$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')Jack, however, reflects a different point of view that's also valid---and IMO far more widespread. That group of people loathe any manual labor, whether it's dressed up as "permaculture" or not. Especially they hate putting their hands into the soil, and would do so only at gunpoint or if threatened by imminent starvation. I don't think they're going to "convert" in time.
PeakOil is You
Sustainable Population
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by Jack » Sun 25 Jun 2006, 23:46:32
You're very, very close to the truth. One small correction - I probably would not do it at gunpoint. It is possible to disarm an enemy; there are vulnerabilities, whether the enemy has a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. One can then see how many one can take down before the end; or, at the very least, earn a quick death.
Fortunately, there is generally a demand for skill sets other than farming.
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")
- Jack
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4929
- Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by gg3 » Mon 26 Jun 2006, 02:25:07
From what I've read, carrying capacity is 2 billion humans at approximately European living standards. Assuming that's a reasonable target, what we have is:
1) Develop the list of criteria for the hypothetical European standard of living and ecological impact, for example, mean average figures for each of the following:
a) Size of dwelling, square feet.
b) Yearly consumption of electricity, KWH / year.
c) Yearly consumption of petrol (litres/year) and natural gas (however measured), keeping in mind that these will have to be replaced with something else e.g. biofuels, electricity, etc.
d) Average daily caloric intake.
e) Average daily water consumption.
f) Average daily sewage production.
g) Yearly production of recyclable solid waste.
h) Yearly production of compostable solid waste.
i) Yearly production of nonrecyclable solid waste.
j) Automobiles per capita, and average fuel efficiency.
... etc....
2) Publicize those targets and get individual Americans to shoot for them regardless of law & politics. Much of this can be done with little impact on standard of living and quality of life, e.g replace the SUV with a more efficient vehicle and then carpool or take public transport to work etc. In some areas it won't be possible, but the point is to at least make it popular enough that candidates for public office can start talking about it and forward-thinking companies can start implementing relevant policies on their own.
3) Recognize that dieoff is basically inevitable at this point. In any case we need to get down to 2 billion, and we can do that in a planned way, or we can let nature run its course (probably multiple pandemics) and end up with an unpredictable outcome in terms of numbers and quality of life for those who survive.
4) People such as ourselves who are planning ahead, should plan for the greatest possible degree of self-sufficiency, local sufficiency, and relocalization. Multiple levels of backup plans, each one more spartan than the preceding one, to maximize the probability of surviving the transition.
---
Notes:
What I don't get is: Americans routinely go on vacation in Europe and enjoy it immensely (else they wouldn't go back). So then, how can they complain about having to adopt that standard of living permanently? Perhaps what's needed here is a marketing campaign. "You loved your visit to Europe. Now you can bring back more than memories and photos..."
Getting down to 2 billion: Multiple pandemics. This means that sustainable communities are going to have to be hyper-alert about public health issues, including the willingness and capability to go into self-quarantine for months at a time: no one gets in, no one goes out.
Re. hands in the dirt: I grew up with it. And I frankly pity (as in, consider pathetic) anyone who grew up in a suburban or rural setting but never bothered to do at least two of the following: go running around in the woods, climbing trees, growing a garden, wading into a pond, swamp, or stream, playing in the dirt (topsoil is clean dirt!), doing household cleaning chores, etc. etc. What I find incomprehensible is how people can be afraid of any of that, or unwilling to do the grownup version which is any form of physical labor. Personally if I had to choose between pushing paper and digging ditches, I would dig ditches. Happily.
Here's a Great Big Clue for anyone who works at a desk and is terrified of getting their hands in the dirt: When you work with your brain all day, you get done and you're mentally exhausted but your body is still antsy and it's difficult to rest and moer difficult to do anything creative or interesting. When you work with your muscles all day, you get done and you're physically tired but your brain isn't worn down, your mind is still ready to go, and you can do all manner of creative things such as writing, music, art, religion, philosophy, science, and (on the weekends when your body isn't tired from work) athletics.
