Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family

[Jennifer123]

I imagine that’s up to each couple. StAnastasia

Do you support contraceptive measures?

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you support contraceptive measures?

I don’t pry into people’s sex lives.

 

[StAnastasia]

Seems we are a people of users, and put little back in to keep the earth going. Perhaps plant a tree on Arbor Day. Even in our planting a garden out back, we use fertilizer (oil derived) and manual labor which is calorie based which is dependent on food. As far as I can take it, the sunshine is our only renewable resource, and that too someday will go black. So, non of our offspring will survive forever… not here on earth. Seems like if we beat the loss of oil in 2050 or 2100, we have not beat the sun going black whenever it does.!

Michael David, you raise a lot of interesting ideas here. I place myself between the “great die-off” crowd (who envision the death of most humans) and the “cornucopians” (who refuse to recognize any limits to human consumption of resources and to growth of human numbers).

As a Catholic, of course I hope for the continuation of the species, and for the great enterprise of civilization. I am the last one who wants to see humanity reduced to small bands of wandering hunter gatherers, or groups dealing out vigilante justice as hordes of refugees stream thought the ruins of Western civilization. As a theologian, a teacher and a parent, while I am privately pessimist that we will collectively envision a new post-oil future, I have to remain professionally optimistic. And I have to bear witness to Christian hope.

I am very much in favor of all the post-oil alternatives you have enumerated, but in my research I have come across nothing to suggest that 6.7 billion people can make a bloodless transition from our current fossil-fuel based high-flying lifestyle to a non-fossil-fuel based lifestyle with continually increasing population. There will be a collision between the two trajectories of decreasing resources and increasing numbers.

StAnastasia

 

[Michael_David]

I am very much in favor of all the post-oil alternatives you have enumerated, but in my research I have come across nothing to suggest that 6.7 billion people can make a bloodless transition from our current fossil-fuel based high-flying lifestyle to a non-fossil-fuel based lifestyle with continually increasing population. There will be a collision between the two trajectories of decreasing resources and increasing numbers.

StAnastasia

“Bloodless transition” has not been something us humans have shown we are good at. Look throughout history, far back in the Bible and more recently in Europe before the USA was discovered by us… even the Indians were fighting each other (with plenty here to go around at that time)… then how non-peaceful we have been since here, even during the Civil War to ourselves. Now we are fighting ‘terror’… with war!

Funny how we have to become like the ‘so-called’ enemy to fight it… but then we are the same as it was… or are we?! Who/what is the real enemy? On which side? We fight with merchandise, we fight with resources, we fight political ideals, we fight religious ideals, we fight social ideals, seems we will fight anything… like we like to fight. Are we a peaceful race or not? Both sides are fighting for what ‘they’ think is right or proper… and neither agrees with the others idea or beliefs. I have personally fought in a war where neither force was on their own soil, and the enemy was just like me… there for the same reasons doing his duty to country just like I was… killing each other off… for what? Land, control, spoils, power, ideals… all the while the people whose land it was were caught in a dilemma, and so were us soldiers upon returning home to our soil.

Can there be peace when we have what another wants, and will defend it violently? And if we have no means to defend it, then it may be called genocide… fewer to use the spoils means more for the winner. Or if we want (perhaps believe we need) what another has, but do not want to pay their price for it… maybe the option is to go and take control of it. Then what does that make us?

Since the Church says ‘the means does not justify the ends,’ how are we suppose to proceed? By proper moral means toward proper moral ends. Any other way, we are just as bad as the one we are fighting… and it becomes ourselves we fight… the internal battles are the worst!

So, how will this come about? Peacefully and bloodless, or the opposite. From what I see and know of humanity, it will not be peacefully. UNLESS…

 

[StAnastasia]

So, how will this come about? Peacefully and bloodless, or the opposite. From what I see and know of humanity, it will not be peacefully. UNLESS…

I suspect the transition to a post-oil economy and culture will come about in fits and starts. It is almost certain there will be resource wars, because **** Cheney has said that the American way of life is not negotiable, a sentiment shared by many; at the same time the Chinese and Indians are not about to play second fiddle to a once-great America.

Africa may be a lost cause, and periodic famines have already started there.

StAnastasia

 

[JimG]

I had to go back and look and post #1 to try to figure out what happened to this thread. The original post was about a demographic winter being caused by declining population resulting from below replacement level birth rates. That’s the trend in much of Europe, while the U.S. is holding at close to replacement levels. Nations cannot continue to exist indefinitely when they slide into a downward demographic spiral.

Now it looks as though the thread is focusing on alleged overpopulation and limited resources. But underpopulation is the coming problem for the developed nations, not overpopulation.

I don’t follow the oil markets particularly, but at the moment the price is declining and OPEC is limiting production in order to try to keep prices up. That’s not a sign of a disappearing resource. If we start running out of oil, prices will spike and remain high; they won’t decline.

The oil shale in Canada has not been developed, because oil prices haven’t remained high enough. But if they were to be developed, there is more oil to be obtained there than in all of Saudi Arabia. And of course, other countries have shale oil as well. (I won’t even mention coal—there is plenty of it, and it can be obtained cheaply and produce energy. But coal is now a dirty word, and we’re not allowed to use it or discuss it.)

Human beings are also a natural resource. Kansas farmers produce a lot more food than they consume. Most working people produce more than they consume. If worker’s were merely eaters, their entire salary would go to their food budget. But because humans are productive, they produce surplus. So we have one resource—human beings—capable of producing surpluses and being productive, and that is the resource we want to limit?

I think the population controllers will not be happy until the entire world slides into an irreversible downward spiral.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think the population controllers will not be happy until the entire world slides into an irreversible downward spiral.

Not at all. You have to understand basic mathematics to realize that on a finite planet, any given species reaches Zero Population Growth.

 

[JimG]

Two of the most remarkable things about the warnings of overpopulation and its alleged catastrophic effects, are first, how wrong the predictions have been, and second, how little difference it makes to the ideology.

“Such warnings have been issued before. Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich began his 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, with a prophecy: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

The most optimistic of Professor Ehrlich’s “scenarios,” involving a radical worldwide program of population control and resource conservation to reduce the world’s total population to 1.5 billion (less than a third of its present level) in some future century, envisioned the death by starvation of about a fifth of the people alive in the world in 1968.”
Source: First Things: Ideology as Science, Nicholas Eberstadt
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4404&var_recherche=population

“Where Have All the Children Gone?
If any side has been blinded by ideological bias, it is surely the folks at Countdown 2015. It’s not a secret that fertility rates worldwide have plummeted in the past thirty years. The UN Population Division, numerous respected demographers, economists and social scientists have described this phenomenon in official publications, books, scholarly articles, and the popular press.
Today the only sources which still warn of an impending population explosion are outdated American textbooks and diatribes from population control extremists and abortion ideologues. “
Richard John Neuhaus, First Things Magazine, “Where Have All the Children Gone?” firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=189&var_recherche=population

 

[Ridgerunner]

You can look at the present population of the world and think of it as huge. Yet, if there were no births for 50 years, humans would go extinct within a century. On the other hand, if human population was reduced to, say, 1000 people, it would take millenia to restore the present population, if it was restored at all.

I’m not saying we’re facing zero births for 50 years, but it has to be realized that human populations are much more vulnerable when in decline than people seem to think, and it’s impossible to prevent catastrophic population collapse if people reproduce at less than replacement rate over a sufficient period of time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not at all. You have to understand basic mathematics to realize that on a finite planet, any given species reaches Zero Population Growth.

With human populations, though, it’s not as easy as determining how many, e.g., bison can continue to exist on, say, 10,000 acres of grassland.

Human beings are a factor in the ability of the earth to support humans. Wars in the past have amply demonstrated that. During the Civil War, food was in very short supply in the South, not because the land wouldn’t grow more, but because the men necessary to grow it were in the army. World War I saw the institution of “meatless” and even “wheatless” days for the civilian population, for the same reason. Unlike other species, human beings themselves are the central factor in figuring out what population is optimum.

Innovation is a big part of that; not just labor. In the late 19th Century, fully 1/3 of all farm product went to support the horses that provided the “horsepower” for the society. Mechanization of farming changed that, releasing 1/3 of the product for human consumption, without counting further productivity created by any other technological innovations that accompanied mechanization.

Governance also affects it greatly. Indian populations were nowhere near as productive in food as European populations; a good part of the reason being the incessant inter-tribal warfare that went on among the former. I recall reading that, for example, the entire state of Kentucky was “reserved” for hunting alone by the farming communities of Indians along the Ohio River, and, of course, the tribes fought over those hunting rights. After Europeans settled Kentucky, it produced food far beyond what hunting had previously yielded. That’s not a racial thing, it’s a matter of governance. European populations in the U.S. were relatively well governed and coordinated, whereas Indian populations were not. In much of the world, war and misgovernance artificially depress food productivity.

 

[StAnastasia]

Human beings are a factor in the ability of the earth to support humans.

Yes – I quite agree, and as I’ve said before, even after the petroleum is gone we may be able to support a larger population without oil than the world was able to without oil in 1859. However, with ten calories of fossil energy required for the production of each calorie of food energy – and with at present no viable substitute for this fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)ut into agriculture – prudence would dictate that we review the long-term human carrying capacity of the earth.

StAnastasia

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes – I quite agree, and as I’ve said before, even after the petroleum is gone we may be able to support a larger population without oil than the world was able to without oil in 1859. However, with ten calories of fossil energy required for the production of each calorie of food energy – and with at present no viable substitute for this fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)ut into agriculture – prudence would dictate that we review the long-term human carrying capacity of the earth.

StAnastasia

Perhaps realistic appraisal of the extent and most efficient use of fossil fuels would be prudent in advance of that. Undoubtedly, it’s more economical to pump liquid oil out of a pressurized well than it is to, e.g., extract it from oil shale or tar sands. But given the huge quantity of those latter things, perhaps efficiency relative to costs should be studied before studying how many people can survive on the assumption that the easily-extracted fossil fuel is the only kind there is, particularly when there are potential fields that have not even been explored yet.

It is actually not beyond the realm of possibility that farmers will be plowing with nuclear-driven tractors a century from now. We don’t know. But there are those who think so.

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps realistic appraisal of the extent and most efficient use of fossil fuels would be prudent in advance of that. Undoubtedly, it’s more economical to pump liquid oil out of a pressurized well than it is to, e.g., extract it from oil shale or tar sands. But given the huge quantity of those latter things, perhaps efficiency relative to costs should be studied before studying how many people can survive on the assumption that the easily-extracted fossil fuel is the only kind there is, particularly when there are potential fields that have not even been explored yet.

It is actually not beyond the realm of possibility that farmers will be plowing with nuclear-driven tractors a century from now. We don’t know. But there are those who think so.

(1)Shale oil and tar sands are far more energy costly to produce than pumping light sweet crude. When it costs a barrel of energy in to get a barrel of energy out, it will no longer be worth working these marginal resources.

(2) Much of the fossil fuel energy (name removed by moderator)ut is in the form of fertilizer, rather than tractor fuel. We’ll need an alternative to natural-gas derived fertilizers.

(3) The danger point is between now, when oil is peaking, and “way out there” when we might have alternative fuels. We are playing Russian roulette with future generations by continuing our population growth now. And perhaps Russian roulette is not immoral…

StAnastasia

 

[1234]

(1)Shale oil and tar sands are far more energy costly to produce than pumping light sweet crude. When it costs a barrel of energy in to get a barrel of energy out, it will no longer be worth working these marginal resources.

(2) Much of the fossil fuel energy (name removed by moderator)ut is in the form of fertilizer, rather than tractor fuel. We’ll need an alternative to natural-gas derived fertilizers.

(3) The danger point is between now, when oil is peaking, and “way out there” when we might have alternative fuels. We are playing Russian roulette with future generations by continuing our population growth now. And perhaps Russian roulette is not immoral…

StAnastasia

Fuel and grain production are only two of the grim realities facing a burgeoning population.

Add to these:

1. No more arable land. The vast majority of the arable land available on earth is already under cultivation.
2. We’re running out of water–any kind of water, potable and non-potable.

 

[StAnastasia]

Fuel and grain production are only two of the grim realities facing a burgeoning population.

Add to these:

1. No more arable land. The vast majority of the arable land available on earth is already under cultivation.
2. We’re running out of water–any kind of water, potable and non-potable.

That’s true. Arable land will be increasingly unavailable as population grown and land is converted to housing tracts. Fresh water might be augmented temporarily by desalination plants run by nuclear power, but even then, there is not a lot of uranium left, so that is not a long-term solution for ever-growing human numbers. Zero Population Growth will be reached for humans either voluntarily or involuntarily.

StAnastasia

 

[OriginalJS]

The next world wars will be over control of fresh water. Since there is no way to increase supply, and demand is growing constantly, eventually someone is going to win and someone is going to lose.

 

[StAnastasia]

The next world wars will be over control of fresh water. Since there is no way to increase supply, and demand is growing constantly, eventually someone is going to win and someone is going to lose.

That’s true. American agriculture is as dependent on the sinking Ogalala Aquifer as it is on the (name removed by moderator)ut of petrochemicals. The illusion of the United States as the breadbasket of the world for an infinitely growing human population is based upon the assumption of limitless supplies of water.

StAnastasia

 

[Valke2]

Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family
is an excellent 52 minute film about the world’s underpopulation crisis due to aggressive abortion and contraception. For a shortened, 20 minute version of the film, click here. For more information on this film, visit the film’s website, and for more information on abortion and underpopulation, join the Movement for a Better America.

On the list of valid reasons to ban abortion, underpopulation shouldn’t make the cut.

 

[StAnastasia]

On the list of valid reasons to ban abortion, underpopulation shouldn’t make the cut.

I hadn’t read that it had been listed as a reason.

StAnastasia

 

[Geremia]

The Hour is Late