Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 17:52:01**

Very intriguing all your replies. I chose the second option drastic die off and civilization fall. So, I do believe we have been checkmated But of paramount consideration is the negative impact our huge population and ways of living are having on the Earth. The longer this continues in my estimation the more we risk changing the conditions of this planet to one's almost universally inhospitable for human life

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 18:16:35**

onlooker wrote:Very intriguing all your replies. I chose the second option drastic die off and civilization fall. So, I do believe we have been checkmated But of paramount consideration is the negative impact our huge population and ways of living are having on the Earth. The longer this continues in my estimation the more we risk changing the conditions of this planet to one's almost universally inhospitable for human life

I'll call you on that and up the ante. The way humans treat each other is to dehumanize the other tribe and make war, not just on other countries, but, as things get dicey and unsure, on each other, as we see so much of these days. If nature doesn't do most of us in, we will. It's all part of overshoot. There is no "WE".

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 18:49:51**

SeaGypsy wrote:I'm arguing that evolution is taking place constantly, that natural selection though thwarted, still bubbles away under the surface, that human nature is still incredibly resilient & may just find ways to muddle through & become better at living on a finite planet- just maybe this is already happening, just lost in the noise on both sides- doom vs capitalist globalist OWG Utopianism.

This might very well be true. A correction could happen through several generations with a minimum of inflection points and punctuated events.

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 19:13:11**

GHung wrote:
onlooker wrote:Very intriguing all your replies. I chose the second option drastic die off and civilization fall. So, I do believe we have been checkmated But of paramount consideration is the negative impact our huge population and ways of living are having on the Earth. The longer this continues in my estimation the more we risk changing the conditions of this planet to one's almost universally inhospitable for human life

I'll call you on that and up the ante. The way humans treat each other is to dehumanize the other tribe and make war, not just on other countries, but, as things get dicey and unsure, on each other, as we see so much of these days. If nature doesn't do most of us in, we will. It's all part of overshoot. There is no "WE".

On this point I agree with you. Onlooker is a rare breed of doomer idealist, the type who fronted the Transition Town movement at one time and who hitched their wagon on "case-studies" like Cuba during the fall of the Soviet Union (aka The Power of Community). Our future will look more like Lord of the Flies than some sort of bucolic hippie back to the land movement.

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 19:21:18**

"....human nature is still incredibly resilient & may just find ways to muddle through & become better at living on a finite planet- just maybe this is already happening, just lost in the noise on both sides...

I would enjoy seeing examples, any at all, that will make a difference. Over-population, resource depletion, and climate change/ecological destruction is an increasing triple whammy of "[super?] wicked problems":

Wicked problem

"A wicked problem is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. The use of the term "wicked" here has come to denote resistance to resolution, rather than evil.[1] Another definition is "a problem whose social complexity means that it has no determinable stopping point".[2] Moreover, because of hard interdependencies, the effort to fix one part of a wicked problem may open or create other problems.

Rittel and Webber's 1973 formulation of wicked problems in social policy planning specified ten characteristics:[4][5]

There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.

Wicked problems have no stopping rule.

Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.

There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.

Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.

Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.

The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate)......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

Super wicked problems

Kelly Levin, Benjamin Cashore, Graeme Auld and Steven Bernstein introduced the distinction between "wicked problems" and "super wicked problems" in a 2007 conference paper, which was followed by a 2012 journal article in Policy Sciences. In their discussion of global climate change, they define super wicked problems as having the following additional characteristics:[32]

Time is running out.
No central authority.
Those seeking to solve the problem are also causing it.
Policies discount the future irrationally.

While the items that define a wicked problem relate to the problem itself, the items that define a super wicked problem relate to the agent trying to solve it. Global warming is a super wicked problem .....

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 19:44:04**

The obvious examples in relatively recent history are in various aboriginal groups around the world. In Australia some regions are believed to have been in population equilibrium for tens of thousands of years. Much shorter but still considerable spans occured in parts of the South Pacific Polynesian tribes & SE Asian Melanesian peoples. This is my region of expertise, others may have equally significant references.

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 19:44:47**

A likely future. 20% population reduction initially - as a catalyst for the next phase - that is a rationed planet of 92% of those standing (7% military/police will get fed; 1% rulers). Most all infrastructure preserved - most all food production areas preserved - water resources preserved from the initial 20% culling.

The goal is to have billions believe in one idea. A starving population will believe is anything. Hell, a fed population still believes a guy got nailed to a cross.

There is a fractal nature to life that can be - well - divided - and re-constituted. The re-constitution has an effect of diluting the "wise" force in humans yet the "belief" force remains untouched. Even a slave believes is something. I won't get into the details here as they are not essential, suffice to say, a die off is not likely nor is it consistent with the current trajectory.

The highest commodity on the planet is the individual's belief rubric/force. If one group can control the beliefs of billions, this is the mother lode. This leads to the last phase. A post for another time.

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 21:18:19**

7.5 Billion top level predators ain’t gonna cut it. I’m voting we see a roughly 90% herd reduction.

I think Limits to Growth was pretty spot on.

It’s kinda like playing Russian Roullett with a full loaded six shooter.

1-Climate change
2-Global financial system
3-Depleting fossil fuels
4-Nuclear weapons
5-Soil depletion
6-Ever evolving diseases

Posted: **Tue 12 Dec 2017, 21:57:22**

Top level predators capable of living on algae, insects, etc. Not much in common with any other top predator.

Posted: **Wed 13 Dec 2017, 13:09:28**

SeaGypsy wrote:Top level predators capable of living on algae, insects, etc. Not much in common with any other top predator.

As always the Omnivore advantage is a big one.

Posted: **Wed 13 Dec 2017, 13:18:00**

Yup, they will eat anything. Including one another.

Capitalisim.

Posted: **Wed 13 Dec 2017, 13:21:34**

Newfie wrote:Yup, they will eat anything. Including one another.

Capitalisim.

Will this negatively affect the stock market?

Posted: **Wed 13 Dec 2017, 14:41:34**

Cog wrote:
Newfie wrote:Yup, they will eat anything. Including one another.

Capitalisim.

Will this negatively affect the stock market?

Eventually it will be whipped out. Don’t have a clue when.

You personally probably have little to worry about. The market may wells take a big hit but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Your kids and grandkids are much more likely to live in a very different world. I do think the downward slide will be moderated in the USA/Canada.

But it is all opinion, my best guess.

Posted: **Wed 13 Dec 2017, 14:43:47**

As always with these threads part of the problem is the definition of the time frame.

Posted: **Wed 13 Dec 2017, 17:07:06**

baha wrote:In the next 20 years I expect humanity to be broke, not dead

How do you imagine humanity will eat if its broke? [smilie=dontknow.gif]

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate

Re: Our fate