[MonteQuest]

$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 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?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')
I'm starting to understand that technology is becoming more of a problem than a solution. Technology is trying now to patch blunders that were made long ago by technology itself. There are already classical examples like antibiotics and bacteria resistance or the wonders of pollution cleaning after technological pollution and so on.

[MonteQuest]

Here's a gentleman with similar views to mine:

Peak Oil, Energy Futures and Violent Conflict

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]How Much Energy Do We Need?

The answer to this question is vital to the survival of human civilization, and the answer depends on values systems and world views. Herein lays the potential for considerable violent conflict.

A standard of living that is high by objective indices of human well being (e.g. infant mortality, female longevity, food availability, educational opportunities, etc) is possible with roughly one third of the daily energy use of the average North American.[10] The same goes for subjective measures of personal happiness. Another way of stating this relationship between energy consumption and human well being is that about 60 per cent of North American energy consumption is wasted in that it provides no objective contribution to measures of well being. At the same time, because a minority of humanity consumes more energy than they need, approximately two billion people do not have access to electricity. Clearly, energy distribution is a major issue of social justice.

From an environmental perspective the oil age (and overall fossil fuel) is responsible for several major examples of global ecosystem degradation (climate change, atmospheric ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, soil fertility loss, water loss, and population size, among others). Use of (fossil fuel) energy has contributed directly to climate change, and overall energy use has indirectly contributed to all the others through economic growth (the correlation between energy use and economic growth is .99). So reduced energy use has the potential to reduce economic activity and restore ecosystem functioning to sustainable levels (www.sustainablescale.org).

Whether this will happen is an open question. The currently dominant policy of most governments and even intergovernmental agencies such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO, is one of economic growth. Economic growth is seen as the solution to most problems - energy, poverty, pollution, overpopulation, etc. Attempts to increase the global energy supply (and/or to secure access to known supplies through military means) are seen as essential to insure continued economic growth. Increased use of coal and more nuclear plants are already being proposed as solutions to the growing gap between energy supply and demand.

Conflicting Values

Increasingly, the issue which will define future conflicting world views will focus on whether current preoccupations with economic growth (requiring more energy use) are in fact the cause of our major problems rather than their solution. Currently dominant policies call for more economic growth, despite the evidence of its adverse environmental impacts, its inability to provide for just distribution, and the lack of improved well being from yet more economic growth in already rich nations. [11] Attempts at establishing a just and sustainable energy regime will conflict with this dominant view.[12] How the energy gap is resolved will determine our future. Whether we can move the current approach characterized by violence against both nature and those with resources coveted by the powerful, to one of justice for all and sustainability for the ecosystems upon which we depend, will likely determine the fate of human civilization for centuries to come.

Jack Santa Barbara, Ph.D. is with the Sustainable Scale Project and the Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$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.

[Revi]

Humans are opportunists. For a long time there was more and more fossil fuel available, so we expanded in that direction. Now there is less and less available per capita. The smart thing to do is to switch your energy mix into the next thing, the thing that will keep you alive, even grow as an organism. That thing is renewables. We have found that every move off of fossil fuels into renewables has helped out our bottom line as well as the planet. People won't do major life changes for altruistic reasons. They will change if it helps them and their offspring.

There is also the style factor. People do what their neighbors are doing. They have to keep up with the Joneses. The Jonses don't want a Hummer. They want a Prius. All the cool people have them. Soon all the cool people will have solar on their houses and everybody will want that. There may not be enough for everybody. That will add to the cachet. Small, super insulated, solar, earth bermed houses will become the Prius of the real estate world. There will always be somebody who will adapt to changing circumstances.

Unfortunately it may not be the average American. There are some who will figure it out. We may be among them.

[MonteQuest]

Here is a post from one of my threads that is worth reposting here:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'I')t is not hard to make a case that the human experiment on planet earth is beyond its limits. It is not hard to see that the present path of human existence is unsustainable. The future, to be viable at all, must be one of drawing back, easing down, and allowing the planet to heal its wounds. Population growth cannot go on indefinitely, in fact, we may have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth's environment by billions.

Without significant reductions in material and energy flows, there will be in the coming decades an uncontrolled decline in per capita food output, energy use, and industrial production. We need a comprehensive revision of policies and practices that perpetuate growth in material consumption and in population and a drastic increase in the efficiency with which materials and energy are used. A sustainable society is still technically and economically possible, but not at these levels of growth in population and constant expansion of our economy.

