He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.

Observa, I’d be interested in how Ian Plimer explains how the increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm is definitely due to these “little-understood geological phenomena” and how the very considerable emissions in recent times from fossil fuels, from land use changes (deforestation) and from agriculture are absorbed or vanish. He’s saying that only 0.38ppm of the 380 is due to human activity!

Other than that, much of what he says is unremarkable.

Dom, much as some people may be interested in a discussion of alternative societal forms based on different values and production systems, I suspect it is unlikely to break out on this thread. It probably requires setting up in a separate post.

I guess you’re not thinking of the many alternative lifestyle communes established in the late 60s and 70s, of which Nimbin is the most famous Australian example. (More sites here and here.)

Possibly you’d be interested in the permaculture concept, which you can learn about at a price.

I don’t mean to be simplistic about the consumption thing and I am not anti-technology (per se). But, in my view, technology needs to be carefully guided by conscience and eco-awareness.

You can’t stop progress – that is human nature and it is what makes life interesting. However, you can revisit what you define as progress. The industrial revolution (intro of steam-engine, etc.) precipitated a quantum shift in productivity. It coincided with economic models such as those of Adam Smith, the empire-building of the West and a major departure from religious ideals (facilitated by alternatives to creation as origin theories – e.g. Darwinism).

Trade and commerce have always been around and always will be in human society. However, the scale which the industrial revolution enabled was exponential. Religious leaders – formerly providing the basis of society’s moral codes – lost their credibility and influence over nation’s laws (with the exception of some unstable, fundamentalist states). Governments are now driven by corporate agendas – which are typically wealth accumulation for shareholders without much consideration of conscience or collective wellbeing.

We’re pretty much talking about the seven things which Gandhi said would destroy us:-
- Wealth Without Work
- Pleasure Without Conscience
- Knowledge Without Character
- Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
- Science Without Humanity
- Religion Without Sacrifice
- Politics Without Principle

The effects (which are clearly accelerating) are only now becoming obvious:-
- imbalances between developed countries whose consumption often perpetuates the poverty of others
- increasing instability of the eco-system
- potential Pandora’s box in terms of genetic experimentation – and shocking practices such as farming embryos (only tolerable on account of the gradual desensitising and secularisation of society)
- etc.

Will nature restore homeostasis through her own interventions – plagues, environmentally-cataclysmic events (e.g. New Orleans), etc? Or will humans either revise their current trajectory or, as Jared Diamond warns in his book “Collapse”, will the human race fundamentally undermine the sustainability
of its ecosystem and, like many societies in the past, eventually succumb (and perhaps take many, if not all, species with them)?

I joined this forum because I’m interested in dialogue. I have some strong views but I’m also open to influence. Humans could immediately make significant reductions in carbon outputs just by governments’ deciding that only green cars can be manufactured. Of course, this still requires production of metal and plastic. But what if we returned to a situation where more people were involved in primary living skills – e.g. producing something essential to their sustenance (like food) rather than trading their time for a meagre wage from a wealth-driven “industrialist” and then going to the food factory (supermarket)? Much of what is produced (and, in turn, produces ecological imbalance) is not essential to people’s sustenance. And, for many hundreds of years, humans lived full lives without jeopardising their ecosystem. There has always been travel and transport and manufacture. We’re now aware that carbon-fuelled methods produce threatening consequences. So why not provide a deadline for the full adoption of alternative technologies or revert to previous (non-harmful) ones? And, just because carbon-fuelled forms of transport has enabled people to live far from their work, or do business with people great distances away or live far from other family members doesn’t mean that we can’t revisit such practices if it turns out that there’s no safe way to keep doing them.

Too radical? Like I said, I don’t expect too many people to joyfully embrace what I’m saying. In the same way, many cures for potentially terminal diseases are radical and, perhaps, a little unappealing. However, if we want to go on living….?

I have a vision of providing a holistic and functional societal model – albeit small scale – based on sustainable, ecoistic principles. I have served as a community leader on big acreage in the past. I have also spent time living a pre-industrial lifestyle – my uncle’s farm in Wales. I currently work in the field of organisational-design, etc. I will find a way to make this happen. I don’t expect to convince many people of my views. I will convince more people if they can SEE a working, viable and appealing alternative – i.e. “Be the change you wish to see.” Quality of life is not about STUFF, it is very much about the matching of VALUES with living. When our values and behaviours are misaligned with nature then there are consequences. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, in his book “Flow”, has outlined the correlation between pre-industrial living and higher incidences of happiness.

Let’s have some debate. If you prefer not, then I’ll happily bow out.

That said, you might be interested in CERES in Brunswick, a suburb of Melbourne.

Excess carbon is purely a symptom of “the disease”. There is a cause and effect chain that has its roots (IMHO) in the values of consumption. To me, it’s those values that are “the genie” – not the carbon. What if there was a way where people can get what they want and need out of life without risking the ecosystem?

There would be immense value in finding a way to redesign communities of people who can operate in an eco-friendly way – pre-industrialised farming techniques based on current knowledge of nature and technologies, green-manufacturing, etc. I’m relatively new to Australia and still in the process of building local networks. But this is a project that I will have a go at – one way or another. Setting up a charity for the perpetuation of primary living techniques, getting some land and designing and running a functioning community along with a visitor centre to facilitate people making radically different choices about their interaction with the ecosystem.

Who else should I be engaging with?

My last comment and your first were cross-posted.

You seem to be having a few problems with names-:)

I’ve taken the liberty of correcting Catbonsink in the name attribution of your first post.

Also Mark hasn’t commented on this thread yet. I’m the good looking one, albeit without a gravatar just yet.

For further reading try: Peak Energy, The Oil Drum and Energy Bulletin. Warning: the last two are inhabited by hard core peak oil “doomers”