The end of the industrialized world.

[Versus]

World population from 10,000 BC to 2,000 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

Or, by the numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

At the year 1 mark, the world is estimated to have contained 300 million people. In 1800, about 1 billion. In 1950, about 2.5 billion.

60 Years later, almost 7 billion.

Coinciding with the population growth in the last 100 years is an

1.advancement is medicine, increasing the average life span as well as that of livestock

2. and agriculture, increasing the numbers of human lives that can be sustained at once.

The birth of industrial agriculture can be identified by the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers, making possible more intensive and specialized types of agriculture. Later on, chemicals were developed to be used in synthetic pesticides. Also, new methods of transportation made possible the distribution of excess food on a massive scale. As a result, the entire world's agricultural production doubled four times between 1820 and 1975 while at the same time, the number of people involved in farming decreased dramatically.

The problem that I want to address is that this growth.. no, fuck that: this current level of life cannot be sustained because our entire way of life (read: post industrial society) is completely, irrevocably, dependent upon the edifice of fossil fuel sources.

Fertilizer is completely dependent upon ammonia production.

The raw materials needed to make most plastics come from petroleum and natural gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic

I recently saw in a documentary that there are 7 gallons of oil used to make every tire.

Literally: Everything in our society is dependent upon it.


Has anyone ever heard of the oil peak? It's essentially a point where half of the world's oil reserves are depleted, and thereafter it becomes increasingly difficult to extract versus the amount of energy that is gained.

M. King Hubbert initially predicted in 1974 that peak oil would occur in 1995 "if current trends continue." However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due to the shift to energy-efficient cars, the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating, and other factors), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s. Thus oil production did not peak in 1995, and has climbed to more than double the rate initially projected. This underscores the fact that the only reliable way to identify the timing of peak oil will be in retrospect. However, predictions have been refined through the years as up-to-date information becomes more readily available, such as new reserve growth data. Predictions of the timing of peak oil include the possibilities that it has recently occurred, that it will occur shortly, or that a plateau of oil production will sustain supply for up to 100 years. None of these predictions dispute the peaking of oil production, but disagree only on when it will occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predict...ng_of_peak_oil

Worldwide oil production, including oil from tar sands, reached an all-time high of 73,720,000 barrels per day (11,721,000 m3/d) in 2005. By 2009, production had declined to 72,260,000 barrels per day (11,488,000 m3/d).

There has not been a larger oil field identified since the discovery of the Ghawar oil field (Saudi Arabia) in 1948. It takes a ridiculous amount of time, energy, and manpower, just to establish the potential of an oil well, let alone start drilling. I am convinced there isn't a great deal of them left. I find evidence of this in that Saudi Arabia, the owner of 25% of the known oil reserves on the planet, continues to drill offshore, despite that it is considerably more expensive to do so. I find evidence in this in that 11 fucking days after September 11th, 2001, my own country started to draw plans to invade Iraq when there was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the terrorist attack on the twin towers, or WMDs in general. Not to mention the fact that Mr. Hussein wanted to start selling barrels of oil for Euros instead of dollars, but I'll get to that later.

On March 20, 2003, a United States-organized coalition invaded Iraq, with the stated reason that Iraq had failed to abandon its nuclear and chemical weapons development program in violation of U.N. Resolution 687. The United States asserted that because Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 687, the armed forces authorization of Resolution 678 was revived. The United States further justified the invasion by claiming that Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction and stating a desire to remove an oppressive dictator from power and bring democracy to Iraq. In his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush declared that Iraq was a member of the "Axis of Evil", and that, like North Korea and Iran, Iraq's attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction posed a serious threat to U.S. national security. These claims were based on documents that were provided to him by the CIA and the government of the United Kingdom. Bush added,

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostilities toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade… This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world… By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes [Iran, Iraq and North Korea] pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred."

However, according to a comprehensive U.S. government report, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. There are accounts of Polish troops obtaining antiquated warheads, dating from the 1980s, two of which contained trace amounts of the nerve gas cyclosarin, but U.S. military tests found that the rounds were so deteriorated that they would "have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

You know what? It doesn't even bother me that thousands of American soldiers died, and thousands more were permanently disabled (I'm not talking about the bullshit hearing loss that I have) because we were told (read: lied to) that it was important to "stabilize" that forsaken country. I'm not stupid. I know there is something going on. But at the same time, I understand underhanded and corrupt politics as being necessary for survival of a political entity. I would not have enlisted in the fucking army as a fucking combat arm (Read: I am willing to die for) had I not understood this. What pisses me off is that shit like the National Energy Policy Development Group exists, and nobody fucking cares.


