Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:54 am Post subject: Dieoff Model/Pestilence Scenario
Today's overly simplistic dieoff scenario will be pestilence, as defined below. Any Hollywood producers or CIA people monitoring this website that would like me to do this sort of thing as a high-dollar consultant should feel free to send me a pm.
Scenario:
a. A virulent infectious disease gets into the population in 2005, and kills 2.3 billion people globally. This seems a little extreme, but it is actually in between the Spanish Flu of 1918 (15% mortality in infected areas) and the Black Plague of 1347 (50-60% mortality) so there is historical precedent for it actually happening. There is a particularly good account of life during this period at this link: link
b. The pestilence affects rich and poor at about the same percentages so as to keep energy consumption patters roughly the same.
c. Oil-conversion to birth rate and life expectancy vs. oil production remain the same after the “incident” as before. This is contrary to the experience of the 14th century, when, after the plague, birth rate exploded and people had a hell of a party (the Renaissance) so this is probably an oversimplification.
d. Oil production per-capita remains the same at about 4.4 b/y for as long as it can, until the Verhulst model takes over again when the fields start to deplete. In other words, for this scenario, oil production is the dependent variable (vs. population) temporarily until depletion takes over.
Note: If you don't like the plague idea, feel free to substitute an artificially induced plague, genocide, nuclear exchange, or some other mass-death event of similar magnitude, as long as the oil production assumptions are maintained. Another example: Biblical pestilence, such as a mysterious cloud of death that takes the life of the first born in every household.
Effects:
a. The mass die-off of a third of the population , at current per-capita oil consumption rates, means the survivors will only be pumping (at 4.4 barrels per-capita) about 17 gby.
b. The lower population, at the same consumption level, only gets us about an extra 15 years of happy pumping before depletion kicks in again. Since the decline is geological, and independent of the number of people that are waiting on the surface for oil, it happens at the same rate it would have normally.
c. Life expectancy immediately drops to 56 (dependent on gross oil production), therefore, temporarily, the deaths slightly outnumber the births. The population gradually declines at this rate until the oil starts to deplete again, at which point it begins a more rapid decline.
d. Ironically, the oil supply at this rate will last past 2105. By then, there will be only about 1.6 billion people left over, which is still above the Earth's carrying capacity, but plenty of time to adjust lifestyles to fit the new reality, so maybe sustainable.
e. No doubt at some point, people will stupidly forget what got them where they are and start to reproduce again at a higher rate, so if that happens, the forecast will revert to worse again.
I will post the model below.
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:21 am Post subject: Is the Die-Off exagerated?
So I know the food and medicine of petro has caused a population explosion, but my point is this: most people on the planet live divorced from most of this way of life. and you really don't need that much food to survive and live simply - plus industrial society , especially in the U.S. is living way above its means.
I read somwhere in the U.S. we throw out over half the food we have access to, so with this in mind feel free to comment .
im not trying to undermine the severity of the situation , just playing devils advocate since thats how we learn.
also, don't forget about the magic cookies: link
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:59 am Post subject:
Yes and no... Yes we have the ability to shift our production infrastructure to producing only what's needed for supply and imho could make the transition with our current population more or less.
No because we aren't stable enough to realize the need to do this, we'd just as soon fight over what's left then attempt any large scale solutions. Human's on the whole resist change and panic easily, not a good combination for dealing with peak oil.
I guess it all boils down to how you view humanity as a whole.
and you really don't need that much food to survive and live simply - plus industrial society , especially in the U.S. is living way above its means.
This is true as long as the resource requirement is met. Many people live some pretty horribly hot, arid areas, where they would be barbequed if it weren't for the help of irrigation and air conditioning; while some others live in areas that are cold enough to turn them into frozen pork patties, and only stay alive because of heating. Living in humid areas only amplifies the already uncomfortable weather. So since the resource base of many of these otherwise uninhabitable areas is so dismally low, it would be impossible for any species to adapt to an area that can't support its population. Since the particular species I'm referring to is industrialized, complacent people, who can theoretically be able to learn how to effectively hunt and forage, but probably won't because of their dependence, then they'll have an even larger crap sandwich to forcibly eat.
Food? What is food? Yeah, you can live with much less food than what is in possession now, but will the quality and variety of food be maintained, especially when more arable land is permanently ruined every minute? The human body needs a variety of foods, otherwise it will weaken much faster than it should. Just remember that we're not the only species that is getting and going to get Fark.
Quote:
No because we aren't stable enough to realize the need to do this, we'd just as soon fight over what's left then attempt any large scale solutions.
Right. Remember all of that kooky stuff that happened when there was an energy surplus. I may be wrong, but I reckon that the desperation generated by the event of an irreversible energy decline isn't going to be very...stable.
A few points...part of the problem is overall production of food. Recall that the green revolution, which substantially increased food output, emphasizes the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides,and irrigation. Increased energy prices will be passed on to consumers where possible; those consumers unable to afford the higher prices will do without.
An additional problem is food processing and storage. The food that's processed - which is most of what we eat, these days - requires a substantial energy investment. Even fresh foods require refrigeration. Canned foods must be heated to certain high temperatures, again requiring energy. Without these processing and storage mechanisms, can we have supermarkets full of canned and frozen foods? If not, does this not increase the probability of seasonal famine? Further, the storage of meats becomes problematic without refrigeration and freezing.
Then we have the issue of transportation. If Hawaii grows really good pineapples, will it be affordable to ship them to those of us in Texas? If the ranchers in Argentina grow cattle, is it practical to send steaks to New Jersey?
So, I perceive an overall increase in price, a decreased availability, more seasonal famines, and more regional famines. As the energy problem grows, the severity of these issues will, IMO, increase. Thus the dieoff. _________________ Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn!
One word determines the sign of the times and how it is all going: SIZE
All you need to do is look at size in everything in our culture and it will give you a direct indication of how good or bad things are. The post WW2 era saw big cars and long highways leading to suburbs. The engery cruch in the 70's put an end to big cars.
The 90's were marked with suburbs which could be considered different cities completely, big SUVs, and more importantly big people.
The number one problem we have is that we refuse to give up this stupid way of thinking that if someone wants to do something they should be free to do it because that is the American way of life. Whackos like Anne Coulter have been quoted as saying it is man's duty to "rape nature".
This do anything model is in the psyche of the masses (dumb and smart) while the better educated factions of the population all grew up learning economic theories that all dismiss non-renewable enegry resources and think growth will last for good.
Food production is a big problem for us because we produce food which is wasteful and enegry intensive to make. The ammount of fuel used to make a luxury food item like meat is many times the quantity required to make something low energy intensive like rice which can be stored a long time and used as a staple food. This way of production is speeding up the drive over the cliff.
I highly doubt this wasteful allocation of food production will stop until the very end when cost to manufacture is so high and demand so low that they will be unable to do business.
Joined: Oct 25, 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Southern California Desert
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:32 am Post subject: What to do with all the bodies after a mass die-off?
If an assload of people die all around the same time, there's going to be little hope for them to be buried. So what do we do, let 'em rot in the street, or toss 'em into the back of biodiesel dumptrucks and haul 'em off to the Thermal Depolymerization Plant? I'd go with the second.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:04 am Post subject:
There has been this problem of corpse disposal before. These pictures should demonstrate how this issue has been resolved in the past. WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC PICTURES FOLLOW. IF OFFENDED BY DEATH SCENES, PLEASE DO NOT VIEW! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
link1 link2 link3 link4 _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: Jun 21, 2004 Posts: 413 Location: Massachusetts
Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:30 am Post subject:
Defintely Thermal Depolymerization. Dumping bodies into mass graves would be a waste. Harvesting dead bodies will be a big business in the future. So much so in fact, that I'd hate to imagine what would happen if someone needed a dead body and all around them were live ones... _________________ Vision without action is a dream, action without vision is a nightmare.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
