Is there any future?

WalkingEasy · 10-05-2008 11:44PM

kamana wrote: »

I think that we do recognise the problems but adapting to them is the question. We can all see the destructive nature of our civilization war/peak oil/agriculture/deforestation/industrial fishing etc... but how do we tackle these? Do we expect our governments to actually wake up one morning and say that we have made terrible mistakes and genuinely try to make amends? I don't think so. Is this acceptable? What can we as people do to make a real difference?

We the people, are the government apparently. So what does that say about us...the people?
Apathy is quiet frankly one of the most dangerous aspects of man-kind.
We have become so specialised in the modern age , as to sit back and think someone else "more qualified" than us is looking after it.
I`m guilty of it myself to be honest ,we all are . We have become insulated from the effects of our choices , my home and life are full of "stuff" that came from "somewhere else", at best a label on a box.
I don`t see the Dams , oil wells , clear cut forests open cast mines , outta sight outta mind.
I suppose we can only begin by changing what i can in my sphere of influence and hope 6 billion others do the same.

11-05-2008 12:08AM

WalkingEasy wrote: »

We the people, are the government apparently. So what does that say about us...the people?
Apathy is quiet frankly one of the most dangerous aspects of man-kind.
We have become so specialised in the modern age , as to sit back and think someone else "more qualified" than us is looking after it.
I`m guilty of it myself to be honest ,we all are . We have become insulated from the effects of our choices , my home and life are full of "stuff" that came from "somewhere else", at best a label on a box.
I don`t see the Dams , oil wells , clear cut forests open cast mines , outta sight outta mind.
I suppose we can only begin by changing what i can in my sphere of influence and hope 6 billion others do the same.

That's one of the reasons that the "global warming" message is being pushed so hard in recent years, whether you beleive in it or not.
By pushing the "polluter pays" philosophy, people are being made aware that they are ultimately responsible for there being so wasteful with resources.

Industry provides what consumers want, if demand for wasteful products is discouraged then there would be less waste. Banning certain products would be very unpopular, but persuading consumers to use less wasteful alternatives is the better option.

I believe that the Inca Civilisation collapsed primariarly because the fuel supplies (wood) became scarse and the distance it had to be carried eventually made the cities unsustainable and they were abandoned.

In some parts of the world, Civilisation as we know it may well collapse, but where changes to a low impact way of life (making full use of sustainable energy) have been enbraced there is a chance that civilisation will continue but in a different form.

nmk · 11-05-2008 08:54AM

The a Average Irish person is responsible for about 12T of CO2 per annum.... and this equates to the energy use, etc (give or take average's here).

That could be split up into several catagories
1. Travel ( about 40% of national energy & Co2 emmissions according to SEI's energy balance for 2006)
2. Residential energy use - heating, lighting, washing, TV's etc ~ 25%
3. Commercial - buying goods and services.

Now if we had to go to a reduced energy / emissions lifestyle that is sustainable (approx 80% decrease i have heard, but can't back it up!!) we have to reduce those figures by 80%.

A previous poster has already detailed long commutes as being a No No. 15% in the bag here, coupled with technology changes over the next 10 years). Then foreign travel (energy consumption reduction) from 25% to 5% will save alot.... you can still travel, but it will be on trains and boats taking a long time, so 1/ year is more realistic.

100% is now 65%.

Higher building standards, low energy bulbs, better behaviour, better design ( a woman told me the other day she had 170 50w halogens in her house, bill of 500/2months. I have 8 CFL's. It can be done. 28% to 8% over the next 10 -20 years is possible.

100% is now 45%.

Consumption.... The list is huge -
1. Consumerism in general - move to longer lasting better appliances, slow down the buying of woodies type stuff that gets thrown out the following year. could we reduce this from 25% to 10% of our energy/ carbon uses.

Down to 30% now.

2. Food. meat consumption (i love my steak!) will have to be reduced considerably. a New scientist published study last week said that ugandan runner beans was much much better than the cow in the field next to your house as a food source. 20 % to 10% a possibility??

Reached our target.

Now all we need to do is keep the population growing less than the rate of increasing food / Renewable production technical advances...... easy?

The reason i posted this is to point out that, as most people on this forum are already convinced of, there is no one problem (global warming, higher energy costs, higher food costs, higer population etc.), there is also no one solution. There is a variety of things that can be done to reduce the stresses on our plant/resources.

so drive your small efficient diesel as little as you can to a local job, go one one holiday a year, by public transport if possible. Insulate you house ( government grants even available now!!) use CFL's sparingly, and eat meat sparingly..... It's not that hard!:)

Food for thought, Sorry if i haven't got the time to post references for my assumptions, but they are only broadly accurate, just to add to the discussion.

bonkey · 11-05-2008 09:34AM

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Though we are bound to this planet , we receive all our energy directly/indirectly from the sun. Given that its eventual demise will coincide with this planet , perhaps we could use its remaining lifetime as a time frame .

