[MonteQuest]

Monte, since according to you most of us are going to die a slow painful death anyway, I don't know why you are even concerned with whether we drill anywhere or not. In fact, I fail to see the purpose of your posts at all since as far as I can tell you have absolutely no answers other than to say we're all basically screwed. I'm guessing you must be a survival shelter salesman or something....otherwise I can't figure out why you're wasting our time.

Not according to me. I am just the messenger.

An unsustainable paradigm based upon cheap, readiliy available fossil fuels and basic biology tells us that there will be a correction.

Wasting our time?

While I don't claim to have the definitive word on the peak oil debate, I do feel I have touched on issues that others have not. I write to stimulate thought, and to try to explain the parameters and natural laws which must govern the debate as we discuss solutions and consider the alternatives to our imminent energy decline.

This "power down" business....I mean can you explain that to a poor ignorant southern boy? From what I've read it basically means reducing our lifestyles back to.....what, the stone age?

You have been reading trash, then. No, it means reducing our lifestyles to a sustainable level within ecological limits.

Not acceptable to you? Tough, then let nature do it. And trust me, she will not be as gentle by default as we could be by design.

I have seen a lot of doomsday forecasts in my time, but fortunately there have always been enough dumb people that didn't know any better who have worked their butts off to keep those forecasts from coming true.

Overshoot and collapse is not a doomsday forecast; it is the reality of nature and the way the world works.

Get used to it.

If you're not part of the solution, what are you? Either fish or cut bait....otherwise get out of the boat.

There are no solutions; only options.

This obesssion with solutions is keeping us from addressing the cause by bandaiding the symptoms.

[Madpaddy]

MQ wrote,

There are no solutions; only options.

This obesssion with solutions is keeping us from addressing the cause by bandaiding the symptoms.

Agreed, back to Kunstler's old chestnut again. We'll keep doing what we're doing until we can't and then we wont.

[MonteQuest]

What I don't understand is those who wish to make die-off happen by consciouss acts instead of letting it happen naturally, if and when we refuse to live naturally.

Because naturally will be much worse a scenario that by human design and may actually threaten human existance. A nature induced die-off also devastates the carrying capacity to such a low level that the sustainable population level before the bloom can not be carried anymore.

That might be a billion or less.

[Ludi]

What I don't understand is those who wish to make die-off happen by consciouss acts instead of letting it happen naturally, if and when we refuse to live naturally.

If by "die-off" we mean "drastic reduction of the population" why is it necessarily bad if we choose to reduce our population? What is necessarily bad about reducing the birth rate to below the death rate (birthrate well below replacement)? Granted it would be bad if these actions were by force or coercion, but I don't recall Monte ever advocating force or coercion. As I recall he is continually talking about us choosing to take action rather than waiting for the worst to happen "naturally."


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument.

[MonteQuest]

If by "die-off" we mean "drastic reduction of the population" why is it necessarily bad if we choose to reduce our population? What is necessarily bad about reducing the birth rate to below the death rate (birthrate well below replacement)? Granted it would be bad if these actions were by force or coercion, but I don't recall Monte ever advocating force or coercion. As I recall he is continually talking about us choosing to take action rather than waiting for the worst to happen "naturally."

Very accurate, Ludi.

Most people rail at the very idea of population reduction, while failing to even comptemplate the consequences of not doing so.

[Ludi]

Most people rail at the very idea of population reduction, while failing to even comptemplate the consequences of not doing so.

Because when most people read or hear the words "population reduction" they immediately leap to the conclusion it means "killing people."

[MonteQuest]

Most people rail at the very idea of population reduction, while failing to even comptemplate the consequences of not doing so.

Because when most people read or hear the words "population reduction" they immediately leap to the conclusion it means "killing people."

Yep, MonteQuest, the Nazi. LOL!

[Ludi]

Yep, MonteQuest, the Nazi. LOL!

Is there a way of talking about it which doesn't immediately provoke that reaction? Because the reaction is predictable, is there a way to talk about reducing the birthrate to below the deathrate that doesn't make folks immediately think of "killing people"? Is it the words "population reduction" themselves that are the problem?

