[Pops]

I read this from Resilience, it's an excerpt from Chapter 1 of the book Creating a Sustainable and Desirable Future. I don't really want to talk about the specific vision the book lays out, more on what your vision of a desirable world might look like. But I do want to steal some of the excerpt (buy the book here http://www.worldscientific.com/worldsci ... .1142/8922)

Creating a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable future is the most critical task facing humanity today. This vision must be of a world that we all want, a world that provides permanent prosperity within the Earth’s biophysical constraints in a fair and equitable way to all of humanity, to other species, and to future generations.

Society is currently at a critical turning point. There is significant uncertainty about how environmental, social, and economic problems can be solved. However, there is growing consensus that the decisions we make as a society at this critical point will determine the course of our future for quite some time to come.

There is a tendency in thinking about the future to simply extrapolate from past trends. For example, if we have been getting materially richer in the past, then the future would be more of the same; if the environment has been deteriorating, then it will continue to do so. But one of the lessons we can learn from history is that trends often do not continue smoothly. There are tipping points and discontinuities that are impossible to predict from past trends. Many past civilizations have collapsed. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall being knocked down, attitudes changing toward smoking, and landing a man on the moon are recent examples of changes that were difficult or impossible to foresee.

So your task is to describe a desirable and sustainable future . . .

[KaiserJeep]

I don't believe in any desirable and sustainable future with 7+ billion humans inhabiting the Earth. If we indeed actually have a future, it resembles that of the Terminator films, with human skulls underfoot in the ruins.

After the great die-off, it's of primary importance that nobody have more than the number of kids who are required for a steady-state population. Of course, the best way to do that is to use enforced sterilizations, and making having an extra child a capital crime. The bounty hunters who are gunning for some poor woman with a bulging pregnancy are the reality show of the future.

Long range travel ends for everyone except the wealthy, so everyone else is reduced to public transportation and shapes their life around the bus and train schedules. You can afford one trip per week and you can carry a week's worth of food on your back - and are frightened because the burden is lighter every week.

Television is small screen, even personal-sized via eyeglass displays that consume less than 3 watts of power. Everyone is watching video from the Golden Age of plenty and cursing our present generation as resource hogs, the cause of the prolonged misery of generations to come.

Have a nice day.

[GHung]

From the excerpt : "This vision must be of a world that we all want....".

That would be a fantasy. There is no "we", except in the sense that 'we' are all screwed as overshoot plays out. What follows will be a forced version of who gets what they need, and who doesn't. Mother Teresa didn't have the same vision of "a world that we all want" that Hitler had. I don't see that changing.

[jedrider]

Weird response, Kaiser. While there is NO sustainable future in sight until probably multiple die-offs, some future vision of dealing with resource limitations would be helpful. I think climate change will offer crushing blows in sequence. What we do in the meantime, we should have some vision it seems to me. Dante's Hell, perhaps.

Wait, I just found this:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/17588942-cruel-or-necessary-the-true-cost-of-wild-horse-roundups?lite

I believe we humans are nothing more than animals and animals are no less than us, so this is certainly one vision of the future.

[Pops]

I think a desirable world is one where most people's basic needs can be met with a little to spare. Of course that entails regulating our population, unfortunately something we've never been that good at doing. Although there are processes, i.e. if a female is hunger stressed she may become temporarily infertile but that isn't all that pleasant as a lifestyle. Too bad humans can't use their brains to be a little more self aware now that our main method of coping with hunger - moving - is not really working.

Sustainable of course means non-consumptive in the basic sense - not some jiggered up marketing pamphlet version of unsustainable PV panels and windmills. But too, sustainable means population control of some sort and there are big ancient traditions directly in the way of that path.


I think Ibon's vision of a new religion is probably the best hope for long term sustainability. Perhaps the gospel of Ibon turns out to be along the lines of

"God created Nature in his own image so go forth and protect it that you'll have everlasting life in your childrens' children hearts - and not be eaten in your old age."

Bumper sticker version:
"Don't mess with Mother Nature"©

The goofed up agendas of the leading religions we are now saddled with put all the incentive in birthing and dominating and human-centeredness and place all the reward in another life in some other place. That's OK I guess as a palliative if you're a slave with little power and a small population and want to overcome but not so good if you're a master, with lots of power and an already big population on the verge of overshoot.

