ECONOMY - LIFE SUPPORT double speak

Raleigh Myers

unread,

Jan 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/6/98

to

ECONOMY - LIFE SUPPORT double speak

The Economy is our life support system one step removed.

We need to come to grips with our deception management disaster -- Acquired
Tunnel Vision. http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/atv.html
We are led to believe that the economy is a sacred cow of sorts when the
economy is simply the life support system woven into a game of Monopoly.
This ponsy scheme between us and our life support system is worshipped like
the feted calf of biblical fame --mammonism. Civilization preoccupied with
this money--economics for itself rather than life support to benefit people
is tantamount to humanity chasing it’s tail.
http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/usury.html

SOLUTION: The redistribution of TIME the currency of the sovereign citizen.

We need to get down to basics if we are going to survive as a species and
empower our progeny. Basically, the planet can best accommodate the
billions of people on it when the hostilities created by competition for the
control of the provisioning of life support wains.

The desire for wealth has led certain dysfunctionals to educate themselves
and their protégés in the art of usurping the destiny of others in order to
gain control of the life support system and means of production for the sake
of their own selfish gains. Less than ten percent of the population
controls over ninety percent of the wealth and the means of producing life
support in the western world and even fewer in control of the means of
production in the two thirds undeveloped world. Which in turn will leave
us with over ninety percent of the planet’s population working for food so
to speak.

Freeing our planet from a codependency dysfunctional scenario is quite
simple. It entails a boycott of a few strategic commodities which will
collapse the currency strangle hold of the dysfunctionals on their own game
of Monopoly on a physical level and voting on a global Premise for the moral
high ground ie. level the playing field.

It begins with energy.

· By educating ourselves in the benefits of the Hydrogen Economy we can
begin to recoup the finances to make change --redistribution of TIME.
http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/home.html
· By consolidating the amenity infrastructure we reduce our tax-profit
burden thus freeing the TIME the currency of the sovereign citizen and
direct it toward change.
· By switching to the Hydrogen Economy, which enables us to consolidate the
amenity infrastructure, we can live almost anywhere which eliminates the
need for multy stranded umbilicals in the control of the supply side.
http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/stupid.html
· By producing food on the same acre we live on and curtailing our use of
meat and dairy we can free up millions of acres of land (five acres per
person in the developed world just for cattle USDA-Pimentel) which makes
land affordable to begin a life of high tech self sufficiency for the
families now locked up in cities as corporate fodder. THE REDISTRIBUTION OF
TIME. http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/means.html
· By sharing the technology to live and produce most of our needs on the
same acre we live on, we can accommodate the population increases as well as
accommodate the uncertainties of climate change. To provide the two thirds
undeveloped world the same degree of opulence that we have fallen prey to in
the twenty percent developed world, it would require nearly eight more
planets. http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/solidarity.html
· If each family on earth had an acre of land, a support
group-village-intentional community and the proper technology, the
population of the planet could live self sufficiently on the same acre they
live on which would amount to a land mass the size of the United States East
of the Mississippi River. The population of the U.S. could fit in New
England or an area Half the size of Nevada to give an example of how other
countries would benefit area wise, with each family living, working,
schooling and growing their own food on the same acre they live on. This
eliminates five separate cities for each group of families.
http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/solidarity.html
· We need to have a global plebiscite to vote on a global bill of rights for
the planet and all upon it. This fills in the gaps in existing
constitutions and bills of rights empowering sovereign citizens rather than
the representatives of the dysfunctional who live for wealth and profit
before people. Dysfunctional are those who condone profiting from the
harvest of cultural genocide and destiny deprivation.
http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/teninic.html

This synergy is explained in the URLs above and in our EARTH HOUR lecture
-- seminar. There is a solution if we are bright enough to implement it.
www.igc.apc.org/raenergy

In Solidarity

Raleigh Myers
Ra Energy Fdn
ram...@igc.apc.org
http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/raenergy.html

Don’t forget to get some bumper stickers printed.
"DIRECT DEMOCRACY REPLACES REPRESENTATIVE OLIGARCHY"

Rabbo

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

to

Raleigh Myers <ram...@igc.apc.org> wrote:

>ECONOMY - LIFE SUPPORT double speak
>
>The Economy is our life support system one step removed.
>
> We need to come to grips with our deception management disaster -- Acquired
>Tunnel Vision. http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/atv.html
>We are led to believe that the economy is a sacred cow of sorts when the
>economy is simply the life support system woven into a game of Monopoly.

snip
>
Unfortunately, while your intentions may be good, you don't seem to
know anything about geography.
There is no way the present world population could support itself if
we all reverted to small scale farming.
Water availability and soil quality limit the amount of land that can
be used in this way. At present, each average individual has about two
acres of useful land to live on. Try it if you dare but I don't like
your chances.
The current world population can only survive because of the
technological support it gets. Without technology, fertilizers and
mass production and transportation of food, most of us would quickly
starve to death.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

to

Rabbo wrote in message <34b5c3a3...@News.bigpond.com>...

>The current world population can only survive because of the
>technological support it gets. Without technology, fertilizers and
>mass production and transportation of food, most of us would quickly
>starve to death.

Agree to a point, but it's "energy" that makes "technology" possible.

The following is the future according to Joseph Tainter [all
direct quotes from http://dieoff.org/page134.htm ]:

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it
always will be. If our efforts to understand and resolve such
matters as global change involve increasing political,
technological, economic, and scientific complexity, as it seems
they will, then the availability of energy per capita will be a
constraining factor. To increase complexity on the basis of
static or declining energy supplies would require lowering the
standard of living throughout the world. In the absence of a
clear crisis very few people would support this. To maintain
political support for our current and future investments in
complexity thus requires an increase in the effective per capita
supply of energy-either by increasing the physical availability
of energy, or by technical, political, or economic innovations
that lower the energy cost of our standard of living. Of course,
to discover such innovations requires energy, which underscores
the constraints in the energy-complexity relation.

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter on the past clarifies potential paths to the future.
One often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and
lower energy costs. This could come about through the "crash"
that many fear-a genuine collapse over a period of one or two
generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of
population. The alternative is the "soft landing" that many
people hope for-a voluntary change to solar energy and green
fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and less overall
consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in
industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth
and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology.

The more likely option is a future of greater investments in
problem solving, increasing overall complexity, and greater use
of energy. This option is driven by the material comforts it
provides, by vested interests, by lack of alternatives, and by
our conviction that it is good. If the trajectory of problem
solving that humanity has followed for much of the last 12,000
years should continue, it is the path that we are likely to take
in the near future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following is the future according to Richard Duncan:

Global oil production increases briefly, then eases off to the
World all-time peak at 28.5 Gb/yr in 2005. Decline begins
gradually, then avalanches in 2009 as both OPEC and non-OPEC
go into steep-slide. By 2040 World production has fallen to
10.9 Gb/yr—down 62% in 35 years.

"It's not that other energy sources aren't feasible. It's that
none will be on-line by 2005. And continuing our present course,
none by 2050 either." [ http://dieoff.org/page133.htm ]

"As I read it, the descent into the [New Stone Age] will be steep
and swift. A scenario of Phase 3, the Post-Industrial Phase, is
sketched in Figure 1 (i.e., from point 1 onward) wherein
Industrial Civilization has disintegrated into farming villages,
kinship tribes and rogue bands. The surviving population will
have 'achieved' permanent sustainability -- at the subsistence
level."

"Of course, other scenarios are possible. For example, 'The human
species may follow the road to extinction rather than revert to
the berry-picking stage' (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Or more
recently, 'The danger of extinction is real ... It is time to
face the facts' (Leslie, 1996). However, because the
circumstances of human society beyond the end of the second
phase (i.e., point H. Figure 1) don't effect my thesis, the
third phase is de-emphasized in the remainder of this
discussion." [ http://dieoff.org/page125.htm ]

gary cruse

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

to

"Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com> mused:

>
>
>>
>> "It's not that other energy sources aren't feasible. It's that
>> none will be on-line by 2005. And continuing our present course,
>> none by 2050 either." [ http://dieoff.org/page133.htm ]
>

>So what about nuclear power? Even if we did have a significant reduction
>of the amount of oil being produced, nuclear power plants could be built to
>supply power with electric or hydrogen cars used for transportation. We
>can build the nuclear plants now, so where does this lack of an alternative
>come from? My guess is that you must be one of those anti-nuke fanatics
>that would rather die than face up to your fears and see the technology for
>what it really is.
>
Throw in selectively blind. These tricksters refuse to
compare the number of people killed from coal mining or whose lungs
are destroyed from breathing coal dust with the number of people
killed by nuclear reactor operations. Not to mention their wailing
over global warming and willingness to shutter the world economy to
get rid of another problem that nuclear power will solve. If a
medieval lifestyle retakes the planet, it will be because these idiots
got the upper hand, not because of an unavailability of remedies.
--
Gary
ICQ 6140980

Oh Yeah?
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

to

>
> "It's not that other energy sources aren't feasible. It's that
> none will be on-line by 2005. And continuing our present course,
> none by 2050 either." [ http://dieoff.org/page133.htm ]

So what about nuclear power? Even if we did have a significant reduction
of the amount of oil being produced, nuclear power plants could be built to
supply power with electric or hydrogen cars used for transportation. We
can build the nuclear plants now, so where does this lack of an alternative
come from? My guess is that you must be one of those anti-nuke fanatics
that would rather die than face up to your fears and see the technology for
what it really is.

>

> "As I read it, the descent into the [New Stone Age] will be steep
> and swift. A scenario of Phase 3, the Post-Industrial Phase, is
> sketched in Figure 1 (i.e., from point 1 onward) wherein
> Industrial Civilization has disintegrated into farming villages,
> kinship tribes and rogue bands. The surviving population will
> have 'achieved' permanent sustainability -- at the subsistence
> level."

What a bunch of garbage. I don't see this happening at all. Maybe after a
global catastrophe such as a meteor impact or a large scale nuclear
exchange. We would still retain at least some of our technology, assuming
some people survived.

Gareth Thomas

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

to

gary cruse wrote:

> "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com> mused:

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "It's not that other energy sources aren't feasible. It's that
> >> none will be on-line by 2005. And continuing our present course,
> >> none by 2050 either." [ http://dieoff.org/page133.htm ]
> >
> >So what about nuclear power? Even if we did have a significant reduction
> >of the amount of oil being produced, nuclear power plants could be built to
> >supply power with electric or hydrogen cars used for transportation. We
> >can build the nuclear plants now, so where does this lack of an alternative
> >come from? My guess is that you must be one of those anti-nuke fanatics
> >that would rather die than face up to your fears and see the technology for
> >what it really is.
> >

> Throw in selectively blind. These tricksters refuse to
> compare the number of people killed from coal mining or whose lungs
> are destroyed from breathing coal dust with the number of people
> killed by nuclear reactor operations.

Real good point....and don't forget about explosions in underground mines to ...

> Not to mention their wailing
> over global warming and willingness to shutter the world economy to
> get rid of another problem that nuclear power will solve. If a
> medieval lifestyle retakes the planet, it will be because these idiots
> got the upper hand, not because of an unavailability of remedies.
> --
> Gary
> ICQ 6140980
>
> Oh Yeah?
> "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
> Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

these fanatics I kinda wish they would all move to califonia where they belong
(under the ocean in five years time)

And a note to the person that post the first messge up what power source are
you using to go on the internet ??????

Gareth Thomas

mailto:silic...@post1.com

And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:

Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov

and just for a Laugh sign your self to a fellow Spammer
and enjoy the junk you love to send: webm...@cyberpromo.com

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

to

Carl Dean wrote in message <01bd1d4a$ee8c4f00$5f1256d1@deanmachine>...

>> "It's not that other energy sources aren't feasible. It's that
>> none will be on-line by 2005. And continuing our present course,
>> none by 2050 either." [ http://dieoff.org/page133.htm ]
>
>So what about nuclear power? Even if we did have a significant reduction
>of the amount of oil being produced, nuclear power plants could be built to
>supply power with electric or hydrogen cars used for transportation. We
>can build the nuclear plants now, so where does this lack of an alternative
>come from? My guess is that you must be one of those anti-nuke fanatics
>that would rather die than face up to your fears and see the technology for
>what it really is.

Why don't you stupid bastards ever do any research?

"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant
expansion of nuclear power容ven the five-fold expansion widely
canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and (much
more disturbing) at Chernobyl -- would out-run readily accessible
supplies. These supplies include both deposits previously
exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known
high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly.
Therefore, the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to
bring rapidly back on course the development of fast-breeder
reactors and pursue fusion technology. [WEC, 1993]

But the "fast breeders" are dead:

"TOKYO (October 1, 1997 11:39 a.m. EDT: http://www.nando.net) -
Japan's fast-breeder reactor program, a cornerstone of the nation's
energy program in the 21st century, has suffered a major setback,
Japanese nuclear policy-makers said Wednesday.

"A subgroup of the powerful Atomic Energy Commission said in a draft
policy report it was too early to draw up a timetable for the program
to move beyond the experimental stage.
[snip]
"In June, France said it would scrap the highly controversial
Superphenix nuclear fast-breeder, saying it was too costly and of
doubtful value."

"Britain, the United States and Germany have already abandoned their
programs for similar reasons."

[ http://wedge.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/100197/health3_3230_body.html ]

The party is over!

Jay

Paul Dietz

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

to

Jay Hanson wrote:

> Why don't you stupid bastards ever do any research?
>
> "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
> about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant

> expansion of nuclear power—even the five-fold expansion widely

> canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and (much
> more disturbing) at Chernobyl -- would out-run readily accessible
> supplies. These supplies include both deposits previously
> exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known
> high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly.
> Therefore, the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to
> bring rapidly back on course the development of fast-breeder
> reactors and pursue fusion technology. [WEC, 1993]
>
> But the "fast breeders" are dead:

[ ... ]

Jay, why don't *you* do some research? In particular,
you should look up the research that has been done on
breeders other than liquid sodium cooled fast breeders.
Among the reactor types:

LWR U-Th breeders (demonstrated)
LWR U-Pu breeders
Molten salt U-Th breeders (demonstrated)
Accelerator-driven thermal breeders
Liquid lead cooled fast breeders (demonstrated in Russia?)
Accelerator-driven fast subcritical reactors with
liquid lead cooling

The U-Th cycle is particularly appealing, because
of the low production of higher actinides, and the
ability to purify U233 by the fluoride volatility
process. It is also most compatible with existing
nuclear technology.

Radkoswky has a U/Th core that can be put into
existing LWR designs, and allows fuel elements to
remain in the core for ten years before disposal
He projects a 20-30% reduction in cost over
current LWRs from this technology.

The lead cooled reactors have substantial safety
advantages over sodium, since lead does not react
violently with air or water.

Paul

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

to

From: Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com>

>The lead cooled reactors have substantial safety
>advantages over sodium, since lead does not react
>violently with air or water.

Look Paul, breeders can't "replace" fossil fuel --
and no sane human would claim they could. Moreover,
if they ever become "commercial", it will be long
after I am dead and gone.

Here are my assumptions. Anything that doesn't fit
within this framework, is for the most part, outside
of my interest (including science fiction stories).

Current assumptions:

#1. The scientific community is correct -- that we have now
exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet, and that
continued "business as usual" will result in a global
population crash in less than 35 years -- billions may die
untimely deaths. [ e.g., http://dieoff.org/page5.htm ]

#2. The expected crash is the WORST possible outcome for
societies all over the world. World governments must do
whatever is necessary to avoid the crash.

#3. Once carrying capacity was exceeded, political questions
have "right" and "wrong" answers. The "right" answers will
tend to delay the crash, the "wrong" answers will tend to
hasten the crash.

The "right" and "wrong" political answers can only be
determined by scientists working collectively, utilizing
modern technology. What point democracy if scientists
already know what the answers MUST be? [1]

#4. America's political system is "structurally" defective.
"Government by popularity contest" can only elect idiots and
liars. There absolutely no way that idiots and liars can
solve the colossal problems that confront our civilization
today.

#5. Political theory is merely the rationalization of economic
theory, with our present form of democracy serving as the
rationalization of laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, in order
to change our politics, we must first change our economics.

To see the outlines of the new economics (and your new
political future as well), read the publications of the
International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE).
Many ISEE publications are available from Island Press:
http://www.islandpress.com/

#6. Metaphysical[2] beliefs are irrelevant except to gauge the
emotional impacts of various policies on the public.

That's it! I hope we can make some real progress towards a new
beginning this coming year.

Happy New Year,
Jay
------------
[1] Although no one rants and raves against democracy as much
as I do, read Kaplain's recent article at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm

[2] metaphysical: A priori speculation upon questions that are
unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or
experiment.

e.g., political, neoclassical economic, and moral theories.

Adam Ierymenko

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

to

In article <69b2kk$sh5$1...@news.gstis.net>,

> [1] Although no one rants and raves against democracy as much

> as I do, read Kaplain's recent article at:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm

Let's examine Jay Hanson's claims from a political point of view rather
than a technical point of view (since he seems impervious to any technical
argument that contradicts his worldview):

I think "fascist" is an appropriate description for Jay's politics. Here
is a brief list of the characteristics that I belive make up "fascism":

- A belief in the absolute dictatorship of an infalliable elite
- Cultural divergence (cultural novelty would be a better term) is bad--
people should be coerced into accepting a single social organizing
principle
- The ecnonomy should exist for the purpose of the state (or the organizing
principle) and therefore the individual exercise of economic freedom
should be limited by the state whenver interests conflict (many fascist
states perpetuate the illusion of a free market while in fact there is
a cartel market controlled only by those loyal to the cause)
- People have no right to control their own political process since the
infalliable elite is.. well... infalliable
- Those who oppose the organizing principle of society must be censored,
killed, brainwashed, bought out, etc.

Now let's take a look at these characteristics and compare them with Jay
Hanson's politics.

The absolute dictatorship of an infalliable elite:

From above:

> The "right" and "wrong" political answers can only be
> determined by scientists working collectively, utilizing
> modern technology. What point democracy if scientists
> already know what the answers MUST be? [1]

Jay belives that scientists are infalliable and that they therefore have a
right to dictate the function of society. This is in fact a version of the
Platonic view that since philosophers posess wisdom then they are infalliable
and should rule society as "philosopher kings." Jay's version is "scientist
kings" but the basic politics is similar. Jay's "master race" of "experts"
have access to the one and only source of truth. Of course, Jay believes
that scientists since they presumably know the truth will therefore use it
only to better mankind. This is again a version of Plato's belief that
since philosophers have wisdom they therefore have no possibility of acting
unwisely.

This view is remarkably naive:
- The phrase "power corrupts" is generally true-- those in power have
extreme temptation to use their power in their own favor (or in the
favor of ideological, religious, or cultural biases that they adhere
to)
- Science is not infalliable, particularly when tainted with ideological
bias. Ideological bias causes people to look selectively at the evidence
(often subconsciously), reinforcing only that evidence which supports
scientific conclusions reinforcing a particular ideological worldview.
Scientists in the field of ecology tend to be extremely biased towards
certain social and political agendas.
Of course, naive is not the word I would use. I would use the term
"sociopathic."

Cultural conformism to a single organizing principle:

From Jay's web page:

I think that the people are sick to death of the "anything goes" consumer
society. I believe that people from all political backgrounds would LOVE to
be an important part of a righteous "organizing principle" (see anomie).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It would give people important structure in their lives and the dignity of
being something besides just another corporate gut.

Clicking on the "anomie" link:

ANOMIE

Literally, without LAW, a condition of disintegration of a society into
^^^^^^^^^^^ (moral law?)
individual components resulting from the absence of CONVENTIONs, shared
PERCEPTIONs and goals. A SOCIAL SYSTEM describable as a mere aggregate (see
AGGREGATION), the state of maximum SOCIAL ENTROPY (Etzioni). (Krippendorff)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(read: SOCIAL NOVELTY)

This is pure fascism, plain and simple. Human beings are naturally free-
thinkers. To create a society with a single organizing principle, those who
deviate from this organizing principle must be killed, censored, brainwashed,
etc. Hitler tried to create a society with low "social entropy." Had there
been more "social entropy" in Germany at that time, perhaps the holocaust
would never have happened. Social "entropy" decreases the harmful effects of
dangerous ideologies and promotes technological, intellectual, and spiritual
progress. Social entropy is good. The restriction of cultural divergence
requires persecution and censorship.

A social system describable as a mere aggregate is a progressive and dynamic
social system. The only "organizing principles" of a society should be
technical ones and boundary-establishing ones (rights), NOT cultural ones or
ideological ones.

(This is the basis of my frequent claim that environmentalism is in fact a
"right-wing" ideology)

The economy should exist for the purpose of the state or the organizing
principle:

> To see the outlines of the new economics (and your new
> political future as well), read the publications of the
> International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE).
> Many ISEE publications are available from Island Press:
> http://www.islandpress.com/

Enough said.

People have no right to control their own political system:

> [1] Although no one rants and raves against democracy as much
> as I do, read Kaplain's recent article at:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm

Enough said. (there is more of similar tone on his webpage, including a
discussion of wildlife ecology implying that people should be regulated like
animals by an elite of the "ecologically aware")

Opposition of the organizing principle must not be tolerated:

> To see the outlines of the new economics (and your new

^^^^^^^^^^^^

> political future as well), read the publications of the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is more like this on his web page. Most of it takes the form of
inuendo-- fascists rarely claim outright that they support censorship,
brainwashing, etc. but if you read between the lines you will usually see
it.

