Global catastrophe / SHTF "survivable locations"

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever, in a finite world, is either a madman, or an economist”. ~ Kenneth Boulding (remark to the US Congress in 1973)


FWIW: In the 1960s, roughly 33 per cent of the population lived in a city; now it's 54 per cent. The UN projects that by 2050, that number will climb to 68 per cent*.
* ➥ https://www.un.org/development/desa/...prospects.html

That's what it always comes back to for me "a model based on infinite growth in a finite world", dont have to be a genius to workout how that ends. When?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by daletournier

That's what it always comes back to for me "a model based on infinite growth in a finite world", dont have to be a genius to workout how that ends. When?

Yes and no.

If you measure growth in terms of resource consumption, yep if we keep breeding we are headed for disaster.

But economic growth is measured in monetary terms so the simple solution is to switch from a maximized production/consumption model to a maximized quality model wherein instead of producing low quality/rapid replacement goods we produce high quality/long life items.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

On the flip side, NYC did just fine in 9/11 and Sandy. As I've posted before with the opposite, generalizing human behavior from one disaster is a bit of a fraught exercise.

The answer to this is yes and no. Parts of NYC didn't lose any power. Other parts lost power for a number of days or weeks. The Jersey Shore also lost power for anywhere from three days to a week all the way to over a month.

The big difference between those parts of NYC that lost power and New Orleans was that it was relatively easy for us to go a few blocks to parts that had power. The same was true in Jersey. It was a short drive to get to inland New Jersey.

In New Orleans, they were flooded in parts as well as without power. They couldn't drive fifteen minutes to get to power as the entire coast was knocked out. In addition to the flooding, outside of the city there were massive amounts of downed trees blocking the roads.

Here in New York City we joke that we are only nine meals from anarchy. It's no joke however as the truth is probably less than nine meals. Many don't have much more than snacks in the house or some left over pizza.

The Bronx is in a little better shape since they have the highest average elevation and are connected to the mainland. The city (Manhattan) and Staten Island are completely isolated if the bridges are not available. Queens and Brooklyn are slightly better off as they are a part of Long Island which is roughly 115 miles long.

While there are some 35 or 36,000 police officers, it wouldn't take long for things to go south if a disaster was a lengthy affair.

[Buzzman]

"Infinite growth" is not impossible, but "infinite consumption" from this one planet definitely is.

Hence the term "planetary carrying capacity" which, allowing for variable rates and so forth, is currently estimated to be approximately 1.5 Earths.

So we are alread in 'overshoot' mode and using resources and generating waste faster than the One Earth can produce or absorb them.

Using the same data, it's estimated we'll need 3 x Earths by 2050.

Check out the graph on population growth over time. It's an eye opener.

Data from: https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

"Infinite growth" is not impossible, but "infinite consumption" from this one planet definitely is.

Hence the term "planetary carrying capacity" which, allowing for variable rates and so forth, is currently estimated to be approximately 1.5 Earths.

So we are alread in 'overshoot' mode and using resources and generating waste faster than the One Earth can produce or absorb them.

Using the same data, it's estimated we'll need 3 x Earths by 2050.

Check out the graph on population growth over time. It's an eye opener.

Data from: https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

sounds to me like the population bomb all over again .
That is until technology steps in and resets the clock again .
Or the sun does the reset ( again)

[Buzzman]

nh that's a kneejerk post - you posted WAY too quickly to have read all the info on the site to which I linked.

Had you done so, you'd have read that the "3 x Earth" calculations are based on a specific data set, and the authors acknowledge that "it depends" a lot on whether some other factor gets in the way of the present prediction.

For example, lots of noise is being made about bio-meat - local Hungry Jacks chain here has recently introduced burgers featuring 'no-meat' patties.

If this catches on, and rangelands can be turned over to cereal crops, we gain a few more years as pasturelands are the least efficient way to utilise arable land.

BUT... the fundamental underlying premise does not change - *eventually* we will exceed Earth's capacity to provide and sustain its ever-increasing population.

AND... on that note, it's worth noting that population growth (which they also noted on the website) varies from place to place and culture to culture.

Catholics, for example, used to generally-speaking have the largest families. That has changed dramatically for Catholics in Western developed nations, but not among those who do not support contraception.

Muslim and 'developing world Catholics' now have larger families.

