"Disaster Preppers"

[GliderGuider]

32. You have to ask yourself, "Too many for what, exactly?"

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 02:26 PM - Edit history (2)

The short answer is, "Too many for long-term sustainability."

The longer version is this:

I think that the sustainable limit of human population on the planet over the long haul (like the next 10,000 years) is no more than one billion people. There are some sudden natural disasters could bring the population down to that, but unless it's something on the scale of a major asteroid impact or Toba II most of them are unlikely to be quite that effective.

As I'm sure I've said before, I don't think human population is going to be reduced to that level through any decision-making process on the part of other people, let alone me. My bet is on disruptions to the food supply brought about by a convergence of oil depletion, climate change, soil and water exhaustion, the death of the oceans and a global economic depression. If that happens, then pandemics due to a breakdown of health care systems around the world as a consequence of the ensuing rupture of civil society become a high probability.

IMO there is a better-than-minuscule chance that these initial effects will converge over the next (very) few decades, resulting in a century-long reduction in human population back to a stable level below one billion. I think this is a possibility because I think it's in fact already in its very early stages (not the population reduction, but the rest of it).

This is why I've decided to get fully involved in the permaculture movement, to help give the people at the bottom of this crumbling pyramid scheme of a civilization (like me) some slim chance that they won't be crushed.