Other civilizations in the Milky Way?

[TooMany]

Do you mean the Oglalla Aquifer? That's in the Plains, not the Midwest. And it's "Renaissance".

Yes I mean the "Plains". Thanks for the corrections (apparently renascence is an equivalent word, but certainly not the proper one. My spelling sucks.)

You need to define what you mean by "collapse of a civilization" before you apply it. Do you include the term "collapse of an empire" to be equivalent? Some actually do collapse, but others simply change. How do you distinguish between them?

True, a "complete collapse of civilization" would be back to the stone age, I suppose. Collapse of a government is not an equivalent in my mind. To me, in a collapse the standard of living is lowered, rule by law is reduced, the arts and sciences suffer or are static, technical skills are forgotten, in general the accomplishments of society are far less than they were. For example, the Roman, Egyptian, Inca, Mayan and Aztec civilizations collapsed. The Russian civilization did not collapse, only the Soviet Empire collapsed.

[TooMany]

You would think that people would learn about birth control from word of mouth. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case as evidenced by all the arguing we do over what sex education should and should not cover, as well as the fact that the more educated tend to have fewer children.

In Africa AIDS is truly an epidemic, but the spread could be at least slowed or even prevented with proper precautions. It is apparently not just an educational problem, but a cultural problem as well.

I'm just trying to point out that the U.N. claims that world population growth will level off this century and that the number is, in theory at least, manageable.

The alarm bells for population growth have been ringing for a long time. No doubt their prediction is true, that by 2100 the population will at least "level out". The 8.7 billion estimate of maximum does not far exceed the 7 billion we already have. How will such a dramatic change in growth rate occur? Maybe it's just not politically correct to tell people they will starve.

[Ara Pacis]

Yes, but the fuel efficiency standards failed. First, they were reduced by Reagan. Then they were evaded by selling SUV's that are classified as trucks to which the same standards do not apply. Here is a short summary of that situation. Just watch what happens if Obama tries to push the 35 mpg average.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is only enough to last 5 weeks (at current consumption rates). It used mostly politically to head off gas price increases when the American people insist that they should not have to pay so much for gas and will still not give up their SUVs.

The belief that the "free-market" solves such problems is an ideology, not reality. Yes, eventually the price of oil will be so high that alternatives will be more economical. The problem is that 1) we will fight more costly wars before that happens, 2) if we wait for that to happen it will be too late to avoid repercussions and 3) even if the oil is replaced by some alternative, it may not be replaced in the quantities currently consumed and the price will be higher. You can be sure that big changes are coming in the next few decades. Maybe you'll be driving a car powered by coal dust and turning up the air conditioning. The coal industry has recently begun running ads claiming that they will power America for a couple of centuries (I don't know if they factored in the air conditioning).

Planning is planning. Whether or not the plans work for everyone involved is a different issue. That was my point and why I asked you why you were arguing with me by agreeing with me.

[primummobile]

In Africa AIDS is truly an epidemic, but the spread could be at least slowed or even prevented with proper precautions. It is apparently not just an educational problem, but a cultural problem as well.

I agree with that.

The alarm bells for population growth have been ringing for a long time. No doubt their prediction is true, that by 2100 the population will at least "level out". The 8.7 billion estimate of maximum does not far exceed the 7 billion we already have. How will such a dramatic change in growth rate occur? Maybe it's just not politically correct to tell people they will starve.

I don't know if that's what they really believe will happen or not. I only know what was in the report.

[primummobile]

At any rate, one would hope that if there is a collapse of civilization we would retain enough knowledge to not make the same mistakes the next time around. Maybe it needs to happen to save us in the long run.

[Ara Pacis]

You would think that people would learn about birth control from word of mouth. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case as evidenced by all the arguing we do over what sex education should and should not cover, as well as the fact that the more educated tend to have fewer children.

You're confusing correlation for causation. Those with higher education make more money and can afford birth control and can afford and enjoy the luxuries that cause people to want to forego or delay having children. It's not like poor people don't know what's available at the drug store. And your statement about education actually proves my point, abstinence only education won't help, word-of-mouth will need to be relied upon, which shows it works, which was my point.

I'm not really making my own point, I'm just trying to point out that the U.N. claims that world population growth will level off this century and that the number is, in theory at least, manageable. I don't know enough about what causes population growth and decline to say whether that is true or they are just trying to not be alarmist about the fact that in a couple centuries we'll all be standing on top of one another. (wasn't there a Star Trek episode like that?)

The Trouble with Tribbles?

[primummobile]

The Trouble with Tribbles?

God, I hate that episode. No, I was thinking about one where the people didn't have any disease and they kidnapped Kirk so he could expose them to the pathogens he was carrying. I think they made a mock-up of the Enterprise and at the end a window opened and you saw all these people watching and there wasn't anywhere for any of them to move.

I agree that abstinence-only education isn't a solution.

[Noclevername]

The Trouble with Tribbles?

It was the one where Kirk had to give a lady space-VD to kill off most of an overcrowded planet.

"The Mark Of Gideon".

[primummobile]

It was the one where Kirk had to give a lady space-VD to kill off most of an overcrowded planet.

"The Mark Of Gideon".

That's it!

[IsaacKuo]

I find your minimization of the fall of Rome puzzling. What would you characterize as a collapse of a civilization then? Loss of fire? My point is that a serious setback occurred. The Renascence, one thousand years after the fall of the Roman empire, has that name for a reason. I don't see where the Eastern Roman Empire did much to maintain, let alone improve upon, the Roman civilization.

The Eastern Roman Empire was bigger, longer lasting, and would enjoy vastly superior technology. It survived a plague which wiped out a third of its population. It continued carrying onward in the arts and sciences. Who do you think maintained and built upon the classical arts and sciences during that time? Where do you think western Europe got them from?

There had been a long standing tradition to denigrate the Eastern Roman Empire, but modern historians have a positive view of it, its accomplishments, and its significance to Europe--including its contributions to western Europe.

Add to these issues global warming which will require mass movements of populations and agriculture and I really don't see how a setback is to be avoided.

A "setback" is not necessarily a collapse of civilization, especially if it's the third world which bears the burden of the "setback" while the developed world takes care of its own. That's the way it has been going so far, at least since the industrial revolution.

[primummobile]

You're confusing correlation for causation. Those with higher education make more money and can afford birth control and can afford and enjoy the luxuries that cause people to want to forego or delay having children. It's not like poor people don't know what's available at the drug store. And your statement about education actually proves my point, abstinence only education won't help, word-of-mouth will need to be relied upon, which shows it works, which was my point.

The Trouble with Tribbles?

Ok, I saw this earlier before you corrected the formatting so I missed your entire comment. When you say 'word-of-mouth' I don't consider that to mean formal education. I take it to mean what you hear from your peers. It isn't just about making more money and being able to afford birth control. There are a lot of really weird ideas floating around out there that better education would help to solve. In parts of Africa, it is believed that intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS. There are all kinds of folk remedies floating around that people actually believe regarding reproduction and VD. There are many people who really believe that only homosexuals can contract AIDS. There are many people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and some who believe that AIDS isn't even a real disease.

Simple birth control and even just knowledge about how reproduction works isn't that expensive. I think a bigger problem is all the superstitions people have regarding those sorts of things. Education eliminates most of those superstitions, which contributes greatly to lower birth rates. In this case, correlation and causation goes both ways. It's a very complex situation.

[TooMany]

Planning is planning. Whether or not the plans work for everyone involved is a different issue. That was my point and why I asked you why you were arguing with me by agreeing with me.

Your points are strictly correct. I just feel that you are identifying factors that have been ineffective. All I'm saying is that while true, they don't actually affect the reality of population growth and resource depletion significantly. In the case of the planning for oil conservation, it didn't just fail to work, the plan was simply not carried out. The plan was to increase efficiency overall. The plan was followed for a while and then the essence of the plan was evaded altogether. The government failed to step in and fix the problem that destroyed this plan.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that we are in fact planning for resource depletion by pointing to the legislation of the late 70's? My point is simply that a plan is meaningless if you don't carry it out. So we really are not planning as yet to deal with the problem. You need a better example to suggest that mankind really does plan for obvious future problems.

[Ara Pacis]

Ok, I saw this earlier before you corrected the formatting so I missed your entire comment.

Really? I fixed it in like 10 seconds.

hen you say 'word-of-mouth' I don't consider that to mean formal education. I take it to mean what you hear from your peers. It isn't just about making more money and being able to afford birth control. There are a lot of really weird ideas floating around out there that better education would help to solve. In parts of Africa, it is believed that intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS. There are all kinds of folk remedies floating around that people actually believe regarding reproduction and VD. There are many people who really believe that only homosexuals can contract AIDS. There are many people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and some who believe that AIDS isn't even a real disease.

Simple birth control and even just knowledge about how reproduction works isn't that expensive. I think a bigger problem is all the superstitions people have regarding those sorts of things. Education eliminates most of those superstitions, which contributes greatly to lower birth rates. In this case, correlation and causation goes both ways. It's a very complex situation.

I wasn't referring to formal education, just accurate information dissemination. Education doesn't necessarily change superstition or traditionalism. Quiverfull-types know how reproduction and prophylaxis works, but decide not to use them. However, for people who do want to use something that is effective, word-of-mouth and advertising is sufficient. It's not like every woman who uses the pill needs to understand biochemistry, they just need to trust "authority". Unfortunately, lots of people have problems with authority even if they know it's right.

[Ara Pacis]

Your points are strictly correct. I just feel that you are identifying factors that have been ineffective.

Your statement upthread had seemed simplistic, and I was showing that it's not that simple, as you now realize.

All I'm saying is that while true, they don't actually affect the reality of population growth and resource depletion significantly. In the case of the planning for oil conservation, it didn't just fail to work, the plan was simply not carried out. The plan was to increase efficiency overall. The plan was followed for a while and then the essence of the plan was evaded altogether. The government failed to step in and fix the problem that destroyed this plan.

But they did step in, militarily and diplomatically, to ensure low prices for and access to petroleum. Plans change. Taking from others is a plan. Again, I'm not sure why you're arguing with my by agreeing with me.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that we are in fact planning for resource depletion by pointing to the legislation of the late 70's? My point is simply that a plan is meaningless if you don't carry it out. So we really are not planning as yet to deal with the problem. You need a better example to suggest that mankind really does plan for obvious future problems.

You mean like the arctic seed vault? How about Grain silos? Root cellars? Refrigerators? Canned goods. How far in advance?

And now you introduced "obvious" to the argument, which means that it only applies to those who can foresee it, and not deniers, which can introduce biases to the debate. You should watch "Doomsday Preppers" on NatGeo. A lot of people on there plan for high amplitude low frequency or low probability events that they think are obviously going to happen, one of which is a pole shift on December 21, 2012.

[primummobile]

Really? I fixed it in like 10 seconds.

Yeah, I don't know why, but it stayed in my browser through a couple posts. I skipped over the whole first section when reading it because I thought it was a quotation of my post.

I wasn't referring to formal education, just accurate information dissemination. Education doesn't necessarily change superstition or traditionalism. Quiverfull-types know how reproduction and prophylaxis works, but decide not to use them. However, for people who do want to use something that is effective, word-of-mouth and advertising is sufficient. It's not like every woman who uses the pill needs to understand biochemistry, they just need to trust "authority". Unfortunately, lots of people have problems with authority even if they know it's right.

I know education doesn't always change superstitions. But it does change them at least some of the time, and possibly more often that that. I think it more often has to do with the quality of the educator rather than what is being taught. You have to trust the person who is passing along the knowledge.

At the same time, however; I do think that for some people knowing the biochemistry would be the deciding factor. I have problems with authority. I don't like doing things merely because someone told me to. But if I know why it should be done and why it is to my benefit for something to be done, I'll do it because it is a decision I have arrived at independently. Of course, that is just my personal experience but I hardly think that my experience is unique.

[noncryptic]

Why are these civilizations expanding to other stars in the first place? What's their motivation?

Same as ours?

How much does it cost?

Cost is not exclusive to monetary issues. Cost in lives, resources, time, effort, etc.

A civilization has all of that, so cost won't stop them.

[Noclevername]

Same as ours?

But since we haven't done it yet, we can't predict when it will be done, by what group or nation, or for what reason or motive.

A civilization has all of that, so cost won't stop them.

Our civilization has all that now, yet there are plenty of things we could do, or could have done decades ago, that we have not. Permanent Moon base, manned Mars landing, all planned as part of Apollo yet nixed by politicians because of "cost". The question is not just one of cost, but whether or not the cost is thought worth it by the decision-makers. Ultimately it's about priorities; a society will go to massive lengths and spend massive efforts and even lives to reach a goal that's considered worthy, the pyramids prove that, but if those in power don't want it they won't spend a dime or lift a finger to do it.

