[Newfie]

Ibon, just to pick on one thing you said where I disagree.....complaining without offering solutions.....

I've heard it said that the best skill is NOT to know the answers but to know how to ask the right questions.

If we can't complain without offering solutions then that isolates us on big questions. Sometimes the group needs to come together to ponder, deal with, absorb, the problem so that a response can be formulated.

To say don't bring a problem without a solution is just a way of pushing off folks.

I agree with that when it is an isolated topic. The problem we have today is more than 4 decades of talking about a problem with no solutions and the consequences to date not having the severity to give the named problem any traction towards meaningful solutions. This has caused a weariness in the public about dire warnings never coming to pass. This has been counter productive to the first degree.

In addition, solutions are there, right in front of our face, it is our cultural priorities that are messed up.

OK, I'll bite. Drop human population to 500,000.

There is not a problem that doesn't address.

Now what?

[Newfie]

I asked what action it would take. You responded by talking about shifting paradigms, not action.

I cannot offer a road map. There are none.

Then you are not offering solutions.

[Cog]

I asked what action it would take. You responded by talking about shifting paradigms, not action.

I cannot offer a road map. There are none.

Then you are not offering solutions.

Newfie said:

OK, I'll bite. Drop human population to 500,000.

There is not a problem that doesn't address.

Now what?

Now explain how you wish to implement that solution.

[Ibon]

I asked what action it would take. You responded by talking about shifting paradigms, not action.

I cannot offer a road map. There are none.

Then you are not offering solutions.

That's true. I never thought I was actually. What I have always been suggesting is that our culture will adapt and may one day even adapt with some form of self regulation. I am exploring those forces that may allow this to happen. Nothing more.

In regards to solutions I have been quite specific that by default we surrendered solutions over to extra human agency, to external consequences.

The best solution, actually the only solution at this point is to embrace the consequences as the solutions for they will be the only force we will have no choice but to obey.

As these consequences unfold there remains a huge question mark in regards to how collectively we will respond. That is really the issue I am mostly exploring. Without any rigid foregone conclusion.

[Ibon]

I asked what action it would take. You responded by talking about shifting paradigms, not action.

I cannot offer a road map. There are none.

Then you are not offering solutions.

Newfie said:

OK, I'll bite. Drop human population to 500,000.

There is not a problem that doesn't address.

Now what?

Now explain how you wish to implement that solution.

Cog, yes that is the solution. But you are still stuck in the paradigm that humans have to implement this. They don't and they wont. But consequences will.

Your question of Now What? Well, the grist in the mill is what happens as we move down to that 500k or whatever that final number is where we plateau. The Now What is answered during that ride, not at the end, for those that are around when we have plateaued will have endured and gathered some cultural artifacts that will be the foundation for whatever follows. My whole point is that those artifacts will possibly contain the basis for establishing a more long term sustainable population.

If we do have human migration as a major component of this journey down to 500k or whatever the final number, I can well imagine that those around when we plateau will put a high value on stability that will become culturally embedded. And that this cherishing of stability will produce a counter force to just simply blindly ramping up consumption once again.

Or?

[Ibon]

But, maybe those few survivors will find their own stability with the planet, and the human race will start all over again on a vastly different and less hospitable landscape.

Timo, can you remember as a child going to the museum or reading in a picture book the story of the dinosaurs, these fossil recreations that open up a sense of wonder of these long extinct creatures. Almost every child has an almost mythical sense of these creatures, can allow their imaginations to wander to some distant forest in the past with cone bearing cycads and tree ferns where these dinosauria roamed.

Well, those creatures that will go extinct after the correction of human overshoot, those minnows and orchids, will haunt us. The tigers gone will one day be elevated to mythical proportions in a surviving population. Children will feel a sense of deep loss that we destroyed them.

It raises an interesting question. Will these martyred creatures gone forever due to our hubris serve a purpose as part of the cultural adaption to embed sustainability. This question addresses more the spiritual and existential component to cultural adaptation.

In a new paradigm it will not be Jesus on the cross that dies for our sins but perhaps a long list of creatures that will enter the mythology of a new spirituality followed by our survivors.

Just a thought

[Ibon]

To Cog, our representative of a conservative republican, I want to ask you directly to respond to a post I made in another thread. I would value and appreciate your comments:

On this topic of consensus and conformity for the greater good.

Here is a bit of a twist to consider. The social conservatives that make up the Republican Party are pretty ardent anti environmentalists. Forget a moment abortion, gay marriage and all the other hot button issues and look to the deeper yearning of this movement. The consequences coming this century and the environmental ethics around eventually mitigating these consequences are actually perfect allies to these social conservatives in the synergy of the values they preach and the directions we must head toward; less consumption, more family and community focus, less hedonistic individualism, more respect to authority, etc. etc.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Newfie]

I asked what action it would take. You responded by talking about shifting paradigms, not action.

I cannot offer a road map. There are none.

Then you are not offering solutions.

That's true. I never thought I was actually. What I have always been suggesting is that our culture will adapt and may one day even adapt with some form of self regulation. I am exploring those forces that may allow this to happen. Nothing more.

In regards to solutions I have been quite specific that by default we surrendered solutions over to extra human agency, to external consequences.

