INFERNO - World Population Crisis?

[TeasePlease]

The thread about pension underfunding got me to thinking about Dan Brown's new book Inferno.

If you haven't read it and plan to, STOP HERE

(I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It took me until chapter 22 to get into it, but after that I couldn't put it down and finished it in a day. Not as clever as the Da Vinci Code or A&D, but still very entertaining.)



*** Spoiler Alert ****



The crux of the book is about the world population crisis. The theory is that earth can only support so many people, and we are well past equilibrium. Left unchecked, our continued growth will destroy our food chain, financial system, world order, etc. (Sorry, not doing a very good job explaining. Here is a real review - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/books/inferno-by-dan-brown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


1. Do you believe in this theory?


2. Would you press a button that would cause 1 in 3 people to die (thereby maintaining equilibrium)? Remember, the deaths would be random, and could very well affect your loved ones.

 

[red]

no. its crap like most of his pseudo-historical nonsense

 

[Petzel]

I also enjoyed The Lost Symbol.

 

[givemebrain]

You lost me at "Not as clever as the Da Vinci Code."

The thread about pension underfunding got me to thinking about Dan Brown's new book Inferno.

If you haven't read it and plan to, STOP HERE

(I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It took me until chapter 22 to get into it, but after that I couldn't put it down and finished it in a day. Not as clever as the Da Vinci Code or A&D, but still very entertaining.)



*** Spoiler Alert ****



The crux of the book is about the world population crisis. The theory is that earth can only support so many people, and we are well past equilibrium. Left unchecked, our continued growth will destroy our food chain, financial system, world order, etc. (Sorry, not doing a very good job explaining. Here is a real review - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/books/inferno-by-dan-brown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


1. Do you believe in this theory?


2. Would you press a button that would cause 1 in 3 people to die (thereby maintaining equilibrium)? Remember, the deaths would be random, and could very well affect your loved ones.

 

[oil&gas]

........................... The theory is that earth can only support so many
people, and we are well past equilibrium. Left unchecked, our continued
growth will destroy our food chain, financial system, world order, etc.
.....................

That would be true if the growing population in the developing world is going
to consume as many resources as people in the developed world. Imagine if
people in China, India, Africa and South America all eat, drink and travel as much
as we do in North America food and fuel won't be affordable anymore. But the
world can adapt, If we are willing to lower our living standard to about the same
level as it is in present day Cuba a population of 20 billion could live a happy
and comfortable life on earth.

 

[5hummer]

I'm waiting for the culling, instead.

Though, if this inferno happens, I hope it sucks up all those Fordnation crack lovers :hippie:

 

[TeasePlease]

That would be true if the growing population in the developing world is going
to consume as many resources as people in the developed world. Imagine if
people in China, India, Africa and South America all eat, drink and travel as much
as we do in North America food and fuel won't be affordable anymore. But the
world can adapt, If we are willing to lower our living standard to about the same
level as it is in present day Cuba a population of 20 billion could live a happy
and comfortable life on earth.

Good point. Yet, we see burgeoning middle classes in China and India aspiring to our lifestyle.

 

[anonemouse]

The belief that we're headed towards an unsustainable population isn't a new one:

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

In short, in the early 1800's he wrote:

"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"

So the population will eventually balance out, and be kept in check by disease, war, etc. (He also mentions prostitution as a means of keeping population in check in addition to hunger, disease, war, abortion, birth control, postponement of marriage and celibacy)

To me, equilibrium isn't a static number but varies. The middle-class aspirations of people in India and China will skew it as they consume resources.

Personally, I believe that nature will take its course and balance out the population somehow probably through disease. Ebola? Hemorrhagic fever? There are a few good books on the subject but the short version is that we are very vulnerable to a very virulent disease, with high mortality and a long incubation period. In other words, a deadly disease that infects almost everyone it comes across and people are contagious for a long time before they even know they're sick. Now with global air travel it could spread almost anywhere in the world before people know about it.

It's a bleak outlook, but with unchecked population growth it seems very possible.

As for "pressing the button". Hmm. If the Bubonic plague infected roughly half of Europe and killed 2/3 of infected people that means that the disease would kill the same amount as pressing the button. But that disease could be years, decades or centuries away if it ever happens at all. I'd take my chances with disease.

 

[Frosty]

Doesn't matter. I'll be dead by then.

 

[oldjones]

It's not likely we'll increase to the point where we've consumed all the resources and eaten all the food, and have to resort to cannibalism, until there's only a couple of us left, like the Easter Island story. Unfortunately none of the conceivable population-limiters—except some forms of birth control—are any fun at all. Even well-intentioned stuff like China's One-Child policy have unintended consequences, and according to reports, famine, genocide and war over resources like farmland (See Poland, Ukraine, American Indians etc) aren't very happy prospects either.

The one good thing is that with the shortsightedness that Frosty put so pithily above, most of us won't know any better anyway. Haven't we always slaughtered each other to grab as much as we can for ourselves? Isn't that the Mantra of Free market Capitalism and the First Precept of Our Civilization? Don't we all know it's the highpoint of human evolution? We'll be doing good, like GWB, Kissinger, and all the warmakers of the past.

The quaint concept that one only makes war on warriors has been long discarded, and American, Russian and ____________insert names as desired_______ WMDs whose purpose is to reduce populations have not been.

So there's hope.

 

[Intrinsic]

It's a very real threat and it's happening as we speak.

Our resources aren't infinite, they're in fact, VERY finite - the majority of them that is.

 

[oil&gas]

Doesn't matter. I'll be dead by then.

Probably true if you are born in the 60s and earlier.

If you are of the generation born in the 80s and if you are going to
live a long life chance is you will experience a good part of the world's
adjustment to a decline of its population from its all time peak. Near the
end of lifetime of the 80s generation conventional oil production (the easy
to extract type of oil) will be about 30% of what it is today. Global population
would have to adjust to a level sustainable by the agricultural capacity it
can manage by then that is commensurate with the volume of fuel available.

 

[Intrinsic]

Probably true if you are born in the 60s and earlier.

If you are of the generation born in the 80s and if you are going to
live a long life chance is you will experience a good part of the world's
adjustment to a decline of its population from its all time peak. Near the
end of lifetime of the 80s generation conventional oil production (the easy
to extract type of oil) will be about 30% of what it is today. Global population
would have to adjust to a level sustainable by the agricultural capacity it
can manage by then that is commensurate with the volume of fuel available.

A decline from its peak? How so?

 

[gorgon_rc]

False. Population increase has been levelling off in recent decades. Even in africa where they were having 8 or so kids per woman, it has lessoned substantially. First world population has been in decline for quite some time, thus you see the massive immigration into european countries, even moreso than here. Got to maintain tax base for all those baby boomers!

 

[rld]

False. Population increase has been levelling off in recent decades. Even in africa where they were having 8 or so kids per woman, it has lessoned substantially. First world population has been in decline for quite some time, thus you see the massive immigration into european countries, even moreso than here. Got to maintain tax base for all those baby boomers!

You are dead right.

The book is bad, and the theory now well rejected.

Even strict muslim nations are seeing declines in birth rates.

And the theory does not take into account that we get way better at using and producing certain resources when we need them. Anyone care to compare how many calories we get out of an acre now compared to 100 years ago?

On top of that...Brown can't write for shit, is completely unoriginal and doesn't even get his basic history right.

 

[oil&gas]

.................
And the theory does not take into account that we get way better at using and producing certain resources when we need them. Anyone care to compare how many calories we get out of an acre now compared to 100 years ago?
..................

I am sure it is a lot greater than it was 100 years ago although
I don't know what the number is precisely. I am also quite sure
that the amount of additional energy input required to raise the
output of farming an acre of land made possible by the abundance
of cheap oil in the 20th century far outweigh the extra calories we get.
This should not be the case of farming in some parts of Bangladesh
where farmers still could not afford a diesel tractor and have to plow
a field with a cow.

 

[rld]

I am sure it is a lot greater than it was 100 years ago although
I don't know what the number is precisely. I am also quite sure
that the amount of additional energy input required to raise the
output of farming an acre of land made possible by the abundance
of cheap oil in the 20th century far outweigh the extra calories we get.
This should not be the case of farming in some parts of Bangladesh
where farmers still could not afford a diesel tractor and have to plow
a field with a cow.

It seems that a little too much of your focus is, not surprisingly, on oil and gas.

Much of the increase in calories per acre comes from far superior crop products, not better tractors.

In many of the poorest countries of the world yields are way, way up because of superior crops.

 

[GrandBlasterK]

And the theory does not take into account that we get way better at using and producing certain resources when we need them. Anyone care to compare how many calories we get out of an acre now compared to 100 years ago?

It's not how many calories we get, it's how many nutrients. Nutritional value of food has declined over the last century, which helps explain obesity. We are calorie rich, but nutrient poor. People tend to eat more calories to compensate for the lack of nutrition.

 

[oil&gas]

Superior crops are certainly one important factor. I wonder what the productivity
of those improved crops will be like without the input of nitrogen and potassium fertilizers
which come with high energy cost. I can say with certainty that if as a hypothesis Potash
Corp of Sasketchewan stop producing many parts of the world will end in famine.
Also note that Potash the source of Potassium fertilizers is a non-renewable source.
IMO genetic engineering of crops has been as successful in quickening depletion
of limited resources as in raising the efficiency of agricultural industries.

 

[rld]

Superior crops are certainly one important factor. I wonder what the productivity
of those improved crops will be like without the input of nitrogen and potassium fertilizers
which come with high energy cost. I can say with certainty that if as a hypothesis Potash
Corp of Sasketchewan stop producing many parts of the world will end in famine.
Also note that Potash the source of Potassium fertilizers is a non-renewable source.
IMO genetic engineering of crops has been as successful in quickening depletion
of limited resources as in raising the efficiency of agricultural industries.

You need to follow the Potash market more closely, there are plenty of strong competitors for Potash now and many new sources. Your "certainty" prediction is wrong.

Calories are a key measure, used by organizations concerned about feeding people world wide.

Scientific American detailed a five part plan that could double world food production by 2050 without increasing the use of non-renewable resources.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-production-reduce-environmental-damage-maps

And this doesn't even take into account the impact of yet undeveloped productivity advances that don't get put into the calculation.

While your opinion on genetic engineering of crops is interesting, no large organization concerned with world hunger accepts it.

It may be fun to say "the end is nigh." But it ain't.