3 ms·

When you brush this type of argument aside with "oh, this is just Malthusianism," you ignore the fact that, ultimately, Malthus was right! Let me explain: the

When you brush this type of argument aside with "oh, this is just Malthusianism," you ignore the fact that, ultimately, Malthus was right! 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-resources-but-footprint-estimates-dont-tell-the-full-story-100705 https://theconversation.com/yes-humans-are-depleting-earths-... [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

cs702 5y ago
It's not that hard to imagine scenarios over the next few decades in which we find ways to use resources far more efficiently (e.g., improved battery technology, improved factory-made meats/foods), find ways to extract far greater resources from space (e.g., improved solar technology, asteroid mining), and/or find ways to expand the resources available to us (e.g., establishing colonies on Mars, or in space).
- esailija 5y ago
  Improving efficiency doesn't address the problem at all. If you only improve efficiency then consumption grows to negate any gains.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    Improving efficiency means we can at least potentially retain current levels of consumption. Not that this is a particularly good idea but it shows why it is relevant.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Except the entire problem is that current levels of consumption are unsustainable.
      - feanaro 5y ago
        They are unsustainable at current efficiency levels. If things got more efficient, they wouldn't necessarily be unsustainable.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        No.... the amount of energy consumption is unsustainable at any efficiency level. 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?
        Ygg2 5y ago
        Citation needed. 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.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
>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]. 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_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991459_Estimation_of_the_Global_Solar_Energy_Potential_and_Photovoltaic_Cost_with_the_use_of_Open_Data https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991459_Estimatio...
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  "Energy from the Sun" is not just "energy from solar power." It includes wind and biomass as well. Biomass is probably the most efficient way to sequester carbon. So, yes, it is accounted for. 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?
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    I'm not following your rebuttal here. s1artibartfast says that the sun can provide much more power than we currently consume. The limit from your link from earlier is not a limit on how much power the sun can provide, but rather a limit on how much power we can produce before we produce too much CO2. With power production methods that produce less CO2, we won't run into that limit, and we obviously won't run into the solar energy limit.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The average power that the sun shines on the Earth is a huge amount and more than enough to cover all of our current energy needs, even using the technology and efficiency of today, and leaving land for other uses. 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.
tim333 5y ago
>Malthus was right! 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.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  > hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease 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.
  - tim333 5y ago
    Yeah but not really caused by a population explosion and mostly not getting worse. The UK for example went from 10m people when he wrote that to 66m now but has more food, money etc per capita.
ikerdanzel 5y ago
If you wait long enough, anything can be "right". If Malthus dire consequences only happen after 20mil years of human civilization, then it really doesn't matter to us who are still at infancy of human civilization. Malthus math failed to account for technology advancement. Let's not give credit to a flaw math and focus doomation. Be the solutions not the empty talk of doing nothing.

cs702 5y ago

It's not that hard to imagine scenarios over the next few decades in which we find ways to use resources far more efficiently (e.g., improved battery technology, improved factory-made meats/foods), find ways to extract far greater resources from space (e.g., improved solar technology, asteroid mining), and/or find ways to expand the resources available to us (e.g., establishing colonies on Mars, or in space).

esailija 5y ago
Improving efficiency doesn't address the problem at all. If you only improve efficiency then consumption grows to negate any gains.
- feanaro 5y ago
  Improving efficiency means we can at least potentially retain current levels of consumption. Not that this is a particularly good idea but it shows why it is relevant.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Except the entire problem is that current levels of consumption are unsustainable.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      They are unsustainable at current efficiency levels. If things got more efficient, they wouldn't necessarily be unsustainable.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        No.... the amount of energy consumption is unsustainable at any efficiency level. 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?
        Ygg2 5y ago
        Citation needed. 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.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>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]. 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_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991459_Estimation_of_the_Global_Solar_Energy_Potential_and_Photovoltaic_Cost_with_the_use_of_Open_Data https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991459_Estimatio...

actually_a_dog 5y ago
"Energy from the Sun" is not just "energy from solar power." It includes wind and biomass as well. Biomass is probably the most efficient way to sequester carbon. So, yes, it is accounted for. 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?
- briefcomment 5y ago
  I'm not following your rebuttal here. s1artibartfast says that the sun can provide much more power than we currently consume. The limit from your link from earlier is not a limit on how much power the sun can provide, but rather a limit on how much power we can produce before we produce too much CO2. With power production methods that produce less CO2, we won't run into that limit, and we obviously won't run into the solar energy limit.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The average power that the sun shines on the Earth is a huge amount and more than enough to cover all of our current energy needs, even using the technology and efficiency of today, and leaving land for other uses. 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.

tim333 5y ago

>Malthus was right! 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.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
> hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease 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.
- tim333 5y ago
  Yeah but not really caused by a population explosion and mostly not getting worse. The UK for example went from 10m people when he wrote that to 66m now but has more food, money etc per capita.

ikerdanzel 5y ago

If you wait long enough, anything can be "right". If Malthus dire consequences only happen after 20mil years of human civilization, then it really doesn't matter to us who are still at infancy of human civilization. Malthus math failed to account for technology advancement. Let's not give credit to a flaw math and focus doomation. Be the solutions not the empty talk of doing nothing.