Some of the world's most-developed nations, like Sweden, Australia, etc, are in negative or at least static "growth" other than for immigration.

This general decline in birth rates (and hence natural population growth) has been tied to affluence - i.e. the more affluent a society becomes, the lower its birth rate.

Which *could* indicate that, as 'developing' nations become more affluent, their birth rates and population growth will also fall, thus kicking the 'eventual end' of the sustainable equation down the road a bit further.

So, yes, the "population bomb" (that was popularised by Paul Ehrlich in the Seventies - or Malthus if you want to go back a few centuries) hasn't happened "as predicted at the time" but as I've pointed out, and as most reasonable economists and scientists accept, technological and population growth factors DO change over time.

So the "3 x Earths by 2050" is perhaps best viewed as a "best guess" for that future time that we can make with the data we have available today.

But we WILL eventually exceed the sustainable capacity of the planet *unless we do something to prevent us reaching that point*.

So it may end up being entropic - forever approaching infinity....

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

"Infinite growth" is not impossible, but "infinite consumption" from this one planet definitely is.

Hence the term "planetary carrying capacity" which, allowing for variable rates and so forth, is currently estimated to be approximately 1.5 Earths.

So we are alread in 'overshoot' mode and using resources and generating waste faster than the One Earth can produce or absorb them.

Using the same data, it's estimated we'll need 3 x Earths by 2050.

Check out the graph on population growth over time. It's an eye opener.

Data from: https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

Interesting graph Buzz, but what it doesn’t show is that the rate of population increase has been in decline for decades now. Global population is expected to peak around 2050 and then begin to decline.

So while global population is absolutely a significant contributor to overuse of resources and waste production, it is the part of the problem that is actually showing signs of improvement.

What isn’t showing signs of improvement is the intensity of resource use made by citizens in so-called developed countries. In other words, the per-capita resource use. It is here where the problems of over use and over pollution remain and grow. And sadly, as nations evolve into this more elite group, they join us in this pattern.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

nh that's a kneejerk post - you posted WAY too quickly to have read all the info on the site to which I linked.

Had you done so, you'd have read that the "3 x Earth" calculations are based on a specific data set, and the authors acknowledge that "it depends" a lot on whether some other factor gets in the way of the present prediction.

For example, lots of noise is being made about bio-meat - local Hungry Jacks chain here has recently introduced burgers featuring 'no-meat' patties.

If this catches on, and rangelands can be turned over to cereal crops, we gain a few more years as pasturelands are the least efficient way to utilise arable land.

BUT... the fundamental underlying premise does not change - *eventually* we will exceed Earth's capacity to provide and sustain its ever-increasing population.

AND... on that note, it's worth noting that population growth (which they also noted on the website) varies from place to place and culture to culture.

Catholics, for example, used to generally-speaking have the largest families. That has changed dramatically for Catholics in Western developed nations, but not among those who do not support contraception.

Muslim and 'developing world Catholics' now have larger families.

Some of the world's most-developed nations, like Sweden, Australia, etc, are in negative or at least static "growth" other than for immigration.

This general decline in birth rates (and hence natural population growth) has been tied to affluence - i.e. the more affluent a society becomes, the lower its birth rate.

Which *could* indicate that, as 'developing' nations become more affluent, their birth rates and population growth will also fall, thus kicking the 'eventual end' of the sustainable equation down the road a bit further.

So, yes, the "population bomb" (that was popularised by Paul Ehrlich in the Seventies - or Malthus if you want to go back a few centuries) hasn't happened "as predicted at the time" but as I've pointed out, and as most reasonable economists and scientists accept, technological and population growth factors DO change over time.

So the "3 x Earths by 2050" is perhaps best viewed as a "best guess" for that future time that we can make with the data we have available today.

But we WILL eventually exceed the sustainable capacity of the planet *unless we do something to prevent us reaching that point*.

So it may end up being entropic - forever approaching infinity....

buzz remember I have been fighting the fake MMGWC stuff for many years and have seen all kinds of variations of just about all of it . I don't do knee jerk responses ( anymore )

[Buzzman]

Mike
Our posts must have crossed in the ether. See mine above re decline in pop.

Totally agree. Per capita is the issue, and if that continues to increase as it has been, we may run out of other resources before we run out of food.

Or, as is increasingly and worringly more likely, runaway climate change will destroy our ability to exist on the planet.

And no amount of stockpiled groceries or bug-out boats will fix that!

Thankfully, I'll be long gone before then!

And no doubt the planet itself will eventually recover from the "Anthropocene" era.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by newhaul

buzz remember I have been fighting the fake MMGWC stuff for many years and have seen all kinds of variations of just about all of it . I don't do knee jerk responses ( anymore )

Except that it's NOT fake. It's scientific evidence.

But I do accept that scientific evidence can change over time as more information (and/or a better understanding) of a phenomenon becomes apparent.

Problem for denialists is that the more we understand the worse it appears to be. IOW, the more correct the initial 'scaremongering' claims are seen to be as more and more evidence supports the claim that the warming we are indisputably experiencing is anthropogenic in origin.

So maybe the "1.5 x Earth's today" is not 100% accurate, nor (for the reason I outlined) will the "5 x Earths in 2050" be 100% accurate.

The PRINCIPLE of the underlying data will not change. Endless growth is unsustainable. All technology is doing is kicking the end point down the road.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Mike
Our posts must have crossed in the ether. See mine above re decline in pop.

Totally agree. Per capita is the issue, and if that continues to increase as it has been, we may run out of other resources before we run out of food.

Or, as is increasingly and worringly more likely, runaway climate change will destroy our ability to exist on the planet.

And no amount of stockpiled groceries or bug-out boats will fix that!

Thankfully, I'll be long gone before then!

And no doubt the planet itself will eventually recover from the "Anthropocene" era.

Yes, your second one came in as I was typing mine. I was only trying to emphasis (as you have said) that while population growth is a serious problem, it at least shows serious signs of improving. Meanwhile resource use per-capita here in developed countries continues to grow.

Population growth is usually seen as a third-world or developing world problem. It’s not our problem, so it’s easy for some to point the blame that way (not saying you’re doing this — not at all). Meanwhile we happily keep expanding our over-used of the planet’s limited resources, and expel ever more effluents back into the global biosphere.

[CarlF]

The runaway population scaremongering is so far out of date that it’s laughable.

Japan hit peak population in 2008. Population is projected to decline by 50% by 2060.

China is now projected to hit peak population in 2023. They are desperately trying to increase birth rate but it isn’t working.

Mexico is 2.18 births per woman and falling. Bangladesh is lower.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The runaway population scaremongering is so far out of date that it’s laughable.

Japan hit peak population in 2008. Population is projected to decline by 50% by 2060.

China is now projected to hit peak population in 2023. They are desperately trying to increase birth rate but it isn’t working.

Mexico is 2.18 births per woman and falling. Bangladesh is lower.

Source please.... Japan I get, it's developed. Mexico and Bangladesh, maybe not so much.

Not disputing, just asking....what source?

And, to add to Mike's point, it's not so much the "population" number that matters, but the "resource use per capita" that we are discussing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Except that it's NOT fake. It's scientific evidence.

But I do accept that scientific evidence can change over time as more information (and/or a better understanding) of a phenomenon becomes apparent.

Problem for denialists is that the more we understand the worse it appears to be. IOW, the more correct the initial 'scaremongering' claims are seen to be as more and more evidence supports the claim that the warming we are indisputably experiencing is anthropogenic in origin.

So maybe the "1.5 x Earth's today" is not 100% accurate, nor (for the reason I outlined) will the "5 x Earths in 2050" be 100% accurate.

The PRINCIPLE of the underlying data will not change. Endless growth is unsustainable. All technology is doing is kicking the end point down the road.

the end point is not that humanity hits the population saturation point ( that will never happen ) the cosmos will regulate it as it always has .
Technology just gives us a much wider margins for error.
If we were still producing food the same way we were 200 years ago then the population would be sized IAW that metric. The same is happening now the global populating expansion rate is slowing and in many " first world countries " it is actually in decline .
As technology raises more out of abject poverty that rate of decline will accelerate exponentially until an equilibrium is reached somewhere in the vicinity of 6 billion humans by the start of the 23rd century. ( just my personal opinion )

[ArmyDaveNY]

[QUOTE=newhaul;3004061]sounds to me like the population bomb all over again .
That is until technology steps in and resets the clock again .
Or the sun does the reset ( again)
Very true.

What some have forgotten is that population and global warming are not really relevant to the SHTF discussion. The SHTF situation is something that causes a drastic and sudden collapse in an area or in areas that require sudden relocation.