Likely future: Nature's going to take us down to something between 3 and 5 billion and keep us there. At that point we're going to bounce around just below that ceiling level, while the quality of life slowly gets worse for an increasing number. Then we end up with a two-tier world, split between those nations that already made it into a technological society (which will be better equipped to cope with the changes), and those that have not (which will be permanently locked out), meanwhile nothing much changes for various hunter-gatherer tribes that are still living (as long as their ranges are not encroached, which is debatable), and with resource wars being fought at the perimeter, and with occasional vengeance attacks by terrorists claiming to represent the locked-out nations.
The above scenario, "rising tide of entropy," will probably persist for the remainder of the 21st century and into the 22nd, until such time as either a) the world gets serious about reducing population and achieving equitable distribution of resources, or b) we learn how to do magic (A. Clarke, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") and start doing magic on a large scale.
Given the likely future, survivalism isn't paranoia, it's the opposite of defeatism.
1) Develop the list of criteria for the hypothetical European standard of living and ecological impact, for example, mean average figures for each of the following:
a) Size of dwelling, square feet.
b) Yearly consumption of electricity, KWH / year.
c) Yearly consumption of petrol (litres/year) and natural gas (however measured), keeping in mind that these will have to be replaced with something else e.g. biofuels, electricity, etc.
d) Average daily caloric intake.
e) Average daily water consumption.
f) Average daily sewage production.
g) Yearly production of recyclable solid waste.
h) Yearly production of compostable solid waste.
i) Yearly production of nonrecyclable solid waste.
j) Automobiles per capita, and average fuel efficiency.
... etc....
2) Publicize those targets and get individual Americans to shoot for them regardless of law & politics. Much of this can be done with little impact on standard of living and quality of life, e.g replace the SUV with a more efficient vehicle and then carpool or take public transport to work etc. In some areas it won't be possible, but the point is to at least make it popular enough that candidates for public office can start talking about it and forward-thinking companies can start implementing relevant policies on their own.
3) Recognize that dieoff is basically inevitable at this point. In any case we need to get down to 2 billion, and we can do that in a planned way, or we can let nature run its course (probably multiple pandemics) and end up with an unpredictable outcome in terms of numbers and quality of life for those who survive.
4) People such as ourselves who are planning ahead, should plan for the greatest possible degree of self-sufficiency, local sufficiency, and relocalization. Multiple levels of backup plans, each one more spartan than the preceding one, to maximize the probability of surviving the transition.
---
Notes:
What I don't get is: Americans routinely go on vacation in Europe and enjoy it immensely (else they wouldn't go back). So then, how can they complain about having to adopt that standard of living permanently? Perhaps what's needed here is a marketing campaign. "You loved your visit to Europe. Now you can bring back more than memories and photos..."
Getting down to 2 billion: Multiple pandemics. This means that sustainable communities are going to have to be hyper-alert about public health issues, including the willingness and capability to go into self-quarantine for months at a time: no one gets in, no one goes out.
Re. hands in the dirt: I grew up with it. And I frankly pity (as in, consider pathetic) anyone who grew up in a suburban or rural setting but never bothered to do at least two of the following: go running around in the woods, climbing trees, growing a garden, wading into a pond, swamp, or stream, playing in the dirt (topsoil is clean dirt!), doing household cleaning chores, etc. etc. What I find incomprehensible is how people can be afraid of any of that, or unwilling to do the grownup version which is any form of physical labor. Personally if I had to choose between pushing paper and digging ditches, I would dig ditches. Happily.
Here's a Great Big Clue for anyone who works at a desk and is terrified of getting their hands in the dirt: When you work with your brain all day, you get done and you're mentally exhausted but your body is still antsy and it's difficult to rest and moer difficult to do anything creative or interesting. When you work with your muscles all day, you get done and you're physically tired but your brain isn't worn down, your mind is still ready to go, and you can do all manner of creative things such as writing, music, art, religion, philosophy, science, and (on the weekends when your body isn't tired from work) athletics.
Likely future: Nature's going to take us down to something between 3 and 5 billion and keep us there. At that point we're going to bounce around just below that ceiling level, while the quality of life slowly gets worse for an increasing number. Then we end up with a two-tier world, split between those nations that already made it into a technological society (which will be better equipped to cope with the changes), and those that have not (which will be permanently locked out), meanwhile nothing much changes for various hunter-gatherer tribes that are still living (as long as their ranges are not encroached, which is debatable), and with resource wars being fought at the perimeter, and with occasional vengeance attacks by terrorists claiming to represent the locked-out nations.
The above scenario, "rising tide of entropy," will probably persist for the remainder of the 21st century and into the 22nd, until such time as either a) the world gets serious about reducing population and achieving equitable distribution of resources, or b) we learn how to do magic (A. Clarke, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") and start doing magic on a large scale.
Given the likely future, survivalism isn't paranoia, it's the opposite of defeatism.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by gego » Mon 26 Jun 2006, 03:56:27
This notion of sustainability is somewhat vague. I presume we are talking about the level of population, and the level of resource use by that population, and the level of planet descruction by that population that would allow the human species to go on for a great deal of time more and not be threatened by extinction resulting from "lifestyle".
One thing I would like to point out is that the human population was much more in the range of 500,000 before we began to rely on stored energy like coal, gas, and oil. There was a reason the population did not get higher, and that reason was the carrying capacity absent stored energy. Many other resources are limited also and their avaibility will eventually cease just as oil, gas, and coal will ultimately be depleted. My point is that in the long run for the human species, 500,000 is more likely to be able to live from "renewables" without destroying the planet than is population of 6.5 billion or more.
I personally think there is a cause and effect relationship between utilizing stored energy and the population explosion from 500,000 to 6.5 billion. It only seems reasonable to me that as the stored energy is depleted and becomes less and less available to us that the population must decline to eventually reach what the planet can carry. We clearly must go back to living on our current income and not on this temporary inheritence.
If it turns out that we are at or near the peak in oil production, and will soon also be at the peak of gas production, and then coal production, then you should logically expect the population to decline back to the depleted carrying capacity of the earth. The population must go down, not up.
The current worldwide rate of birth adds 131,571,719 humans each year. The current worldwide death rate subtracts 55,001,289 humans each year. Were the birth rate to drop to zero (which cannot and willnot happen) then at the current death rate, it would take 82 years just to drop to 2 billion, and without births (which contribute some babies and children who die), the death rate would decline so it would take even longer than this 82 years. Were the birthrate to match the death rate the population would stay static at 6.5 billion, so it seems that reduced birth rate will not do the job, and purposely kicking up the death rate seems more in the vein of Hitler and Stalin.
Given the likelyhood that so many humans will soon no longer be able to live from stored energy and the practical problem of any acceptable manmade solution to the birth/death rates, I can only conclude that natural selection will be the process by which the population is lowered to a match the lowered production of everything life sustaining. We just don't have the several centuries it would take to smoothly transition from 6.5 billion down to even 2 billion. More likely the time we do have is measured as a decade or two, not a century or two.
Sustainability of 6.5 billion is a practical impossibility without at least sustaining the level of stored energy extraction, and all the while the population is increasing at the rate of 75,000,000 per year.
If we get back to a world absent oil, gas, and coal, I frankly don't think the earth will be able to carry as many humans as it did before we started using the stored energy because so many other resources have since been depleted, and survival will be made even more difficult without these other resources.
One thing I would like to point out is that the human population was much more in the range of 500,000 before we began to rely on stored energy like coal, gas, and oil. There was a reason the population did not get higher, and that reason was the carrying capacity absent stored energy. Many other resources are limited also and their avaibility will eventually cease just as oil, gas, and coal will ultimately be depleted. My point is that in the long run for the human species, 500,000 is more likely to be able to live from "renewables" without destroying the planet than is population of 6.5 billion or more.
I personally think there is a cause and effect relationship between utilizing stored energy and the population explosion from 500,000 to 6.5 billion. It only seems reasonable to me that as the stored energy is depleted and becomes less and less available to us that the population must decline to eventually reach what the planet can carry. We clearly must go back to living on our current income and not on this temporary inheritence.
