[JuanP]

One of the major problems with the US or Europe going green is that the same people who want to go green also want to open the nation's doors wide to immigrants- thus raising the overall population and total national energy use. As people move from low to high energy per-capita nations they will more than erase any efficiency gains made by those nations.

Some math everyone needs to memorize:

For every 1 American there are 25 people in the world, and about 20 of them live in very low energy use nations
If just 1 of those 20 people come to the US, the # of Americans doubles! (with similar results to US energy consumption)
The world's population will grow as much in the next 5 years as there are people in the US

When you look at the realities of world population growth and the dominance of the green movement by the woke "open borders" crowd, you realize that western energy consumption is only going to go up, up, up.

Yes. I oppose immigration on similar grounds, and a few others.

As soon as I say I’m against immigration I’m labeled a Trump loving Nazi. The knee jerk reaction is instantaneous.

I am an immigrant in the USA, but I agree that it is not in the best interest of humanity, in general, and Americans, in particular, to let any more people immigrate to the USA. I have been accused of being a hypocrite for having this opinion because I am an immigrant, but the fact that I am an immigrant doesn't change the facts. I have been told many times "So, now that you are already here, you don't want others to come", but that is not the point. I don't mind, though, because I don't give a fuck what others think about me. The same thing applies to most countries receiving immigrants. I think the Japanese are leading the way in this matter.

The global population is growing by more than 80 million a year (81 to 85 depending on your source), so it takes 4 years, not 5, for the world to add the equivalent of the US population, which is currently around 332 million. I think the USA should have drastically reduced both immigration and population growth decades ago, but better late than never.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop ... growthrate

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.html

[MonteQuest]

The current situation (USA) is both a growing economy and a growing population. The population is growing artificially in order to prop up the economic growth. This indicates our first priority is economic growth.

There is nothing artificial about population growth and there is no outside pressure on it. What is propping up economic growth is debt. $250 trillion of it. A debt-based monetary system requires growth to exist. That's why it is a priority. Our retirement and tax base also requires population growth. That's why some ten-odd countries are now paying their women to have children. With economic degrowth, the per capita share of the pie gets increasingly smaller as the population grows. And just how might we turn our attention to population growth? Birth control? I think I covered this at length years ago. ZPG (two children per couple) would take 50 to 75 years to see a net decline. One child, 30 years. We are headed for 11 billion even with a declining fertility rate (that won't continue to decline via Demographic Transition). Food and energy demand are forecast to double by 2050. We face a bottleneck.

[MonteQuest]

The other day I wrote, “Most people cannot live closer to their jobs. There is no place to move to.”

Someone opined I must be clueless about telecommuting. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 29 percent of Americans can work from home. Factory, retail sales, healthcare, and service workers, etc, cannot. According to the 2017 census, 5 million workers (3.6% of the U.S. workforce) currently work-at-home half-time or more, so obviously there is room for a big improvement. Some estimates cite 5.2% or 8 million in 2020. Working remotely is not the same as moving closer to work, which was what I was addressing. But “most” Americans cannot do either.

[MonteQuest]

I think the USA should have drastically reduced both immigration and population growth decades ago, but better late than never.

US population birth rate is below replacement now at 1.7 and has been for the last 5 years. The Catch-22 is that we need more births or more immigration to fuel GDP growth. GDP = # of workers plus their productivity. Our workforce is shrinking as the boomers retire. Such is our dilemma.

[MonteQuest]

The other big issue with renewables is net energy. They just don't have the EROEI to run a complex society without fossil fuels. That really hasn't changed much, even with new technology. The REN21 2020 Renewables Report will be out in June.

[asg70]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 29 percent of Americans can work from home.

Working remotely is the same as living far from the office if you never have to visit. Note how swiftly corporate america started employing foreign labor like indian call centers and software developers. If they can do that then they can hire Americans who live far away from the office. It's not about the nature of the work, it's about corporate tradition.

Some more statistics showing that things are changing a lot since this forum started and doomer viewpoints ossified:

https://www.fundera.com/resources/worki ... statistics

The number of regular telecommuting employees (excluding the self-employed population) has grown by 173% since 2005.
The number of employers offering a work from home option has grown by 40% in the past 5 years. However, only 7% of all employers in the United States offer work from home flexibility.
By 2028, one study estimates that 73% of all departments will have remote workers.

That the entire workforce can't work from home is no reason to disregard the significant percentage of those who can and do.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... emissions/

If the coronavirus ushers in a societal shift toward more telework, that could mean fewer cars on U.S. roads

Peak oil--DENIED!

Before the pandemic, about 4% of U.S. employees worked from home, according to data collected by the firm. Now more than half the 135-million-strong U.S. workforce is doing so, according to Global Workplace Analytics... the longer this goes on, the more managers will be comfortable with seeing, ‘Oh hey, they are really working; I can tell what they’re doing. They’re not going to be sitting on the sofa eating bonbons.”
About half of the U.S. workforce has a job that can be performed at least partially at home

Note how telecommuting saves companies from having to pay for office space, something that may become a critical cost-cutting measure if we're entering a deep recession:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/how-the ... -work.html

corporate headquarters may become a status symbol for the companies that still have the budget and a workforce big enough to warrant pricey real estate in a major city.

