problems

[vivacious]

http://www.pewstates.org/projects/state ... 5899460061

I didn't read that whole thing but the gist is there's less water. In the world now water is running out, oil is running out, the population is getting bigger, air pollution is getting bad, etc.

We have other similar threads but what I'm getting at here is the problems may get better but for now they're getting worse. So should the endgame really be to get a little farm in the middle of nowhere or something?

Life will go on but it may not be pretty, especially during a transition period.

So maybe the real goal should be a self contained farm or something like that. Thoughts?

[riparian]

After overshoot comes die off. If you have a little farm somebody will take it from you. If you have hunter gatherer skills (a) it doesn't matter as much what's taken from you and (b) you're more useful to others alive than dead.

[prieten]

You know, it seems these predictions of the apocalypse come...and then they go again. Remember all that talk about Peak Oil? Turns out we are swimming in oil. I'm no fan of fracking, but they say America is becoming an oil exporting nation. Yes, I also know that this is just delaying the inevitable day when the oil does run out. But by then some relatively cheaper energy will come along, and/or I'll be dead. Living here in Japan is probably a foretaste of the future. The population is aging rapidly, towns in the countryside are dying out. Forest is taking over fallow farmland. And yet, eggs are about $1 a dozen, a loaf of bread is $2, a pint of beer costs $1.25, the same as for a quart of milk. I don't know how that compares to America, but let's just say Japan is fading away slowly, and not with an apocalyptic bang.

[DutchGirl]

My basic opinion is that these problems will become very real for the majority of the population of the earth, since a too small percentage of the powers-that-matter seem to be working at solving these problems and the population continues to grow. You really can see us all, in our vehicle, hurtling towards a big fat wall of "the earth says no", but nobody seems to be in control of our vehicle or seems to be able to slow it down, so a very damaging collision seems unavoidable.

But I also think I'm dead by the time that these problems would become worrisome for me. I try to be a bit environment-friendly, too, but yeah, my clothes are currently being washed in a washing machine, and I'm typing this on a mac laptop. At least I'm not having kids, very environment-friendly of me

[secretwealth]

This is what I've learned in my 33 years on Earth: poor people worry about apocalypses, rich people worry about their bank account. Like gay marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues: it's just a distraction that will keep you poor and enslaved.

[RealPerson]

It just so happens that an ERE lifestyle is also good for the planet. More people may be forced to live an ERE lifestyle even f they would prefer not to. Still, when I was in K-12, the planet had half the population that it supports today. Back then we were supposedly near the limit. That was 3 billion people ago! Humanity has an incredible ability to adapt, as long as changes are sufficiently gradual. I suppose that will continue to be the case. An apocalypse seems very unlikely to me. An ERE lifestyle is the best antidote for the negative developments listed in the beginning of the thread. After all, you can only change your own lifestyle.

[Triangle]

These apocalyptic predictions are always too broad and global to even make sense.

As a whole, the earth might have a rising population - the west definitely doesn't. In fact, many western countries will literally die out in a few generations if they don't pick up the slack soon. I'm looking at you, Japan!

There is definitely more than enough space to house and feed way more than 7 billion people. The problem isn't "too many people", it's "too many people in Kalkutta" and "not enough people in rural Japan". It isn't "not enough food", it's "not enough food in Kalkutta" and "too much food in the US".

If borders were lifted, all those people could spread around the world much better, and go from the poor, no-food places to the rich, have-food places. Or we could bring the food to them.

It's just that everyone is afraid of "dem illegals taking our jobs and our welfare". IMHO, borders are a silly idea.

[riparian]

Triangle, does this name sense to you?

Civilization is a network of cities big enough to require the importation of resources.
It is based on hyper exploiting the resources of rural and remote areas to sustain urban populations.
Any system that survives by hyper exploiting limited resources will eventually use up all the resources.
Then there are not enough resources to support the populations that have grown in cities.

[northman]

I encourage you all to watch videos of Hans Rosling on youtube.
He has done a few TED talks, and several others online.


He is a medical doctor, and has for several years studied poverty and statistics. He and his son ( and a small team ) developed a very nice graphichal represantation of public data ( though "hidden" to most ), showing several interesting details most are not aware of.

Gapminder.org



Data supports the idea that by 2050 we will be 9billion people. By 2100 we will be a little over 10billion. And what is more surprising is that in the last 20 years, there have not been an increase in children born. Each year it hovers around 130 +- a few million. Fact is, 80% of the world population only give birth to 2,6 children per couple, and this results in declining population on the whole.

There is enough food on this planet to support all of us, if more would focus more on a plant based diett. As it requires less to feed a person, then to feed an animal for its consumption.

Energy could come from Thorium as a gap between what we have now and cold fusion.

Clean water could be produced from seawater, using Thorium reactors to power the system ( Arabic states are looking into this now! )


Im not completly optimistic, as "developed" states are not conserned about it yet, and does not support decresed consumption and more considerd living. The whole mantra of working more, so you can afford more, do not fit the new world order where there are 4-5 billon people in the world who needs and wants to reach our "standard" of living.

