"If we're all in the same boat, then it's going to sink"

I don't think that supporting 6.2 billion, let alone, 10 billion people is a reality without technological miracles. And since an age of contraction and decreasing energy such miracles will be less likely to occur I think we are better off preparing for a shrinking population.

Why are so many people so determined to preserve populations? Could it be that die-off may be the one thing that saves our planet for future generations?

But then one gets to the question, would I be so ready to accept this solution if I was the one dieing-off? I'm not so sure if I would. In that case, being white and from America, am I not saying that my life has more value than someone from China, India or Africa?

I would argue that since I had no choice as to where I live and where other's live I am simply advocating the natural remedies to overshoot, and sooner than complete overshoot might perscribe. Can I ever be totally absolved from the fact that my continued life is based on the ending of other's lives? Not at all. But if that fact is held in reverance, and one never advocates for violence to others because "I am better," then I think there is something noble about trying to find a way that works (at least for a lot longer than techno-society). I cannot control what the entire world does, and even if I could, would I want to feed everyone? Probably not, because overshoot (imposed by nature/2nd law of thermodynamics) will become a reality eventually, to one degree or another.

Please don't cite thermodynamics as a reason for energy scarcity. We have orders of magnitude more energy coming in from the sun than our total energy usage today. Thermodynamics has nothing to say about sustainability at current levels of resource usage.

Here's a way to put it in perspective: The sun shines with an intensity of about a kilowatt per square meter. Solar cells can collect an average of maybe a kilowatt per ten square meters.

Crops collect about one or two kilowatts per acre.

If we had an effective solar technology, we would not be short of energy. Wind already looks like a good investment, and it's not all that energy-dense. To store solar, use pumped water for the electric grid, and the new charge-in-a-minute batteries for cars (or even just plug-in hybrids).

Don't forget the immense potential of wave-power and high efficiency (big potential savings for heating and cooling buildings) of geothermal heat pumps.
...wait, I just read about algae diesel. If the paper at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html is correct, then that can produce 66 kW per acre. More than an order of magnitude better than, say, switchgrass.

Still almost an order of magnitude worse than solar cells. But it's sounding halfway reasonable to get energy by growing stuff.

I wonder how fast the algae would grow if supplied with concentrated CO2 in closed tanks? This might be a way of reducing the environmental impact of carbon-heavy fossil fuels. Not as good as sequestration, but at least you'd get to use the carbon twice rather than once.

Chris

Now you're getting it.  How about co-locating a coal-fired electrical plant with an algal biodiesel pond complex?  Use the exhaust from the power plant to feed the the ponds.  You're right that you wouldn't take the carbon out of circulation, but you do get to use it twice.  If we end up using a lot more coal for electricity as I think we will, this could help dampen the environmental impact.

BTW, uou also need to fertilize the algae.  Look below for my pig-farm idea...