How Many Earths Would We Need?

[palmermd]

did you watch the video I linked to in an earlier post?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=149476#p149476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might help you understand the urgency. It shows how a growing population will not see the end until it is too late unless you really pay attention.

 

[smkettner]

Wow I thought I was living a greener life than most but my results were 3.92 earths if everyone lived like me.

Don't feel bad my results were 6 There must be a lot of people that would score less than 1.... how is that possible?

 

[klapauzius]

Wow I thought I was living a greener life than most but my results were 3.92 earths if everyone lived like me.

Don't feel bad my results were 6 There must be a lot of people that would score less than 1.... how is that possible?

I dont think the Somalis or the Afghans or the Sudanese get more than 0.1...be thankful to all those people still living in the stone age.
Not saying this is a good thing.

 

[klapauzius]

did you watch the video I linked to in an earlier post?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=149476#p149476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might help you understand the urgency. It shows how a growing population will not see the end until it is too late unless you really pay attention.

Yes, it is about exponential growth. Such growth patterns do not exist in nature, although for a time it is a good approximation. Because there are no singularities, everything has to level off eventually.

If you are interested in more realistic population models, check out the logistic function.

The more important question is, what is the limit and how will it affect our standard of living?
This is also complicated by the fact that the conditions are not stationary. E.g. by 18th century technology, 7 billion people would have been completely unimaginable.

 

[AndyH]

did you watch the video I linked to in an earlier post?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=149476#p149476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might help you understand the urgency. It shows how a growing population will not see the end until it is too late unless you really pay attention.

Yes, it is about exponential growth. Such growth patterns do not exist in nature, although for a time it is a good approximation. Because there are no singularities, everything has to level off eventually.

If you are interested in more realistic population models, check out the logistic function.

The more important question is, what is the limit and how will it affect our standard of living?
This is also complicated by the fact that the conditions are not stationary. E.g. by 18th century technology, 7 billion people would have been completely unimaginable.

I don't think tech can save us this time precisely because we're essentially at "One minute to Midnight" across the board - peak oil, peak food, peak fertilizer, peak water. There's more but without food or water it just doesn't matter that we'll have physical room on the planet for a few more generations.

Actually, exponential growth is happening all over the planet. Crashes are happening as well.

And yes - there are things that have transitioned from exponential to fairly stable levels. But none of these are population, energy use, water use, fertilizer use, or waste/pollution generation.

I presented a less-than-1-Earth option above, BTW.

 

[klapauzius]

Actually, exponential growth is happening all over the planet.

Yeah, like the stock or housing market....wait that was 2005....

In a closed system (like unfortunately our earth at the moment), growth will always be limited.

And in fact, population IS leveling off (see the previous posts). We have 7 Gpeople on the planet right now, but if current trends continue, it will not go above 9 Gpeople.

That is a lot, but manageable.
Technology will save us, through breakthrough innovations (e.g. such as fertilizer in the past 150 years) AND efficiency
increase. Compare average energy consumption of appliances,cars, electronics now and e.g. 1970.....
Yes, on total its going up, because more people want to live our lifestyle, but then we can, over time, safely provide energy for all. The sun provides 3 MWh/year/m^2 (that is m^2 on the surface) and will do so for maybe the next 3-5 billion years... The total would be 1.7 10^15 MWh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false per year or 170 GWh per person, assuming 10 Billion people.
Since we really only need maybe 20 MWh per person to live comfortable, we just need to harvest 0.012% of that.
That should be doable in the near future I think.




With clean energy aplenty, food and water will be an afterthought.

 

[AndyH]

Actually, exponential growth is happening all over the planet.

Yeah, like the stock or housing market....wait that was 2005....

In a closed system (like unfortunately our earth at the moment), growth will always be limited.

And in fact, population IS leveling off (see the previous posts). We have 7 Gpeople on the planet right now, but if current trends continue, it will not go above 9 Gpeople.

That is a lot, but manageable.
Technology will save us, through breakthrough innovations (e.g. such as fertilizer in the past 150 years) AND efficiency
increase. Compare average energy consumption of appliances,cars, electronics now and e.g. 1970.....
Yes, on total its going up, because more people want to live our lifestyle, but then we can, over time, safely provide energy for all. The sun provides 3 MWh/year/m^2 (that is m^2 on the surface) and will do so for maybe the next 3-5 billion years... The total would be 1.7 10^15 MWh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false per year or 170 GWh per person, assuming 10 Billion people.
Since we really only need maybe 20 MWh per person to live comfortable, we just need to harvest 0.012% of that.
That should be doable in the near future I think.




With clean energy aplenty, food and water will be an afterthought.

The human population growth rate is slowing a bit, but while it's projected to level at some point between 9.x and 16 billion, it doesn't appear to be doing it yet. But I think this is irrelevant because a gentle 'S' curve only happens when a population eases up to the 'limit like object' and stabilizes. In nature - with plenty of examples available in all cellular configurations - populations that overshoot the limit of their environment do not level off - they peak and crash - often to a smaller population level than when they began. And since it's clear that we exceeded out planet's capability to keep on keeping on in about 1985...

We're running out of fertilizer - just like peak oil there's a widening gap between what our industrial farming system needs and what's available - even if we clear more forest and convert it to high fructose corn syrup. Our aquifers are running dry, climate change is bring more feast/famine precip patterns that are damaging crops and cropland. The warming we've already experienced is reducing crop yields. It's not a simple sound-byte-technology-will-save-us situation at all.

Watch Dr. Bartlett's video again - maybe start on the second segment - because the exponential growth intro was only to define the tool - the important stuff comes later when he puts the tool to work.

 

[palmermd]

Watch Dr. Bartlett's video again - maybe start on the second segment - because the exponential growth intro was only to define the tool - the important stuff comes later when he puts the tool to work.

Unfortunately most people don't get past the first video. Most people don't seem to get far enough along to really get what he is explaining. Interestingly the last 3 videos have more hits, and I think this is where he is putting all the pieces together, but I think its important to see the entire thing and not just jump into the conclusion section to really get a grasp on what he is saying.

#1 3.4 million
#2 800,000
#3 600,000
#4 500,000
#5 200,000
#6 360,000
#7 360,000
#8 500,000

 

[klapauzius]

I watched the video...So population growth will stop. Dr. Bartlett says this will be bad, because
we will have each one square meter when it happens...Or Boulder will fill up and "we will suffocate".
That is complete non-sense.
Germany and Japan have zero to negative population growth and a very high standard of living.
In fact probably higher than the US.

According to the UN the world population will peak between 7.5 Billion and 10 Billion.
I dont know where the 16 Billion you quote come from?

Also there is no reason to believe the population is going to crash...keep in mind that examples from animal populations do not apply to people.

Similarly, population growth in Germany and Japan is not crashing, but gently leveling off.

Technology will save us is not a mere soundbite, its a proven concept with a 300 years+ record.
The current challenge is going from fossil, non-renewable energy to "renewable" energy (we will run out of juice in 5 billion years, as far as this solar system is concerned, but that is a long time).

I think we can do it and so will have a bright future. It could end badly though, if stupidity triumphs over science....a probable, but hopefully not likely outcome.

 

[AndyH]

Unfortunately most people don't get past the first video.

The full video is available on Dr. Bartlett's site along with transcripts:
http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

And the YouTube video segments are served in a more civil manner here:
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

No worries, Doc. You've planted seeds and those that need the material later will remember it.

I had to laugh when I downloaded the last bio lab homework of the term Wednesday evening - it was an exponential growth exercise. I guess it's my turn to understand this material. :lol:

 

[AndyH]

Also there is no reason to believe the population is going to crash...keep in mind that examples from animal populations do not apply to people.

It's interesting to me (in an absolutely geeky way) that folks on this forum were the final straw that helped me decide to drag my Motrin-soaked bones back to school to learn a bit about environmental science. The info from the ES reference materials and papers agrees with the info from the bio text published in 2011 - humans are just as susceptible to a population crash as other mammals and critters - though we should have the sense to head it off before it's too late. But we're well overextended so...

Similarly, population growth in Germany and Japan is not crashing, but gently leveling off.

Sorry - those are just parts of the human population, aren't they? While some of the more industrialized countries have somewhat stable populations, others do not. And as already pointed out, it's all moot when other parts of the world are growing at ~600% replacement rate.

Technology will save us is not a mere soundbite, its a proven concept with a 300 years+ record.

Maybe. But I don't feel comfortable steering this boat - especially on this new Eaarth - by staring at the wake. I suggest we look around and look forward and plan accordingly - and that might mean dumping old info that no longer fits.

The current challenge is going from fossil, non-renewable energy to "renewable" energy (we will run out of juice in 5 billion years, as far as this solar system is concerned, but that is a long time).

I think we can do it and so will have a bright future. It could end badly though, if stupidity triumphs over science....a probable, but hopefully not likely outcome.

I used to think this was our main problem - mainly in the form of climate destabilization. But after sticking my face in permaculture and small farming books, doing lab work on soil nutrition, 'enjoying' this year's drought, and the recent input of up to date biology and ES work, I have to agree with GaryG and others (including Doc Bartlett) that our main problem is population. Everything is an intertwined close second.

I guess I'm expecting another 'Churchill Moment' - we'll do the right thing eventually, but not until we try everything else first.

edit... This seems to fit!
http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645

In the summer of 1986, the news reports indicated that the world population had reached the number of five billion people growing at the rate of 1.7% per year. Well, your reaction to 1.7% might be to say “Well, that's so small, nothing bad could ever happen at 1.7% per year.” So you calculate the doubling time, you find it’s only 41 years. Now, that was back in 1986; more recently in 1999, we read that the world population had grown from five billion to six billion . The good news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% to 1.3% per year. The bad news is that in spite of the drop in the growth rate, the world population today is increasing by about 75 million additional people every year.

 

[klapauzius]

- humans are just as susceptible to a population crash as other mammals and critters - though we should have the sense to head it off before it's too late. But we're well overextended so...

There, you said it yourself, "we should have the sense to head it off"....that is what distinguishes us most from the animal world.

Sorry - those are just parts of the human population, aren't they? While some of the more industrialized countries have somewhat stable populations, others do not. And as already pointed out, it's all moot when other parts of the world are growing at ~600% replacement rate.

They [Germany and Japan] serve as an example of societies with stable populations....Of course they have their problems, i.e. aging, but overall they can give us an idea where the world is heading. And, given the high standard of living people enjoy there, its not too bad.

Technology will save us is not a mere soundbite, its a proven concept with a 300 years+ record.

Maybe. But I don't feel comfortable steering this boat - especially on this new Eaarth - by staring at the wake. I suggest we look around and look forward and plan accordingly - and that might mean dumping old info that no longer fits.

What I meant to say is: Technology and science are very powerful and successful tools, that have the power to provide for us, and countless generations after us, a good life. We need to use them properly of course.

I have to agree with GaryG and others (including Doc Bartlett) that our main problem is population.

I would disagree. There is plenty of food around for feeding another billion or two more. Today, with more people on the planet, there is LESS hunger than 50 years ago.

Looking at the US and other industrialized countries, a scarcity of food would actually appear as a blessing...Just if we got back to 1950s eating habits/food prices (as percentage of income), the fat- epidemic would vanish in no time.

Think of it positively : 75 million people more per year means 75 million more chances of bright minds emerging. More people = more smart people also. And eventually it will level off...by all estimates, peak population will be reached within this century, maybe even in our lifetime.

 

[defiancecp]

...Baloney

If only!

The original article in HomePower magazine said:

The results were shocking - her lifestyle was such that if everyone on the planet lived similarly, we would need 2.19 Earths. If you think 2.19 Earths is staggering, consider this: The typical American has a footprint that is 3.5 times greater than her family's!

In other words, if everyone lived like a typical American, we'd need 7.7 Earths.

Staying with the USA 'status quo' and simply adding an EV, PV, and farmer's market is putting lipstick on a pig. :lol:

Humbling, isn't it?

Irrelevant to my point. My point had nothing to do with average american behavior in any way whatsoever. My point was testing the validity of the survey, and in the context of that survey, the ABSOLUTE BEST you could POSSIBLY do would just BARELY be sustainable. I simply don't buy that. Perhaps the averages are addressed accurately in the survey, perhaps not - but given that it does not allow (realistically) for someone to live in a way that is sustainable, it calls the validity of the entire thing into question.

 

[AndyH]

Irrelevant to my point. My point had nothing to do with average american behavior in any way whatsoever. My point was testing the validity of the survey, and in the context of that survey, the ABSOLUTE BEST you could POSSIBLY do would just BARELY be sustainable. I simply don't buy that. Perhaps the averages are addressed accurately in the survey, perhaps not - but given that it does not allow (realistically) for someone to live in a way that is sustainable, it calls the validity of the entire thing into question.

Fear not - your message was received correctly.

The humans on this planet are consuming more than the planet has to give - and we crossed the 1-Earth threshold in 1985.

That there is a way to drop below 1 Earth IS IMPORTANT and encouraging!

 

[Yodrak]

The "agricultural revolution" was anything but "green" - like anything that's technology based today's high-yield agriculture is energy intensive.

the "green" agricultural revolution has made more people on the planet possible (without widespread famines). I am certain we can do it again and live comfortable at the same time.

 

[Yodrak]

Agreed that there will be an eventual leveling off. The concern is, what are going to be the causes of the leveling and how pleasant - or unpleasant - is it going to be when it happens.

And, depending on the cause, things may go well beyond 'leveling'.

Yes, it is about exponential growth. Such growth patterns do not exist in nature, although for a time it is a good approximation. Because there are no singularities, everything has to level off eventually.

 

[AndyH]

I love this!

Sustainability

"Sustainability" has become a popular term. It is used in all manner of planning at all levels from the local to the international. The definition of sustainability was given in the Brundtland Report (4): "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Because "sustainable" implies "for a time long compared to a human lifetime," and because the arithmetic of growth leads to large numbers in modest time periods, it is possible to write laws of sustainability (5). The First Law of Sustainability is: "Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources can not be sustained." Although this law is absolute, it is ignored by many who speak of "sustainability."

The term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron

Bartlett

 

[defiancecp]

Irrelevant to my point. My point had nothing to do with average american behavior in any way whatsoever. My point was testing the validity of the survey, and in the context of that survey, the ABSOLUTE BEST you could POSSIBLY do would just BARELY be sustainable. I simply don't buy that. Perhaps the averages are addressed accurately in the survey, perhaps not - but given that it does not allow (realistically) for someone to live in a way that is sustainable, it calls the validity of the entire thing into question.

Fear not - your message was received correctly.

The humans on this planet are consuming more than the planet has to give - and we crossed the 1-Earth threshold in 1985.

That there is a way to drop below 1 Earth IS IMPORTANT and encouraging!

Well, if you are to believe this crappy survey, moving to one earth is nearly impossible- and not possible at all without buying carbon credits :roll:

Moving to sustainability is important. Meaningless surveys that don't represent the problem or the solution are not.

 

[AndyH]

Well, if you are to believe this crappy survey, moving to one earth is nearly impossible- and not possible at all without buying carbon credits :roll:

Moving to sustainability is important. Meaningless surveys that don't represent the problem or the solution are not.

Don't put words in my mouth, OK? I don't 'believe' in the 'crappy survey' -- but it gets my attention when it seems to fit the science fairly well.

Please - help me understand the 'real' problem and feel free to share a solution.

 

[klapauzius]

The term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron

I think this statement is wrong

The conditions of what is sustainable might change (and they have done so in the past)
If you compare e.g. the gas mileage of 1950's car with a comparable car today you will notice
that you get the same mileage for 3 modern cars for one 1950s car. Replace a modern ICE car with an electric car, and that number goes even higher.

Leave aside for a moment that gasoline is per se not sustainable, then we have tripled the number of cars, yet they still use the same amount of gasoline per mile driven as just one car in 1950. Growth of 200% at zero increase in consumption.
Another example: performance/Watt has grown considerable since the 1940. So for the same amount of energy a modern computer carries out 10 trillion more computations than a 1940's model.

So yes, there is sustainable growth

Taking an e-function and mindlessly applying it to anything around you just does not make sense,
because steady growth models and a static environment are simply unrealistic.

If Mr. Bartlett wanted to point out that resources are finite, he should have chosen a less simplistic approach.