Limits to Growth Reconsidered

[djolds1]

Contemptuous:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/limits ... torrs.html
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3034#more-3034
http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cp/p08a/p0831.pdf
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/sorry- ... s-and.html

Supportive:
http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/2009-05Hall0327.pdf

[kurt9]

The REAL limits of growth on Earth:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

This is John McCarthy's website. It is a little old (around 1995) but still valid AND he does not go in for the nanotech/singularity hype.

In short, assuming conventional agriculture and no asteroid mining, its around 15 billion people. If biotechnology is heavily used in food production and asteroids are mined for Platinum-group metals, the waste heat of civilization limits the sustainable population to around 30-40 billion.

It is well known that birthrates drop below replacement as living standards increase. The fact that this is as true for the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as secular (but socially conservative) East Asia and secular (but not socially conservative) Europe suggests that this is a universal phenomenon. Thus, the current UN projection is for the population to max out at 9 billion, then slowly decline. If we get immortality (like I think we will), it still maxes out at 9 billion, but then it does not decline.

The point is that there is a real limit to sustainable population on the Earth, but that limit is significantly higher than the "greens" claim it to be. It is also higher than the current UN projections are as well (these are known to be high-ball estimates). Thus, I do not consider population growth, itself, to be an issue.

[Torulf2]

I’m a biologist and recognise that kind of models from system/population ecology.
Also the assumption of population ecology is the same, the more resources the faster species procreate. This is true for al living species but not one. That one they are modelling.

[IntLibber]

The REAL limits of growth on Earth:

This is John McCarthy's website. It is a little old (around 1995) but still valid AND he does not go in for the nanotech/singularity hype.

As one of the original transhumanists/extropians of the 1990's, I'd have to say that ignoring Moore's Law is simply ignorant. That said, I personally doubt that more than a fraction of the human race will ever upload/transcend and a Luddite vs Posthuman conflict is highly likely unless a lot more people start adopting the idea that our AI offspring are our children, not our slaves or enemies.

It is well known that birthrates drop below replacement as living standards increase.
The point is that there is a real limit to sustainable population on the Earth, but that limit is significantly higher than the "greens" claim it to be. It is also higher than the current UN projections are as well (these are known to be high-ball estimates). Thus, I do not consider population growth, itself, to be an issue.

I agree, though the birthrate drop is most dependent upon the rate of education of women.

Note that the UN's IPCC projections assume and are dependent upon exponential increases in fossil fuel consumption even past the 2040-2050 population peak. They fail to take into effect increases in resource utilization efficiencies.

The problem is their assumptions are clearly disproven by the actual record. For instance, just this past year global oil consumption has dropped over 5% (and despite a reduction in all fossil fuel use this year, the claimed rate of increase in CO2 levels remains on the upswing).

It is pretty clear that some form of nuclear fusion will be a market reality before 2020, and a significant segment of the energy industry by 2040.

Polywell's potential is so huge that it basically shatters all of these malthusian claims to limits to growth put out by the socialist Club of Rome and their fanboys.

One reason, IMHO for problems getting polywell funding is easily discernable if you first assume that the power elites do NOT WANT limits to growth to be shattered. The international left's goals involve returning all of humankind to a feudal existence with a communal/matriarchal power structure. The future we dream about, of moving out to the planets and cleaning the environment with a fusion energy infrastructure, is the exact opposite of what most of the left wants.

[kurt9]

As one of the original transhumanists/extropians of the 1990's, I'd have to say that ignoring Moore's Law is simply ignorant. That said, I personally doubt that more than a fraction of the human race will ever upload/transcend and a Luddite vs Posthuman conflict is highly likely unless a lot more people start adopting the idea that our AI offspring are our children, not our slaves or enemies.

I was involved in Alcor, L-5 Society, and life extension while living in SoCal in the late 80's. I was with Max and Tom when they first started extropy in 1989 and I was one of the guys who got the Launch Service Purchase Act passed in 1990. I was in the whole milieu that is described in Riges' book "Great Manbo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition".
I am well aware of transhumanist ideas.

The reason for my snarky comment about the singularity is, even though I consider myself a transhumanist with regards to life extension and space migration, I am not yet convinced of the possibility of "uploading" nor do I think "dry" or "drexlerian" nanotech is possible ("wet" nanotech and synthetic biology, on the other hand, are developing at an impressive rate comparable to Moore's Law of semiconductors).

I also think the development of sentient AI is going to take significantly longer than its proponents think. I think we will remain "biological" (but with vastly extended life spans, of course) for some centuries to come.

In other words, we will get biological immortality, space, and "wet" nanotech, but I do not believe we will have any kind of singularity.

It is well known that birthrates drop below replacement as living standards increase.
The point is that there is a real limit to sustainable population on the Earth, but that limit is significantly higher than the "greens" claim it to be. It is also higher than the current UN projections are as well (these are known to be high-ball estimates). Thus, I do not consider population growth, itself, to be an issue.

I agree, though the birthrate drop is most dependent upon the rate of education of women.

Note that the UN's IPCC projections assume and are dependent upon exponential increases in fossil fuel consumption even past the 2040-2050 population peak. They fail to take into effect increases in resource utilization efficiencies.

The problem is their assumptions are clearly disproven by the actual record. For instance, just this past year global oil consumption has dropped over 5% (and despite a reduction in all fossil fuel use this year, the claimed rate of increase in CO2 levels remains on the upswing).

It is pretty clear that some form of nuclear fusion will be a market reality before 2020, and a significant segment of the energy industry by 2040.

Polywell's potential is so huge that it basically shatters all of these malthusian claims to limits to growth put out by the socialist Club of Rome and their fanboys.

One reason, IMHO for problems getting polywell funding is easily discernable if you first assume that the power elites do NOT WANT limits to growth to be shattered. The international left's goals involve returning all of humankind to a feudal existence with a communal/matriarchal power structure. The future we dream about, of moving out to the planets and cleaning the environment with a fusion energy infrastructure, is the exact opposite of what most of the left wants.

Generally I agree with all of this. I'm not yet convinced that the polywell will make it (we should know in 18-24 months). However, there are enough other fusion schemes being funded and pursued (Tri_Alpha, General Fusion, Helion, etc.) that one of these ought to make it by 2020. There are actually 7-8 serious efforts in fusion (this does not include Eric Lerner's Focus fusion, which I am not convinced is real), which is enough that one of them should make it.

Even if none of these fusion methods work, there are new technologies (pebble-bed, IFR, thorium nuclear) that make fission nuclear power far more attractive. Some of these are already being built in places like China.

I agree with you that the international left are parasites.

[Torulf2]

And here is about pollywell and the limits.
http://paulchefurka.ca/Fusion.html
They think backvads.

[MSimon]

The limit to energy production all depends on whether we are in an intergalcial or a glacial period.

Since the current interglacial is predicted (based on the last million years of Earth history) to end any time now I believe that allowable energy production for the next 100,000 years will be rather higher than the numbers provided.

In fact it may be necessary to just "waste" the energy to keep the ice sheets from covering a significant proportion of the currently ice free land mass.

[krenshala]

In fact it may be necessary to just "waste" the energy to keep the ice sheets from covering a significant proportion of the currently ice free land mass.

That would torque the "OMG we're going to bake the planet" folks off to no end.

This thread makes me wonder if maybe Niven and Stirling (iirc) were right with the premise of the book Angles Down.

[kurt9]

The limit to energy production all depends on whether we are in an intergalcial or a glacial period.

Since the current interglacial is predicted (based on the last million years of Earth history) to end any time now I believe that allowable energy production for the next 100,000 years will be rather higher than the numbers provided.

In fact it may be necessary to just "waste" the energy to keep the ice sheets from covering a significant proportion of the currently ice free land mass.

This is quite believable based on the Milankovich Cycles. However, I have read in places that our agriculture and animal husbandry (creates lots of Methane) is actually keeping us out the next ice age, which would have begun about 3,000 years ago were it not for humans.

In any case, a new ice age would be far worse for humanity than any amount of global warming, which would actually benefit everyone except for the limousine liberals with their beachfront houses. Perhaps this is the real reason why they oppose global warming.

[MSimon]

The limit to energy production all depends on whether we are in an intergalcial or a glacial period.

Since the current interglacial is predicted (based on the last million years of Earth history) to end any time now I believe that allowable energy production for the next 100,000 years will be rather higher than the numbers provided.

In fact it may be necessary to just "waste" the energy to keep the ice sheets from covering a significant proportion of the currently ice free land mass.

This is quite believable based on the Milankovich Cycles. However, I have read in places that our agriculture and animal husbandry (creates lots of Methane) is actually keeping us out the next ice age, which would have begun about 3,000 years ago were it not for humans.

In any case, a new ice age would be far worse for humanity than any amount of global warming, which would actually benefit everyone except for the limousine liberals with their beachfront houses. Perhaps this is the real reason why they oppose global warming.

The question is: is the ice age prevented or just delayed.

[tomclarke]

In any case, a new ice age would be far worse for humanity than any amount of global warming, which would actually benefit everyone except for the limousine liberals with their beachfront houses. Perhaps this is the real reason why they oppose global warming.

Try saying that:
to the Maldives - who will lose their nation, completely

to the population of the earth which 50% bigger than now will be coping with much lower food productivity (sure - in time we can find or genertically engineer new crops which are adjusted to higher temperatures)

to the inhabitants of those countries (not UK) who suffer water shortage now and will do so much more at higher global temperatures and population.


You can argue that in the long run it will be no bad thing. In the long run we will all be dead.

The difference is rate of onset. Another ice-age would take 100s of years, during which time we can adapt our ways of living, move populations, invent suitable technology.

Global warming has dT(av 50 yrs)/dt much faster than any other large-scale climactic change. And climactic change will drive population migration, as always. And population migartion will create chaos and a very unpleasant life for all - not just liberals driving limousines.

PS - in UK liberals care about GW and so drive tiny cars or none. Not that such individual action can have much effect of course.

[pfrit]

The difference is rate of onset. Another ice-age would take 100s of years, during which time we can adapt our ways of living, move populations, invent suitable technology.

Actually, Ice ages set in remarkable fast. As I recall, ~80% of the land that ends up being ice covered does so in the first 50 years. The snow just stops melting and gets turned into ice. That is a blink of an eye in even human terms. That is not to say that I believe a new glaciation period is likely to start tomorrow...

[tomclarke]

pfrit -

You are right. i was careless over rate of onset. It is very variable and certainly warming can be very fast, possibly cooling. Timescale of 20 years or so.

So the significant difference for us now is globalisation & population density. the mass migrations will cause lots of trouble.

Previously isolated groups just have a few tough winters and lose 50% of population. Just as tragic if you happen to be one of them, but also not what our modern society will like.

Tom

[kurt9]

tomclarke,

I disagree. The Earth has been significant warmer than it is today within historical time periods. It was warmer around 1000 A.D. than it is today, sufficiently so that there were vineyards in Finland and parts of Greenland were open farm land that was settled by the Vikings. An even warmer period was about 3,000 years ago when the Sahara was grasslands. It is also well-known that humanity flourished the most during the warmest times and struggled the most during the so-called "mini" ice ages.

One of the reasons why a warmer Earth is better is that there is more rainfall in general. This is because a warmer Earth has more energy in the atmosphere and, hence, more evaporation accompanied by more rainfall. I much prefer a warmer Earth to a cooler Earth.

[kurt9]

I am actually "pro" global warming in that, if it is real, I believe it to be beneficial overall and that it should actually be increased. Did you know that during most of geological history, the Earth was on average 10degC warmer than it is today and that there were no glaciers anywhere on the planet?

Antarctica started to glaciate about 25 million years ago and there was no ice, whatsoever, in the northern hemisphere until 2 million years ago. In terms of geological history, the Earth is way colder than its natural self.
Technically, we are in an ice age and have been so for the past 2 million years.