Swine Fever - any thoughts?

[biffvernon]

Just to get this straight: you think a population of 7 billion is sustainable?

Of course it is. The number doesn't matter, it's what the individuals do that counts.

By any metric, there is a variation of more than an order of magnitude in the impact that different people have on the planet's ecosystem, so any 'sustainability' limit expressed to a precision of less than an order of magnitude that does not take behaviour into account is bollocks.

[Ludwig]

Just to get this straight: you think a population of 7 billion is sustainable?

Of course it is. The number doesn't matter, it's what the individuals do that counts.

By any metric, there is a variation of more than an order of magnitude in the impact that different people have on the planet's ecosystem, so any 'sustainability' limit expressed to a precision of less than an order of magnitude that does not take behaviour into account is bollocks.

The general agreement among experts seems to be that there is a direct link between the population explosion and the exploitation of fossil fuels. I am not an expert, but it seems to me that a population of 7 billion without fossil fuels would be so impoverished that any kind of stability would be impossible.

[RogerCO]

Just to get this straight: you think a population of 7 billion is sustainable?

My personal opinion based on gut feeling from a limited understanding of the various pressures is that without the use of non-renewable resources then probably one or two billion could manage a seventeenth century european standard of living across the globe (hopefully with some of the inequality smoothed out) and probably last a thousand years or more.

With the use of fossil fuels then perhaps only 100 million across the globe could consume at near today's western european rate and rely on the rest of the biosphere to mop up their pollution. Even so given that half of the oil and gas has more or less gone already I doubt if they could keep it up for more than a couple of hundred years - is that sustainable?

Or you could perhaps go for 7 billion living in what even a third world country would consider abject poverty and minimal trappings of civilized life - that might be sustainable, but is it desirable?

Of course if you are over 60 then the way we live now is entirely sustainable for all practical purposes as it could probably just about last the rest of your life.

So my simple answer to the question Ludwig asked me is that I do not think that a pop of 7 billion is sustainable in an acceptable way.

The more interesting question is what do I think would be an acceptable way of achieving a sustainable balance would be. I do not have an answer to that yet.

[clv101]

Just to get this straight: you think a population of 7 billion is sustainable?

Or you could perhaps go for 7 billion living in what even a third world country would consider abject poverty and minimal trappings of civilized life - that might be sustainable, but is it desirable?

7 billion to totally possible and sustainable - we'd all just have to live the way the poorest quarter of the word live today.

Generally I think talk of 1bn, 2bn, 7bn, 9bn whatever is rubbish. It's totally missing the point. The difference between 1bn and 9bn is less than an order of magnitude. Look at the behaviour (that is the resource consumption, pollution creation etc.) of the 'richest' 10% compared to the poorest 10% and we're covered by at least two, maybe close to three orders of magnitude.

The impact, the sustainability is the population x behaviour. The behaviour term in that equation has a far greater degree of freedom though so really should be the one to think about, not the population one.

[madibe]

I think I have to agree with RogerCO and Ludwig for what its worth.

7 billion (plus) is not sustainable unless everything degenerates to a level that is scarily basic. The suffering would be amazing with a population of 7 billion plus and reduced oil / infrastructure.

To justify this claim I realise I would have to do a lot of research. To be honest I couldn't be arsed. Common sense tells its own tale. Since we are currently seeing impoverished people around the globe and even the UK is making waves regarding food security then increasing population and diminishing resources will equal severe problems of probably catastrophic levels.

Most people here are 'geared' towards this way of thinking. I wonder though how the general population will cope with it. I dont want to sound twee or condescending, but how will the average joe feel about subsistance farming? We here are largely of the mind that we could adapt and cope, I think. How about your average hairdresser / financial consultant / et al? Could they, would they, kill and skin and gut a rabbit?

Just food for thought.

[madibe]

7 billion to totally possible and sustainable - we'd all just have to live the way the poorest quarter of the word live today.

I'm sure there are figures on the web that state how many hectacres a hunter-gather needs to sustain life. I havn't found the info. But I bet under such circumstances the planet could not suppot 7 billion of them.

[madibe]

Just to get this straight: you think a population of 7 billion is sustainable?
Of course it is. The number doesn't matter, it's what the individuals do that counts.

Obviusly, this is getting up my goat a wee bit

7 billion people want to eat a small fish everyday...modest expectation...result? Oh, Ok fish is off the menu...can I have 250g of lentils please...ooooh.how many tonnes is that? (go on,dare you to do the maths) Stuff me, its time to eat insects.

[biffvernon]

The future isn't going to be the 17th century or anything else from the past. We've invented and learnt stuff. The question is can we have 7 billion plus living comfortably, with mobile phones and good music and laughter and food security without much fossil fuel. I don't really see why not. The things that really contribute to quality of life are not fossil fuel consumption but the conviviality of friends and relations, art and culture. We can get all that without much of the energy intensive lifestyle that those in the rich parts of the world have got used to. Growing food when labour is in surplus is easy.

I'm not belittling the problems of adjusting the pattern of megacitites to a new future and I'm not optimistic that the transition will be made without a great deal of unhappiness, but ask if it is physically possible to sustain 7bn in a good life and I'm sure the answer is yes.

Here are a couple of little anecdotes. The field next to mine has been 'set aside' for the last ten years, producing nothing edible. This year it was cropped with early potatoes, harvested several weeks ago and the land is now bare, growing nothing through the most productive weeks of the summer. In the autumn it will be drilled with winter barley to be used as animal feed next year. Meanwhile my own early potato land was immediately replanted with more crops, summer salads and winter veg. To leave the land bare is a waste.

And we had fresh anchovies for lunch yesterday. To my mind they are one of the tastiest foods in the world. But they are hoovered up by the megatonne to be used as farm fertiliser, chicken feed or fed to salmon. What a waste. Wherever you look, there's waste. Waste that detracts from the potential good life of 7bn people.

[RogerCO]

The future isn't going to be the 17th century or anything else from the past.

I said 17th Century standard of living, not 17th Century style of living, and I'd certainly hope to get up to and beyond a 17th Century quality of life (I think I saw a report somewhere that the best guess was that global average quality of life peaked in the mid 20th Century - certainly the report was that it had been declining since 1980s).

Obviously the future will not be like any past - for a start even if we loose access to the technology to do it we will know that heavier than air manned flight is possible, and we are unlikely to forget that for many generations as it seems to be a basic human dream.

It is interesting to wonder what bits of practical 20th century technology we will take forward and adapt in a post (fossil fuel based) industrial civilization. Mass mobile phones perhaps not, but some form of wireless communication for sure yes. Personal motorised transport perhaps not, but shared transport systems and machinery and tools for building and making things yes.
And so on.

[RogerCO]

I do agree with this

The impact, the sustainability is the population x behaviour.

But I'm not so sure about this

The behaviour term in that equation has a far greater degree of freedom though so really should be the one to think about, not the population one.

I don't think it is as simple as that. We are where we are largely as a result of giving people the freedom to behave as they wish. Changing the behaviour of the 700 million most polluting people who also happen to be the most 'free' people is possible but neither quickly nor easily.

Unfortunately we need a fairly quick change (say less than 20 years to get unhooked from both the consumption and pollution sides of the unsustainability problem).

I think we have to use both levers, and also recognise that both levers, in different ways, impact on individual freedom.

Freedom may be the egg which has to be broken to make the sustainable omelette.

[kenneal - lagger]

but some form of wireless communication for sure yes.

Crystal set?

Personal motorised transport perhaps not, but shared transport systems

Stage coach?

and machinery and tools for building and making things yes.

Steam engines?

[Ludwig]

Here are a couple of little anecdotes. The field next to mine has been 'set aside' for the last ten years, producing nothing edible. This year it was cropped with early potatoes, harvested several weeks ago and the land is now bare, growing nothing through the most productive weeks of the summer. In the autumn it will be drilled with winter barley to be used as animal feed next year. Meanwhile my own early potato land was immediately replanted with more crops, summer salads and winter veg. To leave the land bare is a waste.

I know next to nothing about farming, but isn't it good practice to leave fields fallow before replanting them?

[Ludwig]

I think I have to agree with RogerCO and Ludwig for what its worth.

7 billion (plus) is not sustainable unless everything degenerates to a level that is scarily basic. The suffering would be amazing with a population of 7 billion plus and reduced oil / infrastructure.

To justify this claim I realise I would have to do a lot of research. To be honest I couldn't be arsed. Common sense tells its own tale.

Yes, that's what I tend to think. I can appreciate logical arguments why we might be able to sustain 7 billion people, but my gut feeling is that it will be extraordinarily difficult. It seems fairly certain that if it weren't for fossil fuels, there wouldn't be anywhere 7 billion people in the world, so it stands to reason that a drop in oil supply will lead to die-off.

I also think there are many powerful people who, even if we could survive at subsistence level, would much rather share between them the bulk of what's left, and never mind anyone else.

Even now, I think if most people were REALLY honest with themselves, they'd rather see most of the world's population die off than give up much of their current standard of living.

Since we are currently seeing impoverished people around the globe and even the UK is making waves regarding food security then increasing population and diminishing resources will equal severe problems of probably catastrophic levels.

Most people here are 'geared' towards this way of thinking. I wonder though how the general population will cope with it. I dont want to sound twee or condescending, but how will the average joe feel about subsistance farming? We here are largely of the mind that we could adapt and cope, I think. How about your average hairdresser / financial consultant / et al? Could they, would they, kill and skin and gut a rabbit?

Just food for thought.

I think people could learn to skin rabbits easily enough; for me, the question is how society would cope psychologically. I read a report (can't remember where) from St. Petersburg in the 1990s, and the journalist wrote that what struck him was the pervasive atmosphere of despair. It is actually pretty difficult to insulate oneself against that.

Apathy and despair have their own corrosive power, and I think it is that that is a real cause for concern. It is hard to keep things going if no one around you wants to pull their weight.

Man cannot live by bread alone: without a sense of hope and progress, people will find it pretty difficult to adjust.

[biffvernon]

I know next to nothing about farming, but isn't it good practice to leave fields fallow before replanting them?

That's an interestng question, but the simple answer is no. A fallow period was desirable in days of yore when not much was understood about crop rotation, but that changed in the 17th century with Thomas Coke, Jethro Tull et al and the Norfolk Four Course Rotation. You can't go on taking the same nutrients out of the soil at a faster rate than those nutrients are either returned to the soil or released from the underlying geology. Growing the same crop year after year continuously is usually a bad thing, but by alternating crops that have different nutrient demands, including nitrogen fixing crops, and adding compost, continuos cropping is very possible and leads to significantly higher overall yields.

[Kieran]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erica.html

Hmmmmm...