The elephant in the room; population

[Lord Beria3]

Some of the recent discussions on this thread have flirted with the issue of population capacity, and its one of those subjects that even hardened peak oil types find hard to stomarch, ensuring that is often that awkward unspoken/ignored issue that is actually at the heart of the hard crash/slow decline debates revolving the future trajectory of society and economy.

Morally, its difficult to talk about population reduction without coming of as extremely harsh and brutish or frankly a fascistic genocidelist.

I do feel that however it hurts your political or moral sensivities, this is a debate that needs to be had.

When i proposed ending child benefits recently, i didn't do it out of some perverted malice but out of a stark sense that if we continue our current population growth, we are condemned to a nightmarish die-off.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

This lot have looked into the figures and have come to the conclusion which if true (and i remain open to debate on this) that there needs to be a severe reduction in the UK population over the coming decade.

A sustainable population for the UK
1.Assuming the UK’s biocapacity and the average footprint of 5.6 gha/cap remains stable at the 2003 level, then the sustainable UK population is 17 million.
2.If the UK achieves its carbon footprint reduction target of 60% by 2050, then, all else being equal, the resulting footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, with no allowance for biodiversity or change of biocapacity, will sustain a population of 27 million.
3.Assuming the UK reaches its carbon footprint reduction target of 60% (by 2050), then, the resulting Footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, coupled with a 12% allowance for biodiversity, will sustain a population of 24 million.
4.Assuming the UK reaches its carbon footprint reduction target of 60% by 2050, then the resulting Footprint of 3.7 gha/cap, coupled with a 20% combined allowance for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity, will sustain a population of 21 million.

The common thread, the sustainable population is around 20-30 million which sounds right to me. Current population is arouns 66 million.

If those calculations are right ( and i remain open to debate on that), than have a surplas population of circa 30 million.

As fossil fuels are going to deplete, than this is a issue which is suspect will not go away, and whether we pay child benefits in the future (assuming we could even afford it!!) is the least of our worries.

p.s. i would like this debate not to go to the gutter of name-calling, as its far too important. Thanks

[Janco2]

A very good post Beria3.

Population is THE major problem facing us all.

Virtually all our problems today are because of our huge worldwide population.

This has been a main worry to me for the past 30 years and is the major reason why I chose to only have 2 children.

I agree that we should only pay child benefit for the first 2 children (if even that). Childlessness needs to be encouraged. I know reducing our population will lead to considerable difficulties as there will be so few people of official working age to support an ageing population but there is no other real alternative.

[clv101]

There are two key points to this debate in my opinion.

1) System boundaries. Why get hung up on the 'The UK'. Why not look at the carrying capacity of political constituencies, of counties, of England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland, of EU, or even the world? Statements like the UK's carrying capacity is 17m are totally arbitrary. What's the carrying capacity of Greater Manchester? Of Lincolnshire? Since we have freedom of movement with the EU I'd argue that considering member states in isolation is just about as daft as considering counties of the UK in isolation. The basic concept of a specific area being self sufficiently sustainable is ridiculous. The world is highly heterogeneous, there will always be variable densities, with degrees of trade allocating resources between regions.

2) Footprint. The total footprint, for want of a better term, is made up of two terms; the population and the behaviour of that population. Key to recognise is the the behavioural term has a far greater impact, or dynamic range, than the population term. Whilst someone may calculate that with the current behaviour of the UK population, the country can support 17m, change the behaviour a bit and significantly more could be supported. I wrote in the other thread:

'Behaviour' is an order of magnitude more important a factor than the number of people. It is technically possible for many more people to live on this planet, even without lots of fossil fuel. We know this 'cos a billion people currently manage it within a very small environment footprint.

If everyone lived like the average America - I doubt the world could support 5% of its current population without lots of fossil fuel. However, if everyone lived like a Bangladeshi more than 7bn could be accommodated.

Our problem is not a population one, it's a population multiplied by behaviour problem, where behaviour is by far the dominant factor.

You say population is a difficult subject to talk about? I'd say behavioural change is just as hard. Behavioural change is broader, encompasses more.

People only start talking about population reduction 'cos they can't face talking about the degree of behaviour change that would make the current population sustainable.

[jonny2mad]

Without cheap fossil fuels how will you transport resources and food across say Europe, the lesson of resource depletion and peak oil is that things are about to get very local .

Id also say just because we live in a globalized heterogeneous world today doesn't mean thats going to continue .

Will a financial system and world order build on debt and growth survive when it can no longer grow

yup we could change our behavior to cut down our use of resources, but recently I attended a discussion where they worked out that england even if it devoted all its land for growing food, and we had a wartime diet totally vegan, could support a population 10 million less than it now has .

But hey lets increase the uk population because globalization is here forever and soon we will have nuclear flying cars

[the_lyniezian]

When was the wartime diet totally vegan Jonny? There were rations of meat, cheese, eggs &c.

Also, is it possible to use forms of agriculture that neither rely on fossil fuels or manufactured fertiliser as such, but still maximise output? I've heard a lot about permacuture in this regard, but not too sure if it will work, and obviously it requires a lot of research into what grows best in the given environment, and proper planning? What of other means?

[jonny2mad]

What they worked out was a vegan diet with the same calories as the wartime diet and they looked at best permaculture methods.
I had paperwork with the groups web address but left it in sunrise festival they were based in I think bath, they were trying to reproduce a report that was made before world war two and was the basis for the uks wartime plan to produce the optimum amount of food.

[biffvernon]

There are two key points to this debate in my opinion.

1) System boundaries. Why get hung up on the 'The UK'. Why not look at the carrying capacity of political constituencies, of counties, of England/Scotland/Wales/N Ireland, of EU, or even the world? Statements like the UK's carrying capacity is 17m are totally arbitrary. What's the carrying capacity of Greater Manchester? Of Lincolnshire? Since we have freedom of movement with the EU I'd argue that considering member states in isolation is just about as daft as considering counties of the UK in isolation. The basic concept of a specific area being self sufficiently sustainable is ridiculous. The world is highly heterogeneous, there will always be variable densities, with degrees of trade allocating resources between regions.

2) Footprint. The total footprint, for want of a better term, is made up of two terms; the population and the behaviour of that population. Key to recognise is the the behavioural term has a far greater impact, or dynamic range, than the population term. Whilst someone may calculate that with the current behaviour of the UK population, the country can support 17m, change the behaviour a bit and significantly more could be supported. I wrote in the other thread:

'Behaviour' is an order of magnitude more important a factor than the number of people. It is technically possible for many more people to live on this planet, even without lots of fossil fuel. We know this 'cos a billion people currently manage it within a very small environment footprint.

If everyone lived like the average America - I doubt the world could support 5% of its current population without lots of fossil fuel. However, if everyone lived like a Bangladeshi more than 7bn could be accommodated.

Our problem is not a population one, it's a population multiplied by behaviour problem, where behaviour is by far the dominant factor.

You say population is a difficult subject to talk about? I'd say behavioural change is just as hard. Behavioural change is broader, encompasses more.

People only start talking about population reduction 'cos they can't face talking about the degree of behaviour change that would make the current population sustainable.

Well that's a post worth repeating

The only thing I'd add is the I think talking about behavioural change is harder than population reduction. Folk are happy to talk about population reduction because they are sure that they will not be involved personally. It will be someone else who has to not have a baby or die. Behaviuoral change is much more difficult because there is a danger that it might actually involve oneself.

The population reductionists are just scape-goating.

[jonny2mad]

Well I suppose eating less calories than a wartime diet or living standards like Bangladesh is behavioral change

[Lord Beria3]

Been thinking about this for a bit.

Let assume for the moment that whatever happens, civil order remains.

on that big assumption, than there are a number of variables at play;

1) Energy/food usage

A significant amount of energy and food consumption could be lowered through eliminating waste and using less, while ensing the essential diet continues and oil/gas is proritised to transport/agricluture/critical industry etc.

2) Food/energy supplies

A gradual decline in energy/food imports would allow the government/economy to adapt through the above.

However, a sudden collapse of food/energy flows (through a global financial crisis or severe instability in areas which we depend on our fossil fuels/foodstuffs) could lead to shortages.

So a key variable is the nature of the supply equation, sudden decline/collapse or gradual slope downwards

3) adaptability

Longer term, society/government needs to adapt by localisation of food production/development of alternatives to fossil fuels. Problem is the average age of a farmer is in their 60s and we import a lot of food (over 50% for basic foodstuffs and the trend is not getting better). How much time would we have to adapt to self-sufficency>

The variable is interlocked with 2.

Based on the above factors and assuming the big assumption of continued law and order, i would say there a series of potential schenarios.

Best case; No sudden disriptions of supplies of energy and food, the world goes stagnation and decline but financial system remains viable. Mkt forces drives gradual shift into less energy/food consumption, with government gradually shifting economy and agrilcuture into low-carbon methods. Population plataeaus through major conservation and use of new technologies to max out food production.

Medium case: world is punctured by spikes in prices/growing instability which affect but do not lead to collapse in UK food and energy imports. Crises lead to sudden but half-affective change and more by chance than design we aviod worst case predictions and muddle through, with a alot of government intervention (some very unpopular).

Bad case: a serious disruption of supplies due to war/financial crisis leads to near-collapse, government imposes draconian controls, wartime rations, massive reployment of resources into agrilcuture, society functions at the cost of widespread austority and wartime diet. (plus, side, alot less obese people )

Personally, i think a form of medium/bad is more likely, as the world is so interconnected and dependont upon a very unstable financial system that the chances are severe crisises rather than a smooth decline.

In that case, we need to factor in the final variable, instability.

4) instability, any sudden and severe disruption of our energy and food imports, wether driven by a global credit crunch, trade collapse, banking/soverign crisis or instability/war in key oil/gas/food producing countries, or maybe a conbination of the above, could lead to a sudden collopse of imports within weeks/months.

There would be a serious chance that in our major cities, within weeks of a widespread collapse in law and order, ensuring that even if we had enough food, the ability to distribute to key areas of the country would collapse.

In that case, the prospect of widespread famine is massively increased in my opinion.

[biffvernon]

Well I suppose eating less calories than a wartime diet or living standards like Bangladesh is behavioral change

Or Bhutan, where Gross National Happiness is a priority over Gross National Product?

[jonny2mad]

During world war 2 the government watched the people carefully because they feared revolution, as the saying goes a country is only three meals from revolution .

[Lord Beria3]

http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

A couple of interesting points.

Historically, humans fight when they outstrip their carrying capacity of their natural environment.

Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid.

From hunter-gather through to early complex societies, 25% of the young adult males of a population dies when wars break out.

Peace comes when technology increases carrying capacity to keep up with rising population while a large scale die-off like the Black Plague, can result in peaceful times.

Such peaceful periods are shortlived as populations quickly rise back above their carrying capacity which is why through most of human history societies have been dominated by warriors and the might is right ethos has dominated.

Despite a relatively more 'progressive' approach to war the last few hundreds years (despite the odd genocide, there are now rules of law, Geneva convention etc), the Pentagon conclude that progressive behaviour would collapse if carrying capacity were suddenly lowered drastically.

Humanity would revert to its norm of constant battles for diminishing resources.

Page 17 has a great chart which although based on climate change, could just as well describe the future trajectory in relation to peak oil (if the climate remains stable of course).

Geopolitical conclusions regarding a die-of;

United States and Australia would establish defensive fortresses using resources and reserives to establish self-sufficency.

In US, energy supply will be shored up using expensive nucleur, hydrogen, renewables and Middle Eastern contracts.

Large parts of the world will go past their carrying capacity, leading to starvation, disease, leading to sense of desperation, likely result in offensive attacks in order to reclaim balance.

Examples include the energy wealth of Central Asia being eyed by China, the mineral and land reserives of Siberia by Japan, and the potential chaos of Pakistan, India and China over the arable and strategic lands around the great rivers of the Indian continent (kashmire for example).

Conflicts over water access involving Danube (12 countries), Nile (9 countries) and DODGY TAX AVOIDERS (7 countries).

Alliances of convienance will emerge; Canada and America (energy for security swap), North and South Korea (wealth plus nucleur ) and Europe could cooperate together maybe in alliance with Russia.

In this world of warring states, nucleur proliferation inevitable with a high chance of atomic war between India/Pakistan. Germany, Egypt, japan and south korea will get nukes and probably more.

Adepibility and access to resources key to ensuring internal order and managing potential wars. Countries with diverse people (South Africa) more in danger than socially cohesive societies like Japan.

[emordnilap]

People only start talking about population reduction 'cos they can't face talking about the degree of behaviour change that would make the current population sustainable.

There you have the key point. I can easily imagine people limiting children numbers due to many different circumstances. Indeed, lots do.

But changing behaviour, outside the children numbers issue? No way, taking away my freedoms! It's those green fascists at it again!

Biff, you have it bang on again:

Behaviuoral change is much more difficult because there is a danger that it might actually involve oneself.

The population reductionists are just scape-goating.

[2 As and a B]

What behavioural changes are required? By whom? And how could they be brought about?

[Janco2]

Unfortunately, I am not as eloquent as most of the people here seem to be.

However, I would like to say that, yes, behavioural change is also required but alongside population reduction.

I see a world being ruined by too many people.
Our natural resources are being decimated at an unprecedented rate. Species are being lost and this is happening at an ever faster rate.

Our ever increasing population is at the heart of all these problems but yes of course other behavioural changes have to go on alongside.

Behavioural change is difficult but I feel that population reduction has to be a major part of this.
I try to live by the ethics of Permaculture:-
People care
Earth care
Fair shares for all