At what point did we become "unsustainable?"

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind that from the perspective of the survivors, all previous events look sustainable. It's a selection bias that you have to watch out for. My society handily thrived after WWII, ergo, events like WWII are sustainable. Now, there're obvious "yeah, but ..." responses to that, and yes, I thought of them just as easily as you did. Work with me. Survivors always can say that their lifestyles were de-facto sustainable. My reckless driving as a youth was obviously sustainable, else I would not have survived.

So, the aquifers are dropping, climate patterns are predicted to shift, and biodiversity that cleans the aquifer feeders is dropping. AND we're becoming increasingly dependent upon the levels of food production we currently have. Is this sustainable? Well, all else being equal, obviously not. Will the technological innovations happen quickly enough to prevent social pain when we have to wean ourselves from our present rate of aquifer consumption? Well, that's a matter of perspective. How much social pain is acceptable? From the perspective of all those who thrived through the crisis, the whole thing will have seemed eminently sustainable.

Right now, chances are that you're turning about 2 litres of gasoline into food to feed yourself for a day. Are you entirely certain that society is progressing fast enough so that this will continue to be true? And if you're hardly 'part of the process' of making sure that this progress will happen, how do you know enough people are? And if you don't have metrics to notice a sustainability crisis before it happens, then you might want to run for Congress on a platform of promised entitlements

 

[Masada]

Again, there's competing theories on this. There's polynesian rats on most sizeable inhabited pacific islands, and they never had this problem of a collapse of the local fauna. Which would make the Easter Islands pretty unique to be the only one to succumb to rats. I've hardly taken a controversial stand when I say that it was the polynesians themselves that caused the deforestation of the island. But yeah, it's not an unconstested stance on what exactly happened there.

This is broadly speaking correct. Having said that, the argument that kiore couldn't have been responsible because they were elsewhere in Polynesia is nonsense. The actual argument bouncing around academia is somewhat more nuanced and hinges on the appropriate proxy species for the now extinct paschalococos disperta. In simple terms: one proxy was/is very vulnerable to kiore assault on their endocarps, while another proposed proxy species isn't. If the former is The Right Proxy then there is good reason to suppose that kiore were involved, and if the latter is true then the opposite is true. As it stands, there's no consensus on which species is The Best and there's a fair amount of doubt as to whether choosing the best proxy would actually tell us all that much. The murkiness of the whole issue is such that we aren't even sure what genus paschalococos disperta belonged too.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd like to know why lefties have this obsession about pollution. In developed countries, the skies, waters and ground are clean. Why is this? Because pollution is waste. The free market is all about efficiency so it comes up with ways to make waste useful.

What's more efficient than just dumping your waste where it's other peoples' problem, preferably that of lowly parasites? Externalized costs can do magic on your own efficiency.

The bureaucrats and the rest of the parasites have nothing to do with it. If private industry had not come up with a way to do 'X', the parasites would never have been able to impose 'X' on decent folk. They are utterly useless. They never come up with any innovation themselves.

If private industry is not compelled to do 'X', then it will not do 'X', no matter if they could bring their innovativeness to do it. What (good) regulation does is provide a framework so that industry has to reduce pollution and lets it come up with ways to do so. See, incapability of innovation by the state circumvented

On a more general note, it seems your dialectic here rests on two arguments:

1) the state is a fraud and everything would be much better for everyone under a completely free market
2) the majority of people are just parasites anyway and deserve what dire fate the free market has in for them

Sounds mutually exclusive to me. I suggest you focus more on point 2 because it has such a nice Randian arrogance to it which supplements your general feeling of superiority.

 

[Singularity]

This is broadly speaking correct. Having said that, the argument that kiore couldn't have been responsible because they were elsewhere in Polynesia is nonsense. The actual argument bouncing around academia is somewhat more nuanced and hinges on the appropriate proxy species for the now extinct paschalococos disperta. In simple terms: one proxy was/is very vulnerable to kiore assault on their endocarps, while another proposed proxy species isn't. If the former is The Right Proxy then there is good reason to suppose that kiore were involved, and if the latter is true then the opposite is true. As it stands, there's no consensus on which species is The Best and there's a fair amount of doubt as to whether choosing the best proxy would actually tell us all that much. The murkiness of the whole issue is such that we aren't even sure what genus paschalococos disperta belonged too.

I bow down to your slightly confusing academical broadside. Having read a bit more about the collapse of the Easter Island civilization I think perhaps a mix of both hypothesis' could be just as relevant as either of them in a mutual exclusion scenario. Which begs the question, is it unsustainable to keep trying to live off a land being ravaged by natural causes; Like a prolongued drought, flood, rodent plague or general pestilence in the fauna?

Masada would make this conversation at least nine times better.

Indeed

 

[Heretic_Cata]

After WWII when the population exploded rapidly.

In Japan especially.

 

[ZeletDude]

I'm gonna say the late 1800's, or early 1900s. Because of Oil, industrialization etc.

 

[Tee Kay]

In Japan especially.

Not really... unless I'm missing something here.

I'm gonna say the late 1800's, or early 1900s. Because of Oil, industrialization etc.

There's a difference between "on a path to unsustainability if present trends continue" and actually "becoming unsustainable".

 

[ZeletDude]

Not really... unless I'm missing something here.



There's a difference between "on a path to unsustainability if present trends continue" and actually "becoming unsustainable".

Good point I should have clarified, I meant "On the path to unsustainablility", but hey, that's where it starts.

 

[Quackers]

More of the same Malthusian arguments here. tut-tut

This is an excellent article about eco-fascism:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA750.htm

 

[Leoreth]

As far as I know, Malthus was mainly concerned with the effect of growing populations on non-depletable goods, in particular arable land, while the current problems mainly concern depletable goods like fossil fuels, so I wouldn't dismiss the situation as Malthusian.

 

[Boundless]

Not really... unless I'm missing something here.

Pretty sure it was just a bad taste joke

 

[Boundless]

The biggest problem with Easter Island was likely to be the rats they accidentally brought over on their ships. These rats grew into an unsustainable population and they destroyed the roots of the trees and ate the seeds that the trees would have used to repopulate the island. It probably wasn't the humans who deforested the island so quickly.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/The_Mystery_of_Easter_Island.html

There is no way rats could eat so many seeds and gnaw so many roots the trees just disappear, that has not occurred anywhere.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

It can happen on a remote island, especially one facing deforestation.

 

[Boundless]

Not really. The rats would hit peak population and collapse before the seeds were exhausted.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

And you’re saying they had no alternative food sources?

 

[Boundless]

And you’re saying they had no alternative food sources?

I am sure they did, thus they would not hunt out every last seed. Plants ensure there are vast numbers of seeds to deal with this very issue. Only 1 tree seed needs to surive to adulthood in say, 20 years*? Rats managed to wipe out every one of the thousands of seeds produced for 20 years an eradicate the trees?




*Guestimate of period a tree will spread seeds.

 

[kochman]

There is no way rats could eat so many seeds and gnaw so many roots the trees just disappear, that has not occurred anywhere.

It can happen when new animals/predators are introduced into foreign environments.

Boa Constrictors are taking over the Florida Everglades, eating up all the other predators even!

 

[Boundless]

Quite, yet they haven't eaten ALL the others. They are just eating a lot.

Sure the rats ate a lot of the tree seeds, but rats have colonised virtually every land mass except the moon.. why have they not caused deforestation anywhere else?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I am sure they did, thus they would not hunt out every last seed. Plants ensure there are vast numbers of seeds to deal with this very issue. Only 1 tree seed needs to surive to adulthood in say, 20 years*? Rats managed to wipe out every one of the thousands of seeds produced for 20 years an eradicate the trees?

Just because there’s a few individuals doesn’t mean that it’s a viable population. If trees become too dispersed, pollination and thus reproduction will become nearly impossible.

Sure the rats ate a lot of the tree seeds, but rats have colonised virtually every land mass except the moon.. why have they not caused deforestation anywhere else?

Rat predators and larger populations that are more resilient to losses.

 

[Boundless]

Just because there’s a few individuals doesn’t mean that it’s a viable population. If trees become too dispersed, pollination and thus reproduction will become nearly impossible.

I don't accept that rats would have such a significant effect. I doubt the humans themselves would have allowed a rat population akin to locusts!

Rat predators and larger populations that are more resilient to losses.

There are thousands and thousands of other islands without rat predators and yet with trees....