Now, from a technical point of view, some of what Jay Hanson says is correct:
we are currently suffering from a "tragedy of the commons." Politically this
is an age-old problem and is usually dealt with by establishing property rights
and boundaries within the "commons." There are many ways to do this, including
democratic and free-market solutions. Read up on the subject a little.. I
don't need to post them all here. The point is: don't be led into a "slippery
slope" by those claiming that the ONE AND ONLY solution to our problems is to
adopt a radical fascist political system. The technique of a skilled political
propagandist is to blind you to the alternatives and lead you down a single,
increasingly radical and extreme path. Also remember that proclaiming an
emergency is the easiest way to get people to suspend careful judgment.

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

to

Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote in article <69b2kk$sh5$1...@news.gstis.net>...
> From: Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com>

>
> >The lead cooled reactors have substantial safety
> >advantages over sodium, since lead does not react
> >violently with air or water.
>
> Look Paul, breeders can't "replace" fossil fuel --
> and no sane human would claim they could. Moreover,
> if they ever become "commercial", it will be long
> after I am dead and gone.

If you use breeder reactors to produce almost all of the energy that we use
(for home, industry and transportation) then you no longer require fossil
fuels at all. I doubt that this would occur completely (in the near term),
but the amount of oil used per year would drop dramatically.

>
> Here are my assumptions. Anything that doesn't fit
> within this framework, is for the most part, outside
> of my interest (including science fiction stories).
>
> Current assumptions:

(snipped)

None of your assumptions have any bearing on oil running out and causing
society to revert to a "new stone age" or on why nuclear power could not be
used to produce energy to keep our society running.

Overpopulation is a serious matter though. There are two models for
population growth for a species (any species). One is that it increases
until it exceeds its resources and then a dramatic drop occurs. The other
is where the population growth slows to a stop at the maximum sustainable
number and the species lives happily ever after, until such time as the
carrying capacity of its environment changes. I hope that we as species
fall into the second model. Global warming has the power to alter weather
patterns and thus change the carrying capacity of the world. Other factors
that can have similar impacts are ultra-violet radiation and pollution.

Carl

Manfred Nadahl

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

to

Adam wrote<34b91...@news.one.net>...

>In article <69b2kk$sh5$1...@news.gstis.net>,
> "Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> writes:
>>>The lead cooled reactors have substantial safety

deleted

>emergency is the easiest way to get people to suspend careful judgment.

I do not think that we should call the environmental movement a right-wing
or fascist movement.

I do not know much about politics in the US, but in Germany the origin of
the green movement is clearly left-wing.

In 1968 we had a group of new Marxists who claimed that the main problem of
mankind was the exploitation of man by man. According to them the solution
was to transfer power to them and the result would be more freedom and a
higher standard of living.

Most of these people were students, so they were rather intelligent. So it
is not really surprising that the most intelligent of them, after looking at
the communist countries, recognized that a transfer of power to them would
mean less freedom and a lower standard of living.

Therefore, once the first publications of the Club of Rome were published,
the intelligent members of the German left recognized the usefulness of
these concepts.

Now they could claim that the main problem of mankind was the exploitation
of nature by man. The solution to this problem was still the same: transfer
power to them. And they could now openly say that the result would be less
freedom and a lower standard of living. Apart from this, their political
positions did not change much.

Every member of the German green party will of course deny it, but if you
look at the political careers of their prominent members, it is really
obvious. And for those greens who will disagree: Are you really saying that
you are not the intelligent part of the German left?

Regards

Manfred Nadahl

John Alway

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

to

Manfred Nadahl wrote:

> Adam wrote<34b91...@news.one.net>...
> >In article <69b2kk$sh5$1...@news.gstis.net>,
>

> >emergency is the easiest way to get people to suspend careful judgment.
>

> I do not think that we should call the environmental movement a right-wing
> or fascist movement.

Actually, they are even worse, for they have set up _all_ of mankind
as the enemy. The fascists/Nazis set up other factions of people, based on
racism
and nationalism, as the enemy. Furthermore, it is important to recognize
that
they were very similar to communists/Marxists in that they were
collectivists
at root, which is one of the reason that the left/right political spectrum
makes
utterly no sense, and never has.

Collectivists wanted to sacrifice mankind to the collective, i.e. the
group.
The only difference between them was which group gets sacrificed.

Environmentalists want to sacrifice mankind to nature.

Interestingly, all of them have in common that they are anti-capitalist,
and
anti-individualist. The rights of man are an anathema to them all.

> I do not know much about politics in the US, but in Germany the origin of
> the green movement is clearly left-wing.

The origin of the green movement is _philosophical_, not political, and
it's
fundamentally the same the world over. It has spilled out of the
universities,
just as did Marxism and Nazism, just as has post-modernism in all of its
nasty, deadly forms.

> In 1968 we had a group of new Marxists who claimed that the main problem of
> mankind was the exploitation of man by man. According to them the solution
> was to transfer power to them and the result would be more freedom and a
> higher standard of living.

This doesn't sound at all different from the Marxists of the early part
of the century.

> Most of these people were students, so they were rather intelligent. So it
>is not really surprising that the most intelligent of them, after looking at
>the communist countries, recognized that a transfer of power to them would
>mean less freedom and a lower standard of living.
>Therefore, once the first publications of the Club of Rome were published,
>the intelligent members of the German left recognized the usefulness of
>these concepts.

> Now they could claim that the main problem of mankind was the exploitation
> of nature by man. The solution to this problem was still the same: transfer
> power to them. And they could now openly say that the result would be less
> freedom and a lower standard of living. Apart from this, their political
> positions did not change much.

Yes, they claim that the "exploitation of nature by man" is the problem,
and they state this directly in the face of the evidence which shows
otherwise.
This is indictive of "intellectuals" of this century. They have a profound
capacity
to evade overwhelming evidence against them. Getting communists to admit
the
evils of their system was a virtually impossible task, despite the oceans of
blood
that were spilled in the name of communism (and after they recognized it,
they
came back with the claim that it wasn't communism!). One of the things you
have to
understand about highly intelligent people (intellectuals) is that they can
build more
intricate webs of prevarication than their less intelligent breathern, and
often that
prevarication is directed at the themselves. The obverse of that is that
more
intelligent _honest_ people can cut a path to a better life on earth far
better than
their less intelligent breathern.

...John

John McCarthy

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

to

"Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> writes:

>
> Carl Dean wrote in message <01bd1d4a$ee8c4f00$5f1256d1@deanmachine>...
>
> >> "It's not that other energy sources aren't feasible. It's that
> >> none will be on-line by 2005. And continuing our present course,
> >> none by 2050 either." [ http://dieoff.org/page133.htm ]
> >
> >So what about nuclear power? Even if we did have a significant reduction
> >of the amount of oil being produced, nuclear power plants could be built to
> >supply power with electric or hydrogen cars used for transportation. We
> >can build the nuclear plants now, so where does this lack of an alternative
> >come from? My guess is that you must be one of those anti-nuke fanatics
> >that would rather die than face up to your fears and see the technology for
> >what it really is.
>
>

> Why don't you stupid bastards ever do any research?
>
> "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
> about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant
> expansion of nuclear power—even the five-fold expansion widely
> canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and (much
> more disturbing) at Chernobyl -- would out-run readily accessible
> supplies. These supplies include both deposits previously
> exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known
> high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly.
> Therefore, the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to
> bring rapidly back on course the development of fast-breeder
> reactors and pursue fusion technology. [WEC, 1993]
>
> But the "fast breeders" are dead:
>

> "TOKYO (October 1, 1997 11:39 a.m. EDT: http://www.nando.net) -
> Japan's fast-breeder reactor program, a cornerstone of the nation's
> energy program in the 21st century, has suffered a major setback,
> Japanese nuclear policy-makers said Wednesday.
>
> "A subgroup of the powerful Atomic Energy Commission said in a draft
> policy report it was too early to draw up a timetable for the program
> to move beyond the experimental stage.
> [snip]
> "In June, France said it would scrap the highly controversial
> Superphenix nuclear fast-breeder, saying it was too costly and of
> doubtful value."
>
> "Britain, the United States and Germany have already abandoned their
> programs for similar reasons."
>
> [ http://wedge.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/100197/health3_3230_body.html ]
>
> The party is over!

Jay Hanson wishes to conclude that the present rate of energy use is
doomed, because we will run out of present sources of uranium (relying
on old figures of when we will run out). When it is pointed out, e.g.
in http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html, that
breeder reactors can supply energy for 5 billion years, Jay cites the
abandonment or slowing down of breeder reactor projects. However, the
basis for slowing breeder projects is that the supplies of uranium are
now sufficient to allow projected increases in nuclear power to use
conventional reactors for a very long time. Therefore, breeders won't
even be needed for a long time.

The Japanese breeder project is just insurance stemming from the fact
that Japan does not have significant domestic uranium resources.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Mike

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

In article <699g9v$e4g$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson wrote:
> Why don't you stupid bastards ever do any research?
>

I don't think the tone of your response is going to win you many
converts. Besides the fact the your sources are somewhat dubious.

The fact is that the world has huge reserves of Uranium, enough
to last as well into the next century. Besides that, the fuel cost is
much less important in a nuclear plant then in a Coal or Natural Gas
plant.

>>Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of
>>energy which is therefore easily and cheaply transportable, the
>>quantities needed being very much less than for coal or oil. One
>>kilogram of natural uranium will yield about twenty thousand times as
>>much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically
<<a very portable and tradeable commodity.

>>In addition, because the fuel cost contribution to the overall cost
>>of electricity produced is relatively small, even a large fuel price
>>escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance a
>>doubling of the 1997 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a
>>light water reactor 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas
>>doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity from
>>that source).

From Uranium Information Center
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

Therefore if the price of Uranium were to rise, new sources of it
could be found, and even huge price increases woulds have little effect
on electricity prices. These price increase would certain allow new
mines to be opened, as well as allowing the cost of Breeder reactors to
become more cost competitive.

In other words, we won't run out of nuclear fuel in our lifetimes.

Mike H.

--

Using Virtual Access
http://www.vamail.com

Adam Ierymenko

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

In article <69bckp$7oe$1...@mp.citykom.de>,

"Manfred Nadahl" <nad...@muenster.de> writes:
>>emergency is the easiest way to get people to suspend careful judgment.
>

> I do not think that we should call the environmental movement a right-wing
> or fascist movement.

There are clearly some factions of it which are both right-wing and left-wing
in their implicit politics. Jay belongs to what I refer to as the fascist or
totalitarian faction of the environmental movement.

The environmental movement encompasses a large number of people, so you are
right to say that it is not fair to label everyone under the banner of
"environmentalism" (which is a huge banner) based on one faction.

> I do not know much about politics in the US, but in Germany the origin of
> the green movement is clearly left-wing.

The origins of the movement in the U.S. is left-wing as well, but parts of
it seem to have metamorphosed into something more along the lines of right-
wing luddite fascism.

There are many factions under the banner of "environmentalism" in the U.S.:
- Socialists/Marxists (who blame capitalism)
- Luddites/anarchists/tribalists (who blame science and technology)
- Right-wing fascists (who also blame the current form of capitalism and
who suggest a more fascist and undemocratic rather than democratic
socialist solution)
- and yes even... Libertarians (who blame not any specific group but rather
a lack of proper regulation and property rights in the commons)

> In 1968 we had a group of new Marxists who claimed that the main problem of
> mankind was the exploitation of man by man. According to them the solution
> was to transfer power to them and the result would be more freedom and a
> higher standard of living.
>

> Most of these people were students, so they were rather intelligent. So it
> is not really surprising that the most intelligent of them, after looking at
> the communist countries, recognized that a transfer of power to them would
> mean less freedom and a lower standard of living.
>
> Therefore, once the first publications of the Club of Rome were published,
> the intelligent members of the German left recognized the usefulness of
> these concepts.
>
> Now they could claim that the main problem of mankind was the exploitation
> of nature by man. The solution to this problem was still the same: transfer
> power to them. And they could now openly say that the result would be less
> freedom and a lower standard of living. Apart from this, their political
> positions did not change much.

I find this very interesting-- they would sooner abandon the notion of
bettering the human standard of living than abandon their elitist politics.

Harold

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

On 11 Jan 1998 19:56:28 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote in article <69b2kk$sh5$1...@news.gstis.net>...
>> From: Paul Dietz <di...@interaccess.com>
>>

>> >The lead cooled reactors have substantial safety

>> >advantages over sodium, since lead does not react
>> >violently with air or water.
>>
>> Look Paul, breeders can't "replace" fossil fuel --
>> and no sane human would claim they could. Moreover,
>> if they ever become "commercial", it will be long
>> after I am dead and gone.
>
>If you use breeder reactors to produce almost all of the energy that we use
>(for home, industry and transportation) then you no longer require fossil
>fuels at all. I doubt that this would occur completely (in the near term),
>but the amount of oil used per year would drop dramatically.
>
>>
>> Here are my assumptions. Anything that doesn't fit
>> within this framework, is for the most part, outside
>> of my interest (including science fiction stories).
>>
>> Current assumptions:
>(snipped)
>
>None of your assumptions have any bearing on oil running out and causing
>society to revert to a "new stone age" or on why nuclear power could not be
>used to produce energy to keep our society running.
>
>Overpopulation is a serious matter though. There are two models for
>population growth for a species (any species). One is that it increases
>until it exceeds its resources and then a dramatic drop occurs. The other
>is where the population growth slows to a stop at the maximum sustainable
>number and the species lives happily ever after, until such time as the
>carrying capacity of its environment changes.

You and Jay make the same mistake here that so many others have made.
You assume that intelligence is insignificant.

I do not believe this is the case. Intelligence can change resource
bases as they deplete.

There are many commodity items available today in train car lots (or
bigger) that did not even exist fifty years ago.

Regards, Harold
-------
"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private
property and production for human need. A socialist world
would place an enormous priority on alternative energy
sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have
been exploring for quite some time now."
---Louis Proyect, Nov. 27, 1997

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
<34bc6d68....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...

No, I do not. The amount of carrying capacity of the land changes with
regard to weather patterns, pollution levels, energy input and technology
used (intelligence). However, if the carrying capacity of the land is
exceeded and no outside source of food/water is available, then people die.
It is just that simple.

>
> I do not believe this is the case. Intelligence can change resource
> bases as they deplete.

I'm talking about food/water resources primarily.

> There are many commodity items available today in train car lots (or
> bigger) that did not even exist fifty years ago.

Fresh water is the most valuable substance on earth (not the most
expensive). People don't realize how precious it really is until they are
half dead from dehydration. Then there is food. Nothing fancy just basic
food. How long can you go without eating? What is the longest you've
gone?

Air is even more valuable. How long can you hold your breath? We pay
nothing for air and rarely even think about it.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

>>> Here are my assumptions. Anything that doesn't fit
>>> within this framework, is for the most part, outside
>>> of my interest (including science fiction stories).
>>>
>>> Current assumptions:
>>(snipped)
>>
>>None of your assumptions have any bearing on oil running out and causing
>>society to revert to a "new stone age" or on why nuclear power could not
be
>>used to produce energy to keep our society running.

You put on a fine demonstration of innate self-deception!

It is however, self-evident to anyone with the guts to look, that
society is going down the tubes -- it's based on physical laws.
Here's the entire life-cycle for humans, with your descendents
ripping each-other's throats out over goodies found in the garbage
dumps of history.

==================================================================

LIFE CYCLE
Jay Hanson, 01/01/98

Having become a species of superdetritovores, mankind was
destined not merely for succession, but for crash.
[ Catton, 1982, http://www.dieoff.org/page15.htm ]
______
REASON
The word philosophy means the love of wisdom, but what
philosophers really love is reasoning. And one thing philosophers
reason about is reasoning itself. Indeed, throughout history,
most philosophers believed that reason is sine qua non of
humanity: "What continued to give humanity some special status,
though, it its capacity for rationality." [Nozick, 1993]

From Plato to our present society, we can trace the history of
the idea of reason through the work of Aristotle, Bacon,
Descartes, and especially the English philosopher John Locke. In
1664, Locke argued that there is a natural law governing humans
and that it can be known by human reason:

"And reason ... teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that
being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in
his life, health, liberty or possessions."

Present political, economic theories presuppose people are
"rational" -- somewhat like a computer. In fact, our entire
society is based upon this assumption.

[ Here I define "rational" as the ability to carefully weigh the
important, known variables and make that decision which is most
likely to achieve the desired end. ]

But people are NOT rational! In fact, tests show that people
routinely fail to make inferences according to Bayes' Theorem,
which is a formula used to calculate the probability that a
particular event will occur. They give recently presented
information undue importance, thereby producing answers that
are not rational. [ http://dieoff.org/page19.htm#HAMM ]

According to a rule in science and philosophy called "Ockham's
Razor", the simplest of two or more competing theories is
preferable, and an explanation for unknown phenomena should first
be attempted in terms of what is already known.

Evolutionary science provides the simplest explanation of human
behavior that fits the physical facts.
____________________
EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE
Evolution is the complex of processes by which living organisms
originated on earth and have been diversified and modified
through sustained changes in form and function. The earliest
known fossil organisms are single-celled forms resembling modern
bacteria; they date from about 3.4 billion years ago. Many of the
evolving organisms have become extinct (e.g., the dinosaurs), but
some have developed into the present fauna and flora of the
world. Extinction and diversification continue today.

Charles Darwin's ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES (1859), is a landmark in
human understanding of nature. Darwin noted that while offspring
inherit a resemblance to their parents, they are not identical
to them. He further noted that some of the differences between
offspring and parents were not due solely to the environment but
were themselves often inheritable.

The new and emerging field of "evolutionary psychology" looks at
the mind as "it," asks "how does it work?", and discovers organic
design and functional purpose. Evolutionary psychologists seek
to understand the human mind by understanding the evolutionary
process that designed it. To do this, they engage in a kind of
reverse-engineering, trying to piece together how the minds we
have today evolved little by little through the process of
natural selection. They are not interested in the competition
between species, but rather the competition between genes within
the human species.

Natural selection creates new traits and adaptations in a species
by putting genes through a process of trial and error. New genes
arise in an individual organism by chance mutation. If a new
gene produces a trait that decreases the organism's chances of
reproduction, that gene, and the trait it produces, will not be
passed on. This is the fate of the vast majority of genetic
mutations.

However, if a new gene produces a trait that makes the host
organism more effective in reproduction, this gene will be
"selected," that is, passed on to the next generation. In this
manner, highly successful genes and traits spread throughout the
species, gradually overtaking "competing" genes and eventually
becoming "species-typical" traits.

The fundamental theorem upon which evolutionary psychology is
based is that behavior (just like anatomy and physiology) is in
large part inherited and that every organism acts (consciously
or not) to enhance its inclusive fitness -- to increase the
frequency and distribution of its selfish genes in future
generations. And those genes exist not only in the individual but
also in his or her identical twin (100%), siblings (on average,
50%), and cousins (on average, 25%) and so on down the kinship
line. (Thus, aid to and feelings for relatives makes evolutionary
sense.)

One of the most important points to keep in mind in thinking
about evolutionary psychology is that all mental mechanisms were
evolved in and designed for a specific social and environmental
setting -- small bands of hunter-gatherer families who roamed
the savanna planes of the Pleistocene era, 2 million to 10,000
years ago. The mental mechanisms we inherit from our ancestors
are therefore not necessarily adaptive to today's environment.
The modern two-year-old who recoils in fear from a moth will
blindly run into on-coming traffic. Fear of insects is automatic,
but parents have to work hard to teach their children to avoid
speeding cars because that threat didn't exist in our
evolutionary past.

This revision and extension of Darwinian evolution, from
"survival of the fittest" to inclusive fitness, was worked out
primarily by George Williams (in the US) and by William Hamilton
and John Maynard Smith (in the UK) in the 1960s, with some clever
twists added by Robert Trivers (in the US) in the 1970s.

[ Much of the foregoing was just cut and paste from:
http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.miele-immoral.html
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/evomed.html ]

People, like all animals, were optimized by evolution to put
their genes into the next generation. Those strains of humans
that were not so optimized are no longer here.

Three of the most important social characteristics that allow
people to put their genes into the next generation are
exploitation (making the best use of something -- including
other people), lying (I love you, so let's go to bed), and
self-deception. Exploitation and lying contributed to human
survival for millions of years, self-deception for at least
40,000 years.

"Humans have existed as a separate evolutionary line for some
five million years... biologically modern humans did not appear
until sometime in the last 120,000 years... behaviorally modern
humans probably appeared sometime in the last 120,000, and
certainly by 40,000 years ago." [ p. 355, Kelly, 1995 ]

Self-deception contributes to survival by making us better liars!
In love, business, and politics, sincerity is everything. If you
can fake that, you've got it made.

[ http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.htm
http://www.clark.net/pub/wright/toc.htm
http://www.a3.com/myself/ravenpap.htm ]
_________________
OUR ANIMAL NATURE
For millions of years, humans LIVED the Tragedy of the Commons.
Hunter gatherers exploited an area -- literally ATE themselves
out of an area -- and then moved to a new one. That's just the
kind animal they were -- that's just what they did.

