Living Car Free - The earth is full

So I'm reading Paul Gilding's "The Great Disruption" as I pointed out in another thread.

Found a Thomas Friedman article today in the NY Times and he had a piece on Gilding and his ideas that I thought might interest everyone who rides a bike to avoid wasting previous resources.



This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. While in Yemen last year, I saw a tanker truck delivering water in the capital, Sana. Why? Because Sana could be the first big city in the world to run out of water, within a decade. That is what happens when one generation in one country lives at 150 percent of sustainable capacity.

“If you cut down more trees than you grow, you run out of trees,” writes Gilding. “If you put additional nitrogen into a water system, you change the type and quantity of life that water can support. If you thicken the Earth’s CO2 blanket, the Earth gets warmer. If you do all these and many more things at once, you change the way the whole system of planet Earth behaves, with social, economic, and life support impacts. This is not speculation; this is high school science.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html

Is the earth really full? Are we running out of juice?

We're running out of "juice" for our current society's lifestyle. We'll change, adapt, and make do. We won't go extinct just yet. The changes could be quite painful and cause a population decrease.

Regarding the water tankers in Sana: Just a couple of years ago, if I recall correctly, the main reservoir that provides Atlanta with its water was dangerously close to running dry enough to no longer be able to provide the city with adequate water. Eventually, dry reservoirs/wells will happen in a great many places and it's going to be ugly.

In a resource limited environment, or one in which resources accumulate slower than they are used, there aren't any real shortages until the last generation meets its demise. At that point, they are totally shocked because such a thing was unknown in history.

I think the Earth was full two or three generations ago, but we're only just beginning to realize it. I've thought that ever since I was old enough to understand the concept, and it was one of the reasons I chose not to breed. It seems inevitable that our population will undergo the natural trimming that occurs when growth outstrips resources. It happens in most species regularly; we've just been clever enough to postpone it for a very long time. But that probably means that it will be unusually severe when it does occur. Perhaps the saddest part is that we will also take down most of the planet's other species too.

I expect humans will survive, since we are opportunistic and adaptable. But our knowledge base and technologies, those may well be lost.

I think we are very close to the tipping point, just not sure which side of it we are on...

Aaron :)

If we ARE full, it's more because we have collectively poked a hole in the bottom of the boat.

As a global society, we have managed (better than anything else in our history) to CRAP UP the planet to the point where the planet is about to crap back -- all over us.

I remember reading, as a young man, the following:

"A reasonable man adjusts himself to suit his environment; an unreasonable man adjusts his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Defining "progress" is the tip-over point here; is "progress" re-making the immediate environment to suit our sense of comfort, or is "progress" making the best of what there is available in a way that doesn't wreck 'resource recovery'?

One thing (may be a bit odd) that I learned from my military time is, making a minimal impact; the smaller the impact you make, the lesser trace of yourself you leave behind, making it harder for anyone to TRACK you. So that, plus my dad's influence (emperor of packrats!) caused me to make use of things a LOT of others would just drop to the side. I bike instead of drive, I only live in a too-large house because I'm helping house family (and it's cheaper than living separately), and the great majority of my worldly goods could be packed into a standard cargo van. I don't want to be anchored down with too much, it may hold me back from an unguessed future.

I read 'Empires of Food' by Fraser and Rimas about a year ago. In the book, they claim that societies become more efficient at producing food by greater and greater specialization, and then something happens to one piece of the puzzle, which makes the entire thing collapse. One area that they look at is how our agricultural technology has enabled a huge increase in the world's production of food through a combination of chemical fertilizers applied to geographic areas that are able to be very productive, and then shipping the food from these areas to where the mouths are. The issue is that both the shipping and the chemical fertilizer industries are very highly dependent upon fossil fuels which are limited in capacity. The earth has a current population of approximately 7Billion, and without the added productivity offered by chemical fertilizers, we have the capacity to feed about 3Billion.

For me, one of the really scary things is how many of those 4 Billion people live in countries with access to nuclear weapons technology.

We are way past full, we are in the flood stage, and it is going to take a major crisis to bring us to a stable point.

I consider Palm Springs a bellweather community. I think it will run out of water pretty soon. When I lived near there, there was one period where there wasn't a drop of rain for 15 months. I never read of any admonitions to cut back on water usage in that time nor did I hear of anyone talking about it. It's true that they don't depend on daily rain; they get some water from the Colorado River and the rest from the aquifer below the valley. But that aquifer's level is dropping like a rock and they continue to water the 100+ golf courses in the area and build and build more houses.

It is a shame that 95% of the population wont care until it makes their lives miserable.

I think the earth can sustain 10 billion people (the projected maximum population). But we will need to tke advantage of innovations not only in technology, but in society, ploitical and economic systems, as well as technology. We can find the food, water, and energy for 10 billion--but can we get it to them.

A lot of people are going to have to relocate. Millions of homes will be flooded by rising sea levels, while other homes will be devastated by drought. We need to find a fair and jst way to accomodate these future refugees.

The earth has a current population of approximately 7Billion, and without the added productivity offered by chemical fertilizers, we have the capacity to feed about 3Billion.

Many agriclutural experts would dispute this. Using modern farming methods, based on organic and sustainable farming practices, we can grow as much food per acre as we currently groww with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, these more modern methods are more labor intensive than the industrial methods currently used. But that might be a good thing in a wolrld where jobs are almost as hard to come by as food.

It is a shame that 95% of the population wont care until it makes their lives miserable.

Environmentalists of various stripes have been predicting the end of the world since the 1960s, at least. You should consider the idea that 95% of the population may just be tired of "wolf!"

I consider Palm Springs a bellweather community. I think it will run out of water pretty soon. When I lived near there, there was one period where there wasn't a drop of rain for 15 months. I never read of any admonitions to cut back on water usage in that time nor did I hear of anyone talking about it. It's true that they don't depend on daily rain; they get some water from the Colorado River and the rest from the aquifer below the valley. But that aquifer's level is dropping like a rock and they continue to water the 100+ golf courses in the area and build and build more houses.

There are apparently a lot of Palm Springs out there. Texas has been in a severe drought for the last two years and that drought is expected to continue into next fall. While everyone points out the cyclic nature of the drought, this one has been far worse than any yet recorded.Recently it was reported (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-usa-drought-trees-idUSTRE7BJ24C20111220) that up to half a billion trees have been lost -- something like 10% of the total... those certainly won't return in our lifetime.

I've lived through one ecological disaster.. one that Gilding mentions in his book. In the late 1980s, early 1990s the entire North Atlantic saw a dramatic failure in the cod fishery. Catches diminished to near zero in the 1990s and have not since rebounded. The economic toll was devastating.

But the funniest part of it was that during the disaster, there was actually not a big awareness of the future impact. Most people didn't understand that their desk job in the city relied heavily on those cod catches. In fact, it was largely that disaster which lead me to move out.

In the same way, a lot of what happens in the Texas economy, or for that matter the whole South West, is being negatively shaped by this ecological disaster.

But the real impact may not be completely understood for years.

Environmentalists of various stripes have been predicting the end of the world since the 1960s, at least. You should consider the idea that 95% of the population may just be tired of "wolf!"
True, but then also it's kind of weird that the same people are very concsious about the danger of driving (seatbelts, airbags and what not) dispite ever have being in an accident and have been driving since the 1960's. Sure, there are obvious differences in the two cases but in one the rule "better safe than sorry" applies for "climate change deniers" and the other... well not so much.
My point is that even though you are not certain that climate change is a real threat, better safe than sorry is still a valid argument, especially since climate change can be a big catastrophy.

Environmentalists of various stripes have been predicting the end of the world since the 1960s, at least. You should consider the idea that 95% of the population may just be tired of "wolf!"

If I can believe what I read, it's more that they are in denial, and have not even received the message yet rather than being tired of it. We are sorry for troubling them with timely warnings rather than trying to panic them when it will be too late. Excuse us. Our humble apologies for interrupting Idol.

My point is that even though you are not certain that climate change is a real threat, better safe than sorry is still a valid argument, especially since climate change can be a big catastrophy.

Well said.

Environmentalists of various stripes have been predicting the end of the world since the 1960s, at least. You should consider the idea that 95% of the population may just be tired of "wolf!"

There has been some wolf-crying, and that hasn't been helpful. But other factors are much more significant, including:


The warnings (or wolf-cryings) were and are still valid, but they haven't reached fruition yet.

In other cases, people actually did listen to the warnings, and took action--so they never came true.

Never mind. I don't know why I keep thinking there's a point to arguing with True Believers. I'm going to go by another SUV.

That doesn't make any sense. If they haven't received the message, how can they be in denial of it?

