tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post1000567330005955462..comments2024-03-12T18:37:16.548-04:00Comments on The Easiest Person to Fool: Seeing Like a StateIrv Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-20177038639693964742017-02-21T15:57:54.798-05:002017-02-21T15:57:54.798-05:00OK, I read "A Brief History of I=PAT". I...OK, I read "A Brief History of I=PAT". It makes exactly the point I was trying to make. Because population and affluence are political hot potatoes, especially if you want to reduce them, it is expedient to focus on technology. Barry Commoner, back in the early 1970s, was trying to convince people that P and A have very little real influence on impact--it's all down to bad technology.<br />This idea is nonsense, of course, but it is easy to convince people that it is true because that is what they want to believe--that we can go on having more children and living more extravagant life styles--we just have to develop technology that will reduce our impact on the environment. This is what is known as "decoupling". Ideologies like eco-modernism pin their hopes for our future on decoupling. In my opinion those are false hopes.<br />I=PAT is a pretty simple equation, but most people have such a tenuous grasp of arithmetic that they don't have a good feel for what the equation is saying. T in this equation is not "technology" but the impact on the environment of whatever technology we use to maintain our population at its current level of affluence.<br />There seems to be pretty good agreement that I (impact) is too large--we are in overshoot by about 150% and need to reduce our impact. If P and A were stable, it would just be a matter of reducing T by a factor of 2/3 or better so we would no longer be in overshoot. And I think that <i>would</i> probably be possible. But both P and A are growing and according to conventional wisdom must continue to grow. Continued growth is exponential growth and T must decrease exponentially to compensate for this.<br />That's what I don't think is possible.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-17327834834315563282017-02-19T20:07:46.203-05:002017-02-19T20:07:46.203-05:00Bev(foodnstuff) and Luis, thanks for the clarifica...Bev(foodnstuff) and Luis, thanks for the clarification. It is indeed I=PAT. That'll teach me to shoot from the hip without looking things up first. <br />And thanks, Luis, for that link. A quick scan confirms my understanding of the impact equation and the point I was trying to make--that eco-modernism is fundamentally impractical. I have more to say about that but I've printed out the article and I'll be reading it through before saying anything more.<br />Bev and Monika, it is interesting to note the difference in your thoughts on the state. Room for all kinds of opinions here!<br />Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-32092697219155126682017-02-19T10:14:41.198-05:002017-02-19T10:14:41.198-05:00Yes, it is I = PAT. For a good tutorial on the fo...Yes, it is I = PAT. For a good tutorial on the formulation and history of the equation, see the following (addendum by John Holdren at the end):<br /><br />"Anthrozoology: Embracing Co-Existence in the Anthropocene"<br />Paul R. Ehrlich, Millennium Alliance for Humanity and Biosphere, 31 January 2017<br />http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/review-anthrozoology/<br /><br />Luis Gutierrezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121512812334031248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-13282490238560161782017-02-19T02:12:18.720-05:002017-02-19T02:12:18.720-05:00Hi Irv, meant to comment to this post soon after y...Hi Irv, meant to comment to this post soon after you wrote it but things happened....you know how it is....<br /><br />Anyway, just noticed in your first comment to Monika, you mentioned the 'burden' on the ecosphere problem and quoted the famous equation measuring that burden as burden = PA/T. No sorry, Irv that isn't correct. The impact i (where i = what you call burden) is i= PAT, i.e impact equals population x affluence x technology. That's how Paul Ehrlich, whom I believe put it together (with colleague John Holdren) expressed it. I'm pretty sure I'm correct here, unless it's been changed.<br /><br />I've only just read the rest of the conversation between you and Monika briefly and will get back to it to take a longer look.<br /><br />I followed the links and watched the videos of Scott and he's an interesting fellow, who sees further than most. While I realise we might need the state for some things, I think its influence has gone too far now, almost to the point where human beings think they cannot do without it, yet in reality, as Scott says, we have lived without the state for most of our evolutionary history and can do so again (with a much lowered population, of course).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-15470413738458483412017-02-18T15:46:58.242-05:002017-02-18T15:46:58.242-05:00Deleted comment replaced with typos corrected:
Me ...Deleted comment replaced with typos corrected:<br />Me yet again, Monika. I was hoping someone from Canada would object to my demonization of the state. We've had it very good here in Canada for the last 150 years. And there are a handful of other countries that have done as well, mainly northwestern European democracies. But if you look throughout history or even around the world at present, you'll find many other states that deserve at least a little bit of demonization.<br />In my way of looking at it, states exist to redistribute the surplus energy generated by the efforts of their citizens. If there is lots of surplus energy, a beneficial ideology, and the populace has some say in how tings are run, this can work very well. As a rule there have been none of these things.<br />Only in the last couple of hundred years did the Enlightenment combine with a once only jackpot of fossil fuels to make our progressive socialist democracies possible.<br />As surplus energy declines, governments, even those with the best of intentions, will be able to do less and less for their citizens.<br />I think we, as citizens, need to be aware of this so we can make sure our energy descent is managed well. The danger is that inequality will continue to grow and a rich and powerful minority will control things and make sure their own interests are seen to, while the rest of us get thrown to the wolves. Just look to the south of us, in the USA, to see how this is progressing.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-87972350147522473782017-02-18T15:41:56.749-05:002017-02-18T15:41:56.749-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-30078345076228066492017-02-18T15:30:17.393-05:002017-02-18T15:30:17.393-05:00Me again, Monika.
Genetic engineering is a young a...Me again, Monika.<br />Genetic engineering is a young area with lots of potential as yet. It can create strains of crops that breed true and can benefit people at low levels of technology. Although it's looking, with developments like CRISPR, that it may be something that can be done in a kitchen lab with a lower level of tech than is currently required. In particular, bacteria and yeast engineered to produce vaccines, insulin, rennet for cheese making and the like have great promise to let us continue to enjoy the benefits of our industrial civilization after it have for the most part collapsed.<br />I won't argue against anything (like non-fertilizers) that makes industrial agriculture less impactful on the environment. But in the long run, I think we'll be forced to switch over lower input practices, because we won't be able to afford the inputs and/or because they will no longer be available.<br />I worked at the Bruce Nuclear Power Development (now Bruce Power) from 1977 to when I retired in 2005. I live only 10 miles say from it and on a clear day I can see it from the beach just down from where I live. You might conclude that I am not worried about the risks of operating a nuclear plant, and you'd be right. I am more concerned about whether we'll succeed in shutting that plant down in an orderly and safe fashion. Not that it can't be done. But very little is being done to plan ahead for this and what plans are being made are meeting with public opposition. Even a plan to store low and medium level waste underground on the Bruce site has met with a lot of opposition. When it comes to storing spent fuel, the anti-nukes will go crazy (crazier).<br />And by the time we get around to really doing something about this, we'll have a lot less resources to apply to the problem than we do now.<br />Should we be building more nuclear generation? Sure. We should make sure to pan ahead and set aside resources to shut them down carefully. And we should realize that presuming we could build enough reactor to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels (a lot) there wouldn't be enough nuclear fuel to run them for more than a few decades. Breeder reactors? Sure, but they are still "paper reactors"--little more than a buzzword at the present time.<br />Can we switch over to renewables? I am sure we will, but at a much lower level of energy use per capita than we currently have.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-31934657404300243922017-02-18T15:08:59.747-05:002017-02-18T15:08:59.747-05:00Hi again, Monika. You bring up a lot of things tha...Hi again, Monika. You bring up a lot of things that are worth discussing. I guess I'll just respond point by point. It will probably nave to go in several comments as there seems to be a limit on how big comment can be.<br />Affluence and education for women definitely brings down the birth rate. Even in developing nations where in seems only a little affluence is needed. And that is a good thing as there aren't enough resources to lift the whole world up to a North American lifestyle. <br />Can we reach a balance before it is too late? I think a balance would require significantly fewer people than we have now. I'd say it might be done with a couple of billion, but that is optimistic. Other say as little as a few tens of millions.<br />The thing to remember is that as long as we are in overshoot, we are actively reducing the carrying capacity of the planet. This is especially true as those of us who live in developed countries struggle to keep business as usual going and maintain our extravagant lifestyles.<br />The four horse men (pestilence, war, famine, death) and probably a list of others are going to have their way will us over the next few decades. Harshly in some areas, less so in others.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-65942537754274555682017-02-15T21:50:32.178-05:002017-02-15T21:50:32.178-05:00Monika, you raise some interestng points. I am itc...Monika, you raise some interestng points. I am itching to answer them, and will in a few days after I finish final editting on my next post and get it published. Sadly, I am not a veyr quick writer...Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-73044948910403612522017-02-15T21:24:37.172-05:002017-02-15T21:24:37.172-05:00Affluence does bring down birth rates as it increa...Affluence does bring down birth rates as it increases education and the need for women to work and contribute to the household finances. The ability to pay for children in an affluent society becomes difficult and puts the brakes on large families. There is a need for the level of affluence to find a balance, rise in some parts of the World and lower in others. With luck the energy sources will last till we find that balance. <br /><br />As you pointed out, genetic engineering still has potential to help agriculture and I would like to add nano-fertilizers that can slow release nitrogen and phosphorous in response to signals from the plant roots. These fertilizers would reduce the impacts of nutrient pollution and conserve phosphorous. Many environmentalists see nuclear energy as a way to provide carbon free energy and I agree. If I have a declining amount of energy dense hydrocarbons, it is prudent for me to use them in the development of nuclear which has most potential to carry us further into the future than any solar or wind farm. The above technologies have us sounding like eco-modernists and make an effort to feed, clothe and house humans. <br /><br />Now let's circle back to your blog above and the slight demonization of the state. This is a popular thing to do it seems. Thirty years ago, Jared Diamond wrote The Third Chimpanzee and claimed settling down in communities and domesticating plants and animals essentially destroyed our health, leisure time and social equality. You call it decentralization and rehumanization. Others would say living off the grid and not letting the government control your life. All of this places humans above and beyond other animals, plants, insects. <br /><br />George Monbiot writes about rewilding and giving back large swathes of land to nature. By using the land we occupy as efficiently as possible through urbanization, intense agriculture, dense energy forms such as nuclear...we can make room and give land back to nature. Humans do not have to occupy every nook and cranny of this Earth. <br /><br />My parents retired and built a home in remote British Columbia. They tried to live as independently and frugally as possible with their own fish, vegetables, water and wood. Other retirees came to the area and built houses at even higher elevations encroaching on cougar and bear habitat, putting roads where none had been before and putting pressure on local fire departments to suppress fires because they were in newly settled areas. A land slide caused loss of property and life when it came down quickly and unexpectedly in a community nearby. Few of these people stay as their health fails and they need access to hospitals. My mother passed away from cancer and my father left Canada to live in dirty, over populated Germany. <br /><br />My hope is the land gets taken over by nature again. Monikanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-70003199653408963272017-02-14T21:19:07.768-05:002017-02-14T21:19:07.768-05:00Hi Monika, nice to hear from you.
The issues you ...Hi Monika, nice to hear from you. <br />The issues you raise don't have all that much to do with "Seeing Like a State", but everything to do with the next series of posts that I am working on now, so I am glad to get into this discussion.<br />Believe it or not, I don't wish this planet's population "would just die already." But I know that as soon as one starts talking about collapse, it's hard not to give that impression. I'll consider myself well and justifiable chastised, and in the next few months when I am writing about collapse, I'll try to be more sensitive on this issue.<br />It will be a challenge, though. We are already well into overshoot, placing a burden on the ecosphere that is about 150% of what it can bear on an ongoing basis. And because of that, its carrying capacity is actually going down as we go along, so that the percentage overshoot would be getting higher even if the population wasn't growing. But it is, of course, and the estimates I read say that our population will continue to grow until sometime in the last quarter of the century, when it will peak out at around ten or eleven billion and finally start to decline. In my opinion, long before then, something is going to give way. So we need to reduce the burden we are placing on the ecosphere.<br />You are probably familiar with the formula for that burden, burden=PA/T. That is, population times affluence divided by technology. As you say, it is difficult to ask people to have fewer children and most everyone is striving to increase their affluence, rather than decrease it. So the only thing that seems to be politically possible is to increase technology so as to get the same level of affluence while placing less of a burden on the planet. This is called decoupling. I think the formula is wrong here--everything I've read indicates that decoupling isn't working and isn't likely to. Technology uses energy and materials and is in such high demand that it's making things worse, not better, increasing affluence at every turn. You don't have a cell phone, I'm using one that is several years old and don't plan to upgrade any time soon, but most of us aren't so responsible.<br />I initially wondered why you mentioned eco-modernism, but then I realized that I had brought it up on my list of ideologies that I wouldn't want to see applied by an authoritarian government. Nor would I--if you're going to "make an effort to find a way forward", you really have choose a path that has some chance of leading somewhere useful. Eco-modernism is a brand of techno-optimism and it's all about decoupling, which I don't see as working at all. I anything, it will stop us from implementing the measures I see as necessary.<br />I do think there are thing we can do to reduce the severity of the collapse we face. I think genetic engineering is one of the areas of technology that is still young and not yet maxed out. It promises to help keep agriculture working in the face of climate change and resource depletion.<br />Many of the other measures I would recommend involve reducing affluence. Borrowing from John Michael Greer, I'd say conservation, decentralization and rehumanization are high on the list. Conservation will have to involve having LESS--less energy, less stuff, less stimulation. There is much to be said about decentralization and rehumanization, but I guess I should stop now and let you have a turn.<br />Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-90827983726011855222017-02-14T14:30:55.785-05:002017-02-14T14:30:55.785-05:00Population is always the elephant in the room. It ...Population is always the elephant in the room. It is difficult to tell individuals and countries to stop having children or even to cut back. At least the Ecomodernist movement makes an effort to find a way forward, feeding and housing the population we have, rather than just wishing they would die already. Monikanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-23586940667208899052017-02-10T10:09:11.415-05:002017-02-10T10:09:11.415-05:00Luis, that is what I will be doing over the next f...Luis, that is what I will be doing over the next few weeks--a series about the way I expect collapse to go down.<br />If you scan through my earlier posts, you will find bits and pieces on the topic.<br /><br />Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-68740037728099303432017-02-09T22:00:36.078-05:002017-02-09T22:00:36.078-05:00Do you have something written about the topic of t...Do you have something written about the topic of the last paragraph?<br /><br />Luis T. GutiƩrrez<br />Editor, Mother Pelican Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability<br />http://www.pelicanweb.org<br /><br />Luis Gutierrezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121512812334031248noreply@blogger.com