[holmes]

powerdown of course. no other way for me.

[FatherOfTwo]

You've never given me any indication that you have any real interest in understanding my opinion.

Now, where in that exchange is any indication that you are trying to understand? Is there any? No, clearly not.

Well I tried. You clearly have no interest in trying to come to a consensus, or alternatively to give a clear explanation of exactly what you do believe. Nuff said on this.

[Ludi]

Well I tried. You clearly have no interest in trying to come to a consensus, or alternatively to give a clear explanation of exactly what you do believe. Nuff said on this.

Pretty damn feeble of you.

[FatherOfTwo]

Well I tried. You clearly have no interest in trying to come to a consensus, or alternatively to give a clear explanation of exactly what you do believe. Nuff said on this.

Pretty damn feeble of you.

One liners and questions "how will we ever do this?" is the "meat" of your posts and I'm the feeble one! Try proposing something for once instead of constantly criticizing and getting offended by posts that weren't even targeted towards you. Jesus.

(sorry everyone, I certainly don't want to see another thread head to the hall of flames)

[FatherOfTwo]

My definition is anyone who openly welcomes, in fact encourages, a rapid decline in the population of the planet.

Then by your definition you are an eco-facist and don't know it.

So you can't see the difference between acknowledging that we have a problem and working to see that the problem is addressed in the best way possible versus openly working to make conditions worse?

When a building is on fire do you go and light the rest of the parts of the house on fire, cause hell it's going to burn down anyways right, or do you try your best to put it out?

[Ludi]

Well I tried. You clearly have no interest in trying to come to a consensus, or alternatively to give a clear explanation of exactly what you do believe. Nuff said on this.

Pretty damn feeble of you.

One liners and questions "how will we ever do this?" is the "meat" of your posts and I'm the feeble one! Try proposing something for once instead of constantly criticizing and getting offended by posts that weren't even targeted towards you. Jesus.

(sorry everyone, I certainly don't want to see another thread head to the hall of flames)

I've attempted to propose things but was constantly insulted by people like you who didn't understand what I was saying, but couldn't be bothered to ask for clarification. In any case, it isn't my job to know everything. Don't you understand the need for questions? Or to you is every question a challenge? When I ask a question I'm asking a QUESTION, which means I'm looking for some information. I guess you don't understand that. Do YOU know how we will accomplish everything everyone posts? Do YOU have all the answers? I don't have them and I've never pretended to.

http://www.peakoil.com/post231435.html#231435

[Ludi]

My definition is anyone who openly welcomes, in fact encourages, a rapid decline in the population of the planet.

Then by your definition you are an eco-facist and don't know it.

So you can't see the difference between acknowledging that we have a problem and working to see that the problem is addressed in the best way possible versus openly working to make conditions worse?

When a building is on fire do you go and light the rest of the parts of the house on fire, cause hell it's going to burn down anyways right, or do you try your best to put it out?

FoT, can you list out the specific problems you would like to see addressed in a solution? Monte listed out the problems he would like to see addressed in a solution.

Monte, can you clarify with more detail how your alternate solution (change of lifestyle and transition to renewables) solves the problems you listed out above? (could be in another thread, or link to threads you've already posted).

Thanks.

(to FoT: those questions are questions, not "criticism")

[MonteQuest]

You claim to know something about the evolution of populations. I know a bit too, I did mathematical models of populations for ages. And you should know that one common scenario is the famous S curve, when a population grows rapidly and then stabilizes near its limit (whatever first ecological limit it hits). It's obvious that the UN model assumes a scenario like this, and it doesn't look at all unreasonable to me.

For a climax community, but not for one in overshoot. It has always resulted in bloom, crash and dieoff.

[MonteQuest]

Where to start? OK I will keep it simple, if the world population 'historically' doubles every 35 years then the converse is also true, so by this statement we know that in 1970 World population was 3.2Billion, in 1935 it was 1.6Billion, in 1900 it was 800 Million, in 1865 it was 400 million, in 1830 it was 200 Million, in 1795 it was 100 Million, in 1760 it was 50 Million...... In 22 cycles or the year 1235 there was only 1 human on earth, and boy were they lonely.

Clearly history doesn't agree with you Monte.

I assumed that people would understand that I meant recent historical growth. The world population growth rate has fallen from its peak of 2 per cent per year to around 1.3 per cent today.

The population bloom did not come from cheap oil per se, it came from pesticides and fertilizers made on an industrial scale.

The population bloom came from germ theory and the advent of fossil fuels to support the population growth due to a decreased death rate.

Freedom to Breed

The point is until we hit peak human population we don't know where the peak is, any more than we do with peak oil. Until we pass peak and do some math we are all just guessing, and I find my guesses a lot more beleivable than yours because mine are based on historical evidence and current trends.

We have passed peak population; we are in overshoot. In overshoot, the population continues to grow even in the face of declining energy/food.

The sequel to overshoot is always a crash in the population numbers.

[MonteQuest]

My definition is anyone who openly welcomes, in fact encourages, a rapid decline in the population of the planet.

Then by your definition you are an eco-facist and don't know it.

So you can't see the difference between acknowledging that we have a problem and working to see that the problem is addressed in the best way possible versus openly working to make conditions worse?

Ah, the difference in world views! Sure, I can see the difference. From your world view, the best way possible is based upon a world view that is unsustainable and will make things worse, not better.

From my ecological paradigm, building more nuclear plants is openly working to make conditins worse, you just can't see that.

You are trying "fix" things. There is no fixing a wordlview that is unsustainable.

[MonteQuest]

When a building is on fire do you go and light the rest of the parts of the house on fire, cause hell it's going to burn down anyways right, or do you try your best to put it out?

If the building is built on a foundation that will collapse anyway? No, build something that is sustainable and has a solid foundation.

[Tanada]

Where to start? OK I will keep it simple, if the world population 'historically' doubles every 35 years then the converse is also true, so by this statement we know that in 1970 World population was 3.2Billion, in 1935 it was 1.6Billion, in 1900 it was 800 Million, in 1865 it was 400 million, in 1830 it was 200 Million, in 1795 it was 100 Million, in 1760 it was 50 Million...... In 22 cycles or the year 1235 there was only 1 human on earth, and boy were they lonely.

Clearly history doesn't agree with you Monte.

I assumed that people would understand that I meant recent historical growth. The world population growth rate has fallen from its peak of 2 per cent per year to around 1.3 per cent today.

The population bloom did not come from cheap oil per se, it came from pesticides and fertilizers made on an industrial scale.

The population bloom came from germ theory and the advent of fossil fuels to support the population growth due to a decreased death rate.

Freedom to Breed

The point is until we hit peak human population we don't know where the peak is, any more than we do with peak oil. Until we pass peak and do some math we are all just guessing, and I find my guesses a lot more beleivable than yours because mine are based on historical evidence and current trends.

We have passed peak population; we are in overshoot. In overshoot, the population continues to grow even in the face of declining energy/food.

The sequel to overshoot is always a crash in the population numbers.

You said historical, which implies a large scope, not just the last 50 years. Look at GRAPH and you will see clearly that population growth rates have been in decline for decades. That isn't the kind of trend that just suddenly takes off in a different direction unless some outside factor shift the ballance.

We are in overshoot in your mind, but even you have admitted that blooms are the result of new resources being exploited by life forms, not just some random event which occurs. I have also seen you admit that a bloom can lead to a new sustainible level if the resource does not dry up, so to speak, or a suitible substitue resource is discovered.

You can thank Germ Theory all you want, it made one hell of an impact when hand washing and keeping water supplies clean was forced on the populous. However if you look at European history shortly before the Black Death ravaged the population you will see the population had become pretty static, resource exploitation had allowed the population to grow but had started bumping up against hard numbers for their tech level. People just started having fewer kids, the growth rate declined to near stabillity. Then the Black Death swept through and cut out millions of people, as a result birth rates again climed for a generation as the population rebuilt. Once the population rebuilt to before plauge levels the birth rate fell again to replacement levels.

Another example would be India before Europeans forced changes, the malthusian horror did not come about because population was in fluctuating stabillity. It would go up and down a few percent but the population as a long term trend was stable.

99.9% of all life on this planet is microscopic, and all of that life goes through the same cycle again and again and again. It is only when an artificial resource enters the mix that you get a bloom, the rest of the time the population of each and every living thing is in dynamic equalibrium with everything else.

Claiming that PO will result in a decline in technology, and a decline in technology will cause us to be in overshoot for that lower level of technology is an arguable point, but denying that alternatives exist is not going to convince anyone that they really don't exist. It strikes the chord of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy 'Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain'. Nobody exceot the truely dedicated survivalist fringe will ignore alternatives that provide the basics of warmth, shelter and food for the masses of humanity.

You claim we are in overshoot. Show me 10 peer reveiwed articals that agree with that stance and I will give them a fair reading. Not opinion peices, or undocumented rants, peer reveiwed artical's only if you please.

[MonteQuest]

You said historical, which implies a large scope, not just the last 50 years. Look at GRAPH and you will see clearly that population growth rates have been in decline for decades. That isn't the kind of trend that just suddenly takes off in a different direction unless some outside factor shift the ballance.

Well then, given my previous threads that show I am well aware of this, why not ask for clarity rather than make an issue out of it? Historical does imply a large scope. I explained my assumption, and if it makes you feel better, I misspoke. I errored. I wasn't clear. Al right?

And yes, which is causing the decline? Overshoot or standard of living?

The evidence is both.

We are in overshoot in your mind, but even you have admitted that blooms are the result of new resources being exploited by life forms, not just some random event which occurs.

In my mind? That doesn' t even warrant a response.

I have also seen you admit that a bloom can lead to a new sustainible level if the resource does not dry up, so to speak, or a suitible substitue resource is discovered.

Yes, if the resource is sustainable. Fossil fuels are not sustainable, they are finite.

99.9% of all life on this planet is microscopic, and all of that life goes through the same cycle again and again and again. It is only when an artificial resource enters the mix that you get a bloom, the rest of the time the population of each and every living thing is in dynamic equalibrium with everything else.

Yes, like fossil fuels.

Claiming that PO will result in a decline in technology, and a decline in technology will cause us to be in overshoot for that lower level of technology is an arguable point, but denying that alternatives exist is not going to convince anyone that they really don't exist.

Who claims this?

Overshoot has nothing to so with technology's level. It has to do with the carrying capacity of the earth. Energy is only one of many limiting factors.

You claim we are in overshoot. Show me 10 peer reveiwed articals that agree with that stance and I will give them a fair reading. Not opinion peices, or undocumented rants, peer reveiwed artical's only if you please.

I don't claim anything. The evidence is there. Try William Catton's classic 1980 book Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. It will lead you to others.

Also try Limits to Growth 1972 and Limits to Growth 30 year Update.

When Limits was first published, humanity was still operating within the ecological limits of the earth's systems. We had a chance to avoid "overshoot," the condition of consuming and emitting more than the earth can sustain in the long term. The book sold millions of copies, but was successfully attacked (on false premises) by leading economists of the day. By the time Beyond the Limits, the 20-year update, was published in 1992, humanity had already exceeded many critical ecological limits, including fishing, the emission of CO2, the emission of CFCs and other ozone-destroyers, habitat destruction, and very probably agricultural productivity limits as well. Today, those tentative and controversial conclusions are not controversial at all; they are the problem set faced by governments, corporations, and citizens alike. These problems, and many more besides, are the business of sustainable development, at all levels.

Or Wackernagel's study:

Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy

[DigitalCubano]

This is an interesting and new take on the economics of nuclear energy analyzed within a Real Options context. It's a paper that's currently under review for publication and considers the case of investment in nuclear energy as a hedge against future uncertanties in both fossil fuel energy prices and carbon emission taxes.

I haven't had a chance to review it yet, so any substantive comments are forthcoming. However, I was directed to it yestrerday by one of my profs, who is one of the co-authors. I was chatting with him after my final and was asking him if anyone had valuated alternative energy investments as a hedge against fossil fuel prices. I'm particularly interested in taking this approach in making the case for what kind of money we should be pouring into alternatives R&D right now. Anyhow, I figured some might find this topic an interesting read.

Moderators: I wasn't sure to which thread this belonged and felt this was the most germane one I could find.

[Ibon]

It strikes the chord of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy 'Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain'. Nobody exceot the truely dedicated survivalist fringe will ignore alternatives that provide the basics of warmth, shelter and food for the masses of humanity.

The direction we humans take may not necessarily be in our longtern best interest. But it is very hard to imagine humans ignoring nuclear as an alternative. For me it is a given. Those of us with a strong foundation in the understanding of the ecological consequences of unsustainable strategies will not succeed in taking the position of the Wizard of Oz that nuclear as an alternative is not viable using technological arguments. We have to be honest that our caution over nuclear is exactly because it does offer a viable option. We have to focus our efforts not on the energy source but on humans learning how to live within limits and learning how to self impose those limits, something as a species we have never done.

[Ludi]

something as a species we have never done.

False, many cultures lived within the limits of their ecosystem.

[MonteQuest]

something as a species we have never done.

False, many cultures lived within the limits of their ecosystem.

Yes, Richard Wilkinson in his book Poverty and Progress wrote about ecological self-limitation:

Adequate cultural checks only exist in well-adapted societies or, in case that appears to be a tautology, they appear in traditional societies which have established themselves in a way of life undisturbed by European contact or other new influences.

But Ibon is correct that modern civilization has not learned to do so.

[Ibon]

Ibon, once we admit this, which is true, how do we move on?

Any world government is going to be confronted with balancing short term needs with a long term goal toward sustainability. This is going to be an extremely difficult task especially weaning aflluent societies away from their entitlement to high energy consumption. It's going to take a cultural shift of immense proportions to make this equitable and cooperative.

I'm having a little trouble making sense of the first sentence there, Ibon. Because, I was under the impression we were talking about the present or the near future. There isn't a "world government." So, I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're saying. I don't personally think we can rely on "governments" to help us much with this situation, I don't see how the governments we have can engineer a cultural shift. From my own point of view, I imagine a cultural shift occuring at the individual and local level initially.

Your are right that kocal and community level strategies on an individual basis are the key. Your integration into a community are some of the most important assets you can have going forward, as important as money in the bank.

Regarding global government or global authority, I think we will head there at some point. After world war two and the atom bomb the United Nations was formed, a key goal was toward a type of global government to prevent another world war or nuclear holocaust. Iraq is only the opening chapter. It isn't impossible that once there is a global understanding that we have an energy crisis that a similar type of united nations of energy cooperation could be formed. ASPO had this vision with the Rimini Protocol, see http://www.peakoil.ie/protocol. Many people will say that countries like the United States will never concede to cooperate with any kind of global organization around energy. I would agree that willfully they wont but diminishing energy resources will force the United States into lower energy strategies even in regards to their geopolitics. Cooperation costs less energy that figting resource wars which consume huge amounts of energy. We may be surprised how powerful an incentive a lack of energy can be, including choosing diplomacy over war since this would cost less net energy. A global cooperation on energy issues would be the enlightened way to go. That failing we fall back to the nation state, then to bioregions, then to communities etc. That is what I meant by global government.

[Ibon]

something as a species we have never done.

False, many cultures lived within the limits of their ecosystem.

Note your use of the past tense. The cultural assets that those hunter gatherer cultures had are sorely missing from our collective conscious today. They lived within an ecological paradigm but never formed civilizations. So I can reframe that: Something that none of our human civilizations have ever done.

[Ibon]

Since we did dip below the tip of the iceberg on this thread it might be interesting to venture into the dicey territory around the tabus we humans have in our collective culture when we try to deal with limits to our growth. I will name a number of issues and try to tie them together:

1) Abortion and Euthanasia and the religious sensitivities around the legality and permission in our culture of allowing these practices

2) A lack of discourse globally amongst our governments around human population control.

3) Media reaction when a grizzly bear, mountain lion, alligator or shark kills a human in the last few habitats that remain that such an interaction is even possible vs. media reaction over a traffic death or war casualty.

4) European (catholic church) reaction in the 16th century when Galileo supported Copernican theory removing earth from the center of the universe.

5) Darwin’s theory of evolution removing humans from divine creation to the whims of natural selection and societies reaction from the 19th century to the current day.

6) Priority of human expansion and economic growth over environmental health. Expansion of human population with disregard to loss of biodiversity and species extinction.

It’s understandable that being human we perceive ourselves in a homocentric world view. Human culture had to adjust to the truth when Galileo supported Capernican theory and removed us from the center of the universe just as we still in the 21st century are adjusting to Darwin’s theory of evolution that natural selection and not divine intervention created us humans as one of millions of organisms we share our planet with.

Both Galileo and Darwin’s ideas resulted in a true paradigm shift in how humans viewed their place in the world. We moved from the center of the universe to one of a billion planets in a trillion stars. We moved from divine creation to sharing our origins with the same force (natural selection) that created all the other organisms we share our planet with. In both cases we had to humble ourselves to a less than exulted position.

We cant impose limits to our growth because we need another paradigm shift of humility similar to the above events where our place on the planet is also in a less exulted position being in a sustainable relationship with our environment. We never had to engineer or impose this on ourselves since natural events like starvation and disease did this for us. We are hitting the limits of our ability to grow our population and sustain environmental balance. We have grown to 6.5 billion and ravaged the planet of its resources with the same homocentric orientation that we had in the 15th century when we thought we were the center of everything or when we believed that we were divine and separated from other organisms in our origins. Why do we have this tabu around the topic of controlling our numbers. Why do we react with such outrage when a grizzly bear kills a human when 99.9% of grizzlies have been wiped out by our own hand? There is this tabu around the limits to our growth that have resulted in a failure of family planning in many countries. Even in modern western countries like the US we still have religious groups trying to impose their morality on a woman’s right to determine her own reproductive future.

One day we will have to break the mold and impose limits on ourselves and willfully submit to limiting our footprint on the planet to one that is sustainable with the natural systems we depend on. Thinking we can get from here to there without some cost in human population is a futile attempt to hold on to this homocentric world view. This is not an eco-religious dogma. This is a reality that we will knock up against again and again until we achieve this or go extinct. Bringing this into the context of this thread, we can go ahead and exploit nuclear energy as one of the suites of energy to replace declining fossil fuels but only as a bridge toward a sustainable paradigm. I don’t think we have to worry about nuclear energy actually allowing us another round of expansion since there are so many environmental sinks approaching their limits that we wont be able to maintain this homocentric view of our place in the world that disregards the imbalances this creates even with expanding this energy source.

It is not fossil fuels or nuclear energy that results in humans living in an unsustainable paradigm. It is our homocentric world view of our place in the universe.