Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: World Headquarters of the Universal Post-Atheist Church

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PlaidTheImpaler

1
I don't think it's safe to assume there are always substitutes, plaid. Phosphorus is pretty important in living systems for one example and for that matter, so is fixed nitrogen.

Is phosphorus used up or completely removed from any future access or usability?  If not, we're not at risk of losing the resource or needing a replacement.


kind of.

Here's an interesting overview from 2013. It reviews the phosphorus cycle, the amount of rock phosphorus on earth, the current scarcity or fragility of mined phosphorus in terms of political stability and ease of extraction, the problem of eutrophication of oceans due to agricultural runoff from river mouths, efforts to reduce the use of phosphorus including GM plants and pigs, other sources of phosphorus, and more efficiency in the use of manure/urine and so on:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/

TL/DR: We won't run out, but it will get more costly to acquire, and we need to recycle it as opposed to destroying the oceans with it.

Which is basically my point.
As costs change, selection, acquisition, use, and disposal all change.  At the theoretical limit point (never yet reached for any resource), we run out, we can't recycle, and we die.
Near that point, but far enough from it that we survive,, we recycle and keep recycling.  And then thermodynamics kick in and we die.  These things have not happened, nor are there reasons, as opposed to fantasies and word-games, to believe they will.
We've never yet run out of anything, anything at all, for which there were no substitutes in some meaningful sense.  There are no plausible reasons (other than fear of change or a belief we're at a quality-of-life, a wealth, peak we cannot surpass) to suppose that this isn't going to continue.
nonlinearity is a bitch and it always surprises us. You seem to be switching your scales based on convenience to some degree. Sure, some small band of humans may survive a monumental environmental state-flip. But the flaw - and it is a flaw - in your thinking is that the sink into which we externalize remains a constant. It doesn't. It is demonstrably shrinking. And that's where your anti-malthusian argument is getting its juice. Systems are complicated. There is no simple "Big Button" concept that grants us the ability to manage systemic change (See Holling, 1972) . Your argument boils down to the inductivist turkey and is not safe to within actual data parameters. Global warming is a good example of that. It is possible that we could cook ourselves in a hundred years. It is also possible that some regulatory function in the Gaia system will prevent that. There is actually and literally no way to know because chaotic nonlinearity defies modeling. However, in terms of systems, the atmosphere and oceans are a sink and that sink is shrinking proportionally to the greenhouse gasses we are emitting. Tipping points, state-flips, whatever you want to call them, are not predictable in complex systems but that is not an argument for your position.
Quote

Neo-Malthusian seems a good and fair description of the perspective I argue against.
Then neo-liberal is a good statement of your argument.
Quote

But I don't want this to veer too far from Dave and his effluent. 
It is exactly on-topic.
Quote

His errors of fact, judgement, interpretation, his inconsistency and incoherence, those are the meat here.  Not details light-years beyond Dave's scope or understanding.  We fly far enough over his heads as is ;-)
Dave's not wrong because he's a neo-Malthusian.  He's a neo-Malthusian because of the ways he's wrong.

He's neither. He's dominionist and addled.

They're not mutually exclusive. 

ETA: I think the term "Neo-Malthusian" may have a little less depth than is required in a descriptive term for the point of view you are representing with it.

Oh, I'm much much 'worse' than a neoliberal ;-)
i'm a full-blown freedom absolutist.  There are no circumstances under which the subjugation of one person by another is warranted.  None.  Any initiation of force or violence (or its stand-ins) is morally impermissible.
Nobody but the parties to an interaction get a say in the interaction, within the above context.
And I'm an absolutist about it. 


But contracts are by definition voluntary,  amirite?
Yes, of course.  One cannot genuinely agree when coerced.  But we must be precise in our terms; this is specifically regarding agency and agent-initiated coercion, not "facts of life and circumstances ".  The conditions for the possibility of life are as they are.  I am not inherently coerced by my need to breathe.  Agents can initiate coercion involving my need to breathe, but that is, after all, different.
Quote
Eta: regardless, I  don't think your use of economics is justified as far as you seem to be using it. As soon as it becomes an article of faith, the inductivist turkey does it in.
Um, I'm not sure I understand, particularly the first sentence.
Induction is always an issue.  There are ways of wrangling it, but it is an issue for epistemology regardless of the approach taken, granted.
But that's definitely way above Dave's pay grade.  I'll defer on that topic, at least here and now.
2
I don't think it's safe to assume there are always substitutes, plaid. Phosphorus is pretty important in living systems for one example and for that matter, so is fixed nitrogen.

Is phosphorus used up or completely removed from any future access or usability?  If not, we're not at risk of losing the resource or needing a replacement.


kind of.

Here's an interesting overview from 2013. It reviews the phosphorus cycle, the amount of rock phosphorus on earth, the current scarcity or fragility of mined phosphorus in terms of political stability and ease of extraction, the problem of eutrophication of oceans due to agricultural runoff from river mouths, efforts to reduce the use of phosphorus including GM plants and pigs, other sources of phosphorus, and more efficiency in the use of manure/urine and so on:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/

TL/DR: We won't run out, but it will get more costly to acquire, and we need to recycle it as opposed to destroying the oceans with it.

Which is basically my point.
As costs change, selection, acquisition, use, and disposal all change.  At the theoretical limit point (never yet reached for any resource), we run out, we can't recycle, and we die.
Near that point, but far enough from it that we survive,, we recycle and keep recycling.  And then thermodynamics kick in and we die.  These things have not happened, nor are there reasons, as opposed to fantasies and word-games, to believe they will.
We've never yet run out of anything, anything at all, for which there were no substitutes in some meaningful sense.  There are no plausible reasons (other than fear of change or a belief we're at a quality-of-life, a wealth, peak we cannot surpass) to suppose that this isn't going to continue.
nonlinearity is a bitch and it always surprises us. You seem to be switching your scales based on convenience to some degree. Sure, some small band of humans may survive a monumental environmental state-flip. But the flaw - and it is a flaw - in your thinking is that the sink into which we externalize remains a constant. It doesn't. It is demonstrably shrinking. And that's where your anti-malthusian argument is getting its juice. Systems are complicated. There is no simple "Big Button" concept that grants us the ability to manage systemic change (See Holling, 1972) . Your argument boils down to the inductivist turkey and is not safe to within actual data parameters. Global warming is a good example of that. It is possible that we could cook ourselves in a hundred years. It is also possible that some regulatory function in the Gaia system will prevent that. There is actually and literally no way to know because chaotic nonlinearity defies modeling. However, in terms of systems, the atmosphere and oceans are a sink and that sink is shrinking proportionally to the greenhouse gasses we are emitting. Tipping points, state-flips, whatever you want to call them, are not predictable in complex systems but that is not an argument for your position.
Quote

Neo-Malthusian seems a good and fair description of the perspective I argue against.
Then neo-liberal is a good statement of your argument.
Quote

But I don't want this to veer too far from Dave and his effluent. 
It is exactly on-topic.
Quote

His errors of fact, judgement, interpretation, his inconsistency and incoherence, those are the meat here.  Not details light-years beyond Dave's scope or understanding.  We fly far enough over his heads as is ;-)
Dave's not wrong because he's a neo-Malthusian.  He's a neo-Malthusian because of the ways he's wrong.

He's neither. He's dominionist and addled.

They're not mutually exclusive. 

ETA: I think the term "Neo-Malthusian" may have a little less depth than is required in a descriptive term for the point of view you are representing with it.

Oh, I'm much much 'worse' than a neoliberal ;-)
i'm a full-blown freedom absolutist.  There are no circumstances under which the subjugation of one person by another is warranted.  None.  Any initiation of force or violence (or its stand-ins) is morally impermissible.
Nobody but the parties to an interaction get a say in the interaction, within the above context.
And I'm an absolutist about it. 

3
Plaid ... a few thoughts...

1) one of my key motivations for what I'm doing now is my belief that tillage based agriculture is extremely destructive to ecosystems. We are destroying rainforest wholesale and digging up topsoil for tillage based crops. This of course causes biodiversity loss and over time will turn the land being tilled into a desert.
Doubtful.  Your motivation appears to simply be a desire to control how other people live, what choices other people make, without necessarily imposing those restrictions on yourself.
Quote
2) this tillage based agricultural system is truly horrible for several reasons. It's bad for the animals to fatten them on these products and it's bad for humans to eat refined carbohydrates made from these products.
Yet it feed more people better with fewer resources than at any time in history.  Starvation no longer exists except as a political tool.
We execute animals before they die; their quality of life is quite demonstrably not one of your concerns.
Quote
3) this tillage based agriculture also takes an enormous amount of energy input, something like 10 units of energy input for one unit of energy output. This is true whether you believe we are going to run out of fossil fuels or not. I personally don't agree with Walter that we are... I agree with you that we are not.  Be that as it may, I still would much prefer to produce food more efficiently than 10 units of energy input for one unit of energy output especially considering the fact that my system actually improves ecosystems rather than destroys them.
Everything takes energy.  There are always losses along the path.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, Dave.  Learn them.  They rule the world.  (And since when do you believe we're not running out of fossil fuel?  And why don't you believe it?)
Plant to animal to human for food is very inefficient.
There is no 'one right diet'.  People differ.  Meat allergy, lactose intolerance, dislike for the taste of goat milk, we all got issues.
That's why nutrition information matters.  You know as much about nutrition as a parrot does.
Quote
4) so my preferred system of agriculture is based on small-scale animal husbandry depending largely on animal and human energy but it does use a tiny bit of our fossil fuel infrastructure - winch, battery etc
See my response to point 2, and the various supporting arguments I've made over the last couple of days.
Quote
5) animal-based Foods if raised properly in general are more healthy for you than grain-based Foods. This was made clear almost a hundred years ago by the work of Weston Price and others.
See my response, especially the second part, to point 3.
Quote
So the system I am experimenting with now and the very real potential to produce between 1.5 million and 2 million food calories annually with extremely low fossil-fuel energy input and very little human time input. And when I say low fossil-fuel energy input I'm talking about in the neighborhood of one unit of fossil-fuel energy input with 10 units of food energy output vs 10 units input for 1 unit output with conventional tillage agriculture. Not even in the same freaking universe.

Come back and talk to us when you've achieved the potential.
Remember.  You don't get to take credit today for planned, expected, or fantasized future results.
All you're doing is wasting energy, resources, and torturing animals.  In a healthy[sic] glow of self-approval generated by your intentions and your desires, not your results, not your actions.

Is it any wonder we scoff?  There is no there, there.
4
I don't think it's safe to assume there are always substitutes, plaid. Phosphorus is pretty important in living systems for one example and for that matter, so is fixed nitrogen.

Is phosphorus used up or completely removed from any future access or usability?  If not, we're not at risk of losing the resource or needing a replacement.


kind of.

Here's an interesting overview from 2013. It reviews the phosphorus cycle, the amount of rock phosphorus on earth, the current scarcity or fragility of mined phosphorus in terms of political stability and ease of extraction, the problem of eutrophication of oceans due to agricultural runoff from river mouths, efforts to reduce the use of phosphorus including GM plants and pigs, other sources of phosphorus, and more efficiency in the use of manure/urine and so on:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/

TL/DR: We won't run out, but it will get more costly to acquire, and we need to recycle it as opposed to destroying the oceans with it.

Which is basically my point.
As costs change, selection, acquisition, use, and disposal all change.  At the theoretical limit point (never yet reached for any resource), we run out, we can't recycle, and we die.
Near that point, but far enough from it that we survive,, we recycle and keep recycling.  And then thermodynamics kick in and we die.  These things have not happened, nor are there reasons, as opposed to fantasies and word-games, to believe they will.
We've never yet run out of anything, anything at all, for which there were no substitutes in some meaningful sense.  There are no plausible reasons (other than fear of change or a belief we're at a quality-of-life, a wealth, peak we cannot surpass) to suppose that this isn't going to continue.
nonlinearity is a bitch and it always surprises us. You seem to be switching your scales based on convenience to some degree. Sure, some small band of humans may survive a monumental environmental state-flip. But the flaw - and it is a flaw - in your thinking is that the sink into which we externalize remains a constant. It doesn't. It is demonstrably shrinking. And that's where your anti-malthusian argument is getting its juice. Systems are complicated. There is no simple "Big Button" concept that grants us the ability to manage systemic change (See Holling, 1972) . Your argument boils down to the inductivist turkey and is not safe to within actual data parameters. Global warming is a good example of that. It is possible that we could cook ourselves in a hundred years. It is also possible that some regulatory function in the Gaia system will prevent that. There is actually and literally no way to know because chaotic nonlinearity defies modeling. However, in terms of systems, the atmosphere and oceans are a sink and that sink is shrinking proportionally to the greenhouse gasses we are emitting. Tipping points, state-flips, whatever you want to call them, are not predictable in complex systems but that is not an argument for your position.
Quote

Neo-Malthusian seems a good and fair description of the perspective I argue against.
Then neo-liberal is a good statement of your argument.
Quote

But I don't want this to veer too far from Dave and his effluent. 
It is exactly on-topic.
Quote

His errors of fact, judgement, interpretation, his inconsistency and incoherence, those are the meat here.  Not details light-years beyond Dave's scope or understanding.  We fly far enough over his heads as is ;-)
Dave's not wrong because he's a neo-Malthusian.  He's a neo-Malthusian because of the ways he's wrong.

He's neither. He's dominionist and addled.

They're not mutually exclusive. 
5
I don't think it's safe to assume there are always substitutes, plaid. Phosphorus is pretty important in living systems for one example and for that matter, so is fixed nitrogen.

Is phosphorus used up or completely removed from any future access or usability?  If not, we're not at risk of losing the resource or needing a replacement.


kind of.

Here's an interesting overview from 2013. It reviews the phosphorus cycle, the amount of rock phosphorus on earth, the current scarcity or fragility of mined phosphorus in terms of political stability and ease of extraction, the problem of eutrophication of oceans due to agricultural runoff from river mouths, efforts to reduce the use of phosphorus including GM plants and pigs, other sources of phosphorus, and more efficiency in the use of manure/urine and so on:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/

TL/DR: We won't run out, but it will get more costly to acquire, and we need to recycle it as opposed to destroying the oceans with it.

Which is basically my point.
As costs change, selection, acquisition, use, and disposal all change.  At the theoretical limit point (never yet reached for any resource), we run out, we can't recycle, and we die.
Near that point, but far enough from it that we survive,, we recycle and keep recycling.  And then thermodynamics kick in and we die.  These things have not happened, nor are there reasons, as opposed to fantasies and word-games, to believe they will.
We've never yet run out of anything, anything at all, for which there were no substitutes in some meaningful sense.  There are no plausible reasons (other than fear of change or a belief we're at a quality-of-life, a wealth, peak we cannot surpass) to suppose that this isn't going to continue.

Neo-Malthusian seems a good and fair description of the perspective I argue against.

But I don't want this to veer too far from Dave and his effluent.  His errors of fact, judgement, interpretation, his inconsistency and incoherence, those are the meat here.  Not details light-years beyond Dave's scope or understanding.  We fly far enough over his heads as is ;-)
Dave's not wrong because he's a neo-Malthusian.  He's a neo-Malthusian because of the ways he's wrong.
6
Dave is obviously ignorant of the history of the American West (which includes KS & MO).
Why did the rail lines aggressively market the West?  How did they confront the problem of the region being widely known as The Great American Desert?

Dave's ignorance of actual history, his ignorance of the reality that there is history, and that it records change to more than just persons and their culture(s), is as stunning as any of the other things about which he is ignorant yet on which he makes the proclamations.

Certainly possible, I make no pretense of omniscience;-)
But I'm not aware of any ecosystems suffering phosphorus depletion.  I am aware of many ecosystems experiencing a surfeit of phosphorus.
So until it's scarce, or there are reasons to suppose it's about to become scarce, well, substitutes aren't needed.  It seems wildly implausible that a serious actual shortage of phosphorus could arise with zero warning.
But there are no guarantees; humanity, living beings, are not guaranteed to exist forever, individually or "collectively".  Phosphorus could be the thing that does us in.
But there are no economic grounds for acting as if some things did not have substitutes in any absolutist sense.
That's where Dave, and the neo-Malthusians, go wrong.
7
Dave is obviously ignorant of the history of the American West (which includes KS & MO).
Why did the rail lines aggressively market the West?  How did they confront the problem of the region being widely known as The Great American Desert?

Dave's ignorance of actual history, his ignorance of the reality that there is history, and that it records change to more than just persons and their culture(s), is as stunning as any of the other things about which he is ignorant yet on which he makes the proclamations.

8
I don't think it's safe to assume there are always substitutes, plaid. Phosphorus is pretty important in living systems for one example and for that matter, so is fixed nitrogen.

Is phosphorus used up or completely removed from any future access or usability?  If not, we're not at risk of losing the resource or needing a replacement.
Fixed nitrogen is indeed crucial, but nitrogen is not economically scarce.  We know at least some very practical ways to fix nitrogen to make it bio-available.
Again, I don't see potential scarcity and thus don't see substitutability as an issue.

The universe does a really good job (over time ;-> ) of converting hydrogen and helium into the rest of the elements.  Running out is so far far distant as to legitimately be a non-issue.  IMNSHO of course ;-)

So, economically speaking, yeah, there are always substitutes. 
It's still a world of limited resources, there's a certain dynamic tension between those two economic facts, but that's a non-trivial part of what economics is about -- working out just what these facts mean, how they work, and finding the 'best' conceptual structure to accommodate these and all the other economic facts.
9
TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Re: The Dog Thread
Wolfhound type dog heads always freak me out a little bit
It is a skinny wedge shaped, almost conical head.  Very good for getting into things ;-)
The breed is a 'miniature Borzoi' to a rough approximation.  A much more house-friendly size; unlike the Borzois, he can't counter-surf the top of the fridge.
10
But really, Dave, you're getting ahead of yourself.
I'm still interested in these "nature's laws" you were going on about.
How is feeding milk to adults in conformance with "nature's laws"?
How is feeding milk from other species to adults in conformance with "nature's laws"?

