Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Quote:
How will you destroy them?
I'm only one person. That would be impossible for me to accomplish. Like nearly everyone else here, if I have any impact on society at all, it is statistically likely to be of the more mundane and inconsequential variety.
If you mean what would I recommend to destroy them, then: education, education, and education. The public needs to know what is going on. With knowledge of how these decisions effect them, they will be in a position to enact change. If 'the system' fails them, they will be able to see then that survival will come with shunning it all together and working outside of it.
People need to know how they are being exploited and preyed upon, and they need to become angry over it and demand change. If our leaders don't allow change, it's time to get rid of the leaders.
In the case of the automobile:
If Joe Average knows that a 200+ mile range EV is possible and there exists technology to charge it in 10 minutes, and that there would be no performance penalty and that the impact on the electric grid is usually overstated, and that the things are so cheap to operate, and if you can get Joe Average to agree to an outright boycott of the auto industry until he can buy this for a reasonable price, progress will be made.
If Joe Average can't afford to drive to work because of excessive gas prices, he will be angry enough and desperate enough to listen to the scientists and engineers that understand what sacrifices must be made, what technology should be used, and how.
This doesn't just apply to autos, but to everything our civilization does. There are better ways of doing things, even if they may not benefit the elite of society as much. If we can keep the same living standard while reducing our ecological footprint by half or more, then WHO CARES if a lot of rich shareholders are no longer making money; we can do without a class of sociopathic robber barons by now abd be all the better off for it. WHO CARES if Joe Average has to change jobs and work for a battery company instead of a car company. Humanity is adaptable, and if it applies itself, can find a way to make the transition away from oil less painful. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3725 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
The_Toecutter wrote:
they can greatly ease the pain of the decline provided work begins BEFORE the decline becomes serious.
I think the decline is already becoming serious, especially if you consider the combined impact of the subprime crisis on top of the spectre of $4/gallon oil on the horizon.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Toecutter,
Your cornucopian idealism might've been plausible four decades ago. We can't revert our global ecological wasteland back to Eden with high mileage EVs, recycling, or education. As Monte would say only hubris wants to avoid consequences of overshoot(regardless who was responsible for exploiting it) with the ongoing die-off of the oceans, forests, overall biodiversity, cumulation of chemical toxins, propagation of genetic mutations. Find peace within yourself and/or a communal lifeboat, remembering your brown recluse story I'm sure you'd be great at permaculture.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Quote:
Your cornucopian idealism might've been plausible four decades ago. We can't revert our global ecological wasteland back to Eden with high mileage EVs, recycling, or education. As Monte would say only hubris wants to avoid consequences of overshoot(regardless who was responsible for exploiting it) with the ongoing die-off of the oceans, forests, overall biodiversity, cumulation of chemical toxins, propagation of genetic mutations. Find peace within yourself and/or a communal lifeboat, remembering your brown recluse story I'm sure you'd be great at permaculture.
Idealist? To an extent. Without ideas, you can't change the current reality. Cornucopian? Definately not!
If you think we have a wasteland now, you haven't seen a thing yet. Things could get much, much worse(and probably will). If humanity tries, it can prevent a 'Soylent Green' scenaario from occuring, despite the fact that we are already in overshoot. It may take 50-60 years before the population starts declining, and it would require each person to use approxamately 1/3-1/2 of the resources they currently do to prevent collapse in the meantime, but it is not completely and utterly hopeless, UNLESS the status quo of unhindered growth we currently have is maintained.
The oceans aren't yet dead(if current trends hold, they have about 30-50 years), the forests are rapidly diminishing but can still be replaced to an extent(and clear cutting must be stopped), we are currently in the greatest mass extinction the world has ever seen and it will take until about 2100 to lose half of the existing species if current trends hold true, the accumulation of chemical toxins is largely linked to over-use of fossil fuels(most specifically oil), and the propagation of genetic mutations is moreso an act of Monsanto than humanity in general.
Our 'way of life' might be irreversably screwed and untenable, but humanity is not yet at that stage nor is a technological society yet there. If current trends continue, we will be in such a conundrum in very short order, even as few as 5 years from now if we don't start.
Time is shrinking more and more and the situation grows ever more hopeless. I was more optimistic in 2005 than today precisely because more time existed. BUT, there are barriers in the way of progress that threaten us all.
The choice is Ecotopia or Mad Max. Our 'leaders' have chosen Mad Max. Don't want Mad Max? The solution is obvious... _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Joined: Mar 05, 2006 Posts: 420 Location: East edge of the Milky Way
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Toecutter, I'd like to think you are right. My heart tells me though that things are likely too late. I have a 7 yr old daughter who will grow up in this oncoming tidal wave...will she be carried away in the undertow? I'll be long dead and never know. THAT fact scares me.
It saddens me that an Ecotopia may not get a chance to bloom. Fate being what it is one must be stoic, and accept what comes, good or bad, with equinimity.
As for 'Soylent Green', well, with cloning of animals for human consumption(not me thanks), and products like Quorn www.quorn.com (made from fungal mold) we've taken the first step into a bright new world...
Cheers, and lets hope you're right.
Alex
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3725 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
The_Toecutter wrote:
If humanity tries, it can prevent a 'Soylent Green' scenaario from occuring, despite the fact that we are already in overshoot. It may take 50-60 years before the population starts declining
In a period of overshoot "remission" via ecotopia, how do you propose that the population start to decline? It's not going to just happen magically. Without the invisible hand putting downward pressure on humanity, will human beings ever believe that die-off was around the corner or will they feel that they've been given a blank check to continue reproducing at the current rate?
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12529 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
mos6507 wrote:
In a period of overshoot "remission" via ecotopia, how do you propose that the population start to decline?
Likely they would be forced to live within their territorial resources (if we're talking ecotopia), which means limiting their population. Sort of like how non-civilized folks managed for about 100,000 years. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Quote:
In a period of overshoot "remission" via ecotopia, how do you propose that the population start to decline? It's not going to just happen magically. Without the invisible hand putting downward pressure on humanity, will human beings ever believe that die-off was around the corner or will they feel that they've been given a blank check to continue reproducing at the current rate?
Basic sociological fact: when living standards are good, people reproduce less!
In many 1st world countries, if it would not be for immigration, populations would be declining.
How to possibly achieve this?
a) 1st world countries hungry for resources should end those petty wars they started. They destroy wealth of those in 3rd world countries and consume much needed resources.
b) If we have increased efficiency and reduced environmental impact for everything we do(along with reduced cost that goes with it), the poor and middle class could afford a better life. This has the consequence of shifting the wealth back to consumers and laborers because they'll be able to SAVE.(eg. electric cars with reduced operating costs, homes designed for efficiency, wasteful/expensive factory farming ended)
c) Governments need to stop tryig to legislate morality. No more drug wars that waste money and promote conflict. No more promotion of a prison-industrial or military industrial complex that drains wealth from the taxpayers and enriches a few.
d) Leave the 3rd world alone. If the people of a country want a socialist government and want thje multinationals to leave their nations, the U.S. or other 1st world nations have no business trying to overthrow it.
e) Take the money being used to fund military expenditures, remove it, and instead use a small portion of it for education.
f) The U.N. claims To address the needs of these billions of people, billions of dollars are required. The cost of meeting water, sanitation and slum targets are in the range of $30 billion to $40 billion a year, the Commission estimates. The 1st world nations should each pay a small fee to fund this.
If people's BASIC NEEDS are met, they will reproduce much less. For this to happen, we need to keep our air and water clean, stop clear-cutting forests so that wealthy 1st world consumers can indulge in overpriced goods that even the middle class of their countries can barely afford, stop shipping around a fuel used in our transport that is causing ecological catastrophie everywhere it is(oil has been disasterous to Nigeria's environment and now it can't grow the food it needs/due to the actions of oil companies the population is poor and has bred themselves into overshoot)...
We need replacements for much of what we do, and in some cases, we have replacements. They just aren't conducive to maintainnig our economic system as the current way of doing things is.
This solution is by no means fool proof and I haven't gone into much detail(I may later), but it's a start. Unfortunately, the policy of our governments hasn't resulted in the empowerment or enrichment the poor or middle class, but instead to enrich themselves. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Much of our wastefulness is designed into society, and not exclusively the result of natural human desires and impulses. It is designed to generate wealth for those who own the means of production and for those who run nations, under the guise that it will magically redistribute itself to everyone. Just because the GDP rises does not mean everyone benefits, in fact in recent years in the US, the GDP's kept rising and growth has continued, but your middle class and poor have lower living standards. This same also frequently happens in the 3rd world.
Too few people are consuming too much, while those with nothing breed like rabbits in hopes that they will have someone to care for them when they're too old to work. This is the reality.
Reduce resource consumption while maintaining living standards in the 1st world(so that some resources remain for the poor in the 3rd world), feed the poor in the 3rd world, give them access to water, and basic healthcare to lower IMR(so they breed less), and end wasteful resource wars, and we'll have a very good start and the problem will become a lot easier to adress. It wouldn't be a good solution for big agribussness, oil companies, defense contractors, or sociopathic politicians, but at least it will be of benefit to humanity as a whole... _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Joined: Nov 03, 2007 Posts: 195 Location: cascadia
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
The_Toecutter wrote:
Basic sociological fact: when living standards are good, people reproduce less!
WTF? Are you kidding me? You have more of everything and you reproduce less? I don't think that at all qualifies as a fact.
What makes you think that these people with so-called "higher living standards" are capable of reproduction, period? Instead, maybe higher standard of living = more stuff that makes you incapable of reproducing? I can give examples if you like.
Lovelock has it right, but there is still the open question of when his vision comes to pass. I say sooner. Others say later. The fact is it is coming.
No technology will save us, but that will not stop the technological-minded folks from trying, damn the consequences. In fact, they will accelerate the downfall, as has happened in so many other areas where we "tried to help."
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Quote:
WTF? Are you kidding me? You have more of everything and you reproduce less? I don't think that at all qualifies as a fact.
Quick explanation:
If you're impoverished(by 3rd world standards) and IMR in your country is high, you're more likely to have more children because you want to ensure some of them survive into adulthood. You also want them for labor because if you're impoverished, you're not paying for medical care or college because these things would take more than a lifetime to earn for even one person. You're going to want someone to be able to care for you when you are old and cannot work, because there is no social security or free hospitals. Children are thus economic assets and relatively inexpensive to have, thus those who are impoverished have more of them.
If you're wealthy(by 3rd world standards, or 'middle class' in the 1st world), children are economic burdens. They require a huge investment in order to function in a 1st world society, often needing education after grade school and high school, and definately needing medical care(because if you can afford it and don't provide it, it is negligence on your part). Since you're wealthy, you probably have a means to save money so that you can retire when you are too old to work or have some sort of government program to aid you when you are that age. Children are thus economic burdens and relatively expensive to have, thus those who are wealthy have less of them.
If you are still reluctant to believe me, here is a chart depicting GDP per capita versus fertility rate:
It sounds counter-intuitive, but it is very, very real. The more well-off people become, the LESS children they have.
It is easy to observe that by encouraging policicies that result in a huge disparity in wealth between rich and poor, our economic/political system is actively encouraging overpopulation.
Quote:
No technology will save us, but that will not stop the technological-minded folks from trying, damn the consequences. In fact, they will accelerate the downfall, as has happened in so many other areas where we "tried to help."
Technology is not a panacea, but it can certainly help. In the case that one technology replaces oil use, lowers resource consumption, lowers ecological footprint, lowers cost, and lowers pollution copared with using oil, then it is helping the problem of peak oil, not exacerbating it. There are consequences to everything we do, but oil has by far been the most disasterous resource we have used. using less of it is going to help the situation.
Technology can help us as a species use less oil for the same amount of work. This is a good thing. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Joined: Sep 14, 2004 Posts: 6468 Location: Rural Virginia
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
The richer people are the fewer children they have, but the more resources those children consume. So you have a net increase in environmental damage.
Population is still rising, Toecutter. 100,000 new mouths to feed every day, net of deaths.
So we've got a double whammy. Population still rising, consumption still rising. And the Earth's health status entering the critical zone, with multiple trends (like global warming) irreversible no matter what we do.
Eat, drink, and be merry, for we are all doomed. _________________ "Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Quote:
The richer people are the fewer children they have, but the more resources those children consume. So you have a net increase in environmental damage.
True. But once people's basic needs are met, the fertility rate easily drops below 2.1.
Worldwide GDP per capita was $8,800/year or so in 2004. Even just over half of that is enough to go around for everyone while still having a sizable middle class having living standards similar to that of europe today(including access to automobiles and electronic luxuries), if and only if the environmental impact of transportation is reduced, energy consumption lessened, impact of energy production lessened, and 'planned obsolescence' and all of the landfill refuse it generates done away with. This would naturally result in a redistribution of wealth away from the transnationals, which is precisely why we keep sucking away at the oil tit in spite of technologically viable alternatives...
Quote:
Population is still rising, Toecutter. 100,000 new mouths to feed every day, net of deaths.
And it is depressing. Our society was definately in a position to reverse this in the 1970s, but those running the transnational corporations and world governments had other ideas: maximize growth at all costs.
Today, we are still in a position to at least make this crisis less painful(and a very slim possibility of managing it), but again greed is in the way.
Most people in the 1st world have no concept of how those in the 3rd world live. In many countries, if you have a pair of shoes of your own, you're better off than most. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Lovelock says Eat Drink and be Merry, for we are all doo
Quote:
The choice is Ecotopia or Mad Max. Our 'leaders' have chosen Mad Max. Don't want Mad Max? The solution is obvious...
So, why are you still using a computer? That's not part of your basic needs. People won't change their habbits of overconsumption because they don't want to. I have a theory... that you'll get huge corporations and nations draining resources at extreme speeds because all things equal, there will always be a bias towards that kind of behaviour in humans. It's futile to do the blame game because "everyone" is part of it. _________________ "Life is merely an orderly decay of energy states, and survival requires the continual discovery of new energy to pump into the system. He who controls the sources of energy controls the means of survival. "
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
