Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 23, 2019
Rethinking Malthus
Of history’s great thinkers, the one most relevant to farmers and ranchers is probably the English demographer Thomas Robert Malthus. He’s famous for doubting that farmers could increase food production fast enough to feed a rapidly rising population. He thought the resulting food shortages would beget famines, diseases and wars, which would eventually reduce population back to sustainable levels.
A lot has happened since Malthus first published “An Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798 and much of it undermines his thesis. When Malthus wrote, 800 million people called planet earth home. Today 7.7 billion do. Most have enough to eat. Hunger has not been eliminated, to be sure, but that’s arguably a distribution problem. Farmers produce enough to feed everyone, or close to enough; the world just doesn’t get the food to everyone who needs it.
During the 15 years I’ve been inflicting my opinions on DTN readers, I’ve more than once taken a swipe at Malthus, or, to be more precise, at those who continue to advocate his theory, the neo-Malthusians. As recently as last February, I headlined a post, “Do Calls for Radical Diet Changes Repeat the Malthusian Mistake?” (
)
I don’t apologize for this. I continue to think the neo-Malthusians underestimate the power of technology to keep up with the rapidly increasing demand for food, energy and other essentials of life. Nonetheless, I have come to a more nuanced view of Malthus thanks to a Teaching Company course titled “Big History: The Big Bang, Life on Earth and the Rise of Humanity.” (
)
As a history major, I took a lot of history courses during my four years in Ann Arbor 50 years ago — but never one quite like this. “Big History” is multidisciplinary. The lecturer, David Christian, is a historian but what he’s teaching blends astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, archaeology and economics with traditional history. And talk about Big! The course begins with the universe’s beginning 13 billion years ago and covers everything since in 48 lectures.
Christian changed my view of Malthus by the way he defined historical periods. What he calls the Agrarian Era began roughly 10,000 years ago with the rise of agriculture and ended in 1700. One of this period’s key characteristics, Christian says, was the slow pace of technological change.
Because it was slow, the era was marked by repeated Malthusian cycles, which Christian defines as “Long cycles of economic, demographic, cultural and even political expansion, generally followed by periods of crisis; warfare; and demographic, cultural and political decline. These cycles, generally lasting several centuries, are apparent throughout the Agrarian era and were probably generated by the fact that, though there was innovation (which produced the upward swings), rates of innovation could not keep pace with rates of growth (which explains the eventual crashes).”
Christian backs this contention with population statistics showing a very long-term uptrend during the Agrarian Era but lots of crashes along the way.
By contrast, the distinguishing feature of Christian’s Modern Era, the time since 1700, has been a sharp acceleration in the pace of innovation. According to Christian, between 1900 and 2000 world population quadrupled but global grain production rose by five times and global industrial output by 40 times.
By Christian’s definition of the historical periods, Malthus was actually right as far as the Agrarian Era was concerned. What he failed to foresee was that in the Modern Era, which was just getting started when he wrote, the pace of technological innovation was accelerating. Not only accelerating, but accelerating so quickly that food supply would be able to keep up with population growth from 800 million to 7.7 billion.
Malthus did not live to see the sharp increase in the pace of technological innovation that took place in the 19th and 20th centuries. You have to wonder if he would have concocted his gloomy theory had he lived a century later.
It is possible, to be sure, that however fast the pace of innovation, population growth might yet eventually outpace it. This is why the neo-Malthusians haven’t conceded the debate.
When the Big History course hit the market in 2008, the world’s population was 6 billion something. It’s already risen to 7.7 billion and some demographers think it will be 10 billion in 2050. Not only is population rising, but incomes are rising in China, India and other developing countries, generating demand for not only more food but more goods of all kinds.
“Each of the more than 6 billion humans on Earth today consumes approximately 60 times as much energy as humans of the Paleolithic era,” Christian writes. “These figures suggest that the total energy consumption of our species has increased by about 60,000 times in 10,000 years.”
To Christian, then, there’s a “real threat” of a Malthusian crisis in our future. But there’s also increasing awareness of the dangers and some encouraging trends. Population growth rates are actually slowing. Ecological awareness is increasing.
“And of course,” he writes, “we should not forget ‘collective learning.’ The collective brain of modern humanity, magnified by billions of networked computers, is the most powerful problem-solving entity we know of. If there’s a solution to the problems that face us and the biosphere, 6 billion networked humans are surely likely to find it.”
118 Comments on "Rethinking Malthus"
Cloggie on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 3:34 am
German windturbines produce 15% MORE electricity than in 2018, although hardly any new windturbine was build, thanks to the uprising of the NIMBYs:
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/windraeder-lieferten-soviel-strom-wie-noch-nie-a-1299046.html
This amount of wind electricity already suffices to cover the electricity needs of ALL German households.
Note: it is very well possible that in 2020 the production will decline with 15% or more, illustrating the growing need for seasonal storage and that can only be chemical storage (hydrogen-based), not pumped hydro, let alone batteries.
Cloggie on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 3:46 am
Exxon scientist James Black predicted CO2-induced climate change as early as 1977:
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/james-black-sagte-1977-die-klimakrise-voraus-leider-arbeitete-er-bei-exxon-a-1298292.html
He also predicted peak CO2 in 2025 and a decline afterwards, as well as a global temperature increase of more than 2C. The black curve is the prediction of Black, the red one current state-of-the-art predictions. Black was probably wrong with his idea that temperatures would come down again. The CO2-emissions will probably halt ice ages for ever (is that really bad?).
The Exxon CEOs were not interested in the results of his study.
There is a good chance that the oil companies will suffer the same fate as the tobacco companies: sued out of existence after having caused immense public harm, against better knowledge.
Davy on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 4:29 am
“Note: it is very well possible that in 2020 the production will decline with 15% or more, illustrating the growing need for seasonal storage and that can only be chemical storage (hydrogen-based), not pumped hydro, let alone batteries.”
Note, many here have reminded you of this over and over. Seasonal storage is the hard part and there is not real advancement.
“This amount of wind electricity already suffices to cover the electricity needs of ALL German households.”
Do you have the data for when this happens because it is not all the time? I think you mean on rare occasions enough is produced. You might indicate that instead of saying German households are covered.
Davy on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 4:30 am
“The CO2-emissions will probably halt ice ages for ever (is that really bad?).”
LMFAO
Cloggie on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 5:06 am
“Note, many here have reminded you of this over and over. Seasonal storage is the hard part and there is not real advancement.”
BS. Not in the US indeed, but Europe is a different story.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/23/dutch-consortium-to-build-gigawatt-electrolysis-plant/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/23/hydrogen-economy-taking-off-in-europe/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/23/thyssen-krupp-coal-out-hydrogen-in/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/19/breakthrough-in-electrolyzer-technology/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/19/10-mw-refhyne-electrolyzer-project-for-shell-germany/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/27-dutch-municipalities-to-be-detached-from-gas-grid/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2019/11/11/port-of-rotterdam-to-build-largest-green-hydrogen-plant-in-europe/
And the list goes on and on, just study my blog.
“LMFAO”
LMFAO is not an argument, but instead a regression back to childhood. Not that you need to travel very far.
Cloggie on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 5:09 am
“Do you have the data for when this happens because it is not all the time? I think you mean on rare occasions enough is produced. You might indicate that instead of saying German households are covered.”
The data is in the link. No, I wasn’t talking about “rare occasions”. I repeat:
In 2019 German wind electricity has produced enough to cover all German households.
They did not cover YET industry and transport, let alone space heating.
Again: if you add up all the meter readings of German households you arrive at a kWh tally equal to the number of kWh’s all German wind-turbines produced (2019).
Capiche?
Davy on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 5:13 am
“BS. Not in the US indeed, but Europe is a different story.”
Where is it a scale of great energy engineer?
Davy on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 5:19 am
“The data is in the link. No, I wasn’t talking about “rare occasions”. I repeat:”
Come on cloggo that is a German link. Go spew your shit on a German site
“In 2019 German wind electricity has produced enough to cover all German households.”
My point is cloggo, wind did not cover all German households all the time. You do remember intermittency o great energy engineer?
“They did not cover YET industry and transport, let alone space heating.”
LOL, no shit and it likely never will
“Again: if you add up all the meter readings of German households you arrive at a kWh tally equal to the number of kWh’s all German wind-turbines produced (2019). Capiche?”
I will not argue that of course but you conveniently leave out space heating so WTF they got some lights and TV in a ice cold house. LOL. My small solar system could probably be viewed the same way. I can cover might lights and gadgets cloggo. The hard part is all the other stuff in life.
REAL Green on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 5:35 am
“How safe are utility-scale energy storage batteries?”
http://energyskeptic.com/
“I calculated that the cost of a utility-scale lithium ion battery capable of storing 24 hours of electricity generation in the United States would cost $11.9 trillion dollars, take up 345 square miles, and weigh 74 million tons. And at least 6 weeks of energy storage is needed to keep the grid up during times when there’s no sun or wind. This storage has to come mainly from batteries, because there’s very few places to put Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES), Pumped Hydro energy storage (PHS) (and also because it has a very low energy density), or Concentrated Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage. Currently natural gas is the main energy storage, always available to quickly step in when the wind dies and sun goes down, as well as provide power around the clock with help from coal, nuclear, and hydropower…Pumped hydro is one of the oldest and most mature energy storage technologies and represents 95% of the installed storage capacity. Other storage technologies, such as batteries, flywheels and others, make up the remaining 5% of the installed storage base, are much earlier in their deployment cycle and have likely not reached the full extent of their deployed capacity.”
REAL Green on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 6:34 am
“CUBA’S URBAN FARMING SHOWS WAY TO AVOID HUNGER”
https://tinyurl.com/sjtysnm agritecture
“Partial solution Cuba’s experience of urban agriculture inspired many environmentalists to believe that this is at least part of the solution to the food shortages threatened by climate change. By 2008 food gardens, despite their small scale, made up 8% of the land in Havana, and 3.4% of all urban land in Cuba, producing 90% of all the fruit and vegetables consumed. As a result the calorie intake of the average Cuban quickly rose to match that of Europeans, relying on a diet composed mainly of rice, beans, potatoes and other vegetables – a low-fat diet making obesity rare. Because of the climate, though, wheat does not grow well in Cuba, and the island still has to import large quantities of grain for bread. Meat is in short supply and also has to be mainly imported.”
REAL Green on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 6:34 am
Plant based diets are only a partial solution but a vital one. We need less industrial meat production but not an end to meat all together. It is ridiculous of the modern liberal vegan to push this nonsense. We also need less industrial fruit and vegetable production. It is a two-way street. There are many areas were meat production is the only realistic alternative. A change in the type of meat consumption is needed also with less beef and more meat variety based upon natural systems. IMA animal treatment in industrial settings is horrible and that should change. Grass fed beef on land only useful for grazing is indispensable. Chickens, pigs, goats, sheep in many more households and in multispecies operations along with cattle are a must. The other issue with meat production is a proper permaculture situation would have plants and animals combined to reflect ecosystem cycles. These are the nutrient cycles of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphate. The hydrologic cycle is part of this depending on where one lives. Animals need to be introduced again into permaculture designs. Horse and oxen power should be promoted. We can’t take this that far but it should be utilized in some way to offer more resilience and sustainability to crisis.
Permaculture is of course not a solution to the overshoot we are in but it is a mitigation strategy on the way down. Industrial agriculture is here to stay in avoiding collapse of such large populations as we have today. It is indispensable and non-negotiable if you want to avoid collapse at least for the foreseeable future. Yet, a meaningful amount of change could be adapted to being less destructive. The other part of the food industry after the farmer that does the transport, processing, and packaging could definitely be reduced with more localization and adapted diets. Reductions are all we can realistically expect in the predicament we are in.
One very important move would be to promote and subsidize localism and permaculture farming. This needs to be done because these types of farms cannot compete with large industrial monocultures and industrial production centers. Industrial AG can’t be reformed so we should put the money towards permaculture. Industrial AG is about economies of scale and that means energy intensive and volume oriented. This cannot be reformed in market-based capitalism that the world knows today in globalism. We are carbon trapped and path dependent everywhere from the energy input to the dietary desires of the masses. The economic system is path dependent on what we have right now. The best we can do is adapt and mitigate this in a process like the process that got us here. The inconvenience of this is adapting globalism will likely collapse it at some point so it is only realistic that some adaptation and mitigation will occur in the best of circumstances.
JuanP on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 9:44 am
Davy’s envy, fear, and resentment know no bounds. He is so representative of the state that made him; that’s what I call a real American!
Davy to JuanP on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 10:13 am
Oh fuck off troll you personify the worst of a human being in a nasty psychopathic asshole who thinks he is
Gods gift to earth. I love every day you go deeper into insanity with your mindless trolling
Davy on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 10:49 am
Oops, sorry for getting all triggered and losing my widdle temper again y’all.
REAL Green on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 10:51 am
We need to go see the doctor real bad Davy.
mf on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 11:53 am
the consequences of XXth Century population explosion are already here, they are just masked and confused by ideology that “explains” why the majority of Earth’s population must remain poor.
To bring 7+ billion people to North American oil consumption per capita, oil production would have to quadruple on a sustained basis. To the EU levels, it would :only” need to double.
Whenever politicians try to use financial manipulation to spark “growth”, commodity prices spike and the financial crisis follows.
These problems can be solved, perhaps, but solving them takes time and money. In the meantime, Malthusian cycles are alive and well.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 1:58 pm
Clogmate Signinschist, a Blue Ocean event will accelerate extinction as the more heinous methane takes command. And that’s just the Arctic. You should be working on your underground white breeding facility that is much more credible than your hydrogen powered sexbot.
Cloggie on Sat, 30th Nov 2019 2:30 pm
“Blue Ocean event will accelerate extinction as the more heinous methane takes command”
Tough shit Siss. I’m sure it is going to be just as bad as you thought peak oil was going to be.