When most people imagine the end of human existence, they think of a nuclear holocaust or perhaps a catastrophic meteor strike terminating the bulk of the population in one fell swoop. Few seem to contemplate a scenario of lingering but languishing cities buckling under the weight of famine and resource lack.

The United Nations revised population projections in 2002, indicating new low, medium, and high range estimates in Figure 1. The most conservative estimate predicts 7.68 billion people by the year 2050. The mid-range estimate is set at 9.08 billion people, and the highest estimate is that 10.65 billion people will inhabit the earth by 2050. At the medium estimate, there will be an increase of about 2.6 billion people between 2005 and 2050 (from 6.46 billion to 9.08 billion).

No matter the signs of imminent peril, we always imagine some scientific revolution coming to save the day in lieu of a God who has surely abandoned us.

There are approximately 6.77 billion souls currently walking on the surface of the planet. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts this number will approach 9.5 billion, where it will do something decidedly odd — it will begin to settle. Well, maybe not stop entirely, the population growth rate is still debated and will be until 2050 is already upon us. Either way though, the rate of growth will diminish severely as the years go by.

There are several reasons for this. Primarily, as the number of men, women and children coexisting increases, the demand for vital materials (food, water, energy) will skyrocket, but the availability of supplies will fall, or at the very least grow at a less rapid rate. On a planet where many have become unable to afford even the simple grain that act as staples for vast swaths of the population, any increase in demand will causes prices to shift upward, causing widespread famine. Perhaps this is avoidable, but it remains a distinct possibility.

Secondly, as countries develop, the rate of birth decreases as fast as or quicker than the dear rate. Yes, modern medicine extends the average lifespan, but the pressure of a post-civilized society forces couples to have children later and later, and to a lesser extent. A significant handful of countries such as Italy have as the past few decades have experienced a negative rate of population growth — a phenomenon referred to as sub-replacement fertility.

Even more concerning than population growth and food supplies, however, is the extraordinary consumption of energy. The projected energy usage for 2050 is 14087 MTOE, the equivalent to the energy released from burning that many tons of crude oil, a figure almost double the rate of consumption in 2000. Furthermore, the threat of peak oil looms on the horizon.

Peak oil, a concept that seems out of a post-apocalyptic film like “Mad Max,” simply states that at some point the amount of oil sources (conventional and unconventional) will at some point peak and then begin to decrease, thus leading to a decrease of oil production in the years to follow. As an idea, the end to oil seems ludicrous and perhaps a tad morbid, however, it is a logical conclusion derived from available data and rough models of future crude oil production and consumption. At some point, peak oil will happen, there’s just a question as to when — there is even a possibility it has already begun to peak.

Sure, there is a possibility the peak will never come. This mainly stems from cornucopic delusions or the firm belief in the abiotic synthesis of petroleum. Abiotic synthesis, one that does not involve living organisms, would predict a steady supply of crude oil as the tectonic plates shift, releasing materials held deep in the mantle of the planet. Honestly, abiotic synthesis is a flight of fancy, or maybe more appropriately a pipe dream. To date, there have been no studies showing any significant amounts of abiogenically produced petroleum based products from deep earth carbon deposits. In other words, we’re pretty much screwed.

One way or another, mankind will be forced to develop new methods to an ever expanding population and the correlating resource use. This is not something that can simply be left to the invisible hand. Well, I suppose it could, but it would lead to an economic collapse and the potential deaths of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people — an unfavorable outcome.

Something must change, we must change or we will surely perish. Though I suppose, in the end, the meek will inherit the earth, leaving the rest of us to the ever-growing funeral pyre.

—Thomas Shattuck is a sophomore in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at .