We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.
Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.
We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
What is the worlds population 20 years after peak oil?
More than 8 billion
6%
[ 5 ]
Between 6 and 8 billion
12%
[ 9 ]
Between 4 and 6 billion
34%
[ 25 ]
Between 2 and 4 billion
23%
[ 17 ]
Less than 2 billion
20%
[ 15 ]
Human population? Yeah right. Less than 2.
1%
[ 1 ]
Total Votes : 72
Author
Message
Soft_Landing Heavy Crude
Joined: May 28, 2004 Posts: 377
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:28 am Post subject: Population After Peak?
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:
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2057 Location: San Diego, Ca.
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
Joined: Aug 12, 2004 Posts: 1180 Location: England
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...
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
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
Joined: Aug 12, 2004 Posts: 1180 Location: England
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:48 pm Post subject:
Soft_Landing wrote:
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.
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
Joined: Jul 07, 2004 Posts: 434 Location: Berkeley CA
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.
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.
that is a sobering number...
starvation is unlikley to produce such a scale of death on a yearly basis?
or is there an assumption that envisages some catastrophic nuclear exchange...
seems far fetched..
OTOH i have statistics pointing towards a deficit in food production that is occurring already.
what are the mad max mass social and economic dislocation examples from history?
the 30 years war (starts 1618) resulted in a 10-30% decrease in population of the main regions effected in a similar time frame so perhaps it is possible to lose 2 billion people in 20 yrs.. but this would require a very strange set of circumstance unless one notes that food production is not dispersed as before and is reliant on distribution but then population growth in 17th century germany was not that of the world today..
Somalia has not suffered any population decline despite being a total basket case but food aid may be a factor here... however life expectancy has fallen from 56 to 48 in the last 20 yrs so quality of life has occured (no crap). life expectancy is supposedly recovering now.
Somalia is probably in some 'unnatural" state where population levels are self correcting due to external inputs of aid etc... i am not advocating some darwinian solution.. its just an observation also stats for somalia are to be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no accurate census.
some gradual rundown in food production and or distribution would result in localised catastrophes.. if there was no aid they would self correct to some holding capacity with in decades if history is anything to go by..
you are likely IMO to se a leveling off of population globally rather than contraction... it still represents massive human suffering
if some catastrophic halt in food production/distribution occurred and the buses didn't run on time all bets are off but since the problem is incremental in nature 9presently) I do not see this overnight effect... its still going to be rough
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
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.
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Population After Peak?
Soft_Landing wrote:
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.
I said 4-6 billion, but that is a blind guess. The current population projection for 2028 is 8 billion if we keep our current birth/death rate with out factoring in a peak oil collapse.
Just how far back the population will have to go to reach equilibrium is a big unknown. When the Black Plague swept Europe 75 million people died, but in a few years the birth rate zoomed because more people had access to food. Will a massiive die-off allow us access to the energy required and the time necessary to produce a viable, sustainable, renewable civilization post-peak? I think about that a lot. Best Soft_Landing scenario I know of. _________________ 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: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1396 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
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.
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
