----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas P. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I'll try to find a way to include such complicated matters in my
>model, but it won't be easy. And that's really what's wrong with
>Jay's argument. He is absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt
>that we're just going to run out of energy, period, while I find it
>hard even to begin estimating such things. What does he know that
>I don't?
I have accumulated a large amount of information about alternative
energy at: http://dieoff.com/page143.htm
But the twofold bottom line is
#1. There have been no published studies that I am aware of which show the
US could survive on solar energy. Here are some that show we can't:
"Several studies indicate that to enjoy a relatively high standard of
living, America's human population should be 200 million or less (Pimentel
et al., 1994a)." http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc/Pimentel2.html With
100 million being "ideal": http://dieoff.com/page136.htm
"The United States could achieve a secure energy future and a satisfactory
standard of living for everyone if the human population were to stabilize at
an estimated optimum of 200 million (down from today's 260 million) and
conservation measures were to lower per capita energy consumption to about
half the present level (Pimentel et al. 1994). However, if the US population
doubles in 60 years as is more likely, supplies of energy, food, land, and
water will become inadequate, and land, forest, and general environmental
degradation will escalate (Pimentel et al. 1994, USBC 1992a)."
http://dieoff.com/page84.htm
#2. I am absolutey postive we are going to run out of energy. Here's why:
[ snip from my REQUIEM at www.dieoff.com ]
CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY IN THE COMMONS
Consider capitalism as an organized process to ingest natural, living
systems (including people) in one end, and excrete unnatural, dead garbage
and waste (including wasted people) out the other. From a thermodynamic
view, capitalism may be seen as the conversion of low-entropy matter into
high-entropy waste and garbage. From an economic view, capitalism may be
seen as the high-speed depletion of natural capital.
Politics (self-organization) among human animals is product of evolution. As
soon as two or more people organize, the inevitable struggle for power
ensues. This power struggle follows genetic patterns of exploitation, lying,
and self-deception.
The triumph of capitalism and democracy could have been predicted by
evolutionary theory. Capitalism extends the human genetic propensity to
exploit (make the best use of something: profit) and lie (meant to give a
wrong impression: advertise). Democracy is simply the freedom to exploit and
lie. Self-deception keeps us from knowing what we are really up to.
In his 1968 classic, "Tragedy of the Commons",[35] Garrett Hardin
illustrates why communities everywhere are headed for tragedy -- it's
because freedom in the "commons"[36] brings ruin to all.
Visualize a pasture as a system that is open to everyone. The carrying
capacity of this pasture is 10 animals. Ten herdsmen are each grazing an
animal to fatten up, and the 10 animals are now consuming all the grass that
the pasture can produce.
Harry (one of the herdsmen) will add one more animal to the pasture if he
can make a profit. Adding one more animal will mean less food for each of
the present animals, but since Harry only has only 1/10 of the herd, he has
to pay only 1/10 of the cost. Harry decides to exploit the commons, and the
other herdsmen, so he adds an animal and takes a profit.
Shrinking profit margins force the other herdsmen either to go out of
business or continue the exploitation by adding more animals. This process
of mutual exploitation continues until overgrazing and erosion destroy the
pasture system, and all the herdsmen are driven out of business.
Most importantly, Hardin illustrates the critical flaw of freedom in the
commons: all participants must agree to conserve the commons, but any one
can force its destruction. Although Hardin is describing exploitation by
humans in an unregulated public pasture, his principle fits our entire
society.
Private property is inextricably part of our commons because it is part of
our life support and social systems. Owners affect us all when they alter
the emergent properties of our life support and social systems (alter their
land) to "make a profit" -- cover land with corn or with concrete.
Neighborhoods, cities and states are commons in the sense that no one is
denied entry. Anyone may enter and lay claim to the common resources. One
can compare profits to Hardin's "grass" when any corporation -- from
anywhere in the world -- can drive down profits by competing with local
businesses for customers.
One can see wages as "grass" when any number of workers -- from anywhere in
the world -- can enter our community and drive down wages by competing with
local workers for jobs. Everywhere one looks, one sees the Tragedy of the
Commons. There is no technological solution, but governments can act to
limit access to the commons, at which time they are no longer commons.
In the private-money-based political system we have in America, everything
(including people) becomes the commons because money is political power, and
all political decisions are reduced to economic ones. In other words, we
have no true political system, only an economic system -- everything is for
sale. Thus, America is one large commons that will be exploited until it is
destroyed.
OVERSHOOT
It was thus becoming apparent that nature must, in the not far distant
future, institute bankruptcy proceedings against industrial civilization,
and perhaps against the standing crop of human flesh, just as nature had
done many times to other detritus-consuming species following their
exuberant expansion in response to the savings deposits their ecosystems had
accumulated before they got the opportunity to begin the drawdown... Having
become a species of superdetritovores, mankind was destined not merely for
succession, but for crash.
-- William Catton
In the language of ecology, the human scenario can be predicted in four
pungent words: "drawdown", "overshoot", "crash", and "die-out".
"Drawdown" is the process by which we are using up the surrounding resources
faster than they can be replaced.For example, in the space of a little more
than a hundred years we have used up perhaps half of all the buried remains
of the Carboniferous period -- oil, gas, and coal -- that were deposited
over hundreds of millions years. Moreover, we have become totally dependent
on continuing the process. One might argue about the exact date that the
global human "crash" will arrive, but the outcome is certain.
"Overshoot" simply means that we have exceeded the "carrying capacity"[37]
of Earth:
If just the present world population of 5.8 billion people were to live at
current North American ecological standards (say 4.5 ha/person), a
reasonable first approximation of the total productive land requirement
would be 26 billion ha (assuming present technology). However, there are
only just over 13 billion ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are
ecologically productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person). In
short, we would need an additional two planet Earths to accommodate the
increased ecological load of people alive today. If the population were to
stabilize at between 10 and 11 billion sometime in the next century, five
additional Earths would be needed, all else being equal -- and this just to
maintain the present rate of ecological decline.[38]
Overshoot lowers carrying capacity:
Transgressing the carrying capacity for one period lowers the carrying
capacity thereafter, perhaps starting a downward spiral toward zero. David
Klein's classic study of the reindeer on St. Matthew Island illustrates the
point. In 1944 a population of 29 animals was moved to the island, without
the corrective feedback (negative feedback) of such predators as wolves and
human hunters. In 19 years the population swelled to 6,000 and then
"crashed" in 3 years to a total of 41 females and one male, all in miserable
condition. Klein estimates that the primeval carrying capacity of the island
was about 5 deer per square kilometer. At the population peak there were 18
per square kilometer. After the crash there were only 0.126 animals per
square kilometer and even this was probably too many once the island was
largely denuded of lichens. Recovery of lichens under zero population
conditions takes decades; with a continuing resident population of reindeer
it may never occur. Transgressing the carrying capacity of St. Matthew
Island reduced its carrying capacity by at least 97.5 percent.[39]
"Overshoot" is a temporary condition,[40] and is always followed by
"crash" -- a precipitate decline in population. The human population of
Earth is expected to "crash" around the year 2030.
"Die-out" is common in zoology and botany. Consider the everyday experience
of yeast cells introduced into a wine vat. Like humans, yeast cells gobble
up nutrients from their environment, and expand their population without any
concern for "overshoot". For yeast, it takes only weeks to "die-out"[41];
for the "pollution" they produce to kill them. For humans, it takes somewhat
longer...
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
What can we do to avoid the "crash"? As a society, Americans can do nothing
because of at least two fundamental -- and apparently insoluble -- problems:
(1) In principle, democracy (i.e., government by the common people) can not
direct a country to any specific goal because democracy is "process"
politics as opposed to "systems" politics:
As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness
of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair,
then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is
assumed to be just -- or at least the best the system can achieve. By
contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes;
means are subordinated to predetermined ends.[42]
(2) American democracy is not even true politics because it is based on
money -- one-dollar, one-vote. What passes for politics in America is
actually a subset of our economic system.
In principle, it is not possible for our economic system to avoid the
"crash" because its premise, the conversion of nature into commodities, is
the heart and soul of our system problems. Moreover, the doctrine of
continuous and unlimited economic growth is a religious concept that serves
as a substitute for redistribution of wealth and true politics. It's a way
for the plutocrats to maintain political superiority over the lesser classes
while avoiding unpleasant political questions:[43]
It is the orthodox growthmen who want to avoid the distribution issue. As
Wallich so bluntly put it in defending growth, "Growth is a substitute for
equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes
large income differentials tolerable" (1972). We are addicted to growth
because we are addicted to large inequalities in income and wealth. What
about the poor? Let them eat growth! Better yet, let them feed on the hope
of eating growth in the future![44]
With no true political system -- and no prospect of obtaining one -- we have
no means to save ourselves. Unfortunately, several billion innocent people
will die untimely deaths over the next hundred years. Individuals in small
communities can protect themselves somewhat through cooperation with others
(reciprocal altruism). But groups larger than a few hundred will
disintegrate under competition for increasingly scarce resources:
In brief, our research showed that environmental scarcities are already
contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of the developing world.
These conflicts are probably the early signs of an upsurge of violence in
the coming decades that will be induced or aggravated by scarcity. The
violence will usually be sub-national, persistent, and diffuse. Poor
societies will be particularly affected since they are less able to buffer
themselves from environmental scarcities and the social crises they cause.
These societies are, in fact, already suffering acute hardship from
shortages of water, forests, and especially fertile land.[45]
[ references in my REQUIEM at www.dieoff.com ]
Jay
