Skip to main content

Beyond Blue Sky 2025 - Chapter 6 - Population Reduction

The Sixth Commandment

It is hard to imagine what events would kill off large segments of the population (P in the Kaya Identity). Many people think that war would be one solution, but in fact, this has killed relatively few in the past (bad though war is).  World War I, for example, accounted for over 17 million deaths (10 million military and 7 million civilians) while World War II resulted in 70-85 million casualties (about 3% of the 1940 world population of 2.3bn).

Leading Causes of Death

New diseases, surprisingly, also kill relatively few.  HIV has so far accounted for 88.4 million infections (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa) with 42.3 million deaths. In 2023, this equated to 630,000 deaths. Tuberculosis killed 1.25 million.  Influenza 700,000. Malaria kills 597,000 people each year, with a predominance of children, which has motivated the Bill Gates Foundation to focus on this disease.  Poliomyelitis killed 350,000 in 1988, but today it accounts for very few mortalities despite its re-emergence.  Smoking, the cause of multiple diseases, kills 8 million each year, and alcohol kills almost 95,000 per year in the USA alone (2.6 million globally).

As temperatures rise, pathogen survival will increase, resulting in more disease prevalence, as is seen with the rise of cholera globally.  Malaria will also kill more.

Annually, suicide accounts for approximately 1 million people worldwide, and in 2017, more Americans died of a drug overdose (illegal and prescription) than died in the entire Vietnam War.

High Mortalities

Although globally, a total of about 62 million die anyway, for the really high mortalities, the scope must be broadened, and the annals of history must be considered.  Here, plagues are quite instructive. The Justinian Plague in the 1st Century killed roughly half the Mediterranean population, while later the Black Death killed 50 million people in Europe in the 1400s, 60% of the population.  For the common influenza viruses, between 3 and 5% of the world's population was killed by the Spanish Flu in 1918, which accounted for 50 to 100 million deaths following World War I.

Finally, famines can also kill vast numbers in relatively short periods.  Under Chairman Mao, 45 million Chinese died over 4 years following the promulgation of his Great Leap Forward economic policy in the late 1950s.

To achieve high population reductions of, say, 70%, it is clear that a combination of antibiotic-resistant disease, war, famine, and unchecked new diseases would be required.  Whilst we may feel relatively safe now in our age of modern medicine and negotiated tenuous peace, obviation of the latter could result in a repetition of bloody periods of history.  For higher population reductions of 90%, nothing short of a global thermo-nuclear war would be needed.  Of course, this risks a 'nuclear winter' and the extinction of mankind; the very thing that we are trying to prevent by reducing CO2 emissions to prevent inimical global warming.

The Malthusian Charge Rebuffed

So far, this analysis is open to the charge of being Malthusian, the economist/preacher of the early 1800s who predicted that the UK population was headed for a sharp downward projection as the ability of land to support the growing population became unsustainable.  Malthus failed, however, to predict or foresee the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the ability of technology to ultimately pay for UK food imports.  Now, however, we are not considering an island, the UK, but rather the whole globe, and, as we are reminded, 'There is No Planet B'.

Once solar and wind generation achieves grid parity with coal power, we may well see very high rates of decarbonization in our economies.  By some measures, this has already been realised, which gives some cause for hope.  But in the meantime, we still need to reduce progressively our carbon emissions to meet the 2050 targets with strenuous efforts to 'green' the economy to balance as much as possible a general population reduction.  Although advances in technology might therefore 'save the day' in as yet unseen ways, the point is that we cannot rely on them for our 'salvation' - although they remain important options.  Only Jesus Christ is Our Lord and Saviour!

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond Blue Sky 2025 - Chapter 3b - Life!

Live life abundantly!  (John 10:10). What To Do About Climate Change? The fundamental problem is that carbon emissions are so inexorably linked to economic activity (IT, housing, agriculture, manufacturing, and transport) that reducing them and operating a 'green' economy is no small task.  Thinking negatively, economy derailment could be the solution - although to be positive the focus should be a major change along the continuum of slowing, stabilizing, and reducing CO2 emissions within a fully functioning economy, which runs counter to many environmentalists' thinking.  However, we definitely need a new economy based on a clean-energy future. We are, truly, in a Climate Emergency.  As outlined throughout, unless bold action is taken to change the economic system while carbon budgets allow, we may well be facing a long drawn-out equivalent of the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago - and certainly the worst set of circumstances since The Flood i...

Beyond Blue Sky 2025 - Chapter 2b

Climate Sensitivity Quantifying temperature increase in relation to CO2 volume depends on 'climate sensitivity'.  Commonly, this refers to temperature increase resulting from CO2 doubling since the pre-industrial times atmospheric baseline of 280ppm to approx. 550ppm.  The IPCC models predict a range of 2C to 4.5C above 1900, with a best estimate of 3C.  As of June 2024, the world is currently at 427ppm and 1.55C above 1900. Although both temperature and atmosphere water vapor will continue to increase, specific impacts will depend on geographical location.  For example, higher latitudes together with mid-continental locations are expected to warm sooner and faster.  Also, high rainfall areas should get wetter contrasting drier drought-prone regions.  Much modeling is in progress to predict these regional impacts in greater detail, although we mustn't also forget that it is ultimately God who sends the rains.  The challenge of climate change, particula...

Beyond Blue Sky 2025 - Chapter 3a

Dangerous Climate Change Based on the best available scientific evidence, it is clear that increases in CO2, and other greenhouse gases in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent), which constitute F in the Kaya Identity (see earlier), result in temperature elevation.  The relationship between the two is known as climate sensitivity.  It is accepted by most scientists that a CO2 doubling (from pre-industrial 280ppm to 550ppm) will probably lead to a roughly 3C temperature rise.  The IPCC calculated a range of 1.5C and 4.5C depending on the emission scenario.  Unfortunately, this is far from exact since fossil records estimate that climate sensitivity could be as high as 6C (Hansen). Are temperature increases dangerous? The overriding consensus is a resounding yes.  There is no question that biomes, including pathogenic species, would survive and even proliferate.  The concern is that widespread ecosystem collapse would occur specifically concerning biomes on which ...