Crash Watcher: Major chance Europeans will starve after 2030

[clv101]

If people starve as a result of peak oil it will be because the oil (and land to grow biofuels) will have been used to sustain BAU for the 1 billion first worlders on this planet driving huge distances in their SUVs whilst the remainder of the world is progressively priced out of the market.

This is of course what is happening. The rich will drive whilst the poor starve.

Indeed - the oil used in one America's '2nd car' could run farm machinery to feed hundreds of people somewhere in the poor 2/3 of the world. Starvation due to absolute fossil fuel shortage isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Starvation due to mis-allocation of course will as it does already.

[UndercoverElephant]

If people starve as a result of peak oil it will be because the oil (and land to grow biofuels) will have been used to sustain BAU for the 1 billion first worlders on this planet driving huge distances in their SUVs whilst the remainder of the world is progressively priced out of the market.

This is of course what is happening. The rich will drive whilst the poor starve.

Indeed - the oil used in one America's '2nd car' could run farm machinery to feed hundreds of people somewhere in the poor 2/3 of the world. Starvation due to absolute fossil fuel shortage isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Starvation due to mis-allocation of course will as it does already.

So follow the logic, Chris. You have just agreed with this: Currently, there is significant downward pressure on global population (not enough to stop the increases, but downward pressure nevertheless) because people in America are using resources to live a totally unsustainable and disproportionately consumptive lifestyle.

So what would happen if you were in charge of the world, and you could force a more equitable allocation of resources, depriving the Americans of their second cars and using those resources to prevent starvation in the poorest half of the world?

You know damned well what would happen. The only logically possible result is that the downward pressure would be removed and the rate of population increase in the poorer half of the world would accelerate.

How is this solving any of the real problems?

All it's actually doing is making the real problems even worse, because at least when the Americans have finished guzzling those resources, they've been guzzled and its over, whereas if your wishes came true then we'd have millions of extra humans reaching adulthood and decided to have a family.

The only way to refute this is to argue that we can re-allocate enough resources to give everybody a standard of living associated with those countries which have voluntarily reached population stability. And that is another fantasy, because there aren't enough resources.

We have got to take a step back from this and ask ourselves what it is we are actually trying to achieve. Then we have to ask what is the best strategy for getting there.

I'm not saying human rights don't matter. They do. I'm saying that in the long run, your sort of thinking leads to even more human suffering than mine does.

[RenewableCandy]

You know damned well what would happen. The only logically possible result is that the downward pressure would be removed and the rate of population increase in the poorer half of the world would accelerate.

I am going to go on and on about this until it sinks in: remove the threat of starvation (and various other poverty-related nasties e.g. warfare, crime) and the birth rate falls. No, really. People who are not under constant and immediate threat can start to plan ahead, including planning when they want another child. And it's not just women: men have commonsense too And enlightened self-interest among even the most chauvinistic men prompts them to accept smaller family size because that way they get more, erm, attention

Today's countries with the largest numbers of children per woman are all either at war, or desperately poor. Or, erm, both.

[UndercoverElephant]

You know damned well what would happen. The only logically possible result is that the downward pressure would be removed and the rate of population increase in the poorer half of the world would accelerate.

I am going to go on and on about this until it sinks in: remove the threat of starvation (and various other poverty-related nasties e.g. warfare, crime) and the birth rate falls.

Far too little, far too late, RC. I know exactly what you are saying. It doesn't need to "sink in" because I've never disagreed with it.

I'm sorry, but if you think that a major redistribution of resources of the sort we are discussing would lead to a slowdown in population increases, I think you have entered the twilight zone of Biffian idealism.

Just to make this clear: I think you're morally correct. There is no moral justification for the gross imbalances across the world. But what is morally justified in humans terms and what might minimise long-term damage to the ecosystem are not the same thing.

[Lord Beria3]

Got to agree with UE here people.

[jonny2mad]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1357774198

Welfare mom with 15 kids demands someone pays for them, shes not having them in some war torn country.

Can you see why I'm not going to stop having kids

[JavaScriptDonkey]

If people starve as a result of peak oil it will be because the oil (and land to grow biofuels) will have been used to sustain BAU for the 1 billion first worlders on this planet driving huge distances in their SUVs whilst the remainder of the world is progressively priced out of the market.

This is of course what is happening. The rich will drive whilst the poor starve.

A recent straw poll in a Tesco car park revealed that most people don't drive SUVs to supermarkets.

In fact it looked like most people had bought a new car in the last 5 years and picked it in order to reap the benefits of lower Road Tax and better mpg.

Perhaps we would have used less energy all round if they had kept their SUVs and were simply driving them less?

[RenewableCandy]

You know damned well what would happen. The only logically possible result is that the downward pressure would be removed and the rate of population increase in the poorer half of the world would accelerate.

I am going to go on and on about this until it sinks in: remove the threat of starvation (and various other poverty-related nasties e.g. warfare, crime) and the birth rate falls.

Far too little, far too late, RC. I know exactly what you are saying. It doesn't need to "sink in" because I've never disagreed with it.

I'm sorry, but if you think that a major redistribution of resources of the sort we are discussing

It doesn't have to be all that major. It just has to be enough to remove people from a position where they feel threatened. In hot countries, in fact, it doesn't have to be particularly energy-intense.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am going to go on and on about this until it sinks in: remove the threat of starvation (and various other poverty-related nasties e.g. warfare, crime) and the birth rate falls.

Far too little, far too late, RC. I know exactly what you are saying. It doesn't need to "sink in" because I've never disagreed with it.

I'm sorry, but if you think that a major redistribution of resources of the sort we are discussing

It doesn't have to be all that major. It just has to be enough to remove people from a position where they feel threatened.

I'm not sure what to say. From my perspective, what you are saying is seriously disconnected with reality. There's two problems with it. The first is that getting the most vulnerable 2 or 3 billion humans out of the position where they feel threatened would be the most "major" humanitarian operation in the whole of human history, by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, even if it could be made a reality, the net result would a large number of people who are currently on course to be the first couple of billion humans removed from the ecological equation not only surviving, but expecting to have families themselves.

We CANNOT get out of this without most of the human race feeling threatened, and a large proportion actually ending up dead. There is no point in pretending any longer that this can be avoided. The debate has to move on. The environmentalism you and I grew up with is dead. We have to re-invent it, and we have to start with this:

It's about THE ENVIRONMENT. NOT ******* humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gboAHIXqe6Q

ETA: sorry to get worked up, but this does matter.

[acman]

A recent straw poll in a Tesco car park revealed that most people don't drive SUVs to supermarkets.

In fact it looked like most people had bought a new car in the last 5 years and picked it in order to reap the benefits of lower Road Tax and better mpg.

Perhaps we would have used less energy all round if they had kept their SUVs and were simply driving them less?

I wondered what I was doing wrong, I see lots of people driving in new cars, not only that, they seem to be huge things too, anyone seen the new 'mini'. Is man on a bent to use up as much as possible as quickly as possible?, maybe a different issue.
But back to car sizes, there must be a lot of people in very well paid jobs to be able to afford these new large cars, I drive a 1.2 T reg corsa, put £10 of petrol in last week, obviously don't drive a lot, but I could not afford to buy a new one, let alone the running costs, even allowing for the cheaper road tax, mine is £125 per year, and fuel consumption can't be much improved on what I manage, approx 35-40 mpg, to offset the cost of buying a new vehicle. Maybe it's me, not doing my sums right or something.
Regards, Alan.

[Little John]

Far too little, far too late, RC. I know exactly what you are saying. It doesn't need to "sink in" because I've never disagreed with it.

I'm sorry, but if you think that a major redistribution of resources of the sort we are discussing

It doesn't have to be all that major. It just has to be enough to remove people from a position where they feel threatened.

I'm not sure what to say. From my perspective, what you are saying is seriously disconnected with reality. There's two problems with it. The first is that getting the most vulnerable 2 or 3 billion humans out of the position where they feel threatened would be the most "major" humanitarian operation in the whole of human history, by several orders of magnitude. Secondly, even if it could be made a reality, the net result would a large number of people who are currently on course to be the first couple of billion humans removed from the ecological equation not only surviving, but expecting to have families themselves.

We CANNOT get out of this without most of the human race feeling threatened, and a large proportion actually ending up dead. There is no point in pretending any longer that this can be avoided. The debate has to move on. The environmentalism you and I grew up with is dead. We have to re-invent it, and we have to start with this:

It's about THE ENVIRONMENT. NOT ******* humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gboAHIXqe6Q

ETA: sorry to get worked up, but this does matter.

I agree, it is about the environment, of which we are but a small part (or, at least, should be).

However, the problem is that humans are clever, dangerous and vast in numbers. Therefore, the only way there is a hope in hell that the vast majority of them are going to go along with the kind of drastic measures that are going to be necessary to stop this runaway train is if they are made to feel that we really are all in this together. That is to say, as the pie gets smaller, as it must, everyone is going to get their fair share. Only then will it be even remotely possible to persuade some third world peasant to forgo attempting to pursue the life he thought he was going to enjoy.

The problem is, of course, none of the above is even remotely possible.

What I am trying to say is that we are f***ed. There is no solution save for a plague that wipes out 95% of us overnight. All other roads lead to complete catastrophe, both for the rest of life as well as for humans. In truth, in my heart of hearts, I would wish just such a plague on us whilst, at the same time, being human and therefore a hypocrite, I would only wish wish it if my family were in the 5%.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, so we're f***ed. Doesn't mean we have to stop thinking.

Let's imagine that not only can we arrange for 95% of humans to be wiped out by a plague, but that we can determine which 5% survives. Let's say we arrange it so that only the 5% who'd feel most at home at this forum survive. Not only that, but the leaders of the powerswitch revolution also take full control of the political and military system of the whole world. Let's say there's a small group of people tasked with drafting a new constitution. We get to choose any laws we like, and sort of way of organising things, everything. You're representing the neo-Marxist wing of the revolution, I'm representing the "deep greens".

We have no choice but to try to do this. We've been tasked with producing the best system we can, and we've got a time limit.

What system do we implement which does not result in another catastrophe, albeit on a smaller scale?

The underlying question I am trying to answer is this:

Are human beings capable of creating ANY form of large-scale civilisation which is stable and sustainable? Or has evolution stumbled down a blind alley?

One of our greatest strengths is our ability to adapt to new environments, but we evolved the ability to do this whilst still operating in the social unit of tribes. Just like all social insects live in huge colonies, all the social primates live in tribes, including H. sapiens right up until the moment we invented agriculture. So we then ended up adapting our unit of social organisation itself - something entirely new in terms of ecology/evolution, because it involves a naturally tribal animal living in social units called "nations", containing as many individuals as the largest colonies of social insects.

It may turn out that enough of human psychology is hard-wired for a tribal situation that no amount of revolutionary new ideas and no amount of cultural evolution can produce a stable form of human civilisation.

But if it is possible, then what is stopping you and me from producing this consitution, and expecting it to work?

I want to distinguish between the problems being caused by our particular culture, and those being caused by our biology (and therefore unchangeable without eugenics, and maybe not even with.)

[jonny2mad]

Pretty much if you want a answer you need to think the exact oppersite of the way you think now .

You had awful dieoff on easter island and we didnt notice it, thats the sort of state of affairs we need to get too again, disengage, isolationism .

On a bright note with collapse I foresee the death of lots of the compassionate and well meaning, nature will balence itself out

[ceti331]

The figure in the Beeb article is for the world as a whole. Generally the poor world loses food on its way from the fields to the shop, the rich world loses it in, and after, the shop.

this is still all part of the extra abundance of fossil fuels.

moving food around the world (specializing & exchanging surplusses) is part of why we all have more.

if you have a process that multiplies something 10x, but half is wasted, its still worth using, and it will still be missed when it shuts down

perfectly efficient distribution and resource utilization is impossible

Also "half the food is wasted"... but measured by what? weight ,or calories

if the system is as hopelessly inefficient as it sounds from "half is wasted", why is the worlds population SO much higher than 100,200 years ago

[ziggy12345]

Yes but nobody on the planet has the ability to make the decision to reduce the human population. Only starvation and disease can do that.