[pkwonofsocal]

Quite a few of the so-called 1.6 billion 'off-the-grid' people were very adversely effected by the recent tsunami. Their 'off-the-gridness' actually HURT them because there was no way to transport supplies.

People simply don't understand that in the modern world there are no 'islands'.

Any kind of soft landing will prolong energy consumption and earth destruction.

In my opinion, half of the world population will die within a half-year time period. Whatever happens after that is anybody's guess.

Soft Landing, which will let most of the consumers live, will finish off the earth probably for millions of years by giving them enough time to polish off the earth's remaining resources.

Human nature does not call for conservation, etc. If a tribe conserves an environment, there will always be another tribe which want to come in and take everything for little cost.

[Colorado-Valley]

A world population growing at 90 million (the size of Mexico) a year means there will be no soft landing.

Even if you drive a Prius and recycle your newspapers.

[CoolHandLuke]

Exactly. You'd all better hope the landing is as hard as can be, that way 9 out of 10 people won't be here in the next 20 years, and the remainder may just have a chance.

A dismal picture, but we all brought this on ourselves. If any of us want to blame anyone, look in the mirror and start there.

Enjoy the w/e.

CHL.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')uman nature does not call for conservation, etc.

[Golgo13]

Native American culture called for total conservation.

There was no part of the buffalo that they did not use.

[tmazanec1]

If we could bring affluence to the planet, our population would stablize and nanotechnology could actually reduce each person's "footprint". It is the Third World that is growing, the West is actually stable except for the US which has heavy immigration. Read Drexler about nanotechnology and the environment. A soft landing does NOT HAVE to mean Soylent Green.

[Sencha]

Nanotechnology is more science fiction than science fact at this point. It will never be fully developed to save us before TSHTF. Besides, like the subject of this thread states, a soft landing will be worse. Nantechnology would actually be a bad thing.

I guess the only exception would be if nanotechnology could somehow be used after the crash to help the people that are already left. But after the dust settles, I'd say the odds of something like that happening are slim to none.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'I')f we could bring affluence to the planet, our population would stablize and nanotechnology could actually reduce each person's "footprint". It is the Third World that is growing, the West is actually stable except for the US which has heavy immigration. Read Drexler about nanotechnology and the environment. A soft landing does NOT HAVE to mean Soylent Green.

[tmazanec1]

The US with less than 5% of the world's people accounts for 25% of energy consumption and 40-50% of resource consumption, and produces 70% of the world's pollution no matter where you find it. Now, who has the bigger footprint? The US is the most over populated country in the world. Stable? Even at 1% growth the population doubles in 70 years. Do the math.
_________________
The formula is Impact = Population * Affluence / Technology. The reason we have such an impact on our environment is because our technology is so primitive. My iPod has far less impact on the environment than a collection of several thousand vinyl disks. The reason America has such a percentage of impact is because it is so affluent. I admit we could cut the affluence some, say to Japanese level, and I would still be happy. In compensation, raise the Second and Third World's affluence. And we are having replacement levels of childbirth, but everybody likes to cuss out America but they all want to live here. If we had equal immigration and emmigration we would not have that 1% growth rate.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f we could bring affluence to the planet,

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'T')he reason we have such an impact on our environment is because our technology is so primitive. My iPod has far less impact on the environment than a collection of several thousand vinyl disks. The reason America has such a percentage of impact is because it is so affluent. I admit we could cut the affluence some, say to Japanese level, and I would still be happy. In compensation, raise the Second and Third World's affluence. And we are having replacement levels of childbirth, but everybody likes to cuss out America but they all want to live here. If we had equal immigration and emigration we would not have that 1% growth rate.

[Tyler_JC]

We do NOT produce 70% of the world's pollution. We do not use 70% of the world's resources. A lot of our industry has been moved to other countries. That pollution is now coming from China, Mexico, and the rest of the "Developing" world. Have you seen Mexico City or Beijing recently? Then look at Pittsburgh (which used to be the steel capital of the world), no comparison. America's heavy industry has been moved.

I would say our pollution number is closer 1/3 of the total. We may be wasteful, but we could not possibly by that wasteful.

It might depend on how you credit pollution. I have a plastic toy that was imported from China. I throw it in a garbage dump. The actually production of the toy happened in China. America is stuck with the thing in one of its landfills. Is America responsible for the pollution associated with the toy's production? If so, America might be producing 50% of all of the world's pollution.

[tmazanec1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f we could bring affluence to the planet,

[tmazanec1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'T')he reason we have such an impact on our environment is because our technology is so primitive. My iPod has far less impact on the environment than a collection of several thousand vinyl disks. The reason America has such a percentage of impact is because it is so affluent. I admit we could cut the affluence some, say to Japanese level, and I would still be happy. In compensation, raise the Second and Third World's affluence. And we are having replacement levels of childbirth, but everybody likes to cuss out America but they all want to live here. If we had equal immigration and emigration we would not have that 1% growth rate.

[Tyler_JC]

In an economic downturn, do the birth rate drop and the death rate rise? I believe that is what happened during the Great Depression. People delayed marriage and put off having children. Poor living conditions lower lifespan for the average person. Even without a mass starvation/die off in the US, wouldn't the population decrease?

Also in a downturn, there is less immigration. If transportation costs increase, people won't be able to flee to a far away land like America. Asians stay in Asia. Africans are stuck in Africa. Europeans can't afford the trip across The Pond. In the past, people came to the US for a better life. The very poor would save for years to get here. But what happens when their savings don't buy them a ticket? They don't come.

I have a feeling that by the end of the decade, the population of the USA will be flat or declining. The anti-immigration movement will become very loud and very angry at the sight of more poor people using up resources. I see a big movement to stop illegal immigration coming by 2010.

The same thing will not happen for Europe. Europe doesn't have an ocean to protect it from the masses. Illegal immigration from the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia will hurt Europe's prospects for sustainable living. But given Europe's other advantages, I'd say they have about an equal chance of surviving post peak as the US and Canada.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', ' ')Primitive technology compared to nanotechnology, yes. The Third World's affluence is what makes it so small, they don't HAVE any significant affluence. The taxes and other cultural measures in western Europe would be a great idea for America, I agree. The energy from nanotech solar can be used to reverse the entropy...that is how the biosphere does it, with leaves. And what is the birth rate per mother? THIS is what determines long term population growth...we are roughly at replacement level, especially if you remember immigrants tend to have larger families.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'W')e do NOT produce 70% of the world's pollution. We do not use 70% of the world's resources. A lot of our industry has been moved to other countries. That pollution is now coming from China, Mexico, and the rest of the "Developing" world. Have you seen Mexico City or Beijing recently? Then look at Pittsburgh (which used to be the steel capital of the world), no comparison. America's heavy industry has been moved.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')n an economic downturn, do the birth rate drop and the death rate rise? I believe that is what happened during the Great Depression. People delayed marriage and put off having children. Poor living conditions lower lifespan for the average person. Even without a mass starvation/die off in the US, wouldn't the population decrease?

[tmazanec1]

We seem to be using stable population in two senses.

How would life change if the world's population shrank? That question is no longer hypothetical. Germany is shrinking, and the working-age population of Italy is expected to fall 41 percent by 2050. Japan is shrinking. America is not, but our birthrate is down to a level that implies eventual shrinkage. Even Mexico's birthrate may now be below the replacement level of 2.1 per woman

From http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/a ... wer26.html
This is what I mean. Yes, world population will grow for awhile due to momentum, but the fertility of even American women is at or below replacenent, and Europe and Japan have virtually peaked. The estimates for world population peak I recently read were in the 8-9 billion range, less of a change (both total and percentwise) than I have seen just in my lifetime.

[tmazanec1]

As for entropy, the sun is what is growing in entropy to decrease the planet's entropy. Even our society reduces entropy at the expense of the sun, except for a little from nuclear power...either right now or a million centuries ago.