[DoctorDoom]

To quote "Oddball" from Kelly's heroes: "Always with those negative waves!"

1. They must address population growth.

No reasonable person can argue that there isn't some ultimate limit to how many people the earth can support, but it's unclear what that ultimate sustainable carrying capacity is. Nature and the world are too complex to yield to our current modelling abilities. Also, everyone, even scientists, have biases. What scientist is going to be motivated to do a study on carrying capacity? Do you think there might be a bit of self-selction going on in that mainly people looking to confirm their own world-views even bother to do any analysis? This isn't science at the level of a physics experiement that produces an unarguable result. So, I'm sorry, I don't find the studies you've cited very persuasive, and certainly not conclusive. All that said, there's no need to argue here, since there is no question the average person would have more breathing room and resources if there were fewer of us. Since I view a mass extinction as an unviable "solution", all I can do is hope that we're still below the carrying capacity and look for ways to avoid a dieoff of those now here. Fortunately population growth has been trending down for decades due to the factors cited by Deazkin, and if we stay on course we should reach a replacement level and static population before 2050.

2. They must address the global warming issue.

Related to energy use but technically a different issue. You might as well lump all manner of environmental degradation here too. Since the 1970s we've cleaned up our act significantly. More needs to be done; having cleaner energy sources will help us do it. Re. global warming per se., let's talk about nuclear power, and wind/solar.

3. They must address the negative consequences of conservation efforts on the economy and efficiency gains increasing consumption.

Jevon's so-called paradox doesn't have the standing of a physical law such as the laws of thermodynamics. I reject the premise of this question. In an era of resource constraints and rising prices, the phenomenon of increased usage in response to efficiency gains need not apply. Look at what happened in response to the 1970s oil crises. Look at the example of Europe (high petrol taxes have reduced per-capita consumption).

4. They must address the economic issues of a no-growth economy and past debt.

Again, we have no idea where the limit to economic growth is. Growth doesn't have to mean more people, more things, more resources consumed. Growth includes gains in knowledge and progress in the arts. Since a lot of people seem to think "growth" is the problem perhaps this deserves a separate thread. But just to briefly touch on this, consider this example. In the 1800s, doctors were able to transfuse blood between people to treat them, but sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not. Research eventually discovered that people had types of blood. Now doctors could do the same thing they were doing before only with much better outcomes. If some medical company had come up with that, it's stock would go way up reflecting the fact that things are better than they were before. That's growth.

5. They must be sustainable/ renewable and the least toxic to the environment.

Ultimately the sun will fail us and life on Earth as we know it now will cease to be possible. So "sustainable" is really a matter of time scale. Nuclear power is a proven technology that can keep technological civilization going for 100s of years, and probably 1000s. Certainly long enough to come up with a longer-term solution to energy needs. The environmental community has it's head in the sand on nuclear power. Since 99% of the population has no desire to fall back to their notion of an agrarian utopia, the result is that we will keep on burrning FFs until our backs are to the wall - and then we will turn to nukes because again 99% of the population does not want to go back to the 18th century.

6. And probably most important, they must be global in perspective.

Don't understand this last. The laws of physics are the same everywhere. Any solution will therefore work everywhere, too. Just as now, there will be rich and poor nations. The poor won't be any worse off, in fact if the rich collapse the poor will be even worse off. There is at least the hope that if the rich countries can get their act together they will have more spare capacity to help lift the poor nations off the floor. Is this what you were asking, or something else?

[lapulapu]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jam1eSc0tland', 'H')i Colorado-Valley,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the late '70s I had high hopes that Buddhist thought would come to North America, and we would learn how to conduct ourselves properly in the world

[scordry]

As to the question of whether or not there is a deeper problem, I think that there is--without question.

We are creatures with self-seeking interests: "top-predators" in ecological parlance; "fallen" in traditional Christian thinking; "needy" in Maslow's well-known heirarchy in psychology.

Fossil fuels represent the ultimate in survival shortcuts. Like the feral cat that keeps coming back to the old lady that feeds it tuna fish and ultimately forgets how to hunt, we are dependent on the energy in fossil fuels and do not know how to operate properly within our environment.

Of course, this is not a new phenomena: 90% of deforestation occured prior to 1950 [Lester Brown], and Diamond and Tainter chronical many civilizations that failed to live in harmony with and adapt to their changing environments. The new part is the modern pace at which we have been able to thrash the environment; Wackernagel, et al, have estimated that we (as a species) exceeded the planet's ability to support our population back around 1980.

This internal and self-destructive tendancy is illustrated by the story of the land sale [Dostoevsky, I think] where all you had to do was run around the perimeter of the land you wanted, and as long as you returned before sunset, you would get all of the land that you had skirted. Of course, the "buyers" always die because they kill themselves trying to encircle as much land as possible.

The use of fossil fuels allows us to circle alot of land, but the sun is about to set.

Until we can figure out how to tame our own self-interests, the cycle of build-up, exploit and collapse will repeat itself indefinitely. Technological advances and novel monetary systems are, in the end, only bandaids to the fatal ecological hemoraging caused by human ambition and greed.

[ALBY]

I tend to agree with MonteQuest's observations, but i also note, with a great deal of amusement, the resentment and anger directed at him by adults here who ought to know better.

There is an ignore button.

If you feel more comfortable in the groupthink echochamber, go back to the DU. If you don't want to get housed by MonteQuest, then don't spout off, half cocked in here. There seem to be a lot of weak egos, fragile and easily threatened people in here. He's just a bunch of pixels and really not worthy of all the thoughtful ad hominems i just read in the last two pages.

[Revi]

Why can't we all live on a quarter of what we are using now? We're going to soon, anyway, so why not start to figure it out. Solar energy hits our houses every day. Why not use it? The wind blows on top of the hills, and out on the ocean. Why not use it? The trees grow and use solar energy to store fuel for winter nights. Use some of them. Switch to led lighting, eat only grass fed beef, and less processed food. Get an electric bicycle. Charge it with solar panels on the roof of the shed you keep it in. Ameribike makes a shed for that. Cut your own wood, grow a garden. Walk to stores. So what's the problem? It's time to change your own lifestyle. People will see it and they will follow. Or they won't.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen was this demonstrated?

[Wildwell]

Has the world got problems? Yes, but then it always has had. This stuff is nothing new. Here’s a quick list of the current problems

- Climate change
- Finite fuel depletion
- WMD proliferation
- Technology coupled with maverick states/groups/individuals
- Land use pressures: Prices, congestion, claims
- Destruction of the environment, overuse of resources
- Declining moral standards and rise of individualism leading to side effects: Claim culture, blame culture, red tape, over regulation
- Declining returns in investment in some industries
- Cruelty to children and animals, human rights abuses
- Air pollution
- Social pressures creating stress and depression. Loner lifestyles creating metal health problems, destruction of family.
- Pension and social security shortfalls, housing problems caused by over pricing of market
- Health service pressures/pill fixes everything culture

- Growth in a finite planet
- Social inequity with nations and globally creating resentment and resource issues.
- Globalisation leading to: Destruction of local business and farming, long term unemployment in some sectors, over immigration, over migration, clash of cultures
- Crime, gun culture
- Freedom, privacy, rights issues


Some of these problems are not new, some will converge with devastating consequences: Eg technology is the wrong hands is going to get very dangerous, Climate change isn’t easily solved and that converges with over population, food, water and fuel issues and even technology

These problems are a sort of class of religions and belief systems if you like and it will hot up:

Capitalism v Communism

Technology v Humanism

Islam v Christianity etc

Environmentalism v most of the above.

The trouble with ‘power down’ as some people see it, is it will create more problems that it solved if not done properly – for example it will upset the status quo militarily and economically. So, in short we’ll learn the hard way, the true root of the problem is being addressed less and less, especially in the west, and it's none of the above and it's not external.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'I')t's a pity to see these boards become a bilious dumping ground for discontent.


We got a problem on our hands, and all people know how to do is attack, attack, attack.

Gives ya great hope for the future, doesn't it?

[holmes]

powerdown.
Its just a matter of time before this ships engine blows and sinks permanently.
Over compassion must end.
Those that do powerdown better be prepared for violent and brutal attacks and better not be afraid to shoot someone or something without remorse.
Just a zit in the long list. Its so comical that humanoids BELIEVE that these most destructive global empires are somehow different than everything in the past like god created us a few hundred years ago. We arent that different if u analyze things with a clear head. We are not that advanced. lots of smoke and mirrors. Baubles. bright shiny trinkets. That shit does not faze me. I see through these scam artists like a window. They could do it to the indians. not happening to me.

[holmes]

This is new! what are u on crack? Never before in the history of the planet has there been ONE dominant species that has proliferated and spread and destroyed life sustaining resources as the human species. Do u not understand we use our fresh water as landfills. we build our death on top of the MOST PRODUCTIVE LANDS. And we continue to do so. and that is just a tip of the iceberg. we continue to breed and allow open borders even when the wall is in site. we have already hit the wall. Humans are parasitic. read up on the definition.
parasite:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.

A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

which one are we?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colorado-Valley', 'H')ey, I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time, Monte, even before John Denver sang his songs about the Rockies.

