[Pops]

It's a funny thing, way back on this board detractors labeled us a bunch of survivalists, with all the evil overtones of the word. Nowadays I get the feeling that we are more akin to flagellists, whipping ourselves into a pink cloud of martyrdom for the ultimate sin of our success and revelling in our own demise. Interesting that in a thread ostensibly about a return to a naturalist religion, runs the story line of original sin. The Big Apple is a perfect epithet; civilization the evil fruit in the Garden and the humans about to be expelled.

Pretty ironic.

--
Saw a Frontline last night on ebola. Those poor people don't represent civilization or overshoot, they are dirt floor innocents, completely devoid of modernity. They have no clue of germ theory, soap or boiling water; they hide from the aid workers because no one the ambulance takes away ever returns; some attacked a hospital because they believed ebola a plot to steal their blood.

They are the opposite of overshoot, they are us without our technological guise.

--
Overshoot is simple result of the lag between falling mortality rate and falling birth rate. Nothing mystical or evil, unless it is a necessary evil. Fossil fuels have compounded or maybe even initiated the blip but it is only a blip. Hopefully we'll remember germs and soap when the power is gone and the mortality rate won't climb as high as it once was.

But as usual we give ourselves too much credit, we want it all and we want it now, including the finale. In the original story god created the world and would end it, in this version we think we built it and that we get to end it. We are definitely on a high horse.

--
In that Steinbeck quote I posted above there is the line:
"Only birth control could save us, and that is one thing mankind is never going to practice."
Just goes to show you should never say never. The Pill was on the market for menstrual cramps just a year or 2 later (though not officially certified for contraception until 1960) and globally the number of children per woman has fallen since. It is still above replacement but half of what it was the day I was born.
.

[dohboi]

Sorry to be pedantic, but you seem to contradict yourself here, unless I am missing something (always a possibility).

"They are the opposite of overshoot, they are us without our technological guise."

So here you are defining overshoot purely in terms of technology.

But here, immediately after, you seem to be defining it purely in terms of demographics:

"Overshoot is simple result of the lag between falling mortality rate and falling birth rate."

So which is it? (Or what am I missing?)

[Pops]

The people I saw getting sick and dying weren't in the big apple, they were in the bush, where the population density and technology are low. They then are the hunter gatherers that the post Ishmael disciples long after. They aren't the proto-overshoot prey, they are the thing we left behind.

[dohboi]

Even without a lot of high tech, a population can overshoot. (That is, after all, what happens in non-human populations, observations of which gave rise to the term in the first place.)

I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, exactly--it seems a bit more complex than that here. Only that high levels of technology are not necessary for overshoot (and I'm not sure Quinn/Ishmael ever said they were).

[Newfie]

Whats so bad about being a Survivalist? Isn't that the basic condition for a species to propagate?

What's the opposite? Extintionist? How is that better?

[Pops]

overshoot is the topic of the thread
ebola somehow is supposed to be relevant to the thread
Ibon said it is not that ebola is a result but the outbreak is:

An ebola epidemic ravaging urban areas however does qualify as being caused by human overshoot.

The people I saw were not in some urban area, they were in the remote bush - the opposite of urban.

The point is the outbreak looks to me to be one of the few examples of something not the result of overshoot, it is a contagion set on killing off it's host. Left alone it burns out quickly.

Now, chronic diarrheal disease from shitting where you drink, that kills tens of thousands each and every year?
Now that would qualify as an indicator of overshoot, except spewing from every orifice just isn't as sexy as bleeding from each one.

[dohboi]

"The people I saw were not in some urban area, they were in the remote bush - the opposite of urban."

In the past, this disease has only occurred among isolated people in the 'remote bush.' In those cases, it has certainly been a local tragedy, but it tended to burn itself out rather quickly.

This time, while it started in a somewhat remote area, it quickly spread to larger population centers. That is one of the main reasons that this time it is continuing spreading exponentially over a period of months.

Of course, it is also hitting many people in remote areas, but that is not the distinctive feature of this particular outbreak, or so it seems to me.

But at this point, we are perhaps chasing our tails trying to find distinctions?

(Last I heard, diarrhea wasn't growing exponentially. I don't find either condition particularly sexy, but I guess there's no accounting for taste?)

[Newfie]

Pops,

Not taking sides but asking a question. You seem to think that this outbreak is mostly in rural/remote areas. I had the opposite impression, that what made it different was it was hitting folks in slums.

If it is in the slums I would argue folks living in slums ARE a result of overshoot. "Normal" would be hunter/gatherer, or at least not in a slum.

No????

