plunging birthrate

[Eugene]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Absolutely, they did! Actually today’s middle class uses more energy than kings of old. The US could get by on our internal allotment, which is 1/3 the amount, though, it would change the landscape, tremendously. You also have distribution issues with the top of the social strata trying to keep their allotment the same. Europe’s per capita is half of what American’s is today.[/quote]

Is our internal allotment affected at all by widespread introduction of solar panels?

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene]Nonsense. There’s no overshoot, we can feed 50 billion on this planet without breaking a sweat.

.[/quote]

I agree we can feed more than the world. But why are a billion starving?

“‘Overpopulation’ is a reality, but only in the context of the carrying capacity of the present political economy in this world of extreme inequalities, and not the alleged carrying capacity of the biosphere….Overpopulation’ is not the fundamental driver of global inequalities and widespread misery;, it is, rather, a symptom of the unsustainability of this world economy dominated by capital reproduction taking priority over the needs of humanity and nature. Even now there is still enough food produced globally, both in calories and nutritional content, to potentially feed everyone (Boucher,1999), although this mode of production has huge negative impacts on people and nature. Hunger and malnutrition are the results of existing political economy
not any real shortage of food.”

Though, 50 billion is pushing it by about 5 fold.

As far as overshoot – as I said “consumption” overshoot as in all industrial products, terrible practices and such. I did not label it a “population”overshoot – many do, I don’t

If you look at renewable resources we are using them at almost 40% greater than they can be regenerated. That is over consumption. There is no peer review in the last 30 years that does not agree that we are over consuming and in ECOLOGICAL overshoot and doing serious damage .

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene]Nonsense. There’s no overshoot, we can feed 50 billion on this planet without breaking a sweat.

.[/quote]

I agree we can feed more than the world. But why are a billion starving?

“‘Overpopulation’ is a reality, but only in the context of the carrying capacity of the present political economy in this world of extreme inequalities, and not the alleged carrying capacity of the biosphere….Overpopulation’ is not the fundamental driver of global inequalities and widespread misery;, it is, rather, a symptom of the unsustainability of this world economy dominated by capital reproduction taking priority over the needs of humanity and nature. Even now there is still enough food produced globally, both in calories and nutritional content, to potentially feed everyone (Boucher,1999), although this mode of production has huge negative impacts on people and nature. Hunger and malnutrition are the results of existing political economy
not any real shortage of food.”

Though, 50 billion is pushing it by about 5 fold.

As far as overshoot – as I said “consumption” overshoot as in all industrial products, terrible practices and such. I did not label it a “population”overshoot – many do, I don’t

If you look at renewable resources we are using them at almost 40% greater than they can be regenerated. That is over consumption. There is no peer review in the last 30 years that does not agree that we are over consuming and in ECOLOGICAL overshoot and doing serious damage .

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene]Nonsense. There’s no overshoot, we can feed 50 billion on this planet without breaking a sweat.

.[/quote]

I agree we can feed more than the world. But why are a billion starving?

“‘Overpopulation’ is a reality, but only in the context of the carrying capacity of the present political economy in this world of extreme inequalities, and not the alleged carrying capacity of the biosphere….Overpopulation’ is not the fundamental driver of global inequalities and widespread misery;, it is, rather, a symptom of the unsustainability of this world economy dominated by capital reproduction taking priority over the needs of humanity and nature. Even now there is still enough food produced globally, both in calories and nutritional content, to potentially feed everyone (Boucher,1999), although this mode of production has huge negative impacts on people and nature. Hunger and malnutrition are the results of existing political economy
not any real shortage of food.”

Though, 50 billion is pushing it by about 5 fold.

As far as overshoot – as I said “consumption” overshoot as in all industrial products, terrible practices and such. I did not label it a “population”overshoot – many do, I don’t

If you look at renewable resources we are using them at almost 40% greater than they can be regenerated. That is over consumption. There is no peer review in the last 30 years that does not agree that we are over consuming and in ECOLOGICAL overshoot and doing serious damage .

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene]Nonsense. There’s no overshoot, we can feed 50 billion on this planet without breaking a sweat.

.[/quote]

I agree we can feed more than the world. But why are a billion starving?

“‘Overpopulation’ is a reality, but only in the context of the carrying capacity of the present political economy in this world of extreme inequalities, and not the alleged carrying capacity of the biosphere….Overpopulation’ is not the fundamental driver of global inequalities and widespread misery;, it is, rather, a symptom of the unsustainability of this world economy dominated by capital reproduction taking priority over the needs of humanity and nature. Even now there is still enough food produced globally, both in calories and nutritional content, to potentially feed everyone (Boucher,1999), although this mode of production has huge negative impacts on people and nature. Hunger and malnutrition are the results of existing political economy
not any real shortage of food.”

Though, 50 billion is pushing it by about 5 fold.

As far as overshoot – as I said “consumption” overshoot as in all industrial products, terrible practices and such. I did not label it a “population”overshoot – many do, I don’t

If you look at renewable resources we are using them at almost 40% greater than they can be regenerated. That is over consumption. There is no peer review in the last 30 years that does not agree that we are over consuming and in ECOLOGICAL overshoot and doing serious damage .

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene]Nonsense. There’s no overshoot, we can feed 50 billion on this planet without breaking a sweat.

.[/quote]

I agree we can feed more than the world. But why are a billion starving?

“‘Overpopulation’ is a reality, but only in the context of the carrying capacity of the present political economy in this world of extreme inequalities, and not the alleged carrying capacity of the biosphere….Overpopulation’ is not the fundamental driver of global inequalities and widespread misery;, it is, rather, a symptom of the unsustainability of this world economy dominated by capital reproduction taking priority over the needs of humanity and nature. Even now there is still enough food produced globally, both in calories and nutritional content, to potentially feed everyone (Boucher,1999), although this mode of production has huge negative impacts on people and nature. Hunger and malnutrition are the results of existing political economy
not any real shortage of food.”

Though, 50 billion is pushing it by about 5 fold.

As far as overshoot – as I said “consumption” overshoot as in all industrial products, terrible practices and such. I did not label it a “population”overshoot – many do, I don’t

If you look at renewable resources we are using them at almost 40% greater than they can be regenerated. That is over consumption. There is no peer review in the last 30 years that does not agree that we are over consuming and in ECOLOGICAL overshoot and doing serious damage .

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene][quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Absolutely, they did! Actually today’s middle class uses more energy than kings of old. The US could get by on our internal allotment, which is 1/3 the amount, though, it would change the landscape, tremendously. You also have distribution issues with the top of the social strata trying to keep their allotment the same. Europe’s per capita is half of what American’s is today.[/quote]

Is our internal allotment affected at all by widespread introduction of solar panels?[/quote]

Solar is a great technology and will be of wide spread use in the future. However, it is not going to influence this transition we are going to get hit with. Solar + geothermal will be the energies of the future. But, there is nothing to keep the global economy chugging along over the next decade. That is impossible.

The recent increases and planned solar installations are but a drop in the bucket of soon to come energy declines. As well, geothermal has not been started and will take a decade to even get started.

This is primarily a systemic issue, not necessarily(though I know it can be looked at as such) a shortage of anything.

Heck, the world could get by on a fraction of the oil we use but our economy can’t – hence the paradox that is hard for people to wrap their minds around

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene][quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Absolutely, they did! Actually today’s middle class uses more energy than kings of old. The US could get by on our internal allotment, which is 1/3 the amount, though, it would change the landscape, tremendously. You also have distribution issues with the top of the social strata trying to keep their allotment the same. Europe’s per capita is half of what American’s is today.[/quote]

Is our internal allotment affected at all by widespread introduction of solar panels?[/quote]

Solar is a great technology and will be of wide spread use in the future. However, it is not going to influence this transition we are going to get hit with. Solar + geothermal will be the energies of the future. But, there is nothing to keep the global economy chugging along over the next decade. That is impossible.

The recent increases and planned solar installations are but a drop in the bucket of soon to come energy declines. As well, geothermal has not been started and will take a decade to even get started.

This is primarily a systemic issue, not necessarily(though I know it can be looked at as such) a shortage of anything.

Heck, the world could get by on a fraction of the oil we use but our economy can’t – hence the paradox that is hard for people to wrap their minds around

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene][quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Absolutely, they did! Actually today’s middle class uses more energy than kings of old. The US could get by on our internal allotment, which is 1/3 the amount, though, it would change the landscape, tremendously. You also have distribution issues with the top of the social strata trying to keep their allotment the same. Europe’s per capita is half of what American’s is today.[/quote]

Is our internal allotment affected at all by widespread introduction of solar panels?[/quote]

Solar is a great technology and will be of wide spread use in the future. However, it is not going to influence this transition we are going to get hit with. Solar + geothermal will be the energies of the future. But, there is nothing to keep the global economy chugging along over the next decade. That is impossible.

The recent increases and planned solar installations are but a drop in the bucket of soon to come energy declines. As well, geothermal has not been started and will take a decade to even get started.

This is primarily a systemic issue, not necessarily(though I know it can be looked at as such) a shortage of anything.

Heck, the world could get by on a fraction of the oil we use but our economy can’t – hence the paradox that is hard for people to wrap their minds around

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene][quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Absolutely, they did! Actually today’s middle class uses more energy than kings of old. The US could get by on our internal allotment, which is 1/3 the amount, though, it would change the landscape, tremendously. You also have distribution issues with the top of the social strata trying to keep their allotment the same. Europe’s per capita is half of what American’s is today.[/quote]

Is our internal allotment affected at all by widespread introduction of solar panels?[/quote]

Solar is a great technology and will be of wide spread use in the future. However, it is not going to influence this transition we are going to get hit with. Solar + geothermal will be the energies of the future. But, there is nothing to keep the global economy chugging along over the next decade. That is impossible.

The recent increases and planned solar installations are but a drop in the bucket of soon to come energy declines. As well, geothermal has not been started and will take a decade to even get started.

This is primarily a systemic issue, not necessarily(though I know it can be looked at as such) a shortage of anything.

Heck, the world could get by on a fraction of the oil we use but our economy can’t – hence the paradox that is hard for people to wrap their minds around

[Arraya]

[quote=Eugene][quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Absolutely, they did! Actually today’s middle class uses more energy than kings of old. The US could get by on our internal allotment, which is 1/3 the amount, though, it would change the landscape, tremendously. You also have distribution issues with the top of the social strata trying to keep their allotment the same. Europe’s per capita is half of what American’s is today.[/quote]

Is our internal allotment affected at all by widespread introduction of solar panels?[/quote]

Solar is a great technology and will be of wide spread use in the future. However, it is not going to influence this transition we are going to get hit with. Solar + geothermal will be the energies of the future. But, there is nothing to keep the global economy chugging along over the next decade. That is impossible.

The recent increases and planned solar installations are but a drop in the bucket of soon to come energy declines. As well, geothermal has not been started and will take a decade to even get started.

This is primarily a systemic issue, not necessarily(though I know it can be looked at as such) a shortage of anything.

Heck, the world could get by on a fraction of the oil we use but our economy can’t – hence the paradox that is hard for people to wrap their minds around

[scaredyclassic]

i like to think my riding my bike to work this morning is going to help. but i know it won’t. once every couple years, someone else is inspired to try it for a while when they talk to me. i cannot think of one person who has stuck with it over time that i influenced. Some huge percentage of automobile trips are under 3 miles, according to bicycle propaganda sites i frequent. Hell, I know people who would literally car commute 4 blocks. weird. i understand car commuting isn’t our entire economy. but it’s the oil consumption aprt most visible and most absurd

[scaredyclassic]

i like to think my riding my bike to work this morning is going to help. but i know it won’t. once every couple years, someone else is inspired to try it for a while when they talk to me. i cannot think of one person who has stuck with it over time that i influenced. Some huge percentage of automobile trips are under 3 miles, according to bicycle propaganda sites i frequent. Hell, I know people who would literally car commute 4 blocks. weird. i understand car commuting isn’t our entire economy. but it’s the oil consumption aprt most visible and most absurd

[scaredyclassic]

i like to think my riding my bike to work this morning is going to help. but i know it won’t. once every couple years, someone else is inspired to try it for a while when they talk to me. i cannot think of one person who has stuck with it over time that i influenced. Some huge percentage of automobile trips are under 3 miles, according to bicycle propaganda sites i frequent. Hell, I know people who would literally car commute 4 blocks. weird. i understand car commuting isn’t our entire economy. but it’s the oil consumption aprt most visible and most absurd

[scaredyclassic]

i like to think my riding my bike to work this morning is going to help. but i know it won’t. once every couple years, someone else is inspired to try it for a while when they talk to me. i cannot think of one person who has stuck with it over time that i influenced. Some huge percentage of automobile trips are under 3 miles, according to bicycle propaganda sites i frequent. Hell, I know people who would literally car commute 4 blocks. weird. i understand car commuting isn’t our entire economy. but it’s the oil consumption aprt most visible and most absurd

[Author]

Posts