Blogcritics Comments on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:17:12 EDT

When you use the path above for clubofrome.org you will need to do it manually. That is go to the homepage and then select archive, then select reports. If you try to enter the path into the navigation bar, as if it were a URL you will get a 404 error.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:08:28 EDT

It proves a social point - that the u.s. and other nations use unfairly large portions of the worlds resources. I'm not so sure I would agree that he's saying "unfair." Maybe that's my bias. I don't think it's so much unfair as I think it's scary that we won't just let the world alone and stop meddling with it. There's nothing wrong with leaving hunter-gatherers to be what they are or with leaving a population to be sustained at its natural level. What we do (not talking about Americans here, but about "civilized" people) is we go in and artificially raise the resources beyond any hope of what the local ecology can support. So, if I grow (by means of industrialized agriculture, which uses way more petroleum calories than what the food will eventually supply) and transport (more large petroleum usage) food to people who can only sustain themselves if I continue to supply them, then, what happens to them when I can't afford to supply them? You see, when Dave, for example suggested that we would never make biofuel at the expense of food, he was talking about our food. He easily forgets about their food. It's easy to forget that whatever the problems of peak oil they are not just our problems (but will become ours). Those who rely on us for food are one problem. Iran and North Korea need to plan for their energy needs too. That is another problem. There are countries I don't think I would trust to implement the same safety protocol with nuclear energy that America would in the stress of crisis. There is short version of The Limits to Growth located on The Club of Rome's website. Akismet reads the link as spam so I will just give a path: clubofrome.org/archive/reports (It's the first report in the list.) The Club of Rome is a global think tank and centre of innovation and initiative. As a non-profit, non govermental organisation (NGO), it brings together scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies. Quote from The Limits to Growth Short Version: "Is the future of the world system bound to be growth and then collapse into a dismal, depleted existence? Only if we make the initial assumption that our present way of doing things will not change. We have ample evidence of mankind's ingenuity and social flexibility. There are, of course, many likely changes in the system, some of which are already taking place."

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:25:33 EDT

LOL Ruvy! PETI, We have been feeding the 3rd world and wherever we can seeking to model them in our own image. When our dreams become their dreams and they become as powerful consumers of oil as we are, we have a problem. Because they are so poor it saves us. And thank you for your summary above. That is basically what Simmons is saying. He isn't making concrete predictions but raising concerns that we need to make changes or look what could happen. He was also giving examples to show how population grows exponentially not linearly as most people think. So, a population with an annual growth rate of about 3%, doubles in 23 years. Another easy error is you overlooked the year that Simmons work was published. So using the figures from the CIA Factbook we have a population growth rate of 3.28 in Saudi Arabia. Not the growth rate at year 2007 of 2.06%, nor a projected future growth rate of 1.95%. The UN figures for world population forecasts, for example, are lower than the figures on their previous study.

Comment by Ruvy on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:10:52 EDT

Cindy, PETI, I had to beg the Statistics professor to give me a 'D' instead of the 'F' I had so richly earned so that at long last I could graduate from college and take my BA home with me. Given that, I tend to stick with Mark Twain's old saw that there are three kinds of untruths - lies, damned lies and statistics. When the two of you start tossing numbers around like you are, I usually close my eyes or look the other way. But the idea that there might be 26 billion Arabs just 200 miles from where I live gets even me nervous.

Comment by pleasexcuetheinterruption on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:20:51 EDT

Yes sorry about the million/billion thing, don't worry I don't actually think Saudi Arabia has a higher population than China. Of course, he is up against Matthew Simmons, and no matter what one may think of his (Simmons's) politics and credentials (adviser to George Bush, Investment Banker in the industry, and THE SINGLE individual (insider) who illuminated the situation with the potential of the Saudi oil fields for the government of these United States), he is still not very likely to be what PETI holds him to be--some idiot whose numbers can be taken apart in a brief reading by any nincompoop. I don't actually think Mr. Simmons is trying to predict the population of China will be 2 billion, or the population of Saudi Arabia 45-80 million, or all the other nations he does the same thing for. And it's not my numbers that disagree with him - it's the UN's and every available source. He's not actually trying to predict what the population of China will be - he's not actually predicting what he is saying will happen. I agree he is a smarter man than that. He's simply proving a thesis that the earth will not sustain the last 50 years of population growth rates if 3rd world nations are going to start using as much oil per capita as the U.S. I don't think he thinks either are actually going to happen. It proves a social point - that the u.s. and other nations use unfairly large portions of the worlds resources. And it proves world population growth cannot continue so quickly. But according to the U.N. it won't.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:11:35 EDT

Ruvy, PETI made a simple mistake. He meant million and he wrote billion. He was probably tired. Perhaps someone should look at the numbers a bit more carefully.... If I were him I would have a look at at least the numbers as I am about to show him where his calculations, in total, went wrong. Of course, he is up against Matthew Simmons, and no matter what one may think of his (Simmons's) politics and credentials (adviser to George Bush, Investment Banker in the industry, and THE SINGLE individual (insider) who illuminated the situation with the potential of the Saudi oil fields for the government of these United States), he is still not very likely to be what PETI holds him to be--some idiot whose numbers can be taken apart in a brief reading by any nincompoop.

Comment by Clavos on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:50:12 EDT

Lin Yutang, Sharon Stone is as you probably know, merely an actress; a well paid, but unimportant job requiring little or no intelligence to perform. Miss Stone and most of her fellow actors in Hollywood are among the least intelligent people in the United States. Anything she says can be taken as inane and of no importance.

Comment by Ruvy on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 03:22:29 EDT

He assumes Saudi Arabia will have a population of 45-50 billion by 2030 (he even mentions 80 billion), when in 2008 the population was 26 billion, and the growth rate was 1.95% (CIA world factbook). Mathematically, if this continues the population would be only 40 billion, and the UN predicts it will be 37 billion (go to the UN website). I'm a better editor than I am a mathematician but Arabia with a population of 26 billion? Do Arab woman lay 1,000's of eggs that the population of Arabia should explode from the millions to the billions? Is that what those dewy eyed creatures advertised at arablounge.com really are - insects? Perhaps someone should look at the numbers a bit more carefully....

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 03:08:36 EDT

PETI I wish I had time to address your post tonight. But, it's too late. I have started reading some of your information though. I'm sorry you lost your detailed post.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:44:00 EDT

#1186 was addressed to dave

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:42:34 EDT

LOL, I'm sure since you have no idea what we're talking about, you'll be bound to have an opinion on it.

Comment by Lin Yutang on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:40:39 EDT

Ms Sharon Stone recently made a comment that the earthquake in China was their Karmic fate as they oppressed Tibetans. Ms Stone would be well advised to look into the history of her own country which is full of bloodshed from the napalming and carpet bombing of peasants of Vietnam to the killing of thousands women and children of Iraq. Stone is reminded of a proverb- People living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:31:27 EDT

Dave, This discussion of limits of growth is both pointless and bizarre. I imagine if you have no idea what the conversation is about [and you don't, again] that would be a reasonable estimation. Please figure it out on your own or ask Clav, at least he has some idea of the subject matter.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:18:01 EDT

Clav, By the way, you can read about Bjorn Lomborg here: The Skeptical Environmentalist: Accusations of Scientific Dishonesty

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:08:16 EDT

Clav, RE: 1164 For further clarification where noted see the Limits to Growth wikepedia entry Notably, several scientists and scholars have convincingly debunked the conclusions presented therein, specifically mentioning the scarcity of the data supporting them. These scientists, from respected institutions such as MIT, CalTech and Stanford, most certainly DID read the book AND analyzed and investigated the ideas presented. They concluded both in the 70s, after the first publication, and again in 2004, when the sequel was published, that the scholarship and reasoning were flawed, and in one opinion: "irresponsible nonsense."... I will challenge your assumption that Since then, few if any, scholars or experts place any credibility in the Club of Rome OR The Limits To Growth. in a later post. The one where I will show you that the same ideas that are in Limits to Growth are not only much discussed in scholarly circles, but they are becoming more frequently discussed in the media. "Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book 'a piece of irresponsible nonsense' in a Newsweek editorial dated March 13, 1972. Wallich's main complaints are that the book was published as a publicity stunt with great fanfare at the Smithsonian in Washington, and that there was insufficient evidence for many of the variables used in the model. According to Wallich, 'the quantitative content of the model comes from the authors' imagination, although they never reveal the equations that they used.' Considering that the detailed model and Meadows' et al justifications were not published until 1974 (two years after Limits to Growth) in the book Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World, Wallich's complaint about "the peculiar presentation of their work and by their unscientific procedures" had merit at the time. [wikepedia] The truly convincing evidence, however, is easily interpreted, even by someone with undeveloped critical analysis skills, such as yourself, by simply looking around you, BECAUSE NONE OF THEIR PREDICTIONS HAVE COME TRUE. The world did NOT run out of oil in 1992, as predicted. True or not true, Cindy? The Limits to Growth never stated that it would. If you read the Simmons piece I posted for you, you will see that it is basically a bit of misinformation passed along over years about what the book said. (associated with various years 1990s, 1992, 2000) see: Revisiting the Limits to Growth: What The Limits to Growth Actually Said: page 13 "Whether intended or not, the exponential index has often been interpreted as a prediction of the number of years until the world would "run out" of various resources, both by environmentalist groups calling for greater conservation and restrictions on use, and by skeptics criticizing the index when supplies failed to run out. For example, The Skeptical Environmentalist (page 121) states: "Limits to Growth showed us that we would have run out of oil before 1992." What Limits to Growth actually has is the above table, which has the current reserves (that is no new sources of oil are found) for oil running out in 1992 assuming constant exponential growth." [wikepedia] "...It should be noted...that the authors of the report [The Limits to Growth] accepted that the then-known resources of minerals and energy could, and would, grow in the future, and consumption growth rates could also decline." [wikepedia] I own The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, it doesn't read like science. It is not considered "science" by numerous apparently respected scientists. ...A nice thought, Cindy, and your faith in congressmen is touching.... You missed my point. What I intended was, since the ideas had worked up into the level of being presented to Congress, I felt that would lend credibility. In other words, if the ideas are truly crack pot ideas then why are some of the same ideas being discussed in scientific reports and presented to Congress? (By the way Ehlers one of the Congressmen in the caucus is a former nuclear physicist.) The argument you make is that the peak oil and limits to growth theories are in fact, true, and the "evidence" you present to prove your argument are the theories themselves. Ah, I see. I took for granted that you already accepted peak oil theory. Actually, I think I presented some informative links for whoever cared to to learn about the evidence. I did this because I usually imagine anyone who considers themselves versed enough to have an opinion about a subject would ipso facto be interested in learning about it even if the information conflicts with what they believe Also, because I don't have the time to make detailed explanations that have been made already in the info I presented--especially not for the likes of people who merely casually repudiate it (not on its own merit) but simply because it clangs against their own world view.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:25:01 EDT

This discussion of limits of growth is both pointless and bizarre. Claiming that capitalism is somehow defined by dependence on growth is a self-serving fiction which has no basis in truth. While expanding markets are good for growth, capitalism can function perfectly well in all sorts of other market conditions and certainly doesn't require growth to be a successful economic system. In fact, some of the strongest and most sustainable capitalist models are based on relatively stable markets. Making a big issue of growth only makes sense if you're trying to marginalize capitalism based on false criteria, presumably so you can push forward some other economic model. Hmmm. What could that be? Dave

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:54:29 EDT

Thank you PETI for providing your sources. I will indeed be interested in examining them. As, this is what keeps a debate from being nothing more than a mudslinging fest. As far as your time invested--I told you in my first reply to you that I did not have the time to spend educating you from the ground up. If you wanted to understand you'd have to educate yourself to the level of being able to discuss the topic. I used to make a painstaking argument. I found it's generally not worth my time on this forum. Most people who criticized simply had no qualms about credibility. Now, I don't mind letting people make the choice to do the work themselves or simply cast vacuous aspersion. The choice is theirs.

Comment by socrates on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:25:28 EDT

Dear Cindy, You have raised issues of great importance about the limits to growth. The best argument against capitalism with its obsession of growth, GDP and per capita figures is that unrestrained growth is not sustainable. Economic growth brings noise, pollution,traffic congestion, and degradation of fragile eco-systems.These costs were not factored in economics. The quality of life index which includes fresh air, clean drinking water, schools would be a better measure to fix whether growth is really helping us. Amartya Sen, the economist, led the way by advocating that quality of life should not be sacrificed in the empty pursuit of growth. The wide variety of choice paraded before the consumers is a pseudo one if the punitive costs are ignored.As Mishan puts it so well 'As the carpet of increased choice is being unrolled before us by the floor, it is simultaneously being rolled up behind us by the yard.' I have books in my personal library books which articulate the environmental concerns very well.The titles which come to my mind are- The Costs of Economic Growth by Ezra. J. Mishan, Growth Fetish by Clive Hamilton and of course Economics- a new introduction by Hugh Stretton. These books are the best antidote to the stagnating orthodoxy that more and more growth is beautiful.

Comment by pleasexcuetheinterruption on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:14:43 EDT

So if this is a pissing contest about who has cited more information, which is what you have made this into, then the four links you have provided are grossly insufficient.

Comment by pleasexcuetheinterruption on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:09:30 EDT

1080 no links, no citations, no references 1091 no links, no citations, no references 1104 no links, no citations, no references 1127 claim: "Every statistic I have cited comes from a credible source." no links, no citations, no references 1129 no links, no citations, no references 1132 no links, no citations, no references 1159 no links, no citations, no references 1171 noticed a reference, haven't actually had time to read this post. 1080: U.S. GDP: CIA world factbook U.S. historical national debt as percent of GDP NOT HIGHER than historical standards (current 65%, Truman: 75%, Ike 70%) -u.s. not bankrupt at all 1091: common sense, colander economics textbook 1104: 1. 61% used for transport: wiki energy page 2. Mazda mpg: Mazda website 3. Other hybrid: Toyota website 4. u.s. fleet mpg: wikipedia page on fuel efficiency 5. current coal reserves: wiki coal page 6. lifestyle changes: common sense 7. 80 to 100 billion increase in wind/solar investment: wiki energy page 8. current 80 mbpd: wiki energy page, Bartlett 9. future mbpd: wiki energy page, Bartlett 10. negative German population growth: CIA world factbook 11. U.S. near zero population growth w/o immigration: CIA world factbook 12. drop child/woman from over 5 to 2.62: wiki human population growth page 13. 2.5 dollars more tax per person in Huntington beach when price of oil doubles: your quote + math 14. U.S. coal reserves: wiki coal page 1127: every fact cited in this post comes from the Bartlett video which you should be well acquanted with as you were the one who posted it. 1129: logic and common sense 1132: The information in points 1-3 of 1132 comes directly from your Chefurka article and uses pure reason to demonstrate 3 logical fallacies. Point 4 is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of predicted oil production curves. Compare Chefurka's to Bartlett's. Points 5-6 require eyesight and logic. Point 7 requires familiarity with any oil curve prediction - they don't end at 0, they slowly decline, but never reach 0. 1159: The information in 1159 is directly from the Bartlett video, you should know. 1171: 1.REALISTIC earth carrying capacity for humans: Campbell Biology [already cited] 2. Shouldn't apply carrying capacity to humans: link provided 3. China population growth .2 bill not .7: UN website 4. Saudi Arabia population growth 10 bill, not 20-60 bill: UN website 5. births/woman currently and in 1950: wiki population growth page 6. Logical fallacies of Simmons' article: Simmons' article There you have it Cindy, a detailed catalogue of all my sources. If you think anything is incorrect, go to the source and read for yourself. Otherwise stop embarassing yourself by calling into question the vast quantities of information I have bothered to research and post instead of referring people to 20 page articles and half hour movies.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:44:28 EDT

And yet you ignore all of my posts (1080, 1091, 1104, 1127, 1129, 1132, 1159, 1171) containing factual information. Were the links I provided faulty? Was MLA not good enough for you? Would you prefer APA style citations? Chicago? (PETI) 1080 no links, no citations, no references 1091 no links, no citations, no references 1104 no links, no citations, no references 1127 claim: "Every statistic I have cited comes from a credible source." no links, no citations, no references 1129 no links, no citations, no references 1132 no links, no citations, no references 1159 no links, no citations, no references 1171 noticed a reference, haven't actually had time to read this post.

Comment by pleasexcuetheinterruption on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 21:11:42 EDT

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:17:49 EDT

Oh wait, I was hasty Clav. Perhaps I will address some points. Skimming what an awful thing to do. Give me a bit and I will reply.

Comment by Cindy D on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:13:40 EDT

Clav, I skimmed your post (but didn't bother reading it). It makes a lot of claims that as far as I know you dreamed up. Or, as far as I know, some other numskull dreamed up. Without references you could have gotten your arguments from any source at all. Saying something doesn't make it so. I also have no faith in your ability to discern fact from hearsay. So, I won't waste my time unless you quit addressing what you think of me and my ideas and debate the information with references. End of story.

Comment by pleasexcuetheinterruption on Chalmers Johnson's Blowback - The Costs and Consequences of American Empire: Is America in Decline?

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:12:45 EDT

Because there is no contrary evidence that I find for limits to growth, quite the contrary. There are only people doing what you are doing. Not reading something and then simply dismissing and ridiculing it because they don't like what they think it says. If you have any evidence, whatsoever, I would love some. No one is disputing that there are limits to growth. There are obviously limits to growth in a finite space with finite resources (at least until we can inhabit other planets). What I am disputing are the actual estimates of the Simmons article and the other article ("the one with pictures"). Without even reading them (I have read both in detail), I know that they are not accepted by most experts. A quick check confirmed what I already knew, that some estimates of earth's carrying capacity for humans are as high as 1 trillion, and the average is 15 billion (over twice the current population and almost 15 times bigger than the "article with pictures" claims). [Campbell, Neil A. and Jane B. Reece, Biology. 7th ed. San Francisco: Pearson, 2005.] Others, as I previously said, outright deny the application of carrying capacity to an organism that can alter its environment. As it is, I did read the Simmons and "article with pictures." They both make faulty assumptions about population growth. Simmons says the population of China will grow .7 billion by 2030, most estimates say it will only grow .2 billion by 2050. He is off by over 300%. He assumes Saudi Arabia will have a population of 45-50 billion by 2030 (he even mentions 80 billion), when in 2008 the population was 26 billion, and the growth rate was 1.95% (CIA world factbook). Mathematically, if this continues the population would be only 40 billion, and the UN predicts it will be 37 billion (go to the UN website). Wrong again Mr. Simmons. Then he assumes the "50, possibly 80 billion people of Saudi Arabia" adopt an energy consumption per capita the same as the U.S. What basis is there for this assumption? He then uses this to justify Saudi Arabia's energy consumption to increase from 2.1 million BOE/day, to "over 12 million" by 2030. Not going to happen. No where in his analysis does he mention the fact that the worldwide number of births per woman has dropped from 5.02 to 2.65 from 1950, to 2005. If we adopt a simplistic projection of the status quo rate of change in births/woman [which is what Simmons does], then in 30 years the number of births/woman will be less than 2 and we will have negative population growth (rapid negative population growth if you account for mortality rates). Again, all Simmons has done is take last century's population growth and extrapolated it to the future (which is why he gets absurd numbers like 2 billion for the population of China) and assumed that all the poor counties (and 4 billion inhabitants) in the world adopt lifestyles similar to the U.S. Both are not going to happen. What are you just plain intellectually lazy? You can't read the book, you can't even read a short bit of informed discussion about the book, yet you can have an opinion about it? So I have read the book, and shown all the flawed assumptions. You are a waste of time. Believe whatever it is that you like, dear. I know it's anoying when people actually read your ludicrous sources and go through all their flawed assumptions? You can't keep going around citing them authoritativily anymore.