Snik wrote: We cannot simply stop using fossil fuels without completely, and utterly destroying our way of life, not to mention causing billions of untimely deaths by starvation, exposure to the elements, disease, etc.
I know that is what you believe is going to happen anyway, but as far as I am concerned I would just as soon put that off for as long as possible, just in case we can find a way out that is not as draconian as intentionally depriving people of medical care when they are ill, or allowing millions at a time starve to death so we can reduce our population to a sustainable level.
I'm just not ready to give up quite yet.
Montequest wrote:So, here we are in overshoot. We are living beyond our means. We spent our “bag of money” on toys and a phantom lifestyle that we don’t want to give up. We are insistent that giving up our toys, our lifestyle and our huge family is not an option. We won’t cut up the credit cards, nor powerdown our lifestyle.
We want a fix. We want something that keeps this phantom going...at all costs.
We foolishly believe that renewables will allow us to do so, while ignoring the writing on the wall from deforestation, loss of biodiversity, fisheries collapse, and global climate change.
We don’t want to submit to nature’s population correction. We wish to avoid that.
We are dreaming, while at the same time making matters worse with talk of electric cars and other techno-fixes to perpetuate an unsustainable lifestyle…a pure construct of overshoot via fossil fuels.
We want to focus on short-term, short-sighted, selfish solutions that allows us, (those living right now) to avoid bankruptcy, with no lasting solutions for those generations to follow. We need to stop this “solutions obsession” and focus on our options, instead.
Snik wrote:Without ideas and vision, we would still be hunter/gatherers dying at age 30, and wondering why round things roll.
MrBean wrote:We have very little to teach "primitive" peoples and not really anything of any real value, but a world to learn.
Read up on carrying capacity and overshoot.
outcast wrote:Read up on carrying capacity and overshoot.
Done that.
The problem I have with these arguments is that they rest on two assumptions:
1.) That there will not be any new technological developments. This point assumes that there will not be any more innovation, which is flat wrong.
2.) That when there are shortages of resources, alternatives will not be found. With very few exceptions (such as phosphorus) this is also not true.
outcast wrote:Sound familiar? If I didn't include the dates, you would think this prediction was made very recently. This actually came from a book written in 1968 called "The Population Bomb", which was a best seller back then. The predictions didn't happen, because new methods (in particular "shuttle breeding" and other selective breeding programs) and technologies were developed to deal with the problem.
outcast wrote:Read up on carrying capacity and overshoot.
Done that. The problem I have with these arguments is that they rest on two assumptions:
1.) That there will not be any new technological developments. This point assumes that there will not be any more innovation, which is flat wrong.
2.) That when there are shortages of resources, alternatives will not be found. With very few exceptions (such as phosphorus) this is also not true.
Ludi wrote: Who is saying we will stop using fossil fuels?
Ludi wrote:Who is intentionally depriving anyone of medical care?
MonteQuest wrote:Get out of the way of disease and stop trying to save everyone.
MrBean wrote:Snik wrote:Without ideas and vision, we would still be hunter/gatherers dying at age 30, and wondering why round things roll.
Hunter/gatherers had and have visions and even special social function for especially talented visionaries - shamanhood.
That's why they they live or lived or would live if industrial society would let them full satisfied lives. Because they had visions beyond their nose, beyond the most short sighted greed, visions seven and more generations ahead and where not, instructing them how to behave in order not to disrupt the natural balance that would give their future generations fair chance to live a full satisfied life.
We have very little to teach "primitive" peoples and not really anything of any real value, but a world to learn.
BigTex wrote: If I am digging a hole and I decide that I want to get out of it, I should stop digging it deeper. Whatever my options are, they are likely to be better if I stop digging the hole deeper. Doing nothing would be more likely to get me out of the hole than continuing to dig deeper.
If my friend Snik is also digging a hole next to me and he also decides that he wants to get out of the hole, he may continue digging. When I ask him why he is still digging the hole deeper if what he really wants is to get out of the hole, he may tell me: "At least I'm doing something."
BigTex wrote: With respect to the addiction analogy, as I recall, President Bush used the term "addiction" to describe our dependence on oil. If even he's using this analogy, there must be some value in it for purposes of describing our situation.
BigTex wrote: Hitler had a bold vision. So what?
BigTex wrote: My bold vision is that human beings will find a state of enlightenment to complement their remarkable reasoning and tool-making skills. That would be an amazing cultural/spiritual evolution there. People would begin saying "Wait a second, exponential population and economic growth in a finite world is impossible. We need to stop seeing these states as the ideal and start realizing that they represent a tremendous risk to our survival."
BigTex wrote: When you say "more energy is the answer", what is the last step in that process?
BigTex wrote:But no one wants to talk about LESS consumption, they want to talk about MORE energy. They want to talk about this lavish way of living as being "non-negotiable."
I never said more energy was the answer. It is part of the answer for the near term. My proposal, if you paid any attention, was to use the royalty money from the new drilling for funding of alternative/renewable energy sources as well as additional research into more efficient ways of using the energy sources we have now.
Snik wrote:I would think that most of what they had on their mind was how to survive through the next day. I believe your view of their existence is a bit on the romantic side. It's easy to romanticize the way they lived while you are sitting in your air conditioned home in front of you electrically powered computer with a full belly after watching the latest DVD release on your flat screen TV, and thinking about a nice hot shower before climbing into your nice comfortable bed.
That is the reality of our life today. To think that existing as a hunter/gatherer is preferable is complete denial at best, and verging on delusional.
At the same conference, Marshall Sahlins presented a paper entitled, "Notes on the Original Affluent Society," in which he challenged the popular view of hunter-gatherers living lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes had put it in 1651. According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well. Their "affluence" came from the idea that they are satisfied with very little in the material sense.
Snik wrote:BigTex wrote: When you say "more energy is the answer", what is the last step in that process?
I never said more energy was the answer. It is part of the answer for the near term. My proposal, if you paid any attention, was to use the royalty money from the new drilling for funding of alternative/renewable energy sources as well as additional research into more efficient ways of using the energy sources we have now.
BigTex wrote:But no one wants to talk about LESS consumption, they want to talk about MORE energy. They want to talk about this lavish way of living as being "non-negotiable."
That's just plain wrong. In fact, everyone I know that is a proponent of opening these areas up for drilling also believes that conservation and more efficient use of what we have is at least as important as the drilling to getting us out of this mess. There are two sides to the equation, and all we are saying is let's work both sides of it instead of just one.
And believe it or not, I do think one of the biggest problems we have is that there are just too damn many people. I'm just not willing to "get out of the way of diseases, and stop trying to save everyone". I just can't go there. Frankly I don't have an answer for that one, and wish I did. Massive non-consensual sterilization doesn't really appeal to me either. If Monte is right, we don't really have to do anything, and whatever we try to do is too little too late anyway, so why worry about it. I can't quite go there either.
joeltrout wrote:Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.
joeltrout
outcast wrote:OK, so when is the overshoot supposed to catch up to us? When is this "die off"/"de-collasilization" going to happen?
MonteQuest wrote:Primarily, that we don't know what the rate of oil decline will be.
Second, we are continung to try to find ways to replace the "phantom" sugar in our petri dish...furthering overshoot numbers for an even more resounding crash later with even greater collapse of the environment.
4.5% is the current decline of existing fields. Some believe it will be closer to 8% some say 2%.
Let's do some math using the Rule of 70 to determine doubling time.
70/4.5 = 15 1/2 years until oil production goes from peak to half of peak.
In todays numbers, that means 85 mbpd to 42.5 mbpd.
70/8% = 8 3/4 years.
70/2% = 35 years.
Everyone is hoping for the 2%.
Answer: No one knows.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests