OK let me push things forward a bit. I think there are two things going on here.

The first one is 'the debate'. This is the ongoing discussion about how to deal with a post-oil world (although I do not think we have reached that point yet except in theoretical terms). This has many aspects, population, sustainability, energy use, conspiracy theories etc.

The second debate is the 'debate about the debate'. This is the one I'm interested in. Let's call it the 'meta-debate'.

I have already withdrawn from the first discussion for reasons I stated a couple of weeks ago. Cultural & economic differences between the US and Europe. Can't be done, so I'm out of that & intend to stay out.

I am now here only for the second debate - namely, why are we having these discussions now, for what purpose, who is gaining/losing from them and to what ultimate end?

I want to understand why people are here & why they are saying the things they say. Let us take, for example, the current one.

I put up the original 'shock-NAZI' post to draw people out. I wanted to see who would come into the fray. Let's see what we have now.

Anyone that studied 20'th century philosophy will tell you pretty quickly that belief is more powerful than emperical truth (in fact the latter does not exist any more in any demonstrable sense) and so the people that shout more loudly, and in bigger numbers, are more likely to be 'right' then their opponents.

So we have establised a 'belief/truth' that will go forward from here. Thanks to the careful & numerous arguements of Resurrection, Ibon, MQ etc, the belief has now been established that 'overshoot' exists. This is not a 'truth' (because no such thing exists) but it is a definite political statement - and a powerful one - which will obviously move out from this debate and go on to shape our thinking for years to come.

Now. This comes back to my original idea. What is the purpose of this debate? Is there an 'underlying politics' that is pushing the agenda? I still say there is. Are we really discussing 'the end of the world as we know it', or are we just being hijacked (once again) by an old enemy???

Think guys, come on, you've all seen the end of the Al Bartlett video when he asks everyone to THINK. We're all clever here. Use that ability now. Where is this discussion really taking us? And who is pushing it forward - and in what ultimate direction???

JP

JP, what is not clear to me yet is why there is such emphasis on population reduction instead of equal emphasis on changing the way we live, that is, repairing the damage our way of life has done to the carrying capacity. I often see people posting about overshoot and the necessary death of billions but I rarely see people posting about watershed restoration, etc. The population reduction idea seems, for some reason, to be a much more appealing idea to many people, and I'm not sure why. It's easy to interpret it as merely misanthropy - "I don't like people much so I wish there were fewer of them" That seems to trivialize the passion people feel for this issue.

In a previous discussion you dredged up some fairly murky research to "prove" that solar energy isn't viable, because it backs up your world view.

If sustainable alternatives get used to sustain the current population, then by definition we would not be in overshoot.

JP, what is not clear to me yet is why there is such emphasis on population reduction instead of equal emphasis on changing the way we live, that is, repairing the damage our way of life has done to the carrying capacity.

Because the sequel to overshoot is always a die-off.

Changing the way we live does not erase the overshoot population numbers.

We need to do both.

What is true is that we're walking into brick walls all over the place when it comes to resources and polution these days because of "overpopulation" and that these issues will only grow in importance. So I would disagree with what you suggested, JPL (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that this debate about overshoot is almost like a self fulfilling prophecy.

I have never tried to prove that solar isn't viable.

Energy does not determine carrying capacity. The least abundant necessity does.

Sustainable alternatives, by definition, could not have caused overshoot, therefore they cannot sustain it.

You spent about seven pages doing just that here.

If sustainable alternatives did somehow enable us to avoid a die-off, then your assertion that just because they didn't cause the population levels becomes absurd, because it would no longer be considered an overshoot, just as those techno-fixes the spear and the plough increased carrying capacity.

It's irrefutable logic, and your failure to accept it just demonstrates that you are set in your ways. It may not come to pass, but point blank refutation is ridiculous.

We know overshoot is happening because of extinctions, etc. But we also know our way of life causes a decrease in the carrying capacity (desertification, etc).

Energy does not determine carrying capacity. The least abundant necessity does.

JP, do you see the focus on population reduction to be primarily (or exclusively) a right-wing idea? And the left-wing approach would be something else (focus on way of life perhaps?) What you seem to be saying is it isn't consistent with left-wing ideology to propose population reduction (the death of billions of the weak and unlucky).


I'm probably just restating the obvious, but I'm trying to be clear on what you're saying.


I'm not sure what you mean by the "real issues." Sorry, I tend to get lost and confused easily.

The dodo became extinct before oil was in widespread use. Therefore extinctions aren't necessarily a sign of overshoot, but of bad husbandry.