I don't know, but you seem to be doing it! :)

The warnings (or wolf-cryings) were and are still valid, but they haven't reached fruition yet.


I disagree. It's not like climate change is going to hit us like a ton of bricks some day. There are lots of signs of the effects of warming happening just as we speak. But many people refuse to believe what they experiencing. The whole Chad/Darfur disaster is pretty much a classic case of precious resources dwindling because of over-use and the warming climate, leading to wars and other disruptions. What's happening in the Southwest right now, increase in wild fires, drought, diminishing water...

I get concerned because we expend so much energy trying to convince a bunch of people who are clearly in a denial phase. It's like trying to tell an alcoholic not to drink whiskey...

Instead we need to focus our energy to figure out how best to survive the future.

Never mind. I don't know why I keep thinking there's a point to arguing with True Believers. I'm going to go by another SUV.

Well try not to drive it off a cliff or anything.

I disagree. It's not like climate change is going to hit us like a ton of bricks some day. There are lots of signs of the effects of warming happening just as we speak. But many people refuse to believe what they experiencing. The whole Chad/Darfur disaster is pretty much a classic case of precious resources dwindling because of over-use and the warming climate, leading to wars and other disruptions. What's happening in the Southwest right now, increase in wild fires, drought, diminishing water...

I get concerned because we expend so much energy trying to convince a bunch of people who are clearly in a denial phase. It's like trying to tell an alcoholic not to drink whiskey...

Instead we need to focus our energy to figure out how best to survive the future.

Maybe it's time to just leave the idiots behind, like Noah did with his ark.

Maybe it's time to just leave the idiots behind, like Noah did with his ark.
The difference is that the idiots surrounding Noah didn't drill holes in his ark just to prove their point... (or did they?)

I think it's not that people are in denial, it's because climate change is moving so slowly that people can't tell. As Al Gore puts it, put a frog in a pot of water and slowly increases the temperature, the frog will not budge and die. But if you put a front in a hot pot of water, it will jump out.

And the common Americans are reactionaries and that's the problem that lies in their culture. They don't think about the future and think at what's in front of them. It is very simple to think what's in front of you. An example is the credit card debt crisis.

The advantage of global warming is that it may permanently end the ice age. Cooling would be far more damaging to the environment than warming- vast areas of the northern hemisphere reduced to icy wasteland.

Once the temperature has risen a few degrees and the frozen north thawed, I think we'll have to see mass migrations out of desert regions (which will probably include much of Mexico and the southern US, as well as southern Europe) into siberia, the nordic countries and northern canada. There's plenty of untapped farmland under all the snow. People will have to move out of low-lying coastal areas too (who builds on the coasts, raises the sea level and then complains about it?- people are stupid).

However, this implies people helping each other in mass-migration: something that isn't going to happen with the short-sighted mentality of just looking out for yourself.

There's plenty of untapped farmland under all the snow.

I don't think that quite true. Northern Canada is tundra... there's not much soil in most places.

Besides, I think your scenario might be way off in the future. More likely in the shorter term (say next hundred years..) we'll have tremendous disputes over resources -- land, water, oil. Some countries will fare better than others. Some of us will try to tweak things to make them work (ie, invest heavily in electric automobiles..) while other countries may decide that electric automobiles are not sustainable long term and look towards different answers. Expect to see a lot of bicycles on the streets.

Expect to see a bunch of problems like ranchers in Texas are currently seeing. Expect to see some agricultural areas suddenly find themselves unable to grow their customary crops and having to change rapidly (or relocate..) to make a go of it.

I don't think that quite true. Northern Canada is tundra... there's not much soil in most places.
Plus there is a lot of methane in the tundra. Not good to let loose...

Many agriclutural experts would dispute this. Using modern farming methods, based on organic and sustainable farming practices, we can grow as much food per acre as we currently groww with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, these more modern methods are more labor intensive than the industrial methods currently used. But that might be a good thing in a wolrld where jobs are almost as hard to come by as food.

Had that conversation with my daughter over Christmas and she is in agreement. She is currently working on her Masters in Environmental Studies, she wants to teach/work on organic farms...told her to come on down and start planting! :D

Aaron :)

It is a shame that 95% of the population wont care until it makes their lives miserable.

THIS, without a doubt!

I can see it now, too -- a BUNCH of people in denial, pounding their fists and demanding their "RIGHT" to this or that luxury that costs energy not available; more beginning to take measures to 'steal' what they think they need from others, or to find some 'underground' way to do it themselves. . . all to no avail.