Anyway, I could go on, but clearly you haven't really done the research.

I get that you're fixated on the Malthusian die-off but there are a few steps along the way before we get there.

[JuanP]

I think the USA should have drastically reduced both immigration and population growth decades ago, but better late than never.

US population birth rate is below replacement now at 1.7 and has been for the last 5 years. The Catch-22 is that we need more births or more immigration to fuel GDP growth. GDP = # of workers plus their productivity. Our workforce is shrinking as the boomers retire. Such is our dilemma.

I understand this; I just don't believe that GDP growth is necessary or desirable. I'd prefer to live in a world with contracting GDP and population. We need to end growth to keep from making the biosphere uninhabitable for our species.

[MonteQuest]

That the entire workforce can't work from home is no reason to disregard the significant percentage of those who can and do.

You seem to be looking for an argument that doesn't exist. I never said anything about disregarding telecommuting. In fact, I said there was room to grow, did I not? What I said was that "most people" in America cannot move closer to work. That is the case. It was just one of my responses to the claim that Americans can "easily" adopt a European energy footprint. Most people in America also cannot telecommute. More soon will, but most can't for the reasons stated.

[MonteQuest]

I understand this; I just don't believe that GDP growth is necessary or desirable. I'd prefer to live in a world with contracting GDP and population. We need to end growth to keep from making the biosphere uninhabitable for our species.

Yes, infinite growth in a finite world is not possible nor sustainable. Our dilemma is that a debt-based monetary system requires GDP growth to exist. Do you understand that concept? If we contract GDP, the per capita share of the pie gets smaller as the population grows. What kind of society could exist where that is the case? Not one this complex, and not one at any lifestyle as now. How do you service the $250 trillion in debt? And there is no sign that the world's population is going to contract anytime soon. Not by man's hand, anyway. Mother Nature bats last and she is at the home plate at the moment hitting homers.

Thus, we face a bottleneck.

[REAL Green]

Our dilemma is that a debt-based monetary system requires GDP growth to exist. Do you understand that concept?
Thus, we face a bottleneck.

Well it once did now the need for growth is a superficial with the real requirement being repression, easing, and moral hazard. This degenerative economics is working but it is clearly a force of decline along with many other forces of decline. This means even if we got a good economic system working the other decline forces will over power it

[MonteQuest]

Our dilemma is that a debt-based monetary system requires GDP growth to exist. Do you understand that concept?
Thus, we face a bottleneck.

Well it once did now the need for growth is a superficial with the real requirement being repression, easing, and moral hazard. This degenerative economics is working but it is clearly a force of decline along with many other forces of decline. This means even if we got a good economic system working the other decline forces will over power it

Once did? By its very nature, a debt-based monetary system requires growth to ever exist. All fiat money is loaned into existence, thus growth is required to service the debt. Otherwise, all money disappears back into the thin air from which it was created, either through default or principal repayment.

[Newfie]

The current situation (USA) is both a growing economy and a growing population. The population is growing artificially in order to prop up the economic growth. This indicates our first priority is economic growth.

There is nothing artificial about population growth and there is no outside pressure on it. What is propping up economic growth is debt. $250 trillion of it. A debt-based monetary system requires growth to exist. That's why it is a priority. Our retirement and tax base also requires population growth. That's why some ten-odd countries are now paying their women to have children. With economic degrowth, the per capita share of the pie gets increasingly smaller as the population grows. And just how might we turn our attention to population growth? Birth control? I think I covered this at length years ago. ZPG (two children per couple) would take 50 to 75 years to see a net decline. One child, 30 years. We are headed for 11 billion even with a declining fertility rate (that won't continue to decline via Demographic Transition). Food and energy demand are forecast to double by 2050. We face a bottleneck.

Monte Quest,

You know you can agree and then add additional comment. Not every post needs to be confrontational.

But I suspect you will rebut my comment.

Still live ya bro!

[JuanP]

I understand this; I just don't believe that GDP growth is necessary or desirable. I'd prefer to live in a world with contracting GDP and population. We need to end growth to keep from making the biosphere uninhabitable for our species.

Yes, infinite growth in a finite world is not possible nor sustainable. Our dilemma is that a debt-based monetary system requires GDP growth to exist. Do you understand that concept? If we contract GDP, the per capita share of the pie gets smaller as the population grows. What kind of society could exist where that is the case? Not one this complex, and not one at any lifestyle as now. How do you service the $250 trillion in debt? And there is no sign that the world's population is going to contract anytime soon. Not by man's hand, anyway. Mother Nature bats last and she is at the home plate at the moment hitting homers.

Thus, we face a bottleneck.

I do understand the concept. Our current economic and financial systems are unsustainable, and, therefore, will not be sustained. A reset has always been inevitable, since before we were born. I have been preparing for it all my life. There are many ways this could be done, some more painful than others. I expect humanity's ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, and arrogance to lead us along the worst options. Prepare yourself while you still have time.

By the way, I had a Vasectomy a quarter of a century ago and produced no biological offspring because I have understood that our situation as a species is unsustainable since I was a young child.

[EnergyUnlimited]

By the way, I had a Vasectomy a quarter of a century ago and produced no biological offspring because I have understood that our situation as a species is unsustainable since I was a young child.

Thank you.
My kids will have more space on the planet.
Every little helps.

Vasectomy in the US might be handy for others reason though.
Many women these days are using the fact of possessing kids as an instrument helping them to strip their father of all assets and on the top of it to secure life long alimony and also hefty child maintenance.
All what they need to do to get there is to make frivolous legal claims.
So if you are not prepared to dispense justice to these kind of bitch by means of a gun or an axe once there is a call for it and regardless of consequences then your second best bets are either vasectomies or avoiding relations with women altogether.

[JuanP]

By the way, I had a Vasectomy a quarter of a century ago and produced no biological offspring because I have understood that our situation as a species is unsustainable since I was a young child.

Thank you.
My kids will have more space on the planet.
Every little helps.

Vasectomy in the US might be handy for others reason though.
Many women these days are using the fact of possessing kids as an instrument helping them to strip their father of all assets and on the top of it to secure life long alimony and also hefty child maintenance.
All what they need to do to get there is to make frivolous legal claims.
So if you are not prepared to dispense justice to these kind of bitch by means of a gun or an axe once there is a call for it and regardless of consequences then your second best bets are either vasectomies or avoiding relations with women altogether.

You are welcome! That was one of the reasons I had a Vasectomy; I thought it was the best thing I could do for the members of younger generations. I wouldn't want to be one of your kids, though, when I see what this world has become and how much worse it is getting every day, but your kids are not my problem. And, yes, having a Vasectomy has allowed me to fuck like a rabbit all my life without any reproductive concerns, which was very liberating. Since I've been in a long term monogamous relationship, I've never had to wear a condom, either, something I'm very happy about because I hate condoms. Not producing any biological offspring also allows me to see all the the stupid things other humans do with an increased emotional detachment, since I have no offspring to worry about. This allows me to witness and study all the atrocities committed by others with less suffering and concern. I think not producing biological offspring and having a Vasectomy are the two smartest choices I made in my life.

I wish your children the best, but I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, though.

[REAL Green]

By the way, I had a Vasectomy a quarter of a century ago and produced no biological offspring because I have understood that our situation as a species is unsustainable since I was a young child.

Thank you.
My kids will have more space on the planet.
Every little helps.

Vasectomy in the US might be handy for others reason though.
Many women these days are using the fact of possessing kids as an instrument helping them to strip their father of all assets and on the top of it to secure life long alimony and also hefty child maintenance.
All what they need to do to get there is to make frivolous legal claims.
So if you are not prepared to dispense justice to these kind of bitch by means of a gun or an axe once there is a call for it and regardless of consequences then your second best bets are either vasectomies or avoiding relations with women altogether.

Priceless!! I agree EU and got mine after I knew I could not afford anymore. This attitude of I got a vasectomy so I can do and be what I want represent a psychopathic personality trait of egotistical bargaining.

[MonteQuest]

Monte Quest, You know you can agree and then add additional comment. Not every post needs to be confrontational.

Not trying to be confrontational. Didn't think I was, for that matter. Just explaining the reality of our debt-based money system and the futility of birth control.

[MonteQuest]

I do understand the concept. Our current economic and financial systems are unsustainable, and, therefore, will not be sustained. A reset has always been inevitable, since before we were born. I have been preparing for it all my life. There are many ways this could be done, some more painful than others. I expect humanity's ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, and arrogance to lead us along the worst options.

Then we are in agreement. The only possible reset is a reduction in the population to perhaps 2 to 3 billion and an economic system that doesn't require growth in resource use beyond what is sustainable. A very tough order.

[MonteQuest]

I get that you're fixated on the Malthusian die-off but there are a few steps along the way before we get there.

You do realize that every effort to stave off a die-off just perpetuates the overshoot condition and makes the population crash when it comes all the more resounding? There is no technofix for our situation, only an ecological one. And with a global pandemic running rampant across the planet from our overshoot condition, I'd say another phase of in the die-off is at hand. Mother Nature is at bat and she likes to bat last.

[C8]

Not producing any biological offspring also allows me to see all the the stupid things other humans do with an increased emotional detachment, since I have no offspring to worry about. This allows me to witness and study all the atrocities committed by others with less suffering and concern.

I am not so sure this strategy worked. You seemed to have made choices based on considerable compassion. That's not a switch that is easily flipped "off". My experience with people like you is that you still put yourself in the shoes of others, even if they are not your kids. I don't think there is any exit from compassionate suffering for those who have that personality. Now a sociopath? Yeah, they will do just fine in the new world order.