86 comments on Oilwatch Monthly May 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
86 comments on Oilwatch Monthly May 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
It's kind of misleading to keep re-branding "Olduvai Theory" the way he does. It was initially a very specific prediction about per capita energy consumption (that was also statistically invalid, but that's beside the point), whereas now it's about "equalizing standard of living".
Unfortunately, though, what he has not changed is a tendency to make unfounded assertions. For example:
"“Raising the quality of life,” means releasing stress, reducing crowding, reducing pollution, alleviating hunger, and treating ill health. But these pressures are exactly the sources of concern and actions that will control total population to keep it within the bounds of the fixed world within we live. If the pressures are relaxed, so is the concern about how we impinge on the environment. Population will then rise further until the pressures reappear with an intensity that can no longer be relieved."
That's a bold claim to make, but he offers no evidence to support it. Indeed, available evidence suggests that the claim is wrong; demographic transition has taken much of the world from high to low (or negative) population growth not despite higher standard of living but because of it. This is exactly the opposite of what Duncan is asserting as true and using as one of the cornerstones of his argument.
Like all past iterations of Duncan's argument, this one reads as an argument being made to fit a desired outcome. Indeed, that seems to be the main constant of his "Olduvai Theory": he has a desired conclusion in mind, and he keeps trying out different numbers and arguments in the hopes of finding some that support his conclusion. It's a deeply unscientific approach.
Hello Pitt the Elder,
Thxs for your reply. Yep, it is a theory, not a scientific law. But what do you think of the probability of his conclusions--it seems greater than 75% Thermo/Gene possible to me:
---------------------------
The Olduvai Scenario (Fig. 5): The U.S. SL falls by 90% from 2008 to 2030. The OECD SL falls by 86%. The non-OECD falls by 60%. The OECD SL melds with the non-OECD SL in 2030 putting the World SL at 3.53 boe/c in 2030. Conclusion 5: The World SL reaches the same value in 2030 that it had in 1930, giving Industrial Civilization a duration of 100 years.
Projections regarding the United States: (1) We will refuse to solve our own problems so Mother Nature will “solve” them for us. (2) Sooner or later industrial decline will cause population decline and, tit-for-tat feedback, population decline will cause industrial decline. (3) The U.S. population distribution in 2100 will look more like the rural geography of 1900 than like the urban geography of today. (4) Trying to stimulate – or even maintain – the present level of domestic demand of nonrenewable and renewable Earth resources will fail. (5) Multiculturalism will cause chaos during the transition to localism.
--------------------
I believe the key is full-on Peak Outreach [which includes pop control] for Optimal Overshoot Decline, and this is the entire thrust of my many postings. This could greatly help make it less worse than it has to be towards 2030 and beyond. But it is sure hard to get people's attention unless you are a President with a bully pulpit such as Carter's Sweater Speech back in the olden days.
IMO, a 90% USA SL reduction can be a relatively peace-able and do-able Paradigm Shift if we rapidly Kunstlerize, plus build out Alan's ideas and SpiderWebRiding. As posted before: wheelbarrows can be more powerful than a machete'.
I tend towards the fast-crash scenarios in beliefs, but I am working towards helping us all shooting the gap between a fast-crash and Archdruid Greer's grinding Catabolic Collapse.
I don't follow the Olduvai Theory for a slightly different reason. I think we need a better theory for oil depletion as an independent and isolated phenomenom. If we can nail this bit first then we can go on to model a more comprehensive scenario. IMO, we are not quite there yet.
It is very similar to climate change/global warming modelers who use their simulations to concentrate on mean temperature changes. They don't necessarily use the model to postulate on standards of living after a rise of temperature occurs. This is understandable as they have their hands full just getting the temperature predictions under control. I have the same feeling WRT Olduvai Theory -- I don't look at it too closely, as I prefer to work on the oil depletion by itself and try to get that right.
Hello WHT,
Thxs for responding. My intuitive viewpoint [might be wrong] is that the huddled masses can more readily perceive a decline in SL, therefore they would be much more amenable to Peak [Everything] Outreach versus the technical arcana of FF-depletion & climate change.
For example: my guess is that more people are aware of biotic extinction rates and the vast numbers of endangered species than the combined numbers of those aware of Peak Oil & Climate Change. Tv and other media seems to do a pretty good job of spreading this message as evidenced by the popularity of shows such as the Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. People can emotionally relate to the loss of tigers, cheetahs, bats, possible future hunger, etc versus the obtuse nebulousness of Boe/Capita. People shoplifting honey, and/or stealing honey from beehives is a more concrete example of awareness of their SL decline. The rapid growth of gardening is another example of people seeking subconscious reconnection with their innate territoriality.
I agree that your great work on analysis and valuable additions of energy modeling is important to achieve future breakthroughs with top-level policy makers, but IMO: the MEGO** effect would kick in for most of the huddled masses because of our general innumeracy as explained by Dr. Albert Bartlett. Roadkill has an opposite response [we nearly all have to get a glimpse however brief], and I hope we can continue to detail this overall species decline trend as we go postPeak so that people cannot avert their eyes from what is actually occurring in real-time.
**My Eyes Glaze Over
You are exactly right. Yet I have veered toward the habit of only working on things that I can understand to the last detail. The dialectic trumps the rhetoric for me, and I will leave the populism to others.
Yes this is true. Some areas of the world have undergone a demographic transition and greatly increased their standard of living, greatly increased their education and even lifespans. So obviously all we have to do is bring the rest of the world up to the standard of living enjoyed in the West. Countries like Bangladesh, India, China, the rest of Asia and all of Africa needs to be industrialized. They need modern homes with modern heating and air conditioning. They need factories, they need high paying jobs, they need cars, they need trucks they need freeways....err...wait a minute.
Well hell Pitt, just how are we going to put the rest of the world through this demographic transition?
Ron P.
And the demographic transition has taken, in about 40 years, world population growth from a peak of approximately 2.0% growth per year to 1.1% or so. IMO, it better start doing a lot better than that.
More on the Demographic Transition. Duncan is mostly right and Pit is mostly wrong. No doubt that some who have raised their standard of living have also lowered their birth rate. However some countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and many other Middle Eastern countries have experienced a tremendous jump in population growth rate since their newfound wealth. Slightly higher fertility rates are only part of the reason.
And even in some countries where the fertility rates have slightly dropped they still are experiencing higher population growth. This is because of better medical care. Live birth rates are up. Women dying during childbirth are dramatically down, infant mortality rates are down, way down. And, last but not least, people are living a lot longer.
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. They have a birth rate of 28.55 births per 1,000 and a death rate of only 2.49 deaths per 1,000. This is a dramatic change from the middle of the last century and all because of the demographic transition, that is the newfound wealth of their citizenry.
CIA World Factbook-Saudi Arabia
Ron P.
Darwinian,
I think I read some where that SA are using huge quantities of energy (mainly natural gas) for water desalination. Sustainable growth is this ?
If you're going to say that Duncan is mostly right and Pitt is mostly wrong, you should make some effort to quantify that claim. For example, what number of people live in countries where the demographic transition has taken place vs. where it hasn't. Putting forward Saudi Arabia as an essentially anecdotal example does not suffice to show that Duncan's assumptions are warranted.
What is "statistically invalid" about the Olduvai theory Pitt? Are you harping on that Simpson's Paradox bollux again?
I've called you on this before
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4712/429446
Evidence is shorthand for convincing others one's idea is correct. It has no effect on the idea itself, which may be correct or incorrect, with or without evidence. Try replacing evidence with "balance of probability".
World population is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050. This projection may or may not be correct, but if correct, it seems to me much of the world still has +ve population growth.
You would be better off presenting the evidence than implying that Duncan doesn't need it.
"Balance of probability" is just a subcategory of "evidence". Analytic philosophers have tried for decades to agree on what kind of evidence warrants holding a belief (or idea), without reaching any consensus. Many follow Gettier in noticing that there is no type of justification that seems to lead to the truth on all occasions. On the other hand, the same philosophers have pretty much universally agreed that there is no virtue in being correct "by accident", and that instead one ought to have justification (aka "evidence") for one's beliefs, because this makes it more likely that they will turn out to be true.
It is furthermore meaningless to say that evidence has "no effect on the idea itself", since without looking at whether evidence bolsters the utility of an idea, we have no way of evaluating that idea's truth in the end. Kant pointed this out 200 years ago: that there is no purpose in postulating a type of objectivity that can't be examined subjectively, since we can't escape subjectivity.
If, as Pitt asserts, Duncan indeed has no evidence to support his claims, then I submit that it is unwise to pay much attention to Duncan's theory. That would just be gambling. Pretty much all thinkers on the subject would agree.
True, but it does not mean his claims are wrong. They may be wrong, but you have no proof they are wrong. If I saw someone punch a guy in the face and was asked to be witness, I have no evidence and I could not prove it occurred, but it does not mean that the guy wasn't punched.