Talk:Olduvai theory/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Huh?

message: 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)
thread_title: Consistency

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population Increases in Developing Countries 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Great Depression comparison

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unemployment 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Help with dead link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Stone Age" Why ?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Malthusian catastrophe / transient-pulse theory 

message: 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)
thread_title: Energy Per Capita

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  General Notability and Reference Issues 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion