EnviroLink Forum

Who really runs our countries ......?

Be true to your spirit and not to the system.

http://greedylyingbastards.com/


Financial collapse is close............2014-25 and world depression/falling living standards in the "first world" especially.
Ecological collapse is getting closer.......with depletion and pollution driving down food and water supplies to far less than starving over half the world, with rampant fighting, diseases and cannibalism, circa 2040 to 2070.
"Dr. Jack Alpert insists that no real action will take place until the general public realizes that in the not too distant future, their children and grandchildren will become killers, or be killed - that their children or grandchildren will eat other people, or be eaten. I think he is correct - brutally harsh, but still correct."
Then in 500 years thermal maximum and the finish of the 6th extinction including humans on Earth and 85-90% of all species extant at the start of this interglacial epoch.
About to suffer? They already are, and it will get incrementally worse. I can hear the crying of the children who will never be, down the hallway of time that will never come. Existence, sustainable, that could have been.....ruined until out of time by greed, selfishness, ignorance, stupidity, lust with unreasoning and lack of foresight.

http://greedylyingbastards.com/
The corporate/corrupt government performing acts against the will of the majority, like the corrupt and stupid ecologically and nationally Senate "reform" bill that is a disaster if a corrupted House lets something like that happen. I wonder why you didn't take this post on, and went simple Simon instead, Dingo.

This is a good article, except you have erase an ad and ignore others. One statement is generally wrong in that long term limits have been exceeded for a long time.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... ation.html

It's not just one substitute we'll have to find. And, we may be faced with having to find many all at once. The idea that technological innovation will always and everywhere stay ahead of an ever increasing rate of depletion may be true or not true. But we cannot know this ahead of time.

In fact, if it were true, why hasn't technological innovation brought oil prices down to where they were in the 1990s before the run-up of the last decade? There's no commodity more central to the functioning of our economy; and, there's been huge spending by the oil industry and deployment of revolutionary new techniques. Yet, the price remains stubbornly high. The glut that was promised year after year has failed to materialize. The problem is not that technological innovation has ceased; it's that it may not be enough.

And so, we are assuming huge risks by taking it on faith that all hurdles to the continuance of our technical civilization as it stands can be overcome in time and forever by technological advances. We are taking it on faith, essentially, that we will never screw up so badly that our highly-efficient, just-in-time economy will cease to grow and finally decline until it reaches a level that can be sustained by a much simpler and less technically advanced set of practices, probably for a much smaller population.

It stands to reason that even the RATE of technological advancement must have a limit. Humans are not infinite in their powers of reason. Even with computers, we cannot innovate at infinite speeds.

It is the rate issue that Albert Bartlett spent the last half of his life trying to bring to the fore in the minds of the public and policymakers. While many in the scientific community have now come to understand his message, the broader public and policymakers still seem largely in the dark. Rates, and particularly exponential growth, are clearly not easy to grasp; otherwise, so many more human beings would have grasped these concepts.

But we have Albert Bartlett to thank for relentlessly reminding us that we should pay attention to the simple math that refutes our notions of endless growth. He asks in his lecture the following question:

Can you think of any problem on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted or advanced by having larger populations at the local level, the state level, the national level, or globally?

So far, I can't think of any.

Generally I would say that the world is much better than 200 years ago - in terms of wars or living and health conditions. However, new problems have risen, I would say they're not as... "dangerous" than the problems of the 19th century for example but they're going to endanger us in another, more and more disturbing way.

Thanks for the link! Generally I would say that the world is much better than 200 years ago - in terms of wars or living and health conditions. However, new problems have risen, I would say they're not as... "dangerous" than the problems of the 19th century for example but they're going to endanger us in another, more and more disturbing way.