My apologies for abandoning a regular posting cadence. I helped my mother move across the country and have been distracted by a number of other worthy activities, like building all manner of nest boxes from on-site materials. Several ideas for posts are brewing, so I am unlikely to remain silent for much longer.
In the meantime, some may be interested in checking out a few of my latest media appearances. The most recent is an interview by Derrick Jensen for Resistance Radio.
The second plug is an appearance on Nate Hagens’ The Great Simplification, in a joint discussion with DJ White—whose heterodox insights I have long appreciated.
I am doing another podcast interview later today, and will post it here (rather than making a new dedicated post) when it’s out. I’ll test the new subscribe feature to alert folks when it’s available. So, consider subscribing to get e-mail alerts about new Do the Math content (information absolutely not shared):
I would appreciate some feedback as to whether e-mails from the subscription service are working from this site (i.e., not blocked). Please use the comments to let me know if you did or did not receive an e-mail (by mid-day Tuesday). I will delete these housekeeping comments, once they serve their purpose. Thanks!
Views: 3339
Thanks for all you are doing Tom! I am attempting to help spread your message, so far with no measurable success. The most I can hope for is backing someone into the corner where they fall back on "I'm sure they will think of something". It is a religion we are arguing against, not a reasoned opinion.
1. I am discouraged that so few view your content rich postings.
2. Regarding peak population: Do you have forecasts for peak working age population? If so, share 'em.
I had not tallied this before. But not too hard to modify my program to spit out these numbers. Since internally, it's all in 5-year blocks, I define working age as 20 to 65.
Using vanilla UN assumptions, which leads to global population peak in 2086 at 10.4 billion, I get peak working age globally of 5.6 B in 2075 (ten years prior—itself notable/interesting). For regions (see my previous definitions in other posts) Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin, N.A., and Oceania, the peak years are 2116, 2042, 2011, 2043, 2050, 2093, numbering 2.24, 3.04, 0.46, 0.43, 0.23, 0.04 billion.
Using my alternate TFR (respecting the decline and letting it play out, together with flat survival at 2023, my world population estimate peaks at 8.8 B in 2045. Working age peaks at 5.2 B in 2048. For the regions, the peak years are 2075, 2038, 2011, 2039, 2038, 2059 at numbers 1.53, 2.99, 0.46, 0.42, 0.23, 0.03 billion.
Europe is rear view already; others as soon as 15 years—especially in economically dominant regions. Thanks for the suggestion!
You have the 2011 for the EU with your modeling and the UN's? Correct?
Right: what that tells me is that the peak of European working-age population is in the *data* (common to both; already happened).
As a citizen of Europe (well the UK if that still counts…) I would say that this *feels* right. It seems to be manifesting as an ever increasing tax burden on the diminishing workforce to pay for an ever increasing public health and social care bill.
I find your point of view is refreshing as I am a scientist also.
I agree with your numbers.
Hi Tom
I listened to your discussion of your new demographic data, which was highly encouraging. Perhaps you could do a post fleshing it out. Also I wonder about the implications. For instance on climate. The current population has already pushed us past 1.5. Perhaps population may peak in 2040. Will we already be at 2.0? When will temperature peak? What is the lag time , and what is already in motion: I.e.Amazon Amok etc.
Thanks!
How's this for instant gratification: check out posts 157 through 164 as listed on the Guide to Posts:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
UK fertility rate is now 1.44
Lowest recorded level.
Do you think its possible to do some calculations on externalities of healthcare?
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4168
[edited] I got a tip about your site about two years ago. It has and has not changed me; it is as if you understood what I always intuitively have felt. I like the way you alter the perspectives (time/space), use new metaphors new names on things and change the narrative of our history and predicament. You are – not going to like this – somewhat of a postmodernist, in the old sense of the word, deconstructing the world. I had to tease a bit because I noted with surprise in one of your blogs a rather harsh (and very short) dismissal of "postmodernism". I just read a paper – Extending the domain of freedom, or Why Gaia is so hard to understand – by Latour (postmodernist?) & Lenton. I think there are a lot of connections between their conclusions and yours (as expressed for example in your Methastatic Modernity-pod).
best wishes
I am indeed postmodern in a literal sense: over it. But the label has unfortunately already been taken by a rather silly strain of decontextualized thought.
Great discussions there. In the three-way one, DJ White said the current situation was "no one's fault". Well, maybe.
I just read a good article now, though, that views things quite differently:
https://by-my-solitary-hearth.net/2022/09/06/human-nature/
I wonder what your thoughts on it are, Tom?
(The article is from 2022, but is still relevant).
I find partial agreement with the article. It's a case of "both things can be true." Modernity does not define human nature, but its participants are indeed doing their best within an unfortunate set of cultural norms. All humans are human, and all collective behaviors are an expression of human nature in its varying manifestations. People who are doing their best within a culture emphasizing control, manipulation, individualism, exploration, exploitation will produce different outcomes than people living in a culture that suppresses narcissism, values collective effort and cooperation, and perceives itself as a humble part of a community of life.
There is no single correct culture that defines human nature (even pre-agricultural cultures varied substantially in accordance with local conditions). If anything is to be said of human nature, it's that brains permit a wide variety of cultural adaptations, shaped by material conditions in feedback. The point that I strongly agree with is that the "natural" behavior of a member of modernity (competition, exploitation) is not quintessentially human, just because it's all many of us know. But neither is it counter to human nature. Human nature is broad enough to contain such modalities—for a while. In the end, only ecologically viable modalities will be selected to survive, as they once did.
Tom, while I greatly appreciate the work you do here, I cannot help but feel hopeless regarding our future here on this planet. And despite your efforts, I cannot help but see you, and your colleagues, as part of the problem.
I was, for a time, a member of a collective, 100 unrelated people sharing ten houses in a large urban center. How many people share your domicile? In the podcast, above, how much of the technology displayed is shared with other content creators?
You propose that 80% of people would say they agree that 2.5 kg of terrestrial biomass per person is a bad thing. But, then, probably 80% of them would agree that grocery prices are too high, and that they have more important things to do than take the time to walk to the grocery store…or listen to more than an hour of podcast.
I think that 80% (90%? 99%?) of people are not going to do anything about their opinion that 2.5 kg is too little until they see that 80% of other people are doing something about it.
And that ain't happening.
I can't say you're wrong. I am certainly part of the problem, causing great harm to the community of life by my continued dependencies on the system of modernity. Despite efforts to get people thinking differently, I am likely doing more net harm than good.
If humans are to have a successful future on this planet, for, say, another 100,000 years or more, then it MUST be in a sustainable mode that looks nothing like modernity. How do we get there, if we do? Time. Generations. Those of us who abuse the planet will die. We can hope to seed the coming generations with ideas and admonitions that might result in their adopting safer paths. I know my people well enough to strongly suspect they won't give up modernity until modernity gives up on them (unable to keep itself propped up; *possibly* by demographic deflation and associated economic/machine starvation), but when that happens, I'd rather them know that it was never the right way, and that other paths exist.
Although there's a moral case for saying that some people are more to blame than others, for our predicament, it's certain, to me, that almost everyone shares "blame" for that predicament. It is surely impossible for anyone to live in a way that might be considered sustainable with no net impact on other parts of nature. I would hope that it's clear that 8 billion people can't live in that way.
I had hoped that enough people might understand our predicament soon enough that some less catastrophic way down could be dreamed up. But I've all but given up on that final sliver of hope. No hope doesn't mean despair, however, because I realise that humans are simply doing what we should expect our species to do, given our evolved abilities. Although I will continue to try to be less impactful than the average, it doesn't seem worth trying to get that impact down as low as possible. Within modernity, it's tough to get that impact down really low, and I can't live outside modernity. There is zero chance of the bulk of humanity choosing to abandon modernity.
How about doing the math of what it would take to arrive at some kind of balance between human activities and the Rich Community of Life – that can (concievably) last?
Currently, most of us industrialised humans do jobs that do harm to the living world on which we depend. We depend on jobs that we do for food, shelter, clothes etc, and those jobs, as well as all else we can think of, depend on the Rich Community of Life which they are systematically destroying.
So what would it take to turn things around and satisfy our needs (and small number of wants maybe) in a way that have positive impact on the Rich Community of Life as well?
God knows we've been admonished enough form all kinds of pulpits… can we be inspired instead, please?
I suppose it depends on unspoken requirements for inspiration. I, personally, am inspired by Life, the Universe, and Everything, and feel lucky to be a part of it. I am inspired by any (every) species that has figured out how to survive long-term within a rich community of life. I am inspired by Indigenous traditions, stories, and mythologies that deliberately, intentionally, reign in hubris and overreach for long-term ecological reciprocity.
If, however, inspiration must come in the form of technological solutions, marvels, and promises of the continuation of something familiar like modernity, then I suppose there are plenty of places to go for inspiration (like Andreeson's tech manifesto). But I can't vouch for their veracity.
In my experience, most randomly-selected people find my message crushingly depressing, which suggests to me that they cherish modernity over humanity or the community of life. Yes, my stance is not positive for modernity, but once free of that affair, it no longer feels admonishing or depressing. But, it's a process that can take many years…