Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 161208 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3925
  • Earth will survive AGW...but will Homo sapiens?
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #700 on: July 22, 2020, 02:13:35 PM »
World Population To Peak In 2064
https://www.marketcrumbs.com/post/world-population-to-peak-in-2064
Quote
Once the fertility rate falls below 2.1, populations begin to decline. For context, the fertility rate was 4.7 in 1950 and had fallen all the way to 2.4 in 2017. The researchers predict that the fertility rate will decline to 1.7 by 2100.


They predict that 23 countries, such as Japan, Spain, South Korea and Thailand, will see their populations decline by roughly half by 2100 as a result of declining fertility rates.


The researchers predict the global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, after which it will fall to 8.8 billion by 2100. They note that 183 out of 195 countries will have fertility rates below the 2.1 threshold by then.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #701 on: July 25, 2020, 07:52:31 PM »
World Population To Peak In 2064
https://www.marketcrumbs.com/post/world-population-to-peak-in-2064
Quote
Once the fertility rate falls below 2.1, populations begin to decline. For context, the fertility rate was 4.7 in 1950 and had fallen all the way to 2.4 in 2017. The researchers predict that the fertility rate will decline to 1.7 by 2100.


They predict that 23 countries, such as Japan, Spain, South Korea and Thailand, will see their populations decline by roughly half by 2100 as a result of declining fertility rates.


The researchers predict the global population will peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, after which it will fall to 8.8 billion by 2100. They note that 183 out of 195 countries will have fertility rates below the 2.1 threshold by then.


I think they could peak next year, Pandemics, the second great depression leading to famines this winter, mass unemployment, wars etc. We are just at the beginning of years of Apocalyptic events!

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2039
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #702 on: July 25, 2020, 09:44:36 PM »
It is apparent you have read too many apocalyptic sources glennbuck. Let's reconvene next year and see if the prediction materializes.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3925
  • Earth will survive AGW...but will Homo sapiens?
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #703 on: July 25, 2020, 10:23:49 PM »
I grew up during the Cold War. I knew we could peak at any day. I always knew where Cleveland was, where I would see the Big Flash. Once criminals broke out of a prison in Warrensville Heights and I heard the siren in Maple Heights and thought I was about to die. We almost did peak in October 1962.
Maybe our survival is a kind of planetary Quantum Immortality, and there are centillions of timelines  where Earth is a burned out cinder in space.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #704 on: July 26, 2020, 01:38:53 AM »
It is apparent you have read too many apocalyptic sources glennbuck. Let's reconvene next year and see if the prediction materializes.

Most of them are not predictions they are happening now! We are not reading about it we are living in this historical time of monumental change.
.
Mass unemployment, 32-42 Million unemployed in USA, first uptick in July after a small fall in June.
Pandemic we are in one.
The second great depression, most economists agree or say the worst depression since the second world war.
Wars is a prediction based on past historical events, regional wars have been ongoing for years.
Famine always happens with pandemics.
Civil unrest and civil war is one to add to the mix. Civil unrest already happening.

Last month, confined to our homes, we watched columns of smoke rising from the Arctic, where temperatures reached a highly abnormal 38C. Such apocalyptic imagery is becoming the backdrop to our lives. We scroll past images of fire consuming Australia, California, Brazil, Indonesia, inadvertently normalising them. In a brilliant essay at the beginning of this year, the author Mark O’Connell described this process as “the slow atrophying of our moral imaginations”. We are acclimatising ourselves to our existential crisis.

Just as there has never been a normal person, there has never been a normal time. Normality is a concept used to limit our moral imaginations. There is no normal to which we can return, or should wish to return. We live in abnormal times. They demand an abnormal response.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/greener-happier-world-politicians-boris-johnson-consumerism-planet
« Last Edit: July 26, 2020, 03:02:22 AM by glennbuck »

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2039
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #705 on: July 26, 2020, 07:43:37 AM »
I agree with all the above (except maybe the famines), but global population will not peak next year, that is what I disagreed with. These things take time and have a lot of inertia.

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 426
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #706 on: July 26, 2020, 06:32:14 PM »
If the thinking of this young adult author is as mainstream as they indicate, the population of humans may start to decrease sooner rather than later.  But I agree with Oren, the per won't come next year. Regular denizens of this forum are aware of the phenomenon of momentum. What we are seeing now is massive pre-conditioning....
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/25/why-a-generation-is-choosing-to-be-child-free

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #707 on: July 26, 2020, 07:37:12 PM »
It is a possibility population drops next year, the 1918 Spanish Flu killed 50-100 Million. Population was less than 2 Billion in 1918 and now we have 7.8 Billion. If the Virus Mutated into a more deadly  form would also make things worse. A Pandemic and a Great Depression have not happened at the same time before which could cause economic/societal collapses in many countries in the near future. Next few years are going to be very interesting!

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #708 on: July 26, 2020, 07:45:59 PM »
Sorry, Glenn, but this is just not the case.

315,000 people are born today and the day is not even over.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

The Covid deaths will not outweigh the newborn. It's not even close. Even if SARS-CoV-II mutates and becomes even more deadly, it's hard to imagine it would kill more people than there are newborns.

Edit: 316,000 now. During the writing of this post 1000 newborn people...

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #709 on: July 26, 2020, 07:51:25 PM »
Sorry, Glenn, but this is just not the case.

315,000 people are born today and the day is not even over.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

The Covid deaths will not outweigh the newborn. It's not even close. Even if SARS-CoV-II mutates and becomes even more deadly, it's hard to imagine it would kill more people than there are newborns.


https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Edit: 316,000 now. During the writing of this post 1000 newborn people...

126,000 Deaths so Population is rising around 200,000 a day.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #710 on: July 26, 2020, 08:24:31 PM »
The problem with when the population of the World is falling we will not know about it.

New York, Covid-19 deaths 32,688. Population 8.3 Million

China, 4.634 deaths. Population 1.4 Billion

India similar massive population but not telling the real story, as countries for Economic and Political reasons are hiding the Truth.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2020, 08:30:48 PM by glennbuck »

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2593
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1205
  • Likes Given: 1064
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #711 on: July 27, 2020, 02:20:06 PM »
One easy solution is to not worry about it on a daily basis. These are long term trends so no rush.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #712 on: July 27, 2020, 02:25:58 PM »
The problem with when the population of the World is falling we will not know about it.

New York, Covid-19 deaths 32,688. Population 8.3 Million

China, 4.634 deaths. Population 1.4 Billion

India similar massive population but not telling the real story, as countries for Economic and Political reasons are hiding the Truth.

Do you really think they're hiding 80 million deaths, however?  Because that's how many would be required in a year to reverse growth within that one year.

Overall, I doubt COVID is going to affect population growth much at all.  We're probably looking at fewer than 5 million excess deaths worldwide this year, most of them beyond childbearing age, and a likely mini baby boom of a few million courtesy of lockdown.  And at some point next year we should get a vaccine.

One easy solution is to not worry about it on a daily basis. These are long term trends so no rush.

This is a key part of why it goes unaddressed - like climate change, the impacts of acting to address demographic issues around population aren't really seen on the less than 5 year timescale that would be required for political decisions.

jens

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #713 on: July 27, 2020, 02:53:03 PM »
Population peak will be determined by food availability.

And the criterias to look at are the following:
- the amount of droughts and crop failures worldwide will gradually increase with every passing year. Until it wouldn't be possible to feed the world population any more.

- even if theoretically it would still be possible to feed the world, it wouldn't happen if the available surplus energy is too little. Because countries - huncing trouble ahead - would be hoarding food. Even the countries with surplus food wouldn't be so willing to sell it easily, needing it for themselves. UN Food Aid would become less and less prevalent, and United Nations humanitarian programmes would effectively cease to exist over time.

Logically these things are in the process of happening. The only thing we can debate about are the timelines. I think this global tipping point could well happen by 2030, maybe you think it could be postponed till 2040 at most.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3257
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 587
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #714 on: July 27, 2020, 04:07:18 PM »
One effect covid may have on population that some perhaps have not considered (though still likely minor in the big scheme of things):

Half a million fewer children? The coming COVID baby bust


https://www.brookings.edu/research/half-a-million-fewer-children-the-coming-covid-baby-bust/
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #715 on: July 27, 2020, 10:53:01 PM »
Population peak will be determined by food availability.

And the criterias to look at are the following:
- the amount of droughts and crop failures worldwide will gradually increase with every passing year. Until it wouldn't be possible to feed the world population any more.

- even if theoretically it would still be possible to feed the world, it wouldn't happen if the available surplus energy is too little. Because countries - huncing trouble ahead - would be hoarding food. Even the countries with surplus food wouldn't be so willing to sell it easily, needing it for themselves. UN Food Aid would become less and less prevalent, and United Nations humanitarian programmes would effectively cease to exist over time.

Logically these things are in the process of happening. The only thing we can debate about are the timelines. I think this global tipping point could well happen by 2030, maybe you think it could be postponed till 2040 at most.

I think Limits to Growth had food per capita at a peak around 2020!

As pollution mounts and industrial input into agriculture falls, food production per capita falls. Health and education services are cut back, and that combines to bring about a rise in the death rate from about 2020. Global population begins to fall from about 2030, by about half a billion people per decade. Living conditions fall to levels similar to the early 1900s.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

bbr2315

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 504
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #716 on: July 28, 2020, 12:15:06 AM »
Population peak will be determined by food availability.

And the criterias to look at are the following:
- the amount of droughts and crop failures worldwide will gradually increase with every passing year. Until it wouldn't be possible to feed the world population any more.

- even if theoretically it would still be possible to feed the world, it wouldn't happen if the available surplus energy is too little. Because countries - huncing trouble ahead - would be hoarding food. Even the countries with surplus food wouldn't be so willing to sell it easily, needing it for themselves. UN Food Aid would become less and less prevalent, and United Nations humanitarian programmes would effectively cease to exist over time.

Logically these things are in the process of happening. The only thing we can debate about are the timelines. I think this global tipping point could well happen by 2030, maybe you think it could be postponed till 2040 at most.

I think Limits to Growth had food per capita at a peak around 2020!

As pollution mounts and industrial input into agriculture falls, food production per capita falls. Health and education services are cut back, and that combines to bring about a rise in the death rate from about 2020. Global population begins to fall from about 2030, by about half a billion people per decade. Living conditions fall to levels similar to the early 1900s.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse
So basically the West is in for a golden age as the ongoing boom in the developing world leaves them completely dependent on imports and currency reserves. While these societies may collapse into chaos and Europe will too as they don't have an ocean on both sides, I think this is pretty advantageous for the US.

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #717 on: July 28, 2020, 04:33:40 PM »
So basically the West is in for a golden age as the ongoing boom in the developing world leaves them completely dependent on imports and currency reserves. While these societies may collapse into chaos and Europe will too as they don't have an ocean on both sides, I think this is pretty advantageous for the US.
[/quote]

I like this quote by Terence Mckenna

“The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse.”


Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3925
  • Earth will survive AGW...but will Homo sapiens?
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #718 on: July 28, 2020, 04:53:18 PM »
In that case, the apocalypse has lasted for about twelve thousand years. Maybe the San lived in Edwn, but since the Agriculture Revolution the One Percent has lived in a bubble and the rest lived lives nasty, brutish and short.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #719 on: July 28, 2020, 05:18:29 PM »
I like this quote by Terence Mckenna

“The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse.”

The apocalypse? People today are living longer than they ecer did before. (Which is a large part of the problem, so far as population growth is concerned, although the ethical solution is obviously to have fewer babies rather than to cull the living).

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #720 on: July 28, 2020, 06:09:59 PM »
Give it a year and see where we are the future is quite Appocalyptic IMHO, Pandemic, Great Depression. Wars, Famine, Civil War, Climate Crisis, Presidential election, Brexit. We never recovered from the 2008 Crash  and now the SHTF.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 06:18:25 PM by glennbuck »

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #721 on: July 28, 2020, 06:16:43 PM »
Give it a year and see where we are the future is quite Appocalyptic IMHO, Pandemic, Great Depression. Wars, Famine, Civil War, Climate Crisis, Presidential election, Brexit. We never recovered from the 2008 Crash and now the SHTF.

Everything on that list bar the climate crisis has happened before in one or another more drastic form than we are seeing today. 2020 is a shit year, certainly, but not the end times.

EDIT: As a case in point, see the life expectancy stats: globally they've been steadily rising, up to 73 at present, from a global average of 47 in 1950. No country on earth has a life expectancy even close to that low today; in every country, life is more safe and secure than was the global norm a single lifetime ago.  These aren't the dying times yet.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 07:01:22 PM by Paddy »

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #722 on: July 28, 2020, 10:07:04 PM »
Yes the climate crisis is the big one that throws a spanner in the works. Science is clear it has been giving us warnings for 40 years.

The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 10:25:47 PM by glennbuck »

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2593
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1205
  • Likes Given: 1064
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #723 on: July 29, 2020, 08:49:24 AM »
Do stay on topic.

For discussions of what is (or is not) coming i suggest threads like the world in 2030 or 2100.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2651.0.html

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3116.0.html
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 426
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #724 on: July 30, 2020, 02:42:13 AM »
It appears that the growth-at-all-costs folk at Bloomberg are concerned that too few social supports is affecting the reproduction rate of Americans. Many of us are probably of the opinion that we already have sufficient Americans.However, if this viewpoint gets some traction, Americans might start to get some of the things that all other developed countries take for granted.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-29/coronavirus-pandemic-americans-aren-t-making-babies-in-crisis?utm_content=businessweek&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-businessweek

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3925
  • Earth will survive AGW...but will Homo sapiens?
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 641
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #725 on: July 30, 2020, 02:45:08 AM »
Crises, especially economic ones, tend to reduce fertility rate.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #726 on: August 13, 2020, 05:12:57 AM »
Another source says similar, i.e., world population will peak to less than 10 billion by the 2060s, and the main driver will be rapid industrialization in the developing world, leading to, among other things, more education for women and options for artificial contraception (which was raised by the Lancet article). That means that the main cause of lower birth rates is greater prosperity.

The problem is that the amount of energy to make that industrialization possible is many times more than what's available or attainable:

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/

That is, the world population current uses around 20 TW, and that's for a population where 71 pct of workers earn less than $10 daily:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/

Clearly, better education plus not just availability of contraception but many other options (including higher-paying occupations as a result of better education) are based on industrialization, which in turn requires lots of energy to extract and process all sorts of goods for basic needs and wants and infrastructure development.

In order to attain that level of industrialization, the current population will need around 50 TW. If that population increases to around 9-10 billion due to momentum, around 90 TW will be needed for the additional number of people. To mitigate the effects of diminishing returns and ecological damage, around 120 TW, or six times the current consumption rate.

Given diminishing returns as explained in points about limits to growth, that's not likely.

Back in 2006, the IEA stated there's no peak oil because it's simply an "above-ground" problem or political, that by 2015 oil demand would reach 115 Mbd and that oil producers would easily meet it. By 2008, the world economy crashed due to increasing debt, and the IEA began a global survey of world oil production. By 2010, the IEA admitted that peak oil is an "underground" problem, and that world conventional production has been peaking. During the next decade, oil prices would become volatile as more debt was created to mitigate damage caused by increasing debt and used to finance the oil industry, whose debts had by the middle of the decade reached $2.5 trillion. Meanwhile, higher oil prices damaged the world economy, leading to low growth throughout.

In short, it will be very difficult to increase energy production to a scale that would make more people prosperous and thus lead to a peak in population. Given that, what will likely happen is that population will peak due to greater suffering as the effects of diminishing returns coupled with those of ecological damage (including global warming) become more pronounced, not to mention increasing debts and "black swans" like fallout from financial risk-taking, from increased vectors for the spread of disease, from multi-fold increase in world arms production and deployment, etc.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 726
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 515
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #727 on: August 13, 2020, 09:14:24 AM »
Another source says similar, i.e., world population will peak to less than 10 billion by the 2060s, and the main driver will be rapid industrialization in the developing world, leading to, among other things, more education for women and options for artificial contraception (which was raised by the Lancet article). That means that the main cause of lower birth rates is greater prosperity.

The problem is that the amount of energy to make that industrialization possible is many times more than what's available or attainable:

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/

That is, the world population current uses around 20 TW, and that's for a population where 71 pct of workers earn less than $10 daily:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/

Clearly, better education plus not just availability of contraception but many other options (including higher-paying occupations as a result of better education) are based on industrialization, which in turn requires lots of energy to extract and process all sorts of goods for basic needs and wants and infrastructure development.

In order to attain that level of industrialization, the current population will need around 50 TW. If that population increases to around 9-10 billion due to momentum, around 90 TW will be needed for the additional number of people. To mitigate the effects of diminishing returns and ecological damage, around 120 TW, or six times the current consumption rate.

Given diminishing returns as explained in points about limits to growth, that's not likely.

Back in 2006, the IEA stated there's no peak oil because it's simply an "above-ground" problem or political, that by 2015 oil demand would reach 115 Mbd and that oil producers would easily meet it. By 2008, the world economy crashed due to increasing debt, and the IEA began a global survey of world oil production. By 2010, the IEA admitted that peak oil is an "underground" problem, and that world conventional production has been peaking. During the next decade, oil prices would become volatile as more debt was created to mitigate damage caused by increasing debt and used to finance the oil industry, whose debts had by the middle of the decade reached $2.5 trillion. Meanwhile, higher oil prices damaged the world economy, leading to low growth throughout.

In short, it will be very difficult to increase energy production to a scale that would make more people prosperous and thus lead to a peak in population. Given that, what will likely happen is that population will peak due to greater suffering as the effects of diminishing returns coupled with those of ecological damage (including global warming) become more pronounced, not to mention increasing debts and "black swans" like fallout from financial risk-taking, from increased vectors for the spread of disease, from multi-fold increase in world arms production and deployment, etc.

We don't have diminishing returns in energy production, we have pronounced economies of scale, i.e. increasing returns!
Look at what's going on with the renewables!
Wind power, where we're now getting truly gigantic sea-based windmills = increasing returns
Solar power, where the cost per kW is dropping at astonishing rates each year due to increasing returns.

I actually think that just about everything you claim in your post is wrong, due to not recognizing basic economic drivers of competition and technological development.

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #728 on: August 14, 2020, 04:18:54 AM »

We don't have diminishing returns in energy production, we have pronounced economies of scale, i.e. increasing returns!
Look at what's going on with the renewables!
Wind power, where we're now getting truly gigantic sea-based windmills = increasing returns
Solar power, where the cost per kW is dropping at astonishing rates each year due to increasing returns.

I actually think that just about everything you claim in your post is wrong, due to not recognizing basic economic drivers of competition and technological development.

By diminishing returns, I am referring to extraction of oil and minerals needed to make not only renewable energy components but even infrastructure and consumer goods that will use that energy, not to mention petrochemicals, equipment, fuel, and minerals for mechanized agriculture.

That is, what affects oil also affects minerals in general: we need increasing amounts of energy needed to get smaller amounts of new oil or minerals extracted due to physical limits and gravity:



With that, more energy from renewables which are made using the same oil and minerals will be needed to get more oil and minerals.

This partly explains why various energy sources have low returns:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/

and quantity:

http://theoildrum.com/node/3786

Also, real-world situations tend to lower energy returns considerably. For example, for solar power, we see an energy return of 30 given laboratory conditions, but that drops to 6 when used in ideal, real-world conditions, and down to 2-3 given replacement of worn components, dust, and lack of sunlight:

http://energyskeptic.com/2017/tilting-at-windmills-spains-disastrous-attempt-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-solar-pv-part-2/

Similar can be seen in windmills, where various components last for only a few years and are not recyclable, and so on. And as diminishing returns affect the oil and minerals needed to make these components (not to mention infrastructure and consumer goods), then net energy drops further.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2039
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #729 on: August 14, 2020, 07:06:03 AM »
A. I think your sources are very biased and intentionally play down renewables.
B. I think the discussion centering only on energy is too narrow. You can easily get more energy returned on energy invested, but you also need other industrial resources. Energy is always available in abundance from the sun, so given enough industrial resources you can always get enough of it.
C. This whole discussion has quickly stepped out of the scope of this thread - population and overpopulation.

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #730 on: August 15, 2020, 08:03:26 AM »
A. I think your sources are very biased and intentionally play down renewables.
B. I think the discussion centering only on energy is too narrow. You can easily get more energy returned on energy invested, but you also need other industrial resources. Energy is always available in abundance from the sun, so given enough industrial resources you can always get enough of it.
C. This whole discussion has quickly stepped out of the scope of this thread - population and overpopulation.

A. The good news that I see about renewables refers to investments and nameplate power. What I presented shows what is not mentioned.

B. The claim of energy abundance from the sun is absurd, as that energy is only usable if it is captured and stored properly for constant usage.

That's why solar power energy return is negated because of low sunlight, and batteries are needed to store the energy for non-intermittent use. Guess that's needed to supplement power from solar energy plus to manufacture batteries, not to mention charge controllers, inverters, electric wires, and the rest of infrastructure needed to distribute energy from these sources to consumers, not to mention the consumer goods made to use energy from them.

What's even more ironic about this is that fossil fuels can even be seen as a good example of captured energy from the sun.

C. Energy is critical to issues concerning population because one reason why the world population shot up after 1945 was because of increased global industrialization leading to more mass manufacturing, better sanitation, increased infrastructure development across the board, availability of vaccines and so on, and mechanized agriculture coupled with technologies used for the Green Revolution. Given that, it is highly unlikely that increased energy, especially from fossil fuels, had little to do with both an increase in population partly driven by lower infant mortality rates coupled with better health care, and increased per capita resource and energy use contributing to the effects of overpopulation even with lower population levels, not to mention increased ecological damage which threatens resource availability.

Put simply, more energy use led to production of things needed to make life better, which in turn led to a population boom. In time, what made life better led to lower birth rates, as more people had fewer or no children thanks to education, artificial contraception, more career options, and so on. But that better life also meant higher resource and energy consumption which not only led to greater ecological damage (which affects resource availability) but also the threat of a resource crunch given diminishing returns (i.e., increasing resource and energy demands per capita in a biosphere with physical limitations).



dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #731 on: August 15, 2020, 02:14:51 PM »
Ralfy, I think your assessments are quite correct, but they are off-topic here. A couple of articles I like on the topic:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/11/Climate-Change-Realist-Face-Facts/
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/12/Climate-Crisis-Realist-Memo/

Now, take it over to the renewables threads...

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2593
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1205
  • Likes Given: 1064
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #732 on: August 15, 2020, 06:08:40 PM »
Further posts should be on topic.

I thought about moving the post but not that big a fan. You can of course post there about that and then we might adress the issues there or post in the peak oil thread which is where you seem to be coming from.

What's even more ironic about this is that fossil fuels can even be seen as a good example of captured energy from the sun.

There is nothing ironic about that. It still works you just need a couple of million years.
Also you should limit the amount you use to a safe level.

And for clarity on topic is population and overpopulation.  ;)
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #733 on: August 16, 2020, 05:54:46 AM »
Ralfy, I think your assessments are quite correct, but they are off-topic here. A couple of articles I like on the topic:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/11/Climate-Change-Realist-Face-Facts/
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/12/Climate-Crisis-Realist-Memo/

Now, take it over to the renewables threads...

According to the OP, population is Public Enemy No. 1 because it leads to high consumption rate, which in turn worsens the effects of limited resources plus leads to worsening ecological damage.

The counter-claim raised recently is that it's not Public Enemy No. 1 because population will peak to less than 10 billion and will decrease, thus minimizing the effects of both problems.

My point is that one of the main drivers of that peak is lower birth rates, and that in turn is driven by increasing prosperity which is achieved through better education, career opportunities, financial security, availability of basic needs and even wants, etc. But that requires increasing amounts of energy and material resources.

Another raised that that lack of energy can easily be met by renewable energy, and I showed that it's not possible.

Therefore, there will be a lack of energy and material resources, which coupled with population momentum (i.e., most people worldwide are not part of the middle class and are young, which means even with lower birth rates population will still increase significantly) will not lead to a premature peak in population. That proves the OP's claim that population is still Public Enemy No. 1. The catch is that metaphorically there is no police that can stop it.

What will is simple physics, and the effects won't be pleasant.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 06:04:21 AM by ralfy »

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #734 on: August 16, 2020, 06:03:02 AM »
Further posts should be on topic.

I thought about moving the post but not that big a fan. You can of course post there about that and then we might adress the issues there or post in the peak oil thread which is where you seem to be coming from.

What's even more ironic about this is that fossil fuels can even be seen as a good example of captured energy from the sun.

There is nothing ironic about that. It still works you just need a couple of million years.
Also you should limit the amount you use to a safe level.

And for clarity on topic is population and overpopulation.  ;)

Here's a simplification of what I've read so far:

Population is a primary threat, and that's because of overpopulation leading to ecological damage and even a resource crunch.

Some argue that it's not a primary threat because birth rates are falling.

I think they're falling because of increasing prosperity, which is why richer countries usually have not only lower birth rates but even face population aging.

That means in order for the counter-argument to become true, poorer countries have to become richer as that would lower birth rates. But increased prosperity also leads to higher resource consumption which leads to more ecological damage. At the same time, we realize from that that overpopulation isn't needed for the effects of such to that take place; rather, higher resource consumption per capita. But that's also what's leading to lower birth rates, right?

Finally, increased prosperity is achieved through global industrialization, but that means higher resource consumption per capita as well as availability of more than enough energy and resources to meet that consumption. What I've shown is that there is none.

In which case, population (rather, overpopulation as seen in not only increasing population due to momentum but also increased resource consumption per capita which is needed to counter that momentum) is still Public Enemy No. 1. But the only way to avoid that is to give more people worldwide more opportunities to meet a better life. How is that possible in a population that's already large and physical limitations in the biosphere?

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone-lived-in-an-ecovillage-the-earth-would-still-be-in-trouble-43905

That is, even with basic needs for the current population, our ave. ecological footprint per capita still exceeds biocapacity?

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #735 on: August 26, 2020, 03:24:37 PM »
Slightly over-egged argument on the "population is not the problem" side of the fence here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/26/panic-overpopulation-climate-crisis-consumption-environment

And a pre-existing rebuttal of his use of IPAT to argue that population is not the problem here: https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/a-brief-history-of-ipat-impact-population-x-affluence-x-technology/

(As put forward in that rebuttal: population is important, but so too are affluence and technology.  We therefore need to address both population size and technology choice, especially among the affluent).

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #736 on: August 28, 2020, 12:22:38 AM »
Population is a problem, but less than consumption in the Capitalist societies, as western countries reduced the children they had, capitalism looked for other ways to boost consumerism, through celebrity culture they came up with the idea most people have a pet instead and used celebrities to post pics of there new pets and half there bodies covered in tattoos . So if one effect is reduced like children born, capitalism increases consumption, services and birth rates another way!

Estimated number of pet dogs In the USA 70M (year-end 2011)   
(year end 2016)    89.7M   

Consumer spending on pets in the UK has climbed from 2.7 Billion in 2005 to 6.9 Billion in 2019.

Number of cats and dogs per Household 2019 in the UK below

Statistics Pet Population 2019

Here we detail the number of dogs per household in 2019:

Number of Dogs
   Total    Male    Female    16-24    25-34    35-44    45-54    55-64    65-74    75+
1 Dog    72%    71%    74%    70%    79%    72%    69%    67%    79%    81%
2 Dogs    22%    24%    20%    27%    16%    22%    23%    26%    16%    16%
3 Dogs    4%    4%    5%    2%    4%    4%    7%    4%    3%    2%
4 Dogs    1%    1%    1%         1%    2%    1%    3%    1%    1%
5 more more dogs                                  1%         1%    

Here we detail the number of dogs per household in 2019:

Number of Cats
   Total    Male    Female    16-24    25-34    35-44    45-54    55-64    65-74    75+
1 Cat    62%    63%    61%    59%    65%    65%    58%    58%    67%    67%
2 Cats    26%    25%    27%    22%    25%    27%    30%    26%    22%    22%
3 Cats    8%    9%    8%    11%    6%    7%    9%    9%    7%    7%
4 Cats    3%    3%    3%    7%    3%    1%    3%    2%    1%    2%
5 more more cats    2%    2%    2%    2%    1%    1%    1%    4%    3%    2%

Consumer spending on pets and related products in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2005 to 2019 (in million GBP)*

https://www.statista.com/statistics/308266/consumer-spending-on-pets-and-related-products-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 12:59:01 AM by glennbuck »

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #737 on: October 27, 2020, 02:49:10 PM »
Over on the COVID thread Crandles said:
"Japan was already down at 1.42 children per child bearing age woman. That is nowhere near 'population grows infinitely' nor 'stable population' territory."

And Richard said:
"Managing the transition at the stage Japan is at, requires having more children. Stable requires R=1 and its been well under 1 in Japan for decades."

I get the basic math behind both of these points. However, Japan is an "advanced" economy with a strong culture of revering the elderly. I believe the world would be far better off reducing the population as quickly as possible, probably down to 2 or 3 billion (with a concomitant decrease in the size of global GDP).  This will require pushing through a large aged cohort. I'm not sure what R should be at the current population to be the right level to support a population of say 30% of the current level, but obviously it is <1 for now. If Japan can't do it, who can?


crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #738 on: October 27, 2020, 03:17:06 PM »
If everyone got down to Japan levels, I think that would be overdoing it. Think about the numbers of elderly that relatively few young working people would have to support. Robotic care assistance might make it possible to cope but seems like it might be too lacking in empathy.

Japan might be able to cope by allowing more immigration but I am not sure their culture either wants this or would survive the influx needed.

Long term planning is difficult. You might want to "reduce the population as quickly as possible" and set in place an R well below 1 and by the time this is in place, we have converted to renewable energy and other developments might mean the planet sustainable carrying capacity is revealed to be in excess of current population. Your policies would then seem to have been disastrous.

blu_ice

  • New ice
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #739 on: October 27, 2020, 03:41:37 PM »
Do the elderly really need that much more attention than the young? A country with declining population would spend less on child care and education.

Robotization can take place on other sectors of the economy.  We are being told that soon robots and AI will make all of us useless anyway. Tax the profits and hire people to care for the old.

The main obstacle in controlled population growth is that countries aren't on the same level of development. If one starts to degrow the more populous ones will soon rule over it.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 598
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #740 on: October 27, 2020, 03:43:22 PM »
Yes, long term planning is highly challenging. However, the impact of humans on the planet goes far, far beyond the generation of electricity and I don't think we will be able to come close to sustainably generating the amount of electricity that will be needed to electrify that vastly overlarge global economy. I see falling fertility as a consequence of the "mess of messes" we are in and if I was doing the planning I would focus on easing the transition, not increasing fertility.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2039
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #741 on: October 27, 2020, 10:29:39 PM »
Dnem is right. Japan is on the right track, childbearing needs to slow as fast as possible, and most countries are far off from this target. Off the top of my head, population is still growing by about 80 million per year (130m newborn, 50m passing away). So global childbirth needs to fall by 60% just to reach temporary stability. All of humanity's resources should be spent on making the transition to sustainable living, rather than spend the resources on children who will have a bleak future on a dead planet when they become adults.
And still, one reads articles about the catastrophe Japan is in, rather than the catastrophe the rest of us are in.

Shared Humanity

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #742 on: October 27, 2020, 11:01:45 PM »
I believe the world would be far better off reducing the population as quickly as possible, probably down to 2 or 3 billion (with a concomitant decrease in the size of global GDP).  This will require pushing through a large aged cohort.

I absolutely agree with this.

Général de GuerreLasse

  • New ice
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #743 on: October 28, 2020, 02:22:11 PM »
Why wonder how to reduce the population when the planet is going to do it all by itself? Between climate change, pollution, natural resources that are increasingly expensive to exploit, agriculture that will be more and more problematic, and greenwashing, everything will soon be solved.

We didn't want to listen to people like Dennis Meadows, James Lovelock and the IPCC scientists, so what we didn't want to do, Mother Nature will do. And believe me, it will be much more painful than if we had done the job ourselves.

La cravate est un accessoire permettant d'indiquer la direction du cerveau de l'homme.
Un petit croquis en dit plus qu'un grand discours, mais beaucoup moins qu'un gros chèque.
Pierre DAC

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #744 on: October 28, 2020, 02:54:42 PM »
Dnem is right. Japan is on the right track, childbearing needs to slow as fast as possible, and most countries are far off from this target. Off the top of my head, population is still growing by about 80 million per year (130m newborn, 50m passing away).

True, although the exact figures are more like growth of 84 million, with 140 million newborn and 55 million deaths. https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths

Quote
So global childbirth needs to fall by 60% just to reach temporary stability.

False.  As you'll see from the link above, annual deaths are forecasted to rise and rise.  The key figure in terms of predicting the number of deaths per year is the global population over the age of 70, and the number of births per year was rising steadily worldwide until about 1988, since when it's basically plateaued; babies born in 1988 obviously won't pass 70 until the year 2058, so deaths will continue to rise and rise until sometime beyond that year. 

The figure to watch in terms of reaching stability over the long term is births per woman, or fertility rate.  That's sitting at about 2.448; and a 10 to 15% fall in childbirths would leave us at replacement fertility, i.e. only having enough babies to replace the prior generation.  (Or a smaller change still might really be required, since only female babies really matter to replacing future generations, and there's a bias in favour of male babies in large chunks of the world).  A 60% fall in childbirth would see populations rapidly dwindle over the coming decades.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2039
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #745 on: October 28, 2020, 03:40:24 PM »
I agree with your analysis Paddy. However, I am looking for population stability and eventual shrinkage now, not in 2050 with 10-11B people. That would be too late. Humanity faces the biggest challenge over the next 20 years, a make or break challenge. It would be better equipped to handle that challenge if it focused less on childbearing and more on the transition to sustainability.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #746 on: October 28, 2020, 04:32:02 PM »
I agree with your analysis Paddy. However, I am looking for population stability and eventual shrinkage now, not in 2050 with 10-11B people. That would be too late. Humanity faces the biggest challenge over the next 20 years, a make or break challenge. It would be better equipped to handle that challenge if it focused less on childbearing and more on the transition to sustainability.

How would you proceed with eliminating several billion people over the next two decades?

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2387
  • Likes Given: 2039
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #747 on: October 28, 2020, 08:30:19 PM »
Did you read my post #741?