Disclaimer: At this point I am thoroughly drunk.

Seriously. This shit is over with. You can't drill into the arctic because the polar ice caps are constantly shifting and melting. I don't honestly think this is why republicans deny global warming, but it is awfully synonymous with that.

That oil in Alaska they talk about? There isn't more then will last 6 months for the United States. It was originally estimated have to contained 25 billion barrels. Well...

U.S. oil consumption is approximately 21,000,000 barrels per day (3,300,000 m3/d), yet domestic production is only 6 million barrels per day (950,000 m3/d). Hence, the majority of oil consumed in the United States must be imported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_..._United_States

Ethanol? The shit is more expensive to make then it gives.

The production of fuel ethanol from corn in the United States is controversial for a few reasons. Production of ethanol from corn is 5 to 6 times less efficient than producing it from sugarcane. Ethanol production from corn is highly dependent upon subsidies and it consumes a food crop to produce fuel. The subsidies paid to fuel blenders and ethanol refineries have often been cited as the reason for driving up the price of corn, and in farmers planting more corn and the conversion of considerable land to corn (maize) production which generally consumes more fertilizers and pesticides than many other land uses. This is at odds with the subsidies actually paid directly to farmers that are designed to take corn land out of production and pay farmers to plant grass and idle the land, often in conjunction with soil conservation programs, in an attempt to boost corn prices. Recent developments with cellulosic ethanol production and commercialization may allay some of these concerns. A theoretically much more efficient way of ethanol production has been suggested to use sugar beets which make about the same amount of ethanol as corn without using the corn food crop especially since sugar beets can grow in less tropical conditions than sugar cane.

[Versus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol...ystem_problems

The same is true for Canadian tar sands, or electric cars, or hydro power plants, or nuclear power plants. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Don't misunderstand. It's not impossible. I pray somewhere, somebody... finds something else that the world becomes dependent on. But I know it won't happen. It is just too late. What will we do when the world starves and governments collapse? That is the point of discussion I want to make.

[Versus]

Also: I'm really drunk so I completely forgot to finish what I was talking about.


But some noteworthy pieces to add are that Sweden has tried to lessen their oil dependency,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_phase-out_in_Sweden

and that Cuba's Organopónicos has been compared to a society that reacts positively to having reached a peak oil crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organopónicos

[HumanePain]

And Sarah Palin's mantra was "Drill baby, drill!"
Maybe it was a euphemism.

[ape descendant]

I plan on becoming a tree and gleaning my energy from the sun.

[ssj_goku]

Gnet neds to form a tribe.

[Despanan]

Honestly dude?

I think you're freaking out over nothing.

While it is true that civilization is...uncomfortably dependent on petrolium. We're fucking Humans man. We've tamed or conquered every other species on this planet, we've brought plagues to their knees, we have harnessed the power of the fucking SUN. There are other sources of energy out there, and we'll find them and adapt.

People currently aren't doing anything because oil is still (relatively) available, and I don't think anything will be done on a mass scale until the masses start to feel the squeeze.

Things have to be bad before people will march towards any kind of revolution. Economies have to collapse, and people have to lose their jobs before they'll elect a black man. Similarly, an industry or two will have to collapse, there may have to be a food shortage before anybody tries to reform our energy dependence, but hey -you're a white American, there are literally BILLIONS of other people who will feel that pinch WELL before it effects your way of life.

I guess what I'm saying is, your fears are founded, but you're forgetting two major aspects of human nature, mainly: people, overall, are stupid and lazy and two, when pushed those same people are capable of feats of astounding competence. Furfags like to bitch that human's are "weak" compared to animals, and while we don't have wings or fangs or retractable claws, we DO possess the single greatest adaptation that known biological life has ever seen: The ability to alter one's environment on a mass scale in order to make that environment more habitable.

People lived in fucking RUSSIA for centuries before gas heat was invented, we can handle a sudden dirth of fossil fuels.

So I suppose, be concerned, but not overtly fearful. The best, healthiest course for you to take is to voice your concerns in a reasonable manner, work to support energy independence, and stop voting republican.

[ape descendant]

LOL @ "furfags"

[vindicatedxjin]

OH NOES

[rockonyx]

After so many years of post apocalyptic movies, I'd be rather disappointed if it didn't happen. You know how many times I've practiced full court shooting, just in case I get kidnapped by Che Guevara?

[Versus]

I don't think I'm overreacting. I'm not viscerally frightened. It's just hard for me to see all of this and imagine any other outcome.

Overpopulation is defined as the point where a species exceeds the carrying capacity for it's specific environment. It is when, in a particular forest, the carnivores are extremely successful, and the population of herbivores begins to decline. At some point, the carnivore population will decline as well, but much more sharply because of the height that their population reached. The more mouths are open and need to be fed at once, the harder it is to do so, and the more will be affected.

The earth's carrying capacity for humans is arguable. Like you said, we have that ability to shape the environment to adapt to US. Agriculture in general is an extreme boon that no other species (well, I guess pests and the like) will benefit from. Aside from that, there are so many other factors that need to be involved, and in general our relationship with the planet can actually vary in complexity.

The problem is that in this particular instance, our entire civilization is dependent upon one substance across every single facet of our lives. Cars don't just run on oil, they are made from it. The only reason we can feed so many people is that oil is, literally, in the thing that makes our crops grow. The only reason we can safely practice modern medicine is that oil is in every single piece of equipment that you see in a operating room. This is something that we can define as finite, and the fact is not arguable. This is not a multi-layered and complex relationship. The only question is that, in the time we have left to do it, can we fix everything with a little human ingenuity? Well that depends on

1. How much time is left.

2. How far in advance that we prepare.

3. How sharply that pinch will be felt.

4. Where that pinch will be felt.

But don't misunderstand. I'm not a doom sayer. North America will, most likely, be hunky dory after a time. Looking at the world's population projection for 2050 by region,

2050
Africa - 1.9 billion
Asia - 5.2 billion
Europe - 674 million
Latin America & Caribbean - 765 million
North America - 448 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

I guess what bothers me is that something stupid like the Mayan long-count calendar gets more attention then this.

[Raptor]

I don't think you're overreacting either. Petroleum is main raw material for pretty much the entirety of (man made) organic chemistry. It's extremely wasteful to burn it, it's a finite resource and there aren't any alternative sources for an industrial scale of hydrocarbon usage as far as I'm aware. Exhausting the world's supply of petroleum means the end of the raw material for plastics, fertiliser, explosives, and medicine. Not just medicine in the sense of equipment like Versus mentioned, but also the production of drugs.

Burning oil or petrol isn't necessarily in direct competition with the production of these things because they come from different constituents of petroleum. It's possible to change one petroleum derivative into another but in the majority of cases it isn't currently profitable. The main problem is that while there are some possibilities for continuing to supply energy to a growing population, there are a lot less options for organic chemistry.

And as for energy, it will most likely have to be nuclear in the future for the baseload production. Renewable can play a part but it just doesn't have the energy density that's going to be needed in a world that has both an increasing population and an increasing quality of life. Fusion would be almost perfect but there's no real way of knowing if that will be ready before or after the depletion of fossil fuels.

[HumanePain]

There are social checks and balances that prevent a total collapse of humanity, sure a few million and even a billion may starve to death, but a social threshold is reached where those in power and with wealth will be motivated by self interest to deploy solutions to save the masses. Starve enough people and eventually little things like the French Revolution take place and wealthy, privileged decision makers lose their heads. History's lessons are not lost on the intelligentsia in control. They will instinctively realize that if they don't get food to their fellow citizens violence and chaos will erupt, and that just ruins your tea and crumpets at Tiffany's and gets blood all over your Rockports.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

There are social checks and balances that prevent a total collapse of humanity, sure a few million and even a billion may starve to death, but a social threshold is reached where those in power and with wealth will be motivated by self interest to deploy solutions to save the masses. Starve enough people and eventually little things like the French Revolution take place and wealthy, privileged decision makers lose their heads. History's lessons are not lost on the intelligentsia in control. They will instinctively realize that if they don't get food to their fellow citizens violence and chaos will erupt, and that just ruins your tea and crumpets at Tiffany's and gets blood all over your Rockports.

Not at all always true, during the Great Leap Forward millions died as a result of famine in China, no one knows for sure but it was probably around 30 million, possibly as high as 70 million, but Mao retained power. And god knows how many die in North Korea. Millions died in Stalin's forced famines. They retained power and in NK's case, still gets away with mass murder.

I think there's too many of us and we're very adaptable, so I don't think humanity will collapse, but our future will be hard if we don't do something soon.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Raptor

And as for energy, it will most likely have to be nuclear in the future for the baseload production. Renewable can play a part but it just doesn't have the energy density that's going to be needed in a world that has both an increasing population and an increasing quality of life. Fusion would be almost perfect but there's no real way of knowing if that will be ready before or after the depletion of fossil fuels.

The problem with nuclear power (as in fission to heat water, then electricity generated from the steam) is that it's just another temporary solution. Right now, the United States' power production is only about 20% from that method. Even so, each year, each reactor generates 25 tons of spent nuclear fuel that takes hundreds of years to become safe again. My biggest criticism about it is that I don't think the U.S. has the backbone to replace natural gas and coal based electricity with it because of the immense financial cost (both for actual construction and storage) as well as the fact that stupid motherfucking people think that nuclear power is the same thing as nuclear weapons. Even France, who gets over 70% of their power from nuclear reactors, admits that it will be in trouble a solution for nuclear waste is not found soon. If people don't start considering it soon, I guarantee we won't have the money to do it when oil and food prices sky-rocket.

Nuclear fusion really is the only way to support, as well as allow for growth, our society enough to use depleting fossil fuels into the future. But like I said, that's only half the problem.

I'm not saying that humanity is doneskee, I just think it's a shame that billions of people are going to die because we can't stop sweeping this under the rug and put our heads together.

But anyway. What can we, as society as well as individuals, do when shit does hit the fan?

[Still Jack]

http://www.vhemt.org/
A little something you guys might enjoy.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Saya

Not at all always true, during the Great Leap Forward millions died as a result of famine in China, no one knows for sure but it was probably around 30 million, possibly as high as 70 million, but Mao retained power. And god knows how many die in North Korea. Millions died in Stalin's forced famines. They retained power and in NK's case, still gets away with mass murder.

But I said threshold, so for China during Mao's time, say, a billion people total, 70 million is not even 3 percent of the population. We in America have almost 10 percent unemployment and we haven't revolted yet.

Now change the percentage threshold to say, 33 percent and you will see panic in the streets. 33 percent of ...how many billion in China today? Say 2 billion conservatively, and you have 990 million, 30 times the people who died under Mao.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

But I said threshold, so for China during Mao's time, say, a billion people total, 70 million is not even 3 percent of the population. We in America have almost 10 percent unemployment and we haven't revolted yet.

Now change the percentage threshold to say, 33 percent and you will see panic in the streets. 33 percent of ...how many billion in China today? Say 2 billion conservatively, and you have 990 million, 30 times the people who died under Mao.

In the 1950s the population was over 700 million, not a billion, and conservatively there's 1.3 billion today, nowhere near 2 million. And even if they didn't die, everyone went hungry. America at least have social services to help with the unemployed, its not near the same as a widespread famine. Regardless, its still far more devastating than the French Revolution, which wasn't alone fighting against starvation. Despite communism, the thing with China is that as bad as it was, it was far better than what was going on before. Likewise, its going to have to get super bad before Americans are willing to revolt, if they ever will again. The unemployment rate went over 20% during the Great Depression, and while rioting happened, it didn't cause a second French Revolution.

[Versus]

I imagine that individual countries might dissolve and merge together under the right circumstances.

I've wondered, after a spur of nationalism, would anyone try to gang up on more successful neighbors in a last ditch effort for survival?

[Saya]

Its way too early to say whats going to happen, there are far too many variables to consider, and who knows what the political landscape will look like in ten years, much less twenty. We can all be bombed tomorrow!

I know Newfoundland's fucked, our oil will run out in twenty years, and rural communities rely on a fishery that doesn't have a replacement generation. Alberta will be fucked when their oil runs out. So, our future isn't really bright, and our governments are working in the short term. But I think most will survive.

Food is going to be bad, yes, but we already make more than we can feed the entire world with, and we waste TONS of edible food. I can see food rations happening, diets changing dramatically, and laws being put down about farmers wasting food (its done now to control prices), but the loss of chemical fertilizer won't mean the end.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Saya

In the 1950s the population was over 700 million, not a billion, and conservatively there's 1.3 billion today, nowhere near 2 million. And even if they didn't die, everyone went hungry. America at least have social services to help with the unemployed, its not near the same as a widespread famine. Regardless, its still far more devastating than the French Revolution, which wasn't alone fighting against starvation. Despite communism, the thing with China is that as bad as it was, it was far better than what was going on before. Likewise, its going to have to get super bad before Americans are willing to revolt, if they ever will again. The unemployment rate went over 20% during the Great Depression, and while rioting happened, it didn't cause a second French Revolution.

I stand corrected, my numbers were way off. But back to the threshold, let me express my idea a different way:

If you have 100 local homes (a few square blocks of cookie cutter homes in any new tract of homes built in the last 40 to 50 years), and say 10 household's breadwinners lose their jobs and go hungry, people may become worried and even write to their congressmen, and maybe even a few altruistic people may collect food baskets for their unfortunate neighbors but the rule of law will persist.
But if 1 out 3 neighbors is going hungry and out of work, now you will have a significant portion of your neighborhood under sufficient stress as to start protesting, squatting in their foreclosed homes, perhaps stealing to eat and eventually uniting behind the first demagogue who promises a chicken in every pot. Hitler anyone?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I stand corrected, my numbers were way off. But back to the threshold, let me express my idea a different way:

If you have 100 local homes (a few square blocks of cookie cutter homes in any new tract of homes built in the last 40 to 50 years), and say 10 household's breadwinners lose their jobs and go hungry, people may become worried and even write to their congressmen, and maybe even a few altruistic people may collect food baskets for their unfortunate neighbors but the rule of law will persist.
But if 1 out 3 neighbors is going hungry and out of work, now you will have a significant portion of your neighborhood under sufficient stress as to start protesting, squatting in their foreclosed homes, perhaps stealing to eat and eventually uniting behind the first demagogue who promises a chicken in every pot. Hitler anyone?

Not to compare republicans to Nazis, but people already vote for pretty sinister characters who promise far less. Bad times can actually be a great thing for governments!

50 million people in America last year were not able to buy enough food to stay healthy (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...olds-us-report). We have enough food to give, we just don't want to. To help them is socialism and evil, so I'm not thinking there's going to be a revolt soon.

[Despanan]

Things will have to get WAY worse before there is a revolt.

However, things get bad enough, people go to war. That's why we have welfare.

All ideals about "food and Shelter" being a right aside, sheer pragmatism makes it necessary for a society to provide it's lowest, most vulnerable citizens with at least the basic necessities of life. Without it, they will turn to antisocial behavior out of sheer desperation.

Which costs more in the long run, if you consider property damage, loss of life, crime, and the impact a peasant revolt has on trade.

[Fruitbat]

Dude, don't worry about the end of civilisation, the greenhouse effect will kill off all life before that happens. *wink*

Then there are the GM crops which will turn us all into genetic monsters.

[Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Versus

The problem with nuclear power (as in fission to heat water, then electricity generated from the steam) is that it's just another temporary solution. Right now, the United States' power production is only about 20% from that method. Even so, each year, each reactor generates 25 tons of spent nuclear fuel that takes hundreds of years to become safe again. My biggest criticism about it is that I don't think the U.S. has the backbone to replace natural gas and coal based electricity with it because of the immense financial cost (both for actual construction and storage) as well as the fact that stupid motherfucking people think that nuclear power is the same thing as nuclear weapons. Even France, who gets over 70% of their power from nuclear reactors, admits that it will be in trouble a solution for nuclear waste is not found soon. If people don't start considering it soon, I guarantee we won't have the money to do it when oil and food prices sky-rocket.

Nuclear fuel for the reactors is also incredibly limited, to top off on the waste. Last time I checked there is only enough left so that if the entire world switched to Nuclear power, within 50 years we would have run out and we will have a great big pile of waste that lasts for centuries. Fun fun all around.