« Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez! | Main | The Big Banks Pick The Winner — It's Willard Romney »

01/17/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dan

Thanks Dave,

This is of the utmost importance; even if it will be ignored, there's a strange calming satisfaction in more accurately gauging where we are headed.

John D

On a smaller scale, logic says that saving a dollar on energy costs by turning off lights is technically not 'green', as you will do something else with the dollar you saved. You may use it to buy gas for your car, you may spend it on something that uses energy. If you don't spend that dollar and save it instead, that money will be used by a bank to invest in some form of economic growth. The only way you can techically be green is to make and spend less money.

Dave Cohen

@John D

> The only way you can techically be green is to make and spend less money

Well said. And I have achieved it! (although I did not go down voluntarily, at least not at first).

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

-- Dave

RobM

Thank you for continuing to shine light on Garrett's work. I read a lot in my quest for understanding and I think Tim Garrett's work is the most important and profound I have encountered. It continues to surprise me how little recognition his work has received, given that it explains "everything".

There seems to be a link between Steve Keen's credit impulse and Garrett's energy consumption acceleration. Both are apparently required for growth. I consider debt to be a claim on future physical resources we expect/hope will be produced. Perhaps debt is more accurately linked to something to do with energy flows. I encourage you to tackle this topic if you are so inclined.

Another topic that would be interesting to explore is what would happen if we succeeded by some magic to change human behavior to desire to consume less stuff. I agree with you that this will never happen, but if it did, could we avoid a die off? I ask because I sometimes wonder if leaders who refuse to take action against climate change have an intuition that to do so would collapse our civilization. Perhaps these leaders are actually doing the right thing without understanding the math and physics behind their decisions?

Finally, check out Eric Smith's work on Inevitable Life for hints that, given our planet's stores of fossil energy, our predicament is highly probable and aligned with the "expectations" of the universe.
http://fora.tv/2007/04/18/Inevitable_Life

Maybe overshoot is inevitable. Maybe there is no solution to overshoot, only a choice between pain now or more pain later.

Zeke Putnam

I've watched all this coming for 2-3 decades. Read a lot to this day. Way down in the core of my being is early life experiences. I grew up in "days of old". My dad trapped for a living, had a cow for milk, etc, garden, hunted for meat, that type of thing. One thing I remember very clearly. Periodically the population one animal or another would suddenly explode due to a particular set of circumstances. They would out run the supply of food, water, whatever and die off. I figure this applies to humans also. We are way, way past the natural (without energy based power, fertilizer, etc) resource base. For me, it's as inevitable as the rain, humans are in for a mass die off. Just like a rabbit, we'll plunge merrily on until the last blade of grass is gone.

Since we are a fairly brutal animal with little sympathy for anything other than our own wants, this die off will be a nasty affair. To me, it already is. Millions are already starving so we can have ethenol. If invading country after country, dislocating untold millions, slaughtering the country's population, stealing their resources, supporting brutal dictators and the long list of other activities the US, let alone other countries, are involved in, is not nasty, I don't know what is.

I was a pilot during Vietnam. As us old heads watched the Air Force drastically lower their standards and shove ever less capable people through training, we grew to call them "cannon fodder". Today we are all cannon fodder. To our leaders we are simply numbers they need for election, make millions off of and play with like one would with as a doll. Frankly, I believe it was this way from the get go. Pessimist or realist? Your choice.

xraymike79

Zeke,
Your comment pretty much says it all. The utter corruption and immorality of the "system" becomes ever more apparent with each passing year, yet the "system" rolls on like a creaking, rusty megalithic machine crushing everything in its way until it reaches the inevitable cliff.

Fossil fuels have become so entrenched in our daily lives that we simply take them for granted like the rising and setting of the sun. How can we walk backwards when fossil fuels have been the only way we have known to walk forwards.

What I find most interesting are the elaborate fairy tells we spin for ourselves in order to believe that the party will never end and that we (the developed countries) hold the moral high ground.

Dave said he'd post this video I made, sometime in the future. I'll post it here since I know you'll enjoy it:

Graffiti Philosophy

The comments to this entry are closed.