We are quite a ways off the original thread but perhaps usefully illustrating how wicked problems become sustainable.
a) Most humans I know need food and information. Deprivation of either will prove terminally debilitating. A decent climate comes in third.
b) Soooo, we must have enough arable hectares plus the information that helps us make the most of them and even to make more hectares arable (including sea-based hectares).
c) Productivity of arable hectares depends on the annual temperature profile. Yield per hectare decreases about 10% per degree Celcius off the ideal for each respective plant.
d) The 'more energy' crowd didn't pay attention in 7th grade. Energy turns into heat regardless of whether it came from oil, windfarms, solar cells, etc. We must learn to reduce our use of (in prioriry order) digital electronics, mass rapid transit, automobiles and all other modes of travel exceeding three miles per hour.
e) Meanwhile, we should congratulate the U.S. for being a net user of Carbon Dioxide in 2005 and encourage other nations to do the same.
f) Schools engaged in Management Education and Development should emphasize the seven kinds of profit on which we all depend (e.g., ecologics as well as economics) and include enough systems thinking, feeling and doing to help graduates avoid Law of Unintended Consequences.
g) Globalization of Knowledge is the worthwhile goal.
cheers,
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
Jack,
Arable hectares isn't the issue. It's what we do on them. E. O. Wilson notes that we can feed 12 billion people if they all eat grain. (rice, wheat, etc.) If they all want meat, we can't feed 5 billion.
And some hectares must provide places for people to live and word. We keep using up arable land for urban sprawl.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/wp-02003.pdf
In 2002, Humanity added 74 million people: 2 1/3 per second, 141 per minute, 200,000 per day, 6.2 million per month. Every five years, add the population of Western Europe (375 million).
The rate of population growth peaked around 1970. In subsequent years, we see a decline in rate of population growth. That is, growth is slowing, yet growth is still happening.
The UN predicts a massive surge in growth, especially in central Africa when the malaria problem is solved. They predict 9 billion by 2050.
Other hectares must provide us energy. OK... let's assume that energy comes from non-arable hectares. Well, maybe not. After all, we grow energy requirements faster than we grow people.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/drrennie/spike.html
Global energy consumption
1900: 20 quadrillion BTUs (quads) per year for 1.7 billion people
2000: 400 quadrillion BTUs per year in 2000 for 6.1 billion people
20 times the energy consumption of 1900 for 3.5 times the population.
About 67 million BTUs per Human per year.
2100: Very energy efficient growth of just a factor of 5 implies 2000 quads
Power plants and transmission lines could easily take up 30% of our land by 2001.
If we don't believe population is a huge problem, we simply aren't paying attention.
Jim Clawson: "the underlying issue is how does one get another person to be willing to re-examine a deeply held belief that they've had since they were young?"
I'd say: How do we get people to reexamine their innate reactions that are deeper than beliefs? A psychologist once said, "Fish don't know their environment is wet." Humans don't know that our neural-hormonal (emotional) environment is largely activated by evolutionary conditioning.
Best to all,
Gary
Gary
Thomas,
Thanks for the response.
This paper speaks to part a) of my request but doesn't seem to address part b), that is, Dr. Hyde doesn't estimate the likelihood of being wrong. He did properly label the material as 'hypothesis.'
Would you go for "the part of global warming that is man-made is due more to overpopulation than to other human behavior factors?" How about if we consider overpopulation to be not just a belly button count but a metric that includes 'numbers of humans per arable hectare?'
cheers,
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
Data from psychology
.
Im not George, but when I saw Garys model, I instantly thought of this:
| Article title | The Gender Similarities Hypothesis |
| Author | Hyde, J. S. |
| Journal title | AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST |
| Bibliographic details | 2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592 |
Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females
are vastly different psychologically, dominates the
popular media. Here, the author advances a very different
view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that
males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological
variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses
support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender
differences can vary substantially in magnitude at
different ages and depend on the context in which measurement
occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences
carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and
relationships.
I also have doubts about this:
Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.
I dont think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.
Tom
Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.
Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.
1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.
2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on. I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them. The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans. What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet. The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations. All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions. Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.