Comments | kmo: Interview with Albert Bartlett on C-Realm

kmo

Interview with Albert Bartlett on C-Realm

Dec 28, 2008 11:34

I've just posted a transcript of my second interview with Professor Albert Bartlett over on the C-Realm blog. Here's an excerpt:

People believe that somehow technology is going to save us. Technology is the main thing that has gotten us into this problem. Because the main effect of technology is to allow population to continue to grow. And as long ( Read more... )

conversations on collapse

Comments 10

(The comment has been removed)

ankh_f_n_khonsu December 29 2008, 01:06:36 UTC

Furthermore, there's a closer link between education and population than technology and population.

It's a long interview, I know... kmo December 29 2008, 15:53:25 UTC

and I'd certainly understand if you didn't have time to read or listen to the whole thing, but Professor Bartlett and I did cover that very topic pretty explicitly.

A presupposition of the idea that you've referenced is that enough energy and material resources remain to bring the Two-thirds World up to the living standard enjoyed by the richest nations on Earth. It's a tacit presupposition in most mainstream discourse (thought that's starting to change) but in C-Realm Podcast discussions it's an explicit and open question.

More than that, the question of whether enough resources (untapped fossil fuels, metals and minerals, water, viable topsoil) remain to allow the privileged First Worlders to continue in our our current lifestyle for much longer calls out for our attention.

(The comment has been removed)

Thread 6

ankh_f_n_khonsu December 29 2008, 01:04:38 UTC

Burgeoning global population contributes to our challenge, but is not the cause of it. The earth could support many times its current population, if there was an eye towards intelligent distribution and sustainability.

This guy's just espousing misanthropy and a twisted version of eugenics; neither of which are legitimate solutions, IMO.

I disagree with you.... toucansanctuary December 29 2008, 06:08:02 UTC

Perhaps you should watch his lecture on Arithmetic, Population, and energy. You can see the lecture on Youtube. It's an eight part series and here's the link to the first one to get you going ( ... )

Re: I disagree with you.... ankh_f_n_khonsu December 29 2008, 06:51:28 UTC

Population growth among mammals and most of the biosphere is not exponential. This is anachronistic, mechanistic thinking. Population growth does not occur in a vacuum.

It's indisputable with logic. The only people who dispute it are those that frame their counter-arguments with unsupported claims and a blind faith in their position.

If this was intended as hyperbole, it was poorly executed. If it was intended literally, you are mistaken.

"[Heavier]-than-air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Albert Einstein

Saying that there's math behind it is all fine and well. Super, even. But far from indisputable. Lots of sexy math turns out to be bunk. Want an easy example? How many dimensions are included in orthodox M-theory these days?

That's exactly what I see from your posts. You've done nothing but spout comments as if they were facts and failed to provide any ( ... )

Re: I disagree with you.... ankh_f_n_khonsu December 29 2008, 07:05:52 UTC

One episode - a mere 9 minutes - into this 8 part series, and I was laughing hysterically. If you seriously think this argument is 'indisputable', I recommend you visit a dictionary:

indisputable: not questionable

That given, maybe you could name one 20th C. population group that has maintained static exponential growth patterns for more than 10 years?

Thread 6