Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Heinberg: The End of Growth

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 05:54 PM
Original message
Heinberg: The End of Growth
Here are some excepts from an excerpt of a provocative upcoming book by Richard Heinberg.
The End of Growth

The central assertion of this book is both simple and startling: Economic growth as we have known it is over and done with.

The economic crisis that began in 2007-2008 was both foreseeable and inevitable, and it marks a permanent, fundamental break from past decades—a period during which most economists adopted the unrealistic view that perpetual economic growth is necessary and also possible to achieve. There are now fundamental barriers to ongoing economic expansion, and the world is colliding with those barriers.

There are three primary factors that stand firmly in the way of further economic growth:
  • The depletion of important resources including fossil fuels and minerals;
  • The proliferation of environmental impacts arising from both the extraction and use of resources (including the burning of fossil fuels)—leading to snowballing costs from both these impacts themselves and from efforts to avert them and clean them up; and
  • Financial disruptions due to the inability of our existing monetary, banking, and investment systems to adjust to both resource scarcity and soaring environmental costs—and their inability (in the context of a shrinking economy) to service the enormous piles of government and private debt that have been generated over the past couple of decades.
We have become so accustomed to growth that it’s hard to remember that it is actually is a fairly recent phenomenon.

During the past few millennia, as empires rose and fell, local economies advanced and retreated—but world economic activity expanded only slowly, and with periodic reversals. However, with the fossil fuel revolution of the past two centuries, we have seen growth at a speed and scale unprecedented in all of human history. We harnessed the energies of coal, oil, and natural gas to build and operate cars, trucks, highways, airports, airplanes, and electric grids—all the essential features of modern industrial society. Through the one-time-only process of extracting and burning hundreds of millions of years’ worth of chemically stored sunlight, we built what appeared (for a brief, shining moment) to be a perpetual-growth machine. We learned to take what was in fact an extraordinary situation for granted. It became normal.

But as the era of cheap, abundant fossil fuels comes to an end, our assumptions about continued expansion are being be shaken to their core.

In effect, we have to create a desirable “new normal” that fits the constraints imposed by depleting natural resources. Maintaining the “old normal” is not an option; if we do not find new goals for ourselves and plan our transition from a growth-based economy to a healthy equilibrium economy, we will by default create a much less desirable “new normal” whose emergence we are already beginning to see in the forms of persistent high unemployment, a widening gap between rich and poor, and ever more frequent and worsening financial and environmental crises—all of which translate to profound distress for individuals, families, and communities.

There's a lot of substance in the original article. Much of it has been discussed here in drive-by fashion, but Heinberg puts some meat on the bones of our current situation.

I find little to quibble with. Heinberg's conclusion that we need to change our definitions of success, our goals and the places we look for happiness echo my own thoughts. When a course of action had reached a dead end, giving up on it and choosing a new one is the apogee of realism. Our civilization has reached such a dead end with regard to material growth. It's time to make some radical new choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. OK "Economic growth as we have known it is over" but economic growth of a different type will
accelerate.

Those without wealth and those who are intellectually unable to contribute will be left behind.

That's what many science fiction writers suggest and they may be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Only if the next phase of growth is also defined as "economic" growth.
As long as we remain slaves to the "economic" world view we will (can) only reprise past failures.

What's going to happen inevitably at some point will be a shift to values that are essentially orthogonal to those of the last 300 or so years. The shift is inevitable because the material and ecological underpinnings of our current value system will be exhausted and no longer able to support the edifice. Because of the human capacity for self-delusion the shift will not become general until we are deep into the difficulties, but realistic, insightful individuals and communities can get a head start on things.

