Energy as the Catalyst in the Punctuated Equilibrium of Human Population Growth

The history of human cultural evolution is generally regarded as being closely linked to the development and evolution of agriculture. As man (initially in isolated local pockets) learned to plant seeds and grow his food rather than having to find it or chase it, human cultural evolution gradually moved toward the production of surpluses capable of supporting community building and urbanization.

It is generally argued that the "unnatural" growth in human population began with that simple act of planting a seed and the associated act of fixing a harness to an animal and having it pull a plow.

This whole argument, however, is one of observing results in isolation and to miss the underlying cause. The underlying catalyst to the growth of the human population is the exploitation of energy in its broadest context. The advance in human numbers, from the beginning of the history of man on earth, has been punctuated - in the context of Stephen J. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium in speciation and evolution - by the discovery, recognition, understanding and exploitation of new forms of energy. Even that first planting of favored seeds around the hunter-gatherer's camp site was a process of exploiting the energy contained within those seeds by which those seeds could reproduce the plant from which they came.

The nature of punctuated equilibrium in the growth of human population is completely different than punctuated equilibrium in the genesis and evolution of species. The spurts of human population growth are caused by our own activity. It is not dependent on genetic evolution but, rather, memetic evolution. We are responsible for our own pattern of punctuated equilibrium. Each spurt in human population growth, most notably that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, are closely linked to the discovery, recognition, understanding and exploitation of a new "energy source" in the broadest context.

What has pushed us into extreme exponential population growth since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a series of new and tightly overlapping energy exploitations closely following on a previous series of lower impact energy exploitations. All three fossil fuels had, before the industrial revolution, small scale local use. But other energy exploitations like the use of wind energy for windmills and sails, solar energy use in ovens, water energy in water wheels and the aqueduct systems like those built by the Romans, had all preceded the industrial revolution. But the overlapping cumulative exploitation of coal, oil, natural gas, electricity and nuclear had a truly revolutionary impact on human society and human population. Our numbers grew exponentially from about 850 million in 1700 to 6.5 billion at the beginning of this millennium just three centuries later. It is that cumulative contribution of so many very major new energy resources that has thrown the human population into the most extreme period of punctuated equilibrium and exponential growth in human history.

There is, however, another very worrying aspect of the punctuated equilibrium pattern brought on by the exploitation of new energy sources. Their application follows a standard Gaussian Curve or bell curve, application climbing relatively rapidly to a peak and falling rapidly with the discovery and exploitation of "the next" energy source. The worrying part is that growth in human population - usually local but sometimes, as now, global - follows the same Gaussian Curve. There is a short spurt of human population followed by a short term drop back to a level of stasis as the exploitation of that energy source goes into decline.

The current short (by historical standards) period of exponential growth in human numbers has been the result of a three century series of overlapping and cumulative exploitations of a half dozen unprecedented new energy sources. But the exploitation of all of these energy sources is moving rapidly toward a peak that will occur this century. As each of them peak there will be a corresponding negative impact on human population. This impact will gain negative momentum as the exploitation of each of these energy sources peaks and begins to decline. What is the level of population stasis to which we will decline as all of these energy sources falter? The population when we started up the steep slope of the Gaussian Curve was about 850 million. Most analysts of peak oil and other looming global crises believe the population will stabilize somewhere between one and two billion.

Based on historical trends it is more likely to be the lower figure of one billion.

However, there are approximately two billion people on the planet who arguably survive with no benefit from fossil fuels or any of the other energy sources that have driven our exponential rise in population. I would argue that they do, in fact, benefit indirectly from those energy sources through the importation of food, the mechanical exploitation of water sources, the availability of medicines produced by that exploitation of energy, and through the "manufactured" tools and other materials and goods they use and consume. I still, therefore, believe that the one billion number is more likely.

