We Are Now One Year Away From Global Riots

[Little John]

[clv101]

...my 'proof' is the empirical measurements - the actual number of recorded people who lived before fossill fuels were widely used - and the ongoing proof that most people require fossil-fueled activity to survive...

This is tricky though as there are huge variations. For example the 161 million people in Bangladesh use 0.2 barrels of oil per person per year. The good people of the USA use 23 barrels per person per year. That's a 100-fold difference.

So how much fossil fuel does it take to keep people alive? The inhomogeneity of the data make it impossible making any meaningful projections. The economic collapse of the US, halving their oil consumption would free up some 10 million barrels per day - that goes along way in poor countries (where most of the population growth is happening).

[clv101]

Regarding Steve's chart, I don't like the arbitrary 2 million year horizontal axis. We could have 'developed' at any point along that line.

There are two interesting points, the point at which we started harnessing 'extra-body' energy flows (biofuel, domesticated animals, wind power etc) and the point we started harnessing 'extra-body' energy stocks (fossil fuels). Those two points could have happened 100,000 years ago or 1 million years ago, it's just by chance they happened when they did.

Whilst population growth has been rapid since stocks were tapped, the peak growth rate is well behind us now. What little growth there is still left in the system (under a third more people) is occurring in areas with much lower than average resource consumption.

The next 50 years are likely to be very different from the last 50 in that we'll probably see a population peak no higher than a third higher than today followed by decline. Resource use could well peak significantly less than a third higher than today.

The challenge for the 2nd half of this century and beyond is for population to decline in line with resource stock availability rates, and reach a level supportable from flows. This isn't as hard as it seems when you realise today's western resource use is a ridiculous aberration which could be reduced by at least an order of magnitude.

[Little John]

...my 'proof' is the empirical measurements - the actual number of recorded people who lived before fossill fuels were widely used - and the ongoing proof that most people require fossil-fueled activity to survive...

This is tricky though as there are huge variations. For example the 161 million people in Bangladesh use 0.2 barrels of oil per person per year. The good people of the USA use 23 barrels per person per year. That's a 100-fold difference.

So how much fossil fuel does it take to keep people alive? The inhomogeneity of the data make it impossible making any meaningful projections. The economic collapse of the US, halving their oil consumption would free up some 10 million barrels per day - that goes along way in poor countries (where most of the population growth is happening).

2 things:

Firstly, do you suggest that the world's population live like the majority of Bangladeshi's have to live?

Secondly, what do you think would happen to the Bangladeshi population if they had access to a little more energy? Do you think their population would fall or rise even higher., at least initially?

All that a more equitable redistribution of existing resources will do in the absence of a population reduction program is slightly forestall a population collapse and, most likely, make it worse when it comes because, by that point, there would be absolutely no slack left in supply. All of which is not to say that I don't think that a more equitable redistribution is not desirable or morally right. It's just too late in the day, now, to think that will alone solve the crisis we are facing. We are too far down the road to hell for that. Indeed, in the absence of accompanying population reduction strategies, it would likely make the crisis worse as it will allow us to live unsustainably right up to the wire.

[clv101]

...my 'proof' is the empirical measurements - the actual number of recorded people who lived before fossill fuels were widely used - and the ongoing proof that most people require fossil-fueled activity to survive...

This is tricky though as there are huge variations. For example the 161 million people in Bangladesh use 0.2 barrels of oil per person per year. The good people of the USA use 23 barrels per person per year. That's a 100-fold difference.

So how much fossil fuel does it take to keep people alive? The inhomogeneity of the data make it impossible making any meaningful projections. The economic collapse of the US, halving their oil consumption would free up some 10 million barrels per day - that goes along way in poor countries (where most of the population growth is happening).

2 things:

Firstly, do you suggest that the world's population live like the majority of Bangladeshi's have to live?

No, I'm just saying that it very hard to make macroscopic energy and population comparisons when there's such huge variation in energy use per person within the dataset.

Secondly, what do you think would happen to the Bangladeshi population if they had access to a little more energy? Do you think their population would fall or rise even higher., at least initially?

Their fertility rate isn't that high at the moment at 2.25 per woman having fallen rapidly from 7 per woman in the 1970s. Over the same period their energy use per capita has doubled from around 100kg of oil per year to 200kg. Over the last 40 years the population growth rate has slowed dramatically while the energy use has increased.

All that a more equitable redistribution of existing resources will do in the absence of a population reduction program is slightly forestall a population collapse and, most likely, make it worse when it comes because, by that point, there would be absolutely no slack left in supply. All of which is not to say that I don't think that a more equitable redistribution is not desirable or morally right. It's just too late in the day, now, to think that will alone solve the crisis we are facing. We are too far down the road to hell for that. Indeed, in the absence of accompanying population reduction strategies, it would likely make the crisis worse as it will allow us to live unsustainably right up to the wire.

Population reduction program? The population reduction is in hand, the growth rate is slowing. The absolute growth we seeing for the next few decades is mostly just the demographic lag - the population pyramid's sides are becoming more vertical. The best way to hurry this along is with better education (esp for woman) and better health care in the poorest parts of the world, with the highest fertility rates.

Bangladesh is a nice example here, fertility rates down from 7 to 2.25, as energy used increased from 100kg per person per year to 200kg - still more than an order of magnitude below America's.

On the other hand look at countries like Zambia and Ethiopia. These two countries haven't seen the same increase in energy use per capita, Ethiopa has flat-lined and Zambia has decreased. Their fertility rates? Zambia still 6.26, hardly fallen at all in the last few decades and Ethiopia still 4.2, down a bit but not nearly as much as Bangladesh.

[ceti331]

even if 80% of the oil really is wasted on "useless crap"- that doesn't mean we can survive if we lose the remaining 20% (which we eventually will)

given the complexity of how its used, I dont think the whole industrial organism could have evolved to the same extent without pockets of "high-quality-of-life", the knowledge is there and it can be applied, and there's a lot of trickledown and cross polination from useless to useful items.

plus there is interconnection; people might have a simple life picking coffee beans or whatever trading them for industrially produced grain.. and people pick through the wests' garbage getting every last scrap of use out of what is produced -they are still part of the same machine.

thats why i think it IS best to look at global population, averaging everything out.

different areas need different amounts of fossil fuels to make them habitable at different population levels, eg you can live in a cold climate without heating if sparesly populated by collecting firewood, but if densely populated you then need central heating. Similarly what about the people who basically live in deserts with water pumped in, can they live without fuel?

there's always been some sort of rich/poor power/weak discrepancy and i can't see that ever going away.

I think the idea of a future where everyone has a minimal lifestyle just about surviving is utterly ghastly; although its true there's a lot of waste today, who is to say how people should live?

once people have experienced 1st world life are they ever going to be content with going back?

regarding steve's chart, I like showing that alongside the fossil fuel use and the introductions of key technologies.
its still hard to convince someone of this malthusian/peak oil idea if they dont get the process though. They like to show charts to "show" increasing economic growth will never end.

[peaceful_life]

An understanding, and adherance, to the balance and budget of nature, is what I define as an education.

Who gets to say exactly what that is.. this is still open to interpretation.

the population issue troubles me; one thing people might ask is "where is the proof of your doomy predictions"
my 'proof' is the empirical measurements - the actual number of recorded people who lived before fossill fuels were widely used - and the ongoing proof that most people require fossil-fueled activity to survive ( they deny global warming because they dont want to give up the things they depend on )

but it still appears open to interpretation.. until 5billiion people actually starve, many wont believe what i'm saying.

"the economy has always grown, so it will always continue to grow"
"economics always results in substitution"
"humanity is about progress"
etc

also r.e. "balance and budget of nature", some would use that to justify extreme social darwinism. natures way is "eat or be eaten", "survival of the fittest".

Some people who actually get what i'm trying to say about a population crash just say "its all part of the process"

'Who gets to say exactly what that is.. this is still open to interpretation'

Exactly, the truth is....we just don't know the amounts of food that can be produced, using regenerative and permaculture methods, therefore.... may I say it's a tad hyperbolic to equate my statement of 'balance and budget of nature' (bearing in mind that we don't know what it is) to 'extreme social darwinism' (Darwin didn't know either), let's not be taking things to far out of context either...
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
Charles Darwin
1809 - 1882

People like Lawton and Holzer are pushing the boundries on the balance and budget of nature.

"it's all part of the process" sounds like a convenient quip, but yes...I've read the reports, I understand EROEI, and overshoot, I'm just saying there is another way.

[ceti331]

Exactly, the truth is....we just don't know the amounts of food that can be produced, using regenerative and permaculture methods,

how about this solution- a "breeding licence" requires proof of a sustainable lifestyle.


the thing to remember is entropy, entropy always increases and life is a temporary ordered state of matter that maximizes entropy overall. You cannot have complexity without energy to burn. the most complex object in the universe is the human brain.

I am 100% convinced by this argument - the sudden explosion in human numbers in Steve's chart is purely down to our ability to 'draw down' the energy inheritance from nature. Its crazy to think we could support the same number of people without it.

think about it, whats harder to build.. a windmill, a solar concentrator, or an offshore drilling rig and an internal combustion engine?
(I've seen DIY solar concentrators on the internet including tracking with feedback mechanisms )

we produced our current hugely complex technology and global economy because the energy payoff was astronomical; I simply dont beleive that combining a few plants in a different order isn't something we'd have discovered already, e.g. by chance. e.g. how different is aquaponics to paddy fields.

[peaceful_life]

'I simply dont beleive that combining a few plants in a different order isn't something we'd have discovered already, e.g. by chance. e.g. how different is aquaponics to paddy fields'


EEK!!......that's just crude (no pun intended)