Talk:Olduvai theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Population Increases in Developing Countries
This discussion is confusing - see below.
I would like to add the following, but Wikipedia should be completely factual, so this should be verified first:
One of the arguments used by the paper is that energy production per capita has already begun falling. It must be remembered that most of the recent population increases have been in developing countries, which would cause a decrease in energy production per capita, even if there was no effect on developed countries.
OK, but that would still result in a reduction in energy per capita. Doesn't falsify the theory.
Exile 12:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly the point. This argument seems to imply a reduction in living standards, but it does not, because most of the population increases were in areas with below-average energy production per capita, so energy production per capita in developed countries might actually be increasing. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 09:24, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
The paper states that energy production per capita has already begun falling, which I don't dispute. The paper then implies that this means that living standards are falling, which I do dispute. It could just mean that the population with below-average living standards is rising faster than the population with above-average living standards.
I think it should be mentioned in the article. Can someone verify it? Brian Jason Drake 06:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Olduvai Gorge
The article doesn't make it clear how the actual Olduvai gorge figures into this theory. Is it a metaphor? Are you going to be reduced to the level of the earliest pre-humans? Or what? --Jfruh 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- From Duncan's paper ...
I chose the name "Olduvai" because (1) it is justly famous, (2) I've been there, (3) its long hollow sound is eerie and ominous, and (4) it is a good metaphor for the 'Stone Age way of life'. In fact, the Olduvai way of life was (and still is) a sustainable way of life — local, tribal, and solar — and, for better or worse, our ancestors practiced it for millions of years.
- --noösfractal 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Great Depression comparison
Can we have something about how 2000-2005 hasn't resembled the Great Depression, and prove it with statistics? Superm401 | Talk 00:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- While 2000-2005 hasn't been a Great Depression, I'd say give the theory a bit more time, since the full 12 years has yet to elapse. If gas prices continue at their current rate, a great depression in a few years doesn't sound far fetched to me at all. After all, when gas prices rise so sharply, other prices will eventually be affected too (shipping rates increase, prices on all goods that must be shipped increase, etc.) -GamblinMonkey
-
- -- "Can we have something about how 2000-2005 hasn't resembled the Great Depression?" -- How about something on how it has resembled the Great Depression?
-
- - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3236364.stm - BBC, 2003 -
-
- "The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) annual report says nearly 850 million people go to bed hungry every night, mainly in Africa and Asia. The number of undernourished people is climbing by 5 million a year, it says."
-
-
- "Despite a widespread assumption that all countries are slowly getting richer, the report says that 54 are poorer now than they were in 1990, while life expectancy fell in 34 countries -- primarily because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic -- and 21 countries are hungrier than they were in 1990."
-
-
- "Time reports that nearly half of the world's 6 billion residents are poor. Over one billion of them subsist on less than $1 a day.
-
- In the United States, according to the US Census Bureau, the number of impoverished Americans rose 3.7 percent in 2003. The number of children living in poverty rose 6.6 percent."
-
- -- The entire population of the world during the Great Depression was on the order of 2.25 - 2.5 billion, so arguably more people now are living in conditions as bad or worse than those during the Depression. - 200.141.108.170 02:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- This kind of explanation isn't scientific. That being said, this article as a whole needs its claims to be cited, especially in the "Details of the Theory". Whether or not the theory has been validated by experience, should be pointed out, and cited, and if this is not possible, then that it is not possible should be mentioned. Themusicgod1 06:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unemployment
Though I haven't read the paper, from the article it sounds like the author was focusing on unemployment when he compared the predicted economic climate of 2000-2005 to the Great Depression. From the research I have done, it appears we are not yet near the global unemployment rate of the Great Depression. The current global unemployment rate (as of 2004) is 6.1%, according to the International Labor Organization. However, I have yet to find any global figure for the Great Depression's rate. I have emailed the ILO and asked whether they can give me an estimate. Superm401 | Talk 14:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is important to keep in mind that the paper was actually referring to the period 2000-12. It may be a bit early to compare predictions with results (see above). Brian Jason Drake 06:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Import?
What has been the reception of this paper in peer-reviewed journals? Is this an important paper worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, or a minor, redundant, or ill-conceived paper, in the eyes of the scientific community? -- Beland 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Green energy
Green energy reduces greatly the need for oil based energy sources. This theory takes nothing of green or alternative energy sources into account. Does anybody have any source showing it factored in? If not i'd say this theory did not take alternative energy sources into account, maybe a fatal flaw in a theory? I could be wrong. Mad_Gouki 16:23 4 July 2006 (EST)
- Don't know about that, but I know George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have made their ranches solar powered and are stockpiling them up to harness alternative sources of energy... //// Pacific PanDeist * 06:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't have exact numbers but it is widely known that green energies are too much unproductive to tamper with oil substitution. Could be said that OT is about a bird's eye view, only making assumptions based on the overall energy world graphs, unconsidering in-depth analysis, and thus be completely wrong. But unless a deus ex machina new technology comes out of the blue, I would consider this scenario as a big possibility, even if it's dates calculation isn't exact and rigorous.
