Willits, California

[sarongsong]

"...the Willits Economics Localization (WELL) project. It appears to be one of the first civic groups in the United States dedicated to preparing for the coming energy crisis..." Metroactive News (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/08.10.05/willits-0532.html)

[paulie jay]

Whatchootalkin'bout Willits...? 8)

[sarongsong]

Ha, ha---the Willits area in Mendocino County is part of 'California's Gold' (http://www.calgold.com/roadtrip/Default.asp?Series=100&Show=643)---nearby (in Hopland), Real Goods (http://www.realgoods.com/) is a leading proponent and supplier of off-the-electrical-grid gear, a major theme of Willits' WELL project.

[TriangleMan]

I found the article interesting sarongsong. Here in Bermuda 'sustainable development' is becoming a big issue, including discussions of long-term plans to reduce energy use and move to alternatives such as solar. Right now the power plant burns oil to produce electricity and many feel that the country needs to slowly move away from that, especially since one oil tanker cutting open on a reef would be an environmental nightmare.

As populations grow and resources start to get stretched more cities and countries need to prepare long-term sustainable development plans.

[publiusr]

Sustainable

i.e Unabomber shacks

[mike alexander]

publiusr wrote:

Sustainable

i.e Unabomber shacks

Would using a term such as 'steady state' or 'equilibrium system' work any better for you?

[Van Rijn]

publiusr wrote:

Sustainable

i.e Unabomber shacks

Would using a term such as 'steady state' or 'equilibrium system' work any better for you?

Cardboard shacks :)

Seriously, if you want to talk about ultimate reasonable population limits, that's one thing, but Club of Rome style "Limits of Growth" collapse arguments make little sense.

[Maha Vailo]

Seriously, if you want to talk about ultimate reasonable population limits, that's one thing, but Club of Rome style "Limits of Growth" collapse arguments make little sense.

Tell me more. Why do "population collapse" arguments make little sense, and what does it have to do with sustainable/steady-state technology?

- Maha "shack attack" Vailo

[Van Rijn]

Seriously, if you want to talk about ultimate reasonable population limits, that's one thing, but Club of Rome style "Limits of Growth" collapse arguments make little sense.

Tell me more. Why do "population collapse" arguments make little sense, and what does it have to do with sustainable/steady-state technology?

- Maha "shack attack" Vailo

I was referring to collapse arguments in general, not population. The story in the OP of this thread is based on one of those collapse scenarios - the old oil collapse/energy crisis idea. It ignores economics, technology, and available energy sources.

Back in the '70s, the Club of Rome developed an extremely simple world model and wrote about it in a book called "The Limits To Growth." They ignored technological advancement, they made incorrect assumptions about available resources, they didn't factor economics into the model or how people would react socially to different conditions. What they came up with were exponential growth curves that later collapsed. Their conclusion was that if we didn't hold the world to the economic levels of around 1980-1990, the world was doomed.

If they were right, it meant that most of the world would either have to remain in abject poverty, or that wealthier countries would have to become much poorer. And there would be massive government controls worldwide to keep everyone in line.

Many people demonstrated where their arguments were in error, but "Limits to Growth" was quite a popular idea for some years. And, apparently, they have written a new book, but have said pretty much the same thing.

Obviously, there are ultimate limits to what population the world can handle. And, I have no problem with moving to alternatives to oil - I've been a big proponent of nuclear power for a long time, and want to see research and improvement in PV solar, etc. But we are far from the point where we should be talking about a "steady state" economy. The world - the entire world - needs to become much wealthier. Wealthier people tend not to have as many children. Only wealth will let us get a handle on world environmental issues. And the ultimate available resources are so large, it is silly to be talking about a "sustainable" (usually defined as "living poorer") economy at this time.