P.S. (Got interrupted by work, bah!) What I'm trying to get at is..........how do we know where it is, slums or remote? Maybe you saw video from old outbreaks or relative "safe" areas where the camera was able to go and not representative of the actual situation. Obviously I don't know, I formed my impression from the West Point incident, which I looked up on Google Earth, and it is a vast slum of epic proportions. So I drew the conclusion that it was deep in the heavily populated areas.

[Timo]

Now, chronic diarrheal disease from shitting where you drink, that kills tens of thousands each and every year?
Now that would qualify as an indicator of overshoot, except spewing from every orifice just isn't as sexy as bleeding from each one.

Pops! Please! There are children reading this website, and i'm trying to eat my lunch! You're not helping me keep things down!

Unless...... YOU'RE the OP, and that's your intention in the first place! In that case, well done!

[Pops]

Sorry Tim, LOL

Newf, I'm not that worried because ebola has a high mortality and low transmissibility. The Basic Reproductive Number is the expected number of people infected per case without intervention.

Using epidemic modeling and data from two well-documented Ebola outbreaks
(Congo 1995 and Uganda 2000), we estimate the number of secondary cases generated
by an index case in the absence of control interventions (R0). Our estimate of R0 is 1.83
(SD 0.06) for Congo (1995) and 1.34 (SD 0.03) for Uganda (2000).

https://math.la.asu.edu/~chavez/CCCPUB/ ... %20The.pdf

Compare that to 12-15 for measles. Ebola it is closer to HIV at 2-5. If all of a sudden it mutates and becomes airborne then I'll be getting skeered.

It seems like a pretty silly argument to me, if this kills 2,000 or 20,000 or heaven forbid, 200,000 it will still be a blip compared to dirty water that kills a million and a half each and every year. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

So I'll bow out and let you all go at it.

[dohboi]

We can only hope that this is only spreading so fast in Liberia because of their particular practices wrt funerals etc. In that case, perhaps it will indeed peter out soon (however utterly devastated that country is).

But every new case increases the chance of a mutation to a more lethally contagious form (assuming that hasn't happened already). So Pops may well yet see his reason to be skeered come to light.

[Ibon]

The people I saw getting sick and dying weren't in the big apple, they were in the bush, where the population density and technology are low. They then are the hunter gatherers that the post Ishmael disciples long after. They aren't the proto-overshoot prey, they are the thing we left behind.

It is correct that ebola along with all the other prey pathogens kept our HG ancestors held within carrying capacity. In other words, no overshoot was present. No Overshoot Predator required. No booming population as a result of the industrial revolution.

Today in the 21st century we are following this most recent epidemic only because of the risk it represents in shifting from a rural disease to ravaging urban areas. To essentially transition from a rural disease to becoming an urban epidemic and at that moment becoming an agent or an "arsenal" of the OSP.

Just repeating once again. We are all are familiar from the energy side of the equation that we are in overshoot when the maintenance of 7 billion plus requires using ever dwindling finite resources. Whether it be pathogens or climate change or starvation from crop failures or resource wars or chaos induced by extreme poverty we will see the OSP in action.

Ebola moving to urban areas is unquestionably an example of this. Not in isolation. It;s kind of similar to the climate change arguments. One Katrina storm does not prove climate change. One ebola epidemic alone that would kill say 100 million is not in and of itself evidence of the OSP.

In hindsight statistics one day will make this all clear. We have to remember we are at this moment still incredibly resilient and we are all getting hyped up only over a threat.

We are pansies in a way...... 7 billion pansies dreaming nightmares of caterpillars coming to chew us into oblivion.

[dohboi]

The point is that it can spread fairly easily from one urban center to another. Most of the world's population now lives in cities.

Yes, this would spread much more effectively in all sorts of urban environments if it could spread through aerosol--across longer distance than one meter, without need of contact with significant hunks of bodily fluid. That could happen at any moment (if it hasn't already).

[Newfie]

OR....spread through contact, which seems to have some support, via some other vector. Mice and rats for sure. Cockroaches?

At this point we need to consider cars, trucks, planes, and boats as vectors also.

I have heard a couple of stories (true or not) where there seemed to be very casual contact between the infected person and someone he infected. For example the Nigerian Dr. and his wife who got infected withing 2 - 3 days of the Dr. getting infected. How did THAT happen? Washing his clothes? Skin to skin transmission? He didn't wash sufficiently?

I just have this deep feeling that some other form of transmission is occurring that has not come to light.

[Ibon]

It's the mutation potential that has me most concerned. Considering that the virus has now wandered somewhat out of its historical "ecosystem" raises the question if in this new territory there might not be more punctuated and rapid mutations happening.

[ennui2]

Whats so bad about being a Survivalist?

