by gego » Fri 24 Mar 2006, 16:55:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Plus', '
')That is the <b>biggest load of crap</b> that the we have been believing for the longest time.
One billion was the population as Malthus was writing his works BEFORE the Industrial Revolution.
Well over 2 billion (2.5 Billion?) was the population by 1900 BEFORE the age of oil came.
We could probably carry two to three times the present population at present energy consumption.
We could probably carry the present six billion without oil, although I will admit that twice that number would be a great difficulty.
So, now I ask you - do you want to bitch about Peak Oil? Or would you rather open up a childless commune?
Faith and wishful thinking may be suitable for religion, but something more scientific would be nice to support your assertion. So what is the basis for your wild claims that without oil the population will remain the same or more than it is today with oil?
My assertion is that the sustainable population is less than 1 billion and that without the artificial support of coal, oil and natural gas we will return to that sustainable level. This my thinking:
If you fit a line to the human population record from the year 0 ending with 1800 that line has a very slightly positive slope and was at about the 800 million level in 1800 which was the last time the population was at its long term trend line. Since then it has diverged substantially and is now more than three standard deviations from the extension of this trend line. I have never seen a data series that could remain in that extreme netherworld, and I think just from a statistical analysis point of view it would be foolish to bet the farm on the population remaining at 6.5 billion or greater for much longer.
Technology is the use of knowledge and when applied to the earth's resources results in the accelerated use of these resources. Technology was responsible for the extraction of coal, oil, and natural gas; it did not create these resources, but only made them accessable to and usable by mankind. The result of applying technology to economic activity (manufacturing, mining, agriculture) permitted the huge expansion of human population uncharacteristic of all prior history of mankind. As these resources are depleted, it is logical to conclude that the population, whose existence is dependent on them, will be reduced proportionately.
Without the resources upon which to apply knowledge, the "technology" will be ineffective. You may know how to make automobiles or antibiotics, but without the raw materials that knowledge is not only worthless, but having lost knowledge of more sustainable transportation and remedies, we may actually be worse off than we were in 1800.