[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('namenick', 'Y')ou don't even have the balls to admit you're wrong!

[Newfie]

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: Your BEST Argument for Why Everything Will Be Okay Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
We've heard the doom arguments and understand most aspects of the worst case scenarios.

We are also quite good at poking holes in the PO denier arguments.

If you were asked to make the "PO is no problem" argument, what would you say? "



Having glanced through the this thread I have not seen much on the original stated post.

I thought it was a great topic idea as a reality check. It seems we are off on a tangent????

On the other hand it begs the question as to what "Okay" is.

Me and wifie? We are old and relatively well off. We will be OK.

Daughter? Maybe, depends upon rate of decay and how much wealth she can hold onto. I try to teach her to be flexible and self reliant. She is already personable (due to Mom.) Her best chance is to tie up with a good man and make a good family. So far she has shown good judgment.

Grandkids??? I have bought a bunch of land and am planting a bunch of trees this spring out where the zombies will be cold, damp, tired and hungry and greatly depleted before they get there.

Beyond that, what is OK and what is not is highly subjective. Having given this too much thought I think that as a species we are on a mission to populate every square inch of the earth. This is NOT OK.

Earth will fight back and limit our population back down to something reasonable. Depending upon your point of view that may or may not be "OK."

This thought just in. Liken humans to a virulent disease. Most virulent diseases' run their course, kill too many host to survive long term, and then evolve to be less virulent. Imagine that Humans are a virulent disease on Mother Earth! Will we evolve into a less virulent variant? Is that OK????

[LoneSnark]

That is a terrible metaphore. The black plague eats humans. Humans eat cattle. The more black plague you have, all else being equal, the fewer humans you have. The more humans you have, all else being equal, the more cattle you have.

Humans are not a virus. We are not even described by mammal-environmental models. If you have a lot of food, deer reproduce until there is none left and then die off. Even if you start with little food, humans will alter their environment to produce more, and even then their breeding patterns are not dictated by their environment: just because plenty of food is available humans do not breed substantially faster. Breeding being dictated by cultural norms, not biology.

A friend of mine did the math a while ago and found that if deer had enjoyed mankinds plenty, just starting in 1600 with the same number as humans and no immigration (four centuries without food born die-off) we would have over a trillion deer just in North America.

So, again, Humans are unique on this planet. Using lesser models to describe us is just wasting your time.

[Alcassin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')Thanks Alcy, but I think you've got the wrong poster for the current mass extinction event. Gorillas aren't extinct. The accurate poster showing the species going extinct looks like this (cue tragic violin music)

[Newfie]

Lone,

A. I was trying to get us back more toward the tone of the original topic, What is your best argument for things being OK.

My best argument is that I have some control and an ability to plan and use certain available resources to help my gene pool win out. That is my best argument.

B. I felt the original topic was overly broad by not defining what is OK. So I wanted some discussion about that.

C. Sorry but I do not agree. Human population growth is limited by nothing other than resource availability. We are about as smart as yeast in that respect and, as a species, have similar planning facilities. We are clever, we have learned to extract ancient stored resources (calories and water) to be used now. The problem is that we are living above a sustainable level which will necessitate some form of die-off.

[namenick]

Newfie- I a sense there is already a die-off happening in some countries and has been going on for quite a few years but that is not because of PO. You mention that we are living beyond a sustainable level so why can't we drop back to a sustainable level and everything will be just fine for us in the West? Admittedly it will cut back on the aid we will be able to send poor countries and that will accelerate their die-off. I think that in Canada we are socially responsible people and feel a responsibility toward our fellow citizens so I think that we would ensure that we didn't have a die-off in our streets when others can continue to live the present wasteful lifestyle. In the US where they don't feel near as much responsibility to their fellow citizens, I think they would see it start to happen but the people would soon rise up and do something about it.

If we look to countries where there is poverty but the resources are there to sustain the people in a manner which can keep them alive we see no die-off happening. A look at Mexico where I have spent a considerable amount of time is instructive. In fact most of the people live on a quarter of the food we do and are quite healthy in most areas. And don't forget Cuba where they have shown what they can do already because of a lack of oil and resources from the outside.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'M')e and wifie? We are old and relatively well off. We will be OK.

[Duende]

LoneSnark wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ike I said, society only has use for so many LNG ports.

