PeakOil is You
Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
by Ludi » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 20:59:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'O')nly 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.
Thank you dave. Monte told me such evidence as you mention above doesn't exist (though I thought I had read some and even posted references to it).
I guess I'm still not sure if you agree we are in overshoot now. You say we "may not be in overshoot if we move to sustainable ways." Do you mean we aren't in overshoot now, in your opinion? I'm really hoping for a straight answer about what you think our situation is now (current actual reality) not about what it may be in a hypothetical future. I know you aren't obligated to give me a straight answer, but I would like one, nonetheless.
Thanks.
- Ludi
Re: Does anyone miss MonteQuest...?
by MonteQuest » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 21:18:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')You are completely ignoring what I'm saying. Try to understand before replying.
Oh, I think we all understand you quite clearly. If not, please clarify.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e may be using phantom carrying capacity to achieve our current population levels. However, this does not mean that the actual carrying capacity is necessarily lower than current population levels.
Fossil fuels have given us a phantom (temporary) carrying capacity.
We used it to achieve our current population levels.
If the "actual" carrying capacity is the same or higher than the "phantom one", then that "actual" carrying capacity would be based upon renewable energy sources; mostly biomass.
I don't see the ability to achieve the same high level technology on biomass that is required to support 6.7 billion.
You posit that we could have achieved and sustained 6.7 billion plus without fossil fuels while appropriating more than the current 40% of NPP?
You are dreaming...
We cannot support 6.7 billion by reverting to the "takeover method".
As Catton said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Catton', '"')Whichever of the two historic approaches we take, either choosing to accelerate drawdown or indulging in additional takeover, our new ecological paradigm enables us to see that eventually we will end up shifting back to the other. Either traditional way, if prolonged, leads to an inhuman future ... not toward the lasting solution of temporarily vexing problems ... For any lasting solution, we must abandon both of these ultimately disastrous methods. Drawdown bails us out of present difficulties by shortening our future. Takeover was of lasting value earlier in human history, but that time is past.
"We must learn to live within carrying capacity without trying to enlarge it. We must rely on renewable resources consumed no faster than at sustained yield rates. The last best hope for mankind is ecological modesty."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
glad you're back.