[onlooker]

Just curious what others think. You can elaborate further on your choice especially if you see a see-saw type of scenario where perhaps for a portion of the century we will struggle greatly but towards the end we will have established a well-functioning society.

[GHung]

"...but towards the end we will have established a well-functioning society."

It depends on what you mean by "we". Those who live in areas least affected (or affected positively) by climate change, and who can triage enough energy and resources to support said society while managing some level of security, may be relatively successful compared to other groups. I doubt those other groups will sit quietly and permit others to achieve what I predict will be a more graceful contraction. It all comes down to distribution of available energy and resources, and whether or not some societies can maintain some level of cohesive cooperation. Declining economic availability of energy and resources will be universal. Seems that areas with declining equity are already falling apart.

I chose "Severe universal problems and some die-off" because I think that depletion and climate are going to kick everybody's butts, along with the resulting conflicts.

[onlooker]

I think G, you may have chosen the second choice , mixed future, with much inequality. It seems quite obvious that certain areas like in Asia, Middle East and Africa the fabric of society is caving in under the weight of over-population, resource shortage, bad governance etc. So the "We" should be very uneven thus this option. However, my fear is that because of Global Warming perhaps the worst option will manifest itself. Then again we may be spared by providence, luck or outside assistance. Northern countries already affluent may be able to have time to adapt to global warming. Appreciate the reply.

[Arthur75]

I chose 3, but somehow I "sit" more between 3 and 4, ie major universal problems and major die off.

[GHung]

I opted for the third choice because of our powerful tendency to discount future liabilities and consequences for more immediate returns. We aren't good long-term planners, collectively. We've banked a fairly massive backlog of consequences which we will be severely challenged to cope with as resource constraints and synergistic environmental changes become insurmountable with technology and huge energy/resource inputs. We've forced ourselves into a hard overshoot corner, and nature will force us back much closer to our historical baseline of population and resource use. Our population is an artifact of our extraction rate.

[dissident]

There has to be another category between 3 and 4. The last one is the extreme limit and 3 is rather tame. Humanity will not see the full impact of climate change this century. So I do not think a total extinction is possible. We can off ourselves with war and associated disease but, again, this is not a 100% removal process.

It is highly likely that this century will completely overshadow the last in terms of death toll from war, disease and famine. The one thing that is not waiting for humanity is a bright utopia.

[onlooker]

So true, it is what we have talked extensively about on this site. Optimists fail to grasp the nature of the entire predicament we are in. We have an unsustainable population size consuming in an unsustainable manner. Also as others have stated utilizing as principal energy a limited resource that is peaking which are Fossil Fuels. But what is worse of all now rubbing up against hard limits in terms of changing fundamentally the Biosphere and ecological balance on this Earth. The literature now is vast in terms of the damage we are doing to the Earth. At some point these changes will make living on this planet very difficult for all higher life forms.

[Tanada]

I picked option 2 because I don't believe total extinction is at all likely in the near term and I think some people through luck or planning will come through relatively unscathed. For the rest of us it will be harsh and perhaps deadly.

[dohboi]

I agree with others that I would prefer something between 3 and 4, but to balance the others, I cast the sole (so far) vote for 4. (I must admit that I was tempted to vote 1 just for ironic force; makes me wonder if whoever did vote one had similarly snarky intent?)

[onlooker]

I will catch the culprit, he gives a bad name to us doomers
By the way Dohboi, cannot refute you, considering the specter of Global Warming and how you are so in tune with it's ongoing progression and ultimate potential consequences.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

To the people saying "between 3 and 4", what exactly do severe universal problems and die-off mean to you? Those sounds pretty bad to me, kind of just short extinction. What is the intermediate between that and extinction?

[onlooker]

thanks for defending my poll. Yes just trying to be broad in the poll options to let others interpret the options as they will. Just to date somebody saying that something should be between 3 and 4 and another asking what? That is why your free to post a comment.

[GregT]

Given that we are already in overshoot by some 6 billion people or so, and that we continue to grow our populations and add even more CO2 into the environment with every passing year, I have to agree with others here, somewhere between numbers 3 and 4. I voted 4, because for the vast majority of people it will appear to be a mass extinction event, if they are fortunate. If we do reach tipping points however, all bets are off. We are done for as a species on this planet. Either way it probably doesn't make that much difference, the planet that we are leaving behind for others most likely isn't going to be overly pleasant.

[Ibon]

We will have plenty of materials and tools for civilization to last us until we slowly design a solar economy.

I chose option 1 for this reason, a bright utopia. Because I believe by the end of century there will only be a half billion of us to use these abundant resources.

One can hope right?

[Pops]

When I was younger, in the '70s, I thought mass extinction was a real possibility due to overpopulation, pollution, resource shortages, etc. I really believed we were lemmings on hind legs rushing for the exits. I wore a ZPG T-shirt as if I needed additional help not reproducing, LOL

That was into the beginning of the second industrial revolution. I date that around 1965 and base it on a couple of automatic fly reels I own, one is pre '65, has all cut and/or forged gears, it is solid, virtually indestructible, and repairable. The other, post-'65 is all stamped sheet metal and a little plastic. It is light, irreparable, but disposable because it was cheap.

I'm not exactly sure why that came to mind except to show that things do change; sometimes for the better, sometimes not, sometimes both. In the 1960's the fertility rate in the US was 3.5 or so and recently it is 1.8 which is far below replacement. Population growth is entirely immigration in the US, and what the owners won't tell their temporary supporters in the anti-immigration party is that the owners like it that way, they need it that way. Not only do more consumers increase profits, more workers keeps down the ultimate evil— wages. Additionally, increasing population keeps the government retirement and health system payroll taxes flowing that might otherwise, heaven forbid, become the responsibility of the owners again.

Anyway, partly due to the effects of the ownership winning the war and the wage earner losing, I think this century will see peak humans, not because of die off but because of birth off. I've pointed out in several threads that the permanent recession, partly a result of the owners prepping for the end of the world by cutting their customer's throats, will see birth rates fall below replacement and perhaps fall dramatically further.

On this site our mascot is the black swan, but I think we get confused by "black" thinking that indicates not only the unexpected, but that the unexpected is always bad. Also reminiscing on the US, I can remember how bad the air and water was in the '70s, the black swan that time was a republican who, because of political expediency, created the foundation of the US environmental regulatory system. He also put the final stroke to the political black swan of the later half of the century that flipped uneducated rural whites and blue collar workers from their traditional union and worker oriented D party to the R party. The Rs had been the party of the owners and professionals and historically against our "Particular Institution". That was a biggie in recent US history because instead of economic issues dividing the parties, they became divided almost exclusively along racial and social lines.

And it is no better today. In fact probably worse because Obama just freaked people out. Lately he is closer to 50% approval than 40% but less than one in four uneducated white men approve, only 1 in 3 educated white men, race is the primary factor in his approval. The US obviously still has a real problem with race and I think Obama hurt more than helped by hardening the bias rather than softening it. Some of that is disapproval from the far left but it is more about race than we all would like to admit. Lets not kid ourselves, here in America we are still arming for The Uprising.


But I digress, lol. If shale is not the Grail then Ron could well be right and peak is now. If the US has another round left then peak will happen likely by 2020, gas a decade later and coal a decade after that so by 2050 we will be well downslope. Additionally and resultantly birth rates will have declined everywhere and humans numbers will peak around midcentury as in the UN low growth estimate.

So what enabled shale oil? There is no argument that expensive oil did it. Similarly, what enabled the dramatic decline in PV price over the last decade? ... same thing I think. The Manhattan Project of renewables will be the black swan that keeps us in ice cream and internet, not sure when it will happen but pretty sure we were on our way around 2010-12 in the US (other countries were ahead and always will be) but we had a little detour down the Old Frack Road. I'm pretty sure we'll get there. I've decided the energy fairy will keep the lights on; she won't be able to do it at a price that is too cheap to meter but that's OK.

Lest you get the idea that my outlook is all high tides and tall grass forever, those two green swans of population decline and expensive renewable energy will have enough dramatic consequences to satisfy the knarliest Doomster Diver. The US without huge energy surplus will lose standing and ability to project power, that obviously opens the door for the next contestant for Global Hegemon and of course that Means War! Likewise, resource constraints always Mean War!

Population and extraneous energy decline means the end of economic growth and eventually economic decline for everyone. Whether that means movement away from democracy and capitalism toward another iteration of rentier, feudal, oligarcial systems or, less likely from this point of view in the US toward a more socialist society in general I'm not sure. Regardless, that change will be hugely disrupting, for some it means extremely hard times, for others maybe not so bad.

I really have no guess as to the future of GW, it is a function of fossil fuel. I think the effects are real and could be big but don't really have the ability to get beyond the hype from either side. In fact I felt more vulnerable in Missouri during the drought of '11 than I do in CA currently because we had moved to the Ozarks in part because of the fact it was forecast to be hotter but wetter.

So the only other thing I can possibly think to say is that if I don't stop tapping and do something billable the economic black swan is gonna take a crap on my head sooner rather than later.

ETA: A link
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... picks=true

[onlooker]

Wow, talk about a tight race , 9 votes for the two worst options and 8 for the two better options. I was expecting it to lean heavily to the bad options. Well I must confess deep down inside I do hold out great hope from an unexpected source.

[dohboi]

Thanks for the thoughts, Pop.

This one in particular: "Not only do more consumers increase profits, more workers keeps down the ultimate evil— wages."

I would say applies globally, not just nationally.

[ffkling]

Among the consequences of taking down a few hundred species each day, and a mushrooming human population that swells by 80 million every year; at some point, we are the species hurled into the abyss. The vanishing point draws nearer every day as we continue to clear-cut forests, strip-mine the soil, pollute the water, foul the air, over fish the oceans. Our response as the world burns is to figure out how we can make a few more bucks.

Beware the beast Man, for he cometh from hell as Lucifer’s spawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport, and lust, and greed. Without conscience, he wrecks devastation upon the good and bountiful Mother Earth. Shun him: If he is permitted to breed in great numbers, he will make a desert of his home and yours. For he is, The Great Destroyer. ~~29th Scroll, 6th Verse~~

[onlooker]

All tied up , quite a race we have here!