<DrumBeat: September 23, 2006 The Oil Drum Close the CAFE Loophole>
<DrumBeat: September 23, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 25, 2006>

232 comments on DrumBeat: September 24, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

GliderGuider on September 24, 2006 - 7:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This facile dismissal of Malthus, like so many others, is based on the notion that "technology" saved us.  In fact it did not, at least not directly.  The primary driver behind increased crop yields was fossil fuels, for mechanization, fertilizers, pesticides and transport.  As Kunstler reminded us in his talk here in Ottawa on Friday, "Technology [b]is not[/b] the same thing as energy".

When it comes to the question of "How many people can the planet support?", the answer is a lot more complex than just resource availability and equitable distribution.  The "Limits to Growth" authors have made careers out of examining this question, and I'm happy to defer to their conclusion.  They maintain that we are in a 25% overshoot situation.  That means that when considered from a systems perspective, the planet can support about 5 billion of us.  However, given that the underlying resource base is already eroded the decline will undershoot below that number and will stabilize at a somewhat lower level.

My opinion is that they are optimistic, and that the carrying capacity in the presence of an intact resource base is realistically about 4 billion, meaning that we are in a 35% overshoot right now.  This leads to a post-correction steady-state population prediction of around 3 billion.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 24, 2006 - 7:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Doesn't the very word "overshoot" imply that one knows all the future technologies available, as each successive fossil fuel drops from wide availabiliy?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on September 24, 2006 - 8:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No.  Overshoot is relative to the current carrying capacity.  The notion of sustainable carrying capacity implies "given the current system parameters".
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 24, 2006 - 8:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
With that definition I am much closer to agreement.  With current tech, we'd need a great deal of societal transformation (and moderation of birthrate) to "prosper" beyond the age of fossil fuels.

There are still some possible replacements though.  They aren't where I'd count them as done deals, but neither are they to where I can write them off, and lock into a future without them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 24, 2006 - 10:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There are still some possible replacements though. They aren't where I'd count them as done deals, but neither are they to where I can write them off, and lock into a future without them.

Versus :

I went to the beach today with my nephew, and then we went for a hike through the park and over the river, finally playing frisbee on a green lawn.

I'd like that to be possible 10 generations from now.

Doesn't matter if you are contradicting yourself in the very same responses thread as long as you can defend "business as usual until technology saves us".
Hey, jerk!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 25, 2006 - 8:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's not a contradiction, and it's the difference between "will" and "might" help us.

The only person who can say new breakthroughs over the next century will "not" help us is the one who knows them all.

Do you?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 26, 2006 - 1:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
it's the difference between "will" and "might"

WELL SAID!

The only person who can say new breakthroughs over the next century WILL help us is the one who knows them all.

Do you?

Plus, these "breakthroughs" better show up in no more than one or two decades, NOT "the next century".
What is the Plan B in case no "technological miracle" happens?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 26, 2006 - 4:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
who can say [whether] new breakthroughs over the next century WILL help us

Some readers here at TOD may not appreciate that there is a world of difference between coming up with a "technological breakthrough" and getting that breakthrough recognized, implemented, and implemented to sufficient scale to make a difference.

It's sort of the proverbial line about a tree falling in the woods and no one being there to truly hear it fall. In that case, does it really make a "noise"?

Assuming some scientist does come up with a breakthrough. There are so many scientists vying for attention that the one breakthrough may get drowned out in the noise.

And even if some people do take notice, do they have sufficient capital resources to make it happen and then to make it happen to scale? None of that is a given.

So we better have some Plans B, C and D. Even the success of a Plan B is not a given. Remember Murphy's Law. Things can go wrong. All of them at once!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 26, 2006 - 10:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What's your point?
Trying to "outdoom" me?

There are so many scientists vying for attention that the one breakthrough may get drowned out in the noise.

A very serious risk which is not acknowledged by many...
A lack of imagination about the potential uses of real breakthroughs whereas "Star Trek science" has a huge following.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 26, 2006 - 9:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You aren't remembering my position very well.  I support powerdown now.  I don't count "chickens before they're hatched."

Are you pretending something else?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 26, 2006 - 10:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You aren't remembering my position very well.

Yes I do : "I don't think it is moral to deny anyone growth."

I support powerdown now.

Powerdown WITH growth, anything goes to stick with "business as usual".
Idiocy or mendacity?
It's not likely idiocy...

I don't count "chickens before they're hatched."

Yeah! Not counting, only saying there might be plenty of chickens.

Are you pretending something else?

I am "pretending" that you are a TPTB sponsored bastard.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 26, 2006 - 11:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's a good memory, and if we look into it a bit, there is an explanation.

I don't deny anyone growth, but I argue for better forms of growth.

I argue for better paths to happiness:

http://odograph.com/?s=happiness

If you look, you will also find the TOD posts where I suggested that GDP is not the best measure of happiness, or growth.

Of course, if you forget all that, you can pretend something else.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on September 27, 2006 - 6:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have no problem with the delinkage between energy supply and growth, economic or otherwise.

As a reduction in our energy supplies comes closer, energy prices will go up. This will encourage people to do more with less. I expect that the world may produce less steel, less large cars, less manufactered foods, and transport less low value junk around the world.

But that doesn't have to lead to an economic slowdown.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 27, 2006 - 8:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The happiness research seems to agree broadly that a nation needs a certain degree of wealth to keep its people alive, healthy, and happy.  The crux of the argument, when happiness research becomes politics, is about how wealth contributes to happines, and if we should be concerned with diminishing returns.

If everyone is fed and cared for, drilling oil on the beaches, or chopping down the last forests, might have a detrimental effect on happiness (esp. that of future generations), while still boosting GDP.

I break with the CATO, libertarain, end of this, when they argue for ever-higher GDPs as a path to ever-higher happiness.

I don't know, maybe some are angry with me here because I don't want to set myself up as emperor and "deny" anyone what I think is a bad choice (chasing diminishing returns on a hedonic treadmill).  They're angry because I just suggest something else to think about.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 26, 2006 - 11:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In particular:

http://odograph.com/?p=373

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
roel on September 24, 2006 - 9:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
...the carrying capacity in the presence of an intact resource base is realistically about 4 billion

You're dreaming in technicolor. We reached 4 billion in the early 1970's (and 3 billion 10 years prior) when there were still ample resources available after a century of exponential growth in both the use of those resources and in population numbers. The water was clean, the seas were full of fish, the 'green revolution food explosion' was just starting to kick in, and the true weight on the ecosystem of pollution was evident only to dedicated researchers.

Now, we have water scarcity, food scarcity, resource scarcity, energy scarcity, more pollution than anyone today is aware of (that ignorance has remained kind of constant), and a climate that is fast moving towards a 'state' that is hostile to our species and many others. All these issues will become worse in the near future, and there's nothing left that we can do about that.

How will we set all this straight in order to maintain 4 billion people?

In the early 1800's, 200 years ago, we reached 1 billion. That is a lot more realistic, but even that is questionable.

Did  we mention extreme unpredictable climate conditions, ultra-resistant insects and microbes, unfit obese people, coastal plains becoming uninhabitable, no more snow-driven glaciers and rivers coming down mountains, collapsing food-chains missing several links, human education systems that completely overlook basic skills, etc etc.

Carrying capacity and overshoot are serious terms. Don't joke around with them, think them over.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 24, 2006 - 9:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree that things like the declines of the oceans are big, much bigger than the public knows.

That said, my objection to these broad measure ("in the early 1800's, 200 years ago, we reached 1 billion"), is that they average across areas with very different population densities.

In the early 1800's, those wonderful crops from the fertile cresent had not spread to every corner of the world.  A south America with those crops has a very different density potential than one with.

Heck, "in the early 1800's" north America barely had exposure to those crops.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on September 24, 2006 - 9:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My personal opinion is that we'll crash back to about a billion, but that's pretty hard to support factually, especially in the face of the increase in knowledge and technology since the 1800's.  My speculation of 4 billion was with a fully intact resource base, which is obviously out of the question.  That's why I hedged and predicted 3 billion.  Now, even three is probably optimistic, but it does leave some room for the human race to do better than expected - i.e we turn out to be, say, twice as smart as yeast, and/or the crash takes long enough that we have some time to adjust our behaviour and save more lives.

Predicting a level of post-crash population is a mug's game.  Whether it's one billion or three, it still involves a lot of death and misery.  The important point to get across to people is that we are already in overshoot and a correction of some magnitude is inevitable.  I went to hear Kunstler speak on Friday, and he showed us all these lovely drawings of post-crash villages and cities, all with obviously low population densities.  He then showed some illustrations of 1800's era soldiers, and mobs and people lying on the ground injured and dying, and he talked about the "troubles" that lie between here and there.  He never once mentioned overshoot or die-off, but the message came through loud and clear.

I think predicting a post-crash population of 3 billion still allows me to keep my doomer card, no?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 25, 2006 - 8:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I went to hear Kunstler speak on Friday, and he showed us all these lovely drawings of post-crash villages and cities, all with obviously low population densities.  He then showed some illustrations of 1800's era soldiers, and mobs and people lying on the ground injured and dying, and he talked about the "troubles" that lie between here and there.  He never once mentioned overshoot or die-off, but the message came through loud and clear.

Talk about disaster porn ...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DoubleDutchDoom on September 25, 2006 - 9:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think you are referring to a worst case situation here.

I have read the "30 Year update" and from what I remember from their likely scenarios, they predict:

  • worst case: about 75% fallback
  • best case: standard of living as about now with 8 Billion people (assuming best case energy transition and use of technology)

Don't pin me on the exact details as I would have to open the book again, but it seems that in between these 2 there is a lot of room for personal opinion.

Steven

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on September 25, 2006 - 11:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem with these carrying capacity estimates is that it encourages the perspectice that we are like algae in a pond. We are not algae; we are human beings with preferences, like the ability to get away from it (them) all. When I go backpacking in the wilderness, I value something besides carrying capacity. If I am forced to be in crowds but I am told that my environment has not reached its carrying capcity, this is little consolation. When I was a child, when you wanted to go camping in the national park, you just went. Now, you have to make reservations. As far as I'm concerned, we exceeded anything approaching a reasonable population years ago. Freedom is where you have enough land that you don't have to make reservations or live your life in traffic jams.

We are ruled by those who demand unlimited growth. The negative effects of that growth are fine with them because they profit from it and because they are wealthy enough to buy their own open spaces.  And, further, they want to invade what public space we have left with their developments, off road vehicles, and snowmobiles. For them, where there is no noise and no crowds, there is no progress.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 25, 2006 - 10:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think most people want "lotsa" growth, and to think it won't take away the natural spaces.  They are vulnerable to people who tell them there are plenty of fish, trees, or whatever left.  They are vulnerable to people who tell them that it's only wacko environmentalists who are worried.

The history of environmentalism has really been about making the case to the center.  When they could do that, they won.  A long list of environmental regulations are the result.

Unfortunately we've got some real bad guys at the Federal level now, who will play that "it's only wacko environmentalists" card hard every time.  And for the last few years, people have been believing them.

But no, I don't think most people put growth before all else.  When they are forced to choose, they'll protect nature.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

232 comments on DrumBeat: September 24, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version