When Science is a Conveyor of Bad News

[Traveller]

Jinx said:

I see your graph and raise you a far more disturbing trend....


Or even worse

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_CnkEC3jCeP0/SjLBE4-ExSI/AAAA...

Noooooooooooooooooooo, we are doooooooooomed............ Is it peak Elvis though ?

[The Wookie]

Traveller said:

it is peak Elvis though ?

Uhhuhuh

[Traveller]

The Wookie said:

Uhhuhuh

Thank you very much.

[The Wookie]

[IainT]

T S Magnum said:

Thanks Iain. The UN have a 10 billion person variance by 2100! So basically they haven't got a clue how things will pan out. Not sure why they bothered producing a graph!

There is some credible (as far as it goes) thinking behind the reducing-rate growth options. Every country that has achieved reasonable levels of education, food and energy have followed the same pattern.

Obviously this is currently 'the west' plus a few others and there may be factors in India and Asia that stop that from being the case.

As others have said - there are many unknowns but, imvho, the case for stabilisation is a good one but it's at the cost of the world getting together to improve everyone's standard of living and not just the few.

being an optimist I think this can be done by raising everyone's standard rather than limiting to a lowest common denominator!

[T S Magnum]

Much of my limited understanding of this highly complex suject comes from the very capable writing of Richard Heinberg. He has produced a series of compelling books and the essays on his blog are updated regularly.

This essay describes possible scenarios in a coming 'release' phase.


His assessment of the American 'under-class' (could easily be ours):

Over-fed but under-nourished, over-entertained but misinformed, over-indebted and under-skilled.

[Simpo Two]

T S Magnum said:

His assessment of the American 'under-class' (could easily be ours):

Over-fed but under-nourished, over-entertained but misinformed, over-indebted and under-skilled.

Sounds about right - the by-product of a benevolent civilisation one might say.

[Jinx]

But surely self limiting?

[T S Magnum]

As the article says:

"In recent decades more and more of us have leapt aboard the raft of societally ensured survival..."

The welfare state means normal rules don't apply.

Also, to clarify, IMO even if our numbers did stabilise at 7ish billion we'd still be in a heap of trouble as fossil fuels deplete.

The chart I used was to highlight how absurd our recent population increase has been, not indicate where it's heading.

[Traveller]

T S Magnum said:

As the article says:

"In recent decades more and more of us have leapt aboard the raft of societally ensured survival..."

The welfare state means normal rules don't apply.

Also, to clarify, IMO even if our numbers did stabilise at 7ish billion we'd still be in a heap of trouble as fossil fuels deplete.

The chart I used was to highlight how absurd our recent population increase has been, not indicate where it's heading.

I am, not sure fossil fuels depletion will be the issue, considering gas to oil, fracking etc. Water is more likely to be the defining issue.

[T S Magnum]

I wish I had your optimism WRT fossil fuels and I agree in some regions water supply will pose an even bigger threat than it does already.

Fracking and water are connected in fact as one requires huge quantities of the other.

[T S Magnum]

Maybe a touch too 'doomish' even for me but worth a read:

Will We Adjust to Life on a Finite Planet or Continue Devouring Our Future?