[swampyankee]

Ok, I saw this earlier before you corrected the formatting so I missed your entire comment. When you say 'word-of-mouth' I don't consider that to mean formal education. I take it to mean what you hear from your peers. It isn't just about making more money and being able to afford birth control. There are a lot of really weird ideas floating around out there that better education would help to solve. In parts of Africa, it is believed that intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS. There are all kinds of folk remedies floating around that people actually believe regarding reproduction and VD. There are many people who really believe that only homosexuals can contract AIDS. There are many people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and some who believe that AIDS isn't even a real disease.

Simple birth control and even just knowledge about how reproduction works isn't that expensive. I think a bigger problem is all the superstitions people have regarding those sorts of things. Education eliminates most of those superstitions, which contributes greatly to lower birth rates. In this case, correlation and causation goes both ways. It's a very complex situation.

Just giving girls access to education, so they don't start reproducing until their twenties will reduce population growth. In a lot of the countries with very high birth rates, girls are married and expected to reproduce almost immediately after menarche. Delay that six years -- from 15 to 21 -- and there will be two or three fewer babies born to girls in that age cohort, which is probably something like a 15% to 20% reduction in fertility.

Of course, many cultures insist upon keeping women subservient, and would quite literally kill thousands of people to continue the practice. Other groups have that as a goal, but are not violent. Yet.

[TooMany]

At any rate, one would hope that if there is a collapse of civilization we would retain enough knowledge to not make the same mistakes the next time around. Maybe it needs to happen to save us in the long run.

Have you read "The Mote in God's Eye"? The civilization of an alien race would collapse repeatedly. In order to speed up the recoveries, they kept a wide range of technical products and data in a "lock box".

[primummobile]

Have you read "The Mote in God's Eye"? The civilization of an alien race would collapse repeatedly. In order to speed up the recoveries, they kept a wide range of technical products and data in a "lock box".

I have. I love that book through about the first ninety percent of it.

[TooMany]

Again, I'm not sure why you're arguing with my by agreeing with me.

Because you appear to be arguing that effective plans are made using the auto efficiently legislation as an example. In some literal sense this constitutes "planning". However, if the plan is not implemented (which it has not been), there may as well be no plan at all.

You mean like the arctic seed vault? How about Grain silos? Root cellars? Refrigerators? Canned goods. How far in advance?

I don't know why you don't understand what I'm saying, but here it is in a nutshell:

Mankind is facing serious problems that stem from overpopulation:

Rapid growth in the consumption of vital but dwindling natural resources.
Global warming caused by fossil fuel use.

Let's restrict ourselves to the US approach to this impending disaster. Even though we were directly warned about our dependence on foreign oil 40 years ago, we still have no realistic plan in place to protect ourselves from the consequences of this dependency. If our oil imports were cut off, it would only be a matter of two or three months until much of the US population would be starving to death. Our only choice would be to go to war to seize the resources that we depend upon and attempt to hoard them for ourselves. Such a scenario might lead to a nuclear showdown.

Educated people throughout the world are aware of the serious consequences of global warming. Nevertheless there is no plan in place to limit the damage.

What I'm saying is that mankind is not facing up to the challenges that his exploding population has caused. Therefore there will be a serious setback that may be world wide.

Some people may have root cellar, a grain silo or a seed bank but that will do little to avoid mass starvation.

This is not some dooms day scenario dreamed up by nut cases; it is real. If you are young enough to be alive a few decades from now, you'll get a ring side seat. It's hard to predict exactly how it will play out. How many more decades can we fail to act before the setback is unstoppable?

[potoole]

This is a bit off subject, but since you asked...

For 1,000 years Rome dominated the entire western world and reached a certain technological peak which we are still learning about. There are huge stone bridges for example that sill stand after 2,000 years and are a testament to their abilities. When Rome fell, so did western civilization. A governing power on the scale of Rome was not repeated (excepting perhaps the British empire?). The technology that built roads, aqueducts, large vessels and coliseums was largely lost. The western world fragmented into city states. The language of the empire (Latin) also fragmented and is now dead except in the liturgy of the Catholic church. It took about 1000 years to recover a societal organization in the west that was open to secular progress. I doubt that this had any big affect on the Asians but I really don't know. Certainly it had no effect on the Americas. Nevertheless it amounted to a collapse of western civilization which was arguably the most advanced on the planet at the time.

