On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:22:05 -0700 Michael Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> However, the *big* reason our planet's biological, oceanic and
> atmospheric systems have ended up where they are today is our
> population.
I would put it differently: energy and population are coupled - increased
energy resources historically have led to higher population, and
population increases necessitate at least some increase in energy use.
Collapse in energy resources forces a collapse in population, and lower
populations will not have the social resources to maintain the industrial
capacity for present levels of energy consumption.
> And in fact, I am persuaded that all attempts at sustainability
> *period*
> - everything from hyper cars to green building to eating local to
> recycling - will only makes things worse in the long run. (Mainly
> because it allows the human carrying capacity of the planet to go
> up).
Assuming present population levels, I would have to agree. But this use
of 'sustainability' suggests that there is no population level at which
society can sustain itself if it makes proper choices of resource use and
population control.
I think there is a more constructive use of the concept. Let's say the
decline of concentrated finite energy resources collapses population to,
say, something like the population before the industrial bubble, say the
Jeffersonian era. Theoretically, human civilization, if it retained
enough of our advances in knowledge, could right itself and even make
improvements on pre-industrial society. Improvements could take the form
of slightly higher sustainable populations, or higher per capita material
quality of life, or a mix of both, since these are trade-offs if we want
to keep our population/resource use within the carrying capacity of the
planet. My lesson from natural history is that for every species,
including us, there is always a population level and per capita resource
use level that can sustain its population for long periods of history.
I realize that this oversimplifies things. There are different ways of
using material resources at the same rate, that are more or less
sustainable. So when I say 'resource use' I mean to imply how we use, not
just how much. Also, as I mentioned in the previous post, by removing the
damage to quality of life caused by material consumption (a disease,
metaphorically and literally), the energy descent actually improves
quality of life in many respects, and throws us back on time-tested
non-material ways of building the good life
Karl North
Northland Sheep Dairy, Freetown, New York USA
www.geocities.com/northsheep/
"Mother Nature never farms without animals" - Albert Howard
"Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
> >
> > The reason is that a core problem of our civilization, because it
> drives many other
> > problems, is its high energy use, no matter what kind.
> Our planet is in the midst of the 6th global extinction event, known
> as
> the Holocene extinction event:
>
> http://www.encyclopedian.com/ho/Holocene-extinction-event.html
>
> The cause of this event is our species - homo sapiens. Our
> instincts,
> our tool use, our energy use, are all factors in this mass
> extinction
> we've caused.
>
> However, the *big* reason our planet's biological, oceanic and
> atmospheric systems have ended up where they are today is our
> population.
>
> Human population renders all the other factors almost meaningless.
>
> We could all drive whatever we wanted, fly anywhere we wanted, have
>
> 1000s of solar panels on our expansive homes, eat the best meals
> from
> the ends of the earth each day - and not cause long term damage to
> the
> biosphere - if there were, say, 10,000 humans on the entire planet.
>
>
> (That might even be too large a number). ((And excludes the use of
>
> nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, of course)).
>
> > I am persuaded that all attempts to maintain even half of current
> energy
> > production/consumption, whether via renewables or non-renewables
> (like
> > coal) will only make things worse, if not for us, for our
> children, who
> > will already suffer dreadfully from our extravagance.
> Yes!
>
> And in fact, I am persuaded that all attempts at sustainability
> *period*
> - everything from hyper cars to green building to eating local to
> recycling - will only makes things worse in the long run. (Mainly
> because it allows the human carrying capacity of the planet to go
> up).
>
> It is going to be a *really* hard sell to talk a lot of folks into
> giving up TVs, SUVs, bananas in winter, Big Macs, etc, to live the
> "slow
> life".
>
> And even if one could somehow convince everyone on the planet to go
>
> along, is the "slow life" sustainable? With 6.5 billion people?
>
> Uh, no.
>
> Nothing is.
>
> That's my point.
>
> All we can do is the best that each of us individually - and working
> as
> groups - can, by reducing our footprint.
>
> Basically because it "feels right" to do so, and allows us to live
> with
> ourselves and the fact that there are generations following after
> ours
> that will inherit this mess we've created (that, and it makes some
> of us
> feel less guilty about the mass extinction).
>
> But not because there is any way to "fix" the big things that are
> wrong. Perhaps, if we get really lucky and behave in ways we have
> never
> before behaved as a species, we might fix *something* - but not
> everything. And even if all human beings vanished tomorrow, it
> wouldn't
> prevent the current extinction event from proceeding, or prevent
> global
> warming. These things we have set in motion, and we cannot stop
> them.
> (Global warming would have happened eventually with or without us,
> anyway; and extinction events are - at least in geological time - a
>
> recurring theme).
>
> Fortunately, our planet is accustomed to this sort of thing. There
> will
> be lots of wonderful life here in the future, and also fortunately,
> we
> can't change that.
>
> Whether or not there are humans in the future remains to be seen.
>
> My bet is that our species may just make it - we are frighteningly
> adaptable (probably the largest mammal by far that will - but in
> dramatically reduced numbers). I just hope that any future human
> residents of this world are a lot wiser with their inheritance than
> we
> have been.
>
> - Mike
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This optimism rests on a number of dubious assumptions:
> >
> > 1) That the US empire that historically ensured control over oil
> supplies
> > will continue as before. In fact the empire is in decline; control
> is
> > being lost as I write and competitors for the remaining oil are
> ever
> > stronger, including some of the suppliers themselves. US citizens
> > generally are unaware because we live in a disinformation bubble
> of
> > frightening proportions, and because elites are increasingly
> consuming
> > natural, financial, social and political capital to prop up the
> system a
> > little longer. The empire is like a melon I sometimes find in my
> garden -
> > perfectly ripe and ready for breakfast in outward appearance, but
> when I
> > turn it over, a little mouse hole, the inside gutted and most of
> the good
> > stuff gone.
> >
> > 2) That our financial elites, which historically have chosen short
> term
> > private profit over long term public interest, will suddenly
> change their
> > ways.
> >
> > 3) That the alternative energy thus produced will not continue to
> be used
> > in ways that continue to destroy the planet.
> >
> > I am persuaded that all attempts to maintain even half of current
> energy
> > production/consumption, whether via renewables or non-renewables
> (like
> > coal) will only make things worse, if not for us, for our
> children, who
> > will already suffer dreadfully from our extravagance. The reason
> is that
> > a core problem of our civilization, because it drives many other
> > problems, is its high energy use, no matter what kind. Global
> warming,
> > albeit a serious result, is only one of many problems whose
> ultimate
> > cause is reckless energy consumption. The rapid depletion of many
> finite
> > resources and many others not technically finite like rain forest
> and
> > fisheries and soil and water, the distance economy with its global
> spread
> > of disease and invasives, the massive species extinction due to
> our
> > endless invasion of other species niches, the loss of community
> and real
> > (vs commercial) culture and concomitant happiness, the explosion
> of
> > hatred that is the cumulative result of centuries of imperial
> expansion,
> > and many other ills all stem from high energy use and would be
> impossible
> > without it.
> >
> > If you run your car engine too long at high RPM, it wears out. The
> same
> > with the biosphere.
> >
> > >From my viewpoint, instead of doom and gloom, the low energy
> civilization
> > that, barring technological miracles, lies ahead should be
> described, not
> > in terms of sacrifice, but as a welcome solution to many of the
> problems
> > people recognize are caused by the way we live now: pollution and
> other
> > ecological damage, resource depletion, synthetic environments,
> unsafe
> > food, the economic insecurity of the distance economy, and
> general
> > unhappiness that consumerism does not cure.
> >
> > Karl North
> > Northland Sheep Dairy, Freetown, New York USA
> > www.geocities.com/northsheep/
> > "Mother Nature never farms without animals" - Albert Howard
> > "Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
> > _______________________________________________
> > RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
> > free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
> [email protected]
> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
