Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

There is no future!

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: There is no future!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 12 Aug 2007, 20:13:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', ' ')And as many of this sort of threads do, it s turning into a usless flame war about who is smarter than who.

The topic of how and why fertility rates are dropping is hardly useless or crap.

And if you see this as just a pissing match, you are missing a lot of the facts. I never debate to win the debate or prove anything, but to get the facts right. You just have a bug up your ass.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: There is no future!

Unread postby mkwin » Mon 13 Aug 2007, 18:27:22

Monte - I put it to you, it is you who has cherry-picked this article and ignored or glossed over some of the key points made by the article and, just to top it of, you reach the exact opposite conclusion of the author.

Let’s take a look at your statement: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')I think you need to read up on demographic transition. The drop in fertility rates in the developed world is due to a rising standard of living fueled by fossil fuels over the last 40 years. It is not a direct conscious choice. It is a short-lived decline that will not continue post-peak to drop the fertility rate in the developing countries...as assumed by those who predict a population stabilizing at 9.1 billion in 2050.”

Now let’s take some of your points and look at them and what the article says:
1) The drop in fertility rates in the developed world is due to a rising standard of living fueled by fossil fuels
2) It is not a direct conscious choice
3) It is a short-lived decline that will not continue post-peak to drop the fertility rate in the developing countries

1 You states: The drop in fertility rates in the developed world is due to a rising standard of living fueled by fossil fuels

The article states: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')In Europe and North America, the Demographic Transition occurred over two centuries - gradually, as hygienic practices changed, medicine improved and other factors lowered death rates, women grew up noticing "hey,five kids aren't necessary”

So the author proposes several reasons:
1) Hygienic practices
2) Medicine improvements
3) Women choosing to have less children
Both the first two reasons cited have little or nothing to do with fossil fuels. They were driven by scientific advancement, a process that was under way centuries before fossil fuels were harnessed.

It is not directed exactly to this statement but the next quote also contradicts your overall opinion, that fossil fuels = wealth = rising standard of living = lower fertility rates
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he current, ongoing demographic transition is not, as it is commonly thought, primarily a feature of the rich world. Poor nations as diverse as Albania, Costa Rica, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Philippines have rapidly declining birth rates

Could you really attribute a rising standard of living in all these countries? Not really. What reason does the author give for the fall in birth rate in ‘poor’ countries?
1) Available commodities
2) Medical care
3) Women have literacy rates and political power

Further: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') 1994 study by Yale Economist Paul Schultz fournd that female literacy was perhaps the most defining factor in TFR in poor nations.

So while food and commodities could possibly be linked with fossil fuels. The second two can not. Most importantly, the key, or as the author states “the defining factor”, is women’s literacy rates. Or, part of the emancipation of women and this has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

Now I want to be fair so I will include the paragraph you ‘cherry picked’. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')enerally speaking, the demographic transition occurs as a result of a certain degree of wealth - that is, there's now money for infrastructure improvements such as water systems and sewers. But very poor nations can and sometimes do prioritize these solutions

This quote is the first time the author has mentioned the word wealth. It is just a generalisation, It even states what he really means is infrastructure and even ‘very’ poor nations can prioritize these functions.

The next part (6 paragraphs) of the article continues to talk about the main reasons and they are:
1) Education
2) Food security
3) Social security
4) Health care
5) Sexual practices (rape, marriage, prostitution and birth control)
6) Freedom from war
Now where do fossil fuels fit in? $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n fact, it turns out that the total investment in reducing world fertility levels voluntarily is comparatively low. Because most of the changes are human powered, low input, and comparatively cheap. That is, most of what would be required would simply be to prioritize these things. Fossil fuels, for example are not required to have small local schools, small amounts of fossil and renewable energy are required for some basic medications, but as we can see from the timing of the European and North American example, the demographic transition in the rich world was mostly not a product of fossil fuel based medicine, but a result of improvements in nutrition, hygeine and access to food and water. Political power for women is not a product of fossil fuels either. States can far better afford price supports for local farmers and public cafeterias where prices are kept low than they can afford war, famine relief, etc...

So while the food element could be related to fossil fuels many other elements do not.

2 You state: It is not a direct conscious choice

The article states: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is, people tend to have about the number of children they wantregardless of access to birth control. The question is how do people come to want a particular family size. And the answer to that question is that generally speaking, people make fairly rational choices, based on their personal economics, their personal situation, their need to have a child of a particular sex, their need for workers, their need for someone to help them in old age

Now call me ignorant, but isn’t this completely contradicting your statement? Yes, birth control is not a hugely important factor (15%) but making choices about family size is exactly what this article is saying. Now all the factors I listed, emancipation of women, birth control and abortion, play a part in this choice.

Further, the article states: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ime and time again, studies like Pritchett's on "Desired Fertility" demonstrate that women worldwide, in every situation, mostly make fairly rational choices for themselves about their family size
Need I say more?

3 You state: It is a short-lived decline that will not continue post-peak to drop the fertility rate in the developing countries

Yet the author states: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an we do this in the face of peak oil and climate change? Absolutely.
Further: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he UN estimates that World Population will stabilize between 8.5 and 9 billion people by 2050, and then gradually begin to decline. There's fairly compelling evidence that we can feed that many people, if we chose to do so, and if we choose to act justly. That would mean giving up ethanol, reducing our meat consumption, and radically reducing our consumption of goods. It would mean living a much simpler lifestyle, and devoting more of the resources of the rich world, while we have them, to education, health and welfare and sharing our good fortune. The benefits we reap would be enormous. Worldwide, nations that have prioritized food security, basic health care and stability for its populace have seen an average fall of their TFR to below 2 - in many cases, well below it. At that rate, by 2150, the world's whole population would be below 3 billion, without a massive die off.
So, your point was partly valid, but it wasn’t the complete picture. Food and infrastructure are important but there are other very significant factors – health, education, political freedom and security. Especially the emancipation of women - identified as a ‘defining’ factor.
In fact, the author reach’s the conclusion these factors are not insurmountable due to peak oil. I’m not so positive. I don’t think Americans will give up burgers to feed Africans. So back to my original point, populations will continue to stablise and decline in the developed world and much of the developing world. Die-off could occur in Africa and parts Asia. The article you posted doesn’t contradict my view, in fact it goes further and suggests die-off won’t occur at all.

Sorry for the long post, but I didn’t want to be accused of cherry picking again. I look forward to your undoubted response.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: There is no future!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 14 Aug 2007, 01:46:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'M')onte - I put it to you, it is you who has cherry-picked this article and ignored or glossed over some of the key points made by the article and, just to top it of, you reach the exact opposite conclusion of the author.


No, it was one of many links I have on transition demographics and I didn't read it carefully enough. It was a poor choice to post.

Here is a link to comments on her article:

Comments

I disagree with many of her statements, especially the ones about their being fairly compelling evidence we could feed 8 to 9 billion and avoid a die-off.

Food does not a carrying capacity make.

Where she does hit it correctly is here:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an we do this in the face of peak oil and climate change? Absolutely. ...But what would be required is that we make it a priority - that we reallocate wealth from rich nations to poor ones, something that would require, among other things, a real reduction in worldwide emphasis on short term, national interests.


Thus raising their standard of living.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')oth the first two reasons cited have little or nothing to do with fossil fuels. They were driven by scientific advancement, a process that was under way centuries before fossil fuels were harnessed.


Demographic transition happens through phases. The 3rd phase of four is when the fertility rate declines. The phase when fossil fuels are at play.

Demographic transition is an observation of history.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n general the decline in birth rates in developed countries began towards the end of the 19th century.


I noticed you didn't respond to this one:

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION

Demographic transition describes the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economy.

Here's a much better source to support my position.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')alling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of female education and employment.

Over the last 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. These successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the "demographic transition."

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses worldwide will determine the ultimate level of the human population.

joint statement by fifty-eight of the world's scientific academies


All of this would not be possible without fossil fuels and will not continue for the developing countries.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron