19 April 2006

In discussions about peak oil, talk eventually turns to the implications and future predictions of population. The ‘Olduvai’ hypothesis suggests that world population growth was fuelled by the existence of hydrocarbon based energy and that with that removed the population would have to fall to a pre-oil level. This reduction is usually seen as happening suddenly, in a die-off. Numbers of dead seem to hover around four billion, so it isn’t a small scale or unimportant idea.

Leaving aside why this particular future is seized upon by particular commentators, there are several issues that appear to amend this doomsday scenario:

1. The decline in oil supply isn’t likely to be a cliff edge. Even 10-20 years hence we can expect supply to still be at 1960s levels. While the impact of this is immense on the world economy, it provides a cushion of sorts for change to happen. Even if the decline rate was particularly large, and up to 14% pa seems possible, the supply of oil will not change faster than the speed with which society can react.
   
   
2. Although many people look on the implications of an oil-staved world with a degree of horror, there is scope for adaptation in people’s lives that can shave significant percentages off individual consumption levels. Reduction in discretionary journeys, growing some of your own food, using energy efficiently – in fact a future world begins to look like the 1950s with individuals much more thoughtful and capable to support their everyday needs.
   
   
3. Although oil supply may be going backwards, our knowledge, system and culture don’t have to. A major difference between past ages and now is the degree to which IT and communications have moved on. Not only can we shrink distances for information to nothing at all, we can still have automated and intelligent processing for very low costs. Maybe you can’t eat information, but it can make a huge difference to how you organise, plan and develop. It provides options previous generations didn’t have.
   
   
4. Oil is used in many parts of the food growing process – fertilisers, harvesting, transport. Some of these can be reduced by eating local produce, but issues such as fertilisers and crop spraying can be alleviated by further genetic engineering of crops (however much that may be an anathema to an ‘organic’ concept). Even without oil there is no reason to suggest that crop yields should collapse.

I’m not saying that some level of die-off won’t happen. Unfortunately for many it will be easier for certain people to die than to change structures. However it is possible through reasoned action to react and develop such that population reduction is achieved non catastrophically. In the end the course of the next few years and decades will be driven by how politicians and people actually react to the basic drivers upon them. We have the scope to be able to adapt successfully, but it requires a degree of intelligence and maturity in society which has been lacking in recent decades. Is it possible for it to be regained, and how?

I wonder how I will look on this post if I come back to it in 5 years time?