[kiwichick]

@ ibon

WOW!!!!!!!! a Biologist

That's almost incomprehensible

i'm just shaking my head in stunned amazement

[SeaGypsy]

Not amazing if you go sit in a university for a while. Similar story in horticulture, where relevant topics we talk about here can be completely ignored en route to a masters degree. Feint mention of degradation & AGW with some token relevant updates to what was taught 50 years ago prevail. Universities no longer teach people critical thought processes, they are part of the meat grinder. We are as likely to meet a mechanic or oil guy who groks our topic as an anthropologist, historian, ornithologist etc.is there any requirement in any degree to study resource economics & geopolitics & ecology & anthropology? Probably not. Peak oil university anyone?

[Ibon]

Some of the images in the book had an impact even on me, being a jaded aficionado on human overshoot.

I had an insight that might be obvious but it hit me in a novel way this morning so I will share this for whatever it is worth.

The scenes of the tar sands mining, hill top mining, forest clearings for oil palms, 2 dozen mega combines harvesting a vast mono culture of grain , factory purse seine ships hauling in massive nets full of fish, etc. This massive extraction of resources using these massive machines obliterating huge swaths of land or harnessing it for agriculture. At first glance this dominance seems so unstoppable.

Then I got to thinking about this more. Everyone of these massive scale extractions is driven by large corporations whose base is far far away from where this extraction is occurring. Whatever local human communities exist in the area are totally irrelevant to the extraction. So this is really dependent on a robust global economy, not by any local or even national economy. In fact, the local communities suffer whether it is a small farmer no longer able to compete or the pollution that communities are left with after the extraction.

We assume that these extractions are driven solely by a resource hungry global population. But this is not the case. The primary driver is MNC profit which is dependent on a growing global economy.

This is not a profound insight in and of itself but what struck me is that the actual resource needs of the human population is a separate matter from the drive of corporate profits and we often assume that these are one and the same. Dohboi has made this point a couple of times among others. Vox Mundi also made this point on the thread about Sao Paulo and Brazil. (S America's Largest City On Verge of Collapse Pt. 3) I quote him here:

I agree that the statistics for these countries suggests that overpopulation should not be a regional concern, but those numbers do not reflect the current overpopulation pressure from what could be called the 'stealth' or 'ghost' population. By that I mean the demands on Brazil's resources by globalization.

Besides Brazil's 200 million population, an additional 500-800 Million are dependent on it's resources in China, Europe, Africa, and the U.S.

Those numbers may expand to over 1.5 Billion as India and China's population expands while their agricultural lands shrink in the next 5-15 years.

Globalization and multi national corporations with no organic connection to the areas where they undertake this mega extraction is really the primary driver of damage to our biosphere.

On the other thread (Human overshoot; global forces of cohesion and isolationism) we are exploring this topic of the stresses coming on the horizon and how this will influence cohesion or isolationism in nations, bioregions etc.

Take a moment to reflect on how global capitalism has driven the wealth disparity we see getting worse every day. The social cost and the environmental cost and this wealth disaprity of global capitalism are really beginning to come home to roost. This is where I see major fractures coming up.

This movement toward homogenization and globalization that we have seen for the past 50 years is reaching its climax and as all things are cyclical I am beginning to perceive how this will go in reverse as the global economy contracts and we will see a resurgence of localism, not from some liberal left ideology of buying local but from the simple result that the costs have been greater than the benefits for local communities all over the world.

The problem is of course that this global industrialization has helped ramp up the population and consumption and local communities as much as they suffer from this also depend on it. This push pull is going to create massive social tensions which we can already see.

I have no conclusion to make of all of this, just the observation that there will be ever more tensions and conflicts between global capitalism and the local communities that will increasingly suffer more than they benefit.

We are in for some really intense social reactions to this..... I would forecast quite violent and revolutionary actually.

I will leave these thoughts hanging in the air since I don't know what to make of them this morning...... time for another coffee before hitting the trails.

[Timo]

Ibon's epiphany reminds me of food labels, where every ingredient is listed, right down to its scientific, unpronounceable name. Also on each label is the country of origin. I buy apples from NZ, and grapes from Chile all the time. Maybe it's time we expand on this practice to include the ingredients of durable goods, as well as the country of origin for each ingredient. Combine this with a western-world (or global) campaign to illustrate the consequences of resource extraction from those nations, and suddenly it puts the keyboard on your computer in a whole new light. Where did the rubber for my windshield wipers come from, and what were the degradating consequences of its extraction? Consumer goods are bought according to personal need, and financial burden on the consumer. There is no thought given to the ecological costs requisite to the production of that widget. That needs to change. $14 for a new pair of windshield wipers is not, in any way, reflective of the ecological costs to the planet for their production.

