by Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 20:26:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')..
http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.htmlNow quiting asking for it and read it.
Now that we gone full circle:
Hellig (1993): 14 billion
Smil (1994): 11 billion
Brown&Kane (1994): 10 billion
Palmer (1999): 9 billion
Meadows et. al. (1992): 7.7 billion
Whittaker & Likens (1975): 7 billion
Why are you insisting that we are already in "overshoot". Why are you insisting that the carrying capacity is around 2 billion when the carrying capacity is much higher? Even Smail speaks of
optimum carrying capacity 2-3 bill to sustain our unsustainable lifestyle.
It looks like you are looking forward to, yes it looks like you really want the doom, the horror scenarios you are painting to happen? Why? To tell everyone in you horror future who is dying on your doorstep "I told you so!"? Does it make you feel better in you current life?
Look Montequest, no matter where we are in history, it is an age of anxiety, and our fears have grown exponentially over the past half- century. From the Cold War to the latest prognostication that we will soon go the way of Atlantis, to we are running out of oil by tomorrow, we embrace the threat of calamity.
It is obvious that we as a species need to latch on to worst-case scenarios because "medium-case" bore us. We likes extremes, because it is removed from our experience. The majority of people exhibit safe and cautious behaviour. Titillating news sells. Doomsday stories are an extension, an enjoyment of extremes which fascinate.
The truth is, though, that few historical forecasts come true.
Your fascination with doom-laden situations that do not materialise is exemplified by Thomas Malthus theories. His calamity of choice was starvation. Add Zombie hordes and horrible die off scenarios and we have Montequests calamity.
Malthus predicted global famine and suggested, somewhat controversially, that war, poverty and disease were useful means of population control. He said the population grew "geometrically" while resources increased "arithmetically". The result would be starvation.
But the theory did not take into account that improving technology would dramatically increase our ability to create resources.
Even 200 years on, modern Malthusians like Montequest are still espousing the theory. In the Sixties, Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, and Lester Brown, the founder of the Worldwatch Institute, predicted that the "dramatic consequences" of our "throwaway lifestyle" were only a McDonald’s carton away. Remember Ehrich? He is popping up all the time as expert here in carrying capacity threads.
It would be easy to dismiss Ehrlich and company, but their concerns were genuinely based on their knowledge - and an ancient human fear of disaster.
Can we go now back to the subject of this thread, which was:
Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...