Sure, but isn't the real question (for this forum) whether the ecological/energy footprint of the U.S. would be at steady-state or less, even without the immigration issue? Although America's population growth can be "blamed" on immigrants, I don't think that the same can be done with it's ecological/energy footprint. Maybe I'm wrong.
As a Canadian, I'm accutely aware that we not only have more immigration but a much higher average ecological/energy footprint. If America is bad, we're worse. Much of the reason we're worse is that we are supplying America with energy and resources, but that doesn't get us off the hook in my view.
Sure, but isn't the real question (for this forum) whether the ecological/energy footprint of the U.S. would be at steady-state or less, even without the immigration issue?
IMO...no. That is an issue separate from population.
It is pointless to control population without also understanding the impact of individual (and collective)ecological footprints, just as it is futile to moderate individual (and collective) ecological footprints without understanding and adjusting population.
I agree that they must be dealt with in tandem, otherwise it's useless. They don't always correlate, i.e., a burgeoning but low energy-using population will eventually use up the resources, just as a low growth but higher consumption society will.
Leanan, what the hell are you talking about? The market will not take care of your ecological footprint; the market does not give a damn whether or not you destroy the environment. In fact, the market, if allowed to do its work properly, will completely destroy the environment. Trees sell, wilderness and wildlife do not.
And the market will not take care of overpopulation. The laws of nature will eventually curb overpopulation, not the laws of the market.
Methinks you are mistaken the market with Mother Nature. Malthusian principles will prevail in spite of the market, not because of it.
The argument, basically, is about whether Americans are using more than their share of resources. Obviously, we are. And Malthus isn't necessarily going to fix that.
No, I think what will fix it is the market. We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world. That won't go on forever.
No. what will "fix" it is war.
(It being America's taking of 25% of resource flow in comparison to her 8% rank in world population)
You forget that we are the "ownership society"
We "own" all the resources of the world and if they don't hand the stuff over to us, we go to fight them "over there" for it before they fight us over here.
Our notion of being the "ownership society" will end when we are bankrupted by our nonprofitable military adventures or when "they who hate our freedom to take what we want" vanquish us militarily.
Well, I still disagree. How is the market going to equitably distribute resources? There is nothing equitable or egalitarian about the market. The market is a very unfair system of distribution because he with the most money gets the most goodies. If everything is left to the market, some will always have an unfair share of resources. (Fair in a moral sense I am speaking of. But actually in nature there is no such thing as fair or unfair.)
There is nothing inherent in the market that will assist the current have nots to become equal with the haves. While it may be true that we will not always have more than our fair share, the market will not be the instrument that changes that. In fact, if it is ever changed it will be in spite of the market, not because of it.
And you said, in your previous post, that the market will also take care of the overpopulation problem. It is the principles of Malthus that will eventually fix that problem, not the market. What the market will do is insure that those with the most have the best chance of survival. Very unfair but that is just the difference between the market and Malthus. (Again, fair only in the moral sense.)
>Well, I still disagree. How is the market going to equitably distribute resources? There is nothing equitable or egalitarian about the market
Utimately the rules of nature and the market system is connected. I can best summarize the connection between markets and nature by borrowing the title of Darwins famous book "Survival of the fittest". Those without wealth, resources or can't adapt will suffer and probably die off.
The rules of survival, the market, and natural selection are all the related. People that can adapt and have access to the necessary resources will survive. Those without will perish. We can see this all the time in business. Successful businesses that provide good or services that meet the demands of tje market survive and flourish, those that don't go bankrupt. Businesses also need to adapt to the changing market. For instance during much of the 20th century, camera film manufactures and processors flourished. Kodak was part of the dow 30 for many decades. When film was replaced by digital photography, these companies no longer served the market. Some adapted and some went bankrupt.
Market forces will bring about changes, but they aren't going to save humanity from the trouble ahead. The only option is to adapt or die. Those that believe that Communism and socialism can solve the problem are dead wrong. Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago. During this time, nature has never developed an eco. system based upon the ideas of communism. It has always been based upon a market system and always will be. In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago.
No, "the market" is a much too coarse approximation of Darwinian selection AND vice-versa!
Survival of the fitest does NOT have the same meaning in these two cases.
This is all because of several reasons, among which :
- In nature more is not necessarily better.
- In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".
- In nature cooperation between individuals, groups, species and even across genres (bees / flowers) is regulated by hard-wired mechanisms which evolve only VERY slowly, like our "basic instincts".
In the market these are replaced by the rule of law which can be arbitrarily crazy and changing fast.
Never had a tax rebate repealed or the like?
In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
The market does not appear to be sustainable in a FINITE RESSOURCES environment neither are "Communism and socialism" which are just a reframing of the growth trend with more "equity".
>In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".
Your absolutely correct. Althought I was just refering to the rules that that they share, such as the rules of supply and demand. If a required resource becomes depleted, it becomes expensive to obtain. For in a drought, food and water are harder to obtain for both man and animals. More labor or energy is required to obtain adquite supplies to sustain life. A society, herd, or even single cell organisms either adapt or fight to obtain what remains. These rules apply to business, societies, or even single cell organisms. The market system isn't fair nor is survival fair.
>Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
We don't have a sustainabe system, and there is no way to support 6 Billion or even perhaps even 2 Billion in any sustainable system. FWIW: If I had some sort of magic wand I would use it to waive all these problems away.
>No, I think what will fix it is the market. We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world. That won't go on forever.
Darwinian is right:
When the US is no longer able to import the required amount of fossil fuels, Americans will start to use what ever fuel is available. That being trees, coal, garbage, etc. What ever they can use to heat their homes and run the power grid. Search the financial websites for growth in wood pellet stoves and coal consumption to see that its already begining.
A decline in oil and gas imports will be the beginning of the biggest ecological disaster in history. FWIW: The entire Northeast of the United States was deforested by the beginning of the 20th Century (mostly for heating and steam power). Since that time, the land has recovered because Oil and Gas was cleaner and cheaper than wood and coal. You could say that Oil and Gas production came in the nick of time to prevent a real disaster. This time there is no new source of energy to save us.
In Collapse, Jared Diamond made a very good point that resonated home with me. Paraphrased, it went something like this "we can either deal with these problems now in pleasant ways of our own choosing, or we can wait and Nature will solve them, in unpleasant ways which we do not choose".
In other words, overpopulation will be solved, either by birth control and family planning, or be depopulation. The same with the other problems we currently face.
I would much rather take the first route instead of waiting for Mother Nature to do it for us.
Can't see in any way how the market will solve this, equitably or not?
Overpopulation has only 3 solutions as I can see. 1. Mother natures kitchen solution - Global warming or bird flu...or both. 2. War 3. We wake up and convince several generations to stop having babies so we can reduce the global population 2/3rds. (yah right)
Maybe the outcome will be a hybrid, some of Momma's wrath, a few nukes, and then who ever is left is involuntarily forced in realizing that they should have less babies(however this is against procreation principles).
In any case, growth must stop somehow as you stated.
I agree that it is against the human instinct to reduct population - and it extends into everthing we do.
If one person makes the decision to only have one child or no childern then somebody else decides they can take up the slack and have extras. The first person had reduced the chance of continuing the blood line and somebody else filled in.
I carpool, but that just allows one other car and that much more gas to be used by others on the road.
I lower my electrical consuption by using a programmable thermostat and turn off the AC during the day. But that just allows somebody to run a little bit cooler without overloading the grid.
Samething with NatGas in the winter. . .
The Easter Island story has been mentioned several times here. I can imagine the last group of survivors as they watch the trees disapear with each day. At some point either one person, a small group, or even the entire population looks at the remaining trees and realizes that they are running out. Maybe even as a collective they decide they should not cut any more down for fires to cook food. But all it takes is one person to decide that they are going to go out and cut down a tree and use the wood for fire. He has just increased his chance of surviving. Then somebody follows suit and cuts down the next tree to increase their chance. As individuals they feel justified because just one tree isn't going to matter, but pretty soon everybody has cut down a tree.
Maybe the person that stood up and said that they need to save the trees holds true and does not cut down a tree. He cannot cook food or provide shelter. His chance of survival is reduced.
Even though the long term solution is to reduce there will always be masses that 'pick up the slack' of those that are conserving. It is human nature - and I don't see how we avoid it.
Sounds like a variation of the prisoner's dillema to me.
I conserve, you conserve - sustainable world
I conserve, you don't - I suffer a lot, you enjoy yourself
neither conserves - we both suffer greatly because of an eco-collapse.
The other is a central government strong enough to force compliance.
This is all a problem of priorities, which kind of goals is a "strong enough central government" likely to look for first?
- Survival and enjoyment for government employees (of "sufficient" rank of course).
- Necessary but unpopular measures which may bring trouble with the masses.
It did occur to me, reading Collapse, that a hereditary monarch might be more inclined to result in a sustainable society than a democracy.
As Diamond points out, a king has incentive to protect his kingdom. He gets his wealth from the entire kingdom. And he hopes that his heirs will inherit that wealth one day. He has reason to promote sustainability.
In a democracy, where your time in power may be fleeting, perhaps there's more incentive to just loot the country while you can.
OTOH, our system of government isn't as egalitarian as we like to believe. Maybe King George II would like to leave something for his heirs, future Presidents Jenna and Barbara.
hereditary monarch might be more inclined to result in a sustainable society than a democracy.
That was Votlaire's idea of an enlightened despot.
That won't work either, not only because we cannot get back to this, but because if by any stroke of luck you DO get an
enlightened one this always turn sour in a few generations.
Enlightenment is not hereditary.
Speaking of enlightenment, do you really think that "King George II" COULD manage to
"leave something for his heirs" ?
And yet...it has worked for some societies. Some of the societies Diamond discusses have been sustainable for thousands of years. King and all.
Not that I think it's an option for us, but perhaps the idea that "all despots turn bad eventually" is a myth? Or, as Tainter would put it, it's one of the "nonmaterial elements" used to legitimize our society. The Emperor is a God. Democracy is the best form of government. Etc.
I think the most pertinent example of "enlightened despot" in our age is good ol' Uncle Fidel.
The pretty violent downward adjustment in energy consumption of the 90s was handled, overall, unexpectedly well (no mass starvation or mayhem; human contentment index probably not substantially lowered).
I'm not advocating it as a transposable model or anything. For one thing, I would be prepared to tolerate a fairly high degree of mayhem before surrendering my freedoms. For another, the ratio of "enlightened" despots to overall despots is not terribly high.
Jared Diamond wrote a whole book to justify a rehash of 1970s Paul Elrich writing that was a rehash of Thomas Malthus. Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies", while written for an academic audience, is a much more useful work, far better footnoted and actually analyzes relavent collapses such as the Romans, the Egyptians and Chinese dynasties and not small groups of people living in the arctic or on isolated pacific islands. IMHO, it will give you a far better understanding as to what our civilization can do to deal with peak oil that will NOT wind up involving a cure worse than the disease. If you get bored of reading the endless pile of historical examples that Tainter enumerates I would suggest you skip to the part about what the Eastern Roman empire did to preserve itself in the midst of the Western Roman empire's collapse. It's the only example of a complex society willfully simplifying itself in recorded history. It would be the equivalent of the Libertarian party getting 2/3rds majorities in congress and the presidency and completely dismantling the central government down to its bare bones and restructuring the whole civil structure around militias, requiring every landholder to serve.
If you get bored of reading the endless pile of historical examples that Tainter enumerates I would suggest you skip to the part about what the Eastern Roman empire did to preserve itself in the midst of the Western Roman empire's collapse.
Contest. This is a college essay. Or an essay on a college entrance exam (just shutup, and pretend):
Explain what the Eastern Roman Empire did to preserve itself.
All entries must be between 50 and 5000 words. No quotes or links are allowed. Immediate disqualification for any comments that include either.
Points awarded for conciseness, accuracy, and writing style. In that order.
Prizes:
1st) A fictional "Cadillac" mentioned by the Alec Baldwin character in Glengarry Glenross.
OK. I'm going to take your post into special consideration. The Beavis impersonation is priceless. I'm actually going to start the points race off using you as the standard 100 points. Just like IQ.
Now let's progress to the bonus round.
Wait, we have a complaint - somebody is saying you were not actually anwering the question, you were asking a question...Judges?...yes, sorry. Minus 5 points!
Beavis and Butthead? Your remarks?
uhuhhuhheh.
OK. Plus 10.
Final score - 105. Congratulations. You are the Leader.
I've always wondered. Does DIY mean Do It Yourselfer?
LOL, I was just watching TV last night. Couldn't sleep. An ad for the B&B DVD came on... got bored with TV and wandered over to the computer.
uhuhhhuhehuh
Yes, that's what DIY generally stands for. It was a handle I used in another forum, and lack of creativity or a limitation on handle length or a desire to limit typing prohibited using say, "ConcernedButUnpreparedAndNowScared****less" or something. Of how large a company are you CEO?
Ok I'll bite :) . I'm summarizing most of Tainter's excellent analysis.
Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) was the only society that ever simplified itself on purpose. At its nadir it was almost completely destroyed. Byzantium had 1/3rd of its population killed by plagues, the currency was so debased that it became no longer used and their empire was at one point almost completely overrun by Visigoths and Arab Muslim invaders yet they were able to recover from their nadir in the 700s and survive till the 13th century (600 years!) even though they faced almost constant invasions from the Muslim empires to the east and goths and other barbarians to the north and west. They were able to do this through a number of clever simplification maneuvers.
The Government had run out of money to pay soldiers so instead they gave them land in exchange for hereditary military service organized in "themes" or military districts. The soldiers were responsible for purchasing and providing their own rations, equipment, and uniforms. This got rid of almost all the military bureaucracy and a large part of the taxation complexity. Can you imagine the government devolving the military into local farm owner's gun clubs purchasing their own heavy military equipment? It reflects an amount of trust in the people by the government that is unthinkable today.
The civil administrations were merged into the military. There was no distinction between the military and the local governments. The Military ran the courts, the police, and local government functions. No Posse Comitatus but the military was the equivalent of these local farm owner's gun clubs and would therefore be far more trusted with their authority by the people.
Because of the above reforms soldiers were fighting for their own land and family and the military was exteremely efficient and inventive, the arab invaders were unable to make any headway against them despite almost constant attacks.
They gutted all the glamour of their central government to keep things together. At one point they paid the army by melting down 20,000 pounds of gold from the emporer's throne room. Equivalent to selling off most public lands and buildings. Administrative ranks and honors were done away with.
Cities contracted to densly packed fortified hilltops. That would mean abandoning the suburbs.
Aristocratic life (what rich educated people were doing) was focused around the imperial court. Meaning that rich educated people mainly passed the time by hanging out at city hall with the politicians, drinking wine, wearing fancy clothes and gossiping but otherwise didn't have many luxuries, compared to Roman times.
Education was simplified. Basic math, reading and science were the order of the day. New books were mostly the lives of Saints, the ancient traditions were preserved and copied.
The Western Roman empire collapsed however because they tried to survive by tightening the screws. They raised taxes to very high levels on farmers to fund the inefficient army that was doubled in size. They hyperinflated the currency, they conscripted labor, and tried to control who was in what occupation and increasingly tried to regiment all aspects of life. It failed, the farmers started to abandon their land in protest so the government forced them to be hereditarily bound to the land at which point they welcomed the barbarian invasion and the overthrow of the empire. They took all the productive parts of their society and burned them at the altar of keeping the power structure alive.
Tainter points out that a) a government can wreck itself by trying by all means to sustain itself and b) complexity in problem solving destroys governments slowly, subtly over long period of time and that simplification is very hard because so many have tied their interests to growing and maintaining the complexity of the centralized power structure.
500 points. Subject to review. If you were lying to me and are completely full of it, yet managed to slip that by me - you earn another 300 points. Otherwise, you're just simply in first place. Good job. No, sorry - Excellent Job. Amazed by how fast you wrote it.
Note that it was not without cost, though. They call this period a "dark age." Literacy rates plummeted.
And they basically made the military their government.
Any society trying to get out of the declining marginal returns trap will have some very difficult choices to make. What is worth saving, and what will you sacrifice?
The market! Don't you mean Jesus. Or some other magical being.
Let's tick off some fun things the market has brought to North Americans
(1) very large homes in sprawling urban zones with as little regulation and planning as tolerble. Hello Lakewood California!
(2) very large motor cars that generally cart around a single occupant.
(3) efficient and effective corn and soy delivery systems, often highly processed, and packaged in shiny objects.
(4) Airconditioning! And the subsequent movement of people from colder north to hot and humid south (beach front property anyone)
(5) overweight, corn fed residents of #4 and #1, drivers of #2 and avid consumers of #3.
(6) Southpark (though maybe this one is a good thing)
Yup, "The Market" will solve our problems just fine. Always has before, always will in the future.
I never said the market was going to solve all our problems.
Indeed, if you've read many of my comments here, you'll know I am not a fan of capitalism. I think it is inherently unsustainable.
I'm just saying it will solve the problem of Americans consuming more than their share.
This doesn't mean it will solve the problem of overconsumption in general. It just means the resources will start to flow to the countries that have something other than paper to offer the world. Likely oil-rich countries like Russia.
Why batter ourselves against the wall trying to reduce American consumption? It's going to happen anyway.
Population, OTOH...I think we're in serious danger of losing all the progress we've made toward slowing population growth rates, due to peak oil.
Yes, I agree with you 100%. Perhaps the market will provide us with a new generation of Made to Break nuclear power stations or will bless us with some other cool MtB solution.
Why don't we combine the two questions to get a more useful number? Eco-footprint growth. An ecological footprint is not much use if we don't know how many people have said footprint, so why don't we extend the argument to "how fast is our eco-footprint growing/shrinking."
That would be interesting if peak oil weren't looming. I think things may change rapidly as energy prices rise. Our standard of living is going to drop, and presumably our ecological footprints, too.
Long term: yes, they will drop.
Short term: the exact opposite.
We will scramble and fight and dig and drill so hard, using so much energy and other resources, that our footprints will go through the roof . We'll be too busy trying to get our fix to care about the environment any longer.
This happens already, of course, because we use more enrgy than ever, with on average lower EROEI. Hence, we spend more energy per energy unit, on more energy units. The 2nd law is quite clear on that one.
A somewhat forgotten effect of peak oil will thus be that pollution and climate change will increase, probably quite dramatically.
A somewhat forgotten effect of peak oil will thus be that pollution and climate change will increase, probably quite dramatically.
Probably true, and I don't think it's forgotten at all. (If I had to bet, it would be on a catabolic collapse. Plenty of time to trash the environment.)
However, I think we Americans would become increasingly constrained. We could trash our own country, but not others, as we are doing now.
Unless we really decide to nuke their @$$ and take their gas. Then all bets are off.
"We could trash our own country, but not others, as we are doing now."
Actually, all countries are colluding to trash the globe. C02, other airborne pollutants, and water-borne pollutants often have little respect for national borders.
Do all these alternative words for America(n)s have some deeper meaning? It sounds limke it comes from some subculture and refers to something I am missing.
As far as I can tell, it is unique to this website. Either that, or somehow, I'm missing all the "cool" websites. I hope you're ready for answers from fleam and sendoilplease. I'd say they are the experts on this one.
Nice detective work. I dunno if you've had the chance to read Simmons' "critique" of CERA's report yet. He never uses the term "sheeple," but when he quotes Lincoln, I certainly got the feel that's what he was getting at. I think sheeple was a term our own step back had a huge hand in popularizing. I've only become accustomed to it cuz I love the step man so much. Plus it's only offensive to sheep. And they wouldn't understand it anyway. I meant 'because' - cuz is just shorter and conveys the exact same thing. Ever wonder what the language will be like post-peak about 200 years from now? That is - if the doomers are wrong, and everybody lives and is "fine." I do. But I don't spend much time on it. I'll be dead. I think.
I'm starting to think though, if everything "comes from the movies" like Angry Chimp believes...crap, I've gotta rethink this. I've seen most of those movies. This just totally brought havoc upon my databases...errror...error. Does not compute. Alright, we'll have to take this up after a quick reboot. I hope.
The level of scrunity all of these issues (oil supplies, corn-based ethanol, sheep) have gotten recently - because of the web, access to information and smart people - is profound.
Seriously. That's my problem. I'm not trying to rebut anybody. I'm trying to keep the fight even and fair.
Both sides so far are just talking past each other.
One of the best debates I have seen [edited] And you actually walked away victorious (in my mind). It's a weird thing. I totally disagree with you(on that subject) - You scare the shit out of me about ethanol. You are actually convincing. That's why I recommended you to Khosla. Yet you won the day. I won't even engage on the ethanol thing. I tried that long ago. My thing is oil. and gasoline.
Is there some way we can continue this conversation privately? As far as who I am trying to rebut on CERA thing. Simmons. I can do it. I bought his book. Cost me eighteen bucks. Plus I had to read it. CERA was all free. And they gave me the deal up front. CERA doesn't F around. Their detractors make a business out of F ing around.
As a Canadian, I'm accutely aware that we not only have more immigration but a much higher average ecological/energy footprint. If America is bad, we're worse. Much of the reason we're worse is that we are supplying America with energy and resources, but that doesn't get us off the hook in my view.
Nit-pick: Be careful using "everyone".
IMO...no. That is an issue separate from population.
It is pointless to control population without also understanding the impact of individual (and collective)ecological footprints, just as it is futile to moderate individual (and collective) ecological footprints without understanding and adjusting population.
Well, overpoplation will, too, but that will be a lot nastier than not being able to afford an SUV or plasma TV.
And the market will not take care of overpopulation. The laws of nature will eventually curb overpopulation, not the laws of the market.
Methinks you are mistaken the market with Mother Nature. Malthusian principles will prevail in spite of the market, not because of it.
No, I think what will fix it is the market. We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world. That won't go on forever.
No. what will "fix" it is war.
(It being America's taking of 25% of resource flow in comparison to her 8% rank in world population)
You forget that we are the "ownership society"
We "own" all the resources of the world and if they don't hand the stuff over to us, we go to fight them "over there" for it before they fight us over here.
Our notion of being the "ownership society" will end when we are bankrupted by our nonprofitable military adventures or when "they who hate our freedom to take what we want" vanquish us militarily.
J. Paul Getty
There is nothing inherent in the market that will assist the current have nots to become equal with the haves. While it may be true that we will not always have more than our fair share, the market will not be the instrument that changes that. In fact, if it is ever changed it will be in spite of the market, not because of it.
And you said, in your previous post, that the market will also take care of the overpopulation problem. It is the principles of Malthus that will eventually fix that problem, not the market. What the market will do is insure that those with the most have the best chance of survival. Very unfair but that is just the difference between the market and Malthus. (Again, fair only in the moral sense.)
Who said anything about equitable?
Utimately the rules of nature and the market system is connected. I can best summarize the connection between markets and nature by borrowing the title of Darwins famous book "Survival of the fittest". Those without wealth, resources or can't adapt will suffer and probably die off.
The rules of survival, the market, and natural selection are all the related. People that can adapt and have access to the necessary resources will survive. Those without will perish. We can see this all the time in business. Successful businesses that provide good or services that meet the demands of tje market survive and flourish, those that don't go bankrupt. Businesses also need to adapt to the changing market. For instance during much of the 20th century, camera film manufactures and processors flourished. Kodak was part of the dow 30 for many decades. When film was replaced by digital photography, these companies no longer served the market. Some adapted and some went bankrupt.
Market forces will bring about changes, but they aren't going to save humanity from the trouble ahead. The only option is to adapt or die. Those that believe that Communism and socialism can solve the problem are dead wrong. Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago. During this time, nature has never developed an eco. system based upon the ideas of communism. It has always been based upon a market system and always will be. In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
No, "the market" is a much too coarse approximation of Darwinian selection AND vice-versa!
Survival of the fitest does NOT have the same meaning in these two cases.
This is all because of several reasons, among which :
- In nature more is not necessarily better.
- In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".
- In nature cooperation between individuals, groups, species and even across genres (bees / flowers) is regulated by hard-wired mechanisms which evolve only VERY slowly, like our "basic instincts".
In the market these are replaced by the rule of law which can be arbitrarily crazy and changing fast.
Never had a tax rebate repealed or the like?
In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
The market does not appear to be sustainable in a FINITE RESSOURCES environment neither are "Communism and socialism" which are just a reframing of the growth trend with more "equity".
Your absolutely correct. Althought I was just refering to the rules that that they share, such as the rules of supply and demand. If a required resource becomes depleted, it becomes expensive to obtain. For in a drought, food and water are harder to obtain for both man and animals. More labor or energy is required to obtain adquite supplies to sustain life. A society, herd, or even single cell organisms either adapt or fight to obtain what remains. These rules apply to business, societies, or even single cell organisms. The market system isn't fair nor is survival fair.
>Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
We don't have a sustainabe system, and there is no way to support 6 Billion or even perhaps even 2 Billion in any sustainable system. FWIW: If I had some sort of magic wand I would use it to waive all these problems away.
Most probably, any other idea beside the "magic wand" ?
Prayer, Rapture, Singularity, Armageddon, Nukular, what's you pick?
Darwinian is right:
When the US is no longer able to import the required amount of fossil fuels, Americans will start to use what ever fuel is available. That being trees, coal, garbage, etc. What ever they can use to heat their homes and run the power grid. Search the financial websites for growth in wood pellet stoves and coal consumption to see that its already begining.
A decline in oil and gas imports will be the beginning of the biggest ecological disaster in history. FWIW: The entire Northeast of the United States was deforested by the beginning of the 20th Century (mostly for heating and steam power). Since that time, the land has recovered because Oil and Gas was cleaner and cheaper than wood and coal. You could say that Oil and Gas production came in the nick of time to prevent a real disaster. This time there is no new source of energy to save us.
In other words, overpopulation will be solved, either by birth control and family planning, or be depopulation. The same with the other problems we currently face.
I would much rather take the first route instead of waiting for Mother Nature to do it for us.
Overpopulation has only 3 solutions as I can see. 1. Mother natures kitchen solution - Global warming or bird flu...or both. 2. War 3. We wake up and convince several generations to stop having babies so we can reduce the global population 2/3rds. (yah right)
Maybe the outcome will be a hybrid, some of Momma's wrath, a few nukes, and then who ever is left is involuntarily forced in realizing that they should have less babies(however this is against procreation principles).
In any case, growth must stop somehow as you stated.
If you have other solutions, love to hear them.
=======It's all about population!
5. Malnutriention resulting in wide spread of pandemic diseases (The dark ages during the little ice age).
If one person makes the decision to only have one child or no childern then somebody else decides they can take up the slack and have extras. The first person had reduced the chance of continuing the blood line and somebody else filled in.
I carpool, but that just allows one other car and that much more gas to be used by others on the road.
I lower my electrical consuption by using a programmable thermostat and turn off the AC during the day. But that just allows somebody to run a little bit cooler without overloading the grid.
Samething with NatGas in the winter. . .
The Easter Island story has been mentioned several times here. I can imagine the last group of survivors as they watch the trees disapear with each day. At some point either one person, a small group, or even the entire population looks at the remaining trees and realizes that they are running out. Maybe even as a collective they decide they should not cut any more down for fires to cook food. But all it takes is one person to decide that they are going to go out and cut down a tree and use the wood for fire. He has just increased his chance of surviving. Then somebody follows suit and cuts down the next tree to increase their chance. As individuals they feel justified because just one tree isn't going to matter, but pretty soon everybody has cut down a tree.
Maybe the person that stood up and said that they need to save the trees holds true and does not cut down a tree. He cannot cook food or provide shelter. His chance of survival is reduced.
Even though the long term solution is to reduce there will always be masses that 'pick up the slack' of those that are conserving. It is human nature - and I don't see how we avoid it.
I conserve, you conserve - sustainable world
I conserve, you don't - I suffer a lot, you enjoy yourself
neither conserves - we both suffer greatly because of an eco-collapse.
There are two ways around it, according to Diamond.
One is to be such a small society that everyone can understand the problem and everyone has a stake in the solution.
The other is a central government strong enough to force compliance.
This is all a problem of priorities, which kind of goals is a "strong enough central government" likely to look for first?
- Survival and enjoyment for government employees (of "sufficient" rank of course).
- Necessary but unpopular measures which may bring trouble with the masses.
As Diamond points out, a king has incentive to protect his kingdom. He gets his wealth from the entire kingdom. And he hopes that his heirs will inherit that wealth one day. He has reason to promote sustainability.
In a democracy, where your time in power may be fleeting, perhaps there's more incentive to just loot the country while you can.
OTOH, our system of government isn't as egalitarian as we like to believe. Maybe King George II would like to leave something for his heirs, future Presidents Jenna and Barbara.
That was Votlaire's idea of an enlightened despot.
That won't work either, not only because we cannot get back to this, but because if by any stroke of luck you DO get an enlightened one this always turn sour in a few generations.
Enlightenment is not hereditary.
Speaking of enlightenment, do you really think that "King George II" COULD manage to "leave something for his heirs" ?
Not that I think it's an option for us, but perhaps the idea that "all despots turn bad eventually" is a myth? Or, as Tainter would put it, it's one of the "nonmaterial elements" used to legitimize our society. The Emperor is a God. Democracy is the best form of government. Etc.
The pretty violent downward adjustment in energy consumption of the 90s was handled, overall, unexpectedly well (no mass starvation or mayhem; human contentment index probably not substantially lowered).
I'm not advocating it as a transposable model or anything. For one thing, I would be prepared to tolerate a fairly high degree of mayhem before surrendering my freedoms. For another, the ratio of "enlightened" despots to overall despots is not terribly high.
Contest. This is a college essay. Or an essay on a college entrance exam (just shutup, and pretend):
Explain what the Eastern Roman Empire did to preserve itself.
All entries must be between 50 and 5000 words. No quotes or links are allowed. Immediate disqualification for any comments that include either.
Points awarded for conciseness, accuracy, and writing style. In that order.
Prizes:
1st) A fictional "Cadillac" mentioned by the Alec Baldwin character in Glengarry Glenross.
2nd) a brand new set of steak knives.
3rd) You're fired.
Now let's progress to the bonus round.
Wait, we have a complaint - somebody is saying you were not actually anwering the question, you were asking a question...Judges?...yes, sorry. Minus 5 points!
Beavis and Butthead? Your remarks?
uhuhhuhheh.
OK. Plus 10.
Final score - 105. Congratulations. You are the Leader.
I've always wondered. Does DIY mean Do It Yourselfer?
uhuhhhuhehuh
Yes, that's what DIY generally stands for. It was a handle I used in another forum, and lack of creativity or a limitation on handle length or a desire to limit typing prohibited using say, "ConcernedButUnpreparedAndNowScared****less" or something. Of how large a company are you CEO?
So now I suppose we have proof that Beavis and Butthead cause brain damage, even in a 30-second spot.
No, it's the crystal-meth, he is hosed.
Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) was the only society that ever simplified itself on purpose. At its nadir it was almost completely destroyed. Byzantium had 1/3rd of its population killed by plagues, the currency was so debased that it became no longer used and their empire was at one point almost completely overrun by Visigoths and Arab Muslim invaders yet they were able to recover from their nadir in the 700s and survive till the 13th century (600 years!) even though they faced almost constant invasions from the Muslim empires to the east and goths and other barbarians to the north and west. They were able to do this through a number of clever simplification maneuvers.
- The Government had run out of money to pay soldiers so instead they gave them land in exchange for hereditary military service organized in "themes" or military districts. The soldiers were responsible for purchasing and providing their own rations, equipment, and uniforms. This got rid of almost all the military bureaucracy and a large part of the taxation complexity. Can you imagine the government devolving the military into local farm owner's gun clubs purchasing their own heavy military equipment? It reflects an amount of trust in the people by the government that is unthinkable today.
- The civil administrations were merged into the military. There was no distinction between the military and the local governments. The Military ran the courts, the police, and local government functions. No Posse Comitatus but the military was the equivalent of these local farm owner's gun clubs and would therefore be far more trusted with their authority by the people.
Because of the above reforms soldiers were fighting for their own land and family and the military was exteremely efficient and inventive, the arab invaders were unable to make any headway against them despite almost constant attacks.- They gutted all the glamour of their central government to keep things together. At one point they paid the army by melting down 20,000 pounds of gold from the emporer's throne room. Equivalent to selling off most public lands and buildings. Administrative ranks and honors were done away with.
- Cities contracted to densly packed fortified hilltops. That would mean abandoning the suburbs.
- Aristocratic life (what rich educated people were doing) was focused around the imperial court. Meaning that rich educated people mainly passed the time by hanging out at city hall with the politicians, drinking wine, wearing fancy clothes and gossiping but otherwise didn't have many luxuries, compared to Roman times.
- Education was simplified. Basic math, reading and science were the order of the day. New books were mostly the lives of Saints, the ancient traditions were preserved and copied.
The Western Roman empire collapsed however because they tried to survive by tightening the screws. They raised taxes to very high levels on farmers to fund the inefficient army that was doubled in size. They hyperinflated the currency, they conscripted labor, and tried to control who was in what occupation and increasingly tried to regiment all aspects of life. It failed, the farmers started to abandon their land in protest so the government forced them to be hereditarily bound to the land at which point they welcomed the barbarian invasion and the overthrow of the empire. They took all the productive parts of their society and burned them at the altar of keeping the power structure alive.Tainter points out that a) a government can wreck itself by trying by all means to sustain itself and b) complexity in problem solving destroys governments slowly, subtly over long period of time and that simplification is very hard because so many have tied their interests to growing and maintaining the complexity of the centralized power structure.
This is subject to immediate revision(before 5 am EST) based on actually reading response.
For now it looks pretty good.
Initial estimate 260 points. Leader. Congratulations, you wear the yellow jersey.
Note that it was not without cost, though. They call this period a "dark age." Literacy rates plummeted.
And they basically made the military their government.
Any society trying to get out of the declining marginal returns trap will have some very difficult choices to make. What is worth saving, and what will you sacrifice?
Let's tick off some fun things the market has brought to North Americans
(1) very large homes in sprawling urban zones with as little regulation and planning as tolerble. Hello Lakewood California!
(2) very large motor cars that generally cart around a single occupant.
(3) efficient and effective corn and soy delivery systems, often highly processed, and packaged in shiny objects.
(4) Airconditioning! And the subsequent movement of people from colder north to hot and humid south (beach front property anyone)
(5) overweight, corn fed residents of #4 and #1, drivers of #2 and avid consumers of #3.
(6) Southpark (though maybe this one is a good thing)
Yup, "The Market" will solve our problems just fine. Always has before, always will in the future.
Indeed, if you've read many of my comments here, you'll know I am not a fan of capitalism. I think it is inherently unsustainable.
I'm just saying it will solve the problem of Americans consuming more than their share.
This doesn't mean it will solve the problem of overconsumption in general. It just means the resources will start to flow to the countries that have something other than paper to offer the world. Likely oil-rich countries like Russia.
Why batter ourselves against the wall trying to reduce American consumption? It's going to happen anyway.
Population, OTOH...I think we're in serious danger of losing all the progress we've made toward slowing population growth rates, due to peak oil.
It's a matter of priorities.
Short term: the exact opposite.
We will scramble and fight and dig and drill so hard, using so much energy and other resources, that our footprints will go through the roof . We'll be too busy trying to get our fix to care about the environment any longer.
This happens already, of course, because we use more enrgy than ever, with on average lower EROEI. Hence, we spend more energy per energy unit, on more energy units. The 2nd law is quite clear on that one.
A somewhat forgotten effect of peak oil will thus be that pollution and climate change will increase, probably quite dramatically.
Probably true, and I don't think it's forgotten at all. (If I had to bet, it would be on a catabolic collapse. Plenty of time to trash the environment.)
However, I think we Americans would become increasingly constrained. We could trash our own country, but not others, as we are doing now.
Unless we really decide to nuke their @$$ and take their gas. Then all bets are off.
Actually, all countries are colluding to trash the globe. C02, other airborne pollutants, and water-borne pollutants often have little respect for national borders.
And the World Bank, IMF, Bank for International Settlements, Bilderberg. CoF......
I refer to Ammurkins, Murkins, etc
http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=en&q=Amurkins&btnG=Search&meta=
Other variations came up blank. Seems like another version of Sheeple, which translates to "people aren't smart like me".
I'm starting to think though, if everything "comes from the movies" like Angry Chimp believes...crap, I've gotta rethink this. I've seen most of those movies. This just totally brought havoc upon my databases...errror...error. Does not compute. Alright, we'll have to take this up after a quick reboot. I hope.
The level of scrunity all of these issues (oil supplies, corn-based ethanol, sheep) have gotten recently - because of the web, access to information and smart people - is profound.
Who am I kidding?
Seriously. That's my problem. I'm not trying to rebut anybody. I'm trying to keep the fight even and fair.
Both sides so far are just talking past each other.
One of the best debates I have seen [edited] And you actually walked away victorious (in my mind). It's a weird thing. I totally disagree with you(on that subject) - You scare the shit out of me about ethanol. You are actually convincing. That's why I recommended you to Khosla. Yet you won the day. I won't even engage on the ethanol thing. I tried that long ago. My thing is oil. and gasoline.
Is there some way we can continue this conversation privately? As far as who I am trying to rebut on CERA thing. Simmons. I can do it. I bought his book. Cost me eighteen bucks. Plus I had to read it. CERA was all free. And they gave me the deal up front. CERA doesn't F around. Their detractors make a business out of F ing around.
1200 words.