<It's greaves time again The Oil Drum Peak Oil Update - November 2006: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers>
<DrumBeat: November 19, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 21, 2006>

294 comments on DrumBeat: November 20, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on November 20, 2006 - 10:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don't worry.  Our fearless leader says we're going to do a lot of "cellulostic" research.  That will save the day!

When people start talk about doubling cellulosic ethanol yields from today's values, which would take the yields well beyond the theoretical capacity, I get concerned. What I am hoping is that some day the reality slaps some influential people in the face: We must get away from this liquid fuel, internal combustion engine paradigm. Right now that paradigm is alive and well, because as you say, cellulosic will "save the day".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jon Kutz on November 20, 2006 - 4:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem is NOT liquid fuels, internal combustion engines, etc.... The problem is to darn many people! If we had a population of 100 million people in the USA instead of 300 million, we would not have any problems with fuel, pollution, roads, housing etc....
And trying to accomodate another 100 million  or more in the next 30 years is going to trash any "solution" that anyone comes up with now to make more fuel, etc....
Yet, even here on The Oil Drum, when one starts talking about some actions to reduce population there is usually a piling on of opposition.
I have finally reached the point where I think any more efforts to "solve the problem" of peak oil, global warming, overpopulation are wasted effort. Far better to spend the time and money to take care of ones self and ones family for the future - If it is even possible.
And I have never been a "doomer" before. But the total denial of most of the draconian measures that will need to be taken in the population arena before any real solution is possible has brought me to the "doomer" mentality.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 20, 2006 - 4:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Nationalistic or isolationist responses that border on jingoism or not helpful. That 200 million you want to subtract  from the U.S. population consumes more oil than all 1.3 billion Chinese.

Shutting our borders will only make us the target of all those outside (even more than we are already). The "philosophy" of us versus them is being discredited right in front of our eyes, yet you want to extend it even further.

Please, please think beyond an American perspective. This is a global problem that is exacerbated by American consumption out of proportion with our population size. We will not solve anything by simply protecting our own.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 20, 2006 - 4:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As a single example, Mexicans that stay home will use far less oil than if they moved to Los Angeles.  The same is true for Germans.

Reducing US population WILL reduce global oil consumption and Global Warming.

Bestb Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 20, 2006 - 4:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So you suggest that we cut off immigration for this reason?

But I could also suggest that since new immigrants are typically poorer than average they will use less and pollute less than the average. By this logic we should invite even more immigrants in to help us reduce our per capita consumption, etc.

Reducing US population does nothing in and of itself. If the result of our shutting our borders is to push growth outside of the US (as it would do if capitalism works as it is designed), we do nothing to global consumption or CO2 creation.

Again, this is not a problem that can be solved in isolation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 20, 2006 - 5:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If the result of our shutting our borders is to push growth outside of the US (as it would do if capitalism works as it is designed), we do nothing to global consumption or CO2 creation.

You are making a faulty argument by relying on Globalist capitalism, which many capitalists who are also nationalists decry as being a very stupid model of capitalism to follow if you have any desire to maintain control over your own resources, and wish to maintain some level morals and standards in your economy/nation.

Capitalism has many flavors, the current flavor of the month (dare I say last couple decades) is globalism.  I am pro-capitalism, but specifically I'm pro-protectionist-capitalism which is a MUCH different beast than the globalism that is infecting the planet now.

A nation which practiced protectionist capitalism and had enough capability to provide for itself most finished goods, and raw resources would do fairly well.  The US is such a nation.  The immigration issue is basically a symptom of globalist capitalism, and in the end its going to cost the Average American quite dearly as they will drown in this over crowded lifeboat along with all the immigrants (legal or otherwise) that we've allowed to come flooding in.

Jon Kutz is right in that many of these resource issues ARE a population issue, and the ONLY way to solve that is start letting people die.  Its an ugly and nasty reality that nobody is going enjoy watching take place save for a few sickos.  But the subsidizing of life in remote deolate hostile climates where the people cannot produce enough for themselves but instead rely on imported goods needs to end.  

The continued support for nations with extreme population densities such as China, India, Japan and Europe needs to end.  The support of nations on the brink of extreme population densities needs to be weighed carefully and given only with stipulations that those nations will keep things under control and/or reduce their risk of going over the edge.  That includes the US, Mexico, and South America.  But Jon is right, the sheer draconian laws needed to accomplish this would not be tolerated in most nations, or at least not tolerated until the survival of the nation itself is in dire danger.

I disagree with Jon on the carrying capacity of the US, as I don't think we are pass or too far pass that carrying limit, but we are AT or perhaps just a bit beyond that limit and I believe that a suspension and/or eventual reversal of population growth in a controlled/humane manner can be accomplished yet in this country.  First and foremost would be a complete STOP to illegal immigration and a serious review of our legal immigration quotas.

But I doubt any of these actions are going to occur here or anywhere else, as "tolerance" has basically castrated self-preservation in much of the Western World.  Its now a mortal sin to consider that your way of life/values/morals might be superior to another cultures', even though the battle of cultures has been raging for eons.  What eventually will happen is another culture will come in and wipe out our own.  They will not have the hang ups pluralism, and ultra-tolerance and they will destroy us utterly.

If you don't believe me that this is the norm of human history, then just ask the Native Americans that were on this continent...  oh wait... you can't because they were not fit enough to survive.  Then I suggest you ask the Europeans now while you still can, in a few more decades you might not be able to unless they can get a grip on the influx of Muslim culture that is steadily consuming those cultures.  Evolution is not only a biological process in determining which animals procede to the next phase, it also applies to quite a few social situations within the human animal's domain.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 20, 2006 - 8:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Capitalism has always required a less developed area from which to extract surplus value. This is how wealth is "created." Any form of "national" capitalism is merely limits on where surplus value can be extracted from.

There is a question whether or not the US dominates so much of the capitalist economy that its withdrawal would bring the whole thing down. But if it didn't, the US would soon be overwhelmed by the global economy (e.g., withdrawal of critical resources and labor would destroy the "national" economy.

(And just for the record, I don't disagree that population is critical, but so is consumption. What I disagreed with was the false assertion that limiting the population of the US alone through the end of immigration would solve our problems.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 10:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Any form of "national" capitalism is merely limits on where surplus value can be extracted from.

Exactly. That's the point of globalization. It's a way to grab other countries' resources because we've exhausted our own.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
airdale on November 20, 2006 - 9:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Very well put. Very well.

You have the ability to speak without the shackles of Political Correctedness, which seems to have somehow become more like a beacon of blinding light that many try to shine in others eyes and so blind them to the truth.

More need to speak out and forget the PC cops.

While I like the Mexicans I run into and chat with I  realize that they have values that we seem to have lost, strong family,religious faith...etc, I simply wish they could control their own country and change it for the better instead of destroying ours, even though that is not their intent.

Globalization. The culprit.

While many seem to be chastening the USA so harshly I wonder why it is that so many still want to get in and none want to get out. Like Blair said, this is one way to judge a country. How many want in and how many want out.

I have heard it said by those who cross the border both ways, legally, that it is far harder to pass into Mexico that to come into the USA. The Mexican border guards are far stricter, so I was told. Been a long time since I visited Mexico so I have no personal knowledge of that statement.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
super390 on November 20, 2006 - 9:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Screw Blair.  When Spain was stealing all the gold of the Incas and Aztecs, I'm sure Madrid was the place where people wanted to go - and the bloodied lands of its victims were the places where people wanted to leave.  I judge Spain by the monstrous crimes it committed, not the profits that generated.  

When Blair's beloved empire was raping India, Africa, up to one third the world's land surface, immigrants were in fact pouring into London (check out the Italian last names there today).  The cost - Britain taught the world that you could win by burning non-renewable resources.  That you could use corporations and banking to turn local monarchs into puppets.  That the white man was so superior that he had the right to use force to exterminate any problem that got in his way.  That the world must be enslaved by Protestants.  Meanwhile Britain was so busy with empire that it couldn't invest in decent schools or modern steel mills.  Blair will not tell you the complex process by which all this crap helped pave the road to two world wars and a global depression.  That's how I judge Britain.

My judgement of America, because of its role in institutionalizing Peak Oil and Global Warming, is harsher than Britain's or Spain's.  It will have the blood of hundreds of millions on its hands before it's all over.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Seadragon on November 20, 2006 - 10:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
For the record, I love this little subthread, but for the life of me cannot figure out how immigration got injected into it.  Population control needs to happen, and it won't.  There is an example here--China--which gives you the kind of measures that would need to be taken to accomplish it, and realistically, the chances of that happening in the US approach zero.  So I must agree with Jon Kutz, who says that an additional 100 million (reflecting the UN projection) in the US by 2040 will be a disaster. Too right.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 21, 2006 - 1:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
US would be negative without immigration. Europe is negative. Places like Canada and mexico will (have already?) follow soon enough. World population won't grow forever, and it won't take mass genocide to accomplish this.

If you want to know how this stunning turn of events came about, just ask it real source, Jimmy Carter. His foundation has pushed hard to get free school lunches into 3rd world countries. School lunches cause children to attend school. Children that attend school don't have 12 kids themselves. And indeed, the countries where free school lunches have been implemented have seen a demographic jolt as powerful as any genocide, though much more merciful. I remember the day when the UN predicted that the world population would grow to 15 billion and beyond, today 5 (at least) revisions later it's expected to max out at no more than 9 and then begin a steady decline. If Carter's work expands further, that number will come down even more. Prosperity is a funny thing. People with jobs find themselves less and less likely to have lots of kids, or even any at all.

My grandmother was a farmer, she had 5 kids. My parents and uncles are doctors, lawyers, and teachers, they had (at most) 3 kids. My brother had 1 and I'm not sure I'll have any.

The worst mistakes of judgement come not from faulty logic, but from faulty premises. The "population will grow until we all kill each other" premise is quite faulty, and has been so for some time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 9:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Please, know your facts before you go off half cocked

Table 4: Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005                           
Geographic Area    Total Population Change*    Natural Increase            Net Migration       
        Total    Births    Deaths    Total    Net International Migration    Net Internal Migration
United States    14,985,802    8,651,861    21,329,804    12,677,943    6,333,941    6,333,941    -

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-comp-chg.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 10:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No, he's right.  The U.S. would be negative without immigration.  Or at least steady-state.

You can't just look at net migration.  Immigrants have larger families for several generations after they arrive.  So a lot of the births are also due to immigration.

This is why Greenspan attributes all the economic growth of the past 20 years to immigration.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 10:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Leanan - please follow the link. Births in the US outnumbered deaths by 8,651,861 between April 2000 and July 2005. Despite the popular notion that indigenouse growth is negative, we crossed back over into positive growth during the late 90s.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 21, 2006 - 10:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And how many of those births were from immigrants (legal or illegal is moot, but illegal makes up the larger portion of the influx currently).
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Let me put it this way.  I'll use my family as an example.  My great-grandparents came over from the old country.  They had 13 kids each...that lived.  Their children, my grandparents, born in the U.S. and full citizens, had 5-6 kids each.  My parents' generation, also born in the U.S. and full citizens, had 1-3 kids each.  My generation has 0-2 kids.  

That is the trend you see when new immigrants arrive in the U.S.  That is what is keeping our birth rate so high.  Families long-established in the U.S. have birthrates similar to Europe's.

This is why immigration is so important to big business.  It's not just a supply of cheap labor.  It's also a supply of customers...not just when they arrive, but the new citizens they add to the population for generations after they arrive by their higher birthrates.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 11:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It matters not where they come from. These are children born in the US. Births outnumber deaths. We can hypothesize all we want about whether their parents are immigrants or not. They aren't going to be sent back, they are part of this country now. We can guess what things might have been like if these most recent group of immigrants had not come to this country. But that's about as useful as guessing what it would be like if Europeans had never come to the new world.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 11:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Births outnumber deaths.

But would they, without immigration?  That is the point.

