$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BastardSquad', '
') I see no reason to promote unrealistic optomism,you can't candy coat this one,there no point in it.
BTW,if you really believe we can vote our way out of this one you're an idiot.
PeakOil is You
Peak Peak?
by trespam » Sat 30 Oct 2004, 11:26:36
We can't vote our way out of this one. Though a start is to remove people who think "conservation is a personal virtue" and to replace them with people who might think otherwise. In the present election, we have two rich guys, one whose wife flies around in a personal jet and the other whose VP thinks conservation is for wimps. Therefore it's not clear either candidate understands or is willing to take the initiative.
As far as optimism: Look at it this way. This year, 129 million people will be born and 56 million die, producing an excess of 73 million. So let's say that between now and the end of the century, we must get the world population down from 6500 million to somewhere around 1950 values of 2500 million. That requires a decrease of 4000 million over 95 years. That's 42 million deaths per year net. Right now we're increasing by 72 million pe ryear. Therefore the world just has to increase the number of deaths by 114 million, meaning a total number of deaths of 168 million per year.
SO were talking about 52 million deaths per year to 168 million. A 300% increase. We can handle it. Humans are always innovative, particularly when it comes to killing one another or ensuring that the survival rate for children drops in certain regions.
Seriously though: I think a strong argument can be made that the peak will produce some major economic and social problems as the world transitions from growth to decline, and then we could very well see a lot of muddle, along with the death rates increasing as described above.
I agree it's not a pretty picture, but let's face it: 52 million people are dying this year, many of them who could probably live quite a few more years if we provided them with additional medical care or a safer environment. We can't. And our ability to prolong human life in many places is going to decrease. Until we get our numers in line with a sustainable energy source. And guestimates say that is somewhere in the 2 billion range. Hence my 2500 million number above,
-
trespam - Tar Sands
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
by holmes » Sat 30 Oct 2004, 11:46:41
exactly. removing them. and also to contain them. Obviously we are going to lose much but the areas that can maintian a sustainable community must be protected and if need be created. Personally i am working on this aspect right now so in 5 years my plans will be a spoke in the wheel. I am starting to work on a small business building sustainable eco-housing as well. Im taking it northwest permanently early next year.
Probably wont get paid much near the end cuz ill probably will be doing it for goods and services. I am a nice person. LOL.
count the losses and save what can be saved. those areas of exponential growht and zero conservation will be danger zones.
It really is a good thing now to be involved in conservation. writing your leaders. Town hall meetings, zoning laws, etc.
try and stop growht as best one can. join a conservation org like nwf, local land agencies. just get involvd in protecting areas. becuase they will be needed eventually.
Trespam i shot a bag of squirells yesterday and am making some succulent stew tonight. next is some venison with my bow. Ill save ya sum.
Man one squirell must have been 4 pounds. all that scrap i feed them.
Probably wont get paid much near the end cuz ill probably will be doing it for goods and services. I am a nice person. LOL.
count the losses and save what can be saved. those areas of exponential growht and zero conservation will be danger zones.
It really is a good thing now to be involved in conservation. writing your leaders. Town hall meetings, zoning laws, etc.
try and stop growht as best one can. join a conservation org like nwf, local land agencies. just get involvd in protecting areas. becuase they will be needed eventually.
Trespam i shot a bag of squirells yesterday and am making some succulent stew tonight. next is some venison with my bow. Ill save ya sum.
Man one squirell must have been 4 pounds. all that scrap i feed them.
- holmes
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2382
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by trespam » Sat 30 Oct 2004, 11:59:28
Just to clarify: I do not at all desire this to be an "us" versus "them" issue. We are all "them" and all "us." From a moral perspective, I completely believe that.
From a practical perspective, regions of the world with barely stable governments and rapidly growing populations with little or no economic diversity will pay a heavy price (e.g. Africa). Those who have--like the United States--should look for ways to help those without--e.g. birth control programs. But only up to a point.
The reality is that a transition from growth to decline cannot be stage managed across the entire globe. So we do have to circle the wagons to a certain extent. But I also am committed to working with other nations to help them make the transition as well. That will benefit us all.
From a practical perspective, regions of the world with barely stable governments and rapidly growing populations with little or no economic diversity will pay a heavy price (e.g. Africa). Those who have--like the United States--should look for ways to help those without--e.g. birth control programs. But only up to a point.
The reality is that a transition from growth to decline cannot be stage managed across the entire globe. So we do have to circle the wagons to a certain extent. But I also am committed to working with other nations to help them make the transition as well. That will benefit us all.
-
trespam - Tar Sands
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
by highlander » Fri 12 Nov 2004, 01:00:56
I was out of the loop when this thread was started. (hunting season) I enjoyed reading through the replys. It reads like peak oil cliff notes, with only a bit of sarcasm added in for balance.
I guess you can only say so much before everyone is reduced to lurking or trolling.
Don't change anything. Don't ban controversial posters (or posts) Feel free to flame me all you like as I don't visit that area. If I did I might lose all my self esteem!
I guess you can only say so much before everyone is reduced to lurking or trolling.
Don't change anything. Don't ban controversial posters (or posts) Feel free to flame me all you like as I don't visit that area. If I did I might lose all my self esteem!
-
highlander - Tar Sands
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Washington State
24 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest