How many people can the earth support? [Archive]

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 00:17

More specifically, how many people could the earth support while still giving everyone a "good life?"

-a "good life" is one in which a person can meet their physical and psychological needs. This can be measured as the physical and mental health of a person. Physical health can be measured by things like adequate nutrition, life expectancy, access to medicine, etc. Mental health correlates with happiness, so overall mental health can be measured by self-reported happiness levels.

-mental health is measured by reported happiness levels. By looking at these levels over time, we can determine an "optimal level of resource consumption" to attain maximum happiness. The optimum level would be that level which is the lowest level required to attain the maximum level of happiness.

-Peak happiness was achieved in the late 1950s in America - happiness peaked around 1957, declined somewhat, and has remained pretty steady ever since. When happiness peaked in America, per-capita income was roughly 1/3rd of what it is today (adjusted for inflation). So, we could attain the same or higher happiness with an income 1/3rd of the current average. Source: http://citizenactionmonitor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/happiness-chart2.jpg

-Similar studies were conducted in Britain and Japan with similar results, suggesting this pattern is not specific to a particular culture

-Mexico has reported happiness levels 4 times higher than the United States but is much poorer

-using the above information we can get a general idea of what is physically required to give everyone a "good life."

-using ecological footprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint)we can determine the footprint required to give a person a "good life," and so we can determine the maximum number of people that can be supported if everyone has a good life.

-The following is meant to be an approximation of the minimum that would be required to give a person a good life, using the above information.

-dwellings would be in apartments no larger than 500 square feet per person (a family of four would have 2000 square feet alloted to them). Detached single family homes would be very rare. 500 square feet is small by American standards but large by the standards of most of the rest of the world (most of which has higher happiness levels than America).

-meat only consumed 3-4 times per week (enough to ensure adequate protein intake).

-less than 50% of food produced more than 200 miles from where it is consumed. This is to minimize the fuel used in transporting food.

-no travel by car or motorcycle. walking and cycling would become the dominant forms of transportation. See below for an explanation of why alternative fuels will not be capable of maintaining car culture.

-travel by airplane is very rare

-50+ miles travelled by public transportation, weekly

-much less trash generated; all packaging is recyclable and recycling is extensive

-to support the above lifestyle, it would take approximately 20 acres of land per person

-To check this, you can go to http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ and plug in the numbers yourself.

-worldwide, there exists ~4.5 acres per person of productive land.

-it would take ~5 times the amount of land that exists on earth to support everyone with the above lifestyle

-there are more than 7 billion people on the planet. Divide this by 5 (amount of land required per person), and this yields 1.4 billion.

-fewer than 1.4 billion people could be supported sustainably with the above lifestyle.

-fossil fuel use must be replaced with sustainable renewable energy sources. It is important to remember that these alternative sources are "alternative;" they are not replacements for oil. For one thing, electricity cannot readily be substituted for liquid fuels without converting vehicles to run on batteries, a costly project in itself.

-For another, how are we going to generate the massive amounts of energy required to power every single car in America in addition to our other needs? It isn't going to happen because the EROEI of alternatives is lower than that of oil. This means we will have less "surplus energy" to dedicate to unessential things like cars.

-To elaborate, wind and solar energy simply do not provide the same "bang for the buck" that we get from crude oil. In the early bonanza days of oil, back when the United States was the world's leading producer of oil, you got something like 100 units of energy returned for every 1 unit of energy invested into the process.

-This is called EROEI, energy returned on energy invested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI), for short. Today, we get a much lower return on oil because we have to expend a great deal of energy to ship the oil halfway across the world - from the middle east. This doesn't even include the costs of protecting that oil supply with a massive military presence.

-The reason we get our oil from the Middle East is because domestic oil production peaked in 1970 (United States), as Shell Geologist M King Hubbert predicted it would in the 1950s. At the time, Hubbert was ignored by his colleagues. Another important contribution Hubbert made was recognizing that the earth's endowment of fossil fuels is finite. This was also ignored.

-Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak shortly after the year 2000. All indications are that world oil production peaked 2006 (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:fSey-qLCOIxUkM:http://localfuture.org/charts/20080301/20080301WorldOilProductionWissnerLarge.gif&t=1); it has not gone up since then despite massive and ever-increasing investments. Simply put, we are spending more energy to find less energy. We are on the downslope.

-Today, the EROEI of crude oil from the middle east is more than 30:1

-Wind power is 25:1 under optimal conditions, but it suffers from intermittency problems and is totally site-dependent.

-Solar (photovaltaic) is around 10:1, but also suffers intermittency

-soy biofuels and grain ethanol have pathetically low EROEI, sometimes lower than 1:1. In other words, they can consume more energy than they produce.

-Source for EROEI numbers: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6854#more

-Upgrades to the electrical grid are needed to make renewable energy work without intermittency. A connected "smart grid" is essential for renewable energy to work. This is a massive project on scale with the interstate highway system. It is doubtful that "the market" can acheive this. The interstate highway system wasn't achieved by the market. It took strong central planning by the national gov't. Projects of this scale require central planning, and that requires the national gov't.

-Wind and solar cannot replace oil because they do not have the same EROEI. The lifestyles we have built around the availability of cheap oil are simply unsustainable. This means an end to car culture and consumerism.

-Nuclear power is not a sustainable solution because the nuclear fuel is finite. A feasible breeder reactor has yet to be built or designed. Those breeder reactors which have been built have all been dismantled for cost or safety problems. The engineers of the 1950s who were betting on this technology as the silver bullet to solve our energy problems would probably be horrified at the utter failure of this technology.

-Nuclear fusion is a fantasy that will never be realized. The quest for fusion energy is the modern-day equivalent of the alchemist turning lead into gold. We have been pouring billions into fusion reserach since the 1950s, and every year the scientists tell us that fusion energy "is still 50 years away." 50 years from now, fusion will still be "50 years away."

-passenger rail will have to be greatly expanded in the United States since travel by car will no longer be feasible. A state of emergency should be declared in order to get the necessary projects built, like Eisenhower did with the interstate highway system

-an end to consumerism also means an end to capitalism; capitalism cannot exist without growth. This means something else (socialism) will have to replace capitalism.

Frosty Weasel

19th January 2011, 00:26

Rafiq

19th January 2011, 00:32

I think the Idea that we need nature to exterminate humans is disgusting.

What about building artificial continents in the Atlantic, Or Pacific, Ect.?

What about the moon? Mars?

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 01:23

uBicsp9Aq2c

This thread is silly. Capitalism, as it is now, generates enough food to feed the world but for some reason most of it ends up in the dump?

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:33

uBicsp9Aq2c

This thread is silly. Capitalism, as it is now, generates enough food to feed the world but for some reason most of it ends up in the dump?

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that the thread isn't about feeding people, but supporting people at a given standard of living.

You can check the numbers for yourself by following the links in the post.

Knee-jerk, reactionary comments do not constitute a sound argument.

ExUnoDisceOmnes

19th January 2011, 01:33

uBicsp9Aq2c

This thread is silly. Capitalism, as it is now, generates enough food to feed the world but for some reason most of it ends up in the dump?

I laughed through that entire song.

Frosty Weasel

19th January 2011, 01:33

I think the Idea that we need nature to exterminate humans is disgusting.
I am merely saying that either we will have to cut down on our population growth or the laws of nature will, such is the nature of things.

What about building artificial continents in the Atlantic, Or Pacific, Ect.?

What about the moon? Mars?At the same time why don't I wave my magic wand and give everyone free motorcycles? That kind of technology isn't going to exist anytime soon in a world where 10 billion people are projected to be here by 2060.

I'm not saying 90% of Earth's population needs to commit suicide in some bloody Eco death orgy.

I'm saying that this transcends Socialism and Capitalism, as neither will be able to properly allocate the resources necessary for 10+ billion people.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:36

I think the Idea that we need nature to exterminate humans is disgusting.

Where did you get the impression that that is what I was advocating?

What about building artificial continents in the Atlantic, Or Pacific, Ect.?

What about the moon? Mars?What about doing a little research instead of engaging in puerile fantasy? I've already demonstrated why this isn't possible due to the low EROEI of alternative energy sources.

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th January 2011, 01:40

I don't see the point of this unless you don't think socialism will be more efficient than capitalism.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:40

At the risk of sounding like a primitivist, I have to say that a pretty conservative number would be at around three billion.

My Botany professor assures me that eventually we will hit a rooftop and mass starvation/disease will stabilize our population if we don't do it now.

The maximum number of people depends on the per capita standard of living (resource consumption).

I've suggested a maximum of 1.4 billion given the standard of living (per capita consumption) described in my initial post.

We could support around 20 billion people at the standard of living of say, Mumbai (http://savingearth.co.cc/images/content/others/india/dharavi-industry.jpg).

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 01:40

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that the thread isn't about feeding people, but supporting people at a given standard of living.

You can check the numbers for yourself by following the links in the post.

Knee-jerk, reactionary comments do not constitute a sound argument.

The current definition of happiness is defined by how much you consume? If thats not a bourgeois concept of happiness then my name is Melvin Bullwinkle. I always get a tad errked when I see communists conflate capitalist material abundance with communist material abundance. Under capitalism we throw away most of the 'stuff' we buy, cars are made to break down, electronics become obsolete ever 16 months, clothes go out of fashion, food is wasted on a monumental scale etc. Happiness isnt something that can be measured by consumption. One basic material needs are met happiness is up to the individual, her/his relation to the means of production and the amount of leisure time one has to be ones self with a connection to the community. In America multi millions of people are on anti depressants and we consume the most world wide. The most pharmaceuticals and the most resources.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:41

I don't see the point of this unless you don't think socialism will be more efficient than capitalism.

Socialism will be more efficient, but this doesn't mean that it makes infinite growth in a finite world possible.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:43

The current definition of happiness is defined by how much you consume? If thats not a bourgeois concept of happiness then my name is Melvin Bullwinkle. I always get a tad errked when I see communists conflate capitalist material abundance with communist material abundance. Under capitalism we throw away most of the 'stuff' we buy, cars are made to break down, electronics become obsolete ever 16 months, clothes go out of fashion, food is wasted on a monumental scale etc. Happiness isnt something that can be measured by consumption. One basic material needs are met happiness is up to the individual, her/his relation to the means of production and the amount of leisure time one has to be ones self with a connection to the community. In America multi millions of people are on anti depressants and we consume the most world wide. The most pharmaceuticals and the most resources.

No, I never argued that happiness is defined by consumption, but consumption is definitely a part of being happy. If you didn't have enough food, you wouldn't be very happy, would you? So, if we know that at a minimum a person needs to consume such and such (food, water, shelter, clothing, etc) in order to be healthy (a prerequisite for happiness), we can start to determine a minimum amount that a person needs to consume in order to achieve happiness. If you read my post you'll see that what I've suggested as the required minimum is much less than what Americans currently consume. If you read the part I wrote on happiness research you'll see that I agree that increasing consumption does not increase happiness (beyond a certain point)- check the graph I linked to which shows that happiness peaked in the late 1950s in America, when per-capita income was less than a 1/3rd of what it is now (adjusted for inflation).

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 01:44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Tablo

19th January 2011, 01:49

20 billion is the number we heard in my environmental science class, and that is only if everyone goes vegan. We certainly cannot maintain our current consumption and will have a somewhat lower standard of living in the west. I honestly have no real clue as there is a lot more to the sustainable population limit than food.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:51

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 01:53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

What is your point, exactly? Why don't you respond to what I've written? Or are you too precious to be bothered to read it? I hardly see how this pointless straw man is constructive in any way.

Tablo

19th January 2011, 01:53

20 billion could be supported at the current prosperity level of Mexico.

Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
Cool. This makes me feel good. I really want to be optimistic about our future. :)

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 01:57

"moral restraint (no pro creation unless you're rich) on a wide scale is the best means—indeed, the only means—of easing the poverty of the lower classes."

-Thomas Malthus-(Walks up to Child Licensing window)

"Hello, I'm here to fill out an application to pro create....what? I don't meet the criteria to have a child? Oh well, I guess it's for the good of mankind- natural selection and all. Wait a minute...is this natural?"

Eugenics are not a good thing.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:00

Cool. This makes me feel good. I really want to be optimistic about our future. :)

Mexico's per-capita income is around 1/6th of the United States'. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live at that standard of living. I've defined a "good life" as having access to basic necessities guaranteed, which means a standard of living higher than Mexico's but lower than the current US average.

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 02:01

Mexico's per-capita income is around 1/6th of the United States'. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live at that standard of living. I've defined a "good life" as having access to basic necessities guaranteed, which means a standard of living higher than Mexico's but lower than the current US average.

I think you might be ignoring the amount of wasted resources within the profit driven economy.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:02

(Walks up to Child Licensing window)

"Hello, I'm here to fill out an application to pro create....what? I don't meet the criteria to have a child? Oh well, I guess it's for the good of mankind- natural selection and all. Wait a minute...is this natural?"

Eugenics are not a good thing.

Where do I advocate Eugenics at all? I'm beginning to think you didn't read a single word of what I wrote.

Straw-men arguments like the one you are making are a waste of everyone's time.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:03

I think you might be ignoring the amount of wasted resources within the profit driven economy.

I think you're ignoring everything I wrote in my initial posting: if you read it you'll see I've subtracted everything but what would be required as a bare minimum to ensure an adequate standard of living for everyone.

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 02:06

I think you're ignoring everything I wrote in my initial posting: if you read it you'll see I've subtracted everything but what would be required as a bare minimum to ensure an adequate standard of living for everyone.

You're absolutely correct and I apologize. This is what you call humility.

EDIT- I take my apology back if you are indeed talking about population reduction.

MagÃ³n

19th January 2011, 02:06

Mexico's per-capita income is around 1/6th of the United States'. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live at that standard of living. I've defined a "good life" as having access to basic necessities guaranteed, which means a standard of living higher than Mexico's but lower than the current US average.

I never minded Mexico's living standard. :)

As for how many people the earth can support? I guestimate that around 10 Billion should do, or maybe just drop a few neutron bombs around to clear out the pests?

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:09

I never minded Mexico's living standard. :)

As for how many people the earth can support? I guestimate that around 10 Billion should do, or maybe just drop a few neutron bombs around to clear out the pests?

Were you living at the average standard of living of Mexico, or a higher one? Having access to enough food, water, shelter, medicine, education, etc is essential to have a good life.

You can calculate how many people can be supported at a given standard of living by following the link I posted in my initial post.

Here it is again: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

Frosty Weasel

19th January 2011, 02:11

Eugenics are not a good thing. Who suggested Eugenics? :|

Look, the only alternatives (aside from mass suicide, Eugenics, or building magical floating continents) are either everyone starts having children at a rate that will lower Earth's population or the population will get so large that billions will die of starvation and lack of water access.

Hmm, what seems more humanitarian and fair? People having at max two children or billions dying because some people want to have 12 kids?

MagÃ³n

19th January 2011, 02:13

Were you living at the average standard of living of Mexico, or a higher one?

Average I guess, depending on what you consider average mexican living standards?

EDIT: Food, water, shelter, and medicine isn't hard to find in Mexican cities like Mexico City, Tijuana, etc. Education varied since I didn't always have a Mexican education. (I've lived in other countries and gone to school there too, which I guess depending on how you looked at it, could amount to a good or bad form of education.)

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:15

Average I guess, depending on what you consider average mexican living standards?

I added this but it must have been after you responded:

you can check how many people can be supported at a given standard of living:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

MagÃ³n

19th January 2011, 02:21

I added this but it must have been after you responded:

you can check how many people can be supported at a given standard of living:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

Yeah, I edited it a bit for you, after I caught the edit.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:22

Average I guess, depending on what you consider average mexican living standards?

EDIT: Food, water, shelter, and medicine isn't hard to find in Mexican cities like Mexico City, Tijuana, etc. Education varied since I didn't always have a Mexican education. (I've lived in other countries and gone to school there too, which I guess depending on how you looked at it, could amount to a good or bad form of education.)

The standard of living in the cities is much higher than in the rural areas, so your idea of what is "average" might be a bit skewed. If you include the cities + rural areas, the average will be lower than if you are just looking at cities.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 02:39

Yeah, I edited it a bit for you, after I caught the edit.

According to the World Bank, in 2004, 17.6% of Mexico's population lived in extreme poverty, while 21% lived in moderated poverty.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico#Poverty

pranabjyoti

19th January 2011, 03:30

American Assasin

19th January 2011, 03:43

We could fit the population of the entire earth into the state of texas, and it will have the density of Paris, France.

S.Artesian

19th January 2011, 03:45

S.Artesian

19th January 2011, 03:47

Who suggested Eugenics? :|

Look, the only alternatives (aside from mass suicide, Eugenics, or building magical floating continents) are either everyone starts having children at a rate that will lower Earth's population or the population will get so large that billions will die of starvation and lack of water access.

Hmm, what seems more humanitarian and fair? People having at max two children or billions dying because some people want to have 12 kids?

What Malthusian claptrap. Heard this back in 1970, same old same old when the population was half what it was now.

Klaatu

19th January 2011, 04:20

Good article in this month's National Geographic on world population

Special Series: 7 Billion
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 06:50

What Malthusian claptrap. Heard this back in 1970, same old same old when the population was half what it was now.

Do you have anything to offer besides this straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)and your name calling?

What makes you think that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible?

If it isn't possible, than you concede that there is a limit to the number of people that the planet can support. The rest of my argument follows from this basic premise.

Please, explain how ecological footprint analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint)constitutes a "pseudoscience."

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 07:07

It's totally dependent on the level of technological development. With possibilities of hydroponic, aeroponic agriculture, the number can be greater than what can be sustained with present level of agriculture today.
Those the who ask this type of question, basically have a tendency to consider the present level of technology to be ultimate and nor further development is possible.

The technologies you just cited require more resources than conventional agriculture - fossil fuels for plastics, massive amounts of energy for lighting systems, etc. Yes, plastic can be made from bio-fuels, but bio-fuels have a negative or barely positive EROEI - so I don't see how that could work.

In fact my analysis assumes a huge paradigm shift in lifestyles, part of which would be improved technology (e.g. recycling).

I'm assuming that such miracle technologies like nuclear fusion will remain a fantasy (at least for a very long time). It is the modern day equivalent of the alchemist trying to turn lead into gold.

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 07:23

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 07:43

What do astronauts drink in space? There's no weight-room on shuttles to ship large amounts of water. They drink their own urine. Take from that what you will. As far as ecological footprint analysis it's not pseudo science they're simply looking at consumption through the capitalist lens.

Please explain how you think "they're simply looking at consumption through the capitalist lens." What does this mean exactly?

As I already said America throws away enough food each year to feed most of the third world.Ecological footprint looks at the total amount of productive land available worldwide. So I'm failing to understand the relevance of this particular point.

I think you should check out more of the goals of socialism rather than technocracy? I think you have gross misconceptions about my position. I would humbly ask to correct your mistaken views so that we can proceed with a rational and mutually beneficial discussion.

I do not advocate anything other than socialism. The "technocracy" I refer to is science applied to the social order. It is something that is vital to the success of socialism; the missing ingredient in previous incarnations.

Our whole idea of happiness would change. You think in an advanced communist society people would be consuming as much bullshit as the average American now does? I read 'The Ecology Of Freedom' and 'Marxism And Ecology' a couple years back, you may benefit from the same.Now it's obvious that you haven't been reading closely, because I agree with this. I wrote that the amount of resources we would need to consume to give everyone a "good life" would be much less than the American average. The first part of my post was determining what level of consumption would be required to give everyone a "good life."

Ecological footprint looks at the amount of productive land available worldwide, and the amount of productive land required to support a given lifestyle. You can play with the numbers yourself here:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 07:45

Please explain how you think "they're simply looking at consumption through the capitalist lens." What does this mean exactly?

Ecological footprint looks at the total amount of productive land available worldwide. So I'm failing to understand the relevance of this particular point.

I think you have gross misconceptions about my position. I would humbly ask to correct your mistaken views so that we can proceed with a rational and mutually beneficial discussion.

I do not advocate anything other than socialism. The "technocracy" I refer to is science applied to the social order. It is something that is vital to the success of socialism; the missing ingredient in previous incarnations.

Of course, my entire argument is couched in terms of greatly reduced resource consumption - re-read my initial posting again where I discuss happiness.

I'm addressing the population control bunkum.

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 07:49

Also, check out chapter 4, it starts on page 114 or read "The Population Myth" by Bookchin.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZUdO5qzw-rgC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=Bookchin+eugenics&source=bl&ots=XvHaIqid8R&sig=7jn65RAZA1cG1OeEMHyzpK6hjEU&hl=en&ei=zZY2Te_eGYyosQOyguWBAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bookchin%20eugenics&f=false

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 07:59

I'm addressing the population control bunkum.

The reference to Bookchin is a curious move since what I describe bears some resemblance to social ecology (minus the delirious utopian aspects). It's a bit of a red herring and seems evasive, though.

I already said that I don't advocate coercive measures, since they are usually ineffective anyway. The demographic shift can be attained with better access to birth control, education, and improved standards of living. These are all things that the left can get behind.

What would be so horrible about a tax imposed on families that exceed a socially-agreed upon number of children? Oh what a horrible eugenicist I am.

So far you have yet to provide a sound argument. If you think the methodology of ecological footprint is flawed then address that. Wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th January 2011, 08:02

How many people the Earth can support is a question that depends on a number of important variables. One of the most important is the level of technological development. Such pessimistic projections appear to assume no further advances or developments, which is absurdly ahistorical.

Also, we have a lot more wiggle room than we have been lead to believe. How resources are used is just as important as what resources are available. I highly recommend reading Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068), which details a whole host of useful measures that can be done even within the framework of a capitalist price system. Needless to say, more could be achieved with a fundamental revolution of the socioeconomic system.

-To check this, you can go to http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/ and plug in the numbers yourself.

I would be wary of using such a calculator - what assumptions have gone into it's calculations? We don't know.

-worldwide, there exists ~4.5 acres per person of productive land.

This is a of course a figure that will never change. At all. Ever. Yeah, right.

-Wind power is 25:1 under optimal conditions, but it suffers from intermittency problems and is totally site-dependent.

My understanding is that offshore windfarms are the most reliable. Changing the design from horizontal axis to vertical axis would make them sturdier and more efficient at higher windspeeds, giving more flexibility in site positioning.

-Solar (photovaltaic) is around 10:1, but also suffers intermittency

This can be remedied with appropriate site placement and sufficient scale to make long-distance electrical transmission worthwhile. For example, Southern Europe and North Africa could have their energy needs met by sufficient coverage of the Sahara with high-temperature solar thermal plant.

-Nuclear power is not a sustainable solution because the nuclear fuel is finite. A feasible breeder reactor has yet to be built or designed. Those breeder reactors which have been built have all been dismantled for cost or safety problems. The engineers of the 1950s who were betting on this technology as the silver bullet to solve our energy problems would probably be horrified at the utter failure of this technology.

Breeder technology is not necessary in order to make nuclear fission a long-term proposition. Most countries with civil nuclear facilities, with the absurd exception of the US, reprocess their waste. Furthermore, the failure of breeders is political, not technological or economic. With anything else, accidents would precipitate a demand for better regulations, rather than the FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) promulgated by anti-nuclear organisations that influences politicians, who can only see as far as the next election cycle.

But because we're constantly told that radiation is bad, without an appropriate context to consider the actual risk levels, appealing to the radiation boogeyman is a surefire way of garnering support and appearing progressive, as well as peace-loving, because hey, nukes = bombs right? Meanwhile the fossil fuel companies look on in amusement, perhaps egging things on and greasing suitable palms at the same time.

-Nuclear fusion is a fantasy that will never be realized. The quest for fusion energy is the modern-day equivalent of the alchemist turning lead into gold. We have been pouring billions into fusion reserach since the 1950s, and every year the scientists tell us that fusion energy "is still 50 years away." 50 years from now, fusion will still be "50 years away."

While it is true that we initially underestimated how difficult fusion would be, I think it's too early to pronounce it forever out of reach. I've heard the problem of containing the fusion plasma compared to suspending a block of gelatin with a web of rubber bands - technically difficult, but far from physically impossible.

Amphictyonis

19th January 2011, 08:08

I already said that I don't advocate coercive measures, since they are usually ineffective anyway. The demographic shift can be attained with better access to birth control, education, and improved standards of living. These are all things that the left can get behind.

What would be so horrible about a tax imposed on families that exceed a socially-agreed upon number of children? Oh what a horrible eugenicist I am.

So far you have yet to provide a sound argument. If you think the methodology of ecological footprint is flawed than address that. Wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Tax in an advanced communist society implies a state and monetary system- coercion is necessary to collect it. As a feminist I don't want anyone telling women what we can or can't do with our reproductive organs. Sorry. And I already said our idea of consumption would change under communism. No commercials, no capitalist looking for maximized profits, no push to consume more and more to make the economy healthy. You're conflating a capitalist version of abundance with that of communism.

pranabjyoti

19th January 2011, 14:13

The technologies you just cited require more resources than conventional agriculture - fossil fuels for plastics, massive amounts of energy for lighting systems, etc. Yes, plastic can be made from bio-fuels, but bio-fuels have a negative or barely positive EROEI - so I don't see how that could work.

In fact my analysis assumes a huge paradigm shift in lifestyles, part of which would be improved technology (e.g. recycling).

I'm assuming that such miracle technologies like nuclear fusion will remain a fantasy (at least for a very long time). It is the modern day equivalent of the alchemist trying to turn lead into gold.
I want to know about the comparative cost analysis of conventional agriculture vs the above mentioned technologies. Also you have just guessed that the electricity used to light up is made in conventional way. But, what if they will be produced by solar cell or other non-polluting method. High-efficiency solar cells attached to multi-storied aeroponic/hydroponic facilities can produce much more with much less time and labor. You also haven't mentioned that whether the "resources" are one-time investment or cost of continuation. Also, what about using recycled plastics for this purpose?
Above all, you just forgot that those technologies are at their infancy and is still developing. In my opinion, instead of mentioning the deficiencies of newborn technologies, we should try to improve them to get over the deficiencies.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 17:46

How many people the Earth can support is a question that depends on a number of important variables. One of the most important is the level of technological development. Such pessimistic projections appear to assume no further advances or developments, which is absurdly ahistorical.

Actually, as I've already mentioned, the analysis I've done assumes the adoption of new technology (like better recycling, alternative energy, passenger rail, improved electrical grids, better-designed homes, etc).

One must realize though that it is impossible to make a plan with a technology that has yet to be invented.

The bottom line is that the world is finite so infinite growth is impossible. I think it is the height of foolishness to continue growing with the assumption that there will always be some new technology to allow growth to continue. What if the needed technologies fail to materialize? Then you have massive famine and war (possible nuclear) on your hands. Wouldn't it be wiser to take steps now to curb our population, while still researching technologies that might reduce resource use?

Also, we have a lot more wiggle room than we have been lead to believe. How resources are used is just as important as what resources are available. I highly recommend reading Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068), which details a whole host of useful measures that can be done even within the framework of a capitalist price system. Needless to say, more could be achieved with a fundamental revolution of the socioeconomic system.Well, I think I have taken that into account, in my analysis of happiness as it relates to resource consumption. I would also be wary of any book that promises that capitalism can be saved by improving efficiency. Jevon's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)explains why this isn't so.

Most of these "miracle technologies" merely substitute one rare resource for another. LCD monitors use much less energy than CRT TVs, but require rare-earth minerals. Hydrogen fuel cells would allow us to use hydrogen, theoretically infinite in supply, but the fuel cells require platinum. There are many more examples which demonstrate that technology is not a substitute for resources.

I would be wary of using such a calculator - what assumptions have gone into it's calculations? We don't know.We do know. The methodology and assumptions are described on the webpages I linked to.

This is a of course a figure that will never change. At all. Ever. Yeah, right.You're right - the figure is actually constantly getting smaller! The loss of biodiversity means a reduction in the amount of productive land per person. The increase in population also means a reduction in the amount of productive land per person. Resources don't just materialize out of thin air.

My understanding is that offshore windfarms are the most reliable. Changing the design from horizontal axis to vertical axis would make them sturdier and more efficient at higher windspeeds, giving more flexibility in site positioning.Yes, off-shore wind would be useful, but it has the same or lower EROEI as conventional wind turbines - it's more expensive to build and maintain a turbine in the ocean than one on land.

This can be remedied with appropriate site placement and sufficient scale to make long-distance electrical transmission worthwhile. For example, Southern Europe and North Africa could have their energy needs met by sufficient coverage of the Sahara with high-temperature solar thermal plant.Yes, that's something I suggested in my initial post when I talked about the need for a connected "smart grid."

Breeder technology is not necessary in order to make nuclear fission a long-term proposition. This is curious. Nuclear fuel is finite and it has been suggested by experts that if nuclear were scaled up to replace all of our fossil fuel use, we would have less than 50 years of nuclear fuel remaining. Plus, if we were to replace our fossil fuel consumption with nuclear power, we would literally need thousands of new reactors. Remember that there are those out there who would gladly strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up. If the security nightmare hasn't given you pause, I don't think you've thought through it carefully enough.

While it is true that we initially underestimated how difficult fusion would be, I think it's too early to pronounce it forever out of reach. I've heard the problem of containing the fusion plasma compared to suspending a block of gelatin with a web of rubber bands - technically difficult, but far from physically impossible.The point is that it is assumed that fusion will exist one day. I'm not ruling out that it may exist one day, but I'm also saying that it may not exist one day. So if it may not exist, it is extremely foolish to continue growing with the assumption that it will exist. Indeed, such an assumption would fall into the category of "wishful thinking."

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 17:51

Tax in an advanced communist society implies a state and monetary system- coercion is necessary to collect it. As a feminist I don't want anyone telling women what we can or can't do with our reproductive organs. Sorry. And I already said our idea of consumption would change under communism. No commercials, no capitalist looking for maximized profits, no push to consume more and more to make the economy healthy. You're conflating a capitalist version of abundance with that of communism.

I am most certainly not "conflating a capitalist version of abundance with that of communism."

Go back and re-read my initial post and this will be obvious. I have suggested that people could be much happier and consume fewer resources at the same time, precisely because of what you just said, that our idea of consumption would change under communism. There's no disagreement there. Please stop with the straw men! It's getting annoying and is not productive.

So, how else do you suggest that people limit their numbers? Or do you suggest that infinite growth is possible on a finite world?

I suggest the demographic transition would naturally result in lower birthrates and a stable population. This can be achieved by improving access to education, birth control, and reducing poverty. Transferable birth licenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_credit)would be a stop-gap measure only.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 17:55

I want to know about the comparative cost analysis of conventional agriculture vs the above mentioned technologies. Also you have just guessed that the electricity used to light up is made in conventional way. But, what if they will be produced by solar cell or other non-polluting method. High-efficiency solar cells attached to multi-storied aeroponic/hydroponic facilities can produce much more with much less time and labor. You also haven't mentioned that whether the "resources" are one-time investment or cost of continuation. Also, what about using recycled plastics for this purpose?
Above all, you just forgot that those technologies are at their infancy and is still developing. In my opinion, instead of mentioning the deficiencies of newborn technologies, we should try to improve them to get over the deficiencies.

No, I did not assume that "electricity used to light up is made in a conventional way." It doesn't matter where the energy comes from - the net energy involved in the technology you are describing is higher than conventional agriculture.

So, even if we transition to a 100% renewable energy supply, we would require more energy for hydroponics etc than conventional agriculture.

If more energy is required, than more land is required. If more land is required, than fewer people can be supported. It's that simple.

I am pro-technological development, but we need to manage our expectations and be realistic. There is a disease of magical thinking on these forums.

Traditionally, critics of pro-growth economics have come from the left. It is the capitalist economists who dismiss all "limits to growth" with a few hand-waving remarks about alternative energy - much as some of the members of this forum have done.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf
http://www.jayhanson.us/_Economics/Trainer_DeGrowth_14_11_10.pdf

Nothing Human Is Alien

19th January 2011, 18:14

My Botany professor assures me that eventually we will hit a rooftop and mass starvation/disease will stabilize our population if we don't do it now.

Tertullian made that argument in the year 200. Malthus made it in the 1800s. Neither were correct.

Resources are fluid.

Examples: Many years ago, iron was used to basic tools by humans who couldn't fathom that the same material would one day be used to build skyscrapers and bridges that span huge distances. Coal was once used for jewelery by people who never thought it would later power the industrial revolution, and once the industrial revolution came it was used to produce steam power by people who had no idea that power would one day come from uranium. That's because uranium was used to color glass, not as an energy source.

Get it?

The human species is truly brilliant. We continue to find ways to move forward with the things available, and create them where they don't exist.

The problem is not and has never been that there are “too many people,” or “not enough resources.” The problem is social: the capitalist minority controls the tools and technology used to produce the things we want and need.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 18:33

Tertullian made that argument in the year 200. Malthus made it in the 1800s. Neither were correct.

Please explain how you think this is relevant at all? I'm not referring to either of these, nor does my argument have anything to do with them. This is just more intellectually lazy, reductivist, straw man bullshit.

Examples: Many years ago, iron was used to basic tools by humans who couldn't fathom that the same material would one day be used to build skyscrapers and bridges that span huge distances. Coal was once used for jewelery by people who never thought it would later power the industrial revolution, and once the industrial revolution came it was used to produce steam power by people who had no idea that power would one day come from uranium. That's because uranium was used to color glass, not as an energy source. Again, how is this relevant? Yes, human innovation is truly remarkable. This still doesn't make infinite growth on a finite world possible! Technology is not a substitute for resources. To believe in infinite growth is to engage in magical thinking. Please explain how any possible social arrangement makes infinite growth possible.

And you're just simply wrong that every famine in history was caused by capitalism.

It amazes me how many people make statements like these that lack even a shred of support. Go and do some research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#Historical_famine.2C_by_region

I fully expect that no one will read any of the evidence I've linked to or offer anything by way of a well-reasoned and relevant rebuttal to any of my points. You're all a bunch of intellectually lazy dumbfucks. I could give a shit what you think, and I piss on you. Good day.

I'm through arguing with armchair pseudo-intellectuals. If you do not have support for your argument, you will be ignored and/or insulted. I've wasted enough of my time on trying to enlighten you idiots already.

I have tried to be patient, but after the third or fourth straw man or irrelevant fallacious argument I start to get annoyed.

If anyone is interested in genuine intellectual debate, much of the material for my thesis can be found here: http://dematerialism.net/

Tavarisch_Mike

19th January 2011, 18:58

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 19:04

If we are talking about the standard of a average urban-middleclass family in any first world country, we wont have any chance. However im optimistic, in the same way im beliving in socialism im belivivng that humanity will come up with solutions before some sort of apocalyptic break down, most likely they will be conected.

I recommed evrybody to watch professor Hans Roslings videos about world health, population and livivngstandard they are very entertaining.

fTznEIZRkLg

I am also an optimist and believe we can solve our problems, but I strongly disagree with those who suggest that technology or alternative social arrangements can make infinite growth possible. We need to take a sober look at what our options really are and manage our expectations regarding what technology can do for us.

Tavarisch_Mike

19th January 2011, 19:41

Rafiq

19th January 2011, 20:12

I imagine under Socialism we would have the problem of UNDER population.

People won't have as much kids under Socialism.

The Vegan Marxist

19th January 2011, 20:21

I imagine under Socialism we would have the problem of UNDER population.

People won't have as much kids under Socialism.

Why exactly would that be a problem? :confused:

S.Artesian

19th January 2011, 20:30

Do you have anything to offer besides this straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)and your name calling?

What makes you think that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible?

If it isn't possible, than you concede that there is a limit to the number of people that the planet can support. The rest of my argument follows from this basic premise.

Please, explain how ecological footprint analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint)constitutes a "pseudoscience."

Actually, no, because this garbage surfaces and is refuted every time the bourgeois economy starts applying the screws, or when oil doubles in price. There's nothing more to add, because the argument isn't if there is some abstract limit to population that might be reached sometime in the future. The issue is that at the end of the day, no matter how you try to disguise it, your real argument is that right now, right here there are way to many people, regardless of how much we can increase productivity of our fossil fuel use; no matter how much we can improve food output; no matter how rationally we manage water and all other resources; no matter how much we do anything.

So in 1970, as the bourgeoisie finished their post-WW2 expansion and ran up against the limits of profit, and from the inside, we got Zero Population Growth, and then small is beautiful, and we're running out of oil, and then austerity austerity austerity and more austerity.

So no, I have no desire or willingness to engage in a "rational discussion" with those who establish the irrationality of the terms of the discussion at the getgo-- no more than I want to engage in rational discussion with Shockley and others about the "biological" "race trait" of intelligence-- hey that was another bell curve, wasn't it?--, or with eugenicists, or with anyone and everybody else who thinks progress, or survival, means "culling the herd" whether such culling is indiscriminate, race specific, class specific, or species specific.

In fact I would no more engage in a discussion of "peak everything" with a "technocrat" than I would engage in a discussion of the class struggle in France 1789-1799 with someone who thought he was Napoleon.

Tavarisch_Mike

19th January 2011, 20:40

Why exactly would that be a problem? :confused:

I think Chapayev is refering to the trend we can see all over the world of as soon that women gets educated they wont have as much kids and since under socialism evryone will get educated...well you will see ;)

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 20:51

Actually, no, because this garbage surfaces and is refuted every time the bourgeois economy starts applying the screws, or when oil doubles in price. There's nothing more to add, because the argument isn't if there is some abstract limit to population that might be reached sometime in the future. The issue is that at the end of the day, no matter how you try to disguise it, your real argument is that right now, right here there are way to many people, regardless of how much we can increase productivity of our fossil fuel use; no matter how much we can improve food output; no matter how rationally we manage water and all other resources; no matter how much we do anything.

So in 1970, as the bourgeoisie finished their post-WW2 expansion and ran up against the limits of profit, and from the inside, we got Zero Population Growth, and then small is beautiful, and we're running out of oil, and then austerity austerity austerity and more austerity.

So no, I have no desire or willingness to engage in a "rational discussion" with those who establish the irrationality of the terms of the discussion at the getgo-- no more than I want to engage in rational discussion with Shockley and others about the "biological" "race trait" of intelligence-- hey that was another bell curve, wasn't it?--, or with eugenicists, or with anyone and everybody else who thinks progress, or survival, means "culling the herd" whether such culling is indiscriminate, race specific, class specific, or species specific.

In fact I would no more engage in a discussion of "peak everything" with a "technocrat" than I would engage in a discussion of the class struggle in France 1789-1799 with someone who thought he was Napoleon.

At the end of it all your argument amounts to nothing more than evasive straw man bullshit.

My argument is actually "even if we drastically improve the efficiency of everything we do, as you suggest, we are still overpopulated." The argument is laid out, point by point, in my first post, which you have never bothered to address.

If you think the methodology in ecological footprint is flawed, then address that! My entire argument is based on this concept.

But we all know you can't be bothered to actually read anything.

You are brain-damaged if you think that infinite growth is possible under any circumstances. You most likely picked this idea up from the prevailing bourgeois capitalist culture which encourages consumption at all costs. If infinite growth is not possible, then you concede that there is a limit to the number of humans that can be supported with a given set of technology.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 20:56

As Amphyctionis said if the hunt for profit wasnt the main goal in production we would probably release a lot of resources frome being simpel waist. The reason for why this is never presented in the mainstream debates is...well i think we all here knows why, questioning capitalism? No no :rolleyes:

But lets look for options. First we are right now producing enough food to feed around 12 billion people, meaning that we wont need to increase production of food, if we just share it right, and therefor save some fuel. Same for transportations, when i was in highschool it becamed known that the pancackes we got for lunch evry thursday where frome Scotland, thats just pretty fucked up, the main food in evry community should not be transported further then say 140 miles? Today fried frozen cod in swedish supermarkets are catched in Norway choped and cleaned there and then its shipped to China to be packed and then exported back to scandinavia. Its not hard to see how we could save some resources there, and speaking of fish it could be a far more sustainable source for protein if we just didnt fish with trawlings that tends to 1. catch far mor other species then wats after and most of them then dies for nothing. 2. It destroys the natural habbit of the sea botton and therefor makes it harder for fishes to bread.

Most metals are today recycled, when it comes to steel its over 90% the same should be done for plastic, since its made frome a endable resource (oil). Going into a toy store today i see such a hughe amount of crap, most of thees toys will just be used for some few years (if even that) to later on not just be throwned away, but also becommed forgotten. Thinking of my own childhood the happiest times i had playing where with other kids in the woods or when we used our imagination. Point is that most toy (and a hell of other random things) are clearly unnecessary, overall i think that we will need to lower our possible consumption in the future, not to some stone-age level but to lets say the US in the late 50s.

Obseve that i havnt menthioned alternative energy-sources since thats a to big subject for the momment (in this particular post) im just giving some examples of 'savings' in the current system.

Did you read my initial post?

The implied argument you are making is that "we currently waste a lot of resources due to capitalism. We could produce more with less resources."

You then accuse me of failing to take the above into account, which is plainly not the case if you would just read the fucking argument.

overall i think that we will need to lower our possible consumption in the future, not to some stone-age level but to lets say the US in the late 50s.That is exactly what I suggested in my initial post.

The "standard of living" I was using was a late 50s American standard of living. There were many more people who didn't own cars, had smaller homes, consumed less consumer goods, etc., and were happier overall.

If you go back and read my first post, the reason I chose a late 50s standard of living was because this was when "peak happiness" was achieved in America. So, any increase in per-capita consumption is wasted if the goal is to maximize happiness (or maximize people's ability to attain happiness, however you want to put it).

Rss

19th January 2011, 20:59

Sooner or later, grabbing another planet will be topical. I wouldn't leave that out of calculations.

S.Artesian

19th January 2011, 21:45

At the end of it all your argument amounts to nothing more than evasive straw man bullshit.

My argument is actually "
even if we drastically improve the efficiency of everything we do, as you suggest, we are still overpopulated." The argument is laid out, point by point, in my first post, which you have never bothered to address.

If you think the methodology in ecological footprint is flawed, then address that! My entire argument is based on this concept.

But we all know you can't be bothered to actually read anything.

You are brain-damaged if you think that infinite growth is possible under any circumstances. You most likely picked this idea up from the prevailing bourgeois capitalist culture which encourages consumption at all costs. If infinite growth is not possible, then you concede that there is a limit to the number of humans that can be supported with a given set of technology.

See, you can't even insult somebody without referring to biological damage, or physical distinction.

I never said the issue was infinite growth. I said that's your strawman. What we do know is that as society develops, expands, uses more energy, produces more, rates of population growth decline-- first because children are no longer required as a source of supplementary labor. Secondly, because women are no longer tied to kinder, kirche, kuche.

You want population growth to slow? Resources to be managed effectively? Biomass to be replaced as the fuel source? Economic development will be essential.

All your posing about carrying capacity of the earth comes down to, as I said at the getgo, neo-Malthusian horseshit-- too many people, right here, right now. And you, identifying yourself as a technocrat, regard yourself as an indispensable member of that overly-reproductive species, when all I'll agree to is that there might be one too many on the plant, and that one is you.

You are, at heart, as Hubbert was, a conservative elitist. And an idiot. Neither one of those things has anything to do with your biological makeup, accident of birth. You're a self-made excess.

Rafiq

19th January 2011, 22:19

Why exactly would that be a problem? :confused:

Because, Social conditions will change, as will morals.

Women won't feel obliged to have children, and won't be pressured into getting married and having a family.

Bourgeois family will cease to exist.

Marriage probably will not occur as often as it does now.

So, I think that settles the "population problem".

Rafiq

19th January 2011, 22:21

I think Chapayev is refering to the trend we can see all over the world of as soon that women gets educated they wont have as much kids and since under socialism evryone will get educated...well you will see ;)

Exactly.

Also, the reason so many third world nations have children.. Is economic.

For example, Arab parents, and some Hispanic parents, usually have a ton of children to help out buisness, work, or count on at least one to be successful.

My dad had 9 brothers and sisters.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 23:58

Sooner or later, grabbing another planet will be topical. I wouldn't leave that out of calculations.

Here are the long line of assumptions that you'd pin the future of the human race on:

1) we will find an earthlike planet
2) we will find this planet within say 50 light years of earth
3) there won't already be microbial life there that we have no evolved immunity to
4) we will be able to construct a spaceship capable of reaching this planet within the lifetimes of those onboard

You're assuming too much. Might we accomplish all the above? Yes. Is it a given? No. Therefore, if it is not a given, we should not pin the future of the human race on it.

Technocrat

19th January 2011, 23:59

Exactly.

Also, the reason so many third world nations have children.. Is economic.

For example, Arab parents, and some Hispanic parents, usually have a ton of children to help out buisness, work, or count on at least one to be successful.

My dad had 9 brothers and sisters.

Yes, this is called the "demographic shift," I've referred to it multiple times in this thread.

In an industrialized society, children are a resource burden. Think of all the things you have to buy a child in an industrialized society. Now think of all the things they require in an agricultural society - it's a lot less. So much less, that the value of the children as farm workers or other laborers outweighs what they consume in resources. In other words, children in an agricultural society are an economic benefit. In an industrialized society, children are an economic burden, often until age 25 when they start a career. This alone provides a strong disincentive to have children.

Amphictyonis

20th January 2011, 00:05

Because, Social conditions will change, as will morals.

Women won't feel obliged to have children, and won't be pressured into getting married and having a family.

Bourgeois family will cease to exist.

Marriage probably will not occur as often as it does now.

So, I think that settles the "population problem".

With equal access to the means of production patriarchy will be a thing of the past. Women wont be baby making machines as in some Mormon family where the man is the bread winner and woman the breeder. I would suggest Simon De Beauvoir's book "The Second Sex" for Technocrat to read. Especially this chapter-

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch03.htm

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 00:08

I never said the issue was infinite growth. I said that's your strawman. What we do know is that as society develops, expands, uses more energy, produces more, rates of population growth decline-- first because children are no longer required as a source of supplementary labor. Secondly, because women are no longer tied to kinder, kirche, kuche.

Okay, but I never disagreed with that - that's the "demographic shift" I've mentioned several times already.

You want population growth to slow? Resources to be managed effectively? Biomass to be replaced as the fuel source? Economic development will be essential. Economic development does not equal greater consumption of finite resources. The living standards of the third world need to be improved, but American, European and some Asian (Japan's) livings standards are way beyond what is required to ensure a "good life."

All your posing about carrying capacity of the earth comes down to, as I said at the getgo, neo-Malthusian horseshit-- too many people, right here, right now. And you, identifying yourself as a technocrat, regard yourself as an indispensable member of that overly-reproductive species, when all I'll agree to is that there might be one too many on the plant, and that one is you.I'm using the word "technocrat" as an alias, you prejudiced fuck. You are judging me and an argument for a name I've chosen. Way to go.

Yes, I am saying that there are too many people, right here, right now. I've provided evidence for it.

Do you have any fucking clue what evidence is? If you don't address the evidence, your argument amounts to a straw man. Fact. You are not addressing the evidence, i.e. you are not addressing the argument I am making.

If you disagree with ecological footprint analysis, that's fine. It makes you an ideological, close-minded and ultimately reactionary conservative fuck. All liberals understand that experiential truths are subject to revision in light of further experience. Conservatives blindly adhere to their dogma (it's malthusian!) Try and learn something. If you truly want to refute my argument, that would require nothing less than for you to examine the supporting evidence for the claims I've made and try to find some specific reason why the evidence is not sufficient for the claim being made. My assertion is that the world is overpopulated if we want to provide everyone with a specific standard of living which I've outlined in my first post. My support is ecological footprint and the other links I've provided. If you disagree with my argument, you have to address the evidence! This isn't something you've done, I suspect because you are too much of a self-important dipshit to be bothered to read anything that might disagree with your pre-established worldviews. Which as I've said, is a purely conservative and reactionary stance.

You are, at heart, as Hubbert was, a conservative elitist. And an idiot. Neither one of those things has anything to do with your biological makeup, accident of birth. You're a self-made excess.Please explain how Hubbert was a conservative. That's pretty rich since he advocated nothing less than the wholesale nationalization of all industry for the benefit of everyone and the dismantling of capitalism - sounds pretty socialist to me!

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 00:15

With equal access to the means of production patriarchy will be a thing of the past. Women wont be baby making machines as in some Mormon family where the man is the bread winner and woman the breeder. I would suggest Simon De Beauvoir's book "The Second Sex" for Technocrat to read. Especially this chapter-

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch03.htm

I'm just going to say "demographic shift" again, and leave it at that, since I've already described it like five fucking times in this thread.

Rafiq

20th January 2011, 00:22

With equal access to the means of production patriarchy will be a thing of the past. Women wont be baby making machines as in some Mormon family where the man is the bread winner and woman the breeder. I would suggest Simon De Beauvoir's book "The Second Sex" for Technocrat to read. Especially this chapter-

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch03.htm

I'll read it, and yes, culturally, I doubt 'gender' will even exist, I mean, of course it will exist scientifically, but culturally, we will be sexless.

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 00:22

My argument depends on the following assumptions:

1) ecological footprint is an accurate measurement of humanity's demand on earth's ecosystems

...that's it, really.

Remember, my argument is that we can support fewer than 1.5 billion people if every person adopted a late 1950s American standard of living and if we made use of certain technologies like recycling, alternative energy, passenger rail etc. My argument is outlined point by point in the first post.

So if anyone disagrees with my argument, they should address 1), and stop wasting everyone's time with bullshit straw men arguments.

Amphictyonis

20th January 2011, 00:23

I'll read it, and yes, culturally, I doubt 'gender' will even exist, I mean, of course it will exist scientifically, but culturally, we will be sexless.

Hopefully not sexless though ;)

(I know what you meant just making a funny to lighten the mood of the thread)

Amphictyonis

20th January 2011, 00:25

Remember, my argument is that we can support fewer than 1.5 billion people if every person adopted a late 1950s American standard of living

Earth to technocrat! Ground control to Major Tom! 1950's American standard of living was when capitalism was full steam ahead. Consumption habits would be different under communism.

D67kmFzSh_o

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 00:37

Earth to technocrat! Ground control to Major Tom! 1950's American standard of living was when capitalism was full steam ahead. Consumption habits would be different under communism.

D67kmFzSh_o

Per capita income in 1950s America was around 1/3rd of what it is now, adjusted for inflation. Fewer people owned cars and those that did drove them less often. Houses were smaller. People consumed less consumer goods. Despite all this, people were happier.

Standard of living is a term referring to the overall rate of resource consumption (usually measure by things like per capita income and poverty rates). The rate of resource consumption that I've outlined in my argument is approximately equal to 1950s America, but that doesn't mean that those resources would be used in exactly the same way for exactly the same things - In fact I've assumed that these resources would be used for maximum efficiency. Basically, the standard of living could be lower while raising the quality of life. It's all in my first argument, neatly organized into bullet points for your convenience.

Perhaps this would be an easier exercise for you. Just go to this website and see how many people can be supported at a given standard of living:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

Then, if you disagree with the findings, they explain their assumptions and methodology for you! If you want to argue against ecological footprint, then you have to demonstrate why the methodology or assumptions are flawed - which you have not even come close to doing. In fact, you haven't even addressed the issue at all. There is no excuse for this other than laziness or arrogance.

1.6 billion could be supported at the following standard of living:

-meat consumed 3-4 times per week
-less than 25% of food travels more than 200 miles
-dwellings are less than 500 sq. ft. per person (e.g. a family of four would have 2000 sq. ft.)
-no travel by car
-no travel by motorcycle
-50+ miles traveled by public transportation, weekly
-air travel extremely rare
-much less trash generated

How many people could be supported at the present American standard of living? Less than 1 billion.

MagÃ³n

20th January 2011, 00:46

Is that calculator going off on what the current estimated amount of people on the Earth is?

Amphictyonis

20th January 2011, 00:48

Standard of living is a term referring to the overall rate of resource consumption. The rate of resource consumption that I've outlined in my argument is approximately equal to 1950s America,

You're not able to differentiate consumption under communism and consumption under capitalism. I'm 31 and I've had 7 cars because it's been cheaper to buy a new (used) one rather than pay to fix the broken down one. We can build cars that don't break down after 5 years and on top of that public transport can make cars mostly irrelevant. Packaging for food stuffs can be minimized without all of the capitalist fluff added which attracts us to buy it. Fossil fuels can be eliminated as a fuel source (oil companies keep this from happening) .In the 1950's women stayed home mostly (after the end of WW2) and had kids while the husband worked. With equal access to the means of production this wont be the case. Solar power can be utilized but in the not so distant future we'll no doubt have better ways to harness energy. Water can be recycled as it already is. Consider the earth a giant space ship. When astronauts are in space they drink their own urine. Just as in space in a shuttle water on earth doesn't vanish it is simply recycled. Besides all the obvious things I could list the Malthusian theory of endless population growth is bullshit.

This is bullshit

"Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,
That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."

-Thomas Malthus-

Amphictyonis

20th January 2011, 00:52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus#Marxist_views

Marxist views

Another strand of opposition to Malthus's ideas started in the middle of the 19th century with the writings of Friedrich Engels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) (Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, 1844) and Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) (Capital, 1867). Engels and Marx argued that what Malthus saw as the problem of the pressure of population on the means of production actually represented the pressure of the means of production on population. They thus viewed it in terms of their concept of the reserve army of labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour). In other words, the seeming excess of population that Malthus attributed to the seemingly innate disposition of the poor to reproduce beyond their means actually emerged as a product of the very dynamic of capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) economy.
Engels called Malthus's hypothesis "...the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed, a system of despair which struck down all those beautiful phrases about love thy neighbour and world citizenship." [56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus#cite_note-55) Engels also predicted[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] that science would solve the problem of an adequate food supply.
In the Marxist tradition, Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin) sharply criticized Malthusian theory and its neo-Malthusian version,[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus#cite_note-56) calling it a "reactionary doctrine" and "an attempt on the part of bourgeois ideologists to exonerate capitalism and to prove the inevitability of privation and misery for the working class under any social system".

Vanguard1917

20th January 2011, 01:53

Malthusianism: a theory with more holes than a colander, that has never been proven right by reality in all its many years in existence, and on the contrary has over and again been shown to be embarrassingly false, and yet has become the prejudice of choice for today's fashionable middle classes at a time when, despite this bankrupt system, more people are on earth living wealthier lives than ever before in world history.

As a previous poster said, all major human problems facing humanity today are social -- including this "reactionary and cowardly theory" (Lenin) which has its roots in a privileged minority's loathing and fear of progress and the mass of humanity.

Sixiang

20th January 2011, 03:14

I find this thread is extremely entertaining, informative, interesting, and thought-provoking. To be honest, I really don't know how many people the Earth can sustain. I imagine not too much more than we already have. I agree with Chapayev in that I think that the population will decrease immensely with the shift to communism. I don't know by how much, when that will happen, what the population will be like then, or how science and technology will develop by then. I cannot see the future. I can say that there's no way the Earth can provide for everyone forever. The Earth itself is expected to be engulfed by the sun in a few billion years. And I'm sure by then we'll run out of all sorts of things. But who knows? I have no fucking clue. I don't know what's going to happen in the world after I die. It seems apparent to me that we are going to have to move to other planets. I think that in a few billion years we'll either be completely extinct or scattered about the galaxy on different planets, either as conquerers, friends, or slaves. Or maybe we'll never get that far and we'll just keep debating and complaining for the rest of our time as a race and never actually get out to the rest of the universe. Maybe we'll know our end date and go out like in Children of Men, just waiting for the end to come. I think I like this quote for this situation:

The world is a raft sailing through space with, potentially, plenty of provisions for everybody; the idea that we must all cooperate and see to it that everyone does his fair share of the work and gets his fair share of the provisions seems so blatantly obvious that one would say that no one could possibly fail to accept it unless he had some corrupt motive for clinging to the present system.

S.Artesian

20th January 2011, 03:48

From the WSJ 9/21/2004:

BALLYDEHOB, Ireland -- As he sat last month in his book-lined study, Colin Campbell got a phone call that made him shriek with joy.

"Holy Mother!" he yelped after he put down the receiver. "The good ol' moment's arrived!"

The call had brought word that the price of crude oil was shooting up -- a climb that, in the days that followed, would take it to near $50 a barrel. To Dr. Campbell, a 73-year-old retired oil industry geologist who lives in this coastal Irish village, this was sweet vindication. It meant that the "moment" he had been predicting for about 15 years -- the beginning of the end of the age of oil -- might finally be at hand.
Dr. Campbell is at the center of a small but suddenly influential band of contrarians known as the peak-oil movement. They see cause for alarm in the fact that since the early 1980s the world has been pumping more oil out of the ground than it's been finding. By as early as next year, they say, humanity will have reached a point of reckoning: It will have extracted half the oil it will ever get.

Once that "peak" is reached, Dr. Campbell says, global oil production will start falling, never to rise again......

The oil industry calls Dr. Campbell a crackpot. Since he began writing about a looming peak, the industry notes, he has progressively postponed his predicted date, from 1995 to 2005.

This isn't a theory, it's Malthusian regression-- Hubbert was arguing that the world was overpopulated in the 1960s. Before that, back in the Depression, Hubbert was a leader of the technocrat school, literally, in that it was a course of study at Columbia designed and dedicated to the notion that technocrats, scientists, and engineers should "run the world," and if they did so, the Depression would have never happened.

Right.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th January 2011, 10:26

The thought occurs to me that "overpopulation" is something that cannot really happen - people have to be born first, and if there isn't enough food to support those extra people, then they will starve. But that won't lead to war any more than any other poverty-induced malady would. Nobody important cares about the poor under capitalism, and they're the ones who are going to get the shitty end of the stick if there are more mouths than dinner places.

Before that, back in the Depression, Hubbert was a leader of the technocrat school, literally, in that it was a course of study at Columbia designed and dedicated to the notion that technocrats, scientists, and engineers should "run the world," and if they did so, the Depression would have never happened.

What does this statement have to do with the topic at hand? Or are you just attempting to generalise your particular disagreement with Technocrat/Hubbert to the whole technocracy movement in general?

S.Artesian

20th January 2011, 13:52

^^^Yes, and yes. And the fact that Hubbert was quite the elitist. And at core, the peak oil theory is Malthus all over again.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th January 2011, 14:12

^^^Yes, and yes.

"Yes" is a nonsensical answer to the first question. As for your attempt to somehow link technocracy substantially with either Peak Oil or Malthusianism, I don't think it stands up. Individual technocrats may hold to such concepts, but they are not essential aspects of technocracy.

And the fact that Hubbert was quite the elitist.

1) Who cares? Hubbert is dead and modern techocrats are not obligated to wear his death mask.

2) "Elitism" is a meaningless criticism without any qualification. My insistence that whoever performs surgery has to know what the hell they are doing makes me an elitist, but that's justified elitism.

And at core, the peak oil theory is Malthus all over again.

That may be, but it's only relevant if A) those concepts form a central part of technocracy as laid out by Tech Inc, and B) Technocrat himself aligns with the Tech Inc conception of technocracy without reservation with regards to the aforementioned concepts.

Otherwise, it would be like me criticising all Marxist-Leninists on the basis that "Socialism in One Country" is a bad idea.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th January 2011, 14:23

The problem with any kind of Malthusianism is that it seems essentially devoid of any class analysis. If more mouths are being born than there is food, for example, then the ruling classes will prioritise distribution according to the mechanisms available to them and the ruled classes will suffer and die as a consequence. Conflict won't happen on any great scale, least of all nuclear, unless the relevant sections of the ruling classes deem it in their interests to do so.

Given the current world order, it would be a foolish move on the part of the ruling classes to deploy nuclear weapons or significant military material to advance their own interests. America does this and endures a crappy economy to maintain their crumbling hegemony, while China refrains and at the same time enjoys a smoother ride and growing influence. I don't think those facts are entirely unrelated, and most members of the ruling class are not fools.

S.Artesian

20th January 2011, 14:49

"Yes" is a nonsensical answer to the first question. As for your attempt to somehow link technocracy substantially with either Peak Oil or Malthusianism, I don't think it stands up. Individual technocrats may hold to such concepts, but they are not essential aspects of technocracy.

1) Who cares? Hubbert is dead and modern techocrats are not obligated to wear his death mask.

2) "Elitism" is a meaningless criticism without any qualification. My insistence that whoever performs surgery has to know what the hell they are doing makes me an elitist, but that's justified elitism.

Except a techocrat is not performing a specialized craft such as surgery. Technocracy is defined as the rule over society by those "trained" as technocrats--"entitled" to rule over society by their superior knowledge of technology, science, engineering.

That was what the school of technocracy was all about at Columbia University.

My attempt to link peak oil to Malthusianism? Not my attempt-- their explicit allegiance to Malthus. Find me one peak oil theorist who does NOT think there are already too many people.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th January 2011, 14:57

Except a techocrat is not performing a specialized craft such as surgery. Technocracy is defined as the rule over society by those "trained" as technocrats--"entitled" to rule over society by their superior knowledge of technology, science, engineering.

That's the definition found in the dictionary, but we both know that such are overly simplified and coloured by the dominant ideology.

That was what the school of technocracy was all about at Columbia University.

My understanding was that anyone could take the Technocracy Study Course, and certainly there's nothing stopping anyone from reading up on it today. You don't have to be "special" in any way.

My attempt to link peak oil to Malthusianism? Not my attempt-- their explicit allegiance to Malthus. Find me one peak oil theorist who does NOT think there are already too many people.

I meant linking Peak Oil/Malthusianism with technocracy.

pranabjyoti

20th January 2011, 16:44

No, I did not assume that "electricity used to light up is made in a conventional way." It doesn't matter where the energy comes from - the net energy involved in the technology you are describing is higher than conventional agriculture.
The question is whether we add carbon to atmosphere or not. If not carbon will be added to atmosphere, then whether more or less energy will be just irrelevant. In conventional technology, we have some factors, which we consider as "taken for granted". As for example sunlight, as it's free, therefore we just don't consider this as something "spent". If we count the amount of sunlight, then conventional agriculture is much much much ...... energy intensive than those technologies. Plant chlorophyll can normally convert 0.03% of sunlight fall on the leaves into chemical energy. Whereas, by converting sunlight into electricity by using suitable LED lamps with light emitted perfect for photosynthesis, the % can be much higher. Then just say with your common sense, which one is more "energy intensive". The later is actually more efficient process of converting sunlight into chemical energy i.e. food.

So, even if we transition to a 100% renewable energy supply, we would require more energy for hydroponics etc than conventional agriculture.
Already clearly answered. Probably you are mixing more capital with more energy. The later technologies are more complex, therefore more capital intensive, while conventional agriculture is simple and therefore less capital intensive.
I want to inform you, in some areas of southern Spain, these technologies are supplying huge amount of vegetables and fruits to European markets by just using the sunlight available there.

If more energy is required, than more land is required. If more land is required, than fewer people can be supported. It's that simple.
A very dangerous, over-simplistic and TOTALLY WRONG conclusion. I want to know whether you have any idea that those technologies can grow "vertically"?

I am pro-technological development, but we need to manage our expectations and be realistic. There is a disease of magical thinking on these forums.
Well, if you go back just 50 years in time machine and tell people about Internet, then probably they will give you the same reaction.
[QUOTE=Technocrat;1993857]Traditionally, critics of pro-growth economics have come from the left. It is the capitalist economists who dismiss all "limits to growth" with a few hand-waving remarks about alternative energy - much as some of the members of this forum have done.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf
http://www.jayhanson.us/_Economics/Trainer_DeGrowth_14_11_10.pdf
In contrary, "capitalist economists" always talk about "limits of growth" an that means there is enough growth an no further growth is possible i.e. the present capitalist powers are enough and no new capitalist power is necessary. There are also "anti-capitalist" economists who are "left" because they say against capitalism, but to the core they are more reactionary than capitalists.

S.Artesian

20th January 2011, 17:57

That's the definition found in the dictionary, but we both know that such are overly simplified and coloured by the dominant ideology.

We know that the Columbia University school organized its curriculum around the concept that a technocracy was the way to properly manage society-- that technical, scientific, engineering training was a necessary, and sufficient, qualification for governing, kind of like a modern version of the property qualification in the 18th and 19th centuries.

So where Lenin said "Every cook can govern," the technocrat version is "Only engineers, scientists, technicians can rule."

You get to pick your sides here, and in this instance, I with Vlad.

My understanding was that anyone could take the Technocracy Study Course, and certainly there's nothing stopping anyone from reading up on it today. You don't have to be "special" in any way.

Anyone could enter Columbia University and take the Technocracy course? In the 1930s? Really? Any black person could enter Columbia? Any woman? Any poor person? That's like saying anyone born in America could be president.... Uh, actually no.

But even if true, that wouldn't be the point. The point is, returning to your example of the surgeon, that a trained and board qualified surgeon by dint of his/her training and expertise is qualified to perform surgery.

The trained and qualified surgeon is not qualified by that expertise to make determinations of the type of , quality of, and access to medical care for the rest of society.

The trained and qualified surgeon is not just a surgeon, not just a "use-value" so to speak, but also a member of a class, or has specific and particular economic attachments, an "value" so to speak that informs, and determines social decisions regarding medical care access and availability. And, as is the case and always the case in capitalism, that "value"-- those economic interests, will sooner or later negate that use value, i.e. restricting procedures to only those who can afford them; creating procedures of such expense that they benefit the surgeon more than the patient; rejecting and stifling alternate procedures that are not surgical etc etc etc.

I have no problem with surgeons saying only qualified surgeons should perform surgery. I have a big problem if anyone thinks surgeons don't make the decisions on what types of surgery to perform, and on whom, based on the general economic organization of the society.

I meant linking Peak Oil/Malthusianism with technocracy.

OK, find me a peak oil/malthusian theoretician who argues that only the most thorough-going democracy, where "cooks govern" is the way society should be organized, as opposed to a society governed by... well governed by them and their ideology of social entropy.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th January 2011, 18:36

We know that the Columbia University school organized its curriculum around the concept that a technocracy was the way to properly manage society-- that technical, scientific, engineering training was a necessary, and sufficient, qualification for governing, kind of like a modern version of the property qualification in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Except that unlike property in the 18/19th centuries, education in a technate would be available to all.

You get to pick your sides here, and in this instance, I with Vlad.

I reject your false dilemma in favour of a third option.

Anyone could enter Columbia University and take the Technocracy course? In the 1930s? Really? Any black person could enter Columbia? Any woman? Any poor person? That's like saying anyone born in America could be president.... Uh, actually no.

You can hardly blame Technocracy for 1930s social attitudes.

But even if true, that wouldn't be the point. The point is, returning to your example of the surgeon, that a trained and board qualified surgeon by dint of his/her training and expertise is qualified to perform surgery.

The trained and qualified surgeon is not qualified by that expertise to make determinations of the type of , quality of, and access to medical care for the rest of society.

Why should surgery be limited in choice, quality or access in a post-scarcity society where everyone has an equal share of what society produces? A surgeon has nothing to gain but a bad reputation by providing substandard or limited surgery.

The trained and qualified surgeon is not just a surgeon, not just a "use-value" so to speak, but also a member of a class, or has specific and particular economic attachments, an "value" so to speak that informs, and determines social decisions regarding medical care access and availability. And, as is the case and always the case in capitalism, that "value"-- those economic interests, will sooner or later negate that use value, i.e. restricting procedures to only those who can afford them; creating procedures of such expense that they benefit the surgeon more than the patient; rejecting and stifling alternate procedures that are not surgical etc etc etc.

Technocracy isn't capitalism.

I have no problem with surgeons saying only qualified surgeons should perform surgery. I have a big problem if anyone thinks surgeons don't make the decisions on what types of surgery to perform, and on whom, based on the general economic organization of the society.

And if the general economic organisation of society is egalitarian, that makes it more likely that a surgeon's decisions are going to be egalitarian, surely?

OK, find me a peak oil/malthusian theoretician who argues that only the most thorough-going democracy, where "cooks govern" is the way society should be organized, as opposed to a society governed by... well governed by them and their ideology of social entropy.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the politics of peak oil types, although I agree with you that they're likely leave a bad taste in the mouth.

S.Artesian

20th January 2011, 19:03

That's a fine world you're positing, comrade. It is most definitely not the world posited by Hubbert, Deffeyes, Campbell, Ivanhoe, etc etc.

What's not so fine is the view that somehow "technocracy" was somehow immune to, independent of, and not in fact an extension of the capitalist, elitist, discriminatory system that produced Columbia University and the would be technocrats.

Technocracy isn't capitalism? And it most certainly is not socialism. Technocracy says nothing about class struggle; technocracy says nothing about revolution. There's more than a third way between Vlad and Columbia' technocrats; there's a plethora of ways. But the plethora is not socialism, and socialism actually does require that every cook, bus-driver, etc. governs as an essential part of doing away with the restrictions and limitations placed on cooks, bus drivers, writers, nurses.

Now I recognize you are arguing about a post-scarcity society, and that's fine-- although not so fine with the Hubbertists or the likes of Kolze or Kibbutznik or etc etc- but we are not going to get to a post-scarcity society without every cook governing.

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 19:03

The thought occurs to me that "overpopulation" is something that cannot really happen - people have to be born first, and if there isn't enough food to support those extra people, then they will starve. But that won't lead to war any more than any other poverty-induced malady would. Nobody important cares about the poor under capitalism, and they're the ones who are going to get the shitty end of the stick if there are more mouths than dinner places.

True, food is just one of many scarcities that could lead to war. It could just as easily be caused by a shortage of energy, or rare earth minerals, or many other things. That's why ecological footprint analysis is useful - it doesn't just consider food, it considers the total impact of human consumption on the earth's ecosystems.

What does this statement have to do with the topic at hand? Or are you just attempting to generalise your particular disagreement with Technocrat/Hubbert to the whole technocracy movement in general?

Looks like he is trying to prove "guilt by association" - one of many logical fallacies that have been employed thus far.

I think a lot of people here never took an introduction to logic course, or else they would be familiar with this fallacies. They're relatively easy to spot.

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 19:05

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 19:05

OK, find me a peak oil/malthusian theoretician who argues that only the most thorough-going democracy, where "cooks govern" is the way society should be organized, as opposed to a society governed by... well governed by them and their ideology of social entropy.

I've posted links to several.

What good is pointing you toward evidence if you are too precious to be bothered to read it?

In fact, your ideology is outdated. Much of the work being done within the left nowadays has to do with ecological sustainability and the inability of capitalism to address these issues.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf
http://dematerialism.net/
http://peakoil.com/generalideas/ted-trainers-new-paper-de-growth-is-not-enough/

To clarify, in the system of gov't technocracy (I'm using the term in its most general sense) advocates, everyone would have an equal hand in governing, but we don't believe that there would be any blue-collar/white-collar distinctions remaining in a society where everyone had the same access to education and the means of production. Thus it makes little sense to say something like "cooks govern." It makes more sense to say of such a system that "everyone governs."

"Technocracy" as I'm using it would just be an aspect of socialism or communism, the process of applying science to solve social problems (as opposed to using outdated market ideology) Pretty straightforward. It's basically a shorthand term for "centralized scientific planning."

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 19:42

The question is whether we add carbon to atmosphere or not. If not carbon will be added to atmosphere, then whether more or less energy will be just irrelevant. In conventional technology, we have some factors, which we consider as "taken for granted". As for example sunlight, as it's free, therefore we just don't consider this as something "spent". If we count the amount of sunlight, then conventional agriculture is much much much ...... energy intensive than those technologies. Plant chlorophyll can normally convert 0.03% of sunlight fall on the leaves into chemical energy.

This makes little sense. Conventional agriculture uses more free energy than your suggested methods, so while it might be more "energy intensive" if you are counting the free energy that comes from the sun and is immediately utilized by plants without the need for any further extraneous energy to be expended, than yes, it might require more total energy. What matters though is the energy that we have to pay for, i.e. the limited stocks of finite non-renewable energy and the limited flows of renewable energy.

In other words, conventional agriculture is more "energy intensive" if you are including the energy that is free, which makes little sense. Your suggested methods are more "energy intensive" if you are only counting the energy we have to pay for and not free energy.

Already clearly answered. Probably you are mixing more capital with more energy. The later technologies are more complex, therefore more capital intensive, while conventional agriculture is simple and therefore less capital intensive.
I want to inform you, in some areas of southern Spain, these technologies are supplying huge amount of vegetables and fruits to European markets by just using the sunlight available there.Already clearly refuted (see above). Additional complexity requires additional resources.

A very dangerous, over-simplistic and TOTALLY WRONG conclusion. I want to know whether you have any idea that those technologies can grow "vertically"?I'd like to know why you think this is over-simplistic. The methodologies of ecological footprint are available for you to review. The concept of "energy land" might not make sense to you. This is merely the average amount of land required to produce a person's energy supply (I might add that this would increase if renewable technologies were adopted). Someone might respond to this by arguing that the there is a great deal of variability depending on location - it might take one amount of land to produce x amount of energy in one location, while it might take less land to produce x amount of energy in another location. This is very true. However, we are looking at the aggregate of human consumption. Therefore it is appropriate to use the average amount of land.

Maybe an example will clear things up. I might have 10 people, and say that they have, on average, 10 dollars each. This means the total is 100 dollars. Now, one person might have 5 dollars and another person might have 15 dollars - that's a great deal of variability. However, the average is still 10 per person and the total is still 100 dollars.

Well, if you go back just 50 years in time machine and tell people about Internet, then probably they will give you the same reaction.We were supposed to have moon bases and flying cars by now - this wasn't just science fiction, people seriously believed that we would have this by the year 2000. We were also supposed to have nuclear fusion and infinite clean energy by now. Whoops, didn't happen! This is what I mean by "managing our expectations."

In contrary, "capitalist economists" always talk about "limits of growth" an that means there is enough growth an no further growth is possible i.e. the present capitalist powers are enough and no new capitalist power is necessary. There are also "anti-capitalist" economists who are "left" because they say against capitalism, but to the core they are more reactionary than capitalists.Every single mainstream economist for the past 100 years has talked about the need for and the desirability of more growth. Growth is seen as the solution to solving world poverty. Growth is seen as an essential and inevitable part of capitalism. Economists from Keynes to Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman all agree on this point.

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 19:55

You're not able to differentiate consumption under communism and consumption under capitalism. I'm 31 and I've had 7 cars because it's been cheaper to buy a new (used) one rather than pay to fix the broken down one. We can build cars that don't break down after 5 years and on top of that public transport can make cars mostly irrelevant.

I am distinguishing between "consumption under communism and consumption under capitalism."

I understand that capitalism requires more resources to produce a given standard of living than would be required by communism. Communism would be much more efficient and require far fewer resources to produce the same level of well-being as capitalism.

Now, what you have repeatedly ignored in my arguments, is that I have taken all of this into account. I am not assuming that what people will consume in the future will be the same as what they are consuming now. In fact, I have assumed a great deal of improved efficiency in every aspect of life. If you had actually carefully read my argument you would have realized this.

Packaging for food stuffs can be minimized without all of the capitalist fluff added which attracts us to buy it.Yes, I've assumed that all packaging would be recyclable in my argument.

Fossil fuels can be eliminated as a fuel source (oil companies keep this from happening) .I've assumed this as well in my argument.

Solar power can be utilized but in the not so distant future we'll no doubt have better ways to harness energy.Solar power is still not an infinite source of energy. It is limited by the amount of land we have to dedicate to solar panels, or more likely by the rare earth minerals required to build the solar panels. All renewable energy sources are "finite" because there is only so much we can use at any given time. Think of renewable energy as a water well: the well is replenished by rain, but it can still be depleted if too many people are using it.

Water can be recycled as it already is. Consider the earth a giant space ship. When astronauts are in space they drink their own urine. Just as in space in a shuttle water on earth doesn't vanish it is simply recycled. Besides all the obvious things I could list the Malthusian theory of endless population growth is bullshit. Water is still finite - see the well analogy. The earth is giant, but finite.

Please explain how any of the above makes infinite growth possible. If infinite growth is not possible, then there is a limit to the number of humans that can be supported at a given rate of resource consumption. If there is a limit to the number of humans that can be supported at a given rate of resource consumption, we should be able to determine what this is by looking at a) the number of people and b) the amount of available resources. This is precisely what ecological footprint attempts to do. Now, if you want to try to refute all of this, you should look at the methodologies and assumptions employed by ecological footprint and specifically show why they are flawed. I've suggested this to you multiple times and you've ignored it, I suspect because you lack the intellectual capacity for it or are just simply a lazy and self-important asshole.

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 20:01

^^^Yes, and yes. And the fact that Hubbert was quite the elitist. And at core, the peak oil theory is Malthus all over again.

Oil is finite.

If you accept that oil is finite, then there is a moment in history when oil production is at its maximum - higher than it will ever be. For the United States, "peak oil" occurred in the 1970s.

That is what "peak oil" is.

Pretty fucking straightforward.

Now, you might disagree with certain implications of peak oil, but if you agree that the earth's endowment of oil is finite, then you agree that at some point we will hit maximum production, and this is called "peak oil."

All indications are that the world hit peak oil sometime in 2006.

S.Artesian

20th January 2011, 21:25

I've posted links to several.

In fact, your ideology is outdated. Much of the work being done within the left nowadays has to do with ecological sustainability and the inability of capitalism to address these issues.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf
http://dematerialism.net/
http://peakoil.com/generalideas/ted-trainers-new-paper-de-growth-is-not-enough/

To clarify, in the system of gov't technocracy (I'm using the term in its most general sense) advocates, everyone would have an equal hand in governing, but we don't believe that there would be any blue-collar/white-collar distinctions remaining in a society where everyone had the same access to education and the means of production. Thus it makes little sense to say something like "cooks govern." It makes more sense to say of such a system that "everyone governs."

"Technocracy" as I'm using it would just be an aspect of socialism or communism, the process of applying science to solve social problems (as opposed to using outdated market ideology) Pretty straightforward. It's basically a shorthand term for "centralized scientific planning."

First, I have no "ideology." I'm am neither "pro-growth" nor "anti-growth" as growth is not some quantity that exists outside its social relations.

Secondly, I am well aware that some leftists, even Marxists, buy into peak oil theory. I've debated with several of them, the late Mark Jones from the UK being one, and I have yet to come across one, who, as the argument developed didn't, at some point, assert that there were too many people already on the planet.

Thirdly, there is no necessary connection between sustainability and buying into peak oil theory, just as there is no necessary connection between opposing the pollution of the seas, rivers, lands and buying into peak oil or overpopulation theories.

So I'm all for sustainability; all for eliminating pollution; all for immediate reductions in automobile production and use; eliminating runoffs from agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, and animal wastes... the list could go on forever.

Fourthly, I've never denied that the earth is finite, and that therefore there is some finite limit to the amount of hydrocarbon energy that can be accessed. I have consistently maintained that we don't know what that limit is, and that nothing that has happened in the last 40 years is a result of depletion, approaching depletion, or being on the downside of a peak, of reaching those limits.

What has occurred in the world can be explained, and is best explained, by the analysis of capitalism as capitalism, as that social relation of production that must preserve itself though accumulation;

that accumulation can only maintain itself through the expropriation of wage-labor;

that the exchange between wage-labor and capital leads to a tendency in the rate of profit, and the mass of profit, eventually to decline;

that the declining profit is manifested, necessarily as overproduction;

that all overproduction is the overproduction of capital as overproduction means the inability of capital to sustain a rate of exploitation of labor necessary to recover the cost of capital;

that the declining profit is the result of capital's previous success at accumulation;

that the declining profit creates shortages;

and creates demands for greater growth that cover and mask the actual attacks on living standard;

that it also creates atomization, fragmentation in society and a mentality that says "small is good" "no growth is better" etc. which only mirrors the real slowdown in capital's rate of accumulation and embodies a sort of "pastoralism" and utopian ruralism.

And I think that if you study the history of the oil industry, as an industry, as a capitalist industry where rates of return, rates of investment, relation between the constant [and particularly the fixed assets] capital and the wage-labor explains why prices move as they do, why production increases or decreases as it does, you'll see that what has taken place since 1876 is driven by just those economic, social characteristics and not the availability of supplies.

One of the sites you suggest does seem to break with the Malthusian claptrap that usually accompanies peak oil, and thanks for that. First one I've ever run across.

Doesn't make peak oil any more accurate, but it's good to know that there are human beings who don't think that we must get rid of our own species-- exempting their family, friends, and people they tweet with. I feel better already.

However, the leading proponents of peak oil-- the Campbells, Deffeyes, Duncans, and Hubbert himself were/are Malthusians. Hubbert argued the world was overpopulated in the 1960s-- and Campbell and Deffeye-- I think those two are a bit more than Malthusian, I think they're a bit more than misanthropes.

However you think you are using the term technocracy-- that is not, historically, how it has been used.

Now you can claim that there was a peak in 2006 in oil and you can assert that it's do to the fact that production has outpaced reserves and discoveries. You can claim that, but since reserves are an economic, not a geological category, you have a bit of a problem. Reserves are defined as the amount of oil that can be produced over a defined period using current technology at an expected profit.

But while you can claim that, I can prove that what happened in 2006 is that the peak that really took place was a peak in the rate of return on investment, as the oil companies got the last full measure of the depreciation of their productive apparatus [where between 2003-2005, the portions of plant, net equipment etc consumed in production exceed rates of replacement, i.e investment in new plant, new equipment].

And in 2006 the oil majors again turned on the spigots of capital investment driving down the rate of profit in 2007, leading to the speculative blowout in oil prices in 2008 which, restored profit to the oil majors, but at the expense of everybody else.

We see this happen in the 60s and 70s, with OPEC 1, restoring rates of return to the oil majors, leading of course to the 1974-1975 recession. We see it in 1979-1980, where OPEC 2 price rises slam everybody else into the double dip recession of 1981-1983-- and bring us BTW the Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman School of asset-liquidation and social deprivation [the methodology having been first worked out in Chile in 1973, and Argentina 1976].

We see aspects of this after the break in prices in 1986, putting the fSU between the rock and the hard place-- and Mexico, and Houston too, not to mention various S&Ls-- leading us to the 1989-1991 "slowdown" and Gulf War 1.

We see aspects in 1996-1998, where the proliferation of advanced technologies bring the cost of producing a barrel of oil in the US to [when adjusted for inflation] below, and seriously below, the cost of production in 1948.

We see that in 1999, when OPEC 3 rides to the rescue, creating and breaking the dot.com bubble; giving us Bush in 2001.

We see that in 2002 when Bush [deciding to give back to those who gave to him], after oil prices drop below $20/barrel starts the drumbeat to Gulf War 2, to get the prices up to where Campbell jumps up, claps his hands, says "oh goody" and squeals like a schoolgirl at a slumber party.

One other thing-- you made a claim I believe, to the effect that "it's as simple as this-- that the more people, the food that's required, the more land that must be cultivated." If I've remembered your position incorrectly, then just ignore what follows.

No it's not as simple as that. Ever since English agriculture broke out of the "Malthusian trap" in the 17th century, what has occurred is that land productivity has improved. So that while land under cultivation increases, it does not increase in proportion to the growth in population. It does not increase in lockstep with population growth.

In fact even in "backward" agricultural areas-- say the Yangzi Delta in China from the 15th century-19th century-- output can be increased to sustain increased population without a significant decline from the [already low] existing level by increases in land productivity brought about by increased inputs of labor, by an actual decline in labor productivity.

We don't like it to happen that way, but it can, and has been done. Supply of land in its physicality is not the problem. Supply of land of a certain fertility can be a problem-- but land of a certain fertility is a social relationship of production, a mutable economic relationship, not an immutable one.

Technocrat

20th January 2011, 23:41

First, I have no "ideology." I'm am neither "pro-growth" nor "anti-growth" as growth is not some quantity that exists outside its social relations.

Secondly, I am well aware that some leftists, even Marxists, buy into peak oil theory. I've debated with several of them, the late Mark Jones from the UK being one, and I have yet to come across one, who, as the argument developed didn't, at some point, assert that there were too many people already on the planet.

Thirdly, there is no necessary connection between sustainability and buying into peak oil theory, just as there is no necessary connection between opposing the pollution of the seas, rivers, lands and buying into peak oil or overpopulation theories.

There is a necessary connection between accepting that the earth's endowment of oil is finite, and accepting "peak oil theory."

You might disagree with some of the specific implications that have been suggested would result from peak oil, but if you accept that oil is finite, then you necessarily believe in "peak oil." See my above explanation.

So I'm all for sustainability; all for eliminating pollution; all for immediate reductions in automobile production and use; eliminating runoffs from agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, and animal wastes... the list could go on forever.Cool, I'm with ya on that.

Fourthly, I've never denied that the earth is finite, and that therefore there is some finite limit to the amount of hydrocarbon energy that can be accessed. I have consistently maintained that we don't know what that limit is, and that nothing that has happened in the last 40 years is a result of depletion, approaching depletion, or being on the downside of a peak, of reaching those limits. Now here is where you need some supporting evidence. Here's mine:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Tt00OJahcQA/TJu_D9zobxI/AAAAAAAAABA/F8nXv3Eq14Y/s1600/WorldOilProductionWissner-%2BMoving%2BAverage%2B2008.gif&imgrefurl=http://theeternalunknown.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html&h=621&w=908&sz=17&tbnid=fSey-qLCOIxUkM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=147&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2Boil%2Bproduction&zoom=1&q=world+oil+production&hl=en&usg=__Lmcd2u5w-F51XaK67LqlH_s48VQ=&sa=X&ei=6rs4TZjuK4z3gAfv2dzUCA&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAA

Now, study that graph. See how oil production has not increased since 2006? See how production was skyrocketing prior to that? See how production flattened out prior to the recession we are currently in, ruling that out as a possible cause (it's more likely that peak oil was the cause of the current recession)? That means we are at peak oil. Until that graph goes up, assuming it will, I am right, and the burden of proof lies with you.

What has occurred in the world can be explained, and is best explained, by the analysis of capitalism as capitalism, as that social relation of production that must preserve itself though accumulation;

that accumulation can only maintain itself through the expropriation of wage-labor;

that the exchange between wage-labor and capital leads to a tendency in the rate of profit, and the mass of profit, eventually to decline;

that the declining profit is manifested, necessarily as overproduction;

that all overproduction is the overproduction of capital as overproduction means the inability of capital to sustain a rate of exploitation of labor necessary to recover the cost of capital;

that the declining profit is the result of capital's previous success at accumulation;

that the declining profit creates shortages;

and creates demands for greater growth that cover and mask the actual attacks on living standard; With ya so far.

that it also creates atomization, fragmentation in society and a mentality that says "small is good" "no growth is better" etc. which only mirrors the real slowdown in capital's rate of accumulation and embodies a sort of "pastoralism" and utopian ruralism.Here's where you argument breaks down. Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? This just seems like your crackpot interpretation, without anything to back it up.

And I think that if you study the history of the oil industry, as an industry, as a capitalist industry where rates of return, rates of investment, relation between the constant [and particularly the fixed assets] capital and the wage-labor explains why prices move as they do, why production increases or decreases as it does, you'll see that what has taken place since 1876 is driven by just those economic, social characteristics and not the availability of supplies. Oil prices can be explained by supply and demand, the law governing the price of anything. You might argue that supply is artificially constrained by the producers, but then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Why did oil production peak in the 1970s in the United States? Certainly capitalism may have played a role in how quickly the oil was depleted, but the fact that it was depleted owes entirely to the fact that there is a finite amount of oil. Surely you must see that. The rest of your argument appears to be a "proof by intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation)."

One of the sites you suggest does seem to break with the Malthusian claptrap that usually accompanies peak oil, and thanks for that. First one I've ever run across.Cool, keep reading - you'll see that I don't reference any of the usual "Malthusian claptrap." Most of my information is from left-leaning scientific and academic sources.

A certain degree of humility is required for rational scientific inquiry, and I detect a distinct lack of this coming from you. I am open to criticisms that are grounded in logic and supported by evidence, not opinion and hearsay. Straw men, guilt by association, and red herrings are all logical fallacies that do not constitute a valid argument, and I'm sorry to say, but you have engaged in all of these throughout this thread. I don't know if you are just an angry person and need to vent, but it isn't a constructive use of anyone's time. I'm asking you to please stop with the fallacies so that we can have a productive discussion.

However, the leading proponents of peak oil-- the Campbells, Deffeyes, Duncans, and Hubbert himself were/are Malthusians. Hubbert argued the world was overpopulated in the 1960s-- and Campbell and Deffeye-- I think those two are a bit more than Malthusian, I think they're a bit more than misanthropes. So, according to your definition, anyone who believes that the world is overpopulated is a Malthusian. This is a straw man, since not everyone who suggests the world is overpopulated uses the same arguments as Malthus. Since not everyone who suggests the world is overpopulated agrees with Malthus' arguments, criticisms equating all those arguments with Malthus are intellectually lazy, reductivist, and straw men.

However you think you are using the term technocracy-- that is not, historically, how it has been used. Maybe not around here. Technocracy (the way I'm using the word) is science applied to the social order, not a specific ideology or group of people.

Now you can claim that there was a peak in 2006 in oil and you can assert that it's do to the fact that production has outpaced reserves and discoveries. You can claim that, but since reserves are an economic, not a geological category, you have a bit of a problem. Reserves are defined as the amount of oil that can be produced over a defined period using current technology at an expected profit.No, It's because production has not increased at all since 2006. Peak oil is defined as: the moment in history where maximum oil production has been achieved. So, until we achieve higher oil production than we have right now, we are at peak oil. One might think "total oil production could increase in the future," but just studying the history of oil production up until now shows that this is unlikely. Just look at the freakin' graph.

But while you can claim that, I can prove that what happened in 2006 is that the peak that really took place was a peak in the rate of return on investment, as the oil companies got the last full measure of the depreciation of their productive apparatus [where between 2003-2005, the portions of plant, net equipment etc consumed in production exceed rates of replacement, i.e investment in new plant, new equipment]. Of course, oil companies will not continue drilling if it requires more energy to extract the oil than is yielded by the oil recovered (in other words, once the field turns negative in EROEI, they shut the pumps off). So your above argument turns out to be completely irrelevant.

And in 2006 the oil majors again turned on the spigots of capital investment driving down the rate of profit in 2007, leading to the speculative blowout in oil prices in 2008 which, restored profit to the oil majors, but at the expense of everybody else.

We see this happen in the 60s and 70s, with OPEC 1, restoring rates of return to the oil majors, leading of course to the 1974-1975 recession. We see it in 1979-1980, where OPEC 2 price rises slam everybody else into the double dip recession of 1981-1983-- and bring us BTW the Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman School of asset-liquidation and social deprivation [the methodology having been first worked out in Chile in 1973, and Argentina 1976].

We see aspects of this after the break in prices in 1986, putting the fSU between the rock and the hard place-- and Mexico, and Houston too, not to mention various S&Ls-- leading us to the 1989-1991 "slowdown" and Gulf War 1.

We see aspects in 1996-1998, where the proliferation of advanced technologies bring the cost of producing a barrel of oil in the US to [when adjusted for inflation] below, and seriously below, the cost of production in 1948.

We see that in 1999, when OPEC 3 rides to the rescue, creating and breaking the dot.com bubble; giving us Bush in 2001.

We see that in 2002 when Bush [deciding to give back to those who gave to him], after oil prices drop below $20/barrel starts the drumbeat to Gulf War 2, to get the prices up to where Campbell jumps up, claps his hands, says "oh goody" and squeals like a schoolgirl at a slumber party.Your entire argument is about prices, not production. Until we exceed our current rate of 31 billion barrels of oil produced per year, we are at peak oil. It doesn't matter if this is due to political, economic, or geological reasons - peak oil is simply the point in history when maximum production has been reached. It may be that we are entering into a long "plateau" phase of artificially restricted supplies - but that doesn't negate "peak oil."

One other thing-- you made a claim I believe, to the effect that "it's as simple as this-- that the more people, the food that's required, the more land that must be cultivated." If I've remembered your position incorrectly, then just ignore what follows.No, I wasn't referring to just food, but the land that is required to produce all the resources that a person requires.

No it's not as simple as that. Ever since English agriculture broke out of the "Malthusian trap" in the 17th century, what has occurred is that land productivity has improved. So that while land under cultivation increases, it does not increase in proportion to the growth in population. It does not increase in lockstep with population growth. You ignore the fact that these agricultural practices deplete the soil of nutrients and are thus not sustainable in any way. Increasing productivity means overfarming the land and using petrochemicals (i.e. fossil fuels) to make up for depleted soil. We are going to have to return to sustainable agricultural practices. This is sort of irrelevant to the argument, though, since I'm not just talking about food.

In fact even in "backward" agricultural areas-- say the Yangzi Delta in China from the 15th century-19th century-- output can be increased to sustain increased population without a significant decline from the [already low] existing level by increases in land productivity brought about by increased inputs of labor, by an actual decline in labor productivity.

We don't like it to happen that way, but it can, and has been done. Supply of land in its physicality is not the problem. Supply of land of a certain fertility can be a problem-- but land of a certain fertility is a social relationship of production, a mutable economic relationship, not an immutable one.Again, I would encourage you to actually review the methodologies and assumptions inherent in ecological footprint analysis. We're not just talking about food.

I'm not arguing that productivity can't increase - ecological footprint is a measure of how much land was actually required to support a person - it isn't looking into the future, it is a measurement of past activity. One can extrapolate from this future events, but like any science, we can't predict anything with 100% accuracy. There are studies which take into account increased efficiency in the use of resources, such as the work of David Pimentel, which suggests a maximum population of 2 billion people after fossil fuels have been depleted, assuming a high standard of living for everyone. Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

These studies are even more speculative than what I've attempted. Basically, one can always speculate on a future state of affairs where any possible argument can be supported - e.g. I can imagine a future where pigs can fly. This isn't very scientifically useful, though. Looking at current rates of consumption and production, and considering technologies that are likely to be available, i.e. already being developed, we can begin to get a rough idea of how many people could be supported at a given standard of living.

One of the things I haven't seen happen yet is any discussion whatsoever of ecological footprint itself - why haven't you bothered to address this? Are you just too important to be bothered? I feel that it's on the issue of ecological footprint itself that we could actually have the most productive discussion.

S.Artesian

21st January 2011, 00:31

Amphictyonis

21st January 2011, 02:25

In fact, your ideology is outdated.

Jeez Louise.

Technocrat

21st January 2011, 03:00

The outline of my argument uses price as a marker, an indicator-- the body of the argument which I've written about is based on production and the rate of return on investment. Price is the way capitalists and capitalism distributes the total socially available profit among enterprises. Price is the tie that binds the "hostile brothers" as Marx describes them in their allocation of profit.

Okay, no disagreement there.

Price will reflect what is going on in the exchange between the constant and variable components of capital and how successful accumulation is at maintaining a necessary rate of profitability. The fact that you ignore all those elements I provided before talking about price indicates that you probably arent' very familiar with the notions of overproduction, over-accumulation, etc. Maybe not in the sense you're talking about, but I fail to see the relevance - seems like more argument by intimidation.

One thing the price of oil is most definitely not driven by is "supply and demand." Supply and demand is the perfect descriptor for the bourgeoisie-- it describes everything and analyzes nothing. Ah, so it is an argument by intimidation.

Acceptance of a finite universe does not necessitate the acceptance of a peak universe theory. The idea makes no sense because we don't use the universe as a resource. There is no "maximum rate of universe production (bearing in mind that something is produced, in this sense, by people)." A poor straw man.

I think it's quite entertaining that on the one hand you say anyone who accepts finite resources must accept peak oil [there's a whole world of geologists and petroleum engineers out there who recognize that we live in a finite world and who have lots of fun smacking the snot out of peak oil theories. I know a few of them. ], and then you say just because one believes there are too many people in the world that doesn't make one a Malthusian. That's funny. Oh sure there's no necessary connection but I love the combination of rigidity and flexibility. Reminds of someone saying "Do as I say, not as I do."How are the too inconsistent with each other? Finite resources implies peak oil, but recognizing the world is overpopulated does not imply malthusianism. What's so difficult to understand about that?

One has to be a peak oilist if you accept finite resources? But what does that mean-- since not all oil extraction over time has followed the famous bell curve-- certainly North Sea extraction hasn't followed that bell curve-- unless you consider peak, decline, recovery, peak, decline to be a bell curve. You are simply failing to understand what is meant by "peak." There can be lots of ups and downs in the history of production of any oil field, but there will only be one point that is the highest ever rate of production. What's so hard to understand about this concept?

Not all oil extraction history has followed the supposed offset between rate of reserve discovery and production. Venezuela experienced a peak and decline in production at the same time as the US, yet in the 30 years after that peak, reserves from "normal sources"-- not superheavy Orinoco basin oil-- more than doubled. So how does Venezuela fit into the supposed linkage between reserves and production?Again, you are failing to understand what is meant by a "peak." They may not have reached their peak yet. And, again, peak oil has nothing whatsoever to do with proven reserves. It only has to do with the rate of oil production. Venezuela reached a high in the 70s, then declined, then started producing more oil than they had in the 70s, therefore, they haven't reached peak oil.

You say one can disagree with Malthus on method, argument etc etc etc. and I'm sure you do. You disagree on everything except the one thing that really counts-- are the problems of interaction among humans and the environments problems of too many people or problems of the particular social organization of labor? It is a problem of too many people and social organization:

Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

Many of the studies done assume drastic paradigm shifts in the efficiency of resource use - such as the one done by Pimentel. My own study basically assumes a form of socialism or communism where all resources are shared equally - that's a basic assumption of my argument. Improved efficiency in production is also assumed.

In suggesting that 1.5 billion or fewer could be supported I've assumed that 1) no fossil fuels are left
2) resources are shared equally
3) capitalism and consumerism no longer exist

How does Malthus and the Malthusians who say "yes" to both, differ from the non-Malthusians who say "yes" to both? I'm not subtle enough to grasp the difference all by myself. Well, let's see. If both a dog and a cat have four legs, does this mean that they're the same animal?

Agricultural practices are not sustainable in any way? Really?Sorry, I should have said current agricultural practices.

I would encourage you to actually look at the history of agricultural output and yields before making statements about sustainability--How does increasing yields suggest anything about sustainability at all? Maybe you don't understand that the Green Revolution uses petrochemicals (aka fossil fuels) as fertilizer for crops? This is because we have overfarmed the soil (i.e. increased productivity) to the point of depleting it of all nutrients. The dirt is basically just there to hold the plant in place, at this point. So, if fossil fuels are finite, explain to me how using them as fertilizer for crops can be sustainable.

As for the ecological footprint-- I hardly consider myself very important-- except maybe to my granddaughter, but she's only 5, so in a few years I'm sure I'll be just another disappointing man in her life. Truth is-- my resources are finite, and having read Campbell, Deffeyes et al, I don't want to waste any more time.This makes sense - the human brain stops growing in a person's late 20s (http://www.drfrisch.com/media/The_Plastic_Brain.pdf), so this is probably why you are literally physically incapable of changing your mind about this despite any evidence I present to you. It just becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to change one's beliefs the older one gets. I don't hold it against you at all, but I will stop wasting my time. I've provided you with enough material to get you started should you decide you want to actually investigate the concept of ecological footprint rather than rejecting it before you even know what it is.

S.Artesian

21st January 2011, 03:34

T
his makes sense - the human brain stops growing in a person's late 20s (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.drfrisch.com/media/The_Plastic_Brain.pdf), so this is probably why you are literally physically incapable of changing your mind about this despite any evidence I present to you. It just becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to change one's beliefs the older one gets. I don't hold it against you at all, but I will stop wasting my time. I've provided you with enough material to get you started should you decide you want to actually investigate the concept of ecological footprint rather than rejecting it before you even know what it is.

To which I can only reply, go fuck yourself you pompous gasbag.

Brain damaged, and now the brain has stopped growing?... as a matter of fact you're wrong-- new neural pathways are always being developed in the brain-- but don't let that stand in your way.

smk

21st January 2011, 22:16

Technocrat

22nd January 2011, 02:25

(emphasis added)

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

Technocrat

22nd January 2011, 02:29

"Each of these assumes that the current depletion of fossil fuel reserves has continued to completion. No fossil fuels are left, except possibly for a small stock, priced high, and used for limited durable uses such as new plastic production and for some pharmaceuticals.

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion
2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion
3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion
4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion
5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level. 20 billion
6. Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion"
(http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html)

Technocrat

22nd January 2011, 02:39

If you believe in limitless human ingenuity, then the world can support a theoretically infinite population. That is obviously not true, as the world could not have room for a infinite population, and there are certain limits to resources, but with the things on earth now, there is no shortage of land, resources, etc. for a MUCH larger population. Places like Bombay surely are filled to maximum capacity in terms of population density, but most of the world is extremely sparsely populated. Under current conditions, we could feed the world many times over (this is including many farmers who are paid NOT to grow food.) Right now, there is enough food to feed each person 2720 kcal a day. The limits are nonexistent at the moment. The only limit is the capitalist system of greed.

You haven't addressed the evidence provided by ecological footprint. Worldwide, there exists less than 5 acres per person of productive land - and this is decreasing all the time due to the loss of biodiversity that is the result of over-exploiting the land. That, and worldwide climate change means that the total amount of productive land is shrinking. Per person, it is shrinking all the time, because more people are being added all the time.

To live a modest but adequate standard of living where a person has enough shelter, health care, education, food, goods, etc to live a comfortable lifestyle, it takes about 20 acres per person - that is assuming that massive technological changes are adopted like improved recycling and use of alternative energy.

So, we need 20 acres per person but we only have 5 acres per person and the 5 acres is constantly shrinking. That looks like overshoot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_%28ecology%29)to me.

Technocrat

22nd January 2011, 02:43

T

To which I can only reply, go fuck yourself you pompous gasbag.

Brain damaged, and now the brain has stopped growing?... as a matter of fact you're wrong-- new neural pathways are always being developed in the brain-- but don't let that stand in your way.

From the article I linked to (not that I expect you'll read it)

When a teen reaches his or her mid-to-late 20's, the ‘plastic brain’ begins to become more rigid and stable with less growth, expansion and learning.

http://www.drfrisch.com/media/The_Plastic_Brain.pdf

Technocrat

22nd January 2011, 02:45

The Earth and its resources may be too small for all of us to share. Even if we learn how to make the most of a limited supply of land, energy, water, and biota, Cornell ecologists have calculated that by the year 2100, the planet will be able to provide for only 2 billion humans-almost 4 billion less than today's world population-with a modest but comfortable standard of living. Only 200 million humans can be sustained by the natural resources of the United States, making the current population 33 percent over its eco-budget.

In order to arrive at their optimum population figures, Pimentel and his colleagues make the optimistic assumption that humanity will make maximum use of Earth's finite resources. Even if humans make a transition to renewable energy sources, stop polluting and degrading their environment and accept a standard of living equal to one-half of that enjoyed by Americans today, the numbers stay the same.
(emphasis added) Pimentel bristles at critics (rumored to include high- voltage media commentator Rush Limbaugh) who claim that technology will allow humanity to keep pace with a steep population curve. "Look at fishery production. We built bigger ships, larger nets, and now the fish populations of the oceans lakes and rivers are lower than they've been since 1970. Look at the Colorado River. As it flows south, California, Arizona, and Colorado take a big piece out of it to support their populations. By the time that river reaches Mexico, it's dry. What technology do we have available, short of manipulating the climate, that can double the flow of the Colorado River?"Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pk/pkcapcty.html

Why increasing efficiency leads to increased consumption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Technocrat

22nd January 2011, 03:10

Here's an article by The New Atlantis, a right-wing journal, arguing against Pimentel:

Many of the criticisms leveled at Pimentel are the same ones raised here (e.g. "it's Malthusian!").

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/addicted-to-bad-data

Amphictyonis

24th January 2011, 07:08

The Lifeboat Cannibalism dilemma. I'd eat Technocrat first :) We obviously can't survive at sea unless we eat him!

smk

24th January 2011, 10:05

To live a modest but adequate standard of living where a person has enough shelter, health care, education, food, goods, etc to live a comfortable lifestyle, it takes about 20 acres per person - that is assuming that massive technological changes are adopted like improved recycling and use of alternative energy.

I started off by saying:

If you believe in limitless human ingenuity

Under the current system with current technology, there are limitations which you addressed. However, with increased technology, that 20 acres you speak of can be reduced (assuming most of that 20 acres comes from food production and natural resources.)

pranabjyoti

25th January 2011, 05:28

S.Artesian

25th January 2011, 05:40

From the article I linked to (not that I expect you'll read it)

Here's a quote from the same article:

As we reach our 6th decade of life, the brain makes another shift and becomes plastic again! This 'senior shift', however, is significantly different than earlier stages of plasticity.
And you know what, years ago "scientists" could tell you everything about a person through phrenology. And not so many years ago so many of our scientists "proved" genetic determination [not linkage, not influence but determination] of intelligence, until it was determined, and they admitted, that they had falsified their data.

So let me repeat my earlier suggestion, you simple-minded, pseudo-scientific, pompous gas bag.....

The Vegan Marxist

26th January 2011, 07:11

So let me repeat my earlier suggestion, you simple-minded, pseudo-scientific, pompous gas bag.....

Is it just me, or have you completely disregarded any call-outs of why exactly what Technocrat presented was "pseudo-scientific"? In fact, you've only derived towards this term without any substantial evidence to back yourself upon. No matter, if your "golden years" of brain development can do anything for you, it's to help you attain any reasoning behind your assertions.

Now, to what you said before:

Here's a quote from the same article:

As we reach our 6th decade of life, the brain makes another shift and becomes plastic again! This 'senior shift', however, is significantly different than earlier stages of plasticity.

Yet, like any straw man, you clearly stop after what you presented. Let's go down a couple paragraphs to see what this great "Golden Year" presents itself for you; also, I'd look and learn closely at the end of what you presented, "This 'senior shift', however, is significantly different than earlier stages of plasticity.":

The ‘Golden Years” can be a happy and productive time for seniors, but it can also be a time of progressive debilitation. The brain is phenomenal at processing information, but with aging, the brain often becomes impaired in four core factors:

• Reduced schedules of brain activity
• Noisy processing
• A weakened neuroregulation control
• Negative learning

(1. Mahncke, H., Bronstone, A., Merzenich, M. (2006) Brain plasticity and functional losses in the aged: scientific bases for a novel intervention. Progressive Brain Research. 157:81-109.)

S.Artesian

26th January 2011, 15:39

The ‘Golden Years” can be a happy and productive time for seniors, but it can also be a time of progressive debilitation. The brain is phenomenal at processing information, but with aging, the brain often becomes impaired in four core factors:

• Reduced schedules of brain activity
• Noisy processing
• A weakened neuroregulation control
• Negative learning

Is it just me, or do others notice the conditional, tentative phrasing of the above? "can also be..." "often becomes impaired"? Others might also the non-conditional phrasing of Technocrats assertion-- assuming that disagreement and opposition is based on 1) age and 2) the possible relation of age to some brain functions, without any evidence except my disagreement with his credo of "ecological footprint."

This is the supposed application of the "scientific method" we are to accept as telling us the "truths" of ecological footprints, peak oil etc etc etc. Like I said earlier, it's pretty much a waste of time to argue with peak oilers since 1) their science is not science at all but applications of assumptions to circumstances without being able to provide causality 2) an ideology that is at core, if not "Malthusian" because after all Malthus used shoddy arguments, at least "anti human population expansion, pro human population reduction."

Some might find that last a strong term, but how else do you describe an ideology that decides the earth is overpopulated by humans at least by half, and perhaps more? I mean the obvious next question to someone arguing such position is "If conditions are as you describe, and we are probably beyond some sort of 'tipping point,' exactly what is it you propose to do with all these excess human beings?"

That's the question, isn't it? What do you plan to do with the 3 billion or more "surplus" human beings? Withhold medical care? Or at the very least not extend medical care? Prevent the creation of new vaccines for protection against malaria? Enforce birth control on a universal basis? Atomize the world into a new, but kindler, gentler primitive communes where deprivation is the new socialism, distributed to all on an equal basis? "From each at lower levels of productivity, to each as little as possible"?

As for the "peak oil" issue-- there are numerous websites, geologists, petroleum engineers who have refuted the arguments of Deffeyes, Campbell, Duncan, Ivanhoes, etc. etc. You need me to provide a list? Sure I can do that. My favorite "refuter" or "unbeliever" is a guy named McCabe who works [or worked] for USGS. You will note however that according to Technocrat, if you don't accept peak oil, then you are presumed to have some problem understanding the "finite nature" of the planet.

And again, that is not the issue. The issue is this: Does the existing, or the approaching physical depletion and exhaustion of the earth's hydrocarbon based energy reserves, and the "excess population" of human beings, have anything to do [are either a cause, or the source] with the events that have taken place in the socio-economic environment during the last 38 or so years, and if not, what basis is there for thinking that such "depletion" will have anything to do with what happens in the next 38 years?

Those are the questions that need to be answered... at least for me. And once those questions are answered satisfactorily I'll be happy to review somebody's "ecological footprint." Actually, probably not, such is my opposition to those who would advocate reducing human population as the new socialism.

Technocrat

26th January 2011, 17:53

I started off by saying:

Under the current system with current technology, there are limitations which you addressed. However, with increased technology, that 20 acres you speak of can be reduced (assuming most of that 20 acres comes from food production and natural resources.)

I have repeatedly tried to point it out to him that these are "limitations" of present day technology available and what he said can be only be true if the limit of technological progress has already been achieved.

Wrong - read the studies by Pimentel that I linked to. They assume vastly improved technology over what is now available.

You are assuming that I am only looking at current technology and what is currently possible with that technology. I have told you before that this is not the case. Now I'm telling you again. Look, here is the relevant quote from a previous post I made that addresses this very objection:

(emphasis added)

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html)

This post was made less than 10 posts ago - maybe you should read a little more carefully to avoid wasting time like this.

Doing nothing to slow population growth with the assumption that technology will solve everything and let humans do whatever they want to do, is akin to a heavy drinker refusing to take his doctor's advice to stop drinking with the assumption that some technology will be invented in the nick of time that will allow that drinker to continue abusing his body without limit and without consequences.

Technocrat

26th January 2011, 18:10

Is it just me, or do others notice the conditional, tentative phrasing of the above? "can also be..." "often becomes impaired"? Others might also the non-conditional phrasing of Technocrats assertion-- assuming that disagreement and opposition is based on 1) age and 2) the possible relation of age to some brain functions, without any evidence except my disagreement with his credo of "ecological footprint."

My "evidence" is your inability to understand basic arguments based on logic and evidence and respond with the same. A lack of willingness to revise beliefs in light of overwhelming evidence that suggests revision is necessary is known as belief persistence; this gets worse with age. This is also one of the reasons why older people tend to be conservative.

This is the supposed application of the "scientific method" we are to accept as telling us the "truths" of ecological footprints, peak oil etc etc etc. Like I said earlier, it's pretty much a waste of time to argue with peak oilers since 1) their science is not science at all but applications of assumptions to circumstances without being able to provide causality 2) an ideology that is at core, if not "Malthusian" because after all Malthus used shoddy arguments, at least "anti human population expansion, pro human population reduction." Not even going to respond to this - I've already explained what peak oil is and how it is an irrefutable fact if one accepts that earth contains a finite amount of oil. This is basic stuff that needs no further explanation.

Some might find that last a strong term, but how else do you describe an ideology that decides the earth is overpopulated by humans at least by half, and perhaps more? I mean the obvious next question to someone arguing such position is "If conditions are as you describe, and we are probably beyond some sort of 'tipping point,' exactly what is it you propose to do with all these excess human beings?"Well, it's really not up to me what happens to these excess human beings. Nature will drag us kicking and screaming to a sustainable population, or else we can take rational action to reduce our numbers voluntarily and avoid the war, famine, genocide, etc that would result from a scarcity of resources. A one child per family act, mutually agreed upon by all of society, would bring our numbers to a sustainable level within 1-2 generations.

That's the question, isn't it? What do you plan to do with the 3 billion or more "surplus" human beings? Withhold medical care? Or at the very least not extend medical care? Prevent the creation of new vaccines for protection against malaria? Enforce birth control on a universal basis? Atomize the world into a new, but kindler, gentler primitive communes where deprivation is the new socialism, distributed to all on an equal basis? "From each at lower levels of productivity, to each as little as possible"?That's the only option in your false dichotomy? Either population continues to grow unchecked, or brutal coercive measures are enacted? I've already addressed this multiple times, see my immediate response above. How does something that is mutually agreed upon for the mutual benefit of everyone in any way constitute the kind of coercive measure you are making it out to be? The last part of your statement is clearly a straw man, since I advocate the "maximum well being for the maximum number of people," as was already explained in my initial argument on page one - have you gotten around to reading it yet or are you still just running with your asinine assumptions?

As for the "peak oil" issue-- there are numerous websites, geologists, petroleum engineers who have refuted the arguments of Deffeyes, Campbell, Duncan, Ivanhoes, etc. etc. You need me to provide a list? Sure I can do that. My favorite "refuter" or "unbeliever" is a guy named McCabe who works [or worked] for USGS. You will note however that according to Technocrat, if you don't accept peak oil, then you are presumed to have some problem understanding the "finite nature" of the planet. So you know one guy that believes what you believe. You use confirmation bias (coupled with belief persistence) to ignore all the evidence to the contrary and cherry-pick your data to support your preconceived notion. Way to go.

Yes, many geologists have their heads up their asses. All of Hubbert's colleagues expressed a similar argument as you do - they all laughed at Hubbert when he predicted in the 1950s that domestic oil production would peak in the 1970s. Whoops! Hubbert was right. They laughed again when he said that world oil production would peak shortly after the year 2000. Whoops! Hubbert was right.

To explain the actions of these geologists: "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his career depends on him not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

Look, I would love to be proven wrong about peak oil and overpopulation. Why would anyone want to be right about something that is so terrifying? Unfortunately, in order for us to be rational, our commitment to the truth must exceed our commitment to "feel good about things."

And again, that is not the issue. The issue is this: Does the existing, or the approaching physical depletion and exhaustion of the earth's hydrocarbon based energy reserves, and the "excess population" of human beings, have anything to do [are either a cause, or the source] with the events that have taken place in the socio-economic environment during the last 38 or so years, and if not, what basis is there for thinking that such "depletion" will have anything to do with what happens in the next 38 years?This question makes no sense, but I think I've already addressed it in a previous post. Yes, socioeconomic events certainly affect the rate at which oil is depleted or the rate at which population grows, but the fact that the amount of oil is finite is a geological fact that has nothing to do with said socioeconomic events.

The very fact that Hubbert was able to accurately predict the peaking of domestic (and worldwide) oil production, armed with only geological facts and with no ability to foresee the "socioeconomic events" of the future, shows us that peak oil is determined primarily by geological facts.

Those are the questions that need to be answered... at least for me. And once those questions are answered satisfactorily I'll be happy to review somebody's "ecological footprint." Actually, probably not, such is my opposition to those who would advocate reducing human population as the new socialism.So, your argument is rooted in dogmatic ideology and not science, after all. I've already adequately answered all your questions - except "adequate" to you would be nothing less than a retraction of my argument, am I right?

Let me ask: does your commitment to your political ideology allow for any revision of that ideology? What would constitute a necessary and sufficient condition for revising your ideology? If there is nothing, I don't see how continuing this conversation can be productive for anyone.

Did you get around to reading that right-wing critique of Pimentel yet? They make some of the exact same arguments as you do.

RED DAVE

26th January 2011, 18:16

Technocracy (the way I'm using the word) is science applied to the social order, not a specific ideology or group of people.Technocracy is a cranky, elitist theory that was exposed as such about 75 years ago. Techno and a few people around here think they can dress it up in a red dress and pretend it's some kind of socialism. In fact, as has been shown here again and again, it's an elitist, anti-working class theory.

Techno got his ass whipped about this a few months ago, and he's been quiet, but now it's come up again.

RED DAVE

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th January 2011, 18:22

The Vegan Marxist

26th January 2011, 20:39

Technocracy is a cranky, elitist theory that was exposed as such about 75 years ago. Techno and a few people around here think they can dress it up in a red dress and pretend it's some kind of socialism. In fact, as has been shown here again and again, it's an elitist, anti-working class theory.

Techno got his ass whipped about this a few months ago, and he's been quiet, but now it's come up again.

RED DAVE

Actually, if I recall correctly, it was you (along with your pal "Wolf") who got your ass handed to by not just Technocrat, but also Noxion and Dimentio. Your old ass just can't handle an up-to-date outlook on socialist development without you flooding the threads with ad hominem attacks and baseless assertions of how anti-working class anything is that doesn't fit with your ISO-riddled dogmatism.

I also notice how you keep asserting the technocracy being presented here is what resembles of that of Technocracy Inc. back in '30s. When, in fact, they've constantly explained how this is by no means a duplicate to that of Technocracy Inc. This isn't some rule of specific technical elitists, but rather of the people, with technocratic concepts driving socio-economic-environmental developments.

So keep flapping your jaw Red Dave. I don't think any of us really expect you to relinquish yourself from your Trotskyite dogmatism.

S.Artesian

26th January 2011, 21:42

One child per family is going to reduce the earth's numbers in how long? Mutually agreed upon? Exactly when do you think this mutually agreed upon world order is going to be achieved? And how do you plan to enforce it? How much energy are you going to waste enforcing this sort of fantasy?

Population control measures serve the class that requires such population control-- it's advocates have been, across time, those who feel threatened by the poor, those of darker skin, or different background. I recommend you take a look at The Legacy of Malthus by Allen [?] Chase.

And you're going to resolve all of this how? By insisting on the "crisis" nature of overpopulation, but at the same time assuming no responsibility

Well, it's really not up to me what happens to these excess human beings.

You think "excess human beings" is a scientific category and not a socio-economic category? If you do, you are the one with the head so far up your own ass your eating yesterday's lunch for a second time.

The "scientific evidence" for oil depletion and overpopulation is not quite so scientific and has been refuted by "more than one person," and most of those people have been younger than 60 before you go to your next biological corollary in your scheme of biological elitism.

I asked the concrete question which you do not answer. What evidence is there that any historical process, social process, on this earth is driven by either overpopulation or energy depletion? You think the question makes no sense, which says all that needs to be said about your pseudo-science and your lack of understanding of capitalism.

Peak oilers have been predicting peaks in global production ever since 1986 and you can't even predict the right peak looking backwards-- claiming that the peak of oil production was in 2006 when in fact production in 2007 exceeded that of 2006 according to the IEA.

It's like predicting the "collapse of capitalism." You "predict" the collapse of capitalism every day for 40 years, because.... because capitalism has limitations, is finite, the planet is finite.. etc. And so what? And every day capitalism doesn't collapse, or known reserves of oil from ordinary sources increases you just push the date out, as Campbell et al do.. and you know what you have? A cargo cult. A flying saucer cult. Eventually.. eventually... eventually. Eventually it is going to rain, but I don't carry an umbrella every day.

Do you deny that the peak oilers have revised upwards their estimates of known reserves? Do you deny that the peak oilers have pushed out their "peak year" more than once? Or does none of that matter because eventually oil will run out?

Let's put the question this way: were Thatcher's actions against the NUM coal miners in the UK based on a "peak in production" and depletion of resources, or was it based on profitability and the need to attack living standards?

Is this example applicable? Of course it is. When the bourgeoisie impose austerity, rationing is it because there's a shortage in supplies, or potential supplies, or is it determined by the demands of profitability?

And then there's this:

Average annual rates of growth (%):

1979-1990 1990-2010

World GDP 3.2 3.1

Population 1.9 1.1

Energy Use 2.5 1.9

E/GDP Unit -.8 -1.2

E/capita .6 .4

(From the Financial Times of 1/22)

So population growth rate slows as GDP increases, and energy per unit of GDP growth has been negative since OPEC 2. Yet we are supposedly on an express elevator to hell. So it would seem that even after a revolution, even after we eliminate the waste that consumes 30% of food production, the military that consumes 2% of daily petroleum output, all that waste, we need to dramatic

Now maybe missed it, but there doesn't seem to be, at the current moment viable alternatives to petroleum based fuels for transportation are accessible. Yes, we could go to nuclear and electrify the whole world, but somehow I think that undertaking is a bit ambitious and is going to take much more time that the "crisis" as rendered the ZPG-Peak Oilers are inclined to give. So what you are talking about is a dramatic decline in living standards across the board in the advanced countries, and an even greater reduction across the board in less developed countries as urban populations will necessarily be redispersed across rural networks that cannot sustain the increased populations based on the current level of economic and technological development. For you to ignore that necessary element of what you are advocating is of course the privilege of "the scientist" who supposedly is concerned only with the laws of nature. But the world has more than one lifetime of hard evidence of how much that "pure science" is really impure.

And this by you:
Well, it's really not up to me what happens to these excess human beings.

is all we need to know about your "science." Right. Ideology is so scientific. It's a fact, like your bullshit about why older people are more conservative-- it's biology. What horseshit. And younger people, they're less conservative? I don't know what planet you're on, but in the US, using voting demographics, you find age is pretty much inconsequential-- region of the country, rural or urban location, income, union membership, gender, high school education, race are much more significant than age.

Those above 60 in 2000 as a matter of fact voted more heavily for Gore over Bush than any other age segment of the electorate, something which flipped in 2004, and 2008. Doesn't mean a fucking thing. That you would even try to associate a conditional hypothesis about brain plasticity with acceptance of your arguments as "logical" "fact-based" "scientific," rather than the politics explicit in your "pure science" is again evidence of your acquired elitism.

S.Artesian

27th January 2011, 01:22

Actually, if I recall correctly, it was you (along with your pal "Wolf") who got your ass handed to by not just Technocrat, but also Noxion and Dimentio. Your old ass just can't handle an up-to-date outlook on socialist development without you flooding the threads with ad hominem attacks and baseless assertions of how anti-working class anything is that doesn't fit with your ISO-riddled dogmatism.

If it's the Technocracy and Utopianism thread you're referencing-- you need to reread it because the technocrats are the ones getting spanked.

So let's see-- technocracy says: there is no specific, class, agent to revolution. The social organization of production, the property relations, are not the determining factor in the development of human potential-- the "physical" quantity of resources is.

Technocracy is clearly compatible with any number of property forms-- there are capitalist technocrats; there are "barter" technocrats; there are state property technocrats-- but there aren't, and cannot be, any revolutionary socialist technocrats, or "scientific socialist technocrats" since "scientific socialism" is based on definite developments and results in the social development of labor, and the interaction between the growth of the means of production and the property forms that encapsulate them, and because "scientific socialism" says that capitalism creates an "immanent critique" and that immanent critique is the proletarian revolution.

Amphictyonis

27th January 2011, 02:04

I thought we were talking about population control and Malthusian theory? Is that intrinsically linked with 'technocracy'? I guess so seeing it's the 'scientific' management of society. An impersonal system would be prone to such things as population control/Malthusian theory I would assume. I may be wrong, all I know is Thomas Malthus was a jerkwad.

Technocrat

28th January 2011, 18:34

I don't have the time to respond to all of your bullshit, so for now I'll just focus on this:

Peak oilers have been predicting peaks in global production ever since 1986 and you can't even predict the right peak looking backwards-- claiming that the peak of oil production was in 2006 when in fact production in 2007 exceeded that of 2006 according to the IEA.

Actually, the IEA has already admitted that peak oil occurred in 2006:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/International-Energy-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted

Now that the conservative IEA has been forced to admit that peak oil has occurred, they're trying to play it off like it's no big deal. Kind of like your argument.

Please, show me where oil production has exceeded the all-time high of 70mbd that was reached in 2006. Of course, if we scrapped all the environmental regulations, we could up production to a whopping 74mbd by 2035 - at the low price of catastrophic climate change.

S.Artesian

29th January 2011, 03:10

Petroleum production which is crude oil, lease condensates, natural gas plant liquids continued to expand after 2006. And first the first 9 months of 2010 average daily petroleum production is at new record highs.

My error not to have specified petroleum as opposed to simple crude production.

Crude oil, and petroleum production levels are extremely sensitive to price changes. Interestingly enough, Saudi crude production peaked in 2005 at a level about 500,000 b/day above 2009 levels, while at the same time the Saudis have added 2 million b/day to their production capacity.

Now you can say the Saudis hit their peak in 2005 for crude production, but I think we'll see Saudi and world crude production move in tandem with the economics of production, the profitability, and not with some periodically changing prediction of a peak in supplies.... just like production has moved everywhere and everything like steel, iron ore, coal, corn, milk, copper and tin.

And if we did move to 74 million barrels of crude/day? That would mean the estimate of the peak was incorrect. Environmental regulation was not a basis for the calculations involved in predicting a peak. Supplies, and the ability to recover supplies were the drivers.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th January 2011, 16:53

I thought we were talking about population control and Malthusian theory? Is that intrinsically linked with 'technocracy'? I guess so seeing it's the 'scientific' management of society.

Who hell said Malthusianism was scientific? As you and others have pointed out repeatedly, Malthus and those who thought like him have been proven wrong by history on multiple occasions.

An impersonal system would be prone to such things as population control/Malthusian theory I would assume. I may be wrong, all I know is Thomas Malthus was a jerkwad.

Whether an "impersonal" system embraces population control or Malthusianism depends on the goals and axioms of the system in question. The user Technocrat may have come to the conclusion that such things are necessary, but it is not a conclusion shared by all technocrats, least of all myself.

Technocrat

30th January 2011, 01:19

And if we did move to 74 million barrels of crude/day? That would mean the estimate of the peak was incorrect. Environmental regulation was not a basis for the calculations involved in predicting a peak. Supplies, and the ability to recover supplies were the drivers.

Where do you get that? They most definitely considered environmental regulations in determining a peak:

"It should be noted that, according to the IEA's projections, crude oil production has only peaked if we assume that governments will implement their new policies to curb carbon emissions and spur renewable energy sources. Otherwise, crude oil production will continue to rise to 74 mbd by 2035." (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/International-Energy-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted)Two things can be gleaned from the above quote:

1) Crude oil production has peaked. "...according to the IEA's projections, crude oil production has only peaked..."

2) Environmental regulations were considered in determining a peak: "if we assume that governments will implement their new policies to curb carbon emissions..."

Crude oil production is the sole determining factor of "peak oil."

If we got rid of those pesky environmental regulations we might squeeze out a few more barrels of oil - but what then? Regardless, 74mbd by 2035 isn't going to meet the projected demand of 107mbd by 2035.

Petroleum production which is crude oil, lease condensates, natural gas plant liquids continued to expand after 2006. And first the first 9 months of 2010 average daily petroleum production is at new record highs.

Uh, no. Worldwide oil production has not increased:

Worldwide production trends

World oil production growth trends were flat from 2005 to 2008. According to a January 2007 International Energy Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency) report, global supply (which includes biofuels, non-crude sources of petroleum, and use of strategic oil reserves, in addition to crude production) averaged 85.24 million barrels per day (13.552×10^6 m3/d) in 2006, up 0.76 million barrels per day (121×10^3 m3/d) (0.9%), from 2005.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#cite_note-IEA:World_Oil_Supply_and_Demand-84) Average yearly gains in global supply from 1987 to 2005 were 1.2 million barrels per day (190×10^3 m3/d) (1.7%).[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#cite_note-IEA:World_Oil_Supply_and_Demand-84) In 2008, the IEA drastically increased its prediction of production decline from 3.7% a year to 6.7% a year, based largely on better accounting methods, including actual research of individual oil field production through out the world.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#cite_note-Monbiot-85)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Worldwide_production_trends)Notice, the IEA is revising its estimates of the decline rate.

This whole argument is a red-herring anyway, since maximum carrying capacity is not determined by energy availability alone (although it certainly plays a huge role in determining the carrying capacity at a given standard of living).

Technocrat

30th January 2011, 01:33

Whether an "impersonal" system embraces population control or Malthusianism depends on the goals and axioms of the system in question. The user Technocrat may have come to the conclusion that such things are necessary, but it is not a conclusion shared by all technocrats, least of all myself.

The goal is to provide the maximum well-being for the maximum number of people. I've defined what well-being is. So the only point to argue over is the maximum number of people. I haven't seen any good research indicating that the world isn't already overpopulated if we want every person to have a decent standard of living.

Pimentel has done probably one of the most extensive studies available on this topic and he concludes that 1) if the whole world adopted a standard of living that was half the current American standard, and 2) if fossil fuels were depleted, and 3) if we abandoned capitalism in favor of a planned economy, and 4) if we used our resources in the most efficient way possible to meet our needs, that 5) the world could sustainably support 1-2 billion people.

S.Artesian

30th January 2011, 01:46

Where do you get that?

From Hubbert. His "production curve" and the peak is based on the "normal pattern" of rates of extraction and depletion. Environmental regulations played no part in his 1956 paper.

As far as predicting or claiming "peaks," Campbell predicted, in 1989, that 1989 was the peak; in 1986 Campbell predicted that in 1995 non OPEC non-fSU production would be 20 mb/day and dropping. In 1995 such production was 28 millionb/day and rising.

US production has declined much more slowly than either Hubbert, or Campbell predicted based on their models-- and of considerable importance for the veracity of the "peak" bell curve model, US production substantially exceeded the max amount Hubbert had predicted before declining-- in other words the rate of extraction exceeded the prediction, leading to an increased max peak year, a significantly larger "area under the curve" of extracted resources and a slower rate of decline than predicted rather than a faster decline which should occur if the mass and rate of extraction exceeds the amounts predicted by the curve method.

The problem with all of Campbell's failed predictions, and the real inaccuracy in Hubbert's predictions shrouded in the "accuracy" of guessing the right year [even a blind pig can find an acorn] is that 1) nobody knows what the fixed number is in the finite availability but estimates made "at the drill bit" have consistently pushed that number up 2) Hubbert and his followers takes recoverable resources as fixed, when recoverable resources are clearly a function of economics, of the interaction of technology and accumulation.

So... might there be a peak in the future? There sure might. Does that mean what the Hubbertists want it to mean right now. It sure does not.

The latest figures from the US EIA on international production put 2008 petroleum production, worldwide, exceeding that of 2008; and for the first 10 months of 2010 petroleum production, which includes lease condensates [heavier hydrocarbons that separate out in the processing of the crude], natural gas plant liquids [propane and butane that separate out as liquid during processing of natural gas] exceed the similar period for 2008. See:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1

Technocrat

30th January 2011, 03:43

From Hubbert. His "production curve" and the peak is based on the "normal pattern" of rates of extraction and depletion. Environmental regulations played no part in his 1956 paper.

Okay. So what? We weren't talking about Hubbert's paper, we were talking about this:

"It should be noted that, according to the IEA's projections, crude oil production has only peaked if we assume that governments will implement their new policies to curb carbon emissions and spur renewable energy sources. Otherwise, crude oil production will continue to rise to 74 mbd by 2035." (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Globa...Crisis-averted (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/International-Energy-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted))
As far as predicting or claiming "peaks," Campbell predicted, in 1989, that 1989 was the peak; in 1986 Campbell predicted that in 1995 non OPEC non-fSU production would be 20 mb/day and dropping. In 1995 such production was 28 millionb/day and rising. Again, so what? Predictions are one thing - actual recorded figures of past rates of production are another.

US production has declined much more slowly than either Hubbert, or Campbell predicted based on their models-- and of considerable importance for the veracity of the "peak" bell curve model, US production substantially exceeded the max amount Hubbert had predicted before declining-- in other words the rate of extraction exceeded the prediction, leading to an increased max peak year, a significantly larger "area under the curve" of extracted resources and a slower rate of decline than predicted rather than a faster decline which should occur if the mass and rate of extraction exceeds the amounts predicted by the curve method. Domestic Oil production peaked in the 1970s as Hubbert predicted. Seems like a pretty reliable model to me. We weren't talking about the shape of the curve, though - that's open to debate. The point is that there is a curve, with a peak.

So... might there be a peak in the future? There sure might. Does that mean what the Hubbertists want it to mean right now. It sure does not.Yep, it sure does - until you can show that production exceeded the 2006 rate, which you haven't.

The latest figures from the US EIA on international production put 2008 petroleum production, worldwide, exceeding that of 2008; and for the first 10 months of 2010 petroleum production, which includes lease condensates [heavier hydrocarbons that separate out in the processing of the crude], natural gas plant liquids [propane and butane that separate out as liquid during processing of natural gas] exceed the similar period for 2008. See:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1I just looked at those graphs, and they don't support your assertions at all.

2005 - 84,595.136
2006 - 84,660.617
2007 - 84,543.111
2008 - 85,507.360
2009 - 84,388.895

That's total oil supply, which includes natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, and such. If you select the chart for "Crude Oil including lease condensates," you get numbers closer to the graph for "total world oil production." Remember, peak oil is about the peak of crude oil production, not oil production including ngpl's and biofuels.

These things never move in a straight line, but notice the overall trend. Production has remained relatively flat for the past 5 years. Maybe a look at the five years (or decades) prior to that will put things in perspective for you.

This guy explains it pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIrPrDNj5VM

Again, I'd like to know why you're intent on derailing the thread with this discussion of peak oil. Maybe a new thread should be started? This was supposed to be a conversation about carrying capacity.

S.Artesian

30th January 2011, 04:49

I don't know what you're looking at, but sure isn't the links I provided.

Total oil supply 2006: average daily output 84,543,111 barrels
Total oil supply 2008: average daily output 85,507,366 barrels

Months 1-10 2010: Average Low daily output per month: 85,449,174; Average high daily output per month 86,835, 190.

You brought Hubbert's peak in your first post. You brought up the "accuracy" of the predictions based on Hubbert's peak-- and we're not arguing if there's a curve, or a shape to the curve, we're arguing about production and whether extraction has now reached the point of declining effectiveness, declining efficiency, and pretty soon just dramatically declining.

I said that the predictions of the "famous" Hubbertists, Deffeyes, Campbell, Laherrere, have been wrong more often than right. You're the one claiming that the downside is already upon us and that downside is "science." The evidence indicates it is not science.

But good job ducking the lack of accuracy in the "peak" methodology over the years. So you have Hubbert drawing a curve and predicting a peak date based on rates and volumes already extracted in relation to known reserves, and the peak supposedly will occur when X amount is produced and then lead to a decline at an average rate of Y%. And you get the peak occurring not when the rate of extraction, when the amount, the upside of the curve corresponds to the model, but when the actual rate of production is 1.5X and the decline isn't at Y rate as predicted.. it's at .6Y [these are not the actual numbers.. just being used as an example]. And you say it's a good model? It's a scientific model because the period of the actual peak falls within the range of dates originally given?

That's not science. That's coincidence. It means the amounts extracted, rates extracted, rates of recovery, offsetting of decline are not accurately predicted by this methodology, which Campbell demonstrates every year or two.

It might lead one to believe that the real cause for the decline has much more to do with the economics of oil production, the requirements and limits of capital accumulation than it has to do with the limits of supplies.

And total oil supply, or petroleum production does NOT include biofuels. It is determined by crude production, pentanes that separate out in processing, the propane and butane that collect as liquids during natural gas processing, and refinery gains and losses [when the total volume of products exceeds that of the source due to refining and processing into materials of a lighter specific gravity].

If that's derailing your thread, then yeah that's what I'm doing. Sue me. Or call a cop.

Technocrat

30th January 2011, 20:44

I don't know what you're looking at, but sure isn't the links I provided.

Total oil supply 2006: average daily output 84,543,111 barrels
Total oil supply 2008: average daily output 85,507,366 barrels

Way to ignore my last post. It appears that peak oil and peak denial go hand in hand. I'll just address the above since the rest of your argument follows from this and amounts to nothing more than a proof by intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation).

That's total oil supply, which includes natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, and such. If you select the chart for "Crude Oil including lease condensates," you get numbers closer to the graph for "total world oil production." Remember, peak oil is about the peak of crude oil production, not oil production including ngpl's and biofuels.

Again, the numbers are not raw crude production but "total oil supply" which includes such non-crude products as ngpl's. That's why you get around 85mbd as opposed to around 75mbd as the high for 2008. Different methodologies account for the differences in the numbers, but if you look at a graph of any of these the trend remains the same in all of them - pretty much steady growth for decades up to 2002, then a sudden plateau.

Okay, I stand corrected. Depending on which numbers you are going with - 2008 saw a slight bump in production - barely more than a 1% increase. As I said before, these things never move in a straight line - but notice the overall trend. There were times during the Great Depression when the stock market moved up, but we wouldn't say that just because it inched up one month that the Depression was over or it didn't exist. If you plot a growth line through 2002-2005, this growth line is typical for decades going backwards (with pretty much the sole exception being the OPEC glitch during the 70s). For the past 5 years, oil production has remained, as I said before, relatively flat. The exact peak can't be pinpointed until many years after it has already happened. The available evidence suggests that we are post-peak and have entered the plateau phase, at least until growth resumes that resembles the growth we had prior to 2002.

Check out the graph in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIrPrDNj5VM

Then compare to a graph of world oil production over the past few decades.

I don't see the relevance to the discussion at hand because the studies I'm citing - Pimentel et al - have assumed in their studies of carrying capacity a future in which fossil fuels have been depleted and we are required to rely on renewable sources of energy. This is a reasonable assumption because regardless of if we are past the peak or not, eventually we will be and will be required to rely on alternative energy.

This discussion of peak oil would be better suited to another thread.

S.Artesian

30th January 2011, 22:13

You don't want to discuss peak oil? Then next time don't introduce it as supporting your assertions.

And if you want to go back and look at trends, go back beyond 2002/2005 because that is exactly the period of time that the major oil companies choked off capital investment, that is exactly the period when the rate of replacement of capital by industry, mining etc. was below 1.

No extra charge for the correction.

As for ecological footprint, I believe the calculations are all based on the current, prevailing technology... no?

I have no doubt that the world is overpopulated for capitalism, and its necessity for restricting technology within the shell of private property, within the relations of profit. That's quite a different thing than there being an "absolute" population beyond some supposed carrying capacity of the earth, which in reality is nothing but the current mode of production.

But hey, I've derailed your little "apocalypse now" thread enough.

EDIT: You know what else is interesting-- if you select the option of "crude oil plus lease condensates"-- which means crude production plus the heavier hydrocarbons that precipitate out [pentane I think is one] but excludes natural gas liquids and gains from refining, you know what happens? 2008 exceeds 2006, again... and the average for the first 10 months of 2010 exceeds the monthly average for the twelve months of 2008.

Those concerned with trends in oil production might be tempted to try matching up capital investment, and capital investment rates before making pronouncements.

I'm not arguing from intimidation; anybody can read Marx, anybody can work out profit rates, rates of capital reinvestment, production costs and reference that with production rates. The only thing intimidating about that, I guess, is that you need to accept production as a social relation, not a natural, geological one. Scary, isn't it?

Not to put too fine a point it.

Technocrat

31st January 2011, 01:17

You don't want to discuss peak oil? Then next time don't introduce it as supporting your assertions.

It does support my assertions. The problem is that even if you disprove "peak oil," which you haven't, you still haven't addressed the rest of my argument. So, your focusing on peak oil to the exclusion of the rest of my argument is either a red herring or straw man.

And if you want to go back and look at trends, go back beyond 2002/2005 because that is exactly the period of time that the major oil companies choked off capital investment, that is exactly the period when the rate of replacement of capital by industry, mining etc. was below 1. The rate of oil discovery peaked around 50 years ago. The decline in investment is likely due to companies reducing investment in exploration, since they aren't finding anything. If you look at investment into specific sources like shale oil and Canadian tar sands, they've been skyrocketing in recent years. Why? Because all the "low hanging fruit" - the oil that is easy to get to and cheap to produce - is gone, and we aren't going to find another Saudi Arabia. This makes it economically viable to invest in more expensive, lower EROEI sources like tar sands.

As for ecological footprint, I believe the calculations are all based on the current, prevailing technology... no?Yeah - which basically proves that we are currently overpopulated. EP looks at how much resources were consumed (past-tense) to provide everyone with what they consumed (past-tense), usually looking at the previous year. How is it possible that we could consume more resources than are available? By depleting natural capital at a rate greater than it can be replenished by nature.

The studies by Pimentel et al that I referenced do not rely on ecological footprint but draw similar conclusions.

I have no doubt that the world is overpopulated for capitalism, and its necessity for restricting technology within the shell of private property, within the relations of profit. That's quite a different thing than there being an "absolute" population beyond some supposed carrying capacity of the earth, which in reality is nothing but the current mode of production.Ecological footprint proves that we are overpopulated right now in the sense that we are consuming more resources than can be sustainably provided by nature. Other studies, such as those by Pimentel, make a different set of assumptions: they assume that we will use resources much more efficiently than they are being used now. Hence the difference between 0.5 billion people under our current capitalist system, or 2 billion under a vastly different system of social organization and with greatly improved efficiency in the use of resources.

So, we are overpopulated right now, and we are overpopulated even assuming improved technology in a socialist utopia.

But hey, I've derailed your little "apocalypse now" thread enough.Sniping much?

EDIT: You know what else is interesting-- if you select the option of "crude oil plus lease condensates"-- which means crude production plus the heavier hydrocarbons that precipitate out [pentane I think is one] but excludes natural gas liquids and gains from refining, you know what happens? 2008 exceeds 2006, again... and the average for the first 10 months of 2010 exceeds the monthly average for the twelve months of 2008.My original statement was that if you checked any of these graphs, the trend was the same - a peak followed by a plateau, beginning around 2005-2006.

By around 1% - in science this is called "not statistically relevant." It does nothing to change the overall trend. This is statistics 101. A 1% bump upwards does not bring us out of the plateau any more than a 1% bump upwards in the stock market brings us out of the recession.

Those concerned with trends in oil production might be tempted to try matching up capital investment, and capital investment rates before making pronouncements.Those discussing capital investment had better know the reasons why capital investment slowed and be familiar with the history of oil discovery vis a vis investments.

I'm not arguing from intimidation; anybody can read Marx, anybody can work out profit rates, rates of capital reinvestment, production costs and reference that with production rates. The only thing intimidating about that, I guess, is that you need to accept production as a social relation, not a natural, geological one. Scary, isn't it?

Not to put too fine a point it.I can't prove intent, but it seems like you're just throwing around a bunch of jargon and concepts which are only peripherally related to what we're talking about. In other words, making the argument more complicated than it needs to be - an argument from intimidation.

How is it possible for production to not be related to geology assuming that the earth is endowed with a finite amount of oil? How can oil production depend solely on social relations if social relations cannot change the amount of oil that is in the ground?

EDIT: I find it highly unlikely that we will ever break out of the current plateau before we begin declining in production. Even if we do, the only thing that would disprove is that we have passed peak oil. It does not disprove that peak oil will still occur. If peak oil will still occur, and if oil will still eventually be depleted (or if the economically recoverable oil will still be depleted), then Pimentel's argument still applies (since it assumes the depletion of fossil fuels).

So far, all you have going for your argument is speculation that increased capital investment could substantially increase crude oil production rates. The most compelling evidence, I find, is crude oil production rates over the past 10 years contrasted with the entire history of crude oil production.

S.Artesian

31st January 2011, 02:29

Right, I can't "disprove" peak oil. All I can do is point out how it does not do what it claims to do-- accurately predict peaks in rates of extraction, total amounts extracted, and how much is left.

There's no strawman here, peak oil is the snake oil stock in trade of apocalypso bands bemoaning the overpresence of human beings on this planet, and looking fondly ahead to the "great die off" "culling the herd" "1 child per woman.. or else" all that junk.

As for the rest of your argument-- it relies on the ecological footprint which has been well criticized by others.

As for capital investment in oil, I know exactly why it was pinched off-- because the expenditures in the 1990s drove the cost of production per barrel for the US majors on US territory [on-shore, as well as off-shore] down to $3.30 a barrel, and prices broke the $10 barrier, bringing rates of return, the rates of profit down into the single digits.

So when the overproduction caught up and spread everywhere-- to telecoms, fiber optics, semiconductors, etc. and the great bubble burst in 2000-2001 and oil prices dropped to $20/barrel in 2002, causing the rate of profit to tank again, the oil companies went on a spending strike. The cause was the overproduction of capital. In the 2nd half of 2005, companies started to replace worn out equipment, accelerating spending throughout 2006 and 2007. You can look it up, if you're interested.

As for the rate of discovery having peaked 50 years ago, that's swell but there are some problems with just saying that-- if you are using Campbell's calculations, he has quite clearly massaged the numbers to fit his theory. Also, you'd have to be really blind to not recognize that replacement rates throughout the 90s [when that mean old capital spending was bearing its bitter fruit] -- reserve increases as compared to amounts extracted were well above 100 percent. So if the rate of discovery peaked years ago, it doesn't mean anything in that the discovery rate for any one year can be and is skewed by the discovery of any one super giant, or series of super giant fields, etc.

What counts is the rate of reserve increase-- most reserves are increased, not by discovering new super giants or giants-- since exploration is limited in the Middle East by government policies-- but at the drill bit, at fields that continue to produce more that "predicted" at rates much higher than predicted by "peak" theories etc etc. etc.

So like I said, there's no argument by intimidation. Anyone can do the research into the petroleum industry and make sense out of what's happening. To do that however you're going to have to understand that oil is a commodity. That supplies have historically, and are still, "price-sensitive." You might have to admit that arguing that resources are finite does not explain what is happening now with the actual supplies, and production of those resources.

You'd have to be willing to do more than plug numbers into some ridiculous video game type exercise like "ecological footprint."

But let's just be clear. I want everyone to know that I cannot disprove peak oil, because eventually sometime somewhere peak oil can occur. I can only point out that accepting a theory because it might eventually be right, and accepting it in the face of its own previous history of being wrong, of making wrong predictions, of improperly estimating maximum extractions, total supplies, isn't science. It's faith-based pseudo-science.

S.Artesian

31st January 2011, 02:47

If anybody wants to know what I do or don't know about capital spending and the oil industry, here's just one thing I've written, and I promise, it's not very intimidating

http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/2009/01/not-just-just-not-2.html

Technocrat

31st January 2011, 04:40

Right, I can't "disprove" peak oil. All I can do is point out how it does not do what it claims to do-- accurately predict peaks in rates of extraction, total amounts extracted, and how much is left.

That's a straw man if I ever heard one. First of all, where does the concept of peak oil "claim to accurately predict peaks in rates of extraction, total amounts extracted, and how much is left." Second of all, if one can't "accurately predict total amounts extracted," than how could one disprove peak oil (or that the peak hasn't happened, since one would have to do this by looking at figures of amounts extracted)? Thirdly, you are not distinguishing between the different uses of the term "peak oil." There is the basic concept of peak oil, which is that there is a moment in history where total oil production will never be greater. Then there are applications of the concept of peak oil, which could better be termed "peak oil theory." Fourth, even "peak oil theory" does not claim to predict anything (such as the exact date of peak oil) with 100% accuracy. However, it is the only theory with which such a prediction could be made. That is, any prediction involving or relating to the concept of a moment of maximum production of oil involves both "peak oil theory" and "peak oil." You might call it something else, but it would still be "peak oil."

There's no strawman here, peak oil is the snake oil stock in trade of apocalypso bands bemoaning the overpresence of human beings on this planet, and looking fondly ahead to the "great die off" "culling the herd" "1 child per woman.. or else" all that junk.You are in denial - you don't want to accept the fact that there are too many people consuming too many resources (a fact already proven by ecological footprint, among many other methods of analysis).

As for the rest of your argument-- it relies on the ecological footprint which has been well criticized by others.It has been criticized, just like global warming has its critics. The criticisms I've seen aren't very convincing and have been well addressed, but without mentioning a specific criticism I can't really respond more specifically.

As for capital investment in oil, I know exactly why it was pinched off-- because the expenditures in the 1990s drove the cost of production per barrel for the US majors on US territory [on-shore, as well as off-shore] down to $3.30 a barrel, and prices broke the $10 barrier, bringing rates of return, the rates of profit down into the single digits. This is well explained by peak oil theory. Let me see if I can break it down in easy terms: production was increased by spending more money. If the rate of production increases with increased spending, then the rate at which the oil is exhausted increases with spending. In other words, spending more money just accelerates the rate at which the oil is depleted. So it makes sense that following a production bonanza that production would slow and then plateau, which is exactly what has happened.

So when the overproduction caught up and spread everywhere-- to telecoms, fiber optics, semiconductors, etc. and the great bubble burst in 2000-2001 and oil prices dropped to $20/barrel in 2002, causing the rate of profit to tank again, the oil companies went on a spending strike. The cause was the overproduction of capital. In the 2nd half of 2005, companies started to replace worn out equipment, accelerating spending throughout 2006 and 2007. You can look it up, if you're interested.Production has remained in a plateau from about mid 2004. Prior to that there was steady, almost exponential growth in production, starting from the drilling of the first well to the peaking of US Oil production in the 1970s. After that, growth resumed at pretty much the same rate - until about mid 2004 when it started to plateau. There is nothing that can prove that production won't substantially increase again, but the evidence suggests that it is not likely. At least, based on what I've seen, I'm not betting on any substantial increase in oil production.

As for the rate of discovery having peaked 50 years ago, that's swell but there are some problems with just saying that-- if you are using Campbell's calculations, he has quite clearly massaged the numbers to fit his theory. Also, you'd have to be really blind to not recognize that replacement rates throughout the 90s [when that mean old capital spending was bearing its bitter fruit] -- reserve increases as compared to amounts extracted were well above 100 percent. So if the rate of discovery peaked years ago, it doesn't mean anything in that the discovery rate for any one year can be and is skewed by the discovery of any one super giant, or series of super giant fields, etc. I added emphasis to the last statement since it is the relevant assertion. You are essentially saying that the "peak rate of discovery" is skewed by the finding of super giant fields, but that itself doesn't mean anything. It doesn't change the fact that we're finding less oil than we used to, and spending more money to do it.

What counts is the rate of reserve increase-- most reserves are increased, not by discovering new super giants or giants-- since exploration is limited in the Middle East by government policies-- but at the drill bit, at fields that continue to produce more that "predicted" at rates much higher than predicted by "peak" theories etc etc. etc.Right, those holes just go to the center of the earth where there is a warm gooey nougat center of crude oil. As for your contention that some fields continue to produce at a higher rate than expected, I've already addressed this argument in my response to your first statement.

So like I said, there's no argument by intimidation. Anyone can do the research into the petroleum industry and make sense out of what's happening. To do that however you're going to have to understand that oil is a commodity. That supplies have historically, and are still, "price-sensitive." You might have to admit that arguing that resources are finite does not explain what is happening now with the actual supplies, and production of those resources. Again: from the moment the first well was drilled until mid 2004 there was exponential growth in oil production with scarcely a hiccup, discounting the peaking of domestic oil production coupled with the OPEC crisis in the 1970s. We've had a slight bump in production since 2004 but nothing that would bring us out of a statistical plateau.

You'd have to be willing to do more than plug numbers into some ridiculous video game type exercise like "ecological footprint."Right, like read any of the other studies I've mentioned or linked to. Pimentel, for example, does not rely on ecological footprint. Like peak oil, ecological footprint is not the sole supporting evidence for my argument. It's just one tool that can be used to confirm the assertion that the world is currently overpopulated.

But let's just be clear. I want everyone to know that I cannot disprove peak oil, because eventually sometime somewhere peak oil can occur. I can only point out that accepting a theory because it might eventually be right, and accepting it in the face of its own previous history of being wrong, of making wrong predictions, of improperly estimating maximum extractions, total supplies, isn't science. It's faith-based pseudo-science.It's not that it "might eventually be right."

Now you sound like a right-winger trying to discount evolution theory by calling it a theory.

However, the theory of peak oil is correct right now, not "might be correct in the future." If you accept that the earth contains a finite amount of oil, all it takes is simple deductive logic to see that there will be a moment in history when production will never be higher. So the only two things "peak oil theory" relies on is 1) accepting that the earth's amount of oil is finite and 2) deductive logic.

Predictions of the date of peak oil using various methodologies will of course vary in their accuracy. The important thing, however, is that any accurate prediction of peak oil has to involve "peak oil." More important than this, is that regardless of the exact date or if we have already passed the peak, the peak will eventually occur, meaning we will have to use alternative energy. So if we are trying to determine what is sustainable, we have to assume that fossil fuels aren't available. This is obvious though, which is why I accused you of trying to derail the thread by arguing through intimidation.

S.Artesian

31st January 2011, 05:59

Technocrat

31st January 2011, 18:03

Cool story bro, but you've got it backwards. Oil exists as oil; it is only extracted, produced, as a commodity. So profit determines what the oil companies do, where they expend their resources, and from where they withdraw their resources. They are in the business to make money, not oil.

Great - that doesn't change the fact that oil availability is primarily a geological fact. Can altering social relations alter the amount of oil in the ground? Of course not. Again, you're trying to weasel your way out of this by making the argument more complicated than necessary.

As for peak oil and predictions-- have you read these guys? These guys have an industry of their own devoted to predictions, calculations of how much can be extracted over how long a period of time. That's what they do. That's what they are selling, their predicative models.So the conspiracy theorist nature of your argument becomes apparent. Most people in the peak oil community are disinterested (in other words, do not stand to make a profit) geologists, industry experts, and engineers that work in the oil industry. They aren't CEOs and economists. The vast majority of those who talk about peak oil make no money from it. The only motivation they could have for talking about it is that they are genuinely concerned.

You sound like a right-winger. Right-wingers accuse scientists of lying about global warming so that those devious scientists can make a profit off of a carbon tax while depriving Americans of their God-given right to drive a car - never mind all the logical hoops one has to jump through to make that work. This is the same argument you're now leveling against those who talk about peak oil: they must all be involved in some kind of conspiracy to sell peak oil books. Never mind the fact that most are hard working individuals who dedicate their free time to this in order to hopefully spread some awareness about a critical problem - they must be in on it! Am I in on it, too? Am I going to make a bunch of money for this? This is actually a right-wring, conspiracy theorist argument which would seem perfectly natural coming out of the mouth of Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/)(Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/)does in fact argue that peak oil is a lie manufactured so that some individuals can make money speculating on oil prices).

Every intervention by OPEC, every jacking of the price, flattening of production, and in fact the peaking in production in the US, [and Venezuela] is preceded by a decline in the rate of profit in the industry. Which is well explained within the framework of peak oil as I described above: it makes perfect sense that production would slow and decline after experiencing rapid growth, and that profits would match this activity.

What you are claiming right now--"this is it, this is the real peak. this time it's a dead cinch lock, we've hit the max" is no different than what Campbell claimed in 1989, or his predictions in 1991, or his claim in 1995, or his squealing for joy when oil hit what $40 or $50 dollars/barrel. If I were you, before I swallowed anymore of these "theories," I'd ask for full disclosure of any and all positions the theorists and/or their families, agents, etc. hold in the spot markets. Again with the conspiracy theories, really? The vast majority of those who talk about peak oil stand to gain nothing from it.

PS Evolution is not a theory. It is confirmed by evidence, by records of evidence, fossil, genetic records which examine a past development. Evolution makes no prediction about "peaks" and certainly doesn't make predictions about societies. Social darwinists do. Socio-biologists do. But they're not scientists. Either.Evolution is a theory. Anything confirmed by evidence is still a theory. We just say that "all the available evidence supports the theory," we don't say "this theory is factually correct." Evolution theory is still revisable in light of evidence which doesn't agree with it, but this fact that it is revisable does not make evolution theory false, or in any way diminish its ability to explain what it seeks to explain. The only difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law, is that a law has more evidence supporting it than a theory, and a theory has more evidence supporting it than a hypothesis. There are no hard-and-fast rules determining when a hypothesis becomes a theory, this just happens by consensus in the scientific community.

Then you go on to declare that sociobiology is not a science - a curious move indeed coming from one who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is, and a point which I don't feel any particular need to address.

S.Artesian

31st January 2011, 18:48

Evolution is a theory. Anything confirmed by evidence is still a theory. We just say that "all the available evidence supports the theory," we don't say "this theory is factually correct." Evolution theory is still revisable in light of evidence which doesn't agree with it, but this fact that it is revisable does not make evolution theory false, or in any way diminish its ability to explain what it seeks to explain. The only difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law, is that a law has more evidence supporting it than a theory, and a theory has more evidence supporting it than a hypothesis. There are no hard-and-fast rules determining when a hypothesis becomes a theory, this just happens by consensus in the scientific community.

Actually, that's exactly what we do say about this theory-- it's factually correct. That's exactly what distinguishes evolution from peak oil.

As for the rest of what you say-- it's simply your attempt to weasel out from the fact that the peak oiler predictions have been consistently wrong, frequently revised, and mostly inaccurate.

Is there a peak somewhere in the future? Probably, sure, beats the fuck out of me. Is oil finite? Of course, is the availability of a finite resource to society based on exactly how much of the resource there is, or is it dependent upon the technical development of the society, and the social relations that surround that technical development.

But don't let me stop you, since peak oil explains things so well, go right ahead and explain Saudi production in the 1980s by peak oil theory.

Technocrat

31st January 2011, 21:19

Actually, that's exactly what we do say about this theory-- it's factually correct. That's exactly what distinguishes evolution from peak oil.

Uh, no - no theory can ever be "correct." An observation can be correct, such as "this text is black on a gray background." A theory can only be "supported by the available evidence (i.e. observations)," which is what is meant when a scientist says that a theory is "correct."

As for the rest of what you say-- it's simply your attempt to weasel out from the fact that the peak oiler predictions have been consistently wrong, frequently revised, and mostly inaccurate.No, it's my attempt to show that you've been obfuscating the issue the entire time and that your criticisms of peak oil are unfounded.

Is there a peak somewhere in the future? Probably, sure, beats the fuck out of me. Is oil finite? Of course, is the availability of a finite resource to society based on exactly how much of the resource there is, or is it dependent upon the technical development of the society, and the social relations that surround that technical development.I already acknowledged in an earlier post that the rate of depletion relates to social factors, but the fact that oil is finite and thus has a peak does not depend on social factors - otherwise, it would be possible to change the fact that oil is finite by changing the right social factors.

But don't let me stop you, since peak oil explains things so well, go right ahead and explain Saudi production in the 1980s by peak oil theory.See my reply to your previous statement.

The point, as it relates to this thread, is that peak oil will eventually occur and fossil fuels will eventually be depleted, so we will have to live within the limits determined by the resources we will have available to us. The fact that the world already cannot sustain current consumption rates is the only proof one needs that the world is overpopulated. In biology, consuming more than what can be sustainably produced is known as overshoot or overpopulation. That we might hypothetically reduce our consumption through improved technology or alternate social arrangements does not change the fact that we are overpopulated right now, for the set of circumstances which exists today.

Those who have asked the question "how many people could the earth sustain if we used resources as efficiently as possible," such as Pimentel, usually settle on a range of 1-2 billion people as the maximum sustainable population if everyone is to have a decent standard of living.

S.Artesian

31st January 2011, 21:56

The Vegan Marxist

31st January 2011, 22:34

I'll tell you this, when you and Pimentel and whoever else starts demanding "one child per woman" and you find that doesn't work, and you start considering your "options" for reducing the population, for culling the herd, for "saving humanity" from its own folly, but pre-empting the "great die off" with your great "pare down"-- you'll definitely think you are acting "scientifically," but you won't be acting in either the interests of science or in the interest of humanity. You will be giving the barbarism at the heart of capitalist accumulation its most acute expression.

I promise to be there advocating, organizing, building the opposition to your "science" of depopulation.

When did Technocrat advocate the one-child policy? :confused:

Technocrat

31st January 2011, 22:57

I'll tell you this, when you and Pimentel and whoever else starts demanding "one child per woman" and you find that doesn't work, and you start considering your "options" for reducing the population, for culling the herd, for "saving humanity" from its own folly, but pre-empting the "great die off" with your great "pare down"-- you'll definitely think you are acting "scientifically," but you won't be acting in either the interests of science or in the interest of humanity. You will be giving the barbarism at the heart of capitalist accumulation its most acute expression.

I promise to be there advocating, organizing, building the opposition to your "science" of depopulation.

This might be the biggest straw man yet: that it would take oppressive measures to attain a population reduction and that those who advocate for population reduction endorse oppressive measures. The goal of population stabilization could be attained with reasonable and fair policies within less than a century.

S.Artesian

1st February 2011, 01:50

This might be the biggest straw man yet: that it would take oppressive measures to attain a population reduction and that those who advocate for population reduction endorse oppressive measures. The goal of population stabilization could be attained with reasonable and fair policies within less than a century.

Within less than a century? Really, you think you got 100 years in your little apocalypse right now scenario? You said you could bring down the population of the planet by half, and easily within a generation. So suppose a revolution takes power when the population of the earth is 9 million and that revolution makes the biggest mistake ever by listening to you and your "die off" ilk.

What is the net loss of people per year to get the planet to 4.5 billion in 30 years?

Tell us how that can be achieved given current longevity statistics without withholding medical care.

Technocrat

1st February 2011, 18:55

Within less than a century? Really, you think you got 100 years in your little apocalypse right now scenario? You said you could bring down the population of the planet by half, and easily within a generation. So suppose a revolution takes power when the population of the earth is 9 million and that revolution makes the biggest mistake ever by listening to you and your "die off" ilk.

What is the net loss of people per year to get the planet to 4.5 billion in 30 years?

Tell us how that can be achieved given current longevity statistics without withholding medical care.

Gladly. Let's see... average life expectancy in a developed nation is around 72 years. So if everyone is raised to that living standard, everyone will live to be about 72 years old. In 72 years, those born today will be dead. In reality, 72 years is a conservative estimate, because not everyone lives at the standard of living of the developed nations and they have lower life expectancies, making the actual figure less than 72 years.

If the birth rate is half of the replacement level - that is, one child per woman, starting today, then within 72 years the population will be half of what it is today (those born before today would already be dead).

So, it would only take an amount of time equal to the average life expectancy to reduce the population to 1/2 what it is now with reasonable policies and fair incentives.

Pretty simple.

What would happen if we just left population growth unchecked? At present rates, there would be an average of 190 million excess deaths per year by 2027. So, your apocalypse scenario comes true in a world of unchecked population growth, but could be easily solved given the above. Source: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

To repeat: the things you fear - violence, oppression, etc - will be the result of an unchecked population. These things can only be avoided if we live within the carrying capacity of the planet.

It would be possible to reduce the population by 50% peacefully and without violence through fair incentives and reasonable policies. This could be accomplished in less than 72 years after such policies/incentives are implemented.

S.Artesian

1st February 2011, 19:49

Gladly. Let's see... average life expectancy in a developed nation is around 72 years. So if everyone is raised to that living standard, everyone will live to be about 72 years old. In 72 years, those born today will be dead. In reality, 72 years is a conservative estimate, because not everyone lives at the standard of living of the developed nations and they have lower life expectancies, making the actual figure less than 72 years.

Bullshit. 72 year is the life expectancy in Jordan, the Dominican Republic etc. Mexico's above 76; China's above 73; Argentina above 75. Life expectancy in Japan is above 82, in Hong Kong near 82. In the US about 78.

If this is an example of your science, you need to learn how to read first.

Secondly, how long is it going to take to get everyone's life expectancy up that of the "average developed country" and exactly how is that going to be done without increasing energy use?

Thirdly, in your earlier post you claimed the population could be halved in "1-2" generations. Even at 2 generations that's less than 72 years.

And what about countries with life expectancies above the average-- do you intend to lower those averages-- considering that while rates of reproduction are less than in countries with lower life expectancies, they are still well above your "1 for 2" scenario. So what do you propose for those people? More McDonald's, less medical care? Or maybe less safe drinking water?

This where you pseudo-science gets you-- pretending your god in a comic book.

Be a real leader and do the world a favor and, when you get to 72, terminate your own life.

Technocrat

1st February 2011, 20:11

.

Bullshit. 72 year is the life expectancy in Jordan, the Dominican Republic etc. Mexico's above 76; China's above 73; Argentina above 75. Life expectancy in Japan is above 82, in Hong Kong near 82. In the US about 78.

If this is an example of your science, you need to learn how to read first.

Whoops, my bad. 78 years it is, then. I didn't bother to look this up and was going on memory. Still doesn't defeat my claim that "this could be accomplished in less than a century."

Secondly, how long is it going to take to get everyone's life expectancy up that of the "average developed country" and exactly how is that going to be done without increasing energy use?I already explained this:
In reality, 72 years is a conservative estimate, because not everyone lives at the standard of living of the developed nations and they have lower life expectancies, making the actual figure less than 72 years.

In regards to the claim I made, I am not assuming that we will get everyone in the developed world up to the standard of living of those in the first world, I was saying that if we did, then the claim is true. If we don't, then the claim is still true, because this would result in an average life expectancy of less than 72 years.

Thirdly, in your earlier post you claimed the population could be halved in "1-2" generations. Even at 2 generations that's less than 72 years.I'm just repeating myself now:

If the birth rate is half of the replacement level - that is, one child per woman, starting today, then within 72 years the population will be half of what it is today (those born before today would already be dead).

So, it would only take an amount of time equal to the average life expectancy to reduce the population to 1/2 what it is now with reasonable policies and fair incentives.

So, replace "72" with "78" and the statement is true. The general claim that I originally made, that these goals could be accomplished within less than a century, still holds.

Aside from this - you just said that "at 2 generations this would be less than 72 years" - this only supports my claim!

And what about countries with life expectancies above the average-- do you intend to lower those averages-- considering that while rates of reproduction are less than in countries with lower life expectancies, they are still well above your "1 for 2" scenario. So what do you propose for those people? More McDonald's, less medical care? Or maybe less safe drinking water?Are you just not understanding averages now? We're talking about the population of the entire world, so we're looking at the average life expectancy of the entire world. Let's take the highest possible life expectancy - shit, we'll take one higher than any that exists today, and say that the entire world has an average life expectancy of 99 years. My claim is still true that: "population could be reduced by 50% through peaceful means in less than a century."

This where you pseudo-science gets you-- pretending your god in a comic book.

Be a real leader and do the world a favor and, when you get to 72, terminate your own life.Getting a little hostile, are we?

S.Artesian

1st February 2011, 23:14

Hey clown, you said in a 1 for 2 replacement rate you could do it in 72 years for the world, based on your assumption that 72 years is the avg life expectancy for the developed countries. But the average life expectancy is 78.

The average life expectancy of people in the fSU and many of the former allied countries is less-- then there's India, significant parts of Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean where the life expectancy, on average, is less.

So your task is to simultaneously make population growth rates go to negative while upgrading the living standards of, not the average, but in fact about 2/3 of the world's population.

If your "footprint" calculations are as dire as you present them, and if, as you claim they are based on assumption of a radically improved technology, then exactly how do you plan to enhance the living standards of the 2/3 majority by reducing demands on land, water, energy resources simultaneously? And do it in 25-50 years, which is 1-2 generations as you originally claimed.

You don't have 72 years, remember? we are 5X, currently, "overpopulated." So what bit of magical thinking are you going to employ to get yourself out of this trick bag you put yourself in, of raising living standards for the majority of the world's population, reducing demands on resources, without resorting to any drastic "compulsory" measures-- like making sure enough people die every year to fit your anti-species "footprint"?

Or is it quite simply the fact that "technocracy" as you propose it has absolutely no interest in the improvement in the living standards of that 2/3 of the population; that such concerns are of secondary importance to the overriding necessity of "reducing" the footprint, which is clearly a euphemism for reducing the species above all else?

That's the real question, isn't it, Parson?

And I've never argued for "unchecked" population growth; I've argued that economic development, improving medical care, nutrition, education, advancing technical applications in production are the only revolutionary way of human beings managing their own growth in this world.

Technocrat

2nd February 2011, 00:53

Hey clown, you said in a 1 for 2 replacement rate you could do it in 72 years for the world, based on your assumption that 72 years is the avg life expectancy for the developed countries. But the average life expectancy is 78.

Hey clown - 78 years is still less than 100 years, which is what my claim was: "within less than a century the population could be reduced by 50% with a 1 for 2 replacement rate"

I was off by 6 years because, like I already said, I was going by memory and didn't look it up. But the difference between 78 years and 72 years makes no difference in the validity of my claim.

If the average life expectancy is less than 100 years, than the population could be reduced by 50% with a 1 for 2 replacement rate in less than 100 years. This is merely a rephrasing of my original claim:

Original Claim:

This might be the biggest straw man yet: that it would take oppressive measures to attain a population reduction and that those who advocate for population reduction endorse oppressive measures. The goal of population stabilization could be attained with reasonable and fair policies within less than a century.

So your task is to simultaneously make population growth rates go to negative while upgrading the living standards of, not the average, but in fact about 2/3 of the world's population.

If your "footprint" calculations are as dire as you present them, and if, as you claim they are based on assumption of a radically improved technology, then exactly how do you plan to enhance the living standards of the 2/3 majority by reducing demands on land, water, energy resources simultaneously? And do it in 25-50 years, which is 1-2 generations as you originally claimed.
This will be the third time I've explained this:

I already explained this: Quote:
Originally Posted by Technocrat
In reality, 72 years is a conservative estimate, because not everyone lives at the standard of living of the developed nations and they have lower life expectancies, making the actual figure less than 72 years.
In regards to the claim I made, I am not assuming that we will get everyone in the developed world up to the standard of living of those in the first world, I was saying that if we did, then the claim is true. If we don't, then the claim is still true, because this would result in an average life expectancy of less than 72 years.

You don't have 72 years, remember? we are 5X, currently, "overpopulated." So what bit of magical thinking are you going to employ to get yourself out of this trick bag you put yourself in, of raising living standards for the majority of the world's population, reducing demands on resources, without resorting to any drastic "compulsory" measures-- like making sure enough people die every year to fit your anti-species "footprint"?

We are overpopulated in the sense that we are depleting natural capital faster than it is replenished by natural systems. This doesn't mean that we're going to run out of natural capital overnight, or within 100 years - it just means that each year we will have less and less natural capital, and the standard of living will decrease by a corresponding amount - that's assuming that nothing is done about population growth and consumption.

Or is it quite simply the fact that "technocracy" as you propose it has absolutely no interest in the improvement in the living standards of that 2/3 of the population; that such concerns are of secondary importance to the overriding necessity of "reducing" the footprint, which is clearly a euphemism for reducing the species above all else?
BAM! Another Straw Man. Yes, Technocracy seeks to dominate and oppress everyone in the third world. That is it's sole purpose. Shit, I guess the cat's outta the bag.

The sole reason I brought up standard of living is that it supports my claim either way. Either the living standards of the third world are brought up to the standards of the first world, or else they aren't. IF living standards remain as they are, my claim stands. IF living standards are brought up to first world standards (assuming they can be), my claim still stands. Therefore, in either possibility, my claim stands.

I'll repeat this again, since you obviously missed the point the first time. Maybe with repetition you'll get it:

Are you just not understanding averages now? We're talking about the population of the entire world, so we're looking at the average life expectancy of the entire world. Let's take the highest possible life expectancy - shit, we'll take one higher than any that exists today, and say that the entire world has an average life expectancy of 99 years. My claim is still true that: "population could be reduced by 50% through peaceful means in less than a century."

Maybe it would be easier to look at it another way: the only way my claim could be false is if the average life expectancy of everyone on the planet was greater than 100 years! Scroll above to see what the claim is in case you already forgot.

That's the real question, isn't it, Parson?

And I've never argued for "unchecked" population growth; I've argued that economic development, improving medical care, nutrition, education, advancing technical applications in production are the only revolutionary way of human beings managing their own growth in this world.Pimentel et al make the same assumptions that you do in your above statement and have settled on a range of 1-2 billion as the sustainable population for the planet.

Now, If you do not address the arguments I have put forward I will take this as proof that you have no way of addressing them. I will not continue wasting my time with repeating myself. As far as I'm concerned, if you cannot address the arguments I've put forward, the debate is over. I won't continue to respond to any re-hashes of counterarguments that have already been addressed.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 01:08

You said 1-2 generations, not 100 years.

You have no argument to address-- now you're claiming. oh this doesn't mean we are going to run out, now or in one hundred years, just that living standards will decline each year-- it's nothing but the peak oil argument all over again.

Let's try this-- real wages for workers declined from about 1976- well you fill in the date; poverty rates increased in the US, particularly among children. The 1980s saw dramatic drops in living standards in Mexico and Latin America, and Africa. The 1990s, the fSU and Africa again. Did any of that have the slightest bit to do with overpopulation and the rate of consumption of resources?

Yeah, eventually we'll "run out," but no, living standards in this world right now and for who knows how long are not dependent on the supplies of natural resources, but on the social relations of production that dictate how such resources are accessed and utilized, and any decline in living standards over the next who knows how long will not be due to overpopulation.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 01:26

You said 1-2 generations, not 100 years.

This is essentially your only argument. So can you at least provide a quote of where he first stated this, that way we can end that argument and either lead to you apologizing for your error or Technocrat apologizing for his error? Either provide a quoted evidence that he said it, or don't bring up a contradictory argument.

Amphictyonis

2nd February 2011, 01:36

I loved David Rockefeller's speech concerning population control. How many kids does he have?

Technocrat

2nd February 2011, 02:41

You said 1-2 generations, not 100 years.

First of all, I was taking a "generation" to mean an amount of time equal to a lifetime - the average life expectancy. Second of all, I clarified this use of the term several times since I used the term "generation" by stating more specifically, "100 years." This because the average life expectancy is less than 100 years (and likely to remain that way for the immediate future).

So my only mistake here is in misusing the term "generation," if you want to call it a misuse. However, I am not arguing over the use of the word "generation," so this objection of yours is a quibble. I clarified and reiterated my position several times since my initial use of the term "generation."

If the average life expectancy for the entire planet is less than 100 years, than it is possible to reduce the population by 50% within 100 years with a 1 for 2 replacement rate.

To state it another way, if the average life expectancy for the entire planet is X, then it is possible to reduce the population by 50% within X years if the replacement rate is 1 for 2.

You have no argument to address-- now you're claiming. oh this doesn't mean we are going to run out, now or in one hundred years, just that living standards will decline each year-- it's nothing but the peak oil argument all over again. A claim is part of an argument. In this case, the claim is that we could reduce population by half within less than 100 years. A claim I've reiterated several times and which should be abundantly clear by now.

Let's try this-- real wages for workers declined from about 1976- well you fill in the date; poverty rates increased in the US, particularly among children. The 1980s saw dramatic drops in living standards in Mexico and Latin America, and Africa. The 1990s, the fSU and Africa again. Did any of that have the slightest bit to do with overpopulation and the rate of consumption of resources? Probably. The 1970s was the height of domestic oil production in the United States, do ya think maybe that had something to do with the decline in the standard of living? But how does this relate in any way to the claim which you're trying to refute? Oh yeah - it doesn't! Another bullshit red herring to distract from the fact that you lost this debate a long time ago.

Yeah, eventually we'll "run out," but no, living standards in this world right now and for who knows how long are not dependent on the supplies of natural resources, but on the social relations of production that dictate how such resources are accessed and utilized, and any decline in living standards over the next who knows how long will not be due to overpopulation.Again, I'm not denying that social relations play a role in how resources are used - but denying that resource availability has any effect or could have any effect on standard of living just shows how far you have your head up your ass. Resource availability is an independent variable. This is because resource availability, how much is in the ground, does not change. Sure, we might be able to drill deeper or alter social factors to allow for the greater exploitation of resources (repeal environmental regulations), but this does not change the amount of resources which were already in the ground. Thus, social factors cannot be said to be the determining cause of standard of living. But then, I'm just repeating myself again.

Lucretia

2nd February 2011, 02:49

I am merely saying that either we will have to cut down on our population growth or the laws of nature will, such is the nature of things.

Laws of nature? You sound like a reactionary Malthusian using this kind of language. What population the Earth is capable of sustaining? That is a historical question, and depends upon the efficiency of the technology we can employ to utilize natural resources in a sustainable way.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 02:49

Well, it's really not up to me what happens to these excess human beings. Nature will drag us kicking and screaming to a sustainable population, or else we can take rational action to reduce our numbers voluntarily and avoid the war, famine, genocide, etc that would result from a scarcity of resources. A one child per family act, mutually agreed upon by all of society, would bring our numbers to a sustainable level within 1-2 generations.

Here's the link in case you think I altered the text. Now see he's not talking about bringing the population down by half here, here's talking about bringing it down by more than half because at the 1950 level, the earth can only support 1.4 billion, right?

Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2001800&postcount=118)

So here's my argument-- to make an international, worldwide collective voluntary discussion and decision of this sort takes a) a revolution and b) a revolution that would "unleash the productive forces;" that would bring every person on the planet to a level of well-being and education beyond that which exists now for maybe 70-75% of the planet.

Now Technocrat claims his models showing the unsustainability of the current population levels take into account advanced technologies. Well, how can we be on a path to apocalypse with an urgency to bring the population down to less than half-- "sustainable numbers"--when a) technocrat now says-- "I don't mean to say we're definitely going to run out of resources soon or even in 100 years and b) we have at least 72 years to get the earth's population down by half, using only persuasion, and voluntary methods and yet, at the same time c) we are supposedly at a level 5X the earth's carrying capacity and d) if we don't embrace this "model" and embrace it worldwide and right quick plague, starvation, and Cormac McCarthy's The Road await us?

But in answer to your question Vegan, there's where he said-- get the earth's population down to sustainable numbers in 1-2 generations.

Don't bother apologizing.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 03:03

First of all, I was taking a "generation" to mean an amount of time equal to a lifetime - the average life expectancy. Second of all, I clarified this use of the term several times since I used the term "generation" by stating more specifically, "100 years." This because the average life expectancy is less than 100 years (and likely to remain that way for the immediate future).

Oh bullshit, mr. technocrat. A generation never has and never will mean in a lifetime. That's just weaseling around the issue. Generation is the estimated time span that it takes for a human being from the time of birth to reproduce another human being. A generation is more like 25 years

So my only mistake here is in misusing the term "generation," if you want to call it a misuse. However, I am not arguing over the use of the word "generation," so this objection of yours is a quibble. I clarified and reiterated my position several times since my initial use of the term "generation."

That's some quibble-- reducing the population to a "sustainable number" in say 45 years [less than 2 generations] rather than 78 years. Work the numbers there mr. unquibbler and tell me if you can do it in that time merely by voluntary programs?

If the average life expectancy for the entire planet is less than 100 years, than it is possible to reduce the population by 50% within 100 years with a 1 for 2 replacement rate.

To state it another way, if the average life expectancy for the entire planet is X, then it is possible to reduce the population by 50% within X years if the replacement rate is 1 for 2.

No shit Sherlock. Thanks. What that has to do with your original claim in post #118 beats the hell out of me.

A claim is part of an argument. In this case, the claim is that we could reduce population by half within less than 100 years. A claim I've reiterated several times and which should be abundantly clear by now.

That wasn't your claim. You made it your new claim when you got called out on your original claim.

Probably. The 1970s was the height of domestic oil production in the United States, do ya think maybe that had something to do with the decline in the standard of living? But how does this relate in any way to the claim which you're trying to refute? Oh yeah - it doesn't! Another bullshit red herring to distract from the fact that you lost this debate a long time ago.

You know nothing about capitalism and the capitalist economy. The peak of domestic oil production didn't have anything to do with living standards. The peak of profitable oil production; the peak of profitable manufacturing and the subsequent decline had everything to do with it. And it just so happened that restoring that profitability to the oil majors, which is exactly
what OPEC did, caused the stagflation of the mid 1970s, kicked in the "financialization" of the economy [creating among other things, the first MBS] brought a tremendous flood of petrodollars into the US economy for recycling which led to the lost decade of the 1980s.

Next, you're going to tell me that Pinochet's overthrow of Allende, the coups and dirty wars in Uruguay and Argentina, the struggle and near revolution in Portugal were all products of "peak oil."

Again, I'm not denying that social relations play a role in how resources are used - but denying that resource availability has any effect or could have any effect on standard of living just shows how far you have your head up your ass. Resource availability is an independent variable. This is because resource availability, how much is in the ground, does not change. Sure, we might be able to drill deeper or alter social factors to allow for the greater exploitation of resources (repeal environmental regulations), but this does not change the amount of resources which were already in the ground. Thus, social factors cannot be said to be the determining cause of standard of living. But then, I'm just repeating myself again.

And you don't know how much "natural capital" there is, by your own admission. "It doesn't mean we're going to run out now or 100 years from now."

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 03:05

I don't know, but he had one less nephew after Michael had a close encounter of the last kind in New Guinea.

Technocrat

2nd February 2011, 03:05

Here's the link in case you think I altered the text. Now see he's not talking about bringing the population down by half here, here's talking about bringing it down by more than half because at the 1950 level, the earth can only support 1.4 billion, right?

Already addressed. See above. The claim that the earth can support 1-2 billion people does not contradict the claim that we could reduce the population by 50% within the average life expectancy of the entire world.

So here's my argument-- to make an international, worldwide collective voluntary discussion and decision of this sort takes a) a revolution and b) a revolution that would "unleash the productive forces;" that would bring every person on the planet to a level of well-being and education beyond that which exists now for maybe 70-75% of the planet.Okay, but that argument does not conflict with my argument in any way.

Now Technocrat claims his models showing the unsustainability of the current population levels take into account advanced technologies. Well, how can we be on a path to apocalypse with an urgency to bring the population down to less than half-- "sustainable numbers"--when a) technocrat now says-- "I don't mean to say we're definitely going to run out of resources soon or even in 100 yearsAs I already said, each person's piece of the total resource pie will become smaller and smaller until there is not enough, assuming that population growth is left unchecked. We aren't going to simply run out of any resource overnight. We don't have to "run out" of a resource for it to have significant, earth-shattering, society-wide effects. In making this statement I am assuming that constantly improving technology will not be able to maintain a constantly increasing output with a finite amount of resources - this is known as the law of diminishing returns.

and b) we have at least 72 years to get the earth's population down by half, using only persuasion, and voluntary methods and yet, at the same time c) we are supposedly at a level 5X the earth's carrying capacity and d) if we don't embrace this "model" and embrace it worldwide and right quick plague, starvation, and Cormac McCarthy's The Road await us?Now you are simply confusing one claim with another, another straw man. I stated that "we could accomplish this within 100 years." This doesn't mean that we will accomplish this in 100 years, or even that we have 100 years to do it. I also didn't say that we don't have 100 years - I didn't make any claim whatsoever as to how much time we have. Personally I think we still have enough time to significantly reduce the amount of suffering that will result if we don't do anything to check population growth (190 million excess deaths per year by 2027 - see the link above).

As for C), the claim that we are at a level 5x the earth's carrying capacity is if we were to raise everyone to a standard of living approximately half that of the American standard. If you are looking at current consumption rates, we are consuming 1.4 times* more resources than are sustainably produced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). In other words we are already consuming resources at a rate 40% higher than what can be sustained.

As for D) Since I made no reference to the amount of time we have available to us, I made no such claim that these policies would have to adopted "right now." Nor did I say that they would have to be adopted worldwide. Some countries are already below replacement level, so they wouldn't need to adopt any new policies.

*Edit: I mistakenly typed "1.5 times" initially.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 03:09

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 03:12

One more time, mr. equivocating technocrat. what you said was we could reduce the earth's population to a sustainable level, which given your previous claims is necessarily less than half the current population, within 1-2 generations by using strictly "voluntary" methods.

Do you still make that claim?

Will you seriously just shut the fuck up and actually keep up with the current arguments? He's already explained this, and you know he did with your "Mr. Technocrat" start-off's.

Here's what he stated in response to your ongoing "did you say this/that" rant:

First of all, I was taking a "generation" to mean an amount of time equal to a lifetime - the average life expectancy. Second of all, I clarified this use of the term several times since I used the term "generation" by stating more specifically, "100 years." This because the average life expectancy is less than 100 years (and likely to remain that way for the immediate future).

So my only mistake here is in misusing the term "generation," if you want to call it a misuse. However, I am not arguing over the use of the word "generation," so this objection of yours is a quibble. I clarified and reiterated my position several times since my initial use of the term "generation."

If the average life expectancy for the entire planet is less than 100 years, than it is possible to reduce the population by 50% within 100 years with a 1 for 2 replacement rate.

To state it another way, if the average life expectancy for the entire planet is X, then it is possible to reduce the population by 50% within X years if the replacement rate is 1 for 2.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 04:01

Will you seriously just shut the fuck up and actually keep up with the current arguments? He's already explained this, and you know he did with your "Mr. Technocrat" start-off's.

Here's what he stated in response to your ongoing "did you say this/that" rant:

Thanks for your input, but you put a challenge out there, with the kicker about apologizing. I accepted the challenge and proved that he had said what I said he said.

This baloney about "confusing" generation with average life span just doesn't wash, especially for someone who claims to be so wedded to the "science" of depletion theories.

So the short version, is no, I'm not going to seriously shut the fuck up. But thanks for asking, and please believe me when I wish you nothing but success in all your future endeavors... even if you don't have the integrity to accept with good grace that your challenge was accepted and satisfied.

Technocrat

2nd February 2011, 07:44

Thanks for your input, but you put a challenge out there, with the kicker about apologizing. I accepted the challenge and proved that he had said what I said he said.

This baloney about "confusing" generation with average life span just doesn't wash, especially for someone who claims to be so wedded to the "science" of depletion theories.

So the short version, is no, I'm not going to seriously shut the fuck up. But thanks for asking, and please believe me when I wish you nothing but success in all your future endeavors... even if you don't have the integrity to accept with good grace that your challenge was accepted and satisfied.

For fuck's sake, I said "generation" once, several posts ago, and have since then clarified what I meant several times.

You're not responding to the arguments being presented. I'll take this as your final rejoinder - I'm done here until I see a response to the arguments I've put forward (which I've clarified several times for you).

Amphictyonis

2nd February 2011, 09:12

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/30/us-food-meat-laboratory-feature-idUSTRE70T1WZ20110130

^ Growing meat in a lab.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 14:00

For fuck's sake, I said "generation" once, several posts ago, and have since then clarified what I meant several times.

You're not responding to the arguments being presented. I'll take this as your final rejoinder - I'm done here until I see a response to the arguments I've put forward (which I've clarified several times for you).

Well, according to Vegan, I think you owe me an apology, no? That's OK though, I'm not want to hold a grudge.

Best wishes for your success in all your future endeavors. Except one.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 16:13

Perhaps one last word before you go, you claim:

As for D) Since I made no reference to the amount of time we have available to us, I made no such claim that these policies would have to adopted "right now." Nor did I say that they would have to be adopted worldwide. Some countries are already below replacement level, so they wouldn't need to adopt any new policies.

However in your very first post you argued that "a state of emergency should be declared"-- a la the one declared by Eisenhower in constructing the US Interstate Highway System.

Clearly, advocating a "state of emergency" means that the situation requires immediate attention; and urgent action. That's what emergency means-- time is of the essence.

Emergency also means that disaster is imminent if no action is taken. So your claim that you made no statements regarding the "time available" or that policies need to be enacted "right now" is a bit more than a bit disingenuous.

And besides that, your accuracy regarding the US interstate highway system leaves much to be desired. Planning for the interstate system began in the 1920s and continued throughout the 1930s. While Eisenhower was a strong advocate, based on his experience crossing the US in 1919 and his admiration for the German autobahn system that he experienced in WW2, US automakers were heavily involved in lobbying efforts.

The system was not authorized under a declaration of a "state of emergency," but rather legislated by the US Congress with the Federal-Aid to Highways Act of 1956.

The point is you play fast and loose with actual history, fast and loose with the immanence and urgency of the "situation," fast and loose with the concept of peak oil, ignoring the glaring inaccuracy of its repeated predictions, and you ignore exactly how much development, how much infrastructure, how much social, class revolution, is necessary for humanity to be able to make an international, collective, "voluntary" decision regarding "management" of rates of reproduction.

You argue for an "emergency," for "time is running out" and yet when challenged-- you say you didn't mean, or even claim there's an emergency, or that time has anything to do with it.

Well time has everything to do with it. Not for nothing did Marx write that "All economy is the economy of time."

The interaction between resources--their physical quantities, and access to resources-- their social production, is a bit more complex than simply "there's a finite amount, we're accessing this much at this rate, therefore we are facing depletion." Resource use shifts, changes, in accordance with profitability. Depletion in some areas certainly does not mean depletion is "absolute" or usage has "peaked." It may mean profitability has peaked, or conversely, that in order to maintain profitability, production must be curtailed-- as is often the case with agricultural commodities.

Right now, scientists have produced elaborate studies indicating that this, 2011 is the peak year for coal production worldwide, and after this it's all downhill. If you think I'm making the issues "more complicated" by bringing in overproduction and accumulation, you should read these papers on "peak coal" and look at their formulas and calculations.

Coal production has fallen before, and risen again, only to fall again. Like copper, like iron ore, like oil, like grain, like automobiles. To say that the amount of coal on this planet is finite is not the same as to same that finite quantity is X, and the recoverable portion of X is Y/X.

If there is no emergency, and time is not "running out," then it seems clear to me that the issue is not depletion or physical supplies or the population as a whole "living beyond its means" but that the current social configuration utilizes resources in such a way to keep large sections of the population in misery, at standards that are below subsistence; that the source of that misery and that below subsistence standard has nothing to do with the quantity of resources nor the number of human beings, but rather has to do with the goal of the appropriation of those resources, which is the appropriation of the social labor required to convert resources into values.

With the "depletionist" scenario of history, there is absolutely no social necessity, nor organization of the economy that creates the conditions for, and the human agent of its own abolition. There is no need in the sense that Marx used the term, as internal to the very reproduction of the social relation, that drives a class struggle.

Socialism may be a nice thing, it may be a cleaner thing, it may be less wasteful. Socialism may be nicer to forests and mountains and frogs. Socialism may be morally preferable, more humane, more egalitarian, and make for brighter skies, but there is no economic necessity, reason, internal to existence of capitalism, for socialism.

RED DAVE

2nd February 2011, 18:16

ColonelCossack

2nd February 2011, 18:31

i read somewhere that the world pop. would peak in the 27th century, then it would fall because of disease, starvation etc... however, that's assuming things stay as they are now, and by that time we may have expanded to other planets such as Mars, and we will probably have global socialism/communism/anarchism by that time, resources being distributed equally among everone.

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 19:07

Under what kind of society do you envision this happening? Socialism? Capitalism? Something else?

RED DAVE

The obvious answer would be through Socialism. Capitalism is one of the main reasons why we live under an overpopulated world (when we define population count as to how many the world's resources can sustain in giving those a proper living standard).

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 19:21

RED DAVE

2nd February 2011, 19:56

My claim is still true that: "population could be reduced by 50% through peaceful means in less than a century."
Under what kind of society do you envision this happening? Socialism? Capitalism? Something else?
The obvious answer would be through Socialism. Capitalism is one of the main reasons why we live under an overpopulated world (when we define population count as to how many the world's resources can sustain in giving those a proper living standard).I know that. You know that. But I have yet to see in any of Techno's posts any reference to the class nature of the society that will do this or the decision-making process required.

RED DAVE

The Vegan Marxist

2nd February 2011, 20:04

I know that. You know that. But I have yet to see in any of Techno's posts any reference to the class nature of the society that will do this or the decision-making process required.

RED DAVE

Then you didn't read his posts carefully. This was on the first page:

Socialism will be more efficient, but this doesn't mean that it makes infinite growth in a finite world possible.

Technocrat

2nd February 2011, 20:51

Clearly, advocating a "state of emergency" means that the situation requires immediate attention; and urgent action. That's what emergency means-- time is of the essence.

Emergency also means that disaster is imminent if no action is taken. So your claim that you made no statements regarding the "time available" or that policies need to be enacted "right now" is a bit more than a bit disingenuous.

The situation does require immediate attention, but I made no claim as to the amount of time that we have available, which was the claim you were trying to refute.

And besides that, your accuracy regarding the US interstate highway system leaves much to be desired. Planning for the interstate system began in the 1920s and continued throughout the 1930s. While Eisenhower was a strong advocate, based on his experience crossing the US in 1919 and his admiration for the German autobahn system that he experienced in WW2, US automakers were heavily involved in lobbying efforts.

The system was not authorized under a declaration of a "state of emergency," but rather legislated by the US Congress with the Federal-Aid to Highways Act of 1956.Your quibbling little point about historical accuracy does little to affect the validity of the claim in question, which is that it would take government intervention to enact the kind of changes which would be necessary. Let's see, what social system advocates government control over production? Oh yeah, socialism.

The point is you play fast and loose with actual history,Because of the Eisenhower comment? A quibble.

fast and loose with the immanence and urgency of the "situation," No, I've been consistent on this throughout the thread. Oil production has peaked - a 1% increase does not mean that normal patterns of growth have resumed.

You are the one playing fast and loose, consistently misinterpreting every word I've said in order to make your bullshit straw men arguments.

fast and loose with the concept of peak oil, ignoring the glaring inaccuracy of its repeated predictions, and you ignore exactly how much development, how much infrastructure, how much social, class revolution, is necessary for humanity to be able to make an international, collective, "voluntary" decision regarding "management" of rates of reproduction.Inaccuracy of it's repeated predictions? Hubbert predicted domestic production would peak in the 1970s and it did. Hubbert predicted worldwide production would peak shortly after the year 2000 and it did. So what's inaccurate about it? Different people using different methodologies come up with different numbers - this has nothing to do with peak oil per se.

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post (I seem to be doing that a lot lately): Hubbert made his predictions armed solely with geological facts. There isn't any way for anyone to accurately predict what social factors will be in play in the future. So, given the accuracy of Hubbert's predictions and the fact that he made them using geological facts and not social facts, it can be plainly seen that geological facts are the primary factor effecting peak oil.

You argue for an "emergency," for "time is running out" and yet when challenged-- you say you didn't mean, or even claim there's an emergency, or that time has anything to do with it.Here is a perfect example of you misinterpreting my words in order to further your bullshit straw man argument. I never said that "time had nothing to do with it" - please show an actual quotation where I said anything of the sort. I never said that I didn't claim there wasn't an emergency - again, please provide evidence.

Well time has everything to do with it. Not for nothing did Marx write that "All economy is the economy of time."I never said that time didn't have anything to do with it - I just never made any claim as to the amount of time which was available. It doesn't surprise me that you lack the intelligence to distinguish between the two.

The interaction between resources--their physical quantities, and access to resources-- their social production, is a bit more complex than simply "there's a finite amount, we're accessing this much at this rate, therefore we are facing depletion." Resource use shifts, changes, in accordance with profitability. Depletion in some areas certainly does not mean depletion is "absolute" or usage has "peaked." It may mean profitability has peaked, or conversely, that in order to maintain profitability, production must be curtailed-- as is often the case with agricultural commodities. I never argued that social factors didn't play a role in the rate of depletion. In fact I have said repeatedly that the rate of production is determined by social factors. This doesn't mean that oil depletion depends solely on social factors (see above). Regardless, even if production has peaked due to profitability reasons - it has still peaked. Peak oil makes no claim as to the reasons for the peak, it is simply referring to the actual peak in production, whatever the cause is! Say we re-organize society and somehow are able to increase oil production - that means we have not yet reached the peak. Say we repeal all the environmental regulations and are able to increase oil production - that means we have not yet reached the peak. God damn, how difficult is this to understand? Let's say it's 1,000 years in the future and oil has been completely depleted, but they have graphs showing the history of oil production. "Peak oil" is just that point on the graph when production was at its highest. That's all it is. All one has to do is look at the growth line of oil production from the moment the first well was drilled up until today to see that it's pretty fucking obvious that oil production has peaked.

Right now, scientists have produced elaborate studies indicating that this, 2011 is the peak year for coal production worldwide, and after this it's all downhill. If you think I'm making the issues "more complicated" by bringing in overproduction and accumulation, you should read these papers on "peak coal" and look at their formulas and calculations.

Coal production has fallen before, and risen again, only to fall again. Like copper, like iron ore, like oil, like grain, like automobiles. To say that the amount of coal on this planet is finite is not the same as to same that finite quantity is X, and the recoverable portion of X is Y/X. Now you're resorting to conservative talking points to defend your argument. You are basically espousing a cyclical view of markets, the same mythical view put forward by capitalist economics. Essentially you are arguing that this is part of a "normal cycle" where the current bust will be followed by another boom. This is capitalist economics 101. It is not true that every bust is necessarily followed by another boom, and simply looking at history and saying "see, production has risen and fallen before" does nothing to prove the validity of the boom/bust myth.

If there is no emergency, and time is not "running out," then it seems clear to me that the issue is not depletion or physical supplies or the population as a whole "living beyond its means" but that the current social configuration utilizes resources in such a way to keep large sections of the population in misery, at standards that are below subsistence; that the source of that misery and that below subsistence standard has nothing to do with the quantity of resources nor the number of human beings, but rather has to do with the goal of the appropriation of those resources, which is the appropriation of the social labor required to convert resources into values.

Again, I never said there wasn't an emergency or that immediate action wasn't required - the longer we wait to do something, the worse things will get. This is not the same as making a specific claim as to the amount of time which is available (which was the claim you were trying to counter).

I have repeatedly said that social factors would have to change dramatically, much along the same lines that you suggest - however, even with drastic changes, we are still overpopulated. I've posted this several times already to illustrate the difference between what is sustainable with the status quo and what is sustainable with the kind of drastic changes you suggest.

(emphasis added)

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion 2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion
Source: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

With the "depletionist" scenario of history, there is absolutely no social necessity, nor organization of the economy that creates the conditions for, and the human agent of its own abolition. There is no need in the sense that Marx used the term, as internal to the very reproduction of the social relation, that drives a class struggle.Wrong - see above.

Socialism may be a nice thing, it may be a cleaner thing, it may be less wasteful. Socialism may be nicer to forests and mountains and frogs. Socialism may be morally preferable, more humane, more egalitarian, and make for brighter skies, but there is no economic necessity, reason, internal to existence of capitalism, for socialism.I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm getting really tired of the "you said this" bullshit, when I have made every effort to make my arguments as clear and understandable as possible. It is apparent that you are deliberately misinterpreting my words in order to make a straw man argument. I see no need to continue with this conversation.

Technocrat

2nd February 2011, 21:02

I know that. You know that. But I have yet to see in any of Techno's posts any reference to the class nature of the society that will do this or the decision-making process required.

RED DAVE

Well, let's see... this is from the very first post I made in this thread:

-an end to consumerism also means an end to capitalism; capitalism cannot exist without growth. This means something else (socialism) will have to replace capitalism.

Kindly fuck off.

S.Artesian

2nd February 2011, 22:27

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

That's because it is Marx's critique of capitalism101. That's what you don't get

I'm getting really tired of the "you said this" bullshit, when I have made every effort to make my arguments as clear and understandable as possible. It is apparent that you are deliberately misinterpreting my words in order to make a straw man argument. I see no need to continue with this conversation.You're tired of it? I'm tired of your evasiveness and backtracking and then disregard for what you previously stated. You say population can be reduced voluntarily to sustainable levels [more than half] in 1-2 generations and then when called on it, oh it's a quibble, I meant 1-2 lifespans. Right, I believe that because I just fell off a truck of pumpkins.

You advocate declaring an "emergency" and then claim it's not an emergency but requires immediate attention. You claim you never said time doesn't have anything to do with it, but you did say this:

We are overpopulated in the sense that we are depleting natural capital faster than it is replenished by natural systems. This doesn't mean that we're going to run out of natural capital overnight, or within 100 years - it just means that each year we will have less and less natural capital, and the standard of living will decrease by a corresponding amount - that's assuming that nothing is done about population growth and consumption.
I'm not talking about running out, I'm talking about exactly that standard of living. You say living standards are going to decline because the planet has too many people. That is your fundamental assertion. Too many people consuming too much of its resources.

My fundamental assertion is that that is bullshit. Such arguments, dressed up with clever websites and "deep information" are, like the modern day Hubbertists, really ideological constructions. Hubbert's prediction that US oil production would peak sometime between the late 1960s and early 1970s has not been repeated. I don't know about Hubbert predicting world oil production will peak around or shortly after 2000, but I can show you the Hubbertists, with their much more elaborate models, and much greater information on geology predicting world oil production would peak in 1995.

It is absolutely clear that the changes in standards of living in the world have not been determined by abundance of resources, or dearth thereof, but the human appropriation of those resources, and the response to the lack thereof. And that appropriation and use is based, currently, on the expansion of value.

The decline in living standards inflicted in the US by Reagan, in the UK by Thatcher, in the lost decade of the 1980s throughout Latin America had nothing to do with shortages of resources. Any serious examination of the economies of those countries, of Mexico, the UK, Chile, Senegal, etc will show that the decline in living standards was attributable to social, class, actions; and not overconsumption of resources.

Right a 1% increase in production 1 year [world petroleum production] does not constitute a "natural" trend. But neither does the "flattening of production" in the years since 2002 show a peak, because those were exactly the years when, in response to the overproduction of the 90s, the petroleum industry shutdown capital spending, opening it up again only in 2006-2008.

The economic contraction since 2007 has nothing to do with resources available and everything to do with profitability-- the intense leveraging of real estate assets is a manifestation of a trend for declining profitability ever since.... why ever since the late 60s-early 70s-- in industries as a whole, and worldwide.

That's what peaked in that period, profitability. And everything the bourgeoisie has done has been done to offset that decline; every attack on living standards, every move to decertify unions, every bit of currency manipulation and beggar thy neighbor, every bit of driving up prices for aluminum [despite a decline in demand in 2008 and 2009], in copper prices has all been about garnering an extra margin of profit.

The collapse of maritime trade, and maritime hire rates in 2008-2009 had nothing to do with resources, or oil, but rather overproduction of the maritime fleet, with orders, shipments and commissioning of new ships devaluing the older ships, first whipsawing hire rates, and then driving them to new lows; placed huge financial burdens on the shipping company owners, and essentially wiped out profits.

Now that's what goes on in the economy. And that's why the economy determines the living standards. The overpopulation you imagine is out there has been imagined out there for hundreds of years, and certainly the last 40 years, and that's all it is-- imagination.

RED DAVE

3rd February 2011, 00:39

I know that. You know that. But I have yet to see in any of Techno's posts any reference to the class nature of the society that will do this or the decision-making process required.
Well, let's see... this is from the very first post I made in this thread:

an end to consumerism also means an end to capitalism; capitalism cannot exist without growth. This means something else (socialism) will have to replace capitalism.Kindly fuck off.So kindly explain in a few well-chosen sentences, what you mean by socialism and how the decision making processes to deal with over-population, consumption, etc., might be made. Because in the past, what you have meant by socialism and what most people around here mean by it has radically diverged.

RED DAVE

Technocrat

3rd February 2011, 00:48

A bunch of bullshit that's already been addressed

Look, you can continue speculating on the causes of the production plateau all you want. My hypothesis, based on the available evidence, is that oil production will never significantly increase from where it is at today. We will see who is right in the coming years. The rest of my argument you have simply evaded and failed to address - that's fine. I'm done with this conversation.

Technocrat

3rd February 2011, 00:50

So kindly explain in a few well-chosen sentences, what you mean by socialism and how the decision making processes to deal with over-population, consumption, etc., might be made. Because in the past, what you have meant by socialism and what most people around here mean by it has radically diverged.

RED DAVE

It's only diverged from your fanatical Trotskyism, and I don't have to answer to you, fuckwad.

S.Artesian

3rd February 2011, 01:42

Look, you can continue speculating on the causes of the production plateau all you want. My hypothesis, based on the available evidence, is that oil production will never significantly increase from where it is at today. We will see who is right in the coming years. The rest of my argument you have simply evaded and failed to address - that's fine. I'm done with this conversation.

The rest of your argument is loaded, but as is the case with everything you write, it's loaded with blanks.

Best wishes for your declining future.

RED DAVE

3rd February 2011, 01:53

It's only diverged from your fanatical Trotskyism, and I don't have to answer to you, fuckwad.Well, that's one way to avoid addressing the question of how you view socialism and how the decisions to reduce population and consumption.

RED DAVE

The Vegan Marxist

3rd February 2011, 02:50

Well, that's one way to avoid addressing the question of how you view socialism and how the decisions to reduce population and consumption.

RED DAVE

You know exactly how he, along with the rest of us Technocrats, like to view socialism. This is purely out of you creating more conflict out of an already overused, boring debate. It would be exactly the same conclusion as if you went to the South Asian sub-threads and asked someone if he's a Maoist. You'd make a dogmatic conflict that leads to nothing productive.

Technocrat

3rd February 2011, 03:51

The rest of your argument is loaded, but as is the case with everything you write, it's loaded with blanks.

Best wishes for your declining future.

Getting the last word is really important to you, isn't it? I don't much give a shit anymore. Have it if it matters that much to you.

I've outlined my arguments clearly enough for anyone who cares to take the time to understand them.

Jose Gracchus

7th March 2011, 10:21

Almost all of S. Artisan's replies can be referred to as the courtier's reply. "Oh yeah, well you fail to see the nuance of [vague allusion to mystical conceptions, without explanation of connection]! Clearly you're just too simple to understand my profundity!"

Even if there aren't too many humans today, the fact is that we are running out of fossil fuels as an economic source of the goods and services derived from them in my lifetime (I'm in my 20s). Many levels of land productivity etc., etc. are currently reliant upon the energy economics of cheap light sweet crude. Although I do think there are strongly reactionary aspects to much of the "peakist" and sustainability and even greater Green movements, that does not - endless low-rent lazy pseudo-left appeals to "guilt by association" notwithstanding - mean that these concerns are conceptually and factually bankrupt. If we plan to be involved in political and social transformations in this century, we must be prepared to also challenge the real social interaction between human civilization and society and the physical substrate from which it is sustained. This means dealing with land productivity and energy economics. A bunch of problems are purely those of capitalism, and it is true. But there are fundamental physical constraints at given practical levels of technology (and advancing technology and social complexity themselves require non-trivial amounts of available social surplus from existing productive activity). Therefore, it seems to be a truism that real appreciative responses to the conceptual problems of sustainability should be part of left politics.

Quibbling over whether we are already there or not totally misses the point. That's an ancillary issue of urgency. At not point has Artisan backed up his views that this is basically conceptually always fallacious and can be safely dismissed in perpetuity.

Summerspeaker

8th March 2011, 17:20

Yes, an acknowledgement the existing horrors of the industrial system and a serious plan for sustainability stand essential to radical critique and practice.

Zulu

7th April 2012, 03:37

Reviving this discussion,

I am more optimistic than the OP as far as the future high-yield energy sources are concerned. However, for humanity to achieve new technological advances capitalism has to be dismantled, and socialism must manifest itself around the globe, population control being on its agenda from day 1.

NewLeft

7th April 2012, 03:47

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

7th April 2012, 05:20

Technokrat says:
Socialism will be more efficient, but this doesn't mean that it makes infinite growth in a finite world possible.

Who say that there needs to be infinite growth? And why carry on the absurd wasteful production and unequal distribution of capitalism? I think many people are not all too aware of our current system's idiocy, and those vague "predictions" are in my opinion and utter absurdity to calculate:

-50% of Food produced in America is thrown out while over 25 million Americans are hungry at any given time, nearly 10 percent of US' population.

-Huge Monopolies have withheld patents to reduce oil consumption of cars, which are estimated could be reduced by more than 50% per tank by using water.

-Monopolies like Apple and GE produce extra breakable light bulbs and don't invest into efficient electronic equipment which, respectively, could last 5 and 10 years with today's technology but currently only last months.

-Wind power, solar power, geo-thermal power, hydro power, various battery sources, Grid-Tied System and better insulation are all complete feasible alternatives to current wasteful fossil fuels and, again, wasteful production and distribution of resources.

In a co-operative economy the world is ours. The future of technology holds a lot of possibilities to make it smaller (less resources), last longer, and replace live labor. Humanity is amazing, would it only not have developed into class societies for us to undo....

Zulu

7th April 2012, 10:30

What will happen to those who don't follow? :D

Re-education.

MotherCossack

7th April 2012, 12:42

I think Chapayev is refering to the trend we can see all over the world of as soon that women gets educated they wont have as much kids and since under socialism evryone will get educated...well you will see ;)

Because, Social conditions will change, as will morals.

Women won't feel obliged to have children, and won't be pressured into getting married and having a family.

Bourgeois family will cease to exist.

Marriage probably will not occur as often as it does now.

So, I think that settles the "population problem".

Exactly.

Also, the reason so many third world nations have children.. Is economic.

For example, Arab parents, and some Hispanic parents, usually have a ton of children to help out buisness, work, or count on at least one to be successful.

My dad had 9 brothers and sisters.

but this is so depressing.....
i love having 4 kids and i would have had more if my bleeding body hadn't conked out and i'd been a bit more financially secure. it might have helped if a certain father....
anyway, yeah... so... i dont feel like a baby machine.... kids are great.... when they get big it is a bit different.... shame humanity ditched the 'respect your elders' mentality.... but that is an other thread...
bringing my children up to be as decent and well balanced as i can has given me more joy than anything bloody else in this horrible oppressive world that we live.

talking of children.....

i read somewhere that the world pop. would peak in the 27th century, then it would fall because of disease, starvation etc... however, that's assuming things stay as they are now, and by that time we may have expanded to other planets such as Mars, and we will probably have global socialism/communism/anarchism by that time, resources being distributed equally among everone.

i love it when you go all straightforward and optimistic, son.
its all part of life's rich tapestry.....
we will all be ok in the end.....
youth is brill.... treasure it.

Reviving this discussion,

I am more optimistic than the OP as far as the future high-yield energy sources are concerned. However, for humanity to achieve new technological advances capitalism has to be dismantled, and socialism must manifest itself around the globe, population control being on its agenda from day 1.

see.... now that sounds bloody scary........ sounds like going on a diet or something....not the socialism ... the pop. control bit.... ahhh!

Avocado

7th April 2012, 12:54

I would say if we stopped consuming animals, and in doing so cut down our emissions by around 25%, used the land that is wasted on feeding livestock, then the earth could quite easily support twenty billion or so. However with man being so self centred and fixated on animal consumption (and in doing so waste incredible amounts of water, destroy the earth's topsoil, drive deforestation, drive human sickness in cancer and heart disease) I can't see it happening before we have a major Malthusian natural catastrophe.

MotherCossack

8th April 2012, 20:28

i think that the answer to the question being asked, would have to be....
it actually depends.....
it depends on whether we, as custodians of this wonderful planet, can pull the proverbial stops out, and find a way to check our collective greed and curb our many excesses.
it depends whether we learn anything from the unimaginably huge number of mistakes we have made, and more importantly, whether we care enough to initiate real change.

if the answer to these questions is no.... then .....
no matter how many of us there are... things will deteriorate... how far ....
it is, perhaps, too soon to tell. but one thing i do believe is....
it is an awful long way down to the pits of hell... and it may well get real nasty before our time is done.

arilando

9th April 2012, 10:23

Easily over 40 billion.

Yefim Zverev

9th April 2012, 10:34

1 person.. When I die earth is no more.

Tim Cornelis

9th April 2012, 10:56

Easily over 40 billion.

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion

4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion

5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level. 20 billion

6. Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion

Easily over 40 billion you say?

daft punk

9th April 2012, 11:04

OP - only just seen this thread. Not sure about your population numbers, I would have thought the planet could sustain more on the lifestyle you outline. Footprint network reckons 5 planets would be needed for 7 billion to live like the average American does now.

Now to save the planet you need socialism, and to have socialism you have to offer everyone the living standard of the average American.

So to have 7 billion on the same living standard as and American, but sustainable, you have to be 5 times more green. That should be doable shouldnt it?

The programme you outlined was ok, I agreed with most of it.

As i say, I'm not interested in arguing about numbers but I would suggest you check them.

Regarding meat, you could eliminate most of it. You could have chickens in your garden for eggs. Sheep and goats on land fit for nothing else are ok. Cows are not very green unless they are on pastures all the time and that land wouldnt be good for crops.

arilando

13th April 2012, 19:04

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion

4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion

5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level. 20 billion

6. Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion

Easily over 40 billion you say?
Two words: Renewable energy.

Blake's Baby

13th April 2012, 23:43

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion

health, nutrition and personal dignity of average Americans? No thanks. We have to do better than that.

However, as the vast majority of the globe currently consumes vastly less resources than the USA, we can support the current population with an increase of material resources for the poorest 80% of the globe up to the European average (mode, not mean) without any increase in anything; and far suppass it with the abolition of banking, advertising , war, border controls and all of the rest of the shit capitalism brings with it, eliminating the approximately 80% of social wealth that's wasted on unproductive ends that only exist in our fucked up system.

That would imply that we can actually support four- to five-times the population we currently have at a level of material well-being that raises massively the quality of life of 5.6 billion people currently living and guarantees as similar quality of life to the approximately 24.5 billion extra.

If we actually managed to set free the massive human potential that workers' control of the means of production, and ultimately democratic control over the whole of society, would surely bring about, the sky is quite literally the limit. Perhaps we could have a population of 40 billion, or 400 billion. People are not the problem; people are the solution because people are nature self-consciously organising itself.

Revolutionair

14th April 2012, 00:17

Re-education.

What will this re-education entail and is it possible to opt out?

Tim Cornelis

14th April 2012, 00:37

health, nutrition and personal dignity of average Americans? No thanks. We have to do better than that.

However, as the vast majority of the globe currently consumes vastly less resources than the USA, we can support the current population with an increase of material resources for the poorest 80% of the globe up to the European average (mode, not mean) without any increase in anything; and far suppass it with the abolition of banking, advertising , war, border controls and all of the rest of the shit capitalism brings with it, eliminating the approximately 80% of social wealth that's wasted on unproductive ends that only exist in our fucked up system.

That would imply that we can actually support four- to five-times the population we currently have at a level of material well-being that raises massively the quality of life of 5.6 billion people currently living and guarantees as similar quality of life to the approximately 24.5 billion extra.

If we actually managed to set free the massive human potential that workers' control of the means of production, and ultimately democratic control over the whole of society, would surely bring about, the sky is quite literally the limit. Perhaps we could have a population of 40 billion, or 400 billion. People are not the problem; people are the solution because people are nature self-consciously organising itself.

Finite resources. There, two words refuted your whole story. Increase of material resources you say? We just gonna magically create that from thin air?

Two words: Renewable energy.

Is going to magically create arable land? Increase the steel supply of the earth? Increase the copper supply? Increase the amount of plastic we can make? Increase any finite resources except energy?

arilando

14th April 2012, 10:52

Finite resources. There, two words refuted your whole story. Increase of material resources you say? We just gonna magically create that from thin air?

Is going to magically create arable land? Increase the steel supply of the earth? Increase the copper supply? Increase the amount of plastic we can make? Increase any finite resources except energy?
1. The United States alone produce enough food to feed the earth's entire population, and it must be remembered that it is heavily beef centered, if it was less based on beef and more on fruit and vegetables it could feed many, many more people.

2. Increased recycling could easily take care of scarcity of natural materials, besides we arent anywhere near a situation where steel, copper and plastic is getting scarce. Human waste, not limited resources is the problem

3. Earth is not the only place we can get our resources from, in the future we could mine for materials on other planets and asteroids

Tim Cornelis

14th April 2012, 12:02

1. The United States alone produce enough food to feed the earth's entire population, and it must be remembered that it is heavily beef centered, if it was less based on beef and more on fruit and vegetables it could feed many, many more people.

This is false. The whole earth combined produces enough food for 10 billion people. I doubt that the US produces enough food for 7 billion, as this implies the rest of the world combined merely produces for 3 billion.

2. Increased recycling could easily take care of scarcity of natural materials, besides we arent anywhere near a situation where steel, copper and plastic is getting scarce. Human waste, not limited resources is the problem

Recycling is already included in the numbers that the earth can support 4 billion people. Read again:

Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion

3. Earth is not the only place we can get our resources from, in the future we could mine for materials on other planets and asteroids

That's not really helpful now, or in the coming 1,000 years.

Blake's Baby

14th April 2012, 12:45

This is false. The whole earth combined produces enough food for 10 billion people. I doubt that the US produces enough food for 7 billion, as this implies the rest of the world combined merely produces for 3 billion.
..

Source?

I remember the UN-WHO calculated ooh, in the 1980s that the planet produced enough food for 40 billion people (eight times the then-current population of around 5 billion). Who does it now only produce enough for 10 billion? Has farming become 75% less efficient in 20 years? I don't think so.

Why are you saying people will not be able to cut trees on 'their' property, Goti? We're talking about socialism here, people don't have individual trees or individual property. Why are you cheerleading statistics that assume that Americans have the best quality of life there is? Why do you assume that the current level of wealth disparity will continue?

The fact is if you expropriated the richest 10% of Americans (just Americans, not even mentioning the rich of the rest of the world) you could massively increase the quality of life of 80% of the population of the planet without any increase in natural resource use at all. By ending the suicidal use of private cars, for example, except where people need them (primarily, in rural areas) you could massively increase the amount of resources available to everyone. How much social wealth does war take up? 3 days of the American military budget would be enough to supply everyone on the planet with clean safe drinking water.

There are a gazillion things that could be done to make industrial society more efficient, less environmentally damaging, safer, cleaner and more rewarding to the people that have to go through it, but these will never be taken up more than piecemeal by capitalism. Under socialism however, we will have a better quality of life (at least, for 90% or more of the planet) and be less wasteful, less damaging, and with the ability to support much higher populations.

Tim Cornelis

14th April 2012, 13:08

Source?

I remember the UN-WHO calculated ooh, in the 1980s that the planet produced enough food for 40 billion people (eight times the then-current population of around 5 billion). Who does it now only produce enough for 10 billion? Has farming become 75% less efficient in 20 years? I don't think so.

We can feed 10 billion people, study finds (http://www.grist.org/population/2011-10-13-we-can-feed-10-billion-of-us-study-finds-but-it-wont-be-easy)

Why are you saying people will not be able to cut trees on 'their' property, Goti? We're talking about socialism here, people don't have individual trees or individual property. Why are you cheerleading statistics that assume that Americans have the best quality of life there is? Why do you assume that the current level of wealth disparity will continue?

lol. I am quoting a research. And this research does not assume Americans have the best quality of life.

Why do you assume that the current level of wealth disparity will continue?

Where do I do that exactly? Quite the opposite, I am citing a research which assumes that if we want all people on the world to have the wealth of an average American, the world can only sustain:

0.5 billion people in a free market capitalist society
2 billion in the current capitalist system
4 billion people with obsesive-compulsive eco-friendly policies

The fact is if you expropriated the richest 10% of Americans (just Americans, not even mentioning the rich of the rest of the world) you could massively increase the quality of life of 80% of the population of the planet without any increase in natural resource use at all.

No you couldn't. Because you're assuming that when we have enough money to buy X, it will also be available in that quantity. For example, we have enough money to buy 10,000^100 tons of steel, but since there is only 10,000^10 tons of steel, we still cannot use the money to buy all resources we need because they do not exist.

By ending the suicidal use of private cars, for example, except where people need them (primarily, in rural areas) you could massively increase the amount of resources available to everyone. How much social wealth does war take up? 3 days of the American military budget would be enough to supply everyone on the planet with clean safe drinking water.

Again, this is more or less already included in the statistics. There will be rigid driving restrictions, according to the research, and still there will only be enough resources for 4 billion people to live at the average American's lifestyle.

There are a gazillion things that could be done to make industrial society more efficient, less environmentally damaging, safer, cleaner and more rewarding to the people that have to go through it, but these will never be taken up more than piecemeal by capitalism.

And exactly how will this increase natural resources? The research I am citing clearly shows that if we restrict and enforce all the things you say, to protect the environment and guarantee 'full' use of all resources, there are still merely enough resources for 4 billion people to live comfortably.

Under socialism however, we will have a better quality of life (at least, for 90% or more of the planet)

Unless there are not enough resources to sustain that better quality of life!

and be less wasteful, less damaging,

is already included in the statistics I provided. Now let's be optimistic, let's say that socialism does guarantee that the world can sustain a higher population than the research indicated the world can in a highly eco-friendly system. Let's guestimate, then, that the world can sustain 5 to 6 billion people.

cyu

14th April 2012, 14:52

How many? One word:

Science

Or to put it another way, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Our ability to support people on earth today would seem like magic to people thousands of years ago.

The real limitation for the future is not resource or technology. The limitation is capitalism itself. What capitalism does is that it redirects resources and technology toward producing for the rich rather than the general population. And the result is starvation while others maintain crap like this http://www.4yacht.com/en/mega-yachts-super-yachts-for-sale.html while wasting the labor of hundreds just to be the crew of something they may not even use once a year.

Of course, don't forget the wasted effort of the lobbyists, think tanks, lawyers, and stock brokers that the wealthy fund. Parasites funding more parasites, and yet capitalism devotes much more resources and effort towards pleasing their crap desires. (Not to mention devoting advertising resources to keep them drooling for the Next Big Thing - after all, marketers want their share of the rich man's pie too.)

Yes, human advancement, knowledge, and science are near infinite. Before moon colonies, we'll be heading into the oceans http://xkcd.com/1040/large/ and into orbit (note the orbital surface area of the earth is much larger than the ground / sea surface area). But as long as there are large wealth disparities, human knowledge and science will not be focused on supporting the world population. It will be developing Botox and grooming poodles for the wealthy.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/08/plutonomics/

There is no “average” consumer in Plutonomies. There is only the rich “and everyone else.” The rich account for a disproportionate chunk of the economy, while the non-rich account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Kapur estimates that in 2005, the richest 20% may have been responsible for 60% of total spending.

The best way for companies and businesspeople to survive in Plutonomies, Kapur implies, is to disregard the “mass” consumer and focus on the increasingly rich market of the rich.

Zulu

15th April 2012, 03:57

What will this re-education entail
All that it takes, naturally.

and is it possible to opt out?

How do you opt out of a society-wide cultural revolution? Only by becoming a counter-revolutionary.

Revolutionair

15th April 2012, 05:12

All that it takes, naturally.

What does it take?

How do you opt out of a society-wide cultural revolution? Only by becoming a counter-revolutionary.

So you admit that you are talking shit?

Zulu

15th April 2012, 09:52

What does it take?

Take a guess.

So you admit that you are talking shit?
Why would I admit I'm talking shit when I'm not?

Blake's Baby

15th April 2012, 10:54

We can feed 10 billion people, study finds (http://www.grist.org/population/2011-10-13-we-can-feed-10-billion-of-us-study-finds-but-it-wont-be-easy)

lol. I am quoting a research. And this research does not assume Americans have the best quality of life...

Quoting, but not analysing. Claiming, or even accepting, that 'the average American' actually exists as anything other than an ideological construct derived from a particular way of presenting statistical data on economics is a method that doesn't wash.

And if you're going to link to a blog that mentions an article that it links to but the article costs $32 to access, then you gotta be damn sure about what's in it. So can you quote any of the relevant bits that strike you as particularly relevant to the case you're arguing?

...
Where do I do that exactly? Quite the opposite, I am citing a research which assumes that if we want all people on the world to have the wealth of an average American, the world can only sustain:

0.5 billion people in a free market capitalist society
2 billion in the current capitalist system
4 billion people with obsesive-compulsive eco-friendly policies...

The 'average American' of economic data is an amalgam of the poorest in America and the richest - by accepting the concept, you either assume a) that the current disparity of rich and poor will continue or that b) the quality of life for the massive majority of Americans will be raised to that of the 'average American'. So you're either (foolishly) accepting capitalist data at face value, or (dishonestly) engaging in sleight of hand.

The point is not to establish 'the average American' as a baseline because a) most Americans are below the average - 6.5% of the population of the USA obtains 33% of the income after all - and b) America uses much more resources per person than almost any country on Earth, and the 'quality of life' that you advocate includes 40% of world arms spending, for instance.

So what you are saying is that for the whole planet 'to live like the average American - ie, to live a more environmentally-destructive, resource-intensive, wasteful life than the majority of Americans now do - would be impossible'. Wow, what do you know?

...

And exactly how will this increase natural resources? The research I am citing clearly shows that if we restrict and enforce all the things you say, to protect the environment and guarantee 'full' use of all resources, there are still merely enough resources for 4 billion people to live comfortably.

...

Oh really? I thought you were citing a blog that refers to an article that you claim backs up what you're saying, but you nowhere quote anything from it. Come on. If you're 'citing' something, it takes more than 'yeah, that bloke told me it was somewhere, no I'm not going to show you'. Where's the data?

...

is already included in the statistics I provided. Now let's be optimistic, let's say that socialism does guarantee that the world can sustain a higher population than the research indicated the world can in a highly eco-friendly system. Let's guestimate, then, that the world can sustain 5 to 6 billion people.

The world can sustain 7 billion people now. Not in comfort, given the organisational mess capitalism has bequeathed us, but it does it. Are you saying 1-capitalism is better at organising the distribution of necessities than socialism; or 2-socialism is impossible unless we kill 1-2 billion people?

Which do you think is true?

Kenco Smooth

15th April 2012, 12:23

All that it takes, naturally.

How do you opt out of a society-wide cultural revolution? Only by becoming a counter-revolutionary.

I swear sometimes it's like the past century never even happened in here...

Tim Cornelis

15th April 2012, 14:30

Quoting, but not analysing. Claiming, or even accepting, that 'the average American' actually exists as anything other than an ideological construct derived from a particular way of presenting statistical data on economics is a method that doesn't wash.

Let's see how I explain this. The "average American" is a reference point in order to be able to visualize quickly the wealth all people on earth can access in using contemporary, relevant terminology.

Saying "average American" is a lot easier than saying, each person on the world can have

X access to medical care of Y quality
access to X amount of goods of type Y1
access to X amount of goods of type Y2
access to X amount of goods of type Y3
access to X amount of goods of type Y4
using the resources, A, B, C, Q, R, S, in the quantity of.....

etc. You get my point. "Average American" is meant to simplify this and reduce all this data to a simple and clear visual. Saying everyone on the earth can have the wealth of an "average American" does not mean we will have rich and poor as they exist in America, it simply means that if everyone in the future has the wealth of an average American today, the world can support an X amount of people with a Y lifestyle.

I really don't know how I can explain this any simpler.

And if you're going to link to a blog that mentions an article that it links to but the article costs $32 to access, then you gotta be damn sure about what's in it. So can you quote any of the relevant bits that strike you as particularly relevant to the case you're arguing?

:confused: I didn't link to any blog, and the link I provided is free.

The 'average American' of economic data is an amalgam of the poorest in America and the richest - by accepting the concept, you either assume a) that the current disparity of rich and poor will continue or that b) the quality of life for the massive majority of Americans will be raised to that of the 'average American'. So you're either (foolishly) accepting capitalist data at face value, or (dishonestly) engaging in sleight of hand.

You do realise that I am not actually talking about America and its wealth right? You also realise that I am actually citing research and those are not my own words?

b) the quality of life for the massive majority of Americans will be raised to that of the 'average American'.

I am not assuming this. You are wrongly attempting to make it out to be as if I am being prescriptive, while I am being descriptive. Here is what 'I' said:

If the entire world, okey?, were to enjoy the same level of wealth in the future as the average American today, then the world can sustain an X amount of people.

I really can't make it any simpler than this.

The point is not to establish 'the average American' as a baseline because a) most Americans are below the average - 6.5% of the population of the USA obtains 33% of the income after all - and b) America uses much more resources per person than almost any country on Earth, and the 'quality of life' that you advocate includes 40% of world arms spending, for instance.

Again missing the point. Keep in mind also that I am not talking about the average American's ecological footprint but 'wealth', access to food, education facilities, healthcare, accommodation, essentials, etc. and assuming that all of the named here was produced quite eco-friendly--which is also what you keep ignoring.

So what you are saying is that for the whole planet 'to live like the average American - ie, to live a more environmentally-destructive, resource-intensive, wasteful life than the majority of Americans now do - would be impossible'. Wow, what do you know?

Is that what I said? No, absolutely not. If you're not going to bother to read what I'm saying, then why should I say anything at all?

I am talking about wealth, not ecological footprint of an average American. Specifically, I'm talking about the average American's wealth in combination with a highly ecologically regulated system.

I will cite it again (http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html) (bolded part):

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy. 2 billion

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1 [Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy], but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion

4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion

5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level. 20 billion

6. Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion

In other words if we want to have all citizens on the world to have a comfortable and wealthy life, we need to institute a rigidly ecological friendly system which only socialism can achieve. But even so, the world can only sustain 4 billion people at that particular level of affluence.

Oh really? I thought you were citing a blog that refers to an article that you claim backs up what you're saying, but you nowhere quote anything from it. Come on. If you're 'citing' something, it takes more than 'yeah, that bloke told me it was somewhere, no I'm not going to show you'. Where's the data?

I've quoted it three or four times now, and you ignore it.

The world can sustain 7 billion people now.

The world can sustain 7 billion people now with the current level of affluence.

The world can also sustain 40 billion people with the affluence level of an average West African.

As socialists we are not just talking about sustainability in the barest sense of the word, we are talking about how many people can the world sustain and live comfortably.

Not in comfort, given the organisational mess capitalism has bequeathed us, but it does it. Are you saying 1-capitalism is better at organising the distribution of necessities than socialism; or 2-socialism is impossible unless we kill 1-2 billion people?

This is a misrepresentation. According to you the world can sustain 7 billion people under capitalism as this is an empirical fact. And you think that I am saying the world can only sustain 4 billion people under socialism, therefore socialism is less efficient, as capitalism can sustain 7 billion people and socialism merely 4, 5, 6 billion. But is not what I am saying.

I am saying (actually it's Dr. McCluney, Principal Research Scientist with the Florida Solar Energy Center in Cocoa, FL, a research institute of the University of Central Florida in Orlando) that capitalism, in its current form, can only sustain 2 billion people (again, see the research cited above) and socialism can sustain 4-5 billion people at the 'affluence' level of a now average American (or European).

What's the solution? We create socialism with 6-7-8 billion people and everyone will be have the wealth of an average, let's say Argentine or Portuguese today (i.e. just above the average Mexican today), which is a much more comfortable life for the vast majority of the world.

The fall in material wealth for the average European will be compensated by a rigid increase in the social well-being.

As a result of widespread and appropriate medical care, the need to have children falls and thus the fertility rate. The population will fall back to 5 billion and our affluence level grows proportionally.

The UN has calculated the population growth will stagnate and eventually fall, despite them assuming the continuation of capitalism. Currently the population grows, but in 70 years it will be back to 7 billion. But socialism will amplify the gradual fall of the population.

Which do you think is true?

see above.

eyedrop

15th April 2012, 15:05

:confused: I didn't link to any blog, and the link I provided is free.

This thing you linked to is a blog which references a study in nature magazine.

Blog (http://grist.org/population/2011-10-13-we-can-feed-10-billion-of-us-study-finds-but-it-wont-be-easy/)

Study it references (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7369/full/nature10452.html) which costs 32 quid to read.

A blog is absolutely not the same as a study and the results are kinda useless, and impossible to discuss, without knowing the methodology and assumptions inherent in the study.

Edit: I didn't see http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html link at first, which is more of an actual paper. Apology if I came off as an ass :/

cyu

15th April 2012, 18:54

See also http://www.revleft.com/vb/whenever-hear-some-t169945/index.html

Just a reminder that when there's a large gap between rich and poor, mean income is very different from median income.

From World Bank GINI at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Serbia is #10
Hungary is #20
Kyrgyzstan is #30
Tajikistan is #40
Italy is #50
Laos is #60
Benin is #70
Djibouti is #80
United States is #85

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy, if you measure by life expectancy, the "average American" is just behind the "average Cuban".

Zulu

16th April 2012, 00:05

I swear sometimes it's like the past century never even happened in here...

It's certainly like it. Imperialism rules the planet, only now with +250% population.

Blake's Baby

16th April 2012, 00:51

Let's see how I explain this. The "average American" is a reference point in order to be able to visualize quickly the wealth all people on earth can access in using contemporary, relevant terminology...

Except it isn't "relevant" to anything except bourgeois ideology. Let's see how I can explain this...

The word 'average' in this case denotes 'mean'. So what you are saying is, that this study uses as a 'relevant' reference point the idea of a 'mean' American that, in actuality, 80% of actual, real Americans don't measure up to; in other words, the 'average' American that they invoke is an ideological construct. Not the 'average' (mode) American, or 'where most American people actually are on the socio-economic scale'. A 'mean' American, somewhere that most Americans won't ever be; in other words, the 'average' American that you are claiming is "relevant", is an American that can only be manufactured by dispossessing the wealthiest 7% of Americans and giving their wealth to the poorest 80% of Americans so their incomes match the 'middle' (actually, upper, upper, upper middle) 14% or so.

In other words, the whole concept of the "average" American, economically speaking, either presupposes the current distribution of wealth, or it relies on massively increasing the resource use (and income) of the vast majority of American families and it is therefore not "relevant" to most American people.

Saying "average American" is a lot easier than saying, each person on the world can have

X access to medical care of Y quality
access to X amount of goods of type Y1
access to X amount of goods of type Y2
access to X amount of goods of type Y3
access to X amount of goods of type Y4
using the resources, A, B, C, Q, R, S, in the quantity of.....

etc. You get my point. "Average American" is meant to simplify this and reduce all this data to a simple and clear visual. Saying everyone on the earth can have the wealth of an "average American" does not mean we will have rich and poor as they exist in America, it simply means that if everyone in the future has the wealth of an average American today, the world can support an X amount of people with a Y lifestyle...

As, in this context, an "average" American earns the national income ($9.78 trillion dollars) divided by the income-deriving population of America (211 million) then it's pretty easy to see that the "average" American has an income (before tax, to be sure) of $46,350.71. And yet the modal income of American workers - the income of the "average" American - is considerably lower than this - the mode of household incomes (not individual incomes) that I could be bothered to find data for (2003, the year before the 'research' that you're so proud of was published, so they're pretty conrtemporary) was $22,000-$22,499, with an average density of 1.9 wage earners per household - in other words, the "average" American has an income much closer to $13,000 than $46,350.71.

So, in the study, when they talk of the "average" American and you think that that lifestyle costs $46,350.71 a year, please bear in mind that it means someone who gets 4 times as much as the "average" (modal) American actually has.

:confused: I didn't link to any blog, and the link I provided is free.

You do realise that I am not actually talking about America and its wealth right? You also realise that I am actually citing research and those are not my own words?...

eyedrop thinks you linked to the study, maybe earlier, so I'm prepared to meet you half way and say you didn't intentionally link to a blog that refers to the study, but, you certainly linlked to a blog about the study, because that was the link from your post I followed (to the blog, which then directed me to Nature, where I was told I'd have to register with Nature for $32 to be able to read the original research). Did you read the original research?

As to them being or not your own words... either you agree with them, in which case it doesn't matter that someone else wrote them, you stand by them, and it's legitimate for me to criticise you for that; or you don't agree with them, in which case you should criticise them. You can't toss a grenade into a room and say "hey, someone else made it, I just used it".

If the entire world, okey?, were to enjoy the same level of wealth in the future as the average American today, then the world can sustain an X amount of people.

I really can't make it any simpler than this...

Average schmaverage. Average who gets 46 grand, or average who gets 13 grand? As the "average" America you refer to has an income nearly four times that of the majority of Americans, yes I'd say we could easily live at less than the "average" American. In fact, I recently calculated that if we merely divided up the wealth produced by capitalism ($63trillion in 2011) between everyone on the planet (approx 7 billion) then every single person would recieve $9,000. While this is not a lot compared to even what the "average" American gets (either $46,350.17, or $13,000) it includes children; so the average American household income would almost double and the household incomes of more than 80% of the planet would increase hugely.

This involves nothing more than the redistribution of the wealth capitalism already produces.

Again missing the point. Keep in mind also that I am not talking about the average American's ecological footprint but 'wealth', access to food, education facilities, healthcare, accommodation, essentials, etc. and assuming that all of the named here was produced quite eco-friendly--which is also what you keep ignoring.

Is that what I said? No, absolutely not. If you're not going to bother to read what I'm saying, then why should I say anything at all?...

Beats me. If you're not going to say anything at all, why should we bother wading through it? Let's face it, 40% of what you say is gibberish, 40% is factually wrong, and of the remaining 20% that's both correct and coherent, I'm willing to bet that statistically a lot of it must be by accident. Give some chimps enough typewriters and they will eventally produce the word "Chumbawamba".

...I am talking about wealth, not ecological footprint of an average American. Specifically, I'm talking about the average American's wealth in combination with a highly ecologically regulated system...

There you go again. It's almost as if you can't see that 'lifestyle' and 'income' and 'resource use' and 'ecological footprint' are all intimately tied up with each other. It's like you don't understand capitalism is a global system, and it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor, and our actions and lifestyles have a consequence.

...
In other words if we want to have all citizens on the world to have a comfortable and wealthy life, we need to institute a rigidly ecological friendly system which only socialism can achieve. But even so, the world can only sustain 4 billion people at that particular level of affluence...

And again, you parrot this drivel as if it's profound. Pick apart what 'affluence' means please, and you may yet have some use to the rest of humanity.

...
I've quoted it three or four times now, and you ignore it...

I have a hard time caring about other people's religions.

...
The world can sustain 7 billion people now with the current level of affluence.

The world can also sustain 40 billion people with the affluence level of an average West African...

Average average average average average average average. The average average of averaging all the average averages, seasonally adjusted, means on average absolutely nothing.

...

As socialists we are not just talking about sustainability in the barest sense of the word, we are talking about how many people can the world sustain and live comfortably...

And I've already demonstrated that we can support 7 billion people even in capitalism; and if that social wealth was "averaged"for the whole population, the vast majority of the planet would be better of off and only a tiny minority would be substantially worse off. We could support 7 million at the European household "average" tomorrow with nothing more than a redistribution of existing social wealth. Not new creation, that comes after. Just a redistribution of the wealth capitalism already produces.

...
This is a misrepresentation. According to you the world can sustain 7 billion people under capitalism as this is an empirical fact. And you think that I am saying the world can only sustain 4 billion people under socialism, therefore socialism is less efficient, as capitalism can sustain 7 billion people and socialism merely 4, 5, 6 billion. But is not what I am saying.

I am saying (actually it's Dr. McCluney, Principal Research Scientist with the Florida Solar Energy Center in Cocoa, FL, a research institute of the University of Central Florida in Orlando) that capitalism, in its current form, can only sustain 2 billion people (again, see the research cited above) and socialism can sustain 4-5 billion people at the 'affluence' level of a now average American (or European)...

An "average" American with a gross income of $46,450.71 yes. But who else is talking about this level of affluence?

What's the solution? We create socialism with 6-7-8 billion people and everyone will be have the wealth of an average, let's say Argentine or Portuguese today (i.e. just above the average Mexican today), which is a much more comfortable life for the vast majority of the world...

No, an average European family is the baseline that capitalism already produces - an income of $36,000 for a family of four (income of $63,000 for a family in East Africa for instance where family sizes tend to be larger). Rather better than the modal rate for American households, but less than your - oh, I'm sorry, Dr McLusky's - mythical "average" American on 46 grand.

...The fall in material wealth for the average European will be compensated by a rigid increase in the social well-being...

Or, the rise in material wealth for the "average" (modal) European will be accompanied by a rise in social wellbeing.

...As a result of widespread and appropriate medical care, the need to have children falls and thus the fertility rate. The population will fall back to 5 billion and our affluence level grows proportionally.

The UN has calculated the population growth will stagnate and eventually fall, despite them assuming the continuation of capitalism. Currently the population grows, but in 70 years it will be back to 7 billion. But socialism will amplify the gradual fall of the population.

see above.

Or not.

eyedrop

16th April 2012, 08:17

eyedrop thinks you linked to the study, maybe earlier, so I'm prepared to meet you half way and say you didn't intentionally link to a blog that refers to the study, but, you certainly linlked to a blog about the study, because that was the link from your post I followed (to the blog, which then directed me to Nature, where I was told I'd have to register with Nature for $32 to be able to read the original research. Did you read the original research?

Goti first linked to the blog, which referenced a study. Goti got his 4 billion people at american average standard with eco-measures from a different source (http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html), which I don't know the legitimacy of, didn't seem to be peer reviewed. It seemed to me to be speculative, but how can it now be considering it's trying to predict how much people we can have in a century. I'm uncomfortable actually commenting on things considering I know jackshit about population growth and resources, so the best I can do is tail some authority figure (read scientist) and that's not likely to work out good in such a politized topic .

Blake's Baby

16th April 2012, 11:51

Goti first linked to the blog, which referenced a study. Goti got his 4 billion people at american average standard with eco-measures from a different source (http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html), which I don't know the legitimacy of, didn't seem to be peer reviewed. It seemed to me to be speculative, but how can it now be considering it's trying to predict how much people we can have in a century. I'm uncomfortable actually commenting on things considering I know jackshit about population growth and resources, so the best I can do is tail some authority figure (read scientist) and that's not likely to work out good in such a politized topic .

Right. I hadn't realised that Goti was using different sources, I'd thought that (he thought) he was using different references to the same source. But now things are even less clear.

Scientists (as opposed to bloggers, or journalists, or cranks) are at least supposed to have testable models and coherent data. But I think from a political point of view, the underlying assumptions are always challengeable, as they're pretty arbitrary, as I've tried to show with the notion of the 'average American' who has an income that is above that of the majority of Americans.

So while, in Goti's (sorry, Professor McLuney's) study, it's true that the Earth can only support a certain fairly small number of people on the same basis that it can support a median (average - $42,500) or mean (average $46,350.17) American, it can support an awful lot more mode (average - $13,000) Americans. Or an awful lot of mode (average - $36,000) European households, even without a massive reorganisation of production and all other aspects of society that socialism will entail. So the very methodology of the study is flawed, and its relevance, therefore, approaches zero.

cyu

16th September 2012, 13:31

http://i.imgur.com/soI6w.gif

Rafiq

17th September 2012, 20:16

http://i.imgur.com/soI6w.gif

That's reactionary propaganda.

Manic Impressive

17th September 2012, 21:02

That's reactionary propaganda.
urgh reactionary was so 2011. It's Liberal propaganda these days. Sheesh get with the times man

cyu

18th September 2012, 01:40

Personally I considered it to be a critique of Keynesian economics and consumerism along the lines of http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/10-1

...then again, you could argue that commondreams is liberal propaganda - or alternatively that Keynes is liberal economics.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

19th September 2012, 17:34

http://i.imgur.com/soI6w.gif

How old is that? Because these days there's a lot of pro-austerity propaganda going around promoting "simpler living" in order to get people to accept the shit-filled sandwich the ruling classes are making for them.

cyu

19th September 2012, 18:02

there's a lot of pro-austerity propaganda going around

Agreed. It depends on who controls the media and the use of economic resources. As long as the wealthy control them, then it's just hypocrisy. Both of which must be taken from capitalists, whether their fingers are broken or not.

Technocracy Technate

26th October 2012, 05:55

Great comments, Technocrat. Reducing and stabilizing the population is the number one issue right now no matter what kind of a system you are advocating.

Blake's Baby

26th October 2012, 11:45

As I tell everyone else who says this - practice what you preach. The best thing you can do for humanity if you believe there are too many people is kill yourself. Leave a suicide note explaining to the rest of us why you've done it. The rest of us, who don't kill ourselves, only have ourselves to blame.

Technocracy Technate

27th October 2012, 05:44

I think "Technocrat" pointed out earlier that a successful "One Child Program" could reduce the population by half within a century. That would be a good start but still is not enough though probably and at least in the case of the most ignorant groups of people like "Blake's Baby" and unfortunately many of the other posters here who display similar attitudes, that would definitely have to be a "Zero Child Program" as soon as possible.

Blake's Baby

27th October 2012, 15:03

So kill yourself. Anything else is selfishly denying other people your precious resources. Go on, kill yourself, for the rest of unenlightened humanity. I'm sure you'd rather do it yourself than have the rest us unenlightened almost-zombies do it.

Is it just me that thinks that all technocrats should be harvested for the good of the rest of us?

Pravda

27th October 2012, 15:38

They sound fucking Malthusian.

cyu

27th October 2012, 16:05

Malthusian economics belong to middle-class and upper-class suburbanites - still dreaming of one day having their very own mega-yacht. No sh*t not everyone can have mega-yachts or play golf all day. The consumer society created by advertising leads to a great deal of poor people, whose economic output consists mainly of producing stuff that will be used by the rich. That is the real reason resources can't support large populations of the poor. As some might say, "It's capitalism, stupid."

From http://everything2.com/title/unlimited+wants+and+limited+resources

Wants are fairly subjective. You might like one thing and your partner might want something completely different - and thus begins the arguments that strain relationships. (But that's another story.)

Anyway, I submit that it isn't really logical to assume wants / needs are infinite. I would say wants / needs are often determined by advertising, which often preys on the "irrational" aspects of human behavior, just as Buddhism may "prey" on the same aspects in order to dispel a person's wants / needs.

One of the problems is that once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

All the major media in some societies are funded by product advertising. What kind of people are those kind of messages likely to raise? Most people don't want to admit you've been brainwashed by consumerism - just as the followers of the world's religions won't say they've been brainwashed by the religious messages their societies give them.

The people of the various religions may make the argument that their religion is good for society. Can the same be made for consumerism? It's not even like people have an intrinsic need to advertise products - they are only forced to do so because if they don't, their company may go bankrupt and they'll be forced into economic hardship - which is only a problem in capitalist society.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

The food producers meanwhile think, "why should I help you unemployed toy makers? I have to work for my living, so you should too." So they go back to working their 80 hour weeks, while the unemployed go back to "working" their 0 hour weeks. "Brilliant", eh?

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.

MustCrushCapitalism

27th October 2012, 16:16

If you deny that overpopulation is a problem at all, you're an idiot in the likes of creationists and global warming deniers. I'd like to think that the revolutionary left does not share this attribute in common with the Christian right. It may not be convenient, but as socialists, we provide the most sensible way to solve this problem - through a more viable global distribution of resources.

If you browse around the interwebz, you'll find articles on the topic, such as the APL's "The Myth of Overpopulation" (http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/03/01/the-myth-of-overpopulation/). If this convinces you, you don't understand why the world is overpopulated. We have far more than enough land - enough for multiple times what we have now, according to some estimates I've heard a while back. Land isn't the issue - resources are. At the moment, we'd likely have only just enough to give all of the world a decent (probably less than stellar, by developed-world standards) living standard, if that. That said, resources are a problem that can be solved. With technologies developing as now, this problem could be solved, especially through harvesting resources from other planets, which could happen soon.

Technocracy Technate

27th October 2012, 23:04

"All that has been said of human populations is true also of all other kinds of organic populations. One of the great fallacies of the 19th century was the enunciation of the so-called `Law of Malthus' by the economist Malthus, first formulated in 1798 and revised a number of times after 1800. Malthus stated that human populations tend to increase in geometric ratio with time, but that the food supply increases only arithmetically. The real error consisted in failing to recognize that all biologic species, including those used for human food, tend to increase geometrically with time, but that the usual state of any biologic population, excepting those that fluctuate with the seasons, is stationary. In other words, if we had a record of the various populations of a biologic complex for a period of some thousands of years, any rapid change, either upward or downward, of any population would be a definitely anomalous phenomenon.
Malthus apparently was unaware that he was witnessing one of the most abnormal population changes in the whole history of the earth, and he made the mistake of assuming that what he saw was the normal state of affairs.
This might be of no importance were it not for the fact that even today, most of our contemporary thinking is based unknowingly upon the same hidden errors of Malthus. Not only has the past century been a period of unprecedented population growth, but it has been even more spectacular in its industrial expansion.
Ever since before the dawn of written history the human species has been accumulating technical knowledge of how to convert a larger and lager share of available energy to its own uses. The use of fire, the domestication of animals, the development of tools, the development of agriculture, the mining of metals, the utilization of wind and water power, and the tapping of the vast stores of the fossil fuels, coal and oil, have been among the leading successive steps in this long line of cumulative achievement. Step by step, each of these advances has disturbed the existing biological equilibrium in favor of an increase of the human population. This procession has reached its most spectacular stage of development in the period since the Civil War. During this period, not only have populations increased, but so have a large number of other things--railroads, factories, automobiles, airplanes, radios, and the production of such minerals as iron, copper, tin, lead, zinc, aluminum, magnesium, phosphates, potash, coal, and oil.
So monotonously have these things increased during our life times that many of us have assumed naively, like Malthus, that such increase is the `normal' state of affairs, little realizing that some of the most abnormal events in all geological history were being witnessed."

- Marion King Hubbert, Determining The Most Probable, 1938

"As our population continues to grow exponentially, problems are magnified. Annual growth currently adds 70 million to the earth's human population. Something like a century ago Thomas Malthus predicted that population control would be by world-wide starvation. He was called a merchant of gloom and doom or worse. American economist Daniel Raymond, in 1980, said of his ideas: ``Although his (Malthus') theory is founded upon principles of nature, and although it is impossible to discover any flaws in his reasoning, yet the mind instinctively revolts at the conclusions to which he conducts it, and we are disposed to reject the theory, even though we are given no good reason.'' Today, economists are rereading Malthus, not Raymond."

- Ron Miller, Mass Extinction, 1989

cyu

28th October 2012, 12:18

I see capitalists attempting to co-opt Malthus in much the same way that they attempt to co-opt Darwin. Whether they believe it is true or not, whether he was right or not, it does give capitalists a good excuse to oppress the poor - to claim that starvation is to be expected in society and not a fault with capitalism, to claim that starving the poor is a necessary part of human survival, to claim that we need people to die so that they may live.

Well, do allow me to co-opt Malthus for the anti-capitalists, even though I consider him a deluded fool. Here's how it goes: "Indeed we're all about to die from mass overpopulation and lack of resources. That's why it is more urgent than ever to overthrow the current economic system. The current economic system allocates resources in such a way that 99% of it is giving a life of luxury to 1%. In order for humanity to survive, the capitalist class must be eliminated."

Jimmie Higgins

28th October 2012, 12:41

I see capitalists attempting to co-opt Malthus in much the same way that they attempt to co-opt Darwin.I don't think they need to co-opt Maluths - he was always on their team. He thought that population limits were part of a divine balence to force people to live modestly and virtuiously. He thought starvation was the "natural" result of Irish sin and lack of self-control - the real cause of so much suffering as we all should know was that a British-initiated enclosure-like process caused much of the population to loose their ability to grow on their own plots of land (which were bcomeing smaller and smaller due to British imposed laws). The same reality is still under the "overpopulation" of today - it's how production is organized and how wealth is controlled, not absolute population numbers - we can feed people right now, it's the system, not the number of people that's the issue.

His ideas on this subject have always been ideological and serving the interests of the powerful. His ideas were scientific cover for opposing poor laws and an apology for British policy towards the destitute in Ireland. Neo-Malthusianism is official US policy when it comes to aid.

Malthusian ideas about overpopulation have more in common with social-darwinism than evolutionary darwinism in regards to their relation to ideology. Hell, he supported the idea that the poor should be selectivly bred - though he didn't think they could have intelligence bred into them.

Blake's Baby

28th October 2012, 13:16

robbo203

28th October 2012, 13:29

Well, do allow me to co-opt Malthus for the anti-capitalists, even though I consider him a deluded fool. Here's how it goes: "Indeed we're all about to die from mass overpopulation and lack of resources. That's why it is more urgent than ever to overthrow the current economic system. The current economic system allocates resources in such a way that 99% of it is giving a life of luxury to 1%. In order for humanity to survive, the capitalist class must be eliminated."

Its not just the maldistribution of resources from the point of view of equity within contemporary capitalism that is the problem. The bottom 99% are not simply going without to varying degres (although I would question how much those in , say, the 90-98% bracket can be said to be "going without") because the top 1% are hogging the lion's share of the resources

No, the problem is much bigger than that and I find myself constantly surprised that more attention is not drawn to this point on lists such as this. The point is that capitalism itself is inherently massively wasteful and inefficient from the standpoint of meeting human beeds. This structural waste is already huge in absolute terms and it is steadily growing in relative terms as well. There is some good stuff here on this excellent website which documents the extent of this waste http://andycox1953.webs.com/database1.htm

I am referring to the amount of human and material resources that are diverted into economic activities that in themselves produce nothing of value from the standpoint of meeting human needs. Their sole purpose is to meet the systemic or operational needs of capitalism itself as a particular mode of production. For instance, the financial sector only exists in an economy that operates on the basis of finance - obviously - and this is integral to a capitalist modus operandi. The state capitalist apologist, Lenin, for example, argued that big banks were 9/10s of the "socialist apparatus" showing thereby that either he had no understanbding of what socialism meant (unlikely) or had wilfully distorted its meaning.

Socialism based on common onwnership of the means of productiuon would obviously do away with banks (and everything else associated with the handling of money) since such common ownership is logically incompatible with the notion of economic exchange - markets. But then socialism would get rid of the need for a lot of other things too. In fact, at least half of all economic activity currently conducted within the formal sector of most countries in the world today would no longer be needed and this, if anything, is a conservative guesstimate

What that means is that, all things being equal, in real terms the same amount of useful wealth overall produced today could be produced with half the amount of resources and manpower in a future socialist society. Or alternatively , that we could double the output of useful wealth today simply getting rid of capitalism and rediverting all that labour and resources tied up in the structural waste of capitalism today , into socially useful production

This is arguably the major productive advantage that a socialist economy would have over a capitalist economy - though it is far from being the only one - and it one that is worth bearing in mind