[Lore]

I don't think we'll have to wait very long. There will be some pretty dramatic effects due to climate change well before mid century which will prove to be devastating to both the world economy and human life.

For instance, just my one example from a previous post, with regards to SLR affecting the 5.5 million people that live in the greater Miami area. It won't take 3 m of sea rise to make Miami the next Atlantis. It will be a ghost town long before that. The area is only about 6 ft. above sea level now, but the earth beneath the inhabited coastline is highly permeable. Already "king tides" are washing across the streets bordered by all those high rise condos and Art Deco facades. It is even now inundating the ground water and corroding the infrastructure. By 2030 people will be moving away in droves having lost all their property value. Like Detroit, only worse. Abandoned buildings, crumbling bridges and roads. A trillion dollars in assets suddenly worthless.

Now comes the problem, what to do with all those refugees? No jobs, no money, no prospects. Will they become squatters where they can find a place, breeding disease and hunger?

This of course will not be happening in an isolated bubble, but in other parts of the country along the coasts and around the world. And this is only SLR, what about chaotic weather events pushing the extremes of drought and floods? At the same time food and water scarcity will be high on every country's agenda.

In 2050 will there be plans drawn up to move the New York world financial center to Pittsburgh, or will they make a feckless attempt to build multi-billion dollar seawalls to delay the inevitable? Most likely schemes will be hatched, but the money will be diverted to the endless chain of crises until the money and will to resist is exhausted.

I don't see how any government will stand past mid century in its present form and once the thin lines of authority break down, expect all hell to turn loose.

[Ibon]

Here is a thought to contemplate.

When a species is in overshoot and vulnerable to environmental disruptions the question of whether these disruptions are human caused or from some other reason really becomes more and more irrelevant since we have already reached a critical mass on the planet where we can no longer change the model we are trapped in.

The lack of alternative habitats to occupy makes the question of the source of disruptions irrelevant.

[Lore]

Here is a thought to contemplate.

When a species is in overshoot and vulnerable to environmental disruptions the question of whether these disruptions are human caused or from some other reason really becomes more and more irrelevant since we have already reached a critical mass on the planet where we can no longer change the model we are trapped in.

The lack of alternative habitats to occupy makes the question of the source of disruptions irrelevant.

Not really, because in the present state of affairs we could have used an extra few thousand years to get our crap wired tight. Population could have been addressed, but out of control climate change is difficult to rein in once let loose.

[americandream]

Here's a little story sort of connected with overshoot.

I was an infant in Natal, South Africa when the communists took over in Mozambique (my family were also South African communists). They instituted free education, health AND family planning where they encouraged women to take ownership of their bodies (Ethiopia was very active in egalitarian reform at the time..wouldn't think it now, huh. Thanks to that old fart Kissinger).

The West started a guerilla war, installed a right wing pro-business government which promptly reversed the progressive reforms and reverted to older feudal values. (This has gone on all over the Third World.) So I ask, which came first...the overshoot or the capitalist system which needs the numbers?

Attempts to remedy overshoot in the midst of a system that needs the numbers is a wasted cause.

[americandream]

They are, as we speak, weaving the rope they will hang themselves by.

I don't think we'll have to wait very long. There will be some pretty dramatic effects due to climate change well before mid century which will prove to be devastating to both the world economy and human life.

For instance, just my one example from a previous post, with regards to SLR affecting the 5.5 million people that live in the greater Miami area. It won't take 3 m of sea rise to make Miami the next Atlantis. It will be a ghost town long before that. The area is only about 6 ft. above sea level now, but the earth beneath the inhabited coastline is highly permeable. Already "king tides" are washing across the streets bordered by all those high rise condos and Art Deco facades. It is even now inundating the ground water and corroding the infrastructure. By 2030 people will be moving away in droves having lost all their property value. Like Detroit, only worse. Abandoned buildings, crumbling bridges and roads. A trillion dollars in assets suddenly worthless.

Now comes the problem, what to do with all those refugees? No jobs, no money, no prospects. Will they become squatters where they can find a place, breeding disease and hunger?

This of course will not be happening in an isolated bubble, but in other parts of the country along the coasts and around the world. And this is only SLR, what about chaotic weather events pushing the extremes of drought and floods? At the same time food and water scarcity will be high on every country's agenda.

In 2050 will there be plans drawn up to move the New York world financial center to Pittsburgh, or will they make a feckless attempt to build multi-billion dollar seawalls to delay the inevitable? Most likely schemes will be hatched, but the money will be diverted to the endless chain of crises until the money and will to resist is exhausted.

I don't see how any government will stand past mid century in its present form and once the thin lines of authority break down, expect all hell to turn loose.

[rollin]

Americandream has a valid point. Large forces are at work that stymie most efforts to positive change. The only problem with this locked up situation is that geophysical and natural forces will be the ones to sort things us, we will lose any semblance of control. Maybe we never had any real control to begin with.

[ralfy]

Related:

"The Power of Community"

http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

[americandream]

Yeah. If McPherson is correct, we are already dead. I'm sort of going that way myself. It's a pretty intense time for me as I have split from another relationship and for the same reasons. My reality is coloured by my awareness of the hole we are digging for ourselves but most everyone else understandably wants the symbols of success. Increasingly so, even the greenies are moving to conformism. Politically, I am sort of done out....I don't hold out much hope for the future.

Americandream has a valid point. Large forces are at work that stymie most efforts to positive change. The only problem with this locked up situation is that geophysical and natural forces will be the ones to sort things us, we will lose any semblance of control. Maybe we never had any real control to begin with.

[Ibon]

Here is a thought to contemplate.

When a species is in overshoot and vulnerable to environmental disruptions the question of whether these disruptions are human caused or from some other reason really becomes more and more irrelevant since we have already reached a critical mass on the planet where we can no longer change the model we are trapped in.

The lack of alternative habitats to occupy makes the question of the source of disruptions irrelevant.

Not really, because in the present state of affairs we could have used an extra few thousand years to get our crap wired tight. Population could have been addressed, but out of control climate change is difficult to rein in once let loose.

You are agreeing with me basically. I am pointing out that since we didn't address overshoot at this point it is irrelevant if the external event that causes disruption comes from a man made source or from a natural event. In reference to climate change for example the question is irrelevant if it is man made or natural because human overshoot has resulted in a whole suite of constraints that make our species vulnerable to a die-off.

If anyone around here thinks that we are going to address anthropogenic climate change before external events cause disruptions then you might be able to argue my point. I am just pointing out the utter futility in engaging in climate change debate at this point in the game since it may or may not be one of the many results of overshoot and is by no means a singular issue.

In reference to change coming from within, I can summarize this with a simple pragmatic assessment.....

If we didn't when we could have we certainly now wont when we can't.

[Ibon]

Americandream has a valid point. Large forces are at work that stymie most efforts to positive change. The only problem with this locked up situation is that geophysical and natural forces will be the ones to sort things us, we will lose any semblance of control. Maybe we never had any real control to begin with.

Lately I have been looking back at the 40 years since the 70's when I first started down the path of environmental activism and from when I was a student in environmental science. In the beginning the message was really all about doing something before it is too late and that was an accurate assessment because there truly was a choice and crossroads of sorts. My particular focus was and always has been biodiversity preservation and I was motivated by not wanting to see species perish.

The dominant economic model of both consumption and capitalism won what was back then an ideological struggle.

It was with the peak oil movement and to a degree the climate change movement that in the early years of the 21st century you can see a far more sober assessment among all fields of environmental science and biology that has slowly understood that the ideological struggle is not one we can win and in fact we have committed ourselves to a path of surrendering to default to external events. The old school research ecologists who visit us at Mount Totumas who have intimately been studying their frogs or beetles or moths for up to 5 decades all pretty much confirm this same sentiment. This assessment has been perhaps the strongest amongst ecologist studying biodiversity, it has been an odd truth that loss of biodiversity has not generated the same buzz as climate change and peak oil. There are reasons for that I will not elaborate in this post.

I was just thinking of a shift that has taken place even in the past 8 years or so when, in the first years of the 21st century, here on this very website, posters like Montequest would advocate draconian population control measures and make the bold statement that we either have change by design or by default. If we cant make the tough decisions by design than nature will solve the problem by default and when the change comes from nature, who knows no morals or ethics, it will be far more brutal than whatever required limits we would have imposed by design. An example, think of a parasitic wasp that lays its eggs on the back of a caterpillar and the hatching wasp larvae then eat the caterpillar from within while it continues to live for a couple of weeks until it is eaten alive. If nature did not have these draconian controls in ecosystems we would have caterpillars denuding our forests.

Kudzu Apes are currently a huge crop of nutrient rich caterpillars on the planet and the analogous parasitic wasp yet to be reveled is hidden in the arsenal of the Overshoot Predator.

So Montequest 8 years back was suggesting we need to apply these limits to insure that the death-rate equalled the birthrate and in fact through the following decades exceed it in order to return to carrying capacity. The outcry of his message 8 years ago was virulent and the moral outrage palpable as some of you may remember.

I find it interesting that today, 8 years later, this sentiment is not quite the same. There seems to be a lot more folks that understand that we are now deep in the territory where we have surrendered to change by default, to be lead by external events, since we have failed to do this by design.

You can actually perceive a shifting consensus when you look back through the decades of these debates.

And a very strong growing consensus that the inertia of business as usual and the conformity that AmericanDream refers to is indeed non negotiable from any internal reforms having expanded globally.

It is all about the external events now..............

[Ibon]

Politically, I am sort of done out....I don't hold out much hope for the future.

I get these McPherson types frequently here at Mount Totumas. Very hopeless ecologists who have watched that which they have studied and devoted their lives to pretty much utterly devastated. Ideologically destroyed and bitter.

Most Likely you have reached the same level of disillusionment based on the ideological prism of your political views and quite deep understanding of the defects of capitalism. Some of your posts have helped me understand this more deeply by the way, its always good to acknowledge this

The ecologists solution to this deep dilemma is to shift to deep time thinking way outside the constraints of our own lifetimes.

You can now hope that the external consequences of our collective hubris will be without precedent in recent human history and perhaps even embed in whatever economic system we evolve into the required constraints that prevent repeating the same mistake again.

I have reminded folks of this in the past, that we are the first clumsy attempt of a sentient species whose intelligence led us to a level of control and dominance that we haven't learned yet the social, political, economic and religious tabus around not exceeding your carrying capacity.

If there is anything that will embed these tabus in future institutions it will be the consequences of passing through the upcoming bottleneck.

One can live out the remainder of ones day with this knowledge and let go of whatever adolescent hope one holds on to that change will happen to occur in your own life time.

We are instruments of those instructive consequences.

[Ibon]

So I ask, which came first...the overshoot or the capitalist system which needs the numbers?

The capitalist system fueled by cheap energy produced the Bling that seduced the masses. Perhaps our species up to now lacked any honed institutions from past experiences to make us less vulnerable to the seduction of the Bling of stuff available so cheap that it almost seems like magic.

We never had this abundance in the past and the Reagan story that we can have it all with no apologies afterwards cemented this paradigm and infected the whole planet.

You have to ask why were the masses so vulnerable to this message? Is it something inherently insidious to the capitalist model or is it the total lack of checks and balances of constraints having not passed through past bottlenecks that would have honed us to be more cautious to the seduction.

[Loki]

My personal view is that climate change and environmental degradation will be problems for the 2070s and so on. The huge problem of the 2020s will be energy and the ongoing economic fall out of globalisation, the death of the western middle class consumers. By 2020 our national debts that we have used to shield us from the 07 economic collapse will start to become unsustainable.

We're already witnessing the gradual decline of the middle class for various sundry reasons, globalization just one of them. The Great Recession has accelerated existing trends. I don't see a light at the end of this tunnel.

Energy will become more and more of a bottleneck, but this will be expressed as price for most people, just part of the noise of general economic decline. I'm not sure energy will ever come to the fore of political discourse, there will always be more proximate factors. Blame Bush, blame Obama, rinse and repeat.

Climate change is also part of this noise. Drains on national wealth due to infrastructure disruptions from "natural" disasters, droughts in major agricultural areas, etc. We're seeing it already. This adds to the price of food, the price of housing, the price of everything, but it's all part of the noise of general economic decline.

These are decadal-scale processes. From year to year things don't seem all that different, but 20 years ago will be very different from 20 years from now, and not in a good way. The world in 2100, I think, will be a shadow of what it was in 2000, observable, obvious decline of just about every social and ecological metric.

Still, there's no point in indulging in hysterics like near-term human extinction. This is deus ex machina stuff, a psychological defense mechanism. The long slow grind down won't be any fun, easier to fantasize about an easy end.

[americandream]

The system plays on our basic makeup...the desire for food and shelter security...and then higher up that chain...the need to be loved, nurtured and validated....through creativity and community.

It isolates us, and then fills the void with marketable comfort. We are in a state of alienation in this stratified, polarised paradigm. Marx describes this state as the systemic result of living in a socially stratified society, because being a mechanistic part of a social class alienates a person from his and her humanity. The theoretic basis of alienation within the capitalist mode of production is that the worker invariably loses the ability to determine his or her life and destiny, when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of himself as the director of his actions; to determine the character of said actions; to define his relationship with other people; and to own the things and use the value of the goods and services, produced with his labour. Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realised human being, as an economic entity, he or she is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, in order to extract from the worker the maximal amount of surplus value, in the course of business competition among industrialists.

So I ask, which came first...the overshoot or the capitalist system which needs the numbers?

The capitalist system fueled by cheap energy produced the Bling that seduced the masses. Perhaps our species up to now lacked any honed institutions from past experiences to make us less vulnerable to the seduction of the Bling of stuff available so cheap that it almost seems like magic.

We never had this abundance in the past and the Reagan story that we can have it all with no apologies afterwards cemented this paradigm and infected the whole planet.

You have to ask why were the masses so vulnerable to this message? Is it something inherently insidious to the capitalist model or is it the total lack of checks and balances of constraints having not passed through past bottlenecks that would have honed us to be more cautious to the seduction.

[AgentR11]

You have to ask why were the masses so vulnerable to this message? Is it something inherently insidious to the capitalist model or is it the total lack of checks and balances of constraints having not passed through past bottlenecks that would have honed us to be more cautious to the seduction.

I think it might be, instead, because we DID pass through such a bottleneck. A bottleneck does not breed wisdom, it only breeds hunger and desperation. If we proceed through another, and retain our capacity for language, and stories, and documentation, then maybe this next pass won't be counterproductive.

[Ibon]

The system plays on our basic makeup...the desire for food and shelter security...and then higher up that chain...the need to be loved, nurtured and validated....through creativity and community.

And that most people are sheep. From the Marx quote

Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realised human being, as an economic entity, he or she is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie,

Why was it so easy for so many humans around the world to give up with practically no resistance their self determined lively hoods in exchange for the materialistic advantage of being a cog in a wheel?

[Ibon]

I think it might be, instead, because we DID pass through such a bottleneck.

Which one? I have not witnessed nor read about an ecological bottleneck in recent human history.

[AgentR11]

Not recent, before the dawn of agriculture. If I recall rightly it was a volcanic cause, and greatly reduced the number of humans.

chotto matte kudasai....

Looked up the name... "Toba"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

[americandream]

That is where you need to understand the nature of culture and social relations. For example, in primitive hunter gatherer societies it might have been considerd quite appropriate to eat human flesh. I would imagine dissenters would have been in the minority until the material conditions arose to make that particular tenet redundant.

Capitalism was a radical departure from feudalism and rule by inherited privilege. It was merit based. Going back in time, early socialism (tribes and such like) made way for forms of limited tenure. Each form has been an improvement on the one before...with capitalism...the Age of Reason has been employed in such fields as law and technology.

Capitalism however has a major flaw. It is global and its reach in terms of damage, is global. I would suggest that it is more or less guaranteed that capitalism will be replaced by a return to our old collectivisation...the ONLY PROVISO....climate destruction. And like McPherson, I reckon that clock is underway and ticking.

Who is to blame? History. After all, historical conditions gave it life, not some fiendish man sitting in a bank.

The system plays on our basic makeup...the desire for food and shelter security...and then higher up that chain...the need to be loved, nurtured and validated....through creativity and community.

And that most people are sheep. From the Marx quote

Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realised human being, as an economic entity, he or she is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie,

Why was it so easy for so many humans around the world to give up with practically no resistance their self determined lively hoods in exchange for the materialistic advantage of being a cog in a wheel?

[vision-master]

I don't know, you people are startin' to sound like yer losen' yer marbles?