Population After Peak?

Soft_Landing · Heavy Crude Joined: May 28, 2004 Posts: 377

What will the world's population be 20 years after the peak of world oil production? This question goes to the heart of just how big you think the effects of peak oil will be, and how fast you think they'll hit.

This poll was initiated as a sister poll to this one:

http://peakoil.com/post15051.html#15051

jato · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:01 pm Post subject:

I voted 4-6 billion. 20 years is not that far away. I think world population may have started to slowly decline at the point. But I am just guessing here. What will it be in the year 2100 is the million dollar question?!?
_________________
"Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz

Permanently_Baffled · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:37 pm Post subject:

I must admit i have been guilty of thinking of die off as instant death of several billion people. So i vote 2-4 billion 20-50 years after peak but through natural die off, ie lower life expectancy becuase of no medicines, lower birth rates because of poverty, and AIDS...

What a cheery , happy topic this is!!

right where is that rope and gallows.... Laughing

PB
_________________
Peak Oil? crap Happens !

Phil · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject:

My guess is between 4 and 6 billion.

However I hope it's less than 1 billion, because I hate people- most of whom are completely stupid.

Soft_Landing · Heavy Crude Joined: May 28, 2004 Posts: 377

To get a handle on exactly what your response means, this might be of a little help:

World Vital Events Per Time Unit: 2004
(Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
-------------------------------------------------
Natural
Time unit Births Deaths increase
-------------------------------------------------
Year 129,108,390 56,540,896 72,567,494
Month 10,759,033 4,711,741 6,047,291
Day 352,755 154,483 198,272
Hour 14,698 6,437 8,261
Minute 245 107 138
Second 4.1 1.8 2.3
-------------------------------------------------

from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe

Take any estimated population endpoint. Subtract if from 6.3 billion. Divide the result be 20. This is the required annual Natural decrease. Now try to adjust the births and deaths figures to achieve that natural decrease figure... It's almost as informative as it is disturbing...
_________________
- "I was in the unenviable position of being for the war, but, against the troops." B. Hicks.

Leanan · News Editor Joined: May 20, 2004 Posts: 4533

I voted for less than 2 billion, though possibly 20 years isn't long enough for that.

But I fear that overshoot and dieoff is the most likely scenario, and the usual result of that is a population lower than the original carrying capacity.

Soft_Landing · Heavy Crude Joined: May 28, 2004 Posts: 377

The expected value, or mean, of population expectation of voters at this poll so far (27 votes) is 4.12 billion.

In order for this to occur, natural population change would have to shift from a 72 million increase per year to a 114 million decrease per year. This equates to a turnaround of 186 million lives every year. This is approximately the population of Brazil, every year.

Updates will be posted if more people vote.
_________________
- "I was in the unenviable position of being for the war, but, against the troops." B. Hicks.

Permanently_Baffled · Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:48 pm Post subject:

RIPSmithianEconomics · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 2:02 am Post subject:

There is the possibility of it getting bigger. That's bad news.
_________________
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

Hawkcreek · Expert Joined: Aug 15, 2004 Posts: 966

Terran · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:41 pm Post subject:

I voted two billion. I'm thinking the population could be less, remember our population is still increasing at a phenomeal rate. If it keeps growing at the rate we may end up with 9 billion or even level off at 12 billion in theory. Just remember the higher the population goes the harder we're going to crash.

mididoctors · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:20 am Post subject:

gg3 · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:28 pm Post subject:

Hey Phil, if you hate people so much, what are you doing here communicating with a bunch of 'em? Caught you, neener-neener!:-)

I'm thinking 4 - 6 B. Attrition, shorter lifespan, and localized dieoffs usually in areas that are currently distressed and can be expected to worsen.

Or maybe: bird flu via cats (see recent news stories), leading to a 1/5 dieoff worldwide, then leading to mass revenge-extermination of cats, leading in turn to an explosion of rats & mice, with their attendant fleas, carrying bubonic plague, and thereby minus another 1/5 of the world population.

Now we go to science fiction mode: The remaining humans, recognizing that their extermination of cats was a terrible mistake, begin to worship cats, sometimes even religiously. The surviving cats, for their part, evolve to be even smarter & more independent than they are now, and form a feline pest-control union and demand fair working conditions.

MonteQuest · Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Population After Peak?

nero · Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:47 pm Post subject:

I find it hard to imagine any die off due to starvation in the forceable future as long as there is an organized/peaceful society we will have more than enough energy to feed 8billion+. This is why I think this:

there was about a billion people in China in 2000 when they used about 3million barrels a day of domestic oil production and did not import significant quantities of food. You would only need about a third of our current supply of oil to maintain everyone at the 2000 chinese level of oil consumption. To reach that level in twenty years depletion has to occur at 5% to 6% a year starting immediately. Not a very likely scenario in my books when the US has demonstrated a very mature oil region is capable of slowing depletion down to 1% to 2% a year.

I'm sure others around here have looked at these numbers as well, so why the great pessimism about the near future? How exactly do you believe people are going to die in such great numbers? It's even hard to imagine organized war between states knocking back the population significantly (without going nuclear). That leaves either the Mad Max scenario or genocide doesn't it? Mad Max is very unlikely while we still have food to eat. Genocide hasn't be practiced on that large a scale since Timur.