And a new puzzle has come up.  Weren't you just arguing that you are using 'law' in the sense of 'always happens'?
If so, how do you reconcile your "above the trees" view that elides the (possibly) minority number of cases where large herbivores do not bunch graze with your claim that this is one of "nature's laws" and your claim that you mean by 'law' 'that which always happens' not 'that which may or may not happen'?
Hmmmm?


This one might be a better choice than the longer one.  It also got skipped over, inadvertently I'm sure.

So, could you clarify what sense of 'law' you have in mind when you use the phrase "nature's laws"?
Could you reconcile that with your prior claims, including the incorrect generalization that it is "nature's law" that herbivores gaze bunched in tight herds that move together?

And the still-outstanding questions about just what are "nature's laws" and how is it possible to live or operate outside them?
As far as I know, there is nothing in life that violates the laws of chemistry and physics, and those certainly ought to count as "nature's laws", yes?  Or if not, why not, given the definitions of 'law' in play here?

You'd clear up so much if you'd speak to these points.  Materially speak to, that is.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Dave?

Speaking of science, Dave, and how you excel at it, perhaps you can settle the questions raised above.
Surely a scientist can at least be clear on these matters.
11
Speaking of being pretty good at science ... my Leader / Follower system for my dairy cow with sheep and goats following seems to be getting better each week.  A couple days ago I discovered something which makes for even less work AND seemingly better nutrition for all the animals - a simple change to my controller program - changing the rest period to 2 hours day AND night instead of "2 hrs nighttime / 1 hour daytime".  The animals seems to enjoy the longer rest period and seem to graze more heavily during the grazing periods.  It's less work because I don't have to change my jumper wires morning and night (yes, I could install a weatherproof switch but haven't yet) ... AND ... I have to do fewer winch motor resets.  I can go a full 24 hours on a single run since my cable is 120 feet long (10 feet per move, 12 moves, 24 hours).  Also, I've got a better milking setup now ... I simply tie the cow's halter to a tree in front of my house and she stands stock still with NO need for alfalfa pellets or hay.  She just stands there while I milk - very content.  Also, my milking machine is a dream to use.  Wow this is getting good!  Currently my water supply needs attention every 12 hours ... if I set up a 24 hour water supply, I could in theory only check on animals / milk the cow once a day and chores would literally be no more than 30 minutes each day.  Currently I spend about an hour - twice daily checks of 30 minutes each.

The stupid, it burns.  The inconsistency and incoherency fuse.

First off, you start right off conflating 'science' and 'technology'.  Everything you report in the self-important little screed above is technology; there is no science being done. 

Then... 'winch motor'?  No commercial inputs?  4th, or 40th, century BCE practices? 
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....

You cannot even see how massively dishonest and intentionally misleading your program is.
12
Explain what you mean ... how do you think animals were managed back in the 14th century?  In what part of the world?

Presumably in response to:
Copied from the wrong thread ...

Dave,

You give the impression of somebody who is proceeding on a trial and error basis to relearn what it took to move from a Neolithic to a 14th century A.D. knowledge of animal husbandry.  Maybe that impression is wrong, but more likely it's right.  Regardless, nothing you've posted would indicate a reasoned and informed approach to achieving what you claim to be attempting.  The idea that what you've learned through failure will spread beyond the confines of your property is ludicrous.  Subdivisions of Davetopia?  It's ridiculous.  But hey, keep lining holes in the ground with Tyvek-covered haybales if that floats your boat.

It's always amusing to watch you go from using the quote function to pretending it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

But as to the point -- try this:
What materials, inputs, resources do your ( or 'does your plan') find acceptable that were not available in the 14th Century?

Personally, from what I've seen over the years, you seem far more focused on 4th Century practices than 14th, but regardless.
We know you use and rely on many modern resources as inputs, whether as a 'convenience' or not.  You might attempt to argue that those 'conveniences' are just that, that they are not necessary to the plan.  Or won't be necessary once you do the plan 'right'.
Fine.  What is necessary to the plan?  What items are necessary that were not available, even if inconvenient, to a 4th Century, or 14th Century, food producer?
The principles that I am implementing have always been available since the beginning of time. My oldest mentor is Abel, son of Adam, who was a sheep herder.  What's unique about Allan Savory disciples like me is that it seems that in the 20th century, these principles and practices were largely forgotten so people like Allan Savory are resurrecting them. So yeah, Prisca Sapientia I guess.

And it never crossed your mind that maybe it wasn't ecomically viable?
Re-read your OP for this thread.
Why have all the economic incentives been away from, not toward, this 40th Century BCE approach?
Of course it's crossed my mind.  And I've discussed that very thing in detail ... and will discuss it more.

The thing that made what I do non-economical is ... [drum roll] ... THE ENERGY SLAVE - FOSSIL FUELS.  Link here ... http://fullattention.blogspot.com/2011/04/shifting-my-paradigm.html

And I have no problem philosophically with using small amounts of oil.  But I have a BIG problem with producing things like corn, soybeans and wheat by inputting 10 units of energy for 1 unit of food output energy.  While at the same time destroying ecosystems (forest clearing for tillage, etc)
Which is all bullshit.  Neo-Malthusian bullshit.
'Peak Oil' has been forecast for decades, yet we keep moving along.  And in case you hadn't noticed, use of oil for energy is fading.  This is how economies work, Dave.  Read Schumpeter.  Learn some basic economics.  [I know, as if]
Once upon a time, not all that long ago, the energy sources were whale oil and wood.  Odd, we don't (much) use those any longer, and we never ran out.  Certainly not at the 'helicopter above the jungle' level of abstraction you permit for determining grazing behavior.
We don't have to worry about fossil-fuel dependence because we will get over it.  There are always substitutes.
That's also part of how economics works.  We use what's cheap.  It's price goes up, substitutes are found, made cheaper, and the original item, whatever it was, is no longer considered a 'resource' except in potentia.
Quote
Quote
Paraphrasing a point I made shortly after joining, how do you account for the fact that over the course of the 20th century absolute poverty has been eliminated, the world has literally become greener, starvation has been eliminated except as a political tactic, etc?

How is it that I, or anyone else on this board, is vastly wealthier than Solomon or Croesus? [or are you so stupid as to believe that money equals wealth? ]
No one alive today, faced with the real choice, would switch places with John Rockefeller, let alone Solomon or Croesus (or Ramses or whoever).  No one, not even you.
How do I know?  It's very simple -- it's not what you say, it's what you do.  Nothing stops you from having all the wealth of any of these persons, as long as you give up literally everything not available to those persons.  Yet you do not.  You choose not to.  Therefore you want more wealth than any of those persons had or could have, you've got that, and you're not giving it up.
Many people are wealthier now because of CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL ENERGY - FOSSIL FUELS.  And you're wrong about the world being greener.  It's not.  Take a look ...
In part, yes.  But cheap and plentiful energy is a result of human effort and ingenuity.
Those are the only resources that matter in the long run.
We started to get wealthy before fossil fuels were cheap and plentiful, we will continue to get wealthy long after they are neither.
Resources were never the long-term driver for wealth.  Or you have a huge problem explaining the economic powerhouses that grew and developed in lands with no real resources at all. 
Japan and Singapore are the immediate examples.  As is the fact that the US was populated for hundreds, probably many thousands, of years, with all the resources in place, and no increase in wealth happened.  Resources can't be the causative factor.  This is not to say they are not a factor, only that they are not the determining factor.
The conditions for the possibility of increased real wealth do not include "natural resources" of any specific kind.  And insofar as 'resources' generically are required, the only necessity is that they be available through trade.  (Jade, pearls, diamonds, and yes, hydrocarbons)
Presence or absence of "natural resources" is not an indicator of economic growth or success.  (Africa anyone?  Japan?  Hong Kong? Venezuela?)

And, the elephant in the room, we're all richer for it.
You don't actually want to live without fossil fuels.  Or you would.  You're not enslaved, you're making choices.  The choice is always yours. 
The problem is that you want other people to live as you say they should, not that you want to live the way you say other people should.  You've done nothing to show that living the way you propose is desirable because you do not live that way yourself.  You've never even shown it can actually be done nor what it costs.
You're a bog standard 40th Century BCE tyrant.  Let other people do the real work and you'll pick and  choose what you, personally, will adopt.  But *they* need to do all the heavy lifting.  You're the 'concepts' guy. 
Nobody gets to take credit for their planned future successes.  You have to succeed first.
And your neo-Malthusainism fares no better against the real world than the original did.
Quote

As VoxRat already pointed out, to compare you need two sources, at least.

But I have to also point out that you're treating a single one of my data points as the if it were the only one that matters.  It's not.
I'd be perfectly happy to see green space dwindle if people's lives get better* -- in their own personal evaluation as demonstrated by the choices they make, not as evaluated by a tin-pot Korean-dictator-wannabe with delusions of adequacy.
*end of starvation, increased life expectancy, improved quality of life, increased range of choices for starters

Quote
Also, there are serious political ramifications of a world dependent on such heavy use of fossil fuels.  We would be more safe and more free if we were far less dependent on fossil fuels.

That's politics, not economics.  It also has nothing to do with fossil fuels per se.  In a world of scarce resources, conflict over resources, especially when petty tyrants such as yourself are involved, is likely.
It could just as easily be iron or coal or any other raw material being used as a resource.

It is also an  aspirational delusion.  You make the claim, but you haven't substantiated it.  You're talking about what other people should do (still).  While you carry on eating at Olive Garden and consuming fossil fuels, demanding that somebody do something about this problem you claim exists.

Learn some economic history as well as basic economics.
13
His movement IS the KKK, you gullible dolt.
Yes I know, you boor headed hind part of an ass.  And I find it odd that he joined the KKK given his stated aversion to violence.

Really?  It's far less surprising than your adherence to Christianity and the Bible given your stated aversion to slavery.
Far less surprising death toll than your religion of peace.  Who was it who said "I come not to bring peace but the sword"?
What was this about non-violence again?
14
...  What's unique about Allan Savory disciples like me ...

You are certainly unique.  But there are no Alan Savory disciples like you.  I'm really quite sure of that.
Eat at Olive Garden?  Use a truck and (almost certainly plastic) tank to move water to the animals?
Use commercial chocolate syrup to make goat milk palatable?
Keep hay in Tyvek lined holes in the ground?  Or use Tyvek at all?  

We're not talking about Alan Savory and his ideas.  We're talking about you and yours, and their actual implementation.

Just as you are a salad-bar Christian, so are you a salad-bar "sustainable farming" practitioner.
Pick and choose, pick and choose, but always claim to be doctrinaire.
15
Explain what you mean ... how do you think animals were managed back in the 14th century?  In what part of the world?

Presumably in response to:
Copied from the wrong thread ...

Dave,

You give the impression of somebody who is proceeding on a trial and error basis to relearn what it took to move from a Neolithic to a 14th century A.D. knowledge of animal husbandry.  Maybe that impression is wrong, but more likely it's right.  Regardless, nothing you've posted would indicate a reasoned and informed approach to achieving what you claim to be attempting.  The idea that what you've learned through failure will spread beyond the confines of your property is ludicrous.  Subdivisions of Davetopia?  It's ridiculous.  But hey, keep lining holes in the ground with Tyvek-covered haybales if that floats your boat.

It's always amusing to watch you go from using the quote function to pretending it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

But as to the point -- try this:
What materials, inputs, resources do your ( or 'does your plan') find acceptable that were not available in the 14th Century?

Personally, from what I've seen over the years, you seem far more focused on 4th Century practices than 14th, but regardless.
We know you use and rely on many modern resources as inputs, whether as a 'convenience' or not.  You might attempt to argue that those 'conveniences' are just that, that they are not necessary to the plan.  Or won't be necessary once you do the plan 'right'.
Fine.  What is necessary to the plan?  What items are necessary that were not available, even if inconvenient, to a 4th Century, or 14th Century, food producer?
The principles that I am implementing have always been available since the beginning of time. My oldest mentor is Abel, son of Adam, who was a sheep herder.  What's unique about Allan Savory disciples like me is that it seems that in the 20th century, these principles and practices were largely forgotten so people like Allan Savory are resurrecting them. So yeah, Prisca Sapientia I guess.

And it never crossed your mind that maybe it wasn't ecomically viable?
Re-read your OP for this thread.
Why have all the economic incentives been away from, not toward, this 40th Century BCE approach?

Paraphrasing a point I made shortly after joining, how do you account for the fact that over the course of the 20th century absolute poverty has been eliminated, the world has literally become greener, starvation has been eliminated except as a political tactic, etc?
How is it that I, or anyone else on this board, is vastly wealthier than Solomon or Croesus? [or are you so stupid as to believe that money equals wealth? ]
No one alive today, faced with the real choice, would switch places with John Rockefeller, let alone Solomon or Croesus (or Ramses or whoever).  No one, not even you.
How do I know?  It's very simple -- it's not what you say, it's what you do.  Nothing stops you from having all the wealth of any of these persons, as long as you give up literally everything not available to those persons.  Yet you do not.  You choose not to.  Therefore you want more wealth than any of those persons had or could have, you've got that, and you're not giving it up.
16
Explain what you mean ... how do you think animals were managed back in the 14th century?  In what part of the world?

Presumably in response to:
Copied from the wrong thread ...

Dave,

You give the impression of somebody who is proceeding on a trial and error basis to relearn what it took to move from a Neolithic to a 14th century A.D. knowledge of animal husbandry.  Maybe that impression is wrong, but more likely it's right.  Regardless, nothing you've posted would indicate a reasoned and informed approach to achieving what you claim to be attempting.  The idea that what you've learned through failure will spread beyond the confines of your property is ludicrous.  Subdivisions of Davetopia?  It's ridiculous.  But hey, keep lining holes in the ground with Tyvek-covered haybales if that floats your boat.

It's always amusing to watch you go from using the quote function to pretending it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

But as to the point -- try this:
What materials, inputs, resources do your ( or 'does your plan') find acceptable that were not available in the 14th Century?

Personally, from what I've seen over the years, you seem far more focused on 4th Century practices than 14th, but regardless.
We know you use and rely on many modern resources as inputs, whether as a 'convenience' or not.  You might attempt to argue that those 'conveniences' are just that, that they are not necessary to the plan.  Or won't be necessary once you do the plan 'right'.
Fine.  What is necessary to the plan?  What items are necessary that were not available, even if inconvenient, to a 4th Century, or 14th Century, food producer?

17
Does this mean you're going to ignore my questions again?
That seems confirmed. Christ, Dave, that's pathetic.
Yes, it is, but just wait, he'll be back with something even more pathetic.

Seventh Law.

Just in case it's not already in people's link collections, here is the 'canonical' list of Dave's Laws.
https://black5.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/afdaves-five-laws/
11+ years old and still accurate.
18
TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Re: The Dog Thread
This is the guy in charge at my house.
Loki, Silken Windbound, 11 years old (iirc, 9 1/2 in the photo).

19
So my food production solution is an absolute no-brainer ... at least to those whose brains are not on Darwinism.

Ah, that's how you came up with it!
20
I cringe every time I eat a salad at Olive Garden because I'm thinking about the migrant workers in California who are so poor and so overworked who are the ones who provide that lettuce for me.
Then why do you eat salad at olive garden?
inorite?

It's Brother Dave's Sacrament of the Fulfillment of the Labor of Slaves[sic].
Why, he's practically Mother Theresa (after a bad sex change, but it's all part of the Great Work)!
He validates their suffering by consuming the fruits of their forced labor.  (Okay, it sounds better in the original German.)
21
Introductions / Re: Um, hello?
Thanks ;-)
It's been a good few years at least.
I'm glad to see many comforting presences from back in the day.
22
Whatever.

Way to take responsibility, dude!  Way to rise up and do better!
What an exemplar of moral reasoning and moral behavior!

I'm sure we're all edified by the pure holy insight conveyed in 'Whatever'.
Thank you for your teachings Brother Dave.
23
Introductions / Um, hello?
Hi all,
Plaid here.  I should let you know that I am not the PlaidTheImpaler on Twitter, or instagram, or GitHub, or anywhere else on line.  None of them are me, I'm not any of them. Just in case somebody googled or knows one of them or whatever.  As transparent as I get ;-)

Aside from that, well, it's just me and I don't matter -- it's about the ideas, the reasons, the arguments, the learning and sharing.  Who cares who I am, care about what I say, not who's saying it.

Cheers!
24
But I'm not minimizing  the horrors of human slavery.
Yes, you are. You are comparing situations that are nowhere near slavery - that do not have the aspects that make slavery truly horrifying - and name then slavery, implicitly saying that they are comparable.
Quote
I am one of the most anti slavery people you will meet.
No, you are not. You have done more to justify slavery than nearly anyone I have met. Remember your defense of John C. Calhoun's practice of slavery?
Quote
  I - and Walter - are simply observing the massive amount of energy required to produce food by raping soil.
And, minus the word choice of "rape", that's a fine observation. Which has nothing to do with the problem of using the word "slavery" to describe something that is nowhere near slavery.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^This, Dave.
You attempt to excuse a contemptible with another and then go on to debase another word of it's real meaning and significance.  You can't rape non-living stuff, Dave.  All you can do is use it.  Don't you proclaim the book that proclaims we are directed to so do?

You are beneath contempt.
25
Lol

I hit a nerve.

Is that what you call uttering and publishing vicious unsupportable lies?
Same as it ever has been, Dave, support or retract.
Demonstrate my knowing and willing use of human slaves.

It's too much to expect you to stop lying.  But on this issue, you get no pass from me.
Support or retract.