The crux of it all...diminishing resources and "overshoot."

[pauliedangerously]

"Limits to Growth," originally published in 1972, and recently updated to reflect on the last thirty years brings up some key points that clearly explain all of the seeming madness we are witnessing today:

By definition, overshoot is a condition in which the delayed signals from the environment are not yet strong enough to force an end to growth. How, then, can society tell if it is in overshoot? Falling resource stocks and rising pollution levels are the first clues. Here are some other symptoms:

# Capital, resources, and labor diverted to activities compensating for the loss of services that were formerly provided without cost by nature (for example, sewage treatment, air purification, water purification, flood control, pest control, restoration of soil nutrients, pollination, or the preservation of species).

# Capital, resources, and labor diverted from final goods production to exploitation of scarcer, more distant, deeper, or more dilute resources.

# Technologies invented to make use of lower-quality, smaller, more dispersed, less valuable resources, because the higher-value ones are gone.

# Failing natural pollution cleanup mechanisms; rising levels of pollution.

# Capital depreciation exceeding investment, and maintenance deferred, so there is deterioration in capital stocks, especially long-lived infrastructure.

# Growing demands for capital, resources, and labor used by the 176 World3: The Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World military or industry to gain access to, secure, and defend resources that are increasingly concentrated in fewer, more remote, or increasingly hostile regions.

# Investment in human resources (education, health care, shelter) postponed in order to meet immediate consumption, investment, or security needs, or to pay debts.

# Debts a rising percentage of annual real output.

# Eroding goals for health and environment.

# Increasing conflicts, especially conflicts over sources or sinks.

# Shifting consumption patterns as the population can no longer pay the price of what it really wants and, instead, purchases what it can afford.

# Declining respect for the instruments of collective government as they are used increasingly by the elites to preserve or increase their share of a declining resource base.

# Growing chaos in natural systems, with "natural" disasters more frequent and more severe because of less resilience in the environmental system.


Sound familiar?

:nuke:


See the full article:

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/18978/

[FizzFuzz]

1. overpopulation

another one of my personal soap box issues.

I don't know why people get so pissed off when anyone mentions the reasonable idea of responsibly limiting the size of our families (one. Two as "replacement" for the existing parents only keeps numbers at the existing high mark--it doesn't help to lower the number), adoption if we love being surrounded by children, and offering tax or other incentives for childfree living.

[pauliedangerously]

5. Agreed...I have NONE. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. We should support the Gay Agenda, then...

...to help with population reduction goals. Perhaps we could make it compulsory reading for junior high school kids.

http://cronus.com/agenda

ANYBODY BUT BUSH

Click here for "ANYBODY BUT BUSH", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[FizzFuzz]

11. "the gay agenda"--checked it out; I LOVE IT! n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. Heh. It's not for everyone

...but it sure helps illuminate the entire Gay movement, doesn't it?

ANYBODY BUT BUSH

Click here for "ANYBODY BUT BUSH", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[FizzFuzz]

22. yes it sure does and its so well done. I really got a kick out of it eom

[pauliedangerously]

16. That was hilarious

I'm straight but not narrow.

I'm all for the Gay Agenda :thumbsup:

Rock on Cronus

[bleedingheart]

23. I have a question...why vaccinate people?

I had an anthro prof who basically stated that vaccinating people, especially those in the third world, was making the population problem worse. He stated that prior to vaccination programs that huge swaths of population would be wiped out by diptheria, thypoid, and even measles... "it would thin out the herd" leaving the healthiest behind...

This is just a theoretical question...and one I am not advocating..

[opihimoimoi]

2. I have found most people take the ostrich position when this subject

matter comes up.

For some reason too many out there, for whatever reason, reject/refuse to see the danger of a global crash/famine due to lack of food. Already 3 billion out of 6 billion on this planet, are hungry for more food while we Americans fight obesity.

Until we reach that point of big hurt, we will continue to watch our sports, Television, etc to distract ourselves away from the harsh reality of inadequate planning.implementation of solutions. We are waiting for "pick a name" someone else to come up with a simple quicl answer. "Sloth" laziness affects too many in this world. We cannot understand we need to think more and better to effect the solutions waiting/needed.

[bleedingheart]

24. ah but we also live in a world of idealism..see my post above

modern science has also made the problem worse. People who would have died of epidemics live even diabetics today live fruitful lives..years ago they died in childhood....

there are many weighty issues...and people are putting their heads in the sand....but there are ethical decisions to be made that many would rather not touch.

[indigobusiness]

3. We have arrived at the crux of the biscuit...

and it is about to devour us.

[Kat45]

6. the apstrophe

[indigobusiness]

7. In other words...

the apostrophe is about to devour us.

[FizzFuzz]

10. bizzarre thought occured to me, or maybe its not bizzarre,

but an apostrophe looks like an embryo in the very early stages. And it IS the crux of the matter!

Yes, the easy way out--reproduction is not a matter of forwarding the species, but an emotional kick, a do it because its makes you feel fuzzy and warm and useful and every media instrument and social club and peer group and social institution and authority figure want nothing more than to reinforce that simple-minded message.

I have to be totally honest, I never liked or wanted kids, never wanted to relinquish my individuality in order to step into the sacrificing mother image. I like doing my life, not being the "good mother" obligated to take on all manner of drudgery, dull conversation and self-abnegation in order to be a bystander to someone else's life. So for me, refraining from parturition as an act of social responsibility came later when I realized the ramifications of adding to the population, and the ramifications of childbirth on one's own life. So it was an easy decision for me, since I didn't feel a struggle between the emotion based impulse for pure personal gratification (that "biological clock ticking" that women's magazines so love to invoke) or the intellectual understanding that I would be complicit in great harm being done to the planet. (As far as "emotion based impulse for personal gratification", let's admit, entering the "Parent-Club" confers huge social favor on one for taking up this most conformist of choices. Jesus H Christ, people who don't even LIKE kids do it for the sake of the approval it will get them.)

There. I ranted. Ahhhh.

[indigobusiness]

12. Interesting confessional of abject self-indulgence...

If every woman waited until they matured enough to understand the myth of the individual and the reality of the interconnectedness of all things, we would have died out long ago.

The apostrophe is also signifies the possessed.

[FizzFuzz]

13. intellectually lazy smearing of all non-maternal women as

self-indulgent and immature; even (horrors) possessed. (Unless you were trying to make a grammatical correction, in which case I think you meant "the possessive form")

Sorry I disagree with your assessment of my rant, or what you think it says about me or about women as a group. And sorry you dismiss the entire post with your easy trivialization of me. I was speaking of myself but also reflecting values I see in our society which we would all do well be aware of.

If every woman waited until they developed some maturity, we'd have more emotionally and responsibility ready women raising families, and fewer unwanted kids, fewer teenage mothers, and no need for futile public service messages and kindergarten lessons entreating us to please please recycle for the children's sake!

But I see a common kind of machismo in your post, misreading a woman's words, describing insightful ideas as nothing more than airy fairy meanderings, and swiping at women who don't toe the pronatalist line with the accusation of endangering the species.

[indigobusiness]

14. You missed my point and

betrayed your own hostility.

My post could be easily misinterpreted, as you have shown. But your pretzel logic is intellectually disingenuous.

I wasn't trying to start a war...forgive me my subtle toying with the word 'possessed', considering the source of the quote, I thought it cast a subtle, slightly humorous shadow.

Also, wasn't trivializing you, or women in general, just responding to your rant.

[FizzFuzz]

20. Hi Paulie and Indigo --

Thanks for your response.

PAULIE: I agree, I thought indigo was agreeing with the original post, so I was confused by his response to me--or how I INTERPRETED his response. I love this site too, and I learn alot--its great. I appreciate the chance to learn about and practice reasoned dialogue with others, too. So, see below if you're interested as to why I read indigo in the way I did--I'm explaining as clearly and dispassionately as I can. And thanks for enjoying my rant!

INDIGO: I have indeed admitted many times on this board that the issues of overpopulation and pronatalism are hot-button ones for me, and I readily admit that they piss me off!! So if you followed my every post here at DU, you would know this!! (haha I'm kidding!!)

Anyway, you're right that my hostility is showing, but not as a betrayal of some facade of sweetness and light--I'm right out there with it. In spite of the fact that I AM out there with it in that rant, I was not in anyone's personal face about it, or that wasn't my intent. I was just rambling a bit, putting my views out there.

Now then, you say I "missed your point", but in your response to me, the title was "Interesting confessional of abject self-indulgence". Look, maybe I have a weak grasp of the language but that strikes me as a rather confrontative statement--you are directly chiding me for piteous navel-gazing; very trivializing indeed. So, at this point, I'm not sure where I'm misreading you, because I can't see any other possible interpretation of that title. Maybe I'm wearing blinders. But it IS quite an opener for a post.

OK. "Pretzel logic"--Um, you're casually dismissing my whole response to your initial reply to me by saying this without providing any quotes to demonstrate where I'm going off the track. I can get a little carried away with wordiness sometimes, as I'm doing now, so to get to the point, if you could reference specific examples of my pretzel logic, it would help me see your point better, and maybe become a better discussant for it.

Next point:"If every woman waited until they matured enough to understand the myth of the individual and the reality of the interconnectedness of all things, we would have died out long ago."- I gotta let you know, I've heard many anti-choice people say that exact thing. This is slippery slope reasoning, indigo--you're creating the fallacy of consequences that are hugely negative, but only possible by the hugest stretch of a fiction-writer's imagination, as the automatic result of an unlikely course of action (its a warped "if-then" argument). There are over 6 billion of us. Appeals to the fear of ending the human species are ridiculous.


"possessed"--the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe...yes Frank Zappa rules! Ain't this boogie a mess?

Thank you both for your time and replies!!
Cindy the Fizz

[pauliedangerously]

18. Hey FIZZ....you must have been having a bad day

I went back and re-read the posts in this thread and found nothing to suggest that Indigo was disagreeing with you.

I'm interpreting his bit of wit as meaning that no-one is ever really ready to have children, no matter how long they wait. This is not counter to your practical assertion that people should wait, but a philosophical assertion that it's a tough job, regardless.

I just hate to see DUers arguing like this, especially when it's obvious that that we all agree on this topic.

I am 100% behind your decision not to procreate, and I totally agree with your reasons not to. I am pretty sure Indigo is too.

There are plenty of things to be pissed off at in this world...let's not get pissed off at each other. This site is my haven from all of the horrible, ugly, closed-minded, blah, blah, blah, blahs out there.

Let's make this right...please.

:grouphug:

[pauliedangerously]

17. And a damned good rant it was!!!! nt

[FizzFuzz]

21. thanks! I replied to your other post along with my reply to indigo

I know I depend on the "my posts" thingy to know if someone's replied to me, so that's what I'm doing here..its a little redundant, cuz I've said this in that other reply.

[donsu]

26. the actual bottom line is the female nipple

will the breast produce milk and can the baby suck it out through the nipple.

new life depends on the nipple and healthy milk.

if the baby formula factories went down, just how valuable do you think an operating nipple would be?

(WWII women can speak to this as well as today's women in parts of Africa)

[OneBlueSky]

4. someone once summed up the concept for me . . .

as follows: "You can't have unlimited growth in a finite world." . . . always stuck with me for some reason . . .

[LibertyorDeath]

8. Now if you combine all that with Greed & Corruption

You got it.... Thanks great post.

[sweetheart]

19. economics is propaganda

"growth" is the driving goal in economic terms, which are used by
wall street and industry to suggest the overall health of a society...
The maths are appropriate for measuring output in particular
industries and such, but to extrapolate these data in to the
social engineering sense they are being used is pure abuse.

It is presumed that the whole world should move towards the economic
model of the US, as it in theory leads to higher wealth, but that is
asserted by dividing the total economic output of the USA by the
population and suggesting that we are "all" wealthy... ha!

Those wall street economists are not concerned with exogenous
restrictions like fish stocks, unpolluted coastline and such, so
the destruction of such resources is unaccounted for, only the
conversion of green earth in to factories, jobs and housing.

overpopulation is the crux, and as well, the presumption of the
primacy of western economics (read: "white supremacy"). As better
mathematicians get involved with the subject, it turns out that
much of the "poor" world like europe, is wealthier than the USA
and is in no need of adopting a rape-and-pilliage economic model.

It is incumbent upon the political left to come up with a coherent
replacement for the current economic morass, or we're in deeper doodoo... as we appear to complain without an alternative economics
model... one that reflects true costs.

[outinforce]

25. "Limits to Growth"???

Wasn't that the book that predicted that by 1975, there would be mass starvations throughout North America?

Isn't it also the book that many Third-World Countries deonounced, saying that the book advocated, in essense, a position which would keep Third World coutries in a state of perpetual non-development?

[pauliedangerously]

27. 1975????

I would need a reference; that seems premature..LOL.

I was only six or seven when that book originally came out, and I remember the seventies as pretty frightening times with the nuke drills in school and all.

What's your impression on the current oil situation, specifically peak production?

Seeing as how many Third World countries are developing rapidly now, and demand for scarce resources is growing exponentially, are you disagreeing with the general assertion or just the time frame?