This is about us

[Old man of the marsh]

Another thought provoking article. However as I read the reams of
stuff about climate change it occurs to me that actually the real
problem we face is population growth. If we don't solve that then
whatever we achieve on global warming will be futile anyway. If we
could, lets say, halve the worlds population; practically all our
social and environmental problems will disappear. I realise that this
is almost a taboo subject but we ignore it at our peril. I think we
must organise population control for ourselves or it will be oragnised
for us with much more unpleasant results. Don't ask me how we do it
though!

[TIMC...@aol.com]

In a message dated 15/12/2009 16:25:33 GMT Standard Time, turn...@btconnect.com writes:

I think we
must organise population control for ourselves or it will be oragnised
for us with much more unpleasant results. Don't ask me how we do it
though!

Spot on i'm afraid.

Where would we set a truly sustainable population level?

i bet sub 500 million if we want to be here for another 100k years.

Tim

[royj]

On Dec 15, 12:36 pm, Old man of the marsh

You mention soil and phosphate. I have been trying to identify some
group or research people addressing the problem of how to recycle ALL
urban bio-waste back to enrich the soil with fertiliser, and how to
minimise the transport energy load embedded in the food production
system. This I think requires a serious look at our local government
and urban policies, and our agriculture, land ownership and land
management policies. Any suggestions where to look would be welcome. I
have tried to open up a debate in the Feasta site, but so far without
success; see this at http://www.feasta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=479

RoyJ

[V Wood]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/15/bill-mckibben
From the Guardian:

Copenhagen: Only the numbers count – and they add up to hell on earth

Climate Interactive's software speaks numbers, not spin – which is where the true understanding of the Copenhagen summit lies

Climate change activists form the number 350 at the Sydney Opera House in Australia. Photograph: Tim Cole/EPA

The Bella centre is a swirl of chatter, the streets of Copenhagen are a swirl of protest. Depending on what hour you listen to the news bulletin, the UN climate negotiations have "come off the rails" or are "back on track" or have "stalled" or are "moving swiftly". Which is why the only people who really understand what's going on may be a small crew of folks from a group of computer jockeys called Climate Interactive. Their software speaks numbers, not spin – and in the end it's the numbers that count.
First number to know: 350. It's what scientists have been saying for two years is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide we can safely have in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million. Those scientists have been joined by an unprecedented outpouring from civil society: in late October, activists put on what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history," with 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries, all rallying around that number. Three thousand vigils last weekend across the planet spelled out the number in candles. Thousands of churches rang their bells 350 times on Sunday, and yesterday the World Parliament of Religions, meeting in Melbourne and representing the "largest interreligious gathering on earth" sent an emergency 350 declaration here to Copenhagen.
The second number: 100. That's (roughly) how many countries are backing a 350 target here at Copenhagen. That's more than half the nations in attendance – unfortunately, they're the small, poor ones. But it's amazing to see them, in the face of enormous pressure, keeping the idea of real action alive. Yesterday Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, spoke to a roaring crowd of thousands: "We know what the laws of physics say: the most important number in the world is 350."
The third number: 4%. That's how much the US is offering to cut its emissions from their 1990 levels by 2020. Scientists tell us that the developed world would need to reduce by at least 40% to get us back on a 350 track, so the American offer is exactly an order or magnitude off. And they're not alone. All the rich countries, not to mention China, are looking to do as little as possible and still escape here with some kind of agreement they can hide behind.
The fourth number – and the most important one. When the folks at Climate Interactive plug in every promise made at these talks (the American offer on the table, the Chinese promise to reduce "energy intensity", the EU pledges, and so on) their software tells them almost instantly how much carbon they would eventually produce. When they hit the button last night, the program showed that by 2100 the world's CO2 concentrations (currently 390) would be – drumroll please – 770. That is, we would live in hell, or at least a place with a similar temperature.
So that's the scorecard. You may hear a lot of happy talk from world leaders over the next few days as they "reach a historic agreement". But that's how it all adds up.
• Bill McKibben is the coordinator of 350.org

[naturecreekfarm]

Consumption is the problem, not population. Blaming population is
shifting the blame from the rich to the poor.-(paraphrasing GM)
People need to be productive and useful TO NATURE, not just to
themselves.
It is the ratio between how much we consume and how much we are
naturally useful that causes problems.

