Talk:Olduvai theory/Archive 1

Olduvai theory first presented in 1989, not 2000

The article has been fixed.

Academic circles

Is the thoery accepted in academic circles? The article does not give any indication. Brianjd 02:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

q 08:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

The Olduvai theory is argued about in academic circles.

Merge - The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge

I think the information on the above article should be merged into this article. But should the predictions be credited to the Olduvai theory or to Richard C. Duncan's paper with that title?

Brianjd 04:06, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that the information in the above article should be copied to this article BEFORE creating the redirect, as should be standard practice on Wikipedia! Brianjd

Huh?

How could it be predicted in 1989 that something that had already lasted more than 100 years would last no more than 100 years? Michael Hardy 00:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See "The Peak Of World Oil Production And The Road To The Olduvai Gorge" by Richard C. Duncan (2000). Brianjd

Picture

It would be nice to get an illustration to go along with the article. A graph would make this much easier to understand. Would it be possible to get a public domain illustration to accompany the article?

Consistency

Duncan's theory has changed over the years in the specific details (but not in the general conclusions). I am unsure how to express that in the article. For example, in his 1996 paper Duncan has the limit of industrial society at 37% peak per capita energy use but in his 2005 paper he revises it down to 30% Also in his 2000 paper he introduces the analogies of slide, slope and cliff. Where as in the 2005 paper he revises the analogy to plateau and cliff.

How should the article be revised to reflect this?

- Suggest you present the original theory as text (noting that it is the original), then have one table showing the numbers versus the revision. You'd then have a nomenclature subsection detailing each of the analogies and what their purpose was, then have a table plotting nomenclature versus the revision. Jcday 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Peak Oil

Why were their references to peak oil production per capita in this article? The theory is based on energy use per capita not oil use per capita. I have removed those sections as didn't seem related to the theory. Also, why in the world should this be merged with Hubbert's peak?!? Hubbert's peak is about geological constraints on oil production for a given geographic area. It has nothing to do with per capita energy usage and its effects on modern civilization.

If Wikipedia wants to be scientifically accurate (and at least parts of it are), this article needs to stress that the usage of "theory" in this case is a complete misnomer. A "theory" is a well defined and EMPIRICALLY TESTED knowledge domain. This "theory" is not. It does not even have the characteristics of a scientific hypothesis. In contrast, "peak oil"/"Hubbert's peak" is a well tested description of events which have been observed in many oil producing regions on scales which range from single fields to complete oil producing countries (and beyond).

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.

Energy use per capita is not a valid measure of living standards. This is pretty obvious to every commuter who spends two or three hours a day inside a car in a traffic jam. The energy used by the car that allows the driver to spend a remarkable fraction of their life in this completely unproductive state does not increase the driver's quality of life. And yet, the same amount of energy per capita could easily elevate most African countries to a remarkable level of prosperity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.14.162 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Added this to article. Brian Jason Drake 06:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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."

- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0708-01.htm - 2003 -

"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."

- http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0319-26.htm - 2005 -

"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)

Not only is it non scientific, it's simply wrong. Poverty, starvation and human suffering in general has seen tremendous reduction over the past decades, as described in Hans Rosling's talk here. With the exception of sub-saharan Africa, humanity seems to be on the up and up. TastyCakes (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Time's up! It is now 2012, so what is the bottom line on this "theory"'s predictions for this time period?Kdammers (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Ditto. I don't see any mention of solar, fission or fusion. And "we're running out of oil!!!DOOM!" started in the 1970s. In adjusted dollars, gas isn't substantially more expensive and there are plenty of existing proved reserves and more coming online. So what is he basing this on?Mzmadmike 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reserves are not that important in all of this, provided you accept that there are a finite number of them, that they have finite capacity and that humans have finite ability to tap them. The need for energy is rising exponentially, particularly in massively developing economies, but our ability to address those needs is flat in many places and sub-linearly increasing in only a handful of countries. You may be able to run a store on credit schemes, but you can't run a power grid on power that doesn't yet exist.

To address your other points, the "peak oil" theory has now been largely accepted and the current timeline (already happened through to 2012) is generally taken as fact. This is about the time that was expected in the 1970s, so it seems a little unfair to slam them for being right about something. Gas is not substantially more expensive, but if peak oil has not been hit, there'll be no significant inflationary pressure on it. Even if it has been hit, it will take time - economies have massive latencies.

Other power sources? Solar power is great for heating water and cooking even as far north as Scotland, which could be used to relieve pressure on the power grid, but there is no real effort to deploy it. Wave power might have worked well, but the nuclear industry effectively killed the Salter Duck and other such systems some time back. Fission might be usable, but uranium reserves are extremely limited and a certain former oilman was quoted as saying that Iran didn't need nuclear power as it was awash with hydrocarbons. Whether he was right or not is not important. What matters is that they have been forbidden from using fission, whether they want to use it or not. Nobody has yet built a self-sustained fusion reaction, the political wars over where to build a test reactor demonstrated that politicos don't want a solution as much as they want status. The US could start building a dozen test reactors tomorrow if they wanted, with the best going online when complete. Much can be assembled in parallel, if you want to spend the money. If you want to pay the taxes needed to to this, fusion by 2010 could be achieved. Hands up all those who want to pay significantly higher taxes! --Jcday 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Small Uranium reserves in nonsense drummed up by the anti-nuke crowd.

