Curmudgeon likes to point out that the mid-20th century scientific community gave too much credibility to Freud, and this is true, but they were also right about a whole host of other things, from radar to transistors, to lasers, to DNA. Right now, we are facing a host of environmental issues and resource constraints, unlike the 1960s, where the main issue was low agricultural productivity (and yes, we got lucky with the Green Revolution). Now it is more like a fat lady trying to squeeze into a dress that is too small for her. She can sew on a popped button or seam, but is likely to pop another one somewhere else.

It is easy to cast doubt on climate change because it involves complicated computer models, but it is harder to argue that marine chemists can't measure pH when they talk about acidification of the oceans (another effect of carbon dioxide), that hydrologists can't measure how deep the water is when they talk about the pumping out of aquifers under major food bowl regions, that biologists are lying about high extinction rates, collapsed fisheries, etc.

There have been numerous collapses in the archaeological record. Why do you assume that it can't happen to us? If you don't like scientists, perhaps you would be prepared to believe the German military analysts

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-13/review-bundeswehr-report-peak-oil-section-22-tipping-point-nov-2010

or Jeremy Grantham, an expert on commodities, whose firm has $107 billion under asset management

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

Roses1
population curves exponential? Nope. Try again. There have been several attempts to fix the global population peak, but all they can really say is that it will be later this century. Anyone got a better fix on it?

Consumption curves exponential - closer, particularly with China growing as it has been. But when china and India start to catch up with the West that should slow. Just look at the recent discussions over why Mexico is not growing as it once did. Resources prices will then fade to their long time downward decline.

Is there any cause for concern? The main cause for concern is whether China will fall over spectacularly or gracefully.

Attempts to fix limits on resources have all proved collosal failures. As for the problem with topsoil, I have been hearing about topsoil losses for the past 20 years or so. I'm surprised that there is any soil left to farm.

Collapseology - adjective describing last two years of Gillard Government.

Dear Cheryl

I know time flies, but Julia has only had 1 year as PM, I know with Abbott's never-ending whining it seems longer......

With neither major party working towards a sustainable future I concur with Heinrichs view.

I am fairly certain that if the author were my daughter, I'd be immensely proud of her enthusiasm for "the cause". It reminds me so much of the sixties, when youth suddenly found a voice and took to the streets to protest against... whatever it was at the time.

Ah yes, nuclear disarmament. That went particularly well. The doom-mongers were convinced that we were minutes-and-a-red-button away from a) total annihilation or b) a nuclear winter. As a result of their commitment to the cause, catastrophe was averted. The proof of which is, of course, that we haven't had a nuclear war.

The problem is, I think, that we have far too little to worry about any more. Human nature is to worry. "Where will we find the next mammoth to kill for supper?" was a constant threat to our ancestors' peace of mind. I expect there were folk who predicted the end of life on earth back then, too.

Fact is, we adapt pretty well to changing circumstances. And I expect we will do again. In the meantime though it won't stop the cause-mongers.

And nor should it. They are all thoroughly well-meaning, earnest and worthwhile people, who act as a form of thought-nanny... as in "nanny knows best, dear". I just wish sometimes that they would stop this habit of turning everything into a sound-bite - "peak oil", "peak water", "peak soil", "peak food" and so on. This is terminology that has had all the meaning wrung out of it. Even if it had some to begin with, which is arguable.

I notice that Fiona is "23, an Arts graduate who recently completed an Honours thesis entitled: ‘Transgressing Motherhood: Reconfiguring Feminine Selfhood and the Social Construction of Identity from the 18th to the 19th Century’."

She has a fine career ahead of her. But if she were my daughter, she'd better arm herself with some more substantial data and arguments before she decides to tackle the topic of population growth with me over Sunday lunch.

I'd still be impressed by her enthusiasm, though.

Divergence

I'm glad you recalled my point about Freudian psychology. It is an excellent example of just far off the rails the scientific debate can go, if the issue is an attractive one. Sure scientists actually discovered a few things that were right back then, but they could also be collectively entirely wrong for decades.

In reference to your first link, the German military analysts must have entirely overlooked a complete revolution in the energy sector. Although it mainly involves gas (google, fracking), it has pushed residual peak oil concerns onto the back burner, so to speak. Gas production for thos newly released reserves often also involves production of smaller amounts of oil.

As for your expert on commodities 'Grantham' I glanced through the item you linked to see this gem "There is little productive new land to bring on to production"... Bbbbwwwwhahahahah! Where has this guy been? You did know that farm land is falling out of production in Aus and the US at least? ABS put on a release on farm land in Aus recently. You also have considerable land now being used for biofuels, rather than food. And the problem in europe has alsways been over production.

He does have a useful point to make on a slowing increase in the rate of agricultural productivity.. that is a concern, I'm just not sure if its a serious concern.

You'll have to find some more links.