[onlooker]

It has occurred to me to frame now the divisions taking place in humanity into two camps. One is those who are seeing the world through the lens of economic concerns and the other are those who are seeing it through environmental concerns. To me it is quite distinctive and stark. On facebook I see it also as well as in certain movements that have arisen like the Occupy movement. At present people around the world are dealing with both types of concerns. It is however quite apparent that environmental sagacity is lacking still in many people despite the comprehensive and severe assaults the Ecology of the planet is being subjected too. For half the worlds population now resides in cities. Also, people still see through their pocketbooks and it is natural considering the immediate concerns of survival and well being. Yet, in waiting for the "solution" of Consequences are we not at present faced with the stark choice of "What is it we are trying to sustain? A living planet, or industrial civilization? Because we can’t have both." So it seems the economic perspective while understandable is counterproductive in the long term as all things and beings need a living planet. This profound epiphany of the present is better understood by those more concerned with the environment. Thoughts?

[Cog]

Why is doing nothing not a solution? If humans are just another living organism like an earthworm, why bother to worry about saving humans? The planet will let us know when we have exceeded the carrying capacity for humanity. It will be a brutal affair and billions will die. Is that not the desire of the environmentalist who want to impose an austerity solution right now?

[KaiserJeep]

The way I expressed it to you was "Choose either humanity or planet Earth, you cannot have both." It is indeed a dichotomy, a classic one, because these two things have been opposed since the population of humans went into overshoot.

Our intelligence both allows us to understand and dooms us, because medicine makes the species immune to disease, when one of nature's natural controls makes a start at reducing the excess population, we establish funding, mobilize massively, and a cure is found - or strict quarantine ends the epidemic.

Not enough calories? Pump more oil, dig more coal, transport food from around the globe. Drill down to ancient aquifers, and spray the irreplaceable water over soil soon to be contaminated with dissolved minerals from below.

Mosquito-borne illness? Spray DDT, in quantities to kill the mosquito larvae in every body of stagnant water, and worry about the eggshells of eagles and penguins later.

In literally millions of ways, man kills the planet he is living on. We don't even understand all the ways we damage our environment, and in any case, we'll never stop. When one source of food dries up, we'll eat some other species until it too crashes.

The basic choice is a stark one: Kill every one of more than seven billion humans, or let them kill the planet.

Now technologists like me, pretty much blind optimists, say let us kick the can again, keep it rolling down the road, until we find a new place to live. Silly people like PO.com's AGW fanboys focus on one thing such as carbon dioxide emissions, and say "We have to stop doing that!" - as if there were not another million things we are doing to kill the planet after that one.

Silly people, who will do anything, obsess over anything, rather than admit to the truth. Too many people are here, killing the planet.

[onlooker]

"It is indeed a dichotomy, a classic one, because these two things have been opposed since the population of humans went into overshoot.
as if there were not another million things we are doing to kill the planet after that one.
Too many people are here, killing the planet." A would say we have found a common source of agreement. But I would even go further and say that technology which you are so fond of paved the way for this huge population and enabled this vast population to be even more damaging to the planet with all the material things, waste and practices that technology itself has provided. So, that leads me to conclude that given our "ape" nature, technology actually may not have been a good thing at all. We cannot control our use of it and it has enabled the amplification of destructive patterns which we "cannot" help but to follow as you yourself concede borne from our primitive impulses in the form of economic growth and modern industrial civilization. So that modern civilization combined with one of the destructive patterns namely the need to fornicate and reproduce has bought us to this "on the brink" of total collapse impasse. And so now our only hope rests with the ironically improbable feat of mastering technology sufficiently to be able to send some remnants of humanity into space to live there perpetually. I would say Nature has a sense of humor.

[Cog]

Perhaps total collapse won't be that bad. Lets try not to be pessimistic.

[onlooker]

Perhaps total collapse won't be that bad. Lets try not to be pessimistic.

Yes that was what I was referring too, that Nature finds this all quite hilarious. I am also glad some like you Cog can find their sanity in this insane world

[Ibon]

Perhaps total collapse won't be that bad. Lets try not to be pessimistic.

I have seriously been of this opinion for quite some time.

[ennui2]

It's easy for Cog to support collapse, since he's got his guns and seems to have confidence they will save him in a dystopian future. Typical John Wayne survivalist attitude.

[Timo]

Perhaps total collapse won't be that bad. Lets try not to be pessimistic.

I have seriously been of this opinion for quite some time.

I've put down the deposit for a keg of beer, just for this occasion.

We're going to party like it is the end of time. 1999 was the start of the end of it all.

[onlooker]

Can I join the party?

[Cog]

It's easy for Cog to support collapse, since he's got his guns and seems to have confidence they will save him in a dystopian future. Typical John Wayne survivalist attitude.

My preferred option A is to die in my comfortable air-conditioned home some 30 years from now. But if Option B comes I'll deal with it.