[DesuMaiden]

I know with virtual certainty that the population will crash after peak oil. There is no way we can support 7 billion + people without oil. Now the better question is this. How will the population decrease? Will it be a catastrophic die off where most of the deaths happen within a very short span of time (let's say within 5 to 10 years). Or will the die off happen slowly, and there will only be slow decreases in population or perhaps 1 or 2% per year decrease in population for the next 50 to 100 years? Or will it be a combination of fast and slow population decrease? This means the population experiences fast die offs with slow population decreases between the fast die offs. I just hope the population doesn't suddenly crash to under 2 billion people starting in another 2 decades. I hope the die off is slow, because a fast die off is virtually impossible to prepare for. If several billion people perish within the span of 5 to 10 years, that would be virtually impossible to prepare for because the deaths would be too catastrophic to handle. I want the population to slowly decrease over the next 50 to 100 years, and not suddenly experience large scale deaths.

[vtsnowedin]

History would lead us to believe that a sudden die off caused by famine quite possibly brought on by war is the most likely cause of the expected die off. Anything gradual and people being the clever and desperate creatures they are find ways around it. But cut off their food supply and eliminate their ability to grow or buy more and they will die within months.
This time around I expect a collapse of the western economies will be the trigger. A lack of credit will prevent farmers both private and commercial from planting and harvesting a sizable portion of the crops they grow today. There is not enough slack in the system to withstand such a cut back in acreage planted and worldwide shortages will result. The collapsed economy will also have created widespread unemployment and the collapse of government benefits of all types. So not only will there not be enough food on the store shelves you won't have any money or credit to buy it with.
Living in the city you will have rat on the menu as long as the rats last. In Paris in the siege of 1870-71 they lasted four months. They ate everything, the cats the dogs , the horses even the elephants in the zoo.
This same collapse will mean there is no grain or other food available for export which will spread famine and death to all those countries that relies on imported food from the west . It will snowball from there.

[GregT]

History would lead us to believe that a sudden die off caused by famine quite possibly brought on by war is the most likely cause of the expected die off.

There are four horsemen. You forgot one of them vt. Pestilence. War, famine, pestilence and death.

No die-off would be complete without infectious disease.

[vtsnowedin]

History would lead us to believe that a sudden die off caused by famine quite possibly brought on by war is the most likely cause of the expected die off.

There are four horsemen. You forgot one of them vt. Pestilence. War, famine, pestilence and death.

No die-off would be complete without infectious disease.

During a war caused by famine I'm sure pestilence will show up uninvited.
There are many history lessons on that, The smallpox plague in Athens during the Peloponnesion war (434 -404BCE) and the Swine Flu. of 1918 being examples.

[forbin]

the 5th Horseman is chaos but you already knew that

Also if Fembots become mainstream and as actual robots or androids instead of the current virtual ones then we'll die out due to lack of reproduction

sorry the west is already doing that ( low birth rates ) so all we need is to export our life style to the Row and ........... ah oh . yes there's a problem here Houston ......


Forbin

[SeaGypsy]

meet-cannibalistic-capitalism-globalization-s-evil-twin-t66150.html

Something along these lines.
When capitalism masters cannibalism & this becomes the status quo we are on the long road.

[Pops]

It could happen like this



http://www.ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/webjourna ... donald.pdf

[dinopello]

Don't expect no help from the Romney clan



I guess the point is, don't worry ... we won't run out of presidents either

[Pops]

You're in rare form lately D.

LOL

[Subjectivist]

Some people like having a lot of kids while others had a lot of kids because of cultural or economic factors. With good life expectancy and social safety nets those who had lots of kids for security in old age no longer need to do so, and with changed economic circumstances those who had many kids for family labor reasons also have no motivation to do so. Sociological reasons are causing like these are causing many women to reduce or forgo reproduction completely. That doesn't mean that if circumstances change the next generation of girls won't grow up and then produce multiple children of their own some time in the future.

[Pops]

Read the paper I linked above Sub. it argues the opposite:

In general, Group 2 countries are countries in
which there is a strong, traditional value that family
and state are separate entities and that families
should support their own members without intervention
from the state. Accordingly, states in these
regions have been slow to implement broad-based,
family assistance measures. The opposite tends to
be the case in the Group 1 countries; in general,
they are notable for the family-friendly institutional
arrangements that they have implemented in the
past 20 years. Thus, the argument is that there are
universal social and economic trends that draw
young people away from family formation but that
in Group 1 countries the effect of these trends is
less severe because of the family support policies
that they have introduced.

[Tanada]

Read the paper I linked above Sub. it argues the opposite:

In general, Group 2 countries are countries in
which there is a strong, traditional value that family
and state are separate entities and that families
should support their own members without intervention
from the state. Accordingly, states in these
regions have been slow to implement broad-based,
family assistance measures. The opposite tends to
be the case in the Group 1 countries; in general,
they are notable for the family-friendly institutional
arrangements that they have implemented in the
past 20 years. Thus, the argument is that there are
universal social and economic trends that draw
young people away from family formation but that
in Group 1 countries the effect of these trends is
less severe because of the family support policies
that they have introduced.

Maybe you understand it Pops but I read that citation three times and am still not sure what that gobblydygook is trying to say. Sounds like the USA would be a Group 2 country based on the terminology and the EU countries would be group 1? However birth rates are lower in EU than USA so the statement is arguing exactly the opposite???

[Pops]

did you read the link?

[Tanada]

did you read the link?

No I read the quote you posted because I thought that was the significant part of the link lol!

[Hawkcreek]

I expect that young people who spend all their time posting on the web will go first --- then everybody else.
Naa, just kiddin -

I don't think PO will cause a "total" die off. It will be a slow reset to a less energy intensive lifestyle for everyone. That will kill off a lot of people, but at some point the available energy / food / water resources will reach a new equilibrium point (probably several cycles of this type).
The trick is to find a way to stay alive during the decline.

[MD]

You're in rare form lately D.

LOL

[Outcast_Searcher]

I know with virtual certainty that the population will crash after peak oil. There is no way we can support 7 billion + people without oil.

First, you do NOT know any such thing. After peak oil means less oil, not anything close to NO oil. Less oil means oil and its byproducts will get more expensive over time. So let's say in the US that gasoline doubles in price over a decade. No problem, just switch from the giant SUV, pickup truck, big Caddy, etc. to something like a Prius C (for a lot less money) and have your gas mileage in the city nearly triple. This ONE act would greatly mitigate the demand for gasoline in the US for a good decade.

And, if over time, oil consistently gets seriously more expensive, people can do things like (gasp) have one kid instead of five. Or live in a much smaller house, or an apartment. Or skip long distance vacations and lots of unnecessary consumer crap. And live with the house at 65 degrees in the winter (wear a heavy hoodie and long underwear) and 78 degrees in the summer (use a fan), as I have done for years.

And on and on. And in the mean time as the trend becomes very obvious, even to the GOP, substitutes like nuke plants and more green energy can help.

Being inconvenienced and economically forced to live a more meager lifestyle and consume less energy does NOT have to mean death for many, and certainly not a population "crash", since society can and will adapt.

But I know, this view won't be popular on this site, even though this is what has happened throughout history -- societies adapt as things change (imagine that).

[dolanbaker]

I know with virtual certainty that the population will crash after peak oil. There is no way we can support 7 billion + people without oil.

First, you do NOT know any such thing. After peak oil means less oil, not anything close to NO oil. Less oil means oil and its byproducts will get more expensive over time. So let's say in the US that gasoline doubles in price over a decade. No problem, just switch from the giant SUV, pickup truck, big Caddy, etc. to something like a Prius C (for a lot less money) and have your gas mileage in the city nearly triple. This ONE act would greatly mitigate the demand for gasoline in the US for a good decade.

And, if over time, oil consistently gets seriously more expensive, people can do things like (gasp) have one kid instead of five. Or live in a much smaller house, or an apartment. Or skip long distance vacations and lots of unnecessary consumer crap. And live with the house at 14 degrees in the winter (wear a heavy hoodie and long underwear) and 28 degrees in the summer (use a fan), as I have done for years.

And on and on. And in the mean time as the trend becomes very obvious, even to the GOP, substitutes like nuke plants and more green energy can help.

Being inconvenienced and economically forced to live a more meagre lifestyle and consume less energy does NOT have to mean death for many, and certainly not a population "crash", since society can and will adapt.

But I know, this view won't be popular on this site, even though this is what has happened throughout history -- societies adapt as things change (imagine that).

I think that the key point is that as consumers offload useless consumption, the remaining oil will last for longer, in fact it would probably have to decline around 80% or so before essential services are at risk of failing and that's assuming that alternatives don't come in wherever possible.

There is an enormous amount of "slack" in the system that can be taken up before there is even the hint of a crisis.

Of course the economy will get hammered and jobs will go as people shift from buying consumer goods to durable products that have long design lives, consumers won't buy expensive crap in the same way as they buy cheap stuff. It's the lack of jobs resulting from the decline in energy that will be the real issue in the coming decades.

[ralfy]

I know with virtual certainty that the population will crash after peak oil. There is no way we can support 7 billion + people without oil.

First, you do NOT know any such thing. After peak oil means less oil, not anything close to NO oil. Less oil means oil and its byproducts will get more expensive over time. So let's say in the US that gasoline doubles in price over a decade. No problem, just switch from the giant SUV, pickup truck, big Caddy, etc. to something like a Prius C (for a lot less money) and have your gas mileage in the city nearly triple. This ONE act would greatly mitigate the demand for gasoline in the US for a good decade.

And, if over time, oil consistently gets seriously more expensive, people can do things like (gasp) have one kid instead of five. Or live in a much smaller house, or an apartment. Or skip long distance vacations and lots of unnecessary consumer crap. And live with the house at 65 degrees in the winter (wear a heavy hoodie and long underwear) and 78 degrees in the summer (use a fan), as I have done for years.

And on and on. And in the mean time as the trend becomes very obvious, even to the GOP, substitutes like nuke plants and more green energy can help.

Being inconvenienced and economically forced to live a more meager lifestyle and consume less energy does NOT have to mean death for many, and certainly not a population "crash", since society can and will adapt.

But I know, this view won't be popular on this site, even though this is what has happened throughout history -- societies adapt as things change (imagine that).

We might be facing a combination of predicaments: peak oil, financial crises, and environmental damage coupled with the effects of global warming. Add to that other problems that may stem from these, such as increased vectors for the spread of disease, antibiotic resistance, "peak other things" (fishing, arable soil, various minerals, fresh water), increased arms production, sales, and deployment, overpopulation, etc., and how some problems may cause or reinforce others. For example,

"Drought helped cause Syria’s war. Will climate change bring more like it?" (mentioned in another thread; the other points above are also discussed in various threads)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... e-like-it/

The effects of combinations of resilience and complexity are discussed in more detail here:

"On the cusp of collapse: complexity, energy, and the globalised economy" (mentioned in another thread)

http://www.feasta.org/2011/10/08/on-the ... d-economy/

There are some more that have been shared in other threads, such as the effects of a limited nuclear conflict on the climate, the manner by which nuclear reactor accidents may overwhelm societal systems.

A recent study of an issue related to the topic is reported here:

"Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse" (mentioned in other threads)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

Finally, one can look at this in light ecological footprint (mentioned several times in various threads):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

That is, global ave. ecological footprint per capita has already exceeded biocapacity per capita. The former has to keep rising as more people worldwide seek basic needs, while the latter drops given increasing population plus environmental damage coupled with the effects of global warming.

Finally, societies in the past did adjust to various crises, but I'm not sure if they experienced the combination of crises that are taking place today, as well as factors including a large global population, arms proliferation, significant environmental damage, and the effects of global warming.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Finally, societies in the past did adjust to various crises, but I'm not sure if they experienced the combination of crises that are taking place today, as well as factors including a large global population, arms proliferation, significant environmental damage, and the effects of global warming.

Good post. Excellent points.

Certainly looking at the big picture of serious problems coupled with the onward BAU activity in consumption (for those who can afford it) and population growth, the picture isn't pretty.

Environmental damage including global warming scares me more than oil depletion -- because there is so little obvious financial incentive to fix it. (This could eventually change, but I'm not a fan of the competence or proactiveness of big government to take the longer view).

Certainly looking at all the big problems, humanity could certainly kill itself. However, I still believe that once problems are obvious, societies will at least TRY to adapt, so IMO, it is highly unlikely the end of modern society will be rapid -- more like a horrendous grind down, where unlike since the 70's (say) where things overall seem to be blundering sideways, the losses will outweigh the gains.