well that didn’t happen – but I bin think’n.

Global life expectation wasn’t discussed on the Panel, but it made me think on it. The effects of resource quality/quantity availability, impacting an increased population, will come on incrementally and will feature a delay component.

Folk like me – well fed and reasonably fit, can reasonably expect to coast further into old age than a child either currently undernourished, or one currently over fast-fooded/under exercised. Which is the majority, currently. Put the squeeze on, and the undernourished ranks increase – exponentially.

At the same time, the over-nourished are going to suffer income reductions. Maybe some will slide into good food (home-grown vegies for instance) while some will just chace the cheapest calories – the lowest grade fat, in other words. That will be a social strata-ing, and probably predictable by suburb, but I digress from the main thought.

Put the screws on to global food, via global energy, and the poor/disenfranchised drop out of the bidding. They won’t live as long. Some ex-affluent will live longer, some from the sheeple end of our society, may get worse. I noticed this recently in Tonga.

As related to Peak Oil (peak quality energy, more realistically) and more relevantly, peak quality energy per head – the ability to maintain good quality life – a chemical thing – will decay on average. That has to be over a long time, starting around now – I’d accept 2007, it’s as good as any guess.

The ‘expectation’, though, can be projected into the stratosphere, based on the past – absolutely the same as projecting economic growth ad infinitum. The actual will be different, the proving will take decades. For actual global longevity to turn as early as 2007, would be a surprise. For the projected global longevity expectation to turn at 2007, makes entire sense.

So we’re back to the ‘glass half-full’ debate – whether the curve goes vertical forever, or whether it’s a gaussian.

No system in nature goes vertical.

At which point it’s not worth thinking much more.

Teaching and demonstrating low-tech low-energy food production, with an eye on nutrient quality, is probably the best pro-active way. Safeguarding water supply (and ownership!) and energy sources ditto, would not go amiss either.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: