[nmap]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

The World has a problem, we are creating more people than this Earth can sustain.

Sir, I'm glad that you have started the conversation. In addition, your concerns are both wise and well-founded.

I am a rather strong proponent of peak oil theory. Our modern agricultural system is both global and mechanized, with strong dependency on cheap and abundant liquid fuels. The Catton text I referred to earlier suggests that we are, in essence, transforming fossil fuels (crude oil and natural gas) into calories we can consume as food through the agricultural system. There are some indications that we may consume as many as 10 calories of oil for every one calorie of food we eat. The implication is that if the availability of liquid fuels declines - as I believe it will - then the global availability of food will do likewise. In addition, the tendency of newly affluent societies, such as China and India, to consume more meat and dairy products reduces the supply of grain available for the poorer segments of the global population. A key point is that we are in overshoot right now, and have been for decades. If Catton is correct, we are not approaching the problem; rather, we went past the point of no return half-a-century ago. That suggests the correction of overshoot will be profound.

Environmental overshoot is a fancy way of saying what you said. But the implication of overshoot is dieoff. Some believe - and I am among them - that a substantial percentage of the world's population will perish due to famine. Disease, war, and other factors may be the immediate cause of death, but the underlying problem will be too many people for the available resources.

The conversation has occurred in other places, and at other times. In the great majority of cases, some sort of triage strategy comes up. In essence, the discussion focuses on who should survive, and who should not. At this point, emotions tend to be engaged. We (whoever we is) want "our kind", or "the most worthy" (whatever those terms mean) to survive. Those people (this means anyone other than "our kind" or "the most worthy") are invariably less desirable. At that point, discussions tend to heat up. I have the greatest respect for the members of this forum, and so I believe that if the conversation can occur anywhere, it will be here.

In essence, there appear to be three possibilities.

Innovation is one. Global shared sacrifice and power-down is the second. Dieoff, planned or otherwise, is the third.

Innovation has worked since Malthus first observed the problem. Perhaps it will solve the problems. I'm betting it won't. Quite literally betting - I've purchased DBA, which is an ETF that goes up when grain prices increase.

Shared sacrifice, with we in the west adopting a diet largely devoid of meat and dairy products, along with other wrenching changes, is a strategy one sometimes comes across. I don't think human nature will permit such an approach to work, but there is a lot I don't know about human nature.

Dieoff is the third option. Unplanned dieoff, where no one does anything and the situation gets steadily worse in areas that cannot afford significantly higher food prices, seems most likely. This seems to increase the possibility of instability, both within affected areas and globally. The last possibility that I perceive is planned dieoff. By some mechanism, the population of those people (however defined) is pruned, or allowed to decline, for the benefit of the rest of us. That last possibility is the one that often generates rancor.

Dieoff may be rapid or slow, and there are proponents of each viewpoint. Slow dieoff is likely to be quite destructive as people do whatever it takes to survive. Some believe that the end result might be an environment that could support a global population in the hundreds of millions - total. A rapid dieoff would create (perhaps) less damage, but would be more wrenching in the short term.

When one factors in possibilities such as mass migrations of desperate refugees, nuclear blackmail, failed states, terrorism, and other factors, one might be excused for seeing interesting times.

As I mentioned earlier, I very much appreciate the original post. If such issues can be discussed anywhere, it is among the good people and QP's of this forum. And I respectfully suggest it is an important issue to consider, from both the personal and the policy perspectives.