Rarely does a news story, or a “studies show a rat died from eating a cheeseburger” stun me or give me pause as this one is a tad more serious. And I feel it isn’t “OT” vis a vis Macro Trends. I was really curious what some of the folks on this board think:
“MIT predicted society would collapse by 2040. New data tells how we’re doing”
In 1972, a team of researchers studied the risks of a doomsday scenario, examining limited availability of natural resources and the rising costs that would subvert the expectation of economic growth in the second decade of the 21st century."
OK, so that was 1972 - and 2040 was one of those far off years people thought only existed in movies. BUT…this next part got me a bit:
“That method indicated the fall will be some point near the middle in the 21st century around 2040, and so far, their projections have been on track, new analysis suggests.”
Uh-oh.
“The 2100s will be comparable to the 1900s in terms of the world’s population, industrial output, food and resources.”
I guess, in addition to continuing to feel like a yum-yum for having kids - - -I wonder - is this really it?
I know some of this - will veer to politics and as a non-regular on this board I won’t inject my own into the topic…to me this is a human race thing more than a party thing anyways.
I need to eat a donut now. I got a freebie on my Dunkin app and I want to use it before 2040.
As for “In 1972, a team of researchers studied the risks of a doomsday scenario, examining limited availability of natural resources and the rising costs that would subvert the expectation of economic growth”…in Limits to Growth they are generally vague on time scales, but with mineral resources they provide some hard numbers.
In Table 4 we learn that the world will run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993. Clearly all false.
They also provide estimates based on reserves increasing five-fold. By that measure we have already run out of gold, silver and mercury. Opponents of fossil fuels will be cheered to know that even with the 5x increase in reserves, world petroleum and natural gas ran out in 2020.
I need to eat a donut now. I got a freebie on my Dunkin app and I want to use it before 2040.
Overdosing on bad carbs and bad fats during a big surge within a viral pandemic does NOT sound like a good idea to me. Remember that unhealthy foods weaken the immune system and are pro-inflammatory.
Then again, I’m one of the 0.0001% of the population who never liked donuts. Even if donuts were healthy, I’d still refuse to eat them.
I am reminded that back in the 1970s there was panic because proven reserves of petroleum were only sufficient to last the world - at the then-current rate of consumption - a couple decades or so.
And the expected lifespan of proven reserves has had no significant change since then. It’s still sufficient to last a couple decades or so.
Somewhat more recently there was a garbage panic because the entire country had almost no approved, but not yet in use, sites for solid-waste landfills, and none had been approved in decades. Turns out the reason we had none was a recent rule change that invalidated prior approvals - and the reason none had been approved in decades was because under the old rules there had been sufficient approved sites to last for more than a century. So nobody was LOOKING for more sites. It took a bit to get some people trained to do the testing necessary, including for the new part of the rules, and then fairly swiftly we were back up to having sufficient approved sites - most of the previously-approved sites were easily re-approved - to last for decades.
Howie52
R.E.M. looks at one perspective, Billy Joel sez don’t look at us - we did not start it.
But folks do need to recognize that adaptation is the driving force to evolution and
life does tend to want to keep moving - forward, sideways and out.
“In 1972, a team of researchers studied the risks of a doomsday scenario, examining limited availability of natural resources and the rising costs that would subvert the expectation of economic growth”.
============================================
In 2022 DB2 and t are forecasting continued expansion of fossil fuels consumption through 2050 or even 2100.
“In 2022 DB2 and t are forecasting continued expansion of fossil fuels consumption through 2050 or even 2100.”
What provides half of US power? Natural Gas. What provides most of US heating? Natural gas and heating oil.
What flies airplanes? Jet fuel from fossil fuels.
Is that going to change in 10 years? Nope. In fact, nightly generation of power could increase with NG.
If you read the other thread, it’s going to be interesting watching the Li Storage demands (hundreds of GWH) vs the Li for cars (hundreds of GHW) in the next 20 years.
No, not through 2100, but if you want fertilizers and the 10,000 products made from fossil fuel, I suspect you’ll still be extracting them.
If you really think that all mining heavy machinery will run on batteries in 10 years, or even 20, let me know. Same for cement and steel.
Will we use the same amount? No - not for transport but we’ll use a heck of a lot for other things - and of course, by 2100 they’ll be likely 25 billion people on the planet, too…each wanting clothes, shoes, food, housing, etc.
and of course, by 2100 they’ll be likely 25 billion people on the planet, too
The UN forecast is 10.9 billion.
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation disagrees, saying that the world population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064 and by 2100 will have declined to 8.8 billion.
I don’t currently expect to be one of them, although I won’t totally dismiss the possibility.
But I am curious how you came up with 25 billion, more than double the UN estimate.
(Aside: If the entire current world population, including those currently living in the US, were for some demented reason to come and spread themselves evenly over the US’s 48 contiguous states, the majority of Americans would be living within one mile of fewer people than they do today. This is because we have such a tendency to pack ourselves close together, and the country has such vast areas with very low population density. Even the low-density parts of the country are that way: my granddaughter lives in a county with an average density of a touch under 4 people per square mile, and over half the county’s population lives in four small areas with density above 500 per square mile. At the other extreme, Manhattan has in the vicinity of 50,000 people per square mile.)
But I am curious how you came up with 25 billion, more than double the UN estimate.
Things like education for girls and (surprisingly to me) access to television dramatically decrease fertility rates. The former is surely a good thing and the latter is inevitable.
As the world modernizes and people in third world countries increasingly adopt first world standards of living (which in my opinion is a good thing), it seems logical that they will consume more energy.
But first world energy consumption has been pretty flat over the last couple decades due to increased energy efficiency even as GDP as grown. And over the same time period renewable energy has been increasing exponentially while costs are dropping.
In short, I don’t believe the previous posters claims about huge population growth nor his claims about future petroleum usage. Neither seem remotely plausible.
Jaak: In 2022 DB2 and t are forecasting continued expansion of fossil fuels consumption through 2050 or even 2100.
t: Will we use the same amount? No - not for transport but we’ll use a heck of a lot for other things - and of course, by 2100 they’ll be likely 25 billion people on the planet, too…each wanting clothes, shoes, food, housing, etc.
==============================================
You are not consistent. One post you claim fossil fuel consumption will increase and now you say it will not. But now you make a baseless claim that world population will be 25 billion in 2100. LOL!
Why to do make up wild stories and pull numbers out of thin air without any reference or logic?