Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1497 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
If the die-off comes in the form of a pandemic disease, there is no mitigation.
I would qualify this by saying there are mitigations that governments and individuals can take to lessen the mortality rate of a severe pandemic. Some countries and locales eliminated any travel into their areas in 1918 and succeeded in avoiding infection. Others tried and failed, so the success of any set of mitigations will be highly dependent on the ability of the government (or individual) to formulate and implement them. Overall, however, any pandemic that reaches Phase 5 will result in some percentage of global mortality.
Quote:
Few people can grasp just how much of a phantom fossil fuels are and just how collosal we have become.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
skyemoor wrote:
MrBean wrote:
skyemoor wrote:
MrBean wrote:
I've read what was pasted here and commented that. Based on what I read, Catton does not know about no-till farming which disproves his claim about need for animals to plow the land and need for more land to feed the animals.
Mr Bean, are you familiar with draft horse no-till methods for grain and bean production? I am familiar with those applied to certain vegetable crops, though I would like to hear your take on experiments with grains and bean.
Don't know much, was introduced to the subject through Fukuoka's no-till farming, where AFAIK only manual labour is needed for spreading the seeds of grain and white clover for cover, spreading mulch and collecting the harvest.
So if I understand correctly, manual labor would be utilized to plant, weed, harvest, cover crop, and prepare for planting again.
No even weeding of preparing for planting. Natural cover of green mulch (white clover in Fukuokas case) takes care of the weeds, as far is needed.
Quote:
What is your understanding of the amount of labor required to execute the above process in order to provide enough grain and beans for a family of four?
I ask this because I am experimenting with various grains and techniques, and am fighting virulent weeds in the process. All manual at this time, though my grain plots range from 20 sf to 750 sf. I didn't read anything in there that mentions in a practical sense how to rid one's soil of weeds, and then keep them under control.
Do you have any hands-on experience with Fukuoka's techniques?
No hands-on experience on pretty much anything, just starting my gardening career. IIRC about four hours work or less per day is enough to provide for basic needs in natural farming - once the soil has regained it's health learning curve of how "not-to-do" has played out. Fukuoka's own books can be found and downloaded from here:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/
Fukuokas way of doing - or rather, not-doing - things cannot be applied directly, as it is mainly for Japanese climate, but the general philosophy and his power of example seem pretty convincing. If I had land and opportunity to grow grain, I'd probably start by trying many ways, to slowly learn and see what combination (of natural cover/companion for wich grain etc. etc.) works best for a lazy bastard. Starting with white clover, as Fukuoka recommends. But you get better idea by reading the books than reading my babble.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
However, to reiterate, if it is your intention to educate by contributing to forums such as this, you will serve to only defeat that objective without a more concilliatory debating tone.
I have been posting here for almost 4 years. Read my earlier posts. I used to be more patient.
I am not anymore, especially to ignorance with no excuse.
Actually MonteQuest, I have to admit to suffering exactly the same sense of frustration as you and also becoming intermperate in the face of having to explain the same points over and over again on anoither forum I regularly contribute to.
So, I guess, a case of kettle calling pot black.....
Neverethless, I must recognise that others will not be persuaded by my lack of temperance and so I must endeavour to remain patient....no matter the provocation
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
TonyPrep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
It is pure science!
Hmm. Has there been any example of a civilization in overshoot that actually chose to alter their behaviours to sustainable ones and yet still collapsed?
Not only no civilization, no species of any kind.
Overshoot pushes a species so far beyond what is sustainable, only a massive reduction in shear numbers can reset the balance.
How can we just stop the wheels of commerce to alter our impact and still feed everyone?
Think cultural direction and asset enertia. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Nicholai wrote:
Monte is right but it just sucks cuz theres not a damn thing you can do about it. Didn't the black plague kill off half of Iceland on two occasions? There is no where to run. No where to hide. I'm bringing my puffer.
What many seem to forget or not notice, but I have a very moderate view of overshoot and dieoff.
Montequest wrote:
There has been a continuous debate about whether or not there will be a die-off of the human population post-peak oil. I think there is great confusion regarding this. Will there be a massive increase in human mortality across the globe overnight? It is possible, but in my opinion, not very likely, unless we nuke the oil fields. I think that what we will see will reflect the inequity in the world today; the difference between the haves and the have nots.
Obviously, if I believe that, then there is much one can do to prepare for this downsizing, and where you live may be crucial. I have wrriten at length about all this for years.
But I firmly believe that our biggest threat isn't going to be food supply per se for many of the world in the near term, but disease born in the armpits of the world that are festering with famine, strife, and discontent.
Disease has been mankind's predator for most of his existance. Disease can be looked upon as man’s keystone predator. “Keystone predator” is an ecological term used to describe the basic principle by which a predator may be a balancing force on an ecosystem. For this reason, special care must be taken with identified keystone predators to keep them from being hunted out of an ecosystem. Other than in some vials in a lab at the CDC, many of man’s keystone predators are extinct; others are of little consequence. Yes, we are no longer plagued with the evils of disease, but that was nature’s way of controlling our numbers and insuring a strong gene pool.
There are new predators that await us. Trust me.
No, trust nature. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
skyemoor wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
If the die-off comes in the form of a pandemic disease, there is no mitigation.
I would qualify this by saying there are mitigations that governments and individuals can take to lessen the mortality rate of a severe pandemic.
But why would a person knowledable in ecological overshoot want to stop the rebalancing process that ensures our survival?
The boat is sinking from being overlaoded and you want to stop people from jumping ship?
Hard for people to think that way, but we are going to have to. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
It is pure science!
Hmm. Has there been any example of a civilization in overshoot that actually chose to alter their behaviours to sustainable ones and yet still collapsed?
Not only no civilization, no species of any kind.
Overshoot pushes a species so far beyond what is sustainable, only a massive reduction in shear numbers can reset the balance.
How can we just stop the wheels of commerce to alter our impact and still feed everyone?
Think cultural direction and asset enertia.
So there are no examples, and yet you state it as science, as though it were proven fact. I don't know how we would stop the wheels of commerce and feed everyone. Maybe in an orderly, controlled, manner? I'm not holding my breath, though.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1497 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
skyemoor wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
If the die-off comes in the form of a pandemic disease, there is no mitigation.
I would qualify this by saying there are mitigations that governments and individuals can take to lessen the mortality rate of a severe pandemic.
But why would a person knowledable in ecological overshoot want to stop the rebalancing process that ensures our survival?
The boat is sinking from being overlaoded and you want to stop people from jumping ship?
Hard for people to think that way, but we are going to have to.
I merely addressed the question at hand; you have broached a different policy altogether - using a pandemic as a way to draw down the population. The trouble is, there may not be another pandemic for another 20 years, too late to act as the overpopulation antidote.
What leader would remain in office if he/she pledged to reduce the population through lack of preparation for a pandemic? That might touch off a wave of people preparing on their own, whereas that might result in more people surviving. And there are any number of scenarios, such as some countries secretly preparing so that their greater numbers after a pandemic might be able to expand their borders into weaker, ill-prepared nations' lands. _________________ http://www.carfree.com http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html
Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur
He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
TonyPrep wrote:
So there are no examples, and yet you state it as science, as though it were proven fact.
There is no example of a perpetual motion motion either, but I would state it as a fact that you cannot create energy.
The observations of biology show us that all species in overshoot always crash following their exponential bloom beyond carrying capacity.
Not only a proven fact, but a proven necessity for species survival.
It's the way the world works. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
skyemoor wrote:
I merely addressed the question at hand; you have broached a different policy altogether - using a pandemic as a way to draw down the population. The trouble is, there may not be another pandemic for another 20 years, too late to act as the overpopulation antidote.
Duh??? I have never advocated using a pandemic to drawdown the population. That is the province and method of choice for nature.
Quote:
What leader would remain in office if he/she pledged to reduce the population through lack of preparation for a pandemic? That might touch off a wave of people preparing on their own, whereas that might result in more people surviving. And there are any number of scenarios, such as some countries secretly preparing so that their greater numbers after a pandemic might be able to expand their borders into weaker, ill-prepared nations' lands.
This thinking is why Catton wrote his book.
We will try to avert, avoid or mitigate the die-off. We will fight the die-off. This will be the worse thing we can do. We will just crash that much more resoundly with greater death and suffering.
We cannot beat Mother Nature. She bats last. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
TonyPrep wrote:
I don't know how we would stop the wheels of commerce and feed everyone. Maybe in an orderly, controlled, manner? I'm not holding my breath, though.
Let me restate that, then.
We aren't an agrarian society.
We are divorced from the production of the necessities of life. We go to the market place. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
So there are no examples, and yet you state it as science, as though it were proven fact.
There is no example of a perpetual motion motion either, but I would state it as a fact that you cannot create energy.
I'm suprised you would choose such an inept analogy, Monte. There is some evidence that people can live with vastly fewer resources and with a vastly reduced effect (even zero) on the environment (if you don't believe this then you must also believe that no population can be sustainable). You're saying that it's a proven scientific fact that a population currently in overshoot, given a certain set of behaviours, cannot possibly avoid a die-off if the whole of that population starts behaving in a way that doesn't deplete natural resources, beyond those renewal rates and that doesn't damage the environment.
It is not a scientific fact, it is human opinion. Unless you can point to studies or examples of populations that were in overshoot but radically and quickly modified their lifestyles to be sustainable.
This is independent of how likely it is but you treat low probability as certainty. It is not certainty, Monte.
MonteQuest wrote:
The observations of biology show us that all species in overshoot always crash following their exponential bloom beyond carrying capacity.
But not if the members of that species alter their behaviours (including reproduction, of course).
MonteQuest wrote:
Not only a proven fact, but a proven necessity for species survival.
Not even a proven fact, for populations that radically alter their behaviours. At least not proven, that you're aware of.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
TonyPrep wrote:
You're saying that it's a proven scientific fact that a population currently in overshoot, given a certain set of behaviours, cannot possibly avoid a die-off if the whole of that population starts behaving in a way that doesn't deplete natural resources, beyond those renewal rates and that doesn't damage the environment.
It is not a scientific fact, it is human opinion. Unless you can point to studies or examples of populations that were in overshoot but radically and quickly modified their lifestyles to be sustainable.
The studies show the sustainable population to be 2 to 3 billion at an adequate standard of living, while embracing ecological limits, using renewables, and changing behavior.
I don't think you grasp how much phamtom carrying capacity fossil fuels gives us.
The total population of the world has remained essentially constant for most of the history of mankind. World population fluctuated between 10 million and 300 million for most of the last 10,000 years, never reaching 1 billion until about 1850.
Then came germ theory and fossil fuels.
Now you posit he can maintain 6.7 billion and more if he just changes behavior?
You are posng a hypothetical similar to "if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass."
Do the math. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
TonyPrep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
The observations of biology show us that all species in overshoot always crash following their exponential bloom beyond carrying capacity.
But not if the members of that species alter their behaviours (including reproduction, of course).
Tony, if we were at, say 3 billion and started to change behavior, then your argument may hold water.
But from what I have read over the years, we are far far too far into overshoot to avert a die-off of some degree, no matter what we do.
Call it an opinion if you want.
Let's leave it at that, ok? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Revi wrote:
I used to have a peach tree in my front yard and the kids would steal them when they got close to ripe. What a pain. We still got a lot, but they were an awfully tempting thing for kids.
I don't know what we'll do when it gets bad. I may put a fence up soon.
Ha. Mulberry tree here. We had a fence. Didn't keep the damn birds and squirrels away. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
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
