free spirit
more tea vicar?
I'm well aware of the precautionary principle ta.
How's your awareness of sustainable development principles, and how they might apply here?
Systemic Collapse: The Basics
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
How's your awareness of sustainable development principles, and how they might apply here?
elbows
Well-Known Member
I was just reading this review of two books, and especially the second one 'Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy' seemed like a good fit for this thread. Especially as the review concludes with some pondering about why limiting population isn't mentioned in either book, and the first commenter on the article expands on this.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9115
I might well buy the second book, especially as one of the authors surnames is Klitgaard.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9115
I might well buy the second book, especially as one of the authors surnames is Klitgaard.
I saw it too, and was going to post. I don't have the book, but I've read most of Hall and Klitgaards papers, which the book aggregates and seems to expand. I think it would be a first class investment and provide the best current understanding of the interrelationship between energy and economics, and the emerging field of bioeconomics.
As I've said many times, population is the driving factor behind peak everything. Governments' refusal to deal with this issue has led to the crisis we now face.
I suspect the author is right in saying that population reduction at this late stage will have negligible effect.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Its not though. Its consumption (concentrated in the afluent world) thats sucking up the worlds resources, where population increase has been much slower.
How many fucking times does this have to be pointed out mr malthus?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep, and that fact becomes even clearer when you take into account the amount of energy that places like China consume in order to make stuff for the affluent world.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
shall we put some numbers on this?
2002-2008
global population growth = 6.8%
global average per capita energy consumption increase = 10.1%
so both are obviously factors, but it'd seem a bithard wrong to correctly assert that THE driving factor behind peak everything is population growth.
2002-2008
global population growth = 6.8%
global average per capita energy consumption increase = 10.1%
so both are obviously factors, but it'd seem a bit
Where population exceeds the sustainable carrying capacity of its environment - which it does globally by at least 350% - population is THE root cause of resource depletion.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What I don't quite get is how you appear to want this to be true. You seem impervious to arguments against this figure.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
hold up, you were saying the carrying capacity was 1 billion last week, now you're saying it's actually 2 billion.
I'm sorry, but these numbers and the source material you're basing them on simply aren't credible. They're wild stabs in the dark at best, and I don't get why both you and falcon insist on bandying them about with such high levels of certainty attached to your statements about them.
To be certain of something you assume the worst case and work from there.
Population prior to use of fossil fuels was < 1 billion. Pimental's figures for sustainable population are up to 2 billion.
Even if we double that figure, population well exceeds carrying capacity and some kind of mass die-off is inevitable.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
percentage of land under agricultureTo be certain of something you assume the worst case and work from there.
Population prior to use of fossil fuels was < 1 billion. Pimental's figures for sustainable population are up to 2 billion.
Even if we double that figure, population well exceeds carrying capacity and some kind of mass die-off is inevitable.
1800
2000
can you spot the problem with your argument?
[source]
I think possibly a better way to conceive of population is as the multiplier of everything else.
I find this queasiness about discussing population quite dangerous, and I think something that does the most vulnerable a profound disservice. You can guarantee some idiot will brand you a Malthusian for even suggesting there might be the teensiest of problems feeding 9 billion on a degraded system that probably feeds 2, thinking he is being all moral and righteous. All that does is inhibit any debate, and the next stage is everyone dying like flies because we haven't had the gumption to tackle the problem with the resources we would have done if we'd realised how hard the problem really was.
I find this queasiness about discussing population quite dangerous, and I think something that does the most vulnerable a profound disservice. You can guarantee some idiot will brand you a Malthusian for even suggesting there might be the teensiest of problems feeding 9 billion on a degraded system that probably feeds 2, thinking he is being all moral and righteous. All that does is inhibit any debate, and the next stage is everyone dying like flies because we haven't had the gumption to tackle the problem with the resources we would have done if we'd realised how hard the problem really was.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
support your assertions with solid evidence when challenged, and you may find less branding going on. Without that, we can only assume that your statements are ideologically / theory based, and that ideology / theory is commonly known as Malthusian after the bloke who first really popularised it.
frankly, IMO you are very Malthusian in your outlook on this subject, Dr Jon even more so, so IMO the description fits with the words you post on the screen. If it irks you, maybe you should reconsider some of your posts if you don't actually view the situation in a malthusian way.
So, can you support your assertion about the world can probably only feed 2 billion people?
You see? It's like some kind of weird Tourette's syndrome.
Well, if the observation that it's what the earth used to support before we triggered drought and the collapse of a bunch of ecosystem services isn't enough, try David Pimentel et al., “Will limits of the Earth’s Resources Control human Numbers?” environment, development and sustainability 1, no. 1 (March 1999), 19–39
free spirit
more tea vicar?
btw, the 2 people who taught me about this aspect of the subject had a combined 60-70 years experience working on and monitoring sustainable farming improvement projects across Africa for organisations including the UNEP.
Personally, I reckon they probably had a better handle on the issue than you or Dr Jon, but even they with that level of expertise felt the need to back up their opinions on the subject with stuff like peer reviewed empirical evidence, case studies, and that sort of thing.
You obviously do have significant expertise in certain fields, I'd put it to you that this isn't one of them.
Tbh I don't think it really is for any of the sources you've previously referenced who at best seem to be green revolution evangelists who can't see the wood for the trees when it comes to more sustainable agricultural practices also being able to increase yields, and therefore assume that reduction of oil, chemical and water inputs that were vital to the green revolution yield increases must lead to proportionate reduction in yields. At worst they're self taught idiots with a web presence.
Personally, I reckon they probably had a better handle on the issue than you or Dr Jon, but even they with that level of expertise felt the need to back up their opinions on the subject with stuff like peer reviewed empirical evidence, case studies, and that sort of thing.
You obviously do have significant expertise in certain fields, I'd put it to you that this isn't one of them.
Tbh I don't think it really is for any of the sources you've previously referenced who at best seem to be green revolution evangelists who can't see the wood for the trees when it comes to more sustainable agricultural practices also being able to increase yields, and therefore assume that reduction of oil, chemical and water inputs that were vital to the green revolution yield increases must lead to proportionate reduction in yields. At worst they're self taught idiots with a web presence.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is not intended to imply complacency, as I do not think the current model is sustainable, but the fact is that - today - the Earth does support 7 billion people. And it does so despite waste and needless consumption by a minority of a bunch of stuff they don't need.
percentage of land under agriculture
1800
2000
can you spot the problem with your argument?
[source]
No.
All that shows is that petroleum enabled the green revolution.
Dear God, are you incapable of engaging in any other style of communication than pointless personal confrontation? Is there genuinely no scope in your mental toolbox for mutual enquiry into a subject and pooling of knowledge, to generate a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts? It's such a dull way of carrying on.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Both you and dr Jon could address fs's point about alternatives to the green revolution in agriculture and the evidence that they can be very productive. He's right that a big part of the assumptions for 1 or 2 billion tops sustainable is that yields will collapse without oil. I'm no expert at all on this, but I've read various things pointing to alternatives to oil-based agriculture. Maybe fs can provide a link to something about it? It's important, I think.
Well they'll also collapse without bees, water, and under attack by whole classes of super invasive plant and animal species that are currently only barely kept in check by hydrocarbon based pesticides - factors I'm not aware of his studies accounting for. As far as I understand, it's a stretch target to get back to where we were. I'd be a grateful if he was a bit less pointy and shouty, and a bit more tolerant of questioning about the certainty in his numbers.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Knock yourself out questioning my numbers. It's all the pointless offence and ad hominem that I can't be arsed with, mostly because I associate it with having exhausted the other fellow's mental faculties, and that's boring.heal thyself, Falcon.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
tbf to the reports authors, that was written before the results of the 10 year study I linked to earlier were published, and before a decade in which several countries were able to start to show what the renewable energy potential actually can be in practice, and I'd assume that if they were to update their report today they would amend it's findings accordingly.
They also use a lot of caveats in the report that somehow never make it into your posts, and actually state that the current carrying capacity would be nearer 3 billion based on their criteria, but at the rates of land degradation happening when the report was written they'd expect that to decrease to nearer 2 billion 'in just 42 years'.
They are also talking about a gradual decrease to 2 billion over the course of a century from reduced average birth rates, which is a point I seem to have missed you or Dr Jon making.
there are also caveats about work that can be done to improve the situation, such as this
which is the sort of thing I'm advocating, not merely business as usual until we degrade the world to a ridiculous extent, as is implied when you use the 2 billion figure in the way that you do while referencing this report.
tbh, I don't have that much problem with most of that report, as a reasonable attempt at the subject for someone writing in 1999, and I'm almost certain that I've read it before now and that it in some way informs my opinions on the subject, it's just that I also had other source material that also informed my opinion at that point instead of taking what they wrote as gospel, and further source material since then that fairly clearly demonstrates some of the flaws in their calculations that I'd have suspected at the time.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
no it doesn't. All that shows is the percentage of the land area that is used by agriculture in 1800 vs 2000.
No.
All that shows is that petroleum enabled the green revolution.
Yes, the green revolution partly enabled some of the land to be brought into production, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is a hell of a lot more land being used for agriculture now than was the case in 1800, which means that any comparison with the lands capacity to sustain a population based on the food production capacity of 1800 is obviously wrong.
even if the yield per hectare were to revert to 1800 levels, then it's blatently obvious that far more people could survive on the food produced because the area being cultivated is so much larger.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
hold on, is that not a fair comment? I didn't realise you claimed significant expertise in the field of sustainable agriculture?
in fact I think both comments you've objected to are fair comment rather than insults or attacks, as you are espousing malthusian based ideas, or I suppose more correctly neo-malthusian. If you'd prefer me to use the term neo-malthusian ideas, then I'd agree that that is probably more accurate.
So as I understand it, we are heading to 9 billion, the earth might support 2/3 billion, managing that "gracefully" would take a century, the hydrocarbon supply currently powering the industrial agricultural system feeding two thirds of the projected population won't last a fraction of that, and it's Malthusian to suggest this is a problem?
I've not seen anything I recognise as a reply to my question about the estimates in more contemporary studies of the impact on carrying capacity of various deleterious impacts of climate change and biosphere malfunctions. Do you know them?
I've not seen anything I recognise as a reply to my question about the estimates in more contemporary studies of the impact on carrying capacity of various deleterious impacts of climate change and biosphere malfunctions. Do you know them?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I've made numerous points across 2 threads that seriously question the basis of your opinions, yet you've mostly failed to address these while choosing to pick out bits you choose to take offence to instead.
Is it really me that's having issues with exhausted mental facilities here*?
*tbf, I do find some of the arguments pretty tiresome
Similar threads
