Indeed, I think disease will have a far far bigger role to play in any sort of population reduction as the result of declining oil supplies than starvation from declining food production. Especially as third world countries become increasing urbanised, living densely in horribly unhygenic slums, it will take nothing short of a miracle to keep disease rates from skyrocketing in the coming decades. It may well be enough to keep the maximum global population as low as 8 billion (as opposed to the currently projected 9-10 billion from various organisations). While this might be better for the planet, it will be nothing short of devastating for those living in such conditions.

simply put, we wont, the couple you name (typhoid, cholera) will be the worst. dehydration is the biggest killer. Remember to bring water to a boil and then let it cool to destroy pathogens.

Shortly after is the key word. TB was not entirely eliminated in all countries, however its prevalence was reduced to such an extent that the current couple generations have nil risk of contracting it. The same with smallpox. As to current trends, moving from 0 to 1 or 2 cases a year is bad(of the super duper bad TB), but compared to previous ages when sanatoriums were used to ease the suffering of thousands upon thousands I will keep the modern world thankyou.

And the Xtreme TB and super extreme drug resistent TB are caused by antibiotic administration which is not 100% effective (the same resistance eventually occurs with all bacteria)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis#history seems to back me up nearly 100%

It was not until 1946 with the development of the antibiotic streptomycin that effective treatment and cure became possible. Prior to the introduction of this drug, the only treatment besides sanatoria were surgical interventions,

this obviously only applies to countries where streptomycin is available in large amounts and cheaply to boot. wiki says 2 billion people currently have TB, with pretty much none in 1st world nations.

Who said I was talking about legislation that would affect the majority?

The sorts of the legislation I was primarily concerned with are those preventing a minority of corporations (who don't vote) from causing excessive environmental damage.

But here's example of why you're wrong anyway: the incumbent party here is proposing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. Now that does affect the majority - most people want the cheapest and most convenient products they can buy, and this stops them. But this ban isn't likely to make the slightest dint in their vote.

The political mood is moving fast enough that within a few years, a government will safely be able propose a law to ban cars with poor fuel economy without risk of voter backlash (indeed, the backlash even now would be minimal - the resistance to such proposals in the U.S. is coming from auto-manufactures, not from pollers). Even though if this means voters won't be able to drive Hummers anymore.

Now personally, I'm against either of those bans: I don't see any need to actually ban incandescent light bulbs or low-fuel-economy cars outright: there are occasions where they make sense. But once the cost of externalities is properly priced in, and fuel is more sensibly priced, their use will drop off, and they eventually may simply become uneconomical to produce.

And yes, I would vote for higher energy taxes (w/ lower income taxes), even if I didn't know about PO, entirely out of self-interest. For a start, I do know about climate change, and don't want to be living, or my kids to be living on an overheated planet. On top of that, I stand to benefit directly, because I already make effects to reduce my energy usage, so the accompanying income tax cuts will go towards paying off the mortgage, as opposed to being necessary to allow me to keep wasting unnecessary energy. It's not that hard to convince people that you're going to give them an extra $50 a week in tax cuts, but raise petrol and electricity prices such that they'll cost the average punter an extra $50 a week. Do they same thing 4 years in a row, and you will start to see people taking energy conservation quite seriously, once they realise how much they stand to profit from it.