They aren't going to be sent back, they are part of this country now.

Of course not.  Did anyone say otherwise?

We're talking about the future here.  There is no easy way to slow population growth.  But what's the easiest way?  

We can't enact a one-child policy, like China.  While I like the idea of child credits, and the child-free being able to sell theirs to people who want to have more kids, I just don't see that as politically possible.  Ditto taxing children.

No, the easiest way to slow population growth is to cut immigration.  It helps two ways, by reducing the number of people coming into the country, and reducing the birthrate, as the long-assimilated tend to have smaller families than the newly arrived.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 11:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But would they, without immigration?  That is the point.

Hard to say - how far back do you want to go? Immigrants before 1990? 1890? 1492?

That is the true point.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 12:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I suspect it goes back at least a century, but that doesn't really matter.  As you say, we're all here now, and we can't be sent back.  What matters is the present...and how it will affect the future.

Let's use Mr. Greenspan's figures, if you insist on a timeframe: For the past twenty years, all U.S. growth has been due to immigration.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 12:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This goes right back to the initial statement. I'm sorry, but children born in the United States are not immigrants, they are indigenouse population growth. If you want to continue using that argument, you are welcome to it, but recognize that 297+ million of us are born of parents who did not live in North America 500 years ago.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 12:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You are missing the point.  No one is saying that children born in the U.S. are immigrants.  They can be caused by immigration, though.  

Immigration was an important part of our growth as a nation.  But we're reaching the end of the growth paradigm.  What was good on the front side of peak is not going to be good on the back end.  We are facing some really hard choices, and immigration limits are least of it.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 1:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I would disagree. It is you that are missing the point. This entire nation was "caused" by immigration. You remove immigration you remove what we are (all those white supremacist fantasies not withstanding).

Limiting population growth, especially by immigration limits, in the US will not solve any of the problems we are facing. They are not problems caused by immigration (except maybe in the minds of those same white supremacists). They are global problems caused by a global economic system that worships growth. Don't think for a minute that preventing immigration will do anything other than move some of that growth elsewhere.

Now, if all you are interested in is protecting your own little corner, go for it; pass limits on immigration, then vote to make all those of x ethnicity leave, and lets get rid of the gays and lesbians while we're at it, and if you don't think just like me please move away. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because that's the sort of world you are promoting when you start targeting immigration.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 1:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This entire nation was "caused" by immigration. You remove immigration you remove what we are.

"What we are" is going to be removed anyway.  It is simply not sustainable.

(all those white supremacist fantasies not withstanding)

I get the feeling that this your real concern.  No matter what facts, figures, etc., are presented, you would be against immigration limits because so many anti-immigration activists are racists, xenophobes, or worse.

I understand that POV...but we have to move beyond it.  

Don't think for a minute that preventing immigration will do anything other than move some of that growth elsewhere.

I am thinking it, and for longer than a minute.  We are the most wasteful people on the earth.  It's good for the planet if there are fewer of us.  Whether homegrown or imported.

Now, if all you are interested in is protecting your own little corner, go for it

It may sound that way, but that's not my thinking.  I like Jared Diamond's term: lifeboat.  Lots of small lifeboats is better than one big lifeoat.

This doesn't mean that "my corner" is better. Who knows? It may well be when TSHTF that Mexico or Canada or Japan or Sweden will be the better place to weather the storm.  And I would not blame them for keeping us out.  In fact, I think they should.

pass limits on immigration, then vote to make all those of x ethnicity leave,

Dude, that's a big jump from first part of that statement to the last.  We already have limits on immigration.  It's hardly step one on the road to ethnic cleansing.

and lets get rid of the gays and lesbians while we're at it, and if you don't think just like me please move away. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because that's the sort of world you are promoting when you start targeting immigration.

I think that's the world we're heading for if we don't limit immigration now.  Did you see downthread, where someone is proposing shooting illegal immigrants on sight?  o_O

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 1:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Leanan - we are rarely very far apart in our views on things, but I've got to say, I believe you are dead wrong on this one. Immigration controls as are being suggested elsewhere in this thread and in this and other Drum Beats are nothing more than xenophobic attempts to protect what the writer thinks of as his/her "America." It is an ugly and ultimately ineffective attempt to exclude difference from their world.

If there is one thing about "America" that would really help us in the future, it is our willingness to become increasingly inclusive.

As for those facts and figures - who is it that has to subdivide and inspect them in order to reach their conclusion that immigration is bad? Who is it that can't accept it as good enough that there are more born in this country than die each year? Why do certain people find it necessary to say that this happens because of "them"? If it was just "us" we'd be fine?

If moving beyond means exclusivity, I don't want any part of it. If your lifeboat is based on what nationality you happen to have been born into, I'll take my chances in the waves. I repeat, this is not a national problem, it is not a problem caused by immigration. Limiting immigration will do nothing to solve the problems we are facing.

If you think its a big jump from stopping immigration to ethnic cleansing, then you have forgotten the history of the twentieth century.

Here's what it comes down to. Proposals for ending immigration are the racist dreams of people who want to blame others for all the worlds problems. You want to assure that the future will pit ethnicity against ethnicity, straight against gay, christian against muslim, play along and support them. But if you want to live in a world that is built on cooperation rather than competition, inclusion rather than exclusion, compassion rather than hatred, put your energies elsewhere.

You know, we could put a fence up around the country tomorrow and it would not do one jot to help prevent the onset of peak oil. It would do a lot to make this an ugly place to live.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 21, 2006 - 2:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is an ugly and ultimately ineffective attempt to exclude difference from their world.

For some, maybe. Not for me.  For me, it's a way to slow, maybe even stop, growth.  Or to prepare for a world where a shrinking economy is the norm.

If there is one thing about "America" that would really help us in the future, it is our willingness to become increasingly inclusive.

I'm with Monbiot on that: "If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack."

The cause of conflict is too many people and not enough resources.  

As for those facts and figures - who is it that has to subdivide and inspect them in order to reach their conclusion that immigration is bad?

Actually, the people doing the subdividing and inspection came to the conlusion that immigration is good.  It propels growth, in both population and the economy, and that's good...right?

Of course, if you think that growth is not good (or at least, not sustainable), you reach a different conclusion.

If your lifeboat is based on what nationality you happen to have been born into, I'll take my chances in the waves.

Then start swimming.  I think it's inevitable.  Much as I like the idea of the global nation, a la Star Trek, I don't see it happening in the light of peak oil.  Not only that...I don't see the U.S. surviving as one nation.  The trend will be toward localization, politically as well as economically.

If you think its a big jump from stopping immigration to ethnic cleansing, then you have forgotten the history of the twentieth century.

I said controlling immigration.  Which, theoretically anyway, we already do.  

It's insane.  Since 9/11, it's become nearly impossible for immigrants to legally bring in family members.  I'd rather slow illegal immigration, and allow those who are legally in this country to reunite with their families.

Proposals for ending immigration are the racist dreams of people who want to blame others for all the worlds problems.

I think you're being close-minded.  Pat Buchanan is a racist, because he wants to keep Pakistanis out while allowing in Irish Catholics in.  But not everyone who wants to limit immigration is a racist.

We cannot throw the borders open and allow everyone who wants to enter to come in.  Similarly, we cannot hermetically seal the country and not allow anyone in.  We're just arguing about where to draw the line.

You know, we could put a fence up around the country tomorrow and it would not do one jot to help prevent the onset of peak oil.

I think you're dead wrong on that, actually.  Our economic growth depends on immigration.  So if we ended immigration, we'd probably fall into a recession.  Maybe worse.  Which would delay peak oil (unless we're already past it, of course, in which case it would only slow the decline).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 3:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
For me, it's a way to slow, maybe even stop, growth.  Or to prepare for a world where a shrinking economy is the norm.

I would caution against aligning with racists in order to possibly start a recession in the U.S. Further, it is unclear that starting a recession would actually accomplish anything with respect to peak oil. Yes, you may get some "demand destruction," but unless you change the underlying belief in growth all you are doing is buying a couple months.

I'm with Monbiot on that

There are many here who belive in the Hobbesian view of the world. It is based on a fundamental fallacy (progress) fueled by a lack of historical knowledge. There is also a crew here who believe it's all in their DNA. Of course this begs the question of whether that conclusion was DNA encoded as well ;-). But when it comes right down to it. There is no single model of human behavior. We can be nihilists, if we like. Or, we can work for something better. Only time will tell which is right. But one thing is guaranteed, the one who maintains for something better will have a more enjoyable interegnum.

Actually, the people doing the subdividing and inspection came to the conlusion that immigration is good.  It propels growth, in both population and the economy, and that's good...right?

Of course, if you think that growth is not good (or at least, not sustainable), you reach a different conclusion.

Actually, I've never seen a pro-growth type arguing for immigration. But I have seen all sorts of loony arguments against it, ways of hiding the underlying xenophopia.

Then start swimming.  I think it's inevitable.  Much as I like the idea of the global nation, a la Star Trek, I don't see it happening in the light of peak oil.  Not only that...I don't see the U.S. surviving as one nation.  The trend will be toward localization, politically as well as economically.

You have read enough of my posts to know that I am no proponent of a global nation. You also know that I am a big proponent of localization. I have repeatedly tried to get people to imagine how the collapse of the US federal government might come about. I see attempts to use the federal government to eliminate (or control) immigration as an effort to strengthen the moribund nation state. It is a non-issue being used to bolster an institution whose irrelevance will soon become obvious.

But not everyone who wants to limit immigration is a racist.
They may as well be since that is the effect of their proposals

Our economic growth depends on immigration.  So if we ended immigration, we'd probably fall into a recession.  Maybe worse.  Which would delay peak oil (unless we're already past it, of course, in which case it would only slow the decline).

It is true that some of the growth we have experienced is the result of immigration. It does not follow that immigration is the cause of that growth. Nor does it follow that limiting immigration would limit growth. Return to the basics, capitalism is the extraction of surplus value. One place to get that surplus value is cheap labor, but it does not require that labor to be within any particular border.

One could also argue that the bulk of growth in the US in recent years (excluding the housing bubble) has come in financial services, health care and IT, not areas that are intrinsically tied to immigration.

And if the argument is merely that these immigrants provide consumers, well corporations really don't care where the consumer is located. Your attempt to limit growth by cutting off immigration here, might just lead to increased emphasis on growth in, say, Asia. Capital doesn't care about borders (as long as it can control the state apparatus).

And while I don't have a problem with the general idea of invoking recession in the US, doing so through policy manipulations not actually aimed at changing the fundamental belief in growth, will have only limited impact. The corporations will adjust and off we go for some more growth. (yippee!) Now, if you could convince the congress to revoke the laws that allow for the formation of corporations, you might have me on your side.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 21, 2006 - 6:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I would caution against aligning with racists...  

I'm not going to wade in too deeply but this has been repeatedly the tar and feather of choice that the "pro-immigrants" have been using to shut the anti-immigrant side up and it is intellectually dishonest, and flagrantly wrong.

I and most anti-immigrant proponents don't care about the blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, europeans etc etc etc that are here as legal citizens, or legal immigrants.  In fact I WELCOME legal immigrants from all over the world to come here via our LEGAL process.

What I have a problem with are those people who have no qualms about breaking our laws to get here so they can profit.  We don't accept it when CEOs break the law to make profit.  We don't accept it when American citizens break the law to profit.  So why do foreigners get a pass, when they should be getting even more scrutiny than citizens?

Sorry but as much as the "pro-immigrant" side would like it to be, it is NOT an issue of race, it is an issue of Nationality, economic security, physical security, and ultimately a moral issue as illegal immigration is allowing US businesses to have cheap(almost slavelike) labor available to them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 9:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
B.S.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 22, 2006 - 3:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Care to offer proof that I'm lying?  Or is the best you can do is hide behind some flippant remark?

You accept that overpopulation is a problem, however, your mind seems to unwilling to accept the conclusion that in order to "fix" this problem it will result in the deaths of many billions of people.  I've made that leap.  I understand full well that when a population of living organisms reaches that critical mass where by population growth looks like a line skyrocketing straight up, that a crash is usually to follow shortly after.  Who is going to compose that portion of the population that will vanish from that line of growth when the rug gets pulled?  Chances are the poor of this world will feel the brunt of it first.  

Its not racism, nationalism, or culturalism that I say the poor will bare the brunt of the dieoff.  Its simple logic based upon the facts, and examples of history before us and ultimately statistics(there are a lot more poor people than rich ones).  The poor always feel the brunt first and with the most effect.  Do I want these people to die?  No.  Do I expect them to?  Yes.  Do I consider myself above the fray?  Not at all.  If things really do take a nose dive, I fully expect me and my family to have slim to no chances.  Doesn't mean I won't try, but the odds are against me.

The reason I'm against Illegal immigration, and in favor of tight Legal Immigration standards/quotas is because I see the American lifeboat as the best shot me and my family has.  But that lifeboat will not support the world's population, and every additional person here, means a reduction in mine and my family's chances for survival.  As I said, this isn't a racist thing, this is purely a self-preservation thing.  

As for my choosing the American culture/nation, and the nationalism that goes along with it, its because I believe that even with all the warts, the American culture is the best culture in the world, and as such, my efforts are to try and preserve that to the best of my ability.  I'm sure someone in Zimbabwe or Sweden, or China thinks the same of their culture and I don't blame them one bit, but I do recognize that we are in competition, and as such they are the opponents to beat out.

I've played soccer(not exactly an "American" sport) with people from Spain, Mexico, Germany, Britain, Brazil, Ghana, Nigeria as well as fellow Americans and many other countries.  With the exception of those players who were just jerks in general I was proud to call these people my teammates or my opponents in the matches I played.

I work in an office with a huge diversity of people, and in fact the 10 people closest to my cubicle are of Asian-Indian(5 people), El Salvadorian(sp?)(1 person), Chinese(1 person),European(3 people including myself) descent.  I get along with all of them and on weekly basis go out to lunch with one of Indians and talk about everything from good looking women, to music and movies.

Before I got married, I dated girls of Korean, Hispanic, and African descent along with several "white" girls who really when you did some digging were basically like most Americans and were mutts composed of a number of European nationalities, with mixes of Native American smattered in.

You can call BS all you want, and you can live in denial about being able to save the whole world, or you can loath the fact that I see the US as the best of what needs to be saved in humanity, but Immigration is going to be a topic during the first portion of this century(perhaps the key topic in the next election).  The question that will face Americans will be, is immigration(illegal and legal) a threat to our continued survival and well being in this country.  The evidence is showing that illegal immigration is a threat and Americans are taking notice.

As for racism in this debate, I know that the white supremicists(sp?) look at this topic as something they can get a niche in, but then, on the pro-immigrant side you guys are not so perfect either.  I believe La Raza (aka The Race) has been working hard to tear down our immigration system, and LULAC has been right alongside them.  

In fact LULAC lawyers managed to take away the ranch belonging to a white couple who actually assisted 2 illegals by giving them water and cookies as they travelled through the desert.  Their claim was that upon being discovered by the armed rancher, the illegals suffered emotional distress, nevermind that after the rancher saw the plight of these people he gave them food, water, and free passage on his land to continue their illegal journey.

Racism exists on BOTH sides of this issue, but thankfully it has been kept somewhat at bay, and hopefully that will continue so long as people like you, don't succeed in being intellectually dishonest.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on November 22, 2006 - 8:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm sure someone in Zimbabwe or Sweden,

Affermative

or China thinks the same of their culture and I don't blame them one bit, but I do recognize that we are in competition, and as such they are the opponents to beat out.

Aww, plese dont be so brutal.

Here in Sweden the main prepartions for global warming and expensive oil are increasing efficiency and relevant investments. If things turn bad with peak oil and/or global warming we will surely like to continue to trade with you. We got goods that you need and we are better at producing it if we can work in peace withouth recieving a beating.

You might still do something crazy but whoever is in control in USA can probably have far more use of us intact then beaten. We are even trying to become independant of imported oil and thus leaving more for you. (While hosting one of EU:s largest refineries, the global market is mostly a free market and we welcome investors. )

I think most of our culture will survive ok, I hope you will be ok too although you will have to do something creative with the car part of it. If you are beaten it will probably be your own doing for doing too little too late.

I think the major reason for concidering the local culture to be the best life boat is that you have most of your social capital where you live. I would have a severe disadvantage if I moved to USA, Zimbabwe or China before a major crisis.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 22, 2006 - 9:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You misunderstand completely. And it is your intellectial arrogance that gets you in trouble. It is not your "facts" that I disagree with, it is the interpretation you then attempt to wrench out of them.

If you have read my posts in the past you would know that I am not in denial about the billions who will die. Indeed, I'd be willing to bet by the tone of your rant that you were in diapers when I was first coming to grips with the ugliness we are going to face.

Let me see if I can pinpoint for you why I called BS on you. First, you go to great lengths in your attempt to demonstrate that your not a racist - some of my best friends are x. You even make the observation that you know that the poor are going to bear the brunt of what is to come.

Next, you observe that despite being this really wonderfully open minded guy, that what you are really interested in is saving your own ass, so you're willing to accept limitations on where other people can move. (Does that sound ugly? Go back to you third paragraph and tell me that's not what it says.)

Then you indicate that you've chosen (yeah, right) the American culture because you think it has the best chance of ... of what? Again, of saving you and yours. Oh, wait, you did say because its the "best."  But, you know, you don't give any indication of what it is you like about American culture except that you think it gives you the best chance of survival. Did you ever stop to consider that the sort of limitations on immigration you are suggesting run directly counter to American culture? (But I digress.)

Then you go back to your efforts to demonstrate what an open-minded guy you are. But you admit that your real reasoning is the question "is immigration(illegal and legal) a threat to our continued survival and well being in this country." In short you put one group of people ahead of another group. On what do you base this decision? Where they happen to be born? That they are "Americans"? (And then I remember that you have conveniently described all those people who you are not like (the other), but who you are so open minded as to accept, even date, even though they are not like you.)

And then you throw out that the "evidence," which you conveniently do not reference, supports your position. Yet, if you actually did a little research on this, you'd find that their are studies that conclude every which way on this issue. I note also that you don't ever detail what this "threat" is. Is it loss of jobs? cultural change, violence? If you don't define it, am I left to think the worst of you?

You then proceed to make the classic error of thinking that there are only two sides to the issue. And, of course, since you are on one side and I oppose your position, you assume that I am on the other side (as you define it). The issue is not so simple.

I am no more "pro-immigration" in the way that you use it than I am "anti-immigration." Indeed, if you paid any attention to what I had written earlier in this thread you would know that one of my primary concerns is that the immigration issue will be used to strengthen the state apparatus. This is my biggest concern heading into the collapse that is coming, I fear the despotism of a government institution using us versus them mentality (and yes I fear that white supremacists will take control of that institution).

But here's what it really comes down to. Immigration into the US will dry up post peak. It is a non-issue when it comes to peak oil. There won't be jobs here to attract people. It will be much more difficult to get here even if you wanted to. Localization will happen everywhere, not just here. What you do by promoting an end to immigration before the worst effects of peak is to set up a social or cultural regime of exclusion. Whether this is aimed at nationality, skin color, sexual orientation, whatever, it is a decided negative. And I don't like what the next step of exclusion might be. Nor the next, etc..

I know that a lot of folks on this board think we are going to go into survivalist mode. And if you think that way, it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, if we believe that interaction and helping one another is the way we will get through this, that, too, can be a self fulfilling prophecy. So, while you are hunkered down in your hidy hole waiting for something (I don't know what) to end so you can come out of it on the other side, I'm going to be out there working with people, trying to learn new ways of living, thinking and being right in the midst of the change.

There will be no "America" in fifty years time. You already know this. The question is, which parts of American culture will we use to help us build a positive future amongst all the pain we know to be coming. Will we choose the exclusionist America of "Jim Crow" and border fences. Or will we choose the inclusionist America of universal participation in governance and equal rights?

There is a very real possibility that the anti-immigration stance you seem to be proposing will destroy some of the best values of this country, the very reasons you think it is "best"?

So, I hope you see now, that what you thought was being "intellectually dishonest" was actually your own tilting at a straw man. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position, you may be doing more harm to your chances of survival than good.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 21, 2006 - 2:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Just for the record, I made a statistical observation, and didn't raise any of those points, so don't look at me.

The point I was trying to make, before it got swept up by the xenophobes is that rich people have fewer kids. It's an unassailable emperical fact. Whether they become rich by coming here, or by improving conditions in their own countries doesn't much matter for the world as a whole. The US is not some grand exception to this rule. if we had immigration laws like Europe, we'd have population growth like Europe as well. This is also a demographic fact, and I won't bother to argue about it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on November 21, 2006 - 5:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
From my viewpoint in Sweden I dont see the problem to be people moving into USA, people should get democracy, good living conditions, etc regardless of where they live. The problem is that USA is inefficient, you seem to have a wastefull culture, one where a lot of people even are proud of inefficiencies.

I can add that a fairly large numbers of people are moving into Sweden and we have problems with bad integration and not using peopels skills anyway near their capacity. Our problems seem to be an order of manitude smaller then Frances, and at least getting worse a lot slower. I guess that our progress in learning how to turn foreginers into Swedes will limit how much we can relive the preassure when peak oil gets serious, especially if its combined with global warming. In USA you seem to have a much easier time of making people into americans but it would be great if you somehow could integrate some Japanese virtues or old-farmer-culture virtues, etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on November 21, 2006 - 7:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"should get" were to short, should be able to create by working hard, cooperating and trading on a free market is better.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
neon9 on November 20, 2006 - 11:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What?
I assure you that it would be much easier to smuggle a gun into Mexico rather than, say, a kilo of coke into the states although both could be the same size, if the coke not smaller. At least at the border X-ings I've been to. Tijuana, and Laredo mostly.
The Mexican border patrol, in most respects, is a joke. However, I will admit they treat people on foot much differently than people in a vehicle. People on foot could damn near smuggle anything they wanted into Mexico.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on November 21, 2006 - 12:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

While many seem to be chastening the USA so harshly I wonder why it is that so many still want to get in and none want to get out.

airdale,
You have several times leveled criticisms at those who 'chasten the USA harshly.' I have been among this number. Rather than go on a complicated rant about the obvious shortcomings and misdeeds of my country, I will state this as succinctly as I can: I criticize my country because I love my country and I damn well expect better of it!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 21, 2006 - 1:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

How was it said...

"My country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept righ, when wrong, to be set right."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
foolontheswill on November 21, 2006 - 12:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
While many seem to be chastening the USA so harshly I wonder why it is that so many still want to get in and none want to get out.

Tell me you are joking about the 'none' that want to get out part. I guess you were totally asleep after the last election and more than a few got off their duffs and departed for Canada. You also don't hang out a LATOC where the subject of anwhere but here comes up almost weekly. Jingo two step all you want, but there are plenty of us who think seriously about bailing on this disaster of a nation, and plenty already have...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 9:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
More is excused in the name of anti-political correctness than was ever propogated by its proponents. Indeed, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who promotes "political correctness." The term itself is the creation of far right pundits. What I typically see is people raging against political correctness when they've been called on their own racism, sexism or downright closedmindedness.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
solar1 on November 20, 2006 - 9:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We have to seal our borders from all immigration.  We cannot solve the problems of the rest of the world by letting them all come here.  They have countries of their own they need to deal with.  We have enough problems ourselves that need to be worked on.  I understand that many problems are global, but our increasing population of immigrants is a local problem and  one we must get under control.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 9:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is so fricking naive as to bely comment.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slaphappy on November 21, 2006 - 1:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'd go further. One of the primary causes of massive pollution is globalization. The US has environmental standards (damn weak efficiency standards, but often excellent environmental standards, often beyond those of Europe, though no European would ever admit such a thing), but places like China do not. The fact that we don't tariff imports just means that the factory, rather than reducing pollution, just moves to China so it can produce twice the pollution for half the cost. We just cost ourselves jobs, and made the environment that much nastier.

I'm going to sound like microsoft here, but the answer isn't total trade liberalization, but rather embrace and extend. Tax things based on the environmental standards of the host country, that sort of thing. It would surely get the US in line, and China too. You want to improve the environment, that's how you do it, by major industrial blocks (the US and EU mostly) declaring outright that anything allowed into their borders must be produced in accordance with their own labor and environmental laws. The incentive to outsource would be mightily reduced, and the total global pollution with it.

It's good for everyone. The US retains more jobs. China doesn't get its country trashed and its people exploited. What jobs they do get pay a living wage and cause an ascendent middle class. The EU gets the same thing the US gets, and the rest of the world doesn't have to put up with the pollution. Even the EU and US would stablize each other. The next time the republicans take congress, it'll be harder for them to gut the environmental regulations if everyone knows it'll cost us jobs when the EU starts taxing our exports. Even if they do zap the regulations, businesses will still abide by them if they want to do business in Europe. The same would go for the EU, China, etc... Current globalization exploits the weakest link, but a reallignment of laws could easily make it a strongest link like scenario. This is how California controls the US car market, the US could do the same thing to the world.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 21, 2006 - 11:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is one of the big reasons I believe we need to return to Protectionist Capialism.

It would allow us to have a non-violent prod by which we can force other nations to fall in line with our values whether it be environmental conerns or labor conditions.  It would also allow those nations who want to be more ambitious in improving environmental, or labor conditions to do so, and if set up properly we could even reward those nations with lower than average tariffs which could be used as a prod towards our local industries to improve their performance.

Globalism to me makes no sense at all unless one is trying to (as davidsmi seems to fancy the word) rape the world of its resources.

The US is not resource poor.  We've exhausted certain types of resources, but we have alternatives available and other types of resources we can build our industries on/use for export.  Especially if we can push towards more renewables and ween off the oil for fuel kick, and instead use oil/NG for more "permanent" things such as plastics,  building material and perhaps fertilizers(I know the organic farmers are cringing, but organic farming is not going to feed the population we currently have and rather than a crash due to lack of food, a slow decline due to reduced immigration/lower birthrates would be more beneficial at which point organic farming can be phased in to handle the lion's share of food production for a much smaller population).  

The uses of hydrocarbons outside of fuel would probably allow the US to live on its own current supply for a time to come, or perhaps at worst with import levels far more benign than the current ravenous levels by which we live by today.  Also if we were not converting it for fuel, which would require huge amounts of pollution, we could probably use coal to X processes to supply the needed hydrocarbons to fill the gap between our produced oil/NG amounts and the desired amount for materials production and still be able to keep a tight reign on pollution levels.  Coal to gas scares me when its being talked about for fueling vehicle fleets.  It doesn't scare me nearly as much when its being talked about as a way to create materials.

Anyhow, moving back to a protectionist model I think would benefit the US for more than hurt it, and I would wager so long as we were even handed about it, we could use that power to improve the nations we compete against as well.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 12:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Your analysis of capitalism is (to steal from AMPOD) "cute."

Capitalism, despite what you would like to think, is not a theory to be implemented with variations to choose from. It is an economic system that existed before any of your "variations" were dreamed of. It has an internal logic that had crushed most attempts to change it and eaten those it didn't crush.

Your belief that the US could go it alone is naive. You recognize oil as a problem, but try some other simple respources like bauxite. Worse, try running the US economy minus grain exports. How about minus international financial transactions. The US economy is a part of the capital economy, it extracts surplus value from less developed areas. Until you confront that aspect of the reality of capitalism, you haven't understood it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 21, 2006 - 12:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm not suggesting we isolate ourselves.  We would trade with other countries, we would import and export our products.  But we would do so with nations whom we share certain levels quality, whether it would be environmental, or labor.  Right now we buy shoes made by slave labor(or little better), we buy products that pollute and destroy large swaths of habitats.  We do this because we have no way to penalize those countries who decide to pick those paths.

Also, the US used protectionist trade(in combination with other factors) to unseat the British at the turn of the last century.  The US used protectionist trade to grow into the economic behemoth it is today.  We've left that model, because corporations who wanted to exploit certain aspects of other countries resources (oil/metals/people) managed to get a stranglehold on our government.  It allowed these corporations a glut of short term growth, but eventually the piper will want his due, and when he does, this country, and probably most of the world will pay dearly.

Basically globalism has allowed corporations to get lazy on innovation by allowing the corporations to gain access to resources which don't belong to us.  And worse we feel so entitled to those resources we are willing to invade countries over them.  If we had never stepped down the globalist path, how much innovation would've occured in alternatives during that time?  If corporations could no longer count on cheap oil from the ME, would they invest in wind/solar/hydro/tidal/nuclear/ and scary as it is coal.  All of which would be us living within our OWN means...  living off resources BELONGING to us, not some other peoples.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davidsmi on November 21, 2006 - 12:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Belive, my friend, believe.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on November 21, 2006 - 12:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Exactly correct davidsmi, and I can think of no time in history that draconian border controls have actually worked!  Think of the "Iron curtain" days.  The guards were trained to shoot on sight, so the penalty for illegal border crossing could be death....and people still crossed.  If people want to move in large numbers and have enough will, they will.

I love the "imagine if..." philosphy of energy consumption....imagine if the United States had only 300 people, what our energy consumption would be reduced to!!

Imagine this...if we had an energy consumption per person about equal to the Europeans (who do not, by the way, live in a "stone age"), it would have the same effect as cutting the U.S. population in half....it's the waste that is the issue.  More troubling to me is the recent DOE Reports indicating that they see cheap energy from fossil fuel as available right out through 2030, and have thus cut the legs out from under any real attempt to finance alternatives and advanced technology.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JN2 on November 21, 2006 - 7:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
More troubling to me is the recent DOE Reports indicating that they see cheap energy from fossil fuel as available right out through 2030

Roger, this troubles me too. Sounds like the DOE is infiltrated (owned?) by the fossil fuel companies. Maybe the Dems can defang the beast?

On a similar note, how much public money is going to FF related university research? (eg oil extraction, CTL, improved ICE engines etc). Imagine if we canceled all FF research and switched it to renewables. Kind of putting a carbon tax on academia :) I know, I'm dreaming...

[FF=fossil fuel, CTL=coal-to-liquids, ICE= internal combustion engine]

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on November 21, 2006 - 12:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If people want to move in large numbers and have enough will, they will.

Then remove their desire to come here illegally.  I'm not talking about a fence.  I'm not talking about being shot on site.

I'm talking about, when they get arrested for being here illegally, they are sentenced not to deportation, but to hardlabor camps for 2 years, given no compensation, and then deported back to their country of origin.  I'm talking about throwing employers in jail for 2 years per illegal they knowingly hire. I'm talking about denying medical service to illegals and jailing doctors who try to subvert that law.  I'm talking about revoking the licenses to renters who rent to illegals knowingly.  I'm talking about removing the "born here = instant citizen" clause that currently allows illegal immigrant mothers to use their kids as a way in.  I'm talking about creating so many disincentives for coming here illegally that you would not want to risk it.

The Iron Curtain failed because people were leaving a bad situation and basically being welcomed into a good one.  They had a single short term risk(at least risk with any teeth) to surmount.

What needs to be done to curb illegal immigration is to make the situation here so bad if you are here illegally, that staying put in your current country, or coming here by legal channels will be the more attractive thing to do.  Creating a fence and manning it with guards is too resource intensive and has a single point of failure.  They get by the fence, and they are essentially given a good life (by comparison to home).  

By creating the above disincentives they will have to live every day that they are here in fear because there are redundant points of failure.  Not to mention, to the business owners who would hire illegals, they would now have to weigh the risk of years of prison time against the profits of cheap labor.  Most business owners can do the math.

And granted maybe we need 10mil, 20 mil, 30 mil foreign workers to keep this country operating.  If that's the case then FIX THE LAW to allow for a legal process by which immgrants can come here and work those jobs(and I'm not talking about an instant guest worker/amnesty program either).  But ignoring the law is 1) wrong, and 2) eventually suicide when the lifeboat syndrome begins to happen in earnest.  If we get to that point, we really will have to man the borders with machine guns and shoot any attemping crossers.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on November 20, 2006 - 4:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You are quite right, it IS all about population.

And ultimately, all you can do is try to inform friends and select potential winning solutions for your family.

Trouble is:

What Draconian Measures?
and
Which side of the measures will you be on?

Gaia may well just decide help us out anyway so:

Kindercide, gerontocide, genocide or creedocide may not be in our hands anyway.

In this respect, we may find that Gaia will turn out to be the ultimate equal opportunity employer.

We are too late by 50 years and 3 billion souls for a rational solution. This passion play will play itself out  The world will move on and in 200 million years time, the President of the Antoid people will declare war against the evil cockroachoid people - A war destined to last a generation and declare that they hate us for our freedoms.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 20, 2006 - 4:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If we had a population of 100 million people in the USA instead of 300 million, we would not have any problems with fuel, pollution, roads, housing etc....

You know, I'm not so sure about that.  I agree with you that population is the problem...but I'm not sure I agree that reducing the population would allow the happy motoring lifestyle to continue.

The U.S. population was 100 million about a hundred years ago...and already, there were signs of trouble.  Nearly all the arable land had already been claimed under the Homestead Act.  Tensions over resources led to range and water wars.

So is the solution to reduce the population even further?  There's a limit to how far you can go with that strategy before it impacts your lifestyle.  Our comfortable middle-class standard of living is maintained by a lot of poor people.  Somebody's got to do the dirty work.  Not to mention the sheer complexity of our technology requires a certain degree of specialization, and hence a certain population size.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Calorie on November 20, 2006 - 6:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We're about to find out...

Washington Post: Japan Shrinks

TOKYO -- Japan has embarked on a path no developed nation has ever followed -- of sustained and inexorable population decline.

Japan won't be alone, of course. Italy, Russia, South Korea and many others also will get smaller. The United States is the exception among advanced nations, and not only thanks to immigration; its overall birth rate is higher, too.

But Japan, which shrank by about 21,000 last year, is in the forefront, and so everyone else will be watching. Does population decline inevitably sap vitality and doom a country to genteel poverty? Or is there some way out?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Seadragon on November 20, 2006 - 10:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Very very uncomfortable feeling to know that we've overshot this much...it will take lots of conservation and lots more population control, neither of which we have the stomach for.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RussFag on November 20, 2006 - 6:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The basic resource of economy is not oil or other fossil materials. It is working hours. The more working hours a society has at hand the more it could achieve. It's like a pyramid with constant angles, the more the base-the more the height.  If the world were to consist of countries the size of Finland there would never be such things as man in space.
That's why the US is so fearful of China.
The main US problem is not overpopulation but the established way of life. The transition to the electrified mass transit as advertised by Alanfrombigeasy could significantly reduce the oil burden.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on November 20, 2006 - 9:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ahhh, Robert.

There is plenty of information on the internets about the cellulostic ethanols.

Take for instance the ability to produce biodiesel from algae - one acre of which has the potential to yield up to 100 times the amount of fat yielded from a similar acre of soybeans or canola. High yielding technology has also been developed for ethanol production, which can occur from almost any organic substance through a process known as cellulostic ethanol production. To give England's climb toward fossil fuel independence to the likes of L. Ron Hubbard is like charging the Papacy with designing the next Internet. Hard science and applied technology has already shown that we can renewably generate the energy and fuels necessary for a modern lifestyle, so why is Monibriot dragging the issue into the realm of fiction?
How dare you put yourself forward as an expert! Ahem!  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

294 comments on DrumBeat: November 20, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version