Is there any future?

Gekko · 15-05-2008 01:32AM

DublinWriter wrote: »

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.

I agree that it's only going one way. I'd also be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that the shizzit's going to hit the fan in 2012?

It's a pretty horrifying state of affairs and it seems we're all sleepwalking into the abyss.

kamana · 15-05-2008 10:00AM

djpbarry wrote: »

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

I think you're missing the point. I agree that they were unsustainable as history has proved. They exhaused their resources available to them and collapsed.
Do you think someone in a thousand years will be looking back at our civilization and saying the same thing??

Q. How many environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. 10

One to write a letter asking it to change.
Four to circulate online petitions.
One to file a lawsuit demanding that it change.
One to send the bulb love and kindness knowing that it's the only way real change occurs.
One to accept the lightbulb exactly as it is safe in the knowledge that not to accept another does great harm to oneself.
One to write a book about why and how the bulb needs to change.
One to smash the ****ing thing because we all know it won't change......

djpbarry · 15-05-2008 10:37AM

kamana wrote: »

Do you think someone in a thousand years will be looking back at our civilization and saying the same thing??

I believe that this point in time is a critical one for the world as we approach the end of the age of petroleum. Do I think this represents the end of civilisation? No.

You have used examples of ancient civilisations that came to an end due to their unsustainable nature. But human civilisation has continued to exist in one form or another and I believe this will continue to be the case. Civilisation in it's current form (i.e. rampant consumerism) will cease to exist in the not-too-distant future. As for what will replace it; impossible to say at this point. But, I am an optimist by nature (especially after two cups of coffee) who works in scientific research, so forgive me if I don't share your view that mankind has reached his peak and it's all downhill from here!

By the way, you haven't answered my questions. If this is, as you put it, an “open-minded discussion”, then I think it only fair that you address my points.

DublinWriter · 15-05-2008 07:37PM

Gekko wrote: »

I agree that it's only going one way. I'd also be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that the shizzit's going to hit the fan in 2012?

I'm no economist, but I've basically taken economic cause-and-effect situations and mapped them onto the current global situation. The three 'source' events I used were:

1. Weimar Germany
2. North America and Europe 1971 - 1975 (OPEC crises)
3. Russia 1991 - 1994 (Post Soviet era currency crises and National Debt default)

I'm sure I could have brought Argentina and Zimbabwe into the mix, but they are such politically unstable basket-cases that they might skew the eventual results. Basically from an analysis of the three above historical cases, in highly unfavourable economic environment, it takes roughly five years to make a national currency virtually worthless, eventually causing massive effects on the global money markets.

The main variable in the equation is oil, or lack-of thereof. Oil is a finate resource, not just used to produce kerosene, petrol and diesel, but also used to produce plastics and polymers. The International Energy Agency warned that OPEC would reach a peak-oil situation by 2012, if not sooner.

As oil becomes a scarcer commodity, it drives inflation up. As inflation rises, the value of currency becomes increasingly debased. Eventually ever increasing inflation causes currencies to ultimately become worthless.

As I originally said, it won't be a sudden situation where OPEC go "Oh sh*te lads, we've run out of oil!", it will be a gradual process over five years where the cost of drilling oil out of the ground gradually becomes more unafordable to the point that it becomes a totally unaffordable resource to the global industrial complex.

It's the initiation of this process that we're living through now.

Húrin · 15-05-2008 11:29PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

yes but if we stop making more and more stuff there are no jobs left anymore. Then people get angry and war starts. Then people work as soldiers and rebuild destroyed countries. Maybe we need war to be sustainable?

Good point, but there are a number of possible solutions:

peak oil will cause a de-mechanisation of many important sectors, especially agriculture, because this relies on energy being cheaper than labour. Thus, many more people will be needed to work in these sectors. The unions will not be happy because frozen wages will probably be necessary.

if a 25 hour working week is made law then the work could be evenly distributed among the population, so most people still have a job.

peak oil will throw economic globalisation into reverse, so manufacturing will be back in Europe.

Húrin · 15-05-2008 11:39PM

Celticfire wrote: »

What sorts of devastation that happened over the last hundred years are you talking about?

Two world wars? For instance?

kamana · 16-05-2008 09:50AM

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

People don't have to live in cities. It is not necessary for human survival to have us all couped up by the millions. Ireland is big enough to accommodate a more rural dispersal of our population so that we could live in more locally sustainable communities, growing our own food and keeping poultry/goats etc. I heard somewhere that we have 3 or 4 acres per head of population. According to some online permaculture sites and self sufficiency ones also, all the ground required to grow a garden and feed a family of 4 is just over 1100 sq feet, personally I think it should be a bit bigger but if there is 3 or 4 acres available then that should be no problem.

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

I've mentioned this already and it usually is a sticking point in these type of discussions. Civilization can be defined as the formation and growth of cities, cities can be defined as truck loads of people living together in numbers large enough to need the importation of resources. That is pretty much it , if you can accept that as truth then it leads to a whole bunch of realizations down the line. If the numbers keep growing, then the need for resources keeps growing, devouring more and more of the planet and on a finite planet where we will run out sooner rather than later at this rate.
Then of course people can see problems arising and try to figure out ways to mend them, like the peak oil issue. They try and find replacements and alternatives for oil when the problem is civilization itself. Before your eye starts twitching in frustration, I'm not advocating an end to humanity but we do need to end civilization/cities.
I was talking to a friend of mine today about this subject and he thought it necessary to recommend some sites or books just to let people know my influences so here yar!
http://www.derrickjensen.org/
http://www.themeatrix1.com/
http://www.breathingearth.net/
http://www.trackerschool.com/
Actually I went to the tracker school in '06. Can't recommend it highly enough.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8649250863235826256
Any books by Tom Brown Jr., John Moriarty or Endgame by Derrick Jensen vol 1 & 2

...together with the practice of agriculture.

That goes without saying......one of the first requirements for any human is food.

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

When you start "deconstructing" products by asking as many questions about them as you can until you are satisfied about their sustainability you will be fairly dissapointed if you are honest about it.

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

I couldn't agree more. If this teaches us anything at least it shows us that ......civilizations collapse....

djpbarry · 16-05-2008 11:03AM

kamana wrote: »

I heard somewhere that we have 3 or 4 acres per head of population. According to some online permaculture sites and self sufficiency ones also, all the ground required to grow a garden and feed a family of 4 is just over 1100 sq feet, personally I think it should be a bit bigger but if there is 3 or 4 acres available then that should be no problem.

Can I clarify something here; are you suggesting that every family live in a separate house, on their own land, growing/rearing their own food?

kamana wrote: »

Civilization can be defined as the formation and growth of cities...

That is a rather over-simplified definition. Settlement patterns are just one distinguishing characteristic of a civilisation; others are means of subsistence, types of livelihood, forms of government, social stratification, economic systems, and literacy, among others.

kamana wrote: »

If the numbers keep growing, then the need for resources keeps growing...

If the numbers keep growing and consumption per capita remains the same or increases, yes.

kamana wrote: »

They try and find replacements and alternatives for oil when the problem is civilization itself.

In your opinion. There are problems associated with modern civilisation, yes. But to suggest that civilisation itself is a problem and should be done away with is nonsense and, quite frankly, rather defeatist; you are essentially advocating we throw the baby out with the bathwater because you’re not arsed washing the baby anymore!

kamana wrote: »

When you start "deconstructing" products by asking as many questions about them as you can until you are satisfied about their sustainability you will be fairly dissapointed if you are honest about it.

I will thank you to stop making presumptions about my lifestyle and the "products" I buy.

kamana wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. If this teaches us anything at least it shows us that ......civilizations collapse....

Individual civilisations collapse, but civilisation remains and will continue to do so.

kamana · 16-05-2008 02:53PM

In your opinion. There are problems associated with modern civilisation, yes. But to suggest that civilisation itself is a problem and should be done away with is nonsense and, quite frankly, rather defeatist; you are essentially advocating we throw the baby out with the bathwater because you’re not arsed washing the baby anymore!

Tell me how is it defeatist to want the continuation of life for my grandchildren in a healthy world? I think it's quite the opposite. If we did exist in local communities in harmony with our immediate environment then the most pressing issue would be the theft of a whistle for fup sake!
Think of the health of those people. Think of the health of the land. Think of the health of the rivers, fish, animals and birds. Think of the diets of those people. Problems like diabeties, cholesterol, blood pressure, asthma, bronchitis and cancers would be hugely reduced within a couple of generations.
I haven't seen that on the brochure for civilization.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
Douglas Adams

I will thank you to stop making presumptions about my lifestyle and the "products" I buy.

Calm down calm down...eh! No need to get so defensive of your lynx body spray.... Not in any way is this dicsussion intended to be personal but if you live within the confines of industrial civilization then obviously you have to play their game and buy the products.

Individual civilisations collapse, but civilisation remains and will continue to do so

Is it always doomed to collapse?
.[/quote]

djpbarry · 16-05-2008 03:53PM

kamana wrote: »

If we did exist in local communities in harmony with our immediate environment then the most pressing issue would be the theft of a whistle for fup sake!

You didn't answer my earlier question; what exactly would these "communities" entail?

kamana wrote: »

Think of the health of those people.

Without the medicines provided by the pharmaceuticals "industry", I'm not sure they'd be all that healthy. Besides, small communities are no guarantee of health. Suppose, for example, that the crops should fail?

kamana wrote: »

Think of the diets of those people. Problems like diabeties, cholesterol, blood pressure, asthma, bronchitis and cancers would be hugely reduced within a couple of generations.

Would they? Why? Why would disease suddenly be wiped out just because everyone's living on a farm?

Diets are down to individual choices, irrespective of where a person lives. If someone is stupid enough to live on frozen food and soft drinks, their poor health that will inevitably result is their fault and theirs alone. There are plenty of people who live in urban areas who have perfectly healthy lifestyles, myself included. There are also plenty of people who live in rural areas who have unhealthy lifestyles.

kamana wrote: »

...if you live within the confines of industrial civilization then obviously you have to play their game and buy the products.

No I don't; I can buy whatever the hell I want or if I don't want to buy it, I can make/grow it myself. Failing that, I can just do without it.

You seem to think that personal choice/responsibility is a thing of the past and everything is the fault of "civilisation". I would argue that people today have far more choice than they have ever had before. It is not the fault of society at large if individuals make poor choices; people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Your quote from Douglas Adams ties in with this point quite nicely.

kamana · 18-05-2008 01:55AM

djpbarry

You didn't answer my earlier question; what exactly would these "communities" entail?

You can replace the word communities with whatever makes it easier for you to absorb, towns/village/hamlet/ring fort/crannog/tent/ three ring circus, whatever works. Regardless of your reluctance to accept this scenario as the most likely solution to a large amount of civilizations problems, we will more than likely be compelled out of necessity to do it.

Without the medicines provided by the pharmaceuticals "industry", I'm not sure they'd be all that healthy. Besides, small communities are no guarantee of health. Suppose, for example, that the crops should fail?

The crops fail?? Unless you insist on being a coconut farmer I would be optimistic about future harvests..
Jaysus don't get me started on mainstream medicine. I think a healthy lifestyle in a healthy environment reduces the need for any medicine. Modern medicine causes so much death its staggering that we go to GP's at all.
Drugs for arthritis can cause heart problems
Drugs for depression can cause suicide
Drugs for insomnia can be addictive
Drugs for cholesterol can cause heart failure
I think there were 120,000 deaths in britain alone in 2003/4 (give or a year..its been a while since I read it.) due to ADR's ( Adverse Drug Reactions). A great book on that subject is "Food is better Medicine than Drugs" by P. Holford and J Burne..

Diets are down to individual choices, irrespective of where a person lives. If someone is stupid enough to live on frozen food and soft drinks, their poor health that will inevitably result is their fault and theirs alone. There are plenty of people who live in urban areas who have perfectly healthy lifestyles, myself included. There are also plenty of people who live in rural areas who have unhealthy lifestyles.

You might be able to walk into any supermarket in the country and buy what you want.
Beans from Kenya.
Tomatoes from Spain
Pears from Italy etc.. All to fuel your healthy lifestyle. But what about the healthy lifestyle of the planet? How are these products transported to your gob? If civilization/ cities provide these foods for you to continue your healthy lifestyle then does it justify the existence of cities/civilization? I'm aware of the destruction done by cities/civilization but **** I'm healthy so what's the problem?

[/quote]

djpbarry · 18-05-2008 12:52PM

kamana wrote: »

You can replace the word communities with whatever makes it easier for you to absorb, towns/village/hamlet/ring fort/crannog/tent/ three ring circus, whatever works. Regardless of your reluctance to accept this scenario as the most likely solution to a large amount of civilizations problems, we will more than likely be compelled out of necessity to do it.

You have still yet to explain what "it" is; I don't care what you want to call it, I'm asking what such a settlement would entail.

kamana wrote: »

The crops fail?? Unless you insist on being a coconut farmer I would be optimistic about future harvests..

Oh NOW you're an optimist, are you? That's convenient.

kamana wrote: »

Jaysus don't get me started on mainstream medicine. I think a healthy lifestyle in a healthy environment reduces the need for any medicine. Modern medicine causes so much death its staggering that we go to GP's at all.

Yeah, we'd all be far better off without vaccinations and antibiotics and all that, wouldn't we?

kamana wrote: »

I think there were 120,000 deaths in britain alone in 2003/4 (give or a year..its been a while since I read it.) due to ADR's ( Adverse Drug Reactions).

Absolute horse****. Between 1998 and 2005, a total of 447,071 ADR's were reported in England (0.50% of total hospital episodes) - I very much doubt all of them were fatal. Even if they were, that still falls well short of your figure, unless 2004/5 was a particularly bad period!

kamana wrote: »

You might be able to walk into any supermarket in the country and buy what you want.
Beans from Kenya.
Tomatoes from Spain
Pears from Italy etc.. All to fuel your healthy lifestyle.

I tend not to shop in supermarkets.

kamana wrote: »

If civilization/ cities provide these foods for you to continue your healthy lifestyle then does it justify the existence of cities/civilization?

I have no idea what this has to do with my response to your claim that people living an agricultural existence are automatically healthy. But anyway, I'm not sure what you're getting at here; trade between people has occurred for thousands of years and is likely to continue into the future, irrespective of the form civilisation takes; there's no reason why trade cannot be conducted in a sustainable manner.

You know, you really should have called this thread “There is no future – I’m right and you’re wrong”, because having an open-minded discussion seems to be about the last thing you want to do. Anyone who disagrees with your point of view is shouted down with (for the most part) baseless drivel.

kamana · 18-05-2008 03:16PM

You know, you really should have called this thread “There is no future – I’m right and you’re wrong”, because having an open-minded discussion seems to be about the last thing you want to do. Anyone who disagrees with your point of view is shouted down with (for the most part) baseless drivel

I started this in the green issues thread because at the heart of green issues is the subject of sustainability. Energy is not the only factor, however; the operative principle in determining the carrying capacity of an ecosystem is known as Liebig's Law, which states that whatever necessity is least abundant, relative to per-capita requirements, sets the environment's limit for the population of any given species.

How we will "adapt" remains to be seen, but unless we find a new treasure chest of an heretofore unexploited energy-food resource equal to oil and other fossil fuels, we will be subject to the rebalancing and limiting forces of Liebig's Law.

And even if we find the requisite energy, water, climate change, loss of biodiversity, or soil fertility may be the next limiting factor that lowers our carrying capacity.

djpbarry · 19-05-2008 01:33PM

djpbarry wrote: »

You have still yet to explain what "it" is; I don't care what you want to call it, I'm asking what such a settlement would entail.

kamana wrote: »

How we will "adapt" remains to be seen...

So you have no idea what these new "settlements" of yours will look like, but you're convinced they will be the salvation of mankind?

kamana · 19-05-2008 02:58PM

djpbarry wrote: »

So you have no idea what these new "settlements" of yours will look like, but you're convinced they will be the salvation of mankind?

I not sure what you're looking for...blueprints printed on recycled paper using soy ink perhaps? A roadmap with directions to your allotted cubicle? Are you looking for these settlements to be in place before you consider civilization unsustainable? Do you need a safetynet?
First off they are not MY settlements. This is merely a suggestion but a feasible one at that. When you are concerned with the subject of survival in the long term I expect these settlements (towns/village etc...) to be fairly basic.
Humankinds future cannot be within civilization...
If you have any suggestions as to how civilization can be redeemed or how we can exist in cities without depleting resources fling it out there....you'd better not have been holding out on us...

djpbarry · 19-05-2008 04:15PM

kamana wrote: »

This is merely a suggestion but a feasible one at that.

There is nothing feasible about your suggestion as you have provided absolutely no indication of what these "settlements" would involve or how society would be organised. If I may I remind you of some of my questions (taken from earlier posts):

Where the hell do you expect people to live?
What exactly would these "communities" entail?
Can I clarify something here; are you suggesting that every family live in a separate house, on their own land, growing/rearing their own food?
Why would disease suddenly be wiped out just because everyone's living on a farm?

You have not provided a satisfactory response to any of these questions (you didn't provide any to numbers 3 or 4). You're answers thus far have been (again, taken from earlier posts):

People don't have to live in cities.
You can replace the word communities with whatever makes it easier for you to absorb, towns/village/hamlet/ring fort/crannog/tent/ three ring circus, whatever works.

So, to summarise, you have decided that cities are 100% unsustainable (without providing much in the way of explanation other than "civilisation is unsustainable", which isn't an explanation), but you have also decided that some sort of pre-industrial revolution (and pre-agricultural revolution too, if I understand correctly) style settlement IS sustainable, again without providing anything in the way of an explanation. Yet you think your suggestion is a feasible one?

kamana wrote: »

If you have any suggestions as to how civilization can be redeemed or how we can exist in cities without depleting resources fling it out there....you'd better not have been holding out on us...

If anyone's holding out here, it's you (see above). I have not once suggested that civilisation in it's current form is sustainable. I fully accept that changes are necessary - I have stated as much in previous posts. Do I have all the answers? No I do not, nor did I ever claim to.

You, on the other hand, do claim to have all the answers:

kamana wrote:

The devastation that has occured in the past 100 years is staggering, the nexy 100 holds a lot of problems and a return to a way of living enjoyed by our ancestors in harmony with nature.
...
I do believe that there is a future for human and non human kind and that future is not found in industry.
...
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.

kamana · 19-05-2008 07:44PM

There is nothing feasible about your suggestion as you have provided absolutely no indication of what these "settlements" would involve....

Rather than fixate on your inability to comprehend humans living off the land without the use of cheap oil, why don't you either accept it as a possibility or don't ..I'm not gonna write out a constitution for ya!

Why would disease suddenly be wiped out just because everyone's living on a farm?

If you would read the text in a more careful manner you mightn't be spitting the bottle out of the pram so often.
I didn't say disease would be wiped out ..I said it would be hugely reduced. Surely you agree that a healthy lifestyle in a healthy environment equals healthier people???

So, to summarise, you have decided that cities are 100% unsustainable (without providing much in the way of explanation other than "civilisation is unsustainable", which isn't an explanation), but you have also decided that some sort of pre-industrial revolution (and pre-agricultural revolution too, if I understand correctly) style settlement IS sustainable, again without providing anything in the way of an explanation. Yet you think your suggestion is a feasible one?

Basically when people live in cities they need the importation of resources.
This means the area around the city has been cleared of resources and this area has to increase every year to coincide with population growth within the city. With finite resources this model obviously leads only one way. Forests used to cover most of Europe and North Africa ...all cut for cities.
Actually there's a second thing that happens also, the formation of an army to protect/take the resources from wherever thay happen to be, for eg. ooohhh lets pick one at random....iraq!

If anyone's holding out here, it's you (see above). I have not once suggested that civilisation in it's current form is sustainable. I fully accept that changes are necessary - I have stated as much in previous posts. Do I have all the answers? No I do not, nor did I ever claim to.

I agree with you that in its current form it cannot continue. I would go further to suggest that in any form it should not continue. I don't have the answers either but if you can see the destructive nature of our culture why don't we stop it? How far will we allow the destruction of our planet to go? Till the polar bears are gone? Till all the fish have been taken from our oceans? Till the black rhinos are gone? Tigers? Snapping turtles? Grey Wolf? Until every tree has been cut down? Do we have a threshold beyond which we say enough? Have we passed it?
For us to maintain our way of living, we must tell lies to each other and especially to ourselves. The lies are necessary because, without them, many deplorable acts would become impossibilities
:[/quote]

WalkingEasy · 19-05-2008 08:12PM

Kamana,
Your take on this seems to be that any system that cannot sustain itself should be abandoned , and if i`m correct you would prefer, what you regard as an inevitable collapse, to take place sooner rather than later, so as to ensure that what little natural habitat remains will be preserved.
That there will be a massive die off due to food/water shortages etc.
That civilisation will consist of small agrarian based communities.
Am i far off the mark ?
Can i ask
, do you think these surviving agrarian societies will thrive without the interventions of modern medicine ?
Will the members of said societies descend into superstitious beliefs , xenophobia etc ?
if as you`ve stated, Civilisation is based on violence, do you envision a world free of violence after the collapse ?

What would have to take place for you to except djpbarry`s world view ?

djpbarry,
Your position seems to be that of the majority of people.

That you accept current energy consumption is unsustainable.
Serious lifestyle alterations are necessary and inevitable.
That civilisation is not inherently unsustainable, though in its current form i.e consumerism will cease to exist.
Trade can be conducted in a sustainable manner.

If i can ask,
Do you believe we can radically alter our lifestyles/mindset sufficiently to affect real change ?
If we (Irish) manage a root and branch c change in our society, how can we effect change in regions outside of our influence e.g India, China, USA etc?
Do you believe a city could ever be truly be sustainable, when its food/water/building materials/ fuel etc have to be constantly supplied from external sources ?
At what point do you envision environmental concerns taking precedence over economic concerns, when there is a choice to be made ? environment vs. jobs

What would have to take place for you to except Kamana`s world view ?

Thanks in advance .

kamana · 20-05-2008 05:08PM

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Kamana,
Your take on this seems to be that any system that cannot sustain itself should be abandoned , and if i`m correct you would prefer, what you regard as an inevitable collapse, to take place sooner rather than later, so as to ensure that what little natural habitat remains will be preserved.
That there will be a massive die off due to food/water shortages etc.
That civilisation will consist of small agrarian based communities.
Am i far off the mark ?

The longer this system continues (civilization) the worse it will be for life on the planet. It's not like we are in a constant level of consumption but rather it's a constantly increasing level of consumption. As I said earlier I think we will be compelled out of necessity to return to a sustainable lifestyle.

Can i ask
, do you think these surviving agrarian societies will thrive without the interventions of modern medicine ?

If people have access to clean water and are able to produce their own food free from pesticides/ chemicals etc. I think they have a very good chance of existing easily and happily. Now, whether there will be any clean water/air/earth available to them is up to us. They will judge us by what we leave them.

Will the members of said societies descend into superstitious beliefs , xenophobia etc ?

I wouldn't think so. If those societies have any chance then they would have to take a good look at what we did. How did we try and exist? What happens when you build cities? Why did it collapse? If they learn from our mistakes and dare not repeat them, live sustainably in a local environment then things could be ok. Actually now that I consider it more, I suppose if people are working and living closely with nature then a return to a more nature based system seems inevitable.

if as you`ve stated, Civilisation is based on violence, do you envision a world free of violence after the collapse ?

If the collapse is sudden then I think the world could be thrown into a situation of violence where it could be everyone for himself..even the thought of it is frightening..
But the violence within civilization as it is now is unseen .. goes unnoticed...accepted. It is always a very real threat if you go against the system.

What would have to take place for you to except djpbarry`s world view ?

I do agree with djpbarry's view to a point. The current situation is not sustainable. We have to change now but trying to find a sustainable alternative fuel source to run an unsustainable civilization is never gonna work.
I used to share his view and think stuff like "I will run my car on veggie oil" or erect turbines to power my house..or build a water wheel...put in solar panels...get a grant for wood pellets...energy saving light bulbs...energy saving appliances..if we could harness wave power...etc..etc..
On a personal level it would make you feel like you're making a difference but in reality it's like a sparrow fart in a tornado.
How are solar panels produced? How are turbines produced? How much wiring is needed to install these? How many panels are needed to power a town the size of athlone? How many turbines would be needed? How about Galway? Cork? Dublin? How many tons of copper needed? Where would it be mined from? You see what I'm getting at? This renewable energy is gonna cause more ecological damage to an already wounded planet.

What would your opinions be on a post collapse scenario? I think the biggest problem we face is the transition period between now and a sustainable lifestyle

djpbarry · 21-05-2008 11:02AM

kamana wrote: »

Rather than fixate on your inability to comprehend humans living off the land without the use of cheap oil, why don't you either accept it as a possibility or don't

I never said it was not possible, but you have yet to give any kind of explanation of what "living off the land" entails. And can you please dispense with the petty insults?

kamana wrote: »

I didn't say disease would be wiped out ..I said it would be hugely reduced. Surely you agree that a healthy lifestyle in a healthy environment equals healthier people???

Indeed it does, but you have yet to explain why people's lifestyles would be so much healthier, especially in the absence of the pharmaceutical industry. Bear in mind that average life expectancy has been increasing the world over (with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa) since the 50's.

kamana wrote: »

Basically when people live in cities they need the importation of resources.

You've repeated this over and over; it's called trade, now let's move on.

kamana wrote: »

This means the area around the city has been cleared of resources and this area has to increase every year to coincide with population growth within the city.

Does it? I think this is the fatal flaw in your argument. You are stating as a matter of fact that cities will continue to grow indefinitely, which is obviously unsustainable. But this does not have to be the case. It has already been pointed out that birth rates tend to decline as living standards increase, so if the population of the planet reached an acceptable standard of living (like I said, I'm an optimist), I would imagine we would see a sharp decline in the global birth rate.

kamana wrote: »

Forests used to cover most of Europe and North Africa ...all cut for cities.

Nonsense. Forests were cut down for fuel and farming for the most part.

kamana wrote: »

Actually there's a second thing that happens also, the formation of an army to protect/take the resources from wherever thay happen to be, for eg. ooohhh lets pick one at random....iraq!

Not every nation has an army, i.e. it is not a necessary requirement of civilisation.

kamana wrote: »

I would go further to suggest that in any form it should not continue.

In ANY form? Even those you have not yet thought of?

kamana wrote: »

I don't have the answers either but if you can see the destructive nature of our culture why don't we stop it?

Have you read ANYTHING I have written? Where have I said that the status quo should be maintained? Have I not said on several occasions that civilisation in its current form is not sustainable?

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Do you believe we can radically alter our lifestyles/mindset sufficiently to affect real change ?

That is unquestionably the greatest challenge and probably the one I am most pessimistic about. It's very difficult to convince the general populace in the developed world that they can enjoy a comfortable standard of living on a "low carbon budget", so to speak.

WalkingEasy wrote: »

If we (Irish) manage a root and branch c change in our society, how can we effect change in regions outside of our influence e.g. India, China, USA etc?

We lead by example and then attempt to exploit our position. For example, there is massive potential for the development of renewable technologies in Ireland, particularly wave power. We could potentially put ourselves at the forefront of wave power development and, if economically feasible, then export these expertises overseas when the time comes. Alternatives to fossil fuels are going to be required by everyone so we should be putting ourselves in a position to take advantage of the situation.

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Do you believe a city could ever be truly be sustainable, when its food/water/building materials/ fuel etc have to be constantly supplied from external sources ?

Admittedly, it would be difficult to have a "zero carbon" city, but it is certainly possible to substantially reduce the environmental impact of cities. Take Dublin for example - if a large number of cars could be taken off Dublin's streets, the carbon footprint would be slashed overnight. Now, there is of course a lot of work to be done to achieve this, but it is hardly insurmountable. I've lived without a car all my life and I'm managing just fine!

WalkingEasy wrote: »

At what point do you envision environmental concerns taking precedence over economic concerns, when there is a choice to be made ?

Have we not reached that point already? Environmental impact is a major factor in determining whether a particular project goes ahead or not.

WalkingEasy wrote: »

What would have to take place for you to except Kamana`s world view ?

I'm not sure exactly, but I think there might be four horsemen involved.

corkfella · 21-05-2008 12:05PM

very interesting thread but its a shame when it degenerates into an argument between 2 people. I guess the real elephant in the room is population growth, at current estimates we are heading for 9 billion in 2050, that will be a crisis beyong anything we see now. I guess what I am saying is that countries like india/china/most of africa will need giving women more choices in regards to family planning. population is falling in the western world but I believe this is down to personal lifestyle choices and easier access to family planning while in poorer countries your best bet is having loads of kids in order to support you when you are older.... this is going to upset the politically correct pinkos crazy but people need to face up to this hard truth, there are too many people on the planet as it is, if it is going to grow by a 1/3 in 40 years we will definitly exhaust all our resources.....

WalkingEasy · 21-05-2008 04:00PM

corkfella wrote: »

very interesting thread but its a shame when it degenerates into an argument between 2 people. I guess the real elephant in the room is population growth, at current estimates we are heading for 9 billion in 2050, that will be a crisis beyong anything we see now. I guess what I am saying is that countries like india/china/most of africa will need giving women more choices in regards to family planning. population is falling in the western world but I believe this is down to personal lifestyle choices and easier access to family planning while in poorer countries your best bet is having loads of kids in order to support you when you are older.... this is going to upset the politically correct pinkos crazy but people need to face up to this hard truth, there are too many people on the planet as it is, if it is going to grow by a 1/3 in 40 years we will definitely exhaust all our resources.....

I think that the one thing that all contributors to this thread can agree upon, is that the first topic on any list of possible solutions , will have to be population control.
Which leaves use in the Developed nations , with our associated arrested population growth , looking at the Developing nations explosive population growth in horror. How can we possible convince these emerging nations to curb their growth, when "our" standard of living etc awaits them.
We`ve " been there , done that", and they know it.

It`s seems we are locked in a "Prisoner's Dilemma" of sorts re; Kyoto Agreement etc.
The players being the Developed Nations and the Emerging Nations,
Each player gaining when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one who defects, will gain more.
If both defect , both lose.
I think that world nations are engaged in a form brinkmanship of the most reckless nature.
Human beings have proved throughout history to have the remarkable ability to side-step natural inhibitors of population growth and in the process managed to extend the average life span , but as we all know at a huge cost to our environment. Are we about to encounter some inhibiting Pop. force, any time soon ? peak-oil/climate change / anti-biotic resistant disease?

Regarding high density-living over scatter rural living, there is evidence to suggest that poor migrants to the large shanty towns adjacent
to the cities in Africa/ S.America/ India/ cap the number of children they have, and that their are in fact a large number of people " moving through" the shanty's (in an economic sense)
I believe the shantytowns of India account for a high % of its G.D.P.
But this still ignores the fact that the true footprint of a city is X times the landmass. For e.g London is 120 times its footprint.// source;living planet report WWF 2002.

Could someone flesh out what an Ireland without consumerism would look like ?
We`ve kicked the definition/meaning of sustainability& civilisation about already, so here's another. What is your definition of consumerism,
is it having what you need as opposed what you want ?
What does a city without consumerism look like ?
What % of e.g Dublin is involved in providing something you "want" as opposed something you " need" ?
Are we talking East Germany here :eek:

21-05-2008 05:09PM

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Are we talking East Germany here :eek:

In a word: YES!

One possible scenario

But only because the consumer items would be expensive (as the products will be derived from oil which will be very expensive), personal transport will be limited to low powered vehicles. With current technology it should be possible to produce an electric vehicle that will do 200km+ between charges. Commuting for the majority will be short distance to the nearest industrial estate/commercial zone, farm etc

Private car use will be taxed by the Km to discourage long distance commuting, for many this is a major part of their "carbon footprint".

People would probably be forced to move to where their work is or train to take locally available employment. National governments would be obliged to ensure that employment opportunaties are distributed around the country to reduce internal migration. People would be expected to live in highly insulated apartments with communial services (heating, water & waste etc) Ideally within walking distance of work & shops etc

This only a small part of the story of course. Third world countries have to improve the basic living conditions of their people to control population growth first, then evolve into a low impact lifestyle directly without going through a period of excess (like us) before being forced to reevaluate and reduce.

nice1franko · 21-05-2008 05:15PM

I don't know if it'd be possible except maybe in a very limited time of crisis.

The human instinct to improve, take chances, excel is way too strong. It's what's made us so successful - and how we've arrived at this point.

Maybe the global population will suffer a major decline and (if we don't completely balls it up), lessons will be learned and we'll advance again... and so on.

21-05-2008 05:47PM

If oil prices continue (expected to be $200 a barrel by the end of the year) to rise onwards and upwards, governments would have either reduce the tax take on fuel or see a large increase in inflation & reduction in spending in general.

WalkingEasy · 21-05-2008 05:57PM

Dolanbaker;quote;
But only because the consumer items would be expensive (as the products will be derived from oil which will be very expensive),
Private car use will be taxed by the Km to discourage long distance commuting.

Yes, these seem like effective means of curbing our consumerist tendencies, but is linking our use of "resources" to financial penalties, sending the wrong message ?, when what we really need is a seismic shift of mindset
The polluter pays, ......what if the polluter can afford to pay . Just because they can afford it , does that make it o.k. This would apply to SUV drivers and carbon-trading governments alike. Should we be seeking to end sources of pollution , rather than making it harder for people to pollute. I can appreciate the fact that revenue generated from the penalties can be put to good use , but surely we have an ever decreasing amount of time to put our "house" in order.
Will this just perpetuate peoples aspirations for the good life ? (poor/wealthy divide), focusing more on whether you can afford it as opposed should you be doing it in the first place.
It can be mind bobbling the amount of "bits" that have to come together for these issues to be resolved. Our ever increasing integration, globally, have made our system super sensitive.
I guess this is the major draw back to the complexity inherit in civilisation .
Have we become over specialised as a species ?

21-05-2008 06:04PM

Yes it does need a major change in thinking, as I suggested

People would probably be forced to move to where their work is or train to take locally available employment. National governments would be obliged to ensure that employment opportunaties are distributed around the country to reduce internal migration. People would be expected to live in highly insulated apartments with communial services (heating, water & waste etc) Ideally within walking distance of work & shops etc

These things would be in place before taxing wasteful usees of energy in a punative way.

kamana · 21-05-2008 06:40PM

Does it? I think this is the fatal flaw in your argument. You are stating as a matter of fact that cities will continue to grow indefinitely, which is obviously unsustainable. But this does not have to be the case. It has already been pointed out that birth rates tend to decline as living standards increase, so if the population of the planet reached an acceptable standard of living (like I said, I'm an optimist), I would imagine we would see a sharp decline in the global birth rate.

I would honestly wish you were right on this one but realisticly cities are growing at an alarming rate all over the world.
In 1800 there was 3% of the world population living in cities.
In 1900 the number was about 14%
Now its about 50/50
By 2030 it's expected to hit 61%.
As corkfella said, the world population is expected to hit 9 billion by mid century. So 61% of 9 billion (**** I have to do maths) is APPROX: 5 and a half billion.. all living in cities (probably more cause there's a 20 year gap between urban/rural divide numbers and expected population).
Looking at birth rates of the developed world isn't the whole picture.

Nonsense. Forests were cut down for fuel and farming for the most part.

To fuel and feed cities...

Not every nation has an army, i.e. it is not a necessary requirement of civilisation.

Of course it is. Just look at the world superpowers..

Have I not said on several occasions that civilisation in its current form is not sustainable?

I couldn't agree more. But why stop there? Admitting that civilization in its current form isn't sustainable is a good starting point. Trying to find alternative ways to maintain civilizations fuel demand is insane.
Cities in any form are not sustainable and the sooner we wake up to it the better. I'm not here to win an argument at an cost but I will try maintain an open mind and discuss what is the most pressing issue known to humankind/non humankind alike. Maybe we have pissed off a few people by bouncing ball for a while but I think it's necessary to explore as many view points as possible and I urge others to join in and not to be intimidated.
I am motivated by a love for nature and an appreciation for our place in it. I look out my window at this seasons growth and think of how wondrous and special this world can be. I think of what the landscape looked like 1000 years ago. The trees that would have covered the land. The wolves and deer and bears that would have wandered these lands. The fish that would have filled our rivers and the people that would have made up the local community. If those people could see us now what would they say to us? How would they react to what we have done to the landscape?
Would you defend what we have done? A 1000 years is such an infinitesimal small time frame when you consider the age of the earth but our impact is astounding.
If my passion boils over too much and pisses people off too much..maybe they are not ready for the biggest challenge facing us as a species...

Due to the approaching food shortage I expect the four horsemen will have no option but to dine on equine curry......maybe they could be the four pedestrians of the apocalypse!! lol

djpbarry · 22-05-2008 10:49AM

WalkingEasy wrote: »

How can we possible convince these emerging nations to curb their growth, when "our" standard of living etc awaits them.

They won't need "convincing" if there standard of living is raised to an acceptable level.

WalkingEasy wrote: »

Are we about to encounter some inhibiting Pop. force, any time soon ? peak-oil/climate change / anti-biotic resistant disease?

Considering that the greatest population growth is in the developing world, peak oil is unlikely to have much of an impact and antibiotics are scarce as things stand. Climate change is already causing problems for the worlds poorest; take Bangladesh for example. While climate change will undoubtedly lead to large-scale fatalities in countries such as Bangladesh, I don't think it will impact on the birth-rate.

WalkingEasy wrote: »

What is your definition of consumerism...

Purchasing material possessions =

kamana wrote: »

Looking at birth rates of the developed world isn't the whole picture.

Which is precisely why I have mentioned birth rates in the developing world quite a number of times in this thread.

kamana wrote: »

To fuel and feed cities...

I would say to feed people, but anyway...

kamana wrote: »

Of course it is. Just look at the world superpowers..

I think you mean superpower, i.e. the US. I'm not sure how this disproves my point. The US has an army, therefore it is a requirement of civilisation that all nations have an army? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense now does it?

kamana wrote: »

I'm not here to win an argument at an cost but I will try maintain an open mind...

You're not trying very hard. I am struggling to find the open-mindedness in this statement:

kamana wrote: »

Trying to find alternative ways to maintain civilizations fuel demand is insane.
Cities in any form are not sustainable and the sooner we wake up to it the better.

In other words, you've already made up your mind and anyone who disagrees with you can sod off. Any points I have raised have been dismissed with statements similar to the above. I see little point in continuing.

WalkingEasy · 22-05-2008 05:56PM

Originally Posted by djpbarry
Considering that the greatest population growth is in the developing world, peak oil is unlikely to have much of an impact and antibiotics are scarce as things stand. Climate change is already causing problems for the worlds poorest; take Bangladesh for example. While climate change will undoubtedly lead to large-scale fatalities in countries such as Bangladesh, I don't think it will impact on the birth-rate.

I would have to disagree with you about the effect of peak oil and anti-biotic resistant super strains on the developing world.
Cheap oil feeds the developed and developing worlds alike. The green revolution has a diesel engine. Perhaps one day it will have battery cell , but until then, food prices and oil are only going to go up. I believe there were food riots in Haiti some weeks back and the U.N held a session last month to deal with the crisis in Asia.
The replacement of food crops with bio diesel is also a major contribution.
As for our abuse of antibiotics , this could be the natural population inhibitor that undoes us . The discovery of antibiotics allowed mankind to circumvent disease , more of us survived those crucial early years to procreate in turn.
It only takes one mutation.........and we`re dealing with worldwide small pox again.

On the up side..lol (badger/fox/bear etc)
I believe the black plague did wonders for the recovery of wild animal numbers in Europe.

Is there any future?

Comments