Total energy consumption and production...?

[Uraniun235]

Has there been any study done comparing the amount of energy required to sustain the present state of affairs on the planet, the amount of energy required merely to sustain the current human population, and the maximum amount of energy we could sustainably produce with our current technology?

Because it occurs to me that the present population might only be sustainable in an energy-abundant economy, and that worries me...

[Darth Wong]

Has there been any study done comparing the amount of energy required to sustain the present state of affairs on the planet, the amount of energy required merely to sustain the current human population, and the maximum amount of energy we could sustainably produce with our current technology?

Because it occurs to me that the present population might only be sustainable in an energy-abundant economy, and that worries me...

Plenty of them (last I heard, if everyone lived like a first-worlder, we'd need 4 Earths). However, they're all done by environmental groups, which the Republicans have successfully marginalized as a political force in America to the point that no one takes anything they say seriously. Mind you, that's not entirely unfair; some of those groups have said some pretty kooky things in the past. But when accusations of scientific inaccuracy come from Republicans, that's a pretty good example of stones being thrown from a glass house.

In the end, it's pretty obvious that the world could not possibly sustain a population of 6 billion people living like Americans.

[The Grim Squeaker]

What do you mean exactly by energy? Oil, food, electricity, infrastructure, Coal, gas, what?

There have been a large amount of studies on our ecological footprint (For example if all of Earth lived like the US we'd need 5.3 Earth's resources, or 5.5 Earth's to sustain at the level of waste present in Saudi Arabia [Toronto Science museum]

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Has there been any study done comparing the amount of energy required to sustain the present state of affairs on the planet, the amount of energy required merely to sustain the current human population, and the maximum amount of energy we could sustainably produce with our current technology?

Because it occurs to me that the present population might only be sustainable in an energy-abundant economy, and that worries me...

You are absolutely right. Modern agriculture requires big machines (which cost a lot of energy to build . . . and run,) and extensive use of synthetic fertilizers (which cost energy to make), pesticides (which require energy to make, and are comprised of substances which could've been used to produce energy, had they not been turned into pesticides,) complex irrigation systems (requiring energy to build the pipes, pump the water to the pipes, or pump the water out of the ground to get to the pipes.)

Once you have the raw produce harvested, you have to have it trucked (trucks require a lot of energy to build, and a lot of energy to run, and require maintenance using products derived from substances which would've been used as energy had they not been transformed into lubricants,) to a processing plant (requiring a lot of energy to build and run. Not to mention the process involves significant automation, controlled by computers which require a lot of energy to build, given their exacting tolerances,) and packaged (requiring more energy, and raw materials, to make the packaging,) stored (refrigeration/freezing/climate control requires energy,) and transported to market (by trucks. See previous sidebar on trucks. It's worse if the food is grown in, say, Brazil and is earmarked for market in the United States. In which case, it's transported by ships, which require large amounts of energy and raw resources to build and maintain, and consume enormous amounts of energy just to get them from Brazil to the U.S.A.)

Sure, we might be able to save on fertilizer and pesticides by genetically engineering a wonder-crop that is hardy and pest-resistant. But, ignoring our knee-jerk reaction against GM food . . . genetically engineering wonder crops require energy-hungry laboratories and energy-hungry agriculture to grow and evaluate the intermediate stages.

This shows that just feeding our current population requires in the way we do now requires an energy-abundant economic regime. Modern agriculture requires something like fifty times the energy of traditional agricultural methods and has produced something like a 250% increase in agricultural output since the beginning of the so-called Green Revolution. So if we were forced to rely on less-energy intensive, more traditional methods of farming, we'd end up producing something like 40% of the food. We're already consuming more grain than we produce.

So, in the absence of an energy-abundant economy, one might say that the sustainable population of the planet is only 40% of what it is now. However, this ignores the fact that even now, we have more mouths to feed than we can actually afford to do. This will reduce the size of the sustainable population further. Worse still, arable land is a finite resource. As the bottom falls out of the oil market, so-called biofuels would be called on to step in . . . requiring more farmland be turned over to produce energy (and the energy produced will be miniscule compared to that produced by oil. After all, much of the energy that goes into producing acre upon acre of corn-based ethanol will end up going into . . . producing acre upon acre of corn-based ethanol, since you can't well use non-existent stocks of petrochemicals to do it, can you?) So the sustainable population of the planet may well be something like 20-30% what it is now.

Again, I stress that this is just for food alone. This completely ignores the costs that go into the modern trappings of civilization we take for granted, like energy and petrochemical-intensive drugs and modern medicine, modern climate control, transportation costs, the fact that we've gone and paved over much of our arable land, and the fact that global warming is going to make arable land move around a fair bit in the coming centuries, regardless of what else we may do (not to mention the depressingly high fraction of our population that happens to live on land that simply won't be there in the coming centuries, thanks to even modest rises in sea-level. These people will have to go somewhere.)

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, however, I think there's a natural bias among environmentalists who discuss this issue to forget about human population control as the most obvious solution. They want to figure out how we can support huge populations without using so much resources, rather than pointing out that none of these problems would be that bad if the populations were smaller.

The single biggest environmental problem in the world today is the fact that there are too many fucking people, and this problem is only exacerbated by irresponsible social policies promoted by certain religious organizations.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

To be honest, however, I think there's a natural bias among environmentalists who discuss this issue to forget about human population control as the most obvious solution. They want to figure out how we can support huge populations without using so much resources, rather than pointing out that none of these problems would be that bad if the populations were smaller.

The single biggest environmental problem in the world today is the fact that there are too many fucking people, and this problem is only exacerbated by irresponsible social policies promoted by certain religious organizations.

Human population control is a concept that people tend not to like thinking about it. Especially given how far beyond "sustainable" the present population of the planet is. Population control, in this instance, likely means the outright extermination (in a controlled manner that will permit the institution of sensible social policy afterwards, as opposed to the messiness natural attrition promises) of a nightmare-inducing fraction of the planet's population. Especially as few like to think about who'd be responsible for determining who dies, and the criteria they're going to use to make that determination.

[Darth Wong]

Mass "culling of the herd" programs are not strictly necessary. To be quite brutally frank about it, starvation will tend to take care of that over time. However, countries with massive overpopulation should be given severe penalties in any Kyoto-style environmental accord, especially if they are making no attempt to fight it.

[J]

Has there been any study done comparing the amount of energy required to sustain the present state of affairs on the planet, the amount of energy required merely to sustain the current human population, and the maximum amount of energy we could sustainably produce with our current technology?

Because it occurs to me that the present population might only be sustainable in an energy-abundant economy, and that worries me...

Right now the world consumes about 380 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of energy every year, with the US leading the way with a staggering 100 quads. The US and Canada are by far the most wasteful energy consumers in the world, on a per capita basis Canadians use even more energy than Americans.

If we reduced our per capita energy consumption to around the same level as Europe, it would work out to a reduction of over 50%. Nearly 60 quads gone just like that from North America alone. I don't know how much we can reduce consumption without affecting essentials such as agriculture, but I'd guess we can trim somewhere between 50-100 quads, possibly more depending on what we're willing to go without.

The matter of sustainable energy production is a bit (actually a lot) more complicated and depends on what you mean by "sustainable". In the really long term (hundreds to thousands of years) the only sources we have are nuclear, hydro, and renewables. In the mid-term (tens to hundreds of years) coal enters the mix, and in the short term we add hydrocarbons of all sorts. The energy base shrinks greatly as you move from short to mid to long term.

[Faqa]

If we reduced our per capita energy consumption to around the same level as Europe, it would work out to a reduction of over 50%. Nearly 60 quads gone just like that from North America alone

Hmph. At least there's SOME good news.

I'd imagine this WOULD be in the goverment's best interest to encourage. Streeetch out the oil long enough so they're at least gone before hell breaks loose.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Mr. Wong Wrote:

Mass "culling of the herd" programs are not strictly necessary. To be quite brutally frank about it, starvation will tend to take care of that over time. However, countries with massive overpopulation should be given severe penalties in any Kyoto-style environmental accord, especially if they are making no attempt to fight it.
_________________

From a consequentialist perspective, if it really did come to letting them die or killing them, and I am not saying that is the solution (if other means of birth control don't work), wouldn't it be more humane to kill those who would starve anyway in a way that is quick and painless?

It seems that anyone who would slowly starve to death anyway would benefit from voluntarily committing themselves to a programme of euthanasia rather than experience slow degeneration, no?

[Darth Wong]

Mr. Wong Wrote:

Mass "culling of the herd" programs are not strictly necessary. To be quite brutally frank about it, starvation will tend to take care of that over time. However, countries with massive overpopulation should be given severe penalties in any Kyoto-style environmental accord, especially if they are making no attempt to fight it.
_________________

From a consequentialist perspective, if it really did come to letting them die or killing them, and I am not saying that is the solution (if other means of birth control don't work), wouldn't it be more humane to kill those who would starve anyway in a way that is quick and painless?

Since the killing option involves invading their countries and slaughtering masses of people based on projections about the future which may or may not be entirely accurate, this is a rather doubtful equation. Doing so would also create enormous levels of hatred against the perpetrators, whereas it is difficult to harbour a grudge against Mother Nature.

It seems that anyone who would slowly starve to death anyway would benefit from voluntarily committing themselves to a programme of euthanasia rather than experience slow degeneration, no?

How do you know in advance who would starve to death and who would survive? How do you know in advance how many would starve? And do you really want to commit one of the greatest atrocities in history in order to prevent a naturally occurring one, even though this would also create one of the greatest grudges in history?

[Seggybop]

From a perspective of evolution, wouldn't it also be better to let those who are going to die do so on their own? The ones left would generally be the strongest or smartest, exactly what we'd want to base the future of mankind on. Not to imply any kind of eugenics, but it seems we'd be better off in the end if we weak die and the strong survive rather than haphazardly burning off unfortunate populations.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I seem to recall a scifi book where earth's population was going to hyper-malthusian numbers with the creation of an anti-aging serum. The solution was to legislate that each person was entitled to half a child. Married couples could then have one child, and people who wanted more could buy other child-portions. Each succeeding generation would be half the size of the previous, and eventually when the original generation dies out, you've reduced the populatino 50%.

This was, of course, done out of necessity when earth's population reached 15 billion.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I seem to recall a scifi book where earth's population was going to hyper-malthusian numbers with the creation of an anti-aging serum. The solution was to legislate that each person was entitled to half a child. Married couples could then have one child, and people who wanted more could buy other child-portions. Each succeeding generation would be half the size of the previous, and eventually when the original generation dies out, you've reduced the populatino 50%.

This was, of course, done out of necessity when earth's population reached 15 billion.

We have already surpassed the planet's human population carrying capacity with just 6.5 billion people on the planet, and the planet's ability to carry the people we have now is decreasing by the year. Pollution and population growth have rendered increasingly large fractions of the planet's available arable land unusable.

Already, we're in the beginning stages of a Malthusian catastrophe. As I mentioned above, we're consuming more grain than we produce, the available land to grow food on has fallen, while populations have increased. Around the world, nations consuming more food than they can actually produce. Natural sources of food, such as fisheries, are being depleted as well. We're running out of land that can be cultivated for food, and we can only squeeze our food production methods so much.

[Uraniun235]

The matter of sustainable energy production is a bit (actually a lot) more complicated and depends on what you mean by "sustainable". In the really long term (hundreds to thousands of years) the only sources we have are nuclear, hydro, and renewables. In the mid-term (tens to hundreds of years) coal enters the mix, and in the short term we add hydrocarbons of all sorts. The energy base shrinks greatly as you move from short to mid to long term.

Even nuclear eventually runs out, although hopefully before then we manage to get fusion viable. (I'm not terribly optimistic about that one though; I could very well imagine it being determined sometime in the future that fusion was simply nigh-impossible to extract energy from.)

I was mostly thinking of the really long term.

Human population control is a concept that people tend not to like thinking about it.

The biggest obstacle in promoting population control (reduction, really) is that the economy is totally geared toward a model of constant growth. If I remember right, the "recession" that was much talked about a couple of years ago wasn't even a decrease in production; it was a decrease in the rate of growth of production!

Other obstacles could conceivably be addressed by other means (up to and including force) but I'm afraid of what's going to happen when it comes time to halt economic growth. I remember one time suggesting on another forum that we would eventually have to shift away from a perpetual growth economy and was immediately met with claims that doing so would mean death to humanity, that for some weird reason the economy must continue growing no matter what, and that by god we'd better get into space soon so we can start expanding into the solar system or otherwise we're doomed.

Then there's the people who seem to think that no, we're just fine, it's a huge planet, we ought to just let the population balloon to another few billion people.

[Darth Wong]

What's really scary is what we as a species are doing to the topsoil and forests, rapidly destroying them as we spread our reach across the world's land. That stuff doesn't come back easily.

[aerius]

Sometimes I wonder if global thermonuclear war might actually be better for us in the long run than a total economic & production collapse caused by lack of oil. With nuclear war we can wipe out billions of people overnight while leaving the resource base mostly intact, and the couple billion people left alive will likely grow accustomed to living frugally in a post apocalyptic world.

[FireNexus]

Why not just start sterilising people en masse?

[Seggybop]

Is it wrong to think that those who've been wasting so much energy deserve what's going to happen to them? Everyone who lives way out in the suburbs or anywhere far from civilization is going to be quite utterly screwed, and I don't have any sympathy for them. I feel like they've wasted dwindling resources that could have been applied to helping so many other people so much more. Am I mistaken in feeling this way?

[Darth Wong]

Is it wrong to think that those who've been wasting so much energy deserve what's going to happen to them? Everyone who lives way out in the suburbs or anywhere far from civilization is going to be quite utterly screwed, and I don't have any sympathy for them. I feel like they've wasted dwindling resources that could have been applied to helping so many other people so much more. Am I mistaken in feeling this way?

I must confess to feeling that way sometimes. There are so many people out there who have no idea what the inside of a city bus looks like. I guess it's hard to see the interior of a bus from the interior of your own Ford Gigantosaurus SUV.

[Uraniun235]

Why not just start sterilising people en masse?

People get pretty uppity about arbitrarily mutilating their bodies, and flashing a bunch of rads at them seems pretty risky. A better approach would be to hit them in their pocketbooks and assign massive tax penalties for having multiple children and tax breaks for those who voluntarily have vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Everyone who lives way out in the suburbs or anywhere far from civilization is going to be quite utterly screwed, and I don't have any sympathy for them.

I don't think that's really workable; we do need some people out there working farms and mines and what-have-you. Actually, if we're going to have to revert to less energy-intensive forms of agriculture, we'll probably need even more people living away from big cities; the larger cities are really pretty heavily reliant on food and materials being transported from outside into the city, which is itself somewhat energy-intensive.

Yes, suburban sprawl is definitely a major problem, but even suburbs can be more manageable with a good mass-transit system.

My frustration isn't so much directed at the people who live in suburbs as it is at the city councils and housing developers who completely screwed the pooch by building communities in such a way as to completely yoke people to owning their own car.

[aerius]

Powerdown : Options and Actions For A Post Carbon World
Buy this book, read it and understand it, because that's our future and we'll be living through it. Pretty much everyone other than the Amish will be affected.

[Turin]

While the ever-growing threat of our own self-destruction as a species has me scared as hell (especially lately), doesn't population control have its own set of problems? In the Western world, fertility rates have dropped significantly, and this has caused a large imbalance in the numbers of working adults vs the number of elderly.

Obviously more sustainable development is a necessity (one of the reasons why I'm working to become a LEED-accredited design professional). But how do we deal with the inevitable age imbalance caused by population control? Or are we just totally screwed either way?

[Uraniun235]

But how do we deal with the inevitable age imbalance caused by population control? Or are we just totally screwed either way?

A combination of a model of old folks' community where the old folks do a lot of the less physically demanding work (like delivering medication to the other people on their floor, or maybe working in the kitchen) - some old people are still fairly spry, and besides which the increased activity would probably be healthier for a lot of them - and increased job opportunities for teenagers. We may not be able to offer them quite the advanced treatment that's available today... but then, it's entirely probable that people won't be living quite as long in this new world anyway.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Since the killing option involves invading their countries and slaughtering masses of people based on projections about the future which may or may not be entirely accurate, this is a rather doubtful equation. Doing so would also create enormous levels of hatred against the perpetrators, whereas it is difficult to harbour a grudge against Mother Nature.

True. That's a good point; it would be a rather macabre guessing game unless someone more knowledgeable on the sociology of the region has any information I am not aware of at this moment.

Perhaps if one were to reason with them and explain their situation and the alternatives they could make the conclusions themselves and, if necessary, end their own lives with help. Some sort of assisted euthanasia.

I seriously wouldn't advocate doing it by force; that wouldn't work, as you said, at all. They would probably be the best source of information on whether or not they can survive, so perhaps they make the decision. Others supply the means for them based on what they decide?

For the voluntary means, starvation seems such a horrible way to go if the UNICEF figures are true.