[DesuMaiden]

Thomas Malthus was right the whole time. Just because a population crash didn't happen yet doesn't mean it will never occur. I believe a population crash will occur sometime in the near future, simply because there are already too many damn humans on this planet. We are depleting the planet's resources at a rate that's way too fast because there are too many humans, consuming way too much, way too quickly. Once there isn't enough oil on this planet to sustain industrialized agriculture, food production will decrease to a level that's far too low to support the global population. Once that happens, there will be massive civil unrest, famine, starvation, war, disease, and other depopulation factors. These depopulation factors will reduce the population back down to a sustainable level...whatever that sustainable level may be.

It doesn't matter how smart mankind may be. No matter how smart human beings may be, they can't triumph the laws of thermodynamics. Once you run out of essential natural resources that are essential for your survival, you are screwed. Once the shit hits the fan, the global population will see a massive crash. The more people we add to the earth before this global crash, the harder this global crash will be. People, who are having five or more kids these days, are stupid because in the near future, their kids might not even be able to feed themselves because of the food shortages caused by insufficient oil supply. Just because you can feed your kids nowadays doesn't mean you can actually feed your kids in the future...our current food system is very fragile as it is totally dependent on rapidly-depleting, nonrenewable fossil fuels.

Once we don't have enough fossil fuels, our food system will completely collapse, and there will be massive famine and starvation across the globe. Let me remind you this...there are 7 to 10 calories of fossil fuel energy required to produce every calorie of food we produce. Without sufficient fossil fuels, the food system will completely collapse, resulting in massive famine and starvation.

Without fossil fuels, the world MIGHT be lucky enough to support 1.5 to 2 billion people. So without fossil fuels, five or more billion people will starve to death or perish. That's not going to be a pretty sight. And these five billion people will not go away quietly. There will be famine and starvation on a scale never before seen in the history of this planet.

[Pops]

I believe a population crash will occur sometime in the near future, ...

Without fossil fuels, the world MIGHT be lucky enough to support 1.5 to 2 billion people.

So which is it, "near Future" or "without FFs"?

[ralfy]

Yes, but the other way around. Higher resource consumption (e.g., better education, etc., leads to lower birth rates.

More energy and material resources are needed to meet basic needs (schooling, health care, etc.). These lead to more prosperity and the rise of a middle class, which in turn means even higher resource consumption (e.g., energy and material resource cost for homes, private vehicles, appliances and electronic gadgets, etc.).

[MonteQuest]

Yes, but the other way around. Higher resource consumption (e.g., better education, etc., leads to lower birth rates.

More energy and material resources are needed to meet basic needs (schooling, health care, etc.). These lead to more prosperity and the rise of a middle class, which in turn means even higher resource consumption (e.g., energy and material resource cost for homes, private vehicles, appliances and electronic gadgets, etc.).

Yes, but that comes after Demographic Transition lowers the fertility rate.

[sparky]

.
Demographic transition is a nice word ,
one can suspect the transition is not going to be sooooo nice seen up close
talking about the future is a lovely exercice ,
being aware of human nature and response to a father whose children are screaming with hunger do not fill me with glee
ultimately one's neighbors are expendable , at worst a source of protein

[Ibon]

Not without the Pill, anyway, arguably one of the the biggest hits of the 20th century, don't you agree? But if by education you mean women learning about the fact they actually had gained a vote on whether or not to practice some type of modern birth control, then I agree.

I never answered your question. I do agree. And you are right to imagine where would we be population wise without their use

According to World Contraceptive Use, in 2005:

Contraception was used by 68.9% of women in developed countries, 59.2% of women in developing countries.
The pill was used by 15.9% of women in developed countries, 6.2% of women in developing countries (5.8% in 1998).
Injections or implants were used by 0.7% of women in developed countries, 3.6% of women in developing countries.
Barrier contraceptives (condoms) were used by 17% of women in developed countries, 3.4% of women in developing countries (3.2% in 1998).
Intra-uterine devices were used by 7.6% of women in developed countries, 14.5% of women in developing countries (26% in 1998). They are the most widely used contraceptive method in the world: 160 million women used it in 2002, 2/3 of which were in China.
Sterilization remains the most widely used birth control method in the world, but its use is beginning to decline: in 2005, 24% of people used it, 24.3% in developing countries, and 14.6% in developed countries (39% in 1998, of which 45% in developing countries and 19% in developed countries).



http://www.dialoguedynamics.com/contenu ... eptives-in

[Ibon]

Since any kind of sustainable agriculture begins with population reduction I see no problem of continuing the population discussion on this thread.

This demographic transition is worth dissecting further. Especially in developing countries where we see education and mass migration to urban areas being the major factors leading to reduced fertility. To what degree urban living leads to middle class consumption patterns in developing countries needs to be clarified.

The largest human migration in the history of humanity happened during the last 20 years in China where literally (no exaggeration) hundreds of millions of people left rural agrarian subsistence farming to chase factory jobs in urban areas. Subsistence agriculture does not create enough wealth to make you a consumer but the average urban factory worker in China is also not exactly buying jet skis and SUV's. China is still 69th in the world of car ownership per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

More research needs to go into understanding the impact this global urbanization trend is having in developing countries in reference to resource consumption. Declining fertility is linked to this demographic transition but actual consumption per capita of urban dwellers is still a fraction of what we see in developed countries and I do not think there are the resources for this to grow further.

The depopulation of rural areas is concentrating infrastructure in urban areas. There is certainly greater efficiency as a result, less pressure on the commons in rural areas as well.

There is also evidence of reduced fertility in rural areas happening as well in many developing countries. Is this driven by economics or are we seeing educated family members from urban areas bringing home to their rural provinces cultural trends?

You guys hear about the soap operas in Brazil being watched by the rural and urban population and how this has contributed more to contraceptive use than any NGO's ?

http://www.iadb.org/res/files/WP-633updated.pdf

WE have to watch these trends. Cultural changes are having a huge impact along with economic mobility in the link between fertility and life in both urban and rural ares.

I am guessing that we do not know the full story yet to what degree human population patterns will change once economic expansion contracts further. The assumption that we will automatically go back to breeding large families is perhaps not 100% accurate for cultural reasons. We might even see fertility rates dropping even further as mass media and consequences instill a collective cultural awareness that abundance is not coming back any time soon.

Just some thoughts and conjectures.

[MonteQuest]

I am guessing that we do not know the full story yet to what degree human population patterns will change once economic expansion contracts further. The assumption that we will automatically go back to breeding large families is perhaps not 100% accurate for cultural reasons. We might even see fertility rates dropping even further as mass media and consequences instill a collective cultural awareness that abundance is not coming back any time soon.

Or potential fathers are off to war. Basic biology tells us that nothing grows without an input of energy. The human population grows, not because it needs to be fed, but because it is fed.

Until food scarcity becomes the norm, the population will grow. There are still lots of monkeys and snakes to be eaten, ebola be damned.

But I agree with Ibon, we don't know how this will play out. I suspect we will fight. Scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict.

[jonouk]

Hi,
New to this site and forum and came across it through one way or another in my quest on research in Permaculture.
There are many things i agree with spoken here and some not so much lol.

I wanted to mention sustainable free clean energy which we have had for a long time but decided to drop it in favour of other means. It is called a "Trompe" (compressed air) These systems work very well are clean and can produce not only energy but more importantly has the ability to travel large distances without loss unlike current electrical systems.

Equally
I wanted to mention that it is entirely possible to produce x10 and more food per acre using mixed sciences and organic permaculture ethics and design. Such as Hydroponics Aquaponics vertical systems and sub lvl systems

At the moment i work at 3 sites in the uk which although don't have all those systems in place currently are working well and increasing yr on year. I do believe there are options that can be applied and adapted to most environments including projects that are re gentrifying some deserts! Yes yes hard to think that but Google Jeff Lawton or Bill Mollison for further info.

As for population growth
It is fair to say we only have so many square mtrs of earth and eventually we we need to look at say under the sea systems or even the moon but i do think we are a while before that is needed.
The biggest threat right now is sorting the pollution and the poisons before that becomes to late
Personally i cant wait for oil and gas to run out so we can get on with doin things properly.

[MonteQuest]

As for population growth It is fair to say we only have so many square mtrs of earth and eventually we we need to look at say under the sea systems or even the moon but i do think we are a while before that is needed.

Have you done the math on this? We have a net increase of 227 thousand people each and every day. To move these people to the moon, you would have to build a several spaceships capable of carrying 227,000 people along with their belongings and launch one each and every day forever just to keep up with growth. Not to mention, the decades to build infrastructure on the moon capable of receiving 227,000 people a day and feeding, clothing them.

Under the sea? Are you serious?

It isn't about land mass, it's about consumption of resources.

[Henriksson]

I agree, if anything we will see higher birth rates in the future along with greater infant mortality.

Cuba is perhaps the country that has most acutely felt the effects of oil scarcity with the Special Period of the 90's, yet it has an infant mortality rate of 4.76. Right nearby is the rich United States, one of the top three oil producers, with an infant mortality of 5.2. Infant mortality has more to do with medical advances and good public policy than resource scarcity.

[MonteQuest]

I wanted to mention sustainable free clean energy which we have had for a long time but decided to drop it in favour of other means. It is called a "Trompe" (compressed air) These systems work very well are clean and can produce not only energy but more importantly has the ability to travel large distances without loss unlike current electrical systems.

Yes, but it still requires an energy source to pump the water uphill to give it potential energy. Sure, you could divert a stream or river, but we have already done that in most places that are viable for hydro power.

[jonouk]

Trompes dont work that way you dont need to pump anything you just dig long shafts generate the compressed air the water then returns upwards and continues on its journey. In fact you can create as many of these as you like without using or losing any resources. As for getting water up hill again this can be done easily via a water ram jet but that is not required for tromp system
Google them at look at the design works as i say it free and TBA its much better than hydro as you can do more things with compressed air such as refrigeration, electric, run tools, run your car etc Sure if you dont have a river other will and you just share the air!

[MonteQuest]

Trompes dont work that way you dont need to pump anything you just dig long shafts generate the compressed air the water then returns upwards and continues on its journey. In fact you can create as many of these as you like without using or losing any resources. As for getting water up hill again this can be done easily via a water ram jet but that is not required for tromp system
Google them at look at the design works as i say it free and TBA its much better than hydro as you can do more things with compressed air such as refrigeration, electric, run tools, run your car etc Sure if you dont have a river other will and you just share the air!

Oh, I did google it again. First looked at it 10 years ago. What you speak of is homegrown backyard made energy on a small scale. To power anything else, you need to pump it uphill. Not a practical solution to our energy issue.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[jonouk]

Under the sea? Are you serious?
It isn't about land mass, it's about consumption of resources.

What i was trying to say IMHO is there are still ways we can be very successful providing we move away from monoculture
which would be able to support alot more and equally be beneficial to the planet we live upon.
Under the sea may sound a tad silly i agree however when you live on an island then eventually your going to have to get clever.
Its not that we cant do it we just hav`nt needed too. I do think as a species we will continue to progress and can see us moving on to colonize other plants which again might sound far fetched but actually is a good possibility.

[jonouk]

Oh, I did google it again. First looked at it 10 years ago. What you speak of is homegrown backyard made energy on a small scale. To power anything else, you need to pump it uphill. Not a practical solution to our energy issue.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Trompes can be used either from a height such as a water fall BUT can be used via shafts in the ground either way
the air pressure generated is a sustainable method of energy and unlike hydro does not require any moving parts.

Also Tromps are not Home Grown
they existed in roman times and have been used through the ages to sustain various systems very successfully.
They still actually exist today!



Trompes are very simple devices. A vertical pipe or shaft goes down to a separation chamber, a pipe coming away from that chamber allows the water to exit at a lower level, and another pipe coming from the chamber allows the compressed air to exit as needed.

Water rushing down the vertical pipe falls through a constriction. The constriction produces a lower pressure because of the venturi effect, and an external port allows air to be sucked in. The air forms bubbles in the pipe. As the bubbles go down the pipe they are pressurized proportionally to the hydraulic head, which is the height of the column of water in the pipe. The compressed air rises to the top of the separation chamber. The separation chamber has a compressed-air takeoff pipe, and the compressed air can be used as a power source.

The energy of the falling water entrains the air into the water, but that is not the energy that pressurizes the air, as is often incorrectly claimed. That energy is solely a derivative of the hydraulic head.

Large trompes were often situated at high waterfalls so that plenty of power was available. The Ragged Chute plant on the Montreal River near the town of Cobalt, Ontario, is a trompe and tourist attraction. It is now owned by Canadian Hydro and exists beside a modern hydroelectric plant.[4]

Compressed air from a trompe is at the temperature of the water, and its partial pressure of water vapor is that of the dewpoint of the water's temperature. If the water is cool, the compressed air can be made very dry by passing it through pipes that are warmer than the water. Often, ordinary outside air can warm the pipes enough to produce very dry, cool compressed air.

Today, trompes constructed of plastic pipe are being used to provide aeration for mine drainage treatment. In this application, mine water is used to drive the trompe and the compressed air that is generated is used to oxygenate the mine water and to drive off excess dissolved carbon dioxide that may be present thus raising the pH of the water being treated.[5]

[vtsnowedin]

Trompes dont work that way you dont need to pump anything you just dig long shafts generate the compressed air the water then returns upwards and continues on its journey. In fact you can create as many of these as you like without using or losing any resources. As for getting water up hill again this can be done easily via a water ram jet but that is not required for tromp system
Google them at look at the design works as i say it free and TBA its much better than hydro as you can do more things with compressed air such as refrigeration, electric, run tools, run your car etc Sure if you dont have a river other will and you just share the air!

You are clueless. There is no free lunch or perpetual motion machines. A trompe is a way to use the potential energy of falling water to compress air. They work but the energy is derived from the difference between the intake elevation of the water and the outlet elevation.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... =0&ndsp=12

[MonteQuest]

I do think as a species we will continue to progress and can see us moving on to colonize other plants which again might sound far fetched but actually is a good possibility.

Sorry, you need to do the math on this one as well. We are marrooned on spaceship earth.

[MonteQuest]

jonouk, I have read all one needs to know about Trompes 10 years ago. Doesn't take long. There is no such thing as a free lunch. 2nd law of thermodynamics.