We are going to have to go through something ... something that will shock humanity out of its complacency. Perhaps it means hitting the wall at full speed, and then hoping that the survivors will understand what they hit, and that they will learn from that experience to live life more simply, more nobley, more beautifully, and within the context of nature.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'n')o idea. however, i do not believe in die-off at all or in the olduvai theory etc.

and wishing for the whole population of the world to suddenly decide to abandon economic growth is insane. that cant and wont ever happen.

[gg3]

Tip of iceberg: I agree. Next limit is water. Something else comes after that. So we may as well deal with it while the problem is only enormous and not super-duper-enormous.

Killjoy, good to hear you getting sick of all the mutual dumping going on around here; in effect calling for people to get off their bad attitudes and start building. I agree, I'm fed up with the neg-noise, it's long since past time to start building.

Dezakin, do you have enough goods & services in your life at present? If not, then what specific goods & services are you lacking?

About economic growth: If we could only invent a pill that does away with the need for sleep, we could increase our economic growth by one-third, by getting rid of the economically unproductive sleep hours.

In fact, if we could do away with friendships and families, we could get rid of all those economically unproductive relationships and replace them with something that involves exchange of money for goods or services.

Anything, just to get more money into more circulation, faster and faster and faster and faster. Doesn't matter if it's doing good or harm, just as long as it's *more* and *faster.*

More, more, more, faster faster faster.

Are you sick of it yet...?


Dezakin, I want you to answer this question:

When is enough, enough?

[Revi]

I don't think we'll have a choice to give up economic growth. After the peak there will only be economic shrink. Some aspects like renewable energy will grow, but most places will experience signifigant shrinkage. There will still be lots of people around. They had better get busy doing something. Have you ever lived in the third world? It'll be like that.

[thuja]

Three main options:

1- "Switch and grow" - switching to alternatives such as coal, nuclear,etc. and continue growing economically.

2- "Switch, powerdown and sustain"- - switch to alternatives while dramatically reducing consumption of energy. Create sustainable economic/ geo-political mod els that insure human's survival.

3- "Die-off"- Sorry- too little, too late. Nothing is going to stop this train. Massive die-off.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I think its unnecessary to get bitter about defending your viewpoint. Healthy debate is good but acrimony is unnecessary and unhelpful.

It looks like we're breaking off in to different camps as people have rehashed the same arguments numerous times. John Denver and his "switch and grow" camp have created Peakoildebunked (a misnomer in my mind because he still believes in peak oil as a concept). Peakoil.com is domi nated by the second two positions with position one relentlessly flamed. Dieoff.com and numerous survivalist sites are domi nated by poistion three.

For those of us (myself included) who are interested in forwarding position two, there is a sincere desire to explore mod els of sustainability in terms of energy, resources, population, carrying capacity, etc.

My fear is that we are unable to explore these themes as a society until we are forced to. Changing society from a growth mod el to a sustainability mod el seems impossible- until the Titanic hits the iceberg. Perhaps we will have a window of opportunity when the world realizes the ship is sinking. Will we bail ourselves out before option 3 takes over?

[MonteQuest]

I really don't want to get into many side topics and debate this piecemeal, but since some clairity is needed, I will delve into these rebuttals...especially since they are free of personal attacks!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoctorDoom', ' ')No reasonable person can argue that there isn't some ultimate limit to how many people the earth can support, but it's unclear what that ultimate sustainable carrying capacity is. Nature and the world are too complex to yield to our current modelling abilities. Also, everyone, even scientists, have biases. What scientist is going to be motivated to do a study on carrying capacity? Do you think there might be a bit of self-selction going on in that mainly people looking to confirm their own world-views even bother to do any analysis? This isn't science at the level of a physics experiement that produces an unarguable result. So, I'm sorry, I don't find the studies you've cited very persuasive, and certainly not conclusive. All that said, there's no need to argue here, since there is no question the average person would have more breathing room and resources if there were fewer of us. Since I view a mass extinction as an unviable "solution", all I can do is hope that we're still below the carrying capacity and look for ways to avoid a dieoff of those now here. Fortunately population growth has been trending down for decades due to the factors cited by Deazkin, and if we stay on course we should reach a replacement level and static population before 2050.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ezakin, do you have enough goods & services in your life at present? If not, then what specific goods & services are you lacking?

[Antimatter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hose studies you dismiss are a cross section of the "biases" from the pessimistic to the optimistic.. The medians of the low and high estimates provide a range from 2.1 to 5.0 billion people. With the current Earth population estimated to be 6.5 billion people, the median range of sustainable carrying capacity estimates suggests that the Earth's population be reduced in order to be sustainable.

[MonteQuest]

Antimatter,

Like I said, let's not get into a debate over each issue in this thread.

We have threads on them already.

Obviously, you see these as non-issues or nonsequiturs.

Fine, but please address the broader question.

[o2ny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et's focus on the broader poll question: Is PO a symptom of a greater disease, or is it just a stepping stone in energy history.