[Rod_Cloutier]

Not in Denmark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... fJc9Qw#t=0

(Do it for Denmark commercial)

[Newfie]

Ralphy,

I finally read that bit on the Behavioural Sink. Thanks.

I found the comments about the lack of social roles.

there were far more mice than meaningful social roles

I tend to go on about how our culture creates unless jobs (medical insurance, TSA, etc.) This may the kind of social pressure that I am seeing. Because we have a society where many of us have no real useful role we create faux roles to help keep the society thinking it is healthy.

[ralfy]

"Population, Consumption, and Climate: A Conversation with Al Bartlett"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYloNl3Ee3w

[ffkling]

Cid Vicious, if you study the proliferation of evidence, than you must understand that there is ample evidence for the existence of ET species visiting Earth. As William S. Burroughs noted, "An emotional plague afflicts people whose belief systems are so rigid they ignore relevant facts and become enraged if anyone challenges their beliefs. The irrational debunker loses sight of the fact that the purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated. There is a fear of finding the truth behind the UFO enigma; however, the understanding that we are not alone in the cosmos will knock down our wall of misunderstanding with a sledgehammer."

[Newfie]

This must be one of those nights where people just felt like arguing.

Yeah. I thought Cid posted an interesting idea. Something to be played with, mulled around. Why must we be so oppositional?

Thanks for the thought Cid!

[ralfy]

Just a severe case of failing to comprehend I guess. Has nothing to do with anything you posted in either post.

What specifically have I failed to comprehend? I responded to your assertion. I will now be more specific in my response. It will be the same, just reworded.

But what happens when a biological organism becomes advanced technologically. They try to eliminate hunger. They try to eliminate disease. They try to eliminate all the ills that plague their species and cause death.

--All species try to eliminate hunger, not just technologically advanced species.
--All species try to eliminate disease by staying warm, fed, and safe. We do the same. (incidentally it is not our medical technologies that have allowed humans to procreate and overrun the planet. Rather it is our Public Health Measures. We have learned how to shit safely, not into our drinking water. That is not technology, just common sense)

This is the ultimate technology trap. It allows the species to vastly exceed it's carrying capacity so that when the inevitable terminal point is reached, it becomes an Extinction Level Event rather than just a die-back.

This is not a technology trap. It is a function of overpopulation. It is an ecological trap.

I am sorry that ecology is not taught in schools. Perhaps that is because it is the one science that does not teach us that science is a linear projection of progress? Ecology teaches limits. Ecology teaches us that populations of animals overshoot and die. Foxes reproduce too much, overtake the ecosystem, weaken and get rabies. Then foxes from other regions move back it. Cycles of nature. Happens to all species. But not in all populations. Not everywhere. That is why I am not a doomer.

Some modern populations will die, will be wiped off the face of the earth perhaps North Africa, the Middle East, perhaps Central Europe, Japan, Souteast Asia. Places that are overpopulated and under supplied with resources. I will be fine.

Societies are heavily dependent on significant amounts of energy and material resources to maintain middle class lifestyles. Hence, we have countries that are "fine" because they have to consume up to a quarter of world oil production and maintain very expensive military and police forces to support the same. The same lifestyles are also ironically dependent on increased sales of goods and services to growing consumer markets:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

And not just lifestyles but even medicine and health care needed as people grow older and face more advanced illnesses. There's also extensive infrastructure propped up to maintain everything from border security to police and military forces needed to "save" local populations from outsiders.

At some point, the effects of multiple crises amplifying each other will overwhelm such a complex system, forcing the same government, military, police, and businesses groups that allow people to be "fine" to fend for themselves. That's because what we're dealing with are not exactly foxes.

[ralfy]

We have to realize that in a world that has been heavily dependent on industrial civilization, and with large, armed groups, weapons of mass destruction, and most who are not used to existence outside that civilization, then no one is generally safe.

[ennui2]

We have to realize that in a world that has been heavily dependent on industrial civilization, and with large, armed groups, weapons of mass destruction, and most who are not used to existence outside that civilization, then no one is generally safe.

PStarr is, because...........redwood curtain?

Whatever.

[Hawkcreek]

We have to realize that in a world that has been heavily dependent on industrial civilization, and with large, armed groups, weapons of mass destruction, and most who are not used to existence outside that civilization, then no one is generally safe.

PStarr is, because...........redwood curtain?

Whatever.

People who are prepared to live without someone else providing them heat in the winter, grocery stores being open whenever they need food, and a utility company providing them clean water, are not safe -----but they are safer than most of the ones who refuse to prepare for any upheaval.

[onlooker]

"This is not a technology trap. It is a function of overpopulation. It is an ecological trap." Interesting discussion. I think this discussion glosses over the maybe more important question of why our intelligence did not allow us to change direction or minimize our terrible onslaught on Earth and our irresistible urge to have sex and procreate. Are we flawed? Are we too filled with hubris? What? Why could we not understand what a destructive path we were on and not have altered our behavior. I will offer my opinion and that is as a species we have been too short sighted. Tragedy of the Commons and all that. Also, we have not collectively learned to temper our emotions with our reason.

