Thanks as always, Ugo. Two comments: a) the graphs show the population rebound almost always starting well before the end of the wars in question. Is that a function of the smoothing of the curves, or is it indicative of some other aspect of human behaviour? and b) you ask near the end who will rebuild the damaged infrastructure. Much large scale construction in the Middle East has been built by labour forces imported on a correspondingly large scale. Accepting that the context of the next rebuild will be very different, it still seems a potential solution - at least for some prioritised projects.
About reconstructing the Middle East, yes, it can be done by foreign labor. But someone has to pay for them. Salaries paid to citizens remain in the country, but those used to pay foreigners mostly disappear abroad. Countries like Saudi Arabia can afford to hire foreigners, but if Iran is "reduced to Stone Age" how will they pay for that? With chipped flint stones?
I had noted that, too. I part, I am sure it is an effect of the smoothing of the curves. But also, the wars do not end all of a sudden. Much before the official date of the end of WW2 in Europe, most of the countries occupied by the Germans had been "liberated." Of course, that may be taken in different forms, but for ordinary people it just meant that they weren't bombed any longer. And that was a good reason to be happy and a little carefree, even in sexual terms. In another post, I cite the movie "The night of the shooting stars." The story follows a group of people running away from the frontline approaching their town. In the unusual situation of men and women being together in the woods for a few days, there is plenty of sexual play going on. And the movie is set almost one year before the official end of WWII. Of course, that's just a movie, but there are reports that the elation of seeing the war ending led to a sensation of elation and happiness that led people to express their joy in terms of sex. Think also of the famous "The Kissing Sailor" photo of an American serviceman returning to the US!
Civilization depends on intelligence of a population and available resources. Both are declining globally and the one run by pedophiles, war criminals and real estate embezzlers is accelerating that decline in unprecedented ways.
One might add that TFR of Gaza and West Bank - while decreasing - are still at above replacement level with 3 and that Israel replaces its population also by immigration. The explosive population growth in both regions could - according to the views Gaston Bouthoul and Gunnar Heinsohn - explain their conflict, and even have made it inevitable. And now it has ignited a wider resource war about oil and fertilisers etc. Given the human nature and the depletion of resources such wars were long in the making, in fact the conflicts in Iran since 1953 were always about oil.
But do we in fact not know who will "win", and who will pay?
Both the wars in Ukraine and in Iran were caused by American/Western/NATO overreach against the allied heirs of the ancient Mongolian empire comprising Iran, Russia, North Korea and China.
The US have enough energy for themselves but while they dramatically exhaust their precision weapons and interceptors China cannot afford to let lose Iran or Russia.
With the exception of some right-wing generals on Foxnews all sane military experts confirm that it is impossible to unblock the strait of Hormuz by military means as long as there are some querilla fighters with manpads left in the cliffs, meaning the world economy stares into the abyss. Irans spirit of martyrdom may even be prepared to suffer some nuclear explosions without giving way.
This then means that the strait can only be opened by diplomatic means and this to Iranian
terms: They want a million or so per ship, which will pay their damages. The US will not remain in the region and Iran and its allies will probably also take care of the installations and perhaps even the regimes in the gulf states.
Everyine will "pay", many with their lives, and nobody will "win", as in getting wealthier, but our "owners": seek to cull our human herds and maintain their own positions in the shadows, "managing" their assets.
One thing to consider is that if humans control their own numbers as resources decline, as we seem to see, then our Apex-Predator "owners" become redundant in management of our planetary ecosystem through mass-human-culling.
This challenges the common assumption that societies naturally “replenish” after war, history looks far more conditional than that. But the argument leans heavily on TFR and seems to underplay migration, which could significantly reshape regional demographics in the coming decades.
The deeper point: demography isn’t just a consequence of conflict—it sets the limits of recovery. Urbanization, education, and women’s workforce participation have been driving fertility down across very different societies, and those forces don’t reset when wars end.
So maybe the real question is: are we attributing too much causal power to war, and not enough to the deeper structural shifts already underway?
Certainly a "rebuild" will be in a very different fiscal and geopolitical context, but China and Russia would each seem potential players in such an initiative - for influence reasons as well as restoring fossil energy infrastructure.
I don’t understand why it’s a bad thing to reduce the population in places that have already grossly overshot the regions carrying capacity. I fear the suffering involved but isn’t that already baked in the cake with the inevitable reduction of fossil fuels that is coming our way? Pretty much everyone agrees the Earth can support far fewer humans than exist today although total numbers are disputed. Let’s give the Earth a rest from our rapaciousness. There are other creatures on the planet besides humans you know.
That's not a "bug", but a "feature" in a world entering terminal decline of cheap resources and real industrial economic output, and clering most of the people out of the oil-countries that need desalination is also adaptive for our "owners":
"All wars are madness, but some are madder than others, and this one is a good example. If it doesn’t end soon, the combination of infrastructural damage and demographic collapse will be a disaster for everybody."
Thanks as always, Ugo. Two comments: a) the graphs show the population rebound almost always starting well before the end of the wars in question. Is that a function of the smoothing of the curves, or is it indicative of some other aspect of human behaviour? and b) you ask near the end who will rebuild the damaged infrastructure. Much large scale construction in the Middle East has been built by labour forces imported on a correspondingly large scale. Accepting that the context of the next rebuild will be very different, it still seems a potential solution - at least for some prioritised projects.
About reconstructing the Middle East, yes, it can be done by foreign labor. But someone has to pay for them. Salaries paid to citizens remain in the country, but those used to pay foreigners mostly disappear abroad. Countries like Saudi Arabia can afford to hire foreigners, but if Iran is "reduced to Stone Age" how will they pay for that? With chipped flint stones?
I had noted that, too. I part, I am sure it is an effect of the smoothing of the curves. But also, the wars do not end all of a sudden. Much before the official date of the end of WW2 in Europe, most of the countries occupied by the Germans had been "liberated." Of course, that may be taken in different forms, but for ordinary people it just meant that they weren't bombed any longer. And that was a good reason to be happy and a little carefree, even in sexual terms. In another post, I cite the movie "The night of the shooting stars." The story follows a group of people running away from the frontline approaching their town. In the unusual situation of men and women being together in the woods for a few days, there is plenty of sexual play going on. And the movie is set almost one year before the official end of WWII. Of course, that's just a movie, but there are reports that the elation of seeing the war ending led to a sensation of elation and happiness that led people to express their joy in terms of sex. Think also of the famous "The Kissing Sailor" photo of an American serviceman returning to the US!
Ugon did you see this related paper Global human population has surpassed Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae51aa
Yes. I saw it. It is not surprising. Unfortunately.
Just curious, do you still believe in the seneca rebound?
Failing that, do you think another civilisation can rise if this one does go down?
That would be a rebound.
Sorry, my definitions are off. Anyway, do you still believe in one?
There will be a rebound. But it will be something we humans cannot even imagine.
Civilization depends on intelligence of a population and available resources. Both are declining globally and the one run by pedophiles, war criminals and real estate embezzlers is accelerating that decline in unprecedented ways.
Another enlightening comment.
One might add that TFR of Gaza and West Bank - while decreasing - are still at above replacement level with 3 and that Israel replaces its population also by immigration. The explosive population growth in both regions could - according to the views Gaston Bouthoul and Gunnar Heinsohn - explain their conflict, and even have made it inevitable. And now it has ignited a wider resource war about oil and fertilisers etc. Given the human nature and the depletion of resources such wars were long in the making, in fact the conflicts in Iran since 1953 were always about oil.
But do we in fact not know who will "win", and who will pay?
Both the wars in Ukraine and in Iran were caused by American/Western/NATO overreach against the allied heirs of the ancient Mongolian empire comprising Iran, Russia, North Korea and China.
The US have enough energy for themselves but while they dramatically exhaust their precision weapons and interceptors China cannot afford to let lose Iran or Russia.
With the exception of some right-wing generals on Foxnews all sane military experts confirm that it is impossible to unblock the strait of Hormuz by military means as long as there are some querilla fighters with manpads left in the cliffs, meaning the world economy stares into the abyss. Irans spirit of martyrdom may even be prepared to suffer some nuclear explosions without giving way.
This then means that the strait can only be opened by diplomatic means and this to Iranian
terms: They want a million or so per ship, which will pay their damages. The US will not remain in the region and Iran and its allies will probably also take care of the installations and perhaps even the regimes in the gulf states.
This outcome poses some awkward questions for US-allies all over the globe: Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia and even Europe. Sam Al-Arian thinks that Iran may be the end of the American hegemony in the same way as Suez in 1956 was the end of the British empire (https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/suez-sounded-death-knell-british-empire-hormuz-may-do-same-us).
Everyine will "pay", many with their lives, and nobody will "win", as in getting wealthier, but our "owners": seek to cull our human herds and maintain their own positions in the shadows, "managing" their assets.
One thing to consider is that if humans control their own numbers as resources decline, as we seem to see, then our Apex-Predator "owners" become redundant in management of our planetary ecosystem through mass-human-culling.
This challenges the common assumption that societies naturally “replenish” after war, history looks far more conditional than that. But the argument leans heavily on TFR and seems to underplay migration, which could significantly reshape regional demographics in the coming decades.
The deeper point: demography isn’t just a consequence of conflict—it sets the limits of recovery. Urbanization, education, and women’s workforce participation have been driving fertility down across very different societies, and those forces don’t reset when wars end.
So maybe the real question is: are we attributing too much causal power to war, and not enough to the deeper structural shifts already underway?
Certainly a "rebuild" will be in a very different fiscal and geopolitical context, but China and Russia would each seem potential players in such an initiative - for influence reasons as well as restoring fossil energy infrastructure.
I don’t understand why it’s a bad thing to reduce the population in places that have already grossly overshot the regions carrying capacity. I fear the suffering involved but isn’t that already baked in the cake with the inevitable reduction of fossil fuels that is coming our way? Pretty much everyone agrees the Earth can support far fewer humans than exist today although total numbers are disputed. Let’s give the Earth a rest from our rapaciousness. There are other creatures on the planet besides humans you know.
It is like going on a diet to reduce your weight. If you do it too fast and too much, it is not good for your health.
That's not a "bug", but a "feature" in a world entering terminal decline of cheap resources and real industrial economic output, and clering most of the people out of the oil-countries that need desalination is also adaptive for our "owners":
"All wars are madness, but some are madder than others, and this one is a good example. If it doesn’t end soon, the combination of infrastructural damage and demographic collapse will be a disaster for everybody."