Interestingly, civilizations in the Americas also experienced collapses. The Inca, the Maya and the Southwestern and Midwestern Indian civilizations in North America are examples. (The Aztecs thought that the Mayan temples were build by giants that lived long ago.) There is a lot of debate about the causes, but archaeologist often consider climate change and over population as possibilities.

Because the world is more interdependent now than it was then, another collapse of civilization could be world-wide. I don't think a collapse is inevitable, but it appears likely.

I think this is a very good synopsis of human future, and future culture. You hit it on the nose with this statement, "I don't think a collapse is inevitable, but it appears likely."

[Ara Pacis]

Because you appear to be arguing that effective plans are made using the auto efficiently legislation as an example. In some literal sense this constitutes "planning". However, if the plan is not implemented (which it has not been), there may as well be no plan at all.

No, that's your argument. My argument is that plans change, but that doesn't make them non-plans. You may have a plan to evacuate your location in the event of a disaster, but if you realize later that the disaster might close that route, you change the plan. Why live responsibly today when it's possible to to splurge today and then steal tomorrow?

I don't know why you don't understand what I'm saying, but here it is in a nutshell:

Mankind is facing serious problems that stem from overpopulation:

Rapid growth in the consumption of vital but dwindling natural resources.
Global warming caused by fossil fuel use.

Let's restrict ourselves to the US approach to this impending disaster. Even though we were directly warned about our dependence on foreign oil 40 years ago, we still have no realistic plan in place to protect ourselves from the consequences of this dependency. If our oil imports were cut off, it would only be a matter of two or three months until much of the US population would be starving to death. Our only choice would be to go to war to seize the resources that we depend upon and attempt to hoard them for ourselves. Such a scenario might lead to a nuclear showdown.

Educated people throughout the world are aware of the serious consequences of global warming. Nevertheless there is no plan in place to limit the damage.

What I'm saying is that mankind is not facing up to the challenges that his exploding population has caused. Therefore there will be a serious setback that may be world wide.

Some people may have root cellar, a grain silo or a seed bank but that will do little to avoid mass starvation.

This is not some dooms day scenario dreamed up by nut cases; it is real. If you are young enough to be alive a few decades from now, you'll get a ring side seat. It's hard to predict exactly how it will play out. How many more decades can we fail to act before the setback is unstoppable?

I know what you're saying. That problem is that you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no "We the people of Earth." There is Americans, and Mexicans and Canadians and Nigerians etc... Sometimes these groups work together; sometimes they do not. Some groups will do what it takes to survive and won't help the other group. One group might actively take what they want from the other group.

Can you explain your claim that the US population would be starving in 2-3 months?

Also, can you explain why the dwindling natural resources and fossil fuel use problem is caused by overpopulation instead of overconsumption?

[TooMany]

Can you explain your claim that the US population would be starving in 2-3 months?

I guess you weren't alive in 1973 or too young to remember the impact of just a brief squeeze on the oil supply. People formed lines at gas stations and waited for hours to fill up. My company at the time hired a "gas getter". This was a kid who would take your car to a gas station and wait in line so that you could keep working and get to the office the next day.

Now imagine that all of the imported oil is cut off. The economic collapses because our entire transportation system depends on oil. People cannot get to work, food shipments are cut. It would not be long before riots break out everywhere and people start looting grocery stores and warehouses to hoard food. There simply would not be enough law enforcement to keep order because the entire county is affected. There will not be sufficient time to implement a rationing program. Those who have guns, will use them to take what they want (small advantage of gun ownership). After a few weeks of this, raiders will start invading peoples homes and hijacking food shipments. At some point, not too long into the crisis, there will no longer be enough fuel to support vital services. Food will become scarce and people will starve. If it is winter, people in cold climates will not have enough fuel oil and will attempt to heat with wood. The competition for available wood will be fierce. Many will not be able to obtain tools to cut the wood. The quantities of oil required to grow and ship enough food will simply not be available.

Use your own imagination.

Also, can you explain why the dwindling natural resources and fossil fuel use problem is caused by overpopulation instead of overconsumption?

Because the incredible size of the world population is the reason for the over-consumption. Resources are now being consumed faster than mitigating actions can be agreed upon and applied. It's like rolling down a hill that gets steeper, the over-consumption cannot be stopped without lot's of people dying and/or reverting to a low consumption life style.

If the population were much smaller (say 1/10), world civilization would have more time to mature and address the resource problem. Instead of warring over resources, the world might find ways to equitably deal with the problem, to determine a sustainable population and prevent it from being exceeded.

There is no hard limit to population growth aside from resources. However, there is a lower limit on consumption per capita required to support any population.

[Ara Pacis]

I guess you weren't alive in 1973 or too young to remember the impact of just a brief squeeze on the oil supply. People formed lines at gas stations and waited for hours to fill up. My company at the time hired a "gas getter". This was a kid who would take your car to a gas station and wait in line so that you could keep working and get to the office the next day.

Now imagine that all of the imported oil is cut off. The economic collapses because our entire transportation system depends on oil. People cannot get to work, food shipments are cut. It would not be long before riots break out everywhere and people start looting grocery stores and warehouses to hoard food. There simply would not be enough law enforcement to keep order because the entire county is affected. There will not be sufficient time to implement a rationing program. Those who have guns, will use them to take what they want (small advantage of gun ownership). After a few weeks of this, raiders will start invading peoples homes and hijacking food shipments. At some point, not too long into the crisis, there will no longer be enough fuel to support vital services. Food will become scarce and people will starve. If it is winter, people in cold climates will not have enough fuel oil and will attempt to heat with wood. The competition for available wood will be fierce. Many will not be able to obtain tools to cut the wood. The quantities of oil required to grow and ship enough food will simply not be available.

Use your own imagination.

I'm not looking for imagination, but facts. I was wondering what your analysis would be. What do you think government would or could do about it? You didn't say much about the role of government.

Because the incredible size of the world population is the reason for the over-consumption. Resources are now being consumed faster than mitigating actions can be agreed upon and applied. It's like rolling down a hill that gets steeper, the over-consumption cannot be stopped without lot's of people dying and/or reverting to a low consumption life style.

Ah, so you agree that it's about the over-consumption. I agree, lowering the consumption is one solution, one which appears to be occurring in the US.

If the population were much smaller (say 1/10), world civilization would have more time to mature and address the resource problem. Instead of warring over resources, the world might find ways to equitably deal with the problem, to determine a sustainable population and prevent it from being exceeded.

There is no hard limit to population growth aside from resources. However, there is a lower limit on consumption per capita required to support any population.

I don't think the issue is maturity. That's a smarmy way of looking at it. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made. If people have to starve, who do we choose and why, and how?... in a "mature" way?

[noncryptic]

But since we haven't done it yet

I'd say that we have started to begin expanding to the stars.
That is to say, we will if it is at all feasible and if we continue exploration of space.
It may turn out not to be feasible, but we don't know that yet.

Our civilization has all that now, yet there are plenty of things we could do, or could have done decades ago, that we have not. Permanent Moon base, manned Mars landing, all planned as part of Apollo yet nixed by politicians because of "cost". The question is not just one of cost, but whether or not the cost is thought worth it by the decision-makers. Ultimately it's about priorities; a society will go to massive lengths and spend massive efforts and even lives to reach a goal that's considered worthy, the pyramids prove that, but if those in power don't want it they won't spend a dime or lift a finger to do it.

In the grand scheme of things that might well turn out to be a temporary condition.
We've been in a position to do these things for only 50 years or so, that's a mere blink of an eye relative to the history of mankind, way to short to be a basis for definitive conclusions regarding our expanding to the stars

[noncryptic]

overpopulation vs overconsumption (and inequality)

Based on the fact that you apparently have not recieved a warning for bringing up and arguing at length about that highly political topic, i'll assume i can respond to it without violating forum rules.

Overpopulation is often presented as though it is a given, as though it is an inevitably obvious fact. But there are good reasons to conclude that it is not.

In short, it's a myth based on Malthus' theory that has been proven wrong by history several times over.

Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

[Van Rijn]

(Haven't been on the board much lately, so this is referring to an older post.)

The funny thing, and the reason why you're really beginning to annoy me, is that you're criticizing my established assumptions of what such a civilization can do by making completely unfounded assumptions on your own of what they can't do.

I certainly don't recall doing that, and in reviewing the thread, I don't see where I did that. Please quote what you're referring to. Here's how I approached the thread: In the OP, you posted a link to a blog article without qualification, just a short description and a link. The article as presented was highly speculative, with what appeared to be starting assumptions that can't be tested with existing data. That is not saying the assumptions must be impossible, just that there are many other arguments that could be made, given the current limits of evidence.

In short, speculation is fine, as long as it is clearly stated to be speculation.

You're doing the very thing that you're accusing me of, and you haven't presented any argument for your assumptions other than "you can't possibly know."

What assumptions do you think I've been making? I'm curious. As for your assumptions, how do you test them? We don't have an interstellar civilization to study, let alone multi-million year old civilizations. We don't know what science and technology will be like for our own species a thousand years from now.

[HenrikOlsen]

Overpopulation is often presented as though it is a given, as though it is an inevitably obvious fact. But there are good reasons to conclude that it is not.

In short, it's a myth based on Malthus' theory that has been proven wrong by history several times over.

The bit that's often overlooked when discussing Malthus is that food supply is not the only resource limiting growth, it was the most immediate one at his time which was why he only saw that, but there are other limits too, such as (in countries where pregnancy is a choice) time and money.
Children dying from starvation is not the only limiter to growth rate and it appears that there are several negative feedback mechanisms that'll limit it to less than the Malthusian limit many places..

That said, there are large parts of the human race who live at the Malthusian limit and for them a reduction in available food will be devastating.

[TooMany]

You didn't say much about the role of government.

The government's role would obviously be to mitigate the problem by imposing gas rationing where vital services have priority. Marshal law would no doubt be imposed. It's possible that this could stave off starvation for some time if the public can be made to cooperate. Mass transit and car pooling might get at least the more important workers to their jobs for a while.

There is serious danger of panic however and non-cooperation. Assuming that everything went swimmingly, much of the population might survive. It really depends whether a sufficient supply of fuel could be directed to vital services. I guess we would find out how many jobs are non-essential (as well as which people are unimportant to feed).

Food would have to be distributed by rationing because people living near their income level (the majority) would suddenly have no income to sustain them.

The wealthy would be redefined as those who have hoarded goods or resources and can defend them from theft or those who have friends in high places. The monetary system would become a joke. Manufacturing would be devastated unless a sufficient supply of oil can be dedicated to that purpose. Look around you and ask yourself what requires oil. E.g. all plastics, drugs, bottles, bags, agricultural chemicals, paint, batteries. etc. Power interruptions may become more common if oil is not available for backup generators.

Coal would be mined and turned into various fuels as was done by the Germans during WWII. It would take considerable time to build the chemical plants to do this.

Manufactured goods from China (which is most consumer products including car parts) would cease to be delivered unless the Chinese are much more humanitarian than Americans. The crappy quality products we currently have would soon break, but not be replaceable. People would have to improvise.

So, the best case is that the US becomes like Cuba, an economy that has been deliberately starved.

However, fear not that this particular scenario will play out. If oil producing states fail to ship sufficient oil to us, we would go to war and take control of the oil. (In fact we've already started that program). How that will play out is very scary.

Ah, so you agree that it's about the over-consumption. I agree, lowering the consumption is one solution, one which appears to be occurring in the US.

Yes, but the main reason consumption has become a threat is that the population is huge. Think of it this way; how do you define "over-consumption" except as a level of per captia consumption that cannot sustained for the given population?

What reduced consumption are you referring to? I'm not aware of any substantial reductions in US consumption. Consumption will be reduced only when the resources are too expensive to afford. Our government should place substantial taxes on fuel now so that we can adapt in time to avoid collapse when the supply begins to dry up. Of course spoiled (and uninformed) Americans won't elect people with the guts to do that.

I don't think the issue is maturity. That's a smarmy way of looking at it. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made. If people have to starve, who do we choose and why, and how?... in a "mature" way?

You missed my point which was that if the population was only 1/10 or even much less of what it is today, there would be time to find long term solutions without warring over the resources and forcing a large part of the population to starve. In reality, the population is already too large for generosity in the distribution of resources. If everyone consumed like Americans, world consumption would grow by a factor five. That just can't happen.

Unfortunately, we still have economic theorists who think that growth is something without an end. Many people seem to believe that the US has massive untapped oil reserves for example; we just need to drill. Thus far, government, business and most of the people have behaved as if there are no limits. Everyone is out for themselves and quite unwilling to cooperate voluntarily.