Guest post by orgfarm
Part 3 of 3
The “Nineties”
Three generations after the collapse, most folks are illiterate and animistic. They gaze in wonder at the vast ruins of dead and decaying cities: “Who built these places? How did they do it? Where did they go? We hear stories, but truly, they must be gods.”
Food and energy remain scarce in 2090, but with reduced threat of armed conflict, communities are finally able to settle peacefully in agricultural lands around the world. With scavenged materials they build self-sufficient towns, villages, and hamlets near waterways and important crossroads.
Settlements are resource limited, and socially cautious, averaging 150 people – “Dunbar’s number”. For survival requires reliable families, dependable friends, and trustworthy neighbors. These bonds minimize conflict and allow consensus to guide group action.
With careful and intensive community management, healthy soils slowly return. Cover crop, rotation, fallow, and herd grazing practices are strictly followed. Old cultivars when found are highly prized, while new ones are developed and exchanged with other regional growers.
Forest and woodlot management is rigorously enforced and culturally defined and imprinted. The “woods” are a valued resource, heavily guarded and protected to insure future energy supplies, provide construction material, and create habitat for remaining biodiversity.
Communities are proud of their forests and woodlots, land and soil, seeds and crops. They are proud of their people who with determination and against all odds, survived the “dark passage” of war and brutal hardship. And they are proud of their strong children who will replace them in the home, shop, and field. And so they hold yearly spring rituals to encourage good growth, summer celebrations to bring good weather, and fall festivals to show thanks for a good harvest.
Farmers and craftsmen from these communities provide surplus grain and goods to hub cities – some with several thousand citizens – all dependent on the productivity of rural agriculture. These new urban areas self-organize, economies diversify, laws are required, codified, and enforced, social classes emerge: ruling families, merchants, and militia, shopkeepers, laborers, and vagrants. Some cities are governed by voting, some by decree.
Trade, commerce, and diplomacy are reestablished between regions and provide many products and materials – not available locally – that improve living conditions and quality of life.
In a few well-governed areas birth rates finally equal death rates as food production improves. By the end of the decade global population stabilizes at 100 million.
In 500 years, enough biomass might accumulate in certain regions of the world to create the energy required for a new city-state which will, predictably, rise and fall. In 5 million years biodiversity will be half-way to recovery. In 5 billion years our Sun will expand and swallow a lifeless Earth.
The Requiem
The collapse of populations and economies, and the abandonment of cities and regions are well-known periodic events in human history. Anyone living in these ancient civilizations would have laughed loudly and dismissively if told what their future held. Today we are no different.
In the past, surviving members of a collapsed civilization often migrated to regions that had abundant resources to rebuild their culture. The collapse that now looms ahead, however, will impact ALL regions, because all are connected to a global fossil-fuel based industrial civilization. Without fossil-fuel, the best humanity can hope for is a return to a Medieval lifestyle, or if we’re feeling optimistic, maybe an Edo Period prosperity and stability. That is, if humans can survive the 50 year bottleneck after 2040.
But of course this entire collapse scenario is unrealistic, not because it lacks evidence, but because it does not account for the force multiplier of several high-probability events: non-linear climate change, unlimited nuclear exchange, widespread nuclear power-plant meltdown, international biochemical warfare, to name a few. Include the impact of one or more of these “known knowns”, or add the non-zero probability of a global “black swan event”, and “collapse” may cause human extinction.
There will certainly be disagreement with the particulars here. The above decadal summaries can reasonably be pushed forward or back 20 years. But here is a summary that is non-negotiable:
The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Principles of Ecology have set limits.
This we cannot change. We can only attempt to manage wisely ourselves and available resources within these limits. We know that infinite growth is not possible in a finite world. We know that overshoot ends in collapse. That much is certain.
The Question
So, constrained within those limits and certainties, what does YOUR collapse scenario look like?
a) In what future decade will global human population begin to decline? b) When will it stabilize? c) At what number? d) At what lifestyle?
By 2100 will humans be “sustainable”, struggling, or extinct?
Many thanks to Ovi, Ron, and Dennis for allowing this guest post.
Non-Petroleum comments are welcome below.
The answer to those questions is: How the fuck should I know?
I have no “scenario,” only extreme trepidation.
Look, this is all very nice–I’m all about collapse, having studied Rees, Tainter, Catton and the Late Bronze Age Collapse–but this is all just speculative storytelling.
Mikeb,
Every story about the future is always highly speculative, but some times it is interesting to hear the perspectives of others.
Some like Tony Seba are overly optimistic. Others may be quite pessimistic. Reality will lie somewhere in between in my view, but of course that too is speculation, we just do not know what the future will bring. The part about 4 billion years in the future and the Sun burning up the planet sounds about right, the story between now and then remains speculation.
“we just do not know what the future will bring.”
The fascinating thing about the collapse c. 1200 BC: They (meaning the Mycenaeans, Hittites, et al.) likely had no idea what was happening to them and absolutely no way to avert their fate. Learning about this just convinces me all the more that 99.9% of us will not recognize collapse if/when it happens and once the signs are clear, the rest will not be able to do a thing to avert it.
By the time the Hebrew bible was being written, the details of collapse were already long forgotten. Perhaps The Exodus is a faint recollection of climate refugees during the time, but who knows. There is nothing in the Torah even remotely recalling the grandeur of the Bronze Age.
It was likely a climate fluctuation that did those Mediterranean societies in — that and their interdependency and vast inequities.
Great observations, as usual, MikeB.
“There is nothing in the Torah even remotely recalling the grandeur of the Bronze Age.”
Re the OT having no memory of the collapse, maybe because it is likely a Platonic “foundation myth” document written in the decade from 273BC in Alexandria. Russell Gmirkin’s work is simply superb on this topic.
E.g.
https://www.sott.net/article/460056-MindMatters-Plato-All-the-Way-Down-Solving-Biblical-Mysteries-with-Russell-Gmirkin
The Iliad is interesting because it talks about the fall of a great city. It is full of interesting detail. There are descriptions of the armor used. They are a mixed bag from different eras. One of the armies uses stone arrowheads. So some of it seems ancient, even if it is mixed with newer material. The list of cities that sent ships is particularly interesting because it seems to describe the world of maybe1200 BCE.
You can tell the Old Testament has no memory because it is cobbled together from contemporary stories, and has a “just So Story” style, lacking in detail. Sodom and Gomorrah are an example. There were ruined cities around, so they invented simplistic fairy tales about gods punishing the wicked in imaginary cities. There is no history in them. The flood story is copied from primary reader spread all over the region by the Assyrian empire to teach Aramaic. It was written in cuneiform, so there are still copies around. It has camels in the Joseph story, supposedly in an era long before camels were around. It’s a patchwork of borrowed material mashed together to prove to the Shah of Persia that they had a history.
“Every story about the future is always highly speculative…” – dcoyne
No, some are more probable, some are less. Depends on your starting assumptions and understanding of the systems dynamics involved.
Otherwise no reasonable person would be concerned about climate change, for instance. Unless of course you think climate change is “highly speculative.”
“Every” and “always” are unhelpful words to use unless carefully bounded and applied.
““Every” and “always” are unhelpful words to use unless carefully bounded and applied”
Very nice observation.
Org farm,
Perhaps most would be better, but I stand by every and always, yes there are physical laws which will govern individual interactions. Knowing all future interactions and how they will play out cannot be known in advance, not by humans. We could posit an all knowing all powerful being that in principle might be able to accomplish this, but it might take an infinite amount of time to calculate the scenarios.
I agree there might be some models that might predict more accurately than others, which assumptions to use as inputs to those models and which set of assumptions are more “realistic”, is not knowable in my view.
Exactly. It’s impossible to guess.
Fascinating read, thanks for sharing! Here is my version for the near future:
https://medium.com/data-driven-fiction/2052-240cc6dddf50
Be sure to read the rest of my posts to find out more…
Thank you orgfarm for this thoughtful and thought provoking scenario.
I fear the many black swans approaching and the obvious risks combined will not only spell the end of this civilization but the extinction of Homo sapiens as well. I think the average person would call your scenario much too dark but I find it to be the future that I would hope might happen.
I think it will play out over a longer time frame, perhaps 400 to 500 years. A big help would be to reverse population growth with fewer offspring maybe 1 to 2 children per family. My family and my wife’s had a total of 11 children in the two families, the next generation there were a total of 7 children, so if we take 5.5 for the theoretical number of mothers that would be a TFR of 7/5.5=1.27, vs 5.5 in the previous generation.
Not the only solution, but this plus conservation, living within our means, reducing carbon emissions, recycling, buying quality products built to last a lifetime, less/ no air travel, expansion of non-fossil energy sources, less meat and dairy/vegan diet, and potentially many other solutions, such as better farming solutions with lower environmental impact, and even carbon removal from the atmosphere.
We need to get to work.
“…but I find it to be the future that I would hope might happen.” – woodsygardener
The future meaning “self-sufficient towns, villages, and hamlets” or “the extinction of Homo sapiens”?
If “extinction”, then because you want to limit bio-diversity loss, or you’re generally misanthropic, or maybe both?
Just curious.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I hope the scenario you’ve put forth happens. People are intelligent and adaptable; they may follow a path similar to the optimistic path you propose.
“…I hope people follow a path similar to the optimistic path you propose.” – woodsygardner
Well, first, thanks for your comments, glad you enjoyed the essay. And thanks for clarifying your thoughts.
But perhaps you didn’t read Part 1 and 2 where “the optimistic path” required 50 years of brutal hardship, horrific war, suffering, starvation and disease, not to mention a biodiversity loss nearly equal to the KT event.
And a reduction of 99% of the global population – without factoring in a few highly likely force-multiplying events that may cause human extinction.
Other than that, yeah, “self-sufficient towns, villages, and hamlets” with strong families working close to the land and celebrating the seasons, well, seems downright idyllic.
But don’t forget those bottleneck years.
Cheers!
Mr Gardner . I don’t worry too much about the homo sapiens . We are like cockroaches . Now about you and me and for all those we care ? A different story , hmmmmm .
How would the 2090’s be three generations after “the collapse”? Children born today will statistically live to 2090, 70 years is just one generation.
I’m pretty sure it means reproduction age, say, twenty years per generation.
We are in a mass overpopulation, with a collapsing ecosystem.
This is a predicament, not a problem.
However, the outcome has many variations.
Extinction (like 99.9% of the organisms that have arisen)?
Eventually, for sure.
But who knows the time frame?
Anyway, enjoy the ride—–
With the number of carbon sinks we are losing even now at fairly low warming and a global disinclination to do anything but burn all available fossil fuels, whilst kidding ourselves that we’ll eventually get round to planting some trees or some chap in his garage will invent an energy free carbon scrubber, I think we are heading for three degrees or more. That will destabilise the climate enough to make growing of cereal crops impossible long term or at large scale, and that is basically what a society has to do to be called a civilisation. So I think if we do have a surviving population it will be as hunter-gatherers possibly with occasional attempts at agriculture, similar to pre-holocene societies (with the difference that then the instability was due to the cold). If there is a period of something like Roman to Medieval agricultural society then, as in those days, most of society will be effectively indentured labour at best or slaves at worst.
“…then, as in those days, most of society will be effectively indentured labour at best…” – georgekaplan
The “Sixties”
“…Humans born after 2040 are now un-educated young adults. If not conscripted or scavenging, they work in agricultural fields helping their families “meet quota” in various neo-feudal land sharing arrangements…”
I didn’t finish my thought there and meant to add: “… so maybe a forced return to egalitarian tribes, living closer to the ways to which we were evolved, would be not so bad (maybe less so for females though, based on some anecdotes).”
“…so maybe a forced return to egalitarian tribes…” – georgekaplan
Yes, think we both agree there will be many changes ahead, both known and unknown, but most will be involuntary.
Ding ding ding – give that man a prize! well responded as well – orgfarm
“How would the 2090’s be three generations after “the collapse”? Children born today will statistically live to 2090, 70 years is just one generation.” – sprouse
With respect, must ask two questions:
You don’t know the difference between “a generation” and “life expectancy”?
You didn’t read the whole Scenario?
In Part 1 there are reasons given for the events that occur in each decade. Those events build to conclusions that then cause the events of the following decade. A concatenation of events and conclusions based on “systems dynamics”.
For example, fossil-fuel shortages cause food shortages (fill in the space why that is so – the essay had to assume, for obvious length limitations, that the reader could do this). Food shortages cause social and political instability. Governments go to war to seize remaining fossil-fuel reserves (fill in the space why food shortages cause instability which lead governments into war).
War damages or destroys the infrastructure that produces (extracts and refines) fossil-fuel. Causing even less fossil-fuel, meaning more instability, meaning more war… a downward spiraling feedback loop that quickly becomes non-linear and causes more events leading to more conclusions – like the onset of rapidly declining populations and economies (also known as “collapse”).
This leads to Part 2. Major hostilities end when armies don’t have the fossil-fuel (and infrastructure) that once produced transport fuel and (fossil-fuel dependent) food and combat equipment. This leads to another linking chain of events and conclusions. One of the conclusions after a decade of war – and no affordable or available fossil-fuel – is starvation and disease, (fill in the space why loss of infrastructure which includes hospitals, health clinics, Pharma, and electrical grids leads to disease).
That’s why at the end of Part 2 there is a “reasonable” conclusion that average life expectancy is 50 years. Which is why the second question, above, was asked.
If YOU assert that in 2090 average life expectancy will be 70 years, then you should have some kind of reasonable “scenario” in mind that makes sense to you and allows you to believe in that assertion.
For instance, do you think huge reservoirs of undiscovered fossil-fuels lie hidden that will soon be found, enabling BAU for the next 400 to 500 years? Do you think humans will discover an endless supply of “abiotic” oil? Without some kind of “scenario” that makes sense, then your opinion is just as accurate as someone who claims that in 2090 humans will live forever, because, you know, “singularity”. That’s ok as long as you provide “reasonable” evidence in some kind of “reasonable” context.
The point is, the essay didn’t just make up events, to throw on the wall and see if some would stick. There was an attempt to provide a reason and justification behind the decadal events and what conclusions one could reasonably draw – particularly with regard to levels of population and economy (“collapse”).
Which is why Part 3 ended with 4 questions. They were an attempt to uncover the assumptions that each of has that determines our view about the future, and roughly measure their probability. A sort of poor-man’s Bayes Theorem.
Once these assumptions are revealed and stated (many people don’t even know what they base their beliefs on) they can then be tested for reasonableness, accuracy, and rationality. Importantly, do they stay within non-negotiable limits.
For example, “Humans will transition to “renewable energy” and voluntarily reduce population and consumption gradually over the next 400 to 500 years while maintaining a healthy economy and a livable biosphere.”
If the assumptions underlying this view fail the rationality test, then the person holding this belief must either dismiss it or remain delusional.
When the tide goes out, we discover who’s swimming naked.
This was a too-long answer to your remark, but it also tried to cover other questions that may come up.
tell ’em orgfarm – I’ve been seeing a lot of Negative Nancy comments, but then people respond with bullshit that is chock-full-o-nuts with assumptions of their own.
“…assumptions of their own.” – twocats
Yes, assumptions that if clearly stated and parsed, would undermine their position and prove them wrong.
Think you’re the only one who read the above 9:01 comment. Thanks!
Fantastic comment Org, from a mature, reflective, self aware mind.
Particularly I appreciated these two observations:
1) “War damages or destroys the infrastructure that produces (extracts and refines) fossil-fuel. Causing even less fossil-fuel, meaning more instability, meaning more war… a downward spiraling feedback loop that quickly becomes non-linear and causes more events leading to more conclusions – like the onset of rapidly declining populations and economies (also known as “collapse”).
This leads to Part 2. Major hostilities end when armies don’t have the fossil-fuel (and infrastructure) that once produced transport fuel and (fossil-fuel dependent) food and combat equipment. This leads to another linking chain of events and conclusions. One of the conclusions after a decade of war – and no affordable or available fossil-fuel – is starvation and disease, (fill in the space why loss of infrastructure which includes hospitals, health clinics, Pharma, and electrical grids leads to disease).”
&
2) “Yes, assumptions that if clearly stated and parsed, would undermine their position and prove them wrong.”
Spot on. Most interlocutors are actually not truth seekers, but rationalising domination seekers. Some may have IQ and learning, but they lack judgement, marinated in the Logic of the Machine they treat their fellow humans as machines too.
Great work mate.
“…not truth seekers, but rationalising domination seekers.” – rationalluddite
The mortal play, power over truth. People programmed to keep the BAU Machine running at any cost. Not gonna end well.
And you’re the second to read the 9:01 comment. Appreciate your thoughts.
Cheers!
It’S 70 degrees warmer than usual in the Antarctic.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/it-e2-80-99s-70-degrees-warmer-than-normal-in-eastern-antarctica-scientists-are-flabbergasted/ar-AAVfk4m
Luckily it’s only 50 degrees in the Arctic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/15/north-pole-melting-arctic-climate/
“What happens in the Arctic, doesn’t stay in the Arctic.” – Beckwith
A “blue ocean event” will mark a phase transition in the biosphere – and unfavorable conditions for most life on earth.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Antartica is setting new daily minimum records by a wide margin and is about to be joined by the Arctic, at least for area; extent might be a bit behind because the recent storms have spread things around so much. And the biggest storm yet is about to run up the east coast of Greenland and onto the margins of the Atlantic side of the Arctic sea ice. With the storms churning up ice and putting water on the surface the worse case might now be high pressure and blue skies, even with the sun still low, and that’s what’s coming.
“…and that’s what’s coming..” – georgekaplan
But, but, “every story about the future is always highly speculative…” right?
And “it’s impossible to guess” right?
Not sure why otherwise reasonable and educated people use these banal cliches and goofy expressions… Try to confirm their unrecognized biases? Protect emotional investment? Sway undecided minds? Cognitive dissonance?
Who knows… but it’s certainly unflattering.
Sounds like you’ve wandered over into the oil-side thread and run into the “D. Coyne Patented Wall of Pat Responses and Charts From His Ass.” And I’m sure you weren’t foolish enough to get into any political discussions over there. For all their “we see through the system’s lies” on oil reporting and what not, they are about as easily manipulated as… well there is nothing in the natural world so manipulated as the American mind.
Dear God Orgfarm – briefly scrolled by your “discussion” w/ Ron, Dennis et al. If those two are united on a topic against you, and HiH is your primary ally , you are f-zillicated. What evidence have you seen from any of those guys, even if you laid out a 10,000 word detailed response summarizing the history leading up to the conflict, etc, that they wouldn’t basically come back with “I don’t care what you’ve read… this boils down to one word: Genocide” (paraphrasing an actual RP post there). You need to just walk away. Go watch some Jimmy Dore, or read some Glen Greenwald. Post there, plenty of people who will sympathize with your positions.
“What evidence have you seen from any of those guys…”- twocats
Absolutely none. But read my response to HIH, which outlines briefly the reason for time spent there.
“…plenty of people who will sympathize with your positions.” – twocats
Well, that would be too easy, being in an echo chamber. Better to be challenged by strongly opposing views – helps sharpen critical thinking skills, and one can learn more.
But it does take time, energy, patience, and tolerance to wade through the nonsense, some of it clearly outrageous as you point out. Very little intellectual honesty with some of these people as they intentionally distort and contort the real world to fit an artificial narrative. To be honest, it’s actually painful to watch.
“You need to walk away…” – twocats
Yes, you’re right. But it is fascinating, to see humans receive the same information and arrive at opposite conclusions. Which is why skepticism is so important. Richard Feynman spoke about that in the context of science, “Always be aware that the easiest person to fool is yourself”.
And we’re certainly fooling ourselves if we think debating these folks is going to change anyone’s mind.
Ok, enough for one day.
Thanks for the good thoughts.
Cheers!
“Well, that would be too easy, being in an echo chamber. Better to be challenged by strongly opposing views – helps sharpen critical thinking skills, and one can learn more.”
Strong disagree there. It is better to sharpen critical thinking skills when getting into the “finer weeds” of discussion. All you accomplished was 1) getting yourself “ignored” by several posters, which means they’ll never see your comments again, 2) enraging several others who more or less think you are an active Russian troll (not an exaggeration), 3) and throwing your thoughts into the Thought Voids that are RP and DC. I mean once you’re debating with Wikipedia links the battle is basically lost. (No mention of NATO as a terrorist organization, no mention of Gladio, Brabant Massacres, and dozens of other examples. I.e. impossible to flesh out context leading up to Russian invasion in this space).
I’ve been on POB since inception, and Peakoil.com since inception. Any discussion now, at this time, on this website, beyond technicals of oil production, consumption and renewables, is a waste of time. And given the highly charged, propagandized nature of the RF/Ukraine war, that is quadruple true. In fact, a failure to understand propaganda and ideology is key here: all your arguments are accomplishing is to STRENGTHEN their ideological position, not create the dialogue you so desire. But it would take thousands of words explain that it you don’t already agree, and I don’t care about it THAT much 🙂
I can point to hundreds of examples, but just take DC’s response about Death Rate vs. Birth rate TODAY. It was SO OBVIOUS what you were referring to, and Dennis just completely ignored it (if he were to see this, he would of course disagree, pointing to to the fact that he didn’t “completely ignore it” because of the fact that he responded – see how this works?), said you were wrong, end of story (because technically, on some level, yes you are wrong, of course, but your larger point is almost certainly true). He’s a living, breathing diversion tactic.
I mean, if that doesn’t clue you in to what kind of environment you are in here, I cannot help you. DC will always win, in his mind, on a technicality, and there’s no way you can change a person’s mind when they think they’re right all the time. Alright, feel free to respond, but that’s my peace on the subject.
Twocats,
take DC’s response about Death Rate vs. Birth rate TODAY. It was SO OBVIOUS what you were referring to, and Dennis just completely ignored it
Well, IMO he was simply disagreeing, and he was being diplomatic about it so the disagreement wasn’t clear. Sometimes…people just disagree, and in this case he simply thought that there was no strong evidence that death rates would rise dramatically. Of course, I could be wrong…
“…if that doesn’t clue you in to what kind of environment you’re in here…” – twocats
Been reading POB since the site opened, and was an avid reader of TOD before that. There’s definitely been a change in the zeitgeist recently, over on the oily side. People now quickly descending into smear, slur, and shameful dishonesty in reaction to an opposing view. Rational argument and reasonable evidence no longer seem to penetrate artificial narrative and delusional thinking.
Not sure it’s any different here on the non-petrol side. But hope to have a few decent conversations. We’ll see.
Thanks for all the good thoughts, amigo.
Cheers.
It’s also way way warmer in the Arctic than normal……..
Here’s a factoid to make you puke–
The Blue Ocean Event, when it happens, with the accompanying loss of albedo and heat absorption, etc., will be the equivalent of twenty-five years of carbon emissions at current rates in terms of heat added to the planet.
The BOE should happen any year now. A sobering discussion here, where Jim Massa mentions the Scripps paper that is the source of this information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihfFJaDZ3Gw
I shudder to think about the trajectory of emissions after the singularity event happens in the coming years.
May I add that claims for a catastrophic GW positive-feedback-induced ‘meltdown’ is just that . . . hysteria that neither recognizes earth’s complexity, nor its proclivity for complex life. Contradictory negative-feedback loops are myriad, just one example is NASA’s Greening Earth observation, to wit;
“Apr 26, 2016
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.”
Mammalian life doesn’t turn green in high CO2 environments.
Mr. Starr, here is a rather frank discussion of the latest IPCC report, which translates the IPCC’s bureaucratese into jeremiad:
HOW FUCKED ARE WE?
Unfortunately adding carbon dioxide hears the atmosphere faster than it accelerates plant growth.
Corn pollination: affect of high temperature and stress
“Pollen is no longer viable once temperatures reach the mid 90’s or greater, especially with low relative humidity”
https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/encyclopedia/corn-pollination-affect-high-temperature-and-stress
High temps jam up the sex life of corn. Enjoy the famine.
Regarding the posting scenario presented by Orgfarm, a few comments. Thanks for putting your thoughts out for others to consider.
“with reduced threat of armed conflict, communities are finally able to settle peacefully in agricultural lands around the world”
I see little to no probability of the optimistic scenario that a peaceful structure will emerge after a collapse. More likely a prolonged marauder culture everywhere, for centuries. Marauders (chaos) vs Authoritarian Warlords. A thousand years of jostling for control and food. Sorry for everyone about this.
There are far too many variables to predict future turn of events.
But I’ll put my cards on the bet that things go south much more quickly than current global population projections indicate, and call for peak population to be in the 2040’s at around 9 B.
Also, certain areas will fair much better than others. Geographic isolation from failed states and urban implosion will help a lot.
“There are far too many variables to predict future events.” – hickory
This sentence comes right after you predict events “centuries”, and even “a thousand years” into the future.
More than a few of your comments at POB contain logic-twisting, brow-raising contradictions like this, but take heart, you’re not alone.
The same person (up thread here) who predicts “it will play out over a longer time frame, perhaps 400 to 500 years” into the future, then says without the least bit of irony or awareness that “every story about the future is always highly speculative.”
Another person (up thread) who is acutely aware of how dramatically climate change can affect future events, says – in the same sentence – “scenarios” are “speculative storytelling”.
As I tried to point out, with apparently no success, ALL stories, scenarios, models, and systems are based in part on speculation, conjecture, and incomplete knowledge – which means all of them are on the probability spectrum: with more evidence they are more probable, with less evidence they are less probable.
It’s generally not a good use of time to point out someone’s blatant contradictions because, well, humans are so hard-wired for denial that it’s a feature not a bug, and it often causes them to dig their holes deeper. Which is the opposite direction they should be going.
Though this particular contradiction of yours just seemed especially egregious and cried out for some attention. 🙂
I see where you got it wrong OF, confusing my guess with the making of a prediction.
Not a problem.
I really don’t expect you to take me any more seriously than i take you.
True- “As I tried to point out, with apparently no success, ALL stories, scenarios, models, and systems are based in part on speculation, conjecture, and incomplete knowledge – which means all of them are on the probability spectrum: with more evidence they are more probable, with less evidence they are less probable.”
You are no more privileged in this regard than the next guy.
“…confusing my guess with the making of a prediction.” – hickory
You’re getting close. Hint: predictions are guesses.
“You are no more privileged in this regard than the next guy” – hickory
No privilege necessary, just evidence. And the more evidence, the greater the probability…
And please lighten-up, you’re taking all the fun out of exchanging thoughts and ideas. 🙂
So, huntingtonbeach is posting his old comment (3/15) under a new name?
How clever.
Surely, no one has ever done that in the history of the internet.
Countries with highest food self-sufficiency ratio [2012- calorie basis]
Rank Country Ratio (%)
1 Argentina 273
2 Uruguay 232
3 Australia 207
4 Ukraine 193
5 New Zealand 185
6 Canada 183
7 Bulgaria 171
8 Hungary 162
9 Lithuania 149
10 Malaysia 145
And here is very different ranking- food security index from 2021
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/countries-food-security-index-ranked-chart
Any such determination is based on the assumption of energy affordability and availability for current agricultural/fisheries practice. And that is a false assumption.
People will be back to the old preindustrial period priority of fighting to death for control of good soil, and herds.
“On the weather depends the harvest, on the harvest depends everything” ~ apocryphal
Some of the answers to your questions may be found in Athens GA . See The Georgia Guidestones.
As for the future of Homo Sapiens – please watch The Day After –
971,046
From Hopkins–
South of the pier, there is a mall called Pacific City. On the top floor there is a restaurant called the “Old Crow”. You can get a drink and a variety of good food. They have an outdoor section were you get a great view of the pier and Catalina. There is also a bar/lounge about 100 yards south of the Old Crow with the same view. You can park under the mall from the opposite side of PCH. The retailers will validate your parking if you buy something. A great place to take family or friends. Most of the time during the week I could meet you there around 2. The entire downtown you are not going to recognize. Dairy Queen is still there. I think if you go back far enough it was a Jack in the Box. That’s were my friends and I use to go to the beach back in high school. Life guard station number 3. Weekends are very busy downtown, but also a lot to watch.
https://www.oldcrowsmokehouse.com/huntington-beach-menus
I’ll check in when the move is made—
I’m curious
The world has lived through crashes before, but the crashed civilizations kept delivering. For example when the Western Roman empire crashed, the cities in Western Europe disappeared, but many of the technologies and ideas of the Roman world survived.
A good example of this is the chicken, a Vietnamese animal mentioned in the New Testament but not in the Old Testament. chickens spread to Europe and thrived after them empire fell.
Current cereal crops are the product of the 1960s “Green Revolution”. They have delivered huge benefits in many regions, but suffer some basic flaws, mostly that they require lots of chemical inputs and require planting every year. However, there is no reason why cereal crops shouldn’t be nitrogen fixing, and perennial. There are research programs working on both of these ideas even now.
Another interesting question is whether the pill would survive the collapse. It’s worth noting that poor regions with relatively low fossil fuel consumption are currently growing faster than regions with much higher fossil fuel consumption. Population growth seems to correlate better with pill availability than with fossil fuel consumption.
Alimbiquated,
Using the history of growth and collapse of civilizations or empires from pre-industrial times is extremely misleading. Tainter wrote “The Collapse of Complex Societies”. Look at the subtitle: “New Studies in Archeology”. What does that tell you? It says that this is not the study of modern societies.
Pre-modern civilizations were primarily agricultural, and had very, very low growth rates. So, agricultural productivity was key, and empires with high growth rates were essentially Ponzi schemes: when the underlying economic growth rate is .01% per year, an empire can only grow temporarily by stealing. The core of the empire exploits (loots) the periphery. The periphery expands until the empire becomes too large, and then it collapses due to the lack of new victims. Agricultural products include food and wood, and a common symptom of collapse is Peak Wood, as observed for both Athens and Rome.
Any analysis of the growth and decline of pre-modern civilizations has very, very limited application to modern times.
Modern empires are different. Japan, the UK, even Russia are all far more affluent now than they ever were during the heyday of their empires.
So…comparisons of ag empires to modern conditions are not very useful.
That idea is not expressed nearly enough here. It’s obviously true but not widely mentioned. That’s why its so nice to see conceptual frameworks like Orgfarm’s here. It gives us a template to knock ideas off of and see what sticks given the immense complexity of our current civilization.
You are right Nick.
Russia headed to strategic defeat in Ukraine
https://youtu.be/BeacXBxPARQ
The Ukraine invasion is too much of a threat for the former Soviet /Russian colonies to ignore. So Putin is “holding down five fleas with five fingers” as Mao put it.
The comparison with Iraq is apt — it is hard to “win” a modern war without some thoughts on the political settlement after the war.
It’s interesting that the only political body that has seen real expansion in recent years is the EU, and they don’t even have an army. They are just a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats fussing around with trade regulation and landfill directives, and other unmanly topics.
The American neocons (or what’s left of them) and Putin see themselves as apex predators, subduing their prey in epic struggles and worrying about digesting them when the time comes. The EU operates more like a fungus. It starts the digestion process first. They call it “harmonization”, which sounds nice.
Once harmonization has advanced far enough, the struggle part is irrrelevant, as Brexit has shown. The prey is no longer viable as an independent unit. Its national bureaucracy is so atrophied that it can’t even negotiate trade deals or plan infrastructure. Resisting harmonization comes at an enormous economic cost, as the comparison between Belarus and Poland shows.
No comment, beyond that this guy has his head so high up his a*** that he can’t see . Mariupol (strategic from logistics POV for the Ukies )is now under RF control . That means the whole Black Sea coast and the Sea of Azov are now 100 % controlled by RF . Which means South Ukraine is now under effective RF control . Hicks and me disagree on many issues but his scenario for the fragmentation of Ukraine is underway .
I haven’t clicked on the link but let me guess – is it an epic clapback meme?
One of the best articles I have read on the current situation by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/15/chris-hedges-waltzing-to-armageddon/
There’s a lot of truth in it, but it’s a twisted piece of shit……. not actually all that far from Russian propaganda.
It minimizes or outright ignores Russian history since WWII.
The PEOPLE of Russia don’t have a GODDAMNED thing to fear from the West…….. NOTHING,NADA, ZIP.
The fear of the West is entirely on the part of the fascists who own Russia lock, stock, and barrel, and the head fascist is of course Putin.
With a reasonably decent government, aka freedom for her People, Russia could and would be one of the very richest countries in the world within a generation or two……
There’s a lot of truth about how the overall situation has been manipulated to the profit of the military industrial complex in the West……. that’s absolutely true!
But let’s remember what’s deliberately minimized …….. the actual reality of Russian existence under the rule of the old so called communist party which has evolved into the Putin regime.
“There’s a lot of truth in it, but it’s a twisted piece of shit…”
The problem with writers like Hedges is that even when they manage to say something true, it’s so polluted by an attitude of smug, moral superiority it makes you want to puke.
The Real World- No Delusion
“We are extremely pleased to announce GM is leveraging the strength of its balance sheet to capitalize on the opportunity to increase its equity investment in Cruise and advance our integrated autonomous vehicle strategy. We continue to believe our investment represents an extraordinary opportunity for creating long-term shareholder value.
Our increased investment position not only simplifies Cruise’s shareholder structure, but also provides GM and Cruise maximum flexibility to pursue the most value-accretive path to commercializing and unlocking the full potential of AV technology.
—GM Chair and CEO Mary Barra”
“Last month Cruise became the first company to offer fully driverless rides to the public in a major US city—San Francisco.
The Cruise Origin is a shared, electric vehicle that has been purposefully designed from the ground up to operate without a human driver. This means it does not rely on certain human-centered features, such as a steering wheel or a sun visor, to operate safely. In the spirit of the US Department of Transportation’s six guiding principles for work on innovation in transportation, the Origin seeks to be in service of something greater: driving environmental sustainability, ensuring US leadership in developing and manufacturing autonomous technology and artificial intelligence, supporting the American workforce and promoting accessibility. GM is manufacturing the Origin in Michigan at Factory ZERO.”
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220319-cruise.html
Porsche expects more than 80% of new vehicle sales to be all-electric in 2030
Last year, almost 40% of all new Porsche vehicles delivered in Europe were already at least partly electric—i.e. plug-in hybrids or fully electric models. In 2025, half of all new Porsche sales are expected to come from the sale of electric vehicles—again, all-electric or plug-in hybrid, said Oliver Blume, Chairman of the Executive Board of Porsche AG.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220319-porsche.html
Toyota Ventures opens 2022 Call for Innovation focused on the factory of the future
Toyota Ventures launched its third global “call for innovation” today to search for early-stage companies that can help make the factory of the future a reality sooner. In partnership with Toyota’s Manufacturing Project Innovation Center (MPIC) and Toyota Research Institute (TRI), the 2022 call focuses on finding scalable solutions to modernize manufacturing and advance sustainable production.
We take a founder-first approach to investing, partnering with entrepreneurs to help them bring disruptive technologies and business models to market more quickly. With the 2022 call for innovation, we are looking to support talented startup teams that are developing smarter and more sustainable factories of the future. There are a host of challenges facing the supply chain and manufacturing industry—it’s a critical time, and we see this as a perfect opportunity for startup teams with bold ideas and solutions to accelerate the Industry 4.0 transformation.
—Jim Adler, founding managing director of Toyota Ventures
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220318-tv.html
They have a couple of ready choices……. study Tesla and imitate……. or wait for Tesla’s patents to run out, lol.
Success seems rather more likely via imitation…… and there are ways to copy the Tesla playbook without violating patents.
Sarc light is flickering.
Volkswagen Group joins the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA)
The Volkswagen Group has joined the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), an alliance of enterprises, mining companies and non-profit organizations developing standards for responsible extraction of raw materials in mining.
These standards cover a range of issues, including working health and safety and environmental protection.
With its electrification strategy, the car and truck manufacturer has set itself on the path to becoming a future climate-neutral mobility provider. The battery-electric vehicle is the most efficient way to combine climate protection and individual mobility. However, electrification also places new demands for responsible sourcing, especially in the extraction of battery raw materials such as cobalt, lithium, nickel and graphite.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220318-vwirma.html
I’m not at all reluctant to make some generalized predictions which are contrary to the larger part of the discussion.
The doomsters are more or less totally ignoring the LEVIATHAN, the modern nation state, which is a sort of organism in and of itself, like a super sophisticated insect colony. Leviathan has it’s own desire to live, it’s own instinct like mechanisms that help insure its own survival.
The resource poor nations, the ones that import lots of food and energy, are pretty much one and the same as the ones that aren’t going to be ABLE to launch viable wars of aggression against their next door neighbors, never mind across blue water.
China is the one major exception… assuming she acts soon enough, assuming her economic growth continues for a while .
There’s just about zero doubt in my mind that people will starve by the tens of millions and hundreds of millions, locally and regionally, sometime before this century is out, and likely by mid century in my personal estimation.
But they’re going to starve in place. There’s just no reason at all to believe that they can emigrate en masse , and very little reason to believe that more than a very small percentage of such people will be able to migrate piecemeal…… because countries still able to support themselves are going to be having AMPLE trouble within their own borders, and will accept only rather limited numbers of refugees.
The remaining refugees, IF they can get to a border at all, will be turned back….. using as much force as is necessary.
Nations such as those of Western Europe, and most of the ones in the Americas will flounder around and about, for a while, but once it’s obvious to the elites that control each country, action will be taken, and economic and political measures similar to and consistent with war time economic planning and control will be implemented.
We aren’t just fucking going to RUN OUT of oil…. it will get to be very expensive, and it will be necessary to ration it, perhaps draconically….. but there’s going to be enough to keep the CRITICAL infrastructure up and running… and if there’s not…… well, rail roads can be built again, or refurbished and modernized, and coal can be used to manufacture synthetic gasoline and diesel fuel.
Mass transit can actually be made to work….. after a fashion….. in the form of what used to be called, IIRC, jitney cabs…. one person can haul five or six more to work or shopping in a personal van, once the liability and legal issues are resolved.
Make work programs will be instituted, and housing can be upgraded for energy efficiency for very little in the way of actual MATERIALS…… the bulk of the expense goes to payrolls, and people who would otherwise be on welfare might as well be paid to be upgrading houses and other infrastructure to be highly energy efficient.
Money and manpower that’s being spent on weapons can and will be diverted to upping renewable energy production, by way of building wind and solar farms and HVDC power lines, and solar panels for small scale installations out the ying yang.
Cars can and will be built VERY small, to run on very small batteries, compared to today’s electric cars……. just one Tesla S has enough battery cells in it to run four or five two seater fore and aft cars as commuter cars and errand cars forty miles a day.
The throw away economy can be thrown away.
Basic solid wood furniture can be and IS still made that will last for generations…. and probably for less, certainly no more, than today’s mostly throw away furniture.
Ninety five percent of the appliances that are scrapped on a daily basis at a recycling center near my home are scrapped because of an electronic fault…… according to the guys I talk to who actually work on them on a daily basis.
The problem is that the manufacturers switch out to new computer boards and sensors as often as twice a year…….. and that if you want that new board…… the business model says it’s priced at half or more of the cost of a new washing machine including labor…….. but the problem is that when the washer is four or five years old…… it’s unobtainum. THAT can be fixed very easily by mandating guaranteed parts availability… even generic designs so that after market companies can supply such parts.
It makes me SICK to see truck load after truckload of washers and refrigerators without a SCRATCH on them, looking new, because they are only two or three years old dumped there day after day…… for eight cents a pound, the current going price, locally, for scrap steel.
A hundred gallon water heater needs only about forty percent more material, maybe fifty percent, than a forty gallon heater…. and it will hold enough hot water, heated with intermittent wind and or solar electricity, via a smart grid, to last most families two or three days and couples as much as a week if they use cold water to do laundry, etc. That’s one hell of a dirt cheap defacto battery.
We can and will eat down the food chain… and for the vast majority of us, in a country such as the USA, that means we will be all the healthier for doing so.
I’ll be the first to admit that things may go all the way to hell even in countries such as the USA, or Canada, but there’s absolutely no reason to ASSUME such will be the case.
Leviathan can be a cruel master…… but Leviathan is also one hell of a mean big brother when you need a big mean big brother to look after you.
IEA issues 10-point plan to cut oil use
In the face of the emerging global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the countervailing barrage of economic sanctions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) is proposing a 10-Point Plan to Cut Oil Use. IEA claims that its plan would lower oil demand by 2.7 million barrels a day within four months—equivalent to the oil demand of all the cars in China.
This would significantly reduce potential strains at a time when a large amount of Russian supplies may no longer reach the market and the peak demand season of July and August is approaching. The measures would have an even greater effect if adopted in part or in full in emerging economies as well.
Reduce speed limits on highways by at least 10 km/h. Impact: Saves around 290 kb/d of oil use from cars, and an additional 140 kb/d from trucks
Work from home up to three days a week where possible. Impact: One day a week saves around 170 kb/d; three days saves around 500 kb/d.
Ban private cars in cities on Sunday. Impact: Every Sunday saves around 380 kb/d; one Sunday a month saves 95 kb/d.
Make the use of public transport cheaper and incentivize micromobility, walking and cycling. Impact: Saves around 330 kb/d.
Alternate private car access to roads in large cities (odd/even license plate policy for weekday access). Impact: Saves around 210 kb/d.
Increase car sharing and adopt practices to reduce fuel use. Impact: Saves around 470 kb/d.
Promote efficient driving for freight trucks and delivery of goods. Impact: Saves around 320 kb/d.
Using high-speed and night trains instead of planes where possible. Impact: Saves around 40 kb/d.
Avoid business air travel where alternative options exist. Impact: Saves around 260 kb/d.
Reinforce the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles. Impact: Saves around 100 kb/d.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220320-iea.html
Immediate actions in advanced economies can cut oil demand by 2.7 million barrels a day in the next 4 months
https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-cut-oil-use
That sounds like a measurable objective. Let’s see if it happens. Whether or not it happens will perhaps give some indication as to what collective efforts to avert runaway climate change might look like.
I predict that advanced economies, let’s say the 38 OECD member states in order to be more specific, will, in aggregate, not decrease their consumption of oil in the next 4 months. Put a pin in it.
“They were giving bonuses to people for stealing our money.”
https://nader.org/2022/03/18/commercial-defrauding-of-uncle-sam-biggest-booming-business/
A comment that justifies selfish behavior. So what is it ? A follower of selfish bad behavior or a leader of the common good.
It’s a prediction. OECD oil consumption will not decrease in the next 4 months. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining it; a distinction that is lost on you.
Most of these suggestions are non starters, and worse, actually useful as clubs for the hard core right wingers who will use them to belabor the political left and the green movement.
It takes an idiot to think trucking companies aren’t already paying VERY close attention to how much fuel they use.
I would seriously think about voting Republican myself if somebody were to try to tell me I can’t drive ON SUNDAY…… although I haven’t been in a church except for a funeral for a LONG time.
It’s long since time we should have a reasonable fuel tax on commercial jet fuel…. but that’s a no go too, because it would piss off everybody who flies, and everybody who flies on a regular basis knows how to send a cussing email to everybody from the dog catcher to the president.
Etc.
But the time might be right to implement an electric car subsidy that’s intrinsically fair to people who don’t make much money, the actual WORKING people in this country who can’t take advantage of tax deductions if they buy a new electric car.
They should be eligible for a tax CREDIT….. taking the cost of their new electric car right off their tax bill for as long as it takes to get an equal benefit, or actually helping them by paying the same amount TOWARDS the purchase price.
OFM, the incentive for an electric car is as a tax credit (not a deduction).
Maybe all tax credits should only be for those making under a certain income level to achieve the goal you suggest.
Thanks Hickory,
That’s close to what I intended to say.
I’m fine with the subsidy the way it’s done now, but it should be expanded so that lower income people could take equal advantage…. which would mean more to them but cost the government the same per car.
Hi Hickory,
You are correct. I got hasty, and what I intended to say is that poor and lower income working people should be able to buy an electric car for the same out of pocket cost to the government as richer people.
They should get a tax credit that reduces their taxable income to less than zero …… whatever it takes so that when a mill hand or clerk buys a new car, it costs the government the same amount of money as it does when a one percenter buys one.
And there should also be something along the lines of the CAFE regulation….. something that would force car companies to build at least a few dirt cheap stripped down electric models.
I agree.
And i would really like to see a program where anyone without out a good sunny roof can buy into actual solar energy project production like an old-fashioned bond. Fractional 30-yr ownership.
A few more seats in the Senate the last go-round would have made things like this feasible.
The window may have closed tight.
I can’t drive ON SUNDAY
This was a policy in Germany in the early 70s. Shopkeepers in town were shocked by the huge crowds that came into town to enjoy the car free peace and quiet.
As a result, German cities started kicking cars out of the city centers permanently. Now nearly every German city has a car free city center.
https://seaice.de/AMSR2_Central_Arctic_SIC-LEADS.gif
This is an excellent visualisation of ice movement in the Arctic. It’s updated daily. The small areas of open water (leads) are exaggerated in size to make easier to dee their occurrence, movement and disappearance. Recent storms on the Atlantic side have pushed ice out the Fram and Nares straits (mostly first year ice but grown over the winter so around a meter thick). As ice expands the fill the space left cracks can be seen extending back to the pole. Overall extent has been fairly steady for the last few days but area has been declining – the ice has been spreading south into warmer waters where it can melt more quickly and the leads left behind get iced over with thinner films. There’s another big storm today and tomorrow which might destroy much of the remaining isolated ice north-east of Svalbard.
For those interested- podcast titled Team House, episode 135/March 4,2022 features Aaron Schwartzbaum discussing “Conflict in Ukraine- Deep Dive”.
Team House is so-so, hosts are a bit too gung-ho for my tastes sometimes; great guests from time to time though.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-team-house/id1492797340?i=1000552989142
Or
https://youtu.be/1dI9esp1v2k
Or your favorite Podcaster app.
Clarence Thomas?
Still in hospital, but little news–
Anyone have any insight?
Communication Breakdown: How Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine Bogged Down
https://www.rferl.org/a/communication-lapses-russia-invasion-failures/31761259.html
Just want to subscribe to the view that collapse is going to be way more protracted than the scenario described in this post. D. Coyne talked about the scenario above happening after 400 years. Maybe, who knows?
Humans are adaptable and when measuring quality of life, material consumption is not the only major factor. Also, a societal collapse would happen some places, but not all. A societal collapse could for example just mean more “warlords” governing smaller areas. Sometimes in a cruel way. Just study Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; to survive would mean focusing on the basic levels.
Kolbeinih,
Note that I do not think the scenario laid out by Org Farm is likely to be correct in its details, my alternative scenario is perhaps equally unlikely (though there is little detail to the scenario). My expectation is we gradually move to a lower population as total fertility rates fall over time, perhaps reaching a sustainable level in 400 to 500 years. There will be enough oil and natural gas to get us through a transition to mostly non-fossil energy use by 2070 to 2080 as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power ramp up and eventually replaces all fossil fuel energy uses. The claim this cannot be done seems incorrect.
Dennis,
We haven’t been living sustainably since the start of agrarian societies. If our evolution is any guide, we can only live somewhat sustainably if we go back to being hunter and gatherers. Which implies 99% of the population has to die off, if not more.
Your views are myopically optimistic and absurd to me. But i cannot say you are wrong. Because i have no idea what the future holds. I am somewhat certain that our genes are predisposed to consumerism and we will continue consuming until the earth has nothing left to give.
Iron Mike,
Over time I expect fertility rates will fall see
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol28/39/28-39.pdf
You may be correct that this is too optimistic, but TFR for the World has been falling.
Figure 1 a below is from page 1153 of pdf above, in 400 to 500 years with TFR of 1.5 we might be close to 300 million humans on the planet which might be sustainable, your guess seems to be around 80 million for sustainable population, man estimates suggest 1 to 3 billion people might be optimal, my guess is 500 million might be a safe level.
https://overpopulation-project.com/what-is-the-optimal-sustainable-population-size-of-humans/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population
As Lloyd correctly (imo) pointed out a couple months ago:
“The final shape of the [population] curve will be decided by the death rate, not the birth rate.”
Nope,
It will be determined by both death rate and birth rate.
“…It will be determined by both death rate and birth rate.”- dcoyne
Yes, of course. I think Lloyd knows very well the shape of the curve is formed by both BR and DR.
He was responding to the emphasis being put on BR as “the main driver” of population decrease.
His opinion was that in the future, DR will be “the main driver”.
His remark was clear to me. Maybe not so clear to others.
For any questions though, ask him directly.
Perhaps things would be clearer if we referred to changes in the death rate. I believe Dennis was pointing to declines in the birth rate (with a roughly stable death rate), and that you are arguing that death rates will increase sharply.
Hey…it’s fun being quoted! : ) Thanks, OrgFarm.
But on to the topic at hand.
OrgFarm is correct: I think that a massive change in the death rate is going to be the driver of population decrease. I went back and found the piece (01/24/2022 at 10:40 pm): the critical numbers, from my point of view, are the world number of deaths per year (60 million), and the number of births (140 million).
Even if we cut births to zero tomorrow, it takes centuries to make a meaningful dent in the size of the population. The death rate, on the other hand, is almost infinitely flexible: all 8 billion of us could die 10 minutes from now (though of course, the odds are against it). And if we did all die today, the population problem would be solved with almost no contribution from reduction in the birth rate. (I suspect there would be a tiny statistical fraction of input if enough math and philosophizing was done.)
Which is my point: solving the population problem by birth control alone would have required us to start solving the problem 100 years ago and done everything right. Increases in the death rate can happen at any time and be as large as nature requires. As few as one, as many as 8 billion: all the same to nature.
There are lots of candidates for that increase: lack of water, lack of fertilizer, lack of land, lack of transportation fuel, extreme weather, sea level rise, plague, nuclear exchange, etc. Death has a big toolbox that can be brought to bear with devastating results on almost any time scale, because the advance work has already been done. Population control, on the other hand, only requires you to convince billions of women to ignore a biological imperative for results that may not be visible within their lifetime.
I don’t have a favoured candidate for what leads to the change in the ratio: undoubtedly it will be a combination of factors. But I do believe that the odds of surviving the 3 or 4 hundred years to drop the population to a sustainable level by birth control alone are minuscule. Which leaves us with either an ongoing large increase in the death rate (4 to 8 times the current rate, without an increase in the birth rate, might work), or a Seneca cliff die-off event.
I agree: birth control will reduce population over a fairly long period. If you want change in 30 years, that’s not the ticket.
On the other hand, saying ” Population control, on the other hand, only requires you to convince billions of women to ignore a biological imperative for results that may not be visible within their lifetime.” is highly unrealistic. The fertility rate for the world has crashed in the last 60 years, from over 5 per woman to just a hair above the replacement rate of 2.1.
Biological imperative? Nah. For most women a large family is a burden they’re delighted to drop like a hot potato. Give them education, freedom and birth control and fertility drops like a rock.
“…or a Seneca cliff die-off event.” – Lloyd
Throughout all human history, four horsemen will ride.
Thanks for another good comment.
Cheers, mate.
Nick said:
The fertility rate for the world has crashed in the last 60 years, from over 5 per woman to just a hair above the replacement rate of 2.1.
You do realize the world population doubled in that time period, don’t you? Plus, the rate is 2.4, some 15% above replacement. That’s not “just a hair.”
Biological imperative? Nah. For most women a large family is a burden they’re delighted to drop like a hot potato.
For some reason the question “Have you ever actually met a woman?” comes to mind. “Large family” does not save your argument: even getting below replacement by birth rate adjustment alone is unlikely.
And to be clear, just getting to or slightly below replacement is not a success. We are deep into overshoot. Assuming (optimistically) that a billion people is the maximum sustainable capacity, we are 700% past that carrying capacity, and every year we remain in overshoot degrades the eventual carrying capacity available when the population stabilizes.
I think OrgFarm’s timelines are likely, and that we will reach a 500 million global population late this century or early next. And if there is a demographer present to run the numbers, my guess is he will see that the birth rate rose at some point in the last half of the century (due to high infant mortality in the surviving population), but that the death rate, aggregated from 2050 to 2100, was in the range of 200 or 300 million a year.
lloyd,
The scenarios I posted are based on a stable or decreasing death rate. If the total fertility ratio (average live births per woman over her reproductive years) falls to the levels given in the chart by about 2040 then the population falls as shown.
Clearly higher death rates would lead to faster population decline, at a TFR of 1.5 (and many nations are already at that level or lower) population falls relatively quickly even assuming that average life expectancy increases to 90 years.
Lloyd,
I’m not arguing about the larger question of overshoot, here. My point was narrower: as women have become educated, obtained birth control and become freer to have fewer children, they have enthusiastically taken that choice. I’d ask you the same question: have you met women?
“In the September 2011 issue of National Geographic, Cynthia Gorney examines how Brazil’s fertility rate has plunged below replacement levels, and provides a how-to guide for bringing down a developing nation’s fertility rate without government intervention. Remarkably, in a country where abortion is largely illegal and the government doesn’t promote birth control, many women from all social classes have made raising children a lower priority. As Cynthia Gorney’s report states:
[The] new Brazilian fertility rate is below the level at which a population replaces itself. It is lower than the two-children-per-woman fertility rate in the United States. In the largest nation in Latin America—a 191-million-person country where the Roman Catholic Church dominates, abortion is illegal (except in rare cases), and no official government policy has ever promoted birth control—family size has dropped so sharply and so insistently over the past five decades that the fertility rate graph looks like a playground slide.
And it’s not simply wealthy and professional women who have stopped bearing multiple children in Brazil. There’s a common perception that the countryside and favelas, as Brazilians call urban slums, are still crowded with women having one baby after another—but it isn’t true. At the demographic center Carvalho helped found, located four hours away in the city of Belo Horizonte, researchers have tracked the decline across every class and region of Brazil. Over some weeks of talking to Brazilian women recently, I met schoolteachers, trash sorters, architects, newspaper reporters, shop clerks, cleaning ladies, professional athletes, high school girls, and women who had spent their adolescence homeless; almost every one of them said a modern Brazilian family should include two children, ideally a casal, or couple, one boy and one girl. Three was barely plausible. One might well be enough. In a working-class neighborhood on the outskirts of Belo Horizonte, an unmarried 18-year-old affectionately watched her toddler son one evening as he roared his toy truck toward us; she loved him very much, the young woman said, but she was finished with childbearing. The expression she used was one I’d heard from Brazilian women before: “A fábrica está fechada.” The factory is closed.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brazil-women-fertility-rate_n_952739
Nick:
Your article doesn’t change the fact that the world fertility level is 2.438. There are places that are below replacement, but apparently, there are a whole bunch that aren’t. And I’m not going to play woulda coulda shoulda here. Call me when the world population has started to fall. I’ll have died of old age
(or nightmarish end of the world calamity), but you can try.
As for women and motherhood:
The share of U.S. women at the end of their childbearing years who have ever given birth was higher in 2016 than it had been 10 years earlier. Some 86% of women ages 40 to 44 are mothers, compared with 80% in 2006, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.1 The share of women in this age group who are mothers is similar to what it was in the early 1990s.https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/18/theyre-waiting-longer-but-u-s-women-today-more-likely-to-have-children-than-a-decade-ago/
So…one of the most highly-educated cohorts of women in the world is more likely to have had a child now than 10 years ago. Seems I do know a little bit about women and biological imperatives. They may not be having as many, but they want some. And that “some” contributes to the world fertility rate.
Dennis:
That graph is somewhat misleading for our current situation, in that it measures the effects starting in 2000 and a population of 6 billion. We have been close to or over the 2.5 line for 22 years: all those other curves need to move over 20 years and up 2 billion people. A corrected graph would leave even the most optimistic scenarios at over 9.5 billion people by 2070, and at 2 billion in 2220. I realize it was meant as an example, and that you did extend the timelines 200 years when you made your prediction (I assume to account for the discrepancy). However, the worst case scenario from 2000 is the path we’re on (2.50 example vs. 2.438 actual). Given that I think we will run up against hard limits before 2100, the graph was not a comfort to
me.
The share of U.S. women at the end of their childbearing years who have ever given birth was higher in 2016 than it had been 10 years earlier.
Yes, and the average US woman has 1.78 children. Educated women who have access to birth control have small families (less than replacement). Look around the world, and you’ll see that’s obvious. It’s true that there are still a large minority of women in the world who are oppressed, and they account for fertility still being above replacement (though world fertility is inexorably dropping).
You have to know educated women. As we see in Brazil (and India, and China, many other places), they don’t have to be affluent, just moderately educated and free.
Why does this matter? Well, I’m tired of hearing that women (or both men and women, really) are irrational, and want to have an infinite number of children. They really aren’t, and they really don’t.
Anybody who says it’s IMPOSSIBLE to transition to a functional modern economy running on renewable energy has his head up his ass so far he will never see daylight, lol.
But it is true that it can only happen if the people at the top, the people who are running individual countries with substantial resources in the way of well trained workers and capital MAKE it happen. They won’t be able to make it happen until something makes a big enough impression on the people, who really are ninety five percent sheep, to get their attention.
It took Pearl Harbor to put the American leadership and people into the mood to actually FIGHT WWII.
History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. Twain.
This is why I often say that above all else, what we need is a steady series of sharp pieces of broken bricks upside our collective head in the form of super storms, super droughts, hot little oil wars, etc.
I call ’em Pearl Harbor WaKe Up Events.
Mac,
If memory serves me, 90% of new generation capacity in the OECD is wind and solar (I’m not sure about the rest of the world, but it’s a large percent even there: big solar farms in Egypt, etc).
And ICE sales appear to have peaked, with EV sales growing quickly.
My point: world leadership has rung the bell to start the transition from FF, and the goal is clear. We’re not moving nearly as quickly as would be ideal, but we are on the way.
Khury Petersen-Smith on Economic Sanctions, Greg LeRoy on Amazon Subsidies
Russia’s horrendous invasion of Ukraine is providing yet another reminder that when elephants fight, it’s the grass that’s trampled. We see that not just in the front-page casualties; teenage soldiers dying fighting; civilian men, women and children killed by dropping bombs—but also in the measures we are told are meant to avert those harms: economic sanctions. Khury Petersen-Smith is Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He joins us to talk about the problem with seeing sanctions as an alternative to war.
Amazon opened an office dedicated to ferreting out tax breaks and subsidies. In other words, the megacorporation making hundreds of billions of dollars in profit puts in time finding ways to avoid supporting the communities it operates in—and to push local governments to divest money from education, housing and healthcare—to give to a company that doesn’t need it. This March, the group Good Jobs First marked that anniversary with a call to #EndAmazonSubsidies. We talk with the group’s executive director, Greg LeRoy.
https://fair.org/home/khury-petersen-smith-on-economic-sanctions-greg-leroy-on-amazon-subsidies/
Railway connections between Belarus and Ukraine sabotaged to hinder Russian troops
“According to Viacorka, the acts of sabotage were carried out by employees of state railway company”
https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/03/21/railway-connections-between-belarus-and-ukraine-sabotaged-to-hinder-russian-troops/?gdpr=accept
I wonder how things will be affected if Belarus joins the invasion of Ukraine (beyond allowing transit of invading Russian tanks, troops and warplanes- which they have done since the start).
“Belarus is supporting the Russian military aggression against Ukraine – inter alia – by allowing Russia to fire ballistic missiles from the Belarusian territory, enabling transportation of Russian military personnel and heavy weapons, tanks, and military transporters, allowing Russian military aircraft to fly over Belarusian airspace into Ukraine, providing refuelling points, and storing Russian weapons and military equipment in Belarus.”
I find it interesting that labor action is jamming up Belarus’ Gucci troops.
Special forces of the belarus will protect the railway from sabotage
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/special-forces-of-the-belarus-will-protect-the-railway-from-sabotage/
Spetsnaz of Belarus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_of_Belarus
Survivalist , crap . See the site it is . ua which means based in Ukraine . Bull shit .
Hicks , if Belorussia joins the fight then the war will finish faster . The Belorussians can take care of the Western Ukraine front which is Lviv ( where Zelensky is holed up or he is in Poland ?? but not in Kiev definitely ) etc . The Eastern front is now controlled by RF . The Belarusian army is no big shake , but the Ukie army is now shattered . Scott Ridder calls the 3 C’s –Command , Control and Communication . The first two for the Ukie’s are annihilated , the third exists because it is a part of infrastructure . Putin knows he will have to rebuild it when the war is over . Without 1 and 2 number 3 is useless . Now the West is sending the first smoke signals that Zelensky is ready to quit . None other then JPM . The squid is the ultimate insider . The FED allowed $150 million repayment of a Russian debt because JPM was the recipient of this repayment . If they had not allowed this then JPM would be in trouble and possibility of another Lehman Bros which triggered the GFC 2008 . More to it than meets the eye .
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/jpm-trading-desk-asks-if-zelensky-close-capitulation
The article states that the source for the claim, that Belarusian SF have been deployed to protect the railway from sabotage, was made by the Belarusian Railways Association. Perhaps it is false. Perhaps railway workers are sabotaging railways and Belarus is NOT deploying the SF to provide security against it. Perhaps it is crap. Perhaps it is not labor action. Perhaps it is SAS. Either way, it doesn’t look good for the Russian logistics plan. As well, I’d imagine EU/NATO Military Int. units are pretty far up Belarusian Railway’s backside. They look like a sloppy outfit.
I liken Command to telling people what to do.
I liken Control to telling people what not to do.
This is often worked out in SOPs, if one is into that kind of thing, and then a whole lot of INITIATIVE from the troops in a target rich defensive environment takes care of the rest.
I feel that Russia’s plan was to do a Thunder Run on Kiev and major infrastructure. Russian forces stuck to the main roads. Russia did not conduct a Corps level Advance to Contact to clear all the Russian red bits now seen on the Ukrainian control map. There are many large uncleared pockets in the rear. This is not going to plan.
“Never hate your enemies; it affects your judgment”
FWIW- I find many of the Ukrainian ultra nationalists quite obscene. But I do not delude myself into believing they lack initiative, tolerance and perseverance on the battlefield.
This war of Putin’s choice is a humanitarian crisis and people should be reminded that many folks who got nothing to do with great power politics are suffering. Please give to humanitarian relief organizations.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:23.1/centery:42.1/zoom:4
https://www.flightradar24.com/48.66,6.56/5
Survivalist ” I liken Command to telling people what to do.
I liken Control to telling people what not to do.
This is often worked out in SOPs, if one is into that kind of thing, and then a whole lot of INITIATIVE from the troops in a target rich defensive environment takes care of the rest.”
This is not an SOP . This is war . A military where the Generals are missing means loss of command and control and that is what is happening with the Ukie army . RF gives a MOD briefing , when was the last you heard of an MOD briefing from Ukie army ? As to the neo nazis , I will refrain , but if neo nazi’s are the bulwark of the Ukrainian Army then better Putin send the Chechens to deal with them . Their country of flight will be Poland from where they will team up with the neo Nazi groups in Germany and other EU states to create havoc for the EU in the future . I think you are US based , but here in Europe some historians and intellectuals are ringing the bell (the majority is still virtue signalling ) . Imagine neo Nazis with Stingers and Javelins in Germany and Netherlands .Yes , it is a humanitarian crisis but I have already made my stand clear on this . In a war only the banksters and the MIC are the winners( JPM got its $ 150 million ) , the rest are all losers . I only hope that this war is over ASAP .
“Basically Europe is planning to cut itself off from Russian gas supplies at exactly the time when (i) its own gas production is finishing (ii) Norway is maxed out (iii) its own policies will significantly increase the demand for gas (iv) demand from Asia is set to expand substantially.”
Things are looking even more interesting—
HighTrekker . No further comment by me needed .
Given the huge energy reserve and the dual threats of fossil fuel depletion/global warming it makes perfect sense for UK to charge ahead with wind energy, and they are starting to.
“Offshore wind pipeline surges to 86 gigawatts”
https://www.renewableuk.com/news/599739/Offshore-wind-pipeline-surges-to-86-gigawatts-boosting-UKs-energy-independence.htm
Once built, the electricity output will be equivalent to the productive capacity of approx 34 full size (1000MW) nuclear reactors.
Of course they will have to ramp up energy storage to accompany the variable energy production. Huge boost for that sector.
Just about everybody who is opposed to wind and solar power seems to believe that fossil fuels will last forever, while conveniently forgetting that at least one quarter and maybe half of the energy storage problem can be solved at an affordable cost without building a single battery, as such.
No new technology is needed to giterdone. It’ simply a matter of taking advantage of what can be done with relatively modest amounts of material and lots of labor……. and there’s going to be PLENTY of otherwise unemployed labor going forward.
And society and such workers themselves will be far better off employed than roaming around with idle hands.
Just about everybody who is opposed to wind and solar power seems to believe that fossil fuels will last forever,
Mac, I think you are way off base there. It is not that people oppose wind and solar power, it is that they just don’t think it can ever replace fossil fuel. Hell, I, as well as most other doubters, are totally in favor of renewable energy. We cheer it on at every chance we get. But we know fossil fuel will begin to decline long, long before renewable energy has even begun to replace it.
while conveniently forgetting that at least one quarter and maybe half of the energy storage problem can be solved at an affordable cost without building a single battery, as such.
Forget it??? Mac, you must know that statement is absurd. We have not forgotten one damn thing. We just don’t believe it.
Mac, it appears that you, and a lot of other folks, seem to believe that renewable energy will stop global warming in its tracks and also feed and fuel the entire world so this collapse shit is nothing but a scare tactic. That is bullshit. Nothing will prevent collapse Mac, nothing. All renewable energy might be able to do is delay the collapse, in a few places in the world, for a few years. However, I am doubtful it will even be able to do that.
The most vocal and persistent opposition to wind and solar comes from those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel supply chain. That happens to overlap strongly with the republican party in the US.
They will not drop opposition until they have a vested stake in earnings/jobs.
And Ron, regardless if you think that solar and wind can ‘ever replace fossil fuels’, its a mute argument about whether or not to deploy them on mass scale. Every bit of energy produced can offset depleting fossil fuel combustion, if that is the goal. It is not some ‘all-or-none’ competition.
Its about people and economies having some resiliency of energy supply, and relying on less combustion and external energy supplies (external to their region).
People will be lucky to live in a place with 5000 TWhr annual energy supply from solar/wind to complement what was available from other sources, rather than a place that only had the other sources. Will it ‘save the world’, ‘prevent collapse’, ‘cure overshoot’?…
you know the answer.
Most people are sleepwalking into the energy crises. Like OFM said, it will take a ‘brick to head’ in the form of massive price increase or outright fuel rationing to get a clue about the status of the situation. Ten, 20, 30, 40 years late.
And most people just want what is cheapest and reliable. The market will show that answer, and it is tilting in the direction of wind/solar/storage in the sunny or windy areas as depletion and stability of fossil fuel supply unwinds.
Having lots of energy from solar, wind, or fossil fuels does nothing to stop climate change, resource depletion, or population overshoot.
Exactly. And wars, not to mention international squabbles, do nothing to facilitate cooperation required to effect workable climate change strategies, resource depletion, environmental degradation, or population overshoot.
Woodsy.
OFM was talking about energy supply,
as in getting by when fossil fuel supply becomes unreliable or too expensive.
Not curing overshoot and all the problems that stem from it. Sorry- no magic bullet.
It is not that people oppose wind and solar power, it is that they just don’t think it can ever replace fossil fuel.
Well, I’d be delighted to hear that was true. Oddly enough, I’ve asked people like George Kaplan or Doug Leighton to say that they’re in favor of wind, solar and EVs. They did not, in fact Doug has said specifically that he does not favor EVs. Both appear to strongly oppose any transition away from FF.
Again, I’d like to be wrong.
Orgfarm. Doug. George. Do you agree that we should transition away from FF as quickly as possible?
Hi Ron,
Sometimes you argue like a lawyer, and get altogether too pendantic.
If you don’t believe that most people seem to believe that fossil fuels will last forever, get your old carcass ( you have seniority on me in this case!) out of this forum, and go out on the street and ask the next twenty people you meet about it, so long as the street is not fronting university buildings.
You will see my point by the time you talk to the first six or seven, and be utterly convinced by the time you’re done.
Now YOU are talking the same way you said I was talking , lol. I have never said or even implied that I think renewable energy will prevent global warming, or prevent collapse, and I’ve said so countless times in this forum. What I do think is that some countries (ASSUMING good leadership with good luck) will manage their fossil fuel endowments well enough to transition to a sustainable renewable energy based economy by going to a war time economic footing, and spending on the transition the way we have been spending on the MIC…… This will involve not only building out renewable infrastructure but also draconian changes in the ways we use energy ….. going to TINY cars, mostly short range, giving up most air travel, giving up throw away goods of all sorts, localizing, eating down the food chain, etc etc.
Civilized life does not have to be all about mindless consumption. Computers are nice…… so are cars….. but we don’t need new ones every year, or even every decade, lol.
I have no great respect for Elon Musk as an individual, considering his personal quirks, but if he lives…… I’m willing to bet he uses his bully pull pit, and some of his money, to be one of the if not THE first people to build super cheap short range mini cars that WILL BE ADEQUATE to maintain the spread out urban lifestyle we enjoy here in the USA….. unless fully self driving cars make such cars unnecessary. I have often said that today’s one percenters, the lawyers, cpa’s, physicians, etc, will drive such cars,IF NECESSARY, so as to avoid giving up their suburban lifestyles, their MAX macmansions… ditto every body else…. and NO new tech is needed to build such cars.
I have often stated that I believe collapse is more likely to be regional, up to the subcontinent level or so, than it is to be global, meaning piecemeal both in terms of time and geography…. meaning that countless people will starve in place, maybe most of the current world population…
But I also generally remember to say that collapse might be world wide and fast and that my own guess is that it will happen before this century is out and possibly by mid century or so.
About solving the energy storage problem…. ” Mac, you must know that statement is absurd.”
I should have added the caveat as necessary for the next couple of decades or so, while we still have ample amounts of fossil fuels. AMPLE amounts to build any amount of HVDC transmission lines, ample amounts to build wind farms and solar farms by the hundreds and thousands…..
It’s sure as hell going to cost one hell of a lot, but it can be done to this extent without batteries as such, because pumped hydro is not a battery as such, insulation is not a battery as such, thermal storage positive ( heat stored in interior structural mass) or negative ( “negative” heat stored as cold water or ice in HVAC systems sometimes called “coolth”) , smart grid appliances and HVAC that crank up on command when wind and solar power are in good supply, management of industrial processes overhauled to take into account cheap wind and solar power in numerous industries, etc. ONE micro mini two seat fore and aft car with the same amount of battery capacity in six of them as is used in ONE three hundred mile range land yacht will suffice to get way more than half of us here in the USA where we NEED to go on a daily basis. I could go on for quite a while.
Hey….. the discussion here is basically a give and take conversational thing. I’m not writing position papers for publication, nor grading by a professor in engineering or econ or biology class, lol.
Neither are you, lol.
And while I have never said it before, in so many words, I’m sure that you own a piece of the heart of each and every one of the regulars in this forum, including mine, and I hope you live to see the century mark, healthy enough to enjoy yourself until the last minute, and die with a hot girl holding a shot of booze to your lips, with dirty thoughts on your mind, lol.
And about the climate going nuts….. I expect it to get BAD, by comparison to today’s climate, but I’m hopeful it won’t get so bad that we can’t easily feed ourselves at least in places such as the USA, Canada, and most of Europe.
I foresee the birth rate falling faster than ever in the more civilized and prosperous countries, so that in such places a lot of NEW infrastructure will not be needed , other infrastructure associated with the energy transition.
I could go on for quite a while.
You could??? Hell, I think you did already. 🤣
Ron,
Have you noticed that Orgfarm, George or Doug have not been willing to say that they support renewables? It wouldn’t be hard to say what you’ve said, that they support such things even if renewables might not make a big difference. It seems clear that they actually oppose renewables, but know that it will look bad if they say so.
Instead, they go to a stealth pro-fossil play book:
“Oil is essential to our way of life, and things would collapse without it.”
“Alternatives would take too long.”
“Alternatives would be too expensive.”
“Climage change can’t be solved”.
“Other problems are more important – let’s talk about those things instead!”.
OFM:
“And while I have never said it before, in so many words, I’m sure that you own a piece of the heart of each and every one of the regulars in this forum, including mine, and I hope you live to see the century mark, healthy enough to enjoy yourself until the last minute, and die with a hot girl holding a shot of booze to your lips, with dirty thoughts on your mind, lol.”
I second that emotion!
High court won’t say whether Thomas remains hospitalized
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2022/03/23/high-court-wont-say-whether-thomas-remains-hospitalized.html
And this is a Canadian source–
Something strange is going on.
Still no word on Thomas—
Something is happening that is being kept quiet.
Pure speculation
They have already started producing and selling synthetic liquid fuel from atmospheric CO2. Of course we are in early stages and it is probably expensive. However it will get cheaper with scale and with improvements in technology. If this fuel is produced using renewable energy, it is sustainable. We may even be able to keep existing aviation infrastructure.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/news/3816137-occidental-to-sell-first-net-zero-oil-created-from-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Suyog,
I think your link isn’t quite right. This works: https://seekingalpha.com/amp/news/3816137-occidental-to-sell-first-net-zero-oil-created-from-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
You’re absolutely right about synthetic liquid fuel. Fans of fossil fuel seems to think that oil can’t be replaced, but the basic tech for synthetic liquid fuel has been around for a long time: it’s really basic chemistry. Fossil fuels are just hydrocarbons, and hydrogen and carbon are abundant.
Creating synthetic liquid fuels certainly requires an energy input. If it comes from electricity you’d probably need about 100kWhs to create a gallon of fuel at 40kWh (40% efficiency from end to end). At current industrial prices that’s about $6 for the energy input, which suggests that liquid fuel would cost around $7-10 per gallon, all in all. But…wind and solar power are cheap, and they’re extremely likely to be overbuilt and produce very large amounts of surplus, almost free power on off-peak hours. That’s likely to reduce the cost of fuel to around $4-5.
But let’s be serious: even $8 fuel wouldn’t cause the collapse of civilization, especially because most uses of liquid fuel can be replaced by electricity directly, with no need for an inefficient conversion to liquid fuel.
By the way, that includes mining: most underground mining is powered by electricity, not diesel, and all mining could be done with electricity as desired. The largest land vehicle in the world is an electric coal drag line.
Nick,
Thanks but I am not sure why the link works for me and not you.
You are right about renewables producing surplus electricity on most days. Since the SWB grid is designed for the worst days (very little sunshine and wind) of the year, it produces enormous surplus electricity at zero marginal cost on other days. The beauty of a solar or wind farm is that once it is built fuel is free forever. This surplus can be used to produce aviation fuel or diesel for long distance trucks.
A few links:
90% efficiency:
https://www.anl.gov/article/turning-carbon-dioxide-into-liquid-fuel
—
Decentralized fuel synthesis from CO2 & water from air. “The process to convert them to a liquid fuel is well understood”, but a centralized large-scale facility might be better:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-air-conditioning-fix-climate-change/
Navy pilot plan for jet fuel from seawater, in 2014. Costs of $3-$6, 10 year development.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/
Followup on Navy plan, with inexpensive catalyst.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715123120.htm
H2 from seawater: new electrodes to put on par with freshwater
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/18/new-way-generate-hydrogen-fuel-seawater/
“…should we transition away from FF as quickly as possible?” – nickg
Would be glad to answer, but only if you quantify your vague question.
Who is the “we” in your question: any individual? a household? a neighborhood? a small community? a large community? a small city? a large city? a metropolis of millions? a nation of billions? a global population of 8, 9, or 10 billion?
What percentage of “FF” are “we” “transitioning” to: 1%? “2%”? 10%? 25%? 30%? 50%? 75%? 80%? 90%? 100%?
What exactly is it we are “transitioning”: our individual transportation needs? a local transportation grid? a state transportation system? a national transportation network? all global transportation infrastructure? local, state, national, global manufacturing? smelting ore-rock into metal industries? local, state, global, national electrical grids? private households? global civilization?
What is your meaning of “quickly”: next year? next decade? the next couple of decades? this century? next century? sometime in the near future? sometime before the next national economic downturn? before a global economic collapse?
Your question shows the all-to-common signs of echo-chamber enthusiasm – a lack of systems thinking and little knowledge of systems dynamics. This is reflected in nearly all your comments here regarding “the transition to renewable energy” – that you evidently believe is thermodynamically and ecologically possible.
My suggestion to you is to read more science literature, and follow those sites and blogs that have done their homework and crunched the numbers and determined, among other things, that all “renewable energy” devices are made by using fossil-fuel. And without fossil-fuel these devices cannot be made. And when fossil-fuel becomes unaffordable or unavailable they will not be made.
Peak oil appears to be in the rear view mirror. Do you hold the assumption that this is not true, and there are vast reserves of undiscovered fossil-fuels that will soon be brought to market?
“Renewable energy” devices also need financing. National economies are already feeling the impact of peak oil. If these economies collapse into deep recession or depression there will be very little financing available for “renewable energy” devices, let alone “a quick transition.”
“Renewable energy” devices also need stable global supply-chains, stable international commodity markets, and stable social and political institutions. Conflict and war cause in-stability. Is your assumption that national and global stability will continue for many decades into the future?
Last time you were here, it was suggested you look at energyskeptic.com for a timely article on the metal requirements for the production of a “renewable energy” transition and buildout. Did you read that material? If so, where did they err?
I’d like to be wrong but the numbers just don’t pencil-out.
Orgfarm,
Much of your question is covered by the qualifier “as possible”. So, if you believe that only 50% of FF consumption can be replaced by substitutes, and that it must take at least 50 years, then the question is: do you agree that we should transition 50% of our FF consumption to renewables over the next 50 years?
Think of it this way: should we make a strong effort? If a politician commissioned a survey asking if you were in favor of a transition, would you say yes?
Okay, to your specific questions:
Who is the “we” in your question: any individual? a household? a neighborhood? a small community? a large community? a small city? a large city? a metropolis of millions? a nation of billions? a global population of 8, 9, or 10 billion?
All of the above.
What percentage of “FF” are “we” “transitioning” to: 1%? “2%”? 10%? 25%? 30%? 50%? 75%? 80%? 90%? 100%?
I think we should aim for 100%, but use whatever you like.
What exactly is it we are “transitioning”: our individual transportation needs? a local transportation grid? a state transportation system? a national transportation network? all global transportation infrastructure? local, state, national, global manufacturing? smelting ore-rock into metal industries? local, state, global, national electrical grids? private households? global civilization?
All of the above.
What is your meaning of “quickly”: next year? next decade? the next couple of decades? this century? next century? sometime in the near future? sometime before the next national economic downturn? before a global economic collapse?
This depends on how much urgency you’re feeling. If you suspect that we’re just months or years away from disastrous climatic tipping points, then “quickly” would mean a WWII style effort. If you think a 40 year transition is fast enough, then use that.
Your question shows the all-to-common signs of echo-chamber enthusiasm – a lack of systems thinking and little knowledge of systems dynamics. This is reflected in nearly all your comments here regarding “the transition to renewable energy” – that you evidently believe is thermodynamically and ecologically possible.
Well, no. I’ve been using systems analysis in my professional work (and personal thinking) for decades. And how do thermodynamic limits apply here? I assume this is a 2nd law related idea (” the entropy of an isolated natural system will always tend to stay the same or increase”), but the Earth is not an isolated system: we get 100,000 terawatts of power beamed in constantly, 24×7. So how does thermo apply here?
My suggestion to you is to read more science literature, and follow those sites and blogs that have done their homework and crunched the numbers and determined, among other things, that all “renewable energy” devices are made by using fossil-fuel.
They haven’t done that homework and crunched those numbers, because that idea isn’t realistic. I’ve read those blogs and crunched their number, such as they are. Their analysis is mostly hand-waving. If you disagree, please point me to a specific blog with a specific article with provides quantitative analysis and substantive sources.
And without fossil-fuel these devices cannot be made.
Well, if aliens suddenly vaporized all of our FF overnight, we’d be in a disastrous situation. But that’s not the case. In fact, there’s nothing magical about FF: it’s just hydrocarbons. See the discussion of synthetic fuels.
Peak oil appears to be in the rear view mirror. Do you hold the assumption that this is not true, and there are vast reserves of undiscovered fossil-fuels that will soon be brought to market?
No, I suspect that Dennis’s analyses are roughly correct, and that we’re near peak. I suspect we’ll have a very slow decline, which is too bad – a faster decline would be healthier for us and the planet.
“Renewable energy” devices also need financing. National economies are already feeling the impact of peak oil. If these economies collapse into deep recession or depression there will be very little financing available for “renewable energy” devices, let alone “a quick transition.”
Investment in energy and labor saving devices increased during the Great Depression, due to the pressure to save money and keep businesses solvent.
“Renewable energy” devices also need stable global supply-chains, stable international commodity markets, and stable social and political institutions. Conflict and war cause in-stability. Is your assumption that national and global stability will continue for many decades into the future?
Who knows. But that seems like a red herring. We could be hit by a planet killing asteroid, but how does that affect the question of how to handle energy problems? FF needs supply chains too…
Last time you were here, it was suggested you look at energyskeptic.com for a timely article on the metal requirements for the production of a “renewable energy” transition and buildout. Did you read that material? If so, where did they err?
I looked at the article. It was wrong in many details. One example: it provided no context for scale, just the classic “whoa, those are really big numbers! How can we do something that big?!?”. That’s not an analysis.
That’s a lot of stuff. Much of it is probably a distraction, but I though it was only fair to actually answer them, as I had few minutes.
Please focus for the moment on my main question of action, and policy moving forward: Do you agree that we should transition as quickly as possible away from FF and to alternatives (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, etc, etc)??
Ron,
Well, we seem to have an answer.
Orgfarm opposes building wind and solar as quickly as possible.
————
Orgfarm,
One clarification: the question is “as quickly as possible”. If you believe that a transition can be done in 4 years, then the question above is indeed correct. But, if you think that time span is not realistic then the question would be something more like: “Should 8 billion humans transition 100% of global civilization away from FF with a a very aggressive, WW2 style program?”.
“Orgfarm opposes building wind and solar as quickly as possible.” – nickg
Where did you read this? So quickly you descended into nonsense.
I answered “no” to your question: “Should 8 billion humans transition 100% of global civilization away from FF in 4 years (“WW2 effort”).
Reading comprehension and honest behavior are important in any kind of respectful conversation.
edit: Just read your edit. Thanks for the clarification but it’s a distinction without a difference.
And thanks for confirming that is, indeed, your question.
Well, are there any ways to change the question that would make you answer yes?
I’m not trying to give you a gotcha kind of question and answer: I”m really just trying to understand your views. You seem to be opposed to wind and solar, EVs, and other substitutes for fossil fuels, as far as I can tell. Is there some way to clarify when and where you would support a transition away from FF?
Hmm…your answer above seems to suggest that you would agree with the following question:
Do you support building wind and solar as quickly as possible?
“I’m really just trying to understand your views.” – nickg
If that’s what you’re “really just trying” to do then how can you be so confident in posting the baseless assertion:
“Orgfarm opposes building wind and solar as quickly as possible.”
That’s a statement someone could only make if they knew exactly what my views “really” are.
Silly taunting and dishonesty does not make for a healthy conversation. You seem to want to shut down the discussion for some reason.
Hmmh. Well, no taunting was intended.
What I’m trying to do is get you to say what you think, in this case by presenting my best guess based on what you’ve said. You’ve put a lot of effort into your presentation, and I’d expect that you’d want your audience to understand what you’re trying to say. That means massaging it a bit, and putting it into their own words and giving it back to you and asking you if that’s what you meant. I thought you’d replied as fully as you wanted to, so I turned to the side and presented a conclusion to Ron. If that was premature, and you’d like to explain yourself further, here’s your chance.
If you are alarmed by climate change, then I’d expect you to support efforts to reduce it. Climate change is primarily caused by carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, so I’d expect you to support efforts to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. And, given the obvious unwillingness of people to abandon the use of some form of energy supplies, I’d expect you to support the expansion of alternatives like wind and solar. That seems simple, obvious and reasonable. So much so that I”m puzzled that you aren’t willing to simply say so.
So..what do you think? Are you more comfortable with just staying with fossil fuels? Do fossil fuels seem like the only thing preventing the collapse of civilization?
Or…If you’re not sure, and you want to think about it some more, just say so and we can leave it for the moment. Heck, these are complex issues, and deserve some thinking.
“You do realize the world population doubled in that time period, don’t you?…
…just getting to or slightly below replacement is not a success. We are deep into overshoot….
…every year we remain in overshoot degrades the eventual carrying capacity available when the population stabilizes.” – Lloyd
All correct observations. And completely lost on those who refuse to take notice.
There is something strangely alluring and deceptively satisfying about the “we’re saved because birth rates are falling” notion. Unfortunately, they could fall to zero and we’re still not saved. A bit like someone in a car saying “we’re saved because our speed is falling from 100mph” as they approach within inches of a cliff. The decrease in speed should have happened long before they got any where near the cliff.
Human civilization is deep into overshoot, and collapse follows a deep overshoot situation in the natural world, which is of course, the real world. Clever as we are as a species, we cannot and will not avoid this collapse event.
The “falling birth rate” emphasis is alluring and satisfying, I think, because it suggests we no longer have to worry. And finally we see that those who believe this are unwittingly correct. We don’t have to worry, because no work can fix the problem. The problem of overshoot has been handed over to nature. And nature will do what nature always does, forcefully, relentlessly, and without prejudice.
Beautiful day out there. Time for a walk in the woods and maybe hear that sure sign of spring, the sound of a wood thrush. What Thoreau considered the most beautiful song in North America. In 1853 he wrote: “This is the only bird whose note affects me like music. It lifts and exhilarates me. It is inspiring. It changes all hours to an eternal morning.”
We don’t have to worry, because no work can fix the problem.
And, so this appears to be your answer: nothing can be done to fix our problems, so we should do nothing.
This is very comforting to oil, gas and coal producers. If only more people subscribed to this view, Shell, Saudia Arabia and Russia could stop worrying about their reserves becoming worthless. Actually, they’ve been making this argument for a long time: “Oil is essential to Our Way Of Life, so Drill, Baby Drill!”.
I’d argue that it’s a good idea to work for a better future, if only as a Plan B in case Armageddon doesn’t appear on schedule.
“…so we should do nothing.” – nickg
Where did you pull this from? That’s your assertion, certainly not mine.
Once again (see upthread) a quick descent into dishonesty.
And not part of any kind of productive conversation.
Well, you see, I’m trying to get an answer. I’d be delighted to have a productive conversation, but that requires, you know…both sides to talk.
So: if you are NOT saying “do nothing”, then what actions do you suggest in the realm of energy? Should we just keep using fossil fuels, or should we try to move to alternatives?
You might want to try taking the perspective that what you write matters. That this isn’t just a way for retired guys to waste time, but something that people are actually reading and using to shape their views on life, and make decisions on careers, or children, where they live, etc.
Think of your writing as important, and try to give concrete action ideas for today.
If Minimum Wage Kept Up With Wall Street Bonuses, It Would Be $61.75 an Hour
Not bad, but still a little short of our Wall Street Friends.
https://truthout.org/articles/if-minimum-wage-kept-up-with-wall-street-bonuses-it-would-be-61-75-an-hour/
“Well you see, I’m trying to get an answer.” – nickg
That’s not what you tried to do. You made-up something in your head and then claimed in a public forum that I said it. Which the thread clearly shows I did not. Isn’t that just a little embarrassing? You’ve done this twice now.
I’ve written several thousand words here in the last couple months, expressing my thoughts on a variety of issues including “renewable energy”.
One comment responded to your statement, “I’ve never seen a detailed supporting argument for it”. So I sketched out the basic argument and included a link with evidence. That evidence provided a well-written and detailed supporting argument. Your reply: “crickets”. You then left the conversation for a couple weeks and returned making the same claims and assertions.
So I engaged you again when you asked Ron, Doug and me, the vague question you’ve been asking for at least a couple years now. In my reply I presented a fairly comprehensive argument. I made a suggestion you visit blogs and sites that have done their homework and crunched the numbers. Your response?
“They haven’t done that homework and crunched those numbers because that idea isn’t realistic.” – nickg
Doing the homework and crunching the numbers “isn’t realistic”?
And then this strange reply to my concern about future supply-chain issues:
“Who knows. But that seems like a red herring. We could be hit by a planet killing asteroid.” – nickg
Huh?
And this revealing response to my statement that without fossil-fuel, renewable energy devices cannot be made:
“Well, if aliens suddenly vaporized all our FF overnight, we’d be in a disastrous situation. But that’s not the case. In fact, there’s nothing special about FF: it’s just hydrocarbons.” – nickg
“There’s nothing special about FF”? Wait, did you really just say that?
It was clear at that point there was no need to provide any further evidence, and continued conversation was not going to be productive.
You seem like a young and enthusiastic person. And that’s a good thing. More reading and more life experience may offer some answers. But I can’t help you out.
My only suggestion would be to follow the advice of Richard Feynman when he talked about finding answers in a science context:
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.”
“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate”
Cool Hand Luke
—————————-
Orgfarm,
You’ve talked about several things in your comment, some of them in reply to a comment above in which I tried to address, very briefly, some of your earlier points. And…that comment of mine was a mistake. I suspected it at the time, but I tried anyway, but the truth is that in a forum like this it’s a mistake to try to address 10 different items at once. Things get confused and discussions are never finished properly. It’s trying to do too many things, and accomplishing nothing. So, I’ll focus on just one major item, which is trying to clarify your thinking on what actions should be taken about fossil fuel.
A lot of discussions on forums like this waste a lot of time because people are talking past each other, not really addressing what the other person is saying.
A way to ameliorate that is to do something called “mirroring”, where the listener tries to paraphrase what the speaker has said, so that the speaker knows that they are understood or can correct any errors in communication.
So, I’ve been presenting back to you what I think you’re saying. And so far it’s been a slow process, which I suppose is normal in contentious situations.
So. You’ve said that you don’t agree with a WWII style effort to implement renewables. But, you don’t oppose them. In rereading your comments that relate to the subject it seems to me that you are saying that wind and solar simply can’t replace fossil fuels. That they have no value. You don’t actively oppose them, but you wouldn’t spend any of your money on them.
Is that fair?
I have personally come to the conclusion that Orgfarm is far less interested in a serious conversation involving the next century or two than he is in just playing the pedant, stroking his own ego than otherwise.
( pedant : a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.)
Getting a straight answer out of him, as Nick has tried patiently to do, is like questioning a trump lawyer…… endless bickering about points that simply can’t be discussed on his terms. He will always change the subject.
I’m thinking he is actually incapable of answering a question rather than going off on a tangent like a politician who has zero desire to actually answer a question. “gotcha theory”
We needed this original post, and he knows some stuff, but he doesn’t appear to know that half of his assertions are his own opinions rather than facts.
I’m done with this.
Hopefully we can have another session involving collapse as such, sometime in the near future.
I think he just enjoys telling people that they are wrong. Must be a lonely existence.
OFM/Hickory:
>> Without even realizing it, many internet users mistakenly assume that cyberattackers follow conventional rules of behavior. People try to reason with trolls or appeal to their better nature. These responses are similar to how you might approach a friend who’s inadvertently insulted you, or a family member who disagrees with you about something important. But trolls are not like your loved ones, and research shows that these strategies are ineffective because they misapprehend a troll’s true motives, which are usually to attract attention, exercise control, and manipulate others. <<
This and more wisdom at:
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/03/how-to-manage-cyberbullying-internet-trolls/627084/
(subscription req'd?)
Looks like my Playstation 5 purchase is going to have to wait a other year – https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/russia-ukraine-war-laser-neon-shortage-threatens-semiconductor-industry.html
These chips are better used to mine more bitcoins… crazy world.
Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
PERMAFROST CO2 EMISSIONS DURING FALL AND WINTER
In new research published today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a team led by scientists at the University of California, Irvine report for the first-time direct measurements of the gases emitted from permafrost during the fall and winter months — measurements that can help fill in gaps in permafrost emissions estimates that climate scientists have until now missed. The work stands to overturn beliefs about permafrost emissions, namely, that the microbes that decompose the organic matter and emit greenhouse gases are only active in the spring and summer months.
Not only are microbes active during the fall and winter, but they’re also decomposing organic matter that’s often hundreds — if not thousands — of years old. Before, it was thought that emissions primarily come from the decay of recently deceased organic matter that came from plants that grew and died during the spring and summer months.
What this means, is that microbes can thrive and continue emitting gases by decomposing vast stores of ancient organic matter as well. This dispels hopes that the fall and winter months might offer a reprieve from Arctic permafrost emissions; and with climate change making the winter less harsh, emissions from Arctic latitudes only stand to amplify as the years unfold.
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-sample-permafrost-co2-emissions-fall.html
Not good.
GREAT BARRIER REEF SUFFERS FIRST MASS BLEACHING UNDER COOLING LA NIÑA
Corals have turned white across all four of the reef’s main areas, despite the cooling influence of the La Niña climate phenomenon, in the natural wonder’s sixth mass bleaching event of modern times. The bleaching is particularly notable for happening when the region is in a cooling phase brought about by La Niña. The worst mass bleaching event happened in 2016, the planet’s hottest year on record, when an El Niño warming phase was in effect.
“The milestone means there is increasingly little respite for coral. Coral reef scientists were thinking there would be some years when coral reefs could recover, we thought it [La Niña] could be a safe period. Turns out it’s not.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313668-great-barrier-reef-suffers-first-mass-bleaching-under-cooling-la-nina/
And, speaking of collapse.
ICE SHELF COLLAPSES IN PREVIOUSLY STABLE EAST ANTARCTICA
An ice shelf the size of New York City has collapsed in East Antarctica, an area long thought to be stable and not hit much by climate change. The collapse, captured by satellite images, marked the first time in human history that the frigid region had an ice shelf collapse. It happened at the beginning of a freakish warm spell last week when temperatures soared more than 70 degrees (40 Celsius) warmer than normal in some spots of East Antarctica. Satellite photos show the area had been shrinking rapidly the last couple of years, and now scientists say they wonder if they have been overestimating East Antarctica’s stability and resistance to global warming that has been melting ice rapidly on the smaller western side and the vulnerable peninsula.
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ice-shelf-collapses-previously-stable.html
A WWII style effort to implement renewables is really what is on the table for some of the western nations now it seems.
Reflecting back to that time period. Nothing was more important than winning the war. Individual wealth was second priority, heavily taxed. It was difficult or banned to buy a car or a truck. Fossil fuels resources were then widely available in the ground, but more effort had to be mobilised from a limited resource pool to expand output in order to fuel industry needed for the war effort. The labor force was being consumed by the military and for security purpose. Food was rationed, victory gardens planted voluntary to help the efforts. In my country, potato/cabbage included for breakfast, lunch and dinner was enough many places to avoid starvation. Together with fish proteins. The starvation situation was then (and still is..not lasting forever though) a pre-industrialisation phenomenon in a broader sense.
So if the war effort is to build renewables, it makes much more sense than overbuilding tanks, planes and enrolling the labor force into clearly destructive occupations. The specific points of the discussion can be several; 1. What positive EROI does renewables have? We already know it is clearly positive, dependent on location. Intermittency is the main weakness of renewables. 2. How much sacrifice should individuals suffer, to funnel available resources more towards renewables? Probably as much as it takes, given the situation in each country or part of a country. Which could vary widely. 3. Are not our problems overwhelming anyway, what is the point? It can be argued that the first wave of building out renewables can not be copied, due to less cheap industrial capacity available. And that renewables are in fact just rebuildables. Probably some truth in this; still renewables can be rebuilt mostly based on electricity from renewables. It will be more costly. Even if renewables just contributes to extending the oil age, it will make life easier for everyone for a long period of time. And it will be much easier for people to gradually adapt going forward.
The arguments and likelihood that we are in fact approaching a WW2 effort era many places are mounting. Better embrace it, than shy away. Better for mental health at least.
New posts up
https://peakoilbarrel.com/annual-energy-outlook-2022/
and
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-march-26-2022/