[DesuMaiden]

Cornucopian beliefs are surprisingly very prevalent throughout society. There is now a huge debate between doomerism and cornucopian beliefs. Just like the religion vs non-religion debate, there can only be one right side. Both sides can't be right. In the case of the doomer vs cornucopian belief, there is overwhelming evidence that the doomer side is correct. How do I know cornucopian beliefs are false? Let me explain.

Cornucopians believe that technology will progress indefinitely into the future. And they also assume that population can grow forever. But the problem with this logic is that human technological progress is limited by natural resources and the laws of nature. Technological progress can only go so far until it runs into natural resource constraints. Also they believe that human beings have unlimited natural resources, so we don't have to worry about running out of natural resources. But these beliefs are in serious denial of reality.

For example, some technologies must be made with certain natural resources. You can't create computers and other electronics without rare earth metals (REMs). But REMs are a finite, nonrenewable resource, and we are running out of them. Most of the REMs are produced in China, and China is telling the rest of the world they will start restricting exports as their supply of REMs declines. That means countries in North America, Europe and elsewhere will start having REMs shortages. And without REMs, we can no longer make anymore computers and other electronic devices. Without REMs, computer AI cannot progress indefinitely. With REMs becoming more scarce, computers may become a rarity or absent in the future.

The same applies to other natural resources and technology. Cornucopians forget that technology is dependent on natural resources. They also forget that human technological progress cannot go on forever. Instead we should focus on human moral and ethical progress, which we are still sorely lacking in. In order to make the world a better place, we should become more moral and ethical beings, and we should develop better moral and ethical systems. Our moral and ethic systems right now are very inadequate and rather pathetic..

The belief in the technofix is dangerous because it doesn't take into account the finite nature of the Earth. We can't keep on using technology to expand the carrying capacity of the Earth. Technology has its limits. Technology is not a magical power that can make anything possible. Technology is limited by the laws of nature and the ability of natural resources to do certain things. And all empirical evidence shows that we can no longer expand the carrying capacity of the Earth, yet we continue to increase population. This is a recipe for disaster. No amount of technofixes will solve this. The technofix is a dangerous myth that forgets that we can't keep on increasing the carrying capacity of the Earth with technology. We are at peak food. We can't increase our food productivity anymore. So our carrying capacity has already been maxed out, and the last thing we can do is increase it. We are starting to exceed our carrying capacity, and when that happens, a die-off is inevitable.

The only solution is population control. We need to reduce the world population by reducing birthrates to at or below replacement levels. That's the only solution. Richard Heinberg already said this. The only solution to our problems is to reduce human population by the most humane ways we can muster. But that's very difficult to do because the right to reproduce is a fundamental right in the eyes of most people especially the religious right.

The Georgia Guidestones said that we should reduce human population to 500 million people. I believe the world would be a much better place with only 500 million people because everyone can then enjoy much higher levels of per capita consumption and therefore much higher standards of living. Also with a population of only 500 million, we can finally give other species room to survive on this planet. The reason there are so many other species becoming extinct is because there are too many humans. This excess of human population steals resources from other species that other species need for survival. Without these resources, other species become extinct. We are stealing resources from other species with our excess population, thereby causing them to become extinct.

The last cornucopian belief that needs to be refuted is their belief that we will never run out of resources because we can always go onto other planets to extract natural resources. The problem with this is that it takes an unimaginable amount of natural resources just to send a handful of people onto the Moon. It is logistically impossible to send larger number of people to planets that are even further away. It is that simple. In all likely-hood, we will never have manned missions to Mars or other planets. So don't even think for a second that we will never run out of natural resources because we can always go to other planets to extract natural resources. That's pure fantasy bullshit. Mankind needs to accept the fact that the Earth is the only planet he got, and unless we live sustainably on Earth, we have no hope as a species.

Theism is bullshit. The atheist vs theist debate confirms this. Similarly, the cornucopian vs doomer debate confirms that cornucopian beliefs are bullshit. Like I said, only one side of the debate can be correct, and we already determined who is correct. As a result, we should start making a sustainable future for the human race, rather than believing in the myth of the technofix which cornucopians believe in.

Human progress should be measured in moral and ethical progress and not technological progress. The human race should live in harmony with nature. We should extract renewable resources , like fish, water, and wood, at no more than their rates of replenishment. We should always recycle nonrenewable resources, like oil, rather than wastefully burn them away. For example, we should recycle products made from oil such as plastics. It is that simple.

The human race can either chose to live sustainably with a future, or chose to live unsustainably and become extinct. That's the choice we need to make. I know which choice I will make. I will chose to live sustainably and give the human race an actual future rather than live in a cornucopian fantasy which will lead to our extinction.

[basil_hayden]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

[DesuMaiden]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

It doesn't matter if there are failed predictions for apocalyptic events. The peak oil crisis is real unless you are foolish to deny something as real was the Earth being round. I don't have an exact for when peak oil will really strike, but I know it will happen eventually. Probably around 2020.

[dolanbaker]

Peak oil isn't a problem, it's when the decline after the peak starts to impact on BAU that's when the problems will arise.

When that does start to happen, it will be more like coastal erosion rather than a global catastrophe.
Groups of individuals who have a certain way of life that requires huge (or expensive to them) quantities of oil will be the first to be affected and they may simply change their modus operandi to use less fuel, or they may change careers. For the vast majority of the population, it will simply be a case of using the car less and/or changing to a more efficient model.

The world could function quite OK on half of today's oil consumption, it'll just be slower & poorer.

[dolanbaker]

The world could function quite OK on half of today's oil consumption, it'll just be slower & poorer."

"Slower & poorer" translates to the Great, Greater, "Greatest Depression". Ever.

It would most certainly put an end to the current global financial model that requires growth to function.

[dolanbaker]

The world could function quite OK on half of today's oil consumption, it'll just be slower & poorer."

"Slower & poorer" translates to the Great, Greater, "Greatest Depression". Ever.

It would most certainly put an end to the current global financial model that requires growth to function.

That's what I am sayin'

But the key point is that life will still go on, just not as we know it now and it will not be a mad Max situation.

The problems that QE1-x have been masking will come out into the open and the 0.01% will be forced to face up to them otherwise there is likely to be severe unrest in many places around the world.

Exactly what will replace the debt based fiat currencies, I don't know, except that we may not have too much longer to wait to find out.

[DesuMaiden]

Here's an interesting article of Cornucopian vs Malthusian world views....

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cornucopia ... ian_debate

[ralfy]

One way of looking at this issue is to come up with a list of basic needs per person, determine the ecological footprint needed for that, and see if the earth can meet that footprint. Here's one list:

- 2,000 calories of a balanced diet
- universal health care
- functional literacy (probably achieved through schooling until the secondary level and learning one or more skills needed to sustain basic needs)
- secure, safe housing (probably following building standards) with utilities (potable water, electricity, and some appliances to make sure food is stored and prepared safely and that people are kept healthy through adequate availability of water, heating, etc.)

and probably anything else that will at least keep infant mortality rates at a minimum and keep life expectancy rates steadily high.

Unfortunately, this is expected for a population that might reach 10 to 11 billion, in a situation that involves climate change and environmental degradation.

As of 2007, the ave. ecological footprint per capita was 2.7 global hectares but bio-capacity per capita was only 1.8:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

The first has to keep rising to meet more basic needs of people worldwide while the latter will drop as population increases and environmental damage takes it toll.

[Tanada]

One way of looking at this issue is to come up with a list of basic needs per person, determine the ecological footprint needed for that, and see if the earth can meet that footprint. Here's one list:

- 2,000 calories of a balanced diet
- universal health care
- functional literacy (probably achieved through schooling until the secondary level and learning one or more skills needed to sustain basic needs)
- secure, safe housing (probably following building standards) with utilities (potable water, electricity, and some appliances to make sure food is stored and prepared safely and that people are kept healthy through adequate availability of water, heating, etc.)

and probably anything else that will at least keep infant mortality rates at a minimum and keep life expectancy rates steadily high.

Unfortunately, this is expected for a population that might reach 10 to 11 billion, in a situation that involves climate change and environmental degradation.

As of 2007, the ave. ecological footprint per capita was 2.7 global hectares but bio-capacity per capita was only 1.8:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

The first has to keep rising to meet more basic needs of people worldwide while the latter will drop as population increases and environmental damage takes it toll.

Universal health care is a want, not a need, and you can have safe secure housing with electricity and potable water to run your refrigerator and cooking appliance and a few lights without having central air conditioning and all the frills involved in modern housing. Think 1950's housing, not 2010 housing. Add in the insulation we know so much more about now than we did then and the housing will even be fairly comfortable with minimal heating in winter.

Yes without health care a lot of people will die younger. Thus it always was, and always will be. Without cheap energy the dream of universal free health care is just a dream.

Those two changes alone would complete change the ecological footprint of the average human on Earth today in western or industrialized countries. The Warsaw Pact nations did alright in the 1980's without air conditioning and things were livable all over through the earth before central a/c was invented and started being installed everywhere.

[Pops]

Universal health care is a want, not a need,

Really, T?
LOL, I can't think of a greater need than that of staying alive.

--
My (somewhat) considered opinion is that technology is changing fast these last couple of hundred years and society and individuals have a hard time keeping up. Most of our "beliefs" are learned, and our reactions to whatever situation are so subconscious I'm pretty sure we as individuals really have little control. I know from experience it takes a lot to overcome my knee-jerk - in fact I never fully change my gut reaction to whatever subject, merely learn to control it. Likewise our experiences are what they are and determine our point of view to a large extent, since you can't change where you've been it is very hard to change who you are and how you see things.

I think as generation change, here in the US, people will want to find a way to ration necessities, like life saving medicine. Just about every country above mud hut status has universal suffrage, rule of law, and universal healthcare. The fact the US doesn't see basic life-saving medicine as a right is a generational anomaly tied up in our ridiculous self image as Lone Rangers out there working hard and taming the wilderness while the panty-waist-boys stay home and whine...

<< Come to think of it our Puritanical guilt trip would certainly reject the Lone Ranger symbolism since he has no job and no boss and is not motivated by money and hasn't worked a single day since he took up with that light-in-the-moccasins injun with the feather in his hair.>>





The US will eventually have some type of single payer as the old generation raised on forced corporate largess (at the hands of the evil government) dies off and the new generation of Scrapers are forced out of the middle class by the new class of profit at all cost, deregulated, de-taxed business. As profits decline and business continue replacing humans with machines and the value of labor declines more and more of us will be forced into the Uber Economy and our gret middle will get sicker and sicker until it gets sick of it.

The government already foots the bill for 2/3 of all medical care and as is the typical case recently, it is the lower working class who are left out - crazily enough in places like Mississippi they vote themselves out due to dome misplaced loyalty to the masters I guess. In a contracting economy, I'm pretty sure that there will be death panels to ration care rather than the current rationing via economic class, simply because we won't be able to continue spending 80% of medicine dollars on the last 6 months of life.

Enough of that rant. LOL

[ralfy]

Universal health care is a want, not a need, and you can have safe secure housing with electricity and potable water to run your refrigerator and cooking appliance and a few lights without having central air conditioning and all the frills involved in modern housing. Think 1950's housing, not 2010 housing. Add in the insulation we know so much more about now than we did then and the housing will even be fairly comfortable with minimal heating in winter.

Yes without health care a lot of people will die younger. Thus it always was, and always will be. Without cheap energy the dream of universal free health care is just a dream.

Those two changes alone would complete change the ecological footprint of the average human on Earth today in western or industrialized countries. The Warsaw Pact nations did alright in the 1980's without air conditioning and things were livable all over through the earth before central a/c was invented and started being installed everywhere.

I think health care, especially universal health care (as most people are poor) is a need because most people want to live as long as they can and keep their loved ones (especially infants and children) healthy.

1950s housing in the U.S. had refrigerators, electricity, etc. In fact, these were available even before the 1950s. Also, I can't find any reference in my post to air conditioning.

Given the fact that most people earn only a few dollars a day, I think they can barely afford 1950s U.S. or Warsaw Pact housing.

I don't understand why "it always was" that many will "die younger," as the global population rose during the twentieth century because of the opposite.

Finally, I think a lifestyle equivalent to that of the 1950s in the U.S. or 1980s Warsaw Pact countries will require an ecological footprint that will still exceed biocapacity.

[Tanada]

I didn't say Health Care is not a need, clearly everyone needs it. I am talking about from the POV of a society, not the individual. From the point of view of a society having the elderly and the people with lousy immune systems like myself quietly die off and be replaced by healthier and younger worker drones is a big plus. Sucks to be one of us who needs medication to remain on the sunny side of the sod, but them's the breaks after Peak when resources become restricted.