[LoneSnark]

Newfie, that is the question being asked in my opinion: will we avoid a die off? To make the question answerable, since we have no idea what the world will be like in 50 years, I would think we should limit our analysis to our lifetimes.

Now, you stating that we will not simply begs the question. Why, with everything we know and our ability to plan for the future, are we incapable of surviving with lesser stores of energy from underground? The oil will not run out within the next 50 years, so for the duration of this question stored energy (in addition to the rediculous quantity coming from the sun) will still be available, yet you still proclaim us failures of the question.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s the world population increases its demand for LNG ports (and everything else 'western') will increase.

[Newfie]

NameNick

Die-offs happening now? Agree, for many reasons. I have heard that Darfur is really about over population and is a fight for resources. You don’t have to look far in the US to see a kind of “Die-Off.” A couple of decades ago we “mainstreamed” our deplorable mental institutions and that is a good part of the reason there are so many homeless. Then there are all the kids growing up in the US ghettos. They are lost souls. It just makes you want to weep. For a couple of decades I’ve been whining about how the US is becoming a bifurcated society of haves and have nots. Why is this allowed? Greed and denial, not good answers. And it continues to get worse.

For sake of argument lets assume that Footprints data is correct. Canada, as a whole, has the capability to live sustainably given the current population. The US does not.

But even within Canada there is a Die-Off of sorts if you look to the Maritimes. Rural Newfoundland and Cape Breton are losing population at a pretty good clip. Why? Cod, or lack thereof! This is a prime example of a renewable resource that has been over exploited by the Western world and is NOT regenerating. Cod sustained England economially for centuries but in the past 50 years we have devastated the ecosystem. We don’t know exactly how it happened and don’t have a clue on how to recover.

You can not put up a border and say “We are OK, leave us alone.” The global economy will not allow that. Even on something as regional as the NorthWest Atlantic Cod stock. What would we do? Send our Navy out to patrol the Grand Banks and keep the buggers out? Not likely!

I’m a dualie, US/Canada. I agree that Canada is a socially responsible people. I got pretty fed up with the US view of the world. Cripes, just about he entire country of Canada is left of the mainstream Democratic party. I was lucky to qualify for Canadian citizenship.

TonyPrep

There are no guarantees. The OP asked for our best argument things will be OK. If being old and well off is the best I can think of that kind of sucks. As you said, no good answers.

Agreed on your point about figuring out the earth is finite.

[Tyler_JC]

As usual, LoneSnark is right.



Rich countries can afford to care more about the environment than poor countries.

[Alcassin]

By extarnalizing costs: Link

[namenick]

Newfie- You raised some good points which I'm interested in picking up on.

We obviously agree on a die-off now in progress in some African countries and I contend that the reason that is happening is because they have no means of obtaining what they need. The citizens of the US are different in that respect in that they will only take it for so long before they take what they need at gunpoint. And I think that in that country it will take that to make the necessary changes. In Canada I think it is somewhat different and the changes can come about by political means. At this point in time I'm hopin that will suffice in the US too but I see a large fundamental difference.

I understand what you mean with the cod depletion in the Maritimes but I don't think I would call that a die-off. In fact many Newfies are now in N. Alberta and doing very well there.

I don't see any need for Canada to try to put up a border between the US and us because we are roughly as resource as each other. I do see a potential for Canada to eventually surge ahead of the US but that requires a much larger population.

In essense, I see this talk of a die-off as nothing but more doom and gloom from this forum. Unfortunately they are immersed in it and don't want to acknowledge anything which doesn't support the disaster doctrine which they believe PO will bring.

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A')s usual, LoneSnark is right.

Rich countries can afford to care more about the environment than poor countries.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '
')Rich technologically advanced humans love nature and are willing to pay dearly to protect it

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')OL oh yeah sure they do. By building factories in China and shipping toxic waste to underdeveloped 3rd world countries.

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')OL oh yeah sure they do. By building factories in China and shipping toxic waste to underdeveloped 3rd world countries.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '
')Oddly enough, it works exactly the opposite of what you expect. It turns out that the really polluting stuff, such as chemical plants, are primarily built in the first world.

[Alcassin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '
')What is being exported we all see: labor intensive activities such as manufacturing, which requires only electricity and maybe natural gas. All the inputs, such as plastics whose production is heavily polluting, are usually imported from the west.