- Status
A
ATraveller
Guest
A variety of renewables for the millionth time. And nuclear is also an option for many.
Energy density has its role but it can’t be used to compare immaterial sources with material ones. That’s a fundamental flaw with it.
Combining them using assumptions.
I’ve linked a number of articles but sure let’s just ignore them because they don’t agree with you.
But there is still one happening.
Have you? Because you always ignore any advancements because they don’t agree with you.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
The use of renewables, if not multiple energy sources, is obvious, as that’s what we’ve been doing since 1979, when oil production per capita peaked! The problem is that even the components for those energy sources, not to mention the infrastructure needed to distribute energy plus the consumer goods that will use them, require fossil fuels: at least 70 pct of mining operations, a significant chunk for manufacturing (including petrochemicals used for tens of thousands of products and applications), and shipping (involving container ships across extensive supply chains spanning tens of thousands of km and dozens of countries).
The only way we can maintain that is to keep oil production per capita from dropping, then find more to manufacture more components for renewables and other energy sources, then even find more to support a growing global middle class which, if it copies what a quarter of the world population is doing, will require the equivalent of at least one more earth in terms of total energy and material resources needed.
And there is nothing in what you’ve shared so far that shows that this will happen. What you have shown is that at best we can catch up with food production, but that will mean sacrificing much of middle class conveniences and industrial civilization as we know it. And I very much doubt that most people worldwide are prepared for that, let alone accept it.
Your second point is irrelevant because it won’t matter what “anti-population” activists think, as more people will choose to have less children or not even marry because of prosperity, i.e., more attention to careers and the pleasures that increasing income can bring. This is precisely why a demographic winter is happening in more affluent countries.
I don’t ignore the advancements that you mention. Rather, I don’t think they are advancements. For example, increased food production involves mechanized agriculture, and that means higher fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts for diesel machines plus chemicals for fertilizers. Why do you think food production globally rose significantly after WW2?
The only way we can maintain that is to keep oil production per capita from dropping, then find more to manufacture more components for renewables and other energy sources, then even find more to support a growing global middle class which, if it copies what a quarter of the world population is doing, will require the equivalent of at least one more earth in terms of total energy and material resources needed.
And there is nothing in what you’ve shared so far that shows that this will happen. What you have shown is that at best we can catch up with food production, but that will mean sacrificing much of middle class conveniences and industrial civilization as we know it. And I very much doubt that most people worldwide are prepared for that, let alone accept it.
Your second point is irrelevant because it won’t matter what “anti-population” activists think, as more people will choose to have less children or not even marry because of prosperity, i.e., more attention to careers and the pleasures that increasing income can bring. This is precisely why a demographic winter is happening in more affluent countries.
I don’t ignore the advancements that you mention. Rather, I don’t think they are advancements. For example, increased food production involves mechanized agriculture, and that means higher fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts for diesel machines plus chemicals for fertilizers. Why do you think food production globally rose significantly after WW2?
H
HumbleIOughtToBe
Guest
Part 1: Womb Slave
- Notice how @ATraveller describes the word choice, and thus the intention of, the author.
- Genesis Chapter 16 Verse 2 and 4
One commentator said Hagar is a womb slave.
In the same way, this article talks about Millennials and GenZ as womb slaves.
Part 2: Economics
- This article:
- Refutation, based upon
This is Not Your Parents’ Economy | STANFORD magazine
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A
ATraveller
Guest
You act as if there can’t be shifts in usage.
And I’ll ask again, please cite your figures. 70%? Says who?
It seems that you think once you build a renewable component, that renewable can’t be used to manufacture more of the renewable.
Food waste is a major problem which was in one of my references. Again, define what middle class conveniences look like. You haven’t done that at all. They vary so much because of cultural and geographic considerations.
It’s as if you’ve been ignoring everything that’s been cited. From energy sources to chemical starting materials to advances in new catalytic processes.
A
ATraveller
Guest
I don’t see that despite the unfortunate wording.
The following sentence is important:
PRRI has a habit of distorting their surveys’ findings. It’s not that they make up numbers but they recategorize things to fit the findings with their narrative. They might not be partisan (I dispute that because I’ve seen the head of it being very pro-Democrat), ideologically, they are on the left.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
32 pct of energy for mining operations use electricity while the rest require fossil fuels: coal, diesel, gasoline, and natural gas (p. 7):
I don’t think this factors in fuel used for power barges to supplement electricity generated from other sources.
Similar can be seen in manufacturing and shipping. About your point concerning using renewable energy used to manufacture renewable components, consider how solar panels are manufactured, together with inverters and batteries:
sunweber.blogspot.com
Please give more details on food waste, and how you think savings for that will also reverse diminishing returns for oil and minerals.
Finally, I didn’t ignore what you cited but addressed them. Didn’t you read my earlier posts? The energy sources you gave have low quantities and returns. The chemicals that you need face the same problems as minerals in terms of diminishing returns. Improvements are made possible thanks to significant fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts, as well as ecological footprints that go beyond what biocapacity allows.
That’s why countries that face demographic winter also have energy and material resource requirements that far exceed those of poorer countries per capita and biocapacity itself. For poorer countries to copy their lifestyle, we’d need at least one more earth.
I don’t think this factors in fuel used for power barges to supplement electricity generated from other sources.
Similar can be seen in manufacturing and shipping. About your point concerning using renewable energy used to manufacture renewable components, consider how solar panels are manufactured, together with inverters and batteries:
SOLAR DEVICES INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
In my posts and blogs, I have constantly spoken about the global industrial infrastructure that underwrites most manufactured things in ...
sunweber.blogspot.com
Please give more details on food waste, and how you think savings for that will also reverse diminishing returns for oil and minerals.
Finally, I didn’t ignore what you cited but addressed them. Didn’t you read my earlier posts? The energy sources you gave have low quantities and returns. The chemicals that you need face the same problems as minerals in terms of diminishing returns. Improvements are made possible thanks to significant fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts, as well as ecological footprints that go beyond what biocapacity allows.
That’s why countries that face demographic winter also have energy and material resource requirements that far exceed those of poorer countries per capita and biocapacity itself. For poorer countries to copy their lifestyle, we’d need at least one more earth.
A
ATraveller
Guest
These are 2007 US figures. 12 years with many new developments. The US isn’t representative of the world.
I don’t know what qualifications the person behind the blog has.
However, once you make one renewable with fossil fuel (name removed by moderator)uts, that renewable can start substituting fossil fuels. It’s not as if renewables can’t be used to make more/other renewables.
Preventing food spoilage and changing consumer attitudes will allow help increase food supplies. This was cited as part of the solution to adapt to a 10 billion people world. I don’t know why you’re so fixated on diminishing returns. If that’s the case, then renewables are more attractive.
Did you read my references because they suggest otherwise? Renewables produce too much now. Storage is the issue but I’ll repeat myself again that those are being resolved.
Which chemicals? Minerals are chemicals as well. All matter is.
Again, middle class conveniences aren’t all the same. The majority of poorer countries have hot climates. Richer countries are cooler. However, Europe uses more efficient radiators than forced air systems in North America. Europeans are using renewables for heating. Why would someone in India being heating their houses when they don’t have -20C weather for 6 months of the year? No matter how rich they are going to get, they won’t be heating their homes for 6 mths of the year. Not to mention we need more lighting as some of us have 18 hrs of darkness for 2 months of the year. Why would someone in India need to turn on the lights for 18 hrs when they get 12 hrs of natural daylight?
Real scientists say a zero fossil fuels future is completely possible.
ralfyman
New member
Please refer to a source showing these new developments and the new energy mix for mining.
Also, it’s certain that the U.S. isn’t representative of the world in terms of mining, but that only strengthens my point, as fossil fuels are used more for energy generation and shipping in most parts of the world.
If you are not satisfied with the estimates given in the article I presented concerning the energy return of hydrogen fuel, then please state what you think is the actual energy return of this source, and why.
About the author’s qualifications,
rmi.org
You can probably also consider books by Prof. Charles Hall.
Yes, renewables can substitute for fossil fuels, but not easily:
In addition, renewables have low energy returns:
http://theoildrum.com/node/3786
which means not only an extensive lag time but a buffer stock will be needed for the transition. As oil discoveries peaked almost seventy years ago:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a-70-year-low-signal-a-supply-shortfall-ahead
and oil production per capita peaked backed in 1979:
cassandralegacy.blogspot.com
then in order for this transition to take place we have to conserve significantly for up to a century. That means the middle class, which makes up a growing portion of the world population:
will have to cut down their ecological footprint by around 75 pct, while world population remains statics. These are extremely unlikely to happen.
