Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Totally agree!

The elites are to humans as a queen bee is to a hive.

Neither the queen the, Elite or the worker is responsible for its position, it's all social engineering and evolution.

Humans are what we are, and the elites are part of that.

Yes but with a crucial difference I do not think that the Queen Bee does things that will endanger entire hive and all the bees. Then again I do not know much about Queen Bee.

Yeast in the petri dish don't know what money is. They still grow beyond their food supply and die off.

This is why I think economic concerns are secondary. It's not that they're inconsequential, but moving to a no-debt economy or some perfected form of communism will not stop people from having kids above replacement, for instance. It won't stop us from destroying the soil with mechanized agriculture, etc...

This emphasis on modern villains like Goldman Sachs really ignores the broader perspective.

The earliest form of "debt" humans ever practiced was slash-and-burn agriculture, cutting into our original bounty of ecological capital.

onlooker wrote:I think the big wild card here is Global Warming. Even here on this site Cid Yama plus others like Guy Mcpherson are predicting truly calamitous events in a quite short time. Guy about 2030 and Cid I believe states 2020. Arctic Methane Emergency Group also sees disaster as imminent when Arctic is ice-free. So I do not discount this scenario as occurring faster then we may presume.

I don't discount the possibility of an apocalyptic methane-release. But if it seems like the future is already predetermined and there's little leeway for any of us to do much at an individual or collective level now, in the above scenario, there's REALLY no point wringing your hands over it. And so I'm excluding that from the model. Same deal with a WWIII nuclear exchange.

This is why I think economic concerns are secondary. It's not that they're inconsequential, but moving to a no-debt economy or some perfected form of communism will not stop people from having kids above replacement, for instance. It won't stop us from destroying the soil with mechanized agriculture, etc...

Yes truly. That is why I am not completely sold on the premise of Dave that debt based economics really was thy pivotal factor that allowed for humans to decimate Earth. Yes I think it has hastened and amplified the voracious nature of humans yet correctly we were already well into this process with the colonization of the Americas and the discovery of Fossil Fuels.

This is why I think economic concerns are secondary. It's not that they're inconsequential, but moving to a no-debt economy or some perfected form of communism will not stop people from having kids above replacement, for instance. It won't stop us from destroying the soil with mechanized agriculture, etc...

Yes truly. That is why I am not completely sold on the premise of Dave that debt based economics really was thy pivotal factor that allowed for humans to decimate Earth. Yes I think it has hastened and amplified the voracious nature of humans yet correctly we were already well into this process with the colonization of the Americas and the discovery of Fossil Fuels. In fact you can argue what really paved the way for this frenzy of growth was the Agriculture around 10 thousand years ago.

davep wrote:

onlooker wrote:I would add that this current type of economic system is inherent in the very nature of capitalism which is a profit-greed derived system. We should have at some point world-wide adopted some sort of socialist-command economy type system whereby production would have been controlled and channeled mostly to the needs of people rather then wants. Alas, greed got the better of us. I would agree that this economic growth model is at the root of our trashing of the planet. I also feel it is getting very late to forestall collapse and in the end money is but paper and resources and the health of Earth or lack of is ultimately the arbiter of satisfying needs and wants not any man-made economic system as we will soon find out.

I would disagree. The current economic system is the brainchild of bankers. They befuddled politicians to get the likes of the Federal Reserve Act passed. Capitalism can survive perfectly well without an economic system that uses banks to create money as debt.

I'm not necessarily a fan of capitalism, but we need to be clear what the root of the need for growth is.

The need for growth outside banking or even profits can be seen through increasing production to meet increasing needs and wants of a growing human population.

Thus, greed in terms of profit-making is not needed to thrash the planet, just a growing population with resource and energy demands that outstrip what the ecosystem allows. Of course, with greed the process is accelerated.

In order to give incentive to workers to extract resources and manufacture goods to ensure increasing production and thus meet increasing demand, credit eventually comes into play. With that comes banks, profits, investments, etc.

The implication is that capitalism may survive without credit and banks, but growth will likely be at best negligible. At some point, someone will come up with the idea of using credit and other means to increase growth, and with that it becomes a matter of time before we see credit, credit seen as wealth, and financial speculation.

Very well thought out post Ralfy. That is why the LTG simulations were very helpful in that they took into account various factors and well as their interplay with each other. It certainly can be seen that population dynamics and economic growth dynamics reinforce each other and work in a synergistic manner to create this runaway growth frenzy that we have seen in these modern times.

