Will the internet survive energy contraction?

Energy and food constraints will collapse global economic recovery

We are failing at even the most basic risk management. The real-time convergence of peak oil, peak food, and severe instabilities in the global economy may terminally collapse the systems upon which we depend for our basic welfare. The principal risk management challenge is not about how we introduce the energy infrastructure and conservation measures to maintain those systems, but about how we deal with the consequences of their collapse.
Click to expand...

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2...raints-will-collapse-global-economic-recovery
 
TFian,

I have written on the JREF Forum a few times about population. Here are the key points, pulled from several past posts.

Women are responding to the recent drop in death rates by lowering their birth rates. There is less reason to have large numbers of kids if parents reasonably expect their kids to survive to adulthood. Two or three kids are now all that is needed in most places to reach the goal of having grandchildren.

This is where we see effects of public health measures, such as clean water, vaccines and antibiotics, better medical and sanitation techniques, etcetera.

Also, when women have other choices in life, in addition to having children, they tend to have fewer kids than they would without freedom and equality. One liberating technology is birth control, while a more positive social environment gives women higher social status as individual human beings (and not the old kind of status built on having children).


The U.N. makes three estimates for 2050: low, medium, and high. In 2008, they updated their forecast to 8 billion in 2050 as the low estimate, 9.1 billion as the medium variant (and most likely outcome), and 10.5 billion as the high estimate.

The difference between low and medium is half a child per woman, as is the difference between medium and high. That's a tiny change in trajectory, with significant results over time.

See Page 4, Paragraph 2 of this PDF for details on how estimates can shift as new data comes in: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf


These world population forecasts are down compared to previous decades' forecasts. The same is true for the real, measured fertility rates. "Ever since 1968, when the United Nations Population Division predicted that the world population, now 6.3 billion, would grow to at least 12 billion by 2050, the agency has regularly revised its estimates downward. Now it expects population to plateau at nine billion."

"The real missing billions are the babies who were simply never conceived. They weren't conceived because their would-be elder brothers and sisters survived, or because women's lives improved."

"As late as 1970, the world's median fertility level was 5.4 births per woman; in 2000, it was 2.9. Barring war, famine, epidemic or disaster, a country needs a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman to hold steady."
Originally here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29mcne.html?pagewanted=all
Someone archived the article here: http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg15493.html


The global "Total Fertility per Woman" in 1970-1975, was 4.5 children. In 2000-2005 it was 2.6. This statistic and country-specific details, broken down by age group can be found in this PDF:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/Fertility_2007_table.pdf

Charts comparing these two time periods are available on the other side of the poster: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/Fertility_2007_reverse.pdf

We still have a long way to go before population stabilization. But we are getting there.
 
GreyArea said:
TFian,

I have written on the JREF Forum a few times about population. Here are the key points, pulled from several past posts.

Women are responding to the recent drop in death rates by lowering their birth rates. There is less reason to have large numbers of kids if parents reasonably expect their kids to survive to adulthood. Two or three kids are now all that is needed in most places to reach the goal of having grandchildren.

This is where we see effects of public health measures, such as clean water, vaccines and antibiotics, better medical and sanitation techniques, etcetera.

Also, when women have other choices in life, in addition to having children, they tend to have fewer kids than they would without freedom and equality. One liberating technology is birth control, while a more positive social environment gives women higher social status as individual human beings (and not the old kind of status built on having children).


The U.N. makes three estimates for 2050: low, medium, and high. In 2008, they updated their forecast to 8 billion in 2050 as the low estimate, 9.1 billion as the medium variant (and most likely outcome), and 10.5 billion as the high estimate.

The difference between low and medium is half a child per woman, as is the difference between medium and high. That's a tiny change in trajectory, with significant results over time.

See Page 4, Paragraph 2 of this PDF for details on how estimates can shift as new data comes in: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf


These world population forecasts are down compared to previous decades' forecasts. The same is true for the real, measured fertility rates. "Ever since 1968, when the United Nations Population Division predicted that the world population, now 6.3 billion, would grow to at least 12 billion by 2050, the agency has regularly revised its estimates downward. Now it expects population to plateau at nine billion."

"The real missing billions are the babies who were simply never conceived. They weren't conceived because their would-be elder brothers and sisters survived, or because women's lives improved."

"As late as 1970, the world's median fertility level was 5.4 births per woman; in 2000, it was 2.9. Barring war, famine, epidemic or disaster, a country needs a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman to hold steady."
Originally here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29mcne.html?pagewanted=all
Someone archived the article here: http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg15493.html


The global "Total Fertility per Woman" in 1970-1975, was 4.5 children. In 2000-2005 it was 2.6. This statistic and country-specific details, broken down by age group can be found in this PDF:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/Fertility_2007_table.pdf

Charts comparing these two time periods are available on the other side of the poster: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/Fertility_2007_reverse.pdf

We still have a long way to go before population stabilization. But we are getting there.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response GrayArea, I've thus far enjoyed your responses in this thread. I guess population really isn't much of a problem (globally). But isn't there the possibility global climate change will reduce the carrying capacity of earth? We can not escape the fact that despite our cities, cars, and fashion designers we must live in tandem with the rest of the being on this planet. We have forgotten this, and it is time that we remember it again.
 
Last edited:
Also, GrayArea, if I may ask, what do you find so appealing about Viridiean design? You've brought it up before, and while I brushed it off, I'm still interested why you think it's a model for the future.
 
TFian said:
Thanks for the response GrayArea, I've thus far enjoyed your responses in this thread. I guess population really isn't much of a problem (globally). But isn't there the possibility global climate change will reduce the carrying capacity of earth? We can not escape the fact that despite our cities, cars, and fashion designers we must live in tandem with the rest of the being on this planet. We have forgotten this, and it is time that we remember it again.
Click to expand...

Sure things like this might happen, but not in two or three years, and not if we see technological development and the ingenuity the human race has typically shown.
 
lionking said:
Sure things like this might happen, but not in two or three years, and not if we see technological development and the ingenuity the human race has typically shown.
Click to expand...

Of course not in two to three years.
 
Interesting new article over at EB

"The abandonment of technology" by Cameron Leckie

Excerpts of interest

The other day, whilst visiting the in-laws, I was involved in a conversation that in my view opened a window to the future of technology. My mother in law, who works in a small retail outlet was packing her lunch. My wife asked why she was putting an ice block in with her lunch box. The answer was that the owner of the shop had removed the staff refrigerator (and turned off the hot water system) to save a couple of hundred dollars a year. As someone who strongly believes that the most likely outcome for a debt based economic system approaching a world of declining net energy supplies is economic contraction and lower standards of living (at least materially), this started me thinking about the process by which industrial civilisation may abandon some of the technologies that we currently take for granted.

There are many reasons why we humans adopt new technologies, but in my view the root cause is that the benefit provided by a new technology outweighs its cost. Importantly costs and benefits can be measured both in financial terms and by other less tangible factors, something that will be important when considering which technologies are abandoned. One reason that we may abandon a technology is the flip side of the reason for its adoption - that the costs outweigh the benefits obtained. Thus the fridge has been abandoned because the cost of maintaining it outweighs the benefit of keeping lunch cold. Other reasons might be that the technology is no longer supportable (for example, If you cannot access fuel, your car is not going anywhere) or another technology appears/reappears to replace it.
Click to expand...

The theory

So how could a technology be abandoned? Figure 1 summarises the theory that I am proposing. Figure 1 represents a single technology, such as a car. Rather than using a specific number of units (e.g. cars) or other measures (e.g. Vehicle Kilometres Travelled), I have used percentages to represent the level of abandonment, with 100% representing the maximum uptake of a particular technology and 0% being its complete abandonment. Obviously how individual technologies are abandoned will vary considerably both in time and level of abandonment, thus the general case represented in Figure 1 is generic only to assist with explaining the theory.
Click to expand...

abandonment20of20techno.png


General case. In the general case, technology is abandoned in four stages:

Early abandonment. During this phase a small number of people abandon a technology for a number of reasons. These could be altruistic (selling the second refrigerator because of concerns over climate change), frugality (trying to save a little extra money) or economic (long term unemployment). Whilst some of these reasons will recur in later stages, the early abandoners will be small in numbers, the actual abandonment won’t cause major inconveniences to the people who decide to do so, the technologies are likely to be discretionary use items and the effects of this abandonment are likely to only have minor impacts upon the industries associated with that technology.

An example might be provided by the home telephone. With the proliferation of mobile telephone services and attractive contracts, some people might decide to close their home telephone service and instead rely upon mobile phones. I know a number of people who have done this already and have even considered it myself as a means of reducing living expenses.

* Economic abandonment. The transition from the relatively painless stage of early abandonment to this stage is likely to coincide with a financial crisis or economic recession. Unemployment, increased costs of living and reduced incomes will force tough decisions to be made resulting in abandoning or significantly reducing the use of technologies. Discretionary items are likely to be the first to go, but over time, items more and more fundamental to our current lifestyles will be abandoned. This stage will be characterised by major falls in sales. It is likely to be widespread, at least regionally or nationally and the items that are abandoned will have increasingly greater impacts.

During this stage the item of technology will still be supported, that is the industries supporting the technology will still function. An example might be provided by cars. Sustained high oil prices combined with other economic factors are likely to result in significantly less travel by car; however there will still be an automotive industry. This stage is likely to last for some time, potentially decades depending upon the technology.

* Systemic abandonment. This stage is defined by a technology being abandoned because it can no longer be supported or maintained, at least on a wide scale. The reasons that this could occur are many such as the unavailability of parts due to business failures/supply chain disruptions, a credit freeze, oil supply disruptions or an unreliable electrical supply. This stage is characterised by the physical inability to support a technology on a reliable basis. This stage could have global impacts and occur quite quickly due to synchronous failure. For example if Boeing, or Airbus, were to fail, this would have significant implications for airlines globally.

* Die hard abandonment. The final stage of abandonment is likely to be the longest. Some technologies might disappear completely whilst others may last for decades or centuries. The use of a technology during this phase is likely to be isolated and dependent upon local circumstances. For example, you would expect that Saudi Arabia will have cars on the road far longer than an oil importing nation. Smaller numbers of a technology may also be maintained through the cannibalisation of parts or local manufacture. This stage is likely to be highly uneven between regions and different types of technologies. For example, maintaining mechanical items is likely to be more achievable than sophisticated electronic items.
Click to expand...

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-16/abandonment-technology
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
It looks like you have changed your position then as you were claiming that freeways would be empty by 2012. This is good.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to cars though in that post, but climate change. However I'm not so sure about the 2012(13) prediction anymore. I'd need to read more in depth at McPherson's reasoning before I make up my mind.
 
TFian said:
I wasn't referring to cars though in that post, but climate change. However I'm not so sure about the 2012(13) prediction anymore. I'd need to read more in depth at McPherson's reasoning before I make up my mind.
Click to expand...

Again, it's good that you are re-thinking your position as that prediction will certainly not eventuate.
 
lionking said:
Again, it's good that you are re-thinking your position as that prediction will certainly not eventuate.
Click to expand...

Probably not. I'm more worried about 2018 to 2030. We'll see what happens on 2011 though.
 
TFian said:
Yup!
Click to expand...
Evidence?

You keep linking opinion pieces. We want facts.

TFian said:
Thanks for the response GrayArea, I've thus far enjoyed your responses in this thread. I guess population really isn't much of a problem (globally).
Click to expand...
Population growth is slowing, which means that doom is avoidable. But in a number of countries it's not slowing fast enough - India is having problems, and much of Africa is heading for the classic population boom/bust cycle, which will be horrifying.

But for Europe, the Americas, Russia, China, Japan - population growth is either under control or actually declining.

But isn't there the possibility global climate change will reduce the carrying capacity of earth?
Click to expand...
Or increase it. More CO2 and higher temperatures mean more plant growth, not less.

The short-term impact to human populations will come from the effects on coastal populations, which accounts for a lot of people. Again, that will have major economic consequences, but it won't destroy our civilisation.

TFian said:
Interesting new article over at EB

"The abandonment of technology" by Cameron Leckie
Click to expand...
Interesting? How is it interesting? It's speculation based on a single anecdote. It's garbage.
 
TFian said:
Has the U.S. Passed the Point of Peak Water?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/has-the-us-passed-the-poi_b_758698.html
Click to expand...
TFian, that article contradicts everything you've said in this thread:

HuffPo said:
Indeed, when we look at data on total water withdrawals and use in the US (see the Figure, which shows total US water withdrawals and total US GNP over the past century), it shows that maximum water use occurred more than 30 years ago, and that we are now using less water overall, and much less water per person, than in 1980. The bad news is that this suggests we have reached, or passed the point of peak water -- as is increasingly obvious in the regions I've mentioned above. The good news, however, is that we have been able to continue to grow our economy and meet the demands of growing populations, with less and less water, through smart technology, regulations, education, and water conservation and efficiency programs.
Click to expand...
As I keep telling you, we will adapt to changing conditions, and the reason we know that this will happen is that it is already happening, and has been happening all along.

The US reached "peak water" 30 years ago. And the effects of this are... Nothing! Absolutely nothing! We adapted!
 
PixyMisa said:
Evidence?

You keep linking opinion pieces. We want facts.
Click to expand...

The article in question does have facts. Well, at least inferences.


PixyMisa said:
India is having problems,
Click to expand...

Don't I know it...


PixyMisa said:
and much of Africa is heading for the classic population boom/bust cycle, which will be horrifying.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see the die off that happens there.

PixyMisa said:
Or increase it. More CO2 and higher temperatures mean more plant growth, not less.
Click to expand...

Global warming will be devastating to humans, or rather, the habitat that humans require to thrive.

Climate change has a spectrum of dangerous consequences spread over centuries into the future. Hansen warned of in first suggesting that we had to get back under 350 before the Arctic icecap melted irreversibly.

Hansen warned of tipping points and a point of no return. From what I can see according to the science I read the Arctic icecap is melting even faster than the estimates even several years ago - maybe no summer ice at all in 30 years. he increased heating feeds Arctic amplification. Methane from melting permafrost and shallow ocean bottoms may then be released to the degree that it is a powerful positive feedback. Might not. The icecap melt could also lead to global climate shifts, eg, the slowdown of ocean currents transporting heat is the primary but not only possible consequence. Might not. What if we are near or over that tipping point and the resulting climate dislocation and degradation and destruction of ecosystems is (possibly or to varying degrees probable) civilization or even humanity threatening because of our emissions today and our inability to take appropriate action?

PixyMisa said:
The short-term impact to human populations will come from the effects on coastal populations, which accounts for a lot of people. Again, that will have major economic consequences, but it won't destroy our civilisation.
Click to expand...

We'll see about that...

PixyMisa said:
Interesting? How is it interesting? It's speculation based on a single anecdote. It's garbage.
Click to expand...

How is it speculation based on a single anecdote? It's a rather thorough study.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom