Powerdown: The Solution to Peak Oil

[VMarcHart]

How do we stop all-out treatment of individuals who cannot be saved;

Boy, this sure is a dilemna in our society. We not raised like wilderbeasts who leave the injured behind. We've been taught to care, nurture, protect, etc. Tough, tough, tough.

I'm not convinced all-out treatment of individuals who cannot be saved has any significant impact on the population.

How many Terri Schiavo's are out there? Hundreds? Thousands? How many less inflicted, but on severe medication or instense care? Definitely in the thousands. I don't think it put a dent on powerdown, but perhaps it's the sum of the small actions. Food for thought.

[MonteQuest]

From your quotes of Catton, it doesn't seem like he sees no hope, no matter what we do.

I would imagine he had a lot more hope in 1980 when he wrote overshoot than he has today. I know I sure did.

In 2006 , he wrote:
"The consequences of our uses of hydrocarbon fuels will never be adequately understood if viewed apart from a context provided by principles of ecology."

That is what I have always believed. That is the driving force behind my "broken record."

[MonteQuest]

Medical ethics is one topic that needs to be discussed on PO.com that hasn't already been discussed.

Not discussed? It has been so discussed that I had to take a break from posting. There are 50 page threads on it.

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

[MrBean]

Medical ethics is one topic that needs to be discussed on PO.com

From the top of this page. Took some effort to make Monte give enough hints for a search, but finally managed:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic10093.html
http://peakoil.com/fortopic33890.html

Feel free to bumb.

[AlterEgo]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Must? If you're saying that there will have to be a moral and ethical shift to adjust to descent, then I agree with you.

The topic has not been discussed. A search for "Medical ethics" yields 18 glancing blows, and "utilitarianism" yields 23 posts, mostly about food and other topics. Can you post something without an argument in it, Monte?

[MonteQuest]

The topic has not been discussed.

It has...ad naseum. Read my threads on population.

[Ludi]

The topic has not been discussed. A search for "Medical ethics" yields 18 glancing blows, and "utilitarianism" yields 23 posts, mostly about food and other topics. Can you post something without an argument in it, Monte?

If you want to discuss it more, you could start a thread specifically about medical ethics.

There are several physicians on the board, I'd hope they would be interested in contributing to the discussion.

[MrBean]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid. There is nothing as ethical as deep practical sense - fronesis in Greek - of what carrying capacity means. A deep practical sense that of course cannot be put into any moral code, since carrying capacity and ways to adapt to it keep allways changing.

[Ghog]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid. There is nothing as ethical as deep practical sense - fronesis in Greek - of what carrying capacity means. A deep practical sense that of course cannot be put into any moral code, since carrying capacity and ways to adapt to it keep allways changing.

So you are saying we should throw caution to the wind and forever remain on the edge of the Planet's ability to sustain life? Frankly I would prefer to learn from the experience and not continue the trend of stripping the Planet bare. How about a lengthy period of living WITH our environment?

[Ludi]

So you are saying we should throw caution to the wind and forever remain on the edge of the Planet's ability to sustain life

Whoa! I don't think that's what Mr Bean has been saying at all. I think he has been saying we should nurture all life, both human life and all other life on the planet.

At least, that's the impression I've gotten from his posts...

[Ludi]

Sorry but that sounds really stupid. There is nothing as ethical as deep practical sense - fronesis in Greek - of what carrying capacity means. A deep practical sense that of course cannot be put into any moral code, since carrying capacity and ways to adapt to it keep allways changing.

I think what Monte means is the concept of carrying capacity has to always be foremost in our minds, ahead of any morals or ethics which conflict with that concept.

Which as you say, is very pragmatic.


But I may be wrong...

[VMarcHart]

I would prefer to learn from the experience and not continue the trend of stripping the Planet bare.

Alas, by the time "you" --meaning us living human beings-- will learn from this experience, it will probably be too late for living.

How about a lengthy period of living WITH our environment?

There was a very lengthy one, that ended about 200 years ago.

[MonteQuest]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid.

Oh? Isn't any acceptable system of ethics contingent on its ability to preserve the ecosystems which sustain it?

[MrBean]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid.

Oh? Isn't any acceptable system of ethics contingent on its ability to preserve the ecosystems which sustain it?

That's what I'm saying. The way you said just sounded stupid.

[MonteQuest]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid.

Oh? Isn't any acceptable system of ethics contingent on its ability to preserve the ecosystems which sustain it?

That's what I'm saying. The way you said just sounded stupid.

I thought it quite succinct.

[MrBean]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid. There is nothing as ethical as deep practical sense - fronesis in Greek - of what carrying capacity means. A deep practical sense that of course cannot be put into any moral code, since carrying capacity and ways to adapt to it keep allways changing.

So you are saying we should throw caution to the wind and forever remain on the edge of the Planet's ability to sustain life? Frankly I would prefer to learn from the experience and not continue the trend of stripping the Planet bare. How about a lengthy period of living WITH our environment?

That is what deep practical sense of ethics or "fronesis" means, in contrast to theoretical moral dogma of shoulds and should nots: living with enviroment, as organic part of a greater whole, like human cells and organs are part of a greater organism called human.

[mos6507]

I think what Monte means is the concept of carrying capacity has to always be foremost in our minds, ahead of any morals or ethics which conflict with that concept.

This is what you become when you place nature above all morals and ethics which conflict with that concept.
[align=center]

Unabomber
[/align]

[BigTex]

I think this is a slightly different point, but this discussion reminds me of how silly many environmentalists come across in their chic green views and ideas of Mother Nature as sort of a folk singer-like character who wants us all to drive hybrids.

I never gave an oink about environmentalism before I became aware of peak oil, in part because the typical environmentalist I encountered didn't really seem to have a clue about some of the deeper environmental issues whose solutions have nothing to do with conservation and recycling.

Obviously, though, if you take Catton's overshoot analysis seriously, you are by definition sort of a "survivalist environmentalist" (but I still think that the chic green liberals trying to get a date with Mother Earth are goofy).

[nobodypanic]

Carrying capacity must always trump morals or ethics.

Sorry but that sounds really stupid.

Oh? Isn't any acceptable system of ethics contingent on its ability to preserve the ecosystems which sustain it?

carrying capacity 'trumps' it the way any hard brutal fact like, say, gravity 'trumps' ethics. however, that doesn't mean that allowing people to fall to their death is ethical. in this example i can in no way appeal to gravity as the basis of any 'good'.

[MonteQuest]

This is what you become when you place nature above all morals and ethics which conflict with that concept.

Oh? " No ethics can be grounded in biological impossibility; no ethics can be incoherent in that it requires ethical behavior that ends all further ethical behavior. Clearly any ethics which tries to do so is mistaken; it is wrong."