PowerSwitch

If things stay as they are with the capitalism system its inevitable, so how do we avoid it?

Imagining a world without money is mind boggling, but is this the only way?

I'm thinking mainly of food production.

It all depends what you mean by 'massive die-off'. Magnitude and rate. Are we talking about massive increase in death rate or massive decrease in birth rate?

Look what happened in Russia, birth rate crashed and the death rate (mainly due to vices) climbed by similar amounts during the nineties. Population fell by several million in a decade. Is that a die-off? If it had continued for a few more decades would it have been?

Die off is nothing to do with capitalism.

Die off is inevitable because people like having babies,and they used non-renewable resources to have more than the planet can sustain.

take money away, and people's "wealth" is family.. babies.
If anything capitalism discourages you from reproducing because you want to save money or you dont want to divide your land between too many kids.

The only way to have avoided a die off would be if people were prevented from using the oil-based superabundance for supporting larger families.. much stricter rationing.
People would have rebelled against that and supported whatever system delivered what they wanted.. more babies,more food..

amongst people I know, funnily enough the people who are having kids usually think peak oil is nonsense, or are convinced "human resourcefulness" will overcome it.

ceti331 wrote:Die off is nothing to do with capitalism.

Die off is inevitable because people like having babies,and they used non-renewable resources to have more than the planet can sustain.

take money away, and people's "wealth" is family.. babies.
If anything capitalism discourages you from reproducing because you want to save money or you dont want to divide your land between too many kids.

The only way to have avoided a die off would be if people were prevented from using the oil-based superabundance for supporting larger families.. much stricter rationing.
People would have rebelled against that and supported whatever system delivered what they wanted.. more babies,more food..

amongst people I know, funnily enough the people who are having kids usually think peak oil is nonsense, or are convinced "human resourcefulness" will overcome it.

But surely if the capitalist system continues as it is, there isn't enough oil to go around for food production at the same time?

Now if the lunatics want to carry on with the money system of greed and corruption, there can only be one out come.

So the poorest nations will face a massive die off?

Its a bit like we have now actually; only part of the world able to sustain some kind of growth.

There is population growth all right, and it's one of the problems. The fact that we have a capitalist set-up coming to its inevitable end (increasing debt, plus increasing inequality) results in the other 2 problems.

The first of these is, growth-or-collapse...so the system as a whole is still trying to grow, in spite of all the various types of damage that this is doing. The other is the sheer extent of the resource taken by the very richest individuals. The numbers are so huge (ratios of tens of millions) that people can't actually get a "model" in their imaginations of how much richer the very-rich are than the average person. And, as we've all sussed on this board, resource use is roughly proportional to income.

frank_begbie wrote:If things stay as they are with the capitalism system its inevitable, so how do we avoid it?

Imagining a world without money is mind boggling, but is this the only way?

I'm thinking mainly of food production.

I don't think it makes much difference whether capitalism implodes, mutates or somehow manages to struggle on; there's going to be a major die-off anyway. There has to be, because (a) we are already into overshoot and (b) I can imagine no circumstances where we'll end up with a global political system capable of implementing a "controlled descent." We'd need to be in an advanced state of planning, with a realistic prospect of implementation now to stand any chance of avoiding what you're suggesting, but the reality is we are nowhere near either of them. The reality is that the planners are still trying to figure out how to create more growth, and that any political changes in the right direction are cancelled out by other political changes in the wrong direction.

Is it logically/physically possible? Yes, but so are all sorts of other things which we can be certain aren't going to happen.

Is it politically possible? No.

frank_begbie wrote: So the poorest nations will face a massive die off?

Some will, some won't. Some of the very poorest people on the planet are likely to be among the least affected. On the other hand, a lot of people who are currently very well off in, for example, Saudi Arabia, are likely to leapfrog their way to the bottom very quickly when it all goes wrong for that country.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

frank_begbie wrote:If things stay as they are with the capitalism system its inevitable, so how do we avoid it?

Imagining a world without money is mind boggling, but is this the only way?

I'm thinking mainly of food production.

I don't think it makes much difference whether capitalism implodes, mutates or somehow manages to struggle on; there's going to be a major die-off anyway. There has to be, because (a) we are already into overshoot and (b) I can imagine no circumstances where we'll end up with a global political system capable of implementing a "controlled descent." We'd need to be in an advanced state of planning, with a realistic prospect of implementation now to stand any chance of avoiding what you're suggesting, but the reality is we are nowhere near either of them. The reality is that the planners are still trying to figure out how to create more growth, and that any political changes in the right direction are cancelled out by other political changes in the wrong direction.

Is it logically/physically possible? Yes, but so are all sorts of other things which we can be certain aren't going to happen.

Is it politically possible? No.

Yeah, I think it's hopeless.

We seem to locked into the money system with no plan B, and like you say we should be well into plan B instead of keeping our heads in the sand and believing there is no other way.

Depressing.

But surely if the capitalist system continues as it is, there isn't enough oil to go around for food production at the same time?

Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the capitalist system.

its to do with humans using their resourcefulness and ingenuity to use stored energy to feed more people than nature could... looked great for a couple of centuries.
Imagine going back in time to james watt or norman borlaug and telling them - your innovations will be abused.. give up.
Thats what it would have taken to avert this situation.

"greed and corruption"? feeding 5-6billion extra people.. doesn't just sound like the greed of a few bankers to me... sounds like the weight of humanity as a whole.

doesn't matter if there capitalism or not. As the oil runs out, 5+billion people will starve or die in wars, whether we have capitalism, communism, anarchy, fascism, or anything else. The only thing the system changes is which minority will survive.

The problem is desire for family, not capitalism.

The fact that we have a capitalist set-up coming to its inevitable end (increasing debt, plus increasing inequality) results in the other 2 problems.

this is a symptom of the resource problem. the capitalist system delivered what people demanded (more food for more babies and/or higher standard of living), which is why people used it. without the resources it can't any more.

You could argue that "capitalism" has been "too efficient" at extracting resources and piling the products of all those resources, in the form of wealth (money or otherwise) at the feet of a few, very rich, individuals. AIui, even Adam Smith said it would do this, if left to run for long enough.

Our species overshoot is built on the wealth of fossil fuels. The scarcity of those same fuels will presage our die-off.

I wonder that if oil rationing had been implemented back in the 1800s (for whichever reason) whether people (being the sheep that they are) would have accepted it and oil companies would have also done so (through emulation of existing systems.) If it had worked would we have been better or worse off in general?

I cant imagine that there would have any need to ration oil in the 1800s, demand was very limited and supply almost unlimited when compared to the limited demand.

As regards a great die off I think that it is unavoidable.
In the event of a very sudden crash, as portrayed in "Last Light" then there might be literally bodies piled up in the streets.

More likely IMHO is a slower die off. It takes only a fairly small increase in mortality and a modest reduction in birth rates to significantly reduce population.

Changes in political systems wont make much difference since the amount of oil is finite no matter whom may be in power.

Like Mike Ruppert said, you have to get rid of the money system first, otherwise you're pissing against the wind.

frank_begbie wrote:Like Mike Ruppert said, you have to get rid of the money system first, otherwise you're pissing against the wind.

The entire concept of money, or simply the system of money as it exists at present, with questionable and unsustainable financial practices?