Powerdown: The Solution to Peak Oil

[MonteQuest]

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'.

We are talking about the life support that allows ethics to even exist. Comparing it to gravity is nonsense. Biological necessity has a veto over the behavior which any set of moral beliefs can allow or require.

[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.

I thought it quite succinct.

The style and content went awry with the "must", unneeded and misdirecting pleonasm. Without the "must", succinct.

MrBean, the literary criticist

[TonyPrep]

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.

I remember watching an episode of The Ascent of Man, I think it was the episode "The Harvest of the Seasons". In that episode it explored the culture of a nomad tribe of people called something like "the baktiari". It was a dour existence, from my perspective, and they needed to keep moving frequently, including crossing some difficult terrain. When someone was unable to make a particular crossing, through frailty, then they got left behind, since they had to travel light and had no spare capacity to carry someone who could not make it themselves. It appeared to be accepted by the tribe that this wasn't cruel, though I'm sure it would seem so to us.

[Homesteader]

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.

I remember watching an episode of The Ascent of Man, I think it was the episode "The Harvest of the Seasons". In that episode it explored the culture of a nomad tribe of people called something like "the baktiari". It was a dour existence, from my perspective, and they needed to keep moving frequently, including crossing some difficult terrain. When someone was unable to make a particular crossing, through frailty, then they got left behind, since they had to travel light and had no spare capacity to carry someone who could not make it themselves. It appeared to be accepted by the tribe that this wasn't cruel, though I'm sure it would seem so to us.

What was the alternative, camping out in some inhospitable mountain pass waiting for Uncle, Grandma or Grandpa to die? The meanings we make up and assign to events etc. . .are not immutable truths.

Everyone has their time to die whether in a mountain pass that has gotten beyond our physical capability or choking out the last breath in a god-forsaken nursing home or in a hospital ward with monitors ensuring your time of death, last breath and last heartbeat is recorded.

Personally, I'll take the mountain pass. Of course that is simply the meaning I choose to assign to those different scenarios.

[VMarcHart]

...it appeared to be accepted by the tribe that [leaving people behind] wasn't cruel, though I'm sure it would seem so to us.

We know for a fact it is not accepted by us. Merits and facts notwithstanding, you may remember the trials of the New Orleans medical staff who had to make decisions during the Katrina crisis.

[AlterEgo]

I remember watching an episode of The Ascent of Man, I think it was the episode "The Harvest of the Seasons". In that episode it explored the culture of a nomad tribe of people called something like "the baktiari". It was a dour existence, from my perspective, and they needed to keep moving frequently, including crossing some difficult terrain. When someone was unable to make a particular crossing, through frailty, then they got left behind, since they had to travel light and had no spare capacity to carry someone who could not make it themselves. It appeared to be accepted by the tribe that this wasn't cruel, though I'm sure it would seem so to us.

Good point. When the costs to the group of saving the individual become too great, mores will change. This could happen overnight in a crisis. It's the established medical community's ethics that VMarc alludes to (Katrina-New Orleans) that really worries me, as a health care practitioner. We will maintain standards that are too high for way too long in formal healthcare settings.

[TonyPrep]

Everyone has their time to die whether in a mountain pass that has gotten beyond our physical capability or choking out the last breath in a god-forsaken nursing home or in a hospital ward with monitors ensuring your time of death, last breath and last heartbeat is recorded.

Everyone dies. "Their time to die" doesn't mean anything to me other than, of course, the moment of death is a moment in time. The Baktiari had a certain culture that didn't make their necessary (to them) action in leaving behind those who would otherwise be an unacceptable burden (which threatened the entire tribe) a cruel action. However, I think we could do better, in an analogous situation. For example, we could offer the person we "leave behind" options.

In our current culture, we instead pour resources, energy and effort into maintaining life, regardless of the quality of that life (sometimes also regardless of the wishes of the person involved) and regardless of whether those resources might be better employed for the benefit of a greater number of people. That seems "the right thing to do" to us.

[Jenab6]

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."

Garrett Hardin, from "The Tragedy of the Commons." But the observation is general. The moral course of action for a people is that which secures the greatest good or, conversely, avoids the worst loss. Famine isn't the only hazard that a post Peak Oil people might face. Another is military conquest. Population reduction reduces the loss of the former while raising the risk of the latter. And that may be true for most of the parties involved in the same dilemma: reduce population and be exterminated by an invading enemy or don't reduce and suffer starvation losses.

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'.

We are talking about the life support that allows ethics to even exist. Comparing it to gravity is nonsense. Biological necessity has a veto over the behavior which any set of moral beliefs can allow or require.

Like Thomas Jefferson said, "The law of self preservation is higher than the written law."

The Morality of Survival, Part 1, by Michael W. Masters

The Morality of Survival, Part 2, by Michael W. Masters

[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."

Garrett Hardin, from "The Tragedy of the Commons."

No, Herschel Elliott, Emeritus Philosophy. University of Florida.

http://dieoff.org/page121.htm

[AlterEgo]

The moral course of action for a people is that which secures the greatest good or, conversely, avoids the worst loss.

That moral stance is utilitarianism, Jenab6. Probably many of us on this board prefer a utilitarian stance, as we come from a place that is concerned about the larger system. But our western medicine is grounded in deontological ethics, where the moral stance is what is right for the individual, regardless of the group's circumstances. And our culture has swung this way, too. The spectacle of Congress viewing videos of a comatose woman and weighing in on her fate (saving lives at all costs) is an example of deontology taken a bit too far. Healthcare in the US is going to have a hard time transitioning away from this position, and it worries me.

[MrBean]

Like Thomas Jefferson said, "The law of self preservation is higher than the written law."

Like Nietzsche said about Western culture: "Wille zur macht" is higher than the law of self preservation.

Man over nature, supernatural man trying to take the place of God, that's what western science is about. And next, how the mighty will fall.

[MrBean]

"Ethics" comes from the Greek word "ethos" meaning customs, local customs of a community, just like the Latin word "mores". An ethical man follows the local customs best suited for the local environment.

Hence, any attempt to develop universal ethics and then proceeding to forcing everybody to follow the customs of "universal ethics" is allready unethical.

[Ludi]

bumpola

[AlterEgo]

Nate Hagens and Jason Bradford on the Maximum Power Principle

Listen to the last 8 minutes or so for a really clear explanation of the MPP by Bradford. It is the tradeoff between energy use and efficiency that keeps us from powering down.

[yesplease]

Um, yeah, comparing biological systems and human social systems always works.

[AlterEgo]

Uh, humans are not part of a biological system, yes please?

[yesplease]

Props on the strawman!
Gravity is part of the universe, as is electromagnetism, but just because it's a part of it does not mean that the behavior of gravity is good for descibing the behavior of electromagnetism. Similarly, humans are part of a biological system, as are plants moving into a new area, but the behavior of plants in this case is not the same as the behavior of humans wrt energy.

[AlterEgo]

Basic thermodynamics are the same whether they are impacting plants or animals or economies, yesplease. Are you suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics change depending on the species?

[Peleg]

I think we can funk this thing up by calling it 'Power Way Down'

The funk guitar comes in.

Whaccuum whackoo whikaaay tickaa whacka

'Yeah bro. You gotta let that oil go. It ain't no good fo u so(ul)'

Whaaa whicki whacka ticka whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Sponsored by the Alliance for a Better Tomorrow]

[yesplease]

Basic thermodynamics are the same whether they are impacting plants or animals or economies, yesplease. Are you suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics change depending on the species?

Another strawman! You are on a streak meng! The vast majority of human energy use is dictated by behavior that can and has changed rapidly, otoh, plants haven't really evolved to the point where they change their energy in a similar way.

The key difference is that energy use by plants is biological, while most energy use by humans is mechanical/electrical/themal/whathaveyou. In fact, in the case of ICEs, efficiency tends to increase w/ power output, not decrease. Otoh, as was described plants have a tradeoff between energy efficiency and power, so to speak. In case you didn't notice, engines, motors, and all sorts of other stuff that we use most of our energy w/ are not the same as plants.