If it turns out that we are at or near the peak in oil production, and will soon also be at the peak of gas production, and then coal production, then you should logically expect the population to decline back to the depleted carrying capacity of the earth. The population must go down, not up.
The current worldwide rate of birth adds 131,571,719 humans each year. The current worldwide death rate subtracts 55,001,289 humans each year. Were the birth rate to drop to zero (which cannot and willnot happen) then at the current death rate, it would take 82 years just to drop to 2 billion, and without births (which contribute some babies and children who die), the death rate would decline so it would take even longer than this 82 years. Were the birthrate to match the death rate the population would stay static at 6.5 billion, so it seems that reduced birth rate will not do the job, and purposely kicking up the death rate seems more in the vein of Hitler and Stalin.
Given the likelyhood that so many humans will soon no longer be able to live from stored energy and the practical problem of any acceptable manmade solution to the birth/death rates, I can only conclude that natural selection will be the process by which the population is lowered to a match the lowered production of everything life sustaining. We just don't have the several centuries it would take to smoothly transition from 6.5 billion down to even 2 billion. More likely the time we do have is measured as a decade or two, not a century or two.
Sustainability of 6.5 billion is a practical impossibility without at least sustaining the level of stored energy extraction, and all the while the population is increasing at the rate of 75,000,000 per year.
If we get back to a world absent oil, gas, and coal, I frankly don't think the earth will be able to carry as many humans as it did before we started using the stored energy because so many other resources have since been depleted, and survival will be made even more difficult without these other resources.
- gego
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by Revi » Mon 26 Jun 2006, 08:22:28
We're all going to get less fossil energy and have to live more on incoming solar energy. We'll have to become "men of light". I found a passage in the book of John that might get Christians into our cause. ...trust to the light, so that you may become men of light" John 12-36. I know that some Christians are into the sustainability movement. Interfaith Power and Light was founded by some of them. Jimmy Carter is way into this stuff. He had the solar panels on the White House.
I know that we'll probably drop back down to a sustainable number of people. The world grain harvest tripled in the last century. The population has tripled as well. Our numbers may dwindle, but those left behind will have to live within their means if they are to have any kind of life. They will have to practice sustainability on at least a community level. There's a lot to re-learn. I think that a kind of a religion or movement will have to be formed in order to get people into this.
Perhaps a kind of a new granger's movement. The Grange was a very populist movement. Maybe something like that could get going again. I went to a Grange meeting and heard some very progressive things that are still part of the ritual. They said that men should evolve beyond war, but until they do, we should honor the fallen.
The local grange sponsored our solar car project. They really got a kick out of it when we showed it to them. They are mostly very old people, and it's hard to imagine them becoming a new farmer's organization. Something like a grange may come into being as the need arises. Sustainability will come back into fashion.
I know that we'll probably drop back down to a sustainable number of people. The world grain harvest tripled in the last century. The population has tripled as well. Our numbers may dwindle, but those left behind will have to live within their means if they are to have any kind of life. They will have to practice sustainability on at least a community level. There's a lot to re-learn. I think that a kind of a religion or movement will have to be formed in order to get people into this.
Perhaps a kind of a new granger's movement. The Grange was a very populist movement. Maybe something like that could get going again. I went to a Grange meeting and heard some very progressive things that are still part of the ritual. They said that men should evolve beyond war, but until they do, we should honor the fallen.
The local grange sponsored our solar car project. They really got a kick out of it when we showed it to them. They are mostly very old people, and it's hard to imagine them becoming a new farmer's organization. Something like a grange may come into being as the need arises. Sustainability will come back into fashion.
-
Revi - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7417
- Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Maine
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by Pops » Mon 26 Jun 2006, 09:01:49
Seems like most movements in the work/living sense (at least in the US) were to improve peoples standard of living or comfort level and not to reduce their perceived entitlement to whatever they could afford – farm to industrial towns, urban centers to suburbs, suburbs to exurbs.
Other cultural movements were more philosophical but still at little or no personal cost, suffrage, voting age, environmental regulations.
This movement would entail a reduction in the perceived entitlement that Americans expect – to live more sustainably we would need to consume less – a lot less.
I read in the paper this morning about a report by the gov outlining the percentage of income spent on food in 1901 and 2001 – 49% in 1901 vs. 13% in 2001, in 1901 79% of income went to food clothing and housing and in 2001 that portion was 50%.
Another item I read was a proposal to use the 50 million acres of CRP land (farmland kept fallow at government expense) to grow switchgrass for ethanol. Heck they say; it’s growing grass now… but that's a different topic.
Americans today have come to expect a large disposable income – and things to dispose of it on and I see no slackening of that expectation. Die-off is way to big a prospect for me to offer an opinion on but I will say that for the US at least, it is gonna take sustainability becoming an improvement over our daily lives before any mass move in that direction.
And just like the Dustbowl devastation that lead to the soil conservation movement, it isn’t likely to be a pretty picture.
Other cultural movements were more philosophical but still at little or no personal cost, suffrage, voting age, environmental regulations.
This movement would entail a reduction in the perceived entitlement that Americans expect – to live more sustainably we would need to consume less – a lot less.
I read in the paper this morning about a report by the gov outlining the percentage of income spent on food in 1901 and 2001 – 49% in 1901 vs. 13% in 2001, in 1901 79% of income went to food clothing and housing and in 2001 that portion was 50%.
Another item I read was a proposal to use the 50 million acres of CRP land (farmland kept fallow at government expense) to grow switchgrass for ethanol. Heck they say; it’s growing grass now… but that's a different topic.
Americans today have come to expect a large disposable income – and things to dispose of it on and I see no slackening of that expectation. Die-off is way to big a prospect for me to offer an opinion on but I will say that for the US at least, it is gonna take sustainability becoming an improvement over our daily lives before any mass move in that direction.
And just like the Dustbowl devastation that lead to the soil conservation movement, it isn’t likely to be a pretty picture.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops - Elite
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by Heineken » Mon 26 Jun 2006, 09:35:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'F')rom what I've read, carrying capacity is 2 billion humans at approximately European living standards.
That's what I've read too, in various decent sources. However, it's logical to posit that true carrying capacity declines every year as vital resources are damaged or rendered nonrenewable. So carrying capacity must be continually revised downward.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
-
Heineken - Expert
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Rural Virginia
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by skyemoor » Tue 27 Jun 2006, 15:13:32
If you are looking for posts concerning paganism, I've split those off in another thread called, "Paganism and Sustainability", so that this thread can continue on-topic.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html
Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html
Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
-
skyemoor - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Re: How can we make sustainability happen?
by MadMarcus » Wed 28 Jun 2006, 09:15:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'F')rom what I've read, carrying capacity is 2 billion humans at approximately European living standards. Assuming that's a reasonable target, what we have is:
1) Develop the list of criteria for the hypothetical European standard of living and ecological impact, for example, mean average figures for each of the following:
2) Publicize those targets and get individual Americans to shoot for them regardless of law & politics.
1) Develop the list of criteria for the hypothetical European standard of living and ecological impact, for example, mean average figures for each of the following:
2) Publicize those targets and get individual Americans to shoot for them regardless of law & politics.
Its not a bad idea as a start.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')What I don't get is: Americans routinely go on vacation in Europe and enjoy it immensely (else they wouldn't go back). So then, how can they complain about having to adopt that standard of living permanently? Perhaps what's needed here is a marketing campaign. "You loved your visit to Europe. Now you can bring back more than memories and photos..."
I know tbat this is not a serious suggestion but I'm going to be a little pedantic and list some reasons it wont work.
Everyone can not live like the wealthy Europeans.
Tourists live a higher energy life then natives of a region.
Living one way might be wonderful in a village or city that is designed for it while still being horrible in place designed for a different lifestyle.
We just do not have the quaint, cute an historical factor that can make living in a smaller, less convienient place more interesting.
I wish we could more to a more European energy use as a first step. Or back to a locally oriented land of potlucks, softball and other low energy local entertainments But as much as these lifestyles appeal to me, we wouldn't have moved away from them if they were what most people prefered.
-
MadMarcus - Peat
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri 17 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
