--
[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
[b] See also bmmayer1's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27836077
--
[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
[b] See also bmmayer1's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27836077
Let me explain: the sum total of all human economic activity is limited by the available energy we have to put toward it. We only have a finite amount of energy resources available on earth, and we only receive a finite amount more per unit time from the Sun.
Earth's pitiful reserves of energy (fossil fuel and nuclear) essentially don't count in terms of measuring sustainability. In the long run, we either use them up or not, and it's just a blip on the energy meter. Thus, the maximum, long-term sustainable pace of energy consumption is equal to what we can extract from the Sun. And, yet, we consume that much every year by August 1! While the trend has flattened out in recent years, it shows no sign of declining [0].
In short, we can't continue to consume the resources of 1.7 earths per year for very long, and that is what makes Malthus right.
Now, given the time frames of these "dire predictions," this all implies we need to cut our total energy usage as a species in half in much less than 20 years. Considering how the trend so far has been to increase energy consumption by 50% every 20 years, now you see why these predictions are so dire. [1]
It's really simple math. We need to dial back to 1970s levels of consumption even to make things sustainable. But, it took us nearly 50 years to get here from there, and now we have at most 10-20 years to get back. Those don't sound like really good odds to me.
---
[0]: https://theconversation.com/yes-humans-are-depleting-earths-...
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
But, what I think you're saying is that if we can increase efficiency by X%, then we can still sustain current economic output, yes? Well, considering we're 70% over the sustainable level, that means we'd need to get 58% more efficient, with no increase in consumption, in less than 20 years.
How likely do you think that is?
Our current energy needs could be harvested from the sun exclusively. Cover sahara in solar collection and you satisfying energy requirements of all of humanity, several times over.
One single, average human weighs somewhere around 65kg. So, not counting the mass of the fuel and vehicle necessary to do so, evacuating one human costs the energy equivalent of around 1820kWh of electricity. The average American household uses just over 10000kWh per year [1], just for comparison.
Now, let's get to the bad news. Remember the weight of the vehicle and fuel that we just conveniently forgot about? Let's not forget about it anymore.
Falcon 9 weighs around 550,000 kg [2]. So, just to put it in orbit, empty, costs the equivalent of over 1.5x10^6 kWh of electricity, or, roughly the yearly consumption of 1500 years worth of the average American household's energy consumption. That energy has to come from somewhere.
Tell me, how is space going to save us again?
On the other end, in less than 20 years, we need to not only offset the trend of 50% increase in global energy consumption, but also cut back an additional 50% from where we are today. In other words, in 20 years, in order to simply break even in terms of sustainability, we need to become 3x more efficient than we ever have over any 20 year period, if we want to maintain current levels of economic growth.
And you don't find that hard to imagine?
Edit: Alternatively, do you see us supporting 2 billion more people on this planet in 2050 with lower levels of economic growth than we've had the past few decades?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... for population growth estimates.
---
[0]: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4330/how-much-ener...
Wouldn't the general idea be to put things like solar cells into space, to increase the amount of harvestable energy we can use, not humans?
Very long-term projects like space elevators, mass drivers etc. can help reduce the amount of energy (from Earth) that is required to efficiently launch something.
This is misleading and not what they link supports. The linked calculation is not tied to the possible power extraction from the sun. This estimate is based on CO2 currently produced per person and the earth's ability to sequester the CO2.
Global electricity consumption is is about 2.6 Terrawatts [1]
Global total potential for technically feasible PV solar has been estimated at ~ 613 389 PWh/y or 70 Terawatts [2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991459_Estimatio...
Put another way: you can't use fossil fuels to sequester carbon, and nuclear is a drop in the bucket. So, guess where the energy necessary to do it comes from?
You can use solar to reduce or eliminate the carbon emitted. You can use solar electricity to sequester carbon if you want. You could even make oil and pump it back into the ground.
Oh no he wasn't in his main hypothesis, roughly what wikipedia has as
>Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease, a view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe.
It ignores that people can think and fix things. Re the current situation, world population is predicted to peak shortly and solar is cracking along.
Have you been awake for any part of the last 50 years? Two of those things are happening right in front of you, with the third on the horizon.
There was always a solution, or at least a mitigation, that was stop spending or limit how much you do. It will hurt, be harmful, will affect your life, but not as much as the consequences of becoming poor and with a gigantic debt.
Predicting when unstable complex systems will fall is not easy, even more when those systems are very complex. You can perceive the instability, that some sections seems to be falling apart, but maybe you can't put an exact moment of when it will happen. But that it doesn't happen the next cycle doesn't mean that it never will.
I'm generally pretty tired of the argument that tech will save us. It's even arguable that tech is part of the problem since tech allows humanity to scale and thus consume more resources well beyond what it could before.
OR, people are going to wise up. Start to contribute wasting less resources, improve environment, support efforts of mitigation, taking out excess CO2, stop destruction of natural habitats, etc.
OR we may be lucky, have an unexpected spell twarting the models and cooling off the land again. Just so that humanity can continue destruction of their own lands and wildlife that have stabilized the climate for 10K years.
Nobody knows for sure, but the models are supposedly pretty accurate overall and there are not that many unknowns left.
I want to be optimistic, but a couple of things are worth noting.
First, is that civilization has fallen back before. It's definitely possible for systems, knowledge and progress built over the centuries to fall apart and it has happened before. There's the bronze-age collapse: ancient cities were destroyed, trade routes were lost, literacy declined and in general there was a big cultural decline— not in one civilization but thought all the "known world" at the time.
Fast-forward to the end of the Hellenistic/Roman periods— there was a decline there too leading up to, during and after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Huge advances were made during that era in astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, architecture, art, etc. Alexandrian engineers were designing steam-powered automata in the centuries BCE [1], but like a lot of other classical knowledge this was lost sometime before the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was about new developments, but also largely about re-discovering what was developed in the Hellenistic/Roman periods.
We can assume modern times are different because we have more advanced technology, better political systems, different ideologies and more experience, but our challenges are also bigger. We've made it past challenges that would've destroyed civilizations in the past: droughts, wars, turmoil, etc. But we've never faced global climate change, for example.
Second— the fact that we've been able to invent our way out of possible crisis before doesn't mean this will keep being the case. The number of things that are possible in this universe is large, but not limitless— the universe still has its laws.
For example: Moores law. We know there's a limit there because of how small atoms are. We will have to figure out other ways to make processing faster and more efficient, because once we reach the physical limit, there's little we can do. We've been able to figure out ways to scale agriculture, reduce our dependence in one resource by switching to another, etc. but there's no certainty that this will always be the case. It's very much possible that at some point either the physical limits to technological development will catch up to us, or we won't be able to figure out the next big breakthrough in time.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_robots#Automata
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law#Forecasts_and_ro...
Most of us know better, and we keep our mouth shut.
This faith people have in engineering just boggles my mind. Look to Venus. That is where our atmosphere is headed.
We can grow almonds in deserts beside golf courses, yes. But should we have been doing it in the first place?
All of our terraforming for the present world we live in today is at the expense of future generations prosperity.