Population growth, China, etc.

[Admiral Valdemar]

So what can be done? I think that's half the problem-- the only people who know about it get too bent out of shape over despair ridden pessimism and don't think about how to avoid the worst case scenarios. Cynicism, pessimism, and fatalism don't help things; only pragmatism ever solved anything.

I'm going to live and watch it unfold. I can't do shit about it. And I've tried. I've tried community projects, talking to people about changing their ways and making even little changes. Stonewalls, abuse or apathy is all I get. I've actually, just this past half hour, been in a heated debate on MSN with a friend from Oxford whereby she put forth how she believes climate change is real, but not caused by humans. She studies history, admits to not reading all, or even some, of the literature and has no scientific background.

That is who you are up against. Humans. Not just "LOL, rednecks r dumb!1" people, but fucking Oxford undergrads who can't see beyond their stupid beliefs that they themselves seemingly can't justify rationally. If that's the calibre of stupid we're fighting, then all hope is lost. So what am I going to do? I'm going to watch the world burn and maybe take some solace in being right.

I'm imagining it being a very difficult program revolving around trash-mining, with hydrogen-LOX rocketry and lots of wind turbines.

Not at all easy, quite possibly not even possible, but... I think possible. Maybe.

You don't need to re-explain the concept to me in shorter words; I really do comprehend what you're saying and why you're saying it. Our point of disagreement happens because I haven't seen the math and I'm not sure the renewable-source options are as limited as you make them out to be.

I was envisioning a Mad Max end game after WWIII there anyway. After WWIII, I honestly don't think I'd care about this topic anymore. The worst would've happened as soon as the first bomb fell.

[Simon_Jester]

I was envisioning a Mad Max end game after WWIII there anyway. After WWIII, I honestly don't think I'd care about this topic anymore. The worst would've happened as soon as the first bomb fell.

The real question, though, is whether major nuclear powers would fight resource wars with each other. I kind of doubt it; they'd be scrambling to suck everyone else dry and finally getting round to transitioning to a sustainable economy when you've got rolling blackouts in central Europe and gasoline is ten dollars a gallon even in places that don't tax it. It would (will?) be horrible, but I don't think nuclear war between the major powers is a likely outcome, because there's just no point, nothing that's worth launching nukes at someone you know perfectly well can crush you with a second strike.

And without the all-out nuclear war, I'm pretty sure you get... it's a crash, but it's like crashing into a mud flat instead of crashing into a concrete wall. You're muddy, your car's a wreck, but the odds of your still being alive and able to stagger away and carry on with your life are relatively favorable.

[Formless]

I'm going to live and watch it unfold. I can't do shit about it. And I've tried. I've tried community projects, talking to people about changing their ways and making even little changes. Stonewalls, abuse or apathy is all I get. I've actually, just this past half hour, been in a heated debate on MSN with a friend from Oxford whereby she put forth how she believes climate change is real, but not caused by humans. She studies history, admits to not reading all, or even some, of the literature and has no scientific background.

That is who you are up against. Humans. Not just "LOL, rednecks r dumb!1" people, but fucking Oxford undergrads who can't see beyond their stupid beliefs that they themselves seemingly can't justify rationally. If that's the calibre of stupid we're fighting, then all hope is lost. So what am I going to do? I'm going to watch the world burn and maybe take some solace in being right.

I don't give a shit about being right, I care about having a future. I'm too young for "do nothing" to be an option. When I said "what can we do" I wasn't talking about what steps do we need to do to prevent our worst fears from coming true (Aly has indeed covered those) I was talking about what do we need to do to convince people to take responsibility. Even if it takes motherfucking coercion to get people to stop over consuming, that's what its going to take. I have no time for fatalism, right or wrong. Maybe you don't understand what's at stake for someone like me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't give a shit about being right, I care about having a future. I'm too young for "do nothing" to be an option. When I said "what can we do" I wasn't talking about what steps do we need to do to prevent our worst fears from coming true (Aly has indeed covered those) I was talking about what do we need to do to convince people to take responsibility. Even if it takes motherfucking coercion to get people to stop over consuming, that's what its going to take. I have no time for fatalism, right or wrong. Maybe you don't understand what's at stake for someone like me.

You should see me in an environmental ethics class. I have been known to sit there twirling my mental snidely whiplash moustache while valiantly defending coercion as a means to ensure environmental protection, population control etc. And I can do so well, the Prof rather enjoyed someone in the class who would attack the concept of "human rights" on metaphysical grounds.

But the sort of hard coercion needed will only work in autocracies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The real question, though, is whether major nuclear powers would fight resource wars with each other. I kind of doubt it; they'd be scrambling to suck everyone else dry and finally getting round to transitioning to a sustainable economy when you've got rolling blackouts in central Europe and gasoline is ten dollars a gallon even in places that don't tax it. It would (will?) be horrible, but I don't think nuclear war between the major powers is a likely outcome, because there's just no point, nothing that's worth launching nukes at someone you know perfectly well can crush you with a second strike.

I don't know about that. We spent decades pointing huge nukes at one another over something as petty as economic policy differences. If we're willing to risk nuclear war over such a stupid point of contention, then fighting over actual resources that will make or break your economy and ideology seems perfectly rational by comparison. Not that I see nuclear war as inevitable, but certainly resource wars. What do you think Iraq was?

And without the all-out nuclear war, I'm pretty sure you get... it's a crash, but it's like crashing into a mud flat instead of crashing into a concrete wall. You're muddy, your car's a wreck, but the odds of your still being alive and able to stagger away and carry on with your life are relatively favorable.

Given the reactions from the recent recession globally, imagine how pissed people would be with actually having to suffer real pain. Revolutions happen that way.

I don't give a shit about being right, I care about having a future. I'm too young for "do nothing" to be an option. When I said "what can we do" I wasn't talking about what steps do we need to do to prevent our worst fears from coming true (Aly has indeed covered those) I was talking about what do we need to do to convince people to take responsibility. Even if it takes motherfucking coercion to get people to stop over consuming, that's what its going to take. I have no time for fatalism, right or wrong. Maybe you don't understand what's at stake for someone like me.

You basically need to address materialism and procreation. You need to do that while fighting the world's richest entities in all of history who have vested interests in you failing miserably. Look at the climate change debate and the total lack of progress there, and how vehemently people oppose these social changes that will ruin us all. Now take that group, and add in those who are amenable to fighting climate change, but who also like consumer goods, high living standards and kids.

You've got your work cut out, and a lot of it relies on the vast majority of people fighting against millions of years of evolutionary programming and decades of social engineering. You've got a time limit of the next decade.

Get cracking.

[Iosef Cross]

From the evidence of the last 60 years, we can certainly predict that the world will be a much better place in the future.

This is a hasty generalization fallacy of the worst sort. Past performance can only be used to predict future performance assuming equivalent conditions and pressures. Which you have utterly failed to do.

If you disagree, at least you can be a bit honest. I didn't try to explain why the world will be better.

Let's see: assuming that these ecological problems doesn't exist, do you agree with me that the future of the world is bright? It appears that pessimist here is connected to ecological problems. However, I don't think that these problems will be very important. The world will be perhaps, 2% poorer in 2050 compared to a situation were global warming never happened.

Well, Europe and the US will continue to stagnate, but that's normal and expected. These regions of the world will lose power and importance, since they are already developed, but other regions of the world are emerging. China and India will be developed and become more prosperous and important centers of civilization than the west.

[Iosef Cross]

Well, if civilization is going to collapse due to ecological problems in the next decades, why nobody cares? I mean, you are the first person to tell me that we have only 50 years before the world collapses. I don't have much knowledge of biology, but why the media doesn't talk about that?

Now when did I say civilization will collapse? Civilization is to entrenched to collapse. All I said is that a few billion people will suffer and/or die.

The media does discuss it, just not the Primetime media. You have to watch stuff like National Geographic late at night before anyone will dare mention the fact that we are set to overshoot carrying capacity in 50 years. The reason you dont hear it on the local news network is because most people, like you, are not any smarter than fucking yeast.

My god, you are very, very arrogant. The capacity of the world to produce food today is perhaps 10 times the current output. Billions are going to die? How billions are going to die from hunger if food production will only correspond to 2-3% of the resources that the global economy will need to allocate to it by 2050?

