Record High Gas Prices?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

A growing economy is not possible in the long term. Sustainability is the only thing that will work in the long term.

And... you know this? How? Did you invent a time machine and look at the future?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by t vago

Since you haven't given up your corral of fuel consuming pollution emitters, and you are still alive and complaining of overpopulation, I can conclude that you are a hypocrite.

You have no idea how much fuel they are actually consuming do you.

Are you saying any person that thinks we may be overpopulated should commit suicide? Nice. Logical too.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by t vago

And... you know this? How? Did you invent a time machine and look at the future?

Prime example of willful ignorance. Good job.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by t vago

And... you know this? How? Did you invent a time machine and look at the future?

Naah. Neil is an activist who promotes Leftist fear mongering tracts like AlGore's book, Earth in the lurch, the other one "Eaarth", and by other neo-Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich who have been darling authors of Leftist pet theories since the 1970's.

These fantasy scare scenarios are never extinguished - they pop up in political cycles, marketed to the gullible masses, with the underlying theme that "the sky is falling!"

There are plenty of new Henny Pennys born in every generation that are gullible enough to be recruited.

[Frank Lee]

Can you ever actually put some thought into answering the freekin question at hand?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Where are we now? Overpopulated, with cluster****s and sprawl filling in between the clusters?

Are we overpopulated ?

Population has grown but overpopulated ? Malthus said that there were too many of us when we had less than 800m people on the planet. But assuming it is a problem lets look at how maybe we could solve that, using growth by which I mean economic growth. This will help to reduce poverty, and reducing poverty will help to reduce population increase because wealthier people tend to have smaller families.

Hans Rosling on global population growth | Video on TED.com

Yeah there are examples of hige families in the west and at this point someone posts a picture of a huge US family, so I'll do it and save us some time.



Not sure who the cluster****s are, but there quite a few people I also feel the world would be better off without too.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What does "growth" have to do with quality of life?

Would we not have technical advancements without growth? Why not?

Is there a positive direct connection between quality of life and growth? Why?

The model of development we have followed for a few thousand years is that economic growth generates wealth, education and knowledge which has in turn resulted in increased living standards, health and life expectancy. Although as they say on investment products, past performance does not guarantee future results, it looks like a reasonable link to me.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Look at a place like, say, California. Today, the nice temperate parts of it along the coast aren't much more than a support system for highways and streets. You can tell it was beautiful once upon a time. If you like cluster****s, it still is. I just think it would have been so much more awesome in that period before every square inch of it had human "development" on it- before my time, unfortunately.

Agreed, previous generations seemed to equate the idea of human development as being a good thing no matter where it was or what impact it had - Jungles had to be tamed, wilderness cleared and farmed, rivers diverted, natives 'civilised' - and anything in the way - including wildlife - was forced to move, or die.

Now we know better but it is too late for some places and it is still happening in too many places - all those dams in China for example.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I've got a "techie" brother-in-law that was so excited about an article he sent me about colonizing Mars. I was all, WTF? What is so great about the prospect of using the Earth up and then infesting another planet?

The "Earth First, we'll strip mine the other planets later" approach I agree, thats barking mad.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You are not done with your answer yet.

Neither have you

Originally Posted by jamesqf

...well, if you plotted each of the multitude of factors that go into making up "quality of life" (and accepting that most of them are in some degree subjective), you'd see that many if not most of them have peaked, and are heading downwards.

I think I need to see some examples of where "most of them have peaked and are heading downwards", but agreed anyone's choices will be subjective and different from anyone else's - mine are not the same as yours probably.

I am not arguing there is nothing to worry about or that we should not make some far reaching changes to how we treat the planet, the resources we use and each other. If you wish to move back to a more organic and simplistic approach to living then go ahead and do so. You are lucky to have the choice.

Humans have existed in pretty much every environment on the planet except under the sea. We lived at the north pole, in deserts, jungles, islands and in temporate forrests like Europe. There are clear examples of where we failed - Easter Island, Olduvai and so on but for the most part we have been successful.

My position is that we don't have only one choice - going back to an older way of life and expecting people to die out - and starkly this is what is being suggested in some places albeit not here.

We have a choice of development, growth, mitigation and adaption as well.

Rant over. £1.42 a litre this morning, but the oil price has eased again.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Are we overpopulated ?

Population has grown but overpopulated ? Malthus said that there were too many of us when we had less than 800m people on the planet. But assuming it is a problem lets look at how maybe we could solve that, using growth by which I mean economic growth. This will help to reduce poverty, and reducing poverty will help to reduce population increase because wealthier people tend to have smaller families.

Hans Rosling on global population growth | Video on TED.com

Yeah there are examples of hige families in the west and at this point someone posts a picture of a huge US family, so I'll do it and save us some time.

Not sure who the cluster****s are, but there quite a few people I also feel the world would be better off without too.

The model of development we have followed for a few thousand years is that economic growth generates wealth, education and knowledge which has in turn resulted in increased living standards, health and life expectancy. Although as they say on investment products, past performance does not guarantee future results, it looks like a reasonable link to me.

Agreed, previous generations seemed to equate the idea of human development as being a good thing no matter where it was or what impact it had - Jungles had to be tamed, wilderness cleared and farmed, rivers diverted, natives 'civilised' - and anything in the way - including wildlife - was forced to move, or die.

Now we know better but it is too late for some places and it is still happening in too many places - all those dams in China for example.

The "Earth First, we'll strip mine the other planets later" approach I agree, thats barking mad.

Neither have you

I think I need to see some examples of where "most of them have peaked and are heading downwards", but agreed anyone's choices will be subjective and different from anyone else's - mine are not the same as yours probably.