The best solution, actually the only solution at this point is to embrace the consequences as the solutions for they will be the only force we will have no choice but to obey.

As these consequences unfold there remains a huge question mark in regards to how collectively we will respond. That is really the issue I am mostly exploring. Without any rigid foregone conclusion.

Where this started

But there is a more important reason as well. Speaking the truth but not delivering credible solutions only agitates and sounds like whining. It does nothing to resolve the problem of human overshoot which is only solved by the instabilities that it inherently creates.

So now I'm really confused.

But that's OK, these are difficult issues especially to discuss in this format.

So, for now, I reserve the right to whine without offering solutions.

I'm willing to work on solutions, if any one cares to join.

[Newfie]

I asked what action it would take. You responded by talking about shifting paradigms, not action.

I cannot offer a road map. There are none.

Then you are not offering solutions.

Newfie said:

OK, I'll bite. Drop human population to 500,000.

There is not a problem that doesn't address.

Now what?

Now explain how you wish to implement that solution.

It is a rhetorical maneuver to illustrate a weak point in an argument.

Don't be so quick to be offended.

But, if I understand your position correctly over polulation and the degradation of the environmental are not problems because they are part of Gods plan and God will set all right according to his plan at the appointed time.

Is the above correct?

[Timo]

Ibon, all i can say is that you have more faith in the human spirit than i do. When i look out at the world of humanity today, i see very little worth saving. As most would rightly see my perspective, that's my loss. Oh well. So be it.

I hope you're right and i lose the bet.

[Cog]

@Newfie and Ibon

No I don't believe that God is going to intervene and save the day so we can put that argument to bed.

If humans are destined, by their rapacious nature, to wreck the planet and by doing so reduce their numbers down to a sustainable 500k, I'm ok with that. I see no reason to interfere in the process.

[Newfie]

I didn't mean God ould put things right, but that he would have his way. Whatever that is.

I still get the impression your positions re: environmentalism are driven by religious belief. I can see no other explanation. For what I persevered as an extreme callowness from an otherwise thoughtful person. It is an enigma.

Maybe none of my business, it's just my interpretation.

[Newfie]

Also, I am coming to agree that is OK for such a dramatic reduction in human population. It's a difficult and very uncomfortable position, something I frequently struggle with. So not a totally done deal. But then again, I'm learning to accept and appreciate ambiguity in life.

[Timo]

Also, I am coming to agree that is OK for such a dramatic reduction in human population. It's a difficult and very uncomfortable position, something I frequently struggle with. So not a totally done deal. But then again, I'm learning to accept and appreciate ambiguity in life.

It's a requisite to any future for the human species!

Accept it, and you'll start feeling much better. I promise.

[Lore]

Timo is right. Our species, as we are, were not meant to be in these numbers.

[Ibon]

Timo is right. Our species, as we are, were not meant to be in these numbers.

I also agree with this. This is one of the fallacies of efficiency when in overshoot. Yes we could all eat beans and mealworms and cram ourselves into coffin size shelters and populate to 20 billion. That would be possible if we were energy efficient.

Haven't we already made a compromise in this direction sacrificing quality of life. The argument of efficiency alone in a world of 7.5 billion and growing is absurd.

I accept the premise we need to get our population down. Morally I currently accept applying policies that would not make heroic measures to the chronically ill, to the aged, supplying food aid to areas that for decades kept their elevations artificially elevated in bio-regions that had a fraction of the carrying capacity.

Whats good for Sub Saharan Africa should also apply to Las Vegas and Phoenix. State borders should be closed for food and water imports in these states. They must support their populations 100% with locally grown food or die back to a sustainable number.

I am going to mention this to Donald Trump.

[Timo]

Whats good for Sub Saharan Africa should also apply to Las Vegas and Phoenix. State borders should be closed for food and water imports in these states. They must support their populations 100% with locally grown food or die back to a sustainable number.

I am going to mention this to Donald Trump.

Ibon, you're my hero!

[Newfie]

Actually, with respect to making areas be food sustainable within their borders, that experiment was tried in WWII. The war shut of traditional grain and rice exchange which caused starvation in certain non-combatant countries. Also Britian was nearly defeated by U Boats because she could not feed herself. Non traditional sources of meats had to be found and trade reorganized to support Britian. Meet "Taste of War."

Ibon,
Why stop with SW states? Make New York, and Massachussetts become sustainable as well. Hell, throw in Pennsylvania.

Isn't this essentially what happened to Cuba? Except Cuba was already pretty self reliant, with a lower population density, and they have a year round growing climate. They fared OK but lost a lot of weight. It would be fun to see what would happen in NY State.

[Timo]

Isn't this essentially what happened to Cuba? Except Cuba was already pretty self reliant, with a lower population density, and they have a year round growing climate. They fared OK but lost a lot of weight. It would be fun to see what would happen in NY State.

NYC would crumble to pieces. Jenga on a massive scale, and we've all seen what happens when skyscrapers come tumbling down. The same would apply to nearly every single Chinese and UAE metropolis, as well.

No thanks.

[Newfie]

Those last few posts kinda put the "humanitarian crisis" in a new light.

Thanks guys.