Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 12:09:56

ol: "while some are especially implicated in our reckless path...others are not doing anything that can be deemed as malfeasance in being good global citizens "

Good point
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

closing in on the big 8

Unread postby Whitefang » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 12:54:57

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

7.647 million today, 8 billion within 5 years from now if the ice will hold out a bit more.
I never thought we would make it to 8 but we still have a chanche to hit a glorious peak human above 8000 million.
9 big billion will never ever happen.
That would mean BAU will have to be around for another decade after the next, another generation of peace and growth.
User avatar
Whitefang
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri 12 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 13:58:46

Yes, I also do not think we will make it to 9 Billion. Beyond all the calamities that we discuss here on a regular basis looming, we also seem to be having problems with fertility. I surmise that that could be because the global level of pollution and contamination is interfering with both the female and male capacity to fertilize successfully. Some sort of chemical biological havoc may be the culprit.
If anybody saw the movie "Children of Men" that deals precisely with this issue.
That may be the best thing that could happen to our species to be regulated by force, given that we seem unwilling and/or unable to do so of our own volition. And of course the calamties seem destined to cull our species whether we like it or not.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 09:11:20

onlooker wrote:Can I ask all of you a question. This question has intrigued me for some time now. Do you all think that we need to maintain fairly advanced technology to make it through the bottleneck of the consequences to Overshoot? I am not asking will we. But do we need to in order to insure our survival as a species?


Nope, natives in Alaska and Siberia survived in a climate most modern folks are horrified to experience for a few days, let alone on generational time scales. Humans are a duality species, we can adapt to extreme environments to an extent, then we add clothes and shelters and fire to adapt the environment to suit our needs even further. A person with nothing but a fur blanket can survive temperate winter climate even without fire by building a decent shelter out of snow or living in a cave. With fire we humans can be quite comfortable in a shelter even in well below freezing temperatures outside the shelter.

This all boils down to a bottleneck is not an extinction event. Knock off 99 percent of those alive at the instant you read this and knowledge of fire will remain in the temnent population. From fire you can build all else of civilization.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16565
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 11:04:43

So, was control of fire the 'original sin.' This is what a friend of mine thinks, though she wouldn't put it in quite those terms.

But if the unlivability of the earth we are de-terra-forming is the result of heat rather than cold, will fire be all that useful?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 06 Sep 2018, 15:27:05

Yes. Even if 99% of 4 billion people die, the surviving 1% is 40 million people. They will have an industrial civilization, internet, power grid, and space travel. The "Doom" part is the people, due to lack of cheap energy and cheap food.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 08 Sep 2018, 09:15:26

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this is just 6 scenarios that could possible lead to our extinction from Guy Mcpherson's site. I would add that reading up on the Great Dying the biggest and worse Mass Extinction Event, the conditions were so brual and inhospitable that it seems far fetched that a large mammal like us could survive. Hence, my question about technology. Tanada is quite right that we are very adaptive and cunning, however when the planet itself has changed to one foreign/malignant to most complex organisms, we need to reconsider if in fact we are at risk as a species. Guy stresses the importance of habitat in hosting us.

1. Abrupt climate change resulting from the loss of global dimming when civilization falls. I’ve spoken about this issue recently, and my presentations in the near future will continue to pound this drum.

2. Abrupt climate change resulting from firing the clathrate gun (item 1 on this list). I’ve written and spoken repeatedly about this topic.

3. Abrupt climate change resulting from moistening of the upper troposphere (item 39 on this list). As the planet warms, the most-abundant greenhouse gas becomes more abundant, thus further warming the planet.

4. Overt, rather than the ongoing covert version of World War leading to use of nuclear weapons. We can duck, but there’s no cover. So much for “duck and cover.”

5. Meltdown of the world’s nuclear power facilities. Fukushima was a harbinger. Many people, all of them more knowledgeable about the subject than me, believe Fukushima is an extinction-level event for our species.

6. Driving to extinction many other species. At some point, we become the species driven to extinction by industrial civilization. We will die without a living planet to sustain us.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 08 Sep 2018, 10:21:49

We have also filled the global ecosystem with a massive amounts of a plethora of artificial chemicals that have never existed in nature and which we don't know how they will interact long-term with life and other systems...especially the persistent ones that nature does not have a way of breaking down easily.

Not the P-T "Great Dying," but another mass extinction we can gain some insights from for our current catastrophe--Two pieces on the PETM

History suggests impacts of global warming are being underestimated



Beginning 56 million years ago, during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum — a period between the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs, lasting 10,000 to 20,000 years — temperatures rose between 5 and 8 degrees Celsius.

Using the analysis of ancient sediment cores, scientists analyzed the effects of this dramatic rise in temperature on hydrologic cycles.

Previous studies have charted the rise in temperature during Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Castelltort and his colleagues analyzed evidence of shifting river dynamics in the Spanish Pyrenees during the same time period.

The analysis of pebbles in ancient sediment cores allowed researchers to estimate the flow velocity and discharge in the river system. At the beginning the of the PETM, river channels deposited fertile alluvium in the floodplain at the foothills of the Pyrenees. The deposits encouraged the growth of rich vegetation.

As temperature rose during the PETM, the system’s dynamics shifted dramatically. Rising temperatures increased the severity and frequency of flooding by a factor of 14. The sudden change caused fertile alluvium to be carried directly to the ocean, bypassing the floodplain.

As a result of the change in sediment deposition patterns, vegetation disappeared from the Pyrenees foothills. The region was transformed into an arid expanse of gravel.



“We face effects that we do not understand, which can perhaps be explained by local factors, but also by global factors that are not yet incorporated into current climate models,” Castelltort said.

see:
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/0 ... 536238447/

While in the seas:

Shining light on ancient global warming

The impact of global warming on shallow marine life approximately 56 million years ago is the subject of a significant, new article. Researchers have now addressed the effects of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) — a relatively brief period of global climate change, spanning 200,000 years — on marine invertebrates, including snails, clams and other mollusks.

Which begs the question: What implications do these results hold for the present and future response of shallow marine biota to ongoing global change? Ivany chooses her words carefully, explaining that the carbon dioxide release during the PETM occurred over thousands of years. Compare that to putting the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from only a few hundred years of human activity.”

Whatever happened during the PETM was a “best-case scenario” for marine invertebrates, Ivany explains. “With everything happening so much faster now, it is more likely organisms will go extinct,” she adds. “When the environment changes, you must move, evolve or die. If it changes faster than you can move or evolve, you’re toast.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142055.htm

Thanks to Kassy at rscribbler's sit for these
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 08 Sep 2018, 12:35:29

"]
We have also filled the global ecosystem with a massive amounts of a plethora of artificial chemicals that have never existed in nature and which we don't know how they will interact long-term with life and other systems...especially the persistent ones that nature does not have a way of breaking down easily.

Yes, and many other species may be more vulnerable to this proliferation of toxic chemicals and Bees are but one example of a species we are very dependent on, so ultimately it will be inimical to our wellbeing
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 09 Sep 2018, 00:36:04

ol mentioned "Children of Men" a few posts back...well...:

https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby jedrider » Sun 09 Sep 2018, 14:03:29

dohboi wrote:ol mentioned "Children of Men" a few posts back...well...:

https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero


Yep. I'm prepping for 'becoming extinct'. But how does one prep for that?
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 09 Sep 2018, 14:39:35

It is worth to notice here that mainly white race is affected by low sperm count and within white race WASP-s are most affected.
It looks like the wealthier you are, the lower your sperm count.
But I suspect that a small number of surviving Pygmies living far away from endocrine disruptors will be more than enough to fertilize all the women-in-need.
I bet, their children are going to be cute though...
For humans jig is going to be up once female reproduction is distorted enough not to allow to produce viable eggs (still solvable by stem cell technofix perhaps) and finally not to allow fertilized egg to be implanted and develop due to womb malfunction (good chance for no technofix here - it seems that no existing or near term tech can replace womb between 3rd and 20th week of pregnancy and even if become available would be exceedingly expensive to run).
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7036
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 09 Sep 2018, 14:52:20

Tanada wrote: From fire you can build all else of civilization.

Assuming that other resurces are also available to permit that.
Otherwise you won't get further than to XVII century level and even that is not certain.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7036
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 09 Sep 2018, 15:02:41

KaiserJeep wrote:Yes. Even if 99% of 4 billion people die, the surviving 1% is 40 million people. They will have an industrial civilization, internet, power grid, and space travel. The "Doom" part is the people, due to lack of cheap energy and cheap food.

Disagree.
Knowledge gaps and lack of labor will break many interdependend links required to keep high tech going.
Infrastructure will dissipate and critical materials necessary to build advanced electronics will no longer be manufactured. Expertise is also going to be largerly lost.
Though power grid and 1930-ties tech may well prevail.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7036
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Tuike » Sun 09 Sep 2018, 16:13:11

I remember, in the 1990s ufo boom, there was an ufo contactee person in morning tv show. The ufo contactee said to tv host that "Space aliens told me that if humans continue their current lifestyle, they'll become infertile." Tv host told the ufo contactee angrily to not to talk crap. I guess the space aliens were right after all.
User avatar
Tuike
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon 10 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Finland

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 12 Sep 2018, 04:38:33

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Tanada wrote: From fire you can build all else of civilization.

Assuming that other resurces are also available to permit that.
Otherwise you won't get further than to XVII century level and even that is not certain.


Common mistake, you associate civilization with the 21st century apex we crrently have. Civilization at its most basic boils down to food production and storage allowing people to live in villages and specialize in tasks that improve the stats of the whole. Ancient Ur and ancient Quito and ancient Kyoto were all civilizations with technology far short of the 17th century level you speculate about. Reality is we know how to build far more efficient sailng ships than the people in 1750 built using no tools not part of their civilization tool kit. The same is true of germ theory, boiling medical instruments or soaking them in high proof alcohols distilled from common beer does wonders for reducing infection rates.

Basically with knowledge and fire you can live a quite successful early 20th century lifestyle. You might have steam power based on fire if you have access to fossil coal deposits, or you mght be limited to just biofuel supply limits, but with fire you get metal working and all the things that come with metal. If you have access to fossil fuels for your steam tech you can get to town scale electricity very easily. Wth even minimal electricity and metal working you get radio tech, and with just a little more you get TV. How far you go technology wise with fire as your starting point depends on access to flammable resources you can use. Depending on demand you can actually supply electricity with biofuel powered boilers quite well, but you need a low population density to allow soace for biofuel production.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16565
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 12 Sep 2018, 22:47:24

Will the global population also have to be as small as that of the early 20th century, and static?
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 10:08:01

ralfy wrote:Will the global population also have to be as small as that of the early 20th century, and static?


Modern wheat, rice and maize are not the same plants we were growing in 1918, all three have been bread to produce far greater yields than their century ago versions. In addition to that reality a great deal of fully viable crop land in North America has been allowed to return to fallow/wild status in the last half century of megafarm style agriculture. Half the farms from Maine to Minnesota have been allowed to go back to woodlot since 1972 when Federal policy was changed to encourage mega corporate farms vs family operations. All of that land is still there and still viable farmland and if people need to grow more food it will be put back into production.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16565
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby GHung » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 10:30:02

Tanada wrote:
ralfy wrote:Will the global population also have to be as small as that of the early 20th century, and static?


Modern wheat, rice and maize are not the same plants we were growing in 1918, all three have been bread to produce far greater yields than their century ago versions. In addition to that reality a great deal of fully viable crop land in North America has been allowed to return to fallow/wild status in the last half century of megafarm style agriculture. Half the farms from Maine to Minnesota have been allowed to go back to woodlot since 1972 when Federal policy was changed to encourage mega corporate farms vs family operations. All of that land is still there and still viable farmland and if people need to grow more food it will be put back into production.


By whom? Bank tellers? Smartphone salesman? Tax preparers?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Thu 13 Sep 2018, 10:54:43

Tanada wrote: In addition to that reality a great deal of fully viable crop land in North America has been allowed to return to fallow/wild status in the last half century of megafarm style agriculture. Half the farms from Maine to Minnesota have been allowed to go back to woodlot since 1972 when Federal policy was changed to encourage mega corporate farms vs family operations. All of that land is still there and still viable farmland and if people need to grow more food it will be put back into production.


Maybe things are different in the US, but here in Ontario farm land has reverted back to forest primarily where the soil was too thin and nutrient poor to sustain farming.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest