All of these define LIMITS. There are always limits. The planet we are on has an delicately balanced ecosystem that provides life. In fact, it is fair to say this is a living planet. It is also, empirically, fair to say that this ecosystem shifts and species are created, made extinct, and reduced. The forces that do that are the aforementioned list that comprise LIMITS.

The fine point of these limits are dynamic. That is capacity is not fixed, nor is consumption rates. In other words, this is a non-linear process that cannot easily be gauged but can be estimated given high-speed computers today.

But to argue that the planet does not have limits is really to defy rationality, logic, and observation. We see humans perish daily, we witness whole species disappear. The planet is a life force, but it does not protect one life form over another.

That humans effect this limit (as do other species) seems not only plausible but irrefutable. If we eliminate ideologies, denial, and the mix of economics that is based on short-term consumption and endless growth, it is all too clear that there are limits. If we agree that Global Warming is happening, that humans have effected it, than it is only reasonable to understand that human populations can exceed the capacity of the planet to sustain human life (at least at the levels we have and the expotential growth of such a population).

Now the human population is nearing 7 billion. Is that too many? Or do we have “room” for more? The answer is not a simple yes or no. It depends. It depends on the collective capacity demands of each of the human species, and thus the demands they make of the planet’s resources to sustain them. That the West demands more than the South makes no difference to the planet. We all suffer when the limits are reached.

If we know the minimal capacity for human life – say around subtropical to temporate zones, with bare essentials and increase that to the kind of excessive use of the earth’s capacity we see today, then we see that the we and the planet are in deep trouble. If we reduce our capacity demands (which may require population reduction) than we can curtail the trajectory we’re on. This is non-linear and therefore it is not a fair question to say: How many people is too many? Until you can provides the key variables that may change the outcome.

The living arrangement today appears unsustainable; if say the Chinese and Indians and others continue to follow the US model of material capacity demand.

So, again, it is either ignornance of what is meant by LIMITS or an ideology of “hope” or “gratuitous greed” that would perpetuate this idea that we have endless resources, whether oil, air or water.

Reliance on an established vocabulary and dialectic almost guarantees confusions for the present context; a demand of allegiance is never to be trusted. Of course, Marx should be read; Smith, Ricardo, Galbraith, Keynes, Hayek, Lao Tzu and Pogo to. As to Deadbeat, his judgment seemed to be more of the clouded part than the Nuanced.

The point is to understand in a way that can form into action. I am less confident of “capital ultimately resolves to Control over Labor” as a way to motivate than “being the disenfranchised observer of a life owned by an economic system.”

I find must be departing from Mr Deadbeat with reference his highly nuanced comment to Mr Keye’s article, which immediately evoked for me the first three chapters of Das Kapital, tracing the evolution of Exchange from earliest Barter up to the appearance of Money Economy, development of Banking and on from there.

Capital ultimately resolves to Control over Labor. Which currently is primarily exercised via Money, “tokens” in which we all have faith, “In God We Trust”. But which can also be exercised by other means.

Control over Labor, then, ultimately resolves to what most serious students refer to as “The State”.

The State of course in turn resolves (”via a cycle of Force”;) to Ideological Hegemony, “Faith”.

Believe Me, Oh My People!!!

Nihilism at least takes the trouble to sort of believe in itself.

‘What is real’ is the universal question for the living state and the consciousness state; and there are a variety of devices for making those judgments. Nihilism is just one of the weakest forms of the conscious devices: it just gives up when the decisions get difficult.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E10FE3F5417738DDDA00894DA405B808DF1D3

This earth can easily support 10 times its current population if simple living and high thinking were applied. Of course the only ones wanting and needing this are the truly poor and the only ones practicing this are the truly evolved.

Falsified biased science for whatever agenda(s) not with standing. We all know more and more “paid for” science, with the correspondingly correct reporting and lobbying = whatever the money masters wish it to equal.
More and more we see so-called scientific expertise to be nothing more than false propaganda and faked/misrepresented results. sold by more cheating experts as doom and gloom predictions.

P.T. Barnum should be “man of the year” every year.

The ecological footprint work, which began over 15 years ago, is not just fad — although it has been fadisized — is based on research based evaluation of the issues you point out: different peoples’ use of resources.

If you are not already familiar with the the founding organization:
http://www.rprogress.org/index.htm They used to have their databases available for download and perhaps still do. Interesting material.

i’ve said before, we cld safely increase the pop in much of afrika, asia, s.’rica, if we wld/cld reduce euro-amer pop and poo a bn people.

even their dogs are burden on us and the planet. So, ban/prevent ownership of dogs and other pets first.

“As far as “the vulnerable” are concerned, I’ll confess that it’s hard for me to be too sympathetic when I see the poor folks in my area driving around in gas-sucking giant SUVs and pissing their money away on Bluetooths and other pointless fashion accessories while their kids live in squalor.”

Americans are not “poor folks”. The people who particularly suffer in downturns in the global economy are third worlders, such as the recent food riots caused by what Americans perceive as a “small” rise in the price of basic foods. For many of them, the state of the global capitalist economy is a matter of life and death.

The American “poor” are part of the global middle class, and largely hold bourgeois values.

James Hansen, a climate modeller with Nasa, told the Guardian today that corporate lobbying has undermined democratic attempts to curb carbon pollution. “The democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working,” he said.
Speaking on the eve of joining a protest against the headquarters of power firm E.ON in Coventry, Hansen said: “The first action that people should take is to use the democratic process. What is frustrating people, me included, is that democratic action affects elections but what we get then from political leaders is greenwash.
“The democratic process is supposed to be one person one vote, but it turns out that money is talking louder than the votes. So, I’m not surprised that people are getting frustrated. I think that peaceful demonstration is not out of order, because we’re running out of time.”

Abraham Lincoln

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

Mr. President in just a few months many will know if we are going to try. You know this little problem called climate change. What’s the plan so far perception of reality. The smartest minds on this planet are watching and do you talk with them? They like to talk and think bullshit isn’t high on there list of things to do. Remember reality hasn’t gone anywhere it’s still here and going to get rather hard to change into perception. Here’s one example of perception of reality. The last President and his man at the IPCC asked the question, ok if the ice melts it will come back right. Right and on this present path the Earth will turn a light shade of gray as seen from space. Let’s try. ? do you see that it’s called a question mark and in just a few years that question mark will not be in the back of people’s mind’s but right in front. Just a thought. Let’s try

Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints.

Such a change would disrupt food and water supplies, exterminate thousands of species of plants and animals and trigger massive sea level rises that would swamp the homes of hundreds of millions of people.

The poll of those who follow global warming most closely exposes a widening gulf between political rhetoric and scientific opinions on climate change. While policymakers and campaigners focus on the 2C target, 86% of the experts told the survey they did not think it would be achieved. A continued focus on an unrealistic 2C rise, which the EU defines as dangerous, could even undermine essential efforts to adapt to inevitable higher temperature rises in the coming decades, they warned.

Many of the experts stressed that an inability to hit the 2C target did not mean that efforts to tackle global warming should be abandoned, but that the emphasis is now on damage limitation The Guardian

Hit with a double whammy of spiralling carbon emissions from the coal-fired boom in developing countries such as China and political stalemate, many climate scientists have become noticeably nervous in recent years. While technical papers in academic journals have tracked increasingly desperate predictions, most have put on a brave face in public. Likely failure to meet the 2C target, and the certainty of dreadful consequences, has been the worst-kept secret in climate science.

No longer. Today’s Guardian poll of attendees at a climate conference last month in Copenhagen exposes the gulf between political rhetoric and scientific thinking. Of more than 250 experts surveyed, more than half said the 2C target could still be achieved but only 18 thought that it would be. By the end of the century, most thought average temperatures would rise by some 4C.

The figure is not plucked from their imaginations. The authoritative report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 laid it out in simple terms. If carbon emissions continue to rise at present rates, then the IPCC’s best guess is a 4C rise by 2100. The Guardian poll merely highlights a belief that the warning has simply failed to penetrate. As one said: “I think a full understanding of what must be done quickly, and the consequences of insufficient action, is lacking among the policy makers and the public.” Another said: “Current government actions are playing into the hands of … an electorate that doesn’t quite understand how serious climate change is.”

Survey respondents were promised anonymity. Many scientists are reluctant to admit publicly that the 2C target is unrealistic, and several warned that simply raising the subject was sensitive. One said: “Telling people that x% people think it can’t be done would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Great things can only be achieved by everyone believing it can be done … Churchill didn’t stand around saying most people think we will lose the war. He said we will fight it on the beaches.”

Several scientists said the G20 summit in London, where climate change was barely considered, had convinced them the action required would not be taken. Simon Lewis, a climate researcher at the University of Leeds, said: “The summit shows that political leaders do not regard climate change as an urgent issue. They were tasked to re-configure the global economy and they chose to re-affirm the old model, and not move to a low-carbon economy as scientists have urged. The summit was more of an end-of-the-world order than a new world order.”

Bob Doppelt, director of the climate leadership initiative at the University of Oregon, said: “One of the problems is that the issue is still being framed as a scientific and environmental issue. This is a major mistake. Climate change is just a symptom of dysfunctional social and economic practices and policies. It is a social and economic issue. The emphasis needs to shift away from the biophysical sciences now to the social sciences if we have any hope of solving this problem.” utv news

Leo of course is not alone when witting about simplicity and it sure looks like now more than ever probably a good idea. Let’s watch the Senate in action the next few month’s and see if simplicity is seen probably more like stupidity crazy talk bullshit nonsense from both sides. Will we see working together reason, wisdom? See that question mark don’t kid yourself people know. I know tell them we are trying the old perception of reality thing. What do you think just could work for awhile. What is the main problem for a few with simplicity

I’d be happy to discuss your concerns with my essay point by point, but you have to learn to be civil. Anyone can yell personal attacks. So far, given your enumerated criticisms, I see nothing that relates to my piece. Be nice and I’ll respond as fully and completely as I can.

Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey

[1] The author ASSERTS that the planet is “overpopulated” providing NO EVIDENCE what-so-ever. Overpopulation is NOT the problem the problem is the MALDISTRIBUTION of POWER leading to the maldistribtion of resources.

[2] MOST of the planet lives on less than $2.00/day so there is NOT overconsuption. There problem is a very SMALL percentage of the world population CONSUMES most of the resources.

[3] The current crisis is not about bits of metals being passed around. It was caused because those bits of metals were NOT passed around but CONCENTRATED in the hands of the few who then rather than invest they speculated on inflating assets. The power of the working class has been diminishing since the 1970’s.

[4] Where has this clown been. There has been a crisis around the world for decades and his analysis is totally a distrastion. He couldn’t even identify “the economy” as Capitalism.

Where the FUCK do these clowns come from?

did u know why ‘god’ did not give the dogs belief in him? Because, he cldn’t stand another specie talking back to him. This is not my worst joke.
My wife loves reno and gambling; so we will be away for a weak starting this saturday. I say this so that u wldn’t think i took a position with obama. tnx