If everyone in the world was busy nurturing plants and each other
instead of entertaining themselves with jobs and money and games, then
the population wouldn't even come up as a problem.

It isn't how many of us there are, but what we do.
Some argument can be made that the current population exists because
of fossil fuels, but only because of the concentrations and cultures
arranged around cheap energy and wasteful technology. Raise the price
of everything at the retail level, and place the real costs of
government and environmental damage at the point of purchase, where
individual decisions are made.
All current trade is in some way based on fossil resources and
environmental damage. Singling out carbon only defers the real
questions about consumption vs. usefulness of humans.

Every plan, whether at Copenhagen or Baghdad or Kabul or Peking or
Timbuktu must be preceded by the question, "What are people for?"
If the answer isn't "To be Net Useful to the future of the universe.",
then why bother even learning to talk?

Dan C.
Belgium, WI USA

On Dec 15, 10:59 am, TIMCO...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 15/12/2009 16:25:33 GMT Standard Time,  
>

[TIMC...@aol.com]

In a message dated 15/12/2009 18:20:18 GMT Standard Time, danc...@gmail.com writes:

If everyone in the world was busy nurturing plants and each other
instead of entertaining themselves with jobs and money and games, then
the population wouldn't even come up as a problem

 

 

Hi Dan,

i'd say it would.

The world was dramatically altered by humanity even 200 years ago.

One advantage of cities at the current population levels is that at least the whole surface of the world hasn't become devoted to production of humans, spread them out evenly and we'd overrun the place.

 

i really don't see why so many of us feel the need to justify as high a population as possible. We've already eliminated half the competing species; a vast cost

 

CXheers

Tim

 

[Lila Smith]

Old man of the Marsh You may like to read this article that was posted some
time ago, yes you are right about overpopulation.

Overpopulation, Overconsumption and the Balance of Power by Dale Allen
Pfeiffer
Attitude
I have been asked to write about overpopulation as part of an effort to
focus awareness on this problem.

And overpopulation is a very serious problem. Studies suggest that without
fossil fuels the Earth can only sustain one third of its current human
population. The US could sustain two-thirds of its current population.
Humans have cooped the majority of the planet's photosynthetic capability,
including all the prime agricultural real estate. The rest of the biosphere
must make do with what is left.

We need to change attitudes toward procreation. Certainly, every baby born
is a miracle, but then so is everything living. This does not justify
popping out babies irresponsibly. Currently every baby born is stealing the
necessities of existence from other living things, increasing the portion of
the planet's carrying capacity that is shifted to humans. And we are coming
on a time, as resources go into decline and humanity's share of the carrying
capacity can no longer be expanded, when every child born must compete for
food and livelihood with other human beings.

We can say that attitudes must change, but horny teens and newly delivered
mothers are not rational beings, not when it comes to sex and childbirth.
Nor can we expect society to change its image of procreation.

Consumer capitalism reveres the family, because parenthood is the surest way
to make people into obedient consumers. Any normal young parent wants to do
the responsible thing and provide for his or her children. And who can deny
their child the latest consumer geegaws so long as they are within the
parent's means? Young parents are quickly swept into the system, working
wherever they can find a job, going into debt to pay for their child's
needs, or becoming a recipient of federal aid.

Our media certainly does not discourage parenthood. On the one hand we are
bombarded with sexual imagery that pushes our libidos into overdrive.
Meanwhile the media presents us with an image of wholesome family life as
the norm. And the media has become the major sensory input from which we
derive our view of reality.

Religions, particularly Christianity, also encourage overpopulation with
their view of the sanctity of childbirth. Be fruitful and multiply, they
say. In their credo, a woman's worth is a function of her ability to
procreate.

Childbirth is Power

For the poor, having children is the only form of wealth most people can
share in. Having a large family is thought to increase your ability to
provide for yourself, and raise your status in society.

For impoverished women, childbirth is the only way they have of expressing
themselves. It is their destiny, and a woman who has not borne a child by
the time she reaches menopause has led a barren life.

At one time, all of this may have been true and useful. When the human
population was still relatively small, having a large family would increase
your wealth by making it possible for you to increase your family
production. A large family can farm more land than a small family.

But those days are long over. Now large families result in the diminishment
of earning potential as they enlarge the workforce. The only apparent
beneficiary of overpopulation is the employer. The more workers there are,
the less power the working class has to demand higher wages and better
living conditions. In the age of globalization, corporations are free to
reap the greatest possible benefit from overpopulation, moving their
production to where the workers are most plentiful and wages are lowest.

This is the entire reason for overpopulation in the United States. In the
US, population growth of the citizen base has been below the replacement
level since 1972. Yet the population of the United States continues to grow
at an alarming rate. Why? Immigration has grown at record rates for no other
reason than to provide cheap labor.


Percent of US Population Growth from Three Causes
http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/threecauses.html


US Population Growth for the Last Forty Years
http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/headed2.html

The only people who truly benefit from population growth are the ruling
elite, be they political or military leaders, employers or religious
authorities.

How not to Solve the Population Problem

So long as those who have control over civilization benefit from
overpopulation, they will see no reason to promote a return to sustainable
population levels. At most they will give it lip service, while using the
population problem as an excuse to promote repressive regulations and
increase the invasion of the State into the private lives of its citizens.

Education and a change in attitude will not work in itself, even if it is
backed by the ruling elite and promoted through a total media revision of
sexual attitudes and the reality of family life. It will not work because it
is at odds with the basic biological drive to procreate, and because those
who are impoverished and unempowered find what little power they can through
procreation, even if it is only a delusion of empowerment.

For the same reason, repressive regulations will not work. They will at best
achieve only a limited effect at the cost of freedom and the quality of
life.

In the case of the US, locking up the borders and curtailing immigration
will not solve the problem of overpopulation, even if employing corporations
backed such measures. It is interesting to consider that legislative efforts
to limit immigration seem to follow upon successful movements to unionize
immigrant labor, and never result in any lasting changes to the level of
immigration.

So long as there is a perceived economic disparity between countries, people
will leave the poorer country and enter the richer one. Closing the borders
will not stop this migration, it will only make it more profitable and
result in more repressive conditions for immigrants.

What will Work

Where does population drop of itself? Where people are offered a quality
life and the possibility of bettering themselves in a more egalitarian
society. Where people are assured of their right to food, clothing, housing,
healthcare and education - particularly for women - there the population
will begin to decline quite naturally.

If we are serious about solving the population problem, the first thing we
need to do is sign on to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which
recognizes the basic rights mentioned above. To date, the US is the only
country that has refused to sign this declaration. This is because the
recognition of these rights is inimical to consumer capitalism,
overconsumption, and the power of the elite.

You see, at its root human overpopulation is a symptom of a nonegalitarian
and unjust society. And as such, overpopulation can never be resolved
without addressing these underpinning problems.

For the past century, the United States has achieved an extravagant
lifestyle by stealing the resources of other countries and forcing the
working people of those countries to slave in poverty. Our overconsumption
is the flip side of their impoverishment and oppression. And it is this
impoverishment and repression that drives overpopulation.

The only way to resolve overpopulation, along with most of our other social
injustices as well as growing environmental problems and resource depletion,
is to recognize the cancerous nature of overconsumption and abandon consumer
capitalism for a system that is more equitable, a system in which all
citizen's have an equal voice.

As a first step toward solving overpopulation and all of our other critical
problems, we must recognize the basic right of every human being to food,
housing, healthcare and education, and we must redistribute the wealth of
this planet to grant those rights to everyone. Only when everyone is
empowered with a quality existence will we solve the problem of
overpopulation in a humane manner.

[John Russell]

I think we need to question both population and consumption equally. These are symptoms: the root of the problem is psychological. What's needed is a change in attitude so that we all stop looking at our own needs and wants and consider their effect on society as a whole.

In the same way as it's wrong for people just to consume because they can and want to without regard to the impact on others, so it's wrong for people to reproduce just because they can and want to without regard to the impact on others.

