by MonteQuest » Fri 15 May 2020, 08:30:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'M')onte, Although I generally agree with you and Heinberg (except I think the carrying capacity could be made higher).
There is one question I can't seem to resolve. Why do richer people have a lower birth rate than poor people? This seems to contradict the sugar in the yeast model. The poor are running out of sugar, they should be having less children, but they are not. The rich still have, and consume lots of sugar, their population should be flourishing, but it's declining.
So, could you please help me resolve my cognitive dissonance over this? Preferably with no insults.
I've hardly been known for insults.

But to answer your question, it's due to Demographic Transition. (Google it)
Basically, as a population urbanizes, there is a rise in the standard of living; better education, better access to health care, contraception, the emancipation of women, etc. This leads to a drop in the fertility rate. But the Catch-22 here is that DT is only possible via the sugar of fossil fuels. Make sense?
As to the carrying capacity being made higher, the pherologists that study this say we could maybe support 5 billion if we all lived like peasants. The average of all the studies ever done is around that 5 billion figure, with lots of caveats that require changing how we live dramatically.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."