Modern hunter gatherers, such as the !Kung bushmen, still do:

"As one might expect, the bushmen prefer to collect the desirable
foods that are closest to the water supply. They occupy a camp
for a period of weeks and literally eat their way out of it. For
example, they often camp in the nut forests and exhaust the nuts
within a 1.6 km radius during the first week of occupation,
within a 3.2 km radius the second week, and within a 4.8 km
radius the third week." [ Lee, 1969, cited in Pimentel, 1996 ]

Humans adopted settled agriculture ONLY about 12,000 years ago.
In other words, humans are still evolved and optimized as hunter
gatherers and have simply not had enough time to evolve and adapt
for survival at present (and expected) population densities like,
say, termites.
____________
WHERE WE ARE
Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in
steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains
its constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding
on low entropy from its environment -- that is, by
exchanging high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs.
The same statement would hold verbatim as a physical
description of our economic process. A corollary of this
statement is that an organism cannot live in a medium of
its own waste products. [ Daly and Townsend, 1993 ]

All matter and energy in the universe are subject to the Laws of
Thermodynamics. Billions of years of solar energy created a
low-entropy matter/energy environment here on Earth. Over
millions of years, humans evolved to "fit" this billions-of-
years-old environment -- it became their life-support system.

The system view sees that human society is a subsystem of its
complex, living, life-support system. Industrial society
survives by converting low-entropy matter/energy into
high-entropy matter/energy; by simplifying our life-support
system and converting it into industrial garbage. Naturally,
if our life-support system "disintegrates", human society will
disintegrate too. If our life-support dies, we die too.

[ See Easter's End at
http://magazines.enews.com/magazines/discover/magtxt/080195-5.html ]

"An environment's carrying capacity is its maximum persistently
supportable load." [Catton 1986]

A rough approximation of the overall capacity of the planet to
support human life has been calculated. One finds the number of
people the planet can support by dividing per-capita load into
the overall capacity.
_____________________
THE PRESENT SITUATION
We have now exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet and may
have as little as 35 years before the "functional integrity" of
our life-support system disintegrates.

"If just the present world population of 5.8 billion people were
to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5
ha/person), a reasonable first approximation of the total
productive land requirement would be 26 billion ha (assuming
present technology). However, there are only just over 13 billion
ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are ecologically
productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person). In
short, we would need an additional two planet Earths to
accommodate the increased ecological load of people alive today.
If the population were to stabilize at between 10 and 11 billion
sometime in the next century, five additional Earths would be
needed, all else being equal -- and this just to maintain the
present rate of ecological decline. (Rees & Wackernagel, 1994).

"While this may seem to be an astonishing result, empirical
evidence suggests that five phantom planets is, in fact, a
considerable underestimate (keep in mind that our footprint
estimates are conservative). Global and regional-scale
ecological change in the form of atmospheric change, ozone
depletion, soil loss, ground water depletion, deforestation,
fisheries collapse, loss of biodiversity, etc., is accelerating.
This is direct evidence that aggregate consumption exceeds
natural income in certain critical categories and that the
carrying capacity of this one Earth is being steadily eroded.
[We should remember Liebigs "Law of the Minimum" in this
context. The productivity and ultimately the survival of any
complex system dependent on numerous essential inputs or sinks
is limited by that single variable in least supply.] In short,
the ecological footprint of the present world population/economy
already exceeds the total productive area (or ecological space)
available on Earth." [http://dieoff.org/page110.htm also see
http://dieoff.org/page5.htm ]

In short, the developing countries WILL NEVER develop (as
development has been understood in the past), and the developed
countries WILL now "velop".
[ http://www.uia.org/musings/veloping.htm ]

Theoretically, we have two choices before us. We can either velop
our way, OR nature will velop us her way.

Since there is no good evidence anywhere to suggest that any
group of indigenous people consciously limited population (e.g.,
widespread, organized infanticide) to stay within territorial
carrying capacities, history suggests that it will be nature's
way.
____________
NATURE's WAY
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11
You are here----------------+ |10
| _ |9
| _ -|~~-_ |8
V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7
_-~ | ~ _ |6
_- ~ | ~_|5
_-~ | |4
_-~ | |3
____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2
-- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080

[P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS;
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8]

In many ways, the next hundred years will be the inverse of the
last hundred. As fossil fuel dwindles, and societies velop,
muscle will gradually replace machinery. "Home grown" will
replace "imported". Obviously, large cities -- especially where
temperatures drop to freezing -- will be largely abandoned.

We will see feral children mining the dumps for plastic to burn
(Pampers) so they can heat the holes they are forced to live
in. Roadside Warriors gone mad, killing, raping, and torturing.
Pandemics sweeping the world, punctuated every so often by
explosions as abandoned nuke plants go critical. Leaking dumps,
tanks, chemical fires, blowing garbage and trash, genetic
mutations, filthy water, cannibalism ...

A couple hundred thousand years from now, as the new radiation-
hardened species of humans emerge from the caves, they will elect
a new leader. Evolutionary theory can tell us a lot about the
winner. He will be the best liar running on a platform to end
hunger by controlling nature.

How could it be otherwise?

Jay
**************************************************************
Please copy and reprint or crosspost this article as much as
you can. Be sure to include the BRAIN FOOD invitation in the
article. This article and others are archived at:
http://dieoff.org/

Please join my BRAIN FOOD mailing list. The purpose of
this list is to distribute my essays and news. I expect
that there will be no more than four of five mailing a year.

My work is dedicated to the Common Good. My essays may be
freely reprinted and my ideas may be incorporated into other
works without credit.

The major themes on this list are "systems" and "philosophy".
Subtopics may relate to specific disciplines such as
politics, economics, theology, and ecology.

This is not the type of list where subscribers can enter into
a dialog with other list members. This is a manual list
that I am running from my home.

To join this free list, send :
"subscribe BRAIN FOOD" to j...@qmail.com

If you are already on my list, there is no need to re-subscribe.

Jay

Martin Spencer

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>
>
> There are many factions under the banner of "environmentalism" in the U.S.:

> ...

> - and yes even... Libertarians (who blame not any specific group but rather
> a lack of proper regulation and property rights in the commons)

> ...

> I find this very interesting-- they would sooner abandon the notion of
> bettering the human standard of living than abandon their elitist politics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Adam,

My questions to you are; how do you rebut the logic of (a) the
libertarians, and (b) the greens.

As far as the libertarians are concerned, I would say they are
right, if your aim would be to improve the current system. Look at areas
where you have real expertise or insight; and tell me with a straight face
that the system isn't corrupt as hell, with the beneficiaries being
mainly bureaucrats and corporations.

As far as the greens are concerned, all your waffle about politics is
completely irrelevant if the environment upon which we all depend goes
up the spout, isn't it?

BTW, Ideologically, I would probably describe myself as agnostic
verging on Buddhist. All the paradigms have their relevance, no? {;->=

Regards,

Martin.

Martin Spencer

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

Mike wrote:
>
> In other words, we won't run out of nuclear fuel in our lifetimes.
>

-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,

Sorry if this is a newby attitude, but I thought the problem was
the concentration of poisonous and / or long-term radioactive
wastes, not the availability of raw radioactives.

Martin.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

Martin Spencer wrote in message <34BB1A...@dial.pipex.com>...

It's Both. The folks that profit from "nukes" wont tell you but
there is a shortage of uranium for conventional nukes, and the
"fast breeders" have been dropped by everyone except Japan.

See my FOSSILGATE page for energy information:
http://dieoff.org/page122.htm

=================================================================

"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant

expansion of nuclear power -- even the five-fold expansion

widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and

(much more disturbing) at Chernobyl謡ould out-run readily

accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits
previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current
demand, and known high concentration pockets that could be
opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear
would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the
development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion
technology." [WEC, 1993]

TOKYO (October 1, 1997 11:39 a.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -
Japan's fast-breeder reactor program, a cornerstone of the
nation's energy program in the 21st century, has suffered a major
setback, Japanese nuclear policy-makers said Wednesday.

A subgroup of the powerful Atomic Energy Commission said in a
draft policy report it was too early to draw up a timetable for
the program to move beyond the experimental stage.

"It is premature to make a decision about when Japan can put the
fast-breeder reactor into practical use," the report by the
governmental advisory panel said.

The report marked a shift from Japan's long-term nuclear program,
which had been aiming to put the "dream" reactor -- which in
theory produces more nuclear fuel then it spends -- into
practical use by around 2030.

"We can't deny that it's a setback (for us)," a Science and
Technology Agency official said when asked about the commission's
report, released Tuesday. The agency oversees Japan's ambitious
nuclear power program.

The draft, however, fell short of totally abandoning the
fault-prone program. But it made clear that other energy
alternatives would have to be pursued if the fast-breeder
programme were to continue to falter.

"If the choice of fast-breeder reactors as an alternative to
fossil fuels becomes difficult, Japan must try to develop the use
of other forms of energy to break its reliance on fossil fuel,"
the report said.

Japan's continued allegiance to the fast-breeder reactor
technology has flown in the face of global trends to abandon the
program.

In June, France said it would scrap the highly controversial
Superphenix nuclear fast-breeder, saying it was too costly and of
doubtful value.

Britain, the United States and Germany have already abandoned
their programs for similar reasons.

The state-owned Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp
(PNC), the operator of Japan's fault-prone prototype fast-breeder
reactor Monju, also came under criticism in the report for
accidents and cover-ups.

Monju, which the report said took 12 years and $4.91 billion to
build, has been shut down since December 1995 after a massive
coolant leak.

The PNC was blamed for having caused "a loss of public faith" for
its mismanagement of the accident and its attempts to cover up
the incident with doctored videos and incomplete reports.

The PNC is due to be streamlined next year after the incident at
Monju and a series of other recent accidents at its facilities,
which prompted a review of the organization.

Two more experimental fast-breeder reactors were initially
planned for construction in the next century after Monju.

The Science and Technology Agency said it was up to Japan's
electric utilities industry to decide whether it wanted to build
the reactors.

Even after it is downsized next year, the PNC will retain its
core fast-breeder reactor and fuel recycling program, the Science
and Technology Agency official said.

"Development might be delayed (as a result of the report), but we
firmly believe that a day will come when the (fast-breeder
reactor) technology will be needed," he said.

http://wedge.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/100197/health3_3230_body.html

John McCarthy

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

Carl Dean writes rhetorically:

Fresh water is the most valuable substance on earth (not the
most expensive). People don't realize how precious it
really is until they are half dead from dehydration. Then
there is food. Nothing fancy just basic food. How long can
you go without eating? What is the longest you've gone?

Air is even more valuable. How long can you hold your
breath? We pay nothing for air and rarely even think about
it.

See http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ for answers to
all these questions. You are entitled to argue with the answers,
but mere bombast will get you nowhere.

John McCarthy

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

Jay Hanson included the quotation from a Japanese official:

"Development might be delayed (as a result of the report),
but we firmly believe that a day will come when the
(fast-breeder reactor) technology will be needed," he said.

Fast breeder technology is not presently needed, because there is
plenty of uranium for the older technology. Once breeder
technology is needed and developed, the depleted uranium left
over from the enrichment process is fuel. The U.S. alread has
$20 trillion dollars worth of depleted uranium - evaluating its
energy according to the price now paid for energy from burning
coal.

Still it would be a valuable additional nail in the coffin of the
doomster ideology if the Japanese completed and operated the
Monju reactor successfully.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

to

John McCarthy wrote in message ...

>Fast breeder technology is not presently needed, because there is
>plenty of uranium for the older technology. Once breeder

"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant
expansion of nuclear power -- even the five-fold expansion
widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and
(much more disturbing) at Chernobyl謡ould out-run readily
accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits
previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current
demand, and known high concentration pockets that could be
opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear
would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the
development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion
technology." [WEC, 1993]

. . .

"Development might be delayed (as a result of the report), but we

firmly believe that a day will come when the (fast-breeder
reactor) technology will be needed," he said.

[ http://wedge.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/health/100197/health3_3230_body.html ]

Harold

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

to

On 12 Jan 1998 21:58:19 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article

[edited]

>> You and Jay make the same mistake here that so many others have made.
>> You assume that intelligence is insignificant.
>
>No, I do not. The amount of carrying capacity of the land changes with
>regard to weather patterns, pollution levels, energy input and technology
>used (intelligence). However, if the carrying capacity of the land is
>exceeded and no outside source of food/water is available, then people die.
> It is just that simple.

Your statement assumes that the carrying capacity if unchangeable.
This is not the case, the carrying capacity of the land can be changed
by intelligence. A simple example is seen in the middle east, where
people are growing crops and raising food on land that, only a few
decades ago, would have been considered unsuitable for anything
except. There are many such examples, if you don't like this one,
pick another.

One of the greatest specialties of human beings is their ability to
alter the carrying capacity of the land.

>> I do not believe this is the case. Intelligence can change resource
>> bases as they deplete.
>
>I'm talking about food/water resources primarily.
>
>> There are many commodity items available today in train car lots (or
>> bigger) that did not even exist fifty years ago.
>

>Fresh water is the most valuable substance on earth (not the most
>expensive). People don't realize how precious it really is until they are
>half dead from dehydration. Then there is food. Nothing fancy just basic
>food. How long can you go without eating? What is the longest you've
>gone?

Why should I? There are vast surpluses of land which may be put into
food production if it is required. Though it will not be, since the
population is leveling off even now. It is not expected to double
again.

>
>Air is even more valuable. How long can you hold your breath? We pay
>nothing for air and rarely even think about it.

You think we are short of air? If you mean we are short of clean air
(which is what I have to guess), then we in the US have cleaner air
now 50 years ago. I see no reason to think it will suddenly get
dirty.

In the former socialist countries, environmental conditions are much
worse, of course. That is to be expected after decades of
collectivist economics, but I expect they will have the surpluses of
resources required to protect the environment after a dew more decades
of capitalism (however crippled it still is there).

Regards, Harold
----
"Activists have learned to dismiss those whose arguments he
cannot counter by attacking their integrity, thereby warning
off not only other researchers, but warning off other
journalists not to cover those stories."
--- David Murray, Oct. 9, 1997, in
"Media Coverage and Global Warming: Is There a Problem?"

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

to

Harold wrote in message <34bb72f6....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...

>Your statement assumes that the carrying capacity if unchangeable.
>This is not the case, the carrying capacity of the land can be changed
>by intelligence. A simple example is seen in the middle east, where
>people are growing crops and raising food on land that, only a few
>decades ago, would have been considered unsuitable for anything
>except. There are many such examples, if you don't like this one,
>pick another.

You are only looking at half the picture Harold:
--------------
As previously noted, conventional analysts often argue that trade
and technology expand ecological carrying capacity. This is a
misconception. Even in the best of circumstances, technological
innovation does not increase carrying capacity per se but only
the efficiency of resource use. In theory, shifting to more
energy- and material-efficient technologies should enable a
defined environment to support a given population at a higher
material standard, or a higher population at the same material
standard, thereby seeming to increase carrying capacity. However,
in either case, the best we could hope for in an increasingly
open global economy would be to maintain total human load
constant in the vicinity of carrying capacity -- the latter would
still ultimately be limiting.

In practice, we have not done even this well -- the steady gains
in efficiency throughout the post-war period have been
accompanied by steadily increasing per capita and aggregate
consumption. It seems that efficiency gains may actually work
against conservation through the price and income effects of
technological savings.

http://dieoff.org/page110.htm

--------------

Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

to

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 14:09:47 GMT, Harold
:Your statement assumes that the carrying capacity if unchangeable.

:This is not the case, the carrying capacity of the land can be changed
:by intelligence. A simple example is seen in the middle east, where
:people are growing crops and raising food on land that, only a few
:decades ago, would have been considered unsuitable for anything
:except. There are many such examples, if you don't like this one,
:pick another.

:One of the greatest specialties of human beings is their ability to
:alter the carrying capacity of the land.

The proper question does not concern the "carrying capacity", as if
we were a bacterial colony.

It's certainly true that human effort can radically change this, but is it
really the best use of human labor and creativity?

What is the quality of life going to be for our descendants? What would it
be like if there were fewer people here.

Running out of oil doesn't mean the end of the species. On the other hand,
it's rather likely to result in a substantial drop in living standards. With
fewer people consuming it, it would last further into the future, and would
probably be less painful when it does eventually run out.

--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* According to California Assembly Bill 3320, it is now a criminal offense
* to solicit any goods or services by email to a CA resident without
* providing the business's legal name and complete street address.
*

B. Alan Guthrie

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

to

In article <69eo65$55s$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>Martin Spencer wrote in message <34BB1A...@dial.pipex.com>...
>>Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> In other words, we won't run out of nuclear fuel in our lifetimes.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Sorry if this is a newby attitude, but I thought the problem was
>>the concentration of poisonous and / or long-term radioactive
>>wastes, not the availability of raw radioactives.
>
>
>It's Both. The folks that profit from "nukes" wont tell you but
>there is a shortage of uranium for conventional nukes, and the
>"fast breeders" have been dropped by everyone except Japan.
>

What Mr Hanson won't tell you is that his uranium "shortage"
is quite peculair. You see, the price of uranium is extremely
low by historical standards. Off the top of my head, I cannot
think of any other commodities which have low prices and
high demands in a free market.

--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | The Income Tax is most odious, vexatious,
alan.g...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com | inquisitorial, and unequal of all our
| taxes ... a tax on honesty...
My opinion only | New York Times (Feb 5, 1869)

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

to

Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article

<34bb72f6....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...

> On 12 Jan 1998 21:58:19 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article
>
> [edited]
>
> >> You and Jay make the same mistake here that so many others have made.
> >> You assume that intelligence is insignificant.
> >
> >No, I do not. The amount of carrying capacity of the land changes with
> >regard to weather patterns, pollution levels, energy input and
technology
> >used (intelligence). However, if the carrying capacity of the land is
> >exceeded and no outside source of food/water is available, then people
die.
> > It is just that simple.
>

> Your statement assumes that the carrying capacity if unchangeable.
> This is not the case, the carrying capacity of the land can be changed
> by intelligence. A simple example is seen in the middle east, where
> people are growing crops and raising food on land that, only a few
> decades ago, would have been considered unsuitable for anything
> except. There are many such examples, if you don't like this one,
> pick another.
>
> One of the greatest specialties of human beings is their ability to
> alter the carrying capacity of the land.

Please re-read my statement. You seemed to have ignored where I said that
the "carrying capacity of the land CHANGES".

>
> >> I do not believe this is the case. Intelligence can change resource
> >> bases as they deplete.
> >
> >I'm talking about food/water resources primarily.
> >
> >> There are many commodity items available today in train car lots (or
> >> bigger) that did not even exist fifty years ago.
> >
> >Fresh water is the most valuable substance on earth (not the most
> >expensive). People don't realize how precious it really is until they
are
> >half dead from dehydration. Then there is food. Nothing fancy just
basic
> >food. How long can you go without eating? What is the longest you've
> >gone?
>
> Why should I? There are vast surpluses of land which may be put into
> food production if it is required. Though it will not be, since the
> population is leveling off even now. It is not expected to double
> again.

Is this true? Last I heard it was supposed to double again.

> >
> >Air is even more valuable. How long can you hold your breath? We pay
> >nothing for air and rarely even think about it.
>
> You think we are short of air? If you mean we are short of clean air
> (which is what I have to guess), then we in the US have cleaner air
> now 50 years ago. I see no reason to think it will suddenly get
> dirty.

I just stated that air is the most valuable, included for completeness.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

to

B. Alan Guthrie wrote in message <69frve$28...@sccat.pgh.wec.com>...

> What Mr Hanson won't tell you is that his uranium "shortage"
> is quite peculair. You see, the price of uranium is extremely
> low by historical standards. Off the top of my head, I cannot
> think of any other commodities which have low prices and
> high demands in a free market.

Why are economists surprised when prices fail to reflect the amount
of a mineral in the ground?

B. points out the shortcomings of seeing the world through economic
glasses. Global oil prices have been falling lately too, do you
suppose that the dinosaurs and their pals are still "producing" oil
too. <G>

Tell us B., how do you know when you need gas in your car? Do the
prices in your carburetor rise?

Doent these simple examples illustrate that the price of a commoditiy
has little -- if anything -- to do with the amount of that commodity
in the ground?

====================================================================

"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant
expansion of nuclear power -- even the five-fold expansion
widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and
(much more disturbing) at Chernobyl謡ould out-run readily
accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits
previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current
demand, and known high concentration pockets that could be
opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear
would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the
development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion
technology." [WEC, 1993]

Harold

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

On 13 Jan 1998 22:29:35 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>

wrote:
>
>Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote in article

><34bb72f6....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...

[deleted]

Carl wrote:
>>>The amount of carrying capacity of the land changes with
>>>regard to weather patterns, pollution levels, energy input and
>>>technology used (intelligence). However, if the carrying capacity of the land is
>>>exceeded and no outside source of food/water is available, then people
>>>die.

>>> It is just that simple.

>> Your statement assumes that the carrying capacity if unchangeable.
>> This is not the case, the carrying capacity of the land can be changed
>> by intelligence. A simple example is seen in the middle east, where
>> people are growing crops and raising food on land that, only a few
>> decades ago, would have been considered unsuitable for anything
>> except. There are many such examples, if you don't like this one,
>> pick another.
>>
>> One of the greatest specialties of human beings is their ability to
>> alter the carrying capacity of the land.
>
>Please re-read my statement. You seemed to have ignored where I said that
>the "carrying capacity of the land CHANGES".

