> From: "Barry B. Bean" <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:54:30 -0700, Jan Steinman wrote:
>
>> I should
>> have more precisely said that the rate of increase in world grain
>> output has been declining, and is no longer keeping up with the rate
>> of increase in demand.
>
> In other words, world grain production is NOT in decline, but is in
> fact increasing.
But not as fast as demand, thus a "relative" decline exists.
Before you say, "That's not a real decline," tell that to the person
who can no longer afford to eat.
> ... find numbers relevant to the topic at hand.
Ah, spoken like a true believer! When the numbers don't agree with
you, demand new numbers! :-)
The basic problem is the notion of limitless growth in a finite
world. When there were 2 billion people, yea, it looked like we could
keep growing forever.
If lilies in a pond double every day, and the pond is half-full on
the 29th day, how long until the pond is full? There's a lot of
people looking around and saying, "Hey, things aren't so bad. I can
still raise *my* grain production," because all they see is that
they're floating in a half-full pond.
There are a lot of credible people saying we're bumping up against
carrying capacity, or even that we've over-shot it, since it is
arguably a transient boost from fossil energy that has allowed us to
grow this much.
Sure, this has been said before. Malthus was off by at least a couple
hundred years, Ehrlich was off by a at least a few decades. I won't
say either of them was "wrong" -- more like bad timing. Malthus
didn't anticipate fossil fuels coming along -- perhaps without
petroleum, the planet can only support the 1.5 billion that were
alive when Malthus predicted mass starvation around the corner. And
the population has nearly doubled since Ehrlich predicted mass
starvation. But no one who thinks about it can argue with their
arguments, just with their timing and available data. When are there
too many? 6.7 billion people? 8 billion? 15 billion? 30 billion?
And what happens when fossil fuel begins to decline? Again, there
really isn't anyone credible who argues that it will never decline;
they just argue about when -- will it starve our children, or our
great-grandchildren? Nice choice to have to make.
But then again, perhaps aliens will land and give us superior
technology that will give us essentially limitless energy. Then, as
Garrett Hardin points out, the problem of the acquisition of energy
becomes one of dissipation, and if humanity doesn't hit some major
speed bump, Steven Hawking predicts that within five hundred years,
humans will occupy every square inch of the planet, shoulder-to-
shoulder, and the entire planet will glow a dull red from dissipating
the energy they use. Yea, that's where limitless increases in grain
production puts us!
But don't worry, be happy. Things look okay today, and probably
tomorrow. But after all these years of increases, of growth in
population, of improved standard of living, of longer lives, etc. I'd
be pretty embarrassed to be a member of the first generation to see
declines in these things, and I'd even be embarrassed to have my
kids, or theirs, or theirs, be the first to experience such a decline.
So that leaves us with the inevitable: growth must be stopped. We, as
a living species, must use our too-large brains to figure out how to
live in a steady-state world. Surely that's as noble a challenge as
coming up with some new idea or technology that will let us grow just
a little bit longer?
Most people aren't ready to even begin thinking about this. It means
(among other things) no such thing as retirement -- you'll have to do
it the old way, by working as long as you're able, while investing
knowledge and social capital in the next generation so they will feel
like feeding you and wiping your butt when you are no longer able to
work. It means no such thing as making a killing in real-estate,
since with zero growth, demand for housing will be satisfied by
routine maintenance. It essentially means an end of the financial
"industry," since modern finance is entirely predicated on limitless
growth.
But it also means people will create things of lasting value, because
there will be no "away" to "throw away" stuff when it obsolesces. It
means most people will be intimately connected with the source of
their food again, since before petroleum gave each farmer 1,000
slaves, it took fifteen families on the land to support one in the
city. It means a new sense of belonging and purpose, since you'll
have to intimately know and trust your neighbors, rather than just
waving at each other from your driveways as you both take off for the
office in the morning.
So agree with me on timing and strategy, or not; you've got to agree
that things cannot simply continue as they always have, no? Someone
in some future generation is going to be stuck with the bill. Why not
try paying the bill down, instead?
Yea, this has gotten pretty far from the definition of "decline." But
it's all connected.
:::: You know what? What makes our economy grow is energy. And
Americans are used to going to the gas tank (sic), and when they put
that hose in their, uh, tank, and when I do it, I wanna get gas out
of it. And when I turn the light switch on, I want the lights to go
on, and I don't want somebody to tell me I gotta change my way of
living to satisfy them. Because this is America, and this is
something we've worked our way into, and the American people are
entitled to it, and if we're going improve (sic) our standard of
living, you have to consume more energy. -- Senator Chuck Grassley (R-
IA) ::::
:::: Jan Steinman, http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com ::::
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|