PeakOil is You
Survivor Peak Oil: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.
by The_Toecutter » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 03:52:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')k, what causes growth, and what is the real problem? The answer to that question, for me, is rooted in each individual's motive and in society's unwritten laws. For example, many solutions I hear floated around to decrease oil consumption are “fuel economy must increase” or “people must drive less” or “the price of fuel must increase”. The flaw with such solutions is while the middle class is required, en mass, to pay dearly for such solutions., the wealthy and the ruling elite are exempt from it, due to their greater access to resources and political power. While you may be driving a hybrid and turning down your thermostat, to do your part to conserve energy, The President will be chauffeured and pampered around in Air Force One, so that he can congratulate you and give you a medal, using far more energy than you saved in the process.
You make a lot of good points. In a sustainable society, the wealthiest of society will have to have a drastically reduced share of the pie, otherwise everyone suffers, sort of like today.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o for me, when the profit motive remains the core value system both on an individual and at the societal level, then growth will always be present. The only time no growth in the steady state would be viable is when there is no profit motive, and everyone lives within the limits that they find themselves in. They do not seek to increase their own wealth beyond what is necessary to live a fulfilling life; and they give to others what they do not need, and sometimes do need, freely.
This is not necessarily true. A profit driven society can co-exist with reduced consumption and net zero growth. Instead of shipping entire goods like computers or televisions long distances, for example, blueprints might be sent via computer on how to duplicate the parts locally and a small enterprise could assemble the product. Build the product to last longer than normal in an effort to conserve resources? You reduce consumption. You can still make a profit, even though the economy may not be growing in size since just enough goods are being made to replace what is no longer in operation, with having what is no longer in operation recyled instead of trashed. Historically, luxuries have only existed for a small number of wealthy elites as the peasants did without and did all the work. Depending on which type of post peak scenario we have, this doesn't have to be the case if we move from a more domination-oriented society to a more partnership-oriented society. Instead of buying junk we don't use and occupying ourselves with endless products, we should instead pick a few things and stick to those if we even choose to pick anything at all. A move away from advertising is needed and a move towards examining the implications of what you purchase is needed for some semblence of a consumer society to continue in the future.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince that is virtually impossible, and has never happened in mankind’s history, nor is it likely to occur in the future, growth will always be present, and so resource wars and economic collapse occur to rebalance and redistribute growth/power/wealth/success, and is a long term consequence of motive.
Sadly, you are completely correct. Key word, 'virtually' impossible. It doesn't mean that it is. In our history, human beings have never been anywhere near as educated as they are today, either. Education and being aware of the consequences of what is consumed and taking responsibility for those consequences on individual, government, and corporate levels could make this a reality. But again, I don't expect humanity to impress me anytime soon. Doesn't mean that an attempt would be worthless though.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by Doly » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 04:36:36
Growth hasn't always been present in every society. There have been cultures that have been generally content with what they had, with no expansionist ambitions. This isn't necessarily static: think about the Chinese, who have the longest surviving civilization and have recently had a successful population control method.
-
Doly - Expert
- Posts: 4370
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
by The_Toecutter » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 05:09:36
Their method was nothing short of totalitarianism. There are better ways to control population, such as improving living standards, providing education, and making it so children are economic burdens instead of assets by being a developed enough nation that children aren't needed to care for the parents in old age or provide cheap labor thus relegating them to be economic burdens instead of assets. Note how in America, Canada, Australia, Western Europe and in Japan, the birth rates are negative! It can also be argued that the Chinese method has created more problems than it supposedly solved(ie. disproportionate ratio of males to females sparking sex trade, thousands of deaths, reduced personal freedom, ect.).
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by Ludi » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 07:30:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'O')k so the problem is growth.
Monte says that any species will multiply until it reaches the limits or goes above the limits and then nature will cull us back.
Ludi says that some cultures have managed to avoid unlimited growth and therefore (I presume) avoid this cycle of boom and bust. (sorry for quoting Ludi I hope you don't mind)
I found this article on the Tukano tribe. It suggests that they knew about how they population would have an effect on the environment. Here is the link to the article (well actually its an extract from a book). You only need to read the bit entitled 'The Tukano: A Primal Adaptation'.
I was wondering if this is an example of people being able to avoid the boom and bust through culture? Maybe there is some hope??? Any comments?
Monte says that any species will multiply until it reaches the limits or goes above the limits and then nature will cull us back.
Ludi says that some cultures have managed to avoid unlimited growth and therefore (I presume) avoid this cycle of boom and bust. (sorry for quoting Ludi I hope you don't mind)
I found this article on the Tukano tribe. It suggests that they knew about how they population would have an effect on the environment. Here is the link to the article (well actually its an extract from a book). You only need to read the bit entitled 'The Tukano: A Primal Adaptation'.
I was wondering if this is an example of people being able to avoid the boom and bust through culture? Maybe there is some hope??? Any comments?
Many, if not most, indigenous populations have/had some methods for limiting their population, because their territories were finite and they were very aware of the cost of fighting with neighboring tribes.
- Ludi
If you stay way from Mad Max scenarios, which I do here and in public, I find you get a better audience.
