[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

you will have to learn Chinese.

Unlikely. China currently has the largest English-speak population on the planet and the country is moving more and more to the Roman alphabet and the English language.

More likely China will adopt English as their official language right about the time the English adopt Arabic as theirs.

[Khar]

andyt andyt:

And you see this efficiency on the horizon, do you? And at what world population are there just insufficient resources no matter who efficiently we use them? Do you foresee a time when we can be more than 100% efficient? We're no different than any other natural system - there is always a limiting factor that prevents it from infinite growth. Add that factor, and you bump into the next one down the line.

No. The way you describe this ends in the same way no matter what the human population is -- eventually, the world runs out of resources. It doesn't matter that we've made massive changes towards plastics over the last few decades, or that cars are constructed differently. What matters is that everyone will be living in a house the same size, costs will remain the same and everything else will be perfectly static except for population growth. That simply isn't how it works.

If people have to, they will live with less. The people in Japan managed to when usable land became a problem for expanding their cities.

Running out of a resource is not a fast thing. It's not something which is going to go unnoticed. We won't be producing computer parts, wondering where all the zinc went -- by the time there's a problem, we'll either have had to switch to recycling as much zinc as possible or switched to an alternative, because pricing and scarcity would have required it. When computers become to expensive for their use, smaller ones will become more popular (and I point to netbooks, personal devices and such here).

So yes, I do see it on the horizon, because I can look back and see it in everything humanity has accomplished, from medicine through agriculture. We are definitely no where near having used all of the worlds resources -- those which are running out have decades, if not centuries, left and we are already quickly advancing towards alternatives as prices creep up. Oil might have gone through the roof, but in the last five years Hyodrogen cars (cars which are actually cars) now cost a tenth as much to construct, something which would only get better with proper scope and infrastructure. Are there still problems? Yes. Do I assume they will not be considered? No.

Cars became lighter and more fuel efficient during the gas price rises years ago. As a result, cars became safer. Replacement parts became lighter, making them easier to ship and use with less resources spent doing so. We don't drive metal behemoths because current structures and materials are safer and better in just about every way. If they hadn't changed, we would have had a big problem, but they didn't -- the entire industry changed to reflect the requirements of the time. Smaller, lighter cars. It happened. As a resident of Calgary and Edmonton, I am happy to state I can live so well because shipping is so easy and efficient with trucks and such of these designs.

You overlook a critical fact with the rest of your comments -- population is already declining in growth. It has been for years. Looking at current pricing, we seem fine to be able to handle that zenith. As time goes on, we will have to adjust to shortages, as humans always have. Population growth doesn't continue if there are enough resources, that has already been proven with our current demographics (this is the linchpin of where Malthus was wrong, more food does not mean more people, it just means more food). If a child becomes too costly to have, people simply will not have as many in higher income nations, whereas children have a different role in developing nations, from working through security for old aged parents.

EDIT: "gas price rises" was added because otherwise that sentence made no sense.

[andyt]

Khar Khar:

No. The way you describe this ends in the same way no matter what the human population is -- eventually, the world runs out of resources. It doesn't matter that we've made massive changes towards plastics over the last few decades, or that cars are constructed differently. What matters is that everyone will be living in a house the same size, costs will remain the same and everything else will be perfectly static except for population growth. That simply isn't how it works.

All natural environments have a carrying capacity that limits the biomass in that system, even when resources are 100% recycled - the same will be true for humans, assuming we don't perfect space travel. Almost all natural systems are solar powered. We use carbon fuels to maintain our current human biomass, which are not recyclable. We're bumping up to the limits of those with no good substitute in sight.

Khar Khar:

If people have to, they will live with less. The people in Japan managed to when usable land became a problem for expanding their cities.

We know all about that in forestry. The choice is to have a lot of scrawny trees in the forest, which are no good to anyone, or fewer largerr trees which have much greater value. Which forest would you rather be a tree in?

Khar Khar:

Running out of a resource is not a fast thing. It's not something which is going to go unnoticed. We won't be producing computer parts, wondering where all the zinc went -- by the time there's a problem, we'll either have had to switch to recycling as much zinc as possible or switched to an alternative, because pricing and scarcity would have required it. When computers become to expensive for their use, smaller ones will become more popular (and I point to netbooks, personal devices and such here).

Tell that to civilization that ran out of arable land. Human nature seems to be exactly what you're doing: "whistle past the graveyard". And you're so eager to have many people, all living a more marginal existence. (Or judging by your economics, a small elite living it up, carried by a huge majority living a marginal existence, being told that's just how the market works.). Why? If we're so smart that we'll always figure things out, how about we figure out how to have fewer people on the planet, all living the good life?

Khar Khar:

You overlook a critical fact with the rest of your comments -- population is already declining in growth. It has been for years. Looking at current pricing, we seem fine to be able to handle that zenith. As time goes on, we will have to adjust to shortages, as humans always have. Population growth doesn't continue if there are enough resources, that has already been proven with our current demographics (this is the linchpin of where Malthus was wrong, more food does not mean more people, it just means more food). If a child becomes too costly to have, people simply will not have as many in higher income nations, whereas children have a different role in developing nations, from working through security for old aged parents.

Yes population growth is declining - thank God. And what do we see? Economists wailing that there won't be enough producers to support all the aged, and we'd better import people from countries that haven't hit their decline yet. Apparently, according to Lemmy, we need to import people to work at Timmy's serving all the other imports in some sort of daisy chain. Economists don't seem to have figured out that eventually we'll have to deal with the problem anyway, so why not find a way to deal with negative population growth now, rather than when it becomes a real emergency.

[martin14]

Khar Khar:

Cars became lighter and more fuel efficient during the gas price rises years ago.

Actually, they havent. Safer, yes. Lighter, no. And we should be able to
produce 50 mpg cars as standard, we still don't.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

Actually, they havent. Safer, yes. Lighter, no. And we should be able to
produce 50 mpg cars as standard, we still don't.

We could very easily and if we get another gas shock we will. But all those Chinese and Indians also want to drive 50mpg cars, which will more than make up for the savings in fuel use. And run air conditioners and lots of electrical appliances etc.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

And you see this efficiency on the horizon, do you? And at what world population are there just insufficient resources no matter who efficiently we use them? Do you foresee a time when we can be more than 100% efficient? We're no different than any other natural system - there is always a limiting factor that prevents it from infinite growth. Add that factor, and you bump into the next one down the line.

As Khar notes below, society adapts when scarcity grows.

In the 19th century, whale oil was all the rage in North America, but nobody has a whale oil powered lamp in our homes, because, as the whales from which we extracted that oil became scarce, society switched to kerosene.

Eventually as prices for oil rise, society will be forced to switch to alternative fuel sources, which right now are not as inexpensive and efficent as fossil fuels.

Khar Khar:

No. The way you describe this ends in the same way no matter what the human population is -- eventually, the world runs out of resources. It doesn't matter that we've made massive changes towards plastics over the last few decades, or that cars are constructed differently. What matters is that everyone will be living in a house the same size, costs will remain the same and everything else will be perfectly static except for population growth. That simply isn't how it works.

If people have to, they will live with less. The people in Japan managed to when usable land became a problem for expanding their cities.

Running out of a resource is not a fast thing. It's not something which is going to go unnoticed. We won't be producing computer parts, wondering where all the zinc went -- by the time there's a problem, we'll either have had to switch to recycling as much zinc as possible or switched to an alternative, because pricing and scarcity would have required it. When computers become to expensive for their use, smaller ones will become more popular (and I point to netbooks, personal devices and such here).

So yes, I do see it on the horizon, because I can look back and see it in everything humanity has accomplished, from medicine through agriculture. We are definitely no where near having used all of the worlds resources -- those which are running out have decades, if not centuries, left and we are already quickly advancing towards alternatives as prices creep up. Oil might have gone through the roof, but in the last five years Hyodrogen cars (cars which are actually cars) now cost a tenth as much to construct, something which would only get better with proper scope and infrastructure. Are there still problems? Yes. Do I assume they will not be considered? No.

