Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Re: Tackeling the Cornocopians

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 15:59:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'M')any people don't know how to cook with inexpensive basic ingredients - their mothers never taught them, and they didn't have Home Ec in school. :( So if they can't buy the premade food they're used to eating, they go hungry. Ignorance is often an aspect of poverty - it isn't their fault, it's just the way they were raised. Of course the same is often true of people in higher income brackets - they don't know how to cook, they only know how to buy frozen pizza and Stouffers. 8O

Somehow I don't feel any sympathy at all to these peoples.

They get what they deserve.


Somehow that comment possessed nothing of value or insight.

If we want to combat overshoot, we - in the industrial world - will need a MAJOR reduction in our collective standard of living coupled with a major reduction in population growth in the third world (which will happen regardless of our decision to act).

Taking phantom carrying capacity, based on fossil fuels, and using it to momentarily bolster our standard of living is nothing to be arrogant or callous about to those who are stuck in the rut of poverty. This life of wealth is not here to stay, never forget that.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 16:16:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'I')f we want to combat overshoot, we - in the industrial world - will need a MAJOR reduction in our collective standard of living coupled with a major reduction in population growth in the third world (which will happen regardless of our decision to act).
Here we go again blaming the third world countries for overshooting. THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES CONSUME 10-20-30 TIMES MORE THAN THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. The population problem is not there; IT'S HERE!!! The US consumes 5 times its believed carrying capacity. In order for the US to stay within its carrying capacity, the population would have to be reduced to 60 million. Please look up human footprint. Please look up the density of Monaco, Switzerland, all Europe for that matter, etc. Please see if any of those countries have a lower density than any third world countries. Peru is among the few semi-industrialized below its human footprint. Please do some research, for God's sake!
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 19:14:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'I')f we want to combat overshoot, we - in the industrial world - will need a MAJOR reduction in our collective standard of living coupled with a major reduction in population growth in the third world (which will happen regardless of our decision to act).
Here we go again blaming the third world countries for overshooting. THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES CONSUME 10-20-30 TIMES MORE THAN THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. The population problem is not there; IT'S HERE!!! The US consumes 5 times its believed carrying capacity. In order for the US to stay within its carrying capacity, the population would have to be reduced to 60 million. Please look up human footprint. Please look up the density of Monaco, Switzerland, all Europe for that matter, etc. Please see if any of those countries have a lower density than any third world countries. Peru is among the few
semi-industrialized below its human footprint. Please do some research, for God's sake!


I'm sorry but from my understanding (I am still in the process of reading 'Overshoot' by Catton) we have been given a choice between population increase and a higher standard of living in terms of phantom carrying capacity. We have been allowed to increase our standard of living due to the availability of cheap energy where as those of, say, Bangladesh did/do NOT have this access to cheap energy. Instead, they are given surplus carrying capacity through food imports

You claim that the third world DOES NOT have to reduce it's population. This must mean that it's current population is sustainable, I'm assuming?

Bangladesh has a population of over 150 million and is around the same size as the state of Iowa with a population of 3 million. That's around 1,050 persons per square kilometer. One third of the population is below the age of 14. In 1910, the population was closer to 20 million.

Moving into the post-exuberance future will require both a reduction in numbers in the third world and a major cutback in our standard of living in the West.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Fri 15 Aug 2008, 11:36:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'Y')ou claim that the third world DOES NOT have to reduce it's population. This must mean that it's current population is sustainable, I'm assuming?
I applaud your self-education. Keep on trucking!

No, that's not my claim. My claim is 3 million Iowans consume nearly as much as 150 million Bangladeshians (sp?). I imagine the average Iowan requires dozens times more resources than the average Bangladeshian. Think roads, schools, hospitals, recreation, clothing, housing, water, electricity, waste, etc, etc, etc. Which is more efficient, reduce 10% of the Iowa or Bangladesh population? 300 thousand or 15 million?
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Fri 15 Aug 2008, 11:57:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'Y')ou claim that the third world DOES NOT have to reduce it's population. This must mean that it's current population is sustainable, I'm assuming?
I applaud your self-education. Keep on trucking!

No, that's not my claim. My claim is 3 million Iowans consume nearly as much as 150 million Bangladeshians (sp?). I imagine the average Iowan requires dozens times more resources than the average Bangladeshian. Think roads, schools, hospitals, recreation, clothing, housing, water, electricity, waste, etc, etc, etc. Which is more efficient, reduce 10% of the Iowa or Bangladesh population? 300 thousand or 15 million?


Efficiency is not everything. Iowans feed the world and provide innovative ethanol fuel! What the fark has a Bangladeshi done lately? :twisted:
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 15 Aug 2008, 12:35:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', '
')Efficiency is not everything. Iowans feed the world


6.5 % of US agricultural exports come from Iowa.

28% of Iowa's population are employed in farming.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Fri 15 Aug 2008, 12:54:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', 'E')fficiency is not everything. Iowans feed the world and provide innovative ethanol fuel! What the fark has a Bangladeshi done lately? :twisted:
SW, I didn't pick Iowa and Bangladesh. BTW, I've done lots of business in Iowa. Beautiful state and great pork chops.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Fri 15 Aug 2008, 21:41:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'Y')ou claim that the third world DOES NOT have to reduce it's population. This must mean that it's current population is sustainable, I'm assuming?
I applaud your self-education. Keep on trucking!

No, that's not my claim. My claim is 3 million Iowans consume nearly as much as 150 million Bangladeshians (sp?). I imagine the average Iowan requires dozens times more resources than the average Bangladeshian. Think roads, schools, hospitals, recreation, clothing, housing, water, electricity, waste, etc, etc, etc. Which is more efficient, reduce 10% of the Iowa or Bangladesh population? 300 thousand or 15 million?


But you prove my point. Is it not easier for us to reduce per capita consumption in the West? The room for demand destruction is enormous in the West, in Bangladesh, their per capita reliance on resources is relatively small....but they make up for it in numbers. Therefore, instead of being able to reduce per capita demand, they will be forced to "trim the heard".

One well-fed fat man can easily cut down his diet, but 10 hungry skinny fellows will have to play a big game of rock papers scissors when things go sour.

Demand destruction in the West, starvation for the overcrowded herds of the third world. That's exactly what will happen.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Sat 16 Aug 2008, 13:15:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'I')s it not easier for us to reduce per capita consumption in the West?
I know very few Western people willing to live with less. I think it is easier to lower our population than to give up the 65-inch LCD TV.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 13:15:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'I')s it not easier for us to reduce per capita consumption in the West?
I know very few Western people willing to live with less. I think it is easier to lower our population than to give up the 65-inch LCD TV.


How do you sell 'population reduction' to the West? In an age when the political will is in the hands of the Baby Boomers, a platform of "trimming the heard" will not be well received.

Less consumption vs reducing our population....it just seems obvious to me that a reduction in consumption is both easier to implement and easier for the general public to stomach....
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 13:53:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'H')ow do you sell "population reduction" to the West? In an age when the political will is in the hands of the Baby Boomers, a platform of "trimming the heard" will not be well received.
Hi, Nick. Indeed, a very tough sale, but if you will, that's the beauty about overshooting; it sells itself. One day, 50, 100, 200 years from today, the folks living then will hit a brick wall and the population will be reduced one way or the other.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '.')..it just seems obvious to me that a reduction in consumption is both easier to implement and easier for the general public to stomach...
Not really. How many people do you know that have willingly downsized? Did you participate in the "How many children do you have thread?" Did you see that a whopping 60% of people have 1 or 0 child?
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 16:21:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', 'N')ot really. How many people do you know that have willingly downsized? Did you participate in the "How many children do you have thread?" Did you see that a whopping 60% of people have 1 or 0 child?
To use the peak oil forum as a statistic for the general public is ludicrous.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VmarcHart', 'O')ne day, 50, 100, 200 years from today, the folks living then will hit a brick wall and the population will be reduced one way or the other.
50...100..200 years? When our ability to produce phantom carrying capacity (total liquid production) peaks, THAT is when the population problem REALLY becomes apparent. This isn't 50 years away, this issue is 5-10 years away. How long did it take for the shelves to empty in Barcelona during the trucker strikes?

Oh right, it took two days for food shortages to set in.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 18:15:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VmarcHart', 'O')ne day, 50, 100, 200 years from today, the folks living then will hit a brick wall and the population will be reduced one way or the other.
50...100..200 years? When our ability to produce phantom carrying capacity (total liquid production) peaks, THAT is when the population problem REALLY becomes apparent. This isn't 50 years away, this issue is 5-10 years away. How long did it take for the shelves to empty in Barcelona during the trucker strikes?
So you think we're facing global population decline by when? 2020 and the population will be lower than today? Really?
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 18:50:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'S')o you think we're facing global population decline by when? 2020 and the population will be lower than today? Really?