[dohboi]

Nice points, onlooker.

But do you really think it boils down to a emotions-versus-reason thing, in the usual sense?

The West pretty much invented and venerated 'Reason' during the "Enlightenment" (ok, it's more complicated than that, but you get the point), yet it is forces, technologies and ideologies the originated in the West (but now largely globalized) that are most heavily driving the total destruction.

Meanwhile, cultures that are generally considered least concerned about 'reason'--first nations and aboriginal peoples around the world--that have mostly done the least harm and have been some of the clearest and most consistent voices crying out against the destruction.

I happen to rather like many things about reason (though I can be a rather emotional guy, too ), so I'd rather like for your formulation to be true, but I can't square it with how things have actually worked out in the world.

Any thoughts?

[onlooker]

Dohboi, I think your interchanging reason with technology and its application a bit. Part of a reasoning process is the capability of discerning potential consequences into the further off future and thereby adjusting behavior individually and collectively. So, we set about recklessly to develop and employ technologies and to make growth a virtue without due consideration of longer term consequences. Another thing is in a more profound sense this about morality or lack thereof. All our actions have had and are affecting present and future generations. But our pattern has been to act immorally with our predatory capitalistic economic system creating a deeply unjust and unequal world and depriving future generations of a viable sustaining environment

[dohboi]

Nicely put. Long term thinking and morality certainly seem to be at least as important as 'rational thinking' in the traditional sense (what were known as 'savages' to European Enlightenment thinkers were generally portrayed as at the polar opposite of their own 'enlightened' and 'rational' world views).

It also strikes me that much/most of what has presented itself as 'reason' and 'rational thinking' in the West (and now in the global economy) was really more like rationalization--which is essentially self-delusion: inventing excuses for immoral and shortsighted actions.

It is notable (and sad) that the destruction of the earth was planned, enabled and carried out largely by powerful men (and a few women) who were very well educated at the best colleges and universities. (Many of the works of David Orr cover this aspect of our predicament rather nicely.)

Yes, one can point out that it was (largely) ignorant hordes that then went out and used the ff-burning, hyperconsumerist mechanisms and systems that these highly educated folks set up. But the elites were the architects, and they carefully planned everything using reason and knowledge to be sure that most of the masses ended up participating in the now global juggernaut that will (is already in the process of) crushing them and especially their children.

[onlooker]

Yes, one can point out that it was (largely) ignorant hordes that then went out and used the ff-burning, hyperconsumerist mechanisms and systems that these highly educated folks set up. But the elites were the architects, and they carefully planned everything using reason and knowledge to be sure that most of the masses ended up participating in the now global juggernaut that will (is already in the process of) crushing them and especially their children.

Well put D. This is where I have a big problem with those who wish to blame the masses especially the ones in poor countries. To me it is a specious argument. The reason is because as many have pointed out people are simply following their biological innate imperatives. Also, because throughout the public sphere including the media they're was scant data on the unsustainable and damaging aspects of our way of life. On the other hand the elites including the governments with the obligation and resources to thoroughly investigate these matters were in some cases asleep at the wheel or knew and with malice of intent withheld this critical knowledge and/or obfuscated the issue. umm Exxon Mobil comes to mind

[Ibon]

The verdict is out if this is a trap because the plot of this story is only now entering catalytic consequences.

[Ibon]

It is notable (and sad) that the destruction of the earth was planned, enabled and carried out largely by powerful men (and a few women) who were very well educated at the best colleges and universities.

Those not powerful are therefore only victims of these powerful men is what you are suggesting here. Billions and billions of humans spanning a huge diversity of cultures, ethnic backgrounds, religious belief systems, languages race and levels of education all willingly submitting to this destruction carried out by a few powerful humans.

The control these powerful few have is really breathtaking isn't it? Able to subjugate the vast majority of our species into their destructive web.

I find this reasoning simplistic.

[davep]

"This is not a technology trap. It is a function of overpopulation. It is an ecological trap.".

I think the former has led to the latter for homo sapiens. We've managed to use our technology to alter the ecosystems to such an extent that it has indeed become an ecological trap (albeit enabled by technology).

But it's also a, wait for it..., economic trap. If we have an economic system that requires growth in order to stand still (a debt-based money system constantly requiring new money as loans to pay off the interest of previous debts) then there is a burden to over-consume in order to maintain a healthy economy. This needs to be addressed too. The only real beneficiaries of such an economic system are a financial elite.

Over-population is an issue, but the vast majority have a small ecological footprint compared to the consumer-led demands of modern societies.

[dohboi]

Ibon, almost no on is 'only a victim.'

I did not and would not say such a thing.

So if we can agree on that, then the alternatives are either that everyone has exactly the same level of culpability, or that some have more than others.

Where do you stand on that issue?