World population

So, instead of answering my reply you ask more questions and then say, "These answers probably don't surprise anyone," I must say: You'd make a great politician. You have seemed to have mastered the art of saying a lot, but very little. Good job. Why not just say, "Look a pterodactyl," and gotten it over with?

 

Very well. First example that the US no longer is a democracy.

redistrictinggame.org/

Here's a source by which you can get an idea over the energy crisis... in transportation being dependent on a single source of fuel. Electricity and transportation are independent systems riddled with flaws. Consider the consequences of peak oil.

http://www.theoildrum.com/

The US dollar is becoming worthless, as it is running a budget deficit of $1.8 billion a day. The greater the deficit, the faster the value of the US economy diminishes. China's economy is growing faster than the US. In spite of global climate changes influencing US agricultural production, the real losses have been in feeding over 90% of grain crops for the production of meat.

http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/politics/American-Economy-Collapsing.html

The US manufacturing base is being uprooted by outsourcing to other states. Being a consumer nation, it costs more to keep the country operating than it generates.

http://www.rense.com/general69/econm.htm

The US has done exactly as al Qaeda wanted after 9/11 by engaging in a war designed to bleed its resources. I read Riedel's book, but here's an easy source for the general plot of the book for people to read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/10/bruce-riedel-search-for-alqaeda

---

The problems in the US are not the world's problems, but they are an example of why I have these 'doomsday' beliefs. I have no reason to have a positive outlook escalating world problems. Inefficient agricultural production severely limits the potential food output from US farmland. Cultivating arid land by using artificial fertilizers and subsurface sources increases farm output, but is an unsustainable practice. The European Union has developed its economies and urban design to prepare for the threat of peak oil, yet the typical American is absolutely opposed to the prospect of changing their way of life. Since 9/11 happened, the US has done EXACTLY what al Qaeda wanted. This latest surge into Afghanistan is just more proof that the US will just stupidly act without any consequences of its actions. If its economy is so self-destructive in the long run, it deserves to collapse.

 

I read your links until I came to this.

"In the last year the American dollar has dropped in value by approx. 18% compared to the Canadian dollar and the Euro (and numerous other commodities). So even though the US GDP increased 2.2% in 2007 in the amount of US dollars, the actual value of that GDP has shrunk by about 16%. "

This is absolutely idiotic. I mean truly and abysmally stupid. There are depths of lunacy which have heretofore been unplumbed and this is beneath even those, lurking kracken-like in the unchartable deepest reaches of moronic words.

Please, for the love of god, tell me you don't not need to be told why.

Edit// Oh god why didn't I wait until reading your next link?

Economics economics.. huh whats this? "The future for the Anglo-Saxon people looks bleak."

Odd. no... what the hell? "Few can comprehend of the fate that lies ahead for the Anglo-Saxon group of nations. It will be a time of human suffering greater than ever experienced. Two thirds will die ­ those who survive will be taken into slavery. After 200 years of global dominance, their defeat will result in some of the most dreadful suffering mankind has experienced. Yet all this could be avoided if they had not rejected the Law of God. It is only by returning to following God's Law and the teachings of Jesus Christ that this looming disaster can be avoided."

What site is this... oh hey look right on the main site

"Google - Zionist Engine Of Mind And Genetic Control"

"The Real Threat Is From Clean-Cut Satanists"

"Patton Views On Jews
Gen Patton's Clear Vision - Why He Was Murdered"

"Things NASA Doesn't Want You To See

UFOs Filmed By NASA - Vid"

Well I can certainly see why you trust this source.

 

Actually, I do ask why. First, I don't know which site you're referring to. These are not my primary sources, as I can't even keep track of where I obtain everything.

The US GDP is actually not an accurate measurement for how well the state is doing. One of the obstacles I've had to deal with in a term paper was convincing Americans that it was more beneficial to renovate old American cities to support higher population density than it was to use more efficient vehicles. Part of the problem was that programs which saved money often were not favored because it caused the GDP to go into decline. A 'green' technology in an industry opens a corporation to a new source of products that can be sold to customers. Electric hybrid cars are a new market that is attracting attention by major corporations.

What often isn't a new market is in use of transit-oriented urban development. Mass transit rarely pays for itself, so consumers believe it makes more sense to buy cars. They rarely measure the benefits that come because of public transportation and GDP would actually be lower with a more efficient transportation infrastructure. Mass transit would cost less than thousands of people buying and fueling their cars, so it would not be as favorable if you're looking to generate both producers and consumers with higher demands.

