[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'H')ere is you're typical comment from an average DEVO 'de-evolutionized' human being. [/color]

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'H')ere is you're typical comment from an average DEVO 'de-evolutionized' human being. [/color]

[Newfie]

Perhaps, just perhaps, this would be a good point for all to take a deep breath and reread the original post and reflect on the idea that print communication is an art form that few master.

A wee bit o' tolerance would probably grease our collective wheels.

Merry Christmas to all.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'P')erhaps, just perhaps, this would be a good point for all to take a deep breath and reread the original post and reflect on the idea that print communication is an art form that few master.

A wee bit o' tolerance would probably grease our collective wheels.

Merry Christmas to all.

[Carlhole]

I don't know what the point of a discussion board is if you can't describe your ideas or opinions. It's not as if I can't back them up with current trends.

The subject of the thread is "Limits to Growth". And I described my ideas about limits to growth alongside rapidly developing science and technology (I mean, it really IS incredible) as being evolutionary forces which will shape the future.

What's the big deal?

[Graeme]

Can We Resolve the "Peak Everything" Problem ?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ith world population exceeding seven billion, there is renewed interest in the limits to growth concept first articulated by the Club of Rome in the 1970s. How can a growing population with growing affluence sustain itself on a finite planet without wreaking havoc on nature and civilisation?

The potential for major economic and political shocks from the world’s energy, food, and water systems, with their vulnerability to climate change, is concentrating attention on food , water andenergy security and their interdependence.

Is it reasonable to assume that the human population is on an inevitable and catastrophic collision course with the planet? Or will human ingenuity and innovation inspire successful adaptations that achieve an historic decoupling between economic growth and the depletion and degradation of natural resources?

Rather than rehashing a polarised debate between Malthusian determinists and technological optimists, we’d rather focus on what’s not “peak ” and how we can make better use of resources that are abundant. These abundant resources include human creativity and capacity, global genetic resources, design solutions at all scales, and technological, policy and institutional innovations.



Our most valuable export commodity, and our most renewable resource, is between our ears.

[SeaGypsy]

(Where's your opinion Graeme?- We aren't supposed to cut & paste without personal input.)

The decoupling mentioned (economic growth & resource depletion- degradation), is the wrong goal. Growth cannot continue perpetually, despite the wishes of politicians world wide. A stable state economy is the only sane goal, yet to be held by any government anywhere; effectively signaling collective insanity & lack of basic comprehension.

A stable state economy can only be reached when 3 things are decided and acted on-

What level of consumption is sustainable?

What number of people can live sustainably at an acceptable level of consumption?

What is the acceptable level of per capita consumption?

The higher the number of people, the lower the necessary level of consumption for sustainability. The lower the number of people, the higher the potential standard of living.

Then there are the issues around equability, will high consumers willingly reduce consumption in favour of, to the benefit of, lower consumers? Is inequality mandatory to sustain any economy? Are the systems in place to defend inequality themselves sustainable? Can equality even exist?

Humanity is clearly insane; from top to bottom. Very few people grok the most basic fundamental equations of life. The fascism of the masses is the deciding force, not sane decision making, sustainability or resource reality. There is no collective above the level of the genus to make the decisions necessary to prevent the inevitable collision between our species and the planet.

So, yes, maybe we can.

But no we won't.

Because such requires something we don't really have: a real collective, a conscious 'We'.

[Graeme]

SG, You're right that this thread is about sustainability. Peak oil and climate change are mere symtoms. The environment, politics, economics and community are the central issues here. Our attempts to "solve" PO and AGW are not going to work unless the world also addresses the other main issues as well. In some ways globalisation is going to help because we are all interconnected now. Communication using the Internet will help too. Whereas you see pessimism, the interconnection of the world is reason enough for hope that we can ultimately find a resolution. I saw a few days ago that world population will stabilise around 2050. That means that all of these issues must be solved by then or shortly after.

[SeaGypsy]

It will either stabilize or crash, this is a given; whether around 2050 or otherwise is kind of a mute point.

More significant than 'stabilized' population is the nature of such. Is it stabilized by dieoff patches catching up with growth patches, or through some kind of global union. In other words, the inevitable end to population explosion happens in an organised or chaotic fashion- then by an organised evil means or by consensus in breeding control?

IMO the best partial solution would be a global consensus at grass roots level that more than 2 children per woman is seriously immoral. Natural population reduction would then occur at a fair pace, due to the fact not all of these 2 children would go on to have their 2 children. Some would be infertile or gay, some would die before reaching reproductive age. I am not very hopeful that this will occur, more likely the inevitable end to this particular exponential will be violent and chaotic. However, I do hope I am wrong in this regard.

[Graeme]

Sorry I should have posted the link here too.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he team considered Earth as a closed and finite system where the migration of people within the system has no impact and where the fundamental principle of the conservation of mass -biomass in this case- and energy is fulfilled.

"Within this general principle, the variables that limit the upper and lower zone of the system's two levels are the birth and mortality rates," Muñoz pointed out and recalled the change that occurred in the ratio between the two variables throughout the last century.

"We started with a general situation where both the birth rate and mortality rate were high, with slow growth favouring the former," he added, "but the mortality rate fell sharply in the second half of the 20th century as a result of advances in healthcare and increased life expectancy and it seemed that the population would grow a lot. However, the past three decades have also seen a steep drop-off in the number of children being born worldwide."

The model's S-shaped sigmoid curve reflects this situation with an inflection point in the mid-1980s when the speed at which the population is growing starts to slow down until it stabilises around 2050.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '
')
Because such requires something we don't really have: a real collective, a conscious 'We'.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'S')orry I should have posted the link here too.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The model's S-shaped sigmoid curve reflects this situation with an inflection point in the mid-1980s when the speed at which the population is growing starts to slow down until it stabilises around 2050.

[peripato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'W')hat is the collective dream during economic steady state or decline?

[ralfy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _footprint

Given per capita biocapacity and population for 2007, sustainability will involve a per capita footprint of only 1.8 global hectares, equivalent to ave. living standards in Cuba.

However, given environmental damage and growing population, per capita biocapacity will decrease.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e can make better use of resources that are abundant. These abundant resources include human creativity and capacity, global genetic resources, design solutions

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')gain, there is a reason the human population has grown with the spread of wheat agriculture instead of trees, it's more efficient.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'G')ood example of Jevon's Paradox. Gathering nuts and chasing wild boars for food is very innefficient but keeps the population in check because of its innefficiency which limits the impact on the habitat. The more "efficient" we get out of exploiting the enironment for human needs the more the population increases and the more impact the collective activities of humans will have.

[ennui2]

Pops hit the nail on the head. He sounded positively like Greer.

Bright green ecotopia visions are sounding not that different from corny denialists these days, because they fail to really run the numbers on their ideas. It's all based on hype and blind optimism and none of it really concedes that we have to powerdown and strap on condoms, and even then, it's probably too late to forestall collapse, due to environmental feedback switches we've already flipped.

[SeaGypsy]

Bump 3 for today! (I'm finding that some of the best old threads are still locked- guess Ferret still working her way through- !!! )

[Graeme]

The Club of Rome’s Next Act

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the context in which Club of Rome Co-Chairs Anders Wijkman and Ernst von Weizsaecker convened the annual meeting of the Club of Rome in Mexico City last week. The theme of the conference was the energy transition off fossil fuels, which juxtaposed nicely against Mexico’s new commitment to clean up corruption in Pemex, the State-owned oil company, while also welcoming (and this is where it became surreal but also very poignant) new foreign direct investment, previously banned, into exploration partnerships with Pemex in order to accelerate fossil fuel extraction with the goal of reversing the State’s declining oil revenues.

This is exactly the tension underlying what I call our “$20 Trillion Big Choice.” While we focus as we must on the monumental challenge to mobilize the necessary policies and investments to transition the world off fossil fuels, those sitting on our existing stock of fossil fuel reserves, from Exxon to Mexico, are naturally seeking to optimize the exploitation of those reserves, which remain highly profitable as long as we continue to ignore the costs of global warming. And the $20 trillion “choice” is harder. It means not only ceasing to invest new capital to expand fossil fuel extraction – $674 billion last year alone – it means writing off some $20 trillion of existing proved reserves (“stranded assets”) rather than cashing them in (as a comparison, the direct financial losses of the subprime crisis in the U.S. were a mere $2.7 trillion).

The divestment movement now well underway is focused primarily on the 25 percent of this stranded asset issue owned by public companies. (See Rockefeller Brothers Fund historic decision to divest.) Exxon, the successor company to John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, has responded to the Rockefeller decision with a statement about their concern for those facing energy poverty. Touching.

But the real question is the largest and most complex geopolitical challenge of all time: how can we restrain the exploitation of existing proved fossil fuel reserves, not only those controlled by the Exxon’s of the world, but even more difficult, the 75 percent of reserves controlled by nation states like Mexico (and Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Canada, and Russia just for starters) whose economies (and social cohesion) are currently highly dependent upon the continued sale of oil and gas?

I was privileged to address the attendees at the Annual Meeting on “Financing the Energy Transition.” In my speech, I addressed three interconnected monumental challenges:

Mobilizing the estimated $44 trillion (that’s Trillion with a “T”) of investment required between now and 2050 for renewable energy technologies and critical energy efficiency, (see the International Energy Agency’s recent report);

The $20 trillion stranded asset challenge referred to above; and

The overarching context of limits to growth, which implies a corollary limits to investment a challenge no economic system has ever had to contemplate.

Jane Jacobs once said, “it’s not how big you grow, it’s how you grow big.”

As we reflect on the prescience of the Club of Rome’s seminal work on limits to growth, nothing could be more important at this pivotal moment in time. Future growth and development, beginning with the energy system that fuels it, and the business models that define its qualities, will need to evolve as living systems have done over billions of years, to more intricate, regenerative systems.

Watch for the Club of Rome’s next act, shifting from prescient diagnosis, to a search for genuine solutions, rooted in a systemic level understanding of the forces at play. We can say for sure that there are limits to mindless growth. Regenerative economies nurture mindful growth and development. This is the future we had better embrace.