[quote=Concobb2]
With only cursory knowledge of closed system population growth cycles, it is very clear that planet Earth has already substantively exceeded its carrying capacity.
I agree Concobb2, the ecological / social aspect is something that needs greater consideration. The technical energy / monetary aspect of why there is inevitably going to be a collapse is pretty solid, and while not understood or appreciated by our leaders or the vast majority of the public, amongst Peak Oil bloggers it’s pretty much accepted and well understood.
I recently found a number for how much fossil fuel energy is required to produce food, and it’s greater than I suspected. Apparently to produce one calorie of food requires 10 calories of fossil fuels! That is a HUGE input. Now, if those inputs are taken away or greatly diminished, how much will food production drop? I don’t know, let’s say five times? This would need more analysis. Not only that, but without the fast and energy intensive food distribution systems we currently enjoy, food spoilage will go up, requiring even more food to be produced.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/
So that is a huge shortfall that is going to have to be absorbed, and there are only two outcomes (short some miraculous new enery supply coming online) – we either eat less, or we raze every last tree on the planet to get land to produce more food for us. It seems that both outcomes would happen together, however, because there isn’t enough capacity on the planet to feed everyone like this.
This then sets the stage for some of the social problems that are going to emerge. On paper, the Hubbert Curve looks nice and mooth and symmetrical. Going up the curve was a dream – everyone was happy and enjoyed increasing wealth. But going down is not going to be a happy experience; it will be miserable. As mentioned, the Africans and Chinese who have their hopes pinned on a prosperous future as they enter a new middle class like the West has (had) will have their hopes crushed. Westerners will be in even greater dire straits because they will have to accept a substantially reduced standard of living, and Westerners have a can-do attitude that if they just try harder, any obstacle can be overcome. That will be shattered.
But the above paragraph assumes that 1) it will even be possible to maintain 9 billion people at a lower standard of living, and that 2) everyone just begrudgingly accepts the situation and says, OK, let’s hunker down and deal with it. But I’m not sure human nature will react that way. As you say, we have the capacity for great destruction.
What is the actual carrying capacity of the planet? I don’t know; without fossil fuels probably around 3 bilion or so, I’d guess. Let’s just go with that figure for now; if anything it may be optimistic. If that’s the case, then 6 billion people are going to die. There is no way around this unless we find some new source of energy; it’s simple cold hard ecological energetics. So how does removing 2/3 of the world’s population actually pan out? What kind of a world will that be? Will it be one based on collaboration to develop new technologies to bring about energy solutions?
This really has the potential of a classic Malthusian Collapse, which may be much worse than the typical lynx and hare dynamic simply because we have extended ourselves so far over the cliff due to fossil fuels.