How? It's because GDP measures ALL economic activity within the US. What companies make in profits. What consumers spend on gasoline. The costs of upkeep. Electrical demands. Renovation costs. All of these add to the GDP if rates increased. GDP is flawed because it measures all sources of consumer and producer demands, rather than using a simple cost/expense ratio.

Therefore you have a situation where you could end up adding your expenses to the same number that's supposed to measure your economic growth. It doesn't add to the value of a nation when it has to renovate its infrastructure. Yet it's credited for offering jobs and opportunities for the US.

Then perhaps you can offer a better solution than the ones you've criticized? I can stand being wrong, but I would prefer better solutions than a bunch of whining.

 

I would prefer you post your primary sources then crappy blog posts you don't bother to read from anti Semitic sites combining ufology with Jewish conspiracies.

But hey, maybe I'm asking too much.

I'll give you a hint. You posted 4 links, one was the Guardian, one was the oil drum, which is fairly studied, and two were bat **** insane. Why should anyone take you seriously if you can't tell the difference between the guardian and rense.com?

Repudiate rense.com, or there is no point even bothering to talk to you.

Second, n the last year the American dollar has dropped in value by approx. 18% compared to the Canadian dollar and the Euro (and numerous other commodities). So even though the US GDP increased 2.2% in 2007 in the amount of US dollars, the actual value of that GDP has shrunk by about 16% is moronic.

If you are writing economic term papers you should at least have run into the idea of inflation adjusted. Using tethered dollars the rate between one year and the next is a comparison of growth, and the value of the dollar between one year and the next is not relevant.

Second, The dollar dropped 18% against the Canadian dollar, so lets play a game. In US Dollars the Canadian GDP rose 2.7%. Since that's measured in American dollars we can use the exact same logic to say the actual value of Canada's GDP dropped 15%.

If that makes sense to you, you don't know squat, because it is completely nonsensical gibberish masquerading as economic thought.

So once again, until you repudiate your source there, you'll be the guy who posted anti jewish ufo conspiracies because he couldn't be bothered to check his sources.

Very impressive work in self discrediting.

 

Insult. Rather than using this tactic, maybe it would have been more appropriate to politely note the source wasn't reliable.

Don't take this as me standing Rense.com (I regret using this source) I do strongly oppose your childish behavior.

More insults. This kind of counter statement often carries little weight, even when you're right. (Hint: present your own sources to prove yourself right. Shoot down my argument instead of just saying I'm wrong.)

Very well, I'll admit to using random sources that supported my side without extensively confirming their value or validity. I'll repudiate rense.com as a source. It was not a source to rely on, but that is not proof in itself that the counter argument must be correct.

Thanks for providing sources of your own to confirm your beliefs. It was then you might have been able to offer a better argument instead of shooting holes in another. Since I seem to know nothing of the matter, perhaps you would be reasonable enough to teach it? I would be interested in hearing your counter argument... providing that there is an argument to counter.

I can stand being wrong, but I can't stand someone making a case based off someone else's flawed arguments and then grandstanding as though they proved that the opposite must be right. There is a significant difference between failing to make a convincing case and disproving another.

---------

http://www.peak-oil-news.info/end-industrial-expansion/
http://www.peak-oil-crisis.com/

What a coincidence... websites with the same name as the theory. These sites are provided because they act as hubs for relatively easy readings for people to understand. Not everyone has a degree in economics, political science, and physical geography.

This ARE NOT primary sources, as they are not intended for scientific purposes.

------

From:

http://scitizen.com/stories/future-energies/2009/11/Peak-Oil--IEA-s-predictions-seeming-more-and-more-infeasible-with-time/

This site provides a few explanations to why oil prices have remained fairly stable since production peaked in the 1960's within the United States. This is not a primary source, as it requires some understanding in macro economics and political geography. Here is one of the questions and answers to explain why peak oil hasn't been taken seriously until recently.

"Question: As the study proves evidence that we have reached Peak Oil, do you think it will once and for all cut short the discussion?

Answer: Unfortunately not. The so-called "Economic theory of energy" has too strong a hold on our business and political elite. This is the idea that high energy prices will stimulate new energy production which will ultimately cause energy prices to fall again. This theory "works" while the energy profit on energy extraction is high as it has been for oil in the past. However, as the size and abundance of newly discovered oilfields decreases, (as it has been doing since the 1960s) it becomes more and more difficult to find and extract oil. The energy profit decreases as does the rate of oil production. (Remember that Peak Oil is about rate of production, not how much is left.) For t

 

Much much better.

For any sort of record, I don't have any problem with the oil drum as a site or a reference. granted it is slanted in favor of it's view, but nothing I've seen on suggests it shouldn't be taken seriously as a point of view.

It isn't truly necessary to bring in primary sources as statistics except to verify the number the analysis you're providing is based off of(or should be based off of). They can definitely add pop to a point, but dragging it too far into the numbers game makes arguments less persuasive.

For anyone who is serious on an issue, and wants to be taken seriously, linking to the fringe sites, even unknowingly, as support is and should be personally embarrassing.

I have to add that seeing you're willing to forthrightly admit the error as well as apply critical thinking to your own position removes any doubts that the initial posting raised.

As for my own belief. While I remain concerned about the resource use in the first world, the sort of culling and disasterism you and Jabba argue is necessary reeks of exceptionalism. The claims of reducing the earths population by 6 trillion people pluck a pseudo-scientific millennialist nerve.

 

I don't do it for portraying myself as an elitist, arrogant, scientific-minded... whatever else it's called. I do it because I seriously fear American imperialism is inexorably moving towards a global economic crisis.

Although I greatly value preserving the natural world and biodiversity, my aim is directed more towards the US achieving economic sustainability in the long term first. I do not discourage coal, in spite of being a dirty fuel, as it can at least come from domestic sources. This makes it more reliable for the US than oil for the next half century or so.

I support lowering emissions from fossil fuels, but my perspective is driven by reducing it through reducing use of the automobile altogether. When people generate solutions which involve the US providing mass transit, they fail to take into account the need for higher population density as a necessity for such a system to be used. But the average American city revolves around the automobile. As US cities continue crumbling under funding and infrastructure problems, the ability to implement energy solutions becomes less feasible. Much more is needed to avert the effects of peak oil than just using hybrid cars.

The American way of life is not sustainable because it costs more to maintain the economy than is generated through taxes and economic growth. This is not directing blame at the typical American, as market values have been manipulated to give them a false sense of economic sustainability. This is not directed solely at energy, but the US has become liable to the threat of global peak oil.

------

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/244/usoilconsumption.JPG

This graph shows that US imports have kept supply in check since the late 60's; but as global sources eventually stagnate, this will have the same economic impact as the shortage of the 1970's. US prices have risen in recent years, but the projected price is expected to be more volatile than ever before. The US can't avoid this, so the logical act that must be taken is the renovation of US cities to increase density. With increased density allow for a reduced demand for oil in transportation. With electricity comes the option to use more sources than just oil. Once the question of energy is dealt with, the US can focus on other problems.

 

By referring to exceptionalism, I'm not referring to American exceptionalism, instead something similar to the delusion which has struck with religious fervor repeatedly that these are the end times.

The feeling that somehow this place, person, or in this case, time, is unique in its providence. You could draw a weak parallel to the serial proclamations that something is the best thing, or worst thing, ever. There seems to be a built in lack of proportionality to the human psyche that makes me inherently wary of exceptionalistic claims.

 

It cannot be denied we are living in a certain age where the future is expected to drastically shift from past trends.

If the Iraq War hadn't been facilitated by the Bush Administration, the US would be in a much different position.

Yes, I recognize the same could have been said about the US and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis may have been the single most important event that could have destroyed the world.

Yes, this also covers the events of WWII seeming to generate change across the entire world unless the US gets involved with the war.

Let's not forget the Great Depression, when the US came ever so close to converting to communism.

And what about that war which saw the US divided in two back in the 1860's.

And these are just a short list of significant events which could have changed US history dramatically. Don't start going into much older states, because it would break the American perception of stability and technological innovation as the solutions that will save everyone.

****

Why is today's crisis any different?

Well the truest answer is that it's the crisis we are facing right now. It's the one we have yet to see the outcome.

The other answer is that it's the first time since the industrial revolution where the physical limitations of the world are expected to slow globalization to a halt. Germany suffered economic losses to the Royal Navy during WWI. Japan suffered an oil crisis when the US placed an embargo on their resources. The oil crisis of the 1970's was brought about by political actions. It was not supply/demand.

We are entering an age where the industrial base of the last two hundred years is about to meet the limitations of the world's physical geography. Almost all innovation that improved energy, agricultural, and mining were all directed at improving the rates at which such resources could be extracted. As energy and valuable minerals begin to take center stage in world economics, we must drastically change our perception of these resources and take the proper measures to avoid having an economic crisis when Peak oil hits.

The delusion is not that these are crisis on the horizon, but rather that the question that oil and global warming are being addressed properly. It's that the American dream can be sustained without having to make a painful transition to a new energy, or higher taxes, or increasing US population density. Anyone who questions the American way or life are only bringing up questions as to how they intend to maintain it after peak oil hits.

 

The exceptionalism complaint is not targeted at the issue of resource usage, but instead at the necessity/consequences Ritchie and Jabba have expounded on, for example the elimination of half to 5/6ths of the world population.

Yes, first world resource use is problematic... but tying it to third world population growth and sort of blurring the lines between the two is simply hysterical sensationalism.

I'm not entirely sure where you stand on that, however I have to admit your rhetorical "who...?" list is pretty unrelated to the question FIDo presented.

I'm not sure if it's a failure of the other person communicating their issue, or with a sort of typing your thoughts sans editing, but it makes your point slightly scattershot. For example, the Cuban Missle crisis point only really serves to make an unrelated argument that can act as a point of digression for discussion without adding any support to your own argument or rebuttal to someone else's.

While one would hardly expect a dissertation, or even a term paper, some of the same thoughts apply when you're trying to present an argument in an online debate.Being concise always helps, but presenting your ideas clearly and effectively almost always requires editing your thoughts.
I understand many, if not most, people see no need to do that in an online environment, or they consider the thought entirely too formal or pretentious, but then again many or most of the people are those same idiots "Who hate coal because it's a dirty fuel, yet complain when their electrical prices increase". I'd argue if you perceive yourself to be better informed it behooves you to present yourself better.

And that's been farradays how to be a pretentious debating troll power hour, tune in next week for his rant about the uselessness of civility as a virtue,

 

Take the number of food calories, the barrel of oil equivalent of global energy the fresh water accessible to humans and the aggregate commodity resource supply other than food, and of course this is oversimplified, and divide it by the number of people in the world and you have the per capita consumption base available to all humans. The billion richest people in the third world may have a much more stable population base in terms of growth, but one of them may be using as many resources per person as five, 10, 20 or more of the world's poorest.

The Chinese, despite their low rate of population growth, could convert another 100 million or 200 million of its 1.3 billion population into first world consumers over the next decade, which in terms of adding to the overburden on the planet's carrying capacity might be the equivalent of adding another billion poor people, who will also arrive on the planet in any case over the next few years.

It may or may not however be true that in a zero sum game, the Chinese become richer only at the expense of Americans and Europeans, who will have to become correspondingly poorer to compensate for Chinese economic gains. In America I believe this is being achieved by dismantling the middle class. In 50 years, the U.S. will stabilize its consumption base by having a population of 30 million super consumers and 570 million energy/resource consumption peasants living lives not much more energy and consumption intensive than those living in the third world.

It's not so much a blurring of the lines between the two - they have to be discussed as part of the same phenomenon. Will we be a planet of 10 billion with 9.9 billion living lives of resource destitution supporting the consumption of 100 million super rich?

 

Yes, this is impossible. Thank you for showing exactly the sort of exceptionalist thinking I was trying to explain to Yuthura.

 

It doesn't work like that. The United States constitutes only about 5% of the world's population, yet consumes a much larger proportion of the world's resources. Where is the problem here?

I suppose that there would be no problem with it, considering if the US were to produce everything it demands.

Obviously this isn't the case, as the US is very much dependent on foreign sources of oil, manufactured goods, valuable minerals, and a variety of 'minor' primary resources from third world countries. The US didn't conquer these countries with military force; all these resources were traded for and bought on the world market. This is a classic example of globalization, where developed countries begin to import primary resources from foreign sources. Outsourcing offered cheaper goods than domestic products to Americans, and foreign countries could expand their economy. It seemed mutually beneficial.

As the US began to depend more heavily on foreign sources, it escalated into a pattern of unsustainable development.
-As manufactured goods became more viable from outside sources, it was that which destroyed the US manufacturing base.
-A stable source of cheap energy had allowed private car ownership to rise, as US culture made the car part of the American Dream
-As suburban development became standard, it complemented the trend of expressway construction
-As the its primary sectors eroded, the US became ever more dependent on outside sources to sustain itself

Now that many of these third-world countries are beginning to want the American Dream for themselves, they are starting to demand the same resources as well. It is not as though superrich people are going to seek to undermine the 'peasant' society. It would be more accurate to say that the American way of life depends on the exploitation of third world countries. As many of these countries begin to pursue their own version of the American dream, they will start demanding much more of their own resources, resulting in less to go around for the rest of the world.

My complaint is targeted at culture. American culture is the driving force behind the US economy... from a certain perspective. The American way of life is that the car, the single family-detached home, and the suburban lifestyle are all driving forces behind furthering the American Dream. Part of the reason that the US (5% of world population) demand so much to maintain their ways of life is because their culture and belief system are influenced by their environment. When they are lead to believe technology will improve their ways of life from that of their parents, they often will cling to what they want to believe rather than consider solutions which inhibit how they live.

The US way of life is not sustainable, yet the typical American believes everyone is entitled to pursue their own version of the American dream. Yet they fail to take into consideration that there are billions of people who all can't pursue that dream at the same time. Doing that will result in a bipolar economic structure with one side living the American dream and the other side being exploited. Another solution is for people in the Global North to recognize the limitations of physical ge

 

I do need to work on my communication skills. Clearly I made several unclear or unrelated comments not properly addressing the topic.

The list of past events in history was really to show that I wasn't just viewing the present crisis as being the 'most severe' event in world history. The sentence on the missile crisis was just to complement where the world could have changed significantly with a single event. I have encountered people who made claims that we are living in a safe world compared to people who lived through WWII and the Cold War.

My whole basis for stressing the dangers of peak oil are not to undermine the fear of nuclear war only a few decades ago, but to make Americans recognize that a new crisis is brewing. It's not the first time that wars have been fought for resources, but the events of the next few decades will be different from those of the past. The war in Iraq was done to secure US oil supplies in the Middle East. Rather than Americans being told the truth, it was labeled 'The war on terror.' Or it was called 'spreading democracy to the Middle East.'

If they were told that it was a war for oil, Americans may have reconsidered their position. Rather than supporting the war to secure oil, it would have been so much better if the US moved to reduce their demand for oil and energy altogether. We live in an age where we could solve all our energy needs by simply improving on the inefficiencies of the systems we currently have, but part of that require us to recognize that much of that require us to make cultural sacrifices in order to avoid having to depend on foreign sources altogether. Instead, we just acted as positive feedback to further intensify how much we demand within our cultural way of life.

Dismantling of the middle class was an act of capitalism. It had nothing to do with foreign involvement. True that as many US corporations outsourced to foreign labor, it was not because of China that the US is having difficulties right now.

As American corporations decided to outsource their labor and American consumers bought foreign goods, the US became a consumer nation. That means it cannot sustain itself economically. Now that China is becoming a developed country, they are now starting to demand more than they used to. You speak as though China's increasing demand is going to come at the expense of the US? Have you considered that maybe increasing US demand has come at the expense of other countries?

Seriously, how could the US possibly criticize China for its global emissions when the US leads them by far on a per capita basis? How can the US believe that the prosperity of foreign countries will only come at the expense of our ways of life?

 

Yeah, this topic has probably been discussed to the point where it no longer is being read. Anyway, Merry Christmas!

In the last three years, natural gas has jumped roughly five times its price from 2005. The US has invested heavily into natural gas for its electrical grid, so this huge increase is just one example of how US fossil fuel energy sources are becoming increasingly unreliable. The increase in demand for natural gas over the last two decades was due in part for being much cleaner and cost-competitive with coal, but future supplies of natural gas are now coming into question.

Although I've advocated for the US to use more coal, I will also note that coal prices are not consistent, as was proved when the cost per ton (power plant grade bitumen) has shifted from as low as $59 to as high as $150 a ton. Although the price has come down to an average of $70-$80 a ton, it is highly likely this price is expected to rise. The difference between coal and natural gas is that the US has a very secure supply of the unfavorable fuel while natural gas can't be supported by domestic sources as it is. While gas and coal extraction can be accelerated, it would be far more important to take measures to reduce demand altogether.

One of the biggest energy issues in transportation is the energy use for the average commuter. More efficient cars can often take the prize when compared to the energy use of people taking the BUS in major cities! I wanted to address this issue while I'm advocating for higher population density.

I will always stand by my opinion that light rail offers the best alternative to the automobile because you use electricity and because you can load dozens of people on a single train. Trains provide the greatest energy per mile when compared to even the best autos, yet San Francisco's system is notoriously inefficient. Such low ratings in fuel consumption are often attributed to having too few passengers to make it worthwhile. While I support the use of mass transit, it must also be built in locations where it will have an abundence of passengers.

Edit: Here's a reliable site that I found provided a variety of stats on many topics related to mass transit.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog006.htm#TRANSiT_20060221

This one speaks of ridership projections in certain cities. When it comes to providing a system that's 'neutral' in regards to costs and energy demands, it is far better to have a functional mass transit system than be auto dependent. However the benefits are not primarily provided by the transportation system, but that it generates a variety of civic benefits that far exceed what was invested into the light rail. However there have been many systems built which had very little impact on urban development.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2006-05a.htm

Here is a site that I believe to be accurate, but it is not one I would use in a term paper. The guy doesn't even have references!
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html