Pops you have stated you are T1D, insulin dependent. If things go to heck in a handbasket you are going to have to figure out how to get more insulin to fill your absolute need, or you will cease to live. From the POV of society when food is in short supply and gas is restricted to 'vital services' how much importance will the authorities place on getting you insulin in a timely manner? I am on medication for blood pressure, gall bladder, kidneys, other issues as well. If things go completely to pieces when my current prescriptions run out that will be the end of the line. I might be able to survive a week/month, maybe even a few years, but then again I might not. I very much WANT health care to continue on cheap enough for me to afford it, but from the POV of society I am just a useless eater who posts opinions online a lot.

[vtsnowedin]

On a world wide basis there is no "Need" for health care. There are about two billion people on the planet that are under thirty and have never had any health care and probably never will. They can ,have, and will ,reproduce at rates that more then balance infant and young adult death rates which are the only ones that matter as all us old plodders will die eventually and once your children are independent from you, how long you hang on is immaterial.
So to get back to what your minimum needs are I go to: food , water, shelter, clothing and somewhere there has to be the tools and energy to keep supplying the above as you consume them. You can either grow or make them yourself or exchange some useful skill, labor or property for them.
Food 2500 calories /day to allow physical activity and for some waste.
Shelter 150 square feet per person, weather tight and capable of being heated in winter. (A yurt would do.). Water: the average American uses 100 gallons per day. the average Bedouin in Iraq about five. We could probably get by with 25/ day plus two acre feet per year to grow our food.
Energy: grow & cook your food and heat your shelter.? A couple of barrels of diesel or gas and a cord of wood or equivalent/ person for heat.
That is it for necessities, then you get into optional or luxury items.
First would be electricity for lighting and then for food preservation. Then some energy for transport to save walking to work and carrying things home from the store by backpack. Soap to keep everything clean and healthy.
That all sounds pretty spartan but a lot of the world is already getting by on a lot less.

[Pops]

I don't get what "society" you are talking about, T - Chelsea Towers West perhaps?

Although as I think of it, you're right the US does expect the por, the "worker Drones" to die quietly. So in the US you are probably right, Chelsea Tower is in NYC after all.

But here is my point about death panels, specifically about T1 diabetes because that's what I know. There are a range of treatments for T1, all the way from experimental self-directing "Artificial Pancreases" (basically an insulin/glucagon pump, constant blood glucose monitor and software) to simple, manual insulin pumps, to generic insulin administered with syringe and vial. I'd estimate the range from $2,000/month+ for the experimental software, to $500-$1,000/month for a basic pump, to a few hundred for patent insulin/pen down to generic insulin/syringe/glucose meter at about $50/mo.

Very tight control with some type of automated system might be beneficial for kids who would otherwise have many years of accumulated damage, but it is expensive. I can get tight control (average blood sugar in the low range for Non-Diabetics) using the most basic $50 setup - it is just less convenient and makes me feel like I am "not-normal" - which I ain't! LOL

I'm pretty sure "society" or at least the part that is mortal, will move toward efficacy in medicine and away from the fee for service model before it accepts letting folks above the Drone level quietly die.

[basil_hayden]

I don't think Tanada is referring to "society" where health care is indeed necessary to stability, but ironically to this thing called "humanity" where our species improves as the weak or unfortunate get pruned.

In any case, this thread atill hasn't presented any evidence for cornies being wrong or doomers being right; I wish it would get pruned to nonexistence.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Universal health care is a want, not a need...

I think health care, especially universal health care (as most people are poor) is a need because most people want to live as long as they can and keep their loved ones (especially infants and children) healthy.

(Font of "want" changed by me, for emphasis.)

From the poster who claims universal healthcare is a basic need vs. a want. And how does he defend that premise? Well, because people "WANT" it, of course!

Do you know what irony is? Are you familiar with groups like Monty Python, or modern adult cartoons which use sarcasm to point out how thoughtless people are? (Like "The Simpsons" or "Futurama")?

Are you a far left liberal? In my experience, only a far left liberal with nary a clue about economics would make such an argument and expect to be taken at all seriously.

But please do go on. Watching your side of such economic "arguments" is just as amusing as watching doomers insist, every week, that NOW is the time the economic end times begin -- and that moderates or cornies are constantly wrong (despite the ongoing data), because doomers don't like any good news.

Disclosure: I continue to be a moderate. Year after year, the overall data seems to be that global society continues to muddle onward, making some progress and doing many stupid and short sighted things -- and that trend appears FAR more likely than being able to accurately predict either the nature or the timing of the alternative with any accuracy.