Indeed, the world possesses uranium reserves sufficient to power it for hundreds if not thousands of years and are located in peaceful, stable places. And the comment about Iran is just plain confused - what does Iran not using nuclear have to do with the rest of the world? This is the big picture, not one isolated (and in this case unique) situation. And what are you babbling on about with fusion? No one is suggesting that could be of any use to our energy situation except in the very long term. You're ignoring the huge quantities of coal in the world, especially the US, and don't mention wind, the only renewable (other than hydro) that's even vaguely competitive at today's economics.

I would further add that peak oil being reached by 2012 is only "taken as fact" by people with the least to do with the industry. Oil companies and most middle eastern exporters (who are 75% of the story when it comes to reserves) are not nearly as accepting of this, and they ought to know much better than alarmist laymen screaming fire. Will we reach peak production at some point and have to reduce our per capita energy use or else find some replacement for it in transportation etc? Of course. But I doubt it will be as early or as devastating as the stereotypical "peakers" (a group which, I'm sorry to say, I believe you fall into) would have us believe. TastyCakes (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On notability, neither Olduvai theory nor Richard C. Duncan appear in any articles on jstor, and Duncan's published papers have appeared in non-peer reviewed journals including 'The Social Contract Quarterly', Oil & Gas Journal, Population and Environment, and at least one peer reviewed journal, Natural Resources Research. Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Ditto! And carbon induced global warming is likely to whack us hard well before oil reserves decline to 25% (note also that there is plenty more gas before we reach "peak-gas" I think and gas burns much cleaner (something like 2/3rds) than oil. The order of cleanliness is Coal, Oil, Gas but not exactly sure where shale and bitumen sands fit in (probably towards the coal end of the equation (th ey take alot more energy and therefore CO2 to refine to oil)). Nice idea but this guy is off the mark and sustainable energy sources whilst expensive are supportable with a huge effort on efficiency which also throws his calculations/predictions out again if we can do alot more with less which we can if the body politic and politcal had the wherewithall but then "global warming" will see to that if only we have the time - several decades or more - to make the switch to renewables and nuclear fission (unfortunately the latter is essential to avoid the depression he predicts and buy us more global warming time for the sustainable transition). 220.240.58.190 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Anthropogenic Global Warming" is a crack fantasy. Even if it weren't, the Earth receives 40% more energy from the Sun now than it did 4 billion years ago. I can just hear the extinction events outside my windows./sarcasmMzmadmike 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, whether or not global warming is happening isn't the subject of this discussion. Green Energy might help us out, but, I mean, there will be a while at least after oil peaks when we'll be in a whole lot of trouble. You have to consider, too, that he came up with this theory in the 1970s, and back then 'green energy' was a pipe dream.

Comments moved from main article

I'm not sure who the original author is, but this shouldn't be on the main page. —Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This site is no longer accessible. Some versions of this site, however, are available in the Internet Archive at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http%3A//www.halcyon.com/duncanrc/.

Help with dead link

If you have trouble getting the above hyperlink [at "web.archive.org"] to work ... then I would recommend to try this [other] "web.archive.org" URL, instead: http://web.archive.org/web/20020601155344/http://www.halcyon.com/duncanrc/

I hope that helps... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Stone Age" Why ?

Why would the depletion of oil reserves "send us back to the stone age" ? Surely the worst it would do would be to send us back to the medieval age ? 80.229.222.48 17:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea behind it is that - with the depletion of oil reserves, imagine a "Mad Max" or Apocalyptic world where oil becomes much more powerful than it is now (since machines run on it) - how will you stay warm in cold months? how will you see in the dark? how will you manufacture anything? The concept is that population depletion will occur from starvation, war, etc brought on by a number of things, whether it be hyperreaction to events, wars from resources, loss of production (and therefore, access) to food, etc. The list goes on and on. Rarelibra (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above criticism points out an important flaw in the theory. What conditions would force a loss of the accumulated knowledge of mankind on the scale of the stone age? Even in conditions of war and instability, people can still use wood for fuel and construction, and knowledge of accumulated human knowledge of small structure building, farming, and animal husbandry, for instance, would continue to be applicable.(The world of 'Mad Max' might not be the best example of a stone age, as the dystopia involves guns and cars.) Dialectric (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems even weirder when you consider that the Olduvai Theory suggests that we would go back to 1930s era lifestyles. I'm pretty sure that the 1930s were way outside of the stone age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.168.155.165 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the language of "sending us back to the stone age" was used largely for dramatic effect. Which is not particularly surprising coming from someone that was, in my view, an alarmist doomsday guru. TastyCakes (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And anybody who had described the events (banking collapses, lack of liquidity, price falls, etc) related to the economic downturn in 2008 before it happened would of been cast as a dramatic alarmist as well. It is the implications of a great technological reversal that is most relevant not the details of exactly what age would best describe a global collapse that is hypothesized in the theory. Besides that, the stone age may be apt if you consider that many people in Africa and Asia are currently living in pre-industrial age conditions and further impoverishment might mean a return to stone age-like conditions for them. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's directly analogous to people that predicted a "great depression" out of the economic downturn you describe. That has proved (so far, knock on wood) to be hyperbole, just as, IMO, the Olduvai Theory is likely to prove hyperbole when it says it will send humans "back to the stone age". TastyCakes (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

The remark about postulate 2 being contradicted (through quotation 8 and 9) by the rise in energy consumption is incorrect. Duncans paper defines (e) as the ratio of enery production to population not energy consumption. Please provide other sources to support the claim or delete the remark. Prudentis (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Duncan himself uses both terms interchangeably (see OT page 11, "definitions"), so I guess the remark is valid. Prudentis (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m somewhat surprised by the fact that this article seems to suggest that industrialized society began in 1930 (the height of the great depression). Frankly, a serious look at the Olduvai Theory has led me to believe it to be nothing more than a pseudo-Malthusian derivative. Industrialized society has been the norm of the United States since the beginning of the 20th century, and for England since the 1850s. In both cases, while there has been industrial slow down, the idea of total collapse as predicted by this theory is sheer lunacy and has already been disproved. And while I’m not an “authority” I think that some of what I just wrote should be noted somewhere in this article.

It is based on the Industrial Revolution, the effects of which were not fully in place until the 1930's. Remember - they lit up lower Manhattan in the late 1890's, but factories did not fully have electricity until the late 1920's. Rarelibra (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I would profoundly disagree that we first began to feel the effects of the industrial revolution in the 1930's. I would defy you to find one credible source which says that.(Remember 1930 was the height of the great depression, US Steel was two year away from a negative output, and unemployment was nearly 1/3). Besides, your response does not explain the English Industrial Revolution which was going on since the 1850's with coal. And they have not collapsed into the stone age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.62.46 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the same poster who posted above. This is not a legitimate theory. The Industrial Revolution and its effects were felt in the world LONG BEFORE 1930. This theory has about as much validity as geocentrism. I would further argue that the only grounds for not deleting the article outright would be because of its historicity. I will add these changes to the criticisms personally if they continue to be ignored by administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.62.32 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

More Criticism: as per the green energy section above, this theory seems not to take into account alternative energy. That section focuses on solar, but the alternative energy currently most exploited is hydroelectric power. the Hydroelectricity article sites statistics showing that almost 20% of the world's power is hydroelectric-generated, and given that many large river systems currently have no hydro in place, it seems an an area for significant potential growth in energy production; while the current tradeoffs, particularly environmental, of large dam projects are prohibitive, I imagine they would be overcome in the face of some sort of immanent population crash. Dialectric (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that he was saying that the 1930s were when we first really started using a lot of oil. Before then, most of it came from coal, and the earliest industrial machines were actually just human powered machines that could produce things on a really massive scale. In short, 'industrial society' might not be the best description. 'Oil consuming society' might be better.

It is interesting that the actual research shows that per capita energy consumption increased, as one would expect. Worldwide births peaked in 2007, so if that "Malthusian collapse" is going to happen, it has to happen soon. 2001:569:FACB:DA00:781A:497A:5C2A:9A5A (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Malthusian catastrophe / transient-pulse theory

Rethin1 edited the article, giving this edit summary:

rephrased the into to exclude reference to malthus as the subjet is unrelated

and replacing:

...modern argument supporting the Malthusian catastrophe.

with:

...quantitative basis of the transient-pulse theory of modern civilization.

Malthus is unrelated? According to that article, later formulations deal with economic growth limits, which are (presumably) closely related to energy production limits.

Also, what is the "transient-pulse theory of modern civilization"? I've never heard of it anywhere else. Brian Jason Drake 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Energy Per Capita

Please provide a definition of energy per capita instead of just assuming it is well-known.

thanks 173.115.204.189 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is hardly possible to know exact figures of "energy per capita", because coal/oil/gas is not the same (and exactly now they are sure worse, because low hanging fruits are already picked), also there is problem with EROEI (net energy). US now producing more coal, than 10-15 years ago, but less energy, because of worse grades. And some of this "energy per capita" is used to get energy - growing biofuels, making wind/solar equipment, transporting water/chemicals for hydraulic fracturing. 88.222.99.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Link to Mayan 2012 phenomenon?

The Olduvai cliff (2012–2030) - 'begins ... in 2012 when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire'

2012, anyone?

General Notability and Reference Issues

The majority of the references in this article are to primary sources authored by the theory's creator, Richard C. Duncan. Casual Google search shows it referenced on some blogs or older websites discussing peak oil, but I don't see much evidence of peer reviewed publication or significant discussion by secondary or tertiary sources. As it stands, the article looks like self-promotion of an eschatological theory. Is there any evidence that this theory has been widely discussed outside of the author's own work and a few peak oil websites? --Spasemunki (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Not obviously from the article. It should probably be deleted; but I find it fun to come back to this article every now and then to note just how wrong his predictions proved. Robofish (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Http karlnorth.com wp-content uploads 2017 09 olduvai-scenario.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)