Depletion of Resources

[luiz]

Are you so sure? Look at this graph of global population history then:

Using that as a help, my estimate actually seems to be too low.

The map is impressive, but nevertheless the populations of the first world are today stable when not declining. Everything suggests that the same will happen to the third world. In fact it already happened in the better-off third world nations.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Unless nukes comes into this equation, there's not that much that they can do.

I wouldn't be entirely confident that nukes would not come into the equation.

They could try to destroy us from the sky, but the military dictatorship years left us with a legacy of tens of thousands of anti-aircraft bateries. Rio alone has more of them then most medium-sized nations.

Cruise missiles against sensitive targets is another possibility. I'm sure a megacity like Rio would work wonderfully without hospitals, water, and electricity.

Furthermore we're not Iraq, our air force could not be destroyed at the ground. Of course the USAF would beat the crap out of the FAB, but still it would not be like in Iraq. All in all, if Vietnam proved to be tough I can only imagine the level of toughness that it would be to strike Brazil.

Thing is, since apparently all your oil is conveniently located off-shore, they wouldn't need to occupy a square meter of Brazilian ground.

And there's the question if Brazil would even chose to fight. I suspect a deal could be worked out that you got to keep x % of your oil.

 

[Little Raven]

Unless nukes comes into this equation, there's not that much that they can do.

You're missing the point, luiz. The point is not who would win a war, maybe we would, (very likely) maybe you would, ( ) it doesn't really matter. The point is that there will be a war.

Lots of them, actually. The US isn't the only one who needs oil. Everyone does. And everyone will kill to get it.

In a world armed with nuclear weapons, that isn't a very cheery thought, is it?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Moral: Pump your oil as quick as possible - the last country to have oil left is a big target!

 

[10Seven]

The map is impressive, but nevertheless the populations of the first world are today stable when not declining. Everything suggests that the same will happen to the third world. In fact it already happened in the better-off third world nations.

It's already happened? I don't think so while the graph sin't accurate, the theme still appears to be.

And, frankly, how in heck are the third world countries going to reach the 'ideal' first status, when so many of the major resources, like oil, are depleted or depleting. With the current schema, for instance, Africa will never have a chance to get to the level of development as Europe and USA... Without major changes, which are not, currently, heralded, third world countries look to be stuck as third world - there's even a question mark on such places as China and India.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Are you so sure? Look at this graph of global population history then:

Using that as a help, my estimate actually seems to be too low.

The population growth was proportional to what could be supported by society. What you should be asking yourself is why population grew so slowly before then. Environmental and health pressures.

If the population grows faster than the environment can support, it may overshoot for a while, but it will eventually relax down to a growth level more in line with before 1800. However, if humanity finds a way to support more people it will go up again, but if it doesn't, I assure, that eventually resource pressures will pull the population growth back down again.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Act'ly, that curve looks pretty much exponential, which would mean that population growth has been essenitally constant for the last millennium.

(In fact, it looks so exponential I suspect they've simply plotted an exponential. It's not like anyone really knows how many people were around in 1200 AD anyway.)

 

[Cheetah]

I believe they have used very good estimates, records from state-archives, etc. At least I have seem graphs like that many places, and no where have I seen anyone saying it is wrong.

Now, if we don't only look at the population growth, but also at the energy consumption growth.

Maybe the western world isn't booming with population growth anymore, but we surely use more and more energy per person for every year that goes.

luiz made an estimate of what energy sources could replace oil, and got oil down to 10% of the world energy consumption. But that is the present worlds energy consumption! We use more and more energy for every year that pass, and population is also growing for every year that pass.

In Stephen Hawkings book, The Universe in a Nutshell, it is shown that, if the current growth in world population (the book says 1.9% a year) and in the world's energy consumption, "By the year 2600 the world's population would be standing shoulder to shoulder, and the electricity consumption would make the Earth glow red-hot."

And as to the question of a collapse in our civilisation when the oil runs out: If there is no oil to power the transportation between areas on the globe, societies will be isolated, starvation will occur in areas that can't feed themselves and resources not found in one area will not be availible to the rest of the world. In other words, our civilisation would collapse.

