Another excellent essay. I can see that you have a brain that can make some real contributions to our understanding to human material progress.
I think humanity is entering uncharted waters with declining population and material prosperity. It is very unclear what the interaction between those two very unusual states will be.
My instinct is that we will be able to figure out a way through it, but I am far from confident. Perhaps those who breed will inherit the world and all the benefits of preceding progress.
The statistic about agriculture seems contradictory to me: following Matt Ridley: "If we’d gone on as 1950[s] organic farmers, we’d have needed 82 percent of the world’s land area for cultivation, as opposed to the 38 percent that we farm at the moment.” so this represents a 50% decline of farmland needed between 1950 and 2009 while the population has risen about 3 times in the same time, which means a decline with a factor 6 in these 60 years of area needed per person. However, the other statistic from "Our World in Data" shows a decline of "only" 50% (factor 2) from the middle ages (1500: 0,55 Ha) until now (2016: 0,22 Ha) in cropland per person. If the last statistic is the right one, this is far from spectacular and could be driven only by the higher dependence on fossil fuels in agriculture (both for the engines and the production of the chemicals needed in intensive agriculture). In the same time modern intensive agriculture has exhausted, polluted and eroded the soils and (ground)water and consequently has had a very significant negative effect on biodiversity (with a negative feedback on agriculture such as the decline of pollinators, birds and soil organisms or in other terms a risk for a vicious circle in the wrong direction). So maybe this gain of 50% in "efficiency" in agriculture has been achieved just by a shift to fossil fuels (which we want to prevent), bigger monocultures, the pollution of the land, air and water. The question is then, how much land do we need to counter these externalities (to clean the polluted water, as a refuge for the local biodiversity, to compensate for the CO2 associated with the fossil fuel or to produce the energy, to mine and produce the chemicals and counter their externalities, etc.) and what if we included these externalities in the land needed (have we still gained in efficiency) ?
Agroforestry seems to be one alternative to reduce cropland by increasing production output. Some advocates of Syntropic Agriculture, an agroforestry technique, state that some cultures can have the same tree concentration of a monoculture (e.g. coffee) and have additional crops in different heights in that same area and being highly productive.
One remarcable characteristic of agroforestry, in general, and syntropic agriculture, in particular, is their reduced need for external inputs (fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides) and heavy use of locally sourced microbiota and organic material to recreate forests in degraded or depleted areas.
OTOH, those techniques may consume less inputs but are labor intensive (lots of prunning), requiring more adapted mechanization and driving more diesel usage. But, since it can recover and regreen degraded areas, I assume it is a very positive trade-off.
Ah, and reduced inputs means less need of energy-intensive (read carbon-intensive) processes like Haber-Bosch to create nitrogen-rich fertilizer.
Producing babies without parents (because parents don't want to make them naturally) in artificial wombs in order to sustain an unsustainable world population? Even if considered as "a more radical solution", are you serious ?
Peter Zeihan said urbanization begets fewer children, because they become "expensive furniture". And the world population is becoming more urban by the time.
Another excellent essay. I can see that you have a brain that can make some real contributions to our understanding to human material progress.
I think humanity is entering uncharted waters with declining population and material prosperity. It is very unclear what the interaction between those two very unusual states will be.
My instinct is that we will be able to figure out a way through it, but I am far from confident. Perhaps those who breed will inherit the world and all the benefits of preceding progress.
Take care.
Loved how this turned out Maarten. Excellent essay. Celebrate this one :)
You really have no clue as to what you are talking about.
The statistic about agriculture seems contradictory to me: following Matt Ridley: "If we’d gone on as 1950[s] organic farmers, we’d have needed 82 percent of the world’s land area for cultivation, as opposed to the 38 percent that we farm at the moment.” so this represents a 50% decline of farmland needed between 1950 and 2009 while the population has risen about 3 times in the same time, which means a decline with a factor 6 in these 60 years of area needed per person. However, the other statistic from "Our World in Data" shows a decline of "only" 50% (factor 2) from the middle ages (1500: 0,55 Ha) until now (2016: 0,22 Ha) in cropland per person. If the last statistic is the right one, this is far from spectacular and could be driven only by the higher dependence on fossil fuels in agriculture (both for the engines and the production of the chemicals needed in intensive agriculture). In the same time modern intensive agriculture has exhausted, polluted and eroded the soils and (ground)water and consequently has had a very significant negative effect on biodiversity (with a negative feedback on agriculture such as the decline of pollinators, birds and soil organisms or in other terms a risk for a vicious circle in the wrong direction). So maybe this gain of 50% in "efficiency" in agriculture has been achieved just by a shift to fossil fuels (which we want to prevent), bigger monocultures, the pollution of the land, air and water. The question is then, how much land do we need to counter these externalities (to clean the polluted water, as a refuge for the local biodiversity, to compensate for the CO2 associated with the fossil fuel or to produce the energy, to mine and produce the chemicals and counter their externalities, etc.) and what if we included these externalities in the land needed (have we still gained in efficiency) ?
Agroforestry seems to be one alternative to reduce cropland by increasing production output. Some advocates of Syntropic Agriculture, an agroforestry technique, state that some cultures can have the same tree concentration of a monoculture (e.g. coffee) and have additional crops in different heights in that same area and being highly productive.
One remarcable characteristic of agroforestry, in general, and syntropic agriculture, in particular, is their reduced need for external inputs (fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides) and heavy use of locally sourced microbiota and organic material to recreate forests in degraded or depleted areas.
OTOH, those techniques may consume less inputs but are labor intensive (lots of prunning), requiring more adapted mechanization and driving more diesel usage. But, since it can recover and regreen degraded areas, I assume it is a very positive trade-off.
Ah, and reduced inputs means less need of energy-intensive (read carbon-intensive) processes like Haber-Bosch to create nitrogen-rich fertilizer.
Alsof because of covid vaccination
I mostly agree with your article, but how will you convince people to have more children if the Hans Rosling theory holds?
Some pro-natalist policies seem to work (Poland is a good example), but they are very expensive. You need to give people a lot of money to convince them to have more babies. A more radical solution would be to develop artificial wombs. https://ifstudies.org/blog/pro-natal-policies-work-but-they-come-with-a-hefty-price-tag
Producing babies without parents (because parents don't want to make them naturally) in artificial wombs in order to sustain an unsustainable world population? Even if considered as "a more radical solution", are you serious ?
Peter Zeihan said urbanization begets fewer children, because they become "expensive furniture". And the world population is becoming more urban by the time.