Food Price Riots Popping Up Around The World

[drpmjhess]

The only good thing about a potential die-off is that it might force people to take overpopulation seriously and it might force us to be more conscientious about our carrying capacity.

Ribozyme, I think we are on the same page; I suspect you don’t look forward to the die-off any more than I do. In fact, my group and I are working as hard as we can to forestall or prevent the die-off by convincing people to have smaller families so that the population is reduced gradually by attrition, rather than suddenly and catastrophically in spasms of genocide, starvation, climate change events, and resource wars.

I’m trying to get economists interested in the discussion. I’d like to know how resilient our economic institutions are. I heard a dire conversation on a conservative radio station today about how we face collapse of the stock market if the airlines and auto manufacturers go under. Do you have an economics background?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ribozyme, I think we are on the same page; I suspect you don’t look forward to the die-off any more than I do. In fact, my group and I are working as hard as we can to forestall or prevent the die-off by convincing people to have smaller families so that the population is reduced gradually by attrition, rather than suddenly and catastrophically in spasms of genocide, starvation, climate change events, and resource wars.

I’m trying to get economists interested in the discussion. I’d like to know how resilient our economic institutions are. I heard a dire conversation on a conservative radio station today about how we face collapse of the stock market if the airlines and auto manufacturers go under. Do you have an economics background?

You not only listen to conserative talk radio, but believe something one of them has said? Now, there’s something I didn’t expect! Did you believe anything else that was said?

What is “your group” that’s working hard to convince people to have smaller families? And what is “gradual” to you? Does a “one child policy” like China’s, for example, satisfy you, or do you need something more than that? Be concrete, now.

 

[drpmjhess]

You not only listen to conserative talk radio, but believe something one of them has said? Now, there’s something I didn’t expect! Did you believe anything else that was said?

What is “your group” that’s working hard to convince people to have smaller families? And what is “gradual” to you? Does a “one child policy” like China’s, for example, satisfy you, or do you need something more than that? Be concrete, now.

Replacement-rate (two-child) families should do the trick by 2100. We may see the substantial population trimmings before that; I see that millions of children are at risk of starvation in Ethiopia at present, and xenophobic violence against immigrants is going on in South Africa.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Once again, I point out that those who beat the drum for population reduction seem oddly unwilling to set the example and take early departure themselves.

 

[Doug50]

Petrus, for an economist, you might try contacting Jan Stuart with UBS.

UBS came out with report last week on oil prices to 2015.
The report specifically says non-OPEC oil will peak in 2010 and global oil production will peak in 2012 at 91.7 million bbls per day. That prediction is in line with both the IEA and Chris Skrebowski of Petroleum Review journal.

Ridgerunner, if the data I’ve read in this report can be trusted, it doesn’t matter how much oil is under the China Sea with such a short developement time to that date any exploration in the CS won’t prevent the peak from happening. In a demand led nominal trend pricing UBS predicts oil will be $200 by 2015. In scarcity pricing they predict you could see $528 for 2012.
Scenario 2: ‘Crisis’, i.e., trend oil price inflation is not enough
A second broad price path can also be called a demand led scenario, but of the crisis variety. In this one the need to curb demand is more pressing – for any of a variety of reasons. Prices don’t simply need to increase but need to rise exponentially to speed up the adoption of new habits and accelerate the introduction of new capital stock, or to ration suddenly dramatically lower supply following a significant disruption. Such a ‘crisis’ path of demand led pricing is plotted the far right column of Table 4. We think it’s useful to think about the risk of exponential price increases, if only because on current trends, as our balance shows, prices cannot clear demand and supply. The balance won’t add up. Something very likely will change. As we are headed for some such change entering further into considerable uncertainty, it’s probably even more critical than usual to keep an eye on the bottom-line, which we focus on in the next section.

 

[drpmjhess]

Once again, I point out that those who beat the drum for population reduction seem oddly unwilling to set the example and take early departure themselves.

Vern, are you truly as clueless as you come come across in your posts? Are are you just joking for effect?

 

[drpmjhess]

Petrus, for an economist, you might try contacting Jan Stuart with UBS. UBS came out with report last week on oil prices to 2015. The report specifically says non-OPEC oil will peak in 2010 and global oil production will peak in 2012 at 91.7 million bbls per day. That prediction is in line with both the IEA and Chris Skrebowski of Petroleum Review journal.
.

Thanks, Doug – I’ll contact Jan Stuart. One concern is that before we run out of fossil fuels to grow food for 6.6 billion people, economies will collapse when gasoline and diesel reach $10-15 per gallon. When people can’t afford to drive to work, and can’t move closer to work because their McMansions in far-flung suburbs are worthless because no one else wants to buy in that area; when independent truckers can no longer afford to make a living hauling food and goods, I worry that the economic cascade may happen too quickly for us to react constructively. It may happen so fast that well-intentioned communities that have been dithering about public transportation projects will find that it is too late to build high speed and light rail systems; that the window of opportunity for putting in place a sound post-petroleum infrastructure will have closed.

Petrus

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, are you truly as clueless as you come come across in your posts? Are are you just joking for effect?

drpmjhess, are you truly as clueless as you come come across in your posts? Or are you just trolling?

 

[Al_Masetti]

UBS … Swiss Bank … aren’t they the geniuses who correctly predicted the subprime debacle?

No wait.

UBS actually fell for it. Big write offs. Fired some honchos.

[No. I musta got that wrong.]

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess, are you truly as clueless as you come come across in your posts? Or are you just trolling?

Actually, I’m very highly educated, and am trying to discuss serious matters with like minded people like Doug and Ribozyme. But you keep coming back with the suggestion that we commit suicide, which makes me wonder about your level of educational attainment and moral understanding.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Replacement-rate (two-child) families should do the trick by 2100. We may see the substantial population trimmings before that; I see that millions of children are at risk of starvation in Ethiopia at present, and xenophobic violence against immigrants is going on in South Africa.

Again I ask; What is “your group” which you referred to earlier that is encouraging smaller families?

And how, exactly, do you and/or “your group” plan to induce a two-child policy? Specifics, please. What are the physical means and (if applicable) what are the means by which you will oblige people to observe the two-child rule?

Finally if a two child family was “replacement rate” (which it isn’t, but never mind that for the moment) how do you think that will reduce the population to whatever figure you prefer?

And what, by the way, is the final “acceptable” number of people on the planet, from your point of view?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, I’m very highly educated,

Are you educated enough to find a post where I said you should commit suicide?

You can’t, because I didn’t – I merely made the point that those who want population reduction always exempt themselves from what they want to press on others.

and am trying to discuss serious matters with like minded people like Doug and Ribozyme. But you keep coming back with the suggestion that we commit suicide, which makes me wonder about your level of educational attainment and moral understanding.

You’re involved in a love-fest where at least one of your partners is a follower of Peter Singer (qv) and believes poor children cannot be educated.

Now, a highly educated man would ponder on that and understand the point – it has to do with our common humanity and the fact that we all have an equal right to life.

One might go deeper and examine those nations with intensive “population reduction” programs and see how they have fared.

 

[Doug50]

Again I ask; What is “your group” which you referred to earlier that is encouraging smaller families?

And how, exactly, do you and/or “your group” plan to induce a two-child policy? Specifics, please. What are the physical means and (if applicable) what are the means by which you will oblige people to observe the two-child rule?

Finally if a two child family was “replacement rate” (which it isn’t, but never mind that for the moment) how do you think that will reduce the population to whatever figure you prefer?

And what, by the way, is the final “acceptable” number of people on the planet, from your point of view?

The Vatican can do so in the similar manner that is does for abortion. If it can preach negatively to abortion it can preach positively to a need for couples to have smaller families. The first is preaching against a sin and the second is a philosophical altruism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Vatican can do so in the similar manner that is does for abortion. If it can preach negatively to abortion it can preach positively to a need for couples to have smaller families. The first is preaching against a sin and the second is a philosophical altruism.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the Vatican,” but I don’t see the Pope doing that.

 

[drpmjhess]

Again I ask; What is “your group” which you referred to earlier that is encouraging smaller families?

And how, exactly, do you and/or “your group” plan to induce a two-child policy? Specifics, please. What are the physical means and (if applicable) what are the means by which you will oblige people to observe the two-child rule?

Finally if a two child family was “replacement rate” (which it isn’t, but never mind that for the moment) how do you think that will reduce the population to whatever figure you prefer?

And what, by the way, is the final “acceptable” number of people on the planet, from your point of view?

(1) It’s a private international discussion consortium of scholars, oil investors and other interested parties. We are working on a book on ethical and religious issues at the end of the age of oil.

(2) We are not instituting policies. Rather, we work by educating people to issues such as carrying capacity, the dependence of agriculture on petroleum, etc.

(3) We are not obliging people to abide by a rule.

(4) As petroleum runs out, the population will eventually fall back to the solar carrying capacity of the Earth, whether we do anything about it or not. We hope that as people learn about population issues they will experience conversion to an understanding that humans are ultimately no more immune to population limits than are any other species. If the two-child family does not do it, famine, disease, and resource wars will accomplish it. We are acutely aware that Europe may face an internal war between overpopulating Muslims and under populating Christians. That will be a serious problem.

(5) It’s not a question of an “acceptable” number, any more than there is an “acceptable” number of bodies that can be crammed into a phone booth. It’s a matter of biological carrying capacity, which we continue to research. Scientific opinions range between one and three billion, humans depending on what factors one considers, what level of technology or affluence is desired, etc. The solar carrying capacity was about one billion in 1850; oil pushed that up to 6.6 billion today. Post oil it will be lower, but perhaps above one billion, considering our improved technological sophistication. Of course, if we discover that oil is abiotically continually being produced underground we will have energy, although global warming will remain a challenge.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

The Vatican can do so in the similar manner that is does for abortion. If it can preach negatively to abortion it can preach positively to a need for couples to have smaller families. The first is preaching against a sin and the second is a philosophical altruism.

Pope Benedict XVI said in 2005 “It is my hope that further social and legislative initiatives be promoted to protect and support the largest families, which constitute a source of wealth and hope for the entire country [Italy]. Catholic News Agency (Nov. 03, 2005). The context of Pope Benedict’s comment was the decline of the formerly Christian population of Europe in the face of Islamic immigration.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pope Benedict XVI said in 2005 “It is my hope that further social and legislative initiatives be promoted to protect and support the largest families, which constitute a source of wealth and hope for the entire country [Italy]. Catholic News Agency (Nov. 03, 2005). The context of Pope Benedict’s comment was the decline of the formerly Christian population of Europe in the face of Islamic immigration.

The Church’s position could not be more clear. Those who think population should decline simply have not looked into the consequences or morality of their position.

 

[drpmjhess]

The Church’s position could not be more clear. Those who think population should decline simply have not looked into the consequences or morality of their position.

It’s not whether we think population should decline, but how to prevent suffering as it will decline. Population will begin to crash (in fits and starts) when the artificial support of fossil fertilizer is withdrawn. Christians and others with empathy for the least advantaged should hope we can engineer a “soft landing” rather than docilely await the crash.

Those with military power (e.g., the USA) will suffer least in the beginning, because we can just go around the world and take by force what we cannot afford through the market. Those without substantial military might – including the 680,000,000 in Africa – will probably suffer most through famines, plagues, and spasms of genocide as population pressures increase (The continent as a whole has a growth rate of 3%.)

My consortium is in favor of working toward the soft landing of a steadily decreasing population, rather than encouraging large families only to see them starve and be butchered in tribal rivalries over declining resources. And we’re for decreasing our own use of resources, since Americans make up 3% of global population using 25% of the world’s energy resources.

For a very pessimistic take – which we try to avoid – see Richard Duncan’s “The Road to Olduvai Gorge” at hubbertpeak.com/Duncan/road2olduvai.pdf.

Petrus

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s not whether we think population should decline, but how to prevent suffering as it will decline. Population will begin to crash (in fits and starts) when the artificial support of fossil fertilizer is withdrawn. Christians and others with empathy for the least advantaged should hope we can engineer a “soft landing” rather than docilely await the crash.

Tell me how we engineer a “soft landing?”

 

[drpmjhess]

Tell me how we engineer a “soft landing?”

From post # 53:

“What I think would be a shame would be if the growing awareness of global warming and petroleum decline fails to serve as a wakeup call. Suppose we are wrong about oil,and the peak is actually twenty years out, rather than in 2012? For heaven’s sake, let’s not squander these two decades with more growth in population and consumption. Rather, let’s use them as a grace period in which (1) to convert agriculture to a post-oil model; (2) to restructure our living patterns so that people live close to where they work, and no longer make costly commutes; (3) to build safe nuclear power plants as fast as we can as a stopgap measure to prevent people from freezing in the winter and dying of heat stroke in the summer; (4) to commit ourselves to electric high-speed inter-city rail, and intra-city light rail networks; and (5) to bring down the population gradually through smaller families until we reach a level where billions won’t starve to death. As Catholics (and others), I think we ought to begin to regard these five points as essential to the project of saving civilization.”