Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 22, 2016
Heinberg: Why Sustainability?
The essence of the term sustainable is simple enough: “that which can be maintained over time.” We want our culture, our institutions, and our society to be durable rather than fragile. A society that is sustainable is built to last, while one that is unsustainable will fail sooner or later.
Of course, no society can be maintained forever: astronomers assure us that in several billion years the Sun will have heated to the point that Earth’s oceans will have boiled away and life on our planet will have come to an end. Thus sustainability is a relative term. It seems reasonable to use previous civilizations as a yardstick; their lifetimes ranged from several hundred to several thousand years. A sustainable society, then, would be one capable of maintaining itself for many millennia.
The word sustainable is often used, in a general and vague way, merely to refer to consumer products reputed to be more environmentally benign than others. But sustainability has a life-or-death importance for us in an era of rapid population growth, resource depletion, widespread species extinctions, and catastrophic climate change. The term is key to understanding humanity’s current ecological dilemma, and to finding a way toward a future in which we live happily within nature’s limits.
The History of Sustainability
The essential concept of sustainability was implicit in the traditions of many ancient and indigenous peoples. For example, the Gayanashagowa, or Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee (the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy of North America) implored chiefs to consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation to come.
The first known European use of sustainability (German: Nachhaltigkeit) occurred in 1712 in the book Sylvicultura Oeconomica by German forester and scientist Hannss Carl von Carlowitz. Later, French and English foresters adopted the practice of planting trees as a path to “sustained yield forestry.”
The term gained widespread usage after 1987, when the Brundtland Report of the World Commission of Environment and Development defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This simple definition of sustainability is still widely used; nevertheless it has been criticized for its failure to explicitly note the unsustainability of the use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, and for its disregard of the problem of population growth.
Defining Sustainability
In an effort to help clarify the basic concept, I have formulated four axioms (self-evident truths) of sustainability, based on a survey of prior published definitions. These might be thought of as basic design criteria for building and managing a sustainable society.
1. Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Human population has grown for many centuries, and much more rapidly in the last few decades; this growth has obviously been sustained up to the present. How do we know that it cannot be sustained indefinitely? Simple arithmetic shows that even small rates of growth eventually add up to absurdly large—and plainly unsupportable—population sizes and rates of resource consumption. For example, a simple one percent rate of growth in the present human population (less than the actual current rate) results in a doubling of population every 70 years. Thus in 2090, the Earth would be home to 14.6 billion humans; in 2160, nearly 30 billion; and so on. By the year 3050, there would be one human per square meter of Earth’s land surface (including mountains and deserts). Obviously, long before we get to that point the human population will have ceased to grow.
How big should our population be? Our economy? We should agree on science-based targets.
2. To be sustainable, the use of renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is less than or equal to the rate of natural replenishment.
Renewable resources are exhaustible. Forests can be over-cut, resulting in barren landscapes and shortages of wood (as occurred in many parts of Europe in past centuries); and fish can be over-harvested, resulting in the extinction or near-extinction of many species (as is occurring today globally). The first clue that harvesting of renewable resources is proceeding at a rate greater than that of natural replenishment would be the decline of the resource base (e.g., forests or fish are disappearing). However, a resource may be declining for reasons other than over-harvesting; for example, a forest that is not being logged may be decimated by disease.
Nevertheless, if the resource is declining, pursuit of the goal of sustainability requires that the rate of harvest be reduced, regardless of the cause of the resource decline. Sometimes harvests must drop dramatically, at a rate far greater than the rate of resource decline, so that the resource has time to recover. This has been the case with regard to commercial wild whale and fish species that have been over-harvested to the point of near-exhaustion, and have required complete harvest moratoria in order to re-establish themselves—though in cases where the remaining breeding population is too small even moratoria are not effective; the species simply cannot recover.
3. To be sustainable, the extraction of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
No continuous rate of extraction of non-renewable resources (metals, minerals, or fossil fuels) is sustainable. However, if the rate of extraction is declining at a rate greater than or equal to the rate of depletion (defined as the amount being extracted and used per year as a percentage of the amount left to extract), this can be said to be a sustainable situation in that society’s dependence on the resource will be reduced to insignificance before the resource is exhausted.
4. Sustainability requires that substances introduced into the environment from human activities be minimized and rendered harmless to biosphere functions.
The most serious forms of pollution in the modern world arise from the extraction, processing, and consumption of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels. If (as outlined in Axiom 3) the consumption of non-renewable resources declines, pollution should also decline. However, where the consumption of non-renewable resources has been growing for some time and has resulted in levels of pollution that threaten basic biosphere functions, heroic measures are called for.
This is the situation with regard to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from burning fossil fuels; it is also the case with regard to hormone-mimicking petrochemical pollution that inhibits reproduction in many vertebrate species. Merely to reduce fossil fuel consumption by the global depletion rate would not suffice to avert a climate catastrophe. Similarly, in the case of petrochemical pollution, merely to reduce the dispersion of plastics and other petrochemicals into the environment by the annual rate of depletion of oil and natural gas would not be enough to avert environmental harms on a scale potentially leading to the collapse of ecosystems.
All of these four axioms have to do with environmental sustainability. However, economists and political scientists might add two guidelines (they are too vague to be called axioms) to this list. Social sustainability requires that inequality in incomes, wealth, and political power not become overly great, as societies with sharp social divisions breed misery and contempt, and ultimately tend to succumb to revolutions. And financial sustainability requires that total debt (government as well as household and business debt) not increase far beyond levels that can be repaid).
Measuring Sustainability
How do we know if our society is sustainable or unsustainable? We can’t just wait to see if it collapses; we need indicators to tell us how we are doing now, so that we can prevent future collapse.
Seeing the need for such indicators, Canadian ecologist William Rees in 1992 introduced the concept of the Ecological Footprint, defined as the amount of land and water area a human population would hypothetically need in order to provide the resources required to support itself and to absorb its wastes, given prevailing technology. Implicit in this accounting scheme is the recognition that, for humanity to achieve sustainability, the total world population’s footprint must be less than the total land/water area of the Earth. That footprint is currently calculated by the Global Footprint Network as being about 30 percent larger than the planet—which is made possible only by drawing down resources at unsustainable rates.
More recently, Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Will Steffen from the Australian National University identified nine “planetary boundaries” that define a “safe operating space for humanity.” Beyond these boundaries there is a risk of “irreversible and abrupt environmental change” that could make Earth less habitable. They attempted to quantify just how far these systems have been pushed already, and estimated how much further we can go before our survival is threatened; they concluded that three of these boundaries—climate change, biodiversity loss, and the biogeochemical flow boundary—appear already to have been crossed. Unfortunately, it is not necessary for all nine boundaries to be transgressed before global calamity threatens; all it takes is for one boundary to be breached far enough, long enough.
Post-Keynesian economists including Steve Keen have suggested that a nation’s financial sustainability can be measured in terms of its debt-to-GDP ratio (that ratio hit a peak in 2008, which it has recently surpassed). Income inequality is commonly measured by the GINI index, which represents the income distribution within a nation (most nations are seeing a worsening of numbers in that regard).
What Would a Sustainable Society Look Like?
Is it possible to describe a sustainable society in more specific terms?
First, our hypothetical sustainable society would have a steady-state economy rather than one based on continual growth. It would be a conserver society rather than a consumer society. There would be far less advertising than we are accustomed to today, and products would be made to high standards, so they could be reused and repurposed indefinitely rather than being thrown away and replaced. All materials would be recycled or reused.
No fossil fuels would be used for energy; instead, all energy would come from renewable sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Average global per capita energy consumption would be much lower than is currently the case in North America and Europe. Because no fossil fuels would be burned or turned into petrochemicals, air and water would be less polluted. Environmental toxins of any kind would be rare.
Biodiversity would be stable or slowly growing rather than diminishing. Forests would be increasing rather than shrinking. Bird populations would be healthy. The oceans would be clean and sea life would be flourishing.
People would have an intimate and interdependent relationship with the natural world, often spending time in nature. They would understand where their food comes from because more households would be participating in community gardens. People would know that while nature supplies resources for human benefit, humanity has the responsibility to keep its appetites within nature’s long-term ability to provide.
