Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby drummer » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 00:00:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'L')udi and PMS asked me to revive this thread (not in so many words but they did). I thought I'd take a stab at defining sustainability.

The short answer is this. Sustainability is a way of living that can go on indefinitely. On a global/civilizational level, it means that we are not depleting resources or overwhelming sinks that future people will need. On a personal level, it means that if everyone lived as you did, the criteria for global/civilizational sustainability would be met.
.


Sustainability is a myth that has never been achieved by any society.
We all need to grow up and recognise the fact that all societies
exploit their environment in one way or another and usually to the
point of collapse or severe damage. Given the energy capabilities
we have, most traditional societies would have doen the same.

Would native americans with guns and jeeps preserved the
buffalo? I doubt it- especially if it supported greater populations
to fight for more territory.

The idea that the societies/cultures/countries/economies of
earth will EVER collaborate on anything on the scale required for
environmental sustainability is just so far fetched only the
delusional would believe it.

When murder, betrayal, power and wealth have been the hallmarks
of humanity, what makes you believe that this will be reversed
or could be?
User avatar
drummer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 00:15:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drummer', 'S')ustainability is a myth that has never been achieved by any society. We all need to grow up and recognise the fact that all societies exploit their environment in one way or another and usually to the point of collapse or severe damage. Given the energy capabilities we have, most traditional societies would have doen the same.


You may be right about that but for the purposes of this thread, I don't care. Your post is off-topic. In the opening post,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'I')n this thread, I would like to avoid another discussion of our chances of success or failure. Instead, I would like to discuss humane actions we can take, on a governmental and corporate level, on a regional level, on a community level, and on a personal level to work towards sustainability. Meadows, Randers, and Meadows have given us the broad overview of a desireable future (their rosy scenario 9). What are the details?
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby drummer » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 00:57:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drummer', 'S')ustainability is a myth that has never been achieved by any society. We all need to grow up and recognise the fact that all societies exploit their environment in one way or another and usually to the point of collapse or severe damage. Given the energy capabilities we have, most traditional societies would have doen the same.


You may be right about that but for the purposes of this thread, I don't care. Your post is off-topic. In the opening post,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'I')n this thread, I would like to avoid another discussion of our chances of success or failure. Instead, I would like to discuss humane actions we can take, on a governmental and corporate level, on a regional level, on a community level, and on a personal level to work towards sustainability. Meadows, Randers, and Meadows have given us the broad overview of a desireable future (their rosy scenario 9). What are the details?



Fair enough. You've determined the exercise is a worthwhile one.
Some people collect bottletops. There is no rhyme nor reason.
enjoy.
User avatar
drummer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:04:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'I')n that sense, JohnDenver was correct when he said that we don't need biodiversity...
But we like biodiversity. So if we can keep that too, good.


No, there is no evidence we can live that way. We depend upon the Earth's life systems. We don't just "like" biodiversity. We depend upon it for the very air we breath.

I have never heard of any reputable biologist who thinks we can live without biodiversity.

Quote from the Royal Society:

"Human dependence on biodiversity is absolute: without it we would not be able to survive."

Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is the independent scientific academy
of the UK, dedicated to promoting excellence in science.

And it would be ridiculous for me to have to provide additional quotes from other scientific organizations.

Please do not make such absurd statements.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:40:26

Fair enough, Ludi. I don't want to get bogged down in an argument about biodiversity.

My point is really that I'm talking about human sustainability as distinct from preservation of ecosystems. In some cases, it may be necessary to accept some environmental damage as a necessary cost for acheiving the larger goal.

When I talk about sustainability, I'm not talking about what's good for nature -- I'm talking about what's good for people.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:47:42

Then you simply don't understand people's dependence on nature, johnmarkos. Everything we do must take into account our impact on the Earth's life systems, because we DEPEND on them. I just don't understand why people don't accept this fact.

There is no "good" for people apart from what is "good" for nature. People are part of nature; nature isn't something off somewhere else. It is right here, around us and in us.
Ludi
 

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:50:19

The other point I was trying to get across was that we are not dependent on individual sources and sinks. We have more general needs that those sources and sinks meet. It is often possible to substitute one resource for another.

So, to give another example, we don't need oil specifically. Really, we don't even need energy specifically. What we need are the benefits that energy provides (transportation, warmth, cleanliness, entertainment, et cetera).
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:51:49

Johnmarkos, what do you mean by "some damage" in order to achieve this goal of sustainability? Are you even aware of the scope of the damage we have ALREADY done to the Earth's life systems? Surely you are aware of global warming, extinction, soil loss, endocrine disruption from pollution, pollution of ground and surface water, etc. What more "some damage" is acceptable when our very existence is threatened by the damage we have ALREADY done?
Ludi
 

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:52:01

I am surely and absolutely dependent on individual sources and sinks. I am entirely dependent on my local watershed, utterly and completely.
Ludi
 

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 06:59:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'J')ohnmarkos, what do you mean by "some damage" in order to achieve this goal of sustainability? Are you even aware of the scope of the damage we have ALREADY done to the Earth's life systems? Surely you are aware of global warming, extinction, soil loss, endocrine disruption from pollution, pollution of ground and surface water, etc. What more "some damage" is acceptable when our very existence is threatened by the damage we have ALREADY done?


Sure, we have to fix that stuff. That is implicit in this whole discussion.

What I'm saying is that in specific places and endeavors, the human footprint might grow, even as civilization as a whole becomes more sustainable. That means that we might have to cut down more forests to build houses or grow food for people.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:07:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', ' ')That means that we might have to cut down more forests to build houses or grow food for people.


No, it doesn't. If we're "cutting down more forests" we aren't being sustainable. We certainly don't need to "cut down more forests" to grow food for people.

You just don't get it, do you? You're just missing the big picture somehow, either that, or you and I are not understand each other.

How are we to "fix" the many problems we face if we continue to make the same damn mistakes, continue the same exact damage? When does the "fixing" start?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:12:12

Meadows, et al. basically say the same thing I do, using different words. In the best possible scenario of LTG+30, pollution levels rise, then fall as we start to clean up the mess. Non-renewables get used up as we transition to renewable alternatives. We make some tradeoffs to meet the larger goal.

If anything, I'm more optimistic (believe we need to make fewer tradeoffs) than Meadows, et al. because I think we can get some resources from space.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:20:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'N')o, it doesn't. If we're "cutting down more forests" we aren't being sustainable. We certainly don't need to "cut down more forests" to grow food for people.


People are cutting them down now for myriad reasons. What are they cutting them for? To clear land for agriculture and habitation, to build houses and furniture. The Living Planet Report tracks the human use of "fiber." [Sorry -- I mean timber - JMO] That means wood, which is produced by cutting down forests. Surely you don't believe that we're going from our current consumption to nothing overnight.

I don't think I'm advocating what you think I'm advocating. I'm not recommending that we cut them down willy nilly. I'm just saying that you can't change all of human activity overnight.
Last edited by johnmarkos on Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:26:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:23:56

Wow, we are so completely not communicating johnmarkos. This is so weird, I'm freakin' out man...

We seem to be living in different worlds. You're talking about some future time of living sustainably, I'm working on it now. You're talking about fixing those problems, sometime in the future I guess, I work on them every day here in my microecosystem (restoring tallgrass prairie savannah and oak-juniper woodland, growing my own food using sustainable methods of permaculture). When's all this neat stuff you talk about going to happen? Why not now? Why are you speaking still in future terms? I just don't get it.
Ludi
 

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:28:39

There is no need to "cut down forests" for those purposes you mention. That is not sustainable. Selectively cutting individual trees or specific areas, yes, "forests" no.

That people are currently still cutting down forests is not relevant to the discussion of living sustainably. Most people are currently NOT living sustainably.
Ludi
 

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:36:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')ow, we are so completely not communicating johnmarkos. This is so weird, I'm freakin' out man...

We seem to be living in different worlds. You're talking about some future time of living sustainably, I'm working on it now. You're talking about fixing those problems, sometime in the future I guess, I work on them every day here in my microecosystem (restoring tallgrass prairie savannah and oak-juniper woodland, growing my own food using sustainable methods of permaculture). When's all this neat stuff you talk about going to happen? Why not now? Why are you speaking still in future terms? I just don't get it.

I'm not talking about building a sustainable life on an individual level. I'm talking about societal changes that will make civilization more sustainable. Most people do and will continue to live in cities. How do we make cities more sustainable? Or, you're interested in agriculture. Can you generalize the stuff you're doing in your own microecosystem to suggest new ways of growing food for the world's billions?
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Tue 28 Feb 2006, 07:36:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')here is no need to "cut down forests" for those purposes you mention. That is not sustainable. Selectively cutting individual trees or specific areas, yes, "forests" no.

Agreed.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Wed 01 Mar 2006, 17:34:12

I don't think I was communicating very well. I had a bad cold and it was 3 in the morning. I'll try again. I was trying to distinguish human sustainability from ecological sustainability. That is, I think it's possible that the human community could be doing OK even though some ecosystems are damaged or functioning below ideal. Maybe you think that's not possible. I tend to think it is but I don't really want to have that argument here.

I elaborated on my definition of sustainability in the Peak Oil Debunked Google Group. I'll re-post what I wrote here. One question is, how long is our planning horizon for sustainability?

Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update has scenarios going out to 2100 (94 years from now). The Iroquois supposedly tried to take into account the effects of their actions on the next seven generations (there's a brand of paper products called "Seventh Generation"). If a generation is 20-30 years, that would be a 200 year planning period.

What kind of planning can you do for 200 years out? Not much. It's hard to even plan out thirty years, let alone 200. Take Social Security. They really have no idea how much money they're going to have in 30 years. If the economy grows just a little faster than expected, they won't have a problem at all. If it grows a little slower the deficit will be a lot worse than they predict.

Probably the best you can do is

A. Don't leave messes that future generations will be unable to clean up (and which will be a serious problem -- little messes are probably OK, unless there are a whole lot of them).
B. Don't take stuff that future generations are definitely going to need. This doesn't mean that you can't use up the nonrenewables. If there's a likely replacement, say, solar for oil, you can probably go ahead and use them.
C. Prevent forseeable disasters (such as asteroid impacts) when possible.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby rogerhb » Wed 01 Mar 2006, 17:47:51

How about

(a) don't leave the world worse than when you were born

(b) don't leave debts for your children
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand

Re: Reaching for Sustainability; Avoiding Collapse

Unread postby johnmarkos » Wed 01 Mar 2006, 20:24:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'H')ow about

(a) don't leave the world worse than when you were born

(b) don't leave debts for your children


Are we talking on a personal scale or on a global/civilizational one? On a personal scale, I'm all for (b) but that's really out of the scope of this thread. Also, are you talking about financial debts or something else? Previous generations left financial debts for us and we just inflated the currency to the point at which that they were irrelevant. Nobody cares about U.S. government debt from WWII, for example, even though it was a greater portion of GDP than the current national debt.

High debt (in proportion to GDP) reduces a society's resilience, however, so I would agree in a general way with (b). A better way to put it might be, "Keep the debt under control," since no debt whatsoever is probably unattainable.

As for (a), what do you mean by "worse"?
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron