I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
well I couldn't find a nice chart that list how much the top importers are actually importing, but I found these maps of trade routes showing the bulk tonnage shipped of oil, grain, iron and coal (source to destination) The information is outdated (1994; shows China as an oil exporter) but I think it gives us an idea of where the greatest die offs will occur Shipping and world trade
so top of the list for die-off:
East Asia (China and Japan mostly)
Africa
Middle east
Western Europe
The United States I don't think is going to be that bad for die-off due to lack of food. However I think social unrest will create a certain amount of die-off It also looks like Canada is a pretty good place (low population and net exporter of all four items mentioned), but thanks to free trade with a nuclear armed and unstable neighbour, I don't know how things will pan out up here. _________________ Angry yet?
I have one problem with the concept of die off - there are many people today with little contact with oil - think 700,000,000 in sub Saharan Africa, 1bn in rural China/India etc...
If you have a problem with the concept of species die-off, just remember that the least abundant necessity determines the carrying capacity. This could be food, water, soil, etc. Since fossil fuels gives us all of these, and it is going to be in decline, it only follows that a population that bloomed on this new found energy source will crash when it ends. At what rate and magnitude remains to be seen. Far too many see a massive die-off from starvation right away. I don't. But....
In all of known biological history, there has never been a species that dominated it's environment and exploited a heretofore, unavailable energy/food source that did not crash. None.
Fact, and known science: The cumulative biotic potential of any given species will always exceed the carrying capacity of its environment. The first signs are an increase in disease and an inability to reproduce. Who will die-off? The first to be affected will be the weak and infirm, and those who border on malnutrition. Third-world, primarily, Africa.
The coming die-off may take decades and not be readily apparent by most. 10 million children starve to death every year right now. It will just get more pervasive as the energy supply declines and the third world can no longer afford the "Green Revolution." The standard of living world-wide will decline, and with it, the quality of health and the longevity that goes with it. If we continue to gobble up our resources at the same pace as before, we could see a massive crash in the population. History is replete with examples.
The concept of die-off is the way nature maintains a balance. It is a natural cycle of all life, humans included. Accept it as a fact and way of life. From many of the posts so far, I think it would do many well to read this thread.: Liebig's Law: Why there will be a die-off link _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Jun 02, 2004 Posts: 1078 Location: Bristol, UK
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 12:42 am Post subject:
We've had this discussion before Monte, my key point is behaviour. Ten sheep will always behave the same, make the same demands on their environment. By looking at what the environment can offer it's relatively easy to work out how many sheep can be supported.
Humans are different, some humans make ten times the demand on the environment that others. The world couldn't support 1 billion humans living the American lifestyle but it could support 10 billion living the Bangladeshi lifestyle.
That's my point - a reduction in the resource supply could result in the same number or people living a lower average quality of life not a die off. I also realise in reality as bobaloo points out there is no way many of the 50+ overweight, diabetic Westerners can make the shift so there will be a degree of die off. _________________ "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 197 Location: Southern Ontario
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 1:22 am Post subject:
The North American population has demonstrated very little willingness to be flexible to change. Any slight drop in the overall quality of life will prompt some of the more arrogant less informed North Americans to get behind the idea of further military action in a big way. Once the shepards are on board the sheep will be sure to follow. Natural cycle or human misery related, there will be a reduction in population that will be noticiable and significant.
I also argue that natural carring capacities have been diminished due to habitat destruction. Oil free carrying capacity will be closer to 750 million (or less) than to 1 billion due to the toll our society has taken on the environment - if it ever comes to that.
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: Population, Energy and Environment
MonteQuest wrote:
If you have a problem with the concept of species die-off, just remember that the least abundant necessity determines the carrying capacity. This could be food, water, soil, etc. Since fossil fuels gives us all of these, and it is going to be in decline, it only follows that a population that bloomed on this new found energy source will crash when it ends.
Monte makes a very important point. The growth of any species is limited by the least abundant resource on which it depends for survival. In other words if we magically solve the Peal Oil problem, it does not mean we can avert a die-off. We will just run out or fresh water. If we find ways to desalinate sea water in a massive scale, we would run out of land to grow our food. There is only so much biomass that can be created via photosynthesis. Already we humans are consuming a major fraction of this yield leaving lesser each year for all others species.
There are hard limits and ecological principles that no species can circumvent. We are all products of nature. No matter how much we consider ourselves to be the Masters of the Universe, Stewarts of the Planet, rulers of the living world, we are nothing but a tiny spec in the vast expanse of the cosmos, one planet sharing a Sun amongst billions of other stars in our Galaxy as a part of billions of such galaxies in an ever expanding universe. As a species we are flourishing at the highest point of our glory today. Consider this the absolute zenith of human civilization. We may grow a bit more to around 9 billion and then face a die-off and this last generation devours the remaining half of the fossil fuel reserves.
After the population correction, the best case scenario may leave us with a billion. I doubt we will be that lucky as the Carrying Capacity gets gutting by the population load. The survivors will be hunting for scraps from our landfills, digging up the asphalt for heating and painfully removing the pavements to make space for growing food.
For an in-depth understanding about Human Population Growth and its impact on the Environment read this bi-monthly Newsletter of the Population Coalition. It contains Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Here is a comprehensive collection of hyperlinks to: Population, Environmental and Sustainability Websites
The North American population has demonstrated very little willingness to be flexible to change. Any slight drop in the overall quality of life will prompt some of the more arrogant less informed North Americans to get behind the idea of further military action in a big way. ......
Perhaps that is the greatest threat of PO? Not so much that oil production declines but instead how we react to it? In a weird way I am happy that I am living in an "interesting" period of human history. Before I die I may witness the collapse of 2 empires, and the decline of an energy source. More change will happen in the next 50 years then the past 500.
Let's clarify this point: there doesn't HAVE to be a die-off. To be specific, there are three scenarios that a species can go through, assuming that it starts with a small population and finds that it has enough resources to grow a lot:
1) Big overshoot and die-off, which is what Monte likes to point out all the time. The species grows way beyond sustainable capacity and there is a massive die-off. This scenario, in the natural world, is fairly uncommon.
2) Small overshoot, moderate die-off, possibly some cyclical change before reaching a stable population. This is the most common scenario in the natural world.
3) Gradually reaching a stable population. This is the most lucky outcome, and is the second most common situation.
Considering that human beings are intelligent, we should be able to do option 3, but I suspect we are heading for 2. I don't agree at all with those that think we are heading for 1.
"The species grows way beyond sustainable capacity and there is a massive die-off. This scenario, in the natural world, is fairly uncommon." I think this is a tad more common than your hand waving makes out. _________________ "One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand."
I have one problem with the concept of die off - there are many people today with little contact with oil - think 700,000,000 in sub Saharan Africa, 1bn in rural China/India etc...
I think you'll find those people eat oil every day, so to speak. _________________ There'll be war, there'll be peace
But one day all things shall cease
All the iron turned to rust
All the proud men turned to dust
So all things time will mend
So this song will end
Joined: Jun 02, 2004 Posts: 1078 Location: Bristol, UK
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 4:07 am Post subject:
Not a significant amount - a very small proportion of the population is supported by imported food aid and the oil use per capita in the poorest rural areas is almost nil. The problem with Liebig's Law is that it assumes population size is the most significant factor - this is true for pretty much any living thing apart from humans. With humans behavior has a larger impact than population size. _________________ "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
Humans are different, some humans make ten times the demand on the environment that others. The world couldn't support 1 billion humans living the American lifestyle but it could support 10 billion living the Bangladeshi lifestyle.
Perhaps not. India is due to become a wheat importer for the first time. Seems they don't have enough to feed their own. Not surprising considering that world grain yields are down for the fourth year running despite an abundance of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. More and more we see that the big countries are becoming importers of foodstuffs. Many people cite that X number of tonnes of grain is grown in the U.S. (or whichever country you choose) so there's no real need to import if they just keep their own grain. Well, not all the grain grown is for human consumption, a hell of alot of it is animal grade for livestock. Suggesting that America can feed all it's people on it's own simply because they have the land is not really accurate. If you change all that grain grown for livestock to human quality grain, then you can't feed your livestock. Add to that the fact that half of Brazil has been razed to the ground to provide cheap plentiful supplies of meat for the U.S. and all of a sudden things don't look so rosy.
Let's say for one moment that all of a sudden there were no chemical fertilizers or pesticides. The majority of crops would fail because the soil is ruined, utterly depleted. It takes years to get soil back to good enough condition to grow stuff on it's own, especially on a large scale, and you need lots of organic matter (which you just won't have if you're using it for biofuel, or trying to feed the cows on pasture now that you've no grain for them). Now, if every country is trying to feed itself, and has no grain to spare to send to other countries, then quite simply, you're screwed. (I'm referring to any particular country here, not necessarily the U.S.). It all means one thing, famine and die off, and it's happened plenty of times throughout history. In fact it's happening right now in Africa. _________________ We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.
I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 197 Location: Southern Ontario
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 7:15 am Post subject:
The only way to create a future for the human race is to dramatically reduce population and subsequently environmantal strain, and to dramatically reduce consumption and subsequently environmental strain. I repeat myself to make a point: practically everything that western society does takes more than it gives back (to both the Earth and the third-world) We are not connected to the environment in any meaningful way because of the culture of consumption. We think of the earth as merely something to hold our houses up and drive our cars over. This is why I would argue for a die off. We've lost respect for mother nature and she's going to earn it back in a big way.
Joined: May 14, 2005 Posts: 2123 Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 7:17 am Post subject:
OilyMon wrote:
The North American population has demonstrated very little willingness to be flexible to change. Any slight drop in the overall quality of life will prompt some of the more arrogant less informed North Americans to get behind the idea of further military action in a big way. Once the shepards are on board the sheep will be sure to follow. Natural cycle or human misery related, there will be a reduction in population that will be noticiable and significant.
Yes. Resource Wars will be the US contribution to Post Peak because "Suburbia must not die."
Quote:
I also argue that natural carring capacities have been diminished due to habitat destruction. Oil free carrying capacity will be closer to 750 million (or less) than to 1 billion due to the toll our society has taken on the environment -if it ever comes to that.
Agreed! In fact, 500 million seems a reasonable estimation when you consider that desperate attempts to forestall the inevitable will result in even greater environmental damage in the next decade. Bush mentioned in a recent "energy speech" that "we have entire forests" that can be used for biodisel. YIKES!
cube wrote:
In a weird way I am happy that I am living in an "interesting" period of human history. Before I die I may witness the collapse of 2 empires, and the decline of an energy source. More change will happen in the next 50 years then the past 500.
TWO empires? What is the 2nd (assuming the 1st is the US)?
The problem with Liebig's Law is that it assumes population size is the most significant factor -this is true for pretty much any living thing apart from humans. With humans behavior has a larger impact than population size.
No, it doesn't. The least abundant necessity is the most significant factor. Sheer population is not the limiting mechansim. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
What is the 2nd (assuming the 1st is the US)?
