Dave,
I'm one of the old farts here so maybe I have more of an historical perspective than you. You DO have to define what you mean by "technology." There was no household electricity when my parents were kids in a large city. There was no radio. They had ice boxes not refigerators. No one had cars. There were no computers, etc. I have farming friends in Delaware whose families didn't get electricty until the '50s and who still farmed with horses at that time (They were just plain farmers not Amish.). Clearly, the technology at that time was at a far lower level than today. But, inspite of this low level, we are here to discuss these issues.
Perhaps, what you asking is what level of technology is required to maintain the present day consumer society.
I grew up in the 1970s. We started out middle class but my parents screwed up. We had a phone, rotary dial, sometimes - when we could pay the bill. We had one light bulb per room. Washing was at the laundromat, and at times when quarters were scarce, done on ye olde washboard. We lived in (rented) houses that were built in the 1930s. Welfare and food stamps were the order of the day - the local markets were not allowed to give cash change for food stamps, so they came up with various scrip systems. Each store had its own, from plastic coins of various colors and denominations to just scribbles on the reciept.
The whole mode of life had a very 1930s feel to it. You wanted to go somewhere, you walked or took the bus. On school mornings your teachers would be there with you - they paid a quarter as adults, we kids paid a dime.
I often fished and foraged for food.
The whole mode of life was 1930s-ish, and this was in the 1970s, a time when the US was doing well.
My young adult years, 1980-1986 were likewise more 1930s-ish than not, more bus riding, living in a rooming house, had a bicycle I went all over on for a while. No real job prospects past the most basic work. Work for me meant getting dirty and smelling bad and the first thing was to wash up and clean up after work.
Entertainment was the library, ridin' around on the bike, no museums because they cost, and I often, riding home from work very hungry, got the vegetarian chili at the health food cafe because the kind with meat in it cost a buck more. (In all fairness, the veggie stuff had TVP in it and plenty of lentils, it was probably better.)
This was life when the US was doing well, we're in for a rough ride folks.
Good and concise response, Fleam. Could be we are far enough removed from that reality now to make an important difference, not for the good. It feels so in UK, more so in the bits of USA I know. Could be your relative disadvantage before will give you some advantage henceforth, I dunno. But I do expect 80% of US households to be facing borderline economic (and subsequently real) survival within 5 years.
Rough? I have a nasty feeling most have no idea what even mildly rough feels like. Honestly have no idea how people will react.
I'm with you Agric, I can't believe it, most white Americans seem to have lived these incredibly easy lives. There seem to be actually very few who have experienced actual malnutrition (not the "fat but sick" kind, I mean the ribs sticking out kind) or been where there are almost NO jobs, and what jobs there are, are monopolized by other groups with the blessing of the laws, at least how they're locally interpreted, and in the case of some laws, flat-out put them at a disadvantage - often their wealth* insulates them from the brutal everyday world I and I guess a mostly stifled stratum have seen though.
*Wealth - defined by, if your parents can afford to let you live in their garage, they HAVE a garage, and let you eat their table scraps while you attend the local college, that's enough wealth to catapult you into a degree and the gravy train that follows after. This does not sound very wealthy, but it's infinately wealthy compared to sink-or-swim-by-late-teens beginning many Americans have. People from other countries are generally appalled by the way many American kids are kicked out of the nest to fly or not-fly. If you want to look up another culture like the US's, look up a people known as the Iks.
Todd's question is very relevant and you're ignoring the very profound effect technology, from the stone axe to the microcip, has had on human evolution. You still need to clarify what you mean with your use of the overly broad term "technology."
Example: we have evolved to require vitamin B12 in our diet. This can only come from an animal source. Considering the health risks involved in eating animal dung (one source of B12) we need technology to safely extract this vitamin from its animal source whether it's processing pills out of animal dung or chucking a spear at an antelope. Due to our lack of large claws or 35mph+ sprinting ability without technology we die out from B12 deficiency.
Moreover, cats eat a lot of insects. If I am not mistaken cats are even worse off in their need for fatty acids and proteins than we are because they have a more specialized diet than us. If you watch your cat hunt for small animals and insects, you might learn a lot about how to get by without any tools.
And non-Western ppls eat bugs happily for wonderful treats they are. Bugs can be raised, or of course if human population goes way down like it should, there will be plenty free-range.
As a person who chose a vegan diet 15 years ago in part because industrial meat and dairy contribute to global warming (even more so than transportation), I can attest to sufficient non-animal sources of B12 - (e.g. some yeasts, some misos, as well as fortified cereals, soymilks, and supplements where B12 is derived from non-animal sources).
Whereas as eating a vegan diet, along with restricting personal auto use and flying, and bearing no children can go a lot further to saving the planet for future life on earth, eating a meat- and dairy-intensive diet is demonstrably certain to contribute to the destruction of both your health and the planet.
I would still like to hear Dave's clarification on defining "technology" as I believe it's overly vague. You can't deny that it has affected our evolution to the point where we cannot survive without it on the most basic levels.
Can we survive without iPods and cars? Absolutely.
Can we survive without any technology whatsoever? No.
I don't mean to get into a pointless semantic pissing match, but I think this is an important distinction. I think mindless objection to "technology" such as Dave's original post paints Peak Oilers as simple luddites.
It's not quite that simple, some of us are complex Luddites.
Right now I have to have my computer, my car, lights on and I mean every friggin' light on* to do my work, I have tons to worry about, tons of things can go wrong, tons of things can put me on the street, and I hate the stress and precariousness, so I aspire to being on the street.
Compare and contrast being a street musician, living in a nice simple place, and not needing gobs and gobs of electricity to survive.
I need to come up with a certain, rather large, unless I do a bankruptcy, amount of money to buy my freedom, but that is the plan.
*every friggin' light on is a fact - the moment I turn a light off, I find myself jumping up to go into the other room and turn it on again for some damn thing.
Perhaps I am a combination of that and sceptic technophile. Nah, I think I lost the techno bit a decade or so ago. But philosopical Luddite, yes, I think I have been a while now.
If you don't mind me getting personal I would say worry never works. If the worry is that bad then face the worst and lose the worry, maybe.
Er, well, you are correct about worry, except worry is a good value if you're living in the machine. Check things, double check, monitor the finances, monitor the crazies next door, make sure you lock your car, etc etc yadda yadda, you can get into some real trouble not being paranoid enough, but it's very hard to get into trouble by being TOO paranoid.*
*You can, if you go into full-on OCD or something, of course. But living in the US you'll notice you can't check, monitor, check out, and worry over things too much as a general rule.
Whereas as eating a vegan diet, along with restricting personal auto use and flying, and bearing no children can go a lot further to saving the planet for future life on earth, eating a meat- and dairy-intensive diet is demonstrably certain to contribute to the destruction of both your health and the planet.
Not in the least bit obvious. Lester Brown and co have been trumpeting this nonsense for decades, but crop production is still so high people are actually trying to make fuel from it.
Don't be daft! Yes people are making fuel for their SUVs from corn, and the price of grain in the world is going through the roof, over $4 a bushel compared to half that price in 2005. http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M
Simply because people choose to make fuel from their grain does not mean people in other areas of the world are not starving because of the lack of grain. It simply means they are willing to pay more for the grain, to use as fuel. People have only so much money for food. When grain gets too high and their money runs out they simply starve.
Exactly - if there'e one message of boards like this, it's that, even though the party's still hopping on the upper decks of the Titanic, the water's entering the lower levels and rising......
If you use 'liberal' in the meaning of 'pleading for liberalization of the markets while actually aiming for lessening control and curbing of monopolistic practices': of course.
OK look, this is all great data, but, the real problem is too many people on the earth, not what they're eating. True, by all going vegan, we could get that 10 billion on the planet, maybe 15 billion, all in dull-minded vegan semi-starvation, other animals only in zoos because we need all the habitat we can get to grow our precious veggies and grains.....
Ever seen a prairie dog town after its population has crashed? It's just dirt, not a blade of anything green growing, no more prairie dog either, I guess maybe a few survivors run away or maybe the hawks get 'em. And they're vegan.
Does it really matter what food scheme we follow if we're bound and determined to overpopulate enough to kill the planet?
We need a new term here, we have Cornucopian for those who believe oil/energy are unlimited, we need a term for those who don't/won't accept that a population decrease will be necessary.
Blessed is the man who maketh clothes for the winter out of animal skins, for his technology shall keepeth his ass warmeth.
If 6.5 billion humans were to follow this advice the world would quickly run out of animals. This is a technology which is simply unsustainable given the current state of the world's population and also the damage to Nature inflicted by the last ten thousand years of human modification of the Earth.
Any other ideas? Or is humankind really a lost cause?
"given the current state of the world's population"
Surely that is the whole point. Talk about the elephant in the living room. No amount of alternative fuel and techno-gimcrackery will support this level of population, much less the 9-12 billion that is forecast before some levelling off. We are clearly overshot.
Therefore, the question is not about "humanity" surviving, it's about how many humans, and at what "standard of living".
No amount of alternative fuel and techno-gimcrackery will support this level of population, much less the 9-12 billion that is forecast before some levelling off. We are clearly overshot.
You clearly believe so but it isn't obvious that the population cant be sustained at 5 billion, 50 billion or even 500 billion. Even with such banal technology as hydroponic greenhouses we could push populations into the hundreds of billions. Then we get back to the deep ecology arguments that suggest (without any real evidence) that humans require all the biodiversity of a rainforest to thrive.
When I look at the evidence, the worlds population is very sustainable at 7 billion, because we're doing it now with a rising global standard of living.
You clearly believe so but it isn't obvious that the population cant be sustained at 5 billion, 50 billion or even 500 billion. Even with such banal technology as hydroponic greenhouses we could push populations into the hundreds of billions.
The idea that the earth could support, with any technology, hundreds of billions of people is absurd beyond belief. We are killing the earth just trying to support 6.5 billion people. We are drawind down our aquifers, drying up our rivers, drying up our lakes, our topsoil is being washed away and blown away, the rainforest is disappearing by millions of acres per year, animals are going extinct at the rate of thousands of species per year, and the lifeblood that makes this all possible, fossil fuel, is disappearing and will never return.
When I look at the evidence, the worlds population is very sustainable at 7 billion, because we're doing it now with a rising global standard of living.
How long since you visited Sub-Sahara Arfica? How long since you checked the water, river and grain and topsoil situation in China? Do you have a f**king clue as to what is really happening in the world?
And for every Homo sapien added to the world's population, some other animal must give way to make room for him or her. Does that mean anything to you? The world is at 100% of carrying capacity and has been at that point since the Cambrian Era. For every species that adds to its population, another species must give way to make room for their opponents success. We live on a finite world with only finite resources.
Hundreds of billions indeed! I have never heard of anything so absurd in my entire life. You need an education. Lester Brown would be a good place to start. http://big-picture.tv/index.php?id=62&cat=&a=147
The idea that the earth could support, with any technology, hundreds of billions of people is absurd beyond belief
Its easily demonstrable with greenhouses and hydroponics.
We are killing the earth just trying to support 6.5 billion people. We are drawind down our aquifers, drying up our rivers, drying up our lakes, our topsoil is being washed away and blown away, the rainforest is disappearing by millions of acres per year,
All replacable with energy and different farming techniques.
animals are going extinct at the rate of thousands of species per year,
Aesthetically displeasing yet it doesnt impact humanity in the least. Open up a few zoos. While we're at it, exterminate all nonhuman primates. They're dirty things that spread all sorts of horrid diseases.
fossil fuel, is disappearing and will never return.
And nuclear power will last millons of years.
How long since you visited Sub-Sahara Arfica? How long since you checked the water, river and grain and topsoil situation in China? Do you have a f**king clue as to what is really happening in the world?
China gets richer and richer. Aquifers deplete and desalination plants are opened. Rivers are diverted for even higher agricultural output. It doesnt seem to me that the world is getting poorer in the least.
And for every Homo sapien added to the world's population, some other animal must give way to make room for him or her. Does that mean anything to you?
Nope.
The world is at 100% of carrying capacity and has been at that point since the Cambrian Era. For every species that adds to its population, another species must give way to make room for their opponents success. We live on a finite world with only finite resources.
