Population Control

[LongSilence]

Just a thought- assuming that the majority of mankind survives all the current catastrophes it has predicted for itself, as it has always done, what do people see happening to the number of people on the planet in the next century and the one after and how will they end up changing it? And what will the governments of the world start to do about it? Or will good ol' War come along soon to take its cut of the global population as it always has done?

But saying that the population begins to reach critical levels, what will happen do you think? Will other countries begin to take China's current childbirth limiting policy? Or can they simply rely on Western education and social improvement to encourage more and more people to go about satisfying their own personal desires and career goals before even thinking about rearing a child?

I'm actually just trying to get an idea of how far the world's government might go in order to ensure that it's peoples, especially its poorer ones, don't go about overpopulating the globe before science and technology can successfully cater to them.

[joft]

i think we should postpone getting cocky about our survivability for a little while longer, considering we've only been around for a tiny percent of the history of life on Earth and the vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct and whatnot.

on the other hand, i'm pretty sure the "western" model--or rather, the availability and acceptability and affordability of effective contraceptives--is spreading pretty far and wide. while the scenario in the movie "Idiocracy" seemed frighteningly plausible, i'm pretty sure that even hicks and trailer trash would rather avoid teenage pregnancy and so forth. i think the average human female is giving birth at an increasingly older age in most places on earth

[LongSilence]

Of course there's no reason to get cocky. On the other hand, we've spent most of our cognitive existence thinking that our race is doomed within the forseeable future too. So, its also a bit too cocky to say we know the end is coming. In fact, the only thing we've really had the pleasure of seeing fall are civilisations and cultures.

Anyway, while contraceptives help cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies they do little to discourage people actually choosing to reproduce, and i think the point about Idiocracy was that poorer and less intelligent people might be more inclined to listen to their biological urge and reproduce, while smarter people seem to be more dedicated to their other personal pursuits and have a greater tendency to carefully select the number of children they want.

[Jivinjeffjones]

In most developing nations, having many kids is the only form of social security that exists. No pensions there. I can't imagine the kind of remedial policies China has put into place will ever be implemented in a democracy. Water shortages are more likely to control populations, and even then only by killing off a lot of people. Contraceptives just won't work. In India they are trying to advocate condoms through widespread distribution and education in order to cut down on the HIV epidemic sweeping the country, and doctors are finding the population indifferent to the solution they're presenting. I don't know what the solution to the population problem is. The only countries that seem particularly concerned about the problem (China aside) are the countries who already have negligible population growth rates due to births. There are many possible solutions, but I can't see any of them being popular. War, famine, disease and drought seem to be our best bet. Whenever I think about this problem I think of the part in the Matrix where the agent likens humanity to a virus.

[rhinosaur]

Our machine overlords will keep the human population at a constant level by genetically engineering humans.

[Sojourner]

Eh, if you think about it, we'll probably be wiped out by some sort of virulent, highly contagious airborne virus/bacteria that has evolved an immunity to most of our medicines. Higher population density and all that good stuff.

[Wolf]

Eh, if you think about it, we'll probably be wiped out by some sort of virulent, highly contagious airborne virus/bacteria that has evolved an immunity to most of our medicines. Higher population density and all that good stuff.
It's true - we keep increasing density, wasting resources to increase the density, transporting diseases at the speed of air travel, and all we're doing is dramatically increasing the chances for a mutation of a disease that will wipe out most of humanity. It's not an "if", it's happened many, many times before in our history. I wouldn't be surprised by a disease that kills 30-40% of those it infects appearing in the near future...a disease they never saw coming because they're watching bird flu and STDs because they don't want to be inconvenienced in their lifestyles.

[Sojourner]

The Empire strikes back.

=P

I don't know much about these issues - besides the Black Plague, what other big epidemics have swept the world? Do I mean pandemic?

[Zergling]

The "western" solutions to problems will likely get more and more common over time as people using them figure out what works and what doesn't, and apply the methods that work to keep population down. People in other countries will want to compete with the richer ones, and some competetion relies on education, work habits, and other effects that also reduce population growth.

Diseases seem very unlikely to kill off too many people besides those existing today, although people travel around the world faster, information and research also travels very quickly, and most major diseases spreading around today have to do with behaviour and technology (clean water, sex, etc.) issues that are different from place to place that over time get solved to deal with other problems.

[Architectonic]

Economic reality will control the population - if you can't afford to feed the population, they will die. If people choose to be poor and have a large amount of children, then let them - I don't see the problem.



