I've lived through at least two predicted apocalypses - Y2K's Millennium Bug and 2012, when the Mayan calendar ended. But a 1972 model shows why 2040 won't be the same.
Well this message from recent history doesn't seem to have drawn many comments . Or maybe Mr. Mcmillan is having to delete a bunch of Trolls, IDK. Anyway your copy of the graphic from TLTG shows a correction on the population projection, in the original version population continued to climb for a while with a steeper, decline a bit later. Ugo Bardi once explained it as an error IIRC.
My original copy is lost but there are copies available on line that seem correct if anyone hasn't read one of the print versions. ( but know that anything online can be doctored).
Anyway population, although important, is more of a "result" than a "cause", consumption is a good a "cause " as we can isolate and a relatively few billionaires can and do drive consumption much more than a billion peasants.
But population is a number derived by birth rates and death rates. Declining fertility and increasing mortality seems locked in by now in the USA and some of the in the richer, high consumption countries.
I think of the four horsemen...Violence, Famine, Disease, and Death... the rider of the pale horse as representing both low births and shorter lifespans. So changes in the population on a graphic actually matters. Any thoughts on this ?
Thanks! For me: I see population as more of a cause than a symptom, because the larger the population the fewer natural resources per capita, while consumption increases. I look at population specifically in more detail here:
Ok I read it. I think population can/will/might be a problem ... but I still think inequality ( really over consunption or the rich world's consumption) is much more immediate than total number of people alive right now, and the total population at a certain lifestyle the world can support depends on what "support" means.
So: I don't think it's an easy thing to sum up, the damage is consumption per person times population.
You can decrease the damage by reducing the consumption per person, or by reducing the population, or ideally both.
Support means - sustainably, so within overshoot.
There are standards of living and consumption levels in that equation : as a rule of thumb with our current knowledge the earth can support about 1.8 billion at the average European standard of living. That drops at a US level of consumption, it rises at a 3rd world level of consumption.
If you stabilise population, but increase consumption as countries develop, that's decreasing inequality but more damaging overall.
Impact = population times affluence modified by technology .
Since they really couldn't measure affluence well they used per capita energy use as a "good enough" proxy.
My problem with that is the per capita part. Even within the USA, energy use varies so hugely from one class to another, that a single metric can't capture it.
A mansion with a helicopter and a yacht takes so much more energy per capita than a tiny house with an ebike and a sailboat that the comparison isn't very useful. Everything is relative.
BTW I think a lot of us agree on the general shape of things to come, and I am not trying to argue with you about that.
Many more people need to become "colapse aware", and work through the denial, anger, and grief stages before we as a species will do much to reduce our impact. Your writings will certainly help...
And there's nothing inherently magical about 2040 either. Things will be collapsing all the way up to that year and then continue long after it. But, I agree that it's a good metric to consider things.
The slope of decline probably will look more like a M.C. Esher stairway than a ski slope. A general downward trend interrupted by occasional rises, drops, and plateaus .
So even though 2040 is a good target , we are just as likely to have a big drop in "progress" in 2030 or 2050 with 2040 a partial rebound. Like the Peak 0il and Fracking Forever discussion, mass media will then claim the worst is over and now we can go colonize Mars . BAH.
But between now and 2222 AD things will be ... challenging...
I used to follow John Michael Greer back in his "Preacher to the Preppers" Oil Drum and ADR stage and his "catabolic collapse" is definitely more nuanced than most (for example Jared Diamond).
Another person from TOD well worth the following is Ugo Bardi.
I followed him here to substack.com. The Seneca Effect is his collapse newsletter, and he has others on here . He is a retired scientist and less susceptible to the B.S. papers than most.
Well this message from recent history doesn't seem to have drawn many comments . Or maybe Mr. Mcmillan is having to delete a bunch of Trolls, IDK. Anyway your copy of the graphic from TLTG shows a correction on the population projection, in the original version population continued to climb for a while with a steeper, decline a bit later. Ugo Bardi once explained it as an error IIRC.
My original copy is lost but there are copies available on line that seem correct if anyone hasn't read one of the print versions. ( but know that anything online can be doctored).
Anyway population, although important, is more of a "result" than a "cause", consumption is a good a "cause " as we can isolate and a relatively few billionaires can and do drive consumption much more than a billion peasants.
But population is a number derived by birth rates and death rates. Declining fertility and increasing mortality seems locked in by now in the USA and some of the in the richer, high consumption countries.
I think of the four horsemen...Violence, Famine, Disease, and Death... the rider of the pale horse as representing both low births and shorter lifespans. So changes in the population on a graphic actually matters. Any thoughts on this ?
Thanks! For me: I see population as more of a cause than a symptom, because the larger the population the fewer natural resources per capita, while consumption increases. I look at population specifically in more detail here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/morewretchthansage/p/from-malthusian-maths-to-musk?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1oiue6
Ok I read it. I think population can/will/might be a problem ... but I still think inequality ( really over consunption or the rich world's consumption) is much more immediate than total number of people alive right now, and the total population at a certain lifestyle the world can support depends on what "support" means.
Am I missing something?
So: I don't think it's an easy thing to sum up, the damage is consumption per person times population.
You can decrease the damage by reducing the consumption per person, or by reducing the population, or ideally both.
Support means - sustainably, so within overshoot.
There are standards of living and consumption levels in that equation : as a rule of thumb with our current knowledge the earth can support about 1.8 billion at the average European standard of living. That drops at a US level of consumption, it rises at a 3rd world level of consumption.
If you stabilise population, but increase consumption as countries develop, that's decreasing inequality but more damaging overall.
Remember "I=PAT" from the limits to growth ...
Impact = population times affluence modified by technology .
Since they really couldn't measure affluence well they used per capita energy use as a "good enough" proxy.
My problem with that is the per capita part. Even within the USA, energy use varies so hugely from one class to another, that a single metric can't capture it.
A mansion with a helicopter and a yacht takes so much more energy per capita than a tiny house with an ebike and a sailboat that the comparison isn't very useful. Everything is relative.
BTW I think a lot of us agree on the general shape of things to come, and I am not trying to argue with you about that.
Many more people need to become "colapse aware", and work through the denial, anger, and grief stages before we as a species will do much to reduce our impact. Your writings will certainly help...
Thank you! I mainly write as a side product of just trying to understand things myself, so I always welcome comment, criticism or corrections!
One final thing before I leave this thread is that many of the rich see the same shape of things to come...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/
And there's nothing inherently magical about 2040 either. Things will be collapsing all the way up to that year and then continue long after it. But, I agree that it's a good metric to consider things.
The slope of decline probably will look more like a M.C. Esher stairway than a ski slope. A general downward trend interrupted by occasional rises, drops, and plateaus .
So even though 2040 is a good target , we are just as likely to have a big drop in "progress" in 2030 or 2050 with 2040 a partial rebound. Like the Peak 0il and Fracking Forever discussion, mass media will then claim the worst is over and now we can go colonize Mars . BAH.
But between now and 2222 AD things will be ... challenging...
Yeah, JMG's The Long Descent is pretty much how I see it going.
I used to follow John Michael Greer back in his "Preacher to the Preppers" Oil Drum and ADR stage and his "catabolic collapse" is definitely more nuanced than most (for example Jared Diamond).
Another person from TOD well worth the following is Ugo Bardi.
I followed him here to substack.com. The Seneca Effect is his collapse newsletter, and he has others on here . He is a retired scientist and less susceptible to the B.S. papers than most.
I follow him also. He and I have a few differences, but we mostly align.
Well, you also probably know @UgoBardi wrote an "exterminations" series of essays.
As a middle class(?) retiree , I am very much in the cross hairs, but honestly we aren't alone as the rich go about building bunkers.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/