Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[Stefan-A]

I seriously doubt that's what Stefan was talking about and if it is, you both missed the point entirely. I don't give a damn what that outdated book said or what was disputed. I don't care what the new book they talk about says either. Sorry I ever posted the link.

I'm in the middle of a Star Trek episode, where Spock's brain gets stolen. Just thought I'd share.

You want to debate what will or will not happen but you can't debate the data of what is happening or has happened already.

The data is somewhat less important than how it's used and what conclusions can be drawn from it.

Instead of talking about that you're just wearing me down with this "oh, look over there, a squirrel" crap.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, look over there, a squirrel.

"Whereas in 1972 humans were using 85 percent of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere to support economic activities such as growing food, producing goods and assimilating pollutants, the figure is now at 150 percent—and growing." There is also rapid global climate change and mass extinction happening. And if you know anything about the global economy you should also know that it requires a constant growth rate (which cannot be sustained) or it collapses like a pyramid scheme. Now ask yourself, what happens when it does collapse? We don't have to predict. We've already seen what happens.

From which you still need to get to the collapse of civilization somehow. Economies fail, civilizations go on.

Now dispute that.

Just poked a hole in it with a wet napkin.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what happens when a population outgrows the environment's capacity to support it.

No, a rocket scientist would be far out of his field if he started commenting on ecology. Economists, too. Anthropologists may have something to contribute to the discussion, though.

Also isn't hard to figure out what happens to those at the top of the food chain when a mass extinction takes place.

Lots of things can happen. Besides, nothing that has ever been at the top of the food chain has been as adaptive as we happen to be. We'll die out when we've eaten all the cockroaches and everybody gets TSE from cannibalism. Or when a group of people isolate themselves from the rest of the world population and evolve into a subspecies of H. sapiens that has superior survivability under the prevailing conditions and simply out-competes us.

I honestly don't even know why there's even a debate about it. The conclusion is quite logical.

Not all forms of logic apply to all situations.

[chris-uk]

I seriously doubt that's what Stefan was talking about and if it is, you both missed the point entirely. I don't give a damn what that outdated book said or what was disputed. I don't care what the new book they talk about says either. Sorry I ever posted the link.

The foundation of the article was that outdated book and the research that led to it's publication. If the foundations of the article weren't sound then it compromises the conclusions. The computer model that the article discussed was run in the 1970's, I don't have to dig too deeply to come to the conclusion that the computer model probably wasn't particularly sophisticated, considered a fairly small number of variables, and therefore the outcomes it predicted are slightly unreliable.

"Whereas in 1972 humans were using 85 percent of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere to support economic activities such as growing food, producing goods and assimilating pollutants, the figure is now at 150 percent—and growing." There is also rapid global climate change and mass extinction happening. And if you know anything about the global economy you should also know that it requires a constant growth rate (which cannot be sustained) or it collapses like a pyramid scheme. Now ask yourself, what happens when it does collapse? We don't have to predict. We've already seen what happens.

Now dispute that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what happens when a population outgrows the environment's capacity to support it. Also isn't hard to figure out what happens to those at the top of the food chain when a mass extinction takes place. I honestly don't even know why there's even a debate about it. The conclusion is quite logical and you're all just in denial.

The things that hold together the thin facade of what we call civilization are deteriorating rapidly. It's a fragile thing. Doesn't take much to collapse it. You can debate it all you want but it doesn't change that. It's a fragile balancing act. If you doubt it could happen that's only natural but there are plenty of ruins around the world left over from long gone civilizations that debated and doubted too, all the way up until they were gone.

The debate started as a discussion about overpopulation and drifted into economics and the consequent collapse of civilisation. Civilisation won't fall, it will alter. Maybe it will become a smaller and more exclusive civilisation where a privileged class/race live comfortably whilst suppressing the rest of humanity - take your pick of post-apocalyptic films for a portent of the future.

I wouldn't dispute that the world I'll die in and my children and grandchildren will grow up in will be more unstable and more delicately balanced than it is now. Remember right back at the start of this discussion I predicted that within 50 years there will be wars over water rather than oil? My issue was with oil/fossil fuels being the limiting factor for human population growth, I think it's water and food. As for the collapse of civilisation, as long as my descendants are living in Megacity1 and not in the Badlands I don't really care.

[Stefan-A]

Interestingly quiet on the forum lately.

[guidofatherof5]

Walking Dead withdrawals

[ConcinusMan]

Remember right back at the start of this discussion I predicted that within 50 years there will be wars over water rather than oil?

Oh so now you're a prophet. No, I'm just razzin you Sure, I don't doubt that will happen. But first we fight over the remaining oil. We've already been fighting over oil and I'm sure it will get worse as supply dwindles. If we're not already fighting over water than apparently there's enough because the population is leveling out or at least, growth has slowed considerably.

My issue was with oil/fossil fuels being the limiting factor for human population growth, I think it's water and food.

Right. And what is a major factor in limiting food supply per capita? Fossil fuel supply, primarily petroleum. There are somewhere around 12 petroleum calories used in food production/packaging for each food calorie we eat and that's what has allowed all this food production! Take away the petro, the food goes with it. If oil ran out right now, billions would starve. That's not science fiction. Not to mention that dwindling supplies of fossil fuel resources also greatly limits our ability to efficiently utilize what water is left. In fact it greatly limits our ability to use technology/industrial processes to do anything that will allow us to utilize other resources. Food production per capita is already dropping right on cue with petroleum production. people will argue that they are developing other alternative energy. Yes, they are, but they're not even close to coming up with a viable solution that will replace the amount of energy we get from fossil fuels and use daily. And even if they had the tech now, the infrastructure isn't there and it will still take a huge investment of the remaining fuel/petroleum to build it.

I wouldn't dispute that the world I'll die in and my children and grandchildren will grow up in will be more unstable and more delicately balanced than it is now.

Then why is total collapse into a "new dark age" and massive die-off of human population so inconceivable? (that's what I'm saying is coming and so are many scientists) Is it because people who deny it can happen are just arrogant ("it's always happened to other civilizations, but it won't happen to ours" mentality) or because they ignore the signposts that are already with us? Scientist are saying that's already too late to alter the course and that we are headed for disaster. The nay-sayers also denied global warming and climate change for years, but low and behold, it's here and will continue to get worse even if we stopped emitting atmospheric carbon entirely right now. (and we know that's not going to happen)

Whatever, I'm just saying that I believe collapse going to happen because we're currently in an artificially high population bubble supported by fossil fuel use, and there's science to back up that idea so that it's completely in the realm of possibility. The bubble will burst. I think it's more likely than not. All one has to do is take a good look around. Several billion people alive today wouldn't even be here if it weren't for petroleum and they can't be supported when it runs out. Supply does limit the human population. In our modern civilization/society virtually everything we know is dependent on cheap petroleum and supplies have peaked so there's nowhere for civilization and population to go but down.

If we stopped using petroleum right now, a billion or two people would starve so how you can you say it's not a limiting factor? If that limit wasn't there, then yeah, we'd have to deal with not enough space and water. All these problems for which we have no solution, will lead to a civilization collapse and we are seeing early indications IMO. That's all I'm trying to say though this whole debate and you guys act like it's some crazy idea that can't possibly happen because there's no science behind it. Well there is. Human beings are not immune to natural laws and in the end, that's what's going to get us. I hope I'm totally wrong but I'm not very optimistic that some unexpected miracle is going to alter the course. I feel like you guys are just trying rationalize it away so you don't have to think about it.

[ConcinusMan]

Walking Dead withdrawals

You could always drive nails through your neighbor's heads, making them walk around moaning and drooling.

I know, that was dark.

[Stefan-A]

And what is a major factor in limiting food supply per capita? Fossil fuel supply, primarily petroleum.

It's not.

There are somewhere around 12 petroleum calories used in food production/packaging for each food calorie we eat and that's what has allowed all this food production!

You just don't get it. It's not the only fuel and it's not the only material. Petroleum use does not "allow" food production, it's a preferred method used in food production.

Take away the petro, the food goes with it.

It does not.

If oil ran out right now, billions would starve.

No, they would not.

That's not science fiction.

No, it's just plain fiction.

Not to mention that dwindling supplies of fossil fuel resources also greatly limits our ability to efficiently utilize what water is left. In fact it greatly limits our ability to use technology/industrial processes to do anything that will allow us to utilize other resources.

Again we're talking about preferred vs. essential energy sources. You're claiming the latter, but reality says that it's the former.

Food production per capita is already dropping right on cue with petroleum production.

OMFG THE SKY IS FALLING

people will argue that they are developing other alternative energy.

"Developing", as in we had it before petroleum, it's implemented right now and the use is rapidly increasing.

Yes, they are, but they're not even close to coming up with a viable solution that will replace the amount of energy we get from fossil fuels and use daily.

There are plenty of viable solutions, and again we're talking about preferred vs. essential.

And even if they had the tech now, the infrastructure isn't there and it will still take a huge investment of the remaining fuel/petroleum to build it.

They do, it's there and it's getting better. And huge investments is what you get when you put all your eggs in one basket and drop it, but it's not a civilization-ending investment.

Then why is total collapse into a "new dark age" and massive die-off of human population so inconceivable?

Conceivable doesn't equal probable. I can conceive of billions of carnivorous fire-breathing monkeys flying out of my *** and eating everyone, but it's not likely to happen.

(that's what I'm saying is coming and so are many scientists)

How many percent of scientists are saying it? "Many scientists" conveys no information of value.

Is it because people who deny it can happen

Again, flying monkeys, probable vs. possible and all that stuff.

or because they ignore the signposts

You are declaring it a signpost, without proper cause.

Scientist are saying that's already too late to alter the course and that we are headed for disaster.

Who, on what grounds, what are the responses from other scientists within the field, what's the consensus? And so forth. People will believe anything as long as it's said by someone in a lab coat, apparently.

The nay-sayers also denied global warming and climate change for years, but low and behold, it's here and will continue to get worse even if we stopped emitting atmospheric carbon entirely right now. (and we know that's not going to happen)

That's an opinion that's as (un-)supported as the one that this is actually a carbon-starved planet.

Whatever, I'm just saying that I believe

Belief noted.

there's science to back up that idea

Is that science any good, or are you just fond of the conclusion?

All one has to do is take a good look around.

No, sorry. Looking around isn't good enough.

Several billion people alive today wouldn't even be here if it weren't for petroleum and they can't be supported when it runs out.

You keep saying that, and it's false.

In our modern civilization/society virtually everything we know is dependent on cheap petroleum

Because that's how we've preferred it. It's not essential to have it dependent on cheap petroleum.

and supplies have peaked so there's nowhere for civilization and population to go but down.

You keep saying that, and it's false.

If we stopped using petroleum right now, a billion or two people would starve

A billion or two are already starving.

so how you can you say it's not a limiting factor?

You made up the fact that it is necessarily a limiting factor and you're referencing your own made up fact to support your argument. That's a bit of a no-no.

If that limit wasn't there, then yeah, we'd have to deal with not enough space and water.

Good news, everyone!

All these problems for which we have no solution,

We have dozens of solutions for the problems, denying them isn't going to make them not-exist.

will lead to a civilization collapse and we are seeing early indications IMO.

Opinion noted and discarded as useless.

That's all I'm trying to say though this whole debate and you guys act like it's some crazy idea that can't possibly happen because there's no science behind it. Well there is.

Well if you say so.

Human beings are not immune to natural laws and in the end, that's what's going to get us.

Yes, yes. Entropy will get us all in the end. What's the point in doing anything about anything.

I feel like you guys are just trying rationalize it away so you don't have to think about it.

Yes, I got into the field of natural resource management just so that I wouldn't have to think about it.


Are we done here? That post looked like a closing summation.

[ConcinusMan]

Are we done here? That post looked like a closing summation.

If I answered with a "yes" you would just say "no"

[chris-uk]

Interestingly quiet on the forum lately.

Indeed it has. Its got to pick up as more snakes come out of brumation and get jiggy.

[guidofatherof5]

If I answered with a "yes" you would just say "no"

♪You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther;
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther,
Let's call the whole thing off!
You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto;
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let's call the whole thing off!
But oh! If we call the whole thing off,
Then we must part.
And oh! If we ever part,
Then that might break my heart!
So, if you like pajamas and I like pajahmas,
I'll wear pajamas and give up pajahmas.
For we know we need each other,
So we better call the calling off off.
Let's call the whole thing off!♪