Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The bottom line

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

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby Pops » Tue 18 Dec 2007, 18:24:25

The Bottom Line is that I have seen very little on this site regarding voluntarily limiting the number of ones own offspring, only a few who profess to limiting their consumption and even fewer who show attempts to change where they acquire their energy/food/material goods.

Lots of good titles and platitudes though.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby MrBill » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 08:06:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', 'I') found somewhere this data (I think Club of Rome provided this or Wackernagel...)

4 billion - Eastern European level
3 billion - Western European level
2 billion - Nothern American level

But the number drops every year as economy grows ;) Because there is less to plunder and more to consume so every year of exceeding carrying capacity shrinks carrying capacity and the number drops again. It's like a spiral.

To keep current number we should use as much resources as average Cuban.


The problem with all estimates is their methodoly and underlying assumptions. Despite their good intentions the researchers always interject their own personal biases as well. So the numbers look realistic, but who can really say with any accuracy? The number itself would depend on how coordinated a response is to scarcity for example. Change that one assumption and you likely change the outcome again!

Pops wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The Bottom Line is that I have seen very little on this site regarding voluntarily limiting the number of ones own offspring, only a few who profess to limiting their consumption and even fewer who show attempts to change where they acquire their energy/food/material goods.

Lots of good titles and platitudes though.


My efforts to get people to freeze to death in the dark are not going very well either! ; - )
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby kadoomsoon » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 11:45:56

sorry , reposted.
Doesn't matter.
Last edited by kadoomsoon on Thu 20 Dec 2007, 02:23:55, edited 3 times in total.
___________________________
Everything is going to happen more or less simultaneously.
Your relatives,their broken down car, and their credit card debt are coming to live with you in 2008
User avatar
kadoomsoon
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon 01 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rural farm

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby MrBill » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 12:29:31

kadoomsoon, you're a really sick individual! This racist shi'ite on PO has really gone too far. I really do not want to associate with such trash, or to try to post serious arguments alongside such garbage.

Nothing you post makes any sense. Go read what? Books and the Internet publish facts as well as fiction. Your interpretation of the facts is somewhat laughable, but your intent is simply the spread of hatred.

I hope there is a special place in Hell for the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots and Idi Amins of the world, and I hope you roast in Hell next to them!

Your WASP friend of Aryan descent,

MrBill

Image
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby kadoomsoon » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 12:37:39

Bill you obviously misread the posts.

I do not support the sick evolutionary aryans.


What I posted was Hitlers beliefs I posted them because no one knows them even today, this is what they told us in public speaches in Germany... the people all fell for it.

The reason I mentioned them is because the very elite still believe all that, they haven't changed....


Anyway who cares what I am, I was trying to help people understand how out of the box the real rulers are,,, but it is set up so well this cannot be done, no one would believe it.

So,, let it roll..
Last edited by kadoomsoon on Thu 20 Dec 2007, 02:25:11, edited 2 times in total.
___________________________
Everything is going to happen more or less simultaneously.
Your relatives,their broken down car, and their credit card debt are coming to live with you in 2008
User avatar
kadoomsoon
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon 01 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rural farm

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby MrBill » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 13:02:18

No, I have no problem reading and comprehending for that matter. Only about in the 98th percentile. So if you would craft your posts better I might be able to understand them, eh?

I am of German descent. Also, of Norwgian, English and Scottish. But directly from Hessen.

But even as a WASP I totally renounce racism, and anyone who would use race or religion to preach hatred. I may intensely dislike certain regimes or national governments, but there are good and bad people found anywhere and everywhere.

For the record, I have been an economic migrant for the past twenty years - living, working and studying in more than a dozen countries - so it would be pretty hypocritical of me to preach about isolism.

In that time I have benefited immensely from exposure to others that are not like me. I have also generated jobs, revenue and paid taxes wherever I have worked. Ironically, I would have achieved less if not for the locals that were able to understand English, but also work alongside me and absorb the transfer of skills and knowledge that I tried to impart. Or the languages and know-how that I learned from them.

Get it? It was a win-win situation. That is the point! Give me intelligent foreigners over narrow-minded locals anyday! I do not care what color their skin is or what language their native tongue is? Or what God they do or do not pray to? I simply demand competence and a willingness to learn.

Fortunately, here in Cyprus - on the apex of Europe, Asia, the ME and Africa - we have a broad exposure to many races and religions of all stripes, so we are prefectly placed to do business and interact with everyone. And it is a small island without hardly any crime! How perfect is that?
Last edited by MrBill on Wed 19 Dec 2007, 13:17:02, edited 1 time in total.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby kadoomsoon » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 13:02:20

Look, it is almost 2008. I know many things that are positively going to happen, but it seems it is all outside the box.

anyway, have a happy life and don't worry be happy. It is all you have, really. Don't let them take your happiness from you.
Last edited by kadoomsoon on Thu 20 Dec 2007, 02:25:58, edited 1 time in total.
___________________________
Everything is going to happen more or less simultaneously.
Your relatives,their broken down car, and their credit card debt are coming to live with you in 2008
User avatar
kadoomsoon
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon 01 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rural farm

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby MrBill » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 13:07:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kadoomsoon', 'L')ook, it is almost 2008. I know many things that are positively going to happen, but it seems it is all outside the box.

So, I have a propostion, If you will please remove me and remove all the posts I wrote they won't bother anyone, and I won't come back as anyone else either.

I would appreciate it, thanks

can you please ban me and the posts? people have already read them they have heard they dont have to be in the archives..

anyway, have a happy life and don't worry be happy. It is all you have, really. Don't let them take your happiness from you.



Peak Oil is an all inclusive family. You can choose not to come to our moveable feast, but you will not be excluded. The decision is yours alone to make. Peace.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 19 Dec 2007, 13:39:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'C')all me a heretic, but I think 3 billion could be sustainable?
I think far more could be supported, but I suppose it depends on what we mean by sustainable since that depends on assumed living standards that don't really do anything for the standard of living if ya know what I mean.

An example of this is automobiles in American cities. The average speed of a vehicle is ~30mph in the states, so in crowded cities it's likely far less, and Americans spend around a half hour per day in their vehicles, which is likely far more in crowded cities. It's also been suggested that most people in America would see a significant increase in health by exercising a mere half hour per day.

A portion of the road devoted solely to velomobiles in these areas would result in the same or higher average speed, a good half hour of exercise per day, less congestion for those who would contribute to increased AQ, a drop in the use and cost of oil, as well as vehicle cost. This would be a win-win for everyone except the small groups that make substantial profit off of the sale of oil/autos, so why is it considered to be crucial to many of the standard of living estimates I see regarding carrying capacity?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby Alcassin » Thu 20 Dec 2007, 00:14:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')The problem with all estimates is their methodoly and underlying assumptions. Despite their good intentions the researchers always interject their own personal biases as well. So the numbers look realistic, but who can really say with any accuracy? The number itself would depend on how coordinated a response is to scarcity for example. Change that one assumption and you likely change the outcome again!


Sure, that's the problem with modeling.
But it's quite easy when you say there are 11,5 billion productive hectars, you divid it up by number of people and you get 1,8 ha per person. We use more now (and this means we take a loan), so we are logging to much, fishing too much, water fields too fast and so on. Average Western European uses 4-5 ha, average American uses about 9 ha.
It also means we have reached limits to growth.

We now are on the way which Easter Island went, and modeling in always changeing to get perfect numbers is impossible but it reveals our situation. We are exhausting resources of this planet in much faster rates, and even if many of them are renewable (in practice sometimes not - Rome logged trees out of Nothern Africa, and the desert became larger, and desert is not biologically productive)... some crucial resources are not.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
User avatar
Alcassin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Poland
Top

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby I_Like_Plants » Thu 20 Dec 2007, 00:44:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '
')An example of this is automobiles in American cities. The average speed of a vehicle is ~30mph in the states, so in crowded cities it's likely far less, and Americans spend around a half hour per day in their vehicles, which is likely far more in crowded cities. It's also been suggested that most people in America would see a significant increase in health by exercising a mere half hour per day.


OK this is something I know a little bit about ..... I timed it and it was about 2-3 hours a day ass-on-seat, hands-on-wheel, driving. Doing biz, making deliveries, buying stuff, selling stuff, getting food, etc. It's a little high but actual ass-on-seat time is up around there for most Americans, because my trip to the post office is their dropping off/picking up the little brats at soccar or violin lessons. My planned-out string of errends and shopping is their less-well-planned string.

I covered about 50 miles a day.

I did the same routine by bicycle for a period of several months, and again my "utility" riding was a little less, but I'd go out on rides too, that were recreational. It's hard at first, the wind pushes you around, but I can tell you, there is no vehicle I've driven or ridden that makes you feel at much "King Of The Road" as a bicycle, when you're in shape.

Americans could do a LOT on bicycles. I carried serious amounts of stuff. I carried even more serious amounts of stuff with a Burley trailer.

But there are some weird economics at work, a cheap $1500 or so Toyota sedan could do a trip to the swapmeet once a month and pay for its gas and upkeep. If one person goes to the City, the train is by far the best, but if a group of 4 are going, 4 train tickets come out about the same as the cost of taking a car.

But for the most part, Americans have bigger cars than they need, pay far too much for them, drive them too much, etc. You don't even have to be a greenie to come to this conclusion, just being a good old fashioned tightwad argues very strongly for biking and walking and using a car as little as possible.
I_Like_Plants
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3839
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Top

Re: The bottom line

Unread postby MrBill » Thu 20 Dec 2007, 05:44:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', '
')Sure, that's the problem with modeling. But it's quite easy when you say there are 11,5 billion productive hectars, you divide it up by number of people and you get 1,8 ha per person. We use more now (and this means we take a loan), so we are logging too much, fishing too much, using water fields too fast and so on. Average Western European uses 4-5 ha, average American uses about 9 ha. It also means we have reached limits to growth.


Which is the nub of the problem. There are really two or more questions to answer. The first being how many people can we sustainably support? The second being how many people can we sustainable support with our current 'western' lifestyles? And perhaps thirdly what are the chances of transitioning to a new standard of living that is sustainable?

If we use some sort of Human Development Index as the UN does then we can agree on some sort of baseline standard of living that includes access to clean water and sanitation; food, clothing & shelter; education; etc. That does not assume 700 cars for every 1000 people and ever higher standards of living that encompass the consumption of ever greater amounts of luxury goods. Post peak oil depletion should hopefully take care of that. Peak oil and climate change that is.

But I would make the claim that we have not reached the limits of growth in so far as agriculture is concerned, at least in so far as producing an agricultural surplus, which after-all is what underpins all other economic growth.

The Economist's EIU estimates that human activity is 'only' consuming about one-third of the earth's biomass production annually. Some of that is unsustainable for sure. Read this article on European over-fishing. Clearly a case of The Tragedy of the Commons if there ever was one!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') The annual fisheries council (this year's begins on December 17th) is described by one official as “the sickest thing about the CFP”. It even has its own, squalid traditions. Before the council, the commission proposes quotas that are larger than those recommended by its scientific advisers. National ministers then expand the quotas once again. In recent years, the final numbers have been 50% higher than the scientists advised. And then national fishing fleets break even these higher quotas.

Can fish fish themselves? Only in one of the European Union's maddest schemes

And that is in the EU. Some other maritime nations are even more blase' about conservation! Clearly, clearly unsustainable.

But having said that we still substitute relative inexpensive inputs of cheap energy to grow a mix of agricultural crops and livestock that is by no means maximizing agricultural output or total calories. Plus we are not using all our available farmland.

Until recently farm production was hampered by low food costs that did not even cover the cost of inputs such as energy, fertilizer, water priced fairly at market rates and machinery, much less the cost of capital and the farmer's own labor. Taxpayers therefore had to subsidize agricultural production and even pay to take land out of production. And due to low profitability farmers were cutting corners to reduce costs and making poor production decisions that were bad for the land itself.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he IMF's index of food prices in 2005 was slightly lower than it had been in 1974, which means that in real terms food prices fell during those 30 years by three-quarters (see chart 2). In the 1960s food (including meals out) accounted for one-quarter of the average American's spending; by 2005 the share was less than one-seventh.


source: Food Prices - Cheap No More

That drop in farmgate prices has predictably led to under-investment in farming; rural infrastructure; and critically irrigation where best-methods could drastically cut the needless waste of precious water. Drip irrigation versus flood irrigation; metered water as opposed to first come first served; and lined versus unlined water canals for example. That is simply using known commercial technology. Other gains will come from as of yet unproven technology driven by innovation in response to higher prices.

On a personal level I have forty acres of hill that could be used to graze cattle sustainably. But labor is still far too expensive to herd sheep. I can earn more working off the farm and I cannot hire farm labor cheap enough to do the job for me. And I cannot leave them alone due to coyotes. Even the necessary fencing is too expensive to justify a few beef cattle. So we leave that pasture for the deer and the elk.

However, technically that is land that could be productively farmed or even planted with commercially more valuable species of trees than the scrub poplars that currently grow on the backside of the hill. Ditto for the lake. We have successfully grown trout in the lake. But it is too labor intensive to be profitable. However, those economics change as food becomes more expensive and energy scarcer. If we are worried about sustainability issues then I have to assume that there is more surplus labor than currently exists.

We have not even begun to seriously embrace fish farming on a massive scale. There is some. There will be more. The technology needs to be improved. Currently we mainly grow predator fish that eat other fish. We need to grow more plant feeders to get the necessary calorie gains that are needed.

So in any case I wonder what assumptions the modelers have used to make their calculations? The planet may be finite, but our technology is not fixed. It is constantly improving. Also, our knowledge is expanding. And as I have pointed out we are not even using our best-known methods for food production or making the necessary investments in infrastructure. Much less bringing all marginal farmland and marine resources into production. Malthus has waited this long. He can wait a little longer I think! ; - )

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Rome logged trees out of Nothern Africa, and the desert became larger, and desert is not biologically productive.


It is my understanding from peak oil dot com that all environmental degradation came about only after the invention of the internal combustion engine, and was caused exclusively by America and its capitalist system. Now you are suggesting this is not indeed true?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ov 25 - An agricultrural project in Egypt is helping farmers to make the most of the desert by turning it green.

The majority of Egypt is desert land and most people live in densely populated areas close to the banks of the River Nile. But as the population of 74 million continues to rise, the government along with research organisation, Desert Development Center (DDC), is launching a new project to encourage farmers to relocate to the desert.

Farming in the desert

Think globally, but change the microclimate at home. Plant trees!
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia
Top

Previous

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron