Quote from: RE on Today at 11:24 AM10s of 10*6s starving is a drop in the bucket compared to 10*8 or more that will die when the fertilizer starts running short. 

Sure. And when global cooling kicks in a big chunk of the Earth's population will die-off, as claimed in 1970 by folks with degrees in the field and whatnot. Doomers of the day as well I imagine. Folks all agreed.

And your angle, based within the overall concept of Apocalyticism, has been around for millennium. So now you want to argue fertilizer? The only good news being, if you are right THIS time (as compared to all the others) then at LEAST we'll get enough of a population reduction to actually be able to claim some form of collapse is happening. FINALLY the doomers might have got one right.

Then again....the usual might happen. Folks adapt, adjust, find workarounds, and compensate. The things that Doomers apparently never factor into their proclamations. Have you?

Quote from: REPrior to the invention of the Haber process prior to WWII, the carrying capacity of the earth for homo sapiens was estimated at no more than 1.6-2B people.  At the time, Fritz Haber estimated they only had about 5-10 years before they hit the max.

COOL! And before people discovered black rocks that could burn, the carrying capacity was even less! And then what happened? EXACTLY what I previously suggested, listed nicely on Page 18 of my copy of Catton's Overshoot. He might have been a xenophobe at heart, but at the very least you should know that your argument has been blown out of the water by every thing listed on that page. And your only argument around it is claiming it can't happen again? You aren't that stupid, so either you are assuming I am (which is a terrible habit of yours) or you already know you can't and just want to pretend everyone else really is stupid.

Quote from: REThe goal of getting more people back into agriculture wasn't wrong, it was just poorly implemented and rushed.

Yes, I'm sure the 10's if not 100 million folks murdered during the last totalitarian experiments in this process just didn't try hard enough, only their LIVES depending on it and everything. Not enough motivation you figure, what is your plan for motivating people to grow food that is better than telling them their lives depended on it?

Quote from: REHad it been followed through with back then, we never would have got into the situation of having 8.3B people ambulating around terra firma in the first place.

It was followed through. All those folks died, and the fearless leaders who liked your idea, changed their minds when it turned out that just everyone died. 

Quote from: REThe Great Depression, bad management, poor planning and weaponization of starvation as  means to squash the Ukrainian independence movement caused the Holodomor.  Castro and the Cubans had very good results with their collectivization of farming, and the Israelis have had good results with their Kibbutzes.  When they are not dropping bombs killing and maiming towel head kids, they run very efficient communal farms.

RE

Well then there we go! More Castro's and Cubans, and murderous Jews, and we're in business!

Here is my bet. Catton's opinion, resembling yours, is that a process that has happened throughout millenia has suddenly stopped. Because HE, and YOU, can't see NOW the next evolution. That is mostly a lack of imagination, a sense of absolutism in terms of what is today in terms of technology, will not change. Both you, and he, apparently lack the vision to cast progress into the future. In your case it is probably just because it fits a personal belief, because you aren't stupid. Which means you, perhaps like Catton, suffer from the same psychological hiccup. Catton, after detailing all the prior multiple phase changes...decided that well...NOW....it must stop. You are are both smart, he even published the prior phase changes, but both of you, because you can't see it in the moment, pretend it can't happen again.

Amusingly, odds are, it is already happening. It is why peak oil predictions were wrong. Both of you lack whatever that perspective is that allows an analytic projection into the future that isn't just doom. You are just repeating what the experts claimed in 1970...and for the same reason. The inability to see the next phase change.

Hubbert screwed the pooch because he, and others, couldn't see beyond the data, geology and history. They skipped the economic component. Like Ehrlich, he missed some pretty basic economic concepts.

Let me give you just one pie in the sky example. Recovery factors in oil and gas fields were once upon a time X%. With time and technology, they increased to Y%. A change in economics and technology. This opened up potentially hundreds of billions of barrels of new oil, if not trillions ultimately. EVs arriving on the world stage and in mass production, and their ever decreasing costs. Batteries that rely less on critical minerals. Solar panels on roof tops all across America. A paradigm shift in where enegy is produced, and from what. Fusion is a good example. Not here yet, but the instant it is? Another shift.