Edited to remove the long excerpt. I already posted an excerpt and a link up top.

Thxs Leanan, for the edit,

On another note: from your plethora of Drumbeat keylinks today, I notice the problems in Africa seem to be spreading and cascading blowbacks. From a quick eyeball of the just-updated 2007 info from the CIA Factbook [Life expectancy at birth (years) by country]:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/21...

It is easy to see that this continent's people have their lives foreshortened by 20-30 years compared to much of the rest of the planet. Angola, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe appear to be the worst off.

In response to the long Drumbeat yesterday: if most of your people are dead by their thirties--technology doesn't even have a chance to get rolling, much less hoping to advance it to solve our PO & GW problems.

Assuming the CIA is still around in ten years of postPeak decline & ELM: it will be interesting to see if this rank table has gotten better or worse:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesan...
----------------------------------------
Life expectancy at birth:

This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
-----------------------------------------
If technocornucopia is successful, these numbers should all be much improved in ten years time. My SWAG is that they will be worse. Time will tell.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Hi Totoneila

Lifespans have really increased in the last century. I look at historical land and probate records, and in the US the average lifespan was about 50 a hundred years ago. If you'll look at paleolithic lifespans from archeological sites, I think you'll find that most people lived to about 40. In other words, modern technology has doubled human lifespans through nutrition and medicine. You can see that reflected in region of total collapse anarchy like the Congo.

Another way to think about it: What other animal in a natural state outlives its breeding life?

Bob Ebersole

Bob: Globally, average lifespan increased dramatically up until about 1998. It has since been on a gradual decline.

Actually, the lifespan didn't really get an increase so much as we made a huge impact on Childhood diseases.

Take a look at the life expectancy of someone 50 years old in 1900. It was about 70ish. BUT the life expectancy of a newborn was only 40-50ish.

In 1900 if you made it to 40 or 50 you could expect to live to almost the same age we do now.

We didn't really extend how LONG someone could live, We just increased the number of people reaching adulthood(ie getting rid of whooping cough, and other childhood diseases).

True, although the life expectancy of someone 50 years old today (in a developed nation) would surely be well over 80, so there has been some improvement at the upper end.

Thanks to a lot of expensive geriactric drugs, pace-makers, etc., modern hospitilization and nursing home intervention. This postponement of death isn't getting any cheaper and won't prevail much longer in a declining petroleum regime.

Note on lifespans.

From a purely population point of view, medicine is almost irrelevant (of course, on a personal level you may need medical intervention to survive). The greatest boon to health in our society is clean water, sewerage, food, etc.

If you are considering a downslope in living conditions, then basic hygene and sustenance are your key factors to staying healthy. Childhood and adult diseases killed enormous numbers of people in western countries (1 in 1000 and more per year for some of them) through till the late 1800s/early 1900s, thanks in large part to sewerage systems that were completed in major cities.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

This (childhood mortality) is in line with research I've seen.
Also the introduction of antibiotics has made a dent.
In recent decades the adoption of foods which have no history of safe consumption (highly processed, GMO, less and less vitamins minerals, high-fructose corn syrup, chemical concoctions) and a reduction in exercise are leading to a reduction in lifespan due to so many people being overweight, obese and getting the slew of diseases that come with such a diet/lifestyle (cancer, autoimmune diseases, CHD, diabetes and more). In particular bypass operations and the ilk do not extend the life of people with CHD (chronic heart disease) and so we'll continue to see lifespan decrease as more people (tr)eat their way to heart attacks. Healthy At 100 is an interesting book about people with a history of long life.
Note that infant mortality took an upturn when doctors got involved in births (partially delt with thanks to Louis Pastour) however, infant mortality is lower when midwives, and not MDs attend the birth (read The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth).
The loss of antibiotics in recent history and the breeding of superbugs by feeding our best antibiotics to animals on unimaginable scales will come home to roost.
A loss of travel speed and distance and less people in general will help with this.
The best thing would be to put a stake into the heart of modern meat production and get people onto a mostly vegetarian/vegan diet.

What evidence is there that it is modern technology that is responsible for the longer lifespans. Can you disentangle "nutrition and medicine" from simple improved hygiene?

And to answer your last question - plenty.

I consider improved hygiene to be medicine. Until the germ theory of disease there was a lot less hygiene.

Look what happened to the population of India after the British cleaned up the water supply.

Bob, polio is an exception to the hygine rule. Polio was known as 'rich kids disease' because it struck so often in the very clean homes of the wealthy. That is also why so much money was poured into a vaccine for polio.

If you can find a copy of 'The River: A Journey To The Source Of HIV And Aids' I believe you will enjoy reading it. I also believe some of the scientists in the search for an oral polio vaccine were involved in an early attempt at population control. Great whodunnit.

Interesting that convincing people to take their drinking water upstream from where they bath and defecate becomes "modern technology."

To the extent that technology is the application of scientific knowledge, and the germ theory of disease is indeed scientific knowledge, then the rest--the actions taken involving implementing mitigation techniques, seem to quite easily fall under the rubric of being a type of practical "technology".

In fact, I do believe that some of these "implementations" I speak of were indeed spurred on by pure, hard, engineering (ie water distribution systems, etc.)

Alas, fire again...

The devil is in the details - or in this case, the context. The discussion was in reference to the wonderful impact of "modern" technology - not just technology in the abstract.

It was modern about 2300 years ago when the Romans installed municipal water systems and municipal sewerage. They also had double doored, meaning inner and outer, hot baths (saunas)and earth tube air conditioning. I don't believe they had germ theory... but they had figured out the concept of clean versus dirty.

shaman,
There were cholera and typhoid fever epidemics in New York and London in the 19th century. They were both big killers in the armies fighting in WWI.

There's a classic history text you might enjoy, called "Rats, Lice and History" about how sanitation changed modern warfare, also read about Typhoid Mary, a chronic carrier of typhoid fever who accidentally infected many people working as a maid.

Another book that's fascinating on the subject is "1491", about the die-offs of the indians in the Americas from various plagues.

Bob Ebersole

oilmanbob,
not clear to me what your point is.

Thanks for the book recommendations, though. R,L&H sounds interesting. I've read 1491, or at least as much as I'm going to. Interesting premise, but kind of week on execution, I thought.

But, so what was it you were trying to demonstrate by observing that disease still exists?

shaman,

My point is, if we get a collapse from running out of energy, our lives will become shorter and more brutish. And if you have a realistic assessment of odds of survival, most of us aren't going to make it.

So, it behooves all of us to work towards a sustainable future, and take care of our population. I have 1 son, and got a vasectomy because I didn't want to add to the population.

I want to see a decent, clean world for my son, and every other child on the planet. I don't want to see armies of child soldiers swarming over the landscape like in the Congo. I don't want to see people so desperate for water because municipal pumps don't work that they drink polluted water. I don't want to see homeless, starving people outside my door. I don't want to shoot someone to protect food for my family. I don't want to see women and men prostituting themselves for a meal, or a place to sleep. I don't want to see climate change refugees streaming into the USA. I don't want to see religeous nuts set uo theocratic states all over the globe

So I will work as hard as I can to preserve a decent future for all of us. We are all in this together, and a hide out in the hills is a fantasy. That's why we have to wake people up and try to save our world.

Sorry for the rant. Bob Ebersole

In general the problem with pre-modern (and post peak oil?) mortality is focussed on the childhood years.

Child mortality is high... but once people survive to adulthood they tend to live "reasonably" long lives.

Don't confuse "average" life length with life expectancy of a person who survives to 15 years of age... two very different things.

oilmanbob, you may be in danger because of specific health conditions, but the general life expectancy for a modern and pre-modern 50 year old may not be that different.... it is childhood that is deadly.

I'd like to offer some solid numbers here, and they are available, but if you hunt around you'll find them. I'm sure that 50 year olds have better life expectancies now than 100 or 200 years ago.... but again the improvement has been much less than the improvement in the average life span, which has increased because of childhood survival rates increasing so dramatically.

Alright, I see where you are coming from. And I think we were just talking at cross purposes. My point earlier was that our health in general is not dependent on modern medicine, though that may be different for individuals with specific problems (especially those with "modern" or "industrial" health problems).

But I look at the coming changes not as descent into some Mad Max world, but as an opportunity to correct the problems of a social and economic system gone astray. I do not see the modern world as something worthy of sustaining, even if climate change threats can be overcome. I am as concerned about the "pollution" to our beings, physical, social, psychological and spiritual as I am about the ecosystem.

I'd urge you to consider that many of those "collapse" scenarios are a reflection of the modern world or of civilization in general, not a necessary aspect of the loss of central authority. For example, homelessness is an issue created by the concept of private property, prostitution occurs where women's role in society is degraded below that of men (which occurs concomitantly with the introduction of agriculture). The rest I will leave to you to imagine. But I will end with this - there are more choices available than just the collapse scenario and the clinging desperately to a technological existence scenario.

Shaman,

We're on the same page. Its going to take a giant attitude shift, a real inventory of our values and what's important to us, and a lot of personal investment in trying to make things work. Fortunately, most people really try to be good people, there's a lot of good in the world. The question is: How do we wake them up?

Bob Ebersole

That wasn't a rant - I think you coherently articulated what many of us on here are thinking.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man

Mass production/distribution of information via books, radio, etc is what allowwed for the information regarding hygiene to be spread so far and wide.

Nice try, but not accurate. Information about hygiene was spread amongst primarily illiterate populations. While it may have been assisted by modern forms of media, it was not dependent on it.

Right, but how do you think the smarty pants people were able to come up with these ideas?

Take germ theroy for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

I don't think it's a coincidence that the theory did not gain widespread acceptance until the industrial age in England had been going for 100 years. There needed to be developed an entire foundation of higher learning in order for people like John Snow to get to the point where they could figure this stuff out.

I think the reason such things took so long to catch on was in part because people tend to resist new ideas that challenge their world view.

The idea of hygiene, and in particular washing hands, was considered and pushed foremost by a doctor in the 1800s (Dr. Semmelweis). He demonstrated that when he and his staff washed their hands after seeing a patient and moving on to another (something that wasn't done by other doctors) the death rate of patients in his hospital dropped dramatically (birthing mothers was his area of specialty I believe).

What did the medical profession think of this? They poo-pooed the idea and thought it was ridiculous. It took many years for the idea of cleaning ones hands to catch on in the medical profession.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

Carl Sagan has written quite eloquently on this topic.
Certainly I probably wouldn't be still alive today if it weren't for modern technology (specifically, antibiotics)...nor would my son (well, technically, he would never have been born, as we required significant fertility treatment - so he doesn't really count).
I'm willing to be at least a third of the participants here owe their life to modern medicine.

I'm less than convinced that our nutrition is substantially better now than it was at, say, the start of the 20th Century.

What other animal in a natural state outlives its breeding life?

Bob, it's very likely that the value of "old age" to an "intellectual" species such as ours lies in the opportunity to impart wisdom gained through vast experience -- no small thing. Of course, this wisdom is only valuable if someone is listening...

I didn't say that old age had no value, but rather that its a result of technology and nutrition. I'm 55, and I've had a couple of illnesses that would have killed me before modern medicine. I have Type 2 diabetes, and know that the great grandfather from which I inherited the tendency died at 50 around WWI.

If we do have a societal collapse, I'm going to die fairly quickly and not very pleasantly. And, so will most of us over 50. I guess that's why I get horrified by the doomer porn idiots, it spells my death and the death of most of the people I love. And that's why I care about peak oil. It is no joke a matter of life and death for perhaps 5/6ths of the people on this planet. So we had better have a slow slope down,and start working on solutions. Loading the silver BB's for the werewolves of doom!

I know of no better place to start than the people who care about peak oil, and no better time to start than now. That's why we all need to be at the ASPO convention in Houston October 17-20th. Network!
Bob Ebersole

So an outcome that someone sees as possible but which that person also does not want, so horrifies you that you will attack them for posting "doomer porn" rather than attempt to intellectually deal with the topic?

And this is supposed to help solve such possible problems exactly how?

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

GreyZone,

Reread what I said. If modern technological society collapses, I'm dead, and so are most of the people I care about. We're older, and only young, breeding age people have much of a chance-look at other animal die-offs. A die-off to a sustainable level of population means that 5 people out of six are going to be history. Sure, its a possibility, but there have been people predicting apocolypse since I was a child being taught to "duck and cover" and kiss my ass goodbye in my elementary school. And, there have been people doing the same thing since prehistory! Sooner or later I guess they'll be right, but the odds aren't very good that I'm going to be snatched out of my sandals for the Rapture, or die in a thermonuclear flash.

