Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What drives population growth - food or energy?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:37 AM
Original message
What drives population growth - food or energy?
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/PopulationFoodEnergy.html

A common assumption among population analysts is that food availability is the main driver of population growth. In fact, most will go so far as to define the carrying capacity of an environment primarily in terms of the food that it offers to the population under consideration. I have two major problems with this approach to population and carrying capacity, as outlined below.

My first objection is that this approach treats carrying capacity as a variable, and the expansion of agriculture as an increase in carrying capacity. This requires a definition of carrying capacity I do not subscribe to. The definition I am most comfortable with is, "The population level that an environment can support over the long term without damaging the ecology of the environment". An expansion of agriculture does not meet this definition because putting new land under the plow or increasing the production of existing farmland affects habitat, biodiversity, water levels and soil fertility among many environmental factors. In effect the expansion of agriculture requires that we draw on the natural capital of the environment. The repayment of this withdrawn capital does not enter the ecological equation as it should. The result is, by definition, not sustainable. In fact, the form of organized agriculture (which I have heard playfully called "totalitarian agriculture") practiced for the last ten thousand years is by definition unsustainable, especially when you consider that virtually all of the arable land on the planet is now under cultivation. Now, my definition of carrying capacity may be too strict and may be disputed by other ecologists, but it's the one that seems most comprehensive and reasonable to me.

My second problem is that energy is never mentioned in mainstream analyses that focus on food. The possibility that this omission may be wrong-headed is hinted at by the well-known studies that found 7 to 10 calories of fossil fuel embedded in every calorie of food we eat. In fact, I have developed a strong suspicion that rising per capita energy consumption has even more to do with population increase than rising food production. To investigate this possibility I created the graph below. It shows population, per capita grain consumption and per capita primary energy consumption from 1965 to 2005, all scaled to allow a visual estimate of correlation.




More at the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Population growth...
...is driven by food, more-so than energy.

For one thing, food is more likely to precede the act of procreation (dinner, strawberries
oysters, a nice Pinot Noir). Anyway, the lights are usually off, so energy is less a factor.

This data is based on numerous double blind dates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. ;-) Thanks for that ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. "Love Day" on the Democratic Underground
:loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. I've always agreed with this assessment.
Because everything needed in order to sustain growth is supported by energy. That is above and beyond the natural equilibrium. Meaning, naturally. Plowing by hand or animal. Fertilizing without petroleum based chemicals.

Conversely to the reasoning behind the decline in population, there is an increase in life expectancy due to medical advances and living conditions. Septic systems, refrigeration, water treatment. That increases the number of people on the planet at any one time.

I'd like to see a population forum here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. There is no doubt, food is "derived" from energy
With less energy available, industrial agriculture becomes limited by at least an order of magnitude.

Increased Energy --> Increased Agricultural Yields --> Increased Population
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. The fact that energy correlates better than food
implies that the influence of energy use on population growth includes but extends beyond food. My next investigation is going to include the energy requirements of urban sanitation infrastructures, which I suspect is the other big factor in population growth through their effect in reducing mortality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. People who live in mud huts in DR Congo
who have never seen a flashlight are having babies. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Actually, I think that population growth...
is, in these "modern" times, driven primarily by organized religion(s), which frown upon even providing information about birth control - let alone advising the wisdom thereof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
8. Energy
Energy to organize. Energy to centralize. Energy to expand. All of that requires more people, since humans are still needed for civilization to grow.

While I agree with another post about religion, it doesn't stop there. All of our scientific and secular wants require more people as well. Who's going to pay for everything? Where is the tax base if the population begins to decline? When can you retire if there are fewer people and you live longer? Where is the consumption that creates the jobs? Plenty of other questions can be asked. Civilization requires more people. It can't continue without more people(or, an ever larger footprint from fewer people).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. Neither. Human intentionality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ah. So we can quit growing any time we want?
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 10:48 AM by GliderGuider
That's good news! Or at least it would be if it were true.

There will be no measured, rational global response to overpopulation or, more importantly, to overconsumption. There will be no soft landing. When you consider human behaviour in the aggregate we are so little different from animals that it almost defies belief.

