Powerdown: The Solution to Peak Oil

[BigTex]

There appear to be a lot of people on these forums, and others, who kind of get the picture but can't quite make it all the way. They can't see that we may well need to jettison all that we think is good about modern civilization (whether it is objectively good or not), in order to attain a durable society. The idea of infinite economic growth seems to underlie the opinions of most, even if they deny infinite economic growth.

Ever wonder why skepticism regarding human desire and a rejection of worldliness are underlying principles in so many world religions?

Perhaps it's because these tendencies truly are incredibly destructive to the long term survivability of our species, not to mention the corrosive effect it has on the individual's sense of peace.

Modern civilization is like a 1970s-era custom van with an airbrushed mural of a great city on the side and a bumper sticker that says "If it feels good do it!", except that when the van doors open, instead of the scent of sinsemilla, a cloud of exhaust from fossil fuel burning drifts out.

[AlterEgo]

The few I alienate is not worth worrying about. I get lots of pm's. Most of them are about admiring my patience with posters like yourself.

I used to teach Nursing. Every semester I had a new crop of baby nurses. Every semester, I had to teach the same thing over and over and over. It was a constant battle to remind myself that though I had said the same thing a hundred times, it was new to this student. It was a constant battle to remind myself of this, and not get frustrated or impatient.

[mos6507]

Ever wonder why skepticism regarding human desire and a rejection of worldliness are underlying principles in so many world religions?

There is also a lot of unhealthy repression of natural urges in religion.

[AlterEgo]

Medical ethics is one topic that needs to be discussed on PO.com that hasn't already been discussed. It is an interesting blind spot that relates to population issues, and is as much of a forbidden topic as population control. Judging from my po.com search, it is an even bigger sacred cow than population control. Medical ethics is a one way street which has increasingly focused on deontological physician-patient relationships, with no-holds-barred to save an individual patient, regardless of cost to the greater society. Bioethics is a bit more utilitarian and systems-focused, accounting for the cost to the society of care and the issue of the greater good. The link below has some good definitions.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/gui/gui_001.html

My concern is that medical ethics is a sacred cow which impacts our survivability. I believe that this will be one of the last attitudes to change in the face of peak oil. There is a difference between caring and curing, and I see us heading to the wall at 80 mph attempting to cure. How do we stop all-out treatment of individuals who cannot be saved; how do we triage effectively? Will the lessened value of human life on an over-populated planet help in this cultural shift? Or should I just stop the mental masturbation and hope that a plague takes care of all of it?

[Ludi]

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

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

[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.