Obsessive thinking. I fell into that trap with my doomstead fantasy. Make the most of your life in the present. Don't just spend your whole life running end of the world scenarios and trying to arrange to be last-man-standing.

I think survivalism winds up being an extended bargaining phase of denial. Acceptance means dealing with the inevitability of your mortality. The most suffering I absorbed in my peak doomer days was feeling a lack of control, especially over others, namely failing to gain buy-in from my family I felt I needed in order to set up the doomstead. I felt the stonewalling from my family was directly lowering my survival odds. But what it also did was drive a wedge between me and my family that had an immediate negative impact. I couldn't let that fester. So I had to accept the cards that I was given and just deal with it. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

What that means is if any of you guys start harping on how Boston will be a death-trap, I'm just going to shrug my shoulders. I'm not going to try to win any argument that my location is more survivable, since I'm not playing life like a game or trying to measure up to some doomer status-symbol standard. I'm just trying to take it one day at a time and to bring some happiness and meaning to my life while I try to be the best provider I can to my daughter.

So acceptance is key, and with that comes a humility that we can't all be omniscient and omnipotent superheroes. My opinion is that the main cause of death going forward will be untreated or under-treated medical problems, which will be because people are poor or out-of-work and lack benefits. I think that will do most of us in, not outright starvation or Hobbesian violence. My mom has already had to live through two cancers, and my dad had bypass surgery. Odds are when I need major medical treatment like these, it won't be within reach anymore and that will be the end of me. And if I squeak by relatively unscathed, then that will be my daughter's fate instead.

I don't spend a lot of time fantasizing about a post-apocalyptic society that "worships the overshoot predator" because that scenario has no bearing on my life. I couldn't help bring that future about even if I wanted to. I couldn't even get my town interested in Transition. I've resigned myself to the fact that no two individuals ever seem to agree on anything, even mundane issues, and rarely does anyone win over someone else with their arguments, rarer still to do so over the internet, where digging in your heels and doubling-down seems to be the only way to go.

[Pops]

Very good e2
I hate to say it but survivalism is in large part a hobby, it's another excuse for newf to have a boat, me a farm, someone else a black gun, etc. People spend thousands (dollars and hours) on bass fishing, skiing, quilting; our hobby is no different. For me personally, it is simply more interesting and stimulating than watch football plus it has the side benefit of allaying some fears that come up when my imagination gets carried away contemplating the future. To me it is actually more about seeking control rather than than beating one's chest.

The overshoot predator in my mind is just a metaphor to talk about a change to a more naturalistic religion, mythology, whatever; one that is based more on natural laws, science and our objective place in the universe than the current flavors that put man at the center and the universe at our disposal.

[Newfie]

Yes, not all survivalist are nut cases. Many are survivalist who just quietly prep as a " hobby" or " investment."

I know a relatively high government who has a rifle and thousand so rounds buried behind the barn of his hobby farm. But he never talks of it. I hear of stock brokers buying remote cabins. Maybe 10% of sail boaters have the idea to use the boat as a bug out vehicle, but few are vocal as I am. Survivalism can come in many forms.

[Ibon]

The overshoot predator in my mind is just a metaphor to talk about a change to a more naturalistic religion, mythology, whatever; one that is based more on natural laws, science and our objective place in the universe than the current flavors that put man at the center and the universe at our disposal.

Yes. I would have said 40 years ago this orientation would have been ideological. Today it is more adaptive. If limits and the consequences of those limits are going to impose on us humans a more humbled role in our place in the biosphere than naturally we are going to balance the degree that we can "control" with a sense of "worship" to those elements to which for our survival we will be subservient.

The worship of something that will kill and destroy seems like a death wish. It is not. There is a long history of human mythology through many cultures that incorporate the natural phenomena of life and death with their respective deities.

As we move either slowly or abruptly toward an eventual sustainable human population we intuitively know that this road for the foreseeable future will mean that death will have an element of healing. It is not a question of death wish. It is an understanding of balance that many of our past cultures clearly understood better than adolescent Kudzu Ape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_deities

In polytheistic religions or mythologies which have a complex system of deities governing various natural phenomena and aspects of human life, it is common to have a deity who is assigned the function of presiding over death. The inclusion of such a "departmental" deity of death in a religion's pantheon is not necessarily the same thing as the glorification of death which is commonly condemned by the use of the term "death-worship" in modern political rhetoric.
In the theology of monotheistic religion, the one god governs both life and death. However in practice this manifests in different rituals and traditions and varies according to a number of factors including geography, politics, traditions and the influence of other religions.

[Plantagenet]

Actually, in western "monotheistic" religions, god/ywhw has delegated the death functions to Satan, a fallen angel ---- god/ywhw doesn't do death himself.