The transition to a sustainable society requires a careful balance between long-term and short-term goals and an emphasis on sufficiency, equity, and quality of life rather than on quantity and speed of output. It must be based upon a recognition of the limits to growth and the fragile ecosystem upon which we depend, not GDP. This is nothing short of the most daunting task that has ever been put before mankind. Our entire modern industrial culture has been built upon the premise of perpetual material growth. Much of that growth is becoming exponential, even at a time of an obvious decline in many resources.

[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'T')he antibiotic point is actually irrelevant .... restricted formularies and banning of OTC antibiotics (as they are sold in Europe) can actually reverse both community and hospital acquired resistance. And it was not the use of antibiotics which created the problems .. it was the abuse. Science is neutral ... and technology is (mostly) neutral. It is the failure of society to control the applications that creates problems.

[Ludi]

Advanced degrees in a specific field does not grant wisdom and the ability to see the big picture.

[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ere is a post from one of my threads that is worth reposting here:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'I')t is not hard to make a case that the human experiment on planet earth is beyond its limits. It is not hard to see that the present path of human existence is unsustainable. The future, to be viable at all, must be one of drawing back, easing down, and allowing the planet to heal its wounds. Population growth cannot go on indefinitely, in fact, we may have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth's environment by billions.

Without significant reductions in material and energy flows, there will be in the coming decades an uncontrolled decline in per capita food output, energy use, and industrial production. We need a comprehensive revision of policies and practices that perpetuate growth in material consumption and in population and a drastic increase in the efficiency with which materials and energy are used. A sustainable society is still technically and economically possible, but not at these levels of growth in population and constant expansion of our economy.

The transition to a sustainable society requires a careful balance between long-term and short-term goals and an emphasis on sufficiency, equity, and quality of life rather than on quantity and speed of output. It must be based upon a recognition of the limits to growth and the fragile ecosystem upon which we depend, not GDP. This is nothing short of the most daunting task that has ever been put before mankind. Our entire modern industrial culture has been built upon the premise of perpetual material growth. Much of that growth is becoming exponential, even at a time of an obvious decline in many resources.

[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')dvanced degrees in a specific field does not grant wisdom and the ability to see the big picture.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', 'W')e need a paradigm shift, and we don't know what it will look like.

[Ingenuity_Gap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', 'W')e need a paradigm shift, and we don't know what it will look like.

[Ludi]

Do you feel Limits to Growth is the only valid research?

(I haven't read it, btw)

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')
The antibiotic point is actually very relevant. We rejoiced when penicillin was invented (a huge discovery that saved millions of lives) and yet after decades we are still developing more and more complicated antibiotics to counteract the side-effects of penicillin. How long do you think this antibacterial race can go? Ad infinitum, I'd say, but it will be more and more difficult to develop the medicine we need. The pharmaceutical research field is subject to diminishing returns, like everything else.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')"Hyper-technological" development IS NOT the problem.

[Wildwell]

On one hand you keep telling everyone that 1 in 6 jobs in the US are related to the auto industry and we can't conserve because it will cost jobs, causing further environmental problems, or the other hand you keep telling people they have the wrong world view...

This Newtonian mechanics world view is still valid because we could never make use of all the energy that is available, assuming we figured a cost effective way to harness it, which is actually the real issue. The other real issue is environmental destruction which you seem to want to promote... If it’s not buying cars it is burning trees and dung under a power down scenario…

The population issue is actually a problem in non-industrial countries, mainly lack of contraception and farming methods. The first world problem is inefficiency/cost of non-fossil fuel alternatives. If the efficiency problem was tackled (which you are against) then the non-fossil fuel alternatives would be more cost effective….

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')"Hyper-technological" development IS NOT the problem.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')And what do you mean by "Newtonian mechanics world view"?

[Wildwell]

In short MQ is a Luddite with romantic views about the horse drawn world...

Even though there's anough energy hitting the earths surface in 1 minute to power the whole world for a year, are you seriously suggesting that we should return to 1700?

My view is technology should be ethical and can be supported by the environment, which doesn't mean no development, no cars etc...anything else is fluff.

Actually how we got in this mess was bad transport policy and bad farming..

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'O')n one hand you keep telling everyone that 1 in 6 jobs in the US are related to the auto industry and we can't conserve because it will cost jobs, causing further environmental problems, or the other hand you keep telling people they have the wrong world view...