Systemic Collapse: The Basics

[Bernie Gunther]

one thing I've never seen Dr Jon say anything about though is what standard of living this 1 billion people are supposed to have.

Just as an example, the per capita ecological footprint of the US is around 19 times higher than Bangladesh, so 19 times more people could live on the same amount of the world's resources at Nigerian levels as at US levels of consumption.

Which nicely demonstrates why anyone bandying around such figures without qualifying them in this way are spouting scaremongering rubbish, and probably doesn't really understand the problem or it's potential solutions properly.

If they want to say something along the lines of...



... then that'd be a hell of a lot different, and would clearly demonstrate the major point of the issue, which is that consumption levels are every bit as important as population.


* figures are purely illustrative.

Pimentel (who is a neo-malthusian but an academically fairly rigorous one) took a shot at a quantitative view on that stuff a few years ago.

He came up with a 'sustainable with reasonable living standards' target of about 2 billion global population, or half a billion with US consumption levels.

He's assuming equal shares, but some of his other assumptions are capitalist business as usual. In the past I've played about with some of his assumptions and got slightly different answers, but I don't really doubt that the numbers we already have aren't sustainable anywhere short of some type of 'totalitarian society of eco-primmie wretches' standards of living and will soon be past even those.

While he's in the right ball park, he's stumbling around in it and bumping into things due to a total lack of anything resembling a class analysis, concepts of 'reserve army of labour' etc. Still well worth a read though because he *can* do sums properly.

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/limit.htm

 

[love detective]

Could well be, yes. Birthrates in cities have a tendency to drop below replacement level. We're seeing it in quite a few places across the world now. Not just Europe, but East Asia too - anywhere that is heavily urbanised.

i don't disagree about the experience seen in cities, but is this realistically enough to bring about an absolute decline in population within a few decades?

and even if a natural stabilisation of population (or mild decline) happened, in what sense (and for whom) would it be a problem?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i don't disagree about the experience seen in cities, but is this realistically enough to bring about an absolute decline in population within a few decades?

and even if a natural stabilisation of population (or mild decline) happened, in what sense (and for whom) would it be a problem?

Ok, on an optimistic view of the future, which sees us coping with environmental changes and energy problems, we could reach a stable population by around 2050, with a very urbanised world, birth rates below replacement level, but people living longer (people in cities, even poor cities, generally live longer than people in poor rural settings). Over time - perhaps not till somewhere near the end of the century - this could cause a serious demographic problem as the proportion of old people to people of working age increases.

Mild decline could, over time, cause problems. But then again, it may not - again, an optimistic view might be that we would find new ways to organise and to work that would allow for this decline in the size of the workforce.

 

[Santino]

People in their early 20s would find themselves in positions of enormous responsbility, like when teenagers were running things after the Black Death.

 

[love detective]

People in their early 20s would find themselves in positions of enormous responsbility

not necessarily a bad thing - any reversal of what appears to be an increasing infantilism of adulthood (in the UK anyway) would be a welcome feature in any new society in my mind

 

[Santino]

not necessarily a bad thing - any reversal of what appears to be an increasing infantilism of adulthood (in the UK anyway) would be a welcome feature in any new society in my mind

Like making children work down the mines? That's a reversal of the infantilism of adulthood.

 

[love detective]

yes that's exactly what i mean

(because children are adults aren't they? and people in their early 20's are children aren't they?)

 

[Santino]

yes that's exactly what i mean

I thought so, from reading your words.

 

[love detective]

children are adults then are they?

and people in their early 20's are children are they?

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Large amounts of stress and situations of hardship for youngsters before they reach adulthood could be good for character building.

 

[Santino]

I hate the way that the infantilism of adulthood contributes to global exploitation.

 

[love detective]

Large amounts of stress and situations of hardship for youngsters before they reach adulthood could be good for character building.

a certain amount of individual & social responsibility for people once they become adults could be good for society and the character of that society.

It's only the tedious santino who thinks this means sending children (or anyone else) down the mines

 

[love detective]

I hate the way that the infantilism of adulthood contributes to global exploitation.

do you have any other tricks apart from banal third rate 'comedic' non sequiturs?

 

[Santino]

do you have any other tricks apart from banal third rate 'comedic' non sequiturs?

'Your mum' jokes.

 

[Santino]

Actually, not jokes, just quoting something someone else has said, but with the words 'your mum' attached.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

a certain amount of individual & social responsibility for people once they become adults could be good for society and the character of that society.

It's only the tedious santino who thinks this means sending children (or anyone else) down the mines

Oh, I agree about the tediousness.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'm with lbj on this one. The most developed economies tend to get lower birth rates, and in the case of some countries like Japan, declining populations. The overpopulation argument also assumes that no technological advancement will take place to enable a higher population to survive.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> The overpopulation argument also assumes that no technological advancement will take place to enable a higher population to survive.

What sort of technical advances would we be imagining there though? Fusion would help cut the amount of land, water etc needed for fuel crops and other energy systems. Land required for food systems is tougher though.

I would recommend people having a proper look at that Pimentel article I posted and even if they're so inclined, bunging some of the assumptions into a spreadsheet and having a play with them. It's a very educational experience ...

 

[phildwyer]

Large amounts of stress and situations of hardship for youngsters before they reach adulthood could be good for character building.

Ever met a 16 year-old Israeli?

They have the confidence, maturity and organizational capacities of Brits or Americans 10-15 years older.

It's not hard to figure out why.

 

[phildwyer]

It's only the tedious santino who thinks this means sending children (or anyone else) down the mines

Couldn't we at least send Santino down the mines? Just him like.

 

[phildwyer]

Pimentel (who is a neo-malthusian but an academically fairly rigorous one) took a shot at a quantitative view on that stuff a few years ago.

He came up with a 'sustainable with reasonable living standards' target of about 2 billion global population, or half a billion with US consumption levels.

He's assuming equal shares, but some of his other assumptions are capitalist business as usual. In the past I've played about with some of his assumptions and got slightly different answers, but I don't really doubt that the numbers we already have aren't sustainable anywhere short of some type of 'totalitarian society of eco-primmie wretches' standards of living and will soon be past even those.

While he's in the right ball park, he's stumbling around in it and bumping into things due to a total lack of anything resembling a class analysis, concepts of 'reserve army of labour' etc. Still well worth a read though because he *can* do sums properly.

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/limit.htm

Right. So basically we're fucked.

How long must we wait before people actually accept this fact, and try to come to terms with it, as opposed to running around like Chicken Little under the mad impression that there is something they can do about it.

Fools.

 

[phildwyer]

Ok, on an optimistic view of the future, which sees us coping with environmental changes and energy problems, we could reach a stable population by around 2050, with a very urbanised world, birth rates below replacement level, but people living longer (people in cities, even poor cities, generally live longer than people in poor rural settings). Over time - perhaps not till somewhere near the end of the century - this could cause a serious demographic problem as the proportion of old people to people of working age increases.

Mild decline could, over time, cause problems. But then again, it may not - again, an optimistic view might be that we would find new ways to organise and to work that would allow for this decline in the size of the workforce.

Dude. Much as I admire, and indeed envy, your relentlessly sunny optimism, you have your head buried so deep in the sand that it could easily be mistaken for a Katyusha missile silo.

Meanwhile in the REAL world, Israel is about to destroy Persia. Those of us who have managed to wrench our attention away from sustainable growth and population control to examine the ancient prophecies spelling out the future of humanity know very well what that means.

In not much more than a decade, all this footling discussion about alternative energy sources is going to look very picayune indeed. If there is anyone around to read it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ancient prophesies? Get a grip.

 

[Crispy]

I think it might be phildwyer friday afternoon windup time

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Dude. Much as I admire, and indeed envy, your relentlessly sunny optimism, you have your head buried so deep in the sand that it could easily be mistaken for a Katyusha missile silo.

Meanwhile in the REAL world, Israel is about to destroy Persia. Those of us who have managed to wrench our attention away from sustainable growth and population control to examine the ancient prophecies spelling out the future of humanity know very well what that means.

In not much more than a decade, all this footling discussion about alternative energy sources is going to look very picayune indeed. If there is anyone around to read it.

Are you serious?

 

[Idris2002]

There will be no Israeli attack on Iran. I am convinced of it.

 

[phildwyer]

Are you serious?

Am I serious that Israel is going to attack Iran?

Well of course not! Hahahaha how could anyone possibly believe such a ridiculously far-fetched notion?

Or am I serious that such an attack is likely to lead to nuclear world war?

PPfffffffffffft... I scorn such alarmist nonsense. It's not as if any Islamic country has a nuclear bomb, and even if one did, it would obviously be a very stable state indeed, with no threat at all of extremists getting their hands on power. Hah, another Thing Not To Worry About.

Or am I serious that political and military events in the middle east are discussed at great lengths in the prophetic texts of at least four major religions?

Don't be ridiculous! All you have to do is open the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, and the first thing that leaps out at you is their complete and utter lack of concern with Israel, Persia, Arabia and their various conflicts. There really is absolutely nothing about war in the middle east, or its likely effect on the rest of the world. Quite a reprehensible omission really...

 

[phildwyer]

There will be no Israeli attack on Iran. I am convinced of it.

That's alright then.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Now you are the fool. Those texts deal with problems in the areas they were written in. Unsurprisingly, the Bible has little to say about America or East Asia.

As for the rest of it, you may be right, just as back in the 1970s, I would have said that those predicting nuclear armageddon then might be right.

Equally, you might be wrong, as those who predicted armageddon in the 1970s were wrong.

 

[ayatollah]

Could well be, yes. Birthrates in cities have a tendency to drop below replacement level. We're seeing it in quite a few places across the world now. Not just Europe, but East Asia too - anywhere that is heavily urbanised.

It's exactly that kind of informed optimism that makes you sooooooo unpopular on Neo Malthusian enthusiast threads, littlebaby jesus ! Please keep your hard facts to yourself !