[Keith_McClary]

We're getting close, but not quite there yet.

There was a 2014 update:

[ennui2]

But Monte, we've already seen domino effects sweep society.

Not overnight by decree we haven't. How would a self-imposed depression via serious conservation measures not sweep through society like wildfire?

It's going to be something that happens voluntarily through a combination of market pressure and people finally shitting themselves (in large enough numbers) over AGW or PO. I don't see government imposing it on an unwilling society by "decree" as a way to stave off risks the public refuses to accept are real.

Sure, if it's a fast enough crash we'll see rationing kick in. That I can potentially see. Rationing is not the same as telling people to conserve proactively. Once people see the shortages actually happening they might be more willing to submit to rationing.

These projections ignore the biological history of organisms and their environments.

I don't think LTG is incompatible with die-off. It will take a LOT of die-off to actually bend that population chart negative, Monte.

[ennui2]

We're getting close, but not quite there yet.

There was a 2014 update

It still shows population peaking out somewhere between 2030-2040.

I guess because I'm a computer nerd I think algorithms are really the only thing that can model something as macro level as this. People are too easily swayed by emotion (i.e. IRAN CABLE CUT!). Computers aren't.

[MonteQuest]

How would a self-imposed depression via serious conservation measures not sweep through society like wildfire?

It's going to be something that happens voluntarily through a combination of market pressure and people finally shitting themselves (in large enough numbers) over AGW or PO.

That doesn't answer my question in any way.

Rationing is not the same as telling people to conserve proactively.

Both are reduced economic activity that will cost jobs.

I don't think LTG is incompatible with die-off. It will take a LOT of die-off to actually bend that population chart negative, Monte.

Like this? This is the norm. Are you saying we are above the laws of Nature?


Here's an actual example.

[MonteQuest]

It still shows population peaking out somewhere between 2030-2040.

The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Future population growth is highly dependent on the path that future fertility (TFR) will take, as relatively small changes in fertility behavior, when projected over decades, can generate large differences in total population. In recent years, fertility has declined in virtually all areas of the world, even in Africa where fertility levels remain the highest of any major area.

However, these "rosy" projections here are assuming that the TFR will continue to decline due to demographic transition. In other words, that the developing world will see the same urbanization and rise in the standard of living the developed world has seen over the last 40 to 50 years, resulting in better education, the emancipation of women, access to health care/birth control, etc.

I see no way, whatsoever, given the energy and debt constraints we face, that that is going to happen, do you?

[ennui2]

That doesn't answer my question in any way.

It doesn't have to, because it's never going to matter in the real world.

Both are reduced economic activity that will cost jobs.

You sound like a freaking neocon with this "jobs jobs jobs" manta. The world survived when jobs were lost in the past. As long as society huddles together rather than just grabs their knives and pitch-forks it doesn't have to be apocalyptic.

Are you saying we are above the laws of Nature?

I could say the same thing about your rejection of the LTG algorithm. The LTG algorithm is modeling the entire picture of human behavior. Catton's chart is modeling animals. So I think the LTG chart is more accurate, considering we have more tricks up our sleeve.

[ennui2]

The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report
...
I see no way, whatsoever, given the energy and debt constraints we face, that that is going to happen, do you?

No. We're going to have a die-off by mid-century. My stupid animations Pstarr likes to mock even had that phrase "massive die-off by mid-century" right in the opening narration. I still believe this to be true.

I don't know, at present, what the main causative factor will be for that die-off, but my best guess, based on all the data at present, is waves of crop failures due to AGW. So your emphasis on energy and debt I think is overstated. But I'm not that wedded to that narrative. It could very well be peak-oil or associate geopolitical chaos. So don't hold me to that prediction. This is the sort of qualification I'd like to see other people append to their predictions, but they don't do it. They just say "IRAN CABLE CUT! HERE WE GO FOLKS. GRAB YOUR POPCORN! WWIII HERE WE COME!" That's the kind of stuff that makes me face-palm. We're headed into apocalyptic territory but the series of specific causes and events from point A to B are currently not knowable.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

It still shows population peaking out somewhere between 2030-2040.

The current world population of 7.3 billion is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, according to a new UN DESA report, “World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Future population growth is highly dependent on the path that future fertility (TFR) will take, as relatively small changes in fertility behavior, when projected over decades, can generate large differences in total population. In recent years, fertility has declined in virtually all areas of the world, even in Africa where fertility levels remain the highest of any major area.

However, these "rosy" projections here are assuming that the TFR will continue to decline due to demographic transition. In other words, that the developing world will see the same urbanization and rise in the standard of living the developed world has seen over the last 40 to 50 years, resulting in better education, the emancipation of women, access to health care/birth control, etc.

I see no way, whatsoever, given the energy and debt constraints we face, that that is going to happen, do you?

I'm confused.

Are we going to see a populations higher or lower than those projected?

You're saying they are underestimating, then saying we are going to hit limits. I'd think that if we are hitting limits we won't see even those lower end projections. The die off will see that we won't come close to those.

Unless you're saying that we are going to hit thehigher projects mid to late century then have a harder population crash?

I've never been able to make sense of it.

[onlooker]

We may continue upward trends all the way to mid-century but at that point die-off pressures become dramatic and a free fall down in population numbers should be expected. Again time tables are the most difficult, the forcing elements we are all now all too familiar with.

[MonteQuest]

Are we going to see a populations higher or lower than those projected?

You're saying they are underestimating, then saying we are going to hit limits. I'd think that if we are hitting limits we won't see even those lower end projections. The die off will see that we won't come close to those.

Unless you're saying that we are going to hit the higher projects mid to late century then have a harder population crash?

I am saying I think those projections are too low for the years depicted. If demographic transition doesn't happen, then the TFR (total fertility rate) won't decline, and the world's population will grow at a faster pace. At our current growth rate of 1.14%, using the Rule of 70, 70/1.14 = 61.4 yrs until the current population doubles to 14.7 billion. That's 2077.

At that growth rate in 2030, we will have 8.5 billion. UN projects 8.5 billion

In 2050 10.7 billion. The UN projects 9.7 billion in 2050.

In 2100 18.9 billion. UN projects 11.2 billion.

So, you can see that the population is going to continue growing at 1.14% for the next 14 yrs due to population momentum even if the TFR falls by 2030. There is a lag time.

The lower numbers the UN projects assumes the TFR is going to continue to fall as the developing world urbanizes and sees a rise in their standard of living. The UN expects global fertility to drop from the current average of 2.5 children per woman to 2 children per woman by the end of the century. But these reductions aren’t going to just happen on their own. Demographic Transition must take place or a massive global investment (Manhattan Style Project) in family planning and reproductive health. If fertility rates are only half a child per woman over the rates expected, the population will reach 16.6 billion by 2100.

Even the UN doesn't see a peaking or leveling out of the world's population this century. Even at ZPG, 2 children/woman by the end of the century, due to population momentum, the world's population will continue to grow for another 50 to 75 years, albeit at a much slower rate.

I'm saying the growth rate isn't going to slow like they project, and we are going to have more people sooner.
Now, as to what number we might reach before there is a "correction" or die-off, I don't know. We might not see 8 billion, given we need to double food production by 2050. But consider that many Pherologists estimate the earth can support 3 billion on a sustainable basis, maybe more, maybe less. We are in severe Overshoot supported only by fossil fuels and they are going away.

Bottom line: We will all need to learn to share and/or fight over the remaining resources.

[Revi]

Population has already peaked in some parts of the world. We may see some more population gains, but I think it will peak in the 2030's, and start going down.

[MonteQuest]

Population has already peaked in some parts of the world. We may see some more population gains, but I think it will peak in the 2030's, and start going down.

And in those parts the countries are starting to pay people to have more children. Germany, Japan, Russia, Taiwan, Australia, Finland, Singapore, Denmark, France, Estonia, Sweden, Iceland, Poland, to name a few. China has abandoned their one-child policy to increase births. Wealthy Chinese are hiring American women surrogates to carry their babies to term. In the US, the fertility rate increased by 1% in 2014. In Russia, the fertility rate is also rising from 1.34 in 2009, to 1.54 in 2013 and is currently at 1.7. Japan's increased from 1.2 in 2010 to 1.4 in 2014.

And not just cash, but SUV's, refrigerators, clothing, etc.

So, that "peak" is going to be very short-lived.

I don't know of any credible study that shows the population will peak in 2030 and decline. Show me your numbers.

[Cog]

But according to you doomers we are all going to die within 10 years so population growth won't matter. Or are you doomers saying something different now?

[MonteQuest]

But according to you doomers we are all going to die within 10 years so population growth won't matter. Or are you doomers saying something different now?

10 years? For the last 11 years, I have said we don't know the tipping point. It's kind of like a boat loaded beyond it's rated capacity. In calm seas, you can get away with a few extra souls aboard, but not in rough seas, the boat will swamp.

What will be the rough seas? A pandemic? Loss of the bees? Economic collapse? War? I think it might well be a pandemic disease borne of bush meat; a zoonotic disease. Approximately 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonoses. There are over 2,500,000,000 cases of human illness and 2.7 million deaths annually due to the top 56 zoonoses.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

But according to you doomers we are all going to die within 10 years so population growth won't matter. Or are you doomers saying something different now?

I kind of agree with your sentiment.

This argument about population projections being underestimated when you imply the high probability of some major tipping point occurring well before they come to fruition is kind of silly. Why argue that projections based on the current conditions are inaccurate when you pretty much know the low probability of those conditions continuing?

[MonteQuest]

Why argue that projections based on the current conditions are inaccurate when you pretty much know the low probability of those conditions continuing?

Because many think overpopulation is a non-issue that will be solved by a human population no longer growing, and in fact, declining. That was the argument that was made I was rebutting.

[Pops]

What will be the rough seas? A pandemic? Loss of the bees?

It is Apocalyptic Environmentalism, the means are less important than the belief that we are the peak.

Apocalyptic environmentalism is not simply old Christian wine in new bottles, but rather a uniquely narcissistic variant of it. What makes us special, we Western greens tell ourselves, is not simply that we love and understand nature better, but that our generation has the power to save it.
The Greatest Generation got to defeat fascism and communism while in the post-Cold War era, Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millennials get to defeat an "adversary that is dispersed to the four corners of the earth and that can have all sorts of faces."
There is thus, in the fanaticism of the apocalypse, equal parts misanthropy and narcissism, self-loathing and self-aggrandizement. "Behind their lamentations," Bruckner writes sardonically, "the catastrophists are bursting with self-importance."

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/E ... 587726.php

[MonteQuest]

It is Apocalyptic Environmentalism, the means are less important than the belief that we are the peak.

It's basic biology.

[vtsnowedin]

As people continue to migrate away from distressed areas they will come into conflict with the resident population where they end up. This will lead to an increase in the death rate due to war on top of the rise in the death rate due to famine where they came from. Look to New Years Eve in Germany for example.

[Pops]

It is Apocalyptic Environmentalism, the means are less important than the belief that we are the peak.

It's basic biology.

No, it's hubris.

Peak Everything! And amazingly, in my lifetime!
Peak population. economy. civilization. bees. food. medicine. What are the odds?

I used to hate to read people say how many times the End of Oil had been predicted. But you know, I am coming around to that stage, not so much about PO but about the whole die off bit. Just another version of a self referential secular apocalypse fable that puts ME at the center of the climax of the story.

Just like Ehrlich, Malthus, John the Apostle, the guy that drew himself killing a wooly mammoth on the side of that cave.

You coming back with exactly the same old bromides as 10 years ago really brings it home.