Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Right, ok. I agree with that. I was talking more about 'end of civilisation' talk of the kind Dr Jon appears to be engaging in.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
This sentence here neatly encapsulates the nub of the issue as I see it, and is why I hold no truck at all with people who argue from a purely malthusian standpoint on the issue.
There is another major point on this though, which is that outside of stuff like China's one child policies, which I can not and will not ever support, the only proven method of curtailing population growth is to greatly improve the living standards, education level, access to health care, pensions and welfare provision across the board in the countries involved.
I've not researched this enough to be certain if it actually is the case or not, but my strong suspicion would be that the continued high population growth rates in Africa and Latin America in particular can be at least in part attributed to IMF imposed austerity measures in those areas through the 90s and 2000s that massively cut spending in all these social welfare, education, health care type areas in precisely the countries that needed spending in those areas the most.
So, IMO, anyone who is concerned about the issue of future over population really needs to stop banging on about that issue, and focus their attentions on the neoliberal policies promoted through the IMF, World Bank, and WTO etc that are massively hindering any possibility of those countries achieving the more educated, healthy, socially cohesive and financially secure populations that are a necessary precondition for population stabilisation to occur.
These neoliberalist policies are the root cause of pretty much all such problems, and it really pisses me off that they're increasingly being given a free pass by people focusing on the effect not the root cause. It also astounds me that we've got to the situation we have today where these policies have now become mainstream policies that Europe also appears to be blindly following to on some sort of suicidal economic crusade to destroy everything we've gained since WW2.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
It's neither of those problems. There's no lack of distribution of food, it's the wrong distribution of food that's the problem.
IMO a decent argument could actually be made for peak oil actually reducing food inequality world wide because it would reduce the financial case for exporting vast quantities of food (and flowers etc) from Africa to Europe, meaning some of much of the best farmland in Africa could be released from growing unseasonal vegetables to be flown to europe, and used instead to produce food for more local African plates.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
But it wont. It will be used for growing highly profitable bio-fuels to keep them SUVs rolling.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
ok, that is a valid alternative possibility.
One thing with that though would at least be that the refining of biofuels would really have to be done in country, particularly so in a high oil price scenario, as the energy density of the crops themselves would probably not allow for the refining to be done elsewhere. This would at least mean that a lot more of the value of the crops would be retained in the country itself along with the refining jobs etc as opposed to food exports where the vast majority of the value is added (or profits taken) in the importing country.
In countries with no indigenous oil reserves as well biofuels could be used to reduce their dependence on imported oil at vastly inflated prices, and in carbon / energy terms, biofuels based on sugar cane produced in hotter climates do tend to make a lot more sense than those produced from wheat in colder climes.
To give a more rounded picture of the pros of this option vs the cons... obviously people need to eat, but that is only one side of the coin, as they also need education, health care, social care etc which doesn't come from indigenous food growing alone.
This IS the absolutely critical point. Liberated women do NOT usually want 12 kids. From personal family history. One of my grandmothers, on my mothers side was a Durham coal miner's wife. She had 13 (!!!!) children. The upper middle class grandmother on my father's side had 2 children, as did my mother. This pattern occurs EVERYWHERE that social development gets some traction and women achieve some social status. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and population control go hand in hand. The Italians appear to no longer want to breed very much at ALL ! A world in which resources were more equitably distributed, and where women were more liberated would not be a world facing uncontrollable population growth.
TruXta
tired
Funny how fertility rates in Norway are going up again then. Not saying development won't initially lower birth-rates, but we don't know the long-term pattern yet.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
How far down did they get? TBH, Norway is quite a small sample, though. 
TruXta
tired
How far down did they get? TBH, Norway is quite a small sample, though.
Small? More than large enough for statistical purposes. Besides it's a good example of a country going from dirt poor to filthy rich and equitable in less than three generations. It was down to 1.68 live births per woman in the period 1980-85 and it was up to 1.95 in the years 2006-2010. Mainly due to many more women aged 30-39 having many more kids.
Source http://www.ssb.no/fodte/tab-2011-04-07-05.html - top row
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ah ok. It sank very low, then. 1.95 is still low, obv.
TruXta
tired
Sure it's low, but it's quite a significant increase.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep. It is. The birth rate in the UK is on its way up too.
TruXta
tired
Different reasons I suspect. Or at least different age group(s) that see an increase?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
I would think that this is quite a common recent statistical blip in a very rich and very equal society. Even Norway is only on it's first and second generation of "career women" (ugh). The first generation is finding to its cost that conception doesn't come easy in your 40s and affluent women will be able to access fertlity services, which makes multiple births more likely also. These numbers might just be an adjustment, as women avoid leaving childbirth too late now that so much more is known about conception as you get older and the problem this causes for "career women".
Speculation. I'll see if I can find any data.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The reasons ymu give were my first thought. My guess is that this is a factor in the UK's rise too.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Does look like a lot of developed countries have had a recent uptick. Probably multiple reasons everywhere. The US has had a steady rise since 1980, not coincidentally the beginning of the rise of the religious right.
This is interesting. Population growth projections, rapidly head to replacement rate (under whatever assumptions the authors used - there's obviously real data there before the projection also.
This is interesting. Population growth projections, rapidly head to replacement rate (under whatever assumptions the authors used - there's obviously real data there before the projection also.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
My guess is that the blip was the dramatic fall - due to women leaving it much later to have kids. As ymu says, I think a lot of women are now aware that this is not a good idea, but even if they weren't, you'd expect a fall then rise in the birth rate if the average age of motherhood rises, then levels off, all other things being equal.
TruXta
tired
Lots of data here, but only until 1996. http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/fd8abfa55c.pdf Page 31 has mothers' ages at birth.
Front page http://www.fhi.no/eway/?pid=238
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
I don't buy the 'status symbol' for affluent women reason anymore then the 'so I can get a council house' reason for working class women.
The 'biological clock' reason is the main factor that women want kids - esp in their 30s - but to be in control of that decision and have a meaingful alternative to role of mother is why women in developed countries have two kids as opposed to eight.
Would one reason for the rise in birthrates in some developed countries be immigration? Immigrants would tend to be younger and some would be from countries where women tend to have more kids?
The 'biological clock' reason is the main factor that women want kids - esp in their 30s - but to be in control of that decision and have a meaingful alternative to role of mother is why women in developed countries have two kids as opposed to eight.
Would one reason for the rise in birthrates in some developed countries be immigration? Immigrants would tend to be younger and some would be from countries where women tend to have more kids?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
There's also some fairly good evidence (last I checked) supporting Mead Cain's hypothesis that in the absence of an effective social security system for old age, the incentive to bear additional children is increased in the hope that one of them will provide such support.
So it's not inconceivable to me that after a long decline in birth rates in the most developed countries during the post-war period, neo-liberalism's policy of having old people starve/freeze to death or die from lack of proper medical care, unless they were rich/lucky enough to have a substantial private pension, may have made old age security a more significant factor than it might otherwise have been prior to the accession of Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan and their successors.
So it's not inconceivable to me that after a long decline in birth rates in the most developed countries during the post-war period, neo-liberalism's policy of having old people starve/freeze to death or die from lack of proper medical care, unless they were rich/lucky enough to have a substantial private pension, may have made old age security a more significant factor than it might otherwise have been prior to the accession of Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan and their successors.
Nevertheless, The apparent upward "blip" in Norway, and the better known worries in Italy that they will rapidly decline in population unless Italian women decide to breed more enthusiasiscally, DOESN'T alter the undoubted fact that in any society yet studied, greater prosperity, combined with greater opportunities and self determination for women, ALWAYS results in a massive fall in average birthrates . Quibbling about whether the "average" Western woman is having 1.68 or 1.95 children is all very interesting, but doesn't alter the fact that if Third World women had Western birthrates the world population explosion would be stopped in its tracks, and certainly DOESN'T invalidate the core point, that it is economic development and female emancipation which is the necessary condition for a balanced world population.
I also VERY much doubt that the impact of austerity in the West will be to encourage Western women to return to the incredible birthrates of my maternal grandmother, or anything like that figure. Given the rather "disconnected" , often multi-partner reality of the typical British "family " unit nowadays does anyone seriously think people are going to breed lots of children in the serious hope that these kids will look after them when they get old and the Welfare State is in ruins ! Come on , not in this reality !
I also VERY much doubt that the impact of austerity in the West will be to encourage Western women to return to the incredible birthrates of my maternal grandmother, or anything like that figure. Given the rather "disconnected" , often multi-partner reality of the typical British "family " unit nowadays does anyone seriously think people are going to breed lots of children in the serious hope that these kids will look after them when they get old and the Welfare State is in ruins ! Come on , not in this reality !
TruXta
tired
That could fit countries other than Scando ones. But as ymu said, there are likely to be multiple reasons. Either way it's far too soon to say whether the recent uptick is evidence of a longer term change in birth-rates in the global North upwards.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
TBH in rich countries, having children costs a lot of money. I can't see many people having kids for them to look after them.
Similar threads
- Poll
