Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline/df2

Expand Messages
  • Denis Frith
    Gerry, that is a good question. My response is connect all the dots. There is the tendency in developed countries to focus on oil supply. Some authorities
    Message 1 of 35 , Apr 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Gerry, that is a good question. My response is connect all the dots. There is the tendency in developed countries to focus on oil supply. Some authorities focus on over population while others consider food and potable water supply. Others consider the pollution of land, sea, air and organims, including us. Adapting to climate change is now being considers by informed sources as being the greatest challenge. People whose thinking stems from their experience in Myopa will continue to follow the money in the short term. On the other hand, I am fascinated by what is actually happening now in the Real world and what it is leading to.

      Denis
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gerry Agnew
      Sent: 05/01/13 03:15 AM
      To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline/df2

      There is no complaint here Denis, but I do not think that this "running out" is going to happen in the near term. Therefore, this being the case, we must focus on what is most likely and the inevitable Western response to a problem: panic and put into place a short term solution!

      This is what we are seeing in the US with what looks like a catch-all immigration bill (844 pages at last count) to get a lot of people into the US to fill the "baby-bust" hole. The EU will probably do something similar.

      The question is how long this will last given your hypothesis?

      Gerry

      **************************************************

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Denis Frith
      To: energyresources%40yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:52 PM
      Subject: Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline/df

      Two issues are involved in the operation and maintenance of the industrial infrastructure of civilization. Gerry discusses the need for the skilled workers to operate the systems. I focused on the other issue, the use of energy and materials. That is an unsustainable process irreversibly using up the limited natural material resources, including oil, and irrevocably producing damaging material wastes. These aging systems will decline as the natural resources they use run out and the skilled work force will then become redundant.

      My comments relate to what will irrevocably happen in the future in the Real world. Focusing on the place of people and economics on operations is a characteristic of the short sightness of Myopia.

      Denis Frith
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gerry Agnew
      Sent: 04/29/13 11:57 PM
      To: energyresources%40yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline/df

      Agree fully Denis!

      The current levels of industrial and economic infrastructure require a certain amount of people of various skills to keep them all going. In turn, these levels of economic activity require a certain level of population to maintain output and hence to service the debt which has probably been accumulated to get them up and running and to open the markets to accept the products so produced.

      Put another way, if we have a real problem with population levels (and hence skill levels), bad debts will rapidly grow and collapse our very overextended financially-driven world.

      The key figure to look at as it tells us what is going to happen in the longer term is a nation's Fertility Rate. If this dips below 2.1 for anything like a short period of time, we are looking at a decline in population and hence skill levels. It would explain (see my newsletter clippings a couple of months ago) on why the US is looking at needing possibly 75-90 million new immigrants by 2030 (just 17 years from now). South Korea is in dreadful shape with a Fertility Rate of just 1.08 in 2005, although this has recently improved to 1.3. This is still far short of what is needed and so is Japan and the EU (with the exception of France).

      Apart from wholesale immigration or a complete reordering of societies whose FR is low, there is no hope.

      I have just finished writing a series of essays on this for my newsletter. If our moderator permits (as I suppose population fluctuations would directly impact energy usage) I will send them along!

      Gerry

      **********************************************************

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Denis Frith
      To: energyresources%40yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 6:37 PM
      Subject: Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline

      Grantham presents what many concerned people would regard as a realistic view of the situation with regard to our civilization and the challenge that lies ahead. However, he does not take into account the fact that our civilization consists of a vast range of infrastructure that needs energy and materials for its operation and maintenance during its lifetime. This is an irrevocable commitment despite the decisions that people may make.
      Denis Frith
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jay Hanson
      Sent: 04/28/13 07:42 AM
      To: America2Point0, energyresources%40yahoogroups.com , the_dieoff_QA%40yahoogroups.com , thelongemergency%40yahoogroups.com , progressivepolitical%40yahoogroups.com , toeslist%40yahoogroups.com , gaiapc list, AlasBabylon%40yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline

      From: NJ Hagens < njhagens%40gmail.com > wrote:

      Jeremy Grantham On The Fall Of Civilizations (And Our Last Best Hope) |
      Zero Hedge

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-27/jeremy-grantham-fall-civilizations-and-our-last-best-hope

      "In the meantime it would be encouraging if economists,/The
      Economist/(not to pick on them but I tend to hold them to higher
      standards than others), and economic discussions in general would look
      out a few more years and stop discussing lower population growth as if
      it were a dire economic threat rather than our last best hope."

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6281 - Release Date: 04/28/13

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6286 - Release Date: 04/30/13

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Gerry Agnew
      Precisely Howard! I believe strongly in what I am writing about and I hope this comes out in what I write. Denis does and so does Dell. What are we saying? How
      Message 35 of 35 , May 11 9:23 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Precisely Howard! I believe strongly in what I am writing about and I hope this comes out in what I write. Denis does and so does Dell. What are we saying? How does this all resonate with readers and what do they think as they will have to assess all of this and then react in some manner for their own lives?

        For my own standpoint, I would simply say that the Fertility Rate math is not to be trifled with and that many major countries are now starting to see this and are trying to do something.

        Gerry

        ****************************************************************************************

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: htraite
        To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 6:34 AM
        Subject: [Bulk] Re: [energyresources] Re: Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline/fh



        The issue is Denis? Is Frank? Is Gerry?

        Sigh,

        Howard

        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry Agnew" <gaea@...> wrote:
        >
        > I don't always agree with what Denis has to say, but I always read his contributions and respect him immensely for having a well considered view AND having the courage to present it.
        >
        > Gerry
        >
        > *************************************************
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Frank Holland
        > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:27 AM
        > Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [energyresources] Re: Fwd: Grantham says last best hope is fertility decline/de
        >
        >
        >
        > This is a great list to be on, we have Denis repeatedly telling us that
        > "the systems of civilisation are irreversibly using up the limited
        > natural resources, including oil, and producing irrevocable wastes,
        > including those that have caused irrevocable climate change." And now
        > Gerry pleading "Women of the world - we are counting on you to get to
        > work and mitigate what is to happen!"
        >
        > Fabulous!
        >
        > But the collapses Gerry talks about are due to what Denis reminds us of,
        > we have hit the limits of growth and the downward spiral has begun. All
        > that Gerry talks about is how that spiral might happen, just a symptom
        > of the overall decline.
        >
        > We are on the way to "the mother of all hard landings", like it or not.
        >
        > Frank
        >
        > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:35 -0600, Gerry Agnew wrote:
        > >
        > > Ah, Del - I have read this well written article of yours! It is such,
        > > but we are (again) talking about two different issues.
        > >
        > > Let me try again!
        > >
        > > Japan IS dying and DOES need more people. What do they need people
        > > relative to anyway? They need people relative to what they will have
        > > in the years 2040-2060 or so. If one argues for a reduction of
        > > population to 20 million (wow! that IS a fall) then there are
        > > consequences to this - and bad ones. It is as disturbing to me to read
        > > what you have to say as (presumably) what I am writing here for you to
        > > read. Fair enough! This is good as we can present two sides of the
        > > arguments to the rest of this fine page and let them decide what they
        > > wish to believe. It will be amusing if both of us are wrong I would
        > > say! Let me summarise-
        > >
        > > 1) The world is completely interlinked both via trade and commercial
        > > and money flows. I would this were not so, but it is and is not going
        > > to go away without severe disruptions. This is what my esteemed
        > > opponent is saying. The world today has been revved up industrially
        > > and financially (this is probably the killer) to the point where it
        > > must have a large population to service the debts and money flows
        > > which result from this.
        > >
        > > 2) With the insane desire of industrialists to get "bigger and better"
        > > for next fiscal year, this chasing the tail can only continue to
        > > result in disaster. Nothing I have ever seen anywhere goes in a
        > > straight line upwards without a pause somewhere. However, it is
        > > equally true to say that we cannot tell when the turning point will
        > > come in this upwards curve. We are at that point today and for most of
        > > my life I have heard (endlessly it seems) that "the world is
        > > overpopulated and that we are looking at disaster beyond all reckoning
        > > just over the next hill". Still not there!
        > >
        > > 3) I am NOT (note!!!) arguing for an increase in population. What I AM
        > > arguing for is that nations try to offset the math involved with the
        > > very low fertility rates we have seen for far too long. Starting
        > > literally now baby boomers are retiring in droves and this will not
        > > stop at all for as far out as one cares to go (with the next
        > > generation awaiting to follow on from them). At that time we are going
        > > to see terrible overpopulation levels in the elderly (how do you spell
        > > "euthanasia"??) relative to the next generation coming along. It is
        > > not a question of how these elderly will be cared for, but also the
        > > simple question of how the jobs the elderly used to do are going to be
        > > filled. Can't be done in my view at least not efficiently. If we
        > > continue to see the Fertility Rate decline then the whole global
        > > economy is going to fall apart at the seams.
        > >
        > > 4) Let us suppose that Japanese women really "get to work" and double
        > > the Fertility Rate to, say, 3.00 (roughly). This will not stop the
        > > problems of what is to come. This cannot be avoided. Baby boomers will
        > > retire and in 20 years or so we shall see a die off to gladen the
        > > heart of the most ardent advocate of the population reduction
        > > specialists. If you want to see a Japan with collapsing population
        > > levels, just stick around! It cannot be avoided, just NOT NOW! Be
        > > patient.
        > >
        > > 5) If Japanese women defer from my course of action and continue doing
        > > things which are to no one's good (especially Japan's) then we are
        > > going to see a massive population bust and hence (as there is no one
        > > to manage the equipment which produces the economic output which Japan
        > > and the world needs to service its debts) we are going to see the
        > > mother of all hard landings. Because of the wretched global
        > > interlinked economies, if Japan goes down then everyone else does as
        > > well. Debts cannot be serviced and hence banks, retirement funds (for
        > > those people who are today quite young), and so forth are going to go
        > > broke in droves.
        > >
        > > 6) What I am saying is that if Mrs. Watanabe in Japan does what she
        > > was made by Nature to do, then we might be able to skirt the worst of
        > > the depression which now must happen. It cannot be avoided. If we have
        > > a new generation of youngsters come to the fore they will NOT add to
        > > the population but rather be a replacement for the massive die off of
        > > the aged which is now right around the corner. The new generation will
        > > therefore (hopefully, anyhow) be able to smooth out what is to happen
        > > so that by the start of the next century we shall have our populations
        > > inter-generationally balanced so these sorts of current imbalances
        > > cannot happen again. We shall have a civilisation (suitably chasened)
        > > which understands what Fertility Rate and economic growth combine to
        > > mean! If we do not have this, then it is back to the Middle Ages (at
        > > best) and in a few hundred years are probably doomed to redo this all
        > > over again!
        > >
        > > No Ponzi scheme my friend! None at all. Just pure hard math and
        > > corporate misjudgement of what is to happen!
        > >
        > > Women of the world - we are counting on you to get to work and
        > > mitigate what is to happen!
        > >
        > > Gerry
        > >
        > > ***********************************************************************************
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Dell Erickson
        > > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:46 AM
        > > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Fwd: Grantham says last best hope
        > > is fertility decline/df2
        > >
        > > Shhhh. Don't tell Gerry.
        > >
        > > One would think that the information shared by so many capable and
        > > informed people on this list over the years is being read and,
        > > sometimes, understood.
        > >
        > > Evidently, not by some.
        > >
        > > Howard mentions food. But, Japan also imports more than 80 percent of
        > > its energy. Clearly, it is imperative that Japan reduce its
        > > population to a sustainable level.
        > >
        > > Its 127 million people needs to get to 20 million. The sooner the
        > > better. Relatively speaking, the same essential trend applies to the
        > > U.S.
        > >
        > > But, in todays newsletter, Gerry continues screaming for Japan to
        > > have more people. (And for the U.S. without limit.) "It's dying!"
        > >
        > > To hear anyone today express such counter productive and
        > > economically, socially, and environmentally suicidal thoughts --and
        > > says he says it everywhere he can!, is more than disturbing.
        > >
        > > As I indicated previously, economists do not appear to have any grasp
        > > of what constitutes a sustainable society. Indeed, practically
        > > everything they claim are solutions are fundamental to the social and
        > > economic *problems* they describe (and they overlook environmental
        > > consequences; go away Gaia!). Japan is an example.
        > >
        > > Do economists have the ability to see anything beyond their out
        > > stretched fingertips?
        > >
        > > Japan has had 60 years to plan for the final transition of their
        > > post-war boom. Likewise the U.S.
        > >
        > > But what is the solution economists offer today? A continual Ponzi
        > > Scheme. Oh my.....
        > >
        > > In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. had it made; the U.S. was on the
        > > path to social and economic Nirvana, a sustainable society. Slow
        > > population growth for many decades, then stabilization, then a
        > > gradual population decline into sustainability.
        > >
        > > But then powerful religions and economist and financial interest took
        > > over and forced Ponzi Schemes as a way of life. One outcome of the
        > > scheme was debt, it hid behind debt for decades. Debt is a liability
        > > on the future and the future has a way of becoming the preset. More
        > > Ponzi actions are therefore necessary to keep the make believe world
        > > going. Population, etc.
        > >
        > > Nature has ready-made plans to deal with economic folderol. We see it
        > > everywhere today.
        > >
        > > Sad to say, but powerful interests (economic and financial) combine
        > > with emotional dissonance to make a path to a sustainable society
        > > almost impossible.
        > >
        > > Dell Erickson
        > > Minneapolis
        > >
        > > 5/5/2013, Howard wrote:
        > > >Yes, a Neanderthal probably wouldn't bring children to the world
        > > >when it simply must import ~60% of its food calories, as is the case
        > > >with Japan...
        > > >Howard
        > > >
        > > >--- "Abernethy, Virginia Deane" <virginia.abernethy@> wrote:
        > > > > Kindly do not speak ill of Neanderthals. They contributed 4% of
        > > > the EUropean gene pool, had a cranial capacity approximately 100 cc
        > > > larger than modern humans, and may have been very good guys.
        > > > > V.
        > > > >
        > > > > ________________________________
        > > > > From:
        > > > <mailto:energyresources%
        > > 40yahoogroups.com>energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > > > [<mailto:energyresources%
        > > 40yahoogroups.com>energyresources@yahoogroups.com]
        > > > on behalf of Dell Erickson [ricks@]
        > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:51 AM
        > > > > To:
        > > > <mailto:energyresources%
        > > 40yahoogroups.com>energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Fwd: Grantham says last best hope
        > > > is fertility decline/df2
        > > > >
        > > > > Economists often misspeak, as does Gerry below.
        > > ....
        > >
        > > No virus found in this message.
        > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6304 - Release Date:
        > > 05/06/13
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6309 - Release Date: 05/08/13
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >




        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6316 - Release Date: 05/11/13


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.