[Iosef Cross]

And, btw, the world's population is stopping to growth because people are having fewer babies. And people are having fewers babies because economic growth enabled people to use contraceptive methods. Here in Brazil, without any sort of population control, the average number of kids per mother is currently 1.9 it was 5 only 40 years ago. Global population will stabilize in 8-9 billion, not much above today's 7 billion. It is not because we are reaching the second part of the logistics curve, today's world's per capita income is 12 times higher than minimum subsistence. The logistics curve theory doesn't make sense for us.

I tell you, world's GDP would have to decrease several time before we have mass famines again.

Also, let's assume the most pessimistic case: Pollution makes agriculture impossible, what to do? Well, we can grow food in the hydroponic farms. Problem solved. But, wait, if lab food is expensive, how people are going to pay for it? Well, today the world's GDP is 70 trillion dollars, to buy food to make one person alive for a year costs around 1 thousand dollars (maybe about 600-700 dollars, but let's be pessimistic and assume 1 thousand). By 2050 the world's GDP will be in the 250-350 trillion dollars range, with a population of 9 billion. Even if ecological disaster makes food prices increase 10 times, with 90 trillion dollars (25-35% of the gdp) would be possible to feed the entire world. And food prices will not increase 10 times in the next decades... They will probable decrease....

[Iosef Cross]

Food supplies in the Third World already hit a dangerous peak price in 2008, when entire regions (e.g. Central Asia) had their malnourishment levels rise - just read a some FAO papers on the matter.

I ask you: Why did food prices rise in 2008? It was because food production decreased? No, it was because China is starting to eat meat! And needs grain to feed it's cattle.

[Iosef Cross]

I don't know about that. We spent decades pointing huge nukes at one another over something as petty as economic policy differences. If we're willing to risk nuclear war over such a stupid point of contention, then fighting over actual resources that will make or break your economy and ideology seems perfectly rational by comparison. Not that I see nuclear war as inevitable, but certainly resource wars. What do you think Iraq was?´

Resource wars? Come on... To expect that countries make war because of natural resources in the 21st century... That's childish... Wars are obsolete: Their cost is greater than their benefit, for the victor. How many barrels of oil has the US confiscated from Iraq, now compare to how many barrels the US could buy if they used the money to make war buying oil.

World wars are caused by discrepancies between warmaking potential and actual political positions in the global political order. In other words, WWIII will happen when China's warmaking potential becomes greater than the US's to a degree were US victory becomes unlikely. When that happens, WW3 will happen or the US could low it's guard and leave China the place as the world's dominant power pacifically. I think that the latter is more likely, because the US is smart: they don't enter wars that probably result in their destruction.

[Samuel]

Food supplies in the Third World already hit a dangerous peak price in 2008, when entire regions (e.g. Central Asia) had their malnourishment levels rise - just read a some FAO papers on the matter.

I ask you: Why did food prices rise in 2008? It was because food production decreased? No, it was because China is starting to eat meat! And needs grain to feed it's cattle.

I thought the biofuels we also a factor.

Global population will stabilize in 8-9 billion, not much above today's 7 billion.

That is the low estimate. The high is that it will rise to about 12 billion before dropping back down.

I tell you, world's GDP would have to decrease several time before we have mass famines again.

Except the wealth is not shared equally.

Wars are obsolete: Their cost is greater than their benefit, for the victor.

They said the same thing before WW1.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Resource wars? Come on... To expect that countries make war because of natural resources in the 21st century... That's childish... Wars are obsolete: Their cost is greater than their benefit, for the victor.

Christ you're naïve. I just mentioned Iraq. Here's another: Darfur.

World wars are caused by discrepancies between warmaking potential and actual political positions in the global political order. In other words, WWIII will happen when China's warmaking potential becomes greater than the US's to a degree were US victory becomes unlikely. Or, the US could low it's guard and leave China the place as the world's dominant power pacifically. I think that the latter is more likely.

Not if lowering their guard means becoming a third world nation. If you think America is going to go down without a fight, think again. No nation that achieves superpower status gives up empire so easily. The Romans didn't, the British didn't, America won't.

It's also not like a "victor" will emerge from a total nuclear war. Everyone loses, just some lose less than others. If it got to the point that China was a nuclear threat on the scale of that of the USSR, then someone fell asleep at the helm of the geo-political boat.

Besides, China has something far more potent than America's ICBM arsenal: their economy. While America "shock and awed" one oil rich state and got bogged down with it to the point of bankruptcy, China was buying new highways and weapons and schools for African and South American states in exchange for exclusive mining and development rights. Someone failed imperialism 101 here, and it wasn't the people with the massive trade surplus.

ell you, world's GDP would have to decrease several time before we have mass famines again.

Also, let's assume the most pessimistic case: Pollution makes agriculture impossible, what to do? Well, we can grow food in the hydroponic farms. Problem solved. But, wait, if lab food is expensive, how people are going to pay for it? Well, today the world's GDP is 70 trillion dollars, to buy food to make one person alive for a year costs around 1 thousand dollars (maybe about 600-700 dollars, but let's be pessimistic and assume 1 thousand). By 2050 the world's GDP will be in the 250-350 trillion dollars range, with a population of 9 billion. Even if ecological disaster makes food prices increase 10 times, with 90 trillion dollars (25-35% of the gdp) would be possible to feed the entire world. And food prices will not increase 10 times in the next decades... They will probable decrease....

I assume you're also assuming that the energy crisis magically vanishes too, because your projection is hopelessly optimistic in the extreme. Food production on that order occurs in times of energy surplus, not when you're losing it annually at an increasing rate. It will be a miracle to see the world's nations manage to tread water in some of the more realistic scenarios for oil production decline alone. And energy is directly linked to GDP.

So have fun trying to feed those extra mouths with less energy and wealth than there was in the past with a significantly smaller populace consuming far less via cheaper energy.

[Iosef Cross]

Food supplies in the Third World already hit a dangerous peak price in 2008, when entire regions (e.g. Central Asia) had their malnourishment levels rise - just read a some FAO papers on the matter.

I ask you: Why did food prices rise in 2008? It was because food production decreased? No, it was because China is starting to eat meat! And needs grain to feed it's cattle.

I thought the biofuels we also a factor.

In other words: Not reduction of production.

Global population will stabilize in 8-9 billion, not much above today's 7 billion.

That is the low estimate. The high is that it will rise to about 12 billion before dropping back down.

12 billion is unlikely.

I tell you, world's GDP would have to decrease several time before we have mass famines again.

Except the wealth is not shared equally.

Poorer countries have lower food prices. By 2050 the only countries that will be truly poor will be in Africa, the wealthy countries would provide food for then, if that's necessary. Food will be quite cheap in 50 year in the future.

Wars are obsolete: Their cost is greater than their benefit, for the victor.

They said the same thing before WW1.

WW1 started because Britain was the main superpower but didn't have the capability to maintain her status. Only after WW2 that Britain lost it's status and the world became safe again. The world today would tend to a WW3 if the US tries to tackle with China. But that's not going to happen, because the US is smart.

[Iosef Cross]

Christ you're naïve. I just mentioned Iraq. Here's another: Darfur.

I respond with another question: What the US gained from Iraq in terms of resources? Gas prices went up or down in the 5 years after the Iraq war in the US?

The Iraq war was not a war for oil or the Americans are really dumb if they think that they can get oil by occupying countries with large oil reserves.

World wars are caused by discrepancies between warmaking potential and actual political positions in the global political order. In other words, WWIII will happen when China's warmaking potential becomes greater than the US's to a degree were US victory becomes unlikely. Or, the US could low it's guard and leave China the place as the world's dominant power pacifically. I think that the latter is more likely.

Not if lowering their guard means becoming a third world nation. If you think America is going to go down without a fight, think again. No nation that achieves superpower status gives up empire so easily. The Romans didn't, the British didn't, America won't.

Then, they are stupid.

And, Germany and Japan are not third world nations. Losing superpower status doesn't, mean that a country becomes third worldish, it means that the country becomes another country like all other except they don't need to spend a lot of money on the military to maintain their "status". It is quite stupid to be a superpower really: You have to waste domestic resources keeping the international order functioning.

It's also not like a "victor" will emerge from a total nuclear war. Everyone loses, just some lose less than others. If it got to the point that China was a nuclear threat on the scale of that of the USSR, then someone fell asleep at the helm of the geo-political boat.

If war erupts between the US and China, I think that neither would use nuclear weapons, because if one uses, the other uses too, and both are destroyed. I think that even if the Chinese troops are encircling Washington, the Americans wouldn't use nuclear weapons, because the result would be (mutual) annihilation, instead of simple defeat. I guess that the Americans aren't so stupid to destroy the world before losing a war.

I assume you're also assuming that the energy crisis magically vanishes too, because your projection is hopelessly optimistic in the extreme. Food production on that order occurs in times of energy surplus, not when you're losing it annually at an increasing rate. It will be a miracle to see the world's nations manage to tread water in some of the more realistic scenarios for oil production decline alone. And energy is directly linked to GDP. So have fun trying to feed those extra mouths with less energy and wealth than there was in the past with a significantly smaller populace consuming far less via cheaper energy.

If energy becomes more expensive, people will use less. The US uses several times the quantity of energy they need, but they use not because their economy "needs" energy: Most energy in the US is used at home. If energy becomes expensive, the economy adapts and consume less. Also, if energy becomes more expensive, then it becomes profitable to develop alternative sources of energy.

[Darth Wong]

Christ you're naïve. I just mentioned Iraq. Here's another: Darfur.

I respond with another question: What the US gained from Iraq in terms of resources? Gas prices went up or down in the 5 years after the Iraq war in the US?

This argument presumes that the Iraq War went exactly according to plan, so that its outcome can be used to judge its intent. You can't seriously believe that the Iraq War actually went according to plan. The plan was:

1) Invade Iraq.
2) Kill Saddam Hussein.
3) Wave American flags.
4) Sit back and watch as Iraq spontaneously turns into a new South Korea, eager to trade and host US military bases.

What exactly do you think their plan was? You mock the idea of resource wars as too expensive for the benefits, but the idea of modern resource wars is not necessarily to seize direct control of the resource; it is merely to ensure that favourable regimes are in control of those resources. That's much cheaper than invading and occupying countries. Remember: the Americans expected it to be a very cheap and short war. Do I really need to pull out that infamous Ronald Dumbsfeld quote?

It is quite stupid to be a superpower really: You have to waste domestic resources keeping the international order functioning.

Well, that's certainly true enough. I doubt the Americans will accept that any time soon, though. The American hegemony pushers keep asking questions like "if we aren't the hegemon, who will step up and take our place", as if the world would fall apart without such an entity.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I respond with another question: What the US gained from Iraq in terms of resources? Gas prices went up or down in the 5 years after the Iraq war in the US?

The Iraq war was not a war for oil or the Americans are really dumb if they think that they can get oil by occupying countries with large oil reserves.

Remember this. I'm going to reference it very soon.

Then, they are stupid.

And, Germany and Japan are not third world nations. Losing superpower status doesn't, mean that a country becomes third worldish, it means that the country becomes another country like all other except they don't need to spend a lot of money on the military to maintain their "status". It is quite stupid to be a superpower really: You have to waste domestic resources keeping the international order functioning.

Japan and Germany hardly had empires anywhere near that of Rome or the UK, so they didn't revert to third world nations. They didn't have super empires either. And usually, when an empire really collapses or a nation fully over-stretches or fucks up, they do collapse. Zimbabwe is a good example of an otherwise stable and self-sufficient nation being turned into less than impoverished by simple stupidity.

If war erupts between the US and China, I think that neither would use nuclear weapons, because if one uses, the other uses too, and both are destroyed. I think that even if the Chinese troops are encircling Washington, the Americans wouldn't use nuclear weapons, because the result would be (mutual) annihilation, instead of simple defeat. I guess that the Americans aren't so stupid to destroy the world before losing a war.

Riiiight. They just made those nuclear weapons for the fun of it, afterall. Not that China would get anywhere near D.C. anyway, but if it came to it being a global war with China involved, nukes would not be ruled out because MAD enters the equation. It never was with the Soviets, and any trace of doubt over using such weapons would be jumped upon as a sign of weakness.

Also, that thing you said about America not being stupid? You still sticking to that when they did what they did in Iraq and ballsed it up totally? You seriously believe the US, if pushed into a corner, would act nice?

If energy becomes more expensive, people will use less. The US uses several times the quantity of energy they need, but they use not because their economy "needs" energy: Most energy in the US is used at home. If energy becomes expensive, the economy adapts and consume less. Also, if energy becomes more expensive, then it becomes profitable to develop alternative sources of energy.

I don't think you're getting this. The US economy is the size it is PRECISELY because of the energy it uses. Money that goes towards efficiency is money out of disposable income, is money not going back into the coffers of those building their empires today from such gross consumerism.

And saying they will develop alternatives tells me you know diddly squat about how simplistic that argument is. "Oh, an energy crisis? We'll just use solar and wind then".

Hey, how about fusion too? It's like saying "Don't worry about fighting the Chinese army. We'll use tanks and troops". Great. That's a toddler's view of the world, and only an imbecile would handwave away the biggest crisis facing us with a sentence appealing to magic.

[Bakustra]

Japan and Germany hardly had empires anywhere near that of Rome or the UK, so they didn't revert to third world nations. They didn't have super empires either. And usually, when an empire really collapses or a nation fully over-stretches or fucks up, they do collapse. Zimbabwe is a good example of an otherwise stable and self-sufficient nation being turned into less than impoverished by simple stupidity.

The UK is a third-world nation?

[Admiral Valdemar]

The UK is a third-world nation?

Not exactly...

Since I see this coming up again, to clarify. The loss of natural resources on home turf, a trade surplus and economy based around manufacturing, not services, will hamper the development of a nation that loses its edge of the world stage. The US hasn't a penny to its name, and imports practically everything essential, bar food to sate its consumerism. Were it not for the military might and political leverage combined with the reserve currency, who'd even care about this nation? Likewise, the UK has a similar position still.

Projections for the UK, for instance, show the vast majority of people being classed as living in "energy poverty" (energy accounts for 10% of income) within the next decade if gas prices continue to rise as they have done. This is certainly not an improvement, but a slide towards a third rate nation losing grasp of what is happening.

A lot of long term strategists should be looking to acquire more resources via private means (see the Falklands oil play; China's SINOPEC attempt to buy Chevron) or non-military ways that use less of the nation's own resources and potentially bring about a net loss in the end, rather than a gain. If you want a guy to look to for this kind of forward thinking, hire Putin. The man has probably more understanding on the "new world order" coming about now than any other major power's leader.

[Bakustra]

The UK is a third-world nation?

Not exactly...

Since I see this coming up again, to clarify. The loss of natural resources on home turf, a trade surplus and economy based around manufacturing, not services, will hamper the development of a nation that loses its edge of the world stage. The US hasn't a penny to its name, and imports practically everything essential, bar food to sate its consumerism. Were it not for the military might and political leverage combined with the reserve currency, who'd even care about this nation? Likewise, the UK has a similar position still.

The same sort of people who'd care about Russia if it lost its military might, since the US would still have a large population and a lot of natural resources? There's more to importance than just political power and military might, you know, and removing anything that lends the US importance would have the far more immediate and disastrous effects associated with killing hundreds of millions of people and burning off the topsoil across the US, at a minimum.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The same sort of people who'd care about Russia if it lost its military might, since the US would still have a large population and a lot of natural resources? There's more to importance than just political power and military might, you know, and removing anything that lends the US importance would have the far more immediate and disastrous effects associated with killing hundreds of millions of people and burning off the topsoil across the US, at a minimum.

If the US didn't have political power or military clout, then it would be Africa 2, and get plundered in much the same way the "Dark Continent" is now by China. China certainly wouldn't care about fucking over the average American if they couldn't do anything about it, and the only reason they're helping some nations they're investing in is because some of their leaders actually have a heart. Most don't, though. But I'm being unkind to China. Nigeria has been exploited to hell and back by the US and UK private oil companies, and despite a massive resource rich nation being mined for all it's worth, the people are getting poorer. This is called the Resource Curse.

[Alyrium Denryle]

My god, you are very, very arrogant. The capacity of the world to produce food today is perhaps 10 times the current output.

And yet we have people starving. over 25 thousand children starve to death every day. We produce a lot of food, but our distribution is inefficient. There is no reason to suspect that will change.

Yes. I am very very arrogant. That is because, lets be blunt, I know more than you. I have the luxury of being arrogant.

How billions are going to die from hunger if food production will only correspond to 2-3% of the resources that the global economy will need to allocate to it by 2050?

Because there is more to food production than throwing GDP at soil.

. However, I don't think that these problems will be very important.

That is because you are an idiot. You have no rational basis or expertise upon which to base this opinion.

It appears that pessimist here is connected to ecological problems.

Have you noticed that most of the people being pessimistic about said ecological problems just so happen to be the boards biologists? Gee. I wonder, could that be because we are in a position to know what those ecological problems are, while you are not?

And, btw, the world's population is stopping to growth because people are having fewer babies.

I am aware. The question is, will it be fast enough? The answer is no, unless you can get the world population growth down well below replacement. We dont have discrete generations like mayflies. Long human lifespans will carry population increases into the next century unless we get our growth rate down that low very quickly.

. Global population will stabilize in 8-9 billion, not much above today's 7 billion.

Which just so happens to be within the upper range of what our carrying capacity is. Long term, I would say our carrying capacity is closer to 4 because the advances of the green revolution were temporary to one degree or another.

I tell you, world's GDP would have to decrease several time before we have mass famines again.

See above.

You are using current prices for food in order to justify the idea that we wont run out of the stuff. As I said that is a poor metric because throwing GDP at soil does not fix the problem. As agricultural problems increase, food prices will skyrocket, and people will starve. Their current per capita income has nothing to do with that. You commit non-sequiters faster than catholic priests rape altar boys.

Well, we can grow food in the hydroponic farms.

Hydroponic farms the size of countries. Good luck with that numbnuts.

Well, today the world's GDP is 70 trillion dollars, to buy food to make one person alive for a year costs around 1 thousand dollars (maybe about 600-700 dollars, but let's be pessimistic and assume 1 thousand)

Wait... so you are using current food prices to calculate what it will cost to feed the world's population when said food becomes more expensive.

Are you fucking high?

By 2050 the world's GDP will be in the 250-350 trillion dollars range, with a population of 9 billion.

Has a statistician ever told you why interpolation and extrapolation in complex systems is bad?

Even if ecological disaster makes food prices increase 10 times, with 90 trillion dollars (25-35% of the gdp) would be possible to feed the entire world. And food prices will not increase 10 times in the next decades... They will probable decrease....

Certainly, I am going to take the layperson's advice on matters of biology and population dynamics

We have 25 thousand children die every day, on average, right now. How bad do you think it will be when food prices do go up? Have you considered that?

I ask you: Why did food prices rise in 2008? It was because food production decreased? No, it was because China is starting to eat meat! And needs grain to feed it's cattle.

Take a look at the graph I posted earlier in this thread. The one that shows per capita cereal crop production decreasing.

If energy becomes more expensive, people will use less. The US uses several times the quantity of energy they need, but they use not because their economy "needs" energy: Most energy in the US is used at home. If energy becomes expensive, the economy adapts and consume less. Also, if energy becomes more expensive, then it becomes profitable to develop alternative sources of energy.

That consumption of energy you flippantly handwave away is what drives economic growth. It drives construction, industry, transportation, and the same substance (petroleum) is used as a building material, and forms the basis for many fertilizers and pesticides.

In other words, a statistician needs to tell you why interpolation and extrapolation is bad.

[K. A. Pital]

And yet we have people starving. over 25 thousand children starve to death every day. We produce a lot of food, but our distribution is inefficient. There is no reason to suspect that will change.

Indeed. Barring a radical transformation of society (something Iosef would probably find uncomfortable), the distribution of food would be done in a fashion where some have a 3000+ calorie diet while others starve. This would happen routinely.

I ask you: Why did food prices rise in 2008? It was because food production decreased? No, it was because China is starting to eat meat! And needs grain to feed it's cattle.

The use of "alternative source of energy" (biofuels) has contributed to the price spike, as have the oil price spikes. Such is the danger of blindly treating a rise in energy prices impacting JUST the energy prices. You are commiting a simple fallacy - reductionism. The increase in Chinese meat consumption was not the only factor in the spike.

I think, Iosef, before we debate any further, you should become a little more knowledgeable about the impact of such spikes.

In other words: Not reduction of production.

You are really that dumb? The problem is not the absolute contraction of food supply. The problem is the expansion of demand faster than supply, where a large part goes hunrgy or malnourished (actually, this is present in the world right now). You can call it "too slow growth" or "relative contraction".

If food production grows at rate of Y, whereas demand for people not to starve grows at X>>Y, the food prices will spike and many people will go malnourished. As an extreme consequence - famine.

Until you start actually arguing on the basis of empirical data and facts, I see no reason to pay attention to you in this thread.

Poorer countries have lower food prices.

The difference between food prices in, say, Russia, is much less than the difference between the average Russian and European wage. Your explanation as to the disparity? What if food prices are not wage-proportional - so your technically true statement conceals an ugly fact - say, for a poor nation prices twice lower than in a First World nation means most of it's popualtion, or a large fraction of it, goes malnourished. You are right - prices are LOWER, but wages are 10 times lower.

[Terralthra]

From the evidence of the last 60 years, we can certainly predict that the world will be a much better place in the future.

This is a hasty generalization fallacy of the worst sort. Past performance can only be used to predict future performance assuming equivalent conditions and pressures. Which you have utterly failed to do.

If you disagree, at least you can be a bit honest. I didn't try to explain why the world will be better.

Let's see: assuming that these ecological problems doesn't exist, do you agree with me that the future of the world is bright? It appears that pessimist here is connected to ecological problems. However, I don't think that these problems will be very important. The world will be perhaps, 2% poorer in 2050 compared to a situation were global warming never happened.

Well, Europe and the US will continue to stagnate, but that's normal and expected. These regions of the world will lose power and importance, since they are already developed, but other regions of the world are emerging. China and India will be developed and become more prosperous and important centers of civilization than the west.

So, when asked for evidence of similar conditions and pressures to support your prediction that the future will continue to improve, you respond with "If we ignore the problems people are talking about in this thread, because I don't think they'll be important, I think the world will be better." You are breaking DR5. please provide evidence for your opinions, or withdraw them.

[mr friendly guy]

I lost track of this debate for a while but now I find that the idiot PkbonupePeter_Kcos8 was Knobbyboy88. Considering this guy accused me of desperately trying to win an argument by replying to a thread after an infinitely long time ie 2 days after the last post, I find it ironic that he /she/it had to come back on this board with not one, not two but at least three known sockpuppets after he accused me of needing to get a life for that oh so great crime. But I doubt dumbass there is smart enough to realise what irony is.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know about that. We spent decades pointing huge nukes at one another over something as petty as economic policy differences. If we're willing to risk nuclear war over such a stupid point of contention, then fighting over actual resources that will make or break your economy and ideology seems perfectly rational by comparison. Not that I see nuclear war as inevitable, but certainly resource wars. What do you think Iraq was?

A resource war by a strong nation against a weak one.

I don't think I adequately expressed my point. See, strong nations will surely fight resource wars, but they will not fight them against other strong nations, because even if you win the war, you'll take more damage than you get out of pillaging the loser. Nobody's going to invade Russia for their oil any time soon, for obvious reasons.

So what we're more likely to see is wars much like Iraq fought over the weaker victim's resources, with all the strong nuclear-armed countries carefully dancing around one another while the mid-sized countries scramble to become strong and nuclear-armed enough to join the dance.

That kind of context makes an all out World War Three "nukes fall, civilization dies" scenario possible, but not particularly likely, in my opinion.

Given the reactions from the recent recession globally, imagine how pissed people would be with actually having to suffer real pain. Revolutions happen that way.

Yes. Look, I am not saying this is anything better than a horrible prospect. But I'm not as certain as you are that it's going to be transcendently worse than other eras in history that civilization survived, that many individuals survived, and that we in the history books look back on as "wow, glad I'm not living then" rather than "this is when it all came to an end."