The fundamental issue……..

24 12 2013

Last night, I watched this amazing documentary on SBS TV called “Tomorrow’s world”  It was the techno futurist’s wet dream……..  to be fair, some of the stuff was truly amazing and very very useful, like this World’s First Virus-Filtering Water Bottle, and the segment on Graphene was particularly interesting….

But in the end, only one issue matters……..  and my guru David Suzuki just knows how to put it across.  I know most DTM followers already know this, but share this video around, because 99% of the population has no idea……  and all that flash technology will do is buy us a bit of time.  The outcome is impossible to avoid, and the best time to deal with it is now.




12 responses

24 12 2013

David Suzuki says in 3 minutes what Prof Albert Bartlett has said in several hours of lectures repeated over a lifetime. Both state that the laws of nature are inviolate and that we ignore them at our immense peril.
Where is the in-depth research into why such a supposedly intelligent species would work towards and ignore its impending demise? It is absolutely beyond comprehension that we would do so knowingly and intentionally.
But there may be reasons; and between the poor who struggle to make ends meet each day and those who “amidst the glut of insignificance that engulfs us all, the temptation is understandable to stop thinking”, we should remember Mark Twain who said that “the two most important days of your life are when you are born and when you find out why”. Those who know, need to work tirelessly to tell those who don’t. Blogs such as DtM, speak in the main to the ‘converted’ when the message needs to be promulgated to the other 99%.

25 12 2013

The 99% get quite resentful when they encounter the information they need to know but don’t want to hear. I know from experience with family and friends.

26 12 2013

I in fact had exactly that experience after Christmas lunch with my wife’s sister and her husband (who are older than us..) and may even be moving to Cooran as they are looking for land in our area…. Now I admit that it would be to our advantage if we sold them our place….. but there was no way they could see it would be an advantage to THEM to buy it! He wants to build his dream house, even though everything he describes he wants to build is WRONG….

And their attitude is they’d rather spend money on travelling before they die than provide resilience to their three boys by handing over their own lifeboat after crunch time……..

Having these discussions only reinforces my conclusion, the only conclusion I can come to now, that we are all fucked…..

27 12 2013
Frank Furcsa

Yeah what a hypocrite . He was parading his daughter in 1992 in Rio and i just recently saw her whining about environmental issues in doha ??In the meantime she dropped already two children probably a third in the making now after all this all in a sudden Population has become a problem for MR patriarch Suzuki

11 01 2014

More simplistic and misleading rhetoric from Suzuki. World population has not been exponentially growing for some time. The growth rate has been declining, meaning the dreaded hockey-stick curve of exponential growth has started to level off.

11 01 2014

The growth RATE may have been declining….. but it’s still growing exponentially. ANY growth at any x% is exponential growth. And when the base is as big as it is today, even 1.7% (or whatever the current growth rate is) is exponential, and the hockey stick STILL applies…..

12 01 2014

From a maths perspective, that’s not true. Just because you can describe the rate of growth as a percentage doesn’t mean the growth is geometric (hockey stick).

That’s because the rate is changing, which means it can’t be expressed as x(t) = x0(1 + r)^t. In the exponential growth formula, r is a constant, not changing with time.[1]

Put another way, what if the rate is changing like this: Year 1: 10%, Year 2: 0%, Year 3: -20%. I’m expressing the growth rate as a percentage, but is it a hockey stick and what’s the doubling time?

We start with 1.0 billion people. After Year 1, I have 1.1 billion. After Year 2, 1.1 billion still, and after Year 3, 0.88 billion.

That’s not a ridiculous example, because if the growth rate is declining, it may hit 0% before the total has doubled again. And as we know, Western cultures don’t even produce children at a replacement rate (i.e. growth % is less than 0).

You’ll notice that the mathematical models show a levelling off [2]… as we’ve all heard before, at around 9 billion. So comparison with bacteria is inaccurate and scare-mongering. Bacteria don’t use contraceptives, abort, learn to read, get careers, or choose to have no kids.


12 01 2014

What you’re describing is collapse. Change in the rate of growth does not happen anywhere near as fast as what you are describing here.

Such a collapse only occurs once the petri dish is full and the bacteria have run out of food.

As I have posted here before, this is on target to occur ~2025/2030……

12 01 2014

A collapse in population is not assumed in the models which show a levelling off (i.e. no more doubling). That’s a critical point. No hockey stick, no bacterial behaviour, no alarm.

Mike, you appear to be unwilling to change your mind when presented with new information or a good argument. Is that true? If so then my contributions here are not welcome and are a waste of time.

Note I’m not arguing collapse isn’t on its way for a host of other reasons – I’m saying human population isn’t growing geometrically (exponentially) any more and so it doubling like bacteria is not one of our problems.

And I don’t appreciate Suzuki spreading this as FUD. Every time he does, someone rational drops off the radar and the real issues don’t get looked at. We have to be strict and scientific in the environmental (or any) movement if we’re to be taken seriously.

12 01 2014

Me, not open to new ideas……? well that’s a new one on me..!

The slope of the hockey stick may be less steep, but until we have 0% growth or degrowth.. the hockey stick still applies, and will apply until collapse begins. I don’t even understand why we are arguing over this…

12 01 2014

Why is collapse the same as stability to you? Why is collapse the same as a gentle decline?

We’re arguing because Suzuki and you are making false statements and not acknowledging that when presented with counter-evidence.

26 01 2014
Frank Furcsa

yes a hypocrite ! Also unreasonable and unscientific . I am wonderilg after all this what is left MR Suzuki ? i tell you what : A motorcycle and automobile manufacturer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s