Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Limits to Growth Thread

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.
Post a reply

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 08:56:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I suspect that when we really are racing down the rollercoaster in the present tense, and experiencing each milestone, one blow after the next, up close and personal, that a lot of that false positivity about how much better life would be after TSHTF will dissolve. Perhaps the only thing that will really satisfy me is not feeling like Chicken Little anymore, no longer having to suffer in silence.


I agree, the rollercoaster dip equals wars, upscaled competition, shortages and collapse. After that life will equal fighting and survival for the forseeable future. It's easy to fantasize while sitting on a computer chair in front of a monitor and have the real wilderness safely on the other side of the window.


That makes two who agree. The general trend is clear to see. It is all the twists and turns and deadends down the slope that will make it "interesting."

I did an Al Bartlett showing last night. Had about 16 come in. Some new younger folks who had heard of Bartlett before.

After the movie we have a discussion. One old guy was talking about CFL's and living in a condo and not having a car - that was his answer. Other discussion circulated around how to "fix" the population problem. I tried (gently) to turn the discussion to acceptance that there WOULD be a downturn in population and we should discuss how to take care of ourselves, families and social groups. But that diid not seem to take. Still I planted a seed.

IMO there are more than one type of denialist.
* Some deny AGW, or even just GW
* Some see GW but don't see excess population as the problem
* A few see population as the problem but think there is a "fix". We can still have our 'standard of living', solar will save us, etc.
* Very few see the population problem, understand growth if deadly, AND know that human nature will not allow us to alter course sufficiently to avoid some really, really bad stuff happening.

Frankly, I don't know which crowd is better off. For even if you are in the most enlightened group, if you can't figure out what to do to help yourself or kin then it does not matter and you might as well be blissfully happy in the meantime and trust in the fates.
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby dissident » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 09:09:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hina will no doubt install generation in any form it can, until it can't, after their bubble economy implodes. The China Bubble's Coming -- But Not the One You Think.


I agree that in the not-so-long run things are going to go badly for China and the rest of the world, but this article makes a glaring omission. China's growth has long stopped being driven by exports and is now dominated by internal demand. That is why it is decoupled from the US recession.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby pablonite » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 13:20:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')n 1972, I read a study published by the Club of Rome, entitled, The Limits to Growth. Based on a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by Professor Jay Forrester at MIT, a large-scale computer model was constructed to simulate likely future outcomes of the world economy and to simulate the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies.

This was their showpiece hit in the early 70's but was still just a small piece of a much bigger theme, the green agenda. It is easy to recognize their particular form of brainwashing.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'C')onsidering Club of Rome to be tinfoil is what's tinfoil. Constructing NWO conspiracy theories in order to deny limits to growth is self-serving tinfoil.

Heh. Your still struggling with a life long exposure to predictive programming with regards to the phrase "conspiracy theory".
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comm ... atechange/

If you don't recognize these unelected representatives of the people, members of the club of rome, now formulating policies to "deny limits to growth" through a world governing instrument known as the UN - then what do you see?

Oh wait, I know! A bunch of bumbling politicians accomplishing nothing!
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 13:56:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '
')Frankly, I don't know which crowd is better off. For even if you are in the most enlightened group, if you can't figure out what to do to help yourself or kin then it does not matter and you might as well be blissfully happy in the meantime and trust in the fates.


The old man in The Road is a character who says he knew doomsday would come. Then he's asked about preps. Then he says something like this:

"Even if you knew what to do, you wouldn't know what to do."

I like that line. Let that sink in. We know what to do to maximize our survival odds, but do we really want to go there? What's it all worth?
mos6507
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 14:00:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', '
')I agree that in the not-so-long run things are going to go badly for China and the rest of the world, but this article makes a glaring omission. China's growth has long stopped being driven by exports and is now dominated by internal demand. That is why it is decoupled from the US recession.


It's not completely decoupled from the recession. It has huge liabilities with the US dollar/treasuries which is a big shoe waiting to drop. Perhaps the big difference between GD 1.0 and GD 2.0 is globalization. We've been able to "outsource" the fallout of the credit crisis across the globe and hence lesson the blow domestically.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 17:04:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I')MO there are more than one type of denialist.
* Some deny AGW, or even just GW
* Some see GW but don't see excess population as the problem
* A few see population as the problem but think there is a "fix". We can still have our 'standard of living', solar will save us, etc.
* Very few see the population problem, understand growth if deadly, AND know that human nature will not allow us to alter course sufficiently to avoid some really, really bad stuff happening.
The most frustrating kind of denialist is the one who claims to be "green" but still has an underlying assumption of infinite resources. Population is rarely discussed (because it will be sorted by demographic transition) and all we really need to do is stop despoiling some nice scenery. I've tried discussing limits with long time greenies and have yet to find one who doesn't believe in infinite resources (though the belief is usually implicit). Indeed, I recently came across one who excplicitly stated resources are "effectively" infinite. I've come across a couple of cornies who've stated that resources are infinite but this was my first green.

When those who claim to be environmentally aware can't see what sustainability really means, then I know that the chances of seeing meaningful change are pretty much zero, even if we didn't have the pablonites to deal with.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 17:41:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he most frustrating kind of denialist is the one who claims to be "green" but still has an underlying assumption of infinite resources.


You will always be a frustrated person then. I feel sorry for you.

Human Nature is what it is. You can't change it simply because YOU believe that YOU have a firm grasp of reality. EVERYONE believes their own view or they parrot the views of their group.

I happen to think that resources are an awfully important consideration to the current evolution of the world. I happen to believe that science and technology are an emergent pattern in evolution. Evolution is part of the Earth and always has been. Evolution is actually being sped up through human sci/tech.

Enormous problems confront us and ourselves in the world. It is in Human Nature to confront problems using sci/tech. You cannot stop that from taking place. You might wish that Mankind acted differently than you would like but it won't. And therefore, you will always be frustrated.

And I think that it is possible to predict realistically HOW Mankind will confront these problems. And so most of my post are about how human society will evolve in the century ahead, being shaped by: (1) Resource constraints (2) Incredible advances in Science and Technology leading to some SomethingElse.

I never claim "infinite growth or any such nonsense. Bitch all you want about any other deviations from the peak oil mainstream, but I have my own point of view and I think it's superior to yours.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 18:47:26

Carl,

My grasp on reality is from a realisation that we have a finite planet with limits. The frustration is that most other people don't appear to realise that, even those who claim "green-ness". As you so rightly say, I will always be a frustrated person, at least until collapse and then the frustration will morph to survivalism. Maybe if my family comes through this, that frustration will be masked for the rest of my life.

Modern technology is only possible with cheap abundant resources. Maybe technology itself can provide those cheap abundant resources for ever, but I doubt it.

You may not think you believe in infinite resources but if you don't acknowledge that all species must live within the limits of nature or suffer, at best, periods of bloom and collapse, then you implicitly believe in infinite resources.

I suppose, in some way, humans have helped evolution along but we may well have to come out of the current great mass extinction event to see it. But we're not here to help evolution along, nature will do just fine, with or without us. Evolution, in itself, is not important to us and doesn't need our help; it will happen until the planet can no longer support life (but may re-emerge if and when it can support life again).

I love technology but I think we should first figure out how to live within the earth's means and then use that stable base to make technological progress without reverting to overshoot.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 19:08:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ut we're not here to help evolution along, nature will do just fine, with or without us.


That right there is the fundamental disagreement.

You subscribe to that separation of Man vs. Nature BS whereas I think Science and Technology is an emergent pattern of evolution and that Man is an emergent creature of evolution. Man is a species that is able to become more aware of the importance of continued evolution. ,,,and that Industrialization is a mega-phase of a growth pattern toward a more perfect complexity - something that will require speedy evolution... It's just altogether a different point-of-view.

I see the old Man vs. Nature split as some sort of medieval religious vestige taught to nicely submissive Christians. I thought Darwin made more sense, myself. Indistrialization such as we have known it cannot continue as it has. But it won't stop. People adapt. I never discount war or mass death but I don't answer Richard Heinberg's question: "Are humans smarter than yeast" negatively. I certainly don't believe in the collapse of human society on Planet Earth and I don't believe that the world is not at all capable of demonstrating intelligent responses to perceived threats and possibilities.
Last edited by Carlhole on Fri 18 Dec 2009, 19:14:03, edited 1 time in total.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Homesteader » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 19:13:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')ut we're not here to help evolution along, nature will do just fine, with or without us.


That right there is the fundamental disagreement.

You subscribe to that separation of Man vs. Nature BS whereas I think evolution is an emergent pattern of complexity and that Man is an emergent creature of evolution. And Man is a species that is able to become more aware of the importance of continued evolution. ,,,and that Industrialization is a mega-phase of a growth pattern toward a more perfect complexity - something that will require speedy evolution... It's just altogether a different point-of-view.

I see the old Man vs. Nature split as some sort of medieval religious vestige taught to nicely submissive Christians. I thought Darwin made more sense, myself. Indistrialization such as we have known it cannot continue as it has. But it won't stop. People adapt. I never discount war or mass death but I don't answer Richard Heinberg's question: "Are humans smarter than yeast" negatively. I certainly don't believe in the collapse of human society on Planet Earth and I don't believe that the world is not at all capable of demonstrating intelligent responses to perceived threats and possibilities.


Have you considered that humans are a dead-end evolutionarily speaking? Since if you believe that evolution is, as you say, and emergent pattern of complexity, humans are decreasing that complexity, unless you belive that technological complexity can supplant and replace biological complexity.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 19:16:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', 'H')ave you considered that humans are a dead-end evolutionarily speaking?


Yeah, I think it's wrong as hell.

I mean. humans will probably lead to something else eventually in an evolutionary path.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Homesteader » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 19:21:29

How about our global culture of consumption? Is that an evolutionary experiment that is proving to be successful or not? And what about the technological complexity vs. biological question I posed?
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 19:36:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', ' ')Since if you believe that evolution is, as you say, and emergent pattern of complexity, humans are decreasing that complexity, unless you belive that technological complexity can supplant and replace biological complexity.


I live by this rule: "There is no reason to believe anything at all without good evidence".

I see the biological world around me as accessible to the human mind. The biological world is evidence. None of it is inaccessible.That is, none of it is too complex, too deeply weird, too... beyond us. ...and that includes understanding how animals brains work.

Whereas, people wonder about the Universe itself and fear that our monkey brains might not be big enough to grasp the dimensionality of it or something... it's just too utterly flabbergasting a puzzle to figure out.

But, Nature and biology CAN be comprehended and it's right here all around us. We'll be adapting into something else. For your benefit, I'll pretend I'm Isaac Asimov and suggest that Human being will adapt themselves and adapt their environment all around them to creat a whole new something else. None of this will occur smoothly or easily. Change is difficult.

If there is no need for 6 billion of us, then the whole ant farm will shrink. But who cares? It's onward and upward to higher glories.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Lore » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 21:30:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', ' ')Since if you believe that evolution is, as you say, and emergent pattern of complexity, humans are decreasing that complexity, unless you belive that technological complexity can supplant and replace biological complexity.


I live by this rule: "There is no reason to believe anything at all without good evidence".

I see the biological world around me as accessible to the human mind. The biological world is evidence. None of it is inaccessible.That is, none of it is too complex, too deeply weird, too... beyond us. ...and that includes understanding how animals brains work.

Whereas, people wonder about the Universe itself and fear that our monkey brains might not be big enough to grasp the dimensionality of it or something... it's just too utterly flabbergasting a puzzle to figure out.

But, Nature and biology CAN be comprehended and it's right here all around us. We'll be adapting into something else. For your benefit, I'll pretend I'm Isaac Asimov and suggest that Human being will adapt themselves and adapt their environment all around them to creat a whole new something else. None of this will occur smoothly or easily. Change is difficult.

If there is no need for 6 billion of us, then the whole ant farm will shrink. But who cares? It's onward and upward to higher glories.


You assume there is time to adapt? Boldly spoken, but no guarantee of success. The Human Species only has to go extinct once.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 22:06:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', ' ')Boldly spoken, but no guarantee of success.


There are no guarantees. Ever. There never have been any. There are only opportunities. Life and evolution have always been able to fill the niche in the past.

I just look around me now, here, in the present to look at trends. There's a population hump and resource depletion and degradation, etc.; but there is also exploding telecommunications, transforming what used to be a utility into a whole new virtual world. Supercomputing is going through the roof. Some of the biggest most important scientific laboratories, NIF and CERN, are just being turned on now. This sh*t's interesting.

These are things that are each world-changing in and of themselves. But together, something new and powerful is being created. Humans are a part of this organic, quite natural, evolutionary process. Our current ways will not stay the same but stability is not be expected. Even instability will not change the ultimate direction of human exploration - that is to greater and greater levels of understanding so as to better control the environment. Isn't that what I read we should be doing in the monkey manual?

Like I said, there is no reason to believe anything without good evidence.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Lore » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 22:19:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', ' ')Boldly spoken, but no guarantee of success.


There are no guarantees. Ever. There never have been any. There are only opportunities. Life and evolution have always been able to fill the niche in the past.

I just look around me now, here, in the present to look at trends. There's a population hump and resource depletion and degradation, etc.; but there is also exploding telecommunications, transforming what used to be a utility into a whole new virtual world. Supercomputing is going through the roof. Some of the biggest most important scientific laboratories, NIF and CERN, are just being turned on now. This sh*t's interesting.

These are things that are each world-changing in and of themselves. But together, something new and powerful is being created. Humans are a part of this organic, quite natural, evolutionary process. Our current ways will not stay the same but stability is not be expected. Even instability will not change the ultimate direction of human exploration - that is to greater and greater levels of understanding so as to better control the environment. Isn't that what I read we should be doing in the monkey manual?

Like I said, there is no reason to believe anything without good evidence.


It all sounds like peak technology to me. Most of it dependent on cheap affordable energy that’s being quickly used up at the cost of our environment and with no consideration of the eventual outcome, even so, given the good evidence we now have.

While the virtual crap is interesting it's not very satisfying. You may find that the organic process is also the path that leads to our inevitable demise. The cemeteries are filled with the hopeful that waited for technology to save them.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 22:31:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')
1 - Like I said, there is no reason to believe anything without good evidence.

2 - humans will probably lead to something else eventually in an evolutionary path.


Please expand on statement #2 using the dictum of statement #1. In short, please provide "good evidence" that humans will evolve into "something else."

In particular I would like some clarity in how our environment will shape our biological selection and the envisioned time frame.

Seriously, no joke. I'd like to hear.
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 22:48:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'I')t all sounds like peak technology to me.


Oh sure. right.

Show me some evidence for that. And explain some the very significant science being reported all the time now.

In order to believe the peak oil gospel, you need to believe that exploration will not lead to significant discoveries - i'm talking about Science in general. And you need to believe that society-wide adaptation is not possible. I see no good evidence for believing those things. I just pay attention to what's going on with an ey towards resources.

Since, as I said, there will be an rapid evolutionary development ahead that will be shaped by (1) resource constraints, population, environmental breakdown, etc., and (2) An inevitable explosion in Science & Technology leading the things like machine intelligence, and biological interfaces and such. Nothing has been discovered that says this is impossible. And it looks like they are making rapid progress on everything in this sort of direction all the time.

There is probably some immutable Law that says, "Intelligence is the most valuable thing in the Universe". Because intelligence always seeks greater intelligence - like a gravitational force or something. So once a certain level of Science & Technology is attained, then the increasing knowledge itself becomes a new imperative. And you can't avoid it.

Now, we're are entering an age when some pretty damn amazing things are going to be happening. And resource constraints, population, degradation... all that needs to be solved in some rational way. You can either believe that humans are incapable fo perceiving the word properly and adapting, or you can believe that humans are stupider than yeast. Like I said, I think the emergence of an Earth "cognition" ( or something... there must be a better word) is what human Science will lead to.

It will be an evolved solution. That's what makes advents in supercomputing so interesting. Because the laws of evolution also hold true in virtual worlds. So... There's some sh*t afott, my friend.

But there's no reason to believe that something Richard Duncan forecasted about the future any more than what ANYONE says about the future. Because our thoughts about the future affect future outcomes. And weird new things evolve by that mechanism.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby hillsidedigger » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 22:58:04

Which will be first to no longer be available in your area, grid-electicity, cellphones or internet?

They will all be gone most everywhere at some point and not replaced by something even more technical.
User avatar
hillsidedigger
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun 31 May 2009, 22:31:27
Location: Way up North in the Land of Cotton.
Top

Re: The Limits to Growth

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 18 Dec 2009, 23:24:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hillsidedigger', 'W')hich will be first to no longer be available in your area, grid-electicity, cellphones or internet?

They will all be gone most everywhere at some point and not replaced by something even more technical.


So sayeth the believer.
Carlhole
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron