Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

why we have to be optimistic (long editorial)

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.
Post a reply

Re: why we have to be optimistic (long editorial)

Unread postby TheTurtle » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 17:07:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thequietkid10', 'R')emember my fellow Peak Oilers, you get more bees with honey than vinegar, think about that next time you introduce Peak Oil to the world.


As Woody said on Cheers many years ago:

"Actually, you get more flies with dead squirrels." :-D
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Unread postby TheTurtle » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 17:15:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thequietkid10', 'I')n response to the ecology point, I would like to point out that human beings are unlike any other species on Earth,


It is EXACTLY that attitude ... that we are somehow better than all the other creatures ... that has brought us to this point. Only when we all realize that we are merely part of an intricate web of life will harmony with nature then be restored.

Until then, we fight a losing battle ...
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Unread postby bart » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 18:38:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Turtle', 'I')t is EXACTLY that attitude ... that we are somehow better than all the other creatures ... that has brought us to this point. Only when we all realize that we are merely part of an intricate web of life will harmony with nature then be restored.

Turtle, we're not better than other species, but different.

No other species has our ability to transform the environment, for good or for ill. No other species is able to pass down learned behaviors over the centuries.

I agree with you that an ecological consciousness is key to extricating ourselves from our current mess. But to do so, we must make use of the strong points of our species. The Internet may have arrived just in time to communicate the urgency of the problem and to work out solutions.

In the next 50 years, the prevailing wisdom will become closer to that of Native Americans and tribal peoples... Cornucopians and consumerists will be judged insane or criminal.
Last edited by bart on Tue 21 Jun 2005, 23:46:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 20:04:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'I') am very suspicious of the Die-Off idea.

There is NOT one model of population behavior that all species follow. There are multiple models, multiple curves. This is basic, Ecology 101. Die-off is one possibility, but there are others. It depends on what we do, how we as a species respond


True, but if it is a population bloom as the result of a heretofore unknown or unaccessible food/energy source (which fossil fuels are) then the scenario is always a crash of the population. Name an instance when this has not been the case.

To say that the correlation between the bloom of the human population and the advent of fossil fuels is not going to reverse itself in a post-peak world is wishful thinking.

Sure, we have cognitive skills that other species don't have, but by the time we knew enough to have a grasp of ecological limits, we were already in overshoot.

China is the only major population I know of that has made a concerted effort to curb their population, but it will still reach 2 billion by 2050. So, when are we going to use this wisdom to reduce the population I ask you? We are on track to add another 3 billion in the most optimistic projections.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')aking a concept from biology and applying it blindly to human society is intellectually bankrupt. In the early 20th century, the robber barons justified their depradations through Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). Inevitably these misapplied biological concepts are used as justification for horrendous behavior; that's not happening on this forum that I know of. But as this concept is let loose into the wider world, it will be.


Social Darwinism was a misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest." "Fitness" is a result of random genetic mutation, not choice or competition.

So if you are saying Liebig's Law does not apply to humans, I suggest you are quite wrong. So far, we have modeled the same behavior as any other species: specialization, colonization, population bloom, overshoot, increased incidence of disease, loss of fertility, environmental degradation, etc. So, all this applies to us, but not the population crash and die-off? Hmmm...
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby bart » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 23:42:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')rue, but if it is a population bloom as the result of a heretofore unknown or unaccessible food/energy source (which fossil fuels are) then the scenario is always a crash of the population. Name an instance when this has not been the case.

Many species limit their numbers so they don't get into a overshoot/crash sequence. For example, increased population density causes decreased fertility -- the population oscillates around the carrying capacity.

Human civilizations based on peasant agriculture seemed to follow this pattern. There were swings in the population, reflecting famines, diseases, wars, etc. But crashes down to 5% or 10% of the previous population are rare. Jared Diamond had to go searching in Easter Island and the Viking settlements in Greenland for examples of crashes.

What is unique among human beings is our ability to transform the environment when we bump up against ecological limits. A hunter-gatherer lifestyle can support a certain population density for a given habitat. They would run up against Liebig's Law -- some resource would be a limiting factor. In this way, Liebig's Law does apply to humans. But for humans, Liebig's Law has not been immutable. Through agriculture, we were able to sustain much higher population densities. Subsequent improvements in agriculture have enabled us to surpass one ecological limit after another. For example, using animal power to plow and cultivate fields; crop rotation; synthetic nitrogen fertilizer.

So, we have faced ecological limits in the past and overcome them. The Malthusians, whom you seem to be representing, MQ, have been wrong repeatedly in the past. But you could be right this time. The question remains open.

On one side:
- a fossil-fuel culture, developed over the past 300 years, which dominates our thinking
- the supercharged growth and consumption inherent in capitalism
- an elite focused on maintaining its power
- overpopulation and cultural resistance to population controls
- degradation of the environment (global warming, water shortages, etc.)
- human cussedness in general

On the other side:
- science and engineering capable of miracles (IF they are pointed in the right direction)
- social organization and communication
- visionaries, leaders and prophets who emerge in history when the need arises
- many traditions of sustainability and respect for nature
- human capacity for co-operation and sacrifice

It would be comforting if our fates were decided for us by biology; but, being human, we cannot evade our responsibilities so easily.
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 23:57:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')rue, but if it is a population bloom as the result of a heretofore unknown or unaccessible food/energy source (which fossil fuels are) then the scenario is always a crash of the population. Name an instance when this has not been the case.

Many species limit their numbers so they don't get into a overshoot/crash sequence. For example, increased population density causes decreased fertility -- the population oscillates around the carrying capacity.


But there has never been a case where they did under the paramenters I stated above. There is a bloom and then a crash and die-off-always. It is the epitome of hubris to think we are different, especially when we aren't doing anything to reduce our population in the forseeable future.

Yes, we have managed to find ways to enlarge the carrying capacity, but mostly to evade the limits and create a phantom carrying capacity that is not sustainable. I see no viable replacement for the food/energy that fossil fuels has given us. We have no new hemisphere to exploit, and the stars are to wish upon.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby aldente » Wed 22 Jun 2005, 01:24:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LadyRuby', 'B')arbara said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') follow this PO business with only one thing in my mind: my son. I can face anything, but first of all I want my son to be alive and healthy. I don't care about anything else, as long as he'll have shelter, food and safety.
Unfortunately my husband doesn't grasp this.


Man can I relate! We have two small children. They could care less about "things" and so forth, but they do need food, water, etc. They are who I worry about. And like you, my husband doesn't really get it.


Same for me just reversed, my wife makes fun of me and thinks that I am "obsessed" with Peak Oil. We have a three year old and another one about to check-in soon. I am glad about that, keeps me grounded.Image
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby bart » Wed 22 Jun 2005, 02:26:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')..[a crash occurs when there is a ] heretofore unknown or unaccessible food/energy source (which fossil fuels are)....

There is a bloom and then a crash and die-off-always


Let's look at the ecological bloom/crash scenario in detail, maybe refine it a little.
    1. The new food/energy source must have been a limiting factor. If water is the limiting factor for a species, new sources of protein won't boost the population.

    2. Anything that has been a limiting factor might be the impetus for a population bloom; we aren't confined to food or energy sources.

    3. The new resource must exist in sufficient quantities to sustain a significant and sustained rise in population.

    4. The new resource must be finite for a crash to occur. If the resource is infinitely recycled, then no die-off.

    5. A key variable is the rate at which the resource is available. A readily available resource encourages bloom/die-off. A resource which can only be exploited slowly is less likely to cause bloom/die-off.

    6. Another key variable is the degree to which other resources can be substituted for the newly available resource. Let's say a boom in voles has created a boom in coyotes; if the vole population crashes, the coyotes may be able to avoid a crash if they are able to find another food source, perhaps domestic housecats.

    7. A variation on this theme is migration to find new resources. If other habitats are available, a crash may be avoided.

    8. A crash is a catastrophic population decline such as 75-100%. A gradual decrease in population or lesser swings in population, are not crashes.

    9. A population bloom can be damped if there are other limiting factors. Food may be in abundance for a particular species, but predators and diseases may keep population down.

    10. I would guess that specialist species (those highly adapted to one particular food source or environment) would be more vulnerable to bloom/die-off since they don't have alternative strategies. In contrast, generalist species like rats, pigs, dogs, humans and weeds, are much more adaptable.

    11. Simplified ecosystems, like agricultural monocultures and cities, are more prone to bloom/die-off than are complex ecosystems. For one thing, the natural predators may not be around to check population booms -- an example would be the explosion of deer populations when humans have killed off their predators.

    12. Fast-breeding species would be more vulnerable to bloom/die-off, since their population would rise more quickly when the limiting factor was relaxed. Prime example: bacteria.
=========

Conclusions for humans?
    1. It makes a big difference HOW oil and energy supples decline. The faster the decline, the less chance to adapt, the more likely a die-off.

    2. Increasing oil production now is probably the worst strategy, since cheap energy encourages growth in consumption and population. We need more expensive energy doled out over a longer period of time.

    3. Simplified, centralized systems (like globalization and nuclear energy) lead to booms/die-offs. Much better to have smaller, less connected systems that rely on a variety of fuel sources.

    4. The more signals to slow-down, the better. Less consumption, less population growth, less economic growth, less destruction of biological ecosystems.

    5. Renewables (solar, geothermal, waves, wind) are a big win; finite resources (nuclear, coal, LPG) at best only give us more time to adapt. At worst, finite resources let us keep the party going and make a crash more likely.
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
Top

Unread postby turmoil » Wed 22 Jun 2005, 05:54:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'I')n contrast, generalist species like rats, pigs, dogs, humans and weeds, are much more adaptable.


I’d say pigs are a lot more adaptable than humans. they didn't make up gods and worship them and assume that they don't have to think because they are going to be saved...

i'd rather be a generalist pig, thank you. You wouldn't want to wrestle me, because you'd just get dirty and i'd enjoy it. :P
Last edited by turmoil on Wed 22 Jun 2005, 19:59:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Top

Unread postby aldente » Wed 22 Jun 2005, 11:19:34

StupidMonkey, the way that woman is hit in your avatar will be how Peak Oil is to appear in our societies!
User avatar
aldente
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 23 Jun 2005, 18:54:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'S')implified ecosystems, like agricultural monocultures and cities, are more prone to bloom/die-off than are complex ecosystems.


Most humans depend on simplified ecosystems, agricultural monocultures, most live in cities.

So, I think I'm missing your point as to why humans, who exist in these vulnerable systems, will be exempt from a die-off.
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby bart » Fri 24 Jun 2005, 04:51:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'M')ost humans depend on simplified ecosystems, agricultural monocultures, most live in cities.

So, I think I'm missing your point as to why humans, who exist in these vulnerable systems, will be exempt from a die-off.

I'm not saying humans will be exempt from die-off. The future is not foreordained, one way or the other.

I'm examining the tendencies that increase the chances of die-off and those that reduce them.

You're right in saying that living in cities and depending on agriculture monoculture puts us at risk. We can decrease our vulnerability to disruptions of oil-fueled global systems by meeting our needs locally. We can "complex-ify" the ecosystems in which we live through gardens and preservation of natural areas. Basically, all the stuff we've been talking about on the boards.

What I am attacking is the black/white thinking: the fatalism that says that because bacteria in a Petri dish experience die-off, human beings will follow the same sequence. Natural systems are diverse and die-off is an uncommon phenomenon.

Over-dependence on petroleum has pushed us in the direction of die-off; what can we do to counteract it?
User avatar
bart
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron