Systemic Collapse: The Basics

[free spirit]

True. Non of which supports FS assertion that uncertainty *necessarily* reduces with increasing factors.

I'm pretty sure I've never made any assertion of that nature.

btw I've just been going over your posts to check I've not been misunderstanding / misrepresenting your position, and this statement of yours is a good example of what I've been objecting to, in case you weren't sure.

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,

This is a massive overstatement of the likelihood of this figure being accurate IMO, and isn't even supported by the paper that you posted up to support your position, hence my objection.

Had you stated that there is a possibility that the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth could end up being as low as 2 billion IF we continue to degrade the worlds agricultural land at current rates, and fail to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, then I'd probably have agreed with your position, or at least accepted it was possible.

I assume you can see the massive gulf between the 2 statements though, and why I might feel the need to object when you make statements like that.

 

[Falcon]

IMO the core of the Malthusian proposition is the inevitability of the situation, which is why I've referred to your position as being Malthusian, as intentionally or not, you regularly portray this situation as if it is inevitable.

This seems a little disingenuous. The proposition that famine is an inevitable outcome of the exhaustion of a resource that is critical to the form of food production that gave rise to the population may be true, or it maybe untrue. What it is not is a moral proposition.

"Malthusian" gains its moral impact, not from that statement, but from the nauseating normative political prescriptions he and others justified on that basis, including eugenics, and which are identified with the adjective. I appreciate the refinement of "neo-Malthusian", which has all the solace of "neo-Nazi". I'd just as soon you judge my arguments on their own terms, and not on whatever flies land on them through the window you open with your emotive labelling.

 

[Falcon]

I assume you can see the massive gulf between the 2 statements though, and why I might feel the need to object when you make statements like that.

OK. This is a thread about systemic collapse. Not about collapse of the food system. Meanwhile, we are arguing about whether 7 billion are at risk or only(!) 4 billion. This is a pointless debate.

Climate change, environmental degradation, energy depletion, food scarcity end economic instability are converging and reinforcing crises. A stressor in any one system is capable of propagating through the others and inducing synchronised failure. The question of whether the stressor threshold in the food system is 2 billion or 5 billion is moot. The fact that there is one, is not.

Some ceteris paribus debate about whether it can be made to be 5 billion or some other number, ignoring climate, environment, energy, finance, etc. is fun but ultimately not representative of conditions on this planet, and irrelevant to the OP that the fact that billions are at risk constitutes a factor in Systemic Collapse.

 

[free spirit]

OK. This is a thread about systemic collapse. Not about collapse of the food system.

Climate change, environmental degradation, energy depletion, food scarcity end economic instability are converging and reinforcing crises. A stressor in any one system is capable of propagating through the others and inducing synchronised failure. The question of whether the threshold in the food system is 2 billion or 5 billion is moot. There is a threshold, it is foreseeable that we will exceed it.

I actually dared hope that you might concede you'd been wrong to make the statement I quoted for a minute, given that you seemed to have rowed back from it later in the thread.

I'm aware that the question of whether the carrying capacity is 2 billion or 5 billion is moot, you were the one making assertions about it probably being 2 billion not me, I've merely been challenging you to support or retract that assertion. It's a shame you don't seem able or willing to do either.

I'm also well aware of all the problems you've highlighted and how they have the potential to interact with each other to exacerbate problems. I'm in no way denying this, and would again point out that I've been well aware of these points for a lot longer than you. The difference appears to be that I've also been taught, and spent a lot of time over the years further researching the potential solutions to these problems that mean that these worst case scenario predictions are far from inevitable, and that statements about their being probable carrying capacity figures are a long way from an accurate assessment of the situation.

There are thresholds yes, but the study you point to misses vast areas of potential to increase carrying capacity beyond the figures they use, and even they only came up with the 2 billion figure after another half century or so of soil depletion (and miss the relative ease with which much of this soil depletion issue can be reversed via the use of sound sustainable agriculture techniques).

An example of one massive potential source of soil nutrients, and improvement that I didn't see that study cover at all would be the potential from recycling human waste into the soils. Put simply, we currently flush away per capita nutrients equivalent to around 80% of those required to grow enough cereal to feed each person.

Stick stuff like that into your equations, and it ought to be obvious why I don't think your statement about the probability of a 2 billion carrying capacity is in any way accurate.

eta [source]

 

[Falcon]

Stick stuff like that into your equations, and it ought to be obvious why I don't think your statement about the probability of a 2 billion carrying capacity is in any way accurate.

And, having conceded that it is irrelevant to the central point, I think you are constructing an unconvincing straw man argument (that uncertainty in peer reviewed data I referenced, published prior to greater understanding of climate degradation, translates somehow into uncertainty in my argument) to avoid the elephant in your argument that authoritative scientific opinion is that the average drought by the end of the 21st century will be equal to the worst drought of the 20th Century and wipes out any significance of your data regarding yield gains obtained in the absence of persistent drought.

 

[free spirit]

And, having conceded that it is irrelevant to the central point, I think you are constructing a straw man argument to avoid the elephant in your argument that authoritative scientific opinion is that the average drought in the 21st century will be equal to the worst drought of the 20th Century. Are we done yet?

again, you miss some vital points there about which areas of the world this applies to.

no, I don't think we're done, and I find your attempt to abandon your previous stated position on the carrying capacity without actually admitting you were wrong to be pretty pathetic tbh.

eta - but if what you're actually saying is that you won't be using such figures or statements of probability about them again, then that is at least a significant improvement.

 

[Falcon]

no, I don't think we're done, and I find your attempt to abandon your previous stated position on the carrying capacity without actually admitting you were wrong to be pretty pathetic tbh.

My stated position is that:

[1] a peer reviewed, academic authority estimated the carrying capacity of the planet to be 2 billion.
[2] since that estimate was made, improved scientific understanding of climate change, specifically the likelihood and severity of drought, invalidates many of the assumptions underlying that estimate, rendering them optimistic

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT I MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO ABANDON MY PREVIOUS STATED POSITION

I dare you to disagree with that position.

 

[Falcon]

. (I'm sorry. My iPad keeps fucking about and submitting partial drafts)

 

[free spirit]

[1] a peer reviewed, academic authority estimated the carrying capacity of the planet to be 2 billion.

A peer reviewed, academic paper estimated that the carrying capacity of the planet could be reduced as far as 2 billion in a hundred years time, IF a range of factors including soil degradation rates and loss of farmland, water depletion rates and a host of other factors carried on being depleted at the same rates, AND assuming an average European level of consumption. This much is true.

While the reports authors certainly had respectable academic credentials though, I doubt even they would refer to themselves as being an 'academic authority'. They are just one research team from one university making a valiant attempt to assess and interpret the academic literature on a range of the relevant subjects at that time, and make a best guess based on that evidence of what a likely sustainable carrying capacity might be in 100 years time based on a set level of assumptions.

In case you missed the scientific method sections of your course though, this would be what's classed as a hypothesis, rather than the unquestionable word of god, and the way science works is that hypothesis that are refuted by later evidence either get rejected or amended in light of the new evidence.

I've presented 2 clear points of evidence backed up by peer reviewed academic papers, that were not considered as part of this original study (as far as I could tell) that would have a massive impact on the potential future carrying capacity. There are several others I can think of as well, but if we're not doing this via the religious method rather than the scientific method, then there'd not be a lot of point in me mentioning them.

[2] since that estimate was made, improved scientific understanding of climate change, specifically the likelihood and severity of drought, invalidates many of the assumptions underlying that estimate, rendering them optimistic

really?

The IPCC (WG2, 1995) were forecasting increased levels of drought for some regions, and increased levels of rainfall and flooding for others in the late 90's, which seems very little different at all to the latest estimates. All that's changed really is that they've increased the certainty levels over which areas are most likely to experience what level of changes, the overall assumptions though are broadly the same.

The paper you link to is already based on an estimate of a 50% reduction in per capita water consumption (by 2025) anyway.

I'd suggest that since you didn't train in this field until the mid 2000's, where as I studied it in the mid 90's, that I'd probably be in a better position to judge the background understandings of the various issues involved at the time that report was written, and how that might have changed since then. Before you get all offended again, that's not intended as an insult, it's just pretty obvious that it'd be the case unless you've made a particular study of the late 90's understanding of the drought impact of climate change or something.

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT I MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO ABANDON MY PREVIOUS STATED POSITION

so your position effectively is 'lalalalala I can't hear you'... that's a shame really, as something productive could maybe have come out of these discussions.

I dare you to disagree with that position.

are we back in primary school or something?

 

[free spirit]

also, earlier in the thread you used the term confirmation bias.

I'm thinking that was a pot / kettle moment tbh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My stated position is that:

[1] a peer reviewed, academic authority estimated the carrying capacity of the planet to be 2 billion.
[2] since that estimate was made, improved scientific understanding of climate change, specifically the likelihood and severity of drought, invalidates many of the assumptions underlying that estimate, rendering them optimistic

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT I MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO ABANDON MY PREVIOUS STATED POSITION

Why not?

A peer reviewed, academic paper estimated that the carrying capacity of the planet could be reduced as far as 2 billion in a hundred years time, IF a range of factors including soil degradation rates and loss of farmland, water depletion rates and a host of other factors carried on being depleted at the same rates, AND assuming an average European level of consumption. This much is true.

One or other of you is misrepresenting this paper. Is fs's representation of it correct? If so, then yours isn't and you should abandon your previous stated position in acknowledgement of your error.

 

[free spirit]

Based on the estimate that 0.5 ha per capita is necessary for an adequate and diverse
food supply, it would be possible to sustain a global population of approximately 3 billion
humans. However, arable land is being degraded and lost at a rate of more than 12 million
ha per year (Pimentel et al., 1995; Pimentel et al., 1997c). At this rate of loss, in just 42 years
there will be sufficient arable land for a population of only 2 billion

Our suggested 2 billion population carrying capacity for the Earth is based on a European
standard of living for everyone and sustainable use of natural resources. For land resources,
we suggest 0.5 ha of cropland per capita with an intense agricultural production system
(8 million kcal/ha) and diverse plant and animal diet for the people.

The 0.5 ha of cropland per capita is the level that existed in 1960.

The adjustment of the world population from 6 to 2 billion could be made over approximately a century

etc.

http://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/maknight/courses/CIVE240-05/week3/Pimentel(1999).pdf

 

[free spirit]

With a democratically determined population control policy that respects basic individual
rights, with sound resource use policies, plus the support of science and technology to
enhance energy supplies and protect the integrity of the environment, an optimum population
of 2 billion for the Earth can be achieved.

what Falcon seems to be quoting is basically a version of the conclusion that suits his position, without any regard to the rest of the paper, or how they've come to this position.

It's notable that they refer to the figure of 2 billion being an optimum population level rather than the carrying capacity of the earth, so even at that point they aren't saying what Falcon states they say.

I'm sure all this will be dismissed as nitpicking or something though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm going to give this a proper read later, however, I have a comment to make on the abstract:

The current world population is 6 billion people. Even if we adopted a worldwide policy resulting in only 2.1 children born per couple, more than 60 years would pass before the world population stabilized at approximately 12 billion. The reason stabilization would take more than 60 years is the population momentum – the young age distribution – of the world population. Natural resources are already severely limited, and there is emerging evidence that natural forces already starting to control human population numbers through malnutrition and other severe diseases. At present, more than 3 billion people worldwide are malnourished; grain production per capita has been declining since 1983; irrigation per capita has declined 12% during the past decade; cropland per capita has declined 20% during the past decade; fish production per capita has declined 7% during the past decade; per capita fertilizer supplies essential for food production have declined 23% during the past decade; loss of food to pests has not decreased below 50% since 1990;
and pollution of water, air, and land has increased, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of humans suffering from serious, pollution-related diseases. Clearly, human numbers cannot continue to increase.

This can be updated, no? There are now 7 billion of us, and I'd like to see some updates on the rest of these figures, because a lot of them will be improved.

This link gives figures for 'undernourishment', and says that the numbers of undernourished people in the world have increased from around 850 million at the time of this report to 950 million in 2010. But it also states that the number of calories produced per person has gone up in this time, and of course, 950/7000 is a smaller number than 850/6000. It's no great shakes as an improvement, but it's hard to make the case that the situation is getting worse.

Regarding the above figure of 3 billion in the world being malnourished, I assume this means micronourishment - lacking essential vitamins: according to the link, '1 out of 3 people in developing countries are affected by vitamin and mineral deficiencies, according to the World Health Organization' That means that far fewer than 3 billion are now malnourished, although I don't know whether or not I'm comparing like with like as I don't know where the 3 billion figure came from. Also, the report makes the important point that the situation is patchy. There has been improvement in Asia and Latin America but deterioration in sub-Sarahan Africa. The report also makes the crucial point that many of the causes of hunger are political, that enough food is produced in the world today to feed everyone, and also that malnutrition is in many ways self-sustaining as it reduces the capacity to work. It should not be beyond our wit to solve such problems and turn vicious circles into virtuous ones, as has been happening in many parts of Asia.

This leads me back to the question I always ask. The predicted falling off the cliff hasn't happened yet, whether it was predicted 20 years ago or 3 years ago. When will it happen, and what leads anyone to assume that it will happen?

 

[free spirit]

oh dear.

I've just realised there's a massive glaring issue in the figures used in that report.

They're referring only to 0.5ha per capita of cropland. Cropland (more commonly referred to as arable land) only makes up around 28% of the worlds agricultural land, much of which would be suited to be used as arable land if we were to reduce our meat consumption rates (along with much of the output from existing arable land not then being used for animal feed).

It also gives a lot more headroom for farmers to potentially switch from animals to crops in response to changing climatic conditions, possibly with some arable farmers making the switch in the opposite direction as well.

Helps to put things into considerably better perspective IMO.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So there is in fact a greater possibility than 0.5 ha per capita?

 

[free spirit]

well, wiki reckons there were 13,805,153km2 of arable land, or 1,380,515,300ha in 2008, which at the 0.5ha per person assumed in the report would give 2.75 billion people.

But if those figures don't take any account at all of the rest of the available agricultural land, and are that's more than double the size of the arable land area, and it's potential either to be turned into cropland, or contribute to feeding us all from meat, dairy etc. this would seem a rather serious omission, and one that would blow a fairly hefty hole in the credibility of their estimates IMO.

I'd stupidly not actually run the figures myself until now to double check their workings, so hadn't noticed they switched to using arable land only at that point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hmmm. What else have they got wrong? tbh their figure of 'more than 3 billion malnourished' looks dubious.

The current figures are bad enough - 30 % anaemic and 14 % iodine deficient, both of which significantly lower energy levels, cognitive development etc, ie severely curtail the ability to live/work effectively.

 

[free spirit]

don't forget the 5% or so global obesity rate.

 

[free spirit]

there are some other anomalies in there.

They appear to be taking the pre-green revolution population as their starting point as being 3 billion, and that is the point at which they're also taking their 0.5ha per person figure from.

But the area of arable land has increased by 12% since 1960, and yet they come up with a figure of 2 billion because they expect the arable land area to drop by 50% due to land degradation before the population stabilises. FAO estimates an increase in arable land in of 120 million hectares between 1998 and 2030 in developing countries, which would seem to further conflict with the predictions Pimentel assumes.

It's basically as if he's only looking at the land degradation statistics in isolation, rather than as part of the entire picture when determining how much land is likely to be available for crops.

 

[Falcon]

Oh deary me. I go off to muck out the chickens, and look what happens.

Lets be clear, chaps: if the carrying capacity of the planet was 7 billion, we'd be facing a very serious situation at current population growth rates. All this angst about whether or not it is 2 is a manufactured smoke screen to avoid the basic point: it is lower than the current capacity - and the precise number is guesswork, in the context of unquantified but serious and accelerating environmental degradation.

Free spirit. I have consistently made one point: that when faced with an event of high harm potential and high uncertainty, a rational course of action is to act as if that harm potential is certain until such time as other evidence shows it is not. The only point you can argue against is that point, and I'm happy to consider alternative viewpoints (I can think of three).

I have presented some evidence that suggests what the carrying capacity might be, and some evidence why your number might be high (not least, rather spectacular new data on persistent global drought conditions).

You have presented some evidence that suggests it might be something else, and some evidence why my number might be too low.

If I am not strongly attached to that number, it is because I don't have to be in order to make my point. Neither set of evidence alters my basic point - both carrying capacity estimates are consistent with an assessment that the potential for harm is very high (7 billion at risk in the number I present; 4 billion in the number you present).

Yet somehow this has all boiled down, in your mind, to an effort to prove that (a) my number is wrong and (b) my failure to recognise your number is evidence of "tralalala" while (c) your failure to recognise my number is just what happens when someone is as gifted as you are.

So be it.

Meanwhile, Free Spirit, I'm detecting some fairly spectacular levels either of wishful thinking or failure of imagination about the significance of this data on your faith in pre-drought crop yield pilot studies. What exactly has your education taught you about agriculture yields in persistent "dust bowl" climate conditions that confers so much confidence?

 

[free spirit]

Oh deary me. I go off to muck out the chickens, and look what happens.

oh noez, people are actually analysing the paper you've been referencing in detail (as I'd already done earlier in the thread in a post you also ignored).

your figure is based on a poor understanding or representation of a report that itself has a lot of holes, yet you refuse to change that opinion.

IMO that is not a credible position, and serves to dramatically undermine any credibility I might place in any of your analysis on other aspects of the situation. I suspect I'd not be the only one who would view the situation this way either.

btw, the figure I produced earlier really shouldn't be one quoted back to me as being my figure, as the base methodology for it was incredibly rough, I was merely trying to refine the methodology Dr Jon was using for his worst case scanario to demonstrate what that figure ought to actually be under that worst case scenario after allowing for the massive rise in the land area being farmed.

As I said in that post, I suspect the figure IF we adopt sustainable farming practices across the world, AND massively reduce food waste and over consumption, AND reduce our consumption of grain fed meat, AND revert to eating mainly seasonal local produce etc would lie somewhere in the 5-7 billion range with fairly comfortable average consumption levels (below current european levels on average), but could see that 7-9 billion could be possible as well. No I'm not going to reference these figures, they're merely my educated guesses on the subject, but I'm putting them up to demonstrate that our positions are really poles apart when it comes to the carrying capacity numbers.

 

[Falcon]

your figure is based on a poor understanding or representation of a report that itself has a lot of holes, yet you refuse to change that opinion.

I have to assume you didn't read my previous post.

As I said in that post, I suspect the figure IF we adopt sustainable farming practices across the world, AND massively reduce food waste and over consumption, AND reduce our consumption of grain fed meat, AND revert to eating mainly seasonal local produce etc would lie somewhere in the 5-7 billion range with fairly comfortable average consumption levels (below current european levels on average)

You missed one. "... AND we weren't heading into conditions of persistent dust bowl drought conditions".

But we are. Which is why I think you are straining a little too hard.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You missed one. "... AND we weren't heading into conditions of persistent dust bowl drought conditions".

But we are.

Again with the certainty. Where does this certainty come from? Judging how global warming will affect local climates is incredibly hard. You need to understand how all kinds of things will be affected, not least the ocean currents. There simply isn't certainty about how these will be affected by global warming. So, on the one hand, there is an influx of cold water into the oceans at the poles, but on the other hand, there is increased evaporation across the globe as temperatures rise. This increased evaporation will in fact cause an increase in global precipitation. Then the question becomes: where will this precipitation fall? Massively hard to judge without understanding how ocean currents will change, and a whole host of other correlated things, such as global air current cells, etc.

This also touches on another uncertainty about global warming. There are scary possible positive feedback mechanisms, such as decreased albedo effect from losing the polar ice and the release of methane from the warming oceans. But there are also possible negative feedback mechanisms, such as increased albedo effect from increased cloud cover caused by the increased evaporation. I'm not saying this to come across as a climate change denier, just to introduce some uncertainty.

 

[Falcon]

Again with the certainty. Where does this certainty come from? Judging how global warming will affect local climates is incredibly hard. You need to understand how all kinds of things will be affected, not least the ocean currents. There simply isn't certainty about how these will be affected by global warming.

Thank you. I refer you to my (only) point: under such conditions, we should act as if there is until such uncertainty can be quantified.

I'm using data that reflects the consensus opinion of the professional climate change scientist community. It's as certain as we get.

Meanwhile, you just gave a pretty convincing impression of a climate change skeptic...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Meanwhile, you just gave a pretty convincing impression of a climate change skeptic...

Because I wished to introduce reasonable uncertainty?

Do you contest what I said about increased evaporation from the oceans?

 

[free spirit]

You missed one. "... AND we weren't heading into conditions of persistent dust bowl drought conditions".

But we are. Which is why I think you are straining a little too hard.

As I've pointed out though, that only applies to certain parts of the world, with other parts of the world predicted to get increased rainfall.

Climate change is also likely to move the cropline further north across Europe, Russia, North America etc. Which is a massive swathe of land.

Now, I've not done any detailed analysis of the likely impacts of the predicted changes on all aspects of crop production, nor have I seen anything that would fit that bill. If you know of any such detailed work, I'd certainly be interested to check it out, but you've not posted anything like that up so far that I've seen.

I'm not disputing that climate change is going to seriously impact on the crop production from current crops in current farmland areas, and this is one of the key variables that's really hard to predict accurately. In the absence of some very detailed work that clearly demonstrates otherwise though, I'd expect the maximum total global reduction in food production as a result to probably be of the order of 10%, and potentially considerably lower.

It's also worth pointing out that the major drought impacts are predicted to be on the US, mexico and Australia, areas that are net exporters of food (not entirely sure if Mexico itself is, but I think the US, Mexico region is when combined).

conversely, IIRC many of the areas predicted to have increases in rainfall are places where food is scarecer, and population growth is higher, such as sub saharan africa, north india, much of china, russia, parts of south america, and most of Europe other than spain and some of the other Mediterranean countries.

In a world where the reduced oil availability is going to be restricting trade in food, this actually doesn't strike me as being necessarily that catastrophic, although I'd not want to be a farmer in the affected areas.

 

[Falcon]

I'm not disputing that climate change is going to seriously impact on the crop production from current crops in current farmland areas, and this is one of the key variables that's really hard to predict accurately. In the absence of some very detailed work that clearly demonstrates otherwise though, I'd expect the maximum total global reduction in food production as a result to probably be of the order of 10%, and potentially considerably lower.

The burden of proof is not on someone else to provide very detailed work that demonstrates the maximum total global reduction in food production as a result to probably be more than 10%. It is on you to prove that it is no more than that - this is the essence of the burden of proof requirement of the precautionary principle.

Can we stop arguing about this, now, please? My only point is that because it's hard to predict, we need to act ultra conservatively.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can we stop arguing about this, now, please? My only point is that because it's hard to predict, we need to act ultra conservatively.

That wasn't how you phrased it.

You missed one. "... AND we weren't heading into conditions of persistent dust bowl drought conditions".

But we are.

That's a misrepresentation of the possible consequences of global warming. More accurate would be to say that certain parts of the world will see reduction in rainfall and increased drought, while others will see an increase in rainfall, and that overall, as a result of increased evaporation from the oceans, global rainfall levels are likely to increase.

 

[Falcon]

Can we stop arguing about this, now, please?

Apparently not. OK - let me put it another way. I'm going to stop arguing about it.