Malthus or anti-Malthus?

[Mes gots its]

Logically, there is only so much space on Earth, and thus limited space and resources for both fitting billions of people onto one planet as well as feeding them. At some point, we're going to reach a peak in terms of how many people can be supported by the world's agricultural industry. Although we can increase the limit of this peak by using various techniques to increase the surface area of the Earth (setting up outposts underwater / deep underground or in the sky), the only way to guarantee our expansion as a species is to start colonizing other planets.

[Vapymid]

Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761

 

I bet Malthus did not consider something like that as a factor...

 

Regards

[Oktobermensch]

Well, the way I see it is unless you find a substitute for oil or disperse people to live in the country and provide food for themselves, you will face a lot of problems.

You have the issues of distribution, access to fresh water and so on. There is plenty of space to go around, cities and human actvity takes up only 2-2.5% of world's surface.

People will have to start consuming less, and meat will beome dearer, as well as all the stuff that can't be grown locally, like exotic fruits or freshh food in winter.

Cash crops and industrial use of corn and other foodstuffs will also have to go, in order to slow down price incerases.

 

If you reduced oil consumption for industrial and leisure purposes and shifted emphasis on resources managment, you could stretch the food production and distribution for the current system for a while, but a decline is inevitable. The best you can do is to make a smooth transition from one system to another.

[Vapymid]

One thing I am sure about - people will not start consuming less. Maybe the food will become increasingly synthetic or artificially produced and "natural" food will be at a premium but I don't think humanity will accept moderation as a realistic option.

 

As far as oil shortage is concerned - it's not oil but energy what is needed. If you have an energy source you can make as much oil as you need for transport or for chemical production.

 

Water shortage is a more difficult problem (not insurmountable but expensive) to solve. Making fresh water by desalination is again a matter of energy supply, however, transporting meaningful amounts of water inland requires huge infrastructural investment. Either you have to build pipelines or canals or some kind of evaporation towers which will inject water vapour into the air and rely on the prevailing winds to transport it.

[Oktobermensch]

The only way you can make people consume less is by incerasing prices. This will happen naturally over time as energy becomes dearer.

So far there has been little investment in substituting oil in transportation, and you forget that we also need it to produce fertilisers and maintain current levels of food production.

And you can't "make" oil. You get crude out of the ground, and this source is getting smaller. There are still several decades worth of oil in the ground, but the switch would have to start now to conserve the oil for chamical and industrial purposes. Burning it in cars is bit irresponsible for me if you can organise private transport to run on something else.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[Ross Scott]

As far as oil shortage is concerned - it's not oil but energy what is needed. If you have an energy source you can make as much oil as you need for transport or for chemical production.

The only two ways I know of to make oil are either to convert it from coal (which is already the #1 source for electricity) or else use bio-fuels as a substitute the probably uses of oil (fuel, some chemical properties). I'm generally not so keen on biofuels just because that's land that's not being used to grow food instead.

 

There are still several decades worth of oil in the ground, but the switch would have to start now to conserve the oil for chamical and industrial purposes.

Yes, though we DON'T have decades left of oil at our current production rate. Almost all research I've read on that predicts we have less than a decade of that, my bet is on 2-3 years.

[Vapymid]

The only two ways I know of to make oil are either to convert it from coal (which is already the #1 source for electricity) or else use bio-fuels as a substitute the probably uses of oil (fuel, some chemical properties). I'm generally not so keen on biofuels just because that's land that's not being used to grow food instead.

 

The most commonly known technologies are coal-to-liquid, gas(methane)-to-liquid and biomass-to-methanol.

 

A lot of the technologies are based on Fischer-Tropsch process - which was invented in 1920's and is a process of converting carbon monoxide + hydrogen into liquid hydrocarbons. So, anything that will give you these two components can be used to make liquid fuels. That includes even atmospheric CO2 and water. What differs is the efficiency and the energy required.

 

I would generally agree with you on biofuels and, although some crops can be used for both food and fuel, the first generation of biofuels went into direct competition with food production.

 

Regards

[Rocket Propelled Gordon]

As long as there are fat people, there are starving children.