Obviously sea change religions don't happen easily, I'd not expect it to happen without pain this time. The parable of the 400 year flood without rain might do it, don't know, maybe when the new eucharist is a ritual of actual bones and blood that comes to be known as the Soylent Mass or maybe a "Donner Party".

Of course I'm pretty sure the idea in the book I linked is to make lofty goals and work to them but as Ghung said we all have different goals, or actually we all have the same goal: "Me". In fact there are lots of people who are pretty scared right now and lofty goals are pretty well at the bottom of their agenda. Not sure how to get passed that without lots of hurt.

[KaiserJeep]

What has religion got to do with the Hell on Earth that man has created?

Religion at best gives us a plan for living, and as you have noted, all the present religions have been obsoleted by circumstances, mainly population overshoot.

For the record, I still do not believe in a climate driven by mankind's carbon dioxide emissions. I do believe in a world that has been warming for 10,000 years and will continue to warm for roughly another 12,000 years, quite naturally until the Climatic Optimum of the present inter-glacial period is reached. I think that fanciful tales of Climate Change are being told to us because some politicians believe that the power they will gain in the name of "reversing Climate Change" will enable them to dominate miserable suffering populations in the First World countries.

I believe we will run out of cheap fossil energy, and I believe that will precipitate the die-off. The die-off will unevenly fall on Third World and Second World countries, newly swollen populations kept alive by the food surplus caused by mechanized agriculture and fertilizers and pesticides.

The quality of life in the First World will fall until it more resembles that of the Third World. Uncomfortable means of population control will be imposed upon us by those same politicians that the rest of you empowered to save us from Climate Change.

No knowledge will be lost. In fact we will gain new understanding of the human mind and the human soul in the crisis ahead. I have no clear vision of what that future may be, but I am certain that it is something that we simply cannot imagine today, never having had any similar circumstances in the history of mankind. The perfect clarity of digital memory will reserve the misery to come for all time. We will never again have the luxury of a past obscured by the passage of time.

Not a Brave New World, but forever more a Cowardly Old World.

[Subjectivist]

I read this from Resilience, it's an excerpt from Chapter 1 of the book Creating a Sustainable and Desirable Future. I don't really want to talk about the specific vision the book lays out, more on what your vision of a desirable world might look like. But I do want to steal some of the excerpt (buy the book here http://www.worldscientific.com/worldsci ... .1142/8922)

Creating a shared vision of a sustainable and desirable future is the most critical task facing humanity today. This vision must be of a world that we all want, a world that provides permanent prosperity within the Earth’s biophysical constraints in a fair and equitable way to all of humanity, to other species, and to future generations.

Society is currently at a critical turning point. There is significant uncertainty about how environmental, social, and economic problems can be solved. However, there is growing consensus that the decisions we make as a society at this critical point will determine the course of our future for quite some time to come.

There is a tendency in thinking about the future to simply extrapolate from past trends. For example, if we have been getting materially richer in the past, then the future would be more of the same; if the environment has been deteriorating, then it will continue to do so. But one of the lessons we can learn from history is that trends often do not continue smoothly. There are tipping points and discontinuities that are impossible to predict from past trends. Many past civilizations have collapsed. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall being knocked down, attitudes changing toward smoking, and landing a man on the moon are recent examples of changes that were difficult or impossible to foresee.

So your task is to describe a desirable and sustainable future . . .

My vision of a sustainable desirable future is for people to turn away from using fossil fuels as quickly as they possibly can. I believe we could with a lot of permaculture and much more garden style hands on agriculture sustain our current population long enough for the sigmoid curve to play itself out and naturally decline. Both hunter gatherer and animal early mechanical agricultural societies were able to constrain their own populations. One strategy is for the culture to actively discourage child bearing until a woman is later in life, naturally reducing the number of children she will have. Of course the lack of basic sanitation and high infant mortality rate were also factors but we do not need them to limit population if we adopt a cultural paradigm of replacement birthrate as the goal instead of infinite growth.

