tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5788299305169778115..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Infinite Growth and the Crisis Cocktail - Guest PostingMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-27483902552052907042019-04-08T15:55:26.272-07:002019-04-08T15:55:26.272-07:00Fantastic article. Hope you don't mind me citi...Fantastic article. Hope you don't mind me citing this for my thesis.Alan Piggotthttp://saveyourplanet.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86718013706733426252011-01-09T13:50:04.146-08:002011-01-09T13:50:04.146-08:00MT, the first link isn't in italics though. I&...MT, the first link isn't in italics though. I'm sure not a lot of people are reading it (although I still link to it here and there, and will continue to do so), but could you change it anyway?<br /><br />Somebody on my blog pointed out that I forgot Churchill's best quote:<br /><br /><i>"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences".</i> November 12, 1936.<br /><br />I believe the beloved Al Gore used it as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-34922321827495989372011-01-07T10:47:42.373-08:002011-01-07T10:47:42.373-08:00Ed, the link looks authoritative, and says 1942.
...Ed, the link looks authoritative, and says 1942. <br /><br />Anyway, everybody agrees CHurchill said it, which itself seems rare enough.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-26819700834713673822011-01-07T05:21:38.542-08:002011-01-07T05:21:38.542-08:00Trivia: first Churchill quote was from 1940, not 1...Trivia: first Churchill quote was from 1940, not 1942.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86362226546306336602010-12-30T12:41:48.838-08:002010-12-30T12:41:48.838-08:00Keith, thanks for replying. Even though you may no...Keith, thanks for replying. Even though you may not have thought a whole lot about this (and kudos to you for admitting that) you still bring up very interesting things. It could be that only the connections between the dots are missing.<br /><br /><i>But I'm not into preaching a way of life to others. People will have to find their own way. The stuff you talk about is in the realm of values and maybe that's where more of the focus of this debate should be. I don't know. </i><br /><br />I try not to preach, but I think that people can only find their way if they have information that is as complete as possible. Otherwise there's a very big chance that they will direct their energy to fighting symptoms instead of trying to solve the root cause.<br /><br />I like to think that the stuff that I'm talking about is in the realm of logic (i.e. in a finite system nothing can grow perpetually). The solutions to the stuff I'm talking about might be in the realm of values, in fact I'm pretty sure they are, but we haven't reached that stage yet. For that a lot of people need to get on board (especially people from the diaspora of environmental issues).<br /><br />First we have to agree that there are problems. Your answers so far (and especially that piece you linked to about global land use that I hadn't read yet) have convinced me that you believe that there are problems, and that they are serious threats to society.<br /><br />Second we have to agree that a very big part in all this is played by the irrational economic concept of infinite growth (that's what my guest blog here has been about). That's the stage we're at right now.<br /><br />Third will be about the implications of this agreement with regards to solutions. I could say a lot of things on this subject, but to tell the truth I haven't thought much about it either. I think I know what the heart of the problem is, and in this quest some solutions popped up out of their own accord (in the shape of seemingly logical conclusions), but I'm not sure of their validity.<br /><br />I'll continue some more on <a href="http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/28/those-were-the-days/" rel="nofollow">Collide-a-scape</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-62835541551737307512010-12-28T06:30:23.938-08:002010-12-28T06:30:23.938-08:00Neven,
I haven't spent as much time thinking ...Neven,<br /><br />I haven't spent as much time thinking about this stuff, as you might think.<br /><br />In terms of my lifestyle: I live in an urban environment and believe it is among the greenest paths one can take. I also don't worship at the alter of consumerism. That's my tangible contribution, for whatever it's worth.<br /><br />But I'm not into preaching a way of life to others. People will have to find their own way. The stuff you talk about is in the realm of values and maybe that's where more of the focus of this debate should be. I don't know. <br /><br />In terms of solutions, I've often expressed my enthusiasm for the "Resilence" paradigm. I think it would be a good thing if more people could be educated about that, because I think ultimately that's what will be necessary. Sorry, I'm still addled by remnant flu symptoms, so perhaps I'm not being clear enough. Maybe I'll take this up in a post after the New Year.<br />-KKloorUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-10898451310722599712010-12-28T04:14:06.583-08:002010-12-28T04:14:06.583-08:00Part 2:
When I say 'sustainable society' ...Part 2:<br /><br />When I say 'sustainable society' I'm not aiming for stasis (because it doesn't exist, as shit happens and something can always be improved). I'm also not of the neo-primitivist type that believes we need to turn back the clock 250 years (even if it were possible, it's too late now).<br /><br />However, I do have a vision of a combination of the old with the new that might make for a more stable, healthy and just society. The old would be getting food and energy from as close as possible (and not from 1500 miles away), and every member of society being able to perform useful work and not just be specialized in one piece of the machine to keep it going (economists, lawyers, etc). The new would be things like the internet (to replace physical globalization in large part) and useful appliances that create more time (unlike gadgets) to do useful stuff. Just to cover basic needs and create a maximum of comfort for minimum energy input.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84150332060290749852010-12-28T04:13:38.313-08:002010-12-28T04:13:38.313-08:00Here is the middle part of my comment-trilogy (in ...Here is the middle part of my comment-trilogy (in two parts because Bllogger doesn't accept the whole thing):<br /><br />What Tainter basically says is that when there is enough energy, societies will increase in complexity. This increase is caused because of the emergence of problems that are then solved by more complexity. But more complex also means more costly, because complexity leads to further problems, which require more complex solutions, etc. According to Tainter this is one of the main reasons the Roman Empire collapsed.<br /><br />I'll quote the end of Tainter's article:<br /><br /><i>In actuality, major infusions of surplus energy are rare in human history. More commonly, complexity increases in response to problems. Complexity emerging through problem solving typically precedes the availability of energy, and compels increases in its production. Complexity is not something that we can ordinarily choose to forego.<br /><br />Applying this understanding leads to two conclusions. The first is that the solutions commonly recommended to promote sustainability–conservation, simplification, pricing, and innovation–can do so only in the short term. Secondly, long-term sustainability depends on solving major societal problems that will converge in coming decades, and this will require increasing complexity and energy production. Sustainability is not a condition of stasis. It is, rather, a process of continuous adaptation, of perpetually addressing new or ongoing problems and securing the resources to do so.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3480344214634785272010-12-27T13:32:16.106-08:002010-12-27T13:32:16.106-08:00I admit I haven't thought that vision out as o...I admit I haven't thought that vision out as of yet (I'll need about two more years for it), and Tainter might be right that there is no other option than to stay on the treadmill and throw ever more complexity and energy at emerging problems. But I think this would be easier if at least we would ditch the economic concept of infinite growth. It'd be pretty hopeless otherwise, in my opinion.<br /><br />Besides, no amount of energy and societal complexity can replace or recreate the ecosystems that we rely on to eat, drink, breathe and sleep, so in a way Tainter is saying that all hope is lost. His message is one of despair if you think it through.<br /><br />Keith, I believe you <a href="http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/06/fighting-for-your-miserable-future/" rel="nofollow">said</a> you didn't like that tactic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54288192128674724692010-12-27T12:20:36.625-08:002010-12-27T12:20:36.625-08:00Keith, thanks for replying. Indeed, I don't fi...Keith, thanks for replying. Indeed, I don't find your answer entirely satisfactory, although Tainter's work is very interesting (you pointed to several other things that stimulated my thinking, so thanks for that). I read that piece on The Oil Drum last year, and he also features on <i>Blind Spot</i>, one of the documentaries I recommended as further viewing.<br /><br />Of course, I would rather have heard exactly what YOU think with regards to the two questions I asked (are the global problems real and tied to the irrational economic concept of infinite growth; shouldn't the tactic be to stress this fact instead of trying to focus the attention on symptoms (such as AGW), because none of those symptoms can be solved if the root cause isn't tackled), because Tainter says a lot of things in his piece.<br /><br />continued below...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-13891831657331193582010-12-24T00:48:41.822-08:002010-12-24T00:48:41.822-08:00Adam, Britain nearly bankrupted herself enforcing ...Adam, Britain nearly bankrupted herself enforcing bans on shipping slaves around the African continent - at a time when no-one thought there was anything amiss with the trade.<br /><br />With the "help" of the USA afterwards, Britain *did* pretty well bankrupt herself winning WW2.<br /><br />My view about these "baser" human urges are simply that it is all down to leadership. Leaders can bring out the best in their communities or pander to and reinforce the worst. <br /><br />Just look at 20thC ethnic cleansing in European countries where religions and races had happily lived, married and shared everything in their streets and villages. All washed away in a flood of vile rancour used to exploit ordinary human weaknesses and incite violence within and between families. <br /><br />Good leadership can work wonders, just as bad leadership can visit horrors.adeladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019930864931919369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49878226911148454942010-12-23T13:58:25.524-08:002010-12-23T13:58:25.524-08:00Neven,
I'm not sure you'll find this sati...Neven,<br /><br />I'm not sure you'll find this satisfactory, but I tend to find Joseph Tainter's arguments pretty compelling. Here's a recent essay by him:<br /><br />http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/6942Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-81002725838611996922010-12-22T16:03:46.399-08:002010-12-22T16:03:46.399-08:00Because it's you, mt, I had another hard look ...Because it's you, mt, I had another hard look at that article, and I see that I might have exaggerated the horribleness of the article. <br /><br />For instance it is mentioned in the article later on that "Amstrup's Nature study used one global climate model, developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, to test how sea ice would behave under various scenarios, including the type of global, rigorous effort that scientists have long said would be needed to curb climate change", without stating what is meant by that exactly (stabilizing GHG emissions at 2020 levels). I think Romm covers that aspect pretty well, despite the fact that Romm can be Rommesque at times.<br /><br />It doesn't have to verge on panic for me. My point was simply that the writer of the article wrote a few things that makes me doubt whether he knows what he's writing about (I gave the examples). On second reading it wasn't as bad as I initially thought, but I believe it paints a too rosy picture (and of course it doesn't mention the economic concept of infinite growth as the root cause ;-) ).<br /><br />I'll end with a comment on ClimateProgress that sums it up quite well IMO:<br /><br /><i>Joe makes the statement:<br /><br />“And the weird thing about citing and criticizing that article is that it quotes heavily from a study by the lead author of the current study, Steven C. Amstrup, of the USGS”<br /><br />but Amstrup is no longer with USGS but is now Chief Scientist with Polar Bears International. The latter organization needs to keep potential donors and collaborators optimistic. Take a look at the extent of their “Donate and Help” page on their website. They cannot admit they are essentially on a deathwatch given current and projected emissions – and the demonstrated inability of governments to curb those emissions.<br /><br />The tragedy is that many people hearing of this study come away with the idea that new data now shows polar bears to be in less trouble than previously thought. People do not realize the decreased risk is only true should some extremely unlikely events occur. I have talked to at least two people who, having heard sound bites about the paper in Nature, told me that it has been shown that polar bears are not in as much danger as some have claimed. So the authors have served to ease the public’s concerns about climate change – which clearly is not a good or realistic thing to do.</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75557556123473258232010-12-22T14:58:50.416-08:002010-12-22T14:58:50.416-08:00Neven, you haven't been looking at the press m...Neven, you haven't been looking at the press much if you consider that "horrible, horribly flawed". <br /><br />I think the dominant hypotheis remains that the Arctic response is continuous with respect to forcing; there is no literal tipping point (i.e., no hysteresis) in the physical system <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/11/arctic-sea-ice.html" rel="nofollow">in the near future</a>. Eisenman's argument in this regard appears solid.<br /><br />You are sounding uncomfortably Rommesque here. Just because the tone of an article doesn't verge on panic doesn't make it "horrible".Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-11051025100917709582010-12-22T13:28:52.359-08:002010-12-22T13:28:52.359-08:00I doubt too, but that is no excuse for not trying....I doubt too, but that is no excuse for not trying.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-5914985650585143872010-12-22T13:18:24.422-08:002010-12-22T13:18:24.422-08:00But Michael, the scale of human changes required t...But Michael, the scale of human changes required to forestall severe climate change dwarfs anything needed to end slavery--and, by the way, there's still plenty of slavery going on--or any other pernicious human practice you can name. We are hoping the race will dial back its natural urges for acquisition and expansion enough to reconfigure its whole economic system--voluntarily. That ain't gonna happen.<br /><br />I'm sorry I made you angry, but I don't believe in "baser instincts". I believe in a synergy of evolved behaviors that comprise <i>h. sapiens,</i> none of which can simply be repressed out of existence, as we see by all the evil abroad in the modern world. Perhaps we are evolving towards a smarter social beast, and the progenitors of <i>h. s. prudens</i> are even now among us. I doubt they will become dominant in time to stop 800 PPM, though.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13955691670049830140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16150540474373095092010-12-22T12:21:38.779-08:002010-12-22T12:21:38.779-08:00Human beings rejected slavery on ethical grounds, ...Human beings rejected slavery on ethical grounds, despite immense social momentum. The existence of such counterexamples at least calls into question the veracity of the sort of pessimism that these sorts of questions raise.<br /><br />I also think it's deeply unethical to propose that we are at the mercy of our baser nature. Frankly it makes me angry.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-71428596453638476712010-12-22T12:12:06.785-08:002010-12-22T12:12:06.785-08:00...do we point to the root cause of all these prob...<i>...do we point to the root cause of all these problems, so that people start realizing that there is no chance we can solve these global problems if we do not replace our current dominant economic concept by something that is more rational? </i><br /><br />Alas, I think it matters not what we point to. People, i.e. enough of the human race to matter, are not going to "realize" anything on such a grand scale.<br /><br />Human civilization is nothing more than biological evolution in action. It is no more teleological than any other part of the evolutionary process. The maximal exploitation of our environment will proceed as heedlessly as always, because that has been a successful adaptation since we branched off; it's how we got to this predicament. Future considerations beyond successful procreation are irrelevant to evolution, it has no "plan" for a species to avoid causing its own extinction by crashing its environment, and neither does human society have such a plan, nor will it. Climate change will bring selective pressures—almost certainly extreme ones—to bear on the species, and evolution will take its course, as always.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13955691670049830140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-79508130401193045372010-12-22T10:08:27.970-08:002010-12-22T10:08:27.970-08:00Well, Michael, since you ask. I thought this was v...Well, Michael, since you ask. I thought this was very sloppy:<br /><br /><i>Those fears, which peaked in 2007, were likely exacerbated by the stark retreat in sea ice that year. The Arctic lost more than <b>1.6 million square kilometers</b> of ice, an area larger than Alaska;</i><br /><br />That could have been explained a lot better.<br /><br /><i>However, since that shocking decline, the ice has modestly expanded during the summer, perhaps the best evidence that Arctic ice won't drop off a cliff, said Eric DeWeaver, a co-author on the Nature paper and physical climatologist at the National Science Foundation.<br /><br />The 2007 loss was "spectacular," he said, but "one would not expect to see it very often." </i><br /><br />This goes against everything I have learned about the Arctic so far. 2010 was pretty spectacular too and would have smashed the 2007 record to pieces if the Arctic hadn't been covered with clouds at the moment when extent falls the fastest, around peak insolation, in July and the first half of August.<br /><br />Besides, it became clear, especially towards the end of the melting season, that the ice pack was showing some pretty weird behaviour. I <a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/north-hole.html#more" rel="nofollow">wrote</a> about it extensively on my Arctic Sea Ice blog.<br /><br /><i>Also, there are simple facts like the persistent clouds that ring the Arctic and lack of sunlight during the ice's natural minimum that could neutralize declining reflectivity. </i><br /><br />This is not simple and it's not a fact either. Au contraire.<br /><br /><i>Modeling sea ice decline is notoriously difficult, and there remains wide disagreement in the models on how quickly the Arctic will retreat under warmer temperatures. Several models project a complete loss of summertime ice before the century's end, while others chart a modest 15 percent decline. </i><br /><br />Mind you, this article was published last week, not in 2000. There are models that project a complete loss of summertime ice in 2016. The more conservative ones aim for 2030-2060.<br /><br />Joe Romm <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/20/polar-bear-arctic-sea-ice-all-but-doomed-misleading-nature-cover-story/" rel="nofollow">explains</a> the biggest flaw in the paper that this article is based on: Polar bears aren't necessarily lost, if we manage to freeze GHG concentrations at 2020 levels. Right.<br /><br />This isn't mentioned anywhere in the NYT article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-48894669932267311772010-12-22T09:52:12.704-08:002010-12-22T09:52:12.704-08:00What, in your opinion, is wrong with the Voosen ar...What, in your opinion, is wrong with the Voosen article?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-81050014398308721422010-12-22T09:47:34.105-08:002010-12-22T09:47:34.105-08:00BTW, the New York Times featured a horrible, horri...BTW, the New York Times featured a horrible, horribly flawed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/12/15/15greenwire-no-tipping-point-for-sea-ice-in-polar-bears-fu-29018.html" rel="nofollow">article</a> last week by a certain Paul Voosen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63134234483230461122010-12-22T09:35:07.897-08:002010-12-22T09:35:07.897-08:00Unfortunately Keith still hasn't given his vie...Unfortunately Keith still hasn't given his view on my proposition that most, if not all global problems can be linked to the flawed economic concept of infinite growth. And also my proposition that activists/alarmists, instead of focusing on just their global problem, should show how their global problem relates to other global problems, and how all these problems are ultimately caused by a system that is predicated on the belief (for several generations now) that economic growth can and should be infinite.<br /><br />He's been <a href="http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/12/20/the-green-bunker/" rel="nofollow">bashing</a> environmentalists lately, and not without reason I might add. I think it's true that the big organisations (like WWF or Greenpeace) have turned into corporations that sometimes have interests that have become more important than the problems they are trying to tackle.<br /><br />Maybe that's why they have strayed from the message in the 70's that there are limits to growth, and have fragmented that central issue into a myriad of problems (the ones I describe in my article) that are treated as causes instead of symptoms. I mean, stressing that all these problems are actually caused by a root cause, might actually point people to a real solution. Can't have that.<br /><br />I'm being cynical here. There are other reasons as well. Global problems that showed we were bumping into limits were less visible in the 70's than they are today.<br /><br />Again, unfortunately Keith Kloor doesn't give his view on whether he thinks the global problems are real, and whether they are caused by the ECoIG. Instead he aks: "So what would it take today to get society to revisit these ideas?"<br /><br />This: the problems becoming more apparent. I <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/20/debt-crisis-threatens-us-cities" rel="nofollow">hear</a> for instance that 100 US cities are in big, big trouble because of 2 trillion worth of debts. I would also keep an eye on the Arctic sea ice, the dead zones and the fat kids.<br /><br />The point is: do we keep the message fragmented, ie 'the bankers are to blame for the recession', 'poor Polar bears boo-hoo', 'fat kids should exercise more'? Or do we point to the root cause of all these problems, so that people start realizing that there is no chance we can solve these global problems if we do not replace our current dominant economic concept by something that is more rational?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49347971085501000892010-12-22T08:57:06.360-08:002010-12-22T08:57:06.360-08:00I think it's madness to sell Keith too short. ...I think it's madness to sell Keith too short. I still wish he and his sort would get off the damned dime more often.<br /><br />The New York Times has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?_r=1&hp" rel="nofollow">wonderful counterexample today; an excellent history of the Keeling curve and its context</a>. This is how mainstream journalism should be addressing sustainability issues.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22919545139658581422010-12-22T08:45:57.517-08:002010-12-22T08:45:57.517-08:00Keith after seeing your reference to 'Losing G...Keith after seeing your reference to 'Losing Ground' over at your place I'm beginning to suspect that we may have similar bookshelves :PMarlowe Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06497415494967921609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1273053508700423342010-12-22T07:55:53.418-08:002010-12-22T07:55:53.418-08:00Final part of my reply to Bart:
Once people agree...Final part of my reply to Bart:<br /><br />Once people agree that growth cannot go on forever, the solutions are pretty clear-cut (fractional reserve banking has to go, corporation and state must be separated, GDP has to be measured differently, etc). But this can only come about when the whole idea that it is possible and desirable to grow forever, and its influence on culture and society, is understood and then rejected.<br /><br />And this in turn can only happen when the global problems I mention in my article are visibly tied to this concept of infinite growth by everyone who wants to solve a global problem. As these problems get worse, and they undoubtedly will, the connection with the economic concept of infinite growth should be made as apparent as possible.<br /><br />You don't want to tell people what to do, you want them to make the right associations when the moment comes that global problems become indisputable, and not start pointing fingers at the bankers, at the liberals, at the conservatives, at the climate scientists. Once that happens, we can maybe start discussing how much is enough.<br /><br />In the meantime people who are already aware that enough is enough, need to stop waiting for governments and the masses to start moving, but move themselves by asking how much is enough for them and dissociate themselves from the system as much as they can (by becoming more independent with regards to energy and food, for instance). I'm projecting here what I think <b>I</b> should do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com