Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
21. "You" don't, of course.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 08:54 AM
Jun 2013

Individual choices and decisions have very little impact on collective events. The two exist at different levels and are subject to different rules. Population decline, like all forms of degrowth, can't come about through individual action, because so few people are able to make decisions like that.

What I think is that we probably have “free will” as individuals, but that as our collectivities become larger, the collective behaviour becomes statistically deterministic. We have something in common with gas molecules that way. An individual gas molecule doesn’t have a temperature or a pressure, it has a position and a velocity. When you put a large number of molecules together, each of them still has a position and a velocity, but the aggregate now has a temperature and a pressure, as a result of all those positions and velocities adding up statistically.

Temperature and pressure are statistically deterministic, and depend on the number of gas molecules, the size of the space they’re confined in, and the energy fed into the gas. Similarly, the behaviour of human civilization is statistically deterministic, and depends on the number of people (7 billion, and the more people there are the more deterministic the behavior becomes), the finite space we’re confined in (i.e. the surface of the planet) and the amount of energy flowing into the system (~18 terawatts at last estimate).

One reason we’re susceptible to statistically deterministic behaviour is that we don’t realize that most of our brain power is devoted to removing limits. we have a very hard time placing inits on ourselves – the exact situation one would expect from an organism that evolved to be a very effective gradient dissipator.

So it’s not strict determinism, but like anything else in the universe our free will has limits. It’s just that we evolved to be blind to those limits in order to become better thermodynamically dissipative structures. Degrowth of any sort can only happen on a global basis as the result of hitting a limit we can't figure out a way to defeat.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The concept western civilization needs to start thinking about is "not doing". Gregorian Jun 2013 #1
Shorter version: "Don't just DO something - stand there!!" hatrack Jun 2013 #2
My best friend back in 1972 had that very bumper sticker. Gregorian Jun 2013 #5
Can we put "reproducing" at the top of the "not doing" list? nt wtmusic Jun 2013 #3
You must be a mind reader. Gregorian Jun 2013 #4
how do you reduce population growth? CreekDog Jun 2013 #12
"You" don't, of course. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #21
I think that answer is too long --you/I/we reduce population growth by increasing standard of living CreekDog Jun 2013 #23
The problem lies in our definition of "standard of living" NickB79 Jun 2013 #24
that's not true --birth rates decline in societies with out western style consumption CreekDog Jun 2013 #25
Yes, they do decline, just not enough to save our skins NickB79 Jun 2013 #28
No, you're not alone. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #26
let me ask, would you want economic collapse such as happened in the Eastern Block? CreekDog Jun 2013 #27
Remember: "Morals" are subjective. Nihil Jun 2013 #29
No, I don't "want" it, but I don't think it can be avoided. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #32
The concentration. Of CO2 in the air is 400 ppm Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #6
However, since there IS a greenhouse effect, and CO2 only helps plants up to a point . . . hatrack Jun 2013 #7
I like to be soothing Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #8
Your signature line says more than you know - goodbye. hatrack Jun 2013 #9
Remember a couple of years ago, when the Arctic melt really accelerated? NickB79 Jun 2013 #15
The world's most abundant renewable resource GliderGuider Jun 2013 #10
I agree Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #13
"the world stopped warming about 14 years ago" NickB79 Jun 2013 #14
Actually those statements may be wrong. Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #17
No, you are going to stop wasting OUR time - your denier troll bullshit is no longer needed here hatrack Jun 2013 #19
Thank you. Nihil Jun 2013 #20
Thank you!!!!! sikofit3 Jun 2013 #22
+1000 Thank You hatrack. n/t CRH Jun 2013 #30
Thanks for your support, y'all . . . hatrack Jun 2013 #31
"The world" did not actually stop warming 14 years ago. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #16
Indeed the ocean absorbs heat Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #18
environment tardybar Jun 2013 #11
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»May 2013 Atmospheric CO2 ...»Reply #21