Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[Steveo]

Well, it certainly can't be done full scale. The only thing that may withstand that level of harvesting would be plankton.

Of course not, but just because we can't do it for all doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for any. The "one size fits all" monoculture system devised during the green revolution isn't sustainable. It's going to take a lot of different people utilizing a lot of different solutions to make a big difference. The greatest complication is that something like 75% of our agricultural products (U.S.) come from megafarms, where monoculture is the only game in town.

[ConcinusMan]

And you can't have a population without exploitation and consumption of resources.

That's not the point and as I predicted, it's the first thing you said.

I ignore petroleum, it's just one type of resource and if it weren't for carbon emissions and the occasional spill, it would be of little significance.

Yeah, ignore petroleum. Then you can go ahead and ignore the entire petrochemical industry (and every other industry that depends on petroleum which is pretty much all modern industries) and ignore all the pollution aside from carbon that comes from those industries. Ignore all the materials and technology we have that wouldn't be possible without petroleum. You can also ignore the fact that there are far more petroleum calories consumed to produce, package, and transport our food, than the food itself has. If it weren't for petroleum and all the technological advances that go with it, most of us would be farm laborers to survive. We wouldn't have the time or luxury of higher education, research and specialization. While we're at it, lets ignore advances in medicine that were also made possible by petroleum and the products and materials made from it. I could go on but I can't possibly list everything that depends on petroleum. Ignore it, and you ignore the industrial revolution and all the technological advances that came with it. Still think it has little significance? It's practically all the significance.

The real problem related to overpopulation and resources, is land and water use. If you double the amount of people (like in the last 70 years or so)

Now remind me again, how did the population double in 70 years instead of 7,000 years? Remind me again how long it took for the population to double before we started a petroleum fueled industrial/technological revolution? Since when is any kind of revolution "of little significance"? It's only the most significant thing to happen since language and the use of fire.

Add technological advancement, increased standard of living

Sure, we can add that. We only needed to add one thing to accomplish that: Petroleum. It sure as hell wasn't happening by cutting down trees with a copper hand axe and hauling it by horse and buggy.

but the use of oil has merely assisted the population boom.

Here you downplay the role that petroleum had in the population explosion then right away point at something else...

Medicine and other advances that increase life-expectancy have the most to answer for...

And I cut you off because here you say that this had more significance while completely ignoring the role that petroleum plays in those advances.

I believe it was a BBC documentary last year where they gave the land use figures for beef as it requiring something around eight times the land area to support a beef diet

And like Stefan, you downplay the role petroleum plays and the energy and technological advances needed to produce that beef. It takes far more petroleum calories to produce meat than it does to produce plant based food items. Screw the land area required. It would take 12 men laboring for an entire year, nonstop to equal the energy we get from just one gallon of gas and those men would be spending the majority of that energy working the land to produce the food they need to survive.

That leaves little time for advancement of technology and tech can only go so far using materials that don't come from petroleum. I think you're both dead wrong. It is the land area and water required to support our large population that has little significance because it would like have taken us perhaps thousands more millennia to run out of the land and water needed and many technological advances wouldn't have even been possible. You don't build a cart unless you first have a horse. As petroleum supplies run out the population will plummet. You can count on it.

[Stefan-A]

That's not the point and as I predicted, it's the first thing you said.

A mighty prophet you are. We're talking about overpopulation, what populations inherently do is very much the point.

Yeah, ignore petroleum. Then you can go ahead and ignore the entire petrochemical industry (and every other industry that depends on petroleum which is pretty much all modern industries) and ignore all the pollution aside from carbon that comes from those industries. Ignore all the materials and technology we have that wouldn't be possible without petroleum. You can also ignore the fact that there are far more petroleum calories consumed to produce, package, and transport our food, than the food itself has. If it weren't for petroleum and all the technological advances that go with it, most of us would be farm laborers to survive. We wouldn't have the time or luxury of higher education, research and specialization. While we're at it, lets ignore advances in medicine that were also made possible by petroleum and the products and materials made from it. I could go on but I can't possibly list everything that depends on petroleum. Ignore it, and you ignore the industrial revolution and all the technological advances that came with it. Still think it has little significance? It's practically all the significance.

1. I bet you've never heard about a little thing called "coal". The industrial revolution started with coal, not petroleum. Petroleum arrives at the scene about 100-150 years late for the industrial revolution. Or to put into perspective: We had electricity before petroleum became useful as anything other than lamp fuel.
2. The other pollution aside from carbon is, as I already told you, of little significance. Yeah, it's not good, but the impact it has on the environment is not significant by comparison.
3. You're boring the crap out of me with these irrelevancies.

Now remind me again, how did the population double in 70 years instead of 7,000 years? Remind me again how long it took for the population to double before we started a petroleum fueled industrial/technological revolution? Since when is any kind of revolution "of little significance"? It's only the most significant thing to happen since language and the use of fire.

Well, when a male and a female like each other very much... You clearly don't know what the industrial revolution was, do you really think this deserves an answer?

Sure, we can add that. We only needed to add one thing to accomplish that: Petroleum. It sure as hell wasn't happening by cutting down trees with a copper hand axe and hauling it by horse and buggy.

Coal, electricity.

Here you downplay the role that petroleum had in the population explosion then right away point at something else...

You exaggerated the role it played.

And I cut you off because here you say that this had more significance while completely ignoring the role that petroleum plays in those advances.

Because you exaggerated the role it played.

It is the land area and water required to support our large population that has little significance because it would like have taken us perhaps thousands more millennia to run out of the land and water needed and many technological advances wouldn't have even been possible.

I don't which is more absurd, the claim at the beginning, or the conclusion. Whether it takes 5 years or 5 billion doesn't change the fact that it's the population size and its consumption and use of land and water that's the problem. It doesn't matter if this planet can sustain 10 or 10 billion, if we exceed what it can sustain, you have overpopulation.

You don't build a cart unless you first have a horse.

Why not? What you don't do, is have the cart draw the horse.

As petroleum supplies run out the population will plummet. You can count on it.

A laughable claim. It's not the only fuel, it's not the only material.

[chris-uk]

Yeah, ignore petroleum.
...Ignore it, and you ignore the industrial revolution and all the technological advances that came with it.

Sorry to sound like a parrot, but I don't recall oil driving the industrial revolution. That was coal. We moved on to use oil-based fuels when we worked out how to harness their energy. If oil hadn't been abundant we would have progressed using another fuel - hell, in a parallel universe maybe we jumped straight from coal to solar, wind and hydro power.

And like Stefan, you downplay the role petroleum plays and the energy and technological advances needed to produce that beef. It takes far more petroleum calories to produce meat than it does to produce plant based food items. Screw the land area required. It would take 12 men laboring for an entire year, nonstop to equal the energy we get from just one gallon of gas and those men would be spending the majority of that energy working the land to produce the food they need to survive.

And like, erm... you. You big up petroleum as a cause of overpopulation instead of a consequence of it.
I picture the scene in Victorian England...
"Hey honey, I've just been reading about this new fangled oil stuff."
"Yes love, what does it do?"
"Well honey, it means that we can have a bigger family to make sure mankind fully exploits this wonder fuel."
"Really love? I thought we were already spitting out a baby every year, because only half of them survive past their third year."
"Well, you know what honey, I think we should try harder and spit one out every six months."

Need drives innovation. The fact that a single man in a tractor (with his gallon of petrol) can farm huge areas isn't what drove population growth, the population grew and we needed to find more efficient means to support the populations. One way of introducing the efficiency is to use oil powered vehicles to farm.

I think you're both dead wrong. It is the land area and water required to support our large population that has little significance because it would like have taken us perhaps thousands more millennia to run out of the land and water needed and many technological advances wouldn't have even been possible.

If we ran out of oil tomorrow the population wouldn't decline as quickly as it would if we the planet's drinking water dried up. That alone makes access to water more significant than oil - there are alternatives to oil, and no alternative to water if you're attempting to sustain life. I don't know how much alternative energy is available in the US (you've grown accustomed to cheap and plentiful oil), but in Europe where our oil will run out sooner there are huge attempts to harness other sources of power, when the oil runs out there are alternatives.
Within our lifetime the most recent wars are over access to oil, throwing on my prophetic hat I'd suggest that our children or grandchildren will see wars fought over fresh water supplies.

[ConcinusMan]

I really should have been saying "fossil fuels" all along instead of petroleum. Coal is a horrible alternative. Can't even catch a fish that isn't laden with mercury because of it's use.

Sorry to sound like a parrot, but I don't recall oil driving the industrial revolution. That was coal. We moved on to use oil-based fuels when we worked out how to harness their energy. If oil hadn't been abundant we would have progressed using another fuel - hell, in a parallel universe maybe we jumped straight from coal to solar, wind and hydro power.

Impossible. You can't make a solar panel, or even a wind turbine without the technologies, manufacturing processes and materials that come from petroleum. Hydropower can only fuel a vehicle if the vehicle is electric. Nevermind the fact that you can't even manufacture that vehicle without petroleum. Most of our paved roads are also made with petroleum products.

there are alternatives to oil, and no alternative to water if you're attempting to sustain life. I don't know how much alternative energy is available in the US (you've grown accustomed to cheap and plentiful oil), but in Europe where our oil will run out sooner there are huge attempts to harness other sources of power, when the oil runs out there are alternatives.

There are alternatives. Most of which require the use of petroleum to implement. When the oil runs out, there are alternatives. Most of which cannot be harnessed if you don't use oil to make the necessary materials to harness the alternative sources. Nevermind that almost none of the alternatives give us same energy returned to energy invested as petroleum does.

Look, you guys make some great points but just try to see that all these alternatives you're talking about cannot even come about without investing petroleum or using materials and technologies made possible only by the use of petroleum.

[Stefan-A]

Impossible. You can't make a solar panel, or even a wind turbine without the technologies, manufacturing processes and materials that come from petroleum.

Panels aren't the only way to get solar energy and I seriously doubt anyone has even set out to make wind turbines without involving petroleum, so that assertion is premature in addition to being pointless. Also, people have already developed other ways of making plastics and are continuing to do so and the manufacturing processes require electricity, which is produced with coal, nuclear power, natural gas etc.

Hydropower can only fuel a vehicle if the vehicle is electric. Nevermind the fact that you can't even manufacture that vehicle without petroleum. Most of our paved roads are also made with petroleum products.

Same reply as above, nobody has tried and the assertion is premature and pointless. Also, funny how we manufactured vehicles before we started using petroleum to run them.

There are alternatives. Most of which require the use of petroleum to implement. When the oil runs out, there are alternatives. Most of which cannot be harnessed if you don't use oil to make the necessary materials to harness the alternative sources. Nevermind that almost none of the alternatives give us same energy returned to energy invested as petroleum does.

Same basic answer as before.

Look, you guys make some great points but just try to see that all these alternatives you're talking about cannot even come about without investing petroleum or using materials and technologies made possible only by the use of petroleum.

Same as above. People are already working on this problem. They have been for decades at this point (at least since the 70's oil crisis, if you don't count wartime efforts), they already have come up with a bunch of solutions, both functional and prospective to a number of problems and the main problem for now is how competitive they are and that's something that will change as the price of oil goes up.

Everything will be fine.

[ConcinusMan]

Everything will be fine.

Everything isn't even fine now and in fact seems to be deteriorating. All the classic symptoms (and causes) of imminent civilization collapse are here. The Romans ignored the signs too, and I'm sure they also said "everything will be fine"

[Stefan-A]

Everything isn't even fine now and in fact seems to be deteriorating. All the classic symptoms (and causes) of imminent civilization collapse are here. The Romans ignored the signs too, and I'm sure they also said "everything will be fine"

Which classic symptoms would that be? Goths coming over the city walls and setting stuff on fire?

[Stefan-A]

[ConcinusMan]

Which classic symptoms would that be? Goths coming over the city walls and setting stuff on fire?

No, but that will happen soon enough.

As if that were the sole reason behind the collapse. No. signs of collapse were happening long before that. "goths" don't "come over the walls" until a civilization is already in the process of collapse.

Debasing of currency / economic instability: An economic engine that requires constant growth that cannot be sustained. Currently ours (and when I say "ours" I don't just mean the U.S.) is severely unstable and depends on cheap petroleum to thrive. As the price rises, so does the price of everything else. Growing disparity between the rich and the poor, elimination of the middle class.

For the modern world economy, for example, the growing conflict between food and fuel, depending on many of the same finite and diminishing resources is visible in the recent major commodity price shocks.

Capitalism can be seen as an example of the 'Runaway Train' model: a society whose continuing function depends on constant growth (cf. Frederick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis): This type of society, based almost exclusively on acquisition (e.g., pillage or exploitation), cannot be sustained indefinitely. The Assyrian and Mongol Empires, for example, both fractured and collapsed when no new conquests were forthcoming.

Environmental problems / changing of climate. These problems are rapidly getting worse. Much faster than the "solutions" are forthcoming.

Overpopulation and resource depletion.

Declining productivity of energy extraction, or energy return on energy invested which is estimated to be 3:1 to sustain the essential overhead energy costs of a modern society. This figure also affects the number of people needed for sustainable food production. In the pre-modern world, it was often the case that 80% of the population was employed in agriculture to feed a population of 100%, with a low energy budget. In modern times, the use of cheap fossil fuels with an exceedingly high EROEI enabled 100% of the population to be fed with only 4% of the population employed in agriculture.

The British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, in his 12-volume magnum opus A Study of History (1961), theorized that all civilizations pass through several distinct stages: genesis, growth, time of troubles, universal state, and disintegration. It's obvious to mem that we have entered the "time of troubles" stage.

Toynbee argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside. Rather, ironically, societies that develop great expertise in problem solving become incapable of solving new problems by overdeveloping their structures for solving old ones.

Now, if you can't see that all these signs / symptoms of collapse are upon us, then I don't know what to say. For being such an intelligent person, you seem to be a little out of touch or isolated from what's going on in the world Stefan. I don't mean that as insult but you seem a little sheltered. Either that, or in denial or just don't care enough to even want to know so you don't pay any attention. I say this because if that were not the case, you wouldn't have asked me "what signs". To me they are glaring and obvious. You can't not notice unless you just never turn on the news.

Now, what makes this day and age different is that whether you define it as one or not, we do have a global civilization now, all interdependent on each other, so the collapse this time, will also be global. Not just the failure of one or two countries, currencies, or economies with the rest of us being OK.

I have been watching the TED talks. Many are on netflix and I also watch them through a smart TV app. Good stuff.