Cars became lighter and more fuel efficient during the gas price rises years ago. As a result, cars became safer. Replacement parts became lighter, making them easier to ship and use with less resources spent doing so. We don't drive metal behemoths because current structures and materials are safer and better in just about every way. If they hadn't changed, we would have had a big problem, but they didn't -- the entire industry changed to reflect the requirements of the time. Smaller, lighter cars. It happened. As a resident of Calgary and Edmonton, I am happy to state I can live so well because shipping is so easy and efficient with trucks and such of these designs.

You overlook a critical fact with the rest of your comments -- population is already declining in growth. It has been for years. Looking at current pricing, we seem fine to be able to handle that zenith. As time goes on, we will have to adjust to shortages, as humans always have. Population growth doesn't continue if there are enough resources, that has already been proven with our current demographics (this is the linchpin of where Malthus was wrong, more food does not mean more people, it just means more food). If a child becomes too costly to have, people simply will not have as many in higher income nations, whereas children have a different role in developing nations, from working through security for old aged parents.

EDIT: "gas price rises" was added because otherwise that sentence made no sense.

Good points.

[andyt]

That's right - oil was discovered, luckily just in time as the whale oil was running out. What do you think they'll discover to replace oil?

Of course we adapt to scarcity. The Ethiopians adapt too - do you want to live like them? What is it with you people that you want to have us all living like rats one on top of the other? What's so great a bout a huge horde of people, all (except the elite of course) learning to adapt to scarcity. Are you guys Catholic or something?

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

And we should be able to
produce 50 mpg cars as standard, we still don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_(automobile)

The 1989 Geo Metro got 53mpg and was amazingly economical.

The French were well ahead on this topic with their Deux Cheveaux which got a whopping 78mpg when they first made it back in the 1940's.

The problem with these cars is they are rather unsafe when in collisions with larger vehicles and then their lack of horsepower and inability to safely move at modern expressway speeds is not pleasing to consumers.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

martin14 martin14:

And we should be able to
produce 50 mpg cars as standard, we still don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_(automobile)

The 1989 Geo Metro got 53mpg and was amazingly economical.

The French were well ahead on this topic with their Deux Cheveaux which got a whopping 78mpg when they first made it back in the 1940's.

The problem with these cars is they are rather unsafe when in collisions with larger vehicles and then their lack of horsepower and inability to safely move at modern expressway speeds is not pleasing to consumers.

That's definitely true, but cars like Geo Metros make excellent cars for going places in the city, like dropping the kids off at school or grocery shopping. And with many families in North America owning two vehicles, the easiest answer would obviously be for them to own one gas guzzling SUV and one gas sipping car like a Geo Metro (or a Smart car or a Prius Hybrid or whatever).

The problem is that consumers have been brainwashed by the car companies (all of them, not just the US ones) to think that the only vehicle worth owning is a huge one - like a pick-up or SUV.

Ideally, I'd like to see a hike in registration fees for vehicles - with gas guzzlers growing substantially and fuel efficient cars being cheaper (right now all private vehicles cost $70/year in Alberta). The only allowance would be if someone could provide a demonstrated need (like a business owner/contractor) for a pick-up or SUV. That, along with rising gas prices would help people shift their vehicle purchases in the fuel efficient direction.

[Khar]

$1:

All natural environments have a carrying capacity that limits the biomass in that system, even when resources are 100% recycled - the same will be true for humans, assuming we don't perfect space travel. Almost all natural systems are solar powered. We use carbon fuels to maintain our current human biomass, which are not recyclable. We're bumping up to the limits of those with no good substitute in sight.

Exactly.

But how is it that our carrying capacity is so well known when it's been shown that humanity can increase it's own size by many times ably and still continue to improve living conditions for the entire period? Eventually the negative feedback loop of our system will force a contraction on our population if it becomes necessary. With advancements, however, we have been able to improve how much of us the Earth can support. These advancements will not suddenly stop overnight. We adapt and we change as scarcity arises.

There are good substitutes in sight. Nuclear energy, for example, is something nations have had increasing reliance on over the past few years, and as prices of some things continue to go up we may see nuclear energy become a more economical alternative.

$1:

We know all about that in forestry. The choice is to have a lot of scrawny trees in the forest, which are no good to anyone, or fewer largerr trees which have much greater value. Which forest would you rather be a tree in?

The larger ones do not necessarily have a larger value when it comes to housing. I could be living in a place four times the size of the one I live in now, with an updated kitchen, new appliances and entirely new heating and cooling system. I actually had a choice between there, and the more crowded and smaller place I have now.

I chose my current place because of how close it is to transit and how convenient it is, plus how well the building is maintained. Fewer people for larger houses doesn’t work for me. Fewer people means fewer contractors, fewer experts, fewer people bringing in the goods, fewer people researching and so forth. In the end, if Canada’s population was half of what it is now, the difference would be we’d not have grown economically and as advanced as much over the same period, and at best I’d be living in the same place. Japan is the perfect example that people can not only live but also thrive in those living conditions and still have a good standard of living.

Just because there are less people does not mean all those people get mansions, nor does it mean mansions would be preferable. There are positives which offset the negatives – improved transit systems, less land used up for the same amount of people and so forth, which come from a more heavily populated center. There are problems as well, but these problems have been reduced in severity each decade for years now.

$1:

Tell that to civilization that ran out of arable land. Human nature seems to be exactly what you're doing: "whistle past the graveyard". And you're so eager to have many people, all living a more marginal existence. (Or judging by your economics, a small elite living it up, carried by a huge majority living a marginal existence, being told that's just how the market works.). Why? If we're so smart that we'll always figure things out, how about we figure out how to have fewer people on the planet, all living the good life?

Once again, andyt, you are misrepresenting my position. The market doesn’t work entirely on it’s own, hence why we have governments. I’m all for more equality, especially once it gets to the point in the States. The methods you have proposed in the past would not work, however, which is why I generally disagree with you. Lemmy has also posted about inequality, and he also did not say anything about an elite but mentioned how he thought income redistribution should work. I’d also like to mention that I was the one who brought up Fome Zero in another thread (where you were promoting living wages), an actual living wage system which works and which I support for Brazillians, if not for us.

I live a better life in my apartment than most people lived in previous years at my income level, even if it is smaller. Japan is an extreme, and I said no where that it would be the norm. Again, please stop misrepresenting my position. I am saying that if people have to, they will adapt to those situations. There have been benefits to living in Japan that well offset what it takes to live in smaller living spaces, otherwise, people would have responded to incentives and left. There is no evidence that the rest of the world is actually going to have to live with less and we continue on, only evidence that population growth is slowing down.

If we’re so smart, how about we figure out how to have more people on the planet, all living a good life? With the ongoing trends we’re seeing and which were shown with brevity in The Seven Million thread video, people are already beginning to live better lives. In not too long a time, the world population will plataeu, and we will be working with a static population towards improving the benefit of all, with more doctors, more engineers, more scientists and more people working to make life better for all.

$1:

Yes population growth is declining - thank God. And what do we see? Economists wailing that there won't be enough producers to support all the aged, and we'd better import people from countries that haven't hit their decline yet. Apparently, according to Lemmy, we need to import people to work at Timmy's serving all the other imports in some sort of daisy chain. Economists don't seem to have figured out that eventually we'll have to deal with the problem anyway, so why not find a way to deal with negative population growth now, rather than when it becomes a real emergency.

No, Lemmy did not say that. Lemmy stated that there is a reason why people work at Tim Hortons, and said nothing about importing immigrants to do it. Please do not misrepresent other people’s positions. Indeed, he pointed out one of the chief problems with how you are trying to get “less people” being “good” approach accepted – less people impacts demand too. The less people you have working, the less people you also have buying. The less people you have paying taxes, the less people you have working in science, and so on and so forth.

The aging problem is, well, a problem, yes. The fact is that the population per worker has been increasing for a long time now, and it’s expected to rise something like 10% over the next few decades. I expect what we will see is people working for longer periods of time, increases in production or something else offsetting these issues, like the intangible benefits of having fewer people working (less congestion on roads, reduced wear and tear on public assets, etc). In Europe, people have a lot more free time than they do in Canada, it’ll be interesting to see what sort of trends happen in contrast to that. However, economists are doing their job in identifying these problems ahead of time so that we can adapt ahead of time, just like how I said problems do not creep up over night in my previous post.

Right now, the best way is with immigration, since there is such a massive pool of workers out there that it provides immediate relief to an aging workforce. It gives us more lag time to adapt, and see how other nations try and handle these problems. As I pointed out in another thread, it won’t stop it from being an issue, but it will certainly limit the negative ramifications by a bit. Also, the general trend is not for negative population growth, but for a replacement rate of 2.1 people per couple (offsetting mortality, sexual preference, child preference, etc). Trends have generally shown a short period of fewer children before returning to the replacement rate in most countries. Canada is slightly below that replacement rate at the moment, likely in part due to the impacts of immigration.

$1:

Actually, they havent. Safer, yes. Lighter, no. And we should be able to
produce 50 mpg cars as standard, we still don't.

They did.

They might be lighter in some models than they are now, but before and after the crisis in the seventies, the average car eight dropped from 4,079 pounds to 3,202 pounds, according to the EPA. There's been a slow increase in weight since then, however, to the point where in modern times, you are quite right about the weight. It's my fault for not being more clear in what I meant.

If we have another fuel crisis, though, I expect to see it drop again. Personally, I wish the Albertan government was a bit rougher on what they allowed on the road, tune-up wise and car-wise, although I am not personally sure how I would like them to handle it.

Thanks bootlegga! Likewise!

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Ideally, I'd like to see a hike in registration fees for vehicles - with gas guzzlers growing substantially and fuel efficient cars being cheaper

We already have this effect. People with gas guzzlers pay more in fuel taxes per mile/kilometre than people with econoboxes do. Car companies also factor in a premium on gas guzzlers to offset the costs incurred in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulation compliance.

Adding yet another fee to the volume of fees already being paid will not dissuade consumers.

This is kind of a parallel to the discussion on guns: No one needs a Hummer H2 which is all but useless offroad. It's just a big gas sucker. But what's gained by banning them? Should we mandate that everyone drives a microcar?

I don't think so. I'd say just let fuel prices manage the issue for us. As fuels spikes up to $150 per barrel this summer I think you'll see people move freely to more economical cars.

Some of them, however, may convert their massive SUV's to alternate fuels or even electricity.

[romanP]

andyt andyt:

You're not a neo-Malthusian, are you? That postion has been proven to be wrong Khar, Proc and Lemmy too I believe. Human ingenuity will always create more resources no matter how many people we have on this planet. It's a fact.

It's not a fact because you can't predict the future.

[romanP]

andyt andyt:

Do you foresee a time when we can be more than 100% efficient?

There is no time when we can even be 100% efficient. The second law of thermodynamics prevents this from happening. We cannot continue to exist indefinitely. If we as a species are not killed first by whatever means, we will likely eventually hit an evolutionary brick wall where, in order to innovate our way out of a problem, we have to not only continue the problem but increase its intensity. This is beginning to happen now. The other thing happening now is the refusal to recognise that what we have now cannot last forever and, rather than easing back on our rate of consumption, we are cranking it up to 11 and ripping off the knob.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is kind of a parallel to the discussion on guns: No one needs a Hummer H2 which is all but useless offroad. It's just a big gas sucker. But what's gained by banning them? Should we mandate that everyone drives a microcar?

What is it with people like you and your absolutes? Why is it that if one extreme thing does not work, the opposite extreme must be the only solution?

What's gained by banning urban assault vehicles like the Hummer is resources better spent on other things. If a new Hummer engine block is not machined, a couple more tons of steel might end up producing parts for a new wind turbine instead.

$1:

I don't think so. I'd say just let fuel prices manage the issue for us. As fuels spikes up to $150 per barrel this summer I think you'll see people move freely to more economical cars.

Imagine that, we agree on something. And now, a box of kittens has been killed as a result.

$1:

Some of them, however, may convert their massive SUV's to alternate fuels or even electricity.

Some of them may realise that bicycles are much more than a recreational toy. :betteridea:

[romanP]

Khar Khar:

If we’re so smart, how about we figure out how to have more people on the planet, all living a good life?

If we're smart, we'll figure out how to convince more people to have fewer or no children or, at the very least, put some selfless consideration into why they are having any children. The more people you put in a room, the less breathing space everyone has in that room. The same goes for the entire planet.