Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Too much rain can be a bad thing, too.

How do you know that the prevailing patterns will continue to bring the regions predictable rainfall.

Relevant to ones perspective moving forward, assuming here that you are a millennial or younger since the likes of KJ and me will be long gone once consequences take hold, it doesn't really matter does it if the consequences throw the planets ecological equilibrium into drastic imbalances or whether the constraints are milder and more manageable. In either case this does represent the solution to human overshoot and bringing us back to carrying capacity, the latter being gradual and the former being radical. Both are solutions.

Any other viable solution out there?

Gasmon, I was in Thailand before Panama and have lived in the Philippines as well. Fertile yes and many folks especially in the provinces like the area you shared live close to their land and are not living some far away abstract relationship with nature. Social cohesion is also a plus. These are the positives. The negatives are the population density in SE Asia. This is frankly frightening to contemplate since there is not a whole lot of wiggle room for the population to maneuver once constraints happen.

dohboi wrote:Too much rain can be a bad thing, too.

How do you know that the prevailing patterns will continue to bring the regions predictable rainfall.

Marshland has something like four times the biodiversity of any landform, ecologically speaking.

https://theconversation.com/around-the- ... ways-77590
I think this link deserves a generalized outlook. In the contest between economic gain and protection of Nature, the former keeps on winning. That is why the current human population is incompatible with a healthy and sustaining natural environment

Around the world, environmental laws are under attack in all sorts of ways

onlooker wrote:https://theconversation.com/around-the-world-environmental-laws-are-under-attack-in-all-sorts-of-ways-77590
I think this link deserves a generalized outlook. In the contest between economic gain and protection of Nature, the former keeps on winning. That is why the current human population is incompatible with a healthy and sustaining natural environment

Around the world, environmental laws are under attack in all sorts of ways

Around 3 years ago I was frequently arguing on the climate change threads here that we are putting all this focus on climate change while remaining silent about the biodiversity loss happening around the planet due to habitat destruction to satisfy the voracious appetite of modern civilization. I noted a certain hypocrisy that the lack of concern for biodiversity loss is because this does not directly endanger the status quo whereas climate change certainly will.

The hypocrisy is that underneath all the desire to address climate change is this wish to maintain our unsustainable standard of living. So even in this growing consensus to act to mitigate against climate change there still can be seen the entitlement to keep our unsustainable and comfortable standard of living intact. Otherwise how do you explain the difference between the focus on climate change when comparing it to biodiversity loss due to habitat destruction?

Each hectare of natural ecosystems converted to a man made environment allows kudzu ape to expand. Therefore we stay silent around this destruction.

Climate change will negatively impact human habitats flooding coastal areas and effecting crop production etc. Therefore we start to be concerned about it.

Think of this difference and then you will understand that the growing consensus around climate change hides in the shadows this still ugly entitlement toward our planet and natural ecosystems.

This furthermore explains my weird and desperate position to look toward climate change as an ally rather than a foe. For the consequences of climate change will disproportionately effect our species more than many others since we are tenuously out on the limb of overshoot. Not that climate change wont accelerate extinctions of other species but in terms of resiliency there are more redundancies and genetic variation in natural ecosystems then you see in vast human monocultures; kudzu apes and our crops and livestock. Climate change consequences will most likely be an important agent in population reduction of our species. It is an ally during desperate times.

I believe in progressive reincarnation and that we are monitored by beings that god created to manage life. Just think if you were god and created all this why would you want to deal with all the garbage of the human race, why not create an intermediary to oversee it. I believe this intermediary decides based on how we do in life where we show up in our next lifetime--what genetics we inherit. It is like our true parent. I also tend to think life is tied to the particular planet it originates from. So we come back over and over as souls and slowly evolve and progress with the species. Sometimes species go extinct so we move to the next best fit. The thing with overpopulation is there are only so many souls that have a lot of experience with human lifetimes and they are the ones that tend to get the best genetics and rise to the top. Much of the rest of the race today (particularly the third world) has come from souls that are newer to being human and were probably monkeys or bears or other animals a few hundred years ago (give or take). They aren't as advanced as those that have been around longer. So everyone isn't equal, there's seniority at play. I believe this is what happens with overpopulation and why the race as a whole gets dumbed down.

Similar things have been said before. Various groups have claimed special status as the Chosen Ones, the Originals, the Illuminati, etc. The modern interpretation of your "managers" are commonly called Angels.

The reincarnation of souls is a seductive idea, and seems to make sense if you are into recycling. Personally I believe that one's carefully crafted soul disolves at the moment of death, and only the pieces are recycled. I cannot believe otherwise, having observed the slow quickening of a baby into a thoughtful and responsible adult. But sometimes there appears to be within a person some inherent evil, from no concievable source related to their environment or family.

In the end, I believe in a middle ground. The pieces of a soul dissolving at death are recycled, but each new soul is a random combination of elements that have existed before and new ones - since we need more souls as the human population increases.

Your fate is thus a combination of the random elements of soul that coalesced at your birth, and your own creation. But those few who are overcome by the fragments of past lives are either baffled by the present, or creatures of pure evil, who were never able to integrate themselves a new soul.

Because we are reproducing so fast, most new souls are of mostly new content, and we spend most of our lives learning the ways of the world. In the end, chaos rules. If we could slow down and our population were to stabilize at a steady state value, I believe the recycling of souls would be enhanced and we would evolve into higher beings.

mmasters wrote:I believe in progressive reincarnation and that we are monitored by beings that god created to manage life. Just think if you were god and created all this why would you want to deal with all the garbage of the human race, why not create an intermediary to oversee it. I believe this intermediary decides based on how we do in life where we show up in our next lifetime--what genetics we inherit. It is like our true parent. I also tend to think life is tied to the particular planet it originates from. So we come back over and over as souls and slowly evolve and progress with the species. Sometimes species go extinct so we move to the next best fit. The thing with overpopulation is there are only so many souls that have a lot of experience with human lifetimes and they are the ones that tend to get the best genetics and rise to the top. Much of the rest of the race today (particularly the third world) has come from souls that are newer to being human and were probably monkeys or bears or other animals a few hundred years ago (give or take). They aren't as advanced as those that have been around longer. So everyone isn't equal, there's seniority at play. I believe this is what happens with overpopulation and why the race as a whole gets dumbed down.

Yeah, and I believe anyone thinking humans collectively or individually are significant is just not informed about the basics of the universe.

AdamB wrote:Yeah, and I believe anyone thinking humans collectively or individually are significant is just not informed about the basics of the universe.

Sure, in terms of the Universe there's probably a trillion Einsteins out there but that doesn't mean he's not special here, locally. You have to change your perspective to what's meaningful at the local level you're at.

mmasters wrote:

AdamB wrote:Yeah, and I believe anyone thinking humans collectively or individually are significant is just not informed about the basics of the universe.

Sure, in terms of the Universe there's probably a trillion Einsteins out there but that doesn't mean he's not special here, locally. You have to change your perspective to what's meaningful at the local level you're at.

Sort of like, you enjoy being the biggest fish in a tiny pond? And yes, this makes you significant...in that pond. But understanding any scope greater than that pond...you ignore THAT perspective? Why? Just so you feel good about pretend significance?

I think that level is just too far beyond us. Maybe a couple levels more of evolution and we can begin to understand it. Hell, maybe it's all just a big prison and we're designed to have big egos so there's slaves and masters lol.

http://www.overshootday.org

AUGUST 2 _ 2017



WARNING WARNING WARNING


Time is running out homo sapiens

M_B_S wrote:http://www.overshootday.org

AUGUST 2 _ 2017



WARNING WARNING WARNING


Time is running out homo sapiens

I'm so skeered!!!

Remember when this was supposed to happen back in the 70's, according to Ehrlich? I was all a'feared then too!

Buddy, take a moment and just be...

https://youtu.be/wv84Aj6r4lk?t=8m25s

pstarr wrote:Time is running out for most homo sapiens.

I have a lot of trouble with comprehensive doomsday. I no longer believe in runaway global warming or complete nuclear apocalypse. There will always be humans and myriad species survivors all living in a reduced but still functioning Gaia.

Its not a question of believing its a question of a logical outcome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6wjqHfrzmg
Death of a River

A few years left untill check mate


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6wjqHfrzmg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh6InmloAf8

AdamB said;

Time is running out homo sapiens

I'm so skeered!!!

Remember when this was supposed to happen back in the 70's, according to Ehrlich? I was all a'feared then too!

But it is happening. Maybe you stopped paying attention,, or your short attention span.

GHung wrote:AdamB said;

Time is running out homo sapiens

I'm so skeered!!!

Remember when this was supposed to happen back in the 70's, according to Ehrlich? I was all a'feared then too!

But it is happening. Maybe you stopped paying attention,, or your short attention span.

I say let Adam be. He is obviously in deep denial. As witnessed by this latest comment.