To some degree, this is happening with food, already, at least with meat and egg products. Eggs are labeled "Free Range", or "Cage Free" chickens. Beef comes with "No hormones" labels. Chicken is labeled as "Smart!" The "organic" food industry is making lots of money right now. "Artisan lettuce" blows my mind! The point of this tangent is that we do care about what we put into our bodies, and we do have ethical concerns about the living conditions of animals before we kill them. We do see pictures of calves being raised for veal, and we're not proud of the fact that we engage in this practice of animal torture. These practices do cause changes in the behaviors of our purchases of food. Expand this to items we wear on our feet, or sit on in our cars, or the wheels on our cars, or the frames of our glasses, or the ink in the pictures of the magazines we read, or........everything, and the consumer conscience might be awakened enough to change consumer behaviors enough to start making a difference to methods and degrees of resource extraction.

Se Gypsy is right, in that academia only teaches relevant information necessary to pass exams. Critical thinking is forbidden with the use of public tax dollars. The only way to spread the message (this sounds sooooo 1960s!) is through a guerilla campaign. Just thinking these thoughts makes me want to be an ELF.

[Ibon]

Some sad photos here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lanet.html

I won't comment as I'm buggered if I know an answer to all this.

Gas

Apocalypse Now. Great title of that article. I feel finally somewhat vindicated but it only makes me all the more forlorn. Since a couple of years I have been posting here on po.com that we spend a lot of time talking about consequences of climate change or peak oil when the actual apocalypse is already happening right before our eyes which is biodiversity loss. These photos are great illustrations.

I never can end a post with just a sad thought. I have to take it somewhere out into the future where events cause this voracious appetite for resources to ebb and recede.

I am wondering if there is an analogy to peak oil. Long before the actual geology comes into play we see economic consequences causing contraction.

Can it be similar with human overshoot. Long before we actually see an ecology based die-off we will see social instabilities rise that will disrupt the globalization which more and more I see as the source of the problem.

Too much disparity, too many small communities railroaded under, to much disenfranchisement. The social tensions will rise long before the ecological consequences will manifest.

Or ?

[kublikhan]

Reminds me of this conversation:

It is so alive and graceful. What do you call it?
It's a dolphin.
Dolphin?
You know, it swims in the ocean. Like a fish, only it's not a fish.
Ah. A fish. We used to have them in our oceans. I've never seen one before.

[ffkling]

Ibon stated,

"Black Capped Chickadees and their cousins, the Carolina and Boreal Chickadess, and a few other species, are doing quite well."

While this individual example, thankfully, may be true, the vast majority of American songbirds are declining in population. This is an undeniable fact. According to National geographic report, a National Audubon Society report called "Common Birds in Decline," shows that some widespread species generally thought to be secure have decreased in number as much as 80 percent since 1967, and the 19 others in the report have lost half their populations. The figures reflect an array of threats faced by birds throughout North America.

[ffkling]

Ibon your statement,

we spend a lot of time talking about consequences of climate change or peak oil when the actual apocalypse is already happening right before our eyes which is biodiversity loss.

is so TRUE. Climate change is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.

[Ibon]

Ibon stated,

"Black Capped Chickadees and their cousins, the Carolina and Boreal Chickadess, and a few other species, are doing quite well."

While this individual example, thankfully, may be true, the vast majority of American songbirds are declining in population. This is an undeniable fact. According to National geographic report, a National Audubon Society report called "Common Birds in Decline," shows that some widespread species generally thought to be secure have decreased in number as much as 80 percent since 1967, and the 19 others in the report have lost half their populations. The figures reflect an array of threats faced by birds throughout North America.

Well said and very true. From domestic cats to fragmented forests to flying into lighted buildings at night during migration , songbirds have many perils. These are the problems in temperate latitudes. In the tropics on the other hand, particularly in SE Asia, it is habitat loss.

[Newfie]

I on,

Above you mentioned "localism", I've had a diapsagreement with Dohboi over his propensity to blame "them" and in tat argument I used the term "groupism". I think we are both going about the same logical tract, from somewhat different angles.

In my line of thinking I see this "groupism" as occurring right now, both in events such as the extended Arab Spring (e.g., Syria or ISIS) but also in our own desire to blame the 1%ers, or Chinese, or Indians, or the U.S.

I tend to think that we are at or have seen peak world order, and that we are now seeing the top of the roller coaster ride, the futre will be a downhill thrill.

[Ibon]

I tend to think that we are at or have seen peak world order, and that we are now seeing the top of the roller coaster ride, the futre will be a downhill thrill.

I totally agree with you. This is what prompted me to start the thread on human-overshoot-global-forces-of-cohesion-and-isolationism.

There is a social analogy to EROEI. In oil extraction the energy inputs at some point make further extraction economically no longer feasible.

In gobalism, the social costs and displacement at some point start to outweigh the benefits and at that point the maintenance of security starts to overwhelm corporations, governments and military ability to contain this. More costs than benefits shifts the pendulum from cohesion on a global homogenized culture and shifts cohesion to a more local level.

And I mean both the most primitive and enlightened sides of localism. ISIS as an extreme example of violent tribalism and on the other hand maybe, just maybe, social movements that will start to break the corrupt alliance between corporations, governments, banks and the military.

Social agitation and disenfranchisement will start to pop up everywhere, from the recently disenfranchised wealthier self entitled suburbanite all the way to the exploited laborer in far off
China. These social costs will ripple through the fabric of globalism and the security and maintenance apparatus might also slowly understand that the chaos will be too much to contain. And then perhaps policies will shift from prioritizing the interests of banks and corporations to supporting resiliency at more local levels.

On the other hand the powers to be will be sorely tempted to harness hate and distrust and play groups against each other and create civil, national. and even world wars. I think we are at significant risk of huge global conflicts that could spark another world war.

I am going to go further out on a limb with a statement that will certainly raise some tempers.

The stuck status quo of parasitizing the planet is also coming to an end. We are beginning to leave the frozen inertia behind that for decades raped and pillaged our mother earth and we are entering a much more interesting time when human domination on the planet will start to disintegrate with the slow collapse of this global world order.

Nothing has raped this planet as violently as globalism and multi national corporations expanding the consumption paradigm as a monstrous process of homogenizing global citizens as consumers.
The disintegration of this global world order may make for a more violent world, less secure, and many of us may find our quality of lives compromised. But this is good for the planet.

I used to believe that the consequences of human overshoot would eventually shift directions. Pandemics, famine, disease, etc. Now I am beginning to get a clearer picture. It will be social chaos that will weaken globalism and lead the way toward shifting cultural values.

Maybe The Overshoot Predator doesn't have to be awakened. Maybe human agency will change things.

But not the way we would have hoped.

When something is rotten it usually does collapse from within. So perhaps it wont be the external agents like Ebola or climate change or famine that I was counting on.

I am welcoming the times that are now coming. I welcome whatever breaks the resiliency of globalism = parasitism.

[ennui2]

The problem with splinter groups is that the world is not neatly separated into groups that can coexist peacefully. Groups are blended together in a messy way. See how that has played out in, let's say, Lebanon, over decades, and now over much of the middle-east.

So it's fine in theory to flog the idea of "cultural hegemony" but what you wind up with is oppression of minorities when these smaller groups plant their flag over their particular region and impose their way of life over everyone within that perimeter. That's why you wind up with ethnic cleansing programs, for instance, like when Yugoslavia broke up when the Iron Curtain dissolved, or Afghanistan anytime a major power abandons it, etc...

I don't think you can have any longstanding peace without a society willing to submit itself to some democratic process and political compromise. The closest we saw to that in Iraq was the elections where everyone posed for snapshots of their purple thumbs. Anytime any group presumes to speak in one voice for its area, and does not try to appease the minority groups, it is a form of oppression.

If you look at IS, for instance, its rule is NOT welcome in any areas in which it's taken over. They are not welcoming IS in open arms regardless of attitudes about the West, because it's largely out of the frying pan and into the fire. The same was true when the Taliban swept over Afghanistan after the Soviets left. So it's easy to take pot-shots at "imperialism", etc... but then is what takes its place any better? More often than not, no. Same deal in South America with one banana republic dictator after another.

It seems like failed states with a revolving door of dictatorships and political corruption and constant asymmetrical warfare is the normal state of humanity based on what I've seen play out over the planet. Kind of a misanthropic viewpoint, but not that hard to see.

I just don't subscribe to this romantic notion that this breakdown into smaller and smaller units will wind up with a more just and peaceful society. I see it breaking down into warlordism/feudalism, just as it did during the dark ages.

[Timo]

I just don't subscribe to this romantic notion that this breakdown into smaller and smaller units will wind up with a more just and peaceful society. I see it breaking down into warlordism/feudalism, just as it did during the dark ages.

That's exactly the point. There won't be anything romantic about collapse. As with rotten fruit that turns into compost, it stinks! Maggots feed on that fruit, breed, hatch their larvae, and the visual of this process is pretty disgusting. However, the larger point is that human globalism will be over, thus returning local ecosystems to their local, historical patterns. Dole Fruits will no longer be operating in 50 nations across the earth, growing an exporting foods to other countries for consumption. Local ecosystems will, in turn, produce local foods for local consumption. With that also comes the warlordism and feudalism you speak of, but that is also localized human nature. We look with envy to the Scandinavian countries for their advanced, peaceful, and modern systems of governance and environmental stewardship, but remember, the Vikings were brutal! I'd like to believe that humans are capable of intellectual evolution, where a deeper respect for others becomes instinctual, and not an aspect of living that must be learned, or forced. I regret to inform you that humans are, by nature, barbarous SOBs. Our 20th Century way of life is our only collective point of reference for the human species. Humans have not always lived as we did in the 20th Century. Already, only 15 years in to the 21st century, we are starting to see a new MO emerge/evolve across the planet. No one today has any idea what to expect. This is all unchartered territory for everyone alive. All we can do is learn from the history books of the mistakes made by earlier civilizations that lived within smaller parts of the planet, and try not to make the same mistakes they made by studying their demise. The only way forward is to look in the rearview mirror to learn as much as we can about the way things used to be, and prepare ourselves for life under similar circumstances.

[Newfie]

We truly are in uncharted waters. In ages past the localism was more pronounced for we traveled and communicated far less.

Now we have not only a great mixing of blood and ethnicities but also all kinds of new groupings possible because of our unique communications capabilities.

I do believe that the groups will eventually coalesce into regional areas, locales. But it may take a good long time and much blood to sort out what the stable groups will be and how they will form and support themselves.

Ironically I believe that groups such as inner city gangs have a leg up on much of society for they are already operating on a more primitive level. Simpler, more stable, more brutal. That may be the paradigm of our future. It kinda makes me snort to think of a group of accountants or social workers standing up to some inner city gang, Mano a Mano!

The intellectuals may have a lot of superior attitude, better than thow, for now, but I suspect that may change in a few generation time.

[onlooker]

I agree with Timo, that history affords us some reference points. However, I propose that humanity is at a different stage now then it ever was before. We have created a more or less civilized world. We are not the same as our ancestors who habitually went into battle, had a deep mistrust of others and did not live within the parameters of a civilized educated culture. Modern humans for the most part have not lived the brutish violent life of our ancestors. My point being that when collapse gains momentum I think their is a good chance people will chose cohesion over competition or outright internecine conflict. We are in uncharted waters. Every person who lives during these times will be tested and their internal moral compass will be tested. I have heard in my life often the critique of human nature because of our brutish past including the 20th century. We can be more then dangerous aggressive beings. We can channel the compassion and empathy within each of us to confront common challenges together. Will we? That to me is the most profound question facing humanity.

[ennui2]

I agree with Timo, that history affords us some reference points. However, I propose that humanity is at a different stage now then it ever was before. We have created a more or less civilized world. We are not the same as our ancestors who habitually went into battle, had a deep mistrust of others and did not live within the parameters of a civilized educated culture. Modern humans for the most part have not lived the brutish violent life of our ancestors. My point being that when collapse gains momentum I think their is a good chance people will chose cohesion over competition or outright internecine conflict.

You obviously haven't seen an episode of COPS, followed the various school shootings, or made a note of the riots in Baltimore. We're just as violent as ever. If it's not nation against nation it's just routine local violent crime.

[Newfie]

Footprint calculator with some discussion on its limits ( opposite, it optimistic!)

From our front page.

The true balance between consumption and demand for resources will appear even more unfavourable when the progressive reduction towards zero use of non-renewables is factored into the numbers. A satisfactory way to do this has yet to be devised. It also assumes that 100% of biocapacity is allocated to humans, since there is no agreed figure for the necessary share needed to conserve biodiversity.

http://populationmatters.org/documents/ ... _index.pdf

[AdamB]

No, and there’s a very good reason why not. In the 2018 Annual Letter event of the Gates Foundation, American entrepreneur and Microsoft founder Bill Gates chose a tough question to answer. Does saving lives contribute to over-population? Gates took up the question asked by many. As people get healthier and live longer, will feeding everybody without damaging the environment be possible? Gates showed viewers a chart, giving them a glimpse into the world’s population growth over several hundred years. He acknowledged the massive growth in the number of people: “At first glance, this is a bit scary.” But his discovery is fascinating. When the quality of health increases, more people choose to have fewer children. “This effect is very, very dramatic,” Gates explained. “We find that in every country in the world, this is repeated. The population rate goes down as we improve health.”

Does saving lives mean an overpopulated world?