I don't mind some of that talk-I think its cautionary. But every so often we get people on The Oil Drum who seem to be setting themselves up to be warlord of a cannibal crew. Talk of that kind is negative and detracts from what I see as our message-be prudent and change, or we're all going to be very sorry. It drives off reasonable people, who then associate us with Millenarian cults. Its one of the cheif weapons of the cornucopians and global warming deniers-they must be crazy, look at who they hang out with. Thats why CERA gets away with calling us peakists and a cult.

I don't like suppressing free speech. But I'm going to ridicule ridiculous positions-and let the sunlight of open discourse disinfect poisonous ideas.
Bob Ebersole

And I suggest you re-read what I said, Bob. There you are praying for a slow downslope when we don't even know what the downslope will look like yet. People keep suggesting 1% or 2%, hoping against the fates that it won't be so bad as to knock us all off our rockers. But what if it is 6%? What if it is the 8% suggested by the CEO of Schlumberger? Oh, he must be a "doomer" and not worthy of serious consideration just because he utters "doomer porn", right?

Ridiculing a problem will not make it go away. Ridiculing Hansen's work that suggests that 2-3 degrees celsius can raise ocean levels by 25 meters won't make that go away. All that ridiculing does is chases the idea out of public debate but it does not stop the real underlying problem. You might choose to ridicule conclusions but I would caution you to not ridicule basic ideas just because the consequences appear disastrous. And that is exactly what your original comment seemed to say to me - that you will attack any "doomer porn" because it scares you. If you meant something else, then maybe you need to find a better way of expressing yourself.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

A few days ago, PG posted news about digg and reddit. I think threads like this may be part of our problem. MSM don't like too much realism, and almost everybody doesn't like gloating over someone else's misfortune.

In the case of Peak Oil, we don't need to openly estimate the kill rate needed to achieve a world population that is sustainable in a post petroleum world. Any estimate made on the basis of current social theory is surely mistaken and largely irrelevant to discussion of the peak oil phenomenon.

But I do wonder what will happen, in the expected collapse, to discussion groups like this and to the internet in general ;-)

Greyzone,

I'm pretty sure that Schlumberger is right about the depletion rate of oil fields in the rest of the world. Those guy's are really good.

What may slow it are 1. a huge depression cutting demand 2. growth in all liquids from ethanol, unconventional oil, gas-to-liquids, ect.3. enhanced oil recovery, economics changing on production because of price and fields produced longer

If you want to be depressed about the situation, O.K. Considering the lack of leadership in the US, its understandable.

But, if we switch to electric rail, ride bicycles and walk, act like rational humans with a plan and try to save our society it could very well work. We are not running totally out of oil, just cheap oil. We have decent people in most of the world who can cooperate. Its going to take changing expectations and values and a hell of a lot of work.

Predicting doom and doing nothing is self-indulgent and lazy. Glorying in thoughts of walled compounds fending off barbarian hordes sound like a plot for a video game, or fighting hordes of plague infected cannibals with your large breasted raven haired consort handing you ammunition on your organic farm. Come on, get real. That kind of doomerism is counter-productive.

The fact is the ice cubes haven't slid off Greenland yet. Yes, we need to cut our CO2 emmissions drasticly.No doubt we need immediate mitigation strategies. But wallering in gloom, glorying the collapse of civilization? Its doomer porn, and it diverts attention for real solutions and wastes more precious time.

This is my last post about this today. I can't believe I'm getting in an arguement about what should be obvious if we really expect to do anything. Try prozac, or zoloft or welbutrin if continue to feel depressed, I swear its pathological. I, by the way, do take welbutrin, as I've had depression all my life, its apparently genetic, plus I think I really screwed my brain chemical balance with too much dope as a kid. That's not an off the wall slur.
Bob Ebersole

Try prozac, or zoloft or welbutrin if continue to feel depressed, I swear its pathological. I, by the way, do take welbutrin, as I've had depression all my life, its apparently genetic, plus I think I really screwed my brain chemical balance with too much dope as a kid.

You've had depression, you admit you screwed up your brain's chemical balance via heavy drug use, AND you are now on powerful psychactive medications but you are accussing the doomers of being the unbalanaced ones?

It's time somebody calls shenanigans on you here.

Look guy, I've never had any depression what so ever, never done any drugs, never had a need for any psychoactive medicaiton and am as doomeristic as it comes. Perhaps my good mental health is what enables me to handle the bad news while your admitted imbalance(s) are what cause you to indulge in the false hope that "we" are all going to do much different than what we're already doing which is spending trillions on killing arabs and grabbing their oil & water for our corporate overlords.

Not trying to flame you . . .

I have a pet theory that people on anti-depressants are more likely not to be able to come grips with the reality of our situation then people who are mentally healthy. Your use of them is a single data point backing up my theory.

Have a day.

>I have a pet theory that people on anti-depressants are more likely not to be able to come grips with the reality of our situation then people who are mentally healthy. Your use of them is a single data point backing up my theory.

I have a pet theory that drug abuse will soar once reality of our situation sinks in. There is no better escape from reality than illicit drug abuse!

TechGuy: How about a girlfriend? Steep competition there.

DrivingChimp: Alcohol is a drug--a powerful one, deeply entrenched in our culture, amongst a myriad of others, both legal and illegal. If you don't drink now, you'll perhaps be drinking soon (judging by your very own prognostication of the patient). That is, after you're done tilling the land, in whatever ghost-town you've finally decided to set off to, and if you can even manage to keep the barricades' defenses up against the raving biker gangs armed to the teeth trying to take over your thermal energy greenhouse...

[edit] Everyone in general: all good points. I'm including myself here, humbly =]

TechGuy said;"There is no better escape from reality than illicit drug abuse!"

You said: "TechGuy: How about a girlfriend? Steep competition there."

Having a girlfriend is having reality come and smack you upside the head..... unless you're already married.

How true.

[edit: My eyes see the word reality I always take it to mean "reality", I forget others don't know that I'm making an inversion and then I remember it's the internet and it's too late... Semantics always gets me caught up.]

Well, chump, I mean chimp, you are trying to flame me. I am at least honest about myself and where I come from, while you make a living trying to terrify people and bully them. You are a psychic vampire.

And if you aren't depressed, then you are a narcissistic evil asshole. The pornmeister of doom himself.

Bob Ebersole

Hey...omb...you're not alone out there.

I've been on Paxil for going on 5 years now, supplemented with daily chocolate and occasional Brandy. My chronic depression is also hereditary (so they say), but really didn't manifest until I lived in Texas for a year. Guess who was Governor at the time? I moved out of Nacogdoches one year before bits of the space shuttle came crashing down. Perhaps my depression was founded in reality.

Anyways, here's to honesty and the constant battle against internal demons....cheers.

I sympathize with the fact that many people suffer from depression, for genetic and environmental reasons (in varying ratios).

oilmanbob, just when I thought I hadn't gotten mad at anything you'd written for a while now you write:

"And if you aren't depressed, then you are a narcissistic evil asshole. The pornmeister of doom himself."

"Narcissistic evil asshole." Way to practice what you preach. All this peace, love and understanding suddenly becomes the above clause. Interesting.

To the Chimp: I suggest you co-opt bob's slur and turn it into a marketing ploy on your website. You could even register pornmeisterofdoom.com

Can I get some royalties? ;]

"Narcissistic evil asshole." Way to practice what you preach. All this peace, love and understanding suddenly becomes the above clause. Interesting.

What I said obviously had a lot of truth to it. That's why Bob got so upset by it and resorted to this. Whatever . . . (rolling my eyes)

Although my avatar over at the LATOC Forum is a picture of Dr. Evil:

http://www.peakoilstore.com/forum/index.php/topic,4460.0.html

Man, obviously from that picture and all those fawning cult members--you have to be the happiest narcissistic evil asshole on your block (and that's not easy in California.)

With that said, time to go recharge the neurons/glia...

My board certified psychiatrist friend (up to her eyebrows in New Orleans doing her residency here) has accused me of "catastrophicism", taking the worst possible view of what could possibly happen (a psychological trait) post-Peak Oil.

I assured her that I was on the optimistic side !

"Oh"

Best Hopes,

Alan

Classic.

I assured her that I was on the optimistic side !

"Oh"

That is priceless, and just goes to show you how relatively meaningless, yet very funny, "Doom Romping" can be. Even many of the non-CERAesque TOD optimists will be labeled the ubiquitous "Doomer" to average Joe and Jane if you printed out transcripts of TOD threads, particularly DrumBeats.

The relatively positive forward looking oilmanbob or others in his league (or people like yourself, and other good samaritans) try to describe the issues at hand will most likely have no better luck than LATOC's Dear Civilization letter. So I say, let both styles flourish. They'll discount you as a catastrophist, or a neo-malthusian or just think you really love trains (which I'm sure you do, and god bless you for it--honestly.) They'll be sent an email with a link to LATOC and either shrug, chuckle or descend into the forums never to return again ... Either way, no matter how you approach it, as Leanan has written before in the past--a plurality of voices is a good thing.

I think you mean she said "catastrophism". I'll just note that it has religious overtones. Harper's Magazine actually ran a cover article on peak oil, I'm sure you remember. The Harper's article insinuated that any doom PO inspires is the 21st century version of the Millerites, or maybe it was just trying to underhandedly prop us up by throwing in some pangs of self-criticism, but I seriously doubt it. Acceptance that PO is a "logical result of a limited resource base" is one thing... Getting people to realize the scale and magnitude of the issues involved without them just screaming "Doomer" (or its other euphemisms) at you in ridicule, is quite another...

heh Alan stick with it ;)

>I assured her that I was on the optimistic side !

I'll second that opinion.

Talk about psychological projection!

Never have I said that I was depressed, Bob. Angry maybe, but not depressed. I am not happy with the situation I see developing but I am coming to grips with it the best I can. One need not be depressed if one is not "happy". There are other emotional states in there too, you know. But it is irrational to ignore what is happening around you just because you dislike it.

So stop projecting your own psychological problems on others. I've dealt with lots of situations in my life and fortunately never been clinically depressed. With luck, I will maintain that record whether I have one year left or fifty.

As for why I've developed negative conclusions about civilization, it's due to having studied what is happening from many angles while not seeing any viable response from my own civilization. And while you might find it untenable to live in anything other than the modern world, I do not automatically come to the conclusion that I have to be unhappy or depressed if modern society goes away. No, I won't like it as I said above but I think I can cope with it, especially without serious brain altering chemicals.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

Bob:
''Reread what I said. If modern technological society collapses, I'm dead, and so are most of the people I care about.''

You and me both, but for different reasons.

Fifty, both knees shot from propping at rugby football in my green years. Looking at onset of rhuematoid arthritis, and an almost certain hip replacement (''Its not the age, its the mileage''...) Cannot plant enough for a hamster, let alone a family.

I spent about 4 years tracing one branch of the family back to the 16th Century (records become flimsy before 1538).

Take out child-bed deaths and dont count them, then about half the children died before 21. In the 16th and 17th Cents, most males averaged 65. They were Yeomen (farmers), By the 18th Century, small time Yeomen were up against it.

Dual income became the norm: Days in flax weaving, spare time on the farm. Age of death averaged 55.

Later, as the flax industry took off, people left the land, going into the flax mills. Later still, cotton arrived and they left the land to work in the dark, satanic mills of Bradford and Manchester, and the woolen mills of Yorkshire.

Truly wonderful to exist in these times: Average age at death dropped another decade to 45. Mostly Lung Diseases

Women: Something happened...

In the 15th to 17th Centuries, the women of the family were baby factories and rarely outlived the men but with two notable exceptions (childless).

From the mid 19th Century, a different story unfolded. Still pumping out babies, but surviving.

Why?

Mass produced, easily available, coal-tar Soap.

IMHO: Soap and an understanding of general and clinical hygene occuring at roughly the same time as germ-theory, plus our predeliction for Tea (boiling drinking water) offset a lot of the problems associated with mass migration to slum tenaments.

Methodism helped as well, along with the harsh penalties of ostracism that went hand-in-hand with slovenliness or strong drink and not keeping up standards. You cannot survive opprobrium in a small, tight community attending the same chapel...

Of course the un-waged poor still died like flies. But thats enough of them :-)

Where is this leading? (or meandering?)

On the way up the energy slope, industry, commerce offset rural problems enabling raw materials to be turned into finished goods by (now) landless peasants.

Science, Engineering, Medicine led to access to mitigators such as Soap, Tea, Bleach, scrubbing brushes, water closets and sewage systems. Add anesthetic and vaccination, add wound hygene and child bed hygene and then add the Victorian ethics of moral uplift, continence and self development and muscular christianity (we had an empire to run...) Then you gotta a 19th Century winner: Population Growth.

Malthus delayed.

We are now on the energy down slope.

Executive Summary: Expect the film reel to play backwards to the 16th Century.

While i agree that life on the downward slope could get nasty, basic hygiene is quite high on the nescesity list, and low on the energy consumption list, and as such it should not quickly disappear (even mad max would know to boil his water before drinking it).

Picture your modern city: there's lots of people living in a small area. Generally the water is pumped in. Maybe it can be gravity fed to the area, but at the very least apartment buildings need electricity to pump the water up to the higher floors. Picture a situation in that some times there is water, sometimes not. That puts a damper on the effectiveness of the toilet (in it's present form as a water flushed, indoor device for a private household).

Another thing, boiling water requires energy, be it electricity, gas, or woodstove. Even Mad Max might find that boiling water adds an extra twenty minutes of work to his daily routine.

We might even speculate on what happens when gas gets expensive and the garbage truck comes once a month instead of once a week. (Its the big rats rustleing around in the garbage piles that bug me, although the flies aren't that great either.)

Sure the hygene is possible, but it becomes more difficult as energy gets scarcer. People who are tired or poor are especially likely to start cutting corners. But you don't need to imagine or watch mad max. Go visit a third world city. Stay in a cheap hostel and see what it's like. For a lot of people and municipalities in the third world enegry is already quite expensive.

Sounds like New Orleans shortly after my return.

Simply getting food was quite a challenge. No place to wash clothes except at a friends.

Half the population in 20% of the housing.

I can still remember the cheers when the first garbage truck came be (they only picked up 2 bags from each building, many with 4 to 8 apartments).

I went through the first winter without natural gas (no hot water and only an electrical space heater for heat). Natural gas is out again for the last week as they replace a section corroded by salt water during Katrina.

Best Hopes,

Alan

PS: Alcohol consumption is up with half the population and a drop in tourism.

Thank you, Alan.

The rest of you look at what Alan is saying. This is New Orleans while the US is still supposedly the strongest, richest nation on the face of the planet and it can get assistance from outside its local environment. What would have happened if New Orleans stood alone like an ancient city-state? What would be the fate of New Orleans in a poorer or more fragmented United States and world?

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

Some experts believe that the Black Death was caused in part by "peak wood." The population had grown to the point that there was a wood shortage. That meant ordinary people could no longer heat water for bathing and washing, and hygiene suffered.

Though popular belief is that people back then didn't care for baths, the fact is that they liked to wash. They simply could not afford it. Before the 13th century, most towns had a public bathhouse, where people could soak in tubs of hot water. But the forests were cut down for fuel and cleared for farming, and they could no longer heat water for the bath houses.

The fact that many people were malnourished - famine was a recurrent problem at the time - also aided in the spread of disease.

Some other experts think that the Black Death was caused by "peak cats". A medieval belief developed that cats were satanic, so they were not exactly welcomed. Fewer cats = more rodents. More rodents = more fleas & lice. There's your disease vector.

It's still not certain that the Black Death was bubonic plague. If it was, it was a different form than had been seen before or since. Many researchers believe it was a different disease, maybe even several different diseases.

The SODIS system of solar disinfection uses PET bottles in sunlight, with a reflective base. 5 hours of sunlight effectively sanitizes the water. This would be for household use.

I assume windmills like the ones on my Grandparent's farm would be sufficient for lifting water.

I suspect that water sanitation may not be as hard as other things to deal with post-peak.

Feeling that pain! Rugby takes a lot out of the old legs and I didn't play that long. At least I played in the back field and not Prop! I had a dream last night where my legs were in pain every time I walked and I have some idea of what you are up against. My knees where shot primarily from Football (Soccer) and excessive jumping (high jumping and jumping like white men are not supposed to), so my final Rugby game was when a loose scrum collapsed on me and I just couldn't get up to follow the play.

And now another irony. My family tree goes back to 965 A.D. to the Court of King Edgar. I have no claims to understanding longevity other than staying out of the way of politics and keeping your head. Our ancestors sided with William The Conqueror, changed their mind, but lost land and title after the Anglo-Saxons drove the Normans out. Anyway, great discussion of hygiene based upon personal history. That is what we need, a deep understanding of our history to give us some speculation about where things will go.

I wish people would refrain from the term 'doomer porn'

Collapse is, to my mind, an increasing and disturbing possibility.

As a society we are not doing anything near enough to mitigate energy loss and the alternatives to fossil fuels are, to date, frankly feeble. The up and comming loss of Terrawatts will cripple us and no amount of ethanol / bio diesel / algae scams or hydrogen / potential energy storage from wind farms will bail us out.

UKGov announced a new Train and Station 30 year plan today. Nice...

What about the three + new nukes we will need to electrify the rails?

As things stand, we loose all our nukes by 2020 and 30% of our coal fired electricity by 2015.

Talk about 'joined-up-government'...

I've been away for awhile, but hadn't we once coined the term "pornucopians" to offset the "doomer porn" thing?

To my mind both sides are simply displaying a rather uncritical acceptance of Hollywood created images of the future.

The fact that menopause exists suggests that humans are meant to live to be old. (Assuming they survive childhood, that is.)

Most animals are fertile until they die. Often, they grow more fertile the older they are. Only a few species, among them Homo sapiens, have the shutdown in fertility we know as menopause.

Why is this? Likely because at a certain point, a female is better off helping her children raise their kids than having more of her own. Childbirth is risky for a woman, and childhood is long. If the mother dies before her child is able to support itself, the child will likely die, too. Helping your family group with their kids is a better strategy once a woman reaches middle age.

The other animals who have menopause (among them whales) are also extremely social animals with relatively long lifespans and long childhoods.

P.S. This difference shows up when you look at what human males find attractive. Men in all cultures prefer young females. Youth (and health, as reflected in beauty) are where it's at for male humans.

Is this "natural"? No. Male chimps do not like young females. If there's a middle-aged female around, they will cluster around her. They prefer older females as strongly as humans prefer younger ones. Chimps do not suffer menopause. Older females are as fertile as young ones, and they are more knowledgeable mothers, more likely to raise babies successfully.

Think about how weird that is from a human perspective. Chimps would prefer, say, the chimp Martha Stewart to the chimp Paris Hilton. Hot young studs like athletes, rockers, and movie stars would be dating women much older than they are, rather than women much younger. That is actually the more natural situation. Humans are different, and it's (partly) because we have such long lifespans.

Leanan, I must have a lot of chimp blood. I don't think women are even interesting to talk to until they are past 35, and a dirty mind is wonderfully sexy. And, it must be a bonobo chimp at that, I'd much rather make love than fight!Bob Ebersole

Easy there, Bob! ;-)

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

Spot on.

Another theory (no references, a discussion in the pub with a Zoology lecturer).

Women survive past menopause to help out with complex, long term grand-child rearing, but start to fail very soon after the youngest daughter commences menopause. Maybe true, maybe not. Who knows?

One truth: 'It takes a village to bring up a kid'...:-)

Not so much modern technology (as commonly understood) but modern infrastructure. Public works providing clean water. That sort of thing. Tainter uses this as an example. Most of the health benefits in US were achieved by the 40s (if my memory is right) and would properly be understood as simple public health efforts.

cfm in Gray, ME

Have you heard of AIDS?

The experience of Russia during the post-USSR collapse is instructive in this regard. Life expectancies didn't plunge to African levels, but they did decline substantially.

I wonder if some of the decline was due to depression induced alcoholism which became rampant in men post-collapse.

A lot of the decline is indeed caused by rampant alcoholism. Here's just one source:

Alcoholism is the main reason the average life span for Russian men has dropped to just 58. It’s also the fastest growing beer market in the world, partly due to state encouragement, as the high taxes on beer are a lucrative form of income. Many Russians labour under the misapprehension that beer is a soft drink, and that’s the way it’s marketed. To compound the problem, vodka is cheaper than most soft drinks, because it’s barely taxed.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s924602.htm

Well, this IS the most convincing evidence presented to date for ethanol use saving energy.

Sorry, sorry..... but it's just, y'know, true

You think those Russian men are ignorant? They deserve to get a buzz on and make their own decisions, and I may well make the same one in the future.

Sometimes life is so crap that falling asleep in the snow is a preferred option...

It’s also the fastest growing beer market in the world, partly due to state encouragement, as the high taxes on beer are a lucrative form of income.

Do you mean to say that high taxes do nothing to stop consumption?
How strange!

Well, you drink beer as long as you can afford it; eventually you will have to switch to dirt cheap vodka.

Note also:

the high taxes on beer are a lucrative form of income.

Imagine that! A government is using taxation to secure income.
It's almost as if they wouldn't want that source of REVENUE to dry up!