The Story of Stuff

[bush_cheney2004]

[WIP]

For all things there is a natural cycle. That is, the cycle of creation and destruction. And I feel, despite the good intentions of people like WIP to try and warn us and get people to change, we are "hell-bent" on our own destruction because of several irreconcilable factors mainly to do with human nature, greed, shortsightedness and political/ ideological fanaticism. Among other things. But I have a certain faith in the human being, that people will come to know the difference between right and wrong, if not by being taught then by example of pain and suffering. The human being will survive, that is what we are good at. But this world about a come to an end

There is a natural instinct in every animal, to consume the limits of its natural environment. In nature, this is usually kept in check through disease and predation, but when animals swim to a new island with no predators, they will likely consume everything until they run out of food and mass starvation occurs. The blunt, disturbing messages coming to us from several different areas of environmental research are that the human animal is...so far...acting exactly like a small group of deer who've just swam across a lake to a new island, for example. The Earth is now our island, since we are a global civilization, and with all of our modern technology, we are free of the predator/prey cycle of nature. I'm not seeing a lot of encouraging signs that the dangers are being taken seriously by enough people to prevent a global catastrophe.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a natural instinct in every animal, to consume the limits of its natural environment. In nature, this is usually kept in check through disease and predation, but when animals swim to a new island with no predators, they will likely consume everything until they run out of food and mass starvation occurs. The blunt, disturbing messages coming to us from several different areas of environmental research are that the human animal is...so far...acting exactly like a small group of deer who've just swam across a lake to a new island, for example. The Earth is now our island, since we are a global civilization, and with all of our modern technology, we are free of the predator/prey cycle of nature. I'm not seeing a lot of encouraging signs that the dangers are being taken seriously by enough people to prevent a global catastrophe.

It's hard to discern, though, because there are always panic mongers who tell us that we're doomed. I have to think that obvious risks will gradually raise more alarms than the odd alarmist blog.

[WIP]

It's hard to discern, though, because there are always panic mongers who tell us that we're doomed. I have to think that obvious risks will gradually raise more alarms than the odd alarmist blog.

I have laid out many reasons for alarm. We have entered a whole new era where human population is at unprecedented and unsustainable levels, Arctic sea ice has declined 40% since those Apollo 8 pictures were taken in 1968, and we still have thousands of nuclear warheads kicking around at a time when conflict and warfare is on the increase....but you still think a little tinkering around the edges with tax rates will solve all of our problems.

[Bonam]

There is a natural instinct in every animal, to consume the limits of its natural environment. In nature, this is usually kept in check through disease and predation, but when animals swim to a new island with no predators, they will likely consume everything until they run out of food and mass starvation occurs. The blunt, disturbing messages coming to us from several different areas of environmental research are that the human animal is...so far...acting exactly like a small group of deer who've just swam across a lake to a new island, for example. The Earth is now our island, since we are a global civilization, and with all of our modern technology, we are free of the predator/prey cycle of nature. I'm not seeing a lot of encouraging signs that the dangers are being taken seriously by enough people to prevent a global catastrophe.

Humans are their own predators. I disagree with your premise that we are outgrowing our environment's carrying capacity. As I've stated before, the use of ever more advanced technology allows us to increase the environment's carrying capacity for humans. However, if we ever really did come to a resource limit, as you predict, the human self-predation mechanism would kick into effect. Humans are about the only species that is known to slaughter vast numbers of its own kind, and is unique in this way.

[Michael Hardner]

I have laid out many reasons for alarm. We have entered a whole new era where human population is at unprecedented and unsustainable levels, Arctic sea ice has declined 40% since those Apollo 8 pictures were taken in 1968, and we still have thousands of nuclear warheads kicking around at a time when conflict and warfare is on the increase....but you still think a little tinkering around the edges with tax rates will solve all of our problems.

You need to have a debate between knowledgeable people in order to validate these points.

I'm not saying that changing tax rates will fix the problem, but that is at least a realistic (if measured) approach to addressing the problems you're talking about.

[TimG]

We have entered a whole new era where human population is at unprecedented and unsustainable levels

People have been saying that for centuries. After a while you figure out that the doom sayers are over stating their case.

Arctic sea ice has declined 40% since those Apollo 8 pictures were taken in 1968

So what? There is no compelling evidence that a warmer artic will be, on balance, bad for humanity.

and we still have thousands of nuclear warheads kicking around at a time when conflict and warfare is on the increase.

On the increase? More of the world is at peace today than at any time in the past. The only thing that is changed is any conflict anywhere in the world gets broadcast and amplified.

[GostHacked]

You are missing the point. Technology is the only solution to deal with excess population if we don't want mass starvation. This means more fertilizer and GMOs and fossil fuels.

There are technical solutions to mass population. I just need to build a bigger gun.

[GostHacked]

People have been saying that for centuries. After a while you figure out that the doom sayers are over stating their case.

The population boom of the last century surpass everything that came before it put together. So those people who saw this centuries ago understood something about exponential. Hell I even understood that much as a kid. More people, using more resources, meaning less resources to go around, meaning we will eventually be fighting each other for what little resources remain .... It's not rocket science.

On the increase? More of the world is at peace today than at any time in the past. The only thing that is changed is any conflict anywhere in the world gets broadcast and amplified.

And I thought I smoked a lot of dope. What fantasy land are you living in?

[Michael Hardner]

The population boom of the last century surpass everything that came before it put together. So those people who saw this centuries ago understood something about exponential. Hell I even understood that much as a kid. More people, using more resources, meaning less resources to go around, meaning we will eventually be fighting each other for what little resources remain .... It's not rocket science.

We're now 50 years post-birth control and its starting to get introduced to the third world. You can look forward to slowing population growth.

[TimG]

The population boom of the last century surpass everything that came before it put together.

And we are passing every other metric that come before in terms of average wealth, education, lifespan, etc.

And I thought I smoked a lot of dope. What fantasy land are you living in?

What percentage of the world was at war or dealing the consequences of war 200 years ago? How about today? You will find that war has become an extremely rare event for most people on earth. They only reason you think otherwise is because the mdeia brings war into the living rooms everywhere. Edited April 28, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

The population boom of the last century surpass everything that came before it put together. So those people who saw this centuries ago understood something about exponential. Hell I even understood that much as a kid. More people, using more resources, meaning less resources to go around, meaning we will eventually be fighting each other for what little resources remain .... It's not rocket science.

I think there has obviously been a well funded disinformation campaign to drive these issue from public attention, because back in the 70's we were hearing about overpopulation and that the oceans were going to start dying. Now we are living in an age when there are already too many people on Earth, and ocean acidification, and dying coral reefs and collapsing commercial fish stocks have become a reality....and yet there seems to be fewer people who are aware of these problems today than there was back in 1970.

And I thought I smoked a lot of dope. What fantasy land are you living in?

Yeah, I almost fell out of my chair when I read that one about how peaceful our world is now! There was a trend in that direction up till 10 years ago, but we are entering a new era of conflict...hell, the U.S. is in three wars at the same time now...I don't think that's ever happened before!

And, it's happening for reasons that you have outlined here -- some of these conflicts in Africa now are all about dwindling water resources, and if we look at the Iraq War and how the U.S., China and Russia are positioning themselves to try to secure remaining oil reserves, it's easy to figure out how that will turn into a shooting war.

[WIP]

We're now 50 years post-birth control and its starting to get introduced to the third world. You can look forward to slowing population growth.

YOu have to do more than slow population growth, since world population is already past the carrying capacity of our natural environment. The global population needs to be dropping...and the faster it goes down, the greater the permanent carrying capacity of the planet will be.

[WIP]

So what? There is no compelling evidence that a warmer artic will be, on balance, bad for humanity.

Do you make a habit of sticking your fingers into light sockets to see how bad that will be? A warmer Arctic means melting permafrost...and melting permafrost means large quantities of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere...a positive feedback loop that apparently has already started...because of a warmer Arctic! http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

[TimG]

Do you make a habit of sticking your fingers into light sockets to see how bad that will be? A warmer Arctic means melting permafrost...

Not much of an argument considering the artic was much warmer than today 8000 years ago.

The run away positive feedback argument is nonsense. If the earth was so unstable it would have hit the rails ages ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not much of an argument considering the artic was much warmer than today 8000 years ago.

The run away positive feedback argument is nonsense. If the earth was so unstable it would have hit the rails ages ago.

Ironically, and for the first time in human history, we are afraid to adapt to changing climate even when having the most powerful tools to do so. Neanderthals would not be very impressed.

[GostHacked]

I think there has obviously been a well funded disinformation campaign to drive these issue from public attention, because back in the 70's we were hearing about overpopulation and that the oceans were going to start dying. Now we are living in an age when there are already too many people on Earth, and ocean acidification, and dying coral reefs and collapsing commercial fish stocks have become a reality....and yet there seems to be fewer people who are aware of these problems today than there was back in 1970.

No arguments there at all. I am, in a way, for population reduction, but who am I really to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. But I also think it's part of a concieved deficiency in some of these resources. We know there are plenty of untapped oil reserves around the planet. The one in the US (montana and central US) puts the US on par or better than Saudi Arabia in terms of total oil reserves. Why has that not been tapped yet? What are they waiting for?

Yeah, I almost fell out of my chair when I read that one about how peaceful our world is now! There was a trend in that direction up till 10 years ago, but we are entering a new era of conflict...hell, the U.S. is in three wars at the same time now...I don't think that's ever happened before!

Only 3 wars at the monent? I really thought there was more! Can we count the failed War on Drugs(and illegal immigration on the US-Mexico border)? The failing War on Terrorism? The war on poverty? George Carlin said it well. War on *.* means more *.*!!

But to list, we got Iraq (war is said to be over, but I don't really think it is), Afghanistan (same deal) and now Libya. Soon it will be Syria and then Saudi Arabia.

And, it's happening for reasons that you have outlined here -- some of these conflicts in Africa now are all about dwindling water resources, and if we look at the Iraq War and how the U.S., China and Russia are positioning themselves to try to secure remaining oil reserves, it's easy to figure out how that will turn into a shooting war.

There is plenty of water on the planet yes. However only a small portion is fresh water (not salinated). Not only are we using it up in record numbers for everything, along with contaminating what little is left through all sorts of pollution.

Enjoy your stuff now while you can. In the near future, you are going to be concerned about where to get some fresh clean drinking water more than leveling up in World of Warcraft.

[WIP]

Not much of an argument considering the artic was much warmer than today 8000 years ago.

There were rapid spikes up and down after the last ice age, judging from ice core samples, and it was not a time which would have supported the type of civilization we have now -- extremely large populations dependent on high yield agriculture...so what's your point?

Over the last century, the changes we have made to the environment, especially the increase in ocean acidification and the 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 have started the transition from the Holocene Epoch of stable climate into a brave new world of rapid climate change that's called the Anthropocene. It's a roll of the dice whether future generations will survive the world we've created for them, because unlike most previous temperature spikes caused by the Sun, or orbital cycles -- this one is being created by continued, relentless increases to greenhouse gas emissions. What we are doing is more akin to long term climate forcing changes like the 100,000 to one million year long flow of volcanic flood basalts that caused the Permian - Triassic Extinction.

The run away positive feedback argument is nonsense. If the earth was so unstable it would have hit the rails ages ago.

The earth never created an animal like us before... that is capable of dominating the entire planet and changing ecosystems. The Great Dying at the end of the Permian, caused warming and ocean acidification because the prolonged period of volcanic activity could not be absorbed by the normal bio and geologic processes; and now we have already started positive feedback cycles that will continue on for decades at least, even if we immediately stopped adding to greenhouse gas levels! The melting sea ice, melting permafrost, increased water vapour levels, the reduced CO2 absorption ability of the oceans, will continue the trend we started 150 years ago....and if we continue business as usual, and keep adding more and more to greenhouse gas levels, then we are approaching the worst case - nightmare scenarios of 1000 ppm+ CO2 levels.

[WIP]

No arguments there at all. I am, in a way, for population reduction, but who am I really to decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Maybe overcrowding is affecting people (at least the female portion) at an unconscious level, because even conservative societies that make birth control a priority are able to bring down birth rates.....if Iran can do it, there's no excuse for the lunatic Republican reactionaries south of the border that are trying to ban access to abortion and birth control.

But I also think it's part of a concieved deficiency in some of these resources. We know there are plenty of untapped oil reserves around the planet. The one in the US (montana and central US) puts the US on par or better than Saudi Arabia in terms of total oil reserves. Why has that not been tapped yet? What are they waiting for?

Unless you're talking about the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, there are no large, untapped oil fields in the continental U.S.A.. And, on the topic of oil -- since there have been so many oil-based polymers created, which have become necessities, wouldn't it make more sense to put the brakes on using oil for fuel and fertilizers for meat production, and keep the remaining oil reserves for essentials before it all get sucked out of the ground?

Only 3 wars at the monent? I really thought there was more! Can we count the failed War on Drugs(and illegal immigration on the US-Mexico border)? The failing War on Terrorism? The war on poverty? George Carlin said it well. War on *.* means more *.*!!

Yeah, those are stupid wars too! But, a world that cannot feed its populations is soon wracked by wars and mass migrations...which also lead to new wars. Many of these Mid-East dictatorships that are suddenly convulsed in revolution, are not in this situation because of Wikileaks, Al Jazeera or Facebook as some superficial analysts would like to believe; the key factor that caused widespread uprisings is the food shortages, rising food prices, and removal of basic food subsidies in most of these countries. In Syria for example, most people were living on less than $2.00 per day, and food purchases took half of their income. Ten, 20%, or 30% increases in grain prices have much more impact in a place like that then they do here.....so far at least!