The end of the consumer economy is approaching... OR

[IrateCitizen]

"A hard rain's a-gonna fall"

It was the first President Bush who said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable." Well, whether he and the majority of Americans want to negotiate it or not, it is proving to be quite unsustainable.

In the United States, approximately 4% of the world's population currently uses over 25% of its resources. The average person in an industrialized nation uses more energy in 6 months than a person in a developing nation uses in their lifetime. And if all the nations of the world were to adopt an oil usage equivalent to the United States, assuming that global population continued to grow at a rate of 1.7% per year, all the known petroleum reserves on the planet would be depleted in a scant 20 years.

Meanwhile, back in the present, developing nations are beginning to band together to demand their seat at the grown-ups table, and are refusing to be sent back to the kids' table in the kitchen. In the recent collapse of WTO talks in Cancun, US and EU delegates pointed fingers at the developing nations. However, it was the solidarity of the Group of 22, led by Brazil, India and China, that stopped the attempts of the rich nations to impose rules to liberalize financial markets without agreeing to eliminate their own farm subsidies. Time will tell whether or not the developing nations are able to withstand the coming "divide and conquer" strategy being pursued by the EU and US, but if they do, it will change the global landscape in more ways than one.

Here's the basic problem. Developing nations want to, well, develop. As well they should -- the industrialized world has schemed to keep them down for far too long. But as they develop, a strain is placed on the world's resources even greater than we have now. Oil reserves will deplete more rapidly, the air will become dirtier, the water will be more polluted, forests will disappear even more rapidly, and the topsoil will be leached of its ability to support agriculture. Our ecosystem will be placed under such stress that it will have no option but to break under the strain, with catastrophic consequences for the future of human civilization as we know it on earth.

So how do we get out of this mess? Right now, we're denying it -- but that won't make it go away. We could attempt to transform our economies into more economies of "need" than economies of "manufactured want" -- but this would also require a great deal of political and popular will. We could also all hoard foodstuffs and ammunition into our underground bunkers, waiting for the apocalypse.

But the real question is, how can we act, and act NOW, in order to stem this from happening? How do we stop this march toward destruction and prevent the human race from being the first species to ever induce its own extinction?

Answers, anyone?

[JanMichael]

1. Most don't have or want answers.

Of course there are answers but there are some people that need to simply be disengaged from the system before substantive change can take place.

[mhr]

2. www.dieoff.org

"This is the end my friends."

The Doors

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Americans will just have to transition to globally competitive wages

There will still be consumers, just fewer of them, but those few will be able to consume MUCH MORE!

It's free market capitalism in action!

Empowerment!

[el_gato]

4. the answers are personal

I think an effort to achieve self-sufficiency will be your only way out.

As a whole humanity may destroy itself but you don't have to be a part of that. Some will make it through.

If petrol reserves fall quickly enough cataclysmic environmental destruction may be avoided since the global capitalist machine will then fail as well ending the environmental degradation process.

no easy answers here

[ramapo]

5. The graph has to turn down

I wonder about this constantly.

The first rude awakening is upon us. Developing countries are able to compete and undercut us. Hence the flow of jobs from here to there will increase significantly. Read the book "Race to the Bottom". What was viewed as a benefit (cheap manufacturing feeding our consumer habits) is going to bite us in the ass as many "good" jobs (IT and such) leave.

We depend on our service economy now for jobs. But how many Wal-Marts can we build for people to work in? It's like a Ponzi scheme.

Second, our economy is a pile of cards. Real estate values have become simply outrageous. Million dollar homes are nothing special. Many families are required to carry mortgages well into the six figures. This is fine as long as people have jobs to pay their mortgages (and other debt). But how long can constant inflation (even low inflation) continue? Until a million dollar salary is not enough and a home is $3-5,000,000. It sounds impossible but 50 years ago a salary of $5000 and homes of $15000 were pretty standard.

And we are a debtor nation (big time) both on a personal and governmental level. If (when) things go bad, the consequences can be ugly.

The potential impact on the environment of the developing countries is truly frightening, especially if they behave anything like us. Early indications are that they are even worse.

The problems we face are truly staggering yet are basically ignored. Ignorance is bliss. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. Our society has an arrogance of entitlement. We've all (mostly) enjoyed plentiful lives but common sense tells you this can't go on endlessly.

[RichM]

6. Oh sure, Chris, no problem. All you had to do was ask.

A little 10-point program of (highly unpopular) truths must be enunciated, then supported. All the points in it are known & have been set forth many times by others. The only remaining trick is to get large numbers of people to sign on, then to relentlessly follow the political consequences.

The underlying theme is that much, or MOST, of what is considered the "American Way of Life" is hogwash and must be abandoned. For example:

1) consumerism is disgusting, harmful to the world in the long run (which is fast approaching), & therefore must be phased out, & replaced by a more worthy ethos.

- Now, immediately, there will be problems here. For example: cars. There should be far fewer cars, & mass transit should be developed instead. Well, the carmakers won't like this. They will try to stop it, & they will succeed, because they have enough political clout to defend their interests. So, we see that a bedrock feature of capitalism is incompatible with taking the measures needed to protect the planet & our future.

Thus (& of course, one could offer an unlimited number of similar examples: from energy to the glossy weekly magazines to the mind-numbing filth on TV 24 hrs a day), we see that it is taboo for political leaders in our society to say things ("Capitalism itself is in basic ways harmful to our planet") which nonetheless NEED to be said. Saying these things is heresy and a sacrilege, but that doesn't make them less true.

Other points on the program are:

2) The military has to be drastically downsized. It is basically an enormous waste of money; most of the money goes to cronies of those in high office; and the resulting work has no value to anyone, aside from the cronies themselves, of course. All the associated malarkey about the military is also a bunch of insane baloney that is just going to have to be scrapped (if we ourselves, & the planet with us, are not to be scrapped). This, too: heresy, infamy, slander -- but absolutely true. Anyone standing up proclaiming the glory of the military is going to have to be re-educated. (Explicit note to readers with poor reading skills: I am speaking of the institution & social function of the military, not of the soldiers as individuals!)

3) The distribution of wealth, both domestically, & as it exists between the rich & poor countries -- is incompatible with any semblance of democracy or justice. It has to go. It is not possible to have democracy when sleezy fat slobs on Wall Street haul down hundreds of millions a year, for doing nothing but high-level swindling. It has to go -- all of this sacred bullshit has to go.

4) US imperialism -- ditto... ditto.

etc.

At the bottom of this list of 10 points, the gist will be: a very very great deal about our way of life is putrid and corrupt. All the things regarded as sacred are going to have to go -- otherwise, the only possible future is unending use of the military to force the rest of the world to let us keep eating our 25% of everything. Domestically, the future will be: unending paeans to militarism, glorification of it & its closely-related wasteful evil twin consumerism, smashing of "leftists" (Definition: anyone who dares speak the above heresies), & eventually, New York City under water from global warming, or use of nuclear weapons by someone too embittered & robbed of hope, to care about the consequences.

I know of course that YOU know these things. My main point is the necessity of developing an organized political force willing to utter "sacrilege & heresy." What up till now has been regarded as unsayable is going to have to be said. Those that start saying it are going to be smashed down & called traitors and worse. Nonetheless, these heresies must be said. There will be very unpleasant consequences for NOT saying them. Not saying them is basically doing nothing. Doing nothing leaves us with the status quo, and the timer will run out on this status quo.

A secondary point, that will certainly upset many here: the Democratic Party is not capable of being the above-referenced political force. Its progressive wing is, perhaps -- but that wing is a tiny minority. MOST of the party will be in there denying all the necessary truths, defending the absurdity of military spending, glorifying or ignoring US imperialism, & defending the interests of the car-makers, in my above example. That is what the rejection of a visionary like Kucinich and the embracing of a quasi-Republican militarist or a pro-war senator means.

[burythehatchet]

10. consider it done...

thanks btw
:)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. The basic problem is cars, and the hypocritical liberals who drive them

get your ass back to a city with public transportation or go ahead and become a Republican

/slight-sarcasm-off

[Nederland]

8. Let the "Market" work

I think you are overstating the problem. This is not to say that there is no problem, merely that I think you don't realize that the free market will prevent what you have described from happening long before the human race becomes extinct. If we let the market work...

Let's take one of the examples you cited: oil. As developing countries develop, their need for oil will naturally increase. At the same time, as we tear through the planet's oil reserves, the supply of oil will decrease. As any first year student of economics will tell you, when supply of an item decreases and demand for an item increases, the price of the item rises. So, barring intervention by governments, we can expect the price of oil to increase in the future. Eventually, and we are actually very close to this point already, the price of oil will no longer be competitive with other sources of energy. Heck, if the price of oil quadruples, even something as expensive as solar starts to look attractive.

Now this little market trick works for most items. Admittedly however, it doesn't work quite as humanely for food. If food prices rise, people can't switch to some other item. If the price of food rises to a point where some people can't afford it, those people die. In a cruel and heartless way, this is nature's way of correcting the problem. When demand for food increases to the point where not everyone can eat, demand is reduced by the resultant reduction in population. It may not be pretty, but it hardly means the end of civilization.

The last item you didn't directly bring up (but implied) has no market solution. The problem of pollution has no market solution because air and water have always suffered from what economists call the 'tragedy of commons'. When an item cannot be owned or declared property, the free market cannot work. Air and (to a lesser extent) water are by their very nature common property. The protection of these things therefore needs to be undertaken by government. Certainly we have done a much better job of protecting the environment now than we did 40 years ago, but developing countries still have a great deal of work to do in this regard. It should IMO be the role of first world countries to help them do this.

[RichM]

11. Here's how the "market" handles it, under conditions of monopoly or

oligopoly.

The oil companies jointly buy de facto control of the US government, which they grudgingly share with a few hundred other large corporations. As upward pressure on oil prices is sensed, & as it is noticed that the world's 2nd largest oil reserves ("Iraq") are virtually defenseless, a plan is devised to send the US armed forces to go knock over Iraq. The government is apprised of the wishes of the oil companies, & arrangements are made to share the loot ("reconstruction contracts") with other well-connected cronies. This then becomes "national policy."

Some temporary relief from higher oil prices is gained inside the US, since supply is now effectively greater, and "cooperation" on the Iraqi side is assured. Meanwhile, the US is in position to strangle the economies of France, Russia, Germany, etc, should they ever dare be so foolish as not to obey, when the masters in Washington give orders.

Likewise (among a zillion possible examples), the reason Los Angeles is car-dependent & has so little mass transportation, is that the "market" solved this problem in the late 1940's. Regardless of what was more efficient or better for the air, the auto companies, tire companies, & other allied industries made sure to purchase & destroy mass transit in LA.

This is what happens when corporations become too powerful: they get to make their own rules. Calling the competition "imperfect" is rather an understatement.

Regarding "nature's way of correcting the problem" when people starve to death because they can't afford food: that's only poor people who starve. That would occur, while fat slobs on Wall Street are hauling down a hundred million big ones a year, for high-class swindling. (Sometimes, indeed, it is THEIR WORK that is responsible for the misery of those that starve.) Thus, this problem is a "distribution of wealth" problem, not the lack of society's overall ability to feed everyone. Some attention ought to go to the distribution question here, which the market doesn't solve particularly well.

[Nederland]

12. Agree

I don't disagree with anything you said.

However, it seems that you didn't address my main point, which is that predictions of global doom are misplaced.

[IrateCitizen]

13. The underlying problem with "market" solutions

Nederland, I realize I'm probably tilting at windmills here, but I'll attempt to point out the fallacies of depending on market solutions when it was, to a great degree, the market philosophy of commodification that got us into this mess in the first place. But, of course, it will require stepping out of the box of false reality that we are all confined by, and putting on my hat of existentialism. :D

The primary problem with the "market", IMHO, is the fact that it reinforces a false view of reality -- one that has been increasingly reinforced as we have moved away from being directly dependent on the earth for our very life. I'm reading a fascinating book right now -- The Sacred Balance by David Suzuki -- that addresses many of these problems.

The market views everything in the earth as "resources" -- something that it somehow, separate from us. Forests are valued only for the timber they provide, rather than the intricate ecosystem that they are, both above and below the soil. Turning rainforest into "farmland" is more economically viable, so we clear-cut our most diverse sources of life above water. We have been conditioned from the time we are born to buy junk and gadgets and all kinds of worthless stuff through manufactured wants, rather than building an economy based on needs. We have perpetuated a greater number of species extinctions (at least six per hour) than any other sustained period in natural history -- all of them considered unfortunate but necessary in the pursuit of "human progress". The market has served to reinforce the false view of reality that we are, somehow, SEPARATE from our environment.

But we are NOT separate from our environment. We all are PART of our environment. Whatever damage we do to the earth in the name of "economic progress" is, in reality, damage we are doing to ourselves.

This is a problem that goes much, much, much deeper than simple "market forces". This is a problem that lies at the way we misperceive the reality of life all around us -- life as an intricate web of which we are but a single, tiny strand. Unfortunately, we are ripping that web to shreds all around us, somehow mistakenly believing that our strand will remain intact.

Now, if market forces are able to help us get out of this mess through the process of drastically changing our view of reality regarding the world around us, then I have no problem with them. However, I fear that it is precisely these "market forces" that got us INTO this mess in the first place, or at least helped to reinforce the behavior that precipitated it. That's why I find your hope in its ability to get us OUT of this mess as being incredibly misplaced.

[Nederland]

16. Value

Yes, perhaps we are tilting at windmills here, but I will give it a try :)

The market views everything in the earth as "resources" -- something that it somehow, separate from us. Forests are valued only for the timber they provide, rather than the intricate ecosystem that they are, both above and below the soil.

This is completely and utterly untrue, and it convinces me that you really do not understand how markets work. The market 'values' whatever people value. Period. Sure, it is true that a lumber company looks at a tract of land and tries to figure out what the timber on it is worth. However, it is equally true that the Nature Conservancy looks at the same tract of land and tries to figure out the value of the 'intricate ecosystem' it is part of. In a truly free market system (which we don't have when it comes to forests), both of these players have equal influence on what the market determines the value of the land to be.

For almost 100 years the Nature Conservancy has spent billions of dollars to buy land and preserve ecosystems. This money comes from people like you and me that see a value in places that goes far beyond the mere value of the resources it contains. To say that the market does not recogize and is not influenced by the existence of millions of people that have contributed billions of dollars is pure ignorance. Of course this money influences the market. The market takes into account every desire and value of every player that participates in it with perfect and objective clarity. The market is a mere reflection of what people want.

The real problem, I suspect, is that you do not want to believe what the market is telling you about what our society wants. People can tell a pollster that protecting old growth forests is 'really' important to them, but unless they are willing to put a significant portion of their income or time toward that goal they are lying. How we spend our money is a far more accurate gauge of our true values than any survey. So long as our society continues to spend its money on 'junk and gadgets and all kinds of worthless stuff' instead of what you believe is 'truly important' nothing will change. Instead of trying to change the system, you should be trying to change what people believe and how they think. Again, the market is a mere reflection of what people want. The problem is, what the market is telling us is that we don't give a shit about the environment.

The problem is not the market, the problem is us.

[RichM]

18. To some extent, a chicken & egg problem...

Of course there is truth to the idea that "The problem is not the market, the problem is us." OTOH, in the market system, every player is allotted votes in proportion to his wealth. The corporations have most of the wealth, so they get the most votes. They use some of this to influence (or dominate) public opinion, & to create market "demand" for "junk ...and all kinds of worthless stuff," & to dull the types of consciousness that would make saving forests seem a more pressing public interest than buying worthless gadgetry.

The barriers against ever breaking out of this cycle are enormous. In the phrase you use about "what the market is telling you about what our society wants," the words "our society" actually refer to desires produced in the public by advertising, & to other potential desires (ie, forest conservation) suppressed by advertising. You say "Instead of trying to change the system, you should be trying to change what people believe and how they think," but the system itself militates against any such changes.

The problem is us, - meaning, "our attitudes" -- but these are largely created & held in place by the market system.

[Nederland]

24. Corporate Wealth

The corporations have most of the wealth, so they get the most votes.

Corporations only have what money consumers have given them of their own free will. If corporations have too much money and power, it is only because we the people gave it to them.

[IrateCitizen]

25. But in your market, it's the corporations who present the choices

You act as if it is the people who exercise complete control over corporations, simply through our patterns of spending. I can't let this slide, even though it is wandering off of the original topic.

It is not the consumers who use advertising to manufacture wants, it is the corporations. Now, I am certain that you are going to say, "Nobody is forcing you to pay attention to it," but that's avoiding the reality of it. You cannot escape from advertising in our society. It is EVERYWHERE. It's on TV, radio, billboards, storefronts, inside stores -- EVERYWHERE. This advertising is made to manufacture wants, plain and simple. Like I said in my second reply to you, there are some of us who are able to see through this false reality, but we are a small minority.

Secondly, when you assume that you are voting through your purchases, you are voting only on the alternatives that these corporate interests give you. THEY are the ones who frame the parameters of the debate. Even if you want "C", you can't get it because only "A" and "B" are being made available.

As for the people "giving" power to corporations, I would say that it was more of a case of the corporations seizing that power. Which, in turn, gets us back to the underlying issue of our society being one that encourages selfishness and exploitation rather than cooperation and compassion.

Ugh! I think I'm getting dizzy! :freak:

[IrateCitizen]

19. Believe it or not, I think you just narrowed the gap between us...

I agree that the problem is not with "the system", but rather is with "us". If you notice, I did acknowledge in my initial reply to you that I would be perfectly happy to accept free markets should they truly be able to help extricate us from the mess we've made of our habitat. But as much as I try, I still cannot share your unshakable faith in the infallability of markets.

For example, I think that one major fallacy in your analogy regarding forests needs to be pointed out. You brought up the example of the Nature Conservancy buying up huge tracts of land in order to preserve them. The problem with this kind of approach is the same as "voting through your purchases" -- it is based on the principle of one dollar, one vote. This could more accurately be described as the golden rule of capitalism, as in, "He who has the gold, rules."

And I find this assessment to be one from la-la land, to be quite honest:
The market takes into account every desire and value of every player that participates in it with perfect and objective clarity. The market is a mere reflection of what people want.

I think that, more often than not, the market manufactures wants in order to exploit profits. I would hardly say that most people buy into consumerism because it makes them happy, rather they buy into it because they have been conditioned to do so. While there are some of us who have learned to reject this false reality (created by this vaunted "market", I might add), we are an extremely small minority.

There is no mechanism or system out there that "takes into account every desire and value of every player that participates in it with perfect and objective clarity." That is because nothing occurs in a vacuum, there is ALWAYS an outside influence. To be blunt, I find it amazing that you are willing to accept any "system" so uncritically and unquestioningly.

I guess the one area in which we do agree is that the problem lies within US. Each one of us, both individually and collectively. You will notice that I have not tried to address this problem by imposing a certain "system" on people. Rather, I have recognized the need to "be the change I wish to see in the world" -- and by working simply to expand this message. I don't put faith in systems like you do, Nederland, because systems will not change until we change the basic perceptions that lie within us.

I realize that the tone of my post may seem like more of a disagreement than agreement, but I prefer to look at it as if we agree on the major theme, and the disagreement is on something peripheral to that major theme, not a main part of it.

[IrateCitizen]

40. Further blasting your "market fundamentalism" out of the water...

The overriding goal of the "economy" since the Eisenhower days (and voiced by his Council of Economic Advisors) was "production of consumer goods". By consumer goods we're not talking about basic foodstuffs, clothing, and the things we need to survive. By consumer goods we're talking about all of the mindless junk that clutters our lives.

THIS is the emphasis of this "market" that you hold so high -- selling more and more junk that people really don't need, so they'll work more and more hours to be able to afford it, and will in turn buy more and more junk to "make their lives easier" and "feel happy".

Only we both know that it's a false, fleeting happiness -- at best.

Now, since THIS is the way that the "market" works, how do you suppose it will cease this destructive practice? Will it stop it BEFORE the ecological crisis is imminent? No -- because the crisis is ALREADY imminent. It will seek instead to squeeze every little last drop of profit and market share out of the system it has created and reinforced all these years.

Are you going to place all the blame on "the people" for this state of affairs? Before you do, you are fully aware of the reach of advertising, right? You are aware that this "market" seeks to advertise DIRECTLY TO CHILDREN in order to "brand" them from an early age, right? You are aware that the marketing strategies used are meant to encourage children to nag their parents until they give in and buy them "stuff", right? You are aware of how difficult it is, psychologically speaking, to transcend this kind of conditioning that you often receive from the day you're old enough to be aware of your surroundings, right?

In other words, your reliance on the "market" to solve these problems is a bunch of mularkey. I really don't know how else to put it. This isn't an anti-capitalist argument -- it's simply a matter of looking intelligently at the situation and realizing how we got here in the first place, and what we can do to get out of it. If you wish instead to keep your head buried solidly in the sand and adhere to ideology, well... that's your problem.

No, on second thought... it's not just your problem. It's a problem for the entire human race.

[izzie]

9. I think yout numbers are wrong and we use 75% but the pronlem??

You can not believe we will give up anything so how can it be done

[IrateCitizen]

14. No, it is 25%

You have to remember that Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan and Australia (plus many others) are using a disproportionate amount of energy. The 25% figure is accurate.

[IrateCitizen]

15. AM Kick!

I'm hoping this isn't a topic with too much "depth" to be discussed by the GDF crowd.... :-)

[amazona]

17. we are not going to run out of oil

The future looks black but not because we are in danger of running out of oil. Dieoff.org is promoting the same kind of hysteria that went around in the early 1970s and again in the early 1980s and again...These predictions have panned out about as well as the Bible's predictions that Jesus would return in the lifetime of the apostles. When serious scientists look at the world's petroleum reserves, they are justified in considering "uh oh, we're running out of oil" hysterics to be chicken littles. We are not even in danger of running out of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, which is an extremely mature oil field. There is plenty of deep oil remaining, and we have the technology to get this oil. But, while oil is relatively cheap, it just makes good sense strategically to drain the reserves of other nations and regions and to leave our reserves in the ground. Meanwhile, people in Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma are frustrated that the oil companies will not drill on their property and pay them their royalties because the oil coming from elsewhere is still too cheap.

I am not worried about the human race dying out. It won't. What will die out is the magic and beauty of the world. Thousands upon thousands of species will be extinct in a few decades -- many thousands are extinct already but we don't have enough people to document their extinction, just think about how long it is taking to confirm the extinction of Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (extinct in the early 1990s in Cuba, earlier in the U.S.) or Bachmann's Warbler (probably extinction date the 1960s). A great many wild flowers and shrubs are probably extinct or a few years from extinction. And I am talking about in North America. We don't even have a pimple on the butt of a clue about what we are losing in less studied parts of the world. Be that as it may, the minority who care about the beautiful and the wild have always been that, the minority. The majority is afraid of anything uncontrolled, be it as tiny as a spider or as large as a tiger. (Truthfully, you would not want a tiger charging through your backyard either.)

People will keep breeding, and we will keep finding new technologies to feed them, like the catfish and tilapia farms, until every corner of the earth is crowded in, and there is nothing beautiful or mysterious left. Unfortunately, I don't see a damn thing we can do about this. Most people would rather have a new car in their driveway than a new butterfly in their garden.

We can and should be working on ways to reduce our use of fossil fuel, if only because of the greenhouse effect, but worrying about "the end of oil" is a distraction, as it isn't going to happen. People would be amazed if they did a little research on this topic. Petroleum is almost everywhere (only a slight exaggeration) -- yes, even in North Korea. :-)

If the consumer economy comes to an end, and it may, it will be through lack of confidence rather than lack of oil. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." If I were in a position to do so, I would be authorizing a new New Deal and a new WPA, with huge numbers of jobs being created to research the transition away from fossil fuels (but not because of lack of oil, but because of global climate change), restoration of eroded coastlines and other environments, studies of populations of plants and animals, searches for extinct and near-extinct species, etc. and so on. Protecting and <b>restoring</b> the environment would be a huge task that would create millions of jobs. The oil industry will <b>never</b> hire so many people again as they did in the late 1970s/early 1980s, there is no need -- computers make that sort of work so much more efficient. We have to create jobs that can't be done by computer, whether the job be as simple as butterfly landscaping on public grounds or as complex painstakingly restoring an entire prairie ecosystem on former cattle-graising grounds.


where's my oil well?

[IrateCitizen]

22. The central argument I presented was actually not OIL

The oil issue was just one smaller one in the greater theme. The problem is the way in which we are already ravaging the planet, and the way we will absolutely destroy it if we continue down the current path.

What do we do if the majority of the developing nations are able to "develop" -- and centered on the same petroleum-based economic model that we used? What damages do you think will be done to the air and water as a result of the pollution that will result? Even if reserves are NOT depleted, the planet will rapidly become uninhabitable to humans -- and the majority of other species.

It's interesting that you brought up food. Did you know that it takes approximately 1,000 years to create just under 2 inches of topsoil? Over the past hundred years, we have been rapidly destroying the topsoil all over our planet. How do we sustain agriculture, when there is no soil left in which to grow the food? Do we change over to "catfish and tilapia farms"? What then happens with all of the waste that is created by these farms, and the aquatic ecosystems that are destroyed as a result? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

It's nice to believe that all is well and good, that despite the fact that we are destroying the natural world, we will survive. Such optimism flies in the face of reality. We cannot destroy the "natural world" and still survive, because we are a part of the natural world. As much as we seem to have forgotten, we are but one strand in the web of life. As we thrash around and destroy all the strands around us, sooner or later, our strand will break as well...

[BeFree]

29. There it is again!

"Technology will save us!

The problem is: WE can't afford the technology!

We have the tech to clean the water, clean the air, and move about efficiently. It's here, it's on the shelf. But we can't afford it and we never will. But we can afford $87B to rebuild Iraq. Go figure!

[IrateCitizen]

31. Actually, reliance on technology is part of the problem

Because technology is limited to our understanding of the "laws of the natural world". And the "laws of the natural world" that we have created in order to better compartmentalize it really only show us the 10% of the iceberg above water, at most.

More important is for us to rediscover the bond that we have with the environment -- that WE are PART of the environment, and IT is part of US. We pollute air and water, yet we are made of air and water. We carelessly kill off other species, yet it is from these other species that we are nourished.

It's an effort to take a much more spiritual look at our relationship with the world. But, then again, I know that the mention of that word "spiritual" is certain to set some people off on a tangent. :eyes:

[BeFree]

32. Spiritual

Yeah, I agree with you Irate Citizen. The loss of a spritual connection is going to be our downfall. Just like in the Garden of Eden.

However, those with a spritual connection may be the ones to inherit the Earth, eh? Peace

[IrateCitizen]

33. Nah, we'll all be slaughtered in the last battles over "resources"

Just before the oceans begin to boil and life has to reset itself. But although we will perish, LIFE will still go on, regardless.

[dpibel]

35. About that oil

With all due respect, I think you are either making a semantic argument without much real-world application, or making an unsupportable claim.

If, by "we will never run out of oil," you mean, "there will always be some oil, somewhere, that can be extracted, even if only for the sake of looking at it," you are correct. If, however, you mean, "there will always be cheap oil," I think you are quite wrong. The fact that the technology exists to extract deep oil does not mean that it makes sense to use that technology. The first problem arises as the dollar cost per extracted barrel rises to the point where only the wealthy can afford oil. The second problem arises when the energy cost per extracted barrel exceeds the energy contained in that extracted barrel. At that point, the oil is still there, for sure; we haven't run out of oil, but it no longer makes sense to take it out of the ground.

If, on the other hand, you are making the simple claim that the supply of oil is infinite, I'd be interested in knowing the source of your information. If you're relying on Thomas Gold's theory that oil is not a fossil fuel, and there's a vast supply locked in the mantle, let's hear that. Even if Gold is correct (and I've read his argument, and his credentials and track record are impressive), the extraction-cost problem still remains. Beyond that, rolling the dice on one man's theory is a pretty big gamble, given the stakes.

As for the notion that human beings are immune from extinction (and I realize you didn't use that precise formulation; but I think it's a fair treatment of your point), oil or lack thereof, is not the limiting factor for your vision of an Earth jammed full of humans. The limiting factor which may kick in well before cheap oil runs out is water. Contrary to popular opinion, the supply of usable water isn't infinite. Like oil, the technological solutions--desalinization, harvesting the ice caps--suffer from the same problems as oil. If you can purify seawater, but nobody can afford it, it's not much use for a world of wall-to-wall people.

Such food "solutions" as catfish and tilapia farms do little but modify the flow of inputs. You have to feed those fishies something, and that something is other kinds of food. Granted, fish are more efficient at converting grain to animal protein than are cows. But you still bump up against limits, especially when you reach a point where oil (transportation, fertilizer, and farm equipment) drives up the price of agricultural products.

Finally, we simply don't know enough about deep ecology to say whether the extinctions you acknowledge will merely remove the magic from life, or will eventually result in an imbalance so severe as to result in the extinction of human life. There may be some tipping point, beyond which a cascade occurs with all manner of unanticipated effects. I'm not saying this is the case; I'm saying we just don't know.

[amazona]

42. have to oversimplify for the sake of not bloviating too long

I go on too long as it is...but here is a little more:


I used to be in the petrochemical industry. I am not a follower of Gold. I just know, as most people in oil and gas do know, that there is a hell of a lot of oil out there.

THe "end of oil" has been predicted since at least 1960, which is when all "economic" reserves were supposed to have been extracted from the Gulf of Mexico. I can assure you that there are still plenty of reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, even though it is a very mature oil field. And that is just one tiny area of the world'd proven reserves.

I think the evidence is quite sound that we will need to restrict our use of fossil fuel (this includes coal, as well as petroleum) because of the severe effects of global climate change...long, long, long before it could be physically possible to even come close to extracting the world's oil reserves.

If you give credence to Gold (I remain a skeptic), then there are even more reserves than that.

Documenting the world's petrochemical reserves would require a huge document, which puts me at a disadvantage when debating with the dieoff.org crowd, alas. Just documenting reserves in a small area of the Gulf can keep a person quite busy.

I think it is unlikely that the human race will go extinct, with or without an environment, because there are at least a certain number of people who can live in completely unnatural, miserable environments such as on a space station or in Antarctica or in a prison. There may not be billions of people, but there will be hundreds, even if the only protein available is cockroaches. No matter how chains of life are broken, we don't seriously believe that roaches will go extinct, do we?

I wouldn't care to live such a life, but most of the centuries of human existence have been short, brutish, cruel, and ugly, as the saying goes, and some people always survive no matter how depressing the conditions. I think we have to exaggerate to get our point across in a brief post, rather than a huge dissertation, but I find it hard to believe that a species that can live on the ISS can't live in a cave even with a greatly diminished ecosystem. That is why I believe we will lose not our species just everything that makes our existence worthwhile.


clearly this depressing speculation is just that, a depressing speculation that i hope will be proved wrong

[the_real_38]

20. The problem with your argument is .....

... it's too rational, and not practical enough. Everything you said is true. But these themes are too well-masked in the TV culture of Lifestyle Nation.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Yeah, I know... but it just helps to talk about it with an audience...

... that is a little bit more receptive. ;-)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Good job Chris

this is where we are all headed, and we have to continue this dialogue and take it to the inevitable conclusion.

[Terwilliger]

26. Destroy capitalism

it is the enemy of the people..it is the whore of simple-minded power-mongers...it is the hope of those too poor to realize that they'll never have an adequate share...it is a system that builds itself up without regard to human want or need...

We could get rid of it, but I think praying to god would actually produce more substantive results than trying to wean the world from capitalism.

[IrateCitizen]

27. Thanks for the blatant sideswipe, Terwilliger

We could get rid of it, but I think praying to god would actually produce more substantive results than trying to wean the world from capitalism.

Personally, I would have thought that you would have calmed down from a heated discussion without taking anything personally because, well, it was simply a passionate discourse.

I see that I thought wrong about you.

Riddle me this, Terwilliger. If you abolish capitalism, and replace it with another system, what does that do to solve the general ethos of selfishness and lack of compassion that permeates our society? Will it instantly disappear? Or will the selfish simply seize the levers of power of the NEW system, working it to their advantage once again?

You know, kind of like how all the old party bosses in the USSR suddenly became die-hard capitalists in the early 1990's at the expense of the rest of the population. Or how about the way that Emma Goldman described her experiences in Soviet Russia shortly after the revolution?

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

[RichM]

28. Quick question about the Suzuki book --

I saw him on Moyers & liked him very much. I saw Part 1 of "The Sacred Balance" on PBS, & thought it interesting, but was a bit disappointed in that it didn't directly grapple with the conflict between environmental protection & the interests of the status quo. This issue may well have been dealt with in later segments of the series; I never saw them. Does the book get directly & deeply into this area?

[IrateCitizen]

30. The book is on much more of a spiritual than political level

I think that's one of the reasons I identify with it so much. Some of my favorite memories of growing up were just wandering through the woods, feeling my connection with nature.

For instance, he has quotes from Native Americans peppered throughout his book, highlighting the relationship that we, as humans, have with the earth -- how we are dependent on it. He uses these to highlight how we have set about destroying it, and, destroying ourselves in the process.

In general, it's a call for awakening to larger truths, to abandoning the perspective that our being stops at our skin. He proposes that we ARE the environment, and everything in the environment is also us. As such, when we spoil the environment, we are really spoiling ourselves.

[IrateCitizen]

34. One last kick for more input and unanswered questions.

[John_Shadows_1]

36. All too true, brother...

... if everyone in China were to own a car - it would kill us all on the way. resource depletion gets no press, because it places absolute limits on our economic model.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. Life is finite

people can't handle the truth.

[sandnsea]

38. We have to change

It is so obvious that the entire world cannot consume at the rate Americans consume and consuming is what drives our economy. Putting aside the environmental damage, it's pure common sense that there just aren't enough resources for the world to consume at the rate of Americans. Clean, renewable energy and self-sustaining living spaces and communities are the solution. It's sad to see so many in this thread don't get it. One more reason I'm voting for Kerry.

[IrateCitizen]

41. We currently consume as much as 1.3 planets can provide...

Our current way of life is simply non-sustainable, regardless of whether or not developing nations actually "develop" to our way of living. We are currently using 30% more resources than the earth is able to provide, and if everyone lived "the American way of life", the figure would be 500% more than the earth can provide.

I really like Kerry's take on renewable energy, and it's a good step. But, to be quite honest, Kucinich is the only one proposing anything remotely close to what needs to happen -- and even HE doesn't go nearly far enough. The fact of the matter is that the current political climate won't really take anywhere close to the necessary steps that we need.

It's sad, but unfortunately it's true.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Gee don't you watch Fox news?

We don't need to hear from you crazy gloom and doomers! We can have everything! Lower taxes, lower gas prices, bigger cars, greener lawns, nukular power, Homeland Security

Because we're America, land of the free home of the brave , amber waves of grain and purple skies!!

anything else is just crazytalk! Good night nurse! Wake up and smell the coffee! The going gets tough, the tough get going!

Fool me once shame on me! Fool me twice....we won't get fooled again!

Capiche?
:nuke: