by Jay Hanson
From a moral standpoint, I object to anything that reduces energy consumption. Until there is official recognition by governments and the public at large of the physical limits of growth, anything that reduces energy consumption (increasing prices, carpooling, conservation, recycling, etc.), will ultimately result in a larger population, consuming an ever larger amount of resources, which will ultimately result in a greater amount of human suffering and death.
Today’s political and business leadership hasn’t yet discovered that planet Earth is a sphere, and thus, physically limited. Given today’s moronic political and business leadership, the only moral choice is to consume our limited store of non-renewable energy resources as quickly and inefficiently as possible. Any other philosophy merely creates an ever greater tragedy of the commons.
The more humanity exceeds carrying capacity (consumption and population), the more it damages our life-support system, and the more it PERMANENTLY reduces carrying capacity after the crash. It’s called “range compression”. See SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING: Resource Load Carrying Capacity and K-phase Technology, by Peter Hartley (1993), This is from FOCUS, Vol. 4, No. 2. ; archived at http://dieoff.com/page74.htm
When the spherical nature of planet Earth is recognized by governments and the public as a whole, and this recognition is followed up with realistic public policy limiting growth — in all its aspects including limits on births — then I will support reduced energy consumption.
See Elliott’s full paper at http://dieoff.com/page121.htm
Jay — www.dieoff.com or www.dieoff.org