I did read it. I always try to ignore what I perceive as internal
contradictions in the post when I am replying to someone who has been
polite, and go to the meat of the argument instead. I guess I needed
to be more explicit.

Yes, you do indeed first state that carrying capacity is changeable,
then you immediately proceed to the statement which concludes "if
exceeded... people die." I perceive this as an assumption that you
are saying it is changeable, but with some immediate limit. If it has
an immediate limit it is unchangeable. I don't see any evidence that
this is the case.

[deleted]

>>
>> There are vast surpluses of land which may be put into
>> food production if it is required. Though it will not be, since the
>> population is leveling off even now. It is not expected to double
>> again.
>
>Is this true? Last I heard it was supposed to double again.

No. Even the demographers in the UN have begun to accept this fact.
As nations become more economically prosperous and thus more educated,
the rate of population growth drops precipitously. Look at Table 1325
in the US Statistical Abstracts 1996. The percentage growth rate of
the earth dropped from 1.7 to 1.4 from one decade to the next. Some
developing nations have cut their growth rate in half. Most of Europe
is actually declining in population.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold
----
"Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. And they
have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their
fellow human beings in the process. Capitalism is destroying
the earth....Cuba is a wonderful country. What Castro's done
is superb."
- Helen Caldicott, 1982, Doctors against Health,
Petr Beckman, Golem

Harold

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

On 13 Jan 1998 20:53:43 GMT, m...@nospam.lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel

(Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)) wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 14:09:47 GMT, Harold

[deleted]

>:One of the greatest specialties of human beings is their ability to

>:alter the carrying capacity of the land.
>

>The proper question does not concern the "carrying capacity", as if
>we were a bacterial colony.
>
>It's certainly true that human effort can radically change this, but is it
>really the best use of human labor and creativity?

What is "best" is a matter of opinion. I find it much more efficient
and prefer to allow people to decide how best to use their labor and
creativity.

>
>What is the quality of life going to be for our descendants? What would it
>be like if there were fewer people here.

Poorer and meaner. A technological society requires population. I do
not know what level is required, but I do know that people produce
more wealth than they consume (barring government intervention,
anyway).

>
>Running out of oil doesn't mean the end of the species. On the other hand,
>it's rather likely to result in a substantial drop in living standards.

You may relax. As long as we have a free market for oil and oil
products, we will never run out, and the material will be put to its
more productive use.

>With
>fewer people consuming it, it would last further into the future, and would
>probably be less painful when it does eventually run out.

We will not run out. As a finite resource is consumed, the expense of
using increases in proportion. This price increase signals the market
to start using substitutes for low value added applications (like
burning it).

In addition, of course, as the cost goes up the reserves go up as
well, but this is a finite process. I recall an interesting case of
two large oil companies in the 60s and 70s. This is a true story, so
I will not use the names of those involved (cause I might get a chance
to do some work for them).

Oil company A used the popular assumptions then (and now) current and
planned for an energy environment which featured always increasing
prices of raw material and decreasing supply.

Company B canvassed its managers, asking the question of what would be
the most dangerous future scenario (to profits). The consensus of the
managers was that the most dangerous possible future would be
decreasing prices and increasing supply.

Both companies planned for the worst future as they saw it. Company B
ate Company A's lunch for years, as their preparations proved
appropriate to the situation.

Steve Hemphill

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to Jay Hanson

Jay Hanson wrote:

> ==================================================================
>
> LIFE CYCLE
> Jay Hanson, 01/01/98
>
> Having become a species of superdetritovores, mankind was
> destined not merely for succession, but for crash.
> [ Catton, 1982, http://www.dieoff.org/page15.htm ]
> ______
>

The majority of competent people are willing to suffer some for the
continuation of the species. Education is the key. Here's a reprint of
an
article I found interesting:

. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY
#567 .
. ---October 9,
1997--- .
.
HEADLINES: .
. THE NATURE OF WORLD WAR
III .
.
========== .
. Environmental Research
Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD
21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet:
e...@rachel.clark.net .

THE NATURE OF WORLD WAR III--PART 1
The social movement created by U.S. toxics activists began in the
late 1970s with a concern for place. People were fighting to
clean up and protect specific places: their home, their
neighborhood, a valley, a mountainside, a city block, a
community. Specific places were the focus and toxic materials
were the concern.
Over the past 20 years, toxics activists have come to understand
that the problems they face are deeper than just toxic dumping,
as bad as that is. Now people see that toxic wastes are just one
aspect of a larger problem: toxic products, a toxic economy.
Furthermore, toxic chemicals in the economy are just one aspect
of an even deeper problem: the economy is not working for people
or communities and most of the people affected by economic
decisions are no longer participating in those decisions. In
communities, people are realizing that the deepest question of
all is, Who gets to decide?
The economy is not working for most people. Plant closings,
downsizing, wage freezes and give-backs, union busting,
replacement of full-time, permanent jobs by part-time and
temporary jobs without benefits --these are the the result of
decisions that have taken away the economy security of at least
100 million people in the U.S.
Real wages for non-supervisory workers --75% to 80% of all
workers --have been declining since 1972.[1] Measured in
constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, a full-time worker in 1972
took home $315.44 per week; today that same worker takes home
$255.90 per week,[2] a 19% decline. People are adjusting to this
wage decline by having other members of the household go to work,
working longer hours, taking second and third jobs. Even these
heroic efforts have not turned things around for most families in
the 1990s: in the period 1989 to 1995, median family income
dropped in 5 out of 6 years.[3] The total drop in median family
income since 1989 has been 6%. The reality is unmistakable: the
economy is not working for most people the way it used to.
Meanwhile, inequality is increasing sharply. The rich are getting
much richer and the poor are getting poorer and more numerous. If
you break society into 10 groups, each representing 10%, the
incomes of the richest 10% rose 21% between 1979 and 1987, while
the incomes of the poorest 10% dropped by 12%.[4] Between 1983
and 1992, an astonishing 99% of the increase in the nation's
wealth was awarded to the wealthiest 20% of the people.[5]
In 1949, the richest 1% of the population owned 21% of all
assets; today that richest 1% owns more than 40% of all assets.[6]
Is all this happening because the economy is in a slump? Is
business doing badly? Hardly. During the period 1980-1995
corporate revenues rose 129.5%, corporate profits rose 127%, and
executive pay rose 182%.[7]
Meanwhile the share of the federal tax burden borne by
corporations and the super-rich has been declining, and the share
paid by the middle class has been increasing. In 1950, taxes on
corporate income provided 26.4% of federal tax income. In 1995,
that figure had fallen to 11.6%.[8]
During the same period, the tax burden on individuals has risen.
In 1972, the social security tax, a wage tax, was 4.8%; today it
is 7.65%, a 59% increase.[9] Furthermore, in 1972, the median
sales tax across all the states was 3%; today it is 7%.[10]
Meanwhile the income tax on the rich and super-rich has dropped
dramatically. In 1950 the top income tax was 91%; in 1995, it
was 39.6%.[11]
Because of phenomenal growth in profits in recent decades, many
corporations are now larger than countries. Of the 100 largest
economies in the world, 51 are now corporations and only 49 are
countries. General Motors --the 22nd largest economy in the
world --is larger than Denmark, larger than Thailand, larger than
Hong Kong, larger than Turkey. Ford Motor is larger than South
Africa, larger than Saudi Arabia, larger than Norway. Exxon is
larger than Finland, larger than Poland, larger than Ukraine.
Wal-Mart Stores is larger than Israel, larger than Greece.[12]
As a result of corporate size and wealth, corporate executives
are calling the shots economically and politically in the U.S.
It presently costs anywhere from $1 million to $25 million to run
a successful election campaign for the federal House or
Senate.[See REHW #409, #419, #421.] Such sums of money are only
acquired by appeals to the super-rich and the super-rich, of
course, are tied to corporations. Only 5% of households own 77%
of all corporate stocks.[13] The wealth of corporate executives
and corporate shareholders, and their direct financial support of
political candidates, translate into raw political power. One
result of this power is that Congress, in recent years, has
drastically reduced taxes for the wealthy, and for corporations,
but has increased taxes on the middle class and the working poor.
Furthermore, Congress has embroiled the United States in
so-called "free trade" agreements (NAFTA and GATT) that have
diminished the power of our national government (indeed, all
national governments) to control corporate behavior. In sum,
corporations are increasingly out of control. As Ronnie Dugger
(founder of the Alliance for Democracy[14]) has written,
"We are ruled by Big Business and Big Government as its paid
hireling, and we know it. Corporate money is wrecking popular
government in the United States. The big corporations and the
centimillionaires and billionaires have taken daily control of
our work, our pay, our housing, our health, our pension funds,
our bank and savings deposits, our public lands, our airwaves,
our elections and our very government. It's as if American
democracy has been bombed. Will we be able to recover ourselves
and overcome the bombers? Or will they continue to divide us and
will we continue to divide ourselves, according to our wounds and
our alarms, until they have taken the country away from us for
good?"[15]
These realities have not been lost on toxics activists, who have
come to understand that the dumping of toxic materials into their
communities is part of the toxic economy which is, in turn, part
of the same problem as their community's economic decline, and
that all these problems are related to the nature of
corporations. Corporations cannot care about particular places.
They cannot even care about human health. Nor can they care
about democracy --corporations are among the most authoritarian
and undemocratic organizations ever created. Corporate managers
can only care about short-term financial gain. It is not a
matter of corporations being run by bad people; they are not.
They are run by ordinary people --most of them good-hearted --who
are trapped within the logic of the corporate form. Corporations
must make decisions that will return a profit to investors. That
is all they are set up to do under the law. If they did
otherwise, they would be sued for breach of fiduciary trust by
their shareholders. Until the American people re-assert their
control over corporations and give them a different purpose in
life, corporations will continue to destroy communities and
places, economically and ecologically.
As David Korten has written,
"It is no exaggeration to say that local communities everywhere
are on the front lines of what might well be characterized as
World War III. It is not the nuclear confrontation between east
and west, between the Soviet Union and the United States, that we
once feared. It is a very different kind of conflict. There is
no clash of competing military forces and the struggle is not
defined by national borders. But it does involve an often
violent struggle for control of physical resources and territory
that is destroying lives and communities at every hand. It is a
struggle between the forces and institutions of economic
globalization and communities such as yours that are trying to
reclaim control of their economic lives. It is a contest between
the competing goals of economic growth to maximize profits for
absentee owners versus creating healthy communities that are good
places for people to live. It is a competition for the control
of markets and resources between global corporations and
financial markets, on the one hand, and locally owned businesses
serving local markets, on the other."[16]
Toxics activists now find themselves wanting to think more
broadly than they ever have before. To gain control of toxics in
a particular place, they now know they must think in terms of
asserting their influence over the economy of that place. What
are the components of the local economy? How do we analyze a
place to find out what its resources are --especially its unused
or presently-wasted resources? How do we prevent big, outside
corporations from wrecking locally-owned businesses? How do we
measure well-being so we'll know whether things are getting
better or getting worse? How DO decisions get made in this
place? How DO we control corporate behavior?
All of this is forcing toxics activists to look for allies who
are prepared to help them think about community economic
development and, ultimately, about controlling the behavior of
corporations. Specific allies come to mind: the organization
known as Sustainable America for local and regional-scale
economic development,[17] and the Alliance for Democracy[14] for
controlling corporations.
What also comes to mind is that there are some principles that
have been worked out by toxics activists during the past 20
years, which can provide guidance for ALL activists. These are
principles that can be used in local toxics fights, or can be
used in local economic reconstruction. They can even provide
some guidance as we try to devise ways to control corporate
behavior. More next week.
--Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
===============
[1] Ravi Batra, THE GREAT AMERICAN DECEPTION (New York: John
Wiley, 1996). Batra is an economics professor at Southern
Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
[2] Batra, cited above, Table 2.1, pg. 10, citing ECONOMIC REPORT
OF THE PRESIDENT (Washington, D.C.: The Council of Economic
Advisors, 1996), pg. 330. The figures given are in constant 1982
dollars.
[3] Batra, cited above, Table 10.2, pg. 164, citing ECONOMIC
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT (Washington, D.C.: The Council of
Economic Advisors, 1996), pg. 314.
[4] Paul Krugman, THE AGE OF DIMINISHED EXPECTATIONS (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1992), pg. 20.
[5] Robert B. Reich, U.S. Secretary of Labor, speech entitled,
"The Unfinished Agenda," delivered to the Council on Excellence
in Government, Washington, D.C., January 9, 1997; the data appear
in the "Technical Appendix" to Secretary Reich's speech.
[6] Batra, cited above, pg. 14.
[7] Jan M. Rosen, "Unions Gather Strength But So Do Executives,"
NEW YORK TIMES September 7, 1997, Section 3, pg. 2.
[8] Batra, cited above, Table 4.5, pg. 54, citing the 1987 and
1996 editions of the ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT.
[9] Batra, cited above, pg. 9, and Table 5.2, pg. 64, and
Appendix A.2, pg. 258.
[10] Batra, cited above, pg. 9.
[11] Batra, cited above, pg. 43.
[12] Ward Morehouse, "Multinational Corporations and Crimes
Against Humanity," in Trent Schroyer, editor, A WORLD THAT WORKS
(New York: Bootstrap Press, 1997), pgs. 49-61. This outstanding
book is available from Intermediate Technology Group of North
America, Suite 3C, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017;
telephone/fax: (800) 316-2739. $19.50 plus $3.50 for shipping.
Data on comparative sizes of economies appear on pg. 51 and are
taken from FORTUNE August 7, 1995, and from the World Bank's 1996
publication, WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT.
[13] David Korten, "Economic Globalization: The War Against
Markets, Democracy, People and Nature," in Trent Schroyer, cited
above, pgs. 229-236.
[14] The Alliance for Democracy is an organization whose members
"are setting forth to reject the economic and political power of
large corporations as illegitimate in a self-governing
democracy." The Alliance can be reached by phone in Cambridge,
Massachusetts: (617) 259-9395, or by E-mail: peopl...@aol.com.
[15] Ronnie Dugger and Ruth Caplan, "Toward a Global Populist
Movement: Accepting the Challenge of Worldwide Corporate
Domination," in Trent Schroyer, cited above, pgs. 341-351.
[16] David Korten, cited above.
[17] Sustainable America (SA) is a national umbrella organization
of local people and groups who are responding to decline by
organizing locally and coming together nationally to promote
policy alternatives that offer a greater degree of citizen
control, economic stability, prudent use of ecological resources,
and a greater degree of economic equity. SA can be reached by
phone in New York City: (212) 239-4221; of by E-mail:
sust...@sanetwork.org; web: http://www.sanetwork.org.
Descriptor terms: economy; wages; labor; wealth; inequality;
taxes; taxation; corporations; free trade; nafta; gatt; wto;
ronnie dugger; david korten; alliance for democracy; sustainable
america; democracy; globalization; world war iii; ravi batra;
################################################################

THE NATURE OF WORLD WAR III--PART 2
We saw last week (REHW #567) that the U.S. economy is no longer
working for the benefit of most people. Although business is
booming (stock prices, corporate profits and executive salaries
have never been higher) --the average worker's wage has declined
19% during the past 25 years, family income has fallen 6% since
1989, good jobs with benefits are disappearing (being replaced by
part-time, temporary jobs without benefits), while the tax burden
has increasingly been shifted from the wealthy and from
corporations onto the middle class and the working poor.
We are told that these changes are the result of "globalization"
of the economy. And we are told that "globalization" is a
natural phenomenon, like continental drift, impossible to resist
or control.[1]
But globalization is the result of intentional laws and policies
devised by corporate elites. Their goal is to further insulate
corporations from control by governments, to enable corporations
to continue consolidating wealth and power in the hands of a few
people.
Most politicians are on board. Because TV is essential for
election campaigns and because TV ads are very expensive, private
wealth is now essential for election or re-election. This means
politicians are beholden to the wealthy from the day they take
office, and in recent years they have behaved accordingly:
passing laws to reduce taxes on the rich and on corporations,
helping corporations evade democratic control by enmeshing the
U.S. in "free trade" agreements.
Take the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). The GATT
was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in
December 1994. The GATT agreement established the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The WTO makes and adjudicates rules
governing international trade but WTO officers and judges are not
elected, so they are not democratically accountable.
WTO rules make a subtle legal distinction between traded products
and "processing and production methods." Governments are allowed
to use trade restrictions (import bans, for example) against
products on scientifically-established health grounds, but they
cannot limit imports because of social or environmental concerns
over the way products are produced. For example, the European
Union (EU) is trying to keep out milk produced by cows treated
with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (RBGH, or BST). Monsanto
insists there are no health effects from drinking such milk (and
there certainly is not worldwide scientific agreement on the
matter), so WTO rules will eventually force the EU to accept milk
from hormone-treated cows. Governments have lost their power to
control products in ways that their citizens see fit. Through
"free trade" agreements, corporations have gained immense power
over government regulators.
A new "free trade" agreement is being debated at this moment
--the Multilateral Agreement on Investment or MAI (sometimes
called MIA). The MAI has been called a "corporate bill of rights"
because it will greatly diminish the power of governments over
corporations. As Scott Nova and Michelle Sforza-Roderick of the
Preamble Collaborative in Washington, D.C. [phone: (202)
265-3263] have pointed out,[1]
"As proposed, the MAI would force countries to treat foreign
investors as favorably as domestic companies; laws violating this
principle would be prohibited. Under these conditions,
transnational corporations would find it easier and more
profitable to move investments, including production facilities,
to low-wage countries. At the same time, these countries would
be denied the tools necessary to wrest benefits from such
investment --like laws mandating the employment of local managers.
"Efforts to promote local development by earmarking subsidies for
home-grown businesses and limiting foreign ownership of local
resources would also be barred. If adopted, the MAI will mean
foreclosure of Third World development strategies, increased job
flight from industrial nations, and new pressures on countries,
rich and poor, to compete for increasingly mobile investment
capital by lowering environmental and labor standards.
"A key MAI provision could also threaten corporate accountability
laws championed by progressives in the U.S. The MAI takes aim at
statutes in any nation that link subsidies, tax breaks and other
public benefits to corporate behavior. This ban could be used to
challenge a host of local, state and federal measures, including
laws requiring subsidized firms to meet job-creation goals,
community reinvestment rules that require banks to invest in
underserved areas, and the 'living wage' laws that are the focus
of activist campaigns across the country.
"Perhaps most disturbing, the MAI would preempt strategies for
restricting corporate flight to low-wage areas --a major cause of
job loss and income stagnation in the industrialized world. On
top of the damage done by plant closings and layoffs,
corporations use the THREAT of flight to undermine the bargaining
power of unions and scare policymakers away from the tough
regulation and strong public investment necessary to raise living
standards. Though remote from today's policy agenda, rules
limiting the capacity of corporations to flee are essential to
restoring the ability of government and labor to deal with
corporations on a level playing field. The MAI would bar such
rules in any country that is a party to the agreement.
"In its scope and enforcement mechanisms, the MAI represents a
dangerous leap over past international agreements. It grants any
corporation with a regulatory gripe the right to sue a city,
state or national government before an international tribunal
--with a binding outcome. Governments would enjoy no reciprocal
right to sue corporations on the public's behalf. And the MAI
ignores most of the exceptions in previous agreements allowing
governments leeway in critical areas like public health and
resource conservation. The full extent of the drafters'
ambitions is reflected in WTO Director General Renato Ruggerio's
recent characterization of the MAI negotiations: 'We are writing
the constitution of a single global economy...'"[1]
(To enlist in the fight to stop Congress from approving the MAI,
contact the Public Citizen Global Trade Watch; telephone (202)
588-7777 or (202) 547-4996; or:
http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/tradehome.html. You can find the
full text of the MAI at that web site as well.)
In opposition to "globalization" is a growing grass-roots
movement, worldwide, to assert the importance of place, to insist
that the local economy, based on local materials, local skills,
local capital, and local markets is the only economy that can
serve the needs of people while preserving the resources that
will be needed by our grandchildren. Because few places can
provide all of the energy, food, water, and materials required by
the local economy, it is really REGIONAL economies that are being
developed. Regional trade, not global trade. The goal is to
keep supply lines and transportation routes as short as possible,
to keep money circulating in the local economy, and to keep the
economy and local entrepreneurs (even if they are organized in
the form of corporations) under some semblance of democratic
control. The issue is not "corporate accountability" --a concept
that does not go far enough to curb corporate abuses --the issue
is democratic control of corporate behavior so that corporations
serve human needs (and the needs of the environment), not merely
the needs of financial elites.[2] The issue is democratic
control of the local (regional) economy to serve the needs of
people without wrecking the environment.
Most of the elements of this "other" economic vision would be
made illegal by the MAI. As we have seen, some of the elements
of this vision have already been made illegal by the GATT
agreement.
Basically, it boils down to a struggle between corporate rights
and human rights. Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the
adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights by the
United Nations (and signed by the U.S. in December, 1948). (The
text of the Declaration can be found at
http://www.ngo.org/UDHR.html.) It is worth recalling some of the
rights guaranteed to all humans --rights that are currently being
eroded by grasping corporations and their "globalization"
strategy:
Article 3 says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security." But if your environment is poisoned do you have
security?
Article 16 says, "The family is the natural and fundamental group
unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the
state." But how seriously is this being taken in the U.S. (or,
for that matter in a country like Mexico where families are
broken up as corporate-style agriculture forces people off their
traditional lands)?[3]
Article 22 says, "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right
to social security...."
Article 23 says, "(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free
choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work
and to protection against unemployment.
"(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal
pay for equal work....." Women in the U.S. don't receive equal
pay for equal work.
Article 25 says, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his
family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event
of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
These and other international covenants[4] need to be dusted off
and brought into our struggles for an economy that works and an
environment that can sustain. Internationally-recognized human
rights include more than protections against arbitrary
imprisonment and torture, as important as those rights are.
One organization that is seeking to rebuild regional economies,
and do so within the constraints of the natural environment, is
Sustainable America in New York. It's time to roll up our sleeves
and take back our economy and our environment. To contact them,
telephone Elaine Gross at (212) 239-4221 or E-mail them:
sust...@sanetwork.org or http://www.sanetwork.org (omit the
hyphen).
More next week.
--Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
===============
[1] Scott Nova and Michelle Sforza-Roderick, "Worse Than NAFTA"
in Trent Schroyer, editor, A WORLD THAT WORKS (New York:
Bootstrap Press, 1997), pgs. 32-34. An earlier version of this
essay appeared in THE NATION Vol. 264, No. 2, (January 13-20,
1997), pgs. 5-6. The extraordinarily interesting book, A WORLD
THAT WORKS is available for $19.50 plus $3.50 shipping from:
Bootstrap Press, Suite 3C, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY
10017. Telephone and fax: 1-800-316-2739.
[2] For a discussion of the distinction between "accountability"
and "democratic control," see Jeffrey Barber, "The Role of
Corporate Accountability in Sustainable Development," and Richard
Grossman, "Only the People Can Be Socially Responsible," in Trent
Schroyer, editor, A WORLD THAT WORKS, cited above, pgs. 160-184.
[3] See for example, Tom Barry, ZAPATA'S REVENGE; FREE TRADE AND
THE FARM CRISIS IN MEXICO (Boston: South End Press, 1995).
[4] See TWENTY-FIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTS (New York: Columbia
University Center for the Study of Human Rights, 1994).
Available for $10 from: Center for the Study of Human Rights,
Columbia University, 420 West 118th Street, 1108 International
Affairs Building, New York, NY 10027. Phone: (212) 854-2479;
fax: (212) 864-4847 or (212) 316-4578.
Descriptor terms: human rights; corporations; economy; economic
development; united nations' universal declaration of huiman
rights; sustainable america; sa; globalization; economic
redevelopment; sustainable development; multilateral agreement on
investment; mai; gatt; wto; world trade organization; preamble
collaborative; scott nova; michelle sforza-roderick; regulation;
################################################################

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

Harold wrote in message <34c0d97f....@nntp.st.usm.edu>...

