[KaiserJeep]

My problem with the whole scenario is there are (broadly speaking) three main possibilities after world PO happens. Those would be:

1) 7B+ or 8B+ or even 9B+ people do not go quietly into the night. After the oil becomes unaffordable, food gets scarce, and the struggle for limited resources flares into nuclear warfare, and everybody dies.

2) A very few (less than 1%) of the human race migrates into space habitats. A new frontier is established, Capitalism thrives for thousands of years to come, and new sources of energy from space even spare a portion of the Earth surface dwellers from extinction. After numerous conflicts and false starts, a sustainable population of less than 1B is established on the Earth's surface. Excess population migrates into space and the Solar System eventually supports Trillions of humans.

3) Humans quietly and peacefully starve themselves into a sustainable population level. The survivors adopt an obscure and proven unworkable 19th Century economic theory and force it to work via sheer willpower. Then they live happily together in sweetness and light, praising the wisdom of Karl Heinrich Marx and Friedrich Engels.

I mean, if I had to pick one of these alternatives as least likely, it would be #3, by a long shot. Note that my lifetime of 62 years includes direct memories of three major famines in China, Bangladesh, and Africa where megadeaths were involved, as well as countless minor famines involving less than a million people.

Note that Marxism has never spontaneously arisen in any of these places, instead people died while scrambling to feed themselves, even at the expense of others.

I simply do not believe that the ideas of Marx and Engels mean anything much, since they (obviously and clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt) do not describe the actions of any human populace under stress of resource depletion.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') simply do not believe that the ideas of Marx and Engels mean anything much, since they (obviously and clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt) do not describe the actions of any human populace under stress of resource depletion.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'M')y problem with the whole scenario is there are (broadly speaking) three main possibilities after world PO happens. Those would be:

1) 7B+ or 8B+ or even 9B+ people do not go quietly into the night. After the oil becomes unaffordable, food gets scarce, and the struggle for limited resources flares into nuclear warfare, and everybody dies.

2) A very few (less than 1%) of the human race migrates into space habitats. A new frontier is established, Capitalism thrives for thousands of years to come, and new sources of energy from space even spare a portion of the Earth surface dwellers from extinction. After numerous conflicts and false starts, a sustainable population of less than 1B is established on the Earth's surface. Excess population migrates into space and the Solar System eventually supports Trillions of humans.

3) Humans quietly and peacefully starve themselves into a sustainable population level. The survivors adopt an obscure and proven unworkable 19th Century economic theory and force it to work via sheer willpower. Then they live happily together in sweetness and light, praising the wisdom of Karl Heinrich Marx and Friedrich Engels.

I mean, if I had to pick one of these alternatives as least likely, it would be #3, by a long shot. Note that my lifetime of 62 years includes direct memories of three major famines in China, Bangladesh, and Africa where megadeaths were involved, as well as countless minor famines involving less than a million people.

Note that Marxism has never spontaneously arisen in any of these places, instead people died while scrambling to feed themselves, even at the expense of others.

I simply do not believe that the ideas of Marx and Engels mean anything much, since they (obviously and clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt) do not describe the actions of any human populace under stress of resource depletion.

[Tanada]

The idea that a full on nuclear war could wipe out the human race is pure Hollywood fantasy. Even if you managed to strike every city with 25,000 or more inhabitants (there are not enough warheads to do that but leave that aside) there would be many locals left over, small towns and small cities on the windward coastlines of large bodies of water in Australia, New Zealand, Africa, South America and so on that would survive and repopulate the Earth. Just like the uber plague fantasies, even if you killed 99% of the population the survivors will repopulate.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')fter the oil becomes unaffordable, food gets scarce, and the struggle for limited resources flares into nuclear warfare, and everybody dies.

2) A very few (less than 1%) of the human race migrates into space habitats.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he idea that a full on nuclear war could wipe out the human race is pure Hollywood fantasy. Even if you managed to strike every city with 25,000 or more inhabitants (there are not enough warheads to do that but leave that aside) there would be many locals left over, small towns and small cities on the windward coastlines of large bodies of water in Australia, New Zealand, Africa, South America and so on that would survive and repopulate the Earth. Just like the uber plague fantasies, even if you killed 99% of the population the survivors will repopulate.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he idea that a full on nuclear war could wipe out the human race is pure Hollywood fantasy. Even if you managed to strike every city with 25,000 or more inhabitants (there are not enough warheads to do that but leave that aside) there would be many locals left over, small towns and small cities on the windward coastlines of large bodies of water in Australia, New Zealand, Africa, South America and so on that would survive and repopulate the Earth. Just like the uber plague fantasies, even if you killed 99% of the population the survivors will repopulate.

[Lore]

Not so difficult, there have been five in the past and we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. Animals are going extinct 100 to 1,000 times (possibly even 1,000 to 10,000 times) faster than at the normal background extinction rate. That is about 10 to 25 species per year. The rate will only increase from here on out. Scientists estimate that this extinction event is happening even faster than the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs. That means we are heading into the realm of the Permian-Triassic extinction event which ended about 95% of all species life on the planet.

We will have a lot more than capitalism to worry about saving in the coming century. No happy movie ending here.

[dohboi]

Nice rant by ccg at neven's forums...worth sharing, but now sure where else to put it:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he grid is more fragile than you might think - especially extrapolating into the future.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120 ... heat-water

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-13971005

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14911

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013 ... gem-chief/

One of the problems with a modern grid is that while it's a great way of distributing the power, if demand goes too high - large sections collapse. You can't easily control the demand, it has to fall within the reserve capacity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/world ... d=all&_r=0

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... ackout.htm

So you make energy more expensive? So that less is consumed? (it will get more expensive as resources shrink anyway)

Trouble is that doesn't work past a point economically - there is an optimum profitability and maximum effective price you can set. Above that price you start to erode your profitability by destroying demand.

How do you maintain the grid at the point at which people aren't prepared (or able) to pay for it? Almost by definition - there is a maximum energy price you can have above which your ability to maintain and repair the grid is actually eroded. If you can't deliver the energy profitably the grid eventually dies, and first you cut back maintenance and investment.

[kublikhan]

You don't have to cut back on maintenance and investment. You can run the grid at a loss. Most mass transit systems are run this way and yet continue to operate at a loss year after year.

[Quinny]

Most mass transit systems are subsidised heavily by the public sector.

[kublikhan]

Exactly my point.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'E')xactly my point.

[americandream]

I have been casting my eye over this thread and noted that with certain detractors, they would rather envision horror and famine rather than an intelligent co-operation in the turmoil laden late years of capital.

If this isn't a characterisation of malfunctioning cognitive capacity, I don't know what is. There certainly will be a lot of the clinically insane to deal with, apart from your regular bad types.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
')Well if we were to adopt a worldwide socialist system we would no longer have to worry about growth and the overpopulation problem would quickly resolve itself.

[Quinny]

As Socialism takes over the world by means of a relatively peaceful revolution. The population will become better educated and also feel more secure as has happened in the democracies of western europe (these are often described as Socialist, by many on this forum but are quite clearly not). People will focus more on producing goods and services to meet needs not wants and greed. They will also contribute according to their ability and hence lead more fulfilling lives. In such circumstances they will be content to limit reproduction and so population will stabilise then slide back to more sustainable levels.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'A')s Socialism takes over the world by means of a relatively peaceful revolution. The population will become better educated and also feel more secure as has happened in the democracies of western europe (these are often described as Socialist, by many on this forum but are quite clearly not). People will focus more on producing goods and services to meet needs not wants and greed. They will also contribute according to their ability and hence lead more fulfilling lives. In such circumstances they will be content to limit reproduction and so population will stabilise then slide back to more sustainable levels.

[ralfy]

Given resource consumption levels the last six decades and trends for a growing global middle class, not to mention most human beings lacking basic needs, I do not think a world socialist system will take place.

As for concerns regarding the climate, if not the environment, these will come too late.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'G')iven resource consumption levels the last six decades and trends for a growing global middle class, not to mention most human beings lacking basic needs, I do not think a world socialist system will take place.

As for concerns regarding the climate, if not the environment, these will come too late.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', '
')Material dialecticism is a subtle force and subject to dynamics that link in with our biological makeup. How adaptation emerges as a consequence, if any, will determine whether we survive. Of course, going by the sentiment of some of the more unhinged posters on this site, one does wonder.