[Laurasia]

Hi: I read this scary article on the Safehaven website today. I did a search but couldn't find anything mentioned about it on this forum. The article is about finances but also talks about Die-Off.

Here is a link: (hope it works)

http://www.safehaven.com/article-4652.htm

Anyway if the link doesn't work the article is called Fear: The Mother of Violence, on the Safehaven website.

Regards,

L.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n that case the number of individuals for which innovation will be sufficient will be considerably limited.

[gego]

On this site I have posted my conclusion that the human population is beyond three standard deviations from its mean value.

If you look at the long term human population chart, which has gone into the vertical part of the growth curve, and you fit a trend to that overall curve, the trend is relatively flat with only a slightly positive slope. Where this trend line is today is the mean historic value and that value is below 1 billion.

Anyone who has an understanding of standard deviations knows that, when applied to a time series, the values cannot exceed three standard deviations from the mean for more than 2 1/2% of the time. Anyone who has seen time series in action knows that the forces of nature will cause a "return to the mean".

In nonstatistical terms, the human population is out on a limb and must return to a sustinable. Statistical tools just tell us that this sustainable level is somewhere under 1 billion.

I have never seen a real life time series that did not return sharply toward the mean after a short visit to the netherland beyond the third standard deviation. A recent example was the break in the NASDAQ composite index from above 5,000 in March, 2000 down to 1,140 in October, 2002, before it stabilized. The mean value in October, 2002, was about 1,400 so actually the break overshot the mean. The last time the value of the NASDAQ composite was at the mean before it went into the steep part of its curve was around April, 1993, so it took 83 months to run up to an unreasonable value, and then took just 31 months to come back down. The collapse time was about 37% of the time the series was in the steep runup phase. Some people look for a 31% relationship to be typical. Since the human population was last at its mean 500 years ago, were the peak in human population to occur now it would probably take somewhere around 170 to 187 years to collapse back down before it stabilized.

It certainly looks like the trigger for the collapse in human population will be peak oil. Don't expect the collapse in population to be a straight line down. Phase one will be one where conservation and substitution mitigate population loss. When conservation and substitution no longer help the second phase will be where huge losses occur. Once the population gets down to a lesser excess and closer to sustainability the rate of death will slow down, but this third phase should be the longest until we finally reach or overshoot the 700,000 to 1 billion level.

If you don't want to understand the danger to the human population from the statistical approach, then go read Richard Duncan's analysis of electrical spikes. The has a computational method to determine how a spike unwinds. If this is applied to long term human population growth, and the spike in human population, the results are not dissimilar to what I described above.

I think the article referenced in this thread must be read with reference to the time frame of the human bubble. We all have a tendency to think things are going to happen overnight, and while in relationship to the history of the human species the bubble unwinding will be "overnight", in relationship to one human lifespan it will be a long drawn out process. You still have plenty of time to wait around to be part of the dieoff.

[gg3]

Excellent analysis, gego. I like your methods, and I don't have much to add to what you already said.

Except to say that even the long ride down the slope will be a bitch, and it's entirely possible that PO will be supplemented with the effects of disease, wars, other shortages e.g. water, and climate change.

And, I've been thinking that the sustainable level of human population is closer to 2 billion. Time to revise that downward by 50%.

On the other hand, think of the upside. Land will be cheap:-)

[linlithgowoil]

just not entirely sure that your statistical methods apply to human population levels. surely, if we find another energy source or make the transition fairly easily (which we might), then the human population would not collapse. it is more than likely, in my opinion, that the population will level off at some point - not sure what point that would be, but if you look at ricehr countries, many are in negative population growth right now and population growth appears to be slowing naturally.

also, there is a lot of 'fat' to be cut from our current energy usage remember. on the downslope of oil production, i predict massive increases in efficiencies, far less use overall and a big switch to alternatives, which will likely mitigate pretty much all of the problems - apart from the inevitable economic recession that would ensue.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')lso, there is a lot of 'fat' to be cut from our current energy usage remember. on the downslope of oil production, i predict massive increases in efficiencies, far less use overall and a big switch to alternatives, which will likely mitigate pretty much all of the problems - apart from the inevitable economic recession that would ensue.

[Permanently_Baffled]

Aaron.

I think you refer to Jevons paradox.

Which I think holds true in an environment of increasing energy availability, ie conservation just make the resource cheaper so we just end up with more energy users but the overall consumption continues to rise.

But , energy availability is about to start decreasing. So does jevons still hold true? You cannot consume what isn't produced. Will prices remain high anyway due to the realisation that the resource is becoming more and more scarce? (investors holding onto oil and restricting supply for higher prices?)

Conservation / efficiency in a declining energy situation will be about getting more out of the energy that is available to economies and societies(less being available because of geology and price). Countries will struggle to finance their oil bills , so the more you can get out of what you can afford the better?

In the end markets and human behaviour are not perfect, but declining energy availability will mean energy will end up reserved for essential uses via government intervention or by pricing, surely people/economies/societies will have to make difficult decisions from bottom to top. For us normal grunts, do you spend your limited income on food or a package holiday? Of course it will be the former and by default oil has been allocated to essential industries.

Of course this is all a bit simplistic. God knows how the financial system will look and how we will find people work to earn money to buy goods etc etc

I also acknowledge your fear of war. History unfortunately backs you up , I just hope the fear of MAD will prevent the big boys kicking off!

[Falconoffury]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut if you look at ricehr countries, many are in negative population growth right now

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'i')t is more than likely, in my opinion, that the population will level off at some point - not sure what point that would be, but if you look at ricehr countries, many are in negative population growth right now and population growth appears to be slowing naturally.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', 'D')efine many. To my knowledge, very few countries are shrinking in population.

[MrBill]

Well, unless you belong to a certain religion that subscribes to the view that more people equals more souls to save, or want your religion/tribe/clan to win the population race, do less people matter? I certainly do not think that 6 billion people is better than 3 billion people and I do think that 9 billion is worse than 6 billion if we are talking about a sustainable planet. I think fewer people living in a sustainable manner is better than more living in poverty?

If you tell me the number is 1 billion, sobeit. I am not in a position to argue with you. Great then let's plan on a smooth transition from 9-10 billion in 50-years to 1 billion in 175-years. I am sure the natural world and the animal kingdom will not miss those extra consuming units. However, as far as 37% and 31% I think if you are referring to fibinacci numbers they are in the magnitude of 38.2% retracements. The most popular fibs are 0.382/0.500/0.618 and they are found throughout expansions and contractions of populations, etc. The so called natural numbers.

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')ell, do less people matter?

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Plus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')ell, do less people matter?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')onservation / efficiency in a declining energy situation will be about getting more out of the energy that is available to economies and societies(less being available because of geology and price). Countries will struggle to finance their oil bills , so the more you can get out of what you can afford the better?

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')onservation / efficiency in a declining energy situation will be about getting more out of the energy that is available to economies and societies(less being available because of geology and price). Countries will struggle to finance their oil bills , so the more you can get out of what you can afford the better?

[linlithgowoil]

i dont get how many 'doomers' simply spout things like 'but what about jevon's paradox!' and totally discount any other possible future other than die off.

jevons paradox isnt a law. its an observation which, i would argue, does not hold true in all cases.

i sometimes think people such as aaron simply have this closed off mind and they only select 'evidence' or theories that support their preferred viewpoint - which is 'die off' and the sky is falling.

admit it - you have made up your mind there will be a die off and even if conclusive evidence to the contrary slapped you across the face you'd simply ignore it. and doomers talk about how bad economists etc. are at this? its hilarious really.

and anyway, i wish people would stop believing all the crap that is on the internet. you do realise any idiot can post anything they want on the internet dont you? - ( and i include myself in this before anyone says anything)

[linlithgowoil]

double post

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')In economics, the Jevons' Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.
"Watt's innovations made coal a more cost effective power source, leading to increased use of his steam engine in a wide range of industries. This in turn made total coal consumption rise, even as the amount of coal required for any particular application fell."

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'i') dont get how many 'doomers' simply spout things like 'but what about jevon's paradox!' and totally discount any other possible future other than die off.

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') and doomers talk about how bad economists etc. are at this? its hilarious really.