Peak Oil - Doom and gloom for Ireland

[badabing]

"How do we acieve an orderly stabilisation in the worlds population and maybe a gradual reduction."

Is population not already starting to decline in many of the 'developed' nations? Was the greying of France and Italy predicted by anybody 30 years ago? It may well be the case that the world population will continue to expand, but the truth is that we are relying on a large helping of research plus an inevitable element of guesswork.

Following the curves, its not that difficult to see that 9 billion will be the peak in 40 - 50 years time, followed by a stabilisation / reduction. The greying of western countries is largely irrelevent as they make up such a small proportion of the total demographic.

Population most dense in richest countires - certainly not true. The largest / most densely populated cities are almost all in second / third world countries. Only 4 of the 20 largest are 1st world;
http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm

Regarding capitalism correlating to population growth, this is true to a certain extent, but the greying / falling polulations of western capitalist countries contradicts this. Certainly the type of capitalism we have will evolve as the population stabilizes.

Assuming energy supply meet this requirement, the real problem for population down the line will be the next ice age (somewhere within the next 1000 years) which will dramatically reduce the worlds population due to reduced precipitation and hence arable land.

 

[room305]

ps I wonder did the ad/feature refer to "14,000 truck journeys" rather than 14,000 trucks? This would be more credible, but sadly would only get rid of 56 trucks (based on 1 journey per truck per day for 250 working days per year). Just shows the power of advertising and PR...

Good spot! I'd say the ad probably did say "journey" which as you point out, is somewhat less impressive than it sounds.

 

[room305]

Population most dense in richest countires - certainly not true. The largest / most densely populated cities are almost all in second / third world countries. Only 4 of the 20 largest are 1st world;
http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm

The assertion was for countries rather than cities. Though the cities you mention are densely populated and poor, you will find that the living standards of inhabitants are generally better than rural dwellers in less densely populated areas of these same countries.

 

[Markjbloggs]

Are you sure about this list - some mistakes, eg Medillin listed twice??

Following the curves, its not that difficult to see that 9 billion will be the peak in 40 - 50 years time, followed by a stabilisation / reduction. The greying of western countries is largely irrelevent as they make up such a small proportion of the total demographic.

Population most dense in richest countires - certainly not true. The largest / most densely populated cities are almost all in second / third world countries. Only 4 of the 20 largest are 1st world;
http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm

Regarding capitalism correlating to population growth, this is true to a certain extent, but the greying / falling polulations of western capitalist countries contradicts this. Certainly the type of capitalism we have will evolve as the population stabilizes.

Assuming energy supply meet this requirement, the real problem for population down the line will be the next ice age (somewhere within the next 1000 years) which will dramatically reduce the worlds population due to reduced precipitation and hence arable land.

 

[rock3r]

Regarding capitalism correlating to population growth, this is true to a certain extent, but the greying / falling polulations of western capitalist countries contradicts this. Certainly the type of capitalism we have will evolve as the population stabilizes.

Assuming energy supply meet this requirement, the real problem for population down the line will be the next ice age (somewhere within the next 1000 years) which will dramatically reduce the worlds population due to reduced precipitation and hence arable land.

Assuming that a drop in arable land will necessarily lead to population shrinkage is not reliable: arable land is capable of feeding 300-500 billion if used efficiently: no meat, and concentrate on high-nutrient food so no land devoted to nutrient void things like lettuce.

It seems clear that capitalism leads directly to dramatically lower birth rates. Under the profit system, individuals are strongly rewarded if they do not reproduce.

Thus we can say that, taking all points into view, the evidence is that capitalism works efficiently towards the extinction of the human race, both in terms of reproduction and in the case of destroying the environments humans need to survive. Naturally, this is not to defend communism as it existed prior to 1990. Feudalism seemed to, at least, not penalise people for reproducing.

Anyhoo, it appears that either another economic system will evolve or humanity is a dodo.

 

[badabing]

The assertion was for countries rather than cities. Though the cities you mention are densely populated and poor, you will find that the living standards of inhabitants are generally better than rural dwellers in less densely populated areas of these same countries.

Here's countries by population density then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

I counted 7 first world countries in the top 50 highest density polulations, excluding small islands and city states, and 2 in the top 30.

Interestingly, I noted Ireland has the lowest population density of any 1st world country that does'nt have vast amounts of wilderness i.e. US, Sweeden, Finland, Nz, Norway, Iceland and australia

 

[ubiquitous]

Feudalism seemed to, at least, not penalise people for reproducing.

Really? Malthus would disagree...

 

[badabing]

Assuming that a drop in arable land will necessarily lead to population shrinkage is not reliable: arable land is capable of feeding 300-500 billion if used efficiently: no meat, and concentrate on high-nutrient food so no land devoted to nutrient void things like lettuce.

It seems clear that capitalism leads directly to dramatically lower birth rates. Under the profit system, individuals are strongly rewarded if they do not reproduce.

Thus we can say that, taking all points into view, the evidence is that capitalism works efficiently towards the extinction of the human race, both in terms of reproduction and in the case of destroying the environments humans need to survive. Naturally, this is not to defend communism as it existed prior to 1990. Feudalism seemed to, at least, not penalise people for reproducing.

Anyhoo, it appears that either another economic system will evolve or humanity is a dodo.

Ya but were talking a serious drop..i.e the breadbaskets of the Ukraine and mid west US gone...

Interesting point about feudalism though...there are signs that we're evolving into a system of a small amount of large global corporations with possibly some elements of feudalism and communism...

Anyone interested in this type of thing may be interted in a book called deep futures by Doug Cocks;
http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Futures-Our-Prospects-Survival/dp/0773526722

 

[rock3r]

The tropics will be the new breadbaskets in an ice age scenario.

Despite what hollywood says, we'll have years in which to make the necessary adjustments.

 

[badabing]

The tropics will be the new breadbaskets in an ice age scenario.

Despite what hollywood says, we'll have years in which to make the necessary adjustments.

Soil is not very fertile in the tropics among other problems..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_agriculture#Major_constraints

Our only saving grace will be if the ice age comes before oil runs out, which will allow increased mechanisation and ability to adapt then. Global wamring will push that period out in the mean time though

 

[z108]

I'm even more confused now . Are we having Global warming or an Ice Age ?
And if an ice age is coming then why worry about carbon trading to reduce global warming etc ?

 

[ubiquitous]

I'm even more confused now . Are we having Global warming or an Ice Age ?

Its really a case of "whatever you're having yourself". Two decades ago all the green (and Green) types were worried about Global Cooling. Now the wheel has turned. How long until it reaches full circle?

And if an ice age is coming then why worry about carbon trading to reduce global warming etc ?

? me too

 

[badabing]

Its really a case of "whatever you're having yourself". Two decades ago all the green (and Green) types were worried about Global Cooling. Now the wheel has turned. How long until it reaches full circle?



? me too

Ok Here's a quick summary
In the mid 20th century a phenomenon known as global cooling was thought to be taking place as recorded temperatures seemed to be dropping. This was widely attributed to dust particles from heavy industry / coal burning etc much more prevelant then. Tighter legislation has reduced airborne dust particles and largely neutralised this effect, hence the trend stopped in the 70's. Example of this; Higher temperatures recorded in the US immediately after 9/11 after banning planes from the air for a few days

Global warming...no need to talk about that..

Next ice age..Technically we are still in a large ice age during which period, we enjoy brief breaks (interglacial periods). Its been 10,000 years since the last ice age, the longest interglacial on record, and consequently are due to enter into it again within the next 1000 years. During this period the average temperature will drop by 10 degrees, cancel global warming and go further the other way...

Ironically we may at that time try and use green house gasses to trap heat and prevent cooling..until then though excessive green house gas concentrations are causing increasing temperatures and unpredictable weather patterns. i.e flash floods in the british isles and 47 degree heat simulatneously in Italy occuring right now

 

[joe sod]

Assuming that a drop in arable land will necessarily lead to population shrinkage is not reliable: arable land is capable of feeding 300-500 billion if used efficiently: no meat, and concentrate on high-nutrient food so no land devoted to nutrient void things like lettuce.

It seems clear that capitalism leads directly to dramatically lower birth rates. Under the profit system, individuals are strongly rewarded if they do not reproduce.

Thus we can say that, taking all points into view, the evidence is that capitalism works efficiently towards the extinction of the human race, both in terms of reproduction and in the case of destroying the environments humans need to survive. Naturally, this is not to defend communism as it existed prior to 1990. Feudalism seemed to, at least, not penalise people for reproducing.

Anyhoo, it appears that either another economic system will evolve or humanity is a dodo.

I don't know where you get your information from but 300/500 billion is a gross exageration. The twentieth century was all about agricultural efficiency through mechanisation, factory farming, fertilisers and pesticides. This is where the huge increases in production came from. All of the worlds arable land is now in production unless you want to keep knocking down rain forests in order to bring more of it into production. So I cannot see where you are going to get more efficiency. The only area is if people eat less meat and more grain goes directly to human consumption. However that probably gives some scope for further limited population increases to 9 or 10 billion but not 300 billion. The fundamental issue is that we have reached the limits of what the nature can provide, for all our technical advances we are still restricted to the earth and what it can provide. Therefore the economic system we now have based on unlimited resources has to change. Many of the fundamental tenets of capitalism and economics were devised in the seventeenth and eighteenth centurys when there were unlimited resources. Of course they were developed from a european perspective of colonisation where if resources ran out in one colony you just found another colony and took theirs.

 

[room305]

The fundamental issue is that we have reached the limits of what the nature can provide, for all our technical advances we are still restricted to the earth and what it can provide. Therefore the economic system we now have based on unlimited resources has to change.

Any ideas on what we can replace it with? Communism, feudalism, barbarism ... ?

 

[z108]

Any ideas on what we can replace it with? Communism, feudalism, barbarism ... ?

If we can just find space aliens who are less powerful than us to colonise and exploit we'll be back on track .....Well it seems about as likely to me (unless space propulsion technology improves by 10000%) as communism embedding itself back into western culture but who knows.
Right now we have an illusion of democracy in the west anyway through which the ruthlessness of capitalism will always prevail as we dont have truly representative democracies in reality. By this I mean we only get one say and its about who gets elected but once they become elected then we have little or no say about what they do once they are there until the time comes to vote them in or out again. e.g Blairs war in Iraq being unpopular with most of his electorate but he presses ahead with it anyway. Electorates let their governments get away with a lot of things for the sake of stability.

Regarding food, it might be possible to farm the sea and also live on or in it..... theres a lot of inner space there waiting to be exploited.... and if genetically modified food took over it would lead to further productivity gains. It could also be possible to have farms orbiting the earth soaking up the suns energy but this seems like real science fiction right now. But so did cloning seem like science fiction back in the 90's.

I hope it will be a long time before we need to go the Soylent Green route

Ok Here's a quick summary
In the mid 20th century a phenomenon known as global cooling was thought to be taking place as recorded temperatures seemed to be dropping. This was widely attributed to dust particles from heavy industry / coal burning etc much more prevelant then. Tighter legislation has reduced airborne dust particles and largely neutralised this effect, hence the trend stopped in the 70's. ....

Ironically we may at that time try and use green house gasses to trap heat and prevent cooling....

Wow I dont care about Global Warming any more. Wasnt the Tsunami in Asia caused by an undersea earthquake and not by Global Warming ?

 

[ubiquitous]

All of the worlds arable land is now in production unless you want to keep knocking down rain forests in order to bring more of it into production.

Absolute rubbish. Large areas of agricultural land within the EU alone (including Ireland) are being used at zero- or near-zero production capacity because the EU subsidy regimes are based on the current necessity to avoid over-production of milk, beef, lamb etc. On a different level altogether, it hardly credible to argue that land in places like Zimbabwe is utilised at full production capacity.

The fundamental issue is that we have reached the limits of what the nature can provide, for all our technical advances we are still restricted to the earth and what it can provide. Therefore the economic system we now have based on unlimited resources has to change. Many of the fundamental tenets of capitalism and economics were devised in the seventeenth and eighteenth centurys when there were unlimited resources. Of course they were developed from a european perspective of colonisation where if resources ran out in one colony you just found another colony and took theirs.

People have been saying at least for the past 100+ years that the age of technological advance is at an end. Who was they guy who said around 1900 that, based on the then-current trends, and projecting for expected population growth, New York would be buried under six feet of horse manure by the year 2000 (or whenever)? Who was it who said sometime during the 20th century that there might sometime be a global market demand for five computers?

 

[ubiquitous]

until then though excessive green house gas concentrations are causing increasing temperatures and unpredictable weather patterns. i.e flash floods in the british isles and 47 degree heat simulatneously in Italy occuring right now

I for one don't buy into that particular theory. Its just as likely that increasing temperatures (ie from the sun) are causing higher green house gas concentrations.

Unpredictable weather patterns are nothing new. Flooding killed 307 people in England in one day on January 31 1953. The "night of the Big Wind" in Ireland was in 1839. Similarly, 40+ temperatures are nothing new in Italy.

 

[z108]

.until then though excessive green house gas concentrations are causing increasing temperatures and unpredictable weather patterns. i.e flash floods in the british isles and 47 degree heat simulatneously in Italy occuring right now

But wasnt the weather always unpredictable ?

I get the feeling sometimes that this kind of religious end of days attitude is about. Two thousand years ago the Jewish people thought the end of the world was always going to be next week but 2000 years later we are still here.
If someone has a religious mentality they may attribute everything imperfect to mans' allegedly sinful behaviour e.g we produce too much carbon, we enjoy ourselves too much and dont wear our hair shirts for long enough.
Superstitious cultures would sacrifice children to their gods if a lamb was born dead. Ok we have advanced a lot since then technologically but that doesnt mean we are to blame for natures unpredictability. Nature has always been cruel and rational in the application of its laws. Whats so different between the present days unpredictability of weather at current temperatures and the historical trend for unpredictability at a different yet similarly fluctuating temperature going back aeons ?

 

[Remix]

If someone has a religious mentality they may attribute everything imperfect to mans' allegedly sinful behaviour e.g we produce too much carbon, we enjoy ourselves too much and dont wear our hair shirts for long enough.

This is a good point but the interesting thing is that much of the preaching on global warming is coming from the scientific community.

My guess is that some scientists hear the call to preach when they realise that funding for their research depends on the amount of alarm that can be raised. The pulpits in this case are often endowed chairs of prestigous universities and the prophets of science are often elegant and very convincing. The heretics in this community are those scientists who differ with the majority scientific opinion.

I'm not suggesting that what they say is wrong (I don't know) but I often feel that when scientists speculate on difficult problems- be it global warming or other areas - we should remind ourselves that their opinions do not represent proof.