[scordry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'Y')es, but not roots based upon religious beliefs, but based upon the ecological principles and laws that govern all living things. The interconnectivity of all life.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('scordry', ' ')The only real ecological principle or law at work in nature is survival of the fittest--every creature for itself (or at least its species).

We have already played by the laws of nature and proven that we are winners.

[scordry]

"Survival of the fittest" is a way of saying things compete for their survival, and if they are surviving, they are obviously fit for living in that ecological niche.

Contrary to National Geographic TV programs, things do not adapt to their environment, they only struggle to survive. In the process of struggle (and competition) certian traits are bred-out via "happy accidents" of genetic mutation. Polar bears thrive in the arctic because they happen to have the right equipment; it's not like they moved north and thought, "Gee, we should grow hollow fur so that we'll keep warm." The language of "adapting to" ecological niches is misleading as to what is actually going on--an unfortunate anthropomorphism.

Nature's way is competition.

And they would kill everything if there wasn't something killing them already. Such is illustrated well in the Australian continent when rabbits and cane toads were introduced by humans--a managerial mistake due to misunderstanding the nature of natural competition.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('scordry', '"')Survival of the fittest" is a way of saying things compete for their survival, and if they are surviving, they are obviously fit for living in that ecological niche.

Contrary to National Geographic TV programs, things do not adapt to their environment, they only struggle to survive. In the process of struggle (and competition) certian traits are bred-out via "happy accidents" of genetic mutation. Polar bears thrive in the arctic because they happen to have the right equipment; it's not like they moved north and thought, "Gee, we should grow hollow fur so that we'll keep warm." The language of "adapting to" ecological niches is misleading as to what is actually going on--an unfortunate anthropomorphism.

Nature's way is competition.

And they would kill everything if there wasn't something killing them already. Such is illustrated well in the Australian continent when rabbits and cane toads were introduced by humans--a managerial mistake due to misunderstanding the nature of natural competition.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('scordry', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'Y')es, but not roots based upon religious beliefs, but based upon the ecological principles and laws that govern all living things. The interconnectivity of all life.

[Ebyss]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', '
') The UN's FAO doesn't seem to think feeding the future population will be a huge problem.

[Antimatter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', '
') The UN's FAO doesn't seem to think feeding the future population will be a huge problem.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', '
') The UN's FAO doesn't seem to think feeding the future population will be a huge problem.

[MonteQuest]

So far in the poll, 85% see peak oil as a symptom of a greater disease; that there is a much larger and more pervasive underlying problem.

On the other hand, 15% see peak oil as just another problem to be solved by man’s ingenuity; the doomer’s issues are nonsequiturs; mankind’s course is sound, he just needs a new energy source to “stay the course”.

What drives this 15% polarity of thinking?

How do they see it so different given the certitude of mathematics with regard to growth in a finite world? I see it a selfish short-term thinking and ignorance of the natural world.

As a former NPS ranger, I can attest to the latter. It is pathetic.

[Antimatter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The ultimate flower-loving utopian eco-fairy banana', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Antimatter', '
') The UN's FAO doesn't seem to think feeding the future population will be a huge problem.

[MonteQuest]

Folks, there are other threads for this debate.

Please stay on topic.

[o2ny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('o2ny', ' ')the concept of humanity as a virus on this planet, or our current way of thinking as a 'disease' just seems wrong to me.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')
What drives this 15% polarity of thinking?

How do they see it so different given the certitude of mathematics with regard to growth in a finite world? I see it a selfish short-term thinking and ignorance of the natural world.

[Ibon]

Excellent thread. Reality one way or another will impose itself on the human hubris that believes that we are entitled to something! Peak Oil is the peak of the iceberg, we may want to try to hold on to the status quo like the 15% or hurry peak oil along like the 85% who understand and who hope they live to see the transition unfold in their lifetimes but in the end rest assured reality will impose itself.

A follow up question is, "What will it take to reach global collective consensus that we have reached or exceeded our limits of growth and what if anything can we engineer socially or politically or economically to make the cultural spiritual transformation required to create a new sustainable paradigm? It is not enough that a small minority of bhuddists practice mindfullness or a small percentage of christians practice a pure form of humble forgiveness, how do we bring these cultural assets that the human family has along with the ecological truths that Montequest alludes to and weave a new cultural paradigm? This cant simply be superimpsoed on the existing Newtonian consumer paradigm until it begins to reveal it's weaknesses probably brought on by the energy that sustains it going into decline and when consumerism fails to deliver. For many it has already failed but for most they continue to hold on as tenaciously as the politician from Iowa quoted above.

Can a cultural transformation toward a sustainable paradigm happen while the current Newtonian consumerist paradigm continues to deliver on it's promise? We are approaching a convergence where our energy is peaking, our water is peaking, soil, the tipping points of global warming are manifesting themselves. But yet we still are going to the mall and society is still being held together by the Newtonian paradigm. We sense it is coming to an end. There are ecologists and visionaries, religeous leaders etc. who see this convergence. But to get from a few visionaries seeing this to mass consensus is a journey that
seems to require the breakdown of the existing paradigm to make room for a new one. I haven't seen any evidence presented in the past ten years that I have studied this issue that demonstrates a cultural transformation possible without first the breakdown of our current belief system. Can we have a collapse or our belief system and transformation to a new sustainable paradigm without the collapse of the physical systems that hold our current belief systems in place?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ') A follow up question is, "What will it take to reach global collective consensus that we have reached or exceeded our limits of growth and what if anything can we engineer socially or politically or economically to make the cultural spiritual transformation required to create a new sustainable paradigm?...Can we have a collapse or our belief system and transformation to a new sustainable paradigm without the collapse of the physical systems that hold our current belief systems in place?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ')This cant simply be superimposed on the existing Newtonian consumer paradigm until it begins to reveal it's weaknesses probably brought on by the energy that sustains it going into decline and when consumerism fails to deliver. For many it has already failed but for most they continue to hold on as tenaciously as the politician from Iowa quoted above.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

"It means that I feel that its preferable to wipe out all wildlife on earth and construct a vast banal civilization of glass and steel."

[Wildwell]

I'm interested in this view that 500 million to 1 billion people could have a high quality (lets say US standard) of living. As the US consumes 25% of energy and has a 250 million plus population, if there were just 1 billion people having that lifestyle we'd be in the very same situation, surely?

Really isn't the bottom line really a matter human greed (lack of self control promoted in the west and power regimes in the east) and lack of spiritual enlightenment leading us into the wilderness?

Surely it's luxury items (like cars) that are the root cause and the people that own them, which aren't really needed for human life?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I')'m interested in this view that 500 million to 1 billion people could have a high quality (lets say US standard) of living. As the US consumed 25% of energy and has a 250 million plus population, if there were just 1 billion people having that lifestyle we'd be in the very same situation, surely?

[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'W')hy is space expansion impossible in montequests world? He claims not to be the mad-max variety doomer, so in his hypothetical powerdown world we never climb for the stars? In all the thousands of years that we'll continue to exist on earth?

How about this: How far on the Kardashev scale will humanity climb? We havent yet achieved type 1, but my contention is we'll get to at least type III if we dont get smashed by a giant asteroid in the next century.