Julien says:
>I assume that. We won't return to hunter-gathering any time soon
IMO.<
I assume that as well. Somewhere between the global economy and tribal
economies is the level we�ll eventually settle upon. I think that level will
not seem like �civilization� to us, but neither would 14th Century Venice.
 Fora change, I will rant freely and not answer dozens of specific
points>
Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!! <G>
>As to avoiding the crash, I guess that only a magical technological advance
>can get us out of this if it is as severe as people like Hanson say>
I am glad you wrote this. Those who reject the �neo-malthusian� positions
such as Jay's usually do so by building their catherdals of hope upon that
one single religious belief: �science will save us�; yet seem singularly
reluctant to apply science to their understanding of the issue
As for the rest of YOUR post, I will rant freely as well, in agreement, and
not take up point by point matters.
Arguing for a �perfect� crash is part of that same either/or dichotomy ken
and I have discussed. Just as it is silly to ignore the evidence that we
will not be able to sustain our current civilization, it is silly to argue
that the slide toward the abyss is endless; and it is a misreading to think
Mark doesn�t understand this. The �perfect� crash would result in the
extinction of Homo Sapiens, and that won�t happen any time soon either.
However, we can be frightened enough of a slide into the abyss that causes
the deaths of most of the members of most of the species on the planet.
That is �endless� enough for me! That dieoff is currently taking place with
no end in sight, at a magnitude seen only 3-4 times since the birth of this
planet.
We can be frightened enough of the E.O. Wilson-defined �bottleneck� we are
forcing our own species into. For me or anyone to post statements such as
the level of humans dying back to one billion over the course of the next
100-200 years is always labeled as alarmist, �malthusian�, etc etc. So I
will refrain from the jeremiads. (Julien is typing Yayyyyyyyy himself at
this moment.) However, there is ample evidence beyond even the precautionary
principle that the growth of human numbers since WWII (3 billion) is not
sustainable once the petroleum that runs the engine of the Green Revolution
is withdrawn. One can do one�s own mathematics using one�s own trusted
sources to verify that statement.
You are correct, Julien. A major part of the discussion on this list should
be about the �landing� and how hard it will be. Somehow our imagined system
� whatever format we choose -- to keep some level of civilization running
must include not only concepts like wages, markets, exploitation, governance
and the like, but also concepts like speciation, biodiversity, natural
resource debt, and � sustainability. I am hoping to see how we mix all
these into a vision with some clarity.
Your ideas:
1) reform of agriculture
2) diminishing the intake
3) diminishing population
� are a great way to tie in the various schools of thought represented on
crashlist. For these are exactly the factors that will be adjusted FOR us by
the crash if we fail to develop attitudes that allow us to do the adjusting
ourselves.
Tom
"If you can't even manage to force your own presumably democratic
governments to allow you to do good things for yourselves, then you probably
deserve to become extinct." -- "My Ishmael," Daniel Quinn
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