Our sustainable society would also be one of relative equality, in which the highest and lowest members of society could still rub elbows. And it would be a society that relies minimally on debt.
How Do We Get There From Here?
Clearly, our imaginary sustainable society would work very differently from the nations of today’s world. Fortunately, however, there are efforts under way to move us in the direction of sustainability.
The renewable energy industry has been growing dramatically in the past few years, with solar and wind power together increasing faster than any other energy source. Meanwhile climate activists are persuading large institutions such as universities to stop investing in fossil fuel companies. These two efforts—to force extractive industries to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and to replace fossil fuels with renewable alternative energy sources—represent today’s most visible and important sustainability efforts. However, it is clear to most analysts that it will be difficult to fully replace the energy of fossil fuels with solar and wind power due to the intermittent nature of sunlight and wind resources. Thus, as we transition to an inevitable renewable energy future, it will also be important to reduce overall energy demand. Doing so will serve the interests of sustainability in other ways: all energy use entails environmental impacts, so the pursuit of sustainability will require highly industrialized nations to scale back energy usage in any case. The actual process of reducing energy usage while maintaining a high quality of life will require innovation and behavior adaptation throughout society—in agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and the economy in general. Here are just a few examples, again highlighting efforts already underway.
If we are to have a conserver economy rather than a consumer economy, then extraction-dependent manufacturing sectors must shrink, while other sectors will have to be transformed so that they use renewable energy and recycled materials. The implications for jobs and investment are significant. The field of ecological economics has for years been exploring how this transition can be accomplished in a way that actually improves lives.
The “passive house” movement in Germany has pioneered techniques of building construction that yield structures using up to 90 percent less energy for heating, cooling, and lighting.
Green transport advocates around the world have been working to reduce consumption of oil through the replacement of internal-combustion vehicles with electric vehicles; through the promotion of walking and bicycling; and through investment in rail and public transit.
The local organic food movement aims to reduce the amount of transport energy in food systems. The market share of organic food—which requires no fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides—is growing by leaps and bounds. And advocates of regenerative agriculture hope to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in healthy topsoil.
Forest advocates note that climate remediation can also be accomplished through planting more trees, which would help protect the world’s remaining biodiversity. Conservationists are also seeking to preserve and restore native forest, prairie, desert, and ocean ecosystems.
With regard to the financial and social dimensions of sustainability, debt and equity problems have become subjects of more widespread discussion throughout the world in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis and the Greek debt crisis. While solutions to these problems still seem to elude national governments, communities have quietly begun experimenting with the sharing economy, time banking, and alternative currencies.
It has been shown that high population growth rates can be brought down by raising the education levels of women, and by empowering women to take charge of their own reproductive lives.
These are all welcome and praiseworthy efforts. But they need to be appreciated in context: society has spent many decades on an unsustainable path; time, courage, and collective effort will be needed to transform unsustainable practices still embedded in nearly every aspect of our economy. We cannot know how long we have before the accumulating impacts of climate change, species extinctions, resource depletion, environmental pollution, debt, and inequality force changes upon us that none of us would want. The voices of sustainability-inspired artists, as well as those of conservationists, renewable energy advocates, and the rest, call not just for the moral improvement of society, but for a widespread awakening that might rescue us and countless other species from the consequences of more than a century of reckless, fossil fuel-based expansion.
We should listen as if our life depends on it.
33 Comments on "Heinberg: Why Sustainability?"
Jerry McManus on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 3:34 pm
C’mon Heinberg, give credit where it is due!
His “four axioms” that he “formulated based on prior published definitions” are lifted almost word for word from the book “Limits to Growth: the 30 year update”.
At least the LTG folks had the decency to attribute it to Herman Daly:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/EnvironmentalSustainability.htm
Oh, sure, Heinberg is a darling of the Peak Oil crowd, and he talks a good game, I give him that.
But that’s really all it is, just talk.
penury on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 3:34 pm
A dream based upon utopian imaginings. Humans are still following the same course we have followed since the tees. To change this will need a change to the species. If you think it has not been decades, but millenias
sunweb on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 3:43 pm
Many living at the top of energy consumption pyramid fervently believe there is a green, sustainable, renewable clean energy available for our future. Much of this belief is founded in the fervent wish to maintain a significant aspect of our present energy way of life. To foster and support this belief, a couple of parables help us understand how factual this might be.
STREETLIGHT EFFECT
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “This is where the light is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
This parable offers several insights. First the obvious, that we look where it is easiest to see. But there is I believe a deeper lesson, that we look where we want to see.
This second parable adds a second dimension to seeing the truth concerning green, sustainable and renewable devices for the future.
ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN
Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.”
They had no idea what an elephant was. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.
“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who
touched his leg.
“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched
the tail.
“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A
wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what
the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of
you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant.
So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”
http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm
Clearly a primary lesson of this parable is the need to see the whole picture.
More at: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/12/green-renewable-sustainable.html
ghung on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 3:54 pm
“How big should our population be? Our economy? We should agree on science-based targets.”
There is no “we”, at least not when it comes to agreeing on things like limiting human population and consumption of resources. Never has been; probably never will be. Life doesn’t work that way, even intelligent life, considering our collective behavior; not that there’s much sapient human life around. That said, I can’t fault Heinberg for at least trying, but, sorry Dick; even Jesus couldn’t fix human behavior.
Apneaman on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 4:10 pm
ghung, yabut Jesus saves – Canadian style.
http://pb-cdn.draftkings.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/7a2.jpg
pennsyguy on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 5:13 pm
All of the previous comments are accurate, concise and sadly true.
Plantagenet on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 5:57 pm
Its easy to mock Heinberg, but his work promoting sustainability is of high quality and it is also very timely.
Cheers!
Dave Thompson on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 6:13 pm
@ Plant; No one is mocking Heinberg. We are only pointing out that his views (and yours apparently) are untrue, on the issue of sustainable industrial civilization being possible.
sunweb on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 6:48 pm
Challenging is not mocking.
ghung on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 6:50 pm
Agreed, Dave. I like Heinberg, but his optimistic pleadings amount to a green-colored extend and pretend scheme; hopes for a controlled contraction? At least his heart is in the right place, as were those of environmental activists of the 60s and 70s, for all the good it did.
Not sure where their faith in humankind came from, but we’ve been fucking ourselves and each other for millennia. Expecting 7.4 billion humans to have a collective, voluntary come-to-Jesus moment for the sake of their get and the planet qualifies as a “longage of expectations”.
Apneaman on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 7:24 pm
Is there something wrong with mocking planty? You do it all the time over in the hidey hole forum. I even recall one time you mocking Obama by posting a picture of him sporting a Gutra – gasp! How racist and un PC of you – double gasp!!
Heinburg was genuine and did more than most, but bullshitting folks this late in the game is something of a cruel cut. I have lost some respect for Heinberg for that and when the PCI took on new funders a while back (when the web site went all slick) the hopyness increased. How can you do that while things are getting worse? Looks to me like the PCI has become just another gatekeeper in the non profit industrial complex. Bullshitting each other is what social monkeys do best don’t cha think? All those unwritten rules in relationships, families, organizations and the greater society about all the stuff you’re not supposed to talk about – AKA the truth.
Davy on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 7:25 pm
There are no options and no optimism in the sustainability equation. Richard is keeping hope alive when there is none. At least he is preaching good options that have no chance to save the status quo but they can make a difference locally. All locals will be collapsing to some degree with a failing globalism. Efforts at sustainability and resilience are what is required for a local to survive once it is abandoned by a failed global system. There is nothing startling about that. What is startling is how few people realize just how dangerously positioned most of us are. It is probably better people don’t know the full story.
The only hope we have is to go into a crisis and force painful choices. This can be best done by restricting energy. Localism could be forced on the general public by energy shortages. Discretionary activities that are little more than poor behavior could be eliminated. This would wreck the global economic system as we know it but it would make needed changes to prepare us earlier for the worst that is ahead. Nothing forces people attention like a serious crisis.
This is not going to happen of course but it is the only way the needed changes can be made. What that means is we are going to stumble into something bad without any preparation or focus. A crisis will develop but it will likely not be a crisis of opportunity because all the wrong efforts will be made to maintain the unmaintainable. This points to your only hope and that is personal preparations. It points to small community preparations. What else is there? Nothing is going to change the top but you can make a difference locally.
makati1 on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 7:55 pm
Mother Nature is smiling as she prepares the events that will wipe humans and most of the larger life forms from her planet in the near future. She is already setting the stage for the next ecology and it will NOT include humans. In another million or so years, there will be no sign that humans ever existed and the next ecology will be well under way. So much for our own ‘self important arrogance.
If the larger life forms have existed for about 600 million years and that was compared to an hour of our time, then humans have been around in some ape form for about 12 seconds. Civilized humans for an eye blink, yet we managed to destroy our only home in less than 1/10,000th of a second of that hour. Too bad there will never be anyone to recognize our ‘cleverness’. LOL
Go Speed Racer on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 8:17 pm
If I always fill up at the same Texaco Station, and I always put in 20 gallons, then aren’t I practicing sustainability?
:O)
JuanP on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 8:33 pm
Sustainability is a pipe dream for people who can’t face the truth. I like Heinberg, I think he is a nice guy, but I no longer read what he writes because tempus fugit, and I got none to waste. It is best to spend my time growing food and having fun while I still can.
Sterilize yourselves while you can, before it is too late. Humanity is not sustainable, we never were.
Practicalmaina on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 9:08 pm
A record number of people in the world have access to the internet, a record number of people are eating meat, using electricity. Fuel, commodities are at over a decade low, and thousands starve every day. I feel that inequality is the issue even before population. If the average westerner had starving people and resource constraints in the front of their mind progress would be quickly made. Monsanto wants us to beleive we can’t feed the world without them, yet millions starve every year.
Permaculture can bring money to a community and allow fewer people to have to travel out of the town for work or resourses. I can sit on a farm with a cell phone charged on a tiny solar panel and access the world, without the use of a transportation device 500× more powerful than myself. I cannot deny that climate change and pollution are going to be a bitch, but the mitigation and remedy are the same. Protect your food source and don’t give those a holes who are reckless with our food supplys any money!
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Mon, 22nd Feb 2016 11:52 pm
Seems like a nice guy but if he thinks we’re all gonna hold hands and sing campfire songs while industrial civilization gets flushed he’s got a lot to learn about human nature. It would do him no harm to learn words like ‘Hobbesian scramble’ and ‘population bottleneck’ and maybe go stock up on guns and ammo. Once the starving masses start fighting over the last scraps it’ll be too late.
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 1:08 am
Parched Latur sees an exodus of 50,000 villagers, labourers in a week
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Parched-Latur-sees-an-exodus-of-50000-villagers-labourers-in-a-week/articleshow/51097002.cms
makati1 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 1:57 am
Practical, you seem to be still singing Kumbaya around the campfire with the other, “But We Can” crowd.
Agreed, permaculture may slow down the decline from starvation, but climate change and radiation from the millions of tons of nuclear waste scattered all over the world, are going to overcome that in a decade or so. I have grand kids and a few greats, but I see no future for them. They will not see my 70+ years. Not even close. For that I am truly sorry, but that is the fact.
Tell me how to chose a spot to grow a permaculture farm that may not be subject to climate change that prevents your success for very long? Tell me where is a good place safe from the “zombie” crowd or the gangs, when survival means killing before you are killed? How many people does it take to protect a farm and it’s produce from the above murderers? 12? 20? 100? More? And how do you feed, cloth and shelter those people and work the farm at the same time? Remember, a rifle with a scope can pick off your family at a distance of at least 1/2 mile. You may never see your attackers.
I see few here who think the whole process/game through to the end. Many stop when the answer is not what they want. Then they sit down and sing “Kumbaya” and pretend they are a ‘community’. Well, how long will the ‘community’ last when it comes down to who eats and who doesn’t? What father will put his wife and children AFTER the community leader’s family? Have any of you readers given thought to ALL of the events and decisions coming down the road or only to the cherry picked ones that have easy answers?
I have. I don’t expect to live thru the bottleneck. Not that I am not going to try, but I have accepted that it is not going to end well for any of us, anywhere. We asked for this situation and now we have to live or die with it. Prepare. Tomorrow, you will wish you had started today, or last year.
theedrich on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 2:25 am
“We should listen [to sustainability promoters] as if our life depends on it.”
Heinberg and the PCI may be accused of anodyne semi-plagiarism, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that they are just trying to spread the word without causing the “alarm” that race-card-playing politicians are so worried about. The current BAU trajectory of White genosuicide is too profitable for those in power. All the fantasts ever talk about is Adolf Hitler and the nasty Nazis (but never about Uncle Joe Stalin and Mao Zedong), raising hysteria over any rational plan for eugenics or even for mere survival. They drag in religion (e.g., Jesus and, nowadays, Papa Frank), every sob story imaginable, and gibberish about how importing dark-skinned ThirdWorld parasites will make Whiteland stronger and better in every way by making it into a hellish mud pie.
The indispensable first step to whatever might be considered “sustainablity” is a change of mind. Such a change would require the recognition that a drastic reduction in world population, starting with the biologically least evolved hominids, is absolutely necessary. As intolerable as it may seem to Judeo-Christian genosuicidists, neocons and plutocrats, the Mohammedan jihadists may be taking the most effective route to said sustainability. If they somehow gain access to WMDs, we could, from Gaia’s point of view, see some real advances here.
There are many other possibilities one could mention, but the West’s current Christian cretins and their criminal elites are much too squeamish to consider them. As an ancient Greek philosopher once put it: man learns by suffering alone.
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 3:25 am
Douchy, apparently you and your hero have quite a bit in common. Kinda explains the anger. Especially towards the black guys.
Hitler Had ‘Tiny’ Penis, Historians Claim
“Hitler’s manhood was apparently extremely small and malformed due to a condition called hypospadias, a new book on the dictator claims.”
“According to a description by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people with the condition may “have problems with abnormal spraying of urine and might have to sit to urinate.”
http://news.discovery.com/history/hitler-had-tiny-penis-historians-claim-160222.htm
I’d be angry too if I had to squat to pee…….like a girl.
Go Speed Racer on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 4:36 am
But according to this link, Hitler had a really big gun, one of the biggest.
http://www.ottens.co.uk/gatehouse/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Schwerer-Gustav.jpg
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 4:52 am
Compensating
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 5:12 am
Speed Racer, I came across this audio of Hitler talking in a normal conversation and it freaked me out. So used to his crazy assed speeches my whole life.
Hitler Speaking Normally (Subtitles)
“Hitler talking in his everyday voice to Finnish military commander Mannerheim in 1942. The only existing recording of Hitlers normal voice.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec
ERRATA on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 5:45 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett
“Bartlett regarded the word combination “sustainable growth” as an oxymoron, since even modest annual percentage population increases will inevitably equate to huge exponential growth over sustained periods of time. He therefore regarded human overpopulation as “The Greatest Challenge” facing humanity.”
“Bartlett regarded overpopulation as “The Greatest Challenge” facing humanity, and promoted sustainable living. He opposed the cornucopian school of thought (as advocated by people such as Julian Lincoln Simon), and referred to it as “The New Flat Earth Society”[10]
J. B. Calvert (1999) has proposed that Bartlett’s law[11] will result in the exhaustion of petrochemical resources due to the exponential growth of the world population (in line with the Malthusian Growth Model).”
“Bartlett made two notable statements relating to sustainability:
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
PracticalMaina on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 7:50 am
Makati, guns mostly, vigilance and luck. The nuke thing scares me, that’s why we need one reactor that is capable of burning the others waste, so at least we can empty some of the holding tanks while the old reactors are falling in on themselves. Not a fan of nuclear, but we have the BAU and resources right now.
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-02-23/amid-coal-market-struggles-less-fuel-worth-mining-in-us
Maybe electricity will start to be priced for depletion and renewable will get some benefit.