The most equitable method I have seen explored in fiction is for ever person to have a birthright, the right to have a baby to replace themselves. Birthrights would be your personal right, but you would have the legal right to sell your birthright if you had not already used it. Organizations desiring to lower the world population could buy birthrights from people willing to sell them and not use them, naturally lowering the number of humans in the next generation. People who sell or use up their birthright would be given a tubaligation/vasectomy for free to prevent accidental excess birthrights being used. Sure wealthy people could buy a few extra birthrights, but judging by historical examples not very many would have more than three or four children. The other aspect is the morality of hiring people to sell you their right to genetic reproduction, something religion has not really touched upon at this point in our culture.

[Pops]

What has religion got to do with the Hell on Earth that man has created?

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Two thirds of Americans believe the bible is literally true, half say they believe God created everything a couple thousand years ago. People believe He anointed us in his likeness as demi gods to run things. What could go wrong with that belief system?

Unless you believe that religion has no effect on people's' actual outlook and actions, that they simply pay it lip service to avoid ostracism, then you pretty well have to believe that what their religion teaches them has consequences. Birth control is the obvious one but the whole thing about "dominion" is important as well.

I'm not picking on Christians in particular, it's just that I was raised Baptist so that's the only one I know, LOL.

[Subjectivist]

What has religion got to do with the Hell on Earth that man has created?

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Two thirds of Americans believe the bible is literally true, half say they believe God created everything a couple thousand years ago. People believe He anointed us in his likeness as demi gods to run things. What could go wrong with that belief system?

Unless you believe that religion has no effect on people's' actual outlook and actions, that they simply pay it lip service to avoid ostracism, then you pretty well have to believe that what their religion teaches them has consequences. Birth control is the obvious one but the whole thing about "dominion" is important as well.

I'm not picking on Christians in particular, it's just that I was raised Baptist so that's the only one I know, LOL.

The problem in my eyes is God said fill the Earth, not pack people in until all of creation groans from the sheer weight of our numbers.

[KaiserJeep]

We continue to prove that "dominion over the Earth" does not mean "intelligent management of the Earth".

[jedrider]

We continue to prove that "dominion over the Earth" does not mean "intelligent management of the Earth".

God clear err'ed on Intelligent Design.

[Ibon]

Consequences of our hubris and cynicism will end up being our greatest teacher moving forward allowing once again a sense of the sacred to emerge.

The level of mastery and dominance we have acheived has left us unfulfilled.

Why does consumption not satiate? Why do we remain distracted?

One can only recognize the distraction if you have already experienced in your life a base line art of being that comes from deep communion with nature.

There is an increasing number of humans on the planet so immersed in manmade infrastructure that the state of distraction is all they know.

You either understand this or cynically disclaim it as some esoteric babble.

As the crisis of our species in overshoot intensifies consequences will strip away layer after layer of the narrative of progress and dominion we have been led to believe, replaced by a more soulful narrative about our place on our mother planet.

This is a vision not waiting for future consequences to start but a vision to be taken today, right now, and carried forth. To borrow slightly from a book read long ago ones life can be greatly enriched if you recognize (sooner the better) The Overshoot Predator sitting on your shoulder and whispering in your ear.

[ennui2]

Ibon, you really should write a book. You clearly have a flair for colorful writing, and you keep repeating the same mantra over and over, so it would make sense to publish something.

[Ibon]

Ibon, you really should write a book. You clearly have a flair for colorful writing, and you keep repeating the same mantra over and over, so it would make sense to publish something.

Thanks. My creative energies are here at Mount Totumas, allowing this place a chance to evolve as we continue to allow the wilderness to reclaim what was previously a farm, also practicing low impact farming. Enjoying the guests who move in an out of this place.

I don't think I could ever write a book because i enjoy much more when writing to distill the message down to as few words as possible. Most books these days that have a core message end up being embellished and expanded to justify it into a book. That is a game I am not interested in. Distillation doesn't get you published .

[PrestonSturges]

I've always admired folks that could read the Bible cover to cover, but I think I'd get a lot more out of Moby Dick.

[Newfie]

I've always admired folks that could read the Bible cover to cover, but I think I'd get a lot more out of Moby Dick.

Funny, another guy and I read Moby Dick around the same time and each only glossed over the parts we were not interested in. He read a book of mans eternal struggles. I read a book about whaling.

It is hard for me to see a vision in all of this. Too many variables. Not even sure we sure we will survive.

My focus is more on what is directly before us, we must get through that, then deal with the next challenge as it unfolds. More than that is idle speculation.

Perhaps my reluctance to look that far into the future is because when I do I don't much like what I see, so there is no comfort there for me.

I believe, generally, that over the next ten generations or so we will see massive population loss, without any general improvement in out collective intelligence. I see a decent into regionalism and a return to the 1600's style feudalism.

[AgentR11]

Unless you believe that religion has no effect on people's' actual outlook and actions, that they simply pay it lip service to avoid ostracism, then you pretty well have to believe that what their religion teaches them has consequences. Birth control is the obvious one but the whole thing about "dominion" is important as well.

I know you're kinda in the anti-modern religion camp here, but let me suggest a possibility that you are leaving out.

My opinion is that religion has either a neutral effect or a restraining effect; never an enabling effect. Humans are not ET, benevolent, kind, and peaceful. We are dangerous, medium weight, territorial predators. We kill for food, for fun, and to eliminate competition. We breed quite well in the unrestrained state, even with natural time sequencing, a female can yield a viable offspring every two years over the course of a 30 year reproductive life. Our nutritional requirements are massive for our size, and we prefer quite inefficient sources.

Religion puts a cap on our lust for consumption and reproduction. Not a very tight one; but without, we would breed more, fight more, kill more, eat more, pillage more, and lay waste to our neighbor's landscape without the slightest hesitation.

As to birth control... while I honestly don't really care, I can vouch that the 'natural' method does work (basal temp thing), both for preventing and for enhancing odds of conception. I put artificial birth control sin in the same bucket I put downloading youtube video sin. There are much more egregious sins that people, even religious people, commit on a regular basis, getting bent out of shape over BC is the old log/spec in the eye thing, imho. I'd not be surprised if almost everyone that uses the thought "birth control is a sin" to pass on birth control, really just either doesn't want to be bothered by BC, or doesn't want to be bothered by sex in the first place.

As to dominion. We have it. We absolutely control this planet. Whether by divine plan, or natural progression; homo sapiens is shaping the world from the bottom of the abyss to the edge of the Earth's gravity well. Pretending otherwise is a simplistic way of avoiding the responsibility that goes with Dominion.

[AgentR11]

So your task is to describe a desirable and sustainable future . . .

Posted my tangent first, so want to post a direct response to the question before the conversation goes weird!

Newfie remarked with a sadface smilie about ending up as 16th century fuedalism. Is that really worthy of a sad face? We aren't going to lose the knowledge we have gained, for good or ill, the knowledge of basic chemistry and biology is not going away. Tech that requires extreme infrastructure, sure, that fails, but people aren't going to forget that water is H20, or that bacteria are single cell critters that do various things. Yeast isn't magic. NaCl makes a Na+ and a Cl- ion when dissolved in water... blah blah. Maybe my 61st edition CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and Standard Math Tables become more religion than science, but it remains a testable religion, and because the answer is known ahead of time, the testing by someone with a need for the information is mostly trivial.

So, what does 16th century feudalism look like with such available knowledge. I'd suggest its the perfect human environment. Not perfectly free, not perfectly controlled, clear social roles, members of local community well known whether idgit or genius, thug or soldier. Able to engage in conflict without annihilating that which the conflict would be over; able to trade peacefully when mutually beneficial.

That which made 16 century feudalism "bad" in our minds is not the political or social structure, but the grinding poverty, disease, and suffering... not caused by politics, but rather lack of real knowledge. (and as much as it might grind some's gears, Churches were fabulous at teaching and propagating what was accepted scientific knowledge of the time. No reason to expect the Church schools to be any different in a future feudalistic state; science is NOT anathema to religion. religion is anathema to political atheists who use science as an unwilling shield, I don't see much future for such folks in a future feudalistic era fwiw..)

[Quinny]

What's wrong with Democratic Socialism?