Not even wrong. The finite resources of the world can support tens of millions of hunter gatherers sure. A technologically advanced world can support hundreds of billions.
Hundreds of billions indeed! I have never heard of anything so absurd in my entire life. You need an education. Lester Brown would be a good place to start.
He's been spewing that stuff for decades and we're no nearer to collapse now.
Aesthetically displeasing yet it doesnt impact humanity in the least. Open up a few zoos. While we're at it, exterminate all nonhuman primates. They're dirty things that spread all sorts of horrid diseases.
In all my years on the net I have never witnessed such gall and ignorance. At any killing all the other great apes would make little difference. There are about 200,000 other great apes combined. The population of Homo sapiens increases by that much each day.
China gets richer and richer. Aquifers deplete and desalination plants are opened. Rivers are diverted for even higher agricultural output. It doesnt seem to me that the world is getting poorer in the least.
Wrong! China is not building desalination plants. They are far too energy intensive. The cost of energy to desalinate one acre would be about ten times the profit in produce or grain from that acre. Anyone who knows one damn thing about desalination knows it is highly uneconomical for irrigation.
Not even wrong. The finite resources of the world can support tens of millions of hunter gatherers sure. A technologically advanced world can support hundreds of billions.
Hundreds of billions! Are you for real? Is it possible that there is anyone on earth who is that ignorant? Well, one at least.
Wrong! China is not building desalination plants. They are far too energy intensive. The cost of energy to desalinate one acre would be about ten times the profit in produce or grain from that acre. Anyone who knows one damn thing about desalination knows it is highly uneconomical for irrigation.
Yeah, knock that strawman down. I was so totally suggesting desalination for irrigation.
Hundreds of billions! Are you for real?
Sure. Its been addressed many times; Cohen wrote a book on it and many others made calculations based on different assumptions. You can technically support hundreds of billions on earth with advanced hydroponics farming and the like. With traditional agriculture perhaps ten billion. With advanced water irrigation, some more ten billion.
But when we get into advanced techniques like global hydroponics and aquaculture systems you can get really huge food yields. I dont think we're going to have this sort of enormous population however, for different reasons that I imagine you would scoff at.
China is not getting richer, a small portion is getting much richer, there's a bit of an upper working class/lower middle class developing, but for the average guy on the farm, in the city, etc it's much worse.
There's a Frontline TV program about this, you can watch it for free on line. I forget the title, but you'll find it, it will stand out, it's the one about how China may not be doing so well for its people under globalization/capitalism. Very watchable and thought-provoking like all the excellent Frontline programs.
Yes, I've seen it. I dont know how you could from that episode conclude from watching that that China is getting poorer, even the average guy.
What is happening is there is a rapidly rising disparity of wealth, but even the peasants in china are doing better than a generation ago. Some individuals are worse off, but change always brings turmoil.
Damn, Dezakin, I have very serious doubts that what you suggest is viable but I won't bother arguing about that.
What really scares me is if what you argue is viable. I would not wish to live in such a world, but I don't wish to die, either, I have a problem!
Tangentially you might try reading a book by Sherri S. Tepper: 'Beauty'. It's a synthesis of faery tales, a racial slur on the Fae, an observation on the waning of magic, and more.
What really scares me is if what you argue is viable. I would not wish to live in such a world, but I don't wish to die, either, I have a problem!
I wouldn't worry about that. Demographics show population maxing out at most at 12 billion at the end of the century because of declines in fertility, not climbing to hundreds of billions. I only argue the possible.
What I expect is eventually we'll breathe life and intelligence into machines, and the children of humanity will devour (or 'convert') us all before our population climbs to such huge numbers. Of course such speculation is often dismissed as transhumanist nonsense, but the trends and possibilities are clear to me. Still, such visions are beyond the scope of the decline of oil production and not entirely germane to the conversation.
Here's a question which I posed to someone else and which I will post here:
Regarding humankind and technology, do you believe:
1. Humankind could survive without technology.
or:
2. Humankind survives because of technology.
or:
3. Humankind's survival is impossible without technology.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Why don't you start by defining "technology." A spear and a stone axe are technology as is a water wheel.
Hello Todd,
The question is not difficult, Todd. We aren't living in the Stone Age any more. We left that age thousands of years ago.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Dave,
I'm one of the old farts here so maybe I have more of an historical perspective than you. You DO have to define what you mean by "technology." There was no household electricity when my parents were kids in a large city. There was no radio. They had ice boxes not refigerators. No one had cars. There were no computers, etc. I have farming friends in Delaware whose families didn't get electricty until the '50s and who still farmed with horses at that time (They were just plain farmers not Amish.). Clearly, the technology at that time was at a far lower level than today. But, inspite of this low level, we are here to discuss these issues.
Perhaps, what you asking is what level of technology is required to maintain the present day consumer society.
Todd
I grew up in the 1970s. We started out middle class but my parents screwed up. We had a phone, rotary dial, sometimes - when we could pay the bill. We had one light bulb per room. Washing was at the laundromat, and at times when quarters were scarce, done on ye olde washboard. We lived in (rented) houses that were built in the 1930s. Welfare and food stamps were the order of the day - the local markets were not allowed to give cash change for food stamps, so they came up with various scrip systems. Each store had its own, from plastic coins of various colors and denominations to just scribbles on the reciept.
The whole mode of life had a very 1930s feel to it. You wanted to go somewhere, you walked or took the bus. On school mornings your teachers would be there with you - they paid a quarter as adults, we kids paid a dime.
I often fished and foraged for food.
The whole mode of life was 1930s-ish, and this was in the 1970s, a time when the US was doing well.
My young adult years, 1980-1986 were likewise more 1930s-ish than not, more bus riding, living in a rooming house, had a bicycle I went all over on for a while. No real job prospects past the most basic work. Work for me meant getting dirty and smelling bad and the first thing was to wash up and clean up after work.
Entertainment was the library, ridin' around on the bike, no museums because they cost, and I often, riding home from work very hungry, got the vegetarian chili at the health food cafe because the kind with meat in it cost a buck more. (In all fairness, the veggie stuff had TVP in it and plenty of lentils, it was probably better.)
This was life when the US was doing well, we're in for a rough ride folks.
Good and concise response, Fleam. Could be we are far enough removed from that reality now to make an important difference, not for the good. It feels so in UK, more so in the bits of USA I know. Could be your relative disadvantage before will give you some advantage henceforth, I dunno. But I do expect 80% of US households to be facing borderline economic (and subsequently real) survival within 5 years.
Rough? I have a nasty feeling most have no idea what even mildly rough feels like. Honestly have no idea how people will react.
I'm with you Agric, I can't believe it, most white Americans seem to have lived these incredibly easy lives. There seem to be actually very few who have experienced actual malnutrition (not the "fat but sick" kind, I mean the ribs sticking out kind) or been where there are almost NO jobs, and what jobs there are, are monopolized by other groups with the blessing of the laws, at least how they're locally interpreted, and in the case of some laws, flat-out put them at a disadvantage - often their wealth* insulates them from the brutal everyday world I and I guess a mostly stifled stratum have seen though.
*Wealth - defined by, if your parents can afford to let you live in their garage, they HAVE a garage, and let you eat their table scraps while you attend the local college, that's enough wealth to catapult you into a degree and the gravy train that follows after. This does not sound very wealthy, but it's infinately wealthy compared to sink-or-swim-by-late-teens beginning many Americans have. People from other countries are generally appalled by the way many American kids are kicked out of the nest to fly or not-fly. If you want to look up another culture like the US's, look up a people known as the Iks.
Todd's question is very relevant and you're ignoring the very profound effect technology, from the stone axe to the microcip, has had on human evolution. You still need to clarify what you mean with your use of the overly broad term "technology."
Example: we have evolved to require vitamin B12 in our diet. This can only come from an animal source. Considering the health risks involved in eating animal dung (one source of B12) we need technology to safely extract this vitamin from its animal source whether it's processing pills out of animal dung or chucking a spear at an antelope. Due to our lack of large claws or 35mph+ sprinting ability without technology we die out from B12 deficiency.
"Due to our lack of large claws or 35mph+ sprinting ability without technology we die out from B12 deficiency."
Earthworms are an excellent source of B12. No spears needed...
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/22250/1/V074N6_359
Moreover, cats eat a lot of insects. If I am not mistaken cats are even worse off in their need for fatty acids and proteins than we are because they have a more specialized diet than us. If you watch your cat hunt for small animals and insects, you might learn a lot about how to get by without any tools.
:-)
And non-Western ppls eat bugs happily for wonderful treats they are. Bugs can be raised, or of course if human population goes way down like it should, there will be plenty free-range.
A photo helps to visualize the tasty treats available on the street here in SE Asia.
Re: B12 vitamin
This is not correct.
As a person who chose a vegan diet 15 years ago in part because industrial meat and dairy contribute to global warming (even more so than transportation), I can attest to sufficient non-animal sources of B12 - (e.g. some yeasts, some misos, as well as fortified cereals, soymilks, and supplements where B12 is derived from non-animal sources).
Whereas as eating a vegan diet, along with restricting personal auto use and flying, and bearing no children can go a lot further to saving the planet for future life on earth, eating a meat- and dairy-intensive diet is demonstrably certain to contribute to the destruction of both your health and the planet.
OK, OK, I concede the vitamin B12 point.
I would still like to hear Dave's clarification on defining "technology" as I believe it's overly vague. You can't deny that it has affected our evolution to the point where we cannot survive without it on the most basic levels.
Can we survive without iPods and cars? Absolutely.
Can we survive without any technology whatsoever? No.
I don't mean to get into a pointless semantic pissing match, but I think this is an important distinction. I think mindless objection to "technology" such as Dave's original post paints Peak Oilers as simple luddites.
It's not quite that simple, some of us are complex Luddites.
Right now I have to have my computer, my car, lights on and I mean every friggin' light on* to do my work, I have tons to worry about, tons of things can go wrong, tons of things can put me on the street, and I hate the stress and precariousness, so I aspire to being on the street.
Compare and contrast being a street musician, living in a nice simple place, and not needing gobs and gobs of electricity to survive.
I need to come up with a certain, rather large, unless I do a bankruptcy, amount of money to buy my freedom, but that is the plan.
*every friggin' light on is a fact - the moment I turn a light off, I find myself jumping up to go into the other room and turn it on again for some damn thing.
Now that really worked for me: complex Luddites
Perhaps I am a combination of that and sceptic technophile. Nah, I think I lost the techno bit a decade or so ago. But philosopical Luddite, yes, I think I have been a while now.
If you don't mind me getting personal I would say worry never works. If the worry is that bad then face the worst and lose the worry, maybe.
Er, well, you are correct about worry, except worry is a good value if you're living in the machine. Check things, double check, monitor the finances, monitor the crazies next door, make sure you lock your car, etc etc yadda yadda, you can get into some real trouble not being paranoid enough, but it's very hard to get into trouble by being TOO paranoid.*
*You can, if you go into full-on OCD or something, of course. But living in the US you'll notice you can't check, monitor, check out, and worry over things too much as a general rule.
TonyF says:
Based on what evidence?
1 billion eating meat and dairy = no problem
7 billion and doubling every 40 years eating meat and dairy = massive dieoff, perhaps not just of us but of all large animals on Earth.
Not in the least bit obvious. Lester Brown and co have been trumpeting this nonsense for decades, but crop production is still so high people are actually trying to make fuel from it.
Don't be daft! Yes people are making fuel for their SUVs from corn, and the price of grain in the world is going through the roof, over $4 a bushel compared to half that price in 2005.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M
Grain stocks are dropping all over the world.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006.htm
Simply because people choose to make fuel from their grain does not mean people in other areas of the world are not starving because of the lack of grain. It simply means they are willing to pay more for the grain, to use as fuel. People have only so much money for food. When grain gets too high and their money runs out they simply starve.
Ron Patterson
Exactly - if there'e one message of boards like this, it's that, even though the party's still hopping on the upper decks of the Titanic, the water's entering the lower levels and rising......
Actually, we sent a team down to see why we were slowing down; it was those freeloading liberal barnacles sucking on the hull...
If you use 'liberal' in the meaning of 'pleading for liberalization of the markets while actually aiming for lessening control and curbing of monopolistic practices': of course.
Ever heard of John Robbins?
(from 1989)
Length of time the world's petroleum reserves would last if all human beings ate meat-centred diets: 13 years
Length of time the world's petroleum reserves would last if all human beings ate a vegetarian diet: 260 years
Principal reason for U.S. military intervention in Persian Gulf: Dependence on foreign oil
Barrels of oil imported daily by U.S.: 6,800,000
Percentage of energy return (as food energy per fossil energy expended) of most energy efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5%
Percentage of energy return (as food energy per fossil energy expended) of least energy efficient plant food: 32.8%
Pounds of soybeans produced by the amount of fossil fuel needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot beef: 40
Percentage of raw materials consumed in U.S. for all purposes presently consumed to produce current meat-centred diet: 33
Percentage of raw materials consumed in U.S. for all purposes needed to produce fully vegetarian diet: 2
User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the United States: Livestock production
Quantity of water used in the production of the average cow sufficient to: Float a destroyer
Water needed to produce 1 pound of wheat: 25 gallons
Water needed to reduce 1 pound of meat: 2,500 gallons
Cost of common hamburger meat if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by U.S. taxpayers: $35/pound
Current cost for pound of protein from wheat: $1.50
Current cost for pound of protein from beefsteak: $15.40
Cost for pound of protein from beefsteak if U.S. taxpayers ceased subsidizing meat industry's use of water: $89
OK look, this is all great data, but, the real problem is too many people on the earth, not what they're eating. True, by all going vegan, we could get that 10 billion on the planet, maybe 15 billion, all in dull-minded vegan semi-starvation, other animals only in zoos because we need all the habitat we can get to grow our precious veggies and grains.....
Ever seen a prairie dog town after its population has crashed? It's just dirt, not a blade of anything green growing, no more prairie dog either, I guess maybe a few survivors run away or maybe the hawks get 'em. And they're vegan.
Does it really matter what food scheme we follow if we're bound and determined to overpopulate enough to kill the planet?
We need a new term here, we have Cornucopian for those who believe oil/energy are unlimited, we need a term for those who don't/won't accept that a population decrease will be necessary.
Popultopian?
Cancer.
Blessed is the man who maketh clothes for the winter out of animal skins, for his technology shall keepeth his ass warmeth.
Hello Francois,
If 6.5 billion humans were to follow this advice the world would quickly run out of animals. This is a technology which is simply unsustainable given the current state of the world's population and also the damage to Nature inflicted by the last ten thousand years of human modification of the Earth.
Any other ideas? Or is humankind really a lost cause?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
"given the current state of the world's population"
Surely that is the whole point. Talk about the elephant in the living room. No amount of alternative fuel and techno-gimcrackery will support this level of population, much less the 9-12 billion that is forecast before some levelling off. We are clearly overshot.
Therefore, the question is not about "humanity" surviving, it's about how many humans, and at what "standard of living".
You clearly believe so but it isn't obvious that the population cant be sustained at 5 billion, 50 billion or even 500 billion. Even with such banal technology as hydroponic greenhouses we could push populations into the hundreds of billions. Then we get back to the deep ecology arguments that suggest (without any real evidence) that humans require all the biodiversity of a rainforest to thrive.
When I look at the evidence, the worlds population is very sustainable at 7 billion, because we're doing it now with a rising global standard of living.
Julian Simon Lives!
The idea that the earth could support, with any technology, hundreds of billions of people is absurd beyond belief. We are killing the earth just trying to support 6.5 billion people. We are drawind down our aquifers, drying up our rivers, drying up our lakes, our topsoil is being washed away and blown away, the rainforest is disappearing by millions of acres per year, animals are going extinct at the rate of thousands of species per year, and the lifeblood that makes this all possible, fossil fuel, is disappearing and will never return.
How long since you visited Sub-Sahara Arfica? How long since you checked the water, river and grain and topsoil situation in China? Do you have a f**king clue as to what is really happening in the world?
And for every Homo sapien added to the world's population, some other animal must give way to make room for him or her. Does that mean anything to you? The world is at 100% of carrying capacity and has been at that point since the Cambrian Era. For every species that adds to its population, another species must give way to make room for their opponents success. We live on a finite world with only finite resources.
Hundreds of billions indeed! I have never heard of anything so absurd in my entire life. You need an education. Lester Brown would be a good place to start.
http://big-picture.tv/index.php?id=62&cat=&a=147
Ron Patterson
Its easily demonstrable with greenhouses and hydroponics.
All replacable with energy and different farming techniques.
Aesthetically displeasing yet it doesnt impact humanity in the least. Open up a few zoos. While we're at it, exterminate all nonhuman primates. They're dirty things that spread all sorts of horrid diseases.
And nuclear power will last millons of years.
China gets richer and richer. Aquifers deplete and desalination plants are opened. Rivers are diverted for even higher agricultural output. It doesnt seem to me that the world is getting poorer in the least.
Nope.
Not even wrong. The finite resources of the world can support tens of millions of hunter gatherers sure. A technologically advanced world can support hundreds of billions.
He's been spewing that stuff for decades and we're no nearer to collapse now.
In all my years on the net I have never witnessed such gall and ignorance. At any killing all the other great apes would make little difference. There are about 200,000 other great apes combined. The population of Homo sapiens increases by that much each day.
Wrong! China is not building desalination plants. They are far too energy intensive. The cost of energy to desalinate one acre would be about ten times the profit in produce or grain from that acre. Anyone who knows one damn thing about desalination knows it is highly uneconomical for irrigation.
Hundreds of billions! Are you for real? Is it possible that there is anyone on earth who is that ignorant? Well, one at least.
Ron Patterson
Yeah, knock that strawman down. I was so totally suggesting desalination for irrigation.
Sure. Its been addressed many times; Cohen wrote a book on it and many others made calculations based on different assumptions. You can technically support hundreds of billions on earth with advanced hydroponics farming and the like. With traditional agriculture perhaps ten billion. With advanced water irrigation, some more ten billion.
But when we get into advanced techniques like global hydroponics and aquaculture systems you can get really huge food yields. I dont think we're going to have this sort of enormous population however, for different reasons that I imagine you would scoff at.
China is not getting richer, a small portion is getting much richer, there's a bit of an upper working class/lower middle class developing, but for the average guy on the farm, in the city, etc it's much worse.
There's a Frontline TV program about this, you can watch it for free on line. I forget the title, but you'll find it, it will stand out, it's the one about how China may not be doing so well for its people under globalization/capitalism. Very watchable and thought-provoking like all the excellent Frontline programs.
Yes, I've seen it. I dont know how you could from that episode conclude from watching that that China is getting poorer, even the average guy.
What is happening is there is a rapidly rising disparity of wealth, but even the peasants in china are doing better than a generation ago. Some individuals are worse off, but change always brings turmoil.
Damn, Dezakin, I have very serious doubts that what you suggest is viable but I won't bother arguing about that.
What really scares me is if what you argue is viable. I would not wish to live in such a world, but I don't wish to die, either, I have a problem!
Tangentially you might try reading a book by Sherri S. Tepper: 'Beauty'. It's a synthesis of faery tales, a racial slur on the Fae, an observation on the waning of magic, and more.
I wouldn't worry about that. Demographics show population maxing out at most at 12 billion at the end of the century because of declines in fertility, not climbing to hundreds of billions. I only argue the possible.
What I expect is eventually we'll breathe life and intelligence into machines, and the children of humanity will devour (or 'convert') us all before our population climbs to such huge numbers. Of course such speculation is often dismissed as transhumanist nonsense, but the trends and possibilities are clear to me. Still, such visions are beyond the scope of the decline of oil production and not entirely germane to the conversation.
Dezakin,
You are dumber than a six-pack of GWs (better known as Resident Bush, or Shrub as Molly Ivins lovingly dubbed him).
People like you will ensure the demise of the species. Perhaps that's just as well if you are the future.
Stupid and ill-informed is no way to proceed through life.
Because you are too dumb to even know that you are dumb, these words are a waste of time.
I could not let it go because willful ignorance is something I absolutely hate.
I get this sort of response a lot. People hate the