Then, there will be blood in the streets for a time....

Who, ME... a doomsayer?!? Nah...just dramatic.....

The advantage of global warming is that it may permanently end the ice age. Cooling would be far more damaging to the environment than warming- vast areas of the northern hemisphere reduced to icy wasteland.

Once the temperature has risen a few degrees and the frozen north thawed, I think we'll have to see mass migrations out of desert regions (which will probably include much of Mexico and the southern US, as well as southern Europe) into siberia, the nordic countries and northern canada. There's plenty of untapped farmland under all the snow. People will have to move out of low-lying coastal areas too (who builds on the coasts, raises the sea level and then complains about it?- people are stupid).

However, this implies people helping each other in mass-migration: something that isn't going to happen with the short-sighted mentality of just looking out for yourself.

Our species evolved in an ice age, so presumably that's where we will fare the best. At any rate, it seems foolish to run mad experiments on the basic chemistry of the planet, to see what sort of new climate we can cook up.

And the mass migration--people fleeing from the changing weather patterns--seems to have started already, judging by the new neighbors I have who are from Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Sudan.

Michigan (where I live) is the only state to have lost populatinon in the past decade. I bet that trend will referse over the next couple decades, seeing as we have a relatively cool climate and one-fifth of the fresh water in the world. (Provided the Great Lakes aren't drained like the former Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea) was in Russia.

I think the Earth was full two or three generations ago, but we're only just beginning to realize it. I've thought that ever since I was old enough to understand the concept, and it was one of the reasons I chose not to breed. It seems inevitable that our population will undergo the natural trimming that occurs when growth outstrips resources. It happens in most species regularly; we've just been clever enough to postpone it for a very long time. But that probably means that it will be unusually severe when it does occur. Perhaps the saddest part is that we will also take down most of the planet's other species too.

I expect humans will survive, since we are opportunistic and adaptable. But our knowledge base and technologies, those may well be lost.

Yep, and we see more and more examples to support this argument every week. I always find it amusing when people say things like "but we could accommodate so many more people if we just distributed resources differently/lived differently/whatever". The simple fact is, our species simply doesn't have the initiative, intelligence or desire to make that happen. If you don't believe me, just look at the people who are political leaders in this day and age, and look how much attention they're paying to this issue.

Many other species have come and gone during the lifetime of this planet, and I'm fairly certain many others will come and go before the end of time. For some strange reason, humans continue to hold on to some ego-driven belief that they are "the final species" or "God's chosen people" or whatever. Fact is, we have flaws that will lead to our downfall just like every other species that disappeared has had, and we'll eventually go the same way. The next species that comes along to replace us may well labour under the same delusions, too.

Yep, and we see more and more examples to support this argument every week. I always find it amusing when people say things like "but we could accommodate so many more people if we just distributed resources differently/lived differently/whatever". The simple fact is, our species simply doesn't have the initiative, intelligence or desire to make that happen. If you don't believe me, just look at the people who are political leaders in this day and age, and look how much attention they're paying to this issue.

Many other species have come and gone during the lifetime of this planet, and I'm fairly certain many others will come and go before the end of time. For some strange reason, humans continue to hold on to some ego-driven belief that they are "the final species" or "God's chosen people" or whatever. Fact is, we have flaws that will lead to our downfall just like every other species that disappeared has had, and we'll eventually go the same way. The next species that comes along to replace us may well labour under the same delusions, too.

This is the sort of wolf-crying that I think is not so useful. I don't know if you're old enough to remember it, but people were saying the same thing in the 1960s shen I was a kid. (google "population bomb" of ZPG if you don't remember.) But the human population has more than doubled since then, and still the average person planet-wide is living better now than they were 50 years ago.

You say our species is just like all the rest, but you don't have to look beyond your computer screen to know that this is totally incorrect. Your dog doesn't build and use a computer, nor do chimps or dolphins, or dinosaurs and the other extinct species that you say we resemble. Our species clearly possesses abilities and an adaptability that separate us from all the rest--for better and sometimes for worse. I agree that humanity might be extinct in a few decades. But extinction isn't inevitable unless we fal victiml to the current trend toward irrational pessimism.

Population is not the real problem--it's cynicism and cowardice that will do us in if we decide that our own lives are not worth any effort.

This is the sort of wolf-crying that I think is not so useful. I don't know if you're old enough to remember it, but people were saying the same thing in the 1960s shen I was a kid. (google "population bomb" of ZPG if you don't remember.) But the human population has more than doubled since then, and still the average person planet-wide is living better now than they were 50 years ago.

Yet, if you look at many of the indicators, you'll see that the problem has become considerably worse since the 1960s. Global warming is definitely taking place, there are entire cities that don't know what to do with their piles of rubbish, even here in Australia about a third of our workforce are employed in "make work" positions that will be the first to go if someone ever decides to build the economy in a sustainable way. Just because something didn't happen as quickly as people predicted 50 years ago doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

BTW, since when has any post on a message board ever been "useful" -- unless you consider cheap entertainment to be a useful pursuit.


You say our species is just like all the rest, but you don't have to look beyond your computer screen to know that this is totally incorrect. Your dog doesn't build and use a computer, nor do chimps or dolphins, or dinosaurs and the other extinct species that you say we resemble. Our species clearly possesses abilities and an adaptability that separate us from all the rest--for better and sometimes for worse.

Yes, and I'm sure 95 million years ago, the dinosaurs thought they were more adaptable and able than any other species on the planet. BTW, they lasted 65 million years, I wouldn't be putting down their adaptability until our species gets close to that mark. Either way, I'm sure that the species that comes after us will dig up our remains and probably consider themselves to be far more adaptable than we were.

The thing about evolution (the thing that's been taking place for as long as there has been life on this planet) is that every species comes along for a while and thinks it's the ultimate - only to be replaced by another that is better able to adapt to the changing conditions, and ours will be no exception. Even in my lifetime I've seen plenty of limitations in human intelligence and plenty of mistakes from the past being repeated. I've seen enough to realise there are very real limitations both in our adaptability and our capacity for thought.


Population is not the real problem--it's cynicism and cowardice that will do us in if we decide that our own lives are not worth any effort.

It's not cynicism or cowardice, it's just facing the facts. And I've put plenty of effort into my own life to reach the point I am at in the world today (especially considering where I came from, but that's another thread). As I said before, there are very real limitations in terms of what our species is capable of, and the sooner you accept this, the easier it will make many facets of your life (I know that from experience too).

And while we're on the subject of cowardice, can I just take a minute to ask how many people who are complaining about this, or are about to argue with my post, have actually done something proactive beyond typing out a post on a computer? How many of you have actually gone into politics and tried to effect the change that you want to see in the world? I'm not talking about joining an "advocacy" group and going to closed meetings or coffee shop gatherings among a few like-minded individuals, I'm talking about effecting real change in the world.

Perhaps this "cowardice" is a lot more common and integral to simply being human than first thought.

Chris L: Being adaptable doesn't mean thinking. I'm not sure that individuals of any other species have ever thought: "We are the ultimate species!" As far as we know we are the most intelligent (depending on interpretation of the word) species that have ever walked the earth. The single fact that we know that we are doing wrong gives us hope. It's not lack of intelligence and knowledge that are our problem. Our problem is psychological biases towards what is closer to us and towards what is familiar to us.

It's not cynicism or cowardice, it's just facing the facts.

Facing the facts is just a starting point. It's what you do with the facts that really counts.

Chamberlain and Churchill both faced the facts in 1939. One was defeated by his cynical pessimism, the other was goaded into action. I think we're at a similar point right now. We face the fact of a sick ecosystem, and the fact that we as a species have many faults and limitations that will make action difficult. So do we just give up, or do we decide to act?



And while we're on the subject of cowardice, can I just take a minute to ask how many people who are complaining about this, or are about to argue with my post, have actually done something proactive beyond typing out a post on a computer? How many of you have actually gone into politics and tried to effect the change that you want to see in the world? I'm not talking about joining an "advocacy" group and going to closed meetings or coffee shop gatherings among a few like-minded individuals, I'm talking about effecting real change in the world.

What do you want us to do? Set ourselves on fire? One person did just that last winter, but most Tunisians and Egyptians contributed to their revolutions by going to meetings and posting on web sites that were followed by "like-minded individuals." The American Revolution started in committee meetings among a few "like-minded individuals" also. Most people thought it was a simple fact that a handful of colonial farmers could never defeat the mightiest empire the world had known. But if they had all "faced the facts" I would be drinking tea instead of coffee as I type this.


Perhaps this "cowardice" is a lot more common and integral to simply being human than first thought.

Cowardice is the best motivator there is. Churchill acted because he had a cowardly fear of Hitler, and the Tunisians wanted change because they were afraid of their dictator. I know that I'm afraid of the CO2 we're pumping into our air supply. I'm afraid that my old age will be chaotic and uncomfortable, and I'm a huge coward when I think of what faces my grandson in his old age.

But, to paraphrase a friend of Churchill's, what we must really fear is fear itself. If we succumb to it, fear will translate to a cowardly cynicism. If we fight back against fear, the result will be a more hopeful activist approach.

(For those who aren't ready to give in to fear quite yet, I suggest that you check out some like-minded individuals at 350.org. (http://www.350.org/))

Maybe it's time to just leave the idiots behind, like Noah did with his ark.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/24/145732719/op-ed-the-verdict-is-in-on-climate-change?ft=1&f=1007&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Facing the facts is just a starting point. It's what you do with the facts that really counts.

Chamberlain and Churchill both faced the facts in 1939. One was defeated by his cynical pessimism, the other was goaded into action. I think we're at a similar point right now. We face the fact of a sick ecosystem, and the fact that we as a species have many faults and limitations that will make action difficult. So do we just give up, or do we decide to act?

Well, I'm sure it's empowering to sit in front of your computer and say "we should decide to act", but in the real world it achieves nothing. It's the same at these people who sit around meetings at coffee shops and the like discussing "the need for action". The fact is, action very rarely results from these gatherings -- not to mention all the CO2 people burn to get to them (in most cases).

Personally, I've already taken action in this respect. I've never owned or driven a car (or even held a licence -- something that few, even on this forum, can honestly claim), and I've taken steps not to procreate (i.e. using condoms), but I'm also realistic about how much effect the actions of one person will have -- especially in an era where it's apparently politically correct to pay bogans to breed. BTW, I also voted against the government that brought that policy in, but they still got re-elected. And when they did get defeated, the people who replaced them did nothing to repeal that policy.


What do you want us to do? Set ourselves on fire? One person did just that last winter, but most Tunisians and Egyptians contributed to their revolutions by going to meetings and posting on web sites that were followed by "like-minded individuals." The American Revolution started in committee meetings among a few "like-minded individuals" also. Most people thought it was a simple fact that a handful of colonial farmers could never defeat the mightiest empire the world had known. But if they had all "faced the facts" I would be drinking tea instead of coffee as I type this.

You can do whatever you like if you think it will help. Yes, there have been some documented cases in history of revolutions happening from these gatherings - just the same as a broken clock is right twice a day. In most cases, however, people just keep going to the same meetings every week, saying the same things over and over until they get bored with it and find something else do to. Occasionally, you might find a cause that has enough support to get a few more people interested, but this issue, as we've seen time and again, is one that most people simply do not care about. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at how long people have been posting the same thing on this forum, then tell me how much has changed in the last 12 years as a result.

Besides, we don't yet know how much real change has resulted from the revolutions in Egypt or Tunisia. The Tunisians might have removed their dictator, but how much has their standard of living improved? How much difference did the American revolution really make to that country? Canada's still a monarchy and they still have a decent standard of living and, last I heard, a decent availability of coffee -- if that's important to you.


Cowardice is the best motivator there is. Churchill acted because he had a cowardly fear of Hitler, and the Tunisians wanted change because they were afraid of their dictator. I know that I'm afraid of the CO2 we're pumping into our air supply. I'm afraid that my old age will be chaotic and uncomfortable, and I'm a huge coward when I think of what faces my grandson in his old age.

But, to paraphrase a friend of Churchill's, what we must really fear is fear itself. If we succumb to it, fear will translate to a cowardly cynicism. If we fight back against fear, the result will be a more hopeful activist approach.


It's politically incorrect to actually say this, but we all know that the most effective way to reduce the CO2 going into the air is population reduction. Yet people still continue to breed like rabbits. The poor know full well that having fewer children is the most effective way to reduce living expenses, yet they continue to have more children than the wealthy. Sounds to me like the biggest fear people have is saying or thinking anything that might be a little politically incorrect.

And again, you can quote Churchill and talk about "cowardly cynicism", but again, nobody has laid their cards on the table and told me what steps they have personally taken to try to fight back. There seems to be a lot of ranting about the "need for action", but precious little action.

Chris L: Being adaptable doesn't mean thinking. I'm not sure that individuals of any other species have ever thought: "We are the ultimate species!" As far as we know we are the most intelligent (depending on interpretation of the word) species that have ever walked the earth. The single fact that we know that we are doing wrong gives us hope. It's not lack of intelligence and knowledge that are our problem. Our problem is psychological biases towards what is closer to us and towards what is familiar to us.

But how many people actually know they're "doing wrong"? Even on this forum, I've seen plenty of input from climate change deniers and other people who prefer to retain their current way of life than to deal the facts. On the wider internet and indeed in wider society, there are a heck of a lot more people who think that way. Recent polls here in Australia have indicated that they may even be the majority. Again, it is a lack of intelligence that is the problem here, and a lack of initiative.

I think we are very close to the tipping point, just not sure which side of it we are on...
The bad news is, is that I think we are on the side that will lead to the extinction of life on this planet. :(

But how many people actually know they're "doing wrong"? Even on this forum, I've seen plenty of input from climate change deniers and other people who prefer to retain their current way of life than to deal the facts. On the wider internet and indeed in wider society, there are a heck of a lot more people who think that way. Recent polls here in Australia have indicated that they may even be the majority. Again, it is a lack of intelligence that is the problem here, and a lack of initiative.

Is the misinformation that Fox News spews out about climate change as much of a factor in the denial in Australia as it is in the United States?

Our species evolved in an ice age, so presumably that's where we will fare the best. At any rate, it seems foolish to run mad experiments on the basic chemistry of the planet, to see what sort of new climate we can cook up.

Look at the big picture Roody. There are bound to be some major oil deposits under Antarctica. And likely some of the rare metals we need for our computers. Can you think of a better way to get rid of all that pesky ice that blocks our access to it than by global warming? The rising sea levels guarantee a boom in real estate as people relocate. I can let you in on some very attractive ocean-front homes in Arkansas when it happens. And by then it will be palm trees all around. It's a win-win-win-win-win. ;)

Is the misinformation that Fox News spews out about climate change as much of a factor in the denial in Australia as it is in the United States?

We don't get Fox News here, but there are plenty of other people in the media spewing misinformation.

To be honest, I think most of it is just people believing what they want to believe, and the media just strokes their ego by repeating it. That is, after all, a great way to sell newspapers or cable subscriptions.

Look at the big picture...
There are scenarios that would see many "winners" from this event. Particularly in northern countries.

However, this all depends on how high the average temperatures actually climb. 1C warming would probably be bearable, but anything over 2 would apparently be a rough time for all of us.

There are scenarios that would see many "winners" from this event. Particularly in northern countries.

However, this all depends on how high the average temperatures actually climb. 1C warming would probably be bearable, but anything over 2 would apparently be a rough time for all of us.

I hope you caught my wink at the end. I was strictly being sarcastic.

Our species evolved in an ice age, so presumably that's where we will fare the best. At any rate, it seems foolish to run mad experiments on the basic chemistry of the planet, to see what sort of new climate we can cook up.

And the mass migration--people fleeing from the changing weather patterns--seems to have started already, judging by the new neighbors I have who are from Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Sudan.

Michigan (where I live) is the only state to have lost populatinon in the past decade. I bet that trend will referse over the next couple decades, seeing as we have a relatively cool climate and one-fifth of the fresh water in the world. (Provided the Great Lakes aren't drained like the former Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea) was in Russia.

It doesn't add much to the conversation but while there may have been more Ice during our evolution we evolved in a warmer climate if "all anthropologist are to be believed." The Middle east or Africa seems to be the most quoted place.:D

Well, I'm sure it's empowering to sit in front of your computer and say "we should decide to act", but in the real world it achieves nothing. It's the same at these people who sit around meetings at coffee shops and the like discussing "the need for action". The fact is, action very rarely results from these gatherings -- not to mention all the CO2 people burn to get to them (in most cases).

Personally, I've already taken action in this respect. I've never owned or driven a car (or even held a licence -- something that few, even on this forum, can honestly claim), and I've taken steps not to procreate (i.e. using condoms), but I'm also realistic about how much effect the actions of one person will have -- especially in an era where it's apparently politically correct to pay bogans to breed. BTW, I also voted against the government that brought that policy in, but they still got re-elected. And when they did get defeated, the people who replaced them did nothing to repeal that policy.



You can do whatever you like if you think it will help. Yes, there have been some documented cases in history of revolutions happening from these gatherings - just the same as a broken clock is right twice a day. In most cases, however, people just keep going to the same meetings every week, saying the same things over and over until they get bored with it and find something else do to. Occasionally, you might find a cause that has enough support to get a few more people interested, but this issue, as we've seen time and again, is one that most people simply do not care about. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at how long people have been posting the same thing on this forum, then tell me how much has changed in the last 12 years as a result.

Besides, we don't yet know how much real change has resulted from the revolutions in Egypt or Tunisia. The Tunisians might have removed their dictator, but how much has their standard of living improved? How much difference did the American revolution really make to that country? Canada's still a monarchy and they still have a decent standard of living and, last I heard, a decent availability of coffee -- if that's important to you.



It's politically incorrect to actually say this, but we all know that the most effective way to reduce the CO2 going into the air is population reduction. Yet people still continue to breed like rabbits. The poor know full well that having fewer children is the most effective way to reduce living expenses, yet they continue to have more children than the wealthy. Sounds to me like the biggest fear people have is saying or thinking anything that might be a little politically incorrect.

And again, you can quote Churchill and talk about "cowardly cynicism", but again, nobody has laid their cards on the table and told me what steps they have personally taken to try to fight back. There seems to be a lot of ranting about the "need for action", but precious little action.

So here you are drilling holes in the ark. I can understand that you feel jaded and disheartened. There have been times when I experssed similar feelings, although I have always fought against it.

But I really don't understand why you choose to share these feelings. I mean, I find you interesting, and I'm glad that you share how you feel and think. BUT, if all human communication and co-operation is so hopeless, why do you bother to spend a lot of time on your posts?

BTW, I don't think you opinions on population are politically incorrect, since they seem to be widely held and frequently expressed. But you opinions are factually incorrect. These seem to be opinions you formed many years ago, and you haven't bothered to keep up with the scientific and sociological research that's been done in the meanwhile.

We don't get Fox News here, but there are plenty of other people in the media spewing misinformation.

Really? I assumed that since Rupert Murdoch is Australian he'd control large parts of the media there as he does in other countries.

It doesn't add much to the conversation but while there may have been more Ice during our evolution we evolved in a warmer climate if "all anthropologist are to be believed." The Middle east or Africa seems to be the most quoted place.:D

True, but Africa and the middle east were cooler and wetter when humans evolved than they are today. In fact, it was probably climate change in those regions (warming) that caused early humans to migrate outward.

But I really don't understand why you choose to share these feelings. I mean, I find you interesting, and I'm glad that you share how you feel and think. BUT, if all human communication and co-operation is so hopeless, why do you bother to spend a lot of time on your posts?

The truth is, I don't spend a lot of time typing out my posts. It really doesn't take that long, but since we've had about 8 inches of rain here in the last 24 hours, it's just cheap entertainment, the same reason everyone else is here, really. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what other purpose this (or any other) forum serves.

Besides, I don't recall saying "all communication is hopeless". Those are your words. I do believe the human race will, at some future point, become extinct like every other species will eventually, but that's no different from saying "we're all gonna die someday" (or do you want to argue that point, too?). It's not pessimism or cynicism, it's just facing the facts of life. Incidentally, so far I'm the only one in the thread who has actually pointed out what they are doing in their own life about the situation. That says a lot.



BTW, I don't think you opinions on population are politically incorrect, since they seem to be widely held and frequently expressed. But you opinions are factually incorrect. These seem to be opinions you formed many years ago, and you haven't bothered to keep up with the scientific and sociological research that's been done in the meanwhile.

Umm, no, my opinions aren't factually incorrect at all. You've not successfully refuted a single thing I've said, beyond basically saying "you're wrong". My posts, like yours, are based on personal opinion. Are you seriously suggesting that a smaller population in the world won't reduce the amount of CO2 in the air? This is basic mathematics, even if it's one of those politically incorrect things that we're just not supposed to say. I've noticed a few times in your posts on this particular sub-forum that you seem to have a problem with people expressing an opinion that's different to yours -- and not just my posts either. Really, if it bothers you that much, why don't you go and start a blog where you can simply delete posts you don't like.

Really? I assumed that since Rupert Murdoch is Australian he'd control large parts of the media there as he does in other countries.

He does, but I thought you were referring to the Fox News network in America. We don't get that here, in fact, I don't think we even have a news service called "Fox News".

Either way, Rupert Murdoch admitted his game some 15 years ago when he basically said he just tells people what they want to hear.