Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby roccman » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 17:55:30

TOD

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ince some undoubtedly are getting it, and in light of the warnings in the UN’s latest report on the state of the global environment, below is a brief list of axioms and observations from population ecology with which everyone should be familiar. Most are taught in introductory level ecology and environmental science classes. They appear sequentially, so the reader can step logically through a progression which should make clear the nub of the global ecological challenge before us...

1. A finite earth can support only a limited number of humans. There is therefore a global “carrying capacity” for humans. A basic definition of carrying capacity is “The maximum number of people, or individuals of a particular species, that a given part of the environment can maintain indefinitely.”

2. It is an axiom of ecological science that a population which has grown larger than the carrying capacity of its environment (e.g., the global ecosystem) degrades its environment. It uses resources faster than they are regenerated by that environment, and produces waste faster than the environment can absorb it without being degraded. Some definitions of carrying capacity include this element of environmental degradation. Such a population is said to be in “overshoot.”

3. Al Bartlett sometimes writes, “A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: If any fraction of the observed global warming can be attributed to the activities of humans, then this constitutes positive proof that the human population, living as we do, has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth.” The same can be said of much of the rest of the extensive and growing human-caused ecological degradation we see today, including the breakdown of the web of life indicated by the ongoing Sixth Extinction. It is symptomatic of having exceeded the earth’s capacity to sustain our current numbers for the long term. It is, in fact, proof that under current conditions we have done so. [1] [2]

4. It’s axiomatic, as well, that a population can only temporarily overshoot carrying capacity. It will subsequently decline in number, to return to a level at or below carrying capacity. That is, though a population may grow in size until it is too large for existing resources to sustain it, it must subsequently decline.

5. Because it degrades it’s environment, a population in overshoot erodes existing carrying capacity so that fewer members of that species will be supported by that habitat in the future.

6. Our extraction of nonrenewable resources such as oil and coal has allowed us temporarily to exceed the earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As these supplies are drawn down, our numbers continue to increase, and ecological degradation progresses, the number of humans will, of necessity, come down. Whether we have a hand in voluntarily and humanely bringing them down, or simply let nature manage the whole thing for us, is up to us.

It seems unlikely anyone could fully comprehend the six steps above, and still deny we face a grave, worldwide ecological crisis. But for some, self gain or political ideology tied closely to self-image might be enough to fuel such denial. For others, I hope this little essay is informative.


So if this is so obvious...why are ZERO of our presidential candidates talking about this?
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4065
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 18:23:02

Because they wouldn't get elected if they mentioned it. 8O
Ludi
 

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby Twilight » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 18:25:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', 'S')o if this is so obvious...why are ZERO of our presidential candidates talking about this?

Because of the well-known axiom that one should never mention a problem to which one is unable to immediately suggest a solution.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby inculcated » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 18:35:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', 'w')hy are ZERO of our presidential candidates talking about this?


Because it would require using the term "detrivore number."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', '.')..suggest a solution.


Rare is the politician that even approaches outlining a solution. For the most part they just talk around any question posed....
User avatar
inculcated
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Endless run-out groove...

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby Twilight » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 19:08:38

I use the term "solution" loosely. The principle holds true though. No politician ever says if without a corresponding then, however insubstantial it might be. They never leave a question hanging if they can help it.

Overshoot is one of those questions. The logical conclusion is that you die. But "that is not being helpful" as they whisper in polite circles.

Ironically the green lobby is most guilty of this. The buzzword "unsustainable" is unfailingly uttered with impotent frustration, as an accusation, or some mixture of the two. The meaning that comes across is something akin to "if these people don't clean up their act, things will remain unsustainable forever - what kind of future is that for our descendants?" Well guess what. "Unsustainable" means that eventually, the sustaining of something ceases. But drawing attention to that is again "unhelpful".

