Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

How to Save Civilization

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

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby smiley » Mon 17 Sep 2007, 14:51:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m going to assume, for the sake of this discussion, that you're not actually as dense as this post implies.


Actually I am that dense :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ood surplus leads to population growth.


If food surplus creates population growth then I would like to see you explain the correlation between the pictures below. It shows the exact opposite of what you're saying.

We're no wild species running around in the Serengeti. Our reproductive cycle is not governed by drought, food surplus or shortage.

All humans have to a certain degree the capability to control the amount of ofspring they produce, whether it is by a modern hormone treatment or by periodic abstinence.

Not all practice it, but that is a matter of choice. If we choose to overpopulate the planet it is just that; a choice (and a very bad one)


Image
Population growth

Image
Food shortage
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 17 Sep 2007, 16:16:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', 'H')aving lots of children was a survival trait a lot longer than having lots of children was a destructive trait. Unfortunately, changes in evolved behavior take a long time, and our growth in survival technology is very rapid.


I kind of have to disagree. Having lots of children has generally not been a survival trait for hunter gatherers and other non-civilized peoples, but mainly for settled agriculturalists (the civilized). HG people generally could not have a lot of infants because of their nomadic behavior and the difficulty of carrying many infants from place to place. Most or all HG people limited their populations deliberately, not through disease. Disease from lack of sanitation is a feature of settled populations, not nomadic ones. Disease from lack of sanitation is an especial feature of cities.

Having lots of children has been a survival trait for maybe only 10,000 years or so, but really only for civilized cultures (the minority until recently). Not having lots of children was a survival trait for millions of years.


Re: food surplus leading to population growth - food surplus enables population growth. I agree with Smiley - population growth is a cultural "choice" enabled by food surplus.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby oowolf » Mon 17 Sep 2007, 18:40:26

"Civilization" is killing us. What needs to be "saved" is the planet. Civilization has accomplished NOTHING--but ruin for "Homo sapiens" and the exterminatation of countless species.
This little bit of negativity just happens to be the truth, sorry.
Your friendly forum Jensenite, oowolf
User avatar
oowolf
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Big Rock Candy Mountain
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 17 Sep 2007, 20:43:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'I')f food surplus creates population growth then I would like to see you explain the correlation between the pictures below. It shows the exact opposite of what you're saying.


No, they do not. The first map shows the rate of population increase in various regions, while the second map shows overall world population percentages in various regions. We're not talking about who has the most people, we're talking about who has the greatest rate of population increase, and if you bother to look into it, you will find that those countries with the slowest rate of increase have experienced the smallest percentage increase in per capita caloric consumption over the past 40 years, whereas those with the highest rate of population increase have experienced the highest percentage increase in per capita calorie intake, once again illustrating my point.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'H')aving lots of children has generally not been a survival trait for hunter gatherers and other non-civilized peoples, but mainly for settled agriculturalists (the civilized). HG people generally could not have a lot of infants because of their nomadic behavior and the difficulty of carrying many infants from place to place. Most or all HG people limited their populations deliberately, not through disease. Disease from lack of sanitation is a feature of settled populations, not nomadic ones. Disease from lack of sanitation is an especial feature of cities.


Spot on, Ludi. However,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')e: food surplus leading to population growth - food surplus enables population growth. I agree with Smiley - population growth is a cultural "choice" enabled by food surplus.


You're only half correct here. It is not a "cultural choice" (implying it's something unique to humans). This was the point of my comment on learning basic ecology earlier. Anyone who studies animal populations knows that there is a direct, universal correlation between food supply and population size. Animals don't make "cultural choices".

An example: pretend you have a cage that will expand as necessary. Place a breeding pair of mice in the cage, and provide them with 1 kilo per day of food. Each day, whatever surplus is left is removed, and a new kilo of food is provided. What you will observe happen is that the mouse population will continue to expand until it reaches the point where it consumes the entire kilo of food in a day's time, then it stabilizes and stops growing.

If you then begin providing 2 kilos per day, the population will again begin to increase until it consumes those two kilos per day, and again it will stabilize.

Now, here's the interesting part: if you then reduce the daily allotment back to 1 kilo, the population will begin to fall, without cannibalism, without violence of any kind. What happens is that the older and less healthy mice begin to die off simply because the reduced caloric intake accelerates that normal outcome. Also, the reproduction rate of the healthy mice remains depressed until the population again stabilizes at the point that balances with the available food source.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby smiley » Tue 18 Sep 2007, 17:50:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')hile the second map shows overall world population percentages in various regions.


It doesn't. It shows the percentage of people who are undernourished. Even if you didn't bother to read the subscript, you might have been able to understand that not 40% of the world population live in Mongolia.

http://www.feedingminds.org/info/world_h.htm

When you assume that food surplus creates growth it is pretty strange food creates growth one of the most underfed countries in the world, Ethiopia has one of the largest growth rates.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his was the point of my comment on learning basic ecology earlier. Anyone who studies animal populations knows that there is a direct, universal correlation between food supply and population size.


Yes with my basic ecology I would agree to that point. But that was not what you were saying. You were laying a link between food supply and population growth.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n example: pretend you have a cage that will expand as necessary. Place a breeding pair of mice in the cage, and provide them with 1 kilo per day of food. Each day, whatever surplus is left is removed, and a new kilo of food is provided. What you will observe happen is that the mouse population will continue to expand until it reaches the point where it consumes the entire kilo of food in a day's time, then it stabilizes and stops growing.


Now assume that you throw in 2 kilo's of food in the same cage. Of course the population will level off at twice the previous level.

But does the population grow faster?

No of course it won't. The population increase is governed by the amount of offspring the mice are physically able to produce, the time it needs to reach fertility etc.

Now take homo sapiens. The average female is well capable of producing 8-10 children in her fertile period. Yet the average number of children in the prosperous west is about 2.3.

For mice producing only a quarter the offspring it would mean that there is something seriously wrong in the population, like a great food shortage.

If you are still serious about your theory, it would mean that we have a serious shortage of food.

Last time I checked my fridge it wasn't so, so I'll go for the alternative explanation that humans have something to say about the amount of children we produce.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby TWilliam » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 01:10:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'I')t doesn't. It shows the percentage of people who are undernourished. Even if you didn't bother to read the subscript, you might have been able to understand that not 40% of the world population live in Mongolia.


Be that as it may, the issue of what growth is happening where is a red herring anyway. Does that map include growth due to immigration, as well as declining growth elsewhere as a function of emigration? What about age demographics? What is important is that overall world population continues to expand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his was the point of my comment on learning basic ecology earlier. Anyone who studies animal populations knows that there is a direct, universal correlation between food supply and population size.


Yes with my basic ecology I would agree to that point. But that was not what you were saying. You were laying a link between food supply and population growth.


Wait a minute. If food supply and population size are correlated, then why would it be incorrect to assume that an increase in food supply would correlate with an increase in population? And if you agree that this correlation has been demonstrated in animal populations, then why would you assume that humans are somehow exempt from this ecological law (apart from typical human hubris in this regard)?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut does the population grow faster?


Alright well, that was a mis-statement on my part. The rate of increase really isn't the issue, the issue is that it increases. And as long as food production increases, population will continue to do likewise.

I'm really not interested in trying to prove all of this. Others have tread this path; a very good discussion of the issue can be found in the following paper, which I think makes the case much better than I have time or energy to do:

Human Population Numbers As A Function Of Food Supply (PDF file)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Abstract. Human population growth has typically been seen as the primary causative factor of other ecologically destructive phenomena. Current human disease epidemics are explored as a function of population size. That human population growth is itself a phenomenon with clearly identifiable ecological/biological causes has been overlooked. Here, human population growth is discussed as being subject to the same dynamic processes as the population growth of other species. Contrary to the widely held belief that food production must be increased to feed the growing population, experimental and correlational data indicate that human population growth varies as a function of food availability. By increasing food production for humans, at the expense of other species, the biologically determined effect has been, and continues to be, an increase in the human population. Understanding the relationship between food increases and population increases is proposed as a necessary first step in addressing this global problem. Resistance to this perspective is briefly
discussed in terms of cultural bias in science.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby TWilliam » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 13:08:08

You are of course right, Golem, that a major issue is the per capita consumption. I read recently (before roccman posted the same statistic) that the average U.S. citizen (that's the average, not the upper-middle, upper and elite classes) has an ecological footprint equivalent to 70 third-worlders. We're far more overpopulated than ANYwhere else on earth in this context, and considering that a large portion of the current world population is seeking to emulate us, the world as a whole is clearly f*cked if this trend isn't halted. 7 billion people with an ecological footprint equivalent to 490 billion is clearly not going to be possible.

BUT, this does not change the fact that population growth not only needs to stop but needs to be radically reversed (well, it will be reversed, with or without our consent), nor that food surplus leads to population increase.
Last edited by TWilliam on Wed 19 Sep 2007, 17:47:47, edited 1 time in total.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby TWilliam » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 17:45:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mercurygirl', 'F')rom an interesting essay linked to in the OP's posted article.

The origins of agriculture?


Fascinating hypothesis. And it might explain why the majority of hard-core long-term vegetarians I've met over the years (especially vegans) seem to be undernourished, rotten-toothed, drug-addled, slow-witted burn outs, even tho' they more often than not have never used "drugs"... :lol: :lol:
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby smiley » Wed 19 Sep 2007, 19:00:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lright well, that was a mis-statement on my part. The rate of increase really isn't the issue, the issue is that it increases. And as long as food production increases, population will continue to do likewise.


I think that should be restated as as long as food production increases the population is allowed to increase. If production did not increase population would hit a ceiling, but that does not necessarely mean that it causes popultation growth.

It's a matter of causality very subtle but very important.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')hen why would you assume that humans are somehow exempt from this ecological law (apart from typical human hubris in this regard)?


Leopards don't wear Gucci.

The reason that people in the west don't have a lot of kids (and this too has been well researched) are mostly materialistic in nature. In the past kids brough you wealth, but now you have to share it with them.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby entropyfails » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 12:26:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')hen why would you assume that humans are somehow exempt from this ecological law (apart from typical human hubris in this regard)?


Leopards don't wear Gucci.

The reason that people in the west don't have a lot of kids (and this too has been well researched) are mostly materialistic in nature. In the past kids brough you wealth, but now you have to share it with them.


Again, The allometry of fertility and energy use explains everything about this phenomena. All animals follow an allometric law that relates their fertility to their energy use per capita. Humans are no exception to this. It takes time to maintain high energy flows and this shows up in our fertility rates.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '
')I think that should be restated as as long as food production increases the population is allowed to increase. If production did not increase population would hit a ceiling, but that does not necessarely mean that it causes popultation growth.

It's a matter of causality very subtle but very important.


Unless the food is wasted, it will cause a growth of human cells somewhere. It could be in the belly of a fat man, but it also could be the growth of a fetus. If you look at a simple Lotka-Volterra, our population growth can be described as

human_growth = human_population_size * food_production * allometric_constants - death_rate * human_population_size

So it is directly causal. The one missing the subtle point is you. *grin* Biological science takes "Life will reproduce when able" as an axiom. It's a fairly sound axiom when talking about an entire species.

Anyway, the interesting point is that if Peak Oil really does spell the all time high of energy use per capita, then as we slide down the EUP slope, we will be having MORE babies.

So any dieoff will see will largely be a dieoff of babies.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 14:26:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'F')ascinating hypothesis. And it might explain why the majority of hard-core long-term vegetarians I've met over the years (especially vegans) seem to be undernourished, rotten-toothed, drug-addled, slow-witted burn outs, even tho' they more often than not have never used "drugs"... :lol: :lol:


Most vegetarians I've communicated with seem to eat an extremely limited diet, very different from our "wild" hunter-gatherer/horticultural ancestors' diets. The normal civilized diet, even with meat, is extremely limited, to only a few foods (mostly corn nowadays) vs the omnivore diet of eating everything that is edible. :)
Ludi
 
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 14:36:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', 'A')nyway, the interesting point is that if Peak Oil really does spell the all time high of energy use per capita, then as we slide down the EUP slope, we will be having MORE babies.



Not necessarily - only if having more babies is of value in the society or to the individuals. Having more babies has not always been a benefit. To hunter-gatherers, horticulturists, and other indigenous peoples, having lots of babies was not a benefit because it was necessary for each group to stay within the carrying capacity of their territory (or die off). So the number of surviving babies was limited through various means. Some groups used sexual taboos to limit intercourse, some used contraceptive or abortifacient herbs, many used infanticide because it was the only alternative if an unwanted baby appeared. Keep in mind some 50% of pregnancies even in first world countries are unplanned, so imagine how difficult it would be to avoid pregnancy with only "natural" means. Our societies/culture still values a growing population, this hasn't changed in spite of decades of concern about overpopulation. There may soon, one hopes, come a time when growing population is no longer seen as a benefit or value, but the necessity of staying within carrying capacity will be understood as it was for tens of thousands of years by other peoples. Hopefully we will be able to use more compassionate means to limit our populations, such as modern contraceptives and safe abortion (sorry if I offend).
Ludi
 
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby TWilliam » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 14:49:55

Thanks for that link, entropyfails.

So the main thing I get from that paper is that the increasing complexity of our cultural milieu serves as a limiting factor on fertility rates. What I see happening is that while we may be using more energy on a per capita basis, a larger proportion of that use is externalized into maintaining our lifestyle (as well as the lifestyle of our kids). Interestingly, I note that those members of our society who don't do so (think "welfare moms") still tend to produce large numbers of offspring.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby TWilliam » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 14:59:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'F')ascinating hypothesis. And it might explain why the majority of hard-core long-term vegetarians I've met over the years (especially vegans) seem to be undernourished, rotten-toothed, drug-addled, slow-witted burn outs, even tho' they more often than not have never used "drugs"... :lol: :lol:


Most vegetarians I've communicated with seem to eat an extremely limited diet, very different from our "wild" hunter-gatherer/horticultural ancestors' diets. The normal civilized diet, even with meat, is extremely limited, to only a few foods (mostly corn nowadays) vs the omnivore diet of eating everything that is edible. :)


My comment was largely tongue-in-cheek Ludi - tho' the observation is accurate at least with regard to those I've known. I'm curious (seriously, I'm not asking as a challenge) if you read the linked article that spurred it, and if you can see the connections I posited?
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 15:26:22

No, actually I havn't read it, I was just butting in with my own (pointless) observations.... :oops:
Ludi
 
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby smiley » Fri 21 Sep 2007, 19:09:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, The allometry of fertility and energy use explains everything about this phenomena. All animals follow an allometric law that relates their fertility to their energy use per capita. Humans are no exception to this. It takes time to maintain high energy flows and this shows up in our fertility rates.


Maybe if you would bother to actually read the article you post you will get my point. :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere we additionally propose that the perceived energetic
investment (including material goods and education)
required for a child to be competitive in a given society is
greater in more consumptive societies.We assume that the
cost of a raising a child increases in direct proportion to E.


The difference between us and animals is that food for us is not the primary driver. For a leopard to be competitive in its habitat it needs only food. For a human it is education, clothing, etc. etc.

In our consumptive society we dont even bother to think whether we will be able to feed our children. That is a given. We bother whether we will be able to sent them to college, whether we can buy that hip baby buggy etc.

If you want to place that under a common denominator like energy, fair enough, but that does not change the basic premisis that food is only a very small and for most societies negligible part of the equation.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby entropyfails » Sat 22 Sep 2007, 04:27:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', 'A')nyway, the interesting point is that if Peak Oil really does spell the all time high of energy use per capita, then as we slide down the EUP slope, we will be having MORE babies.



Not necessarily - only if having more babies is of value in the society or to the individuals. Having more babies has not always been a benefit. To hunter-gatherers, horticulturists, and other indigenous peoples, having lots of babies was not a benefit because it was necessary for each group to stay within the carrying capacity of their territory (or die off).


Very true Ludi!

But I mean that in high energy use societies like the US which are already below 2.1 fertility will see a rise in their birthrates due to a newfound lack of energy. That is in the case that they continue to try to "do civilization".

If we find a way of becoming tolerant to other people's ways of life, then I do agree that those new tribes may do exactly what you propose with birth control and abortion. Let's hope we get there.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby entropyfails » Sat 22 Sep 2007, 05:20:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', '
')If you want to place that under a common denominator like energy, fair enough, but that does not change the basic premisis that food is only a very small and for most societies negligible part of the equation.


Food is one of the multiplicative factors in the equation. It is of equal importance to previous population size and allometric factors. It is unbounded unlike the allometric factors. Therefore, while allometric factors can cause significant changes, the fact that they have lower and upper bounds means that they cannot be as important to the final population number as either human_population or food_production.

Think of it this way, if we were somehow to magically make 15 billion people's worth of food, then (baring other limitations) we will soon have 15 billion people no matter WHAT the underlying structure of their individual societies are.

Your point about people in high EUP societies having to make different life choices because of the high costs of having a child in these places is valid. But you said that food production was not a causative factor in population growth. I'm taking issue with how you frame the debate. Both are important and can have large effects.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: How to Save Civilization

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 22 Sep 2007, 12:37:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', 'B')ut I mean that in high energy use societies like the US which are already below 2.1 fertility will see a rise in their birthrates due to a newfound lack of energy. That is in the case that they continue to try to "do civilization".

If we find a way of becoming tolerant to other people's ways of life, then I do agree that those new tribes may do exactly what you propose with birth control and abortion. Let's hope we get there.



If people can understand the aspects of civilization which make it unsustainable, there may be some hope. But, you know, those cultural values/memes are so strong, it is difficult for people to even get to the point of being able to question them. That's why I'm always recommending Daniel Quinn's books. Because he lays everything out in an easy to understand, straightforward manner and it is backed up by anthropology (even though he often writes in a fictional form). But many people feel threatened by that information.
Ludi
 
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



cron