You've more or less just restated the essential point I was making. That is to say, in the absence of huge amounts of energy and the primary resource extraction and processing that affords, the level of food production currently in place, in concert with a myriad of other energy-intensive, population-supporting mechanisms, is simply not possible. It is all of these mechanisms, acting in concert, that allows for seven billion plus people to simultaneously exist. Thus, as these support mechanisms inevitably begin to collapse due to a diminishing energy supply, so too will the population they support. The notion that this can all be avoided by organising ourselves in ever more complex, smarter ways is, ironically, merely a different flavour of the same hubris that underlies the climate denier narrative and all of the other delusional narratives of those on the "other side" of this debate. Our organisational structures (in the medium to long term) are not going to get more complex and smarter. They are going to get simpler.Tarrel wrote:I think there's been a gradual ramping-up of our ability to sustain a larger population, from the time of hunter-gatherer to early experiments in agriculture, then to the generation of surplus allowing some folk to specialise in particular types of work (e.g. doctors, keeping more of us alive for longer), through to food preservation, allowing us to eat a healthier diet for more of the year, through to current "industrial ag.".
Of course the real exponential growth in population has happened since we started to mainline on fossil fuels.
Population level is a function of birth rate, death rate and life expectancy. When we had the capacity to produce less food, and it took more of us to do it, I imagine population was kept under control not so much by the amount of food there was to go round, but by a myriad of other control mechanisms, such as disease, lower average life-expectancy, higher infant mortality, leading to fewer people reaching the age of fertility, etc., all of which could be attributed to a poor / insufficient diet plus the fact that we were so focused on producing it that we didn't have time/energy for other endeavours, such as science and medicine.
Now we seem to have reached a state where we feel so entitled to life that huge resources are invested in prolonging life as long as possible; allowing individuals to give birth who, in the natural scheme of things, probably couldn't; using fertility treatment and surrogacy to grant children to non-heterosexual couples, etc. Not passing judgement as to whether this is right or wrong, but it does add to the overall population footprint.
A LOT simpler.
In other words, less energy = less complexity (technologically, organisationally and in any other way you care to imagine). Or, at least in the medium to longer term. In the short to medium term, however, our hydrocarbon elites will no doubt devise and implement ever more complex, technologically driven ways of surveilling us and suppressing us as we fall off our hydrocarbon perch. Indeed, the ramping up of the above is already well under-way. But, in the end, even those methods will fail for all of the reasons I have described. At which point older, more direct and transparent methods of coercion and control will inevitably come back into play, even for us over here in the cosseted West.
I'm saying that the future is going to be a re-run of the past. Only grimmer due to our having so comprehensively buggered up the land and sea and air and wiped out vast swathes of the life that lives in each those environments. The only thing that could occur to possibly mitigate the worst of the savagery to come is a socialist revolution of some sort, however imperfect and fraught with failure that may be. Though, to be frank, I don't hold out much hope of it for all of the obvious reasons. Nevertheless, that's just about all the hope I can muster and so I am compelled to hold onto it. It may also, in the end, be only possible to maintain it at the level of the city/regional state. At which point, it might be more properly called "tribal-communalism" since that would be no more than it would amount to. That might not sound like much to hope for. But, I am utterly convinced the alternative would be facism/barbarism. Indeed, truth be told, I think the alternative is by far the more likely outcome due to the short horizon of most people's imaginations. Especially so, if they are under pressure.
As for time-scales with regards to the above, that's the killer question. If the USA's recent behaviour is anything to go by, major collapse might be in the offing in the not too distant future. In which case, all bets are off. I'm hoping, however, it happens over a 50 to 100 year time period to give my descendants time to culturally adjust. All I can really do is explain to my lads what I think the future may hold and then it's up to them how they decide to prepare, if at all. For the most part, they and their kids as yet unborn, like the vast majority of the rest of humanity will simply have to go with the flow and make the best of whatever goes down.
I've got to be honest though Tarrel and admit that sometimes, in my darker moments, I wish the big players who run the bloody show just got on with it and had their inevitable showdown sooner rather than later and let off a few fireworks, leaving what remains of us to rebuild from the ashes. At least that way, it gets the suffering out of the way in one big bang.