I am not arguing there is nothing to worry about or that we should not make some far reaching changes to how we treat the planet, the resources we use and each other. If you wish to move back to a more organic and simplistic approach to living then go ahead and do so. You are lucky to have the choice.

Humans have existed in pretty much every environment on the planet except under the sea. We lived at the north pole, in deserts, jungles, islands and in temporate forrests like Europe. There are clear examples of where we failed - Easter Island, Olduvai and so on but for the most part we have been successful.

My position is that we don't have only one choice - going back to an older way of life and expecting people to die out - and starkly this is what is being suggested in some places albeit not here.

We have a choice of development, growth, mitigation and adaption as well.

Rant over. £1.42 a litre this morning, but the oil price has eased again.

Try to find a desireable spot- ya know, not a chunk of desert or swamp- that isn't wall-to-wall people.

In my little corner of the world sprawl has been exponential and astonishing in that such a radical change of landscape has happened in such a short period of time. Is that sustainable? Is that desireable?

Cluster****s aren't a who, they are cities, and all the yokels mentioned (politicians, bidness leaders, etc) who aren't in an existing cluster****s dream of making their smaller towns into bigger cluster****s, instead of just moving themselves into an existing cluster, because all the lemmings are running around convincing themselves that growth is the one and only way.

Yes the growth model is popular, even so historically, but that still doesn't explain it's necessity. Why would the quality of life indicators you listed- wealth, edu, knowledge, etc. not be present and/or advancing w/o growth?

Maybe economic growth isn't the problem... could it be distribution? Oh- Thymeclock- don't **** your pants, I'm not suggesting a liberal socialist plot to redistribute anything...

Previous generations thought resources were limitless and to be exploited without care. Current generation isn't doing a whole lot better. But then, what's the difference between the consumption of, say 1,000,000,000 frugals that use resources wisely and 500,000,000 slobs that use 2x/capita? Well, one difference is, if they have equal fertility, the frugals are still going to be in a world of hurt resource-wise much sooner simply due to population pressure.... from...... growth.

We are finding that resources aren't infinite... right? Then what follows? Not infinite population... right?

Speaking of "development"... much more often than not, I find "developed" spots less desireable than they were before they got "improved".

Thinking about "are we overpopulated"... when I was younger, I could ride my bicycle from the farm on the paved road in any direction and be reasonably secure in thinking I won't get flattened out by a vehicle. Not anymore. If it isn't the 50x increase in truck traffic, or the 40x increase in regular motorists going through there, it's the 80x increase in non-situationally aware zombies behind the wheel that make it an adventure fit for those who laugh in the face of death. (Warning: those were made-up stats) Pretty much the same thing goes for swimming or playing in the lake at my Grandparent's cabin- might as well ride a tricycle down an interstate highway and see what that gets you.

[NeilBlanchard]

Constant -- i.e. infinite growth on a finite planet = fail.

Any questions?

[MetroMPG]

I smell a thread lock coming!

Any questions?

Let's keep the ideology & politics off EcoModder please. (This is directed at everyone - well, at the usual suspects who are unable to respect the wishes of the admins here and FREAKING BITE THEIR TONGUES.)

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Try to find a desireable spot- ya know, not a chunk of desert or swamp- that isn't wall-to-wall people.

Try to do that on a little island like the one I'm on. At the same time an old primary school statistic is that the population of the world could fit on the Isle of White.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

...Yes the growth model is popular, even so historically, but that still doesn't explain it's necessity. Why would the quality of life indicators you listed- wealth, edu, knowledge, etc. not be present and/or advancing w/o growth?

OK - to turn it around a little - could you provide examples where a civilisation has improved those things without economic growth ? Quality of life certainly declined in the dark ages of Western Europe post the decline and fall of Rome compared to how well they were before the collapse. It took nearly 500 years and a nice warm climatic period (shhh, we aren't allowed to mention that now ) to help population growth.

And what did that population growth produce ?

Disaster, starvation ?

Well, not quite.



This continued - by the mid 19th century the life expectancy of an industrial worker in Britain as well as their income was much higher than a rural worker of the same period, and far higher than an equivalent worker in China up to the start of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Maybe economic growth isn't the problem... could it be distribution? Oh- Thymeclock- don't **** your pants, I'm not suggesting a liberal socialist plot to redistribute anything...

Oh please god no...

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Previous generations thought resources were limitless...

Agreed, some still do. Unfortunately some of them get elected sometimes. There is a big bahoo over shale gas at the moment - hundreds of years of reserves. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe looking after it this time would be better than just exploiting it as fast as possible as we have with oil ?

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

We are finding that resources aren't infinite... right? Then what follows? Not infinite population... right?

Which is why I was arguing how we could start the trend levelling off or moving the other way. Without starting to address why rapid population growth is happening where it is, and why people have so many children you will have to address another solution because it isn't going to slow.

So, what is the alternative method

A Die out perhaps, a cull ?

Is that any more realistic or fair ?

Who goes first ?

Who doesn't get saved ?

How is that decided ? A war perhaps ?

Are you sure 'we' would win it ?

Or perhaps enforced birth control which was suggested in 1969 ?

Again who, where, how ?

China did this for a long time and it caused huge social problems and many unwanted children, quite a few of whom were deliberately left to die.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Speaking of "development"... much more often than not, I find "developed" spots less desireable than they were before they got "improved".

Yep, see the comment above about previous generations and how they thought about areas needing to be 'developed'. Most of us see the folly of this but it still goes on.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Constant -- i.e. infinite growth on a finite planet = fail. Any questions?

On the basic point, nope.

But again, what is the solution - what specifically do you suggest we do to mitigate against this fail ?

Both you and I have kids, investments in the future. What do we need them to be doing, helping the population growth level off and civilisation to continue, or just sit in a Yurt consuming and contributing as little as possible ?



I'd rather A Jnr was contributing if its all the same to you