- Status
V
Vanny
Guest
Good article. And so true.
A
ATraveller
Guest
Not particularly a fan of using “breeding” to describe people (along with placing a focus on sex rates when marriage rates are good enough) but nonetheless an important read about population trends.
I was just watching the BBC and they said China is aging much faster than expected meaning it will join Japan in seeing a decline in population sooner than expected. South Korea already has a fertility rate of under 1 (remember replacement is 2.1). Finland is also expected to see a drop in a few decade even with models that factor in high levels of immigration.
So the overpopulation fanatics should be quiet and look at the facts.
I was just watching the BBC and they said China is aging much faster than expected meaning it will join Japan in seeing a decline in population sooner than expected. South Korea already has a fertility rate of under 1 (remember replacement is 2.1). Finland is also expected to see a drop in a few decade even with models that factor in high levels of immigration.
So the overpopulation fanatics should be quiet and look at the facts.
Last edited:
M
MamaJewel
Guest
We were talking about this scenario at school today. In the 70’s through early 90’s it was the population explosion and need for population control through sex ed, free contraceptives, and tax payer-funded abortion.
As year 2K approached, financial publications were pointing out that an low birth rates combined with an aging population would create finance and funding issues in the near future. As folks became more aware of the aging population (ie Boomers began feeling the effects of aging in their 50’s), the zero pop freaks shifted gears with climate change. Now Millenials and GenZ are terrified at the prospect of bringing children into the world.
As year 2K approached, financial publications were pointing out that an low birth rates combined with an aging population would create finance and funding issues in the near future. As folks became more aware of the aging population (ie Boomers began feeling the effects of aging in their 50’s), the zero pop freaks shifted gears with climate change. Now Millenials and GenZ are terrified at the prospect of bringing children into the world.
ralfyman
New member
Several affluent countries face population aging but most countries are developing, and even with decreasing birth rates, still face growing population because of population momentum. That is, even with fewer births per child-bearing woman, population will still rise because there are many women of child-bearing age.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
These are all economy problems being discussed. But the systems whether capitalism, pensions, etc all require infinite growth. And when deciding whether or not to have children, I’d imagine a duty to society or country is pretty low on that list.
It’ll be interesting too see what happens around 2050 when World population peaks.
It’ll be interesting too see what happens around 2050 when World population peaks.
A
ATraveller
Guest
There was a 2010 NASA paper that indicated the Earth could support up to 40 billion people.
The current advances in technology and innovation would provide a lot of help to support the expected peak of 11 billion.
The current advances in technology and innovation would provide a lot of help to support the expected peak of 11 billion.
ralfyman
New member
According to the abstract, the paper refers to estimates that the carrying capacity of the planet ranges from 14 to 40 billion. It argues that the exponential growth of population interacts with that of technology, but because of the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, then a multiple world society should be modeled.
In short, it does not focus as much on proving estimates on carrying capacity as showing the possibility of colonizing other planets.
About carrying capacity, we’ve increased that through the use of technology (e.g., the Green Revolution) but we also ended up using more fossil fuels, among others, leading to increasing CO2 emissions. If there are any solutions to that, we should have implemented them back in the 1970s, when ppm rose above 300.
Ultimately, a carrying capacity means lower consumption of resources and energy per capita, something which goes against our prevailing global economy (which is capitalist) and desires of most people (middle class conveniences).
In short, it does not focus as much on proving estimates on carrying capacity as showing the possibility of colonizing other planets.
About carrying capacity, we’ve increased that through the use of technology (e.g., the Green Revolution) but we also ended up using more fossil fuels, among others, leading to increasing CO2 emissions. If there are any solutions to that, we should have implemented them back in the 1970s, when ppm rose above 300.
Ultimately, a carrying capacity means lower consumption of resources and energy per capita, something which goes against our prevailing global economy (which is capitalist) and desires of most people (middle class conveniences).
A
ATraveller
Guest
What I was trying to point out is the range is wide. Others have made such calculations and they vary a lot.
But we didn’t have those solutions back then. We have them now.
We may also be in a second Green Revolution right now. Labelling such things require hindsight.
Yes if the growth is exponential. But population growth is no longer exponential. It’s slowing down by a lot and if anything, there indications the peak might end up being a bit lower than previous estimates. Couple that with new technology and efficiencies being constantly made/introduced, we aren’t facing any crisis whatsoever.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
What are the reasons for disparity in carrying capacity? Why not just use biocapacity vs. ecological footprint?
What solutions? The Green Revolution was made possible through extensive fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts. Can that be maintained given the fact that oil discoveries peaked decades ago, oil production per capita peaked in 1979, and conventional production peaked in 2005?
The problem isn’t exponential population growth but increasing resource consumption per capita. We are looking at a growing global middle class, and in order to support the demands of that group we will need at least one more earth. What new technology will create that additional earth?
What solutions? The Green Revolution was made possible through extensive fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts. Can that be maintained given the fact that oil discoveries peaked decades ago, oil production per capita peaked in 1979, and conventional production peaked in 2005?
The problem isn’t exponential population growth but increasing resource consumption per capita. We are looking at a growing global middle class, and in order to support the demands of that group we will need at least one more earth. What new technology will create that additional earth?
A
ATraveller
Guest
Oil discoveries peaked. But unconventional crude is now more accessible because of newer extraction techniques that didn’t exist a decade ago.
About the Green Revolution. I don’t know what you have in mind here about fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts. If you’re thinking about fertilizer production, then the starting materials have changed. Fossil fuels are no longer the only easily accessible sources. Solar energy can already be used to synthesise hydrocarbons that are useful starting materials.
This is what smaller families have done. China being a famous example where parents spoil and lavish their “emperor children”. Larger families are remarkably much more willing to reuse and share. This orients their mind towards less consumerism.
ralfyman
New member
The energy return for unconventional production is not very high, which is why debt levels for maintaining production are high. That’s also why the EIA reports that shale will peak soon.
For the Green Revolution, I’m not just talking about fertilizer production but also mechanized agriculture, oil needed to transport minerals and produce across extensive supply chains, and more.
The same applies to most manufactured goods, including those needed ironically for solar energy, electric grids, and even consumer goods.
This also explains why energy return and quantity for solar and other sources are low.
Finally, the growing global middle class is taking place not simply because of smaller families but because of growing prosperity for most of the world. The amount of resources and energy that will be needed to support that growth is equivalent to at least one more earth.
For the Green Revolution, I’m not just talking about fertilizer production but also mechanized agriculture, oil needed to transport minerals and produce across extensive supply chains, and more.
The same applies to most manufactured goods, including those needed ironically for solar energy, electric grids, and even consumer goods.
This also explains why energy return and quantity for solar and other sources are low.
Finally, the growing global middle class is taking place not simply because of smaller families but because of growing prosperity for most of the world. The amount of resources and energy that will be needed to support that growth is equivalent to at least one more earth.
A
ATraveller
Guest
And many places in Europe demonstrate it is possible to move away from oil for commuting. And if they scale that up, then oil shortages won’t be a concern. Plus, I already posted a link to show how hydrocarbons can be synthesised catalytically using solar energy and CO2.
You see, this is a bit out of date. Solar has seen massive improvements since then. Nothing is 100% efficient because such a thing cannot physically exist.
In fact, with renewables, the challenge now is figuring out how to store the excess energy. This volatility in production is what’s needed to be smoothed out. There are a number of fascinating methods that don’t even involve batteries.
I think you misunderstood me. A middle class lifestyle is subjective. A middle class lifestyle in one part of the West isn’t even the same in other parts of the West. Regardless, consumerism and greed is a problem. Larger families reduce consumerist mindsets, smaller ones increase the chances of it.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
These developed economies have ecological footprints of four or higher. In order for most of the world to copy them, we will need at least one more earth.
At best, solar has an energy return of 6. If you’re thinking 30, then that’s nameplate power.
The problem with renewables isn’t just storing excess energy but finding more fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and shipping components. And not just for them but for electric grids to distribute power and consumer goods to use what is produced.
Isn’t even part? You’re two decades too late:
At best, solar has an energy return of 6. If you’re thinking 30, then that’s nameplate power.
The problem with renewables isn’t just storing excess energy but finding more fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and shipping components. And not just for them but for electric grids to distribute power and consumer goods to use what is produced.
Isn’t even part? You’re two decades too late:
A
ATraveller
Guest
You ignore climate. The vast majority of developed economies happen to be in colder climates. While warmer places would see their footprints increase as their economies improve, it wouldn’t be like those in North America and Northern Europe.
You have to provide units for this to have any meaning.
You’re very fixated on this but technology has been moving in a number of directions. Fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts are usually for energy required for those activities, which can be substituted with renewables. If you mean petroleum as starting materials, there are new recycling and synthesis techniques.
It seems you make the assumption no one is working on finding solutions but there are and solutions are being produced and they exist now. Implementation doesn’t happen in an instant.
I have faith in God. And right now, He has shown the future, in material terms, isn’t bleak. Far from it.
ralfyman
New member
I’m not talking about climate because it’s not part of this thread. But we still need fossil fuels for around 70 pct of mining, up to half of energy needed for manufacturing (which doesn’t include petrochemicals), and a significant portion for shipping (especially for container ships), which means renewable energy won’t magically solve that issue, but it will be used when peak oil problems become more prominent.
Also, the vast majority of economies are developing.
Nameplate power refers what should be the return given ideal conditions, with maximum sunlight and no storage involved. Bring in the fact that max. power from sunlight is limited to only a few hours a day plus components needed to distribute and store power, and the return drops to 6. Include maintenance and other issues, and it drops to less than 3:
Finally, it is possible to have a global economy with min. fossil fuel use, but because of the transition costs and time involved, we should have started decades ago:
Also, that process involves incredible levels of coordination and sacrifice from the global economy (e.g., focus only on basic needs so that more surplus energy can be used for the transition), something that will not work in an economy that’s essentially driven by profits and competition.
Also, the vast majority of economies are developing.
Nameplate power refers what should be the return given ideal conditions, with maximum sunlight and no storage involved. Bring in the fact that max. power from sunlight is limited to only a few hours a day plus components needed to distribute and store power, and the return drops to 6. Include maintenance and other issues, and it drops to less than 3:
Finally, it is possible to have a global economy with min. fossil fuel use, but because of the transition costs and time involved, we should have started decades ago:
Also, that process involves incredible levels of coordination and sacrifice from the global economy (e.g., focus only on basic needs so that more surplus energy can be used for the transition), something that will not work in an economy that’s essentially driven by profits and competition.
A
ATraveller
Guest
OK so I don’t see why that’s a problem. Energy usage isn’t the problem. Transitioning is always unsettling and happens over time. It doesn’t happen in a year or so.
Nowhere did I say they weren’t. Just because places are becoming wealthy doesn’t mean the American way of doing things is what people elsewhere are aiming for. Hardly. Most developed countries’ middle classes don’t have giant detached homes with five cars. And they aren’t interested in such a foreign way of living.
I’m unsure where you go that figure from. If I missed it in one of your links then I apologise.
I looked up to see what nameplate power is and what I found suggests it’s either in watts or %. I’m not sure if the values you gave are even relevant.
Solar isn’t the only renewable.
And in terms of what’s possible, things for solar have improved since 2013 because researches have discovered ways of converting other parts of the spectrum of sunlight to useable energy, which wasn’t possible before.
If we’re looking at costs, things are changing. Renewables are now competitive with fossil fuels for energy.
In theory, only an area the size of Spain is required to power the world with only solar in 2030 at 20% efficiency (How Many Solar Panels Would We Need to Power the Earth?). But now efficiency in the lab is up to 40%!(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aenm.201700345). Now, no one is suggesting that we only rely on solar. But the advancements are exciting and indicate there’s little reason to worry about a shortage of energy.
Right but there’s now a price incentive to transition faster.
I’ll reiterate I have faith in God. And right now, He has shown the future, in material terms, isn’t bleak. Far from it.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
It’s a problem because we have a large population, a large chunk of it wanting middle class conveniences, and a global economy geared for continuous growth and profit. These require increasing use of resources coupled with ever-increasing energy returns, and immediately. What you’ve presented so far does not ensure these at all.
Hardly? You must be kidding! The global middle class has been growing the last two decades, and by 2030 BRICS and over forty emerging markets will be eclipsing developed countries in terms of resource and energy demand.
The values I gave are relevant because the authors actually studied the sites in Spain.
Solar isn’t the only renewable, but as Charles Hall shows, they all have low returns and quantity. And if they are comparable with fossil fuels, that’s because the returns for the latter have been dropping because of peak oil.
In short, we have a global economy that requires increasing energy returns and sources that are going the other way round.
Your reference to lab conditions is exactly my point. In such conditions, the return can go up to 30. In real operations (like that of Spain), the return goes down to less than 3.
Finally, the problem isn’t a price incentive because, if any, the one thing we can create readily is credit. In fact, in notional terms, we have over a quadrillion dollars worth of it worldwide thanks to the shadow derivatives market. Rather, it’s resources and energy to create the equivalent of one more earth to sustain a global population that demands it.
And that’s even with a demographic winter for a few countries coupled with population momentum for most.
Hardly? You must be kidding! The global middle class has been growing the last two decades, and by 2030 BRICS and over forty emerging markets will be eclipsing developed countries in terms of resource and energy demand.
The values I gave are relevant because the authors actually studied the sites in Spain.
Solar isn’t the only renewable, but as Charles Hall shows, they all have low returns and quantity. And if they are comparable with fossil fuels, that’s because the returns for the latter have been dropping because of peak oil.
In short, we have a global economy that requires increasing energy returns and sources that are going the other way round.
Your reference to lab conditions is exactly my point. In such conditions, the return can go up to 30. In real operations (like that of Spain), the return goes down to less than 3.
Finally, the problem isn’t a price incentive because, if any, the one thing we can create readily is credit. In fact, in notional terms, we have over a quadrillion dollars worth of it worldwide thanks to the shadow derivatives market. Rather, it’s resources and energy to create the equivalent of one more earth to sustain a global population that demands it.
And that’s even with a demographic winter for a few countries coupled with population momentum for most.
A
ATraveller
Guest
You haven’t presented what a middle class looks like. Most calculations base it on American standards. But there’s a world outside of America and these people don’t desire to live like Americans because of their cultures.
Again, you ignore renewables.
But they don’t consider advancements nor do they consider other renewables.
The book you cited was published in 2013 based on data before that. What happens in a lab eventually gets applied in the real world. Again, my link on what a hypothetical 100% solar-based world using an assumed 20% conversion rate and estimated 2030 energy demand show it doesn’t take much to do. Of course, no one is demanding 100% solar so any problems are avoided through other renewables.
Reference please.
I’ll reiterate I have faith in God. And right now, He has shown the future, in material terms, isn’t bleak. Far from it.
Last edited:
- Status