[Homesteader]

If by "die-off" we mean "drastic reduction of the population" why is it necessarily bad if we choose to reduce our population? What is necessarily bad about reducing the birth rate to below the death rate (birthrate well below replacement)? Granted it would be bad if these actions were by force or coercion, but I don't recall Monte ever advocating force or coercion. As I recall he is continually talking about us choosing to take action rather than waiting for the worst to happen "naturally."

Very accurate, Ludi.

Most people rail at the very idea of population reduction, while failing to even comptemplate the consequences of not doing so.

Population reduction is anti-growth which is a heresy as is proposing limits on peoples choices. Denial, denial, denial.

If folks want children there are plenty of them in great need of a loving home, not to mention adequate nutrition, medical care and shoes.

How about a global 1:1 rule. Have a child adopt a child. Just have the U.N. enforce it.


edited to add: Mods may want to cut and paste the die-off posts to the 6,000,000,000 thread.

[Ludi]

How about a global 1:1 rule. Have a child adopt a child.

Except we can't all have a child if we want the population to drop. A significant number of us have to choose to be childfree (childless).

[Snik]

Monte Monte Monte, oh, if the world just worked the way you seem to think it does. Most western nations are either flat or negative for population growth by birth anyway. The main way the US keeps growing is by immigration. So, how do you propose to "convince" Latin America, Africa, and other areas of high population growth to quit having babies if you are not going to do it by force? Or maybe castration medication in their water supplies would work.

If the scenario you are talking about is true, shouldn't any means to reduce population be considered? I would think that a threat to the planet of the severity you believe it to be would warrant drastic actions. If our leadership actually believed the way you do, wouldn't you think their reaction would be of a severity equal to the problem? We've gone to war for a lot less. That being the case, your attempt at convincing people that the world as we know it is going to end, and billions are going to die if we don't do something is, by inference, advocating very drastic measures. If you succeed in your quest to convince the world of this, drastic measures will be taken. Our violent history certainly supports that assumption.

Maybe Texas should go ahead and secede from the nation now before chaos comes to reign. We can take care of ourselves down here, always have, always will. Oil? We've got it. Refineries? Yup. Food production? Uh Huh. Military? Got plenty of that too. Bring it.

[Ludi]

Snik, are you advocating forced population reduction? Or are you saying that [i[Monte[/i] should be advocating forced population reduction?

I'm confused by your argument, if you have one.

[Homesteader]

How about a global 1:1 rule. Have a child adopt a child.

Except we can't all have a child if we want the population to drop. A significant number of us have to choose to be childfree (childless).

Could you explain your reasoning further because you lost me.

I was working on the assumption that a couple would have one biological child and adopt one. The replacement rate is already something like 2.1 biological children per couple to take into account those who don't have children. Why would having one biological child per couple not cause a decline in population? Would it be a fair assumption that some people would choose to remain childless instead of having one of their own and adopting another?

My thinking is in order for a policy to work people need some choice to make it at all palatable.

[Ludi]

I was working on the assumption that a couple would have one biological child and adopt one.

Oh ok, you're talking about per couple, not per person.

Of course people need some choice. One of those choices is to choose not to have children.

[Snik]

Snik, are you advocating forced population reduction? Or are you saying that [i[Monte[/i] should be advocating forced population reduction?

I'm confused by your argument, if you have one.

Ok, I thought it was pretty clear. Let me simplify it for you:

1) Monte says the world as we know it is going to end, billions are going to die if we don't do something about population growth;

2) He is trying to convince everyone of this;

3) If he convinces those with the power to do something about it that this is true, they will do something about it;

4) Given our violent history, what they do will involve force. We have gone to war for far less;

5) I am sure Monte knows all this, so, by inference, he is advocating a violent solution regardless of the sheeps clothing he tries to put on it.

I am not advocating anything other than drilling for more oil in this country. Given his scenario, I would think we would want to have every domestic reserve possible at hand when the excrement hits the fan.

[Homesteader]

I was working on the assumption that a couple would have one biological child and adopt one.

Oh ok, you're talking about per couple, not per person.

Of course people need some choice. One of those choices is to choose not to have children.

My initial post wasn't that clear since the idea occurred to me 5 seconds before I typed it.

I certainly agree that one of the choices is to not have children, however that still leaves adoption as an option.

One of the thorny issues is the better educated choose to have fewer children but consume proportionately much more while the uneducated continue their tradition of having many children.

Both those issues need to be addressed.

Unfortunately the current paradigm is people have the right to spend their money since they earned it. As some poster much wiser than me posted some time ago the only way to stop consuming is to stop spending. There is a lot of insight in that insight.

[AlexdeLarge]

Comrades !! There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Why all we have to do is follow the example set in the workers paradise of North Korea. The Dear Leader has taken the well being of the Proletariat to his bussom. He does not have to "Power Down".....he had the foresight to never "Power Up"! Population control......well that's not a problem, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet !!It's so easy to control the masses!! Just think of the fun we will all have at the collective together.

Soon our new "democratically" elected leaders will dispense with those pesky oil companies and profits will be a thing of the past. With one party rule and a devout marxist in command, we will march bravely into our new socialist future. (We sure don't need that 2nd admendment anymore, now do we!) Just remember, your federal government will always look after you and will always have your best interest at heart!!


You do know I'm being sarcastic.........right? Right?

[Tyler_JC]

Is anyone else tired of the "but it's only 5% of our supply! It won't make a difference" nonsense?

Each little piece of the puzzle is important. You can't just shoot down every single individual as having no impact on the whole.

Why bother to drill any individual well? It's only a couple hundred barrels a day, who cares?

Why bother to go to work every week? It's only a couple hundred dollars, it's not going to make a difference. Why not just stay home and watch CourtTV all day?

The argument that off-shore drilling shouldn't be attempted because it's "too small to make a difference" is defeatist and frankly, pathetic.

Moreover, the argument that it will take too long is equally pathetic. If we'd started oil exploration in the late 1990s, we would be getting our first barrels of Florida Crude by now!

It took six years to build the first transcontinental railroad, does that mean we shouldn't have bothered?

I'm glad people like that rarely rise to positions of importance in the private sector.

[MrBean]

What I don't understand is those who wish to make die-off happen by consciouss acts instead of letting it happen naturally, if and when we refuse to live naturally.

Because naturally will be much worse a scenario that by human design and may actually threaten human existance. A nature induced die-off also devastates the carrying capacity to such a low level that the sustainable population level before the bloom can not be carried anymore.

That might be a billion or less.

So are you really suggesting neutron bomb as a solution, as did (perhaps jokingly) the post I replied to? The subcontext here is the section of anarcho-primitivists who - like their guru Unabomber - suggest affirmative action in form of very lethal terrorism to fight the "population overshoot" to further a "greater good"? I suggest an anger management course for that crowd.

What I've learned so far is that we humans should not try to improve nature - that is where all the problems start - but live and die as part of nature. To live and die as part of nature doesn't mean knowing nature, it means confessing and accepting our ignorance.

It means not relying on calculative thinking and trying to administer nature with calculative thinking, but just relying on nature and her infinite blessings. You know, what also every religion says.

[MrBean]

What I don't understand is those who wish to make die-off happen by consciouss acts instead of letting it happen naturally, if and when we refuse to live naturally.

If by "die-off" we mean "drastic reduction of the population" why is it necessarily bad if we choose to reduce our population? What is necessarily bad about reducing the birth rate to below the death rate (birthrate well below replacement)? Granted it would be bad if these actions were by force or coercion, but I don't recall Monte ever advocating force or coercion. As I recall he is continually talking about us choosing to take action rather than waiting for the worst to happen "naturally."


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument.

I've nothing against reducing birth rate, on the opposite - that's what many other species besides humans have done as long as they have walked the Earth. The misunderstunding and the real target of my criticism was hopefully cleared in my previous post.