Image
World Energy Consumption

Image

It all depends on our ability to draw down on finite reserves of oil and natural gas. Why do you think these two graphs are so similar? Without this ghost acreage, Liebig's law would have limited our growth long ago. It is this constant and ever-increasing supply of ghost acreage that keeps us afloat. If we peak in oil supply, and begin the slippery slide, our population will continue to grow, only to be hit by limited supplies of fertilizer, petrol, labour disruptions etc. long before any progress on population reduction can take place.

It is important to remember that all organisms overshoot their environment, but they're provided with checks and balances; some will die of starvation, some will die from predation etc. We do not have these checks and balances in a time of industrial medicine etc. all provided by the drawing down of ghost acreage. Once this slows down, we'll find ourselves in a very precarious situation. As you can see by the quote on your left hand side, most suspect a peaking in oil supply with 10-20 years. Tick tock, tick tock. Time is of the essence.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 19:05:47

Oh so many doomerland buzzwords that I dont really want to rehash, just when do you expect population to decline?

My prediction:

You'll die of old age before you see a population decline. Or even a decline in global living standards.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby smiley » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 19:08:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o you think we're facing global population decline by when? 2020 and the population will be lower than today? Really?


Current growth rate is 77 million/annum. In order to get to population reduction you need to explain 77 million deaths a year.

With an estimated 800 million people close to starvation already that does not strike me as very far fetched.

Ever heard of the great famine in Ireland. Popular story is that the potato harvest failed and a lot (~3 million people) died as a result. That is only part of it. Truth is that the harvests failed in most of Europe. Ireland was particularly hard hit because the richer countries forced poor Ireland to make up the shortages there.

The moral of this story is that any shortage felt in the West will be transferred to the 3rd world and hit there 50 times as hard.

After all you only need one Iowan to deprive 50 Bangladesians from their living.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 19:33:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'O')h so many doomerland buzzwords that I dont really want to rehash, just when do you expect population to decline? My prediction: You'll die of old age before you see a population decline. Or even a decline in global living standards.
Doomerland buzzwords? I dare you to refute Catton. In fact, it would make my evening for you to show me how a post-peak world could continue, as well as increase, fertilizer inputs, greater trade stability, greater harmonization (in terms of food production) all after peaking in oil supply.

Would you rather side with the technocorpians and their fervent belief in nuclear-generated ammonia fertilizer?

Dezakin, I don't know how anyone can take you seriously. You didn't give rhyme or reason for anything you put forward.

If only farting in the wind could move mountains.....or feed Bangladeshis.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 19:45:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'D')oomerland buzzwords? I dare you to refute Catton.
Oh take it to the overshoot forum. I've wasted enough time on Catton. Populations eventually overshoot when they behave static rules, sure. Humans are different because they engineer. You can throw around the cargoist ad-hominem if you want but it wont stop the pace of technological change from altering the rules every engineering cycle.

Eventually Malthus is right because theres only so much work you can get out of an isolated thermodynamic system, and the universe will approach heat death someday, but theres a lot of room between here and there.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n fact, it would make my evening for you to show me how a post-peak world could continue, as well as increase, fertilizer inputs, greater trade stability, greater harmonization (in terms of food production) all after peaking in oil supply. Would you rather side with the technocorpians and their fervent belief in nuclear-generated ammonia fertilizer?
Sure; After all we wont need it for at least 50 years, seeing fertilizer production isn't a function of oil at all but of natural gas and coal.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ezakin, I don't know how anyone can take you seriously. You didn't give rhyme or reason for anything you put forward.
I've explained my position many times before: All human needs can be met by sufficient energy and we we can show energy limits to be at a minimum 1000 times larger than global consumption today for at least 16 million years.

And I honestly dont expect civilization to be controlled by beings subject to the limits of biology in several centuries.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 20:01:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', 'T')ick tock, tick tock. Time is of the essence.
Absolutely 1,000,000% agreed. However, nothing of magnitude, whether accentuated problems or beginning of a solution will happen before 10-20 years. We'll see the population double before the masses really embrace population and standard of living controls.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Mon 18 Aug 2008, 20:06:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'Y')ou'll die of old age before you see a population decline. Or even a decline in global living standards.
Dezakin and I disagree on numerous things, but here's one that we do agree. My view: we're going to come up with the next "invention", the next gadget, the next dooheekey that will prolong the inevitable, and then boom ... die-off. I wish for sensate and cool heads, but knowing the little I know about us, I don't see it. Sad, isn't it?
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests