[MonteQuest]

What he did because we were running out was to outlaw any new natural gas fired generating plants, forcing many utilities to go to oil, and, especially, coal fired plants for generating electricity.

I missed that one. Care to link to something to support that?

[MrBean]

Point being, neither you nor Monte really understand the consept of overshoot, or if you do just keep misrepresenting it or talking about it inaccurately.

Well, I know a lot of biologists. I worked with many of them in the National Park Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They all have the same "notion" of overshoot as I do.

So do the biology books used to teach it at universities.

So does any google result you can search.

Referring to authorities who are equally wrong as you are does not help to make the case. Why should I accept the authority of your biologists when I can think my self?

You must prove that you are yeast and not human, to produce scientific evidence of your theory - or is it just the "others" and not you that are yeast? Of course you can take your yeasthood as a self-fulfilling prophesy, and that would be really smart, now wouldn't it?

[MrBean]

overshoot is a product of individualism and illogic.

Overshoot is the product of a species coming across a heretofore, inacessible energy/food source wihich causes it's population to bloom (grow exponentially) beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of it's environment until it crashes.

Where did you learn your basic biology?

If science (part of civilization) cannot make a distinction between civilization in overshoot and population in overshoot, then science is part of the problem (=civilization) and not part of solution.

[MonteQuest]

Referring to authorities who are equally wrong as you are does not help to make the case.

Guess we have a lot to learn from you, huh?

All of our books, our biologists, universities, etc...all got it wrong.


Find someone else to troll.

[Ludi]

Point being, neither you nor Monte really understand the consept of overshoot, or if you do just keep misrepresenting it or talking about it inaccurately.

I'm totally open to the idea that I don't really understand the concept of overshoot, or that I talk about it inaccurately. I'm both confused and inaccurate most of the time.

I would not say the same about Monte, however.

Your post didn't help clear up what you were saying earlier. I'm still not sure what you were trying to say.

But that's ok, I don't probably really need to understand you. It doesn't seem much like you're actually trying to communicate about the idea of overshoot. Maybe you're trying to communicate about something else.?


<<<<<<probably yeast, and not a human being

[Ludi]

A civilization in overshoot with civilized consumption habits does not yet necessarily mean population overshoot

But doesn't it seem like we need to look at the population as it actually is, not as if it were some other population? For instance, the reindeer on St Matthew Island were in overshoot because they depended on plants and their population grew so much they ate all the plants and lichens, and their population crashed suddenly. This is the classic example of overshoot and dieoff. Now, we could say that population were not in overshoot if they ate, for instance, rocks, or survived on nothing but seawater. But the fact is, those reindeer at plants.

If all or most of the population is living as civilized humans, and destroying their ecosystem (as we see with evidence from global warming, mass extinction, etc) as civilized humans (not as permaculture humans, who are hypothetical), because of availability of the resource oil, would we not say this population of humans (not just any humans, the humans we're actually talking about here in the real world) are in overshoot? It seems to me if a population overshoots carrying capacity to the point it is destroying its ecosystem, that population is in overshoot period, because that's the population we're actually talking about, not some hypothetical population.

Of course, I could be totally confused.


What do you think about the difference between the actual population and some hypothetical or fictional population?

I'm not totally convinced about the value of talking about the outcome of a fictional population when we're trying to talk about the outcome of the actual real population. I mean, there is certainly value in looking at different scenarios, but as far as planning, or getting ready for the future in some way, it seems to me (and this is just my personal opinion) it might be more valuable to stick to talking about the actual real population and not some fictional one, in the context of overshoot.

Of course, I may be wrong.

[dunewalker]

quote="MrBean"]
Referring to authorities who are equally wrong as you are does not help to make the case. Why should I accept the authority of your biologists when I can think my self?[/quote]

A little education on the subject at hand does wonders for the ability to think logically. Overshoot is not a subtle, complicated concept at all. Your attempts to paint it as such are without basis.

[MrBean]

A civilization in overshoot with civilized consumption habits does not yet necessarily mean population overshoot

But doesn't it seem like we need to look at the population as it actually is, not as if it were some other population? For instance, the reindeer on St Matthew Island were in overshoot because they depended on plants and their population grew so much they ate all the plants and lichens, and their population crashed suddenly. This is the classic example of overshoot and dieoff. Now, we could say that population were not in overshoot if they ate, for instance, rocks, or survived on nothing but seawater. But the fact is, those reindeer at plants.

If all or most of the population is living as civilized humans, and destroying their ecosystem (as we see with evidence from global warming, mass extinction, etc) as civilized humans (not as permaculture humans, who are hypothetical), because of availability of the resource oil, would we not say this population of humans (not just any humans, the humans we're actually talking about here in the real world) are in overshoot? It seems to me if a population overshoots carrying capacity to the point it is destroying its ecosystem, that population is in overshoot period, because that's the population we're actually talking about, not some hypothetical population.

Of course, I could be totally confused.


What do you think about the difference between the actual population and some hypothetical or fictional population?

I'm not totally convinced about the value of talking about the outcome of a fictional population when we're trying to talk about the outcome of the actual real population. I mean, there is certainly value in looking at different scenarios, but as far as planning, or getting ready for the future in some way, it seems to me (and this is just my personal opinion) it might be more valuable to stick to talking about the actual real population and not some fictional one, in the context of overshoot.

Of course, I may be wrong.

Isn't confusion is better than sticking to a manuscript of a vicious circle of narrow conseptualizations with no surprises to be allowed. Poetry over prose:


Population Overshoot

A sonnet

May 24, 2005 at 3:16 pm MDT Send
- -population overshoot - Google Search
members of that species will - Further, and
Format: - sigmoidal growth (growth which

- -population overshoot - Google Search
English pages for . ( 0.27 seconds) Tip: Save
- - - population overshoot - Google Search
- We have

- less pleasant scenarios could involve
-in-a-nutshell.html - A middle class
. nextparadigm.net/ - If we are to have
carrying capacity, but would only press

of its environment. The consequence
more importantly, Malthus's confidence

[Ludi]

Thank you, Mr. Bean.

[Snik]

A good response to the "idle leases" BS.
http://energytomorrow.org/energy/Facts_ ... eases.aspx

[TheDude]

Thanks, Snik. I bookmarked that puppy. Have you posted anything else relevant to the subject of the thread since it went hopelessly askew?

[Snik]

Thanks, Snik. I bookmarked that puppy. Have you posted anything else relevant to the subject of the thread since it went hopelessly askew?

Lol....yeah there have been quite a few posts on-subject. Hard to find those little jewels amoungst the rest of it though. Sent you a pm.

Out for the 4th weekend. Have fun.

God Bless America!

[MonteQuest]

bump up

[aldente]

This is exactly why the US and other countries will self-destruct. Refusal to voluntarily power down. Instead, full throttle off the cliff.

It is not that countries and their respective political systems have the option of "refusal". Politics rather seem to be an always ongoing attempt to "managing the situation" kind of excercise.

There will never be such a thing like a "voluntary" power down. Your point of view is naive. You might as well hope for a voluntary "enlightenment".