There is nothing keeping any of us from changing our values right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Extend a Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. It always amazes me that everyone just assumes
that perpetual growth is a perfectly reasonable goal. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Impressive credentials for writing about global problems...
The man has two years of higher education, no expertise at all in the field of energy or economics and his list of writings align much closer to someone trying to make a buck off of sensationalistic exploitation of fear than someone with an opinion worth paying attention to.
* Memories and Visions of Paradise: Exploring the Universal Myth of a Lost Golden Age (1989; revised edition, 1995; British edition, 1990; Portuguese edition, 1991)
* Celebrate the Solstice: Honoring the Earth’s Seasonal Rhythms through Festival and Ceremony (1993; Italian edition, 2002; Portuguese edition, 2002)
* A New Covenant with Nature: Notes on the End of Civilization and the Renewal of Culture (1996; Portuguese edition, 1998)
* Cloning the Buddha: The Moral Impact of Biotechnology (1999; Indian edition, 2001; Japanese edition, 2001; Chinese edition, 2001)
* The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2003; British, Italian, German, Spanish, and Arabic editions, 2004–2005; revised North American edition, 2005; Spanish edition, 2007; French edition, 2008)
* Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (2004; British edition 2005)
* The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism, and Economic Collapse (2006; British edition, 2006)
* Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines (2007)
* Blackout: Coal, Climate, and the Last Energy Crisis (2009).

In short, he's a flake. You might as well be listening to Half Gov Palin trying to solve the world's woes.


Heinberg, after two years in college and a period of personal study, became personal assistant to Immanuel Velikovsky in November 1979 and after Velikovsky's death assisted Mrs. Velikovsky editing manuscripts.<1><2> He published his first book in 1985, Memories and Visions of Paradise: Exploring the Universal Myth of a Lost Golden Age,<3> which was the result of ten years of study of myths of paradise. An expanded second edition was published in 1989.<4> This book grew out of his May 31, 1980, address at the Kronos Princeton Seminar, "Velikovsky: The Decade Ahead" which was titled "The Garden, the Fall, and the Restoration".<5> He began publishing his alternative newsletter, the Museletter, in 1992. His next book was published in 1993: Celebrate the Solstice: Honoring the Earth's Seasonal Rhythms through Festival and Ceremony.<6>

In November 1994, he presented "Catastrophe, Collective Trauma and the Origins of Civilization" at the conference "Velikovsky, Ancient Myth and Modern Science", sponsored by Kronia Communications in cooperation with Aeon: A Symposium on Myth and Science in Portland, Oregon.

In June 1995, speaking to the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations in Dayton, Ohio, Heinberg provided "A Primitivist Critique of Civilization"<7> and discussed the ways in which "We are, it would seem, killing the planet."

In January 1997, at the conference "Planetary Violence in Human History" in Portland, Oregon, sponsored by Kronia Communications, he presented "Environmental Catastrophes and the Changing Attitudes Towards Women, Children, Animals, and Nature".

His books from the later 1990s address the relationships between man and the natural world. In 1998 he began teaching at New College of California. Also in 1998, he served on the Advisory Board of Directors for The Mind Exploration Corporation under the leadership of David Talbott.<8>

In 2004, Heinberg provided the closing address for the First US Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions. His title was "Beyond the Peak".


More at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Heinberg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well, from experience around here
Edited on Sun Nov-14-10 09:31 PM by Confusious
Some people learn and grow more in two then some do in 8 or ten, or a lifetime.

I have no idea who this guy is, or if I even agree with him, or whether he's full of shit or not.

A college education is not everything, even though some make it out to be. You can still be an idiot, even with one (Sarah Palin).

I think it's even more sad if you're an idiot and do have a degree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Ah, he needs permission to think.
Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. He doesn't need permission to think.
He needs to learn the fundamentals of what he wants to understand and opine about.

I don't agree with Nnads on much, but I am solidly in his camp when he shouts "ignorance kills".

Considering you openly embrace fact free analysis in favor of making it up because it feels good to you (link available on request) I'm not surprised you are impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. His bio is filled with, shall we say, some major embellishments?
"Richard Heinberg is the author of nine books and is widely regarded as one of the world's most effective communicators of the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels."

"widely regarded as one of the world's most effective communicators of the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels".

Really? Seriously? By who? The Art Bell peanut gallery?

"...Senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute in California, Heinberg is best known as a leading educator on Peak Oil and its impacts."

The Post Carbon Institute, eh? Senior Fellow-in-Residence you say?

REALLY?

Are they affiliated with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? There seems to me a certain similarity in the nature of these two "Institutes" ... nuclear energy.
http://www.oism.org/


Did you mention that? That the takeaway of his book is to leave people thinking they MUST have nuclear energy when in fact that premise is a falsehood promoted *by* the nuclear industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Ahhh, I see now, he may support nuclear power

So he must be personally attacked.

No one is allowed to disagree, or else they are part of the cabal keeping renewables down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. He doesn't, but I suspect he's also not sufficiently adamant in denouncing it
We have an interesting situation here where insufficient criticism for nuclear power is being re-labelled as "support". It gives the whole sorry situation a rather demagogic HUAC-like flavor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. What a breathtaking smear!
OISM??? You've lost your fucking mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Right....
How so? He has no training or credentials beyond 2 years of college. He was employed by a itty bitty "college" run by a crackpot that had its accreditation pulled and closed while he was "core faculty".

Now he operates out of a phony "institute" and describes himself as "one of the world's most effective communicators of the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels."

That is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Oh yeah, and he is a 911 Truther.

I see less validity there than what the jackass at OISM is able to lay claim to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. That reminds me
You've never laid out your credentials for us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Are you sure he supports nuclear power?
There's nothing about it in that extract; from a summary of his 2004 "The Party's Over", published by the Post Carbon Institute:

Thus, there are two basic paths our society could take in response to the coming energy crisis. One, the path of denial, is currently practiced by our political and corporate leaders here in the U.S. As energy from fossil fuels starts to decline, the people in control of our political and economic systems will take increasingly desperate measures to keep their hold on power and to keep the privileged lifestyle of their social class intact.

They will step up repression of dissent and will wage war on any country that might have resources they want. They will blame "terrorists," "foreign enemies," and "liberals" for our mounting problems and will increasingly erode our constitutional rights, a process that is already underway. They will call for an increased reliance on nuclear power, coal, and other non-renewable energy sources to keep society running-with the predictable consequences of nuclear accidents, greatly increased pollution, endless military adventures, global warming disasters, and the wasting of an immense amount of capital on non-solutions like the hydrogen economy.
...
Nuclear Power - Since its inception, nuclear power has been dogged by the unsolved problem of radioactive waste disposal. It is also by far the most expensive conventional energy source-if you take into account all the costs of uranium mining, plant construction and maintainance, plant decommissioning, and waste storage. In addition to the cost, the ratio of the total amount of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is fairly low-nothing like the 100 to 1 ratio of petroleum in its heyday.

Scaling up the production of electricity from nuclear power would be slow and costly. Just to replace current electricity generated by oil and natural gas in the U.S. would take about 50 new nuclear power plants, and this would do nothing to replace losses of energy to transportation and agriculture as oil becomes scarcer. In short, nuclear power is not a good bet to make up for the declining quantity of energy from fossil fuels in the coming decades.

http://www.postcarbon.org/files/EndOfOilBooklet_0.pdf


Doesn't sound like a nuclear power advocate to me. :shrug: He could have done a U-turn in the past 6 years, but perhaps you should show that he has done so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. As of 2009 he sure didn't.
From Searching for a Miracle - "Net Energy Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society:

As fossil fuels’ supply dwindles and becomes more costly and polluting, renewed attention is on nuclear,
and a theoretical “4th generation” of safer technology. But, as with proposed “clean coal” technology,“new
nuclear” remains in the realm of scientific imagination, with high odds against it, and terrible downside
potential. Problems of safe production, transport, waste disposal, ballooning costs, and limits of uranium
supply are not nearly resolved. And nuclear’s “net energy” ratio—the amount of energy produced vs. the
amount expended to produce it—is low, putting it squarely into the category of “false solution.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. It doesn't matter if he does or not
Certain people on this board see nuclear boogeymen behind every bush, every street corner, every fire hydrant, and devote their online lives to fighting them, even if they're the only ones who can see them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. He puts you to shame
And this coming from someone who doesn't understand how oil run everything, including so called alternatives that will never save the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. People who study economics or energy are *not* equipped to judge our resource utilization.
Indeed, their whole field of study and research inherently depends on having a view that rejects this sort of thing outright.

So I would argue that this guys insight is just as worthy as anyone else's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Why is his book listed in "business and economics"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Irrelevant. We're talking about credentials.
He's covering an angle that runs against the grain of atypical economics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Right I forgot, you are the "push the counter-culture meme" guy.
So we have nuke plants that are great and solve all our problems but we can't use them because the "nuclear industry" doesn't accept them (need a link?).

And we have to reject all of our specialists studying the use of energy as an natural resource because they too are too foolish to recognize the truths than the layman brings to bear on the heart of what escapes all those educated idiots.

As far as I can tell, that is your fundamental defense when the weight of science is too much for you to endure.

Precisely how does that differ from the drumbeat of anti-intellectual drivel we hear from the right? Because, you see, I really can't find a difference. Your particular reality to ignore is that "economics" is a tool, not an ideology. When used by someone seeking understanding it can be used to verify or disprove the content of what is written in the OP. It can also be misused by those seeking to serve any given dark goal to create sophistry to deceive people.

That's why we have peer review.

That's why people trust academic institutions and treat critically books on complex topics by those with no proven background IN those topics.

Tell you what, the next time you need dental work, why don't you call a plumber. They make house calls, have similar tools, and after you factor in the money you'll save by having the foresight to consult an expert without the ulterior secret motives of your dentist, it will probably even be less expensive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. "That's why we have peer review."
Says the man (?) who wouldn't know peer review from a bologna sandwich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Oh! the personal attacks! oh my can't we stop the personal attacks!

Don't agree with it and the personal attacks start! Oh, my!

wooof. Sorry I was jut channeling someone from somewhere. Seemed familiar, but I guess it really doesn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. He claims scholarly expertise that he does not have.
Show me one or two honorary degrees from a couple of decent colleges, even. There is no reason to think that this guy is anything other than a Palinarian style academic...

"...widely regarded as one of the world's most effective communicators of the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels. ... Senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute in California, Heinberg is best known as a leading educator on Peak Oil and its impacts."

Riiiiight.

Compare to this fellow who had a bit of undergrad trouble himself...


Amory B. Lovins
Cofounder and CEO of Rocky Mountain Institute

Lovins Amory Lovins, a MacArthur and Ashoka Fellow and consultant physicist, is among the world's leading innovators in energy and its links with resources, security, development, and environment. He has advised the energy and other industries for more than three decades as well as the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense. His work in 50+ countries has been recognized by the "Alternative Nobel," Blue Planet, Volvo, Onassis, Nissan, Shingo, Goff Smith, and Mitchell Prizes, the Benjamin Franklin and Happold Medals, 11 honorary doctorates, honorary membership of the American Institute of Architects, Foreign Membership of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, honorary Senior Fellowship of the Design Futures Council, and the Heinz, Lindbergh, Jean Meyer, Time Hero for the Planet, Time International Hero of the Environment, Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Leadership, National Design (Design Mind), and World Technology Awards. A Harvard and Oxford dropout and former Oxford don, he has briefed 20 heads of state and advises major firms and governments worldwide, recently including the leadership of Coca-Cola, Deutsche Bank, Ford, Holcim, Interface, and Wal-Mart. In 2009, Time named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and Foreign Policy, one of the 100 top global thinkers.

Mr. Lovins cofounded and is Chairman and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), an independent, market-oriented, entrepreneurial, nonprofit, nonpartisan think-and-do tank that creates abundance by design. Much of its pathfinding work on advanced resource productivity (typically with expanding returns to investment) and innovative business strategies is synthesized in Natural Capitalism (1999, with Paul Hawken and L.H. Lovins, www.natcap.org). This intellectual capital provides most of RMI's revenue through private-sector consultancy that has served or been invited by more than 80 Fortune 500 firms, lately redesigning more than $30 billion worth of facilities in 29 sectors. In 1992, RMI spun off E SOURCE (www.esource.com), and in 1999, Fiberforge Corporation (www.fiberforge.com), a composites technology firm that Mr. Lovins chaired until 2007; its technology, when matured and scaled, will permit cost- effective manufacturing of the ultralight-hybrid Hypercar® vehicles he invented in 1991.

The latest of his 29 books are Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size (2002, www.smallisprofitable.org), an Economist book of the year blending financial economics with electrical engineering, and the Pentagon-cosponsored Winning the Oil Endgame (2004, www.oilendgame.com), a roadmap for eliminating U.S. oil use by the 2040s, led by business for profit. His most recent visiting academic chair was in spring 2007 as MAP/Ming Professor in Stanford's School of Engineering, offering the University's first course on advanced energy efficiency (www.rmi.org/stanford).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm more impressed with intelligence and a persons ability to percieve reality
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 12:08 AM by Confusious
then a bunch of degrees and awards. Degree does not equal intelligence. It just means someone spent the time in the system and didn't go nuts bashing thier head against the wall because of how stupid it was.

I used to work for a PHd, a man rather famous in his field. Liked to take credit for other's work. He was an ass with an inflated ego, which constantly needed to be fed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Isn't that the same sort of thing Palin's supporters say to justify believing her swill?
It is apparent that HE wants to be able to display some sort of credentials, otherwise why manufacture the ones he did?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Do you read what I write?
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 12:10 AM by Confusious
Palin is the perfect example of what I was saying. she has a Degree, she is an idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Bill Gates
, a college dropout, has been named the richest person in the world by Forbes magazine 27 times. Bill Gates, who was 10 points away from a perfect score on the SAT, enrolled at Harvard College in 1973 only to take a leave of absence two years later to form a partnership with classmate Paul Allen. The partnership became known as Microsoft. In 2007, Bill Gates received an honorary doctorate degree from Harvard University. In 2009, Forbes reports Gates’ net worth at $40 billion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Steve jobs
Steve Jobs graduated from high school in 1972 and while he started going to college at Reed College in Portland, Oregon he quickly dropped out after a single semester. Despite leaving, he occasionally audited classes at Reed College, most notably his well-known course in calligraphy. According to Jobs, “If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. Lovins make me laugh too
Nothing Lovins does or says will prevent peak oil from occurring throughout the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
32. Right. And how about your credentials, kristopher?
Edited on Mon Nov-15-10 11:30 AM by Terry in Austin
GG has a good point. You seem to find them so important, let's hear what yours are.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ishaneferguson Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kunstler redux. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-10 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. I had this very discussion yesterday. I fear, and yet I hope.
I had a dental emergency that had me driving over the Golden Gate bridge for the first time in fifteen years. What I saw on the roads was hard for me to fathom. What was a quiet road was now a sea of cars. When I got to the dentist's, I saw him put on gloves and gown, and then when interrupted, did the same for another patient. One patient had driven from Montana.

When I got back to my parent's place, we were talking about the failure of the concept of growth. Or if not failure, the inability to become conscious of limits. A real leader would discuss limits. But then the economy depends upon growth. When a house is built, it is done. And the builder moves on. Another house must be built in order to keep the builder building.

Until the population reached a certain level, growth was matched by resources. But as we have grown exponentially, we have challenged this planet to provide enough resources for the conditions we desire. Exponential growth, with essentially a constant supply of resources ought to be obvious to us now. Yet we're all still acting like there are no limits.

Our problem is not resources, but demand. And until we address that subject we will continue to spiral downward. We can engineer things such that we slow the spiraling down. That is the best we can achieve without addressing the true cause.

We're beginning to open our eyes. There may be some hope yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
31. I've been thinking some about "growth via increased diversity"
I adopt earth's biosphere as a basis for analogy: the biosphere has been on a fixed energy budget for its entire existence. But there has been growth (nonmonotonic of course) in bio-diversity over that time.

An economy can exhibit that kind of growth too. Increasing diversity in ecological niches, and the players that fill them, over time. Increased richness of interactions. That can happen even when the total energy input, the number of players, and "GDP", remains constant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. I think we'd have to re-examine what we consider valuable, and by how much
Economic growth that is not based on dramatically increased use of natural resources, such as most of the arts, faith, spirituality, education, etc, would need to be appreciated far more in society than we currently appreciate it, while the current model of placing excessive value on material objects would have to be downgraded substantially.

In theory it makes for an amazing hypothetical world, but I wonder if our desire for more "stuff" has become too ingrained to let go at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. I wonder how our reptilian brain would react to such a situation?
How would we ever be able to tell if we had higher status than someone else, if we couldn't measure our "stuff"? that sort of uncertainty makes lizards very uncomfortable.

I'd bet that instinctual concerns like this will be behind a lot of the resistance to such ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC