Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[TruXta]

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 !

Get your facts right, will you? There's no quibble over the data, and they are from Norway, not the West, whatever that means to you. Besides the places with the lowest fertility are not all in places where women are particularly emancipated, eg Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The simplest explanation is that over the last couple of generations, the average age of motherhood has gone up - leading to a sharp decline in births. That age is now levelling off, which means that births are on the up currently, and will then level off again.

 

[TruXta]

There is also the greater spread of birth control to consider.

 

[Dr Jon]

Scientists: 'Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?'

"I'm just going to level with you—the earth's carrying capacity will no longer be able to keep up with population growth, and civilization will end unless large swaths of human beings are killed, so the question is: How do we want to do this?" Cambridge University ecologist Dr. Edwin Peters said. "Do we want to give everyone a number and implement a death lottery system? Incinerate the nation's children? Kill off an entire race of people? Give everyone a shotgun and let them sort it out themselves?"
"Completely up to you," he added, explaining he and his colleagues were "open to whatever." "Unfortunately, we are well past the point of controlling overpopulation through education, birth control, and the empowerment of women. In fact, we should probably kill 300 million women right off the bat."

Presumably based on World Lacks Enough Food, Fuel as Population Soars

Dr Frankenstein to the rescue

...
Genetic engineering will soon move to a stage where we can get a generic chassis cell, stripped of its non-essentials, and then plug in genetic modules to get it to make whatever we’d like. The end goal, is capturing CO2 and water combining them to make sugar and then using that energy to make chemically perfect, pure hydrocarbons, all within a living cell, using the power of the sun.
Let that sink in a second. We’re talking about solving peak oil and global warming in one fell swoop by creating a life-form to recycle our waste. With sufficient skill these cellular factories can be optimised to work at rates far higher than nature, in any climate on earth, programmed to die outside their bio-factory apparatus and be optimised to use an alternate genetic code to prevent genetic contamination of other life.

 

[TruXta]

Oh, that's real funny, isn't it? Moron.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yet again, that Scientific American article concentrates on the population growth in the poor world - with obligatory image of poor black/brown children - and says NOTHING about the consumption of the rich.

Fucking disgusting.

 

[Dr Jon]

Oh, that's real funny, isn't it? Moron.

The Onion.
Satire.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

"I personally would rather live, but taking the long view, I can see how ensuring the survival of humanity is best," said Norwich, CT resident and father of three Jason Atkins. "I guess if we were to do it over again, it would make sense to do a better job conserving the earth's finite resources."

"Hopefully, the people who remain on the planet will use the mass slaughter of their friends and loved ones as an incentive to be more responsible going forward," he added.

source above

Well, gallows humour is sometimes the only rational response ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Onion.
Satire.

Your second link was not satire.

 

[Dr Jon]

Your second link was not satire.

Indeed not. It summarises this UN report, which interestingly makes recommendations for "sustainable growth" - which on a finite planet is an oxymoron.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'll give that a read later. I'm guessing you haven't read it. The opening letter itself addressed the point you raise:

Our report
puts forth a series of core recommendations that, if implemented over time, will
help lift large swathes of humanity out of dehumanizing poverty; bolster resilience;
strengthen global equity, including gender equity; transform how we value goods
and services and measure growth; preserve valuable eco-systems; enhance
collaboration, coherence, and accountability across sectors and institutions; and
create a common framework for global sustainability.
In the year 2030, a child born this year will

That's quite encouraging, and I'll give it a proper look when I have time. The article you linked to, however, chose to go with the angle that the rising population of the poor world is the problem here. It's a line that is trotted out again and again, and it ignores the real problem - the consumption of the rich world. In fact, the article about this report itself appears to have ignored the report completely when choosing its editorial angle. There's an agenda here - 'we're' not the problem (this was Scientific American, after all); 'they're' the problem. Do you not see that?

 

[Dr Jon]

...
There's an agenda here - 'we're' not the problem (this was Scientific American, after all); 'they're' the problem. Do you not see that?

Yeah. As I said on this thread:

We in the developed world already enjoy a fantastic (and unsustainable) standard of living - courtesy of oil - while the rest of the world scratches around in the shit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fair enough, but that report itself addresses your point about growth. The current model is unsustainable. Growth needs to become something other than the ever-increasing consumption of goods. I'm sure few on here would disagree with that.

And growth can be all kinds of things. The sinking of a new well that accesses safe, clean water (in a sustainable way!) is growth - it tangibly improves people's lives. Education, the provision of basic primary health care - these are growth. Growth should be thought of as anything that improves people's lives.

Put simply, cutting down a tree to make things with the wood is apparent growth, but if that tree is not replaced, then there may be a net contraction in that activity. I'm guessing this is the kind of thing that the report is getting at - if it isn't sustainable, it isn't growth, and we need to completely rethink what we mean by growth.

 

[Dr Jon]

What we need is Degrowth

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's all very nice, but there is not a single word in it about how we might get from here to there. In fact there is hardly a word in it about what 'there' might even be.

I see nothing wrong with the term 'sustainable development'. To support the large, and growing, population in anything like a dignified manner that allows people to flourish will require development of some kind.

 

[Dr Jon]

A growing population is not sustainable.

 

[love detective]

why don't you shoot yourself then you stupid cunt

 

[Streathamite]

oh christ not another f-ing malthusian. Aarghhh!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A growing population is not sustainable.

Why don't you go away and read the UN report you linked to?

And while we're here, why are you linking to documents you yourself have not read?

 

[Crispy]

A growing population is not sustainable. It can't grow for ever. A growing population whose rate of growth is slowing, is what we want right now. Eventually we want to reach a steady state.

 

[laptop]

A growing population whose rate of growth is slowing, is what we want right now.

And what we have, right now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And what we have, right now.

Yep, it is. Clearly forecasts of future growth are just that, forecasts - based on assumptions that may or may not be proved accurate - but most forecasts predict a slowing and stabilisation around 10 billion by 2050. And this won't just happen on its own, of course, which is what makes forecasts so prone to error. Just the kinds of things outlined in that UN report, in fact - measures for sustainable development - ought to slow the rise. Working towards improving people's lives has the happy corollary of making people disinclined to have large families. A bigger investment in fewer children is what we want and what we'll get with sustainable development.

 

[Dr Jon]

why don't you shoot yourself then you stupid cunt

because I'm down to my last bullet and I'm saving it for you

And what we have, right now.

Although birth rates are now falling in many developing countries, they are expected to remain above replacement levels for a considerable time in many regions.
...

Humanity is already using natural resources at an unsustainable rate and placing unsustainable pressure on the natural environment and the ecosystems on which we depend. Thus it is quite possible that a critical “tipping point” will be reached at which the present order breaks down, the ensuing disaster leading to a sudden population crash.

We do not know when or how likely it is that this point may be reached. Nor do we know what will trigger such a disaster or what form it is most likely to take. War, global epidemic, widespread crop failure as a result of climate change, a sudden and sharp increase in the price of oil and gas, catastrophic breakdown of international trade or some other event could be the trigger. What is clear is that the larger the world population becomes, the sooner such a “tipping point” will be reached and the more disastrous it will be when it happens.

link

 

[ayatollah]

Get your facts right, will you? There's no quibble over the data, and they are from Norway, not the West, whatever that means to you. Besides the places with the lowest fertility are not all in places where women are particularly emancipated, eg Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore.

It was you who brought up the small upward growth trend for Norway - as if it had some major significance for the Western World - presumeably as some sort of rebuttal of my point that economic development and female emancipation have ALWAYS gone hand in hand with a long term major fall in birth rates (Major falls - not the odd percentage point movement within a maximum of 2). Then you cite Taiwan and Singapore and Hong Kong as places with low female emancipation, and apparently low birth rates. So what's your point ? You DON'T think economic development and female amancipation lead to lower birth rates ? I think the whole of history so far proves it does. Though I don't know enough about Singaporean or Hong Kong or Taiwanese societies to explain in detail what you say are low birth rates. Though knowing what an EXTREMELY densely populated, limited land mass, and highly controlled society Singapore is though, I suspect that might have something to do with it. Probably the same reason in Taiwan, and Hong Kong too ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dr Jon, all that quote does is say that bad things might happen in the future, and then go on to list what those bad things might be.

'It is possible that there might be a population crash in the future, and here are some of the possible things that might cause it.'

Well fuck me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It was you who brought up the small upward growth trend for Norway - as if it had some major significance for the Western World - presumeably as some sort of rebuttal of my point that economic development and female emancipation have ALWAYS gone hand in hand with a long term major fall in birth rates (Major falls - not the odd percentage point movement within a maximum of 2). Then you cite Taiwan and Singapore and Hong Kong as places with low female emancipation, and apparently low birth rates. So what's your point ? You DON'T think economic development and female amancipation lead to lower birth rates ? I think the whole of history so far proves it does. Though I don't know enough about Singaporean or Hong Kong or Taiwanese societies to explain in detail what you say are low birth rates. Though knowing what an EXTREMELY densely populated, limited land mass, and highly controlled society Singapore is though, I suspect that might have something to do with it. Probably the same reason in Taiwan, and Hong Kong too ?

I'd quite like to see figures showing the effect of urbanisation on birth rates. I suspect that living in a city dramatically reduces the incentives to have a large family. In rural areas, more children means more hands to help in the fields. Children can be sent out to work in a city too, but I would think that their utility is greatly reduced.

This article certainly suggests so, although I haven't checked its sources, so I can't vouch for its authority. (Not sure I like the use of the word 'clearly'.

Initially, the societal shift from rural to urban alters rates of natural population increase. There are no recorded examples of where this has not been true. Contrary to public perception, however, it first reduces the death rate, despite the often appalling living conditions in many cities, as in, for example, nineteenth-century Europe and North America and in present-day cities in the developing world (Smith 1996). Only later does urbanization reduce the birth rate (i.e. the fertility rate). The time lag between declining death and birth rates initially means rapid urban population growth; subsequently, fertility rates drop sharply and the rate of growth of urban populations declines.
As a result, families become smaller relatively quickly, not only because parents have fewer children on average, but also because the extended family typical of rural settings is much less common in urban areas. Children are clearly less useful in urban settlements, as units of labor and producers, than in rural settings, and are more expensive to house and feed.

In a sense, all you really need to know about Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong is that they are highly urbanised areas and have been for many decades. That explains the low birth rate, pretty much - long-established urban areas have low birth rates.

Remove the economic incentive to have children and you actually appear to end up with below replacement-level reproduction. Many people long for children and are prepared to pay for it. Just as well once the economic incentive has reversed itself.

One possible future could be that once it has peaked, the world population - now highly urbanised (Africa is predicted to go from one third now to one half in 2030, for instance) – will not level off, but will instead start to decline, due to low birth rates not food shortage, causing all kinds of demographic headaches of its own. This stuff isn't all one-way.

 

[ayatollah]

What "clearly" emerges (IMO of course) across ALL the threads which broach the "the resources are running out , the world populations out of control ... we're all gonna die in a giant global famine any day now " position , is that no matter what well reasoned evidence is presented by the likes of littlebabyjesus and others to show that this is by no means an unavoidable , and certainly not a desirable future outcome for humanity, the many variants of neo-Malthusian on this message board (ranging from sincere environmentalist to rabid right wingers just LONGING for most of the troublesome toiling masses to be wiped out by famine ! ) NEVER change their views at all - just shift to another thread and start all over again. Interestingly Falcon is over on the "survivalism" thread lending us his wisdom on being self sufficient and raising chickens. Now I have NOTHING at all against self sufficiency and raising hens/chickens - but its such a long way from a brand new political theory /model of a future non-capitalist AND non Socialist society !

 

[free spirit]

Indeed not. It summarises this UN report, which interestingly makes recommendations for "sustainable growth" - which on a finite planet is an oxymoron.

not at all.

as I've pointed out multiple times, we can grow our economy, have more people in work, feed more people, keep more people warm etc etc in a sustainable way by doing more with less, or cutting our huge areas of waste.

Eventually, once we've exhausted all possible means of doing stuff more efficiently it actually could become an oxymoron, but right now we're a hell of a long way from that point.

 

[Dr Jon]

I'm not saying that efficiency improvements and waste reduction can't happen. The issue is that we've already overshot the planet's sustainable carrying capacity by a considerable margin, so even assuming efficiency improvements and falling birth-rates, we'll still be taking more from the environment than can be replaced or regenerated for a long time to come.

I have seen this happening in Kerala, where education of women and provision of healthcare has reduced the average fertility rate to 1.70 (2001 census figures). However,
the population far exceeds the sustainable carrying capacity of the environment, so forest continues to be cleared, urban sprawl expands, water tables fall (leading to saline intrusion in coastal areas) and fisheries are depleted. Then there are the positive feedbacks: loss of forest cover and spread of urban areas change the local climate, increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall, which affect agriculture and water availability. Drinking water now has to be brought in from Tamil Nadu by road tanker.

This is not an uncommon scenario. Hall(2004) reports similar findings in Costa Rica:

.. Costa Rica, a thriving democracy with health and literacy standards greater than, for example, the United States, was generally regarded as a rich agricultural country as well as possessing many other natural resources, including especially very high biodiversity. Thus I felt that if any place could be sustainable it would be Costa Rica. What we found, rather to my surprise, was that Costa Rica was very far removed from sustainable. The principal reasons ... can be summarized as simply that Costa Rica has far more people now than can even be fed sustainably, let alone supported more generally, from the limited resources of the country. This has resulted in the necessary import of food ͑about one third of needs͒, enormous quantities of agrochemicals to increase yields on the limited good land, fuel ... and so on. This in turn requires that up to half of their foreign exchange earnings are required to pay for the industrial inputs, without which much of the population would starve. In addition about 80 percent of their original forests have been cut down. Since Costa Rica cannot afford all of these industrial inputs much has been paid for with debt, which is another dimension of sustainability.

Debt, as he says, is another dimension to this crisis: Kerala's government debt is legendary, now up to Rs.783,290,000,000.

The rate of population growth may be slowing, but without development / investment in technologies like Thorium energy and GM as I have mentioned (and also for gain in crop yields / resistance to climate change, scarce water), I just don't see how we can avoid the shit hitting the fan, unleashing a right Malthusian splatterfest.

 

[elbows]

A telegraph article from March 20th contains a variety of data and expectations that are of relevance to this thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...F-sees-160-oil-risk-despite-Libyan-boost.html

The announcement came after Saudi Arabia said it had boosted output to a near record level of 9.87m b/d in January and stood ready to cover any shortfall as European sanctions against Iran bite deeper.
"I want to assure you that there is no shortage of supply in the market," said Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi. "Oil prices today are unjustifiable on a supply and demand basis. We really don’t understand why the prices are behaving the way they are."

Despite the soothing words from Mid-East suppliers, the global oil market remains stretched with OECD inventories lower than during the Arab Spring last year. Most analysts believe Saudi spare capacity is below the safety threshold of 2m b/dm, though Mr al-Naimi said the Kingdom still has a 2.5m cushion.
Barclays Capital said it remained "sceptical" about the ability of Saudi Arabia to boost output much beyond 1m b/d quickly and on a sustained basis. It also doubted that Libya will come close to its new target given the depletion rate of aging oil fields and the country's "political backdrop".

Theres a bunch of other stuff in the article involving war and economics.