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.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
BigTex wrote:
What I'm thinking, though, is that when we talk about 2-3 billion humans as what the earth can handle, it seems like we need to know more about what kind of livestock baggage those 2-3 billion will be bringing with them to the party. If each of those 2-3 billion have several head of cattle, a dog, a cat, chickens, pigs, etc., then we are really talking about WAY more than 2-3 billion.
OTOH, if most of those 2-3 billion have no livestock and are vegetarian, that's a different matter. The ecological footprint of that population will be much smaller, because it is, in effect, a much smaller population than the same 2-3 billion where each of them has their own petting zoo.
That said, of course, 2-3 billion would only be helpful in any case if the population was not growing. I'm still not sure how you get to zero population growth without coercion. Affluence is supposed to work, but I don't know if there will be enough of that in the future to keep people from filling their evenings with amour.
Assuming we're deeply overpopulated our carrying capacity with all this extra consumption it wouldn't matter in the prevailing view here because:
1. We would have allready destroyed much ecological capital in the process of going into overshoot such that carrying capacity would be reduced. I don't know what this ecological capital is, presumably its wetlands, topsoil, forests, fisheries, biodiversity, polar bears or rare jeweled dung beetles..
2. Society is not egalitarian. The rich would let the poor starve, die of disease, or engage in tribal genocide rather than give up their cheeseburgers and fluffy. The middle class will become petless vegetarians. The poor will... oh wait, theres no poor now.
I dont think dieoff is likely, but I think the notion of coercion to avoid a dieoff is even less likely.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
BigTex wrote:
Monte, this is a question that I know has been discussed in other threads, but perhaps you can provide you thoughts on it again here and it relates to domesticated animals.
It seems to me that when we are talking about the population that is in overshoot, it's not just humans, but it's the whole "civilization package", and that includes people, dogs, cats, cattle, pigs, chickens, goats, and whatever other domesticated animals we keep around for entertainment, food, or work around the farm.
Let's say that we decided to euthanize every single one of these domesticated animals other than those strictly necessary to pull plows, carry us around and other similar tasks. Where would that leave us on the die-off counter?
The effects, of course, would be that we would all be vegetarians and there would be some heartsick dog owners (I think the cat owners would probably get along okay), but it seems that this approach would significantly reduce the civilization footprint of humans.
Your thoughts?
That may work... over time, not suddenly. Same with human births; it's preferable to make less births than to "euthanize" the unborn (abortion). With pets; buy less not "euthanize" more. _________________ @deviantART @wordpress @hi5
Joined: Jan 01, 2007 Posts: 246 Location: Pacific Northwest
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Those of you who advocate eliminating domesticated animals have no clue about natural cycles. Animals are an integral part of a balanced system. They provide nutrients for the soil, and can turn cellulose into high caloric high quality food. In addition they can clear land, control pests, and provide labor.
Trying to develop a sustainable homestead with out animals is tantamount to trying to clap with only one hand.
I suggest you read some of Joel Salatin’s books for a more complete understanding of the value of animals in a sustainable environment.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
coyote wrote:
Switching to a sustainable way of living while in overshoot is impossible - because once you're in overshoot, there is no way of living that can be maintained indefinitely
That statement is missing a qualification to make it true.
You need to re-read his post.
I guess my scenarios would fall under what he calls "mini-overshoot" then. Since we don't have a world government, It is beneficial to look at this problem from a national level as well as the world as a whole. I do not believe the United States is in Overshoot. Perhaps "mini-overshoot" though.
As a side note, I just looked up population densities of various countries. The United Sates looks positively sparse compared to some of these countries. I would not want to be in Bangladesh when TSHTF.
An even more important statistic would be grain production per capita. Again the United States comes out ahead here too. 75% of our crop could fail in a year and we would still produce more per capita than Russia. I would not want to live in India/Indonesia when TSHTF:
Quote:
Metric Tons of Coarse Grain per 1,000 people:
United States: 930
Germany: 244
Russia: 213
China: 95
India: 35
Indonesia: 26
When half the cereal supply of a country is fed to livestock, a sudden fall in cereal production as a result of plant disease, insect attack, drought or war would result only in a fall in meat, milk and egg production; if almost all the cereal supply is consumed by humans (as in Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Bangladesh), a fall in cereal production can result in famine. A 25 percent fall in cereal production in China in 1959-61 caused 30 million deaths, while the 40 percent fall in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s only caused a fall in the consumption of animal products.
Overpopulation _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
kublikhan wrote:
Metric Tons of Coarse Grain per 1,000 people:
United States: 930
Of which 80% is used to produce meat. And it is not based on sustainable agriculture but mining the top soil at increasing speed resulting in desertification.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1497 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
skyemoor wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
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.
You seem to have lost the bubble on this thread, but with that attitude, I am not inclined to bring you back on track. Good day.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:09 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MrBean wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
Metric Tons of Coarse Grain per 1,000 people:
United States: 930
Of which 80% is used to produce meat. And it is not based on sustainable agriculture but mining the top soil at increasing speed resulting in desertification.
Conclusions?
My conclusion is that if we were hit by a disaster and lost 80% of our crop, we would still live. Or if we reverted to sustainable agriculture with yields of only 1/5 of what we have today, we would still live. _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4338 Location: Graceland
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
careinke wrote:
Those of you who advocate eliminating domesticated animals have no clue about natural cycles. Animals are an integral part of a balanced system. They provide nutrients for the soil, and can turn cellulose into high caloric high quality food. In addition they can clear land, control pests, and provide labor.
Trying to develop a sustainable homestead with out animals is tantamount to trying to clap with only one hand.
I suggest you read some of Joel Salatin’s books for a more complete understanding of the value of animals in a sustainable environment.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
I think that I was the first one to mention domestic animals in this thread, and I am NOT advocating eliminating them. I mentioned domestic animal euthanasia only for purposes of understanding how that would impact the state of overshoot, and I specifically excluded the animals needed to run a farm. _________________
Joined: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 1198 Location: Central NC
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
kublikhan wrote:
MrBean wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
Metric Tons of Coarse Grain per 1,000 people:
United States: 930
Of which 80% is used to produce meat. And it is not based on sustainable agriculture but mining the top soil at increasing speed resulting in desertification.
Conclusions?
My conclusion is that if we were hit by a disaster and lost 80% of our crop, we would still live. Or if we reverted to sustainable agriculture with yields of only 1/5 of what we have today, we would still live.
What groups are you including in the "we"? Sounds like you are assuming no knock-on effects in your scenario which is both simplistic and implausible. _________________ "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:45 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
kublikhan wrote:
MrBean wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
Metric Tons of Coarse Grain per 1,000 people:
United States: 930
Of which 80% is used to produce meat. And it is not based on sustainable agriculture but mining the top soil at increasing speed resulting in desertification.
Conclusions?
My conclusion is that if we were hit by a disaster and lost 80% of our crop, we would still live. Or if we reverted to sustainable agriculture with yields of only 1/5 of what we have today, we would still live.
Yeah. Except, there are complications. Peak Oil and Peak Everything is not a physical problem, it's a social one.
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 607 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
coyote wrote:
As I understand it, there are three relevant states for a population: sustainability, exceeding the carrying capacity, and overshoot.
Sustainability is a state of population and behavior that can be maintained indefinitely.
Exceeding the carrying capacity is something that all species do - but in this state of "mini-overshoot," as it were, the situation can be corrected. In a normal state of excess such as this, we brainy humans can take steps to alter our behavior and so bring our population back in line with what is sustainable before degrading the carrying capacity too far.
But in a state of overshoot, by definition, a population of a species is so far beyond the long term carrying capacity that no such adjustments can possibly right the scales again. This is generally caused by a great new stock of energy, and/or the disappearance of one's predators (our hydrocarbons and germ theory, for instance, or the reindeers' lichens and absence of predators on St. Matthew Island). The carrying capacity begins to degrade as soon as overshoot is breached, since the resources needed for that species' survival are now being used up at an unsustainable rate - and every moment spent in overshoot lowers the carrying capacity further. While this is occurring, the population can continue to expand for a while through this drawdown. Eventually, the Liebig minimum will be discovered and the crash begin.
Switching to a sustainable way of living while in overshoot is impossible - because once you're in overshoot, there is no way of living that can be maintained indefinitely (re our definition of sustainability), other than to get yourself back out of overshoot, i.e. population reduction. Any attempt to make that switch amounts to a vicious game of trying to catch up to the carrying capacity as it continues its decline. However, such attempts are not without merit, since they can ultimately reduce the severity of the crash. This is the only thing that sets us apart from other species in this predicament: our ability to make rational decisions that might cushion the fall somewhat.
Germ theory and petroleum did not increase our carrying capacity - they simply gave us the means to overshoot it. Switching to nuclear power would no more increase carrying capacity than petroleum has. It would simply keep us in overshoot that much longer, while the rest of everything we need dwindles and disappears under the burden of our massive population.
If you don't believe that there is a "rest of everything we need," then this won't make much sense to you.
MonteQuest wrote:
Awesome post! You got it all correct, IMHO.
Almost all. He missed only what you often do, namely, the military disadvantage of reducing population before the neighboring groups do, and the tragedy in the commons which that disadvantage implies. Globally, we must reduce population. But no nation can afford to reduce first. Hence, more resource wars.
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 607 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
kublikhan wrote:
maxindian wrote:
I live in mumbai subrubs city of 13 square kms. having population of 600,000 people. In other words i live in extremely dense area. My father, brother drives 125cc 2 wheelers vehicles and have oil consumption of about 1 gallon per month. This is what average person use here. We are using very less then what average person uses in western world. Our standard of living can only improve if we have less people here.
13 square km and 600,000 people? If my math is right, thats only like 18 square feet per person. That must suck.
Camping out in the park, "Hey! This is my 18 square feet, get your own!"
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Homesteader wrote:
What groups are you including in the "we"? Sounds like you are assuming no knock-on effects in your scenario which is both simplistic and implausible.
I was attempting to determine if the United States was in overshoot. IE, at this point, anything it's citizens do to attempt to overt die-off are irrelevant. I don't think the United States is in overshoot. That does not mean I believe everything in the United States will be hunky-dory. We might all choose to murder each other if we don't get our morning latte. I'm just saying the US is not in overshoot. _________________ 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
