[johnmarkos]

Thanks for the bump up, Monte. This was a great thread. BTW, do you agree with the U.S. Census Bureau that, absent external pressures like oil depletion, limitations of fresh water, and topsoil depletion, world population would level off towards the end of the century? That is, world population would stop growing and eventually decline on its own?

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldgr.gif

This reduction (and eventual reversal) in the growth rate is the primary reason why I think the "lily pond" model of population growth oversimplifies the matter somewhat.

Nonetheless, it is still instructive for newbies! They should all go watch Albert Bartlett's lecture on exponential growth, too.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'T')hanks for the bump up, Monte. This was a great thread. BTW, do you agree with the U.S. Census Bureau that, absent external pressures like oil depletion, limitations of fresh water, and topsoil depletion, world population would level off towards the end of the century? That is, world population would stop growing and eventually decline on its own?

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldgr.gif

This reduction (and eventual reversal) in the growth rate is the primary reason why I think the "lily pond" model of population growth oversimplifies the matter somewhat.

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')The only thing I see is nature's feedback mechanisms bringing on disease and lost of fertility, which is the first two things to happen when Liebig's Law engages itself. There is a lot of studies to support this.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')The only thing I see is nature's feedback mechanisms bringing on disease and lost of fertility, which is the first two things to happen when Liebig's Law engages itself. There is a lot of studies to support this.

[DamienJasper]

Yet another thread where someone says Lynch is a moron yet Campbell's failed predictions are never mentioned.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')y point is that there is increasing evidence that the decline in fertility rates is not soley by choice, but by nature.

[Ardalla]

I was not around when this thread originated, so I'm just now seeing it.

I left my book on Historical Fallacies at work, but there is a term for argument from an end result. The basic argument presented is:

Humans will survive because they always have survived.

The problem is you only reference one time line. In other words, a human being (Aaron) is making this argument because he survived. If he had not survived, he would not be here to make the argument.

If we assume 100 parallel earths and 99 of them died off due to some unsolvable problem and 1 (us) survived, then the argument would not seem as valid as it does.

There is another, more devastating counter to the argument from an end result, but it escapes me atm. It will have to wait until Wednesday when I get back to work.

[johnmarkos]

Does the assertion that peak oil doesn't equal energy scarcity change the implications of this thread in any way?

[fluffy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I')t is unlikely that prosperity is likely to cause reduction in fertility, as it is such a recent innovation no such behaviour would have had a chance to evolve yet.

[MonteQuest]

Time for a bump up for a good thread.

[deafskeptic]

When people assume that 2 billion was the carrying capacity before the industrial revolution started; I want to know if that really will be the case given that we've destroyed or changed much of the Earth and it is considerably more damaged than before the Industrial Revolution started. I think that the actual capacity will be less than it was before the discovery of oil, given that our lands and fresh water have been seriously compromised. Access to fresh water will be our second most critical factor in the coming years after energy.

Also, our infrastructure will be much more diminished. We no longer will be able to dispose of our solid wastes and kitchen and other wastes as easily as in the past. That will have an impact on our health.

Given the climate change, I would think it would be difficult to predict which crops would adjust to the climate and how the ecosystem will support the very different climate that we may well have in the future. This will make it difficult to predict what sort of stuff we can grow. We’ll not just need it for food. We’ll need to grow flax or wool or cotton depending on what our region can support. Can we really predict how the weather will change? Some say we may be facing an ice age thanks to climate change.

I think America will be hard hit despite our wealth and access to resources because we have lost the traditional knowledge that our ancestors had. We have lost much of the traditional knowledge. Yes knowledge can be learned but it will not be learned easily. It’ll be rough.

I think Africa may come out ahead as it hasn't lost all traditional ways or knowledge despite the enormous problems facing most African nations. They certainly won't come out unscathed.

My guess is that the actual carrying capacity will be less than 2 billion and perhaps far less than that.

I do not think the population will grow grow given the factors regarding peak oil and reources and water and ecology. Instead I think there will be a crash.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deafskeptic', 'W')hen people assume that 2 billion was the carrying capacity before the industrial revolution started; I want to know if that really will be the case given that we've destroyed or changed much of the Earth and it is considerably more damaged than before the Industrial Revolution started. I think that the actual capacity will be less than it was before the discovery of oil, given that our lands and fresh water have been seriously compromised.