CYCLIC COLLAPSE 2*
note: prices per gallon on storage containers:
At Home Despot, 5 gallon buckets with lids 92 cents ( bought by the 20 pack, 82 cents ). Grey tote, 20 gal, 29cents. IBC tote, way over priced $1.45. 31 gallon metal trash can, best value ( considering the grey tote isn't an optimal storage container-I don't use them but for a few hundred pounds ), 71cents. If not shopping there: Drive a good distance to pick up an IBC, 73cents. Pick up locally, about 37cents. That varies, remember it has to be food grade. Each gallon holds six and a half to seven pounds of wheat. One cup of d-earth per five gallon bucket.
note: hard red wheat was going for $10 a fifty pound sack locally, white soft $11.
Looking at the global population estimation of 180 million in 750 AD, and the 500 million in 1700 ( after the weather change and famine/war adjustments sixty years prior and the coal powered industrialization to come shortly ), I would estimate that trade allows for a three times population allowance. In other words, without trade between regions there can be a lot less natural carrying capacity worldwide. Trade increases efficiencies in supplying resources. An easy and quick example is the oil production of the US. Without imports, we have one third the oil. Oil is food today.
Five hundred million population is the estimated global carrying capacity of solar powered agricultural civilization. That is based on 1700 figures, just prior to the Industrial Revolution ( which had little to due with private property or innovation or skin pigment and everything to do with carbon fuels. Yes, the Chinese had plentiful coal and did nothing with it, so other arguments such as the above do carry some weight. Yet, coal comes first. Without excess resources, cultural, geographical, anthological and biological forces are still powerless, in the larger context ). But that is with trade.
I would argue that, just as the Roman civilization collapsing halted almost all trade for five hundred years, the Oil Age Empire collapsing will also usher in another Dark Age whose defining characteristic is lack of trade ( you need a central government with excess resources to secure trade routes. Without a monopoly of force, trade has neither the secure transit lines nor the financial system to take place ). Hence, 500 million is too generous of an estimate. 180 million is better. Let us be optimistic and round up to 200 million global population.
The entire globe today is organized into urban areas which are fed and watered from long distances away. Almost every area extracts or manufactures items to be sent elsewhere on the planet, receiving substance from another area. Almost nowhere do you see the traditional model of an urban area surrounded by enough farmland to sustain the center. The more “efficient” trade is, the more dangerous it is be live away from food production because the food comes from further and further away.
I say this to underline that the entire globe is equally at risk and few areas will retain an increased share of the population. But, of course, almost all of us here only care about the US. What portion of that 180 million does our area get? Let’s go back to 1500 and take the 500 million ( in 1700 it was a bit more, but the period as a whole was hovering around the half billion mark ). The whole hemisphere was estimate at 110 million. But remember, the indigs had very efficient trade networks ( which was why the smallpox and etc. traveled so swiftly ). So one third of that number, the assumption of lack of trade, is about 35 million. For the entire hemisphere, not the US.
For the high estimation of 110 million ( which is the highest, but since 7 million Indians are estimated to have survived the disease outbreak, and we assume a 90% fatality rate, the 50 million or 18 million pre-disease estimate were surely too low. Which leaves us at 70-110 million estimation as a realistic figure ) for the entire hemisphere, it is estimated about 18 million were in the area of modern day USA. Again, that is three times too many if we assume a trade collapse. So, a HIGH estimation of US population is in actuality a mere 6 million people ( solar output, no carbon fuels ).
The low estimate, using 15% of the hemisphere, and a total of 70 million rather than 110, brings us from a high of six to a low of four million for the US. That is the No Trade natural carrying capacity. I would give the odds of the low estimate being more probable at about 80%. Given the post-plague survivors numbers, I think the estimate of a hemisphere total of 70 million to be far more likely. The US’s portion of that ( given the higher carrying capacity of the moderate climate areas ) was more likely than not a mere four million in population.
And that was with soil NOT denuded. After centuries of overproduction, only oil and carbon fuel inputs allow us to grow any crops. And, WITH centralized governments. So, the soil was more productive AND there was less war allowing maximum production. However, allowing for our existence of better grains, better domesticated animals, metal and knowledge, let’s just assume the initial number is correct rather than lower. Natural solar powered agriculture saw our country having a four million person carrying capacity.
And, big math problem! What is ten percent ( the number who survive overpopulation die-off ) of four million? Four hundred thousand. Most will be east of the Mississippi. Today that figure is 60%. It will be a bit more, as the West is artificially populated through rail and irrigation, but with numbers that low it is probably irrelevant ( we‘ll figure it anyway ). Now isn’t that a much nicer number of people to be around than what we are subjected to today? If today’s numbers are 333 million ( they lie about immigration ), and the natural carrying capacity without trade is 3.3 million ( I know, I’m lowering it slightly to make the math easy ), that makes for a future population of 1% of what your area is now.
And remember, the figures now are be a bit inflated out West. But hey, close enough for back of the envelope figuring. I’d LOVE if only 160 people lived in my town ( and that is the maximum ). Too bad you need a global die-off for that! If you take full trade population as a starting point, you can estimate that carbon fuels increase population fifteen times ( 500 million to 7.5 billion ). So the arid West, only being populated because of coal and oil, is one fifteenth the figures just given. So, 40% ( west of the Mississippi ) of 4 million is too much. Again, for ease of math, call it 1.5 million population, and taking that down 1/15th to 6% we arrive at 90,000. Ten percent of that ( post die-off ) means nine thousand live east of the Mississippi and 391,000 east of it.
The Western population is a mere rounding error in comparison to the east. For the well watered areas of the West, the Pacific edge and a few spots near or in the Rockies, a good rule of thumb is 1% of your current population survives the die-off ( just like back East ). The arid regions, most of the area, figure one tenth of one percent survives ( that is, 1/10th of 1% of today’s population ). That brings my town down to 16 people. That is a tenth of the natural carrying capacity of this area. And that was hard nomadic living. To get a mate and do any trading, you travel for two weeks or longer to an annual meeting. Fun stuff!
END ( today's related link http://amzn.to/2FJ5V5Z )
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
OMG...you paint such a lovely picture. I can hardly wait. LOL. Your numbers make sense at least on the surface, I didn't check your numbers or facts.ReplyDelete
I threw extra numbers in there to confuse everybody, so they would just agree with me :)Delete
I guess my chances are not too good then! But I can take a few bastards with me ! LOLReplyDelete
None of our chances are all that good. The closets full of wheat ort freeze dried goat scrotum or AR's or Enfields are all talismans allowing us to forget we don't have a damn clue how dependent we really are or how unknown the event can be. That said, exactly, just embrace your end with style and joy and make them pay for wasting your oxygen.Delete
I think the final figures you quote are a little too pessimistic for many areas But I do agree that by and large, in this century the die off average will be 90%. that is that the total global population will fall to 10% of what it is now. THERE will be a series of brief rebounds from area to area, but the downward trend will apply overall. It will apply first to the poorest and least resource wealthy places. Which is why I think during our lifetimes (absent a black swan like a WMD world war) the USA will not see more than a 80% decline at most. The following century(2100 on ) is where the USAs next steps down will happen. But I believe the carrying capacity of the USA is higher with agriculture, metal working, and domesticated animals than what the native tribes managed to get to.Delete
Can you be TOO pessimistic given this historic event of our only super abundant energy surplus ever now being in the process of ending? I think not. If anything, living our whole lives in the midst of plenty, we lack the conceptual ability to correctly forecast a world without it. Please look at the infrastructure of Rome, the Mayans and the Anasazi. They failed and did little to nothing for the survivors. Why would our infrastructure be any different? Also, metal. All metal does is gain upfront productivity from the soil. Its primary benefit is to wage war. Having superior domestic animals didn't give any advantage to failing western civilization. The hemisphere wasn't as exploited as could have been because of the lack of the metal, superior grains and animals but that doesn't mean their system was too far past carrying capacity. Even if I am too pessimistic, you seem to be too optimistic. Even though this is an intellectual exercise, the habits used in them can impact in other ways. I still think panicking is safer than looking at the bright side.Delete
Correct thesis again, Jim. People forget to factor in a principle of the pulling effects of one incident or event and it's negative effects causing or amplifying another incident or event. If you have an economic collapse, it will grind commerce to a halt or trickle. If oil/energy is slowed/interrupted, society will "fray" (and all them american guns come out to play) if some one turns off the electricty for sport, water and everything else grinds up. If governments cant very quickly organize and lead a recovery there will be a vacuum. People will be civil and christian for a little while then the gloves come off. Jim articulted quite well the globalism economy and the non self supporting cities, suburbs, and most rural areas. In short order things will spiral one thing after another. This will be very different as no fema coming. No national guard in smart uniforms and smiling faces with big trucks,helicopters,bottled water and rations. No blue helmeted U.N. or red cross euro volunteers to hug your crying kids. What you have now. Yes,only what you have now is it. You'll only be swapping scraps for scraps for quite a long time, if you can survive and weather it out a generations time frame.Delete
Still framing this as a global thermonuclear war ( but without the optimistic one year recovery with govt help ) should help. You are isolated and alone and the lifeboat supplies are it. Oh, and almost everyone dies. If you look at the fiction of the era, why was the popular one that of complete population decimation? Grocery store and house shopping for cans was the primary food source. How else does even a small group survive in screwy weather and pollution? "Magic population removal" was the only logistics solution they could come up with. Look at your logistics as there being zero recovery and red in tooth and claw. Muticulturalism is another fantasy on how we survive. We hug, hold hands and cooperate our way back to recovery. Please!Delete
Counting on no-one being around can be as bad as counting on all the infrastructure still being around. I count on everyone still being here that DOESN'T have essential and usable skills AND complete breakdown of most of the infrastructure. That level of pessimism blows away almost every die off scenario.Delete
Why couldn't someone with that view write some PA novels? The one guy with "Cannibal Kings" came close-actually pretty much nailed it. Dammit, now that I think about it I should have included that one in my top ten PA novels. I've read it twice and want to again, now that I think about it. I might have to do a second edition. How could I have forgotten that? Son of a bean! Too bad he gave up on that genre after one go.Delete
Sorry, "Cannibal Reign"Delete
it is written that people will crawl out of the earth after the nuclear destruction and those pregnant will give birth to monsters.Delete
considering that i have read that the politicians and their ilk have the fabulous bunkers, and since they are beyond useless, what sort of world will be populated from their genetics since they may be the only ones surviving?
No worries, the politicians will be helpless to survive past their shiny stocked trinkets. I hold little worry of their widespread procreation. Those that do will be akin to disease riddled ( from inbreeding ) royalty of old. Mostly due for gene cancellation.Delete
u need to remove the link to the daily impact guy.
He's genuinely insane. I realize u genuinely like to present all sides of a TOPIC but la la land is to much.
Ur hair is mesmerising as alwsys.
Daily impact guy is a Cunuk-give him a break. Like living in Frozen California. I loved his book, and yes, his blog is a bit too anti-Trump, but he is better balanced than the MSM. And you stuff stuff there found no where else, like the I-80 flooding back East. You want far out stuff, visit Unz.com I've had ones too leftist like Hedges and some others I can't recall off hand. They weren't anti-imperial for pro-liberty but rather anti-imperial pro left. I don't know, it is a delicate line. If you read me out of context I could appear left at times.Delete
Lord of the fine follicles I have followed your teachings for yeats but your "math made magic" population numbers are so wrong. Remember our pop in 1776 was 3MM. That was east of Alleghanies and 100% solar. Consider all the hard work of clearing land, draining & building roads is alteady done. Sure they'll degrade in time but 70-100MM will still be here 50 yrs post bust (non- nuke of course)ReplyDelete
Yes, a lot of land was cleared because we used so much timber for fuel. It would have bit us in the ass if the Industrial Revolution hadn't switched to coal. Also consider that by 1776, serious soil erosion especially in the South was a concern. Please, I'm begging you-be more pessimistic.Delete
I keep hounding people asking them what the carrying capacity of Dingoland is. Nobody knows or will say.ReplyDelete
About a decade ago my area of the world nearly ran out of water. Fortunately it rained and the problem went away never to be addressed again. Only thing is, more and more people dependent on those same dams move into the are. What's the plan for the next drought?
Some South African city is on the brink of running out of water. They recently got a reprieve when farmers released what they had stored (to grow food you dolts) and everyone is angry with them for storing it (WTF).
350k or so. Similar to California ( see comment nearby ). Granted, you have ag now, but with the environmental damage...? How dependent are you on irrigation? How close can you even hope to get to settling virgin farm land?Delete
The excerpt below just seemed relevant to today’s topic, so I thought to post it. Keep in mind that this was way back in 1972.ReplyDelete
“When our pioneer ancestors first planted their thrifty gardens in this new world, the virgin soil was rich with an average 4 percent of humus - brownish organic material formed by the partial decomposition of vegetable and animal matter in and on the ground. Although even this beneficence of humus was slightly below the optimum 5 percent, the present figure nationally is closer to a disturbing 1.5 percent.
Today's resulting hard, compacted ground shuts off too much
of its necessary air and water, so that instead of forming an ideal
50 percent of the breathing, drinking whole these are now down to
about 30 percent. On the other hand, the inorganic mineral con-
tent, ideally 45 percent, is up to an alarming 68.5 percent, partly
because of the residue of chemical fertilizers and sprays.”
One Acre And Security, By Bradford Angier (1972) P.61
Those thinking unused lawn would transfer to garden ( during/after collapse ) ignore the above. And you know it is a lot worse now.Delete
Xeriscaping and 'hardscaping' is being done in place of grass lawns even here on the great plains! @@ ! and seldom if ever is anything being done to preserve the soil underneath. In town soil fertility is probably way down. The good news is we should have plenty of bodies to use for fertilizer during the die off, unfortunately they will be full of toxic man made chemicals...Delete
Who cares? The soil is already full of that crap. Pile those bodies deep-it will be a fertility gift to your children.Delete
Per this excellent book...ReplyDelete
...the pre colonization/pioneer (1769) population of native Californians, living the stone-age lifestyle, was approximately 310,000. By 1890 the native population had dropped to approximately 17,000, due to "disease, starvation, warfare, and outright murder." Prior to colonization, most CA tribes were unfamiliar with famine due to abundant wildlife, biodiversity of species, and generally good climate.
The current Home Depot buckets are junk, just like the Lowes buckets. The HD ones used to be good until they switched the formula 4-5 years ago. The plastic is "squishy" and easily bends. After you eat the food from your bucket (please use a mylar liner), you may want to use the bucket for hauling water. These will fail rapidly as the bucket will oval out around the rim from the weight of the water, and it's only a matter of time before it cracks and splits. If a person insists on using cheap, non-food grade buckets, you'd be better off (maybe) getting the heavy duty buckets that used to be full of drywall mud from a drywall contractor. Those are stout. Again, please use a mylar liner.
I believe your figures jive with mine ( 39 mil currently, 300k carrying, collapse to under 30k ). On buckets, would placing one in another help? What about a carrying rope underneath the flared out ring?Delete
Probably the best way to reinforce a cheap bucket for carrying a load is by using a Gamma-Seal lid. Yes, that's $8 for just the lid.Delete
The HD buckets are .075 wall thickness, even their white food-grade buckets. The buckets I get from a bulk foods supplier (Winco Foods) are .090 wall thickness. You can definitely tell the difference in quality. The old HD buckets from 4-5 years ago were .075 also, but they used more rigid plastic than the squishy stuff they're using now. I'm so negatively impressed by the current HD buckets that I doubt a rope perimeter ring would suffice. It'd probably be better to not have to use the handle, and just have the weight in the bucket fully supported at the bottom, like in a cart or bike basket.
You'll want your buckets to last as long as possible because if you're not using them for hauling water, you may be using them as bucket toilets if you don't have an outhouse or it's not safe to leave your residence to go to the outhouse for some reason.
I must have bought my last load of HD buckets right before they switched over. Small favors.Delete
I have deli pickle bucket before me marked 90mil. Seems sturdy, was placed on sidewalk in front of Deli with 4 brothers and 5 lids. No charge, with some danger of spilling pickle and 'kraut juice on the way back.Delete
And the bonus of flavoring for your grain.Delete