PracticalMaina on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 8:01 am
Also Makati, probably booby traps, some of those pits with stakes like the Viet Cong did. How are these zombie hordes going to move in this distopia? I doubt many people are up for several days of 50 mile marching. We are not a nation that is used to refugee conditions and picking up and moving hundreds of miles on foot at the first sign of trouble is not a typical first response.
Never mind sustainable growth, the world needs to look at stuff like the old farmers did. A penny saved is a penny earned. Never mind our current you need to make 6 figures and keep up with the Joneses bullshit. If people prioritized their spending appropriately to survival and mitigation instead of plastic disposable shit from China we would still have an opportunity to improve the future for everyone.
ghung on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 8:05 am
theedrich said; “As an ancient Greek philosopher once put it: man learns by suffering alone.”
That’s a modern interpretation of this gem sent down through time by Aeschylus:
“Zeus, who guided mortals to be wise,
has established his fixed law—
wisdom comes through suffering.
Trouble, with its memories of pain,
drips in our hearts as we try to sleep,
so men against their will
learn to practice moderation.
Favours come to us from gods
seated on their solemn thrones—
such grace is harsh and violent.
Of course, we’ve been ignoring ancient words of wisdom all along, which verifies my belief that, collectively, we humans are quite insane; ignoring virtually every inconvenient truth as we try and keep our silly nests feathered while increasing our numbers, even as we ensure our descendants’ demise….
Fucking lazy, that.
Kenz300 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 1:20 pm
The oil companies and the auto companies need to get their collective heads out of the sand and realize that the world is changing with or without them. Climate Change is real….. it will impact all of us…
It is time to move away from fossil fuels and embrace alternative energy sources like wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste. They need to change their business models and move from being OIL companies to ENERGY companies. The auto industry needs to move from just building compliance vehicles to embracing electric vehicles and start putting development and advertising behind them..
The world is moving to embrace alternative energy sources…….. the fossil fuel companies can transform themselves into “energy” companies or they can die a slow death. As Climate Change impacts more people there will be a bigger backlash against fossil fuels.
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 6:02 pm
Cancer Monkeys
The Biggest Oil Leak You’ve Never Heard Of, Still Leaking After 12 Years
“Far away from TV cameras and under the radar of the nightly news, oil has been continuously leaking from a damaged production platform located just 12 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico—causing an oily sheens on the surface that stretch for miles and are visible from space.”
“These underwater oil wells have been leaking since 2004 and continue to leak as you read this. Unless it is plugged, the government estimates the leak might continue for 100 years until the oil in the underground reservoir is finally depleted.
The platform’s owner, Taylor Energy, has no plans to stop the leak and is lobbying behind the scenes for permission to walk away from its mess.”
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/23/biggest-oil-leak-mc20/
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 6:06 pm
Unsustainable cancer monkeys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMIaRQI8rEg
Apneaman on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 6:12 pm
Human Hothouse Spurs Longest Coral Die-Off on Record
“Prior to the 1980s, widespread coral bleaching events were unheard of. Though isolated events occurred, the world ocean system had not yet warmed enough to put corals at major risk. However, by the 1980s global ocean temperatures had begun to rise into ranges at which peak ocean warming periods could put corals in the firing line for major, globe-spanning die offs.
The first such major, global coral die-off occurred during the, then record, 1982-1983 El Nino. At the time this event was unprecedented. And it held the dubious standing as the only such event until the 1997-1998 Super El Nino set off a similar, though longer-lasting mass die off. By the late 2000s, global ocean temperatures had again risen — hitting marks high enough to enable a weak 2010 El Nino to set off the third mass coral die-off.
The fourth mass die off began in 2014 prior to the most recent super El Nino — which has only exaggerated and lengthened its impact. It is now the longest lasting coral die-off ever recorded. And researchers expect it to continue on through at least much of 2016 and possibly into 2017.”
http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/23/human-hothouse-sets-off-longest-coral-die-off-on-record/
Won’t be too long before the Ape die off starts.
Goat1001 on Tue, 23rd Feb 2016 8:03 pm
The hundreds of nuclear reactors throughout the world, such as at power stations, will not be properly decommissioned due to political, enviromental and energy crisis. They will be left to melt down on their own accord, spewing fantastic amounts of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere.