"Collapse" by Jared Diamond

[aelf]

Not again...

Who the hell is we? Humanity is not one entity. North America, Europe, Australia or others can sustain their living standard and growth with ease, while some other countries can't. Natural selection will punish them, I don't care (at least so long as our governments keep the refugees on the southern shore of the Mediterranean). If the Africans, Indians, Chinese or others want to destroy the enviroment they're living in, it's their problem.

You're delusional. Go out there and look at the real evidence. Have you heard of the limits of growth thesis? No? Then cease babbling.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, you're wrong, because the earth is intolerant towards the rate at which we are going. Are you familiar with the limits to growth thesis? Basically, it has been projected that technological development would not be enough to prevent disaster if the growth in population and consumption continues. As it is, we need something in the order of a few earths to really sustain the current population. And countries like China want to match the consumption rates of the West, while in the West there's growing realisation that we need to cut back but which might be too little too late. Meanwhile, free market liberals continue to advocate the insane ideas of unrestrained free trade and unlimited growth, and these people are very influential.

In view of the actual dire need for us to rethink our position, we should declare a moratorium on free trade agreements, slap hefty tariffs on countries with low pollution and labour standards and regulate consumption. Or else, and which is the likely case, there would simply be a major crisis and maybe even war. Sure, good times ahead - nothing to worry about!

ya know, when you insist on a policy that no one will go along with, you end up with a policy that no one will go along with.......

 

[aelf]

ya know, when you insist on a policy that no one will go along with, you end up with a policy that no one will go along with.......

Well, I'm aware most people wouldn't want that, although you'd be surprised to find that it has a considerable and growing number of supporters. So I basically accept that we are probably running headlong into disaster. I do the least that a human being can do, and not what a proverbial ostrich does.

 

[Sui Generis]

Ehh, if you want to read about Collapse, read Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons. It is outstanding.

 

[Cutlass]

The end of Collapse did indeed point out many things which our modern world cannot sustain. I read this a while ago but I remember him spitting out numbers about how it would be physically impossible for China to bring up the standard of living for its entire population to that of the US. The world does not contain enough resources. Science is not going to figure out limitless energy anytime soom; the resources required to bring more than a fraction of the people on this planet up to the living standards of you and me simply do not exist and probably won't for a long time.

He discussed issues with fisheries, food in general, energy... all sorts of stuff at the end. There is definitely a sustainability issue with modern living as a whole, at least at the level of modern western nations like US and most of Europe.

I'd have to reread the book to refresh my memory. But while things would be forced to change, what he and others miss is that a core economic principle is substitution and greater efficiency.

Now an environmental collapse and or disaster will mainly be a disaster for the worlds poor. Just like the spike in food prices this past year primarily hurt the poor people in poor nations.

So crisis for many yes, collapse for all, no.

At the same time, there are 2 methods for stopping the growth of the human population, and stopping the growth of the human population is the necessary key to stopping environmental destruction. Method 1 is to make people, particularly women, free, prosperous, and informed enough so that they take management of their fertility. Where that happens, everywhere the birthrate drops to sustainable or even blow levels. Method 2 is to starve them all to death.

Of the 2, the first method requires a huge amount of economic development, and the environmental cost that implies. The second means that the regional environments that the world's poorest people live in will be utterly destroyed. Reduced to deserts that cannot support life, like the Anasazi.

So given that I see that as the only 2 possibilities, which do you think will be the better choice?

 

[aelf]

At the same time, there are 2 methods for stopping the growth of the human population, and stopping the growth of the human population is the necessary key to stopping environmental destruction. Method 1 is to make people, particularly women, free, prosperous, and informed enough so that they take management of their fertility. Where that happens, everywhere the birthrate drops to sustainable or even blow levels. Method 2 is to starve them all to death.

Of the 2, the first method requires a huge amount of economic development, and the environmental cost that implies. The second means that the regional environments that the world's poorest people live in will be utterly destroyed. Reduced to deserts that cannot support life, like the Anasazi.

So given that I see that as the only 2 possibilities, which do you think will be the better choice?

Increasing spending on education does not require the continuation of unlimited growth. It requires a better distribution of resources. You can either do things the inefficient way and fail, or do things more efficiently to succeed.

 

[Cutlass]

Increasing spending on education does not require the continuation of unlimited growth. It requires a better distribution of resources. You can either do things the inefficient way and fail, or do things more efficiently to succeed.

Except that it is literally impossible to centrally plan the distribution of resources without ending up with less total resources. You have to begin your plans with what is possible.

 

[El_Machinae]

You can't massively increase demand for resources without having less per capita resources anyway. We really need to be improving the rate at which we're improving.

 

[Cutlass]

You can massively increase both the efficiency that resources are developed and find substitutes.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can only imagine that to be possible by imposing artificial constraints.

 

[aelf]

Except that it is literally impossible to centrally plan the distribution of resources without ending up with less total resources. You have to begin your plans with what is possible.

Who's talking about central planning? The problem is not pushing the limit of what people would accept. Things are going nowhere as it is.

 

[Arwon]

Not again...

Who the hell is we? Humanity is not one entity. North America, Europe, Australia or others can sustain their living standard and growth with ease, while some other countries can't. Natural selection will punish them, I don't care (at least so long as our governments keep the refugees on the southern shore of the Mediterranean). If the Africans, Indians, Chinese or others want to destroy the enviroment they're living in, it's their problem.

I seriously contest the notion that Australia is living in a sustainable manner.

...and the notion that resource overconsumption is primarily the problem of Africans, Indians or Chinese.

 

[Winner]

You know what followed that Western innovation - colonization and later on conquest.

And with it the Western technology, science, knowledge and eventually even freedom for those who were clever enough to embrace it. Western world has nothing to be ashamed of and frankly, all this self-loathing and second-guessing is vain and useless sign of moral decline and decadence entertained by people who can't appreciate their own achievements.

The West shackled the rest of the world to itself with its innovations and continues to drag it forward thanks to its living standard. I'm not saying that all of that is despiccable and that the West should share the wealth but mankind should try to solve this problem of 'progress' as one. If not, then we must already be at war with each other?

The West tries to lead and the rest of the world isn't listening. Nothing we can do, really, but to prepare ourselves the best we can and let the rest learn their lessons the hard way.

 

[Winner]

You're delusional. Go out there and look at the real evidence. Have you heard of the limits of growth thesis? No? Then cease babbling.

The only one babbling here is you, sir. You keep talking without offering any substantiation, you treat humanity as it was one homogenous entity. That's a fallacy and a delusion.

 

[Winner]

I seriously contest the notion that Australia is living in a sustainable manner.

...and the notion that resource overconsumption is primarily the problem of Africans, Indians or Chinese.

First thing I can't dispute, since you're obviously at an advantage.

Second, resource overconsumption is a much bigger problem in developing world. Developed countries have the capacity to overcome this problem by means of technological advancement, which allows them to use the limited resources more efficiently and to find replacements.

 

[aelf]

The only one babbling here is you, sir. You keep talking without offering any substantiation, you treat humanity as it was one homogenous entity. That's a fallacy and a delusion.

What the hell are you talking about? Who else is babbling here? You're basically saying that Western people are living sustainable lives in general. What a joke. The fact that you even take this seriously enough to use it like a bludgeon puts you in the realm of zombies. Seriously, I have nothing but z for you here.

 

[Berzerker]

huh? the fact that every civilization survives or dies with its enviorment is as true today as it was in the past

Not really, modern knowledge allows the propping up of civilizations living far beyond their local environmental limits.

 

[aelf]

Not really, modern knowledge allows the propping up of civilizations living far beyond their local environmental limits.

What bunk. The only reason that's possible is by pillaging other localities. How are you going to seriously demonstrate this? A limit is a limit. There's actually no such thing as going beyond the limit.

 

[Berzerker]

But the modern world is incresingly connected.

Which softens the blow of local environmental limitations.

what would happen if all these countries that lives in weak enviorment collapses?

All wouldn't, these collapses were caused by local droughts without the trading networks necessary to survive. Some people moved away, most stayed and a new "equilibrium" was established. The Mayan civilization ceased to exist, not the Maya.

It would be create floods of people seeking shelter in enivorments that are more stable, with would lead to overpopulation in those areas to, that would lead to more enviorment collapses.

The modern world can absorb more refugees and if they're fleeing weak environments the modern world was probably already subsidizing (or feeding) those people anyway. I dont know how much food the Phoenix area produces but it survives by imports, if a drought forced the region to de-populate it wouldn't have much of an effect on food production. Now if a mile thick ice sheet was covering much of the northern hemisphere we might have problems

 

[Berzerker]

What bunk. The only reason that's possible is by pillaging other localities. How are you going to seriously demonstrate this? A limit is a limit. There's actually no such thing as going beyond the limit.

How do we have major cities in deserts? They live beyond the local environmental limitations by either changing the environment and/or importing resources. Modern technology (energy) allows this far beyond past civilizations and lessens the possibility of collapse.