If we accept that extra-solar-system migration/travel will not be obtained in that timeframe....sure. That's reasonable.

Industrial being the key word here, mass produced goods using finite resources in a system inextricably linked to growth and increased demand is not sustainable.

I would beg to differ. It has enabled continuous growth and continuous increased demand, but it does not require that they exist.

Of course unchecked population growth is at the very heart of the matter.
But, population control is a dirty word for a lot of people , who will do the controlling ? Will there be forced abortions etc.

Its interesting to note that almost without exception, indigenous population in modern, developed societies is dropping. The implication would seem to be that poverty and need are two of the biggest drivers of population growth.

Now, I'm aware that we don't have the resources to support our current global population with an average lifestyle equivalent to the current average in developed nations, but it would still suggest that a long-term equilibrium may be obtainable, without sacrificing industrialisation etc.

kamana · 11-05-2008 12:18PM

bonkey wrote: »

Now, I'm aware that we don't have the resources to support our current global population with an average lifestyle equivalent to the current average in developed nations, but it would still suggest that a long-term equilibrium may be obtainable, without sacrificing industrialisation etc.

That is lunacy. How can there be long term equilibrium in any model if you use more than you put in? There is only so much juice in an orange no matter how hard you squeeze it. You're talking about industrialisation as something that needs to be saved when in fact it needs to be stopped. What about our planet being sacrificed on the altar of civilization. Simply put, this world can survive without us, we cannot survive without it.

djpbarry · 11-05-2008 08:07PM

kamana wrote: »

How can there be long term equilibrium in any model if you use more than you put in?

Stop using more than you put in?

kamana wrote: »

You're talking about industrialisation as something that needs to be saved when in fact it needs to be stopped.

Why? Shouldn't sustainable industry be considered as a viable alternative?

kamana · 11-05-2008 10:07PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Stop using more than you put in?
Why? Shouldn't sustainable industry be considered as a viable alternative?

Industry by it very nature is destructive. It relies on other practices that are also destructive like mining, logging etc. By products are pollution of rivers/oceans and global warming.
If you do stop using more than you put in, that obviously leads to an end of industry!
What we do to the planet, we do to ourselves and our grandkids. "we are a culture that kills our grandchildren to feed our children"

bonkey · 12-05-2008 08:42AM

kamana wrote: »

That is lunacy.

Which is? Recognising that our current system is untenable, or suggesting that said system must change and that an equilibrium could be found?

There is only so much juice in an orange no matter how hard you squeeze it.

Yup. And if fewer people want some, and its shared equitably, everyone can still have a taste.

You're talking about industrialisation as something that needs to be saved when in fact it needs to be stopped.

Actually, I'm talking about industrialisation as something that need not necessarily be stopped - that our options aren't as limited as you are claiming. I am additionally recognising the limitations that must be recognised if we choose one path over the other.

What about our planet being sacrificed on the altar of civilization.

Tosh. Civilisation will destroy itself long before getting close to destroying the planet.

kamana · 12-05-2008 10:10AM

bonkey wrote: »

Which is? Recognising that our current system is untenable, or suggesting that said system must change and that an equilibrium could be found?

Where is the equilibrium going to be found? In the last 100 years three quarters of the earths forests have been cut down. Every year a section of the sea bed the size of the united states is destroyed by deep sea trawlers. There are approx 150 areas of the oceans known as dead zones because of the lack of oxygen in the water caused by agriculture.

Yup. And if fewer people want some, and its shared equitably, everyone can still have a taste.

A taste of what? A polluted toxic planet? No thanks. How are fewer numbers going to be obtained? A cull or a continuation of this insane culture?

Actually, I'm talking about industrialisation as something that need not necessarily be stopped - that our options aren't as limited as you are claiming. I am additionally recognising the limitations that must be recognised if we choose one path over the other.

What do you think are the essentials of existence? Do you need ipod/ikea/argos/ford/exxon mobil/esb/monsanto/ microsoft etc. to survive? One of the problems is perceived entitlement of a consumer world. All that is required is an intimate knowledge of your environment (whats left of it )

Tosh. Civilisation will destroy itself long before getting close to destroying the planet.

