[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'A')ll well and good Pops, yet I think it is those very things you cite that make me conclude we are heading for trouble. There is this persistent optomisim that things will work out, is that not the "magic hand"? ( I think you meant "silent hand"?)

At what point does the population stop growing?
At what point does this large population stop pinning for better food, more gizmos, more consumables?
At what point do we cease to over draw on the oceans bounty?
At what point do we stop dumping carbon into the atmosphere?

[Lore]

I believe this should give us some concern for where the momentum is at.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t took all of human history up to 1804 for the world's population to reach 1 billion. But the next billion came only 100 years later, in 1927. And after that, the rate of growth accelerated, 3 billion in 1959, 4 billion 1974, 5 billion 1987, 6 billion 1999, and now 7 billion.Oct 27, 2011

[Newfie]

Upon researching something totally different I came upon this from Wiki. Somewhere recently I just read current human population density is arounf of pp per square mile.

From Wiki
Edit
George Murdock and C. Provost (1973)[74] found that of all societies that have practiced human sacrifice all but one had population densities in excess of 26 people per square mile. They found a significant positive correlation of human sacrifice with high populations and inadequate food storage combined with internal warfare for land and resources. However, there was also a lack of correlation between human sacrifice and actual crop failures or famines which points to population dynamics rather than population density per se. In comparison with other societies with human sacrifice, the Aztecs were extreme in several areas. As well as the magnitude of the sacrifices, they also had the highest level of warfare for land and resources, were the only society with a high risk of famine and had the highest population pressures with more than 500 people per square mile. Ecological factors alone are not sufficient to account for human sacrifice and it is posited that religious beliefs have a significant effect on motivation.[71]

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')liberals take the cake for decrying the evils of capitalism and consumption while they live it up at Martha's Vinyard or Cape Cod. They always want to reduce somebody else's consumption.

[jedrider]

The plug on population has to be pulled eventually where we just don't want more people around. Usually, an economic dive can have that effect. We need some real famine situation AND an economic dive at the same time. People will protect their territory. Maybe, having the great wealth disparity is preparation for this. I think the resource base has to give out first for most of this to happen, but climate can just as easily knock out the food chain for us humans.

The surprising thing is that globalization means that localization might not be possible except as an end game. However, I do think that the 2000 mile salad will have to be a welcome casualty sooner rather than later.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'A')ll well and good Pops, yet I think it is those very things you cite that make me conclude we are heading for trouble. There is this persistent optomisim that things will work out, is that not the "magic hand"?

[Revi]

If we can't support more people then we have overpopulation. Look around you. There are hundreds of homeless people in the town I live in. They are probably about 5% of the population. They don't have jobs, and wander around. How do they figure in to the overpopulation myth? I have counted all over the county and every 6th house or business is abandoned. What's wrong with this picture?

[C8]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')liberals take the cake for decrying the evils of capitalism and consumption while they live it up at Martha's Vinyard or Cape Cod. They always want to reduce somebody else's consumption.

[Revi]

I agree, but I think you are using the word "liberal" like a conservative talk show host. A lot of those people who you are talking about are republicans. I live right next to the town that produces the paper for the NY Times, and the problem is that people are buying less and less papers. Those middle class enclaves are pretty incredible. They have almost no crime, since their neighborhoods are ringed with cops. They talk about their trips to exotic locales. Meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world. I envy them, but it's not my life.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')Check out any suburban liberal enclave in the US and you will see massive consumption
...
I am sure they are sitting in their air conditioned homes right now- planning their European vacation and feeling good about being morally superior to those who don't recycle. Hey- lets go out to that new restaurant!

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', ' ')I have counted all over the county and every 6th house or business is abandoned. What's wrong with this picture?

[ennui2]

Ah, the classic city vs. country debate, now with more post-peak sarcasm. Less population means less jobs and worse public services (schools, hospitals, etc...) which mean you're poorer and have a lower overall quality of life. That's why people left the countryside in the first place. This only reverses itself when the trucks stop supplying the cities and they become a zombie death-trap. That seems pretty far off now, so the advantages of living in the boonies today doesn't really compute. The best way to hedge your bets is to live near the city, bank your money, and try to buy bugout property for later.

[Pops]

Actually it has nothing to do with city vs country, merely relative value of depressed properties in Maine vs currently high demand properties in the A/C states.

Who exactly are you arguing with?

[C8]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')Check out any suburban liberal enclave in the US and you will see massive consumption
...
I am sure they are sitting in their air conditioned homes right now- planning their European vacation and feeling good about being morally superior to those who don't recycle. Hey- lets go out to that new restaurant!

[ennui2]

OK. Here we go. I have to start decoding someone's post to prove my reading-comprehension. Alright...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') its all about scoring fake morality points and proposing solutions they no have no chance of success. I am sure they are sitting in their air conditioned homes right now- planning their European vacation and feeling good about being morally superior to those who don't recycle. Hey- lets go out to that new restaurant!

[Pops]

So it seems you started a new thread to have a real discussion and leave this one for the politics and name calling

[onlooker]

Spot on Ennui. We have been and are continuing in denial mode. See the Archdruid Report as Greer now has some interesting comments about this.

[Newfie]

Pops said"
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ill we run out of resources before we get sustainable?

Dunno. I'm guessing we will be forced into lowering our expectations and so our consumption as the underlying population driven growth and energy-slave surpluses evaporate — right about the time we have to, probably not much before. Sustainability is simply living within one's means, by that measure, the regions with sub-replacement fertility and so "stagnant" economies may be ahead of the curve.

[ralfy]

It's possible to have a combination of the two, i.e., a slow decline coupled with fast crashes in various parts of the world, with both affecting each other.

[radon1]

Interesting graph