>Yes, you do indeed first state that carrying capacity is changeable,
>then you immediately proceed to the statement which concludes "if
>exceeded... people die." I perceive this as an assumption that you
>are saying it is changeable, but with some immediate limit. If it has
>an immediate limit it is unchangeable. I don't see any evidence that
>this is the case.

>No. Even the demographers in the UN have begun to accept this fact.

>As nations become more economically prosperous and thus more educated,
>the rate of population growth drops precipitously. Look at Table 1325

TOO MANY PEOPLE BY A LONG SHOT

S.W. Mosher reported a dramatic decline in the number of children born
per female to only 2.9, and implied that the world population was
stabilizing to the point that we do not have too many people in the
world. Unfortunately, Mosher presents less than half the story. For
example, even if each female in Mexico has only 2.1 children per
female starting today, the Mexican population will continue to grow
for the next 60 years. The total number of Mexicans will more than
double before it stabilizes. Similarly, if China is able to limit the
number of children per female to 1, China's population will double in
about 55 years before stabilizing. In both of these examples, it is
the young age distribution and the large number of females who will be
at reproductive age that create the population problem.

Some people believe that the U.S. population has stabilized. To the
contrary, the U.S. population has doubled during the past 50 years.
Based on the U.S. Bureau of Census rate of growth, the U.S.
population will double again within the next 60 years and will reach
520 million people. This growth includes the large number of legal
immigrants who come to the United States each year.

Based on a recent joint statement made by the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences and 57 other nations' academies of sciences, serious
imbalances already exist between the level of world population and the
basic resources that support human life. Shortages of food, fertile
land, water, energy, and biological resources now exist throughout the
world. The World Health Organization reports that at present more
than 2 billion people are malnourished -- the largest number ever
reported.

The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization and others also confirm
serious food shortages. Per capita grains, which make up 80% of the
world's food, have been declining for more than a decade because of
shortages of cropland and other agricultural resources. Much fertile
cropland has been removed from production as humans have expanded
throughout the earth for housing, industries, and roads. Through
continuous cultivation, soil erosion has damaged cropland to the
extent that nearly one-third of the world's cropland was abandoned
during the past 40 years. These activities have left us with
substantially less cropland to plant, just at a time when food
supplies must be increased to feed more people.

Pure water is another resource declining as populations expand. Crop
production requires enormous amounts of water. For instance, 120-1200
gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of grain. Because food
harvests must be increased, current water supplies must be stretched.
Increased numbers of cities, towns, and industries sharing water
supplies are further stressing our water supplies. For example, 7
U.S. states and Mexico take a share of the water in the Colorado
River. By the time that the river reaches the Gulf of California, the
river is nothing but a trickle because 99% of its total water has been
consumed.

Large quantities of fossil fuel in the form of fertilizers and
pesticides are used to power farm equipment and are essential for U.S.
food production. Approximately 400 gallons of oil equivalents per
American are used in the U.S. food system. The United States is
currently importing more than 50% of its oil. The U.S. Department of
Energy and others project that in about 20 years, we will be importing
approximately 100% of the oil we need. How will the United States pay
for oil imports after the U.S. population doubles to 520 million in a
few decades?

Environmental degradation is partly due to population growth and is
causing a rapid increase in infectious diseases in the world. Even in
the United States, deaths from infectious diseases have increased 58%
during the last decade!

Certainly, all of us desire freedom to reproduce, but this
reproductive privilege reduces our own freedom to enjoy a quality
environmentand and the freedom of our children due to diseases,
poverty, and starvation. Adding nearly a quarter million people daily
to the world's population reduces everyone's freedom -- now and for
the generations of the future.

David Pimentel, Professor of Agricultural Sciences, Cornell University
Doug La Follette, Secretary of State, Wisconsin
Carole Wilmoth, National Audubon Society
Sonny Fox, Population Communications International
Frederick Meyerson, Yale University School of Forestry/Environmental
Sciences
Mark Nowak, Negative Population Growth U.S. Population Policy Project

Dave Pimentel
*****

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

In article <69euth$9bm$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>John McCarthy wrote in message ...
>
>>Fast breeder technology is not presently needed, because there is
>>plenty of uranium for the older technology. Once breeder
>

>"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
> about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant
> expansion of nuclear power -- even the five-fold expansion
> widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and
> (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl謡ould out-run readily
> accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits
> previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current
> demand, and known high concentration pockets that could be
> opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear
> would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the
> development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion
> technology." [WEC, 1993]

You keep posting this over and over and over again, but it doesn't
change the fact that uranium costs $35 per kilogram, and fast
breeder reactors are too costly because uranium is so cheap
by comparison. When uranium runs low and the price runs up to
several hundred dollars per kilogram (say, extracted from the
oceans as the Japanese have tested), the economics of breeder
reactors will be more favorable.

Ever read "Limits to Growth" and compared it with what actually
happened?

You also seem to have ignored another article pointing out that
molten sodium fast breeders are not the only type of breeder
reactor out there, and failures or setbacks in certain programs
do not spell the doom of the basic breeder reactor concept.

"Spent" US fuel elements can be used as fuel in CANDU heavy-water
reactors. Why don't we do this? Because it's cheaper and easier
to make new fuel from raw uranium. When it's no longer cheaper
to do that because of increasing scarcity of uranium, CANDU reactors
will have a ready supply of fuel in other people's waste
bunkers.

The fact that uranium will run low some day off in the future is
no reason to waste money today, but this point often seems lost.

-Mike Pelletier.

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

In article <69h8q8$ima$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>
>Doent these simple examples illustrate that the price of a commoditiy
>has little -- if anything -- to do with the amount of that commodity
>in the ground?

And tell us what the amount of that commodity in the ground has to
do with anything, please? And please define "amount in the ground",
as that term can be pretty squishy as was unwittingly proven by the
Club of Rome.

-Mike Pelletier.

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

In article <69iv7f$g9j$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:

>"If just the present world population of 5.8 billion people were
> to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5
> ha/person), a reasonable first approximation of the total
> productive land requirement would be 26 billion ha (assuming
> present technology). However, there are only just over 13 billion
> ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are ecologically
> productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person).

Well, you know what they say about the word "ass u me" - it makes
an "ass out of u and me". You premise this entire gloom and doom
scenario on the phrase "assuming present technology." In the past
fifty years, agricultural output has skyrocketed to the point where
50,000 farmers in the US are producing more than 1.5 million
farmers 50 years ago. It is idiotic to "assume present technology,"
and that's where almost all these doom and gloom scenarios fall
completely apart at the seams.

Ever heard of "hydroponics?"

-Mike Pelletier.

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

In article <34BCD017...@rt66.com>,

Steve Hemphill <hemp...@rt66.com> wrote:
>The majority of competent people are willing to suffer some for the
>continuation of the species. Education is the key. Here's a reprint of
>an article I found interesting:

> [...snip...]

> Over the past 20 years, toxics activists have come to understand
> that the problems they face are deeper than just toxic dumping,
> as bad as that is. Now people see that toxic wastes are just one
> aspect of a larger problem: toxic products, a toxic economy.

How deeply ironic that the toxic products (from electronic component
manufacture) of the "toxic economy" is precisely what enables
Rachel's environmental newsletter to reach so many people and
enables us to hold this debate here in this nowhere-land of ones
and zeroes.

-Mike Pelletier.

B. Alan Guthrie

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

In article <69h8q8$ima$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>B. Alan Guthrie wrote in message <69frve$28...@sccat.pgh.wec.com>...
>
>> What Mr Hanson won't tell you is that his uranium "shortage"
>> is quite peculair. You see, the price of uranium is extremely
>> low by historical standards. Off the top of my head, I cannot
>> think of any other commodities which have low prices and
>> high demands in a free market.
>
>
>Why are economists surprised when prices fail to reflect the amount
>of a mineral in the ground?
>
>B. points out the shortcomings of seeing the world through economic
>glasses. Global oil prices have been falling lately too, do you
>suppose that the dinosaurs and their pals are still "producing" oil
>too. <G>
>
>Tell us B., how do you know when you need gas in your car? Do the
>prices in your carburetor rise?

Boy, I have no idea how to respond to the question above. Its
irrelevancy and fatuousness boggle the mind.

Jim Meadows

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

Harold wrote:
(deleted portions)

> >
> You think we are short of air? If you mean we are short of clean air
> (which is what I have to guess), then we in the US have cleaner air
> now 50 years ago. I see no reason to think it will suddenly get
> dirty.
>

> In the former socialist countries, environmental conditions are much
> worse, of course. That is to be expected after decades of
> collectivist economics, but I expect they will have the surpluses of
> resources required to protect the environment after a dew more decades
> of capitalism (however crippled it still is there).
>
> Regards, Harold
> ----
> "Activists have learned to dismiss those whose arguments he
> cannot counter by attacking their integrity, thereby warning
> off not only other researchers, but warning off other
> journalists not to cover those stories."
> --- David Murray, Oct. 9, 1997, in
> "Media Coverage and Global Warming: Is There a Problem?"

Harold,
Attempting a rational logical discussion with a socialist is very like
trying to teach a pig to sing. It is virtually impossible, usually
anoys the pig, and can be extremely frustrating for the teacher.

Still, the prospect of hearing a pig sing can inspire extrordinary
effort. After all, if it is possible, they might be very pleasant to
listen to.

I take a different point of view. I consider the possibility so remote
that my time is better spent anywhere else. I shouldn't have said
anything at all, but recognizing what appears to be a kindred spirit,
and having had the frustrating experiance myself, I thought I would take
the chance just this once.
Jim

With all the examples of all the attempts in all the centuries
throughout the history of all civilizations, socialism as most modernes
envision it has never worked. Why will it work now?

George Antony Ph 93818

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) writes:

>Jay belives that scientists are infalliable

Not quite. Jay believes that those scientists are infallible who confirm
his preconceived ideas. Jay tries to ignore as much as possible scientists
who go against his preconceived ideas or, when he can no longer ignore them,
he tries to ridicule them.

But this is just another proof of his denial and rejection of diversity and,
as you rightly point out, his yearning for totalitarian solutions for the
problems perceived by him.

George Antony

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

Michael Pelletier wrote in message <69j6am$s...@valhalla.comshare.com>...

>And tell us what the amount of that commodity in the ground has to
>do with anything, please? And please define "amount in the ground",

>as that term can be pretty squishy as was unwittingly proven by the
>Club of Rome.

I guess you havent read it have you? Here's a synopsis:

=============================================================

ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.

THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL

One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study
published in 1972 under the title The Limits to Growth. Based
on a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by
Professor Jay Forrester at MIT, a large-scale computer model
was constructed to simulate likely future outcomes of the
world economy. The most prominent feature of systems dynamics
is the use of feedback loops to explain behavior. The feedback
loop is a closed path that connects an action to its effect on
the surrounding conditions which, in turn, can influence
furtheraction. As the examples presented subsequently in this
chapter demonstrate, depending on how the relationships are
described, a wide variety of complex behavior can be described
by thistechnique.

Conclusions of Pessimist Model

Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first
suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with
no major change in the physical, economic, or social
relationships that have traditionally governed world
development, society will run out of the nonrenewable
resources on which the industrial base depends. When the
resources have been depleted, a precipitous collapse of the
economic system will result, manifested in massive
unemployment, decreased food production, and a decline in
population as the death rate soars. There is no smooth
transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather, the
economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the
depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic
behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse (see Figure
1.1).

The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal
approaches to solving the individual problems will not be
successful. To demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily
double their estimates of the resource base and allow the
model to trace out an alternative vision based on this new
higher level of resources. In this alternative vision the
collapse still occurs, but this time it is caused by excessive
pollution generated by the increased pace of industrialization
permitted by the greater availability of resources. The
authors then suggest that if the depletable resource and
pollution problems were somehow jointly solved, population
would grow unabated and the availability of food would become
the binding constraint. In this model the removal of one limit
merely causes the system to bump subsequently into another
one, usually with more dire consequences.

As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that
overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate
limit on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of
economic growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible
outcomes: the termination of growth by self-restraint and
conscious policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the
termination of growth by a collision with the natural limits,
resulting in societal collapse. Thus, according to this study,
one way or the other, growth will cease. The only issue is
whether the conditions under which it will cease will be
congenial or hostile.

The Nature of the Model

Why were these conclusions reached? Clearly they depend on the
structure of the model. By identifying the characteristics
that yield these conclusions, we can examine the realism of
those characteristics.

The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth
coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable
(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases
in that variable will be greater and greater each year.
Furthermore, the higher the rate of growth in resource
consumption, the faster a fixed stock of it will be exhausted.
Suppose, for example, current reserves of a resource are 100
times current use and the supply of reserves cannot be
expanded. If consumption were not growing, this stock would
last 100 years. However, if consumption were to grow at 2%
per year, the reserves would be exhausted in 55 years; and at
10%, exhaustion would occur after only 24 years.

Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
include the amount of available land and the stock of
depletable resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed
relative to the supply of land. The combination of exponential
growth in demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply,
necessarily implies that, at some point, resource supplies
must be exhausted. The extent to which those resources are
essential thus creates the conditions for collapse.

This basic structure of the model is in some ways reinforced
and in some ways tempered by the presence of numerous positive
and negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are those
in which secondary effects tend to reinforce the basic trend.
An example of a positive feedback loop is the process of
capital accumulation. New investment generates greater
output, which, when sold, generates profits. These profits can
be used to fund additional new investments. This example
suggests a manner in which the growth process is
self-reinforcing.

Positive feedback loops may also be involved in global
warming. Scientists believe, for example, that the
relationship between emissions of methane and global warming
may be described as a positive feedback loop. Since methane is
a greenhouse gas, increases in methane emissions contribute
to global warming. As the planetary temperature rises,
however, it could release extremely large quantities of
additional methane, and so on.

Human responses can intensify environmental problems. When
shortages of a commodity are imminent, for example, consumers
typically begin to hoard the commodity. Hoarding intensifies
the shortage. Similarly, people faced with shortages of food
commonly eat the seed that is the key to more plentiful food
in the future. Situations giving rise to this kind of downward
spiral are particularly troublesome.

A negative feedback loop is self-limiting rather than
self-reinforcing, as illustrated by the role of death rates in
limiting population growth in the model. As growth occurs, it
causes larger increases in industrial output, which, in turn,
cause more pollution. The increase in pollution triggers a
rise in death rates, retarding population growth. From this
example it can be seen that negative feedback loops can
provide a tempering influence on the growth process, though
not necessarily a desirable one.

Perhaps the best-known planetary-scale example of a negative
feedback is provided in a theory advanced by James Lovelock,
an English scientist. Called the Gaia hypothesis after the
Greek concept for Mother Earth, this view of the world
suggests that the earth is a living organism with a complex
feedback system that seeks an optimal physical and chemical
environment.

Deviations from this optimal environment trigger natural,
nonhuman response mechanisms which restore the balance. In
essence, according to the Gaia hypothesis the planetary
environment is a self-regulating process.

The model of the world envisioned by the Gaia hypothesis is
incompatible with that envisioned by the Limits to Growth
team. Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops,
coupled with fixed limits on essential resources, the
structure of the Limits to Growth model preordains its
conclusion that human activity is on a collision course with
nature. While the values assumed for various parameters (the
size of the stock of depletable resources, for example) affect
the timing of the various effects, they do not substantially
affect the nature of the outcome.

The dynamics implied by the notion of a feedback loop is
helpful in a more general sense than the specific
relationships embodied in this model. As we proceed with our
investigation, the degree to which our economic and political
institutions serve to intensify or to limit emerging
environmental problems will be a key concern. [p.p. 4-9]

[I believe this is the standard university text for this
discipline. JH]

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

Michael Pelletier wrote in message <69j66l$s...@valhalla.comshare.com>...

>You keep posting this over and over and over again, but it doesn't
>change the fact that uranium costs $35 per kilogram, and fast
>breeder reactors are too costly because uranium is so cheap
>by comparison. When uranium runs low and the price runs up to
>several hundred dollars per kilogram (say, extracted from the
>oceans as the Japanese have tested), the economics of breeder
>reactors will be more favorable.

That's your current fiction -- I think it's bullshit.

>Ever read "Limits to Growth" and compared it with what actually
>happened?

OK smartass, give me the actual quotes (with page numbers)
that have failed.

Jay

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

Michael Pelletier wrote in message <69j6oq$s...@valhalla.comshare.com>...

>In article <69iv7f$g9j$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"If just the present world population of 5.8 billion people were
>> to live at current North American ecological standards (say 4.5
>> ha/person), a reasonable first approximation of the total
>> productive land requirement would be 26 billion ha (assuming
>> present technology). However, there are only just over 13 billion
>> ha of land on Earth, of which only 8.8 billion are ecologically
>> productive cropland, pasture, or forest (1.5 ha/person).
>

>Well, you know what they say about the word "ass u me" - it makes
>an "ass out of u and me". You premise this entire gloom and doom
>scenario on the phrase "assuming present technology." In the past

You know Pelletier, if you would get off of your ass and look up
the references, you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much:

=================================================================

[ http://dieoff.org/page110.htm ]

As previously noted, conventional analysts often argue that trade
and technology expand ecological carrying capacity. This is a
misconception. Even in the best of circumstances, technological
innovation does not increase carrying capacity per se but only
the efficiency of resource use. In theory, shifting to more
energy- and material-efficient technologies should enable a
defined environment to support a given population at a higher
material standard, or a higher population at the same material
standard, thereby seeming to increase carrying capacity. However,
in either case, the best we could hope for in an increasingly
open global economy would be to maintain total human load
constant in the vicinity of carrying capacity -- the latter would
still ultimately be limiting.

In practice, we have not done even this well -- the steady gains
in efficiency throughout the post-war period have been
accompanied by steadily increasing per capita and aggregate
consumption. It seems that efficiency gains may actually work
against conservation through the price and income effects of
technological savings.

As Saunders (1992) notes, this counter intuitive hypothesis has
been the focus of considerable controversy. He tested it using
neoclassical growth theory and found that energy efficiency gains
might well increase aggregate energy consumption by making energy
cheaper and by stimulating economic growth, which further "pulls
up" energy use. How might this work? If a firm saves money by
switching to more energy-and material efficient manufacturing
processes, it will be able to raise wages, increase dividends, or
lower prices, which can lead to increased net consumption by
workers, shareholders, or consumers respectively. These
behavioral responses to changes in prices and income are referred
to as the "rebound effects" by economists (Jaccard, 1991).
Similarly, technology-induced money savings by individuals are
usually redirected to alternative forms of consumption, canceling
some or all of the initial potential benefit to the environment
(Hannon, 1975). To the extent that such mechanisms contribute to
increased aggregate material consumption and accelerated stock
depletion, they indirectly reduce carrying capacity.

[Rebound effects can be avoided if adequate stock depletion taxes
or marketable resource quotas are imposed. (Such incentives
should be used to stimulate conservation in the first place.)
"Ecological taxation" would raise unit resource prices,
effectively capturing any efficiency savings and preventing their
further circulation in the economy. However, because of reduced
material and energy intensity, consumer prices for goods and
services would increase less rapidly than resource prices (Rees,
1994a).]

More generally, however, technology can directly reduce carrying
capacity while creating the illusion of increasing it! We often
use technology to increase the short-term energy and material
flux through exploited ecosystems. This seems to enhance systems
productivity while actually permanently eroding the resource
base. For example, the effectiveness of electronic fish-finding
devices and high-tech catching technology has overwhelmed the
reproductive capacity of fish stocks; energy-subsidized intensive
agriculture may be more productive than low-input practices in
the short term, but it also increases the rate of soil and water
depletion. The net effect is to create unsustainable dependencies
on enhanced material flows (the technologies involved are often
based on nonrenewable resources) while reducing longterm carrying
capacity.

The carrying capacity gains from trade are also illusory. While
commodity trade may release a local population from carrying
capacity constraints in its own home territory, this merely
displaces some fraction of that population's environmental load
to distant export regions. In effect, local populations import
others' "surplus" carrying capacity. The resultant increase in
population and resource use in import regions increases the
aggregate load of humanity on the ecosphere but there is no net
gain in carrying capacity since trade reduces the load-bearing
capacity of the export regions. Indeed, like technology, trade
may even result in reduced global carrying capacity if access to
cheap imports (e.g., food) lowers the incentive for people to
conserve their own local natural capital stocks (e.g.,
agricultural land) and leads to the accelerated depletion of
natural capital in distant export regions.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

to

From: B. Alan Guthrie <zc...@cnfd.pgh.wec.com>

>>Tell us B., how do you know when you need gas in your car? Do the
>>prices in your carburetor rise?
>
> Boy, I have no idea how to respond to the question above. Its
> irrelevancy and fatuousness boggle the mind.

Look B., if you don't ever have to fill up your car, ask your
wife how she knows when it's time.

Jay

Harold

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:21:02 -0600, Jim Meadows
<jmea...@icon-stl.net> wrote:

>Harold wrote:
>(deleted portions)
>> >
>> You think we are short of air? If you mean we are short of clean air
>> (which is what I have to guess), then we in the US have cleaner air
>> now 50 years ago. I see no reason to think it will suddenly get
>> dirty.
>>
>> In the former socialist countries, environmental conditions are much
>> worse, of course. That is to be expected after decades of
>> collectivist economics, but I expect they will have the surpluses of
>> resources required to protect the environment after a dew more decades
>> of capitalism (however crippled it still is there).

>Harold,

>Attempting a rational logical discussion with a socialist is very like
>trying to teach a pig to sing. It is virtually impossible, usually
>anoys the pig, and can be extremely frustrating for the teacher.
>
>Still, the prospect of hearing a pig sing can inspire extrordinary
>effort. After all, if it is possible, they might be very pleasant to
>listen to.

Carl Dean is a socialist? I was not aware of that. Thank you.

Regards, Harold
----
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the
theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental
policy."
--- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Bruce Hamilton

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

"Jay Hanson" <jha...@aloha.net> wrote:

>Michael Pelletier wrote in message <69j66l$s...@valhalla.comshare.com>...

>>Ever read "Limits to Growth" and compared it with what actually
>>happened?
>OK smartass, give me the actual quotes (with page numbers)
>that have failed.

You clearly have a comprehension problem, as nowhere did he
state that their predictions have failed. Most people know
that they weren't so stupid as to make unqualified predictions
that were verifiable in their lifetimes, instead they came up
with the infamous " Given present resource consumption rates
and the projected increase in these rates, the great majority
of the currently-important nonrenewable resources will be
extremely costly 100 years from now ".

As predictions go, that could have come from the horoscope pages.

It was written in 1971, and on page 63 of the first edition ( Signet )
it notes " Even taken into account such economic factors as increased
prices with decreased availability, it would appear at present that
the quantities of platinum, gold, zinc, and lead are not sufficient to
meet demands. At the present rate of expansion... silver, tin, and
uranium may be in short supply even at higher prices by the turn of
the century "

Once again, no quantitative numbers to test. Table 4 covers
non-renewable resources. It lists known global reserves for Natural
Gas as 1.14x10^15 cu.ft., and 455x10^9 bbls of petroleum.
( It seems they were not even able to predict the widespread
adoption of the SI system )

The 1997 BP Statistical Review of World Energy notes the following
proved reserves....
Year Natural Gas Crude oil
End Cubic metres x10^9 bbls
1976 6.52x10^13 606.5
1986 1.03x10^14 710.1
1995 1.40x10^14 1016.9

Note that the reserves have increased, despite use in the intervening
period. Their static index ( number of years that known reserves would
last at current consumption rates ) listed 11 years for gold, 26 years
for lead, 23 years for zinc, 16 years for silver, 17 years for tin, and
13 years for mercury. They also reported predictions that atmospheric CO2
concentrations would now be 370ppm, and 380ppm by 2000 ( versus 322ppm
in 1971 )( page 79 ). Their deep concern about lead pollution growth
rates (p.87-88), which they link to automobile emissions, seems to
have conveniently missed the earlier US decision ( 1970 ) to phase out
lead from gasoline.

The harsh reality is that gold is US$279/oz, and crude oil ( Dubai
light ) is currently US$13.50/bbl. Like many other doomsday sects,
the CoR carefully chose only the signs that supported their view.

Bruce Hamilton

John McCarthy

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

I believe the Club of Rome no longer believes in the Meadows model.

Don Dale

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

In article <69kal6$3iv$1...@news.gstis.net>, jha...@aloha.net says...

> Michael Pelletier wrote in message <69j6am$s...@valhalla.comshare.com>...
>
> >And tell us what the amount of that commodity in the ground has to
> >do with anything, please? And please define "amount in the ground",
>
> >as that term can be pretty squishy as was unwittingly proven by the
> >Club of Rome.
>
>
> I guess you havent read it have you? Here's a synopsis:
>
> =============================================================
>
> ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
> by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.
>
> THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL
>

> One end of the spectrum...

(snip)

As I have a copy of Tietenberg in my lap right now, I think I'm qualified
to respond here. Please observe what I have quoted from Mr. Hanson's
citation: Tietenberg presents "The basic pessimist model" as "one end of
the spectrum" of visions of the future, while Mr. Hanson presents it as
fact. In Teitenberg, the section immediately following Mr. Hanson's
citation is titled "The basic optimist model." This section draws
conclusions quite different from those Mr. Hanson cites. For some
reason, Mr. Hanson failed to include this section in his post. While I'd
like to believe that this was mere oversight and not a conscious decision
to distort the facts, my previous experience with Mr. Hanson forces me to
conclude otherwise.

Please see my upcoming post "Hanson vs Hanson" for a more thorough
critique of Mr. Hanson's positions.

Don

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

Jay, you've missed the fatal, massive, gaping flaws in the model
that was used to draw these conclusions that you're beating us
over the head with. Highlighted below:

In article <69kal6$3iv$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>The Nature of the Model

> [...snip...]

>The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth
>coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable

^^^^^^^^^^^^

>(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases
>in that variable will be greater and greater each year.

>Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>include the amount of available land and the stock of
>depletable resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>relative to the supply of land. The combination of exponential

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>growth in demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply,
>necessarily implies that, at some point, resource supplies
>must be exhausted. The extent to which those resources are
>essential thus creates the conditions for collapse.

In other words, their model has absolutely nothing to do with
reality.

In the REAL world, "supplies" of resources increase through
the application of new technology. In the REAL world, the
very *definition* of an "important resource" changes as a
result of technology. So much for "fixed limits."

Also in the REAL world, farmers apply technology to improve the
efficiency of their operations to bring more land under
cultivation with fewer people, and to raise their crop yeilds
and produce more food on the same amount of land. This simply
blows apart the pea-brained assumption that "the supply of food
is fixed relative to the supply of land." Additionally, the
technology of hydroponics gives rise to the possibility of a
ten-story building packed with plants illuminated using guided
mirrors and watered with pumps powered by solar panels, thus
producing food with *no* land under cultivation.

Their model IGNORES technology, which is a DEFINING characteristic
of the human species! Humans are not a colony of bacteria on
a petrie dish.

[...snip...]

> Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops,
>coupled with fixed limits on essential resources, the

^^^

>structure of the Limits to Growth model preordains its

^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>conclusion that human activity is on a collision course with

^^^^^^^^^^
>nature.

In other words, "Garbage in, garbage out." A fine, fine example
of this principle.

>[I believe this is the standard university text for this
>discipline. JH]

(A textbook about GIGO?)

That doesn't make it any less flawed. I should go take a course
with this text at U of Michigan, it might be fun... Heh, heh,
heeehhh... }:->=

-Mike Pelletier.

B. Alan Guthrie

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

In article <69j66l$s...@valhalla.comshare.com>,

Michael Pelletier <mikep@-nospam-izzy.net> wrote:
>In article <69euth$9bm$1...@news.gstis.net>, Jay Hanson <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>>John McCarthy wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Fast breeder technology is not presently needed, because there is
>>>plenty of uranium for the older technology. Once breeder
>>
>>"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth's crust, at
>> about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant
>>

<SNIP>

>"Spent" US fuel elements can be used as fuel in CANDU heavy-water
>reactors. Why don't we do this? Because it's cheaper and easier
>to make new fuel from raw uranium. When it's no longer cheaper
>to do that because of increasing scarcity of uranium, CANDU reactors
>will have a ready supply of fuel in other people's waste
>bunkers.
>

I imagine that the fuel would have to be re-processed prior to
insertion into a CANDU type of reactor (re-processed in the sense
that the irradiated fuel pellets would at a minimum need to be
pulverized and new fuel pellets formed and inserted into new
fuel rods and assemblies). I doubt that the CANDU fuel lattice
looks anything like a PWR lattice (and a PWR lattice does not look
anything like a BWR lattice).

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

>
> Carl wrote:
> >>>The amount of carrying capacity of the land changes with
> >>>regard to weather patterns, pollution levels, energy input and

> >>>technology used (intelligence). However, if the carrying capacity of

the land is
> >>>exceeded and no outside source of food/water is available, then people
> >>>die.
>

> >Please re-read my statement. You seemed to have ignored where I said

that

> >the "carrying capacity of the land CHANGES".
>
> I did read it. I always try to ignore what I perceive as internal
> contradictions in the post when I am replying to someone who has been
> polite, and go to the meat of the argument instead. I guess I needed
> to be more explicit.
>

> Yes, you do indeed first state that carrying capacity is changeable,
> then you immediately proceed to the statement which concludes "if
> exceeded... people die." I perceive this as an assumption that you
> are saying it is changeable, but with some immediate limit. If it has
> an immediate limit it is unchangeable. I don't see any evidence that
> this is the case.

If you have a million acres of farmable land and "X" number of people who
are dependent on the food produced from this land in order to live. What
happens if there is no external source of food for these people when they
have a dry year or several dry years? It's known as a famine and is caused
when there are more people dependent on the land than the most recent
carrying capacity of that land can handle. So unless these people can find
another source of food, some of them will die. Ever heard of Ethiopia?
If you have, imagine how much worse they would have been without food
shipments.

In short, the carrying capacity is constantly changing depending on several
different factors. The population must remain within the carrying capacity
of the land as it varies. They may have reserves that can be used for a
short term solution, but they are finite.

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

> Carl Dean is a socialist? I was not aware of that. Thank you.

This is news to me! All I said was that lack of oil wouldn't cause a new
stone age! That and the fact that people must have food, water and air!
(Air was included only to be complete, so that somebody wouldn't flame me)
Any other meaning was invented by others and pinned on me.

Carl

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

to

Michael Pelletier (mikep@-nospam-izzy.net) wrote:
: How deeply ironic that the toxic products (from electronic component

: manufacture) of the "toxic economy" is precisely what enables
: Rachel's environmental newsletter to reach so many people and
: enables us to hold this debate here in this nowhere-land of ones
: and zeroes.

Why doesn Pelletier demand that the people producing the newsletter
return to the stone age?

That doesn't sound very rational to me.

char...@hal-pc.org

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

In article <34bdc443....@Newshost.comnet.co.nz>,
B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:

(big cut of arguments about depletion of renewable resources)

It's nice to hear from you again, Bruce. Keep up the good work. Also, see
an important comment or two below.

>Note that the reserves have increased, despite use in the intervening
>period. Their static index ( number of years that known reserves would
>last at current consumption rates ) listed 11 years for gold, 26 years
>for lead, 23 years for zinc, 16 years for silver, 17 years for tin, and
>13 years for mercury.

Another fine example of one dimensional linear thinking, and extreme
over-extrapolation of current trends.

This prediction is beyond stupid. It's physically impossible to "consume"
an element, unless you plan to destroy it by some type of nuclear
transmutation. Once these elements are discovered and refined to a high
purity, they can be re-refined as they become less concentrated through
use. Alas, the doom sayers know *nothing* about conservation of matter, or
the other laws of physics for that matter.

>They also reported predictions that atmospheric CO2
>concentrations would now be 370ppm, and 380ppm by 2000 ( versus 322ppm
>in 1971 )( page 79 ).

Guess what? I postulate that plants consider atmospheric CO2 to be a
non-renewable resource. Why aren't we concerned with helping them obtain
more of it? After all, plants are living, and have as much right as
animals to "get an even break".

These arguments get totally silly when carried to their logical extreme,
don't they? I apologize for the deliberate "straw man". I used it as an
example of other arguments that seem equally silly, and which some posters
take all too seriously.

>Their deep concern about lead pollution growth
>rates (p.87-88), which they link to automobile emissions, seems to
>have conveniently missed the earlier US decision ( 1970 ) to phase out
>lead from gasoline.
>
>The harsh reality is that gold is US$279/oz, and crude oil ( Dubai
>light ) is currently US$13.50/bbl. Like many other doomsday sects,
>the CoR carefully chose only the signs that supported their view.
>
> Bruce Hamilton

Preach on!

Have a nice day.

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

"Carl Dean" wrote:
: So what about nuclear power? Even if we did have a significant reduction
: of the amount of oil being produced, nuclear power plants could be built to
: supply power with electric or hydrogen cars used for transportation.

Absolutely, but as we have seen, building McCarthy's paradise will
require the construction of 200,000 new reactors, and cost about $800
trillion every 50 years or so, just in construction and construction
financing costs.

McCarthy's paradise is not rational. This has been clearly
established.

As a result, alternatives to Nuclear must be developed. Fossil is no
good since we already consume existing reserves at too great a rate. As
a result the bulk of the power generated must be from renewable sources.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, etc.

There is no alternative - Unless man discovers some kind of zero point
energy source - Snicker....

--
<---->

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

(gary cruse) wrote:
: Throw in selectively blind. These tricksters refuse to
: compare the number of people killed from coal mining or whose lungs
: are destroyed from breathing coal dust with the number of people
: killed by nuclear reactor operations.

Why should we? The choice nuclear zealots offer between coal and
nuclear - is a false one. I choose solar, wind, geothermal, biomass,
nuclear, fossil. In varying proportions.

Why are nuclear zealots always posting gloom and doom scenarios?

--
<---->

duncan

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

> >
> > In the former socialist countries, environmental conditions are much
> > worse, of course. That is to be expected after decades of
> > collectivist economics, but I expect they will have the surpluses of
> > resources required to protect the environment after a dew more decades
> > of capitalism (however crippled it still is there).

OK, lets be honest here. My Uncle (a life lon communist) said to me: The
USSR & Eastern Europe are not and never were socialist countries, They are
(and were) Oligarchies. Until ther is a country where EVERYONE is a member
of the Government, It will just be another version of the few controlling
the many." Im not sayin I agree, but if you are talking about real
communisim, it hasnt happened yet.

Harold

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

I keep seeing this kind of whine from the old socialists. Frankly, I
do not blame them for their desire to distance themselves from the
USSR and the old Socialist regimes. I do wish more of them had
displayed such opinions before the breakup.

I fact, I agree substantially with the logic of the whine, but for a
different reason. I would agree that there never has been a Socialist
nation in the spirit of the Socialist idealogy. There never will be.
It is an impossibility.

Socialism has been and always will be an impossibility until we breed
a new species of human, one with a curtailed sense of themselves.
Ants, so to speak.

Regards, Harold
-----
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment
us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience."
-C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

John McCarthy wrote in message ...

>I believe the Club of Rome no longer believes in the Meadows model.

The COR published MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT in 1974,
(I have a copy) in which they divided the world into ten
regions, and modeled each separately. The models were
different, and extended only for a period of 50 years.

The "business as usual" result is essentially the same,
disaster:

"Our scientifically conducted analysis of the long-term
world development based on all available data points out
quite clearly that such a passive course leads to disaster."
[ p. vii ]

They call for the world to abandon competition in favor
of global cooperation. [p. 143, 144]

---------------------------------------------------------

Re LIMITS TO GROWTH:

"Although thousands of scientists have devoted their
efforts to the question of how reliable WORLD III was
and whether it is even possible to forecast the future
in this manner, 'Limits' has, in our view, come through
all the criticism untarnished." [p. 2, TAKING NATURE
INTO ACCOUNT, Copernicus & COR, 1995, ISBN 0-387-94533-4 ]

Jay

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

>>Note that the reserves have increased, despite use in the intervening
>>period. Their static index ( number of years that known reserves would
>>last at current consumption rates ) listed 11 years for gold, 26 years
>>for lead, 23 years for zinc, 16 years for silver, 17 years for tin, and
>>13 years for mercury.

Bruce, if this is about the LIMITS TO GROWTH, you are wrong. But then,
as I recall, you had a substantial credibility gap with the "running out
of oil" issue too. <G>

LTG said that they knew "reserves" would grow, and even anticipated a
500% increase!

"If we suppose that reserves yet undiscovered could increase present
known reserves by a factor of five, as shown by the dotted line, this
fivefold increase would extend the lifetime of the reserves only from
95 to 154 years." [p. 61, LIMITS TO GROWTH]

Now you know what it really said.

>This prediction is beyond stupid. It's physically impossible to "consume"
>an element, unless you plan to destroy it by some type of nuclear
>transmutation. Once these elements are discovered and refined to a high
>purity, they can be re-refined as they become less concentrated through
>use. Alas, the doom sayers know *nothing* about conservation of matter, or
>the other laws of physics for that matter.
>
>
>>They also reported predictions that atmospheric CO2
>>concentrations would now be 370ppm, and 380ppm by 2000 ( versus 322ppm
>>in 1971 )( page 79 ).

What book is this cite from? LIMITS TO GROWTH doesn't mention
CO2 on page 79.

>>Their deep concern about lead pollution growth
>>rates (p.87-88), which they link to automobile emissions, seems to

Are you just maiking this up for you bosses?

Jay

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

In article <69nl8o$1...@james.hwcn.org>,

Scott Nudds <af...@james.hwcn.org> wrote:
>(gary cruse) wrote:
>: Throw in selectively blind. These tricksters refuse to
>: compare the number of people killed from coal mining or whose lungs
>: are destroyed from breathing coal dust with the number of people
>: killed by nuclear reactor operations.
>
> Why should we? The choice nuclear zealots offer between coal and
>nuclear - is a false one. I choose solar, wind, geothermal, biomass,
>nuclear, fossil. In varying proportions.

I think we're generally in agreement. I say use solar and wind
where appropriate. Let's work to change the minds of banks, such
as those in Colorado, who won't write a loan for a house unless
it is connected to the grid. Why should someone be forced by the
bank to pay thousands of dollars for a length of wire when they
could spend the same amount of money on an emissionless energy
system and have the same 120V at their outlets?

But for the industrial users, a solar panel is not adequate. Even
Solarex -- a well-known solar panel manufacturer -- who has a
two-story, 25kW solar panel on the side of their Maryland office,
doesn't use it for more than backup capacity. Coal-fired powerplants
are currently the only economical source of large-scale power
generation, hence the comparison of nuclear to that.

> Why are nuclear zealots always posting gloom and doom scenarios?

Because the nuclear bashers portray nuclear power as a looming threat
to the survival of the human species (to one extent or another), while
ignoring other threats with far worse track records. They utterly
lack a sense of perspective, and put their thumb on the scales when
weighing the risks and benefits of nuclear power as compared to other
large-scale sources of electricity.

Solarex says "While some hazardous materials (primarily strong
inorganic acids and bases) are used in solar cell manufacturing,
these substances are not released into the environment."
If the solar panel industry can get away with this kind of
response to its waste problem, why can't nuclear?

-Mike Pelletier.

Steven Hales

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

Jay Hanson wrote in message <69o6g1$ctq$1...@news.gstis.net>...

>>>Note that the reserves have increased, despite use in the intervening
>>>period. Their static index ( number of years that known reserves would
>>>last at current consumption rates ) listed 11 years for gold, 26 years
>>>for lead, 23 years for zinc, 16 years for silver, 17 years for tin, and
>>>13 years for mercury.
>
>
>Bruce, if this is about the LIMITS TO GROWTH, you are wrong. But then,
>as I recall, you had a substantial credibility gap with the "running out
>of oil" issue too. <G>
>
>LTG said that they knew "reserves" would grow, and even anticipated a
>500% increase!
>
>"If we suppose that reserves yet undiscovered could increase present
> known reserves by a factor of five, as shown by the dotted line, this
> fivefold increase would extend the lifetime of the reserves only from
> 95 to 154 years." [p. 61, LIMITS TO GROWTH]

With the proviso of holding technology constant. The fuel cell powered
automobile will more than quadruple time to depletion of petroleum fuel
supplies from about 60 years to 240 years.

>
>Now you know what it really said.
>
>>This prediction is beyond stupid. It's physically impossible to "consume"
>>an element, unless you plan to destroy it by some type of nuclear
>>transmutation. Once these elements are discovered and refined to a high
>>purity, they can be re-refined as they become less concentrated through
>>use. Alas, the doom sayers know *nothing* about conservation of matter,
or
>>the other laws of physics for that matter.
>>
>>
>>>They also reported predictions that atmospheric CO2
>>>concentrations would now be 370ppm, and 380ppm by 2000 ( versus 322ppm
>>>in 1971 )( page 79 ).
>
>
>What book is this cite from? LIMITS TO GROWTH doesn't mention
>CO2 on page 79.
>
>>>Their deep concern about lead pollution growth
>>>rates (p.87-88), which they link to automobile emissions, seems to
>
>
>Are you just maiking this up for you bosses?
>
>Jay

Before your new moniker is added to my killfile I must correct your
misstatement above and your attack on the previous poster.

I have in front of me the 1974 Signet paperback edition of Limits and on
page 79, under the heading of pollution, CO2 concentrations and predictions
for future concentrations is given as a graphic. The authors are mainly
concerned about local increases in thermal energy causing local disturbances
such as inversions that trap pollution in an area such as Los Angeles. The
author's prediction by curve fitting and projected energy use of CO2
atmospheric concentrations is off by about 10 to 15ppmv not bad for a 25
year projection. However, their predictions for disaster were overblown.

Jay please apologize to the previous poster for your outrageous accusation.

Regards,

Steve

"Correcting the mistakes of fools is a thankless task. It's too bad
ignorance isn't painful."

>
>
>

John Alway

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

Harold wrote:

> On 16 Jan 1998 06:30:47 GMT, "duncan" <me@*spiretechdotcom.net> wrote:
>
> >> > In the former socialist countries, environmental conditions are much
> >> > worse, of course. That is to be expected after decades of
> >> > collectivist economics, but I expect they will have the surpluses of
> >> > resources required to protect the environment after a dew more decades
> >> > of capitalism (however crippled it still is there).
> >
> >OK, lets be honest here. My Uncle (a life lon communist) said to me: The
> >USSR & Eastern Europe are not and never were socialist countries, They are
> >(and were) Oligarchies. Until ther is a country where EVERYONE is a member
> >of the Government, It will just be another version of the few controlling
> >the many." Im not sayin I agree, but if you are talking about real
> >communisim, it hasnt happened yet.
>
> I keep seeing this kind of whine from the old socialists. Frankly, I
> do not blame them for their desire to distance themselves from the
> USSR and the old Socialist regimes. I do wish more of them had
> displayed such opinions before the breakup.
>
> I fact, I agree substantially with the logic of the whine, but for a
> different reason. I would agree that there never has been a Socialist
> nation in the spirit of the Socialist idealogy. There never will be.
> It is an impossibility.

Absolutely! The Soviets tried. Boy did they try! They created
collectivized industries gallore, and subordinated as many to the
state (collective) as they could. They villified capitalists right, left
and center.

> Socialism has been and always will be an impossibility until we breed
> a new species of human, one with a curtailed sense of themselves.
> Ants, so to speak.

Entirely correct! Individual rights are derived from man's nature.Communism went
straight against man's nature, which is why it was
so deadly to him. Just as you can't teach a tiger to survive at sea,
you can't teach man to live under communism.

...John

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

to

Steven Hales wrote in message <69o9j4$d...@camel18.mindspring.com>...

>I have in front of me the 1974 Signet paperback edition of Limits and on
>page 79, under the heading of pollution, CO2 concentrations and predictions
>for future concentrations is given as a graphic. The authors are mainly
>concerned about local increases in thermal energy causing local
disturbances
>such as inversions that trap pollution in an area such as Los Angeles.
The
>author's prediction by curve fitting and projected energy use of CO2
>atmospheric concentrations is off by about 10 to 15ppmv not bad for a 25
>year projection. However, their predictions for disaster were overblown.
>
>Jay please apologize to the previous poster for your outrageous accusation.

Page 79 of the 1972 Universe publication talks about Mercury. If he
has a 1974 version that has CO2, I appologize for calling him a liar.

But he is still wrong because what he is calling failed "predictions"
are, in fact, "scenarios" -- and you should know better too. THE ONLY
PREDICTIONS OF DISASTER MADE BY LIMITS TO GROWTH WERE FOR THE NEXT
HUNDRED YEARS!

THE BOOK WAS PRINTED IN 1972. ADD 100 YEARS AND DISASTER WILL
STRIKE US BY THE YEAR 2072. THAT'S 74 YEARS FROM TODAY!

Here is a fair synopsis from a University economics text:

================================================================

ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.

THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL

One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study

Conclusions of Pessimist Model

The Nature of the Model

Why were these conclusions reached? Clearly they depend on the

structure of the model. By identifying the characteristics
that yield these conclusions, we can examine the realism of
those characteristics.

The dominant characteristic of the model is exponential growth

coupled with fixed limits. Exponential growth in any variable

(for example, 3% per year) implies that the absolute increases
in that variable will be greater and greater each year.

Furthermore, the higher the rate of growth in resource
consumption, the faster a fixed stock of it will be exhausted.
Suppose, for example, current reserves of a resource are 100
times current use and the supply of reserves cannot be
expanded. If consumption were not growing, this stock would
last 100 years. However, if consumption were to grow at 2%
per year, the reserves would be exhausted in 55 years; and at
10%, exhaustion would occur after only 24 years.

Several resources are held in fixed supply by the model. These

include the amount of available land and the stock of
depletable resources. In addition, the supply of food is fixed

relative to the supply of land. The combination of exponential

growth in demand, coupled with fixed sources of supply,
necessarily implies that, at some point, resource supplies
must be exhausted. The extent to which those resources are
essential thus creates the conditions for collapse.

This basic structure of the model is in some ways reinforced

team. Because of the dominance of positive feedback loops,

coupled with fixed limits on essential resources, the

structure of the Limits to Growth model preordains its

conclusion that human activity is on a collision course with

nature. While the values assumed for various parameters (the
size of the stock of depletable resources, for example) affect
the timing of the various effects, they do not substantially
affect the nature of the outcome.

The dynamics implied by the notion of a feedback loop is
helpful in a more general sense than the specific
relationships embodied in this model. As we proceed with our
investigation, the degree to which our economic and political
institutions serve to intensify or to limit emerging
environmental problems will be a key concern. [p.p. 4-9]

[I believe this is the standard university text for this
discipline. JH]

Bruce Hamilton

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

to

"Jay Hanson" <jha...@aloha.net> wrote:
I previously wrote about The Limits to Growth:-

>>> It was written in 1971, and on page 63 of the first edition ( Signet )
>>> it notes " Even taken into account such economic factors as increased
>>> prices with decreased availability, it would appear at present that
>>> the quantities of platinum, gold, zinc, and lead are not sufficient to
>>> meet demands. At the present rate of expansion... silver, tin, and
>>> uranium may be in short supply even at higher prices by the turn of
>>> the century "

[ My data from 1997 edition of the BP Statistical Review of World
Energy, and data from The Limits to Growth, has been deleted ]

>>>Once again, no quantitative numbers to test. Table 4 covers
>>>non-renewable resources.

....

>>>Note that the reserves have increased, despite use in the intervening
>>>period. Their static index ( number of years that known reserves would
>>>last at current consumption rates ) listed 11 years for gold, 26 years
>>>for lead, 23 years for zinc, 16 years for silver, 17 years for tin, and
>>>13 years for mercury.

>Bruce, if this is about the LIMITS TO GROWTH, you are wrong.

No. I've provided the reference. Table 4 of the first edition, Signet
October 1972. I've just checked, and those numbers are correct.

>But then, as I recall, you had a substantial credibility gap with
>the "running out of oil" issue too. <G>

The problem with your recollections is that they clearly reflect
your limitations.

>LTG said that they knew "reserves" would grow, and even anticipated a
>500% increase!
>"If we suppose that reserves yet undiscovered could increase present
> known reserves by a factor of five, as shown by the dotted line, this
> fivefold increase would extend the lifetime of the reserves only from
> 95 to 154 years." [p. 61, LIMITS TO GROWTH]
>

>Now you know what it really said.

No. Your Walt Disney edition for enviromentalists appears incomplete, as
the above is purely the commentary to Figure 11, solely discussing
chromium reserves. Nowhere do they claim that they " know " reserves will
grow, just that they expect some to grow, and have factored that, along
with usage patterns varying between static and exponentially-increasing,
into their predictions. Follow your own imperative in the subject line,
and cite the section where they claim to "know" that reserves will grow.

As my earlier post noted, the CoR were very careful not to make
major predictions about non-renewable resources that could be
tested in their lifetime, instead producing the infamous (p.75)

" Given present resource consumption rates and the projected increase

in these rates, the great majority of the currently important

nonrenewable resources will be extremely costly 100 years from now ".

They were quick to use historical information that suited their
purpose " The prices of those resources with the shortest static
reserve indices have already begun to increase. The price of mercury,
for example, has gone up 500 percent in the last 20 years; the price
of lead has increased 300 percent in the last 30 years " ( p.75 ).

>>> They also reported predictions that atmospheric CO2
>>> concentrations would now be 370ppm, and 380ppm by 2000 ( versus
>>> 322ppm in 1971 )( page 79 ).
>
>What book is this cite from? LIMITS TO GROWTH doesn't mention
>CO2 on page 79.

Yes it does in the edition that I had clearly referenced at the
beginning of my earlier post. Regular readers will be totally
unsurprised at your arrogant ignorance. Should your Walt Disney
edition for environmentalists follow the same indexing, the
appropriate location is Figure 15.

>>>Their deep concern about lead pollution growth
>>>rates (p.87-88), which they link to automobile emissions,
>>>seems to

>Are you just maiking this up for you bosses?

As usual, when you haven't got a clue, your arrogant stupidity
leads you to attack the messenger. Most people would have used
Dejanews to locate my post and check whether I provided more
information about the edition, rather than rely on a partial
followup from another poster.

Your consistent childish abuse of messengers, combined with total
inability to perform even the most minimal research, clearly
demonstrates not only that you are ignorant, but that it's probably
an incurable state. Your continual, extensive, cross-posting of long,
poorly-researched tirades really just confirms many suspicions, and
usually soon merits a personalised kill-file entry by those readers
that use such things.

Bruce Hamilton

Carl Dean

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

to

> Harold,
> Attempting a rational logical discussion with a socialist is very like
> trying to teach a pig to sing. It is virtually impossible, usually
> anoys the pig, and can be extremely frustrating for the teacher.
>
> Still, the prospect of hearing a pig sing can inspire extrordinary
> effort. After all, if it is possible, they might be very pleasant to
> listen to.
>

> I take a different point of view. I consider the possibility so remote
> that my time is better spent anywhere else. I shouldn't have said
> anything at all, but recognizing what appears to be a kindred spirit,
> and having had the frustrating experiance myself, I thought I would take
> the chance just this once.

OK you pinko commi! (that's what I heard anyway) What do you base your
comments on that I am illogical and (chuckle) a socialist?! You don't even
now what the different political systems are! You infer to yourself as a
"teacher" and me as a "pig". Do you think such insults should go
unchallenged? I think not!

Carl

Rabbo

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

to

a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:

>In article <69bckp$7oe$1...@mp.citykom.de>,
> "Manfred Nadahl" <nad...@muenster.de> writes:
>>>emergency is the easiest way to get people to suspend careful judgment.
>>
>> I do not think that we should call the environmental movement a right-wing
>> or fascist movement.
>
>There are clearly some factions of it which are both right-wing and left-wing
>in their implicit politics. Jay belongs to what I refer to as the fascist or
>totalitarian faction of the environmental movement.
>
>The environmental movement encompasses a large number of people, so you are
>right to say that it is not fair to label everyone under the banner of
>"environmentalism" (which is a huge banner) based on one faction.
>
>> I do not know much about politics in the US, but in Germany the origin of
>> the green movement is clearly left-wing.
>
>The origins of the movement in the U.S. is left-wing as well, but parts of
>it seem to have metamorphosed into something more along the lines of right-
>wing luddite fascism.
>
>There are many factions under the banner of "environmentalism" in the U.S.:
> - Socialists/Marxists (who blame capitalism)
> - Luddites/anarchists/tribalists (who blame science and technology)
> - Right-wing fascists (who also blame the current form of capitalism and
> who suggest a more fascist and undemocratic rather than democratic
> socialist solution)
> - and yes even... Libertarians (who blame not any specific group but rather
> a lack of proper regulation and property rights in the commons)
>
>> In 1968 we had a group of new Marxists who claimed that the main problem of
>> mankind was the exploitation of man by man. According to them the solution
>> was to transfer power to them and the result would be more freedom and a
>> higher standard of living.
>>
>> Most of these people were students, so they were rather intelligent. So it
>> is not really surprising that the most intelligent of them, after looking at
>> the communist countries, recognized that a transfer of power to them would
>> mean less freedom and a lower standard of living.
>>
>> Therefore, once the first publications of the Club of Rome were published,
>> the intelligent members of the German left recognized the usefulness of
>> these concepts.
>>
>> Now they could claim that the main problem of mankind was the exploitation
>> of nature by man. The solution to this problem was still the same: transfer
>> power to them. And they could now openly say that the result would be less
>> freedom and a lower standard of living. Apart from this, their political
>> positions did not change much.
>
>I find this very interesting-- they would sooner abandon the notion of
>bettering the human standard of living than abandon their elitist politics.
Clearly the environmental movement is above politics.
All political systems have been guilty of complete disregard for
conservation and preservation.
Environmentalism is merely a branch of science that relies on
available data to predict future trends.
And whether you like it or not, all environmental predictions point to
one fatal conclusion.

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

to

Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
: Socialism has been and always will be an impossibility until we breed

: a new species of human, one with a curtailed sense of themselves.
: Ants, so to speak.

Harold is quite right. There will never be a true communist state.
There will simply be a continued drift toward collectivism.

The domestication of man continues.

duncan

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

to

John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote in article
<34BFDE08...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...

>
>
> Harold wrote:
>
> > On 16 Jan 1998 06:30:47 GMT, "duncan" <me@*spiretechdotcom.net> wrote:

> > >OK, lets be honest here. My Uncle (a life lon communist) said to me:
The
> > >USSR & Eastern Europe are not and never were socialist countries, They
are
> > >(and were) Oligarchies. Until ther is a country where EVERYONE is a
member
> > >of the Government, It will just be another version of the few
controlling
> > >the many." Im not sayin I agree, but if you are talking about real
> > >communisim, it hasnt happened yet.
> >
> > I keep seeing this kind of whine from the old socialists. Frankly, I
> > do not blame them for their desire to distance themselves from the
> > USSR and the old Socialist regimes. I do wish more of them had
> > displayed such opinions before the breakup.
> >
> > I fact, I agree substantially with the logic of the whine, but for a
> > different reason. I would agree that there never has been a Socialist
> > nation in the spirit of the Socialist idealogy. There never will be.
> > It is an impossibility.
>

Actually, my Uncle told me that back when I was pretty young. He had taken
alot of flak from ACP members. There are a lot of people who believed that
way. Secondly, how is it proof that because something hasnt happened, it
cant? What socialism require is not less self but simply less greed. We ont
all need to live in Grand houses or retire to Malibu. I work my heart out
because I LOVE what I do, and (definately not for the money I make.). The
whole American dream thang has become do something you hate, whether or not
it serves a greater good, so you can retire and do nothing as fast as
possable. Its all crap. (IMHO).

duncan

David Gossman

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

to

Apparently, based on Mr Nudds agreement with the prior post, it is his
hope that "man" will become more like ants. Is that your goal in life Mr
Nudds, to think like an ant? If so...:)
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein

Brian Mueller

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

to

Scott Nudds wrote:

> Harold is quite right. There will never be a true communist state.
>There will simply be a continued drift toward collectivism.

I agree with Scott here, but wanted to add that socialism and
communism are not the same thing. Socialism, as in, for example,
China, is evil.

Communism is an idealised state, where everyone is equal and there's
no poverty, everyone is rich (as opposed to the USSR, where everyone
was poor). It has yet to be achieved. :-)

-----
Brian Mueller
E-mail mulder78 at ix dot netcom dot com

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

to

: Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Harold is quite right. There will never be a true communist state.
: > There will simply be a continued drift toward collectivism.

: >
: > The domestication of man continues.

David Gossman wrote:
: Apparently, based on Mr Nudds agreement with the prior post, it is his

: hope that "man" will become more like ants. Is that your goal in life Mr
: Nudds, to think like an ant? If so...:)

Gossman should visit the top of a tall building, and look down at the
human ants, and the ant-hill below him.

Harold

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

to

On 15 Jan 1998 23:34:35 GMT, "Carl Dean" <cde...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

Imagine how well they could do if they had a technological economy and
a stable government?

I am not going to be persuaded that an unstable government and a
technology using people to pull plows teaches us anything useful about
the modern world, except that we need stable governments and advanced
technology, of course.

>In short, the carrying capacity is constantly changing depending on several
>different factors. The population must remain within the carrying capacity
>of the land as it varies. They may have reserves that can be used for a
>short term solution, but they are finite.

Only if their vision is finite.

Regards, Harold
----
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up
some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each
of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective, and being honest."
--- Dr Stephen Schneider

Harold

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

to

On 18 Jan 1998 04:42:39 GMT, "duncan" <me@*spiretechdotcom.net> wrote:

>John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote in article
><34BFDE08...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...
>>
>>
>> Harold wrote:
>>
>> > On 16 Jan 1998 06:30:47 GMT, "duncan" <me@*spiretechdotcom.net> wrote:
>
>> > >OK, lets be honest here. My Uncle (a life lon communist) said to me:
>The
>> > >USSR & Eastern Europe are not and never were socialist countries, They
>are
>> > >(and were) Oligarchies. Until ther is a country where EVERYONE is a
>member
>> > >of the Government, It will just be another version of the few
>controlling
>> > >the many." Im not sayin I agree, but if you are talking about real
>> > >communisim, it hasnt happened yet.
>> >
>> > I keep seeing this kind of whine from the old socialists. Frankly, I
>> > do not blame them for their desire to distance themselves from the
>> > USSR and the old Socialist regimes. I do wish more of them had
>> > displayed such opinions before the breakup.
>> >
>> > I fact, I agree substantially with the logic of the whine, but for a
>> > different reason. I would agree that there never has been a Socialist
>> > nation in the spirit of the Socialist idealogy. There never will be.
>> > It is an impossibility.
>
>Actually, my Uncle told me that back when I was pretty young.

I am sorry, but this means nothing to me. Since I do not know
anything not in the previous post (like your age), this could have
been last week.

>He had taken
>alot of flak from ACP members. There are a lot of people who believed that
>way. Secondly, how is it proof that because something hasnt happened, it
>cant?

It is not proof, as you point out. It is however, quite convincing.

>What socialism require is not less self but simply less greed. We ont
>all need to live in Grand houses or retire to Malibu.

Why not? If that is what you want to do. I, of course, will not
force you to do so. That would be Socialist.

>I work my heart out
>because I LOVE what I do, and (definately not for the money I make.). The
>whole American dream thang has become do something you hate, whether or not
>it serves a greater good, so you can retire and do nothing as fast as
>possable. Its all crap. (IMHO).

You know, I do not generally indulge in this, but I cannot take anyone
seriously who indulges in such mangling of the language and such a
plethora of misspellings.

Regards, Harold
----
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments
by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
---Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, 1916 - 1939.

Michael Pelletier

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

to

In article <69m101$p3r$6...@mohawk.hwcn.org>,

Is that not what they are, in effect, demanding of the rest of us?

-Mike Pelletier.

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

to

Michael Pelletier wrote in message <6a3a33$k...@valhalla.comshare.com>...

>Is that not what they are, in effect, demanding of the rest of us?

No, nature demands that you return to the Stone Age:

"In Scenario 1 the world society proceeds along its historical
path as long as possible without major policy change. Technology
advances in agriculture, industry, and social services according
to established patterns. There is no extraordinary effort to
abate pollution or conserve resources. The simulated world tries
to bring all people through the demographic transition and into
an industrial and then post-industrial economy. This world
acquires widespread health care and birth control as the service
sector grows; it applies more agricultural inputs and gets
higher yields as the agricultural sector grows; it emits more
pollutants and demands more nonrenewable resources as the
industrial sector grows.

"The global population in Scenario 1 rises from 1.6 billion in
the simulated year 1900 to over 5 billion in the simulated
year 1990 and over 6 billion in the year 2000. Total
industrial output expands by a factor of 20 between 1900 and
1990. Between 1900 and 1990 only 20% of the earth's total
stock of nonrenewable resources is used; 80% of these
resources remain in 1990. Pollution in that simulated year has
just begun to rise noticeably. Average consumer goods per
capita in 1990 is at a value of 1968-$260 per person per year
-- a useful number to remember for comparison in future runs.
Life expectancy is increasing, services and goods per capita
are increasing, food production is increasing. But major
changes are just ahead.

"In this scenario the growth of the economy stops and reverses
because of a combination of limits. Just after the simulated
year 2000 pollution rises high enough to begin to affect
seriously the fertility of the land. (This could happen in
the 'real world' through contamination by heavy metals or
persistent chemicals, through climate change, or through
increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished
ozone layer.) Land fertility has declined a total of only 5%
between 1970 and 2000, but it is degrading at 4.5% per year in
2010 and 12% per year in 2040. At the same time land erosion
increases. Total food production begins to fall after 2015.
That causes the economy to shift more investment into the
agriculture sector to maintain output. But agriculture has to
compete for investment with a resource sector that is also
beginning to sense some limits.

"In 1990 the nonrenewable resources remaining in the ground would
have lasted 110 years at the 1990 consumption rates. No
serious resource limits were in evidence. But by 2020 the
remaining resources constituted only a 30-year supply. Why did
this shortage arise so fast? Because exponential growth
increases consumption and lowers resources. Between 1990 and
2020 population increases by 50% and industrial output grows by
85%. The nonrenewable resource use rate doubles. During the
first two decades of the simulated twenty-first century, the
rising population and industrial plant in Scenario 1 use as
many nonrenewable resources as the global economy used in the
entire century before. So many resources are used that much
more capital and energy are required to find, extract, and
refine what remains.

"As both food and nonrenewable resources become harder to obtain
in this simulated world, capital is diverted to producing more
of them. That leaves less output to be invested in basic
capital growth.

"Finally investment cannot keep up with depreciation (this is
physical investment and depreciation, not monetary). The
economy cannot stop putting its capital into the agriculture
and resource sectors; if it did the scarcity of food,
materials, and fuels would restrict production still more. So
the industrial capital plant begins to decline, taking with it
the service and agricultural sectors, which have become
dependent upon industrial inputs. For a short time the
situation is especially serious, because the population keeps
rising, due to the lags inherent in the age structure and in
the process of social adjustment. Finally population too
begins to decrease, as the death rate is driven upward by lack
of food and health services." [p.p.132-134]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH WITH LIFE-SUPPORT COLLAPSE Billions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |11
You are here----------------+ |10
| _ |9
| _ -|~~-_ |8
V _ -~ | ~ - _ |7
_-~ | ~ _ |6
_- ~ | ~_|5
_-~ | |4
_-~ | |3
____ ---~ Massive human die-off begins. |2
-- ~~~~~~ (GIGADEATH) |1
--|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|---
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080

[P. 133, Meadows, et al., BEYOND THE LIMITS;
Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992. 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576; ISBN 0-930031-62-8]

Jay -- http://dieoff.org/page1.htm

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:
: They also reported predictions that atmospheric CO2

: concentrations would now be 370ppm, and 380ppm by 2000 ( versus 322ppm
: in 1971 )( page 79 ).

They were quite correct of course.

CO2 concentrations.

Year Annual
---- ------
1971 326.16
1976 331.98
1981 339.76
1986 346.97
1991 355.48
1996 362.57

The current rate of increase is about 2ppm per year.

This brings the value to 370ppm by 2000.

Undoubtedly the minor difference comes from the failure to anticipate
the depth of the last two recessions, and some other minor confounding
factors.

Its a good prediction however.

--
<---->

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

John Alway wrote:
: Actually, they are even worse, for they have set up _all_ of mankind
: as the enemy. The fascists/Nazis set up other factions of people, based
: on racism and nationalism, as the enemy.

You know. I don't think I have ever seen a racist environmentalist.
It isn't hard to see why. The racist characteristic that Alway
dishonestly claims underlies environmentalism is fundamentally at odds
with the underlying environmental philosophy that assigns rights to
all things in nature.

Now that Alway's lie has been expossed...

There are environmentalists who have claimed that mankind is the enemy
of nature. Such statements are a metaphor of course. Man is doing a
very good job of destroying the natural world. How are we to
characterize this? Are we to say that by destroying nature, man is the
friend of nature? Clearly not. Enemy is the appropriate word to use in
such a context.

John Alway wrote:
: Environmentalists want to sacrifice mankind to nature.

Mindless, dishonest, extremist rhetoric on Alway's part While all
environmentalists wish to preserve the natural world, I know of no
environmentalist who wishes to sacrifice mankind.

If this were true, then environmentalist groups would be busy in their
own biological warfare labs developing ways to exterminate man.

Instead we only see cults and the military doing such things. In the
U.S. we know that extremist right wing groups have attempted to
engage in biological warfare against their fellow Americans, as
evidenced by the purchase and attempted purchase of anthrax by
extremists in the militia movement.

Alway is the kind of conservative extremist I can readily imagine
doing such things.

His dishonesty and complete lack of morality convince me of this.

--
<---->

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

Harold

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:30:18 -0600, David Gossman
<gcia...@gci.cncoffice.com> wrote:

>Scott Nudds wrote:

I missed this post. For some reason Nutt's posts frequently do not
thread properly, and I will frequently miss posts that do not thread.
I would suspect this to be on purpose, since I am sure Nudds wants his
post to appear so devastating that no one can reply.

The problem with this as a thesis is that it requires Nudds have some
technical sophistication. A prospect I find extremely unlikely.

>>
>> Harold (Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu) wrote:
>> : Socialism has been and always will be an impossibility until we breed
>> : a new species of human, one with a curtailed sense of themselves.
>> : Ants, so to speak.
>>

>> Harold is quite right. There will never be a true communist state.
>> There will simply be a continued drift toward collectivism.
>>
>> The domestication of man continues.
>

>Apparently, based on Mr Nudds agreement with the prior post, it is his
>hope that "man" will become more like ants. Is that your goal in life Mr
>Nudds, to think like an ant? If so...:)

I think that to be the case, at least in some part. People like Nudds
do not like it when others have individuality. People who think of
themselves as individuals as harder for the society to control. To
Nudds, it is bad when people are hard to control, since they may not
do what he requires.

Nudds requires people to be "domesticated". I think this is because
Nudds sees a free person as a danger to him.

Where have you seen this kind of thought process before? I will give
you a hint:

"It is very clear that political propagandists that accuse
Stalin of the murder of millions, simply don't know what
they are talking about."
---Scott Nudds, 6/6/96, Posting on UseNet

Regards, Harold
-------
"Ecology is rather like sex-every new generation likes to think they were
the first to discover it."
---Michael Allaby, Times (London, 6 Oct 1989).

Harold

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

to

On 16 Jan 1998 13:12:14 -0500, mikep@-nospam-izzy.net (Michael
Pelletier) wrote:

[edited]

>
>I think we're generally in agreement. I say use solar and wind
>where appropriate. Let's work to change the minds of banks, such
>as those in Colorado, who won't write a loan for a house unless
>it is connected to the grid. Why should someone be forced by the
>bank to pay thousands of dollars for a length of wire when they
>could spend the same amount of money on an emissionless energy
>system and have the same 120V at their outlets?

Well, answer your question, the reason is that a great deal of the
value of a house is dependent on ease with which it could be resold.

Whether rightly or wrongly, whether you agree or not, most people are
still leery of any home not connected to the grid. This lowers the
value of the house by lowering the resale value.

Since the bank has a fiduciary responsibility to its depositors, I
could easily imagine them being sued if they followed your advice and
then ended up with any significant number of unsold homes on their
books. This may not occur, but they simply don't want to bet their
jobs on that before hand.

[deleted]

Regards, Harold
-------
"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private
property and production for human need. A socialist world
would place an enormous priority on alternative energy
sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have
been exploring for quite some time now."
---Louis Proyect, Nov. 27, 1997

David Gossman

unread,

Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98

to

Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Apparently, based on Mr Nudds agreement with the prior post, it is his

> : hope that "man" will become more like ants. Is that your goal in life Mr
> : Nudds, to think like an ant? If so...:)
>

> Gossman should visit the top of a tall building, and look down at the
> human ants, and the ant-hill below him.
>

Why should I do this Mr Nudds? - Are you incapable of determining the
differences or is all you see the abstract similarities?:)

Scott Nudds

unread,

Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98

to

(Harold) wrote:
: Nudds requires people to be "domesticated". I think this is because

: Nudds sees a free person as a danger to him.

I do? When have I ever said such a thing?

I demand that you provide quotes that prove I have said such a thing
as you are a liar. I have never said such a thing.

You will never provide quotes because <none> exist.

Why does conservative Brashears need to tell lies?

Who is he trying to deceive?

(Harold) wrote:
: "It is very clear that political propagandists that accuse

: Stalin of the murder of millions, simply don't know what
: they are talking about."
: ---Scott Nudds, 6/6/96, Posting on UseNet

Harold likes to post this quote from time to time, in a dishonest
attempt to discredit.

In the context of the discussion from which the quote came, I objected
to the claim that Stalin <murdered 30,40,50,60 million people>. As
Harold's hateful anti-Stalin venom flowed, his body count estimate
seemed to grow in proportion.

No, Stalin didn't have time to slit the throats of 50 million people.
Not 40 million. Not 20 million. Not 10 million. Not even 1 million.

Stalin was however responsible for the death of several million as a
result of brutality and inept management, which is what I have always
maintained.

Unlike hate filled conservatives, like Harold, I value honesty and
will not manufacture lies in order to demonize others.

--
<---->

Matt

unread,

Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98

to

Respectfully cross-posting the following piece of thread to
alt.agriculture.sustainable, to see if there's any agreement with the
final paragraph quoted below. I chose to network this because I felt
that permaculture-type ideas may provide a more optimistic outlook, when
making the best use of land. (please don't flame me if this doesn't
work - I'm just trying to get the most brains onto a subject that
concerns me).

> >ECONOMY - LIFE SUPPORT double speak
> >
> >The Economy is our life support system one step removed.
> >
> > We need to come to grips with our deception management disaster --
> Acquired
> >Tunnel Vision. http://www.igc.apc.org/raenergy/atv.html
> >We are led to believe that the economy is a sacred cow of sorts when the
> >economy is simply the life support system woven into a game of Monopoly.
> snip
> >
> Unfortunately, while your intentions may be good, you don't seem to
> know anything about geography.
> There is no way the present world population could support itself if
> we all reverted to small scale farming.
> Water availability and soil quality limit the amount of land that can
> be used in this way. At present, each average individual has about two
> acres of useful land to live on. Try it if you dare but I don't like
> your chances.

> The current world population can only survive because of the
> technological support it gets. Without technology, fertilizers and
> mass production and transportation of food, most of us would quickly
> starve to death.
>

--
Matt
"If only I could remember that perfect tagline..."
*** Humans: make sure you delete NOSPAM from my reply-to address. ***

Robert Smallwood

unread,

Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98

to

Jay Hanson (j...@qmail.com) wrote:
: Martin Spencer wrote in message <34BB1A...@dial.pipex.com>...
: >Mike wrote:
: >>
: >> In other words, we won't run out of nuclear fuel in our lifetimes.
: >-------------------------------------------------------------
: >Hi all,
: >
: >Sorry if this is a newby attitude, but I thought the problem was
: >the concentration of poisonous and / or long-term radioactive
: >wastes, not the availability of raw radioactives.

The earth has surplus natural energy for our utilization needs. Look at
ways to utilize energy around us. Expand from central commercial systems,
(such as nuclear reactors), and see how energy may be moved from around
each house to serve that house vis a vie
http://www.avalon.nf.ca/~incaoil/irlaser.htm

Also regarding the shrinking supply of oil: the EUR may be tripled, thus
increasing remaining oil by 5 times, by using microbes to flush obstinate
oil from clinging on the reservoir rock to flow to wells, vis a vie
http://www.avalon.nf.ca/~incaoil/microbe.htm

Why worry about the future. Technology has more than kept pace with
consumption so far. The only threat to humanity is if the higher IQ
inventing peoples get mired down by the masses of dullards, (through
enlightened devolution, lower reproduction, and insufficient economic
reward for the contributions of inventions and innovation). Then
technology will surely fall behind the population strain, and the
catastrophies predicted by PetroConsultants in Ireland will occur.

David Gossman

unread,

Jan 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/27/98

to

Robert Smallwood wrote:

>
> Jay Hanson (j...@qmail.com) wrote:
>
> Why worry about the future. Technology has more than kept pace with
> consumption so far. The only threat to humanity is if the higher IQ
> inventing peoples get mired down by the masses of dullards, (through
> enlightened devolution, lower reproduction, and insufficient economic
> reward for the contributions of inventions and innovation). Then
> technology will surely fall behind the population strain, and the
> catastrophies predicted by PetroConsultants in Ireland will occur.

Sounds like the Nuddsian "domestication of man" program.:)

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98

to

> Why worry about the future. Technology has more than kept pace with
> consumption so far. The only threat to humanity is if the higher IQ

Technology has kept pace with consumption? That's
like saying that the fuel pump in your car keeps
pace with consumption -- not too bright.

============================================================

EUR Oil
Jay Hanson, 12/27/97

"The days of the oil shortages are over," said economist
William Wilson of Comerica Bank in Detroit, adding that's
welcome news for truck owners. "Trucks are here to stay
because Americans like them."
-- Detroit Free Press, 12/13/97

As Wilson demonstrates, oil industry jargon has confused
economists for many years. If one persists in thinking of
energy in terms of "money price", then one simply can not
understand the energy issues. The key to understanding
energy issues is look at the "energy price" of energy.

Typical quote from oil-economist:

"One thing I have learned over the years is to distrust
any projections of economically recoverable reserves."

The critical issue here is NOT "economically recoverable
reserves", it is in oil industry jargon: "Estimated
Ultimately Recoverable" or "EUR" oil. In fact, official
estimates of EUR oil have "varied little" over the last 50
years.

"For many years geologists and oil companies have published
estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately
be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these
assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have
varied little over the past half century."

[ This is direct quote from a 1996 World Resources
Institute paper by James MacKenzie. Take a look:
http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html ]
________________________________________________
IN 1970, OIL PRODUCTION IN THE LOWER-48 "PEAKED"
40 years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method for
projecting future oil production and predicted that oil
production in the lower-48 states would peak about 1970. This
prediction has proved to be remarkably accurate. Both total and
peak yields have risen slightly compared to Hubbert's original
estimate, but the timing of the peak and the general downward
trend of production were correct.
[ See the graph for the lower-48 at:
http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/productn.html ]

Global oil production will begin to "peak" when approximately
half of the "Estimated Ultimately Recoverable" oil has been
recovered. The exact date is unknown, but it could be soon as
the year 2000:

"Two important conclusions emerge from this discussion. First,
if growth in world demand continues at a modest 2 percent per
year, production could begin declining as soon as the year
2000. Second, even enormous (and unlikely) increases in EUR
oil buy the world little more than another decade (from 2007
to 2018). In short, unless growth in world oil demand is
sharply lower than generally projected, world oil production
will probably begin its long-term decline soon -- and certainly
within the next two decades." [Again from WRI, please take
a look http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/futuroil.html ]

"It is reluctantly concluded that there is strong evidence that
the restricted Hubbert Curve for the world's total EUR of oil
may first peak about the year 2000, Fig. 4, after which it may
fluctuate along a horizontal production line (restricted by
Saudi Arabia/OPEC) before inevitable decline ..."
[ from WORLD OIL, October 1995, FUTURE WORLD SUPPLIES,
by L. F. Ivanhoe, http://dieoff.org/page85.htm ]

"At the time of writing in late 1996, there are still three
more years to go until the end of the transition."
[p. 59, THE COMING OIL CRISIS, by C. J. Campbell;
Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants,
1997; ISBN 0906522110
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0906522110/3088-4711339-639335 ]
________________
PETROCONSULTANTS
Petroconsultants is the world's leading provider of data and
analysis for petroleum exploration and production. With
headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, Petroconsultants maintains
offices in London, Houston, Sydney and Singapore, supported by
over 250 dedicated multilingual and multinational employees and
a worldwide network of correspondents and associates.
[ http://www.petroconsultants.com/ ]

"A new report on world oil resources, World Oil Supply 1930-2050
(Campbell and Laherre, Petroconsultants Pty. Ltd., 1995),
concludes that the planet's oil supplies will be exhausted
much sooner than previously thought.

"The report, written for oil industry insiders and priced at
$32,000 per copy, concludes that world oil production and
supply probably will peak as soon as the year 2000 and will
decline to half the peak level by 2025. Large and permanent
increases in oil prices are predicted after the year 2000."
[ from EARTH ISLAND JOURNAL, Spring 1997, THE DEATH OF THE
OIL ECONOMY, by Ted Trainer http://dieoff.org/page116.htm ]
__________________________________________________
ENERGY IS THE PRECONDITION FOR ALL OTHER RESOURCES
There is NO substitute for energy. Although the economy treats
energy just like any other resource, it is NOT like any other
resource. Energy is the precondition for ALL other resources and
oil is the most important form of energy we use, making up about
38 percent of the world energy supply.

NO other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of
extractablility, transportability, versatility and cost. These
are the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as
the front-line energy source in the industrialized world in the
middle of this century, and they are as relevant today as they
were then.

Optimists tend to assume that the "quality" (e.g., liquid vs.
solid) of energy we use is not significant, that an infinite
amount of social capital is available to search for and produce
energy, and that an infinite flow of solar energy is available
for human use. Realists know that none of these assumptions is
true.

"If one considers the last one hundred years of the U.S.
experience, fuel use and economic output are highly correlated.
An important measure of fuel efficiency is the ratio of energy
use to the gross national product, E/GNP. The E/GNP ratio has
fallen by about 42% since 1929. We find that the improvement
in energy efficiency is due principally to three factors: (1)
shifts to higher quality fuels such as petroleum and primary
electricity; (2) shifts in energy use between households and
other sectors; and (3) higher fuel prices. Energy quality is
by far the dominant factor." [Cleveland et al., 1984
http://dieoff.org/page17.htm#ENERGY ]
__________________
ECONOMIC IMPLOSION
"The global price of oil after the supply crunch should follow
the simplest economic law of supply and demand: There will be
a major increase in crude oil and all other fuels' prices,
accompanied by global hyperinflation, rationing, etc. After
the associated economic implosion, many of the world's
developed societies may look like today's Russia. The United
States may be competing with China for every tanker of oil,
with the Persian Gulf oil exporters preferring Chinese rockets
to American paper dollars for their oil."
[ from THE FUTURIST, January/February, 1997, GET READY FOR
ANOTHER OIL SHOCK!, by L. F. Ivanhoe
http://dieoff.org/page90.htm ]

As energy prices increase, we become less "energy efficient"
with respect to imported oil. That is, we will have to burn
more energy in order to make more goods and services (to make
more money) to buy a barrel of oil. It's a positive feedback
loop. But there's a thermodynamic limit on how much we can pay!

If as a country, we must spend two barrels of oil to produce
enough goods and services to buy one barrel of oil, it is
impossible for us to pay our overhead -- it is impossible for
us to continue. At that point, America's economic machine is
just plain "out of gas".

For more, see: FOSSILGATE: http://dieoff.org/page122.htm

Jay -- http://dieoff.org/page1.htm
**************************************************************
Please copy and reprint or crosspost this article as much as
you can. Be sure to include the BRAIN FOOD invitation in the
article. This article and others are archived at:
http://dieoff.org/

Please join my BRAIN FOOD mailing list. The purpose of
this list is to distribute my essays and news. I expect
that there will be no more than four of five mailing a year.

My work is dedicated to the Common Good. My essays may be
freely reprinted and my ideas may be incorporated into other
works without credit.

The major themes on this list are "systems" and "philosophy".
Subtopics may relate to specific disciplines such as
politics, economics, theology, and ecology.

This is not the type of list where subscribers can enter into
a dialog with other list members. This is a manual list
that I am running from my home.

To join this free list, send :
"subscribe BRAIN FOOD" to j...@qmail.com

If you are already on my list, there is no need to re-subscribe.

Jay

Barney Holmes

unread,

Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98

to

> > The current world population can only survive because of the
> > technological support it gets. Without technology, fertilizers and
> > mass production and transportation of food, most of us would quickly
> > starve to death.
> >

"There is no energy crisis. There is a _crisis of ignorance_"

Buckmeister Fuller

Jay Hanson

unread,

Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98

to

>> > The current world population can only survive because of the
>> > technological support it gets. Without technology, fertilizers and
>> > mass production and transportation of food, most of us would quickly
>> > starve to death.

Yes, but without the natural resources, the technology is worthless.

=============================================================

Jay Hanson

unread,

Feb 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/5/98

to

Don Dale wrote:

> > =============================================================
> >
> > ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition),
> > by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, 1992; ISBN 0-673-46328-1.
> (snip)
>
> As I have a copy of Tietenberg in my lap right now, I think I'm qualified
> to respond here. Please observe what I have quoted from Mr. Hanson's
> citation: Tietenberg presents "The basic pessimist model" as "one end of
> the spectrum" of visions of the future, while Mr. Hanson presents it as
> fact. In Teitenberg, the section immediately following Mr. Hanson's
> citation is titled "The basic optimist model." This section draws
> conclusions quite different from those Mr. Hanson cites. For some
> reason, Mr. Hanson failed to include this section in his post. While I'd
> like to believe that this was mere oversight and not a conscious decision
> to distort the facts, my previous experience with Mr. Hanson forces me to
> conclude otherwise.

Presents af fact? It is in fact a synopsis of LIMITS TO GROWTH, andit is in
fact in Tietenberg.

The topic at hand was the ongoing lies regarding the LIMITS TO GROWTH..

Jay