You're contradicting yourself. The fact that "ecological footprint has to rise further" shows that "per capita usage" is not static.

This is completely nonsequitur. Ecological footprint is not to be conflated with per capita usage.

This is completely nonsequitur. Ecological footprint is not to be conflated with per capita usage.

Now, you're more confused than ever. YOU also saw ecological footprint in light of per capita usage, remember? I quote:

 

The point is that you need to adjust your reasoning on this topic so as to acknowledge that per capita usage is not static. Implicit in your current position is the assumption that we will never find efficiencies or alternatives, which is quite clearly untrue.

But I did argue that "per capita usage is not static." I wrote:

 

To make matters worse, if lower birth rates will require more prosperity, then that means the ave. ecological footprint has to rise further, even as biocapacity drops.

Not only does this show that "per capita usage is not static" but that "efficiences or alternatives" will also be used by the same.

 

And then there's increasing population, environmental damage, global warming:

 

And that population will still rise, which means biocapacity per capita will decrease further. Add to that the effects of environmental damage and global warming.

It has actually been found the population growth rate has been slowing, possibly even to reverse within our lifetimes.

 

Culturally a finite population poses issues, but ecologically it is easier to deal with. We still stand a good chance of reaching for the worst polluting forms of energy now mind you, but carrying capacity should be less of a threat.

Ralfy - Not sure where the miscommunication is.

 

Just to be sure folks are clear on my point, I'm suggesting that 1) we need to include HOW we use resources in our thinking, that 2) conclusions rooted in assumptions from today in the present will often break down since efficiencies and new approaches generally become available in the future, and that 3) capacity strikes me almost as a non-issue given technological advances already taking place.

 

Is that clear? Do we agree then? Any areas where you think differently?

Ralfy - Not sure where the miscommunication is.

 

Just to be sure folks are clear on my point, I'm suggesting that 1) we need to include HOW we use resources in our thinking,

That was included in my argument. That's why I mentioned that resource consumption per capita has been rising.

 

that 2) conclusions rooted in assumptions from today in the present will often break down since efficiencies and new approaches generally become available in the future,

This was also included in my argument. That's why resource consumption per capita has been rising.

 

and that 3) capacity strikes me almost as a non-issue given technological advances already taking place.

Obviously not, as bio-capacity is finite and driven by physical limitations. That's why you have peak oil.

 

Is that clear? Do we agree then? Any areas where you think differently?

Biocapacity cannot be increased infinitely. That is painfully obvious. Given that, I have no idea where you got the absurd idea that capacity is a non-issue.

It has actually been found the population growth rate has been slowing, possibly even to reverse within our lifetimes.

 

Culturally a finite population poses issues, but ecologically it is easier to deal with. We still stand a good chance of reaching for the worst polluting forms of energy now mind you, but carrying capacity should be less of a threat.

We have to find out the basis of the lower growth rate. If it is due to prosperity, then that negates any savings in resource consumption due to lower growth rate.

 

Also, pollution coupled with global warming threatens bio-capacity.

Okay. At this point it feels like you are intentionally perpetuating a disagreement that simply isn't there. Have fun playing in your sandbox by yourself.

Okay. At this point it feels like you are intentionally perpetuating a disagreement that simply isn't there. Have fun playing in your sandbox by yourself.

 

It's the other way round: you addressed none of my counterpoints.

 

Apparently, the "miscommunication" involved you reading my first post incorrectly.