Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
There was something irrational/emotional in my post?  |
Sure thing, at least IMO. Looking at global population w/o looking at global average lifestyle (What the UN calls it, I'm sure there are other names for the same thing) is only looking at half the picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
I'm not so sure there's a direct connection between fewer people and more opulance. I don't see the possibility that, were there fewer consumers, that I'd then be able to have a bigger house, heat it warmer, and drive my pickup all over.
|
The link is called the elasticity of demand. It varies depending on the commodity in question, but as a whole, limits to the availability of a resource will reduce demand as price increase, and vice versa.
When oil prices shot up in the late seventies, w/ ~220 million people in the U.S., consumption fell quickly from a bit less than 19mbpd to a bit over 15mbpd. When prices fell, consumption climbed from 15+mbpd to 21-mbpd. Now that prices have increased, consumption has fallen back to 19-mbpd, about the same level as 1977, but now there are almost 100 million more people.
Like you pointed out, we're in a finite world w/ limited resources, so we can have however many people consuming however much on average. If we increase the number of people, resource prices tend to increase and consumption on average drops. If we decrease the number of people we tend to see the opposite. You or I specifically may not increase consumption as prices drop, but as a whole people tend to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
If there were fewer people perhaps there would be no complaining about ethanol production cutting into someone's tortilla supply.
|
I doubt that. On average, we would probably just suck down more ethanol in larger vehicles. Besides, linking the price of fuel (relatively inelastic short run) to the price of food (also relatively inelastic short run) can make for some very appealing short run profit taking, if you're into that sort of thing.