 | Unintended Consequences: The Long Term Impacts of Crisis Blogging | The Oil Drum: Campfire | Right Sizing the Economy: Can Herman Daly's Prescription for a Steady State Economy Accomplish this Task? |  |
115 comments on A Message to the Nearly Converted
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
115 comments on A Message to the Nearly Converted
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- campfire at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
The Oil Drum: Local archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- March 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The 800-lb gorilla that you don't mention is overpopulation. Maybe you would lose your audience if you were to introduce that downer.
But other than that, I liked it..
Oh come on now we can easily provide food for about 10 billion happy monkey's it it's just a question of transforming the entire planet's ecosystem and simplifying it down to about a dozen or so species in each Phyla.
Why let things continue to be so damn complex. KISS! That's a good thing right? I mean If 90% of the Amazonian rain forest is cut down and we plant a monoculture of genetically modified, herbicide and pesticide resistant Monsanto soybeans we can feed many millions more Brazilian Indians, right?
See discussion in the comments for "The Trouble With Energy - Part 1" to see if that makes sense to you and what I really think.
We are in population overshoot as we speak, to pretend that we are not is to be ignorant of basic ecological science and the data that is coming in from all over the world. In my opinion it is in the same league as denying anthropogenic climate change. Either you are ignorant of reality or suffering through the classical stages of denial.
Well, technically it remains to be shown that we can't, risks of monocultures aside. We can keep moving the goal posts too if you want. Growing genetically engineered algae soylent green inside massive global greenhouses or perhaps even synthesizing sugars and proteins directly rather than going to the trouble of relying on photosynthesis. Technology keeps moving the goalposts of the possible.
We'll likely enter the next age before hitting the limits of feeding monkeys on a single planet.
Angels and ministers of grace, defend us.
Actually the opposite is true.
Since your proposal is so outside the realm how the observable natural world functions, it is up to YOU to provide examples of your claims.
Can you point to even region wide "massive" greenhouses? I think not.
Just because one observes the "goalposts" moving in the subset world of Man does not mean that same operative can be applied to Nature.
Your use of the term "technology" is also illustrative.
As though it has something to do with science.
The proposals you consistently post here are more in line with 1950's science fiction than modern scientific thought.
The only thing "technology" has moved has been Man's relation to the natural world and at his considerable peril as well.
Well, its as observable as the total collapse of the human population. I think you're missing the point entirely. We dont know what the limits of support of technology are, only that it provides marvelous adaptive advantages to crisis. So much that people are actually pursuing the ridiculous idea of burning food as fuel as national policy (ethanol.)
I dont think we'll ever enter in some future where we have to do anything more drastic than irrigation and fertilizer production because benign demographic transition will make short work of population growth long before we have to enter into the silliness of some soylent green style dystopian race to feed trillions.
The point you think I'm missing is you DO believe we can monoculture our way out of our predicament. I maintain that the scientific, technological attitude that spawns such thinking is THE reason we are in our predicament in the first place.
Came up in Q&A. Hard to cover it all!
Overpopulation x consumption = Exponential depletion of resources + exponential increase of inorganic harmful waste
Thats about all you can say. Nobody can really do anything to control population (genocidal maniacs may disagree) but we can all do something about consumption of natural resources. Reducing consumption to a point which allows the currently overpopulated earth to depopulate through natural attrition is the only morally acceptable path we have.
Except that consumption of resources is strongly corrolated to benign demographic transition...
I have never seen evidence of a "benign demographic transition." Every nation that has apparently gone through it has an ecological footprint and accumulated debt that is enormous.
The best response to cornucopianism I've seen so far. +100
Do you really think Nature cares one iota whether human population can be reduced on a moral path? When the food supply can no longer be relied upon to support our vast numbers, billions will die in relatively short order of starvation, plus some disease. This is basic ecology, with many examples in the field and in the literature to cite. Some interesting modern examples for humans can be found in Northern China. Just scale up the process. It's not that hard to envision. Morality has nothing to do with it.