PeakOil is You
What would you do with: Absolute power?
Re: Steps to take
by TonyPrep » Mon 23 Jul 2007, 02:50:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hat you don't seem to grasp is that this population would never have been possible without fossil fuels.
I know, I know, I know! But that doesn't mean the current population isn't sustainable. Yes, we've got here this quickly through the one time energy boost of fossil fuels. However, you're erroneously inferring, from that, that this population could never otherwise be possible, under any circumstances, with any type of lifestyle and food producing arrangements. I don't think that is true. Some of the studies in the articles you cite showed estimates that exceed the current population, though most are lower. Also, some consider current lifestyles. All I'm saying is that I believe that there is some lifestyle, that most could come to regard as satisfying, that would allow a carrying capacity at least equal to the current population, provided that appropriate land allocation, food producing methods, and so on, are adopted globally.
I'm not sure what is so hard to grasp here. But, I'll say again that I don't expect the appropriate changes to be made either globally or in a timely manner to allow the human ecological footprint to fall to sustainable levels with the current population.
Tony
-
TonyPrep - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Re: Steps to take
by PenultimateManStanding » Mon 23 Jul 2007, 04:35:11
These are the sorts of arguments that I find completely tedious, carried on year after year. Then come the pointless subtle distinctions between 'doomers' and 'die-off''. Some people have no idea how rigid and doctrinaire they sound.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: Steps to take
by MonteQuest » Mon 23 Jul 2007, 12:49:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hat you don't seem to grasp is that this population would never have been possible without fossil fuels.
I know, I know, I know! But that doesn't mean the current population isn't sustainable. Yes, we've got here this quickly through the one time energy boost of fossil fuels. However, you're erroneously inferring, from that, that this population could never otherwise be possible, under any circumstances, with any type of lifestyle and food producing arrangements. This is not erroneous. This is reality.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'T')he total population of the world has remained essentially constant for most of the history of mankind. World population fluctuated between 10 million and 300 million for most of the last 10,000 years, never reaching 1 billion until about 1850. The biggest single factor in preventing sustained population growth has been infectious diseases. They were our human predator, and they helped to keep our population in check.
As vaccines and improved treatment insured more people survived to adulthood and their child-bearing years, the birth rate increased dramatically. After 10,000 years with no significant sustained population growth, the world population grew from about 1 billion in 1850 to 2 billion by 1930, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by the late 1980's, and 6.4 billion in 2005, changing the ecology of the entire planet in less than 200 years. And without the advent of fossil fuels, these populations could not have been sustained, and would have gone the way of Malthus.
Only totalitarian argriculture was able to produce food at this level.
Industrial argriculture, by it's very nature is unsustainable.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon 23 Jul 2007, 12:55:29, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
