[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', 'T')he point is that you don't really need much energy to live. In fact, roughly two-thirds of world population already lives and multiplies without the comforts of western civilization.

[shady28]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')Well, the least amount of energy you need to live is what you would carry in your body (fats, carbs, proteins), sufficient enough to walk to where the food is growing.

Unfortunately, over 6 billion people still rely on the cheap-energy-support system to provide their food, and their ways of life. They don't live in places where sufficient food will be easy to obtain without pesticides, trucks, refrigeration, etc.

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', 'T')here's where you're wrong. Re-read the article and think about the numbers.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', 'A') most important fallacy here is the direct causal relationship between energy and world population. Consider this : half the world lives on $2 per day or less. Over 1.2 billion people live on $1 per day or less.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'W')hen I think about peak oil and the implications for population I don't really worry about much of the developed world. As energy prices move higher, the cost of food will increase appropriately but the developed nations will continue being able to afford fuel and food.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'F')or a while. But as oil and gas, and by implication food, becomes scarcer, even the developed world won't be able to buy what isn't there. So perhaps you ought to worry a bit more about the developed world. I assume you're part of it?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'F')or a while. But as oil and gas, and by implication food, becomes scarcer, even the developed world won't be able to buy what isn't there. So perhaps you ought to worry a bit more about the developed world. I assume you're part of it?

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', 'C')ontrary to your assumption, we do not feed the world. We mostly feed ourselves.

[gego]

If you are interested in the previous dialog on dieoff this is the thread:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html

If one looks at a chart of the human population over the last 1,500 years, the departure from a steady, but very small yearly increase, began a little after 1600AD. This departure became increasingly dramatic, and is now in a nearly vertical climb. It took all of human history to reach about 500,000 population, and in less than 400 years we climbed from 500,000 to 6.5 billion.

There was a reason that the population never before climbed to the present dramatic level, and I think that reason was that we only figured out how to get enough surplus at any one time to support less than 500,000. Technology is the knowledge to make use of resources; both must be present, and as our knowledge increased and was applied to resources, we generated greater and greater surpluses, hence population levels responded to the availability of things to support it, and also increased. I think there is an obvious cause and effect.

I think that in the future population levels must follow the availability of things to support us. It should be obvious that energy technology is at the base of this surplus explosion; the oil age, as discussed throughout this board, is about to come to a relatively abrupt end. I think the best bet is that human population will snap back to historic norms as the rest of the energy age ends.

Ultimately, I think we must return to what we know the planet can support absent the energy and resources we have depleted, and this level is under 500,000. All the remaining energy and resources will not disappear overnight, so Duncan's argument that the initial dieoff will take us back to about 2 billion by 2050 is to my mind reasonable. We can judge what the planet can support at various energy/resource levels from past experience.

In response to the ever reducing level of energy/resources many will experience conservation, then deprivation, then death. The argument that we can all live in deprivation indefinitely, as the third world does today, does not take into account the crumbs from the industrial world that find their way to assist these who supposedly live without the benefit of todays surpluses, nor does it consider what the effect would be if life expectancy in the industrial population fell to that in the third world.

We had our party, even though some were not invited, and the hangover is next.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')Well, the least amount of energy you need to live is what you would carry in your body (fats, carbs, proteins), sufficient enough to walk to where the food is growing.

Unfortunately, over 6 billion people still rely on the cheap-energy-support system to provide their food, and their ways of life. They don't live in places where sufficient food will be easy to obtain without pesticides, trucks, refrigeration, etc.

[Revi]

The poor may die first. I used to live in a third world country. It's always the people at the bottom who go first. They are on the edge. Even if they use very little fossil fuel, that could be the difference between live and death. People sold their eggs to buy more corn. Life at the bottom doesn't allow much room for price increases. People around here (in Maine) are on the edge as well. As the price of gas goes up they are finding it harder and harder to drive to their jobs. Heating oil is taking more and more money out of their paychecks. Even the price of food is becoming too much for people.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')ince you didn't comment on scarcer oil and gas, presumably you agree that no matter how much we can afford to pay, we can't buy more than what is produced. So even if food can somehow keep up, the other uses of oil and gas will decline in the developed world. And that will certainly have an effect.

[Ludi]

TigPil, so you're saying, if I understand you, that you don't consider the death from starvation of up to 4 billion people to be catastrophic?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'r')esults in a global carrying capacity of around 2 billion people with only pre-industrial energy inputs. If we retain some advanced forms of energy production then we can do much better.

[gego]

It sounds to me like we are quibbling over the exact details of a horror show.

Essentially if you compare circumstances in the past and the resulting population supported, and then use this as a model for the future there will be some additional factors to consider. One is how residual knowledge from the industrial age will affect our ability to survive in the future. Another is the fact that in the past resources were much more abundant and many were more accessible than the resources that will be available post peak. There are others, such as overshoot, so arguments could be made for the best and worst case. So we can only estimate and hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')igPil, so you're saying, if I understand you, that you don't consider the death from starvation of up to 4 billion people to be catastrophic?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'A')nother is the fact that in the past resources were much more abundant and many were more accessible than the resources that will be available post peak.

[TigPil]

What non-fossil fuel resources are we talking about? The only ones I can think of are:

1) Water (subject to aquifer depletion and pollution)
2) Arable land (subject to topsoil erosion, dessication, waterlogging, salniation)
3) Strategic metals

Water isn't really a problem once the population contracts. Aquifers should start to replenish as irrigation usage declines and desalination is always an option in some areas. Arable land that experienced topsoil erosion can still be used although it will have to be fallowed more frequently and subject to more sustainable cultivation. Some other types of land loss may not be as easily remedied and may require decades if not centuries to recover. Strategic metals can always be recycled although the cost of extracting the materials from manufactured goods may be substantially higher than mining. I guess gego is probably right when it comes to arable land and strategic metals.

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'T')he poor may die first. I used to live in a third world country. It's always the people at the bottom who go first. They are on the edge. Even if they use very little fossil fuel, that could be the difference between live and death. People sold their eggs to buy more corn. Life at the bottom doesn't allow much room for price increases. People around here (in Maine) are on the edge as well. As the price of gas goes up they are finding it harder and harder to drive to their jobs. Heating oil is taking more and more money out of their paychecks. Even the price of food is becoming too much for people.

[SchroedingersCat]

TigPil, I am quite impressed with the quality of your posts. Especially for a new poster. Care to introduce yourself?