Historically, as well, the impact of the punctuated equilibrium on population has been localized to the relatively small geographic areas in which exploitation of the energy source is taking place. As a result these local population spurts had only minimal impact on global human population growth. With the growth of global trade in both goods and ideas that was such a key part of the industrial revolution, exploitation of these half dozen new energy sources , for the first time in human history, became global. The population of virtually every nation and region on earth grew - not at the same time or the same rate (Britain was experiencing a population increase of about 3% per year in the early stage of the industrial revolution while the overall world population was roughly static) - as the exploitation of these energy sources grew.

For the first time the Gaussian Curve of energy-mitigated population growth is global, an accumulation of all of the local growth patterns. Since growth in all of these areas, however, depends on the same globally traded energy resources, the slide down the back side of the curve will not be as spread out and gradual as it was on the up slope. This strongly suggests there will be a global population crash when these energy sources and resources go into irreversible decline and all nations experience the loss of benefit from these energy sources at the same time.


--------------------------
Population and Energy - Graham Zabel - http://dieoff.org/page199.htm
The Energy Crisis is Here by Stan Goff - http://www.williambowles.info/guests/energy_crisis.html
World Energy Production, Population Growth, And the Road to the Olduvai Gorge - Richard C. Duncan - http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/road2olduvai.pdf
Tight Squeeze - By Mark Ridley - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EEDA1239F93AA25752C1A963958260
The Scientific Revolution - Introduction - E.L. Skip Knox, Boise State University -
http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/science/01.shtml
Population Growth, Energy Use, and Pollution: Understanding the Driving Forces of Global Change - http://www.aag.org/hdgc/Population_Growth.html

Methane Hydrates: the next great energy source?

Methane hydrates, research has proven, are common in nature, in Arctic regions (most commonly in permafrost) and in marine sediments. Methane hydrates are crystaline solids that look very much like ice where gas molecules have been trapped in a cage of water molecules in the form of ice. The big difference is, this ice burns if exposed to a flame and will continue to support that flame on its own. Methane hydrates occur in stable ocean floor sediments resembling concrete below 300 meters down to about 500 meters (the Gas Hydrate Stability Zone or GHSZ). Above and below that zone hydrates to not form effectively as geothermal temperatures are too high for them to stabilize. That stability, however, is dependent on two primary factors, one being pressure and the other being temperature. It is believed that relatively small drops in ocean depth during the ice ages sufficiently reduces the pressure above methane hydrate deposits that the formations destabilize and release large volumes of trapped methane. Large scale sediment scarring in methane hydrate zones on the slopes of the continental shelf suggest frequent methane releases over the years as a contributing factor in underwater landslides. There is also a growing belief that large methane releases may be responsible for unexplained ship sinkings in areas like the Bermuda Triangle and the Devil's Triangle south of
Japan. These factors and the potential instability of the methane hydrates raises concerns about exploiting them as an energy resource with the potential of "losing" platforms in sudden methane releases. In addition, methane hydrates generally become unstable at temperatures above 18C even at pressure. At sea level they become unstable at even lower temperatures, possibly as low as 2C.

There has been considerable excitement and interest in methane hydrates as an energy and fuel source since the 1970s. Some have estimated that there is as much gas in the form of methane hydrates equivalent to twice the amount of all fossil fuel reserves on earth, or more. Estmiates over the last few decades, however, have steadilly declined by magnitudes. Where once methane hydrates were assumed to underly all the world's ocean bottoms it is now understood that they occur only in limited zones generally on continental shelves. It was also erroneously believed that because of the crystaline structure of the formations the gas would be concentrated much more densely than in conventional gas deposits. It is now believed that, in fact, the concentrations of methane hydrates in any area is generally much lower than originally estimated. In fact in most sites it is believed that the hydrates are too dispersed for economic extraction.

One of the serious problems about methane hydrates is that methane is more than ten times as effective as a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. The suspected positive feedback processes that occur with global warming can cause massive releases of sequestered methane which then further increases atmospheric temperatures which causes further releases of methane in a viscious spiral that can end in a rapid onset of a new ice age. This is, in fact, one of the primary concerns with the increase in ocean temperatures, particularly in cold polar oceans that host large concentrations of methane hydrates, that is occuring in the current phase of global warming. Since it is believed that the earth contains 3,000 times the methane in hydrate form than is currently in the atmosphere the risk involved in initiating a large-scale destabilization and release of these gases is very worrying. More visible and equally concerning is the ongoing release of methane from hydrates in Arctic permafrost that is resulting from global warming. Temperature increases from global warming are, in fact, greater in the polar regions than in equatorial and temperate regions. The potential of a positive feedback mechanism in these polar regions due to permafrost methane releases is very high as is the risk of destabilizing global climate.

Energy companies, despite frequent and ubiquitous press releases to the contrary, do not have a good track record of concern for the impact of their operations on the environment. The risk of very large releases of potent greenhouse gasses while attempting to exploit these methane hydrate deposits is sufficiently high that we should demand a full long-term understanding of the nature and characteristics of these deposits before any consideration of granting exploration and development licenses. The concern is, with declining economically viable natural gas reserves, that the "need" for energy will preclude environmental concerns. Thus far there appears to be no imminent rush to exploit these reserves. Seemingly careful testing is being conducted both in the arctic and in select oceanic reserves. Once we go into rapid natural gas decline, however, coupled with an increasing North American social infrastructure dependent on gas, will such care continue to be taken? Or will we yet again compromise on environmental protection for the sake of satisfying our growing energy lust? Only time will tell.

Peak Oil Methadone

The problem with Methadone treatment for drug addiction is that it keeps the focus on the addiction, through the use of an alternative, rather than shifting the addict's focus to preparing for and building a life for after the addiction. The problem with keeping the focus in the peak oil debate/discussion on the energy component of oil and trying to find alternative fuels to replace the energy derived from oil is that it keeps the addicts (all of us) focussed on the addiction rather than developing a new paradigm for life after the oil to which we are addicted is no longer available at a level that that addiction can be supported.

As long as we allow the peak oil dialogue to stay focussed on the energy issues we are playing right into the hands of the pushers who are feeding that addiction. We allow debunkers an easy target to focus on by promising all of those existing and potential energy sources. They offer ethanol which, like any good addict, allows us to continue to put out good money for the next fix rather than considering how to put food on the table. In a world that cannot produce enough food to feed our 6.5+ billion population with billions of dollars of oil-derived petrochemical inputs, we turn to ethanol to support our addiction at the expense of taking vital food producing land out of the food production system. The global emergency grain reserves over the past several years has dwindled from a marginal 119 day supply to a sub-critical 57 day supply. Global grain production has fallen below global grain usage in each of the past three years and will probably continue to decline while the population continues to rise.

The pushers feeding our addiction offer us coal to liquid (CTL), natural gas to liquid (GTL), tar sands and oil sands and oil shale, electric cars, hybrid cars, all to continue our addiction rather than offering methods of kicking our addiction and moving on with an addiction-free life.
We can not cure our addiction by continuing to substitute new alternatives in support of that addiction. At some point we have to get refocussed. The longer that takes, the more difficult it is going to be and the greater the number of casualties that will result.

Kick the habit.
Bypass the methadone.
Get clean.
Move on.

The Hydrocarbon Generations

Everyone alive today was born into one of the just twelve hydrocarbon generations since the onset of the industrial revolution late in the eighteenth century. One generation, statistically, is twenty years, that time between birth and the beginning of giving birth to the next generation. But real generations are not neatly separated by twenty year intervals like statistical models portray them. Right now there are people living who individually represent six generations. All of those people collectively are the present global human population. Over the period since the industrial revolution began the statistical relationship between generations and overall population have changed dramatically. One very important and overriding statistic is that in those twelve generations since the industrial revolution began the human population has increased sevenfold........ in just twelve generations!

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the total global population was, by best estimate, about one billion. For the purposes of this article that population of one billion will be used as a base. When the generation born at the start of the Industrial Revolution began to have children of their own twenty years later, their children were being born into a world with a little less than 10 percent more population than when they themselves were born. That generation increased the global by another 12 percent more than that at the time their parents were born. Each new generation being born today is increasing the global population by more than 1.5 times (150%) the base Industrial Revolution population. During the hundreds and thousands of generations before the Industrial Revolution and the advent of serious hydrocarbon use, the human population had been relatively stable or grew by fractions of a percent from one generation to the next.

At the beginning of the industrial revolution, just twelve, short generations ago, we began building a global human infrastructure not only geared to the use of hydrocarbons but increasingly and critically dependent on them. Just as each generation cannot imagine their parents having sex, each generation cannot imagine living without the benefits they derive from hydrocarbons that did not exist in their parents' time.

It is impossible to separate the current global population from the use of hydrocarbons such as oil, coal and natural gas, thus the reason I call the past twelve generations the Hydrocarbon Generations. The utter explosion of human numbers in these past twelve generations is, in fact, diretly a result of that increased usage of and dependence on hydrocarbon fuels. Our global infrastructure was not only built through the energy derived from hydrocarbon fuels but that infrastructure itself is increasingly composed of products derived from those hydrocarbons. There are today over 300,000 products in everyday use in our society that are made from oil or derivatives of oil.

The dramatic rise in human population since the industrial revolution began is not a result of an equivalent rise in the number of children a couple are producing. In fact the number of children given birth by the average woman of childbearing years today is less than half those that would have been produced by a woman before the industrial revolution. In the largely agrarian societies that existed before the industrial revolution it was common to have more children to serve as helpers and labourers on the family farm and to serve as a source of security in the parents' senior years. As industrial society grew, and particularly as it evolved into a high-tech society this past century, children increasingly became an economic liability and cost, rather than the benefit they had previously been. With these changes families opted for fewer children on each of whom much more economic benefits were lavished.

The sevenfold rise in human population over these past twelve generations has essentially been the result of one overriding factor, the improved health and medicine resulting from the increased benefits of hydrocarbon usage. Prior to the Industrial Revolution the average life expectancy was about forty years. It is now over seventy-two years. That means that at the outset of the Industrial Revolution the living human population consisted of 2 generations. Today it consists of more than 3.5 generations.

More importantly, people are on average not only living longer, but a far greater number of people born are living long enough to produce children. Prior to the Industrial Revolution child mortality rates were often as high as 75%. Globally, even in 1960, the child mortality rate was still 19.8%. By 2001 that had been brought down to just 8.3% globally. With an average rate of 6 live births per woman in pre-industrial agrarian society, possibly only two of those children would survive to child-bearing age. Of the 2-3 average live births per woman today, on average over 91% of those children will survive to child-bearing age. In pre-industrial times, however, a larger proportion of females born would end up married and/or producing children. Today, with improved medicine, high divorce rates, fertility medicines and procedures, and birth selectivity through which, in many nations, unwanted female children are aborted, the number of females born that will eventually produce children has increased signifigantly from pre-industrial times.

In these past twelve generations not only has the human population increased sevenfold but the per person hydrocarbon usage has increased even more dramatically, from virtually zero to an average of over five barrels per year per person of oil alone. At the same time that we are inexorably increasing our dependence on oil and other hydrocarbons we are dramatically increasing the rate at which we are using up these irreplaceable, very finite hydrocarbons.

Here is the ultimate, unavoidable, and disastrous implications of that increased consumption. It is reasonably, though arguably, estimated that the total global carrying capacity for the human species, without the availability of those hydrocarbons, is about 1-1.5 billion, roughly the population during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. The increase in human population since then has been irrevocably a result of our use of hydrocarbon fuels. The infrastructure we have evolved over these past twelve generations has been built of and through the energy derived from those same hydrocarbons. The dramatically increased pace of consumption of these vital resources is pushing ever harder on the acelerator of the train that we are all riding toward the hydrocarbon cliff, the cliff beyond which nature will help us balance the books between population and real carrying capacity. I'll leave it to your imagination as to how we get from a global human population of nearly 7 billion to one of 1-1.5 billion that can be supported without those hydrocarbons.