[dohboi]

You make one important mistake there--SIRI KNOWS ALL!!

[ennui2]

Just remember that we weren't failures for 98% of our time here. We have only been failures at managing abundance.

I don't see how that information really changes things.

[ennui2]

Is it herd mentality exactly?

Or is it that sociopaths end up in charge of the herd so often, whether that's corporations or nations?

It seems to me that what is needed is a revolution of the (relatively) sane over the totally insane overlords.

That never works. It's like in Animal Farm. Power corrupts.

I also see no evidence of some sort of grass-roots group of "sane" people. I see grass roots support for, let's say, Rand Paul's brand of deep-south anti-intellectualism.

Note that the link I posted recently about that woman blaming libs for water shortages in California was on Glenn Beck's radio show. The support for corporatists like the Kochs runs far and wide. We like to think that they're pulling the strings against our will but a LOT of us support them without needing to have been brainwashed, and of those who don't, we do indirectly by lining their pockets by buying the products they sell (including fossil fuel).

[Timo]

Just remember that we weren't failures for 98% of our time here. We have only been failures at managing abundance.

I don't see how that information really changes things.

This means that it has only been since the exploitation of fossil fuels that the planet has started going downhill. Humans, by themselves, are not the cause. The addition of fossil fuels has changed the equation. Humans PLUS fossil fuels does change things. That equation has only occurred in earnest over the past 200 years. It is no longer a zero-sum game. The advent of fossil fuel use has brought on the expectation of perpetual and limitless growth. For most of humanity's history, we haven't lived with this expectation.

Edit to add, what were you expecting it to change?

[onlooker]

Timo, "It is no longer a zero-sum game", I would say that is exactly what it IS now. A zero sum game where our progress is directly at odds with the good of the planet. The more we win the more the planet loses. The more the planet wins the more we lose. Why? No more growing economy, no new jobs, no buildup of military etc etc. So we face this conundrum of how to stop our assault on the planet while maintaining a viable world-wide economy.

[Ibon]

Just remember that we weren't failures for 98% of our time here. We have only been failures at managing abundance.

I don't see how that information really changes things.

Pointing this out both supports and possibly refutes your premise that we are a flawed species. It supports it in the sense that for 99% of time on the planet our culture and biology evolved using our intelligence to overcome constraints. So we are thus hard wired. And perhaps doomed since we never had to self regulate to stay within carrying capacity since nature always did it for us.

The flip side is that we are failing because we are clumsy exactly because we have had no practice and are lacking any cultural natural selection historically. Our economic system is not designed for abundance. Our religious institutions have no environmental ethics around abundance. And our government lacks completely any self regulation around abundance.

What I have suggested from the beginning is that the brutal consequences coming up due to overshoot offer a unique opportunity to instill some of these lacking cultural attributes around managing abundance.

We succeeded to stay within carrying capacity for 98% of our time on the planet. And we have only had 200 years of abundance where we have failed miserably. But 200 years is too short a time to judge the capacity of a species to eventually learn the cultural foundations of sustainability.

We judge too early.

We may be calling this 200 year blip in our species long history, this anomaly, as the evidence for why we are flawed.

Might it just be a blip, a hurdle, a learning experience. A decisive tipping point culturally. An inflection point. I am not saying it is. But I am not saying it isn't. You guys are though.

That is my point.

[Timo]

Timo, "It is no longer a zero-sum game", I would say that is exactly what it IS now. A zero sum game where our progress is directly at odds with the good of the planet. The more we win the more the planet loses. The more the planet wins the more we lose. Why? No more growing economy, no new jobs, no buildup of military etc etc. So we face this conundrum of how to stop our assault on the planet while maintaining a viable world-wide economy.

I meant that to reflect that we're no longer in balance with the planet, thus living within our means. If we do live within our means, then no one comes out ahead, or behind. Everything comes out equal on balance. Unfortunately, humans got greedy, and began living above their means, thus drawing down on the planet's resources, thus creating winners and losers. "Zero sum" was meant to denote a healthy balance. We're no longer at that point.

Of course, I could also be using that term wrong. My wife constantly reminds me that I did go to public school, and she went to the glitzy local private school. The only reason she agreed to go out with me at all was because of my very long, blond pony tail, and her brief need to rebel against The Man.

That brief need still persists, btw.

[Timo]

Might it just be a blip, a hurdle, a learning experience. A decisive tipping point culturally. An inflection point. I am not saying it is. But I am not saying it isn't. You guys are though.

That is my point.

That is correct. We have decided. You haven't. Make up your mind!!!

[Ibon]

Unfortunately, humans got greedy, and began living above their means, thus drawing down on the planet's resources, thus creating winners and losers.
That brief need still persists, btw.

First of all now I understand why you didn't shave

To your point, yes we got greedy, but that is only part of it. A grizzly bear at the salmon stream will only take one bite out of the fat belly of a salmon, toss it aside and go for the next one when the salmon are really running. The bear will not resourcefully eat every little bit of meat like they do during lean times. This is not greed. It's adaptive in preparation for winter. Expend the least amount of energy to put on the maximum of fat.

Fossil fuels have been a 200 year long salmon run, non stop.

It is therefore not inherent human greed that made us go into overshoot. It has been unfamiliarity with a 200 year non stop flowing resource. Bears wouldn't do much better if winter never came and the salmon flowed non stop for 200 years.

[onlooker]

Timo, do not know about public school and all that but you seem very smart to me. Just to be clear from my understanding a zero sum game is one where their has to be one winner and one loser. A non zero sum game is one where both players can win and presumably lose as well. The point being that if both player can win that it is in both their interests to cooperate. As you said we humanity are not cooperating. We could live in harmony with nature but we have chosen not too. Thus a zero sum game. A game we humanity play at our own peril. Better to have Mother Earth as our friend then our enemy. By the way I also went to public school and public university.

[Ibon]

Might it just be a blip, a hurdle, a learning experience. A decisive tipping point culturally. An inflection point. I am not saying it is. But I am not saying it isn't. You guys are though.

That is my point.

That is correct. We have decided. You haven't. Make up your mind!!!

Kudzu Ape will have to make up it's collective mind if we want to go back to being human or join the Wholly Mammoth.

[ennui2]

the brutal consequences coming up due to overshoot offer a unique opportunity to instill some of these lacking cultural attributes around managing abundance.

You've read Jared Diamond, right? We've already dealt with shortages in the past on a local scale. We simply forget.

We succeeded to stay within carrying capacity for 98% of our time on the planet.

Again, an overly broad generalization. Need I bring up every societal collapse in history that had a strong case of outstripping carrying capacity to blame?

[Timo]

Unfortunately, humans got greedy, and began living above their means, thus drawing down on the planet's resources, thus creating winners and losers.
That brief need still persists, btw.

First of all now I understand why you didn't shave

Touché, Ibon! Touche!

Or rather, to shave, Ibon. To shave!

But, I will have you know that my personal resources are far from being depleted.

Oh! Damn you, Ibon! I was busy thinking of some silly quip about the grizzly bear, and your reference to shaving, or not, and the general inference of that point, and I started thinking about my wife as the grizzly bear, and, well.................Oh god! I must NOT think this! The image of the infamous self-described Momma Grizzly from Alaska just exploded into my brain. Make it stop!!!!! I'm doooooomed! I will never shave again! Teh stupid!!! It hurts!

[Ibon]

the brutal consequences coming up due to overshoot offer a unique opportunity to instill some of these lacking cultural attributes around managing abundance.

You've read Jared Diamond, right? We've already dealt with shortages in the past on a local scale. We simply forget.

We succeeded to stay within carrying capacity for 98% of our time on the planet.

Again, an overly broad generalization. Need I bring up every societal collapse in history that had a strong case of outstripping carrying capacity to blame?

There is quite a bit of debate if its different this time or just a repeat of past cycles. JMG for example sees nothing exceptional about this time around except for the dimension.

I really don't know. No societal collapse in the past achieved quite the level of control that we have. Here is why that might make a difference.

When past civilization hit tipping points they fell fast because there was very little redundancies in their survival matrix. The mayans grew corn and beans in thin tropical soils so that when they exceeded their carrying capacity there was no backup. They fell hard and fast. 10 years ago that is what we thought about fossil fuels in the early days of peak oil discussions. That it is the king pin resource that holds everything else up. Actually this was the case in past societies that did not have a lot of redundancies in food reserves, medicine, sanitation etc. The last tree standing on Easter Island another case in point.

The consequences this time around may be so brutal that we do collapse just like past societies and end of story. But perhaps the greater control we have mastered will provide an opportunity to direct part of that control toward true sustainability and enough redundancies exist for this pattern to take hold in several succeeding generations. That would provide a foundation, however fragile, for cultural self regulation.

I'm not counting on it, just playing devils advocate to hopelessness.

[Timo]

"The consequences this time around may be so brutal that we do collapse just like past societies and end of story. "

I suggest that this time around, the collapse will be just as brutal because the demand exceeds the redundancies' capabilities to keep up. The demand this time around is overwhelming, and much larger than at any other point in human history. This collapse may take just a bit longer because of all of the resource wars over what's left, thus extending the time period for the winners, but we've simply outgrown our own ability to adequately and sustainably provide for ourselves. In the meantime, we've caused the irreversable climb in global temperatures that will further place strain on civilization's ability to maintain all of the redundancies to ensure our survival. Too much demand under uncontrollable circumstances.We've created a planet that we can no longer predict or control.

I honestly don't feel that bad for humanity in suffering the consequences of this plight. We caused it to occur. What i do regret is humanity's arogance in feeling entitled to take the rest of the planet down with us. Humans are not that special in the scope of life on this planet. We are but one of many species of life here. We ruined this place for everything else.

[onlooker]

I have to agree with the previous post, from reading and listening to experts in various disciplines of the areas of Ecology and Life Sciences they seem to be universally very gloomy. These are the experts. Ocean, Air and Land, these experts paint a truly bleak picture of the conditions of all three. So the unraveling of the planet is now well underway. Can this process be stopped is the pertinent question. I do not know but my personal opinion is NO. With the combination of population size and our total commitment to the consumption lifestyle around the world, I see no brakes stopping this runaway train except of course for the brakes imposed by Mother nature.

[Cid_Yama]

An Enviable Crisis: Sweden has Run out of Rubbish for Waste-to-Energy Industry

Who would ever have thought that being ‘too green’ could cause problems? Sweden is finding this out first hand. The country is virtually pollution free and its cities streets are clean of garbage, yet this enviable situation is causing a paradoxical problem. Sweden relies on burning its waste to provide electricity and heat to hundreds of thousands of homes, and the country is now running out.

As a result of overzealous recycling, the nation of 9.5 million citizens must now import rubbish from other countries in order to feed its waste-to-energy incineration power plants. Each year the Scandinavian country imports 80,000 tonnes of garbage, mostly from Norway, to fuel homes and businesses.

The deal is actually working out very well for Sweden, despite the reliance on imports for its electricity production. Norway pays Sweden to take away its excess refuse. Sweden then burns it to create electricity and heat, and then sends the ashes left behind by the incinerated waste, and which contain many highly polluting toxins, back to Norway for disposal in land fill.

Sweden is clearly the world leader in terms of recovering energy from waste. Each year its two million tonnes of rubbish, along with extra imports, are almost completely recycled, with only 4% of all waste going into landfill. This remarkable ability should act as an example to other countries that produce massive amounts of waste, most of which they send to be buried in bursting landfills. Sweden’s model truly offers a route to sustainable living.

link

[ralfy]

the brutal consequences coming up due to overshoot offer a unique opportunity to instill some of these lacking cultural attributes around managing abundance.

You've read Jared Diamond, right? We've already dealt with shortages in the past on a local scale. We simply forget.

We succeeded to stay within carrying capacity for 98% of our time on the planet.

Again, an overly broad generalization. Need I bring up every societal collapse in history that had a strong case of outstripping carrying capacity to blame?

It took a long time for the world population to reach one billion, but only a bit more than a century to reach two billion, and only a bit more than half-a-century to reach seven billion.

Given that, societal collapses in the future will definitely not be the same as those in the past.

[Ibon]

I suggest that this time around, the collapse will be just as brutal because the demand exceeds the redundancies' capabilities to keep up. The demand this time around is overwhelming, and much larger than at any other point in human history.

It took a long time for the world population to reach one billion, but only a bit more than a century to reach two billion, and only a bit more than half-a-century to reach seven billion.Given that, societal collapses in the future will definitely not be the same as those in the past.

The exponential growth of human population coupled with the challenges of a complex society going into decline does not bode well for the individual.

On top of that we have an economic system where disparity of wealth is at its greatest and growing.

For those in power, insulated by their wealth, the masses of individuals on the planet will slowly be recognized as a liability.

In the early decades of capitalism the masses where a means of moving wealth upstream to the wealthy. Ford paying his employees better wages to buy his cars, moving companies off shore for cheap labor, creating a global consumer class.

At some point coming up soon this vast consumer class will go from being an asset and turn into a liability for those in power.

A great game of rationalization and hypocrisy will start whereby "culling the herd" will be framed in ways that doesn't threaten our morals and ethics; resource wars, demonizing enemies as terrorists, identifying certain cultures and races as inferior. Think of how indians and african americans were marginalized in the US even during abundant times. Take that marginalization and expand it, once resources become constrained we will write off whole regions.

On the more enlightened side of things, as energy constrains we will use our technology advances to maximize efficiency. There is a huge reserve of energy in our wastes, advances in battery storage, smart distribution of energy, etc. etc.

You know history is full of enlightened and primitive human responses. They work in tandem often.

I can imagine a future where the most brutal self serving actions of culling the overpopulated human herd by those in power will be coupled with technology gains and further efficiencies.

Like an organism that goes into shock, we will cut off blood supply to the appendages to preserve vital organs.

This pathway toward eventual self regulation will happen using the tools from both the "primitive shed" and the "enlightened shed"

A little dark these thoughts, but we have to confront a future reality where the powers to be will increasingly look at the masses of people on the planet as a liability.

Ennui, remember how we are masters at denial? Let's take an example like climate change. In the early days folks are denying climate change in order to preserve business as usual. It is the preserving of privilege that is at the source of this denial.
Once climate change events become so obvious that we can no longer deny them what is the next step we take to preserve privilege? Like you mentioned we will blame and demonize others. This is how we will start this grand psychological game of culling the human herd.

It might work actually. This will be one of the most useful tools we will have in order to quickly reduce the human population.

The fastest way to reduce the human population will be from those tools we draw from the primitive shed. These will be the early decades of consequences. The more enlightened tools will start to emerge when our population is reduced closer to carrying capacity.

Attempting to maintain any semblance of fairness and equality and universal human rights during times of overshoot is counter productive.

I posted something further up thread along these lines worth repeating.

When constraints start to really squeeze initially these primitive deficiencies will intensify. Resource wars, heightened polarization around solutions, aggressively defending the shrinking pie. We will invent the stupidest rationalizations and believe them. And we will kill for them. If you think today is bad just wait.

This orientation will be very helpful in culling the human herd back down to carrying capacity. This thought will increasingly be dominant in the unconscious rationalizations of those in power even though they may not frame it as an ecological principal.