The only sustainable society is one that minimises consumption and population to a level that does not compromise the rest of the life that shares the planet. I don't know what those levels should be but I'm certain that they're a lot less than they are at the moment.

Best wishes,

JR



naturecreekfarm wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.108/2566 - Release Date: 12/15/09 07:52:00

  

[naturecreekfarm]

I wasn't trying to justify higher population. I was pointing out that
the numbers aren't the issue.
The issue is consumption.
Spreading humans out all over the planet is bad because they can
consume everything. Spreading them out to nurture things is a
different story entirely.
Population numbers would be limited by available food. The current
systems of food gathering by machines and fossil fuels detaches the
land from the people so that only money is the deciding factor of
whether they live or die. Humanity's effects are already spread out
all over the planet by remote control from the cities via trade.
This money-changing turns the planet into a "resource" to be
"converted to cash".
It's the cash, the detachment, and the resulting consumption of
"civilization" that consume everything.
It doesn't matter if there is only 6 million instead of 6 billion if
the 6 million think that their purpose is to acquire, consume, and be
entertained.

Without a useful purpose to humanity, how far will population control
need to go? Let's look at the U.S. for example: The top 2% own 80% of
the wealth and property. That means they are responsible for 80% of
the consumption. In other words, you could eliminate 294 million
(assuming 300 million population) people and the U.S. would still have
the same basic Imperial goals of acquisition and consumption. (yes,
I'm playing footloose with the numbers, but those 2% would replace the
294 million human consumers with 294 million equivalent robot
consumers in order to maintain their lifestyle of dominance at the top
of their pyramid).

It isn't the massive numbers of humans: it's what is done in their
name.

Dan C.
Belgium, WI

On Dec 15, 12:32 pm, TIMCO...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 15/12/2009 18:20:18 GMT Standard Time,  
>

[naturecreekfarm]

From the article Lila quoted:

"The only way to resolve overpopulation, along with most of our other
social
injustices as well as growing environmental problems and resource
depletion,
is to recognize the cancerous nature of overconsumption and abandon
consumer
capitalism for a system that is more equitable, a system in which all
citizen's have an equal voice. "

I don't think you have to replace any particular system. You just have
to follow through with the total costs and place those costs at the
point where decisions are made. Humans take whatever path they can,
and if the current path becomes difficult, they will slow down. The
problem with Consumer Capitalism is the RATE at which resources are
used. The rate is governed by the prices. The obfuscation and shifting
of costs from the retail to the public and military sectors without
showing that cost at the retail point allows consumers to believe that
everything is cheap and easy to acquire.
Consumption is part of all living things. Governing it is usually done
by predators, famine and disease. Society needs to create predation,
scarcity and disease (taxes and scarcity) as part of all resource
acquisition in order to moderate consumer behaviors. When the
government is in bed with corporations, just the opposite happens.

Creating a new 'System of Systems' just creates more ways for one
group to steal resources from another group.

Dan C.
Belgium, WI

[TM Printing Ltd]

On 15 Noll 2009, at 16:57, royj wrote:

You mention soil and phosphate. I have been trying to identify some

group or research people addressing the problem of how to recycle ALL

urban bio-waste back to enrich the soil with fertiliser, and how to

minimise the transport energy load embedded in the food production

system. This I think requires a serious look at our local government

and urban policies, and our agriculture, land ownership and land

management policies. Any suggestions where to look would be welcome.

Royj, have you read The Humanure Handbook? It takes a look at some of the problems you mention.

Despite even that, it's a book everyone on the planet should read anyway.

We (at home) deal with all our 'wastes' (wrong word, really) by composting and it is far simpler than anyone with no experience of it would have you believe.

David

[TM Printing Ltd]

On 15 Noll 2009, at 21:03, naturecreekfarm wrote:

> You just have
> to follow through with the total costs and place those costs at the
> point where decisions are made.

My thoughts exactly. Fossil fuels are 'free' in a strict economic
sense. If irreplaceability, disruption, war and pollution were taken
into account, they would be luxuries.

Getting from here to there looks impossible.

David

[AceofSpades25]

I have to agree that population numbers are a serious issue, but
unfortunately this is not a battle worth fighting at the moment.

The idealist in me says yes something must be done, but my inner
realist just laughs in scorn.

First of all, just like climate change, it is a global issue and so
cannot be tackled by any one government. Visions then come to mind of
a Copenhagen summit on population control. Immagine trying to get that
passed the US sennate. They're already as stubborn as a bunch of
mules.

The only way I can see this working would be to have a single world
government. Frankly the idea of a single world government with that
much control over the lives of its citizens just scares me.

The only achievable option as far as I can see is education.

Also, I believe there is a strong correlation between income and the
number of children born to a family. Alleviating poverty will go a
long way towards lowering the birth rate.

On Dec 15, 12:36 pm, Old man of the marsh <turner...@btconnect.com>
wrote:

[V Wood]

The relationship between poverty, education and population is well-known and accepted in nearly all enlightened circles.  I don't believe anyone on this site would argue with that, including yours truly.

However, I believe that alleviating poverty simply will not happen and remains the fantasy it has been since the beginning of human civilisation.  Even more so today as we all stand at the edge of the greatest poverty-producing situation the world has ever known - peak oil.  The same goes for educating the world's masses.  As peak oil looms, much less investment capital will be available for public and private education.  We, and other nations, are already beginning to feel the effects of that in all walks of life.  As energy sources dwindle, the world's economies will be placed into a stranglehold from which they will never be able to break free.

I have found over my old life that "If Only"s are as numerous as the stars - perhaps more so, as they are not limited by time and space.

Best
V

> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:24:19 -0800
> Subject: [Monbiot] Re: This is about us
> From: steve....@googlemail.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com

[V Wood]

David said:
Getting from here to there looks impossible.

I would maintain that getting from here to there is not only not impossible, but highly probable....;-)

Best
V

[AceofSpades25]

Still alleviating poverty has got to be a lot more achievable than
imposing a global population limit.

Glancing at wolfram alpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=birth+rate+fraction+by+country
It appears that in just about all first world countries the birthrate
is either declining or has stabilised.

African countries have by far the highest.

Globally the average birth rate is about 1.45/person per 73 years (The
global average life span)

On Dec 16, 6:20 pm, V Wood <victor_w...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The relationship between poverty, education and population is well-known and accepted in nearly all enlightened circles.  I don't believe anyone on this site would argue with that, including yours truly.
>
> However, I believe that alleviating poverty simply will not happen and remains the fantasy it has been since the beginning of human civilisation.  Even more so today as we all stand at the edge of the greatest poverty-producing situation the world has ever known - peak oil.  The same goes for educating the world's masses.  As peak oil looms, much less investment capital will be available for public and private education.  We, and other nations, are already beginning to feel the effects of that in all walks of life.  As energy sources dwindle, the world's economies will be placed into a stranglehold from which they will never be able to break free.
>
> I have found over my old life that "If Only"s are as numerous as the stars - perhaps more so, as they are not limited by time and space.
>
> Best
> V
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:24:19 -0800
> > Subject: [Monbiot] Re: This is about us

> > From: steve.ster...@googlemail.com

> > To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
>
> > I have to agree that population numbers are a serious issue, but
> > unfortunately this is not a battle worth fighting at the moment.
>
> > The idealist in me says yes something must be done, but my inner
> > realist just laughs in scorn.
>
> > First of all, just like climate change, it is a global issue and so
> > cannot be tackled by any one government. Visions then come to mind of
> > a Copenhagen summit on population control. Immagine trying to get that
> > passed the US sennate. They're already as stubborn as a bunch of
> > mules.
>
> > The only way I can see this working would be to have a single world
> > government. Frankly the idea of a single world government with that
> > much control over the lives of its citizens just scares me.
>
> > The only achievable option as far as I can see is education.
>
> > Also, I believe there is a strong correlation between income and the
> > number of children born to a family. Alleviating poverty will go a

> > long way towards lowering the birth rate.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[V Wood]

AceofSpades25

I am not favouring either population control or alleviating poverty or stopping AGW.  I believe that given the time we have remaining to turn from our sins, we have no ability to do so - politically or economically.  That ability perhaps existed 50 years ago (or at least had a chance), but not today in the face of non-renewable resource shortages, a huge population base, and a global economic model entirely dependent upon sustained growth, cheap money and cheap fossil fuels.

The arguments that you and others here offer up are good ones in general.  They would probably work.  They would probably be successful in a world of 1-2 billion people living localised sustainable lifestyles and removed from a modern globalised economy. 

But that is not where we are.  The population of the planet is soley dependent upon fossil fuels, especialy oil.  It could not possibly exist at current levels in an oil-free environment. It is not population control we need at this moment: it is a reduced population.  Big difference.  At current levels of population we will see ourselves running short of most all resources necessary for a modern, globalised lifestyle within 20-30 years.  Oil is already at risk - the rest will follow.

When energy resources shrink, the economy will shrink - permanently.  When the economy shrinks, poverty will increase even in the richest countries (which it is already doing), and population will shrink.  Mother Nature is about to put us in our place - the hard way, and characteristically with her, mercilessly.

So I would differ with you as to what is easier to affect today - population control or poverty.  I believe that, unfortunately, both are now pipe-dreams. 

We, as a society, can sit around thinking of ways to preserve modernity and a comfortable lifestyle, or we can face reality and begin putting our remaining energies and resources into preparing for the worst.  My bet is that we will choose the former, and put off the latter to a day when we can no longer do anything about it.

Best
V

> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:26:46 -0800

> Subject: [Monbiot] Re: This is about us

> From: steve....@googlemail.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com

[royj]

I have not read that book, but I have been aware of the issue since
world war 2, when imports of fertiliser to Ireland dried up. What I am
getting at is nor simply individual actions but local government
policies. An urban population in dispersed small towns, each fed by
local food producers, whose production systems are fed by digested
urban biomass from the towns they feed. Existing big towns and cities
need to participate, but this would involve addressing the problem of
how to separate the industrial waste from the biomass, in effect re-
designing the sewage systems. This is basically a political problem,
along with the related problem of how to design cities so that people
can live near where they work, and produce food within the cities,
with oranised garden development etc.

Processing individual domestic sewage is fine for isolated food
producers in rural areas, but this mode of operation needs to evolve
towards co-operative clustering of food producers in organised village
systems, and such systems could easily organise to recycle their
sewage. All this is within the scope of local government politics.

[Lila Smith]

Roy our local council recycles our human waste and produces a fertilizer
called Bio Boost we are the only local council in New Zealand who does it...

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: "royj" <rjte...@iol.ie>
To: "Monbiot Discussions" <monbiot...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:31 PM
Subject: [Monbiot] Re: This is about us

>
>

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
>
>

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.111/2569 - Release Date: 12/16/09
19:52:00

[TM Printing Ltd]

On 16 Noll 2009, at 15:24, AceofSpades25 wrote:

> The only way I can see this working would be to have a single world
> government. Frankly the idea of a single world government with that
> much control over the lives of its citizens just scares me.

I don't like the idea of a world government. I do like the idea of a
world parliament, though, with one representative per (say) 10 or 20
million people, cutting across national boundaries, debating issues
that affect the entire world.

No power except moral power.

David

[TM Printing Ltd]

On 17 Noll 2009, at 09:57, V Wood wrote:

When energy resources shrink, the economy will shrink - permanently

"When"? This is what I am already saying to people who will listen.

It's no coincidence that oil hit an all-time high, the derivatives scam collapsed, the banks got into trouble, etc etc etc all round about the same time as oil peaked in extraction. It's all linked, one way or another.

We have to make best use of what we've got and get used to a contracting economy. This is what I'm saying to people. Some are listening and thinking.

David

[TM Printing Ltd]

On 17 Noll 2009, at 10:31, royj wrote:

> I have not read that book, but I have been aware of the issue since
> world war 2,

Welcome! You must be the daddy of us all! ;)))

> when imports of fertiliser to Ireland dried up. What I am
> getting at is nor simply individual actions but local government
> policies. An urban population in dispersed small towns, each fed by
> local food producers, whose production systems are fed by digested
> urban biomass from the towns they feed. Existing big towns and cities
> need to participate, but this would involve addressing the problem of
> how to separate the industrial waste from the biomass, in effect re-
> designing the sewage systems. This is basically a political problem,
> along with the related problem of how to design cities so that people
> can live near where they work, and produce food within the cities,
> with oranised garden development etc.
>
> Processing individual domestic sewage is fine for isolated food
> producers in rural areas, but this mode of operation needs to evolve
> towards co-operative clustering of food producers in organised village
> systems, and such systems could easily organise to recycle their
> sewage. All this is within the scope of local government politics.

The book tackles bigger set-ups.

David

[AceofSpades25]

Basically the same thing as a federal government then, becuase they
would need greater power than the national governments in order to
enforce policy changes at an international level.

I'm a proponent of this idea, because a federal govt. would allow the
devolution of power to the levels where it is most appropriate.

[Lila Smith]

- so how if we have one world government do we influence those in charge to
reverse the whole insidious system we have - no more is it about Jobs.......

How on earth do you police a one world government if they start acting on
behalf of saving the jobs as opposed to saving the environment........

How do we keep the fossil fuels in the ground! and would any government
agree that.

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: "AceofSpades25" <steve....@googlemail.com>
To: "Monbiot Discussions" <monbiot...@googlegroups.com>

--

[V Wood]

How do you police the government today?.... ;-) 

[Lila Smith]

very very true.......the only hope we have right now is policing local government and then they, central level go and change the Local Govt Act to suit themselves, last time they, central level changed our Local Govt Act 2002, I jumped up and down wrote  letters to the editor and basically talked where I could, radio and meetings , people did not even turn up at select committees to refute the changes -  and most people did not even grasp what I was talking about. . ....I despair sometimes how vague the public are, they simply don't 'get it'.......so if we do have to have a future police state, which is obviously on the way as economies shrink................heaven help us all we are trained completely and utterly to trust those who run things, how dangerous is that.....we are taught that rebelling the system is bad -bad- bad...........  look at the activists, how the public view them, I watched the news last night in the company of someone and here were Copenhagen police hitting the activists who were overstepping the line of where they were meant to stand -  and the other person in the room said.

 

'Good job, they were told to stay behind the lines so they deserve what they get'

[V Wood]

Pathetic, isn't it!  But it was much the same in the 60s.  Of course, the protesters didn't give a shit what the public thought then... ;-)

---

From: lil...@ihug.co.nz
To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: world government; was: this is about us

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:36:43 +1300

[Lila Smith]

Um do you mean the public did not give a shit about what the protesters were protesting about ??? 

[V Wood]

It was mutual, I think...

Let's put it thins way - the protesters did not let public opinion influence their actions.

---

From: lil...@ihug.co.nz
To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: world government; was: this is about us

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:43:22 +1300

[Lila Smith]

oh ok..right.

Now I am off to work thank goodness its Friday ..

[TM Printing Ltd]

Parliament.

[Jsland]

Isn't the highest possible population an essential part of economic
growth, increasing GDP, the foundation of the entire globe's current
economic model?
Joan S.

[Joan Sutherland]

We would need to make a change in what we define constitutionally as being vital to a distinct social entity (like a nation or a federation). You've hit the nail on the head though -there are two distinct values to be protected by any government and they aren't the individual and society but the individual and the natural environment (environment of our bodies and that of the body of the planet). Each one (individual and environment) has a different role which can be defined and then supported. I think!

Joan

Joan
------
Joan Sutherland
Allegra Strings
"classical music for classy events since 1992"
man...@allegrastrings.com
www.allegrastrings.com
Kingston, ON
613.329.1763

[V Wood]

Yes, a very insightful statement.  The global economic model we have bought into requires high numbers of people both as consumer engines and as production units - and we are not talking about consumers in rich, developed countries, but those in developing countries as well.  It is well-known that the economy depends heavily upon numbers of consumers.  It is not so well understood that today's production depends so heavily upon numbers of people.  Indeed, modern technology is absolutely dependent upon huge numbers of people to support its infrastructure.  A sudden loss of population would not only threaten the economy, but would threaten the very foundation of modern technology.

Best
V

> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:47:36 -0800

> Subject: [Monbiot] Re: This is about us

> From: jsl...@gmail.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com