[Triangle]

@northman: Gosling is great. Most amazing fact for me: there is no "third world" countries any more. All those countries who "third world" was named after are now in the "second world" category, besides the ones we bomb over and over again (Afghanistan, Iraq). Within one generation, the poorest people in the world have become IMMENSELY less poor.

I'm very optimistic in the sense that I think there's no technological or geographical limit to how many people can be sustained in worthwhile living conditions. IMHO, the bottleneck is 100% governance and people's fears (which fuel current governance). That's where I'm pessimistic.

Triangle, does this name sense to you?

Civilization is a network of cities big enough to require the importation of resources.
It is based on hyper exploiting the resources of rural and remote areas to sustain urban populations.
Any system that survives by hyper exploiting limited resources will eventually use up all the resources.
Then there are not enough resources to support the populations that have grown in cities.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

* City dwellers are, per person, more efficient and use less resources than rural dwellers
* Cities are more productive, because more people are crammed in less space. This is the definition of society
* I don't think that cities per se "exploit" rural and remote areas, not sure what hyper exploiting means.

Then again, the word "exploit" doesn't mean much to me, it's an artifact of Marxian faulty thinking.

It also depends a lot on what your definition of "city" and "import" is. If you go vague enough, every household imports goods, even if only from the garden in front of it.

Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible for cities to grow beyond their limits, or have circumstances change, so what was once sustainable is now not sustainable any longer. Case in point: Detroit. But I don't think this happens to overuse of rural areas. That might've been the case in ancient rome, where they literally just robbed the farmers and enslaved them. Today, I think, it's governance problems: politicians, politicized unions, subsidized contractors and so on.

[secretwealth]

Ignoring the cheap and unnecessary pot shots at Marxism (or "Marxian thinking" as it were), here's a link to the study that shows city dwellers consume less natural resources than rural dwellers: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -less.html

[arrrrgon]

All that methane is being created in order to make enough food for the city dwellers to eat

[EMJ]

I'm very optimistic in the sense that I think there's no technological or geographical limit to how many people can be sustained in worthwhile living conditions. IMHO, the bottleneck is 100% governance and people's fears (which fuel current governance). That's where I'm pessimistic.

With this kind of living situation for millions of people I wonder haw you can be optimistic?
Life in a Toxic Country
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/sunda ... untry.html

[riparian]

Northman, the problem with your agriculture argument is topsoil. We can't live without it.

Secretwealth, that was the definition of civilization, not a value judgement. Let me try to explain another way.

Say there's an area about the size of a small state a hundred or so years ago, and say people mostly live on small family farms and resources aren't traveling far. The land in that state can support about ten thousand family farms worth of people. Now say there's a city with twenty thousand families - maybe they use half the resources as rural people, but it still takes a whole small states worth of resources to support them. There's nothing to check their growth as resources seem unlimited, and what with Christianity's instructions to reproduce and people flocking to the city soon it doubles in size and now it needs two small states worth of resources to support itself. In the more literal example this isn't limited to the resources of the state next door - it's oranges trucked up from Mexico, beef that McDonald's grows in South America, CPUs made in toxic factories in Taiwan, and of course the oil to get it all here. When the cities have doubled a thousand times over and used up all the oil, topsoil, etc, what do you think will happen?

[secretwealth]

Oranges from Mexico, CPUs, beef, and oil are consumed in cities and rural areas. It's a non sequitur to point the finger at urbanization.

[riparian]

Civilization, actually.

[northman]

riparian: hydroponics.

[riparian]

Northman: vitamins and minerals and dust storms.

[vivacious]

This is what I've learned in my 33 years on Earth: poor people worry about apocalypses, rich people worry about their bank account. Like gay marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues: it's just a distraction that will keep you poor and enslaved.

Seems like the opposite of what I thought you'd say unless you're being sarcastic or something.

I'm sure many of us are young enough that we will probably see a lot of the consequences of the exponential consumption of resources amidst dwindling supply.

Some people here have kids also right? Do you want the world to suck for them?

Anyway I'm not saying you should freak out about it but you should plan. It's also good to be responsible about these things when you can i.e. not supporting destruction etc.

[secretwealth]

I'm sure many of us are young enough that we will probably see a lot of the consequences of the exponential consumption of resources amidst dwindling supply.

Some people here have kids also right? Do you want the world to suck for them?

Anyway I'm not saying you should freak out about it but you should plan. It's also good to be responsible about these things when you can i.e. not supporting destruction etc.

Ecological activism has been a talking point since the 1960s...and resource consumption has grown exponentially since then.

Of course the growing consumption of resources is a problem and will have real consequences. But I think worrying about this issue, talking about it on forums, going to farmers markets to buy organic produce, etc. etc. really has done nothing to solve the problem. It makes people feel better about themselves, but that seems to be about it.

Think about your life and your actions--have you really contributed less to resource consumption and pollution output than your parents? Than the average person from your hometown?