[MrBean]

No, human population will crash to levels probably below natural carrying capacity due to our degree of overshoot.

That is the most likely outcome. However, natural carrying capacity is not a fixed number but a dynamic consept depending on countless variables. Hence, natural carrying capacity is unknown and unknowable.

It will not decline due to a dropping fertility rate as the Benign Demographic Transition is over.

Huh? BDT is not over but still continues - in some locations.

You confuse overshoot with exceeding carrying capacity. It would behoove you to grasp the difference. Otherwise, your statements become non-sensical.

Then I'm not the only one: "In ecology, overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment. The consequence of overshoot is called a crash or die-off. For a classic application of this concept to human experience, see Catton.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot

Catton himself defines the noun as: "The condition of having exceeded for the time being the permanent carrying capacity of the habitat."

So, could you please enlighten me, what is the difference?

As for permanent carrying capacity, that is the point of my criticism, it is a misleading concept as carrying capacity is a dynamic variable: e.g. human technocratic civilization by it's actions has been and keeps on eroding natural carrying capacity (biodiversity, fertility of soil etc.) at increasing speed, as you well know - and a radical paradigm change of not interfering with natural processes but allowing them and supporting them (e.g. natural farming, agroforestry etc.) would in turn increase the natural carrying capacity (something you seem to deny?).

[BigTex]

It's worth noting that one way of increasing the underlying carrying capacity with respect to one species is to exterminate other species.

We have been using this approach successfully for centuries. For example, up until 10,000 years ago, the next largest population of large land-based predator mammals behind humans was the lion. Now, lions are a tiny population. Because the lion population was dramatically reduced, it made more room for humans and other predators.

The problem with this approach is that the world depends upon a certain degree of biodiversity in order for life in general to survive over very long periods of time.

For example, let's say that the climate changes in a way that causes all of the humans to die (sort of like the dinosaurs). If there is rich biodiversity, then another life form may be able to step into the void and continue the evolutionary life process that has been occurring for millions of years.

However, if when the human population dies as a result of the climate change in my example, and the species that would otherwise step into the void has been exterminated because humans considered them a pest or liked the way they tasted, then the continuation of life in any form on earth may be at risk.

The point is simply that exterminating competitors for food and habitat may not be the risk-free proposition that some suggest it is, putting aside the issue of the ethics and morality of this approach.

Fundamentally, most people take it as a given that environmental conquest is acceptable, so long as it is done for the purpose of providing more habitat and critical resources for humans. This unquestioned assumption may be less sound than some people imagine. In fact, this assumption and its flaws may be the basis for much of our mythology.

It's interesting to think about the religious traditions that posit man as a fundamentally evil creature. I've never really understood this, since humans have about equal measures of good and bad in them most of the time. When you look at the matter from an ecological perspective, however, perhaps there is a deep insight about our nature in the "Fallen Man" mythology--perhaps what is evil in our nature is that we do not see that there is any harm in using the world as a piece of stone from which we are carving our imagined destiny.

It is this same insight that was touched upon in the Tower of Babel story and in much Greek mythology--i.e., the idea that when Man attempts to make himself god-like bad things happen. I never really understood the problem with this either--I didn't see why God would have a problem with some people building a big tower. Viewed from an ecological perspective, however, and as I note above, the matter looks a little different, and there may be some profound insights in those stories, and maybe that's why they have endured for so long.

If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.

***

(Credit to Daniel Quinn for some of these ideas that are still floating around my head after recently reading "Ishmael".)

[Ludi]

If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.

These stories may have roots in experiences peoples had when they didn't pay attention to limits and their populations collapsed to near-extinction. Perhaps some stories from the American Southwest date from the time of the collapse of the Anasazi empire. I think most myths have some basis in reality, and are stories about the past. Even prophecies of the future may be warning tales not to repeat bad behavior of the past.

[MrBean]

If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.

These stories may have roots in experiences peoples had when they didn't pay attention to limits and their populations collapsed to near-extinction. Perhaps some stories from the American Southwest date from the time of the collapse of the Anasazi empire. I think most myths have some basis in reality, and are stories about the past. Even prophecies of the future may be warning tales not to repeat bad behavior of the past.

The myth of Oedipus, as told by Sophocles, seems popular in the ecopsychology litterature. Interesting myth from the view point of deep ecology:

www.ecopsychology.org/journal/ezine/arc ... edipus.pdf
www.ecopsychology.org/journal/ezine/arc ... dipus2.pdf

The heavy thing about myths is that they can be understood only by living them.

[BigTex]

If you've ever wondered why many cultural traditions seems to have an "end of the world" mythology, perhaps it is because deep in the recesses of our collective conscience we may realize that today's celebration of mankind's intelligence and ingenuity may be tomorrow's sorrow when our hubris is exposed.

These stories may have roots in experiences peoples had when they didn't pay attention to limits and their populations collapsed to near-extinction. Perhaps some stories from the American Southwest date from the time of the collapse of the Anasazi empire. I think most myths have some basis in reality, and are stories about the past. Even prophecies of the future may be warning tales not to repeat bad behavior of the past.

The myth of Oedipus, as told by Sophocles, seems popular in the ecopsychology litterature. Interesting myth from the view point of deep ecology:

www.ecopsychology.org/journal/ezine/arc ... edipus.pdf
www.ecopsychology.org/journal/ezine/arc ... dipus2.pdf

The heavy thing about myths is that they can be understood only by living them.

I will never forget my sixth grade social studies teacher and the way she covered Greek mythology. She presented it as the silly set of beliefs of a silly and self-destructive culture.

She was open about her own Christianity and made no secret that it was clearly the one and only truth.

I asked her if maybe the Greeks felt the same way about their beliefs as she did hers. She about blew a fuse from that one.

In retrospect, I think that my intuition that day was right on the money. Simply put, there is truth in myth. If there was no truth, the stories would not have been passed down. The trick, of course, is removing the blinders of one's own culture to extract the truths from these myths that have been handed to us.

Regarding the topic of myths and mythology, I really enjoyed "The Golden Bough" by James George Frazer (here it is free online: http://www.bartleby.com/196/) and "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Conrad and Bill Moyers. There is obviously a library of books on this topic, but those are a couple of good ones.

[Ludi]

"The Power of Myth" by Joseph [s]Conrad[/s] Campbell and Bill Moyers.

[MrBean]

"The Power of Myth" by Joseph [s]Conrad[/s]

Speaking about the Power of Myth manifesting as Freudian slips!

Kurtz: "Drop the bomb. Exterminate them All!"; "The horror! The horror!"

[BigTex]

"The Power of Myth" by Joseph [s]Conrad[/s] Campbell and Bill Moyers.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

Actually, the way I got my wires crossed on that is that in "Apocalypse Now" Colonel Kurtz had a copy of "The Golden Bough" on his nightstand, and every time I think of "The Golden Bough" I think of Joseph Conrad and "Heart of Darkness."

I just Googled this, so don't think I remembered, but there were two other books on Kurtz's nightstand--"The Wasteland" by T.S. Eliot and "From Ritual to Romance" by Jessie L. Weston.

That would make a great Jeopardy question.

[MonteQuest]

No, human population will crash to levels probably below natural carrying capacity due to our degree of overshoot.

That is the most likely outcome. However, natural carrying capacity is not a fixed number but a dynamic consept depending on countless variables. Hence, natural carrying capacity is unknown and unknowable.

So, when the studies say 2 to 3 billion, you figure it is safe to shoot for 13.4 billion...which is our current trajectory?

Huh? BDT is not over but still continues - in some locations.

So, you see economic development continuing in the developed countries like it has over the last 40 years? You are nuts.

So, could you please enlighten me, what is the difference?

I have explained this sooooo many times......

I'll make it simple. the numbers are irrelevant, the difference is.

Exceed = 100 individuals beyond capacity. Birth rate slows, some die-back. No sugar in the petri dish. Normal food supply. Normal growth.

Overshoot= 10,000 individuals beyond capacity. Reproductive ability diminishes, massive crash. Lots of sugar in the petri dish, exponential growth.

All species exceed, some overshoot. We overshot.

[MrBean]

So, when the studies say 2 to 3 billion, you figure it is safe to shoot for 13.4 billion...which is our current trajectory?

Officially, peaking at about 9 billion around 2050 and then slowly reducing. But you knew that of course so why ask? Other than to create a strawman to attack. I'm a doomer and you know it so what's with the crap you keep dishing at me? All I've said is that we cannot know the natural carrying capacity and don't know it - and if you say it is knowable you are in denial. Situation is simple enough, we are eroding the natural carrying capacity to our own peril.

Huh? BDT is not over but still continues - in some locations.

So, you see economic development continuing in the developed countries like it has over the last 40 years? You are nuts.

Why ask me a question and then call me nuts before I answer. Go wash your mouth, little boy.

Who knows, maybe Cuba with ongoing BDT - a "developing" country by the usual definition - can pull it of, having done so once allready and learning much from the process.

I have explained this sooooo many times......

I'll make it simple. the numbers are irrelevant, the difference is.

Exceed = 100 individuals beyond capacity. Birth rate slows, some die-back. No sugar in the petri dish. Normal food supply. Normal growth.

Overshoot= 10,000 individuals beyond capacity. Reproductive ability diminishes, massive crash. Lots of sugar in the petri dish, exponential growth.

All species exceed, some overshoot. We overshot.

Obviously not explained enough times to make sense. I'm still guessing.

[BigTex]

So, when the studies say 2 to 3 billion, you figure it is safe to shoot for 13.4 billion...which is our current trajectory?

Officially, peaking at about 9 billion around 2050 and then slowly reducing.

I wonder about that projection.

What went into that projection? Does it assume steadily rising per capita incomes? What other assumptions are used to get to that number?

Every population projection from the past has included a peak, but it's never happened.

It seems to me that population will continue growing no matter what, right up until the day that there isn't enough food to feed all the people, at which time people will begin slimming down.

[MonteQuest]

Officially, peaking at about 9 billion around 2050 and then slowly reducing. But you knew that of course so why ask? Other than to create a strawman to attack.

Strawman? You really should do some homework. The UN projection is based upon a contining decline in fertility due to Benign Demographic Transition via cheap, readiliy available fossil fuels as experienced over the last 40 years.

Only a fool would assume that that projection will ever come to pass. This is the same argument we have been hearing since I joined this site in 2004.

In 2005, the growth rate was flat at 1.14%. In 2006, it was flat at 1.14%.

In 2007 it rose to 1.16%

In 2008, it is estimated to be flat at 1.16%

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=24

Go here and plug in your variant.

http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2

They expect most of the fertility decline to come after 2020.

[MrBean]

As said, it's the "official" UN projection, not mine, and I don't consider it likely. The whole discussion has become quite silly.

[Ludi]

It seems to me that population will continue growing no matter what, right up until the day that there isn't enough food to feed all the people, at which time people will begin slimming down.

The Food Race

[BigTex]

The whole discussion has become quite silly.

Do you mean it's silly for any agency like the UN to seriously suggest that human population growth will voluntarily cease without a catalyst like starvation?

Or are you saying that it's silly to discuss whether human population growth can be voluntarily stopped under any set of circumstances?

Or are you saying that it's silly to worry about tomorrow when we can go outside and play today?

[MrBean]

The whole discussion has become quite silly.

Do you mean it's silly for any agency like the UN to seriously suggest that human population growth will voluntarily cease without a catalyst like starvation?

Or are you saying that it's silly to discuss whether human population growth can be voluntarily stopped under any set of circumstances?

Or are you saying that it's silly to worry about tomorrow when we can go outside and play today?

No, just me and MQ having silly communication problems.

[ROCKMAN]

Mr Bean,

Just as Forrest Gump might have said: "Silly is as silly does"

I personally enjoy good banter...takes the mind of the soul numbing problems for a bit.

[outcast]

Yes but some is better than none even if it takes several years. Right now and in the coming decade we have no alternative. That scares me.

joeltrout

Sure we do. Powerdown all aspects of our lives.

Developing more energy is what scares me.

If you want to live in the dark ages, go ahead. You'll found out very quickly just how much it sucks.


EDIT: Forgot to add one more comment:

and reduce the population.

Are you volunteering?

[Ludi]

If you want to live in the dark ages, go ahead.

The "knee deep in horseshit" response.

[outcast]

The "knee deep in horseshit" response.

Not really. Here we have someone who is actively discouraging energy development because he clearly wants to see our society fail, and all of us go back to an era of darkness.

In reality sensible investments in nuclear power as well as alternative energy sources for most vehicles (such as electric cars) would go a long way towards solving this issue.