[ennui2]

Here it is! Human overshoot in progress. Two things about this. Just look at the pictures of humanity's overreach. Mind-blowing!!! Second, read the quotes next to each of the photos. Here is an example of just one of them.

Good one. This showed the same thing in more cinematic detail a half decade ago. People don't pay attention to this stuff. It's lost in the signal-to-noise.

[ennui2]

They are but products of the Green Revolution and Modern Medicine

Nobody forces anyone to stick tab A into slot B. Some degree of blame must be assigned to everyone for when they reproduce. Ignorance is no excuse.

it was thrust upon us by certain people in power over a certain period of time.

No. This is just the usual attempt (which is also psychological) to anthropomorphize a complex system in order to fit a simplistic black/white hat narrative. This is the result of billions of individual decisions people make every day, consciously or not.

[dohboi]

Some relevant graphs here: http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/greata ... 01630.html

[ennui2]

That is the only conceivable way we can embed self regulation. From the very foundation up as a survival strategy and quality of life strategy.

That was presented as a dystopian nightmare in Logan's Run, for instance. Paradise--but only for a short time to make room for renewal.



No society will be completely ideologically homogenous. There will always be a minority group that doesn't agree with whatever rules are imposed on them. When it comes to consumption, it doesn't take a lot of Duggar families to completely wipe out any ecological gains practiced by those who pursue a steady-state culture. What options would you have besides some sort of no-tolerance authoritarian society where anyone found sticking their hand in the ecological cookie-jar is instantly sent to the gas chamber?

So the problem is ultimately one of psychology. It's kind of like the speech the Architect gives to Neo in The Matrix. No matter how much they tried to create a perfect system, someone always comes around to upset the applecart, and they have to smack it down and reboot the system. This would not happen if human nature weren't what it is. Until our brains evolve to some new state of consciousness, then this problem will never go away no matter how much our culture attempts to impose mores.

I mean, we have a hard enough time just preventing crime. People get upset and clobber each other over the head or shoot each other, let alone wars.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the narrative that aliens are treating us like some lab experiment, but it's an attractive idea because when you step back you can plainly see how we're kind of evolution that kind of stopped with the neolithic revolution, and we've got this genetic baggage which keeps holding us back, and we spend so much of our time trying to figure out what the heck is wrong with us, creating myths and what not about original sin, and fantasizing about some scenario in which we finally get our sh*t together, whether it's the Federation in Star Trek or it's crashing back to HG existence as the neo-primitives would prefer, but to just get to a place where we're not kind of hurling ourselves towards an armageddon or malthusian cluster-f*ck that we can't quite time or date, but know is looming on the horizon.

But that's my explanation of things. Humans are proving to be a failed evolutionary experiment at a sentient life-form. Language and memory is not enough to overcome tragedy of the commons.

[Ibon]

[

I suppose, though, that you may have (probably do) a different definition of "aggressive biosphere" than I do. When I think of that term, I think of un-survivable natural geological and climatic events, like typhoons, tornadoes, droughts, and floods. I know humanity has always faced these types of events in the past, but we're starting to see a definable shift in where these events occur. They're now occurring in places that's catching people unaware, and unprepared, thus ripe for the picking.

That is what I mean as well, there are already enough anomalies out there to raise serious doubts in anyone who is holding on to denial around climate change. The historical floods of Atacama, the historical typhoon in Leyte Philippines, the first in recorded history of that tropical cyclone in the southern hemisphere off the coast of brazil , etc. etc. Yes the climate is doing weird stuff. But even with all the droughts and floods this is still not aggressive in threatening our survival. Isolated weather events that kill up to a few thousand will not move the status quo.

A 20 year drought and drying of aquifers and forced migration of millions is what I would call a game changer. Several category 5 hurricanes devastating major coastal urban areas with up to 20 foot storm surge undermining urban infrastructure and happening in series within a couple of years would be also a game changer. Several developing countries experiencing major agriculture failure that overwhelms international food relief with tens of millions dying of starvation would be a game changer.

That is aggressive. With what we now see happening we could see any of these within the next decade or two.

When threats go from something far into the future and suddenly become real time happenings then we have to see where we move as a culture in terms of mitigation and cultural shifts. Before the middle of this century we probably will see some of these events happen if current anomalies like Atacama / Leyte are representative of where we are going.

[Ibon]

But that's my explanation of things. Humans are proving to be a failed evolutionary experiment at a sentient life-form. Language and memory is not enough to overcome tragedy of the commons.

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

[ennui2]

Several developing countries experiencing major agriculture failure that overwhelms international food relief with tens of millions dying of starvation would be a game changer.
...
That is aggressive. With what we now see happening we could see any of these within the next decade or two.

IMHO, when that happens, yes, people will admit that it's a crisis, just as many denialists already are, but their denial will simply move to its final form of ego-protection:

"It's a natural cycle."

Because to admit ecological guilt is just too painful.

[Ibon]

Several developing countries experiencing major agriculture failure that overwhelms international food relief with tens of millions dying of starvation would be a game changer.
...
That is aggressive. With what we now see happening we could see any of these within the next decade or two.

IMHO, when that happens, yes, people will admit that it's a crisis, just as many denialists already are, but their denial will simply move to its final form of ego-protection:

"It's a natural cycle."

Because to admit ecological guilt is just too painful.

I really don't know. 35 years ago when I was in the uni studying ecology we were looking into the future and forecasting many of the things that are actually starting to unfold now. Back then I was convinced that we wouldn't take things this far and that we would change course before we allowed so much damage to our biosphere.

Here I am 35 years later and on some level I haven't changed. I still believe somehow that we wont be that stupid all the way down the correction of overshoot.

It's funny how essentially my views have not changed, only shifted. Back then I never would have thought we would have gotten where we are today. And today I still see consequences as having this 60 second before midnight awakening and seeing a new cultural orientation of self regulation possibly emerging.

I could very well be hopelessly optimistic for my species.

I have seen so much destruction of native ecosystems in my lifetime that I am the first who should be cynical as to the prospects of our species changing course. And yet I still hold on to this idea that we might.

I also wonder Ennui about what message this sends to young emerging generations that we are hopelessly flawed. Even if the chances are as slim as one in a thousand shouldn't we be ruthlessly realistic and honest while still holding out the hope that we can culturally evolve to self regulate. The alternative, this view you and Timo take, which may be correct, offers nothing.

I guess I can't accept that.

[Ibon]

From this perspective, FFs can be seen as just one more (though the globally deadliest) of another energy/food source we had developed no taboos to avoid and that we are now overexploiting to the detriment of pretty much all complex life and of course ultimately of ourselves.

This being just another example of this cycle has many arguing that the outcome will once again also be the same. And yet the global consequences this time around are truly unprecedented. I don't see any new angle for Kudzu Ape to take this to another level. So unlike all past cycles we do not leap forward after this with another technology advance. This time we fall back.

An ecological dark age is upon us like the medieval centuries that went on for hundreds of years? Who will be the scribes keeping the written, audio and digital recordings of our age preserved?

[Ibon]

I have given up on lions, tigers, salamanders, many other cute and horrific creatures. They will go extinct and so will many of us. But that is okay. The planet has been through these cycles.

I used to be depressed by these things. Now I just put myself in the mind/body of a soon-to-be extinct creature. It doesn't see its world crashing down. It merely doesn't breed for lack of mate, necessary body fat or territory. There are no tragic unfed babies. No wandering refugees. Just a missing creature form. And someday another creature will take its place. Perhaps a race of jellyfish will rise up and travel to the stars. With KJ in the hold living the dream.

We all find our ways to deal with what we have wrought on the planet. If our species fails this is where my optimism goes. We may lose the tiger but biological hot spots of biodiversity have been identified by terrestrial ecologists around the planet. National parks and conservation areas have been established in many countries based on these studies. Native flora and fauna still hang on along the sides of rail road tracks and in former military bases. Highway mediums and roadsides hold endangered prairie species spared the plow. Small little refuge pockets exist around the world, just waiting the opportunity to recolonize areas once Kudzu Ape dies-off. There will be many many extinctions but there will be many many refuge small populations seeding former human landscapes. One can focus on the glass still 3/4 full.

[Henriksson]

But I am sorry to say that there will never be a time when we act responsibly as a species, because the majority of humans will never be educated, never learn to read, and never have the life-extending benefits of medicine, or of sanitation, or learn any form of sustainable agriculture.

The current global literacy rate is about 80%. I'd say that's a majority. A plurality, even.

[Timo]

Here I am 35 years later and on some level I haven't changed. I still believe somehow that we wont be that stupid all the way down the correction of overshoot.

It's funny how essentially my views have not changed, only shifted. Back then I never would have thought we would have gotten where we are today. And today I still see consequences as having this 60 second before midnight awakening and seeing a new cultural orientation of self regulation possibly emerging.

I could very well be hopelessly optimistic for my species.

I have seen so much destruction of native ecosystems in my lifetime that I am the first who should be cynical as to the prospects of our species changing course. And yet I still hold on to this idea that we might.

That, right there, defines my lack of faith in humanity. It is not difficult at all to find good, decent, thoughtful humans anywhere on the planet. As a whole, however, we have yet to overcome the herd mentality. The more humans there are on this planet, the more difficult it becomes to become collectively more sustainable. As goes the herd, so goes the planet. Humanity has achieved terminal velocity, and it's too late to even attempt to shift gears now. We have too much momentum to change course. We've passed that event horizon, and we're now being sucked in to the black hole we created for ourselves, and everything else on this planet. That black hole will be our bottleneck.

[dohboi]

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.

[dohboi]

I think the most likely result will be near total extinction of complex life forms. Even bugs need some kind of plant life to survive, and that will be in short supply.

But whatever does survive is indeed likely to undergo fairly rapid speciation, since this is a feature of hot-house earth--it leads to dwarfism (in mammals, at least), and dwarfism means more space available for more niche species to develop.

[Lore]

I think the most likely result will be near total extinction of complex life forms. Even bugs need some kind of plant life to survive, and that will be in short supply.

Only if the planet undergoes a radical methane/permafrost feedback loop. Even that is not very likely as the excess methane will be oxidized into CO2 and taken up by rapid plant growth. Ignore the click-bait. Life goes on.

I believe its a little more complex then that. It can take upto a decade for methane to break down in the atmosphere while CO2 can last many centuries.

The direct radiative greenhouse gas forcing effect has been estimated at 0.5 W/m^2.

In addition to the direct heating effect and the normal feedbacks, the methane breaks down to carbon dioxide and water. This water is often above the tropopause where little water usually reaches. Ramanathan (1988) notes that both water and ice clouds, when formed at cold lower stratospheric temperatures, are extremely efficient in enhancing the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He also notes that there is a distinct possibility that large increases in future methane may lead to a surface warming that increases nonlinearly with the methane concentration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheri ... _over_time

[dohboi]

pstarr is now just being obnoxious and insulting. As if my judgments were just based on a click rather than decades of reading relevant books and scientific articles and teaching many of the same at the college level. His only arguments recently seem to be from incredulity. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Time to just start ignoring him. Too bad...at his best, he can be quite insightful.

Meanwhile:

http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites ... r_2014.pdf

Is Global Collapse Imminent?
An Updated Comparison of The Limits to Growth with Historical Data

The Limits to Growth “standard run” (or business-as-usual, BAU) scenario produced about forty years ago aligns well with historical data that has been updated in this paper. The BAU scenario results in collapse of the global economy and environment (where standards of living fall at rates faster than they have historically risen due to disruption of normal economic functions), subsequently forcing population down.

Although the modelled fall in population occurs after about 2030—with death
rates rising from 2020 onward, reversing contemporary trends—the general onset of collapse first
appears at about 2015 when per capita industrial output begins a sharp decline.

Obviously, these dates were never intended to be precise to the year. Still, the fact that such a prescient study pinpoints this year as the one where long-term collapse gets underway in earnest is...notable.