Here's my latest thinking on the biological and social determinants of human behaviour: Nature vs. Nurture on the Ecological Battlefield.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. As a cynical son of a bitch, claims we are not animals always surprise me.
We spread across the world like green algae in a pond.

one

many

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirogyra

Very soon now we will discover what an extraordinarily bad idea it was to make fossil fuels the basis of our ecology.

But that's the way it's always been on this earth -- a population expands until it can't. Whenever a population kills, pollutes, or uses up all the resources that supported it, it crashes. Nothing exempts us from that. We will learn to maintain a stable population or we will become subject to repeating cycles of feast and famine, or extinction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. Sex. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is a bullshit analysis
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 03:15 PM by XemaSab
If there are more people, we will use more energy, not the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You could be right. But then you need to answer this question:
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 03:45 PM by GliderGuider
Why does per capita energy correlate with population, when per capita food doesn't?

It could simply be that the "A" in the I=PAT equation keeps growing as our civilization expands, and this is the effect that's being demonstrated. If so, then a decline in energy supplies would just mean a reduction in human activity, not a decline in population. On the other hand, producing more food requires the expenditure of more energy, and the provision of better urban sanitation also requires it, and the construction of more secure housing also requires it, and the provision of better medical services also requires it. As these factors are commonly accepted as drivers of population growth, why not the underlying mechanism of energy?

It could also be that rather than a simple cause and effect relationship or the independence suggested by I=PAT, that there is instead a complex feedback between population (P), energy (A) and the level of civilization (T). If each of those enables the other two to some extent you would see a similar graphical relationship.

As I said in my article, this isn't a rigorous analysis. The absence of energy from most of the carrying capacity discussions I've read recently stuck out like a sore thumb, and this is my first shot at figuring out what its role might be. Do you have a reason to believe that rising per capita energy use is an effect rather than a cause (direct or indirect) of population growth, or is it just one of those things that seems like common sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'd say the answer is that energy is not yet a limited resource
Food is, and has always been, a limited resource. (Which isn't the same as limiting).

Also, people can conserve energy by turning out the lights, but conserving food by not eating is a little more difficult. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Almost
Food has not always been a limited resource. That's what the Green Revolution was all about, and why people to this day think Malthus was wrong (he wasn't, he was just early).

What a lot of us have concluded is that humanity is about to hit the limits of both energy and food essentially simultaneously. Nobody really knows what to expect when a still rising population collides with them, but we suspect it may not be a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. Condom-grabbing holy rollers. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. I don't think you're looking at the right data sets
Wouldn't you want to look at per capita energy use, per capita calorie consumption, population doubling times, age distributions and so forth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Actually, I went back and looked at something simpler
The new graph looks at population, total energy use and total food consumption over time. You can see the new graph if you reload the OP. Energy still correlates better with population growth. This could mean that food was running ahead of population in earlier times and so drove the growth until recently, but I'm still convinced that the underlying role energy plays in food production (as well as the other population enhancing developments I mentioned above) makes it a better, more comprehensive candidate for a driver of growth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. What would happen if you broke the analysis down
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 09:30 PM by depakid
by country (or by region)? My guess is that if you compare and contrast countries or regions by per capita energy use, you'd find that those with high energy usage have lower population doubling times- particularly if you control for migration.

And my bet would also be that Malthus' core proposition would generally hold true- food supply (along with other, often related variables) would affect population- and sustainability- to a far greater degree than modern energy use.

Clearly, the so called "green revolution" was energy intensive- low entropy energy from fossil fuels was used in various ways to boost production, and that also boosted population growth.

But when it comes down to it- is energy, per se or food supply the more influential variable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. There's no question that high energy consuming countries have lower TFR
That is Demographic Transition at work.

I've done the correlation of energy and TFR, and it's undeniable. The way it seems to work is that energy consumption correlates inversely with fertility, while food consumption correlates inversely with mortality. Given the role of fossil fuels in food production however, rising and falling energy supplies (especially oil and natural gas) should play a role in food-mediated mortality as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. Without the sun, we're goners.
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 10:49 PM by SimpleTrend
The sun provides much of the growing energy, photosynthesis, of plants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC