19 Dec: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh: [3] EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint?

* Jason Brent, Paul Murtaugh, Paul Chefurka, Global Footprint Network, Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, Dr. Herman Daly, Steady State Economy, Int Soc for Ecological Economics, Anne Aitken, Center for Sustainable Economy, Alessandro Galli, Melissa Fondakowski
* 19 Dec: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh: [3] EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint?.
» 19 Dec: J Brent Re: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh: [3] EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint?.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: EoP v Jason Brent, EoP v Nobel / EoP NWO SCO: EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP  Academia, EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity / SQSwan / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: EoP MILED Clerk <eop.miled.clerk@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM
Subject: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh: [3] EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint?.
To: Jason Brent <jbrent6179@aol.com>
Cc: Paul Murtaugh <murtaugp@science.oregonstate.edu>, Paul Chefurka <paul.chefurka@gmail.com>, “Dr. Mathis Wackernagel” <mathis@footprintnetwork.org>, “Dr. Herman Daly via Steady State Economy” <info@steadystate.org>, “Int Soc for Ecological Economics: Secretariat Dir Anne Aitken” <secretariat@isecoeco.org>, “Center for Sustainable Economy: Office” <info@sustainable-economy.org>, “Snr Scientist: Alessandro Galli” <Alessandro.galli@footprintnetwork.org>, “A. Galli” <alessandro@footprintnetwork.org>, Melissa Fondakowski <melissa.fondakowski@footprintnetwork.org>

TO: Jason Brent
CC: Paul Chefurka, Global Footprint Network, Paul Murtaugh.

Jason Brent (jbrent6179@aol.com)

Paul Murtaugh, Paul Chefurka & Global Footprint Network Standards Committee:
Paul Murtaugh (murtaugp@science.oregonstate.edu); Paul Chefurka (paul.chefurka@gmail.com); Dr. Mathis Wackernagel (mathis@footprintnetwork.org); Dr. Herman Daly via Steady State Economy (info@steadystate.org); Int Soc for Ecological Economics: Secretariat Dir Anne Aitken (secretariat@isecoeco.org); Center for Sustainable Economy: Office (info@sustainable-economy.org); Snr Scientist: Alessandro Galli (Alessandro.galli@footprintnetwork.org); A. Galli (alessandro@footprintnetwork.org); Melissa Fondakowski (melissa.fondakowski@footprintnetwork.org)
Ref: Murtaugh: Every Child Increases EcoFootprint by a Factor of 20 – Oregon Univ Study; [SQ Copy]; EoP v Nobel [eop-v-nobel.tygae.org.za]

Mr. Brent

[3] EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh: What is Sustainable Footprint?.

EoP response to: 13 Dec: [2] EoP Re: Jason Brent: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization; with Pts 24 & 34 including reference to Chefurka: What is a sustainable population level [archive.is/HXIBC] and Thermodynamic Footprint [archive.is/JeJiK].

As noted, I have included the full discussion on each paragraph point in question; to your original article: 08 Dec: Jason Brent: thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization.

**

JB: 11) It is an absolute certainty that voluntary control has some chance of failure to reduce population growth to zero and/or make population growth negative in time to prevent the collapse of civilization. No one can guarantee with absolute certainty that voluntary population control will prevent the collapse of civilization.

LJ: I imagine its an absolute certainty that voluntary control has almost no chance of success to reduce population growth.

JB: you are probably correct that thart voluntary control has 100% chance of failure

LJ: I have not read any evidence indicating that voluntary population or consumption control can work. If someone can prove that it can, then obviously it can be practiced, but I am unaware of such information.

According to my interpretation of Garrett Harding: Tragedy of Commons: As soon as one person decides to cheat and breaks the voluntary agreement; and there is no ‘commons breeding/consumption cheater’ consequences requiring the cheater to return to procreation/consumption carrying capacity limits, that sets in motion the cheaters ratrace for access to procreation/consumption capital; to protect their family, tribe, race, nation from other groups engaged in breeding/consumption resource cheating.

**

JB: 14) To determine the chance of failure of voluntary control will require an examination of all the major problems facing humanity today that could alone or in combination cause the collapse of civilization. That will take a number of years and require an expenditure of a great amount of money and time.

LJ: I imagine determining the almost certain failure of voluntary population control to reduce population; is not too difficult, based upon basic Tragedy of the Commons principles and other related principles enunciated by Garrett Hardin. As for an examination of the major problems facing humanity that could cause ecological/economic collapse, there is plenty of research that has been done, that proves that impending ecological/economic collapse reality, the only question is a matter of when, not if.

JB: You are correct the problem is not “if” but when.

LJ: Agreed. I’d say ecological/economic collapse has already begun, the question is can we find sufficient military / legal / religious / political ‘III percenter’ support in the ‘1%’ elite; to implement EoP Scientific and Cultural Law as international law, to enable orderly and humane de-industrialization and depopulation; before the collapse chaos makes implementing it impossible. I imagine: If there is sufficient support in the 1% elite; then I don’t see why it would not be as easy, if not easier to globally implement than China implementing their one child policy.

**

JB: 23) Every human right, except the right to produce an excess number of children, is in some manner controlled by society when the exercise of that right harms someone else. You may swing your arm, but you may not swing it so that it hit someone in the face. You have the right of free speech, but you may not yell fire in a crowded theater, unless there is fire. I challenge anyone to describe any other human right that is not CONTROLLED by society, when the exercise of that right harms someone else.

LJ: Partially agree, it is not simply procreation in violation of carrying capacity limits, that is not regulated; but consumption and production in violation of carrying capacity limits; except for socialist countries; who make an effort to regulate consumption, not at the source of the tap, but with mops to clean up the overflowing sink, by heavy taxation.

GB: You are correct

**

JB: 24) No one has presented and no one can present a logical argument why the right of producing an excess number of children should not be controlled by society. Producing an excess number of children (more than one or two children) is the most harmful act a human can perform as an ever growing population MUST lead to the collapse of civilization and the deaths of billions. Every nation on the planet has laws that attempt to prevent murder and punish it if it occurs. No nation on the planet relies on the voluntary action of the population to refrain from murder. There isn’t any reason why humanity should rely on the voluntary action of humanity to refrain from producing excess children, when such excess production must result in the deaths of billions and even the extinction of the human species

LJ: Agreed a global one child or less law is required to enable quick orderly and humane depopulation; until the planetary maximum goal of 500,000 is reached, then it can be changed to replacement level.

JB: Are you saying 500 thousand or 500 million. If 500 thousand, I believe the planet can support more than that very low number. I would guess that the planet could support between 200-250 million.

LJ: My working hypothesis is that a preliminary goal of reduction to a specific number should be set – for example: 10 million, 200 million or 1 billion. As the legal enforcement of EoP breeding/consumption international law occurs; more research will be done on carrying capacity footprint limits for the different eco-regions; as part of the legal process. Each eco-region’s footprint will determine the size of individuals in that eco-regions property ration [property-ration.tygae.org.za]. For example: All nations or a group of regional nations will have a Consumption Footprint database, and there shall be an international consumption global footprint database. The national footprint database will include consumption footprint info for all the eco-regions in that nation. So, for example: Tom is accused by his neighbour of overconsumption in Buffalo NY Footprint court. Tom provides the court with his consumption data; a Footprint police investigator checks it for accuracy. The clerk of the court sends Tom’s consumption data for the eco-region he lives in to National Footprint Database to determine his consumption guilt or innocence. Tom is found negligent or intentional guilty: if negligent Tom provides the clerk with his negligent consumption written apology and goes to a consumption footprint course to learn to lower his consumption footprint; or Tom disputes the Footprint DB decision and goes to court, providing evidence that his eco-region should have higher or lower consumption footprint. If intentional guilty; Tom is given allowed to remove his gene’s by means of his preferred assisted suicide preference. Any Footprint DB scientists found guilty of intentional including inaccurate footprint conclusions, or citizen found guilty of engaging in irregular methods to alter footprint database statistics, shall be accused of consumption footprint cheating; and have the same death penalty as suggested by you to individuals engaged in breeding cheating, or hiding breeding cheating.

I don’t know what the initial ‘sustainable population number’ should be.

Paul Chefurka has a good Footprint summary conclusion at: What is a sustainable population level [archive.is/HXIBC], which includes: The Ecological Footprint Assessment, The Fossil Fuel Assessment, The Population Density Assessment  Dr Charles Folwers Ecological Assessments, which he summarizes as: “The Ecological Footprint doesn’t really seem intended as a measure of sustainability.  Its main value is to give people with no exposure to ecology some sense that we are indeed over-exploiting our planet.  (It also has the psychological advantage of feeling achievable with just a little work.)  As a measure of sustainability, it is not helpful. As I said above, the number suggested by the Thermodynamic Footprint [archive.is/JeJiK] or Fossil Fuel analysis isn’t very helpful either – even a population of one billion people without fossil fuels had already gone into overshoot. That leaves us with four estimates: two at 35 million, one of 10 million, and one of 7 million. The central number of 35 million people is confirmed by two analyses using different data and assumptions.  My conclusion is that this is probably the absolutely largest human population that could be considered sustainable.  The realistic but similarly unachievable number is probably more in line with the bottom two estimates, somewhere below 10 million.

**

JB: 25) No one has shown and no one can show why having a discussion, analysis, evaluation, debate and  consideration of coercive population control and a comparison of every aspect of coercive population compared with voluntary population control would be more harmful to humanity than not having such a discussion.

LJ: Agreed a discussion is needed soon, and more important than the discussion, action to implement population control and global one child law for orderly and humane depopulation should be acted upon asap.

JB: You are correct.

LJ: I imagine that (a) once the specific details of the coercive legal population/consumption plan are clear; preferably clear enough for laypersons to easily comprehend, to avoid a new ‘footprint breeding/consumption innocence for sale legal priesthood’ developing; then (b) the discussion shifts – for those willing to cooperate to implement population/consumption control – to: what are the options with the greatest leverage opportunities for successful implementation of population/consumption control as international law?

**

JB: 27) While the problems of coercive control are vast and terrifying, those problems are nothing compared to the problem of the possible extinction of humanity due to wars with weapons of mass destruction over the lack of resources necessary to support the population.

LJ: Im not sure what problems of coercive control are vast and terrifying. I would totally agree that the problems of avoiding coercive population control are indeed very vast and terrifying.

JB: Reducing the population would cause dramatic social and economic problems until everything were modified to conform to the new  very low population level

LJ: I imagine different factors would contribute to the process occurring reasonably orderly and humanely and cooperatively vs chaotically and violently. Probably the biggest factors would be: (a) simplicity and impartiality of message: i.e. procreation and consumption austerity that would impartially be applied to all citizens; and such message is clearly and concisely conveyed by media and media experts; encouraging citizens to cooperate; or (b) confusing message with lack of clarity, and/or implications that some racial or religious or gender groups will be excluded from the procreation/consumption control laws, and media and media experts engaged in deliberate encouragement to obstruct its implementation.

For example: Have you watched the documentary How Cuba Survived Peak Oil?. The Cuban elite cooperated and encouraged their respective racial, religious and ideological followers to cooperate with consumption rationing. Similarly to the extent that planetary elite cooperate to ask their followers to cooperate, the process will be orderly. To the extent that military and law enforcement allow elite’s to get away with encouraging their followers to cheat; will encourage others to cheat and the system to collapse.

Initially cooperating legal, military or political officials could implement a temporary legal and military national security emergency; that would provide them with military and legal means to quickly apprehend cheating leaders advocating cheating and make examples of them to discourage other leaders for thinking about cheating or encouraging cheating. Once the reasonable elite are clear that the process is going to be fair and impartial; they will cooperate.

**

JB: 34) While coercive population control has monumental problems, the problems of attempting to reduce excessive consumption in the industrialized nations would far exceed those of coercive population control. The important questions become, with the population expected to reach 11.2 billion in the year 2100 and still be growing after 2100, with almost all the growth in nations that cannot be considered industrialized, how much would reducing the excessive use of resources in the industrialized nations benefit the rest of humanity, and how much would reducing the excessive use of resources by the industrialized nations go toward preventing the collapse of civilization?

LJ: Coercive population control is not as monumental as being implied. While coercive consumption control would initially be more problematic, once it is simply explained and legally legislated to require consumption control, citizens could act as guardians of consumption control, and even citizen prosecutors of population and consumption control.

JB: we could have a very long face to face talk on this paragraph.

LJ: Not sure how we can have a face to face talk on different continents. However, written is okay. Preliminary thoughts on implementing coercive consumption control as stated in above response at 24.

**

JB: In reality we are in agreement. I wanted my essay to be the first step–START DISCUSSION. Your point is that it is too late for discussion and that we must have action today to bring the population down. And you are correct. Jason

LJ: Agreed about importance of starting discussion. Without discussion clarify a good strategy and at least some tactical options for acting on such strategy; action is too soon. Sorry if I was interpreted as saying it is too late for discussion. Sincere constructive evidence based discussion about the accuracy or possible errors of any Strategic and tactical working hypotheses principle should always be considered; whether actions on such strategy or tactical have begun or not. Sometimes action needs to wait for certain strategic or tactical options to be sufficiently finalized; and sometimes action and discussion can occur together, and action can help to correct errors in the strategy or tactics to achieve the strategic goal. So, I imagine both our hypothesis about discussion and action could be correct, depending on the circumstance.

Thanks for your responses. Lara

.

From: <jbrent6179@aol.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: J Brent, CC: GFN, Chefurka & Murtaugh: [3] EoP Re: Thoughts on Coming Destruction of Civilization: #24 & 34: What is Sustainable Footprint?.
To: eop.miled.clerk@gmail.com
Cc: murtaugp@science.oregonstate.edu, paul.chefurka@gmail.com, mathis@footprintnetwork.org, info@steadystate.org, secretariat@isecoeco.org, info@sustainable-economy.org, Alessandro.galli@footprintnetwork.org, alessandro@footprintnetwork.org, melissa.fondakowski@footprintnetwork.org
Attachment: BrentJ_ThoughtsComingDestructionCivilization.pdf

Each of you should find the attached document very interesting. You are urged to read it (about 6 1/2 pages long) and then attack the concepts set forth in it. Jason

.