[johnmarkos]

Speaking of plans, I provided a skeletal plan here, in the thread, "It's all about footprint." Although it ain't much, I'm no expert, and I don't think the plan is feasible in the current political climate, I offer it again for critique and discussion. As I change my point of view, I'll revise my plan accordingly.

MonteQuest provided an excellent overview of the policy changes he would advocate here, in the thread, "The Big Picture."

[TrueKaiser]

The solution? The first thing is ask yourself whose opinions you should be giving credibility to. Like are doomsayers selling books & videos? Are they just blowhards with no real knowledge other then how to spin a tale filled with generalities? Do they have any real experience regarding the issues they are spinning or are they just repeating information from select others and missing the big picture? Do they really know what they are talking about, where are their credentials?

good point. montequest(just using you as a example because you posted in this topic allot) for example uses eroei as the end all marker for anything, and as we know because of the focus on oil as a energy source oil has the highest erori then anything else. he uses this to rule out the effectiveness of other techs, which if had the same focus as oil might have the same or better eroei, as for which one of the other techs would have this potential if focused on at the same level that oil is today i don't know.

he then backs up his claims by going into the laws of thermodynamics(mainly the second law, which does follow the principals of scientific laws and i am not disputing this). since i have come here all i have seen him post in the new energy forum is either out right dismissal of a new technology citing eroei(though some are rather bad to begin with ex. the space convoys to titan) or the 2nd law of thermodynamics(though admittedly free energy is not true).

[tokyo_to_motueka]

There is no technology, nor will there ever be, that will have the cheapness, energy density, scalablity, EROEI and physical properties of oil upon which we have built our current modern civilization that supports 6.5 billion people, no matter how much you focus on it. There is no techno-fix that can replace a phantom carrying capacity based upon a one-time treasure chest of non-renewable energies and a mindset of infinite growth in a finite world. Get use to the idea. It is not going away.

well put, MQ.
sounds like something David Holmgren would say, only in a slightly gentler way.

speaking of whom...

Some solutions are thoroughly described in Bill Mollison's book "Permaculture: A Designer's Manual"; more solutions in the works of Masanobu Fukuoka, and John Jeavons.

Ludi,
you forgot David Holmgren's Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability

[Ludi]

If technology fixes things, eventually all elements of the ecology only survives on the interest or whim of the children of humanity.

Can you give some examples of technology "fixing" ecology? How about an example of technology "fixing" the world climate systems? How is technology "fixing" the fisheries, the soil, the water, the forests?

[FatherOfTwo]

Unfortunately, once I got to the "solutions" part of the book, I thought, "Is that all there is?" I feel myself sliding back towards the doomer camp. Where's groundless optimism when you need it?

We need optimism and more optimistic people (like you JohnMarkos) because otherwise we are truly screwed. I (and my wife ) wish I was more optimistic, but I seem to do best at calling things as they appear to be. (Of course it is necessary to always revisit and make sure you are working with sound principals and the facts.)

The key and utterly depressing fact for me is that I think we do have the smarts to take a really good crack at the problem. Solutions (not perfect solutions) are available. But the problem has gotten so huge, the time is so short and our history of reverting to war to solve problems makes me believe the chances are slim. I hate being in the doomer camp, but if I’m to call it as it is, then it is what it is - I’m in the doomer camp. The one solace I take is that there is a chance that those who make it will be able to make things right. They better, the cost is going to be enormous.

{edited to remove my propensity to use double negatives. jeesh}

[Dezakin]

Ludi:

Can you give some examples of technology "fixing" ecology? How about an example of technology "fixing" the world climate systems? How is technology "fixing" the fisheries, the soil, the water, the forests?

Hmm... The plough was sort of the first step.

We dont need fisheries or forests. We know how to manage soil and water for farm and residential water concerns, from crop cycling to desalination. Climate change, for all its hype and real dangers, presents no real threat to humanity.

What I was speaking of is the uncomfortable view presented when all the world is an engineered farm when biology is required at all. In such a world the only wildlife left is isolated in 'parks' and only for amusement or aesthetic concerns. To those who study ecology, its a perversion of their worldview, a nihilistic dystopia.

I certainly find such a world devoid of wild places unromantic, but I also see it as inevitable. Many try to find ways to assert that its impossible, and construct arguments backwards from the desired result. All we really need is energy; And that, contrary to popular opinion here, is in abundance even if oil is not.

[Ludi]

Hmm... The plough was sort of the first step.

Shows what little you know about plough agriculture, a total disaster.

We dont need fisheries or forests.

Oh, you are one of those. Never mind.

[Dezakin]

Shows what little you know about plough agriculture, a total disaster.

The bridge between hunter-gatherer culture to the dawn of civilization was a total disaster in what way?

We dont need fisheries or forests.

Oh, you are one of those. Never mind.

So my point about pseudo-religeous reaction to environmental issues has touched a nerve then? We currently make use of fisheries and wild forests, but we obviously dont need them any more than we need wild berries to survive and thrive.

[ArimoDave]

Shows what little you know about plough agriculture, a total disaster.

The bridge between hunter-gatherer culture to the dawn of civilization was a total disaster in what way?

We dont need fisheries or forests.

Oh, you are one of those. Never mind.

So my point about pseudo-religeous reaction to environmental issues has touched a nerve then? We currently make use of fisheries and wild forests, but we obviously dont need them any more than we need wild berries to survive and thrive.

Survive and thrive -- perhaps. But, can we truly live without? ? ?

I for one don't think I would could truly live without the ablility of "getting back to my natural state of being." Your natureless world -- frankly -- bothers me. The whole notion that someone is capable of thinking this way bothers me.

ArimoDave

[Ludi]

The bridge between hunter-gatherer culture to the dawn of civilization was a total disaster in what way?

Plough agriculture led to populations which expanded in excess of the carrying capacity of their region, necessitating conquest of additional lands and subsequent destruction of the existing cultures and ecosystems of those lands (see entire history of civilization). These large populations dependent on plough agriculture have been extremely vulnerable to climate variables, leading to frequent and widescale famines (excess of a million people dying in specific famines in China and Africa. Do the research yourself to find more details). Plough agriculture led directly to the situation in which we find ourselves today, with a population of 6.5 million people poised on the brink of worldwide famine (but then, maybe you don't believe in this Peak Oil thingy).

So my point about pseudo-religeous reaction to environmental issues has touched a nerve then?

I could give a rat's ass about "environmental issues." I'm talking about the life systems of the planet.

we obviously dont need them any more than we need wild berries to survive and thrive.

If you think we don't need "wild forests" (fully functioning forest ecosystems), then you know virtually nothing about the life systems of the planet, specifically the water cycle, carbon cycle, and global weather system.

And your ignorance is what passes for knowledge these days. Really, really sad.

[katkinkate]

In the development of plough agriculture, many areas were cleared of trees drying out the climate and eventually creating deserts and arid scrub where once forests stood. For example the entire Middle East, northern Africa, and Greece in the past and Brazil, India and SubSaharan Africa in more recent times. Its mostly the trees that make the rain once you're more than about 50 kilometres inland from the ocean.

[eric_b]

We dont need fisheries or forests. We know how to manage soil and water for farm and residential water concerns, from crop cycling to desalination. Climate change, for all its hype and real dangers, presents no real threat to humanity.
(...)

<sigh>

Fool

[Dezakin]

Ludi:

Plough agriculture led to populations which expanded

Sounds like a resounding success to me, unless you feel larger populations are inherantly evil. Perhaps you think humanity should never have evolved at all.

If you think we don't need "wild forests" (fully functioning forest ecosystems), then you know virtually nothing about the life systems of the planet, specifically the water cycle, carbon cycle, and global weather system.

Theres no natural cycle that we can't replicate in an engineered fasion to more appropriately suit our needs, and thats been demonstrated from the sealed jars with algae and shrimp to ridiculous projects such as biosphere 2.

We are only dependant on our crops and we can certainly engineer those more to our liking, and we're currently doing so today.

And your ignorance is what passes for knowledge these days. Really, really sad.

I hold a controversial position and the ad-hominems fly.

When I make the assumtion that technology will continue to advance, I'm accused of engaging in a science-fiction delusion. When I suggest humanity isn't dependant on the status-quo ecosystem, I'm accused of being ignorant. Illustrate why I'm wrong rather than merely asserting it.

Good luck on that.

katkinkate:

Its mostly the trees that make the rain once you're more than about 50 kilometres inland from the ocean.

You don't think just maybe the rain makes the trees instead?

eric_b:

Fool

Surely you have something more substantial than that ineffectual ad-hominem. Where am I wrong and how am I wrong?

[smallpoxgirl]

Sounds like a resounding success to me, unless you feel larger populations are inherantly evil. Perhaps you think humanity should never have evolved at all.

Humanity hasn't evolved. They have become the weakest, most destructive, least perceptive, and most vicious of all creatures. They have become an uneqivocal detriment to their ecosystem. Sadly they have lost even the intellectual capacity to realize how pitiful their existance is, and how far they have fallen from their former status as productive members of the earth.

[Ludi]

Sounds like a resounding success to me, unless you feel larger populations are inherantly evil. Perhaps you think humanity should never have evolved at all.

Civilization does not represent an "evolution" of humanity, simply a different culture. And yes, I feel larger populations with hierarchical structure in which people are forced to work much harder and suffer from widescale warfare, disease, famine and pestilence are "evil." That's not to say I believe everything which comes from civilization is "evil," just that many things I consider "evil" (unhelpful, harmful) have come from civilization.

Theres no natural cycle that we can't replicate in an engineered fasion to more appropriately suit our needs, and thats been demonstrated from the sealed jars with algae and shrimp to ridiculous projects such as biosphere 2.

I fail to see how you think we can replicate the Earth's weather system or other life systems.

When I make the assumtion that technology will continue to advance, I'm accused of engaging in a science-fiction delusion.

Ad hominem - I do believe you are very delusional.

When I suggest humanity isn't dependant on the status-quo ecosystem, I'm accused of being ignorant.

Ad hominem - You are ignorant. Show me a human population which exists apart from the Earth's life systems.

You don't think just maybe the rain makes the trees instead?

As hominem - You are an ignoramus. At least learn a little about what you're pretending to discuss.

Where am I wrong and how am I wrong?

Read this article:

http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/trees_gs.htm

"A forest can return (unlike the sea) 75% of its water to air, "in large enough amounts to form new rain clouds". (Bayard Webster, "Forests' Role in Weather Documented in Amazon", NY Times, July 5, '83). forested areas return ten times as much moisture as bare ground, and twice as much as grasslands. In fact, as far as the atmosphere itself is concerned, "the release of water from the trees and other plants accounts for half, or even more of all moisture returned to air". (Webster) This is a critical finding that adds even more data to the relationship of desertification by deforestation. Clouds form above forests, and such clouds are now mixtures of oceanic and forest water vapour, clearly distinguishable by careful isotopes analysis. The water vapour from forests contain more organic nucleii and plant nutrients than does the 'pure' oceanic water. Oxygen isotopes are measured to determine the forests' contribution, which can be done for any cloud system."

Ad hominem - You are a laughable assclown.

[Ebyss]

http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/trees_gs.htm

"A forest can return (unlike the sea) 75% of its water to air, "in large enough amounts to form new rain clouds". (Bayard Webster, "Forests' Role in Weather Documented in Amazon", NY Times, July 5, '83). forested areas return ten times as much moisture as bare ground, and twice as much as grasslands. In fact, as far as the atmosphere itself is concerned, "the release of water from the trees and other plants accounts for half, or even more of all moisture returned to air". (Webster) This is a critical finding that adds even more data to the relationship of desertification by deforestation. Clouds form above forests, and such clouds are now mixtures of oceanic and forest water vapour, clearly distinguishable by careful isotopes analysis. The water vapour from forests contain more organic nucleii and plant nutrients than does the 'pure' oceanic water. Oxygen isotopes are measured to determine the forests' contribution, which can be done for any cloud system."

Funny you should post this Ludi, I was just reading Fukuoka (Road Back to Nature) ans he was talking about this very thing. In the book he talks about replanting and reforesting desertified areas in Africa.

Dezakin, what you've posted is nonsense. No matter how much we study the butterfly, it's flight pattern, it's biology, it's reproductive process, it's life cycle... no matter how much scientific study we throw at the butterfly, we will never be able to make a butterfly. And no, cloning doesn't count. Start from nothing, and create a butterfly if you think you are so above nature. We are utterly, utterly dependent on the planet, her environment, her nature. We cannot survive without her.

Oh, and despite our "superiority" over nature we still can't improve on our grain yields when she decides to slap us on the wrists:

World grain yields fall for the fourth year in a row

[arocoun]

Dezakin--Are you serious in all that you're saying?! If so, the fact that you see every resource and life on this planet as something to be conquered and exploited leaves me with a strong sense of anger and disgust. You've got to be kidding, or satirizing, or something; otherwise you seem like nothing better than the old slavers of the South, the Indian killers, or the wolf hunters.

[katkinkate]

....Theres no natural cycle that we can't replicate in an engineered fasion to more appropriately suit our needs, and thats been demonstrated from the sealed jars with algae and shrimp to ridiculous projects such as biosphere 2...

It would cost more money than has ever existed to build the machinery to keep the oxygen, water, carbon and nitrogen cycles alone maintained without natural systems, that do it for free.

....You don't think just maybe the rain makes the trees instead?

No. The trees pull water out of the ground deeper than any of our crops can reach and transpire the water into the air where it forms clouds that eventually rain and replenish the groundwater. Cut the deep rooted trees and you crash the entire system -> deserts. Human history has proven it. Everywhere we cut down the forests, the land has eventually totaly dried up.

[entropyfails]

Dezakin--Are you serious in all that you're saying?! If so, the fact that you see every resource and life on this planet as something to be conquered and exploited leaves me with a strong sense of anger and disgust. You've got to be kidding, or satirizing, or something; otherwise you seem like nothing better than the old slavers of the South, the Indian killers, or the wolf hunters.

This does in fact serve as civilization’s plan.

Dez believes in it and thus he pits his hubris against all other life in a “winner takes all” sort of game. Humans and most large mammals use the K-selected population growth strategy (up until civilization’s birth). The claim of civilizations “specialness” comes from figuring out how to turn humans inside civilization (Homo Sapien Sapien Colossus *laugh*) from a K-selected species to an R-selected one by certain mental conditioning. This particular mental conditioning tends to make around 80% of its subjects miserable. However, they can escape no more than the rat can get out of the scientist’s maze. And they kill the rest of the planet to grow the maze. It doesn’t sound like life to me.

Civilization has no other trick other than switching the reproductive strategy. It doesn’t cause intelligence to form, only to grow faster. It doesn’t cause people to form, only to grow faster by killing their environment. We don’t have to drop all the technologies; we have to return the land to the environment and reduce human food production. We don’t have to set up a police state to control the decline; we just have to allow people to try out different ideas for making a way through this.

We just need to change how we view the world. In a certain sense, the optimistic vision has some merit. If we change our ways, our technologies will help us make the transition. But no amount of technology will make up for us using a poor reproductive strategy.

Can we let go in time?

[OilyMon]

Any peak oil book will invariably contain possible solutions to the problem. It's a requirment when compiling literature about a particular state of humanity to end on a positive note. Most published Authors will not get away with what Matt Savinar wrote in his expose on the energy situation around the globe.

I just finished reading another "peak oil" related book: "The End of Oil" and the author seemed to have a firm grasp of the situation and spent the last half of the book wishfully dreaming of the possible means to an end for the goal of sustainability. Most of the problem he maintained, is political.

Say for instance that peak oil repurcussions happened now all at once. Tomorrow you wake up and there's no electricity left from your power plant, your car's on empty and gasoline is $6.00 a gallon or more, there's no food left at the grocery store, water is not pumping out of your faucet and you find yourself stuck in the middle of a concrete jungle, that is polluted and densely populated with people who are going through the same shock as you. What are you priorities?

You need to eat but you will be in direct competition with all the other starving urbanites. You will need water but all the water around you city is not fit to drink. You will need to get the hell out of there but you can't buy gas.

What if you wake up in a city that is powered mostly by wind power and solar, you live close to where you work and your city is relatively self sustained, only shipping luxuries in from outside. The ground water is not polluted and you can bike to almost anywhere. You still need a bit of oil but not nearly as much as you needed before, and can grudginly accept the massive price increases without worrying about maintaining your way of life.

The second scenario is a possibility but it requires a massive mobilization of resources and effort 2 years ago if it's going to have any impact. Government policy is capable of effecting change, and American policy is capable of effecting global change. The United States has done a poor job of leading by example and has been compared exhaustively to the scoolh yard bully; an metaphor that is becoming increasingly accurate - because of America's willingness to use force, and America's complete and utter selfishness.

In short, policy decisions by American leaders can have a profound impact on the "working out" of peak oil, but will never be made because of a corrupt system of government that panders to the wealthy elite who wish to maintain the status quo.

My apologies for the rant. Mother Nature will solve this for us.