 

[luiz]

It's already happened? I don't think so

Yes it did. Look at the population growth rates of China, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and many other poor nations. Not very high at all. Urbanization is followed by a reduction of the population growth, inevitably.

And, frankly, how in heck are the third world countries going to reach the 'ideal' first status, when so many of the major resources, like oil, are depleted or depleting. With the current schema, for instance, Africa will never have a chance to get to the level of development as Europe and USA... Without major changes, which are not, currently, heralded, third world countries look to be stuck as third world - there's even a question mark on such places as China and India.

China and India were as poor as the african nations 20 years ago, and today they have economic growth rates that makes europeans and americans jellous.
Oil is not depleating yet, or so it seems. And even when it does, I strongly believe that it won't mean the end of development.

 

[luiz]

I wouldn't be entirely confident that nukes would not come into the equation.

The americans have enough nukes to send us to stone age, I concede that.
But keep in mind that we have one of the largest reserves of uranium in the world, and technology to use - we are building a nuclear submarine, for exemple. It's no secret that we had beign engaged for decades in making the bomb, and just recentky gave up on the idea. The reality is we could make one in not much time.
And nukes work like shields. A nuclear power has never beign directly assaulted, to the best of my knowledge.

Cruise missiles against sensitive targets is another possibility. I'm sure a megacity like Rio would work wonderfully without hospitals, water, and electricity.

That would suck for us, but not destroy fighting capabaility. In fact it would only create a horde of millions of angry man with nothing to live for.

Thing is, since apparently all your oil is conveniently located off-shore, they wouldn't need to occupy a square meter of Brazilian ground.

And there's the question if Brazil would even chose to fight. I suspect a deal could be worked out that you got to keep x % of your oil.

We don't even have that much oil anyway. Just enough to keep us moving, not nearly enough to appease the thirsty USA.

 

[crystal]

while the graph sin't accurate, the theme still appears to be.

What do you think is inaccurate in it? Anyway, I just spent some time searching for alternate (and better) graphs and predictions.

I'm quite pessimistic on this issue. The major phases of population growth in history have occurred because of new technological innovations, like for example the ability to make tools, utilize agriculture, better sanitation and health care and so on. It is very likely that these kind of trends continue in the future too and population will continue increasing quite rapidly because of more efficient technology. If growth has now declined in some rich countries, it does in no way mean that the whole global population would start soon declining.

But the big problem is that it may work for some time, but it will fail at some point if economies in the world are based on non-renewable energy sources. Not to mention soil erosion, global warming, pollution and other problems which affect the efficiency of agriculture among other industries. We are bound by the laws of nature too, although many anthropocentric people have difficulties in understanding it.

Btw, I also found other interesting quotes from here:

An astonishing fact was reported in the news recently. "With the possible exception of the rat, humans are now the most numerous mammal on earth"! Few have recognized the significance of this statement. Something like this has never happened in the nearly 600 million year history of life on our planet. The population of a large animal has never before reached such dominance in the ecosystem.



Evidence is now accumulating that, among vertebrates, male fertility is declining. This could be part of the reason for the loss of frogs. Sperm counts have dropped to nearly zero in some populations of alligators and, in a few areas, as many as 20% of human males are functionally sterile. In alligators, a likely cause has been found and the same problem has been verified in humans. It turns out that some of the chemicals released into the environment by humans are estrogen-like when ingested or absorbed into the body. A small excess of estrogen in males, significantly reduces sperm counts and this is extremely difficult to counteract.

Consider the implications of this phenomenon. At the very least, mother nature has provided a self-limiting mechanism for the human population by not only increasing the death rate, but also by ultimately decreasing the birth rate. At the very worst, if nearly all human males become sterile due to self-generated environmental pollution, we could be on the road to extinction in short order. After all, the ultimate cause of extinction for any species is: failure to reproduce. Hopefully, the irony here will not escape us.

Wow, this is almost my longest post ever. (feel free to comment)