Fuck that for a game of words. Overshoot is overshoot. It doesn't care. It doesn't care whether it is discussed.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby roccman » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 19:12:42

This is what some folks in the comment section had to say at TOD:

Matt Savinar said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')oney always seeks the highest return. Oil is the densest form of energy. It is thus more profitable to invest in new killing technologies to fight over the oil than anything else.

Those with the most money control the newspapers, the university endowments, who gets elected, etc.

It's pretty simple why people don't get it. If your university, for instance, starting telling the truth, the money from the drug lords and weapons makers would dry up.


Angry Chimp said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane. George Orwell


Ballgame said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I do think that those who oppose the analysis — particularly pollyannas and/or neocons — will gravitate strongly towards this omission in their rebuttals. Their public responses will likely follow the lines of, "Sure, that's our carrying capacity now, but who knows how big our carrying capacity will be once we get [insert technological fix here]." Privately the more realistic ones will be thinking thoughts like, "Oh sure, a billion people not like me might starve or be flooded, but I'm sure those of us who matter (i.e. have money) will still enjoy a good life."

To really be persuasive, the argument somehow needs to address this complex but key issue.


WNC Observer said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')rivately, they are probably thinking thoughts like: "Well, by the time a dieoff happens, robotics and artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point that most of the human population will be surplus anyway. Life on an uncrowded planet, catered to by robots - what's the downside for me and my descendants?"


Ric Williams said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o reach these people you have to ask a very difficult question--difficult to the religious because it's spiritually challenging and difficult for the secularist because it requires taking something seriously you don't understand. In order to "get it," the religious in this country (of which I am one), have to first ask themselves:

Would the Divine allow a die-off?

For those who are not Rapturists, this is a profound spiritual question. (Rapturists may be completely unreachable on this issue.) I know it's absurd for me to talk this way on this site, but the core spiritual experience of the religious is the sense that the Divine is Infinite Resource. What the religious often do not "get" is that this knowledge they have of infinite resource is spiritual resource, NOT physical resource. The religious respond to a call of being stewards, not to a statement that there is a lack of resources.

What secularists do not "get" is the experience of divine infinite resource. To speak to those who say they love God, you need to understand their language, assumptions, and experience. As long as you don't, they won't even start to take what you're saying seriously--as I imagine most on this site don't take this post seriously.

Bitterold Coot said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')enerally I find four root causes for "not getting it":

1) Selfishness: Some are quite open about this. The high performance/luxury vehicle makes them feel important and special. They will not give it up, no matter what the cost to others.

2) Hatred of the group promoting the issue: If party “X” is promoting it, then it must be bad.

3) Fun: They enjoy being a troll. It give them a sense of power. Here in the south I see a lot of this. People hang a rebel flag or act like a redneck, just to piss the rest of the country off. They love to watch the liberals dance in anger. It almost has reached the status of a sport.

4) Delusion: Never underestimate the need for people to delude themselves. Life can be really hard. Sometimes insisting that a perpetual motion machine works is part of their coping strategy for dealing with the loss of their job, loved one or social status. I see this with some of my evangelical friends. They were on a path to self destruction till they found “X”. Now that they have “X”, “It is in god's hands”, but they can at least function in society.
"There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
User avatar
roccman
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4065
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Top

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 05 Nov 2007, 02:50:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'I') use the term "solution" loosely. The principle holds true though. No politician ever says if without a corresponding then, however insubstantial it might be. They never leave a question hanging if they can help it.

Overshoot is one of those questions. The logical conclusion is that you die. But "that is not being helpful" as they whisper in polite circles.

Ironically the green lobby is most guilty of this. The buzzword "unsustainable" is unfailingly uttered with impotent frustration, as an accusation, or some mixture of the two. The meaning that comes across is something akin to "if these people don't clean up their act, things will remain unsustainable forever - what kind of future is that for our descendants?" Well guess what. "Unsustainable" means that eventually, the sustaining of something ceases. But drawing attention to that is again "unhelpful".

Fuck that for a game of words. Overshoot is overshoot. It doesn't care. It doesn't care whether it is discussed.


Yip. Same kinda avoidance I note amongst the eco-topian communitarian types whenever you (attempt to) bring up the issue of defense of your local resources from the desperate and unprepared. Someone inevitably mutters something or other about "welcoming and integrating 'refugees' into our sustainable village" and the discussion quickly veers to other topics, but no one wants to talk about what to do once the village's carrying capacity is maxed, or about the very real likelihood that there will be many that are interested only in taking, not 'integrating'...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby MrBean » Mon 05 Nov 2007, 06:26:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '
')
Yip. Same kinda avoidance I note amongst the eco-topian communitarian types whenever you (attempt to) bring up the issue of defense of your local resources from the desperate and unprepared. Someone inevitably mutters something or other about "welcoming and integrating 'refugees' into our sustainable village" and the discussion quickly veers to other topics, but no one wants to talk about what to do once the village's carrying capacity is maxed, or about the very real likelihood that there will be many that are interested only in taking, not 'integrating'...


Haven't seen that kind of avoidance. Unless you mean by "defence" a community of few dozen "hippies" at most using 50%+ of all available resources in landmines, MG's, tanks, etc. Which would mean shit when the Gobmn't or some other warlord comes to confiscate...

"Defence" for an "ecotopian community" means for example building good and trusting relations with other local communities.

The need to limit the size of the community and the right to choose who are accepted as members are well understood and well practiced among the ecotopians, AFAIK.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 05 Nov 2007, 11:10:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'Y')ip. Same kinda avoidance I note amongst the eco-topian communitarian types whenever you (attempt to) bring up the issue of defense of your local resources from the desperate and unprepared. Someone inevitably mutters something or other about "welcoming and integrating 'refugees' into our sustainable village" and the discussion quickly veers to other topics, but no one wants to talk about what to do once the village's carrying capacity is maxed, or about the very real likelihood that there will be many that are interested only in taking, not 'integrating'...


Wow, seems like we've discussed this subject till we're blue in the face over in the Planning forum! Or are you talking about ecotopians "in real life"?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 05 Nov 2007, 13:24:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'Y')ip. Same kinda avoidance I note amongst the eco-topian communitarian types whenever you (attempt to) bring up the issue of defense of your local resources from the desperate and unprepared. Someone inevitably mutters something or other about "welcoming and integrating 'refugees' into our sustainable village" and the discussion quickly veers to other topics, but no one wants to talk about what to do once the village's carrying capacity is maxed, or about the very real likelihood that there will be many that are interested only in taking, not 'integrating'...


Wow, seems like we've discussed this subject till we're blue in the face over in the Planning forum! Or are you talking about ecotopians "in real life"?

Youuuu got it. I'm talking about my direct experience. I've been getting to know a number recently, since the 'lone wolf in the hills' approach isn't a viable option for me, and this is what I have observed any time I've tried to raise the subject. The discomfort is palpable, and the conversation quickly moves on...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', ' ')"Defence" for an "ecotopian community" means for example building good and trusting relations with other local communities.


Yes MrBean, that's their version, and there's nothing wrong with it as far as it goes. Being on good terms with one's neighbors is certainly preferable. But as I indicated, there is a large percentage of people who will not be interested in 'getting along', but only in 'getting theirs', and communities that aren't even willing to consider the possible need for armed defense are wasting their time 'preparing' IMO.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 05 Nov 2007, 23:52:50

Was all too familiar with this topic from Monte. How much more is there to elaborate? Am listening to the Humanitarian Carry Capacity thread, waiting to hear the words "abortion," "cash incentives," "motivation." Maybe the TODsters have some novel take on things.

Communities in an unelectrified world? Sharpen your blades. Marauders can't be negotiated with, that's why they're marauders. There, was that so difficult to grasp?

PS Slick avatar, Twilight. "I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam, of course."
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron