PeakOil is You
THE "What If ..." Thread (merged)
by Omnitir » Tue 21 Jun 2005, 05:02:25
But there were many really great things that came about because of oil. Oil is not the problem, it's the internal combustion engine that screwed us. Just imagine if you had a time machine and stopped everyone who began developing the engine, which results in cars never being invented. The vast quantities of oil wouldn’t have been wasted on private transport, and urban sprawl would not be the problem it is today. Even with fossil fuel inputs into agriculture, I believe without the internal combustion engine the population would not have gotten out of control like it did.
-
Omnitir - Tar Sands
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
by entropyfails » Wed 22 Jun 2005, 01:54:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'C')ertainly the 'one child' policy would be the most dramatic. Think... human population could be on the decline 9 months from today....
This is one of the most misunderstood things about population. If a zero population growth policy were instituted today, it would take 50 years before there was a net decline in the population due to demographics.
The only way to reduce the population quickly is to reverse the process that increased it, i.e., increase the death rate.
Yeah, but at least we have begun to see a consensus of the magnitude of the population issue. *grin*
As for the population reduction, it will happen naturally as long as we produce less food each year. Natural fertility processes would enact themselves to take care of the “population growth” problem and probably increased death rates, depending on how we choose to share the declining calories. It will still look like a “crash” by any definition of the word.
As long as we walk on a “expand forever” strategy, we will cause us ourselves a hard population crash. Due to massive death increases as vital support systems get destroyed and due to inter-human competition in those situations, human death rates would rise across the board. However if we choose a new way, this planet may be able to tolerate a less aggressive, yet large, human population that spends it time helping to manage the decline. Thus a “hard” crash doesn’t have to happen.
But I agree with you, understanding that forced sterility doesn’t equate with population “salvation” should come as one of the highest education priorities.
Take note people! Monte uses his "catch phrases" because he has had a long time talking about these issues and knows what works! So make good use of his knowledge. We certainly have our work cut out for us…
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
-
entropyfails - Expert
- Posts: 565
- Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
by lawnchair » Wed 22 Jun 2005, 10:42:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lawnchair', 'C')ertainly the 'one child' policy would be the most dramatic. Think... human population could be on the decline 9 months from today....
This is one of the most misunderstood things about population. If a zero population growth policy were instituted today, it would take 50 years before there was a net decline in the population due to demographics.
Yes, but on the extreme I'm still right. Not with 'zero population growth', but with 'zero fscking'. With a 'zero babies' policy, there would indeed be fewer people ten months from today than nine months from today. A 'one-child per female, but please don't' policy would start declining population reasonably quickly.
-
lawnchair - Tar Sands
- Posts: 866
- Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
)