Eh, if you think about it, we'll probably be wiped out by some sort of virulent, highly contagious airborne virus/bacteria that has evolved an immunity to most of our medicines. Higher population density and all that good stuff.

This is extremely unlikely to occur naturally. Extremely virulent contagious diseases don't tend to last very long because they kill their host quickly. You need a very long incubation period to kill a large portion of the population. HIV is more successful than the type of virus/bacteria that you are suggesting.

On the other hand, it may become technically possible to modify/engineer a virus to have a very long incubation time - this could kill a significant portion of the global population. But it is still difficult due to natural limitations..

[HilbertSpace]

The thing that the Malthusians at the Club of Rome never really took into account when they were predicting worldwide starvation by the 1980's was that, although population curves are exponential, so is the technology development curve. The green revolution and other technologies (including medical) make higher populations viable, and (as has been pointed out), higher technology cultures in general have much lower birthrates anyway.

[intpgolfer]

The Ultimate Resource II: (httphttp://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/://) People, Materials, and Environment

Julian L. Simon (see also vita, bio, and writings - grand theory (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR04B.txt) )

1. Can The Supply Of Natural Resources - Especially Energy - Really Be Infinite? Yes! (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR03A.txt)

2. Famine 1995? Or 2025 (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR05.txt)? Or 1975?

3. Do Humans Breed (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR24.txt)Like Flies? Or Like Norwegian Rats?

4. Should We Conserve Resources For Our Childrens Sake? (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR20.txt)

Spend some time reading this book - he actually has 40 questions. (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource)

[junxo]

i dont think that a future malthusian crisis can be avoided...unless something causes a major decrease in population and i predict the cause of such a decrease will be another huge plague coming along within the near to semi-distant future...which would actually be a good thing for future human populations, but truly devastating to those who have to live or die through it.

[Jivinjeffjones]

Since the population growth rate is most alarming in the developing world, maybe aid could be made conditional on voluntary sterilization for people over 25. This is extreme, of course, and would never win approval.

Is there a form of radiation that would sterilize people but not animals?

[HilbertSpace]

Is there a form of radiation that would sterilize people but not animals?

Yes, and it's called "television."

[Jivinjeffjones]

Yes, and it's called "television."

What about laptops used on the lap?

[HilbertSpace]

What about laptops used on the lap?

That's counter-balanced, depending on what kind of web sites you're visiting.

[CheeZ]

I don't know much about these issues - besides the Black Plague, what other big epidemics have swept the world? Do I mean pandemic?

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

[dubbeltop]

Population Control (by redistributing wealth to the poor immigrants......)

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=images&imgsz=all&imgc=&vf=all&va=statue+liberty&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8

is impossible because people are born where they are born and I think we cannot forbid people to make babies.......

Actually we need to improve economic aid or (better yet) help people from all over the world to develop way so they can attain wealth (meaning less babies) in our western economies(who suffer from a lack of workers)....and making sure their rights aren't violated!!!

but we can (actually some rich people prefer this) also keep things as they are and watch millions of people starve because, hey we like our three cars an our big house and work 70 hours a week!!!!!

iI we can solve the problem of fair wealth/work distribution then we can have a slowly declining world populace (just like natural reduction of the work force in a company) without to much hassles(yeah right).......

http://www.getamericaworking.org/press/StaffandCouncil/2003/SanDiegoUnionTribune_Walker_Mar82003ProblemsWithAgingWorkforce.htm

(article adressing a small part of the problems)

[Purple-Silver Fox]

The thing that the Malthusians at the Club of Rome never really took into account when they were predicting worldwide starvation by the 1980's was that, although population curves are exponential, so is the technology development curve. The green revolution and other technologies (including medical) make higher populations viable, and (as has been pointed out), higher technology cultures in general have much lower birthrates anyway.
Can you quote that prediction?
Technological advancement seems to be slowing down, anyway: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/article.php?page=2&article_id=5. And then we're not even talking about resource dependency of those technologies..

[Sojourner]

Yeah, you can't forbid people to have babies. I once came across this website that promoted voluntary childlessness - not abstinence, but using contraception and so forth. Personally, I think there's enough babies in the world. "Go adopt if you want one!" ...though everyone wants a baby with their genes, being the selfish animals humans are.

Besides, technology isn't evenly distributed. There's huge gaping holes in our web of protection, so that it's more like the web itself is the exception.


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

See, that was a very virulent contagion, and it worked, didn't it? Somewhat, anyhow.

[HilbertSpace]

Can you quote that prediction?
Technological advancement seems to be slowing down, anyway: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/article.php?page=2&article_id=5. And then we're not even talking about resource dependency of those technologies..

I was being mildly hyperbolic, but not by much. The Club of Rome started in the late 60's, and by the mid-70's popular culture had so embraced the neo-Malthusian ideas that you had everything from cover stories in news magazines to movies like Soylent Green. Even Robert Heinlein (whom no one would generally call a dystopian) makes references to massive death from overpopulation of the Earth in his works of the time. The Club of Rome did predict that we would run out of oil in 1992.

Speaking of oil, the majority of the referenced article is predicated on oil running out quickly, and before any other technology can replace it. The other justification the author uses is a rather controversial book - I haven't read it, but I've read about it, and I have to remain skeptical at this point due to not knowing exactly what sorts of innovations the author is tracking, nor knowing if his innovations are scaled to account for their impact.

As far as oil running out within ten years (which seems to be the author's preferred number) - all I can say about that is that the author (and those who believe him) should put their money where their mouths are. The oil market, as an entity, knows more about the future supply of oil than any single individual, and oil price trends just don't indicate this. Innovation and exploration are simply keeping pace with growing demand - oil only broke out of the low $50/bbl range because - surprise - people realized that, yes, it is going to get cold this winter (forgive the sound of my jaw not dropping there, but New Mexico has had one heck of a winter this year - I was getting snowed in for days while friends back East were complaining of mild weather).

We could look up the Uppsala study, and any journal articles that were written supporting or criticizing it. However, I think that all we need to do is look at the apparent collective yawn with which the oil industry greeted it.

Take a look at a company like Exxon - they have everything to gain from rising oil prices. When deciding whether or not to commit capital to exploiting new reserves, they use (the last I heard) a price of $20/bbl to decide whether or not the new facility will pay for itself over a reasonable period. Exxon employs researchers with, I daresay, more experience and better access to data than a group at Uppsala, and they actually have a dog in the fight - they have a much greater motivation to make the call correctly. If Exxon thought they could be getting $200/bbl or more by 2015, they (along with every person on Earth) would be racing to bring new facilities on line.

It comes down to this - either everyone who makes a living off of a multi-trillion dollar industry is wrong, or a group of professors who are trying to make a Malthusian point are. I know where I'd place my bet.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

The Club of Rome did predict that we would run out of oil in 1992.Again, quote?


Speaking of oil, the majority of the referenced article is predicated on oil running out quickly, and before any other technology can replace it. The other justification the author uses is a rather controversial book - I haven't read it, but I've read about it, and I have to remain skeptical at this point due to not knowing exactly what sorts of innovations the author is tracking, nor knowing if his innovations are scaled to account for their impact.Well, I linked the article mainly to add a counterweight to the popular notion that technological innovation is accelerating.


As far as oil running out within ten years (which seems to be the author's preferred number)The article mentions a pessimistic forecast where oil is starting to run out after ten years.


- all I can say about that is that the author (and those who believe him) should put their money where their mouths are. The oil market, as an entity, knows more about the future supply of oil than any single individual, and oil price trends just don't indicate this. Innovation and exploration are simply keeping pace with growing demand - oil only broke out of the low $50/bbl range because - surprise - people realized that, yes, it is going to get cold this winter (forgive the sound of my jaw not dropping there, but New Mexico has had one heck of a winter this year - I was getting snowed in for days while friends back East were complaining of mild weather).

We could look up the Uppsala study, and any journal articles that were written supporting or criticizing it. However, I think that all we need to do is look at the apparent collective yawn with which the oil industry greeted it.

Take a look at a company like Exxon - they have everything to gain from rising oil prices. When deciding whether or not to commit capital to exploiting new reserves, they use (the last I heard) a price of $20/bbl to decide whether or not the new facility will pay for itself over a reasonable period. Exxon employs researchers with, I daresay, more experience and better access to data than a group at Uppsala, and they actually have a dog in the fight - they have a much greater motivation to make the call correctly.The oil industry's interests might stimulate them to do research, the professors are just as well betting their reputation and hence their career on it. Furthermore, by the same motivation oil sellers have an incentive to lie about their ability to supply (Of course we can give you oil! No, no need to invest in alternative energy..).


If Exxon thought they could be getting $200/bbl or more by 2015, they (along with every person on Earth) would be racing to bring new facilities on line.As it happens, Saudi Arabia is drastically - exponentially even - increasing the number of oil rigs it employs. Oil corporations are now mainly counting on oil from deep offshore fields, with all costs and risks that that entails. If they need to drill in those circumstances, you just know that there isn't any easy oil left elsewhere.

[euterpenc]

Im going to say war, famine, disease. Regardless of whether we actively try to control population, it will control itself. Limited resources = struggle to survive. Some will and some won't.

Either way to control the population death is necessary. Limiting birth is one thing, but it remains to question whether or not limiting births would be enough to even balance the birth:death ratio.

If we want to control the population maybe we should give up some pursuits of modern medicine. Stop keeping people alive when their bodies are essentially non-functional. I'd say being able to live longer due to society's achievements is a privelidge and not a right. But how to control this? Should we?

I suggest war.

[HilbertSpace]

Again, quote?


I thought I mentioned it. Limits to Growth, 1972. I would cite you a page number, but I burned my copy to keep warm during the oil crisis in 1975.



Well, I linked the article mainly to add a counterweight to the popular notion that technological innovation is accelerating.

The article mentions a pessimistic forecast where oil is starting to run out after ten years.

The oil industry's interests might stimulate them to do research, the professors are just as well betting their reputation and hence their career on it. Furthermore, by the same motivation oil sellers have an incentive to lie about their ability to supply (Of course we can give you oil! No, no need to invest in alternative energy..).


Well, as the Club of Rome demonstrates, if yor prediction for a Malthusian collapse doesn't come true, you can simply republish a Revised Edition that moves the date out by a few years (Beyond the Limits, published 1992). Academic careers are much less liable to collapse from a mis-step than billion dollar companies, because academic standing isn't as concrete a resource as financial capital.

According to the point of view you're proposing, an alternate energy system is further on the horizon than the depletion of oil reserves. If that is indeed the case, I suspect that the energy companies would be raising the price of oil and using the proceeds to buy alternative energy companies.

In any case, it's not just the oil producers - it's the oil consumers, futures traders, hedge funds, etc. It takes two sides to make a market, and both employ the best experts in the field that they can find.



As it happens, Saudi Arabia is drastically - exponentially even - increasing the number of oil rigs it employs. Oil corporations are now mainly counting on oil from deep offshore fields, with all costs and risks that that entails. If they need to drill in those circumstances, you just know that there isn't any easy oil left elsewhere.

And the oil that is today "easy" was unreachable 50 years ago. All that is required is that th price of oil, as determined by market forces of supply versus demand, make exploration and exploitation viable. While the total amount of oil isn't increasing, the amount available for exploitation is.

When the cost efficiency (measured as total cost-per-BTU) of another source exceeds that of oil, there will be a sea-change. At this point, though, the only real instability in the oil market is political. Even the monopolistic aspects that OPEC seeks to inflict are usually overcome by market factors.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

I thought I mentioned it. Limits to Growth, 1972. I would cite you a page number, but I burned my copy to keep warm during the oil crisis in 1975.Heh. Don't worry, there weren't any specific predictions in it anyway. They merely ran several simulations, with varying the parameters for resource availability, pollution control, population control, agricultural productivity, etc. The result varied only slightly, no matter how optimistic the circumstances: continuous material expansion leads to ruin.


Well, as the Club of Rome demonstrates, if yor prediction for a Malthusian collapse doesn't come true, you can simply republish a Revised Edition that moves the date out by a few years (Beyond the Limits, published 1992). Academic careers are much less liable to collapse from a mis-step than billion dollar companies, because academic standing isn't as concrete a resource as financial capital.I don't predict a fast collapse; I do predict the impossibility of sustained growth. And academic standing as well as financial capital prove that the owner have been right.. in the past.


According to the point of view you're proposing, an alternate energy system is further on the horizon than the depletion of oil reserves. If that is indeed the case, I suspect that the energy companies would be raising the price of oil and using the proceeds to buy alternative energy companies.Lo and behold: the oil price has been consistently high for the last three years, and BP has rebaptized themselves Beyond Petroleum.


In any case, it's not just the oil producers - it's the oil consumers, futures traders, hedge funds, etc. It takes two sides to make a market, and both employ the best experts in the field that they can find.Did you know that ca. 15 of the world's largest oilfields have dropping production? We don't know about the biggest one, because the Saudi's aren't willing to disclose data.


And the oil that is today "easy" was unreachable 50 years ago. All that is required is that th price of oil, as determined by market forces of supply versus demand, make exploration and exploitation viable. While the total amount of oil isn't increasing, the amount available for exploitation is.No matter what the price is, if it isn't in the ground you can't get it out. Apart from money it also costs energy to get the oil out; if it costs more energy to get the oil out than it contains, it ceases to be an energy source.


When the cost efficiency (measured as total cost-per-BTU) of another source exceeds that of oil, there will be a sea-change.You say that like it is a given.. Are there such sources? And if they are possible, will they be ready on time? In sufficient quantity?
Meanwhile, we continue to build an economic house of cards on fossil fuels. Those are finite, and therefore are being used up. Particularly light hydrocarbons are on the verge of reaching their peak output. We will be left with dirty, hard-to-reach coal.. unless, as is recited in the litany of faith of the global consensus, a deus-ex-machina appears.

[HilbertSpace]

Heh. Don't worry, there weren't any specific predictions in it anyway. They merely ran several simulations, with varying the parameters for resource availability, pollution control, population control, agricultural productivity, etc. The result varied only slightly, no matter how optimistic the circumstances: continuous material expansion leads to ruin.


I never doubted they ran simulations. I create models of complex systems all the time - I know what it means when your models don't line up with reality. It's no sin to make a bad model, but it can be unhealthy to take an unproven model too seriously.



Lo and behold: the oil price has been consistently high for the last three years, and BP has rebaptized themselves Beyond Petroleum.


I don't know - is there something else that's been going on for the past three years or so that might have affected the oil price?

That's exactly the point - without the uncertainty premium from instability in Africa and the Iran situation, oil is still incredibly cheap. The Saudis and other OPEC nations are scaling back production to try to keep the price up, but without the winter being colder then expected, oil would still be lingering at least $5 - $10/bbl below where it currently is. OPEC acting on its own can't maintain $60/bbl at this point - and that's even with the hedge funds and ETFs bidding up the price with speculation.

We will transition from oil at some point. I honestly don't think that it will be falling reserves, but rather the development of a cheaper energy source.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Ehm.. you are supposing that their models don't line up. They do predict continued growth until somewhere in the 21st century, when the inherent limits of resources turn growth into decline.
The different runs of the model are just assuming with each run that the main problem of the last run would be solved. And even with ridiculous assumptions of unlimited agricultural productivity, perfect population control etc. the verdict was clear: growth limits itself through negative feedback mechanisms.
I normally would be more appreciative of you asking 99+% proof, but we're running out of planets to experiment with.

Regarding oil, the winter is actually much warmer than normal in the northern hemisphere, with a few exceptions. Anyway, the price doesn't matter very much. Demand is too fickle, and that's half of the price. Supply, on the other hand, has a hard limit of what is available, and that limit is set by geology.

[HilbertSpace]

Ehm.. you are supposing that their models don't line up. They do predict continued growth until somewhere in the 21st century, when the inherent limits of resources turn growth into decline.
The different runs of the model are just assuming with each run that the main problem of the last run would be solved. And even with ridiculous assumptions of unlimited agricultural productivity, perfect population control etc. the verdict was clear: growth limits itself through negative feedback mechanisms.
I normally would be more appreciative of you asking 99+% proof, but we're running out of planets to experiment with.


Insofar as the models are predicting growth, I have no problems with them - that's not the Malthusian part. And I'm asking for an error band and a prediction that is vital to the model that actually holds when tested against reality before give it any credence whatsoever.

I'll tell you honestly - the most dire predictions are always the ones that get the most press. If you don't recall the New Ice Age crisis of the 1970's, you'll surely recall the Y2K disaster.

The bad thing about computational models is that they can say whatever the researchers want them to say - whether intended or innocent, it's almost impossible to keep experimental bias out of that kind of system because you're choosing what system features to model, what to leave out, and correspondence functions between data sets. When what you're dealing with is a complex or chaotic system (in the technical senses of the words), that is a recipe for disaster - or, at least it's not a recipe for good science.



Regarding oil, the winter is actually much warmer than normal in the northern hemisphere, with a few exceptions. Anyway, the price doesn't matter very much. Demand is too fickle, and that's half of the price. Supply, on the other hand, has a hard limit of what is available, and that limit is set by geology.

The winter cooler than expected, thus the demand curve was higher than expected, which is why we've seen the recent increase. The entire point of this debate (which we should probably conclude because we've started to repeat ourselves) is that the geological limits are not nearly as low as the Malthusian models predict, and that fact is reflected in the current market price of oil.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

The prediction is: unwanted population decrease, the error band is: 21st century. Why do you dismiss the theory so easily as disproven, while taking the eternal growth theories for granted? Demanding that this is tested against reality is simply abusive: there is no backup planet.

I think you are mistaken: Malthusian models do not predict the geological limit, they predict the result of exceeding it.

[Dark Razor]

If you take a look at biology it's quite simple, if there is a population of organisms which lives off of limited ressources, and if those ressources are availabe in superabundance, then the number of organisms will grow exponentially until the ressource is exhausted, at that point the population will crash back to a sustainable level, within a single generation.

Humans and in particular advanced human civilisation, rely on a number of finite ressources, fossile fuels, fresh water, fresh air, fertile soil, a number of metals etc.

If you look at population growth of the human species, you will see that the number of people exploded around the time that fossile fuel based agriculture allowed for vastly increased food output, when this form of agriculture is no longer sustainable because of shrinking availability of those fuels, and if alternatives are not developed immediatly, faster than market forces would do, then population levels will revert back to what they where 60 or 70 years ago or even below that. A good example of a succesful transition is what happend in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when fuel imports dropped by more than half.

I also believe that it would be foolish to rely on the "invisible hand" to sort things out when oil reserves are entering a stage of irreversible decline. This is because at the time when the market reacts with higher prices, those ressources are already shrinking, considering that right now the price of everything is based on the price of oil, this would mean that the price of implementing alternatives would rise at the same rate as the price of oil. Not to mention the fact that for example to replace our fleet of vehicles which are essential to the very functioning of our economy would take a lot of time and require truckloads of money. If those vehicles cannot be replaced before there is not enough oil anymore, or before the oil becomes too expensive, then the food cannot be transported anymore, or can only be transported at very high cost which would make the food prohibitively expensive for the poor. Either way, lots of people would not get food and would starve and die until there is an alternative found or there are so many peolple dead that the price of food balances out.

This could be avoided or mitigated if localized agriculture that does not heavily rely on fossile fuel based fertilizer and pesticides would be developed on a large scale before hydrocarbons enter the stage of depletion, once the decline in oil production has started it is all to late.

[Jivinjeffjones]

If you take a look at biology it's quite simple, if there is a population of organisms which lives off of limited ressources, and if those ressources are availabe in superabundance, then the number of organisms will grow exponentially until the ressource is exhausted, at that point the population will crash back to a sustainable level, within a single generation.

This would certainly be true if humans were no different to other animals. However, I don't think large numbers of people are going to die of starvation without putting up a fight first, and humans have access to weaponry which no other animal does. Fortunately, those in power are also those who would face starvation last. If the people in power are starving and have access to advance weaponry (nukes etc) then the competition for food/resources could be something the planet does not survive. Of course, food would last a lot longer if the planet went vegetarian.

The love of meat prevents any real change.
-Douglas Coupland

[Google Monster]

A nuke should fix things.

[sorabji_66]

The Ultimate Resource II: (httphttp://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/://) People, Materials, and Environment

Julian L. Simon (see also vita, bio, and writings - grand theory (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR04B.txt) )

1. Can The Supply Of Natural Resources - Especially Energy - Really Be Infinite? Yes! (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR03A.txt)

2. Famine 1995? Or 2025 (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR05.txt)? Or 1975?

3. Do Humans Breed (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR24.txt)Like Flies? Or Like Norwegian Rats?

4. Should We Conserve Resources For Our Childrens Sake? (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR20.txt)

Spend some time reading this book - he actually has 40 questions. (http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource)


thank you for mentioning his work.

Erlich's sour grapes response to losing his wager with Simon is classic.

i'll place my faith that whatever obstacles are put up against humanity, we'll once again rise to the occasion and solve it.

and that's the only "futurism" prediction i'll accept.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

i'll place my faith that whatever obstacles are put up against humanity, we'll once again rise to the occasion and solve it.

and that's the only "futurism" prediction i'll accept.

Alright, here is one: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
How is humanity going to tackle this?

[Jennywocky]

A nuke should fix things.

Yes: "Take off and nuke the entire planet from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."