Debt Rattle Apr 15 2014: This Is Where We Say Good Night And Good Luck?
- This topic has 22 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
National Photo Co. The House Without Children, Poli’s theater, Washington DC 1920 Let’s start the day with the best – or should I say the funniest – g
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle Apr 15 2014: This Is Where We Say Good Night And Good Luck?]Raul,
This is rapidly becoming my favourite site. I have no doubt that you have many daily site visits, but am wondering why so few people post.Not a clue, Indus. When we were still at Blogger, we had a vibrant comments section. Perhaps people find the WordPress one harder to find? Or maybe Nicole and I should post more comments? But still, a good thing that you like TAE so much. We’ll figure out all the rest in time.
Indus56 – sometimes I don’t post because Ilargi already does such a good synopsis; I’d just be repeating what he says. He does one heck of a good job at summing up what’s happening. Oftentimes I have to think about what he’s said, and by the time I summarize my thoughts and get ready to post, there’s another post up. I can’t keep up.
If you are worried about your children’s future, here’s a post to consider. The video is actually scary, and the chart shows where we’re heading if our industrial society continues on. Do watch the 27 minute video.
Then watch this video to see just how beautiful the world is and what a shame it would be to lose it. The music alone is worth it!
Ilargi, you asked “what do we want” or “where do we want to go”. I’d like to see about 500 million people on this planet (that’s enough, isn’t it?). Of course, I don’t advocate killing anyone who’s already here, but just slowing the rate of birth enough so that we eventually reach this amount.
Then I envision using hydroelectric power only – no nuclear, no coal, no firewood. Solar and wind power, great ideas as well.
Anybody else have any thoughts on this? Why is it that we always need more growth? We slowly killing ourselves, or allowing our psychopathic leaders to do it for us.
But how would that happen in practice? Who would decide who gets to have children and who wouldn’t? Politicians? These are the worst people on the planet but how much do you want to bet they would be on the list to have kids?
This is my problem w/ communism and other forms of economic organization. They only work when there is a surplus of resources. Once there are shortages there needs to be a mechanism to decide what is “funded” and what is not. In the absence of a market mechanism you’re left with politicians which IMO is worse.
People were commenting more when the stock market was a sea of red. However, now everything is okay 😉
Raleigh,
We can get to 500 million if the net loss of people is 100,000 per day for the next 178 years or so. Of course, there are other options besides linear.
Ken – 178 years! I guess I forgot to multiply by 5 and carry the 1. What if each couple of child-bearing age only had one child going forward, Ken? How long do you figure that would take to get down to 500 million, approximately, or even 1 billion?
Just checking the Wiki page, I see the world population hit 500 million in 1650, 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by 1987, 6 billion in 1999, and 7 billion in 2012. That is a lot of productivity going on. A commenter had this to say about China’s one-child policy:
“China’s birthrate pre-policy was 5.8 in 1970 and 1.5 in 2013. The fertility rate has indeed fallen.
However, China’s population was ~900 million in 1970 and 1.6 billion in 2013. Given that a population can’t increase (excluding immigration and immortality) with less than a fertility rate of 2.0, most of the country clearly have had more than one child.
So the policy reduced the fertility rate, but the country still grew significantly.
Interestingly, despite the 1 child per family policy, China has grown proportionally faster than the US in the same time period.
China: 900 million (1970) to 1.6 billion (2013) = 77% increase
USA: 203 million (1970) to 320 million (2013) = 57% increase
We have a fertility rate of about 2.0 (40 yr avg), so we know that China’s actual fertility rate is greater than 2.0, not 1.0.”
So even a “one-child policy” really gets you “two” and change.
That non-linear option is probably going to present itself to us without us even asking for it. Nature will strike back.
Just lowering the birth rate doesn’t work, or at least not well. A healthy population is dependent on a healthy age balance. I don’t know how to solve the overpopulation issue, but I do know this is not the way to go. Then again, I also can’t see older people -boomers, the most numerous generation- go voluntarily in large numbers, though I’ve been suggesting it to them here at TAE.
I’ve written earlier that we may have to concede that we can’t solve this one, we’ll have to leave it to nature to do it for us.
Detail: China has 1.3 billion people, not 1.6. Still a difference of about the entire US population.
Ken,
You’re undoubtedly right that stock markets are a major factor. It’s probably also that our forced move away from Blogger that plays a part, plus the fact that especially Nicole’s ‘extra curricular’ activities, even though they’re TAE activities, have taken time away from posting on the actual site.
I think it should be pretty obvious that we are now in a far worse position than we were when the markets were deep red, precisely because of what was used to lift those markets. It may yet take a while for that to play out, though I’m sure the plug will be pulled when mom and pop least expect it. In that light, it’s a good idea for everyone to wonder for a second who mom and pop are in 2014.
Ilargi – thanks for the “detail” re China’s population being 1.3 billion. I should have checked that; sorry. So China’s population has increased by 44% instead of 77%, if my calculation is correct, and the U.S. by 57%. Education is what will bring the population down, but I don’t know if there’s time. I don’t think there is.
To me, this is truly frightening. I guess I hadn’t really wrapped my mind around this, thinking it was still possible to rectify the situation. What the hell?
We’ve been lacking a predator, but I’m sure we’re going to get one.
A light bulb has switched on. Thank you.
Ilargi says that “Just lowering the birth rate doesn’t work” (At least not well).
I guess that’s because there would be a lower portion of people at working age doing societies services. Maybe that can be ameliorated over time by encouraging familes (or similar collections of multi generational groups) to live with or close by each other in order that older members free up younger ones by doing more childcare, organising and household support.
In the UK, the boomer generation are relatively rich, live in couples or on their own and feel they have earned their pension and go on holidays. I’m not cross about it, I just think it’s a waste of resource. Why work much too hard for years and then not at all?I agree with Raleigh. I don’t comment more because Nicole and Ilargi get it right IMO and I have little to add!
Carbon
Raleigh,
Mankind may have invented mythological/religious stories of a deity that made us in his own image, stories that serve to make us feel elevated above all other life, and the crowning achievement of creation/evolution, but the reality is that we are no different from the yeast in the wine vat or bacteria in a petri dish, or any and all other organisms for that matter: when confronted with an energy surplus in a given environment, all species will multiply and proliferate until either they run out of space or the energy surplus runs out, and then there is a die-off.
To be exact: the die-off comes before a species can run out of space or energy, because the use of energy produces waste, and no organism can survive in a medium of its own waste (the corollary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as defined by Herman Daly and Kenneth Townsend in their 1993 book “Valuing the Earth”). Thus, there will always be more space and more energy left even after the population has collapsed. And that collapse is inevitable. No need to worry about how many people need to disappear for any given amount of time.
I‘ve often called us the most tragic species, because we have an awareness, we can see ourselves do it, but that doesn’t mean we can stop ourselves from doing it. Perhaps we need to contemplate the limits of our awareness, perhaps if we were fully aware of what we do, we wouldn’t to the damage we do. Or perhaps our awareness simply is no match for the drive to consume all energy available to us, a drive we inherited from more primitive lifeforms. However it may be, what we call our awareness, and our power of reasoning, seem to be applied in the race to consume energy as fast as we can, not to slow down the rate of consumption, even if our survival might hinge on it. What’s ironic is that the drive to consume is very close, if not identical, to the drive to survive that all life possesses.
Note that this describes us as a species, not as individuals. And while individual humans can make “decisions” that may seem very commendable, what happens is that when an individual organism “decides” to lower his/her/its consumption rate, other individuals in the group jump in and take over, so overall consumption for the group keeps rising. This difference between group behavior and -possible- individual behavior is often misinterpreted, I think, to mean that we can make the group do what the individual can do.
“No need to worry about how many people need to disappear for any given amount of time.”
Actually, you do need to worry. The psychological effects of the sheer number of people which must mathematically disappear (remember Chefurka’s population essay?) will be such a mental burden on those who chose to, try to, or be more inclined to have a chance to survive, that it might just collapse the species to extinction through a death spiral of despair. Contrary to other species, ours is fundamentally driven psychologically by cultural stories and mass delusions.Oh, that’s certainly true, p01; I just meant you don’t have to do those calculations in order to prevent the collapse because it will come anyway.
Ken
We can get to 500 million if the net loss of people is 100,000 per day for the next 178 years or so.
It might be good to add that at present there are some 350,000 births and 150,000 deaths in the world each day.
All we need to do is turn those two numbers around and we’ll be good in 89 years. That does mean, however, that we’re going to need lots of volunteers. So stop being so selfish, people, and sign up in large numbers to save the planet.
Re: world population decreases
I think that more people should read Thomas Maltus’
An Essay on the Principle of Population, and not the online version. My copy is from Pelican Press, and the introduction and end-notes are invaluable.Malthus wrote this around 1800 in England, and in context the enclosures were pretty much complete, industrialisation was in full swing, the peasants forced off the land were living in slums and working in dreadful factories, many workers were not paid enough to buy subsistence calories, and the nation was not doing a good job of feeding itself.
Malthus was of a privileged class and would be OK no matter what, but many others in the UK were facing a short future. A whole bunch of things changed in the next 40 years, including:
– dramatic improvements in agricultural production, as a result of improved breeds, improved machinery, improved cropping techniques and especially the development of row cropping and the introduction of turnips (winter feed for livestock) and clover (for nitrogen fixing);-the scientific revolution, hastened by wealthy amateurs who were just discovering the elements, the composition of the atmosphere, accurate measuring instrumentation, scientific approaches to agriculture.
– the means to exploit fossil fuels and leap out of the solar-energy-economy.
By modern standards Malthus was not particularly nice, as he opposed the welfare state as it encourages people to have more children than they could support, social benefits re-distribute wealth that could be used for bettering and advancing the nation, and he thought that family formation should not be encouraged among people with few resources. (One of my neighbours currently thinks that only people who pay taxes should be permitted to have sex, which is a very Malthusian thought.)
At any rate, I think that all of the advances that “proved” Malthus wrong about population exceeding carrying capacity were only temporary, and we have reached peak food and peak agriculture again, with no new scientific and agricultural revolution in the wings to save us this time.
I heartily recommend the paperback version of Malthus’ book. It’s good reading.
Indus56 – Why do so few people post?
I’m listening to Michael Ruppert’s final podcast right now as it happens. The narrative of collapse is exhausted and is now simply circling, re-quoting itself, harming itself.
Sorry to be harsh.
PS Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry George Henry GeorgeI see the big picture.
I”ve got no choice.
I’m still driven to maximize the odds of having my DNA making it into the long run/race.I’m trying to load the dice.
IF THE ENERGY INPUT IS GREATER THAN ENERGY OUTPUT, THERE COULD BE A SURPLUS OF ENERGY AVAILABLE FOR WHEN THERE WILL BE A SHORTAGE OF ENERGY.
A PERSON CANNOT ENJOY OUR MODERN LIFESTYLE WITHOUT EXTRACTING THE ENERGY FROM OTHER SOURCES.
It takes less energy for a person to drive a car than to walk.
It takes less energy for a person to take a drink of water from a stream flowing down hill in front of him than it doe for the person that must first carry the water up the hill.
The sun and wind will raise a water molecule to the top of the mountain. This will raise the potential energy of that water molecule.
Gravity will convert that potential energy to kinetic energy.
If you know how, you can use that kinetic energy. ( hydro power and wind power)
If you know how, you can make a solar panel to collect the energy from the sun.
If you know how, you can extract the energy contained in oil.
As a last resort, the time tested solution, you can extract the energy from other people, (slavery).
Cooperation and sharing of resources by a group of like minded individuals is the usual response to increasing the available energy.I’m not rich. I’m not powerful. However, I can use the internet to find out what the rich and powerful people are doing.
I cannot achieve very much alone. Even the rich and powerful need help to achieve their objectives.WHERE CAN YOU GO TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS ENERGY WITH THE LESS AMOUNT OF ENERGY OUTPUT?
As long as there are mountains and as long as it rains there will be someone there to drink the water.
Geolib
What you say about the narrative of collapse risks being true for your Single Tax religion: simply circling, re-quoting itself, harming itself. Why don’t you write a post on the topic for me, but not religious, I warn you, just explaining the cool calm collected and objective advantages that you think it would have for any given society. If you could add how or why you think present political systems would accept it, i.e. why it is not solely theoretical, that would be a bonus. And don’t make it too long, or force me to do too much editing.
Raliegh: “China’s birthrate pre-policy was 5.8 in 1970 and 1.5 in 2013. The fertility rate has indeed fallen. However, China’s population was ~900 million in 1970 and 1.6 billion in 2013. Given that a population can’t increase (excluding immigration and immortality) with less than a fertility rate of 2.0, most of the country clearly have had more than one child.”
No. Because of demographic momentum. It takes a LONG time for fertility to impact absolute population numbers. You can imagine why if you just think about the subject for a while. You can cut fertility to zero and it will have little appreciable effect on population for quite a long while. But then, over a period of generations or half-centuries, it works profoundly. The same idea cuts both ways: once fertility HAS dropped off so drastically, and for a long enough time to reduce absolute population, then that same state will be maintained for a very long time (and possibly intensified, if the same causal factors are still operating).
Before you draw conclusions on this subject, it would be a good idea to acquire some basic knowledge. Here’s a start (an actual textbook would be better, but this is easy and free):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_dividend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_gift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradoxYou’ll note that everything is unfolding the opposite of what Malthus predicted.
“So the policy reduced the fertility rate, but the country still grew significantly.”
Yes, because of demographic momentum. But the magic of fertility decline expresses itself more in the context of centuries than (single) years or decades.
“Interestingly, despite the 1 child per family policy, China has grown proportionally faster than the US in the same time period.”
The one-child policy had very little to do with China’s fertility decline. Just for the record. The big drop came well before the OCP. The OCP just produced a small, incremental improvement over what had already largely happened.
……………..
Ilargi: “Just lowering the birth rate doesn’t work, or at least not well.”
Work well to… what? It is working just fine to reduce the rate of population growth, which is WAY down since it maxed-out in the late 1980s. Growth continues to decline every year with no end in sight (demographic momentum). The point of negative growth will come around mid-century (takes a long time because of demographic momentum).
Ilargi: “A healthy population is dependent on a healthy age balance. I don’t know how to solve the overpopulation issue, but I do know this is not the way to go.”
You know that reduced fertility is not the way to go? What other way IS there? I mean as a volitional act: what other way is there? Mass killing? Tear out the public health infrastructure that prevents disease, so as to increase morbidity and mortality (i.e. mass killing by another means)?
Ilargi: “Then again, I also can’t see older people -boomers, the most numerous generation- go voluntarily in large numbers, though I’ve been suggesting it to them here at TAE.”
You’ve been suggesting WHAT to them? That they “go voluntarily”, i.e. suicide? I guess Ruppert took that idea seriously. Not a surprising outcome for a depressed mega-doomer (doomerism itself is depressogenic).
Ilargi: “I’ve written earlier that we may have to concede that we can’t solve this one, we’ll have to leave it to nature to do it for us.”
Ah, yes. “Leave it to nature”. Let ’em DIE! Malthusianism is so very heart-warming and compassionate.
The funny thing is that the “let ’em die” attitude, apart from its striking coldness and amorality, is in practice highly ineffective. “Just” letting ’em die does not work. It results in higher fertility and ultimately exploding population. The very things that Malthus thought would bring population back down do the opposite of that. Whereas, taking care of people — instead of letting ’em die, as Malthus suggested — results in lower fertility and declining population, beginning with declining population growth, and ultimately (demographic momentum!) declining absolute numbers, though it takes a long time.
It’s unfair! You would think that if we turn ourselves into amoral beasts (“let ’em DIE!”) that we would at least get something of practical value out of it, like declining population. But noooooo.
Drilling down with my handy personal Wayback machine, I find that I already covered this:
January 25, 2013 at 4:43 am #6825
alan2102
Stoneleigh wrote: “People have fewer babies when they don’t think they’ll be able to look after them, or when they don’t like the look of the world they would have to bring them into.”
Actually, the opposite is true. People have more babies under those conditions. As conditions improve, they have fewer babies. This has been proven time and time again, all over the world, over many decades. There is no doubt. It is a paradox, but it is true: women in chaotic and resource-poor environments, suffering from existential insecurity, are much more fertile than women in more stable and resource-rich ones. You would think it would be the opposite, but it isn’t. It is counter-intuitive.
An interesting sidelight on this: there is an ugly streak in neo-Malthusianism, characterized by a “let ‘em die!” attitude toward the third world, or impoverished populations. The idea is that we should not support the starving or impoverished; we should “let nature take care of the problem on it’s own”, or something like that. Maybe I should not say that this is just an “ugly streak in neo-Malthusianism”; maybe this is intrinsic to all neo-Malthusianism. In any case, my point is that that idea does not work. “Letting them die” does not work. They will not just die; they will have more kids. (They WILL die, but they will have more kids before doing so.) The problem does not solve itself. It gets worse. However, the opposite approach DOES work. Want lower population? Simple. Feed ‘em, clothe ‘em, etc. Presto! Lower fertility. And several decades later, falling population.
And it happens at a VERY low level of consumption and SES/GDP. It is not necessary to bring people up to anywhere near the level of the modern west/north. Something on the order of $U.S. 5000 per capita per year is plenty. A good example is China: their fertility has now fallen BELOW replacement at a per capita GDP of under $U.S. 5000. (That is down from fertility of 5-6, before the revolution, when most of the population was living in desperate poverty.) It will go even further negative as the poorer rurals are lifted up. India is headed in the same direction, though they are still slightly above replacement. They are like China, but 20-30 years behind.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.