Given that the world population shot up by a factor of 4 in the last 100 years, mainly due to fossil fuel usage which won't last even another 100 years, I think some kind of near-term die-off is inevitable. However, I'd suggest that the lower the human population, the less stress as a whole the population is under as more per-capita resource with less competition is available, so complete extinction would become less and less likely as the population drops.
These is a such thing as critical mass. If there are 5 people in the world then we can hardly expect to maintain the standard of living attained via the fossil-fueled expansion you refer to.
The problem is we as a species have some choices to make. Our high standard of living erodes energy reserves that replenish themselves only on geologic timescales.
If the short-term energy producing capacity of our planet plummets due to depletion of these reserves then odds favor drastic -- possibly catastrophic -- change.
Those changes might be draconian energy conservation policies with legal ramifications for not conserving energy. This probably also implies some restrictions on our rights as individuals.
There might be wars.
The standard of living we are capable of sustaining would probably drop.
Ultimately it would all likely result in population decline.
Depending on how fast we use the energy alotted to us these changes can happen suddenly and horrifically or gradually and uncomfortably.
Because we haven't exhausted our energy reserve (just yet) we're in the fortunate position right now of being able to choose our path. Once the energy is gone however...
So the human-race-conservative path is probably to figure out how much energy we can ever harvest on a short-term basis (1-2 years) while sustaining the bio-economic systems that are critical to us. That should be our maximum energy consumption and the energy reserves we have left should be preserved or, if used at all, only used to help us quickly dive below that limit.
Of course all those things are very hard to calculate so we need a very significant margin of error so we don't suddenly find ourselves leaving a relative Eden-like state.
It's even more commercial if you watch it on NBC. I swear if one of the athletes so much as coughs they go to commercial. "Fuck seeing the games, here are more inspiring ads from our sponsors!"
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the world population shot up by a factor of 4 in the last 100 years, mainly due to fossil fuel usage which won't last even another 100 years, I think some kind of near-term die-off is inevitable. However, I'd suggest that the lower the human population, the less stress as a whole the population is under as more per-capita resource with less competition is available, so complete extinction would become less and less likely as the population drops.
These is a such thing as critical mass. If there are 5 people in the world then we can hardly expect to maintain the standard of living attained via the fossil-fueled expansion you refer to.
The problem is we as a species have some choices to make. Our high standard of living erodes energy reserves that replenish themselves only on geologic timescales.
If the short-term energy producing capacity of our planet plummets due to depletion of these reserves then odds favor drastic -- possibly catastrophic -- change.
Those changes might be draconian energy conservation policies with legal ramifications for not conserving energy. This probably also implies some restrictions on our rights as individuals.
There might be wars.
The standard of living we are capable of sustaining would probably drop.
Ultimately it would all likely result in population decline.
Depending on how fast we use the energy alotted to us these changes can happen suddenly and horrifically or gradually and uncomfortably.
Because we haven't exhausted our energy reserve (just yet) we're in the fortunate position right now of being able to choose our path. Once the energy is gone however...
So the human-race-conservative path is probably to figure out how much energy we can ever harvest on a short-term basis (1-2 years) while sustaining the bio-economic systems that are critical to us. That should be our maximum energy consumption and the energy reserves we have left should be preserved or, if used at all, only used to help us quickly dive below that limit.
Of course all those things are very hard to calculate so we need a very significant margin of error so we don't suddenly find ourselves leaving a relative Eden-like state.
It's even more commercial if you watch it on NBC. I swear if one of the athletes so much as coughs they go to commercial. "Fuck seeing the games, here are more inspiring ads from our sponsors!"