Again, please give details on how preventing food spoilage will reverse diminishing returns. That means oil discoveries and oil production will soar, allowing for a buffer stock to transition to renewables. Otherwise, you are completely wrong in arguing that I am “fixated” with what is obvious, and I can only assume that you remain fixated with what amounts to be wishful thinking and fantasizing.
Again, your references point to renewables that have low quantities and returns. The reason why they produce too much is that you focus on specific countries. Spread that out across the global economy, and you will see that the technofixes that you promote in no way meets energy demands of the world.
And it’s not just storage that’s the issue but the fossil fuels needed to manufacture not just renewable components but even infrastructure and consumer goods that will use that energy. There is nothing in what you presented that proves that.
The list of chemicals and minerals needed is too long. I don’t see the relevance of your question.
Middle class conveniences have NOTHING to do with climate, because heating or cooling for houses is a BASIC NEED, not a convenience. And the fact that some places have less sunlight SUPPORTS my argument further because that means MORE energy needed overall. That is, it’s not just 12 hours of artificial light needed but MORE because others need 18 hours!
(To be continued in my next post.)
Also, it’s certain that the U.S. isn’t representative of the world in terms of mining, but that only strengthens my point, as fossil fuels are used more for energy generation and shipping in most parts of the world.
If you are not satisfied with the estimates given in the article I presented concerning the energy return of hydrogen fuel, then please state what you think is the actual energy return of this source, and why.
About the author’s qualifications,
Chris Nelder - RMI
Chris is a former Manager in the Carbon-free Mobility Practice, where he led the vehicle-grid integration team. He co-authored six major reports on charging infrastructure and the role of utilities in transportation electrification, and was a frequent presenter and public speaker. Background...
rmi.org
You can probably also consider books by Prof. Charles Hall.
Yes, renewables can substitute for fossil fuels, but not easily:
In addition, renewables have low energy returns:
http://theoildrum.com/node/3786
which means not only an extensive lag time but a buffer stock will be needed for the transition. As oil discoveries peaked almost seventy years ago:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a-70-year-low-signal-a-supply-shortfall-ahead
and oil production per capita peaked backed in 1979:
Peak oil? What peak oil?
A blog about collapse as caused by depletion of mineral resources and climate change
cassandralegacy.blogspot.com
then in order for this transition to take place we have to conserve significantly for up to a century. That means the middle class, which makes up a growing portion of the world population:
will have to cut down their ecological footprint by around 75 pct, while world population remains statics. These are extremely unlikely to happen.
Again, please give details on how preventing food spoilage will reverse diminishing returns. That means oil discoveries and oil production will soar, allowing for a buffer stock to transition to renewables. Otherwise, you are completely wrong in arguing that I am “fixated” with what is obvious, and I can only assume that you remain fixated with what amounts to be wishful thinking and fantasizing.
Again, your references point to renewables that have low quantities and returns. The reason why they produce too much is that you focus on specific countries. Spread that out across the global economy, and you will see that the technofixes that you promote in no way meets energy demands of the world.
And it’s not just storage that’s the issue but the fossil fuels needed to manufacture not just renewable components but even infrastructure and consumer goods that will use that energy. There is nothing in what you presented that proves that.
The list of chemicals and minerals needed is too long. I don’t see the relevance of your question.
Middle class conveniences have NOTHING to do with climate, because heating or cooling for houses is a BASIC NEED, not a convenience. And the fact that some places have less sunlight SUPPORTS my argument further because that means MORE energy needed overall. That is, it’s not just 12 hours of artificial light needed but MORE because others need 18 hours!
(To be continued in my next post.)
ralfyman
New member
Finally, the study you shared is based on the assumption that energy demand will double in a similar way it did from 1980 to 2010 (from 300 quadrillion Btu to 500). But during that time, the global middle class made up only around 25 pct of world population (i.e., those who earned $10 daily or more). Also, oil production per capita (which is needed as energy capita for the transition to a fossil fuel-free future) dipped and remained in plateau from 1979 to the present.
Given that, researchers have to make the ff. assumptions:
Given that, researchers have to make the ff. assumptions:
- energy demand will have to more than double given (a) a population of up to 10 billion and (b) a middle class that is expected to make up half of the world population by 2030 and at least 75 pct of it by 2050;
- oil production per capita will drop given decline rates for shale and high production costs for fields like Manifa, which leans a lower buffer stock for the transition;
- increasing oil demand for most of the world as they transition to industrialization;
- oil prices becoming volatile (which has been the case during the last decade) while production costs steadily going up (because of diminishing returns), leading to increasing woes for the oil industry, and possibly premature closures (which means abrupt decreases in buffer stock, even as economies draw from depleting strategic reserves).
A
ATraveller
Guest
Somehow you ignored that German article from 2017 and decided an old 2010 article was better.
Unless somehow magically India has -30C winters if they have such a season, then no, their increase in resource uses will NOT match those of countries in further north on a per capita basis.
Why do you assume these experts haven’t made the assumption? No the issue here is you seem to not realize the world is moving away from fossil fuels.
No. Read the DW article. I’ve read my references, I’m not so sure you’ve read them.
Honestly, at this point, I’m going to be a campaigner encouraging married couples to have at least 5 kids.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
Unless you can show me that there was a massive difference between 2010 and 2017, or that Germany represents most countries, or that what I shared (which refers to the global economy and not one country) is inferior to your proof, then I’m afraid I’ll have to keep questioning what you share.
Again, you’re confusing basic needs with middle class conveniences. If you can die because of 45C or -30C temperature, then what you will need to avoid that are not conveniences but needs. You need to understand the difference between the two.
Also, you ignored the point that basic needs involve food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and anything that supports that, from roads and bridges to trains and ships to electricity and potable water. Given that, your argument is completely illogical. You need lots of energy to deal with 40C summers. You need lots of energy to deal with -30C winters. You need lots of energy for places that lack arable land, or oil, or minerals, etc. Unless you can show that most countries have almost everything they need, then I don’t think you should continue giving such illogical points.
I made that assumption because I read the study. It assumes national legislative acts by governments (in coordination with each other, or the opposite?), forced (!) removal of fossil fuels by removal of subsidies, tax exemptions (which won’t deter price increase as demand soars worldwide), carbon taxes (which are eventually churned back into the system to deal with rising fossil fuel prices due to the removal of subsidies), and promotion of education and research on the matter (which, if oil experts interviewed in 2005 are right, should have been twenty years earlier due to lag time and buffer costs).
The second section, on transitioning, even assumes complete coordination between all countries divided into nine major regions.
In short, the study refers to the potential, which I don’t challenge, but the energy demand given is definitely too small to meet a growing middle class. BP, for example, estimates energy use for 2016 at around 18 TW.
www.anthropocenemagazine.org
That means it is expected to double to 36 TW by 2050. But the additional energy needed to meet just the basic needs of 10 billion people is an additional 25 TW. To meet middle class conveniences? Another 50 TW.
That means it is clear that a doubling in energy demand won’t be enough to meet basic needs, let alone the population increase or middle class conveniences.
What about the funding for the transition? This study considers the amount set aside for capitalization for both oil and replacements, and given that rate, the time for full transition may take more than a century:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(to be continued)
Again, you’re confusing basic needs with middle class conveniences. If you can die because of 45C or -30C temperature, then what you will need to avoid that are not conveniences but needs. You need to understand the difference between the two.
Also, you ignored the point that basic needs involve food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and anything that supports that, from roads and bridges to trains and ships to electricity and potable water. Given that, your argument is completely illogical. You need lots of energy to deal with 40C summers. You need lots of energy to deal with -30C winters. You need lots of energy for places that lack arable land, or oil, or minerals, etc. Unless you can show that most countries have almost everything they need, then I don’t think you should continue giving such illogical points.
I made that assumption because I read the study. It assumes national legislative acts by governments (in coordination with each other, or the opposite?), forced (!) removal of fossil fuels by removal of subsidies, tax exemptions (which won’t deter price increase as demand soars worldwide), carbon taxes (which are eventually churned back into the system to deal with rising fossil fuel prices due to the removal of subsidies), and promotion of education and research on the matter (which, if oil experts interviewed in 2005 are right, should have been twenty years earlier due to lag time and buffer costs).
The second section, on transitioning, even assumes complete coordination between all countries divided into nine major regions.
In short, the study refers to the potential, which I don’t challenge, but the energy demand given is definitely too small to meet a growing middle class. BP, for example, estimates energy use for 2016 at around 18 TW.
How Much Energy Will the World Need?
Any climate plan that doesn’t consider this question is bound to fail
www.anthropocenemagazine.org
That means it is expected to double to 36 TW by 2050. But the additional energy needed to meet just the basic needs of 10 billion people is an additional 25 TW. To meet middle class conveniences? Another 50 TW.
That means it is clear that a doubling in energy demand won’t be enough to meet basic needs, let alone the population increase or middle class conveniences.
What about the funding for the transition? This study considers the amount set aside for capitalization for both oil and replacements, and given that rate, the time for full transition may take more than a century:
Future sustainability forecasting by exchange markets: basic theory and an application - PubMed
Setting sustainability targets and evaluating systems progress are of great importance nowadays due to threats to the human society, to economic development and to ecosystems, posed by unsustainable human activities. This research establishes a probabilistic theoretical approach based on market...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(to be continued)
ralfyman
New member
(continuation)
In order to avoid that, capitalization has to be increased by a factor of at least three, but that’s already similar to what the oil industry faces as it deals with diminishing returns:
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu
That is, a tripling of capex in exchange for only a third in increase in oil production. That’s the same oil and the same sources of funding needed for the transition to renewables.
Finally, you should campaign for more children, as that is the only way to deter population aging, but don’t forget that because of population momentum population will still soar to 9-11 billion worldwide thanks to Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Asia. Also, those regions will face the largest demands for energy and resources, and they haven’t even reached the stage of full industrialization yet!
How big is that demand? From what I remember, most resources are consumed by the middle class. A country like the U.S. alone needs up to 20 pct of world oil production for a country which has left than 5 pct of global population. In the future, a country like China alone might require up to half of world resources. Given that, a doubling in energy demand is clearly an underestimate.
In order to avoid that, capitalization has to be increased by a factor of at least three, but that’s already similar to what the oil industry faces as it deals with diminishing returns:
Global Oil Market Forecasting: Main Approaches & Key Drivers - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP
The Center on Global Energy Policy hosted a presentation and discussion with Steven Kopits, Managing Director,...
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu
That is, a tripling of capex in exchange for only a third in increase in oil production. That’s the same oil and the same sources of funding needed for the transition to renewables.
Finally, you should campaign for more children, as that is the only way to deter population aging, but don’t forget that because of population momentum population will still soar to 9-11 billion worldwide thanks to Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Asia. Also, those regions will face the largest demands for energy and resources, and they haven’t even reached the stage of full industrialization yet!
How big is that demand? From what I remember, most resources are consumed by the middle class. A country like the U.S. alone needs up to 20 pct of world oil production for a country which has left than 5 pct of global population. In the future, a country like China alone might require up to half of world resources. Given that, a doubling in energy demand is clearly an underestimate.
A
ATraveller
Guest
Whatever. You’ve just ignored a lot of what’s been referenced. Technology has changed. Europeans will no longer use fossil fuels to heat their homes. It’s a waste of time having a discussion with someone who doesn’t care about all of the technological advances that have taken place and go off on a tangent on matters that have little to do with this.
You can promote whatever you want and I’ll continue to have faith in God’s provision. And I’ll now advise married couples to have at least 6 kids.
Have a good day.
You can promote whatever you want and I’ll continue to have faith in God’s provision. And I’ll now advise married couples to have at least 6 kids.
Have a good day.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
Technology has been changing since the 1960s. Whatever that means specifically I leave it up to you to explain, but only if you’re up to it.
European do not make up the bulk of the world population. In fact, Westerners don’t even make up the bulk of it. Why you keep implying otherwise I cannot understand.
All that I’ve heard from you are “technological advances.” What are they, how can you guarantee that trends for financing will support them, and that they can ensure an energy return of at least 15 rising given current diminishing returns, e.g., a tripling in capex for oil production in exchange for only a third in increase in production every seven years? As it is, the industry now has, according to the BIS, at least $2.5 trillion in debt, can barely pay off a fifth of that except by burning through its cash flows and selling off more assets, and must borrow even more (same as last time, with up to three-quarters in the form of junk bonds?) in exchange for ever-decreasing amounts of new oil, which its investors hope to sell for around $150 a barrel? In what way do these “technological advances” reverse that given the fact that oil will be needed as buffer stock for transitioning to renewable energy?
European do not make up the bulk of the world population. In fact, Westerners don’t even make up the bulk of it. Why you keep implying otherwise I cannot understand.
All that I’ve heard from you are “technological advances.” What are they, how can you guarantee that trends for financing will support them, and that they can ensure an energy return of at least 15 rising given current diminishing returns, e.g., a tripling in capex for oil production in exchange for only a third in increase in production every seven years? As it is, the industry now has, according to the BIS, at least $2.5 trillion in debt, can barely pay off a fifth of that except by burning through its cash flows and selling off more assets, and must borrow even more (same as last time, with up to three-quarters in the form of junk bonds?) in exchange for ever-decreasing amounts of new oil, which its investors hope to sell for around $150 a barrel? In what way do these “technological advances” reverse that given the fact that oil will be needed as buffer stock for transitioning to renewable energy?
A
ATraveller
Guest
I’ll repeat:
ralfyman
New member
What is that technology and what are those technological advances? What are their energy returns? Are they 15 or above and beyond nameplate power, or under ideal conditions?
How is heating homes representative of energy requirements when most energy for most of the world is used not for households but for manufacturing and transport, specifically shipping?
How do those technological advancements replace petrochemicals, 70 pct of mining, a substantial chuck of manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture, and much of transport, which use diesel, if not bunker oil, for processes?
How does the study you present, which assumes only a doubling in energy requirements by 2050, cover basic needs of a growing population that will require more than that, a growing middle class (which ironically makes your reference to Europeans as absurd because they don’t represent the world population, which has yet to reach a stage of full industrialization) which requires DOUBLE that increase, and additional energy required to counter diminishing returns now being seen in oil (where capex has tripled in return for an increase in production cut down by two-thirds each time), copper, and many other material resources?
Also, why do you keep arguing that these points are off tangent to the issue, when the very reason why a demographic winter is taking place in affluent countries is precisely because of affluence made possible only through significant increases in energy and material resource use. Even the European countries that you insist no longer use oil for heating have ecological footprints many times higher than biocapacity per capita!
Finally, about your last point, various countries have been doing that, including Singapore, which even offers provisions beyond tax cuts to people who have more children (or even have children!), and yet population aging takes place across the board, whether or not Catholicism remains dominant. Guess why.
How is heating homes representative of energy requirements when most energy for most of the world is used not for households but for manufacturing and transport, specifically shipping?
How do those technological advancements replace petrochemicals, 70 pct of mining, a substantial chuck of manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture, and much of transport, which use diesel, if not bunker oil, for processes?
How does the study you present, which assumes only a doubling in energy requirements by 2050, cover basic needs of a growing population that will require more than that, a growing middle class (which ironically makes your reference to Europeans as absurd because they don’t represent the world population, which has yet to reach a stage of full industrialization) which requires DOUBLE that increase, and additional energy required to counter diminishing returns now being seen in oil (where capex has tripled in return for an increase in production cut down by two-thirds each time), copper, and many other material resources?
Also, why do you keep arguing that these points are off tangent to the issue, when the very reason why a demographic winter is taking place in affluent countries is precisely because of affluence made possible only through significant increases in energy and material resource use. Even the European countries that you insist no longer use oil for heating have ecological footprints many times higher than biocapacity per capita!
Finally, about your last point, various countries have been doing that, including Singapore, which even offers provisions beyond tax cuts to people who have more children (or even have children!), and yet population aging takes place across the board, whether or not Catholicism remains dominant. Guess why.
J
JimG
Guest
With Total Fertility Rates continuing to decline, population will peak and then begin to decline, leading to serious economic consequences. The resource most lacking then will be people. But depopulation is difficult to halt once it begins.
www.forbes.com
The Next Black Swan: Global Depopulation
The population of many countries is already declining but global depopulation risk is not baked into any investment manager’s model today.
www.forbes.com
A
ATraveller
Guest
Third time but with emphasis this time:
Last edited:
H
HumbleIOughtToBe
Guest
- Status