[VMarcHart]

Why not assume the standard of living will fall to 1/3 of it's present value (or less) instead of assuming the population will fall to 1/3rd it's present value?

K, I envision a combo; fall in standard of living and in population. Definetely the former first, but unquestionably followed by the latter. If we look at recent natural catastrophes, ie, Katrina, California fires, Kansas tornadoes, Mississippi River floods, we witnessed people losing their standard of living "live", and then the casualty reports. When it hits the fan, there are both kinds of losses, and technology can only do so much.

[MrBean]

What do you project as the most likely range of oil decline, after factoring in new projects coming online?

I have no idea. No one does really.

The EIA just reported that existing fields are declining at 5.2%/yr up from 4% last year.

This might give some idea (land export model):


Rate of decline in net exports:
2005-2006 1,10%
2006-2007 2,24%

So if the net production goes into decline about 2010, as many predict, and even at modest rate of 2% annually, the oil available for open market will decline much faster, most likely not under 5% annual rate and very likely much more than that.

I'm guessing global oil market effectively shuts down during period of 2012-2014 (just to make Mayans happy ) after which only bilateral trade exist. And Finland will beg to be allowed to rejoin the Russian Empire...

[MrBean]

2) Post peak, the drop in fertility is not going to happen in any developing country.

Cuba etc. give contrary evidence to this claim.

Cuba is not a "developing" country.

OK, "lower middle income" country then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worl ... groups.svg

Does changing terminology change anything?

[kublikhan]

They are not my figures. Look at the metrics used. What it says is that we cannot maintain 300 million even if we switched to total solar at a slightly less standard of living.
How do you propose we cut everything by 30% across the board?
A recent study by two physicists said that a 25% cut would be eclipsed by population growth alone in 13 years.
And why not assume the SOL will fall as opposed to the population falling? Because we are in overshoot and overshoot populations inevitably crash. We have no such plan B, nor would ever entertain one until too late to make a difference. By the time enough people were on board...the pond would be covered. See video.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it went through a sharp decline in the standard of living, lower birth rates, and higher death rates. Russia's population is still shrinking.

[MrBean]

They are not my figures. Look at the metrics used. What it says is that we cannot maintain 300 million even if we switched to total solar at a slightly less standard of living.
How do you propose we cut everything by 30% across the board?
A recent study by two physicists said that a 25% cut would be eclipsed by population growth alone in 13 years.
And why not assume the SOL will fall as opposed to the population falling? Because we are in overshoot and overshoot populations inevitably crash. We have no such plan B, nor would ever entertain one until too late to make a difference. By the time enough people were on board...the pond would be covered. See video.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it went through a sharp decline in the standard of living, lower birth rates, and higher death rates. Russia's population is still shrinking.

Yes, and the same in other parts of former soviet block.

BTW, biggest cause of deaths in Russia = vodka. Not pandemia.
PARTY ON, DUDES!

[yesplease]

not a proof so to speak, as noted by the If suchansuch, then suchandsuch bit. Not a whole lot to to prove there.

So, an opinion, not a logical statement. The "if ... then" implied that one follows from the other, which it did not.

Not an opinion, an axiom. You are familiar w/ 'em aren't you?

[yesplease]

Love how you ignore the question:

"Like it needs to? What energy source created and supported industrialization and urbanization if not fossil fuels?

Wood?"

I'm not interested in trivial statements. You may as well go on to the shocking conclusion that people will die. I would ignore that as well!

I know of no one, besides you, who needs proof that fossil fuels were the energy source behind the industrialization of developed countries.

Don't you ever get tired of strawmen Monty? I never claimed I needed any proof of that statement. All I did was ask for proof of this statement, among others...

Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That being said, as is illustrated by current examples, the statement you made is contradicted by data from countries that are lowering birthrates w/o cheap, readily available fossil fuels via other mechanisms. Instead they raise the standard of living via other methods with the same result.

[MonteQuest]

Does changing terminology change anything?

(sigh) Google Demographic Transition and read what a developing country is.

It is not Cuba.

[MrBean]

Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That being said, as is illustrated by current examples, the statement you made is contradicted by data from countries that are lowering birthrates w/o cheap, readily available fossil fuels via other mechanisms. Instead they raise the standard of living via other methods with the same result.

Would be interesting to see if Monte was - once in a while - able to change his opinion and admit that also he could be wrong sometimes, instead of the usual condescending retort in order to protect his ego.

As for me (to quote:): Thank God, I have my ego under my total control.

[MonteQuest]

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it went through a sharp decline in the standard of living, lower birth rates, and higher death rates. Russia's population is still shrinking.

And your point is?

[MrBean]

Does changing terminology change anything?

(sigh) Google Demographic Transition and read what a developing country is.

Sigh to you. Done both. Your turn, start from Wikipedia.

[MonteQuest]

I know of no one, besides you, who needs proof that fossil fuels were the energy source behind the industrialization of developed countries.

Don't you ever get tired of strawmen Monty? I never claimed I needed any proof of that statement. All I did was ask for proof of this statement, among others...

Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

Same thing.

That being said, as is illustrated by current examples, the statement you made is contradicted by data from countries that are lowering birthrates w/o cheap, readily available fossil fuels via other mechanisms. Instead they raise the standard of living via other methods with the same result.

Cuba is not a developing country, thus not a current example.

[MonteQuest]

Would be interesting to see if Monte was - once in a while - able to change his opinion and admit that also he could be wrong sometimes, instead of the usual condescending retort in order to protect his ego.

Do your homework, then. You do not have enough grasp of the concepts of Demographic Transition to even have an opinion, much less debate it.

That is an educated observation from someone who has been studying demography for 33 years.

Has nothing to do with ego, for christ sakes, has to do with having a grasp of the issue being debated.

[MrBean]

Cuba is not a developing country, thus not a current example.

How do you then define Cuba and/or which of the available defintions meaningfull re BDT would you be ready to accept? Given that Cuba certainly is not a mature industrial country and does not fit what according to you a BDT requires from a country?

[kublikhan]

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it went through a sharp decline in the standard of living, lower birth rates, and higher death rates. Russia's population is still shrinking.

And your point is?

That that is an example of an across the board standard of living cut. An example of a cut that was not wiped out by population growth 13 years later. An example that with no Plan B in place, a standard of living cut can still take place even when policies are horrible(especially if policies are horrible).

[MonteQuest]

Does changing terminology change anything?

(sigh) Google Demographic Transition and read what a developing country is.

Sigh to you. Done both. Your turn, start from Wikipedia.

Look where the high birth rates are. Look at Africa and Asia. These "developing countries" are the ones that DMT is supposed to lower the fertility rate due to rising incomes, economic growth, better health care, education, empowerment of women, as they industrialize.

With peak oil on the horizon, these countries are not going to industrialize.

Connect the dots.

[MrBean]

Would be interesting to see if Monte was - once in a while - able to change his opinion and admit that also he could be wrong sometimes, instead of the usual condescending retort in order to protect his ego.

Do your homework, then. You do not have enough grasp of the concepts of Demographic Transition to even have an opinion, much less debate it.

That is an educated observation from someone who has been studying demography for 33 years.

Has nothing to do with ego, for christ sakes, has to do with having a grasp of the issue being debated.

Bolding what Monte calls "non ad-hominem" and "observation" in lack of arguments and a grasp of the issue being debated...

The admission that Monte calls and considers this a "debate" instead of a discussion or a dialogue to gain better understanding of the issue, reveals that in his case this has all to do with ego.

[Ludi]

The admission that Monte calls and considers this a "debate" instead of a discussion or a dialogue to gain better understanding of the issue, reveals that in his case this has all to do with ego.

So what?

[MonteQuest]

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it went through a sharp decline in the standard of living, lower birth rates, and higher death rates. Russia's population is still shrinking.

And your point is?

That that is an example of an across the board standard of living cut. An example of a cut that was not wiped out by population growth 13 years later. An example that with no Plan B in place, a standard of living cut can still take place even when policies are horrible(especially if policies are horrible).

You don't grasp overshoot, do you?

[MonteQuest]

The admission that Monte calls and considers this a "debate" instead of a discussion or a dialogue to gain better understanding of the issue, reveals that in his case this has all to do with ego.

Then discuss it with someone else.

I could care less. I"m not here to win debates or feed an ego.