If you concede that civilization will destroy itself why are you concerned about finding equilibrium in our industrial consumption? Surely you're just choosing how we are going to kill ourselves..

bonkey · 12-05-2008 11:19AM

kamana wrote: »

In the last 100 years three quarters of the earths forests have been cut down. Every year a section of the sea bed the size of the united states is destroyed by deep sea trawlers. There are approx 150 areas of the oceans known as dead zones because of the lack of oxygen in the water caused by agriculture.

At the start of this thread, you said that you hoped "to get an open minded discussion going." Now, you're telling me Im insane for disagreeing with you about industrialisation, and as evidence are supplying examples of what I have already agreed is unsustainable. We appear to have different understandings of the term "open minded".

A taste of what? A polluted toxic planet? No thanks. How are fewer numbers going to be obtained? A cull or a continuation of this insane culture?

You gave an example of an orange. I re-used your example. Why are you now trying to re-interpret that into something else?

What do you think are the essentials of existence? Do you need ipod/ikea/argos/ford/exxon mobil/esb/monsanto/ microsoft etc. to survive? One of the problems is perceived entitlement of a consumer world. All that is required is an intimate knowledge of your environment (whats left of it )

I note you are not attacking industrialisation here, but consumerism. You should note that nowhere have I defended consumerism. Nowhere have I suggested that it is something we can continue to embrace as a society. Nowhere have I even suggested that consumerism is a requirement of industrialisation.

Please...attack the mentality of consumerism all you like, but don't continue to make the mistake that I am in support of it simply because I do not believe industrialisation is, in and of itself, unsustainable.

If you concede that civilization will destroy itself

I didn't concede any such thing. I responded to the notion that the planet is being sacrificed on some altar by noting that we can't kill the planet because we would destroy ourselves first.

I do not, however, accept that it is an either/or situation...that either we die, or the planet does.

why are you concerned about finding equilibrium in our industrial consumption? Surely you're just choosing how we are going to kill ourselves..

Equilibrium, if we are able to find it, would mean that we're not choosing how to kill ourselves...we're choosing how to live.

I am saying we have many possible paths which we can follow in terms of trying to find a future. I haven't figured out if you agree that there are any paths that don't lead to us killing ourselves off, because all you seem to have done so far is attack me for not agreeing without (open-minded) discussion that industrialisation has to be abandoned.

On the assumption that you do believe there is some way for man to continue as a species, then you must believe that an equilibrium can be found somehow - that is the only way we can continue.

If that assumption is correct, then please stop attacking me for suggesting that an equilibrium can be somehow found, because you agree that it can. We may differ on the somehow, but you're currently attacking the very suggestion that it can be found.

If, conversely, my assumption is wrong and you believe that no option is sustainable, then it is you and not I who is suggesting that all we can do is choose the way we kill ourselves. If thats the case, then even though its not the argument I'm making, I would note that you are attacking the very position you agree with!

I have to ask...do you really want the open-minded discussion you asked for, or just the chance to rail at anyone who doesn't agree with you? If its the latter, then please...tell me, because I have little interest in merely serving as the target of your rage.

kamana · 12-05-2008 03:06PM

bonkey wrote: »

At the start of this thread, you said that you hoped "to get an open minded discussion going." Now, you're telling me Im insane for disagreeing with you about industrialisation, and as evidence are supplying examples of what I have already agreed is unsustainable. We appear to have different understandings of the term "open minded".

I never said you were insane but I did state that what you said was insane. I hope you remain clear in the difference

You gave an example of an orange. I re-used your example. Why are you now trying to re-interpret that into something else?

I must apologize. I was unaware of a limit on fruit based analogies.

I note you are not attacking industrialisation here, but consumerism. You should note that nowhere have I defended consumerism. Nowhere have I suggested that it is something we can continue to embrace as a society. Nowhere have I even suggested that consumerism is a requirement of industrialisation

.

You're splitting hairs. Industrialisation and consumerism are so entwined that trying to discuss one subject without the other is like trying to unscramble an egg. (feel free to use unlimited poultry references)

Equilibrium, if we are able to find it, would mean that we're not choosing how to kill ourselves...we're choosing how to live.

I am saying we have many possible paths which we can follow in terms of trying to find a future. I haven't figured out if you agree that there are any paths that don't lead to us killing ourselves off, because all you seem to have done so far is attack me for not agreeing without (open-minded) discussion that industrialisation has to be abandoned.

On the assumption that you do believe there is some way for man to continue as a species, then you must believe that an equilibrium can be found somehow - that is the only way we can continue.

If that assumption is correct, then please stop attacking me for suggesting that an equilibrium can be somehow found, because you agree that it can. We may differ on the somehow, but you're currently attacking the very suggestion that it can be found.

If, conversely, my assumption is wrong and you believe that no option is sustainable, then it is you and not I who is suggesting that all we can do is choose the way we kill ourselves. If thats the case, then even though its not the argument I'm making, I would note that you are attacking the very position you agree with!

I have to ask...do you really want the open-minded discussion you asked for, or just the chance to rail at anyone who doesn't agree with you? If its the latter, then please...tell me, because I have little interest in merely serving as the target of your rage.

You are looking for equilibrium in the wrong place. You cling to a notion that industrialisation is somehow beneficial to us.
I do believe that there is a future for human and non human kind and that future is not found in industry. No industrial future is sustainable. Civilization based on industry is not sustainable.
The equilibrium you seek is with nature not with machines.

maniac101 · 12-05-2008 03:25PM

bonkey wrote: »

Equilibrium, if we are able to find it, would mean that we're not choosing how to kill ourselves...we're choosing how to live.

Fertility rates have apparently remained the same or have slightly declined over a period of several hundred years. The population explosion of the last 150 years is due to increased access to improved medical care globally and to our ability to produce more food. So longevity, not procreation, is the cause the exponential population increase. In other words, the equilibrium has been lost because of our ability to survive better in our environment. Yes, you could argue that a new equilibrium could be reached by reducing the fertility rate (birthrate) somehow, and I think that's what you're suggesting. This ultimately involves forcing women in those countries that place the least demand on the world's resources to have fewer children, so that those of us living in countries that are more responsible for global resource depletion can continue to live tolerable lives.

Of course, as our diets improve over time and our ability to tackle disease increases, our life expectancy will increase beyond current levels. Using your equilibrium model, we would then have to reduce fertility rates further, leading to an ageing population and a drop in number of humans on the planet. This in turn would lead to a new set of species-threatening problems.

Please...attack the mentality of consumerism all you like, but don't continue to make the mistake that I am in support of it simply because I do not believe industrialisation is, in and of itself, unsustainable.

Consumerism is the philosophy of ever-increasing consumption of goods; Industrialisation is the increasing of a manufacturing industry base, essentially to feed that consumer demand. So industrialisation and consumerism are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. All industrial activity is concerned with the manufacture or transformation of goods that are consumed by humans in one form or another. Industrialisation (i.e. increasing industrial activity) requires an increase in consumption. I think you're suggesting that consumption of goods should be maintained at a more sustainable level, and I agree with this. But this requires a reversal of consumerism and therefore a reduction of industrial activity.

bonkey · 12-05-2008 04:15PM

maniac101 wrote: »

Fertility rates have apparently remained the same or have slightly declined over a period of several hundred years.

Globally, yes. If you look at fertility rates in a more select manner, you'll notice - as I've already mentioned - that in developed nations it has dropped. Indeed, in many European nations, the fertility rate is below the line at which population would hold steady, and that only immigration is driving population growth.

Yes, you could argue that a new equilibrium could be reached by reducing the fertility rate (birthrate) somehow, and I think that's what you're suggesting.

Not entirely. I'm suggesting that the exponential growth of population must end if we are to find any equilibrium. I'm not suggesting that this alone will result in a sustainable model, merely that it is a requirement of any such model.

This ultimately involves forcing women in those countries that place the least demand on the world's resources to have fewer children, so that those of us living in countries that are more responsible for global resource depletion can continue to live tolerable lives.

I said that the implication would seem to be that poverty and need are two of the biggest drivers of population growth. I'm not sure how you took from that a suggestion that we force the poor to do something so we can maintain our greed.

I was, rather, suggesting that we need to abandon our greed, and resolve their poverty.

Reproduction rates in Western Europe are below 2.0 children per couple. No-one forced us into that situation. Studies have shown that even within Western Europe, or within indivdual nations, that figure is reached by those with a better standard of living and education having fewer children, and those with a lower standard of education and living having more.

No-one has forced the better off Europeans to have fewer kids. All I am doing is suggesting there is a lesson to be learned there.

This in turn would lead to a new set of species-threatening problems.

Everything ultimately leads to species-threatening problems. Thats the nature of a dynamic system. Arguably, farming has led to the most species- or civilisation-threatening problems in human history....but you'll find few people who'll suggest that we need to abandon it and return to being a hunter-gatherer species.

Industrialisation is the increasing of a manufacturing industry base, essentially to feed that consumer demand. So industrialisation and consumerism are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.

I disagree. YOu can't have industrialisation without consumer demand, but this is not quite the same as consumerism. Industrialism is a means to supply consumer needs just as much as it is a means to supply consumer wants. Consumerism centers on this latter aspect alone.

I think you're suggesting that consumption of goods should be maintained at a more sustainable level, and I agree with this. But this requires a reversal of consumerism and therefore a reduction of industrial activity.

I agree entirely. I was rejecting the idea that we must necessarily abandon industrial activity to find a solution. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that trying to frame the problem in terms of industrialisation is doomed to failure. The question should not be "what do we do about the level of industrialisation", and more about "what do we do about greed and inequality". Answer that, and industrialisation will take care of itself.

bonkey · 12-05-2008 04:16PM

kamana wrote: »

You are looking for equilibrium in the wrong place. You cling to a notion that industrialisation is somehow beneficial to us.

I see. Its as simple as that, is it? You're right, I'm wrong. You won't offer explanations or justifications for your stance...merely tell me I'm wrong.

I guess open-minded discussion isn't what you wanted and see little point in us continuing this to-and-fro.

maniac101 · 12-05-2008 05:10PM

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure how you took from that a suggestion that we force the poor to do something so we can maintain our greed.

..and...

bonkey wrote: »

Our industrial civilisation would be certainly sustainable for the imaginable future, if we limited the population strictly enough. On the other hand, if we allow unchecked population, then no model is sustainable.

Lol! Can't you see the contradiction in your two posts above? Would you be happier if I replaced the word 'forcing' with 'strictly limiting' in my earlier post?

I was, rather, suggesting that we need to abandon our greed, and resolve their poverty.

Well, you won't get anyone to argue against you on that one, although I missed the resolving poverty bit in your earlier posts!

Reproduction rates in Western Europe are below 2.0 children per couple. No-one forced us into that situation. Studies have shown that even within Western Europe, or within indivdual nations, that figure is reached by those with a better standard of living and education having fewer children, and those with a lower standard of education and living having more.

No-one has forced the better off Europeans to have fewer kids. All I am doing is suggesting there is a lesson to be learned there.

So your solution would be to bring everyone's standard of living in the third world up to western standards, and when they're better off they'll have fewer kids. And just how do you propose …. eh no, on second thoughts, forget that! - I prefer to keep this debate in the realms of the realistic. This highly noble and idealised vision clearly contradicts your earlier approach of strictly limiting the population.

I disagree. YOu can't have industrialisation without consumer demand, but this is not quite the same as consumerism. Industrialism is a means to supply consumer needs just as much as it is a means to supply consumer wants. Consumerism centers on this latter aspect alone.

You can’t have industrialisation without increasing consumer demand. Reducing consumer demand, on the other hand results in the contraction of industry, or de-industrialisation. Industrialisation is a vector if you like, with both speed and direction. As I said previously, consumerism and industrialisation are inextricably linked.

kamana · 12-05-2008 08:11PM

bonkey wrote: »

I see. Its as simple as that, is it? You're right, I'm wrong. You won't offer explanations or justifications for your stance...merely tell me I'm wrong.

I guess open-minded discussion isn't what you wanted and see little point in us continuing this to-and-fro.

Living on this planet can be very easy. As I've said before, this planet can live without but we cannot live without it. Therefore what we do to the planet we do to ourselves.

Civilization can be defined as a way of life that is characterised by the growth of cities. Cities can be defined as a collection of people living in numbers large enough requiring the importation of resources.
How many cities do we have worldwide? Where do the resources come from? Civilization is not sustainable. Where does that leave us? What are our options? Consider the San bushmen of southern Africa. They practically evolved in place. That is sustainable.

12-05-2008 08:36PM

kamana wrote: »

Civilization can be defined as a way of life that is characterised by the growth of cities. Cities can be defined as a collection of people living in numbers large enough requiring the importation of resources.
How many cities do we have worldwide? Where do the resources come from? Civilization is not sustainable. Where does that leave us? What are our options? Consider the San bushmen of southern Africa. They practically evolved in place. That is sustainable.

Civilisation in it's present form is not-sustainable but a civilised society can exist in a sustainable environment, it just needs to reduce consumerism right down to what is actually necessary to have a sustainable existance.

Modern industry and technology can be used in a sustainable way, it will need op-operation between nations.

for example: Sub-tropical (desert) countries can generate solar electricity, water can be piped from northern regions.
Populations in third world countries would be easily controlled by imporving the health of the people (healthy/wealthy countries have low birth rates).

Agriculture worldwide would need to produce the crops most suitable for the region, not "cash" crops like tobacco & other drugs.

Yes there IS a future but it will be very different to what we know it now. Most of the freedoms (wastefullness) we take for granted will not be possible.

