. Where does this embracing of green technology benefit the remaining biodiversity on the planet if it is embraced solely to maximize the stability of this huge human population?