[Tanada]

Well the reality of climate change seems to be getting ever more real.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20150805
The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

Ask yourself one pointed question. If you randomly ask 10 NYC residents what they are personally giving up to stop climate change what do you think the answer would be?

[ralfy]

"the effects of de-growth as seen in the trends is just as bad as extinction"

Care to explain? What trends? How could anything be as bad as extinction?

The trends are mentioned in this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

It should also be noted that for the current situation most people worldwide earn only around three dollars daily, cannot access one or more basic needs (e.g., potable water, housing, food, medicine, etc.), etc.

Finally, the trends given in the article do not factor in long-term effects of global warming.

[dohboi]

I'm still not getting your point, or maybe you mis-stated something??

If Limits to Growth is right (which it of course is), then what we do indeed most desperately need is the opposite of growth--de-growth.

Yet you've said that de-growth is worse than extinction...but then you explain that by pointing out that Limits to Growth is right.....

Color

me

confused

Growth does not automatically help the poorest. If it did, the explosive growth of the last century should have totally eliminated poverty. Instead, there are now more desperately poor people in the world today than there ever have been. To be just, of course, degrowth has to go hand in hand with redistribution and socializing of all sorts of things. This of course makes the conservatives howl. But they have no humane alternative on hand (and really never have had).

[Ibon]

There really is a strong strain of ideological fear driving denialism. Their idea of the unacceptable Al Bartlett right-hand-list includes things like carbon taxes, banning new coal power plants, or mandating a phase-out of gas cars.

For people who place the invisible hand of the free market above all else, extinction is preferable to giving up these rights/privileges.

In fact I think when push comes to shove, this will become the dominant denialist rhetoric. It will no longer be denial of the science, but simply saying that treating the patient would be worse than just letting him die on the operating table.

These sentiments are still happening when things are still pretty stable. So I think this stubborn ideology is somewhat posturing at this point. Let some of the really heavy consequences start unfolding and we will see how this denial continues. If it does continue then it becomes totally irrelevant because this is so not adaptive that this ideology has no future. The punctuated times coming up will result in cultural natural selection. Culture will move with what works, rigid ideology to some stubborn concept wont adapt and will disappear. It is really just that simple.

[dohboi]

"this is so not adaptive that this ideology has no future"

Of course, the whole endless growth mindset (whether capitalist or communist...where is ad these days, any way?) was/is an ideology with no future, yet seemingless bottomless sources of ff have kept it afloat for over a century, and it will likely smash the whole living planet into oblivion before those who hold it (and who hold the planets resources in their power) give it up, or more likely go to their grave still clutching it in their cold, dead hearts.

[Ibon]

"this is so not adaptive that this ideology has no future"

Of course, the whole endless growth mindset (whether capitalist or communist...where is ad these days, any way?) was/is an ideology with no future, yet seemingless bottomless sources of ff have kept it afloat for over a century, and it will likely smash the whole living planet into oblivion before those who hold it (and who hold the planets resources in their power) give it up, or more likely go to their grave still clutching it in their cold, dead hearts.

It actually has been very adaptive for the past century. I agree that it sowed the seeds for our current dilemma but it was very adaptive. It is only when severe consequences start that keeping this endless growth mind set will no longer be adaptive.

[ennui2]

The cultural selection could very well support zombie hordes (warlordism) just as it does in your typical failed state like Afghanistan or Syria. I really do not see a lot of precedence for voluntary and benign wealth-redistribution and communalism winning out.

[ralfy]

I'm still not getting your point, or maybe you mis-stated something??

If Limits to Growth is right (which it of course is), then what we do indeed most desperately need is the opposite of growth--de-growth.

Yet you've said that de-growth is worse than extinction...but then you explain that by pointing out that Limits to Growth is right.....

Color

me

confused

Growth does not automatically help the poorest. If it did, the explosive growth of the last century should have totally eliminated poverty. Instead, there are now more desperately poor people in the world today than there ever have been. To be just, of course, degrowth has to go hand in hand with redistribution and socializing of all sorts of things. This of course makes the conservatives howl. But they have no humane alternative on hand (and really never have had).

I didn't argue that de-growth is worse than extinction. I argued that de-growth is just as bad. You will find more details in the article I just shared. That is, de-growth means a significant and long-term drop in manufacturing, food production, and services per capita. That in turn leads to higher birth rates due to poverty but even higher death rates due to lack of food, medicine, services, etc. The death rate will be so high that the population will plummet.

From there, you can probably imagine the level of suffering involved given high death rates.

And factor in the effects of global warming.

[dohboi]

Wellll, I guess you can always say that after you go extinct, you have nothing further to worry about, so compared to that, lots of suffering for a long time to get through a bottleneck may seem tough.

Look, there is lots of suffering and death going on right now. The more we grow, the more there will be.

So getting on with de-growth is a primary imperative.

How much suffering comes from it depends on how it is managed. Just as growth does not guarantee an decrease in poverty and suffering, degrowth does not necessarily imply a large increase in poverty and suffering, and could be carried out while actually decreasing both.

[Newfie]

Repetitive question.....rhetorical...

Is misery cumulative or does it just exsists in ones own experience?

I think we superficially think it is cumulative.

I think we act in the singular.

If so that explains a lot.

[ralfy]

Wellll, I guess you can always say that after you go extinct, you have nothing further to worry about, so compared to that, lots of suffering for a long time to get through a bottleneck may seem tough.

Look, there is lots of suffering and death going on right now. The more we grow, the more there will be.

So getting on with de-growth is a primary imperative.

How much suffering comes from it depends on how it is managed. Just as growth does not guarantee an decrease in poverty and suffering, degrowth does not necessarily imply a large increase in poverty and suffering, and could be carried out while actually decreasing both.

I think extensive coordination between governments and businesses worldwide will have to take place to minimize poverty and suffering given de-growth. Given the point that the opposite has been taking place the last few decades, I am certain about that.

[jedrider]

Well the reality of climate change seems to be getting ever more real.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20150805
The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

Ask yourself one pointed question. If you randomly ask 10 NYC residents what they are personally giving up to stop climate change what do you think the answer would be?

"I'm not flying into the Brussels airport anymore."

[onlooker]

Well it looks like nothing is slowing down much less stopping the unfortunate combination of many poor people living in the areas most vulnerable right now to the effects of climate change. This is famine in Africa once again. http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... 50-million

[kiwichick]

the population of Africa has more than doubled since 1985..........500 million to 1.1 billion


unfortunately the arable area hasn't

[Tanada]

the population of Africa has more than doubled since 1985..........500 million to 1.1 billion


unfortunately the arable area hasn't

That also means half the population of Africa is of child bearing age, which makes a growth slow down unlikely until physical limits force the issue.

[ennui2]

^^ A fact conveniently ignored when the posters here go on a tear about the 1st world consuming 80% of the resources. It's two sides of the same tragedy-of-commons coin.

[onlooker]

"It's two sides of the same tragedy-of-commons coin." Too much consumption by too many people.

[Ibon]

"It's two sides of the same tragedy-of-commons coin." Too much consumption by too many people.

What would be the required circumstances to choose not to send food aid to the Sub Sahara?

[Lore]

"It's two sides of the same tragedy-of-commons coin." Too much consumption by too many people.

What would be the required circumstances to choose not to send food aid to the Sub Sahara?

Barely enough food to feed your own population.

[Newfie]

Logic? Never mind.