McSandwich · 12-05-2008 09:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

for example: Sub-tropical (desert) countries can generate solar electricity, water can be piped from northern regions.

or some of the solar generated electricity could be used to run desalination plants.

PaiDragon · 13-05-2008 12:41AM

Hello, i`ve being enjoying each of your contributions, quite a diverse range of opinions. Here is something interesting regarding sustainable living taking place in Britain.
Low-Impact Living

http://www.simondale.net/house/context.htm

AngryHippie · 13-05-2008 12:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Agriculture worldwide would need to produce the crops most suitable for the region, not "cash" crops like tobacco & other drugs.

Hemp is a cleaner source of fibres for paper production than timber....

13-05-2008 12:54AM

AngryHippie wrote: »

Hemp is a cleaner source of fibres for paper production than timber....

I was refering to "recreational" drugs, but take your point.
I am more concerned that in some regions the people starve because they grow crops that don't feed them.

Gekko · 13-05-2008 11:57PM

Just adding my two cents worth...

I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of the planet.

Let's look at a few facts. Increasingly the world's population, particularly in the developed world, and increasingly in emerging economies is living in cities.

But if there is a sudden oil shock or upsurge in climate-related adverse weather or natural disasters, the future points to the breakdown of civilisation in those cities.

Let's also take the industrialisation/consumerisation argument. Consumerisation goes hand in hand with a reduction in individual responsibility.

For example, I choose to buy food instead of grow it myself, therefore the responsibility for growing and providing it is taken on by the producer.

As oil runs out or in the case of a sudden oil shock, the food supply will be reduced and quickly run out. To survive, you would need to be growing your own veg and rearing your own sources of meat.

How many people living in towns and cities have know-how or the land available to do that?

WalkingEasy · 14-05-2008 01:28AM

Gekko wrote: »

Just adding my two cents worth...

I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of the planet.

Let's look at a few facts. Increasingly the world's population, particularly in the developed world, and increasingly in emerging economies is living in cities.

But if there is a sudden oil shock or upsurge in climate-related adverse weather or natural disasters, the future points to the breakdown of civilisation in those cities.

Let's also take the industrialisation/consumerisation argument. Consumerisation goes hand in hand with a reduction in individual responsibility.

For example, I choose to buy food instead of grow it myself, therefore the responsibility for growing and providing it is taken on by the producer.

As oil runs out or in the case of a sudden oil shock, the food supply will be reduced and quickly run out. To survive, you would need to be growing your own veg and rearing your own sources of meat.

How many people living in towns and cities have know-how or the land available to do that?

Hi gekko, i hear what your saying, though i tend to move between despondent/ panicked to mildly optimistic......lol
I use to hold the view that human innovation, perseverance and will to live would see us through.....now..? I`m not so certain.
If we somehow manage to side step another obstacle as a species , is it only to continue expanding and consuming as we go ?,first displacing and ultimately sending large large portions of the planets bio-diversity, the way of the Dodo.
Is this Civilisation?
If Peak Oil is truly upon us and with the forecast collapse of world transport/food production/industry etc.....why is it not news-flash / Brain Dobson alert/ Brian Cowan emergency action plan time !
Is it possible that a group of people on the internet "know something" that the governments of the world don`t know ?.......do you see what i mean, is it just us not "getting it " ?
I smell smoke , but i don`t hear any fire alarm.
Guess we`ll find out one way or the other soon.....lol

DublinWriter · 14-05-2008 08:00AM

Gekko wrote: »

As oil runs out or in the case of a sudden oil shock, the food supply will be reduced and quickly run out. To survive, you would need to be growing your own veg and rearing your own sources of meat.

The point is there won't be a sudden oil shock. It's a bit like Charles Handy's analogy of the frog in the boiling water. People are blind to what's already happening around them.

There's only so much oil left and the price of it is only going one way folks.

Inflation will rise as the price of oil goes up.

Eventually the price of oil will become unaffordable. This is when the real fun begins as spiraling inflation will cause paper money to become worthless in situation resembling Wiemar Germany of the 1920's. I predict this will happen circa 2012, not because of any Mayan calender nonsense, but from analysing the current global situation and tracking forward.

Time's up guys. Unless someone invents a portable nuclear fusion device, anything governments do now is an excerise in rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

The key thing is to learn to be 100% self-sufficient after such a global economic melt down. I firmly believe that while 2012 mightn't be the end of the world, it will be the end of the world for most.

AngryHippie · 14-05-2008 08:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I was refering to "recreational" drugs, but take your point.
I am more concerned that in some regions the people starve because they grow crops that don't feed them.

Rightly so, The pressure that the British biofuel legislation is gonna bring to bear on the agricultural industry is going to show the cracks on a modern intensive agricultural industry. Bio-ethanol is not the answer, even if we managed to run our systems of transport at maximum efficiency, the days of commuting to work in a car are drawing to a close. Interesting note on drug production, In Afghanistan when the Taliban first came into power, the production of opium was ceased, really it was, there are satellite photos that show it, It dropped from being the biggest producer to producing none, The UN, The WTO did......nothing.....not even thanks......The farmers of Afghanistan stop producing their most lucrative crop and get zero reward, in fact it may even have done their economy quite a bit of damage. Bear in mind, the country does support itself more or less from a food point of view, it is not a major importer, But the opuim crop is one of their real economic forces, to the extent that they have a stockpile, and it functions almost as a bank, being their only security.
Our own country is no great shakes with regard to land usage either, using vast tracts of the country as pasture, instead of using it to grow crops that can feed people directly. 30 acres for a few dozen cattle is no swap for 30 acres of vegetables or pulses....

Gekko wrote: »

Let's look at a few facts. Increasingly the world's population, particularly in the developed world, and increasingly in emerging economies is living in cities.

But if there is a sudden oil shock or upsurge in climate-related adverse weather or natural disasters, the future points to the breakdown of civilisation in those cities.

Let's also take the industrialisation/consumerisation argument. Consumerisation goes hand in hand with a reduction in individual responsibility.

For example, I choose to buy food instead of grow it myself, therefore the responsibility for growing and providing it is taken on by the producer.

As oil runs out or in the case of a sudden oil shock, the food supply will be reduced and quickly run out. To survive, you would need to be growing your own veg and rearing your own sources of meat.

How many people living in towns and cities have know-how or the land available to do that?

You are on the right track, but it probably won't happen just like that. Peak grain production has been achieved in the last few years again and again, and even working flat out, the globe hasn't been able to keep in line with demand, This has been driving prices steadily upwards, next on the agenda is the poor of the world being unable to afford any food, leaving them reliant on international aid, This is already the case in many areas, so instead what will happen is that charity organizations will be forced to choose where to use their resources and overall, poor people will get hungrier, then we slip into Marx territory, In the worst hit areas, the very institutions of democracy are going to be targeted by those who cannot feed them or provide them the means to feed themselves, This will happen first in cities, not rural areas, So its not going to be the obvious places, It will be in South America and the East that law and order is going to be under greatest threat, where rich and poor live side by side in the same city. TBH I think that when it does start, it will be "the big one" that finally knocks the wheels off, the UN and international agencies will prove their uselessness, the charity organizations will be overwhelmed, the vulnerabilities of our current system of food distribution will be exposed and the system may collapse. If this happens, we lose the insulation that we have as a first world country, First world may not mean first fed anymore. In other words rationing, It could mean a return to "the emergency"...

This would all point to a basic lack of planning on the part of the WTO and the world bank, who have known about this vulnerability all along, but have been too busy trying to get control over stable 3rd world manufacturing bases and the remaining oil supply, the reality of the situation is they are going to claim it was not their responsibility, there will be many of those claims. They were warned of this situation arising at the outset of the New Deal back in the 1920's and yet we have traveled this consumerist road for nearly a century without acknowledging the consequences until they are this dire.
Its gonna be like the fall of Rome. But global !

maniac101 · 14-05-2008 09:36AM

AngryHippie wrote: »

Our own country is no great shakes with regard to land usage either, using vast tracts of the country as pasture, instead of using it to grow crops that can feed people directly. 30 acres for a few dozen cattle is no swap for 30 acres of vegetables or pulses....

I agree with your fundamental point here. If we ate less meat, much land could be freed up for other uses, and more grain would be available to feed the world's population. I just thought I'd point out though that only 16% of Irish land is arable, - mostly in the south and east of the country. So most 30-acre holdings couldn't grow crops on a commercial scale. However, in the scenario where we eat less meat, this land could be used to provide grass or silage for production of sustainable biofuels without affecting food supply.

kamana · 14-05-2008 09:46AM

It's good to see the conversation heading in the right direction. Most of us agree that industry and civilization based on industry cannot continue. Those in power will obviously disagree because turkeys don't vote for christmas. When the crunch comes (actually its already here because people are being killed for oil as we speak) civilization will fight for its continuation and I think we will go nuclear because they don't see any alternative and they think civilization is the pinnacle of human existence and therefore needs to continue.
The longer civilization continues the messier the collapse will be and those that might survive will have less chance of living on a planet destroyed by people. So the sooner it is stopped the better it will be for life in general.

djpbarry · 14-05-2008 11:05AM

Gekko wrote: »

Increasingly the world's population, particularly in the developed world, and increasingly in emerging economies is living in cities.

What's wrong with that? Apartments and flats (for example) are more energy efficient than individual houses. It's also easier to provide efficient infrastructure (such as public transport) if people are concentrated into smaller areas, Amsterdam being a good example (as opposed to Dublin).

Gekko wrote: »

How many people living in towns and cities have know-how or the land available to do that?

No reason why we can't return to having garden allotments in towns and cities in this country - they're still very popular in the UK.

DublinWriter wrote: »

I predict this will happen circa 2012, not because of any Mayan calender nonsense, but from analysing the current global situation and tracking forward.

I'm genuinely interested to know how you arrived at this conclusion?

kamana wrote: »

It's good to see the conversation heading in the right direction.

I presume by "the right direction" you mean the position with which you agree?

kamana wrote: »

When the crunch comes (actually its already here because people are being killed for oil as we speak)...

People have been killing each other for various commodities since the dawn of man - it's nothing new.

kamana wrote: »

...they think civilization is the pinnacle of human existence and therefore needs to continue.

I'm not sure who "they" are, but you don't think civilisation is the pinnacle of our existence?

kamana wrote: »

The longer civilization continues the messier the collapse will be and those that might survive will have less chance of living on a planet destroyed by people. So the sooner it is stopped the better it will be for life in general.

I really don't understand your position; you think uncivilised is better than civilised? How can an uncivilised race possibly have a better chance of advancing themselves than a civilised race?

kamana · 14-05-2008 05:34PM

djpbarry wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Apartments and flats (for example) are more energy efficient than individual houses. It's also easier to provide efficient infrastructure (such as public transport) if people are concentrated into smaller areas, Amsterdam being a good example (as opposed to Dublin).

One of the first rules of propaganda is to slide your premise past people without them realising the real problem. Having to focus on the benefits of energy efficency of apartments deflects from the issue that they shouldn't be there in the first place.

No reason why we can't return to having garden allotments in towns and cities in this country - they're still very popular in the UK.

This might turn out to be a necessity. Personally I would like to see it happen rather soon. It should be taught in schools all across Europe and elsewhere.

I really don't understand your position; you think uncivilised is better than civilised? How can an uncivilised race possibly have a better chance of advancing themselves than a civilised race?

I'll try and clarify. Basically, any form of civilization is not, and cannot be sustainable. As I said before civilization can be defined as the formation and growth of cities, and cities can be defined as a bunch of people living together in numbers large enough to require the importation of resources.
Those resources obviously have to come from somewhere....water,food, fuel, concrete, steel ,medicine,cosmetics, cars, textiles, etc. etc. To get these resources puts civilization in direct conflict with the natural world, a world that we have cut ourselves off from a long time ago. Now the earth is seen as commodity rather than home.
Ancient civilizations while still unsustainable, were nowhere near as destructive as we have become since industrialisation...only the last couple of hundred years.

Now, for a truly sustainable community you have to live in balance with your environment ( when I use the word "community" I think I can hear peoples eyes glaze over as they picture a bunch of shawl wearing krustys flinging rose petals at the worlds problems).
What you need to survive are the basics, water, shelter, food and fire. What you need to live are the same plus community and spirit. You survive in the long run by trying to improve your habitat, not destroy it. If that makes me un-civilized, de-civilized or non-civilized...I don't care ...but what I do care about is our habitat and my people. It is not my intention to piss anyone off but the reality is, the needs of the earth far outweigh anyones feelings, including mine.

djpbarry · 14-05-2008 10:00PM

kamana wrote: »

Having to focus on the benefits of energy efficency of apartments deflects from the issue that they shouldn't be there in the first place.

I'm sorry, WHAT? Where the hell do you expect people to live?

kamana wrote: »

Basically, any form of civilization is not, and cannot be sustainable.

Nonsense. What is it about civilisation that makes it inherently unsustainable?

kamana wrote: »

As I said before civilization can be defined as the formation and growth of cities...

...together with the practice of agriculture.

kamana wrote: »

Those resources obviously have to come from somewhere....water,food, fuel, concrete, steel ,medicine,cosmetics, cars, textiles, etc. etc. To get these resources puts civilization in direct conflict with the natural world...

In your opinion. There is no reason why products cannot be produced sustainably.

kamana wrote: »

Ancient civilizations while still unsustainable, were nowhere near as destructive as we have become since industrialisation...only the last couple of hundred years.

Ancient civilisations were highly unsustainable; the Mayan civilisation collapsed due to lack of fuel (wood). Similar problems occurred in medieval Europe.

Is there any future?

Comments