Nate,Nate wrote:Peak Oil = Peak Food = Peak PeopleHow many people will a post fossil fuel world support?
You win the award for Most Succinct Summation of our Predicament!
Really, everything else to be said on the subject is just a footnote to this statement, isn’t it?
Cheers,
FB
“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the Middle East is facing a “perfect storm” of unrest and nations must embrace democratic change.”
Ha ha! Screw the people during 50 years of oil-export prosperity, and then turn the bankrupt husk of a country over to them after it’s been looted!
“Democracy” in State Department newspeak means “free markets,” a la Strauss, Friedman, and the Chicago School.
These poor Egyptian protesters; they think that getting rid of Mubarek is going to solve anything. What’s going to happen (no matter who is in power) is that things will come crashing down, and whomever is in power will get the blame. Then the IMF and World Bank will come swooping in and demand “free market concessions” in exchange for dumping money into the pockets of whomever is in charge at the time… or whomever they think they can control who has a chance of holding power.
It will be the old definition of foreign aid all over again: take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries. It’s as though Egypt is writing a new chapter for Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine.”
My first thought when reading the original article, is that Egypt almost needs to have a war. It either needs to take resources from a neighbor, or to have its population dramatically reduced. Developing a manufacturing economy that produces smart phones and other high values items would also work, but political instability, corruption, uneducated work force, and other problems make this unlikely. A war driven by Islamic extremism and economic need sounds likely. Resources in Saudi or Sudan would let the country survive for a while. You also have to consider that the military currently runs Egypt. The only other industry is tourism and that will drop off dramatically until political stability returns. Wow this is really bad!
Right now, Egypt aside, there about 6 billion too many of us on the planet. We are a cancer on the face of the biosphere. One way or the other, and fairly soon, the gross tonnage of human flesh is going to be drastically reduced.
I guess I should offer my congrat to the Egyptian people; earlier on today I feared a civil war if the military split. I hope they don’t spiral down under the weight of expectation, afterall, their basic predicament has not changed at all.
[quote=CompassionateFascist]Right now, Egypt aside, there about 6 billion too many of us on the planet. We are a cancer on the face of the biosphere. One way or the other, and fairly soon, the gross tonnage of human flesh is going to be drastically reduced.
[/quote]
Normally, I would just let a statement like the one above just dissolve into the pages of obscurity, however…
I hope and pray that you are being tongue-in-cheek…
… if not, which 6 billion would you choose?
A cancer on the face of the “biosphere”? If we were standing at a cocktail party having this conversation, I would look you in the eye and say, “Are you nuts?” Then turn and walk away… this is me turning and walking away…
My first thought is,for what is compassionatefascist waiting.Mama nature will take care of it in spite of our grandest efforts, she has,after all, about a 12billion year headstart of maximizing efficiency.
poor typist,robie
[quote=Miss America]Hello Chris…
We have similar outlooks. I personally feel like our politicians are in for a rude awakening if they don’t come into “ownership” of our situation. I don’t see anything like Egypt, since we are way to well fed, and I believe we have the means to coordinate quickly even if supply lines dried up (due to whatever chaotic thing comes our way… ex. oil embargo)
Unfortunately, their will be bad eggs, and those in control will learn what “accountability” means quickly through major disruptions.
Here’s my piece from Zero Hedge. (you’ll have to excuse my grammar then/than, as a reader pointed out…)
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-can%E2%80%99t-see-forest-trees
All the best, RH
[/quote]
Miss America,
Welcome. Enjoyed reading your piece. FYI, it’s “too” rather than “to” and “there” rather than “their”. Many people feel that grammar isn’t important but if precision in language is lacking, it makes the reader wonder if precision in other information is lacking. Sorry to be nitpicky but better grammar will add to the effectiveness of your message.
[quote=dogdue]One of the issues not addressed in the article that is prevelant throughout the Middle East and othe regions is the large percentage of the population under 30 and the high unemployment rates.
[/quote]
DD,
I agree that this is an important factor. People who have nothing to lose because they broke and unemployed are much more likely to demonstrate or riot than working people trying to keep their jobs. Working people, I believe, are also much less likely to loot or hurt there fellow citizens. Young people are also much more likely to take radical stances, and action on their stances than older more mature people.
The long term unemployed and under employed in the US will soon begin to grow tired of their lot in life.
DRHolden
[quote=RNcarl][quote=CompassionateFascist]
Right now, Egypt aside, there about 6 billion too many of us on the planet. We are a cancer on the face of the biosphere. One way or the other, and fairly soon, the gross tonnage of human flesh is going to be drastically reduced.
[/quote]
Normally, I would just let a statement like the one above just dissolve into the pages of obscurity, however…
I hope and pray that you are being tongue-in-cheek…
… if not, which 6 billion would you choose?
A cancer on the face of the “biosphere”? If we were standing at a cocktail party having this conversation, I would look you in the eye and say, “Are you nuts?” Then turn and walk away… this is me turning and walking away…
[/quote]
Negotiating with with reality will determine how things go. If the population before the fossil fuel era was ca 1 billion, it seems to make sense that in a post carbon world, the human race will find itself re-equilibrating around that level at some point in the future.
I agree, the comment on the surface is so distasteful because of the consequences it presents, but as a scientist, I struggle to argue against the under lying premise. So many historians, economists etc have dismissed Malthus’ postulations; time will tell…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
I think I have to agree with Chris on this one, I.M.H.O. China may export cheap manufactured goods for a while, but in the long run, and no one knows what the exact time frame is: they are trying to sustain a huge population 6 or 7 times the size of the USA, with dwindling arable land, serious and increasing water shortages, and massive increases in energy consumtion, none of which are sustainable. The trade imbalances as well, are not sustainable.
No matter what else happens, if a country can not feed itself, and water. oil, and arable farmland are the main factors that determine if a society can feed themselves, then no matter what else they do, their system is unsustainable.
[quote=RNcarl][quote=CompassionateFascist]
Right now, Egypt aside, there about 6 billion too many of us on the planet. We are a cancer on the face of the biosphere. One way or the other, and fairly soon, the gross tonnage of human flesh is going to be drastically reduced.
[/quote]
Normally, I would just let a statement like the one above just dissolve into the pages of obscurity, however…
I hope and pray that you are being tongue-in-cheek…
… if not, which 6 billion would you choose?
A cancer on the face of the “biosphere”? If we were standing at a cocktail party having this conversation, I would look you in the eye and say, “Are you nuts?” Then turn and walk away… this is me turning and walking away…
[/quote]
We won’t do the choosing Carl… NATURE will. I fully expect that by 2100 the world population will be under 2 billion. Maybe even under 1 billion. I’m just glad I won’t be around to do the census…
[quote=reddgreen]No matter what else happens, if a country can not feed itself, and water. oil, and arable farmland are the main factors that determine if a society can feed themselves, then no matter what else they do, their system is unsustainable.
[/quote]
Actually, it’s not unsustainable at all. When a society reaches this point, aquisition of the additional needed resources by force (i.e. a war) usually takes place. The society obtains the resources it needs and also “thins” the population requiring those resources, killing two birds with one stone. Do you think the Chinese military build-up is occurring by accident?
[quote=Damnthematrix][quote=RNcarl]
Normally, I would just let a statement like the one above just dissolve into the pages of obscurity, however…
I hope and pray that you are being tongue-in-cheek…
… if not, which 6 billion would you choose?
A cancer on the face of the “biosphere”? If we were standing at a cocktail party having this conversation, I would look you in the eye and say, “Are you nuts?” Then turn and walk away… this is me turning and walking away…
[/quote]
We won’t do the choosing Carl… NATURE will. I fully expect that by 2100 the world population will be under 2 billion. Maybe even under 1 billion. I’m just glad I won’t be around to do the census…
[/quote]
Well,
If it is nature returning the yin/yang then so be it. I seriously doubt any man knows the true carrying capacity of the earth. Or, what our destiny is to be.
The earth is our spaceship. We are not a parasite on it. Perhaps, when one looses their humanity, they can only see humans as excess flesh.
C.
The repulsiveness of this statement isn’t due to the possibility of a decline of the population, but to the value judgement inherent in the opinion that “we are a cancer on the face of the biosphere” and the animosity toward one’s fellow man.
Nothing compassionate about this fascist.
[quote=ao][quote=reddgreen]
No matter what else happens, if a country can not feed itself, and water. oil, and arable farmland are the main factors that determine if a society can feed themselves, then no matter what else they do, their system is unsustainable.
[/quote]
Actually, it’s not unsustainable at all. When a society reaches this point, aquisition of the additional needed resources by force (i.e. a war) usually takes place. The society obtains the resources it needs and also “thins” the population requiring those resources, killing two birds with one stone. Do you think the Chinese military build-up is occurring by accident?
[/quote]
Wars in reality kill very few people, relatively speaking. WWII killed under 100 million people when world population was almost 2000 million… or 5%.
The black plague killed 30 to 50% of the population. Diseases and famines will take care of overshoot, wars will have a minor effect because people will be too hungry and sick to fight.
And if you can’t see we ARE like a cancer on the planet… you just don’t get it.
Mike.
[quote=Damnthematrix]<snip>
And if you can’t see we ARE like a cancer on the planet… you just don’t get it.
Mike.
[/quote]
So… I guess I don’t get it.
A cancer kills its host. The host is a being that has intrinsic value in and of itself. I didn’t know the earth was a conscious “being”. Further, if that is true, then the fish, fowl and every living creature ON the earth is a parasite - a cancer. No?
The earth is our spaceship. Our life-support system. We need to take care of it. If we break it, yes, we will die. It is only because we have come close to the capacity of the ship that we now see her beginning to creak and groan under the weight.
I knew I should have just rolled my eyes and walked away…
[quote=Damnthematrix][Wars in reality kill very few people, relatively speaking. WWII killed under 100 million people when world population was almost 2000 million… or 5%.
The black plague killed 30 to 50% of the population. Diseases and famines will take care of overshoot, wars will have a minor effect because people will be too hungry and sick to fight.
And if you can’t see we ARE like a cancer on the planet… you just don’t get it.
Mike.
[/quote]
Uh, Mike … I think you’re getting a bit detached from reality here … especially if you think 100 million people is relatively few. You also seem to forget that famine and disease almost always accompany war. You also forget that the bubonic plague had its primary effect in Europe, not globally. You also forget that we now have nuclear, biological (including genetic), chemical, nanotech, and robotic weaponry capable of annihilating 100% of the global population.
And perhaps YOU think we’re a cancer on the planet. I don’t. What a dark view of humanity! You seem to forget that we’re the only species on this planet that can also act with compassion towards ourselves and all the rest of the species. See how much your friendly local bacteria, fungus, grass, tree, fish, bird, or mammal cares whether you liive or die. Whether you’re aware of it or not, there is also a tremendous amount of good that goes on on this planet. When you steep yourself in darkness and gloom, that’s what you get. When you look for light and goodness and act accordingly, you’ll get more of that. It’s all up to us.
I get it. The question is, do you? Living on this planet is not about ecology, it’s about a spiritual learning and growth experience.
I’m with RN, nature is over anthropomorphized by us,the parasites? She,nature,has no “value” system,polar bears eat seals and barber pole worms eat my sheep. I fight the worm/parasite because its a competitor for the sheep i want to eat.
robie