by davep » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 15:39:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'O')ff-topic
This might be hard for me to phrase properly, but I'll try:
davep, would you agree we are in overshoot given the way we actually live, not some hypothetical ideal sustainable in harmony with nature way, but based on the actual way of life of most humans on the planet now? I submit as evidence the mass extinction of other species, topsoil degradation, watershed damage, drawdown of aquifers, and global warming.
My own personal point of view is that we are currently in overshoot in reality.
Are you suggesting we are not currently in overshoot? Or are you suggesting we would not be in overshoot if we were to suddenly switch to a sustainable way of life?
I'm referring to carrying capacity in the strict sense that Monte uses, i.e. the potential theoretical global limit at a given moment in time based on the resources available. This can vary with time if previous practices have depleted soils or if global climate changes etc.
In this regard current practice is not relevant, as potential carrying capacity is not being seriously addressed scientifically due to our current fixation with short-term chemical-based agriculture. The latter system is undeniably unsustainable, and if we don't change our agricultural methods (and our lifestyles) then we may well have a die-off. However, this isn't from overshoot, as we haven't tried to address alternative intensive sustainable practices as a society. Overshoot is a result of going over carrying capacity. For that reason I don't respect people who bleat about us being in overshoot. They should be pioneering the efforts at practically demonstrating genuine sustainable carrying capacity.
Only with primary scientific field evidence will we know our genuine carrying capacity, not from a bunch of reports that can't possibly envision our potential from organic systems and perennial cultures. I presented primary scientific evidence about the viability of organic systems relative to chemical agriculture, and Monte decided that old secondary extrapolative reports were more important. He's just set in his overshoot paradigm.
So, to answer your question, I think we
may not be in overshoot if we move to sustainable ways. The only way to find out is to help develop the potential of sustainable living. I'm encouraged by some primary scientific evidence, and have my own plans at using perennial cultures for livestock feed. Once this is established, there is not much more than harvesting that requires any kind of energy. It's a small part of the overall puzzle, but we all need to find our niche and try to improve knowledge and techniques.
What we think, we become.
