58 replies to this topic

[TBoneSteak]

Na ovo me navodi misljenje koje sam procitao na jednom americkom forumu. Jedan bas ponosan Amerikanac, bushista, ljubitelj korporacija i velikih dzipova, i svega sto uz to ide, trijumfalno izjavljuje (na temi o Promeni klime): "Pa, eto, jedni naucnici kazu jedno, drugi kazu drugo: znaci, vi ni sami sa sobom ne mozete da se slozite. Prema tome, sve to su nebuloze. Treba grabiti napred, ne stideti se gramzivosti, prozdrljivosti, kupovati sve vece dzipove, posaditi jos betona i fabrika, korporacije sve vise i vise treba da rastu. Ma sve je fantasticno pod ovim nebom, posebno americkim"

troll on

'...beton blok, beton blok, mi zidamo zgrade, beton blok, beton blok, mi pravimo kuce...'
Kyoto je zaista najbolji primer neslaganja oko rezultata istrazivanja klime (a klima utice na broj stanovnika). zavera, rekli bi neki...

troll off

donekle trol...

populacija je porasla sa 1.6 milijardi na 6.5 milijardi u proslom (20. veku). mozda bi je bilo interesantno porediti sa finansijskom ekspanzijom iz tog perioda (napustanje zlatnog standarda = stampanje nepostojeceg novca) koja je, moglo bi se reci, silovala ekonomski rast. novac se delio sakom i kapom, frapantno ubrzavao ekonomski rast i, naravno, omogucavao opstanak i kakav/takav normalan/bolji zivot ziliona novih stanovnika. motor se, mislim, nepotrebno pregrejao. sta nam je takav suludi rast trebao?

[Dunadan]

mislim da ce u stvari doci do sve veceg jaza u broju stanovnika izmedju razvijenih i nerazvijenih delova sveta, a samim tim nerazvijene zemlje ce sve vishe troshiti prirodne resurse, tako da ce opustoshenje prirode sledovati kao normalna posledica toga. (kad pomislim na Amazon i ono krchenje shuma zaboli me zeludac)
u vecini razvijenih zemalja dva deteta su neki plafon, a negde chak stimulishu ljude da prave vishe od klasichne chetvorochlane porodice, dok, koliko znam, u Kini postoji ogranichenje od 2 deteta. ili je jedno? mislim da sam chitala o tome negde ali ne mogu da se setim gde.

idealno bi bilo kad bi postojalo ogranichenje na 2 deteta, u naravno idealnim uslovima gde brakovi traju vechno te se ostvaruje samo prosta reprodukcija i nishta preko toga, tako da bi se broj stanovnika odrzavao u stanju dinamichke ravnoteze.
naravno, idealno bi bilo kad bi svaki par mogao da ima samo 1 dete, tako bi se populacija prepolovila, al pusti snovi...

Edited by DUNADAN, 05 March 2005 - 18:02.

[chandra]

glasao sam za najpesimistickiju opciju. prenaseljenost je uzasan problem, a u sklopu citavog ekonomskog sustava postaje potpuno neresiv. zapravo nam se desava isto sto i zecevima u onom klasicnom primeru: sto vise zeceva, vise lisica... a drustvene okolnosti taj proces samo ubrzavaju.

[Dunadan]

zapravo nam se desava isto sto i zecevima u onom klasicnom primeru: sto vise zeceva, vise lisica...

glavni razlog prenaseljenosti je procvat medicine.
osim glodara i Homo sapiensa ne postoji vrsta koja je sklona prenamnozavanju, tj. kalamitetu. u prenamnozenim populacijama se povecava morbiditet jer transmisija bolesti ide mnogo brze u takvim populacijama (npr. leminzi) shto se i desilo u XIV veku sa kugom koja je satrla 1/3 stanovnishtva.

danas, da nema medicine bi svaki veci grad bio leglo boleshtina, tako da sa jedne strane, u nerazvijenim zemljama velik broj ljudi umire usled nedostatka osnovnih medicinskih intervencija, te priroda ipak u nekoj meri regulishe tu brojnost.

[1939]

Pa kako izgleda, ljudi se kote takvim tempom da ce za nekih 20ak godina biti podosta tesno...

Da, to me zabrinjava. Medjutim, priroda je dokazala i jos dokazuje da ima sredstva da tu populaciju obuzda i ogranici. Ranije je to bila kuga, kolera, ratovi... Danas su to takodje ratovi, cunamiji, zemljotresi, hiv, sars, itd....

Drugim recima, kako god okrenes, na odredjeni vremenski period priroda trebi ljudsku populaciju i time pravi balans. Monstruozno ali realno.

[chandra]

ne bih rekao da priroda regulise brojnost bas tako jednostavno. pogledaj samo u kojim delovima sveta je rast populacije najbrzi - upravo u najsiromasnijim. znas, meni se cini da su i prenaseljenost i zagadjenje i izumiranje vrsta, pa ako hoces i sva ova masovna ludila koja su zadesila covecanstvo u poslednjih stotinak godina, posledica iste stvari: potpunog gubitka ravnoteze. kako unutar ljudskog drustva, tako i izmedju drustva i prirode. u fizici se razlikuju labilna i stabilna ravnoteza. stabilna je kada pomeris objekat, na primer, iz ravnoteznog polozaja, a ono se ponovo vraca. a labilna je kada pomeris objekat i on dalje nastavlja da se udaljva od ravnoteznog polozaja. cini mi se da je ravnoteza na ovoj planeti bila veoma labilna i da sada prisustvujemo jednom potpuno ireverzibilnoj destrukciji...

[Dr Kosh]

u zadnjih 200 + godina rast populacije je postao eksponencijalan i uveca se za isti procenat svake godine, a to je oko 1,9% godisnje. Iako se ne cini premnogo, to znaci da se broj stanovnika udvostruci svakih 40ak godina.

Stiven Hoking je napisao da ce, ako se ovaj trend rasta nastavi, negde oko 2600 godine, ljudi stajati rame uz rame, a da ce se Zemlja, usled obima potrosnje energije, sijati poput tela u stanju crvenog usijanja.

[Dunadan]

ne bih rekao da priroda regulise brojnost bas tako jednostavno. pogledaj samo u kojim delovima sveta je rast populacije najbrzi - upravo u najsiromasnijim.

da
ali, ti dobijash uvid samo u krajnji rezultat i brojnost bi sigurno bila veca da nema tih jadnih pokushaja prirode.

znas, meni se cini da su i prenaseljenost i zagadjenje i izumiranje vrsta, pa ako hoces i sva ova masovna ludila koja su zadesila covecanstvo u poslednjih stotinak godina, posledica iste stvari: potpunog gubitka ravnoteze.

jashta.
citat koji to najbolje govori je onaj iz Matrixa:
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

cini mi se da je ravnoteza na ovoj planeti bila veoma labilna i da sada prisustvujemo jednom potpuno ireverzibilnoj destrukciji...

pa kad je chovek u pitanju on nikad nije bio u ravnotezi sa prirodom (ili je bio mozda u praistoriji, kad je bio rasut u male populacije i ziveo po pecinama), osim sto je uspevao na razlicite nachine da se izbori sa ogranichenim kapacitetima sredine. i chak brojnost do neke razumne mere nije losha. jebi ga, najbolje prilagodjena vrsta u isto vreme definishe, menja i prilagodjava sebi zivotnu sredinu, a chovek jeste zivotinja dakle ne treba da chudi shto je sebi podredio sve ostale.
jedino shto smo, kako reche Elrond/Agent Smith, doterali cara do duvara.

[Herr]

Problem je eskalirao nema dovoljno nafte za napalm da se resi problem. Moracem da smislimo orange c, ali za ljudove. dobrodosli u 21 vek.

[TBoneSteak]

mislim da se siromasne zemlje sa visokim natalitetom nalaze u kontroverznoj situaciji.

koji su bili/jesu razlozi njihovog visokog nataliteta?

da li je to zbog nekoriscenja kontracepcije, pa su, u tom smislu, novorodjena deca u stvari bila nezeljena?

ili je to zbog potrebe da se proizvodi nova vrednost; u nedostatku kapitala, roba i trzisne privrede - stanovnistvo se okrece ka jedinom nacinu multipliciranja sopstvenog bogatstva za koji znaju i koji im je omogucen - radjanje dece jer vise dece znaci vise ruku za obradjivanje zemlje, bavljenje zanatima i rad u fabrikama?

bice interesantno posmatrati Kinu, Indiju, Brazil, Indoneziju i druge u buducnosti glede njihove populacije.
Njihove ekonomije su se zahuktale i nemaju nameru da se zaustave dok se ne uspostavi novi balans u svetu - prelivanje bogatstva iz razvijenih u nerazvijene zemlje. dakle, svaki Kinez ce definitivno posedovati auto i nece se stati dok se to ne ostvari.

po jednoj logici, ekonomski rast ce im doneti/omoguciti i visu stopu nataliteta jer visi standard znaci barem isti, ako ne i veci broj dece.

po drugoj, zaposlenost i trziste su najveci neprijatelji visokog nataliteta.
ekstra deca postaju ekonomski nepotrebna i skupa.
dakle, prosecni stanovnik nerazvijene zemlje je po prvi put u svom zivotu suocen sa izborom - kupiti auto, kucu, zapoceti biznis, biti zaposlen, ili - imati vise dece ali i nizi standard.

[Indy]

bice interesantno posmatrati Kinu, Indiju, Brazil, Indoneziju i druge u buducnosti glede njihove populacije.
Njihove ekonomije su se zahuktale i nemaju nameru da se zaustave dok se ne uspostavi novi balans u svetu - prelivanje bogatstva iz razvijenih u nerazvijene zemlje. dakle, svaki Kinez ce definitivno posedovati auto i nece se stati dok se to ne ostvari.

Planeta jednostavno nema resurse za to. Da bi svi ljudi na planeti danas imali zivotni standard ekvivalentan onome u USA (neko je izracunao) bile bi potrebne jos cele 2 planete zemlje (bez ljudi, samo resursi).

[cybersrk]

to ce sigurno biti veoma tuzno jer ce se ljudi tuci izmedju sebe bez ikakvog razumljivijeg razloga.

to ce, sigurno, biti veoma teshko vreme za pesnike, jer ce se izgubiti razumevanje za osecajno stvaralashtvo.

bice glad, bes i mrznja.

postoje dva nachina da se stvari promene:
- da chovechanstvo pochne da upotrebljava tehnologiju za dobrobit, racionalizaciju potroshnje i eksploatacije prirodnih resursa, kao i za skromniji zivot u svojoj sredini;
- snazan rascep izmedju onih koji imaju i onih koji nemaju, gde ce oni koji imaju sazdati nepremostive zidove i shtitove, da ih zebnja i bes neimashtine nikada ne dotakne.

da bi prvi scenario urodio plodom, bilo bi potrebno da lideri postanu ljudi koji ce imati saosecanja za svoje fellow human beings, a ne samo zle sklonosti da unovchuju njihove zebnje ili boli.

meni lichno izgleda nezamislivo da ce se takva garda lidera pojaviti.

Edited by cybersrk, 06 March 2005 - 14:39.

[cybersrk]

Otprilike "razvijeni svet" ce podici blokadu prema "nerazvijenom svetu". Evropa nece imati tih problema sa nedostatkom hrane ili vode, osim ako 2 milijarde izbeglica iz Afrike i Azije ne pohrli ovamo, sto ce biti spreceno izuzetno visokim prisustvom vojske na granicama.

drugim rechima,
takozvani razvijeni svet ce ozakoniti sebi prostor da bude fashistoidan,
a na osnovu bede i nesreca koje je sam prouzrokovao.

koja hipokrizija.

[Gojko & Stojko]

.

Edited by Gojko & Stojko, 07 March 2005 - 04:38.

[Gojko & Stojko]

Nesto sam slicno citao na temu propadanja neprilagodljivih (Maje, Uskrsnja ostrva) ranije, izgleda da je tek sad objavljeno u formi knjige:

Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed
By Tim Flannery
Reviewer
February 26, 2005

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, which explains why some human cultures developed agriculture and established cities while others did not, remained on The New York Times best-seller list for more than two years.

Diamond, one of the world's most eminent scientists, says it is not differences in human capacity but in the opportunities offered by various environments that made the difference. Collapse provides a perfect sequel to this work, for it examines the fate that may be in store for those societies over the next few decades. As he planned the book, Diamond at first thought that it would deal only with human impacts on the environment. Instead what has emerged is arguably the most incisive study of senescing human civilisations ever written.

Five factors guide Diamond's analysis: cumulative environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbours, friendly trade partners and society's response to all of these factors. As in his earlier works the role of the environment is central, but in Collapse Diamond has undertaken a broad-ranging and complex analysis that demands mastery of diverse disciplines - from ecology to climatology, sociology, politics and history.

Diamond is one of the few researchers anywhere who could pull off such a task, yet it would be nowhere near as powerful a work without his acute understanding of the human condition - particularly the motivations, limits of perception, methods of organisation and mental flexibility that are the common lot of humanity.

Diamond begins his analysis on familiar territory - the dairy farms of Montana where, as a student, he worked as a farm hand. He has known the landscape and people of this spectacular region for half a century, during which time it has seen a dramatic transformation. Foremost among the changes he chronicles is the reconquest of this once-wild West, for the fiercely independent Montanan pioneers have, in the absence of effective planning laws become the new peons of Californians and East Coasters who have built dude ranches, housing and industrial estates where they like in the region's fertile valleys.

High land prices have left many former ranchers landless, forcing them to become menial workers in the new estates. It's an outcome that has engendered considerable soul-searching, as well as some hostility. As Diamond puts it: "Montanans are beginning to realise that two of their most cherished values are in direct opposition: their pro-individual rights, anti-government regulation attitude and their pride in their quality of life." It is a key theme to which he returns again and again throughout the book.

The bulk of Collapse is taken up with an analysis of societies that have failed, including Easter Island, the Maya, and the Greenland Norse; and of societies such as the Tikopians, Tokugawa-era Japanese and Icelanders, which have survived against the odds. Diamond sees environmental conditions as a key factor in determining such outcomes but he never crosses the line into environmental determinism, showing instead that the way people react to environmental challenges is the ultimate decider in most circumstances.

The Greenland Norse provide an example of particular relevance to the contemporary world. Inhabitants of a new land which was very different from Scandinavia, they clung to a Christian, European lifestyle that ultimately doomed them to extinction. "It was out of the question to invest less in churches, to imitate or intermarry with the Inuit, and thereby face an eternity in hell in order to survive another winter on earth," Diamond says of the decisions that doomed them.

Diamond frames the Rwandan genocide as a contemporary example of a society in collapse. It was not, he argues, a simply racially motivated massacre, for it also occurred in areas where just one ethnic group (Hutu or Tutsi) was present. The real tension was over land. With median farm size declining from 0.36 hectares in 1988 to 0.29 hectares in 1992, and with inequality increasing, large sections of Rwandan society were driven to desperation in a classic Malthusian tragedy.

The final chapters of Collapse are devoted to the contemporary, developed world. The perilous state of the Australian environment gives Diamond reason to suspect that Australia may be the first developed state to collapse under environmental pressures. This may initially seem absurd to many Australian readers, but Diamond demonstrates convincingly that societies typically collapse when at the height of their dynamism and affluence, because that is precisely when resource demand is greatest.

One thing, however, is on Australia's side: its people are forging a new relationship with their land, in the process discarding cultural baggage such as sheep grazing that came from England and in the past was a source of great wealth. This Diamond sees as a great positive because "the values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs".

In the final chapter Diamond reflects on his own American society. Many of his friends make great sacrifices so that their children can attend the best (and most expensive) schools, yet they barely give a thought to the environment their children will mature. The situation has now become so dire, Diamond believes, that huge changes to our societies will probably occur within the next few decades. Yet he is a cautious optimist who sees in growing environmental awareness and new technology reason to hope that we can triumph over adversity.

Collapse will doubtless spawn many sceptics and nay-sayers, including the likes of the CEO of one American mining company who, Diamond notes, believes that "God will soon arrive on Earth, hence if we can just postpone land reclamation for another five or 10 years it will then be irrelevant anyway".

Yet the fact that one of the world's most original thinkers has chosen to write this mammoth work when his career is at its apogee is itself a persuasive argument that the book must be taken seriously. Collapse is probably the most important book you'll ever read.


Share & Enjoy

Edited by Gojko & Stojko, 07 March 2005 - 04:37.