Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 153505 times)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3168
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 225
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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: 5878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1982
  • Likes Given: 1758
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: 3168
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 225
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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: 5878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1982
  • Likes Given: 1758
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: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 80
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4892
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1669
  • Likes Given: 2814
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...
"Is a thin line 'tween heaven and here" - Bubbles

glennbuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1173
  • Likes Given: 905
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: 641
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 53
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: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 25
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: 3070
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 355
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 253
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 40
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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: 3168
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 225
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: 641
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 53
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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: 641
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 53
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: 202
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 27
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
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1173
  • Likes Given: 905
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: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 80
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: 3168
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 225
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

  • New ice
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #726 on: Today at 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: 660
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #727 on: Today at 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.