I'm not suggesting the current monetary system is the root of all ecological degradation, just that if we don't address it we have no chance of addressing the ecological degradation in isolation.

ennui2 wrote:Yeast in the petri dish don't know what money is. They still grow beyond their food supply and die off.

Herein lies the big question. Are we smarter than yeast, or are we not?

Do we keep consuming the energy source that has allowed exponential economic growth, ultimately leading to the complete die off of our species? Or do we stop now, and face the consequences? There is no comfortable outcome. We face a predicament, die off, or extinction.

davep wrote:I'm not suggesting the current monetary system is the root of all ecological degradation, just that if we don't address it we have no chance of addressing the ecological degradation in isolation.

That is absolutely true we have to have a holistic approach and very soon.

ennui2 wrote:I don't discount the possibility of an apocalyptic methane-release. But if it seems like the future is already predetermined and there's little leeway for any of us to do much at an individual or collective level now, in the above scenario, there's REALLY no point wringing your hands over it. And so I'm excluding that from the model. Same deal with a WWIII nuclear exchange.

So you're excluding from the 'model' what you don't find comfortable? This is a problem. Growth at any cost, while ignoring the consequences.

Maybe the future IS already predetermined, maybe it is not. We will never have any chance of finding out, if we don't stop the growth that will ultimately end very badly for every single one of us, and all future generations. (If there are any)

We either quit now and face the consequences, or continue down the path that we are on, and face even more dire consequences. We are killing our one and only home, and with every passing year the damage is becoming exponentially worse.

GregT wrote:

ennui2 wrote:Yeast in the petri dish don't know what money is. They still grow beyond their food supply and die off.

Herein lies the big question. Are we smarter than yeast, or are we not?

Do we keep consuming the energy source that has allowed exponential economic growth, ultimately leading to the complete die off of our species? Or do we stop now, and face the consequences? There is no comfortable outcome. We face a predicament, die off, or extinction.

It would seem the answer is before us, collectively we obey the same rules as yeast.

onlooker wrote:Yes but with a crucial difference I do not think that the Queen Bee does things that will endanger entire hive and all the bees. Then again I do not know much about Queen Bee.

True. My main point is that we have evolved to require elites. Diamonds latest book does a good job of answering why. So it is no good to blame them unilaterally. What we have not discovered is a way to assure they work in our best interest.

Someone above said the best government is a benevolent dictatorship. How do you assure he stays benevolent?

Somehow I'm reminded of the old movie. The Man Who Would be King.

I guess it is the old adage, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Perhaps the best way of trying at least to insure that these elites work for the benefit of all is to not give them too much power or too long a stay in power. Their role reminiscent of the elders in American Indian tribes would be to council and advice, they would be respected for their acumen as well as their integrity. If they began to display a lack of either quality they would summarily be replaced.

Newfie wrote:

GregT wrote:

ennui2 wrote:Yeast in the petri dish don't know what money is. They still grow beyond their food supply and die off.

Herein lies the big question. Are we smarter than yeast, or are we not?

Do we keep consuming the energy source that has allowed exponential economic growth, ultimately leading to the complete die off of our species? Or do we stop now, and face the consequences? There is no comfortable outcome. We face a predicament, die off, or extinction.

It would seem the answer is before us, collectively we obey the same rules as yeast.

Hence the need for grassroots action.

You know how modern humans often put their old folks in homes. We do not venerate the old which is the flip side of consuming our grandchildren's resources.

We are not only split off from natural ecosystems in the artificial environments we live in. We are equally split off from the continuity of family and thus we feel no sense of obligation to our grand children.

Ibon wrote:You know how modern humans often put their old folks in homes. We do not venerate the old which is the flip side of consuming our grandchildren's resources.

We are not only split off from natural ecosystems in the artificial environments we live in. We are equally split off from the continuity of family and thus we feel no sense of obligation to our grand children.

That depends on the culture. My wife is Italian, and they have a great tradition of looking after the older generations in multi-generational homes.

Ibon wrote:You know how modern humans often put their old folks in homes. We do not venerate the old which is the flip side of consuming our grandchildren's resources.

We are not only split off from natural ecosystems in the artificial environments we live in. We are equally split off from the continuity of family and thus we feel no sense of obligation to our grand children.

Exactly, through the vast stretch of Human History family lived as a unit in the home. The elders as a general rule lived with their eldest daughter, her husband and children. If the Grandchildren reached marrying age the eldest grand-daughter and her husband also lived in the home continuing the continuity. If you had all sons the duty would fall on the eldest son to support his parents in their dotage and possibly his wife's parents as well. To be old and childless was a terrifying prospect, your children were your retirement plan. If that meant you had to adopt an orphan then you did it happily.