perhaps, if we get some scientific breakthrough or not
4%
[ 6 ]
no, it won't get that bad (see Cuba for example)
14%
[ 18 ]
who knows?/I have no idea
12%
[ 15 ]
Total Votes : 125
Author
Message
backstop Light Sweet Crude
Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 1532 Location: Varies
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:39 am Post subject:
Kotchevnic - I try to avoid both optimism & pessimism as both are (in Engish usage) a matter of a biased expectation overlooking the reality.
I would readily agree that the transition to sustainable energy will require "additional order to be built into the system." This is particularly so at the level of an international treaty, by which all nations may participate in an orderly retreat form fossil fuel dependence. (See Contraction & Convergence at www.gci.org.uk).
I guess the lack of discussion in this site of resolution through international co-operation is due in part to the preponderance of US backgrounds, where for many decades such an option has faced massive black propaganda. Therefore I'm not interested in your expectations of others' behaviour, but in whether you will participate in addressing the problems, and if so, how ?
Your faith in EROI analysis seems to me misplaced, as it is patently innappropriate for evaluating sustainable energy systems that essentially avoid resorce depletion and in some cases generate resource expansion.
Please see the thread "Getting beyond EROI" for discussion of this issue.
With millions already dead of famine due to drought due to climate destabilization (in the '80s in Sub-Saharan Africa) I suggest that the transition is already proving highly turbulent and will get more so.
Your notion of raised ORDER appears to imply raised control, while mine is based on raised co-operation. In this I think we differ.
Humans flourished for the last 10,000 years without refined pretroleum products and it's not that critical to the advancement of the race.
Yes we did, but we did not have the exponential growth that access to fossil fuels gave us. 184 years to go from 1 billion to 6.3 billion. Reversing everything that went with that growth will be impossible without a reduction in the population to about 2 billion, either by choice, or by nature. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
I can understand that energy (the least available resource) sets the carrying capacity and I agree, but I guess where it is a matter of opinion is whether this population reduction (die off) happens over years, decades or centuries.
I really do not think die off will be immediate and quick post peak, simply because only one of the sources of energy into the system is declining by 3% a year , not disappearing overnight(also some over sources may actually increase). There maybe in some countries, but not in countries like the US , Europe becasue the available energy can be managed as the population decreases naturally(so some sort of child limiting policy would have to implemented with immigration control to ensure this happens).
Is this unreasonable? Or am I blowing out of my ass again
PB
Yes, you are correct. How fast and how great the die-off will happen depends on many factors; that is where the debate lies. 5.3 billion people were added to the earth in 184 years due to the exploitation of fossil fuels. Even with our advanced technology, how many of those can stay? Not many. Yes, it could take the same time, but look at how many deaths that would be per year on average! 5.3 billion divided by 184=don't want to know.
If oil declines at 3% in a world that must have 2-3% growth it becomes 5-6% decline and the decline will increase with each passing year. 95% of our energy and products comes from that oil. The access to the oil is not even. The highest bidder may have oil, but also growing enemies. Bottom line, PB is that we must have a net increase in energy every year to avoid chaos.
All conjecture is reasonable if based upon science and fact. Getting people to go willingly into the fire will be nigh impossible. The other fact is that our current monetary system will prevent managed decline, because it is based upon growth. If the economy doesn't grow, it cannot function. There is no method of using our current money system that will facilitate a transition to a stable no-growth world.
You ask good questions. Don't stop. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
The earth is actually not a closed system. Otherwise, life would never have evolved, since that would mean order was increasing with no energy coming in. We have energy coming into the system, via sunlight.
Re-read my post. The definition of a closed system is one where there is an exchange of energy, but no matter. The energy coming in is sunlight, and some of that is re-radiated back into space. No matter comes in except for an occasional meteorite. Earth is a closed system. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
If you are suggesting that because a decrease in oil and therefore net energy (although of course we're forgetting about gas and coal here) will lead to a decrease in the rate of entropy (in the case of energy, rate of energy yield is called power) then I do not quite see the science behind it. Of course we humans too are involved in entropy production; are you suggesting that because our ability to produce entropy will fall, a fall in population will result, and if so, why?
No, it will lead to an increase in the rate of entropy because we will have a negative flow of energy into the system. To hold chaos at bay, we need to have a net increase in energy flow in. Entropy is the movement towards random disorder, the house gets messed up, you have to put it back in order. Takes more energy to clean up a mess than to make it. We are involved in producing energy to combat entropy. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Monte - The forward momentum (to catastrophic change) you speak of is far larger than simply the 3% growth delusion: since '91 I've been tracking the research into the feedback loops of climate destabilization. Several are already active on a significant scale and others have been triggered. If they are left to accelerate past the point where they effectively swamp the planet's sink capacity (which recovers about 40% of anthropogenic GHG output), then all bets are off.
That position appears to be 2 or 3 decades hence.
The costs of switching to renewables over the normal replacement cycles of energy production plant would not be all that great. Doing so faster than that will of course entail capital write-offs of fossil plant at a time when the economy has ceased to 'grow'. Difficult, but feasible, given the popular & political will, and, crucially, a global structure within which nations can undertake an orderly retreat from fossil fuel dependence. (See Contraction & Convergence at www.gci.org.uk)
The axiom you quote (if it becomes readily apparent to everyone that there is a problem, it is too late to do anything about it) seems a bit facile. If those who recognize a problem identify its resolution and take action, which itself alerts others to the problem, then the problem is already being addressed by the time all are aware of it. Surely in reality this is our position ?
regards,
Backstop
There is the story of a farmer who raised catfish in a pond. One day the pond started to get a grow of algae on the surface. It was growing exponentially, doubling every day. The farmer didn't notice anything until one day the pond was half covered. The farmer went away to see what the experts could tell him. He returned a few days later and found the pond completely covered and all of his fish were dead. What killed them? The algae, growing exponentially covered the whole pond the next day, then died and depleted the oxygen. Happens to every fish tank owner who doesn't clean the tank in time.
So, do you know anybody who is doing anything about the pond scum(peak-oil) on a realistic basis right now to avoid killing the fish? Have to abandon our money system first, for starters. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2066 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:06 pm Post subject:
Quote:
My question is how did it get into the ordered state in the first place?
I mean everything, down to the basic laws of physics.
Guess this becomes a religious discussion at that point.
Your are correct. My answer is God. However, there would have to be a creative force (for lack of a better term) causing life (order) to happen. I have never seen a valid reason to deny this. Back on topic...
This thread is fascinating. I have not seen any good arguments, other than finding another energy source to replace fossil fuels, that would lead me to believe a die-off can be avoided.
If sane, rational scientific minds were in charge of the worlds' governments, I think we would have a chance at a slow, controlled reduction of world population. We would have a chance to power down peacefully.
However, that is not the case. I fear, the government's public denial of the problem is a signal of things to come. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Which is why life is so cool. Life is working against physics to create order against entropy. Of course physics wins, but as long as the sun is shining, life keeps trying.
If sane, rational scientific minds were in charge of the worlds' governments, I think we would have a chance at a slow, controlled reduction of world population. We would have a chance to power down peacefully.
Even if we instituted zero population growth starting today(a couple replaces themselves, it would take 50 years to reach no net growth. Why is this? Because of population demographics. At any given time their is a ceratin amount of humans in their prime reproduction years. Today 45% of the entires world's population is 15 year so of age and under. Over the next few years, they will all move into reproduction, swelling the earth's population, just like the baby boomers did in the 1960's. Most of this growth will take place in third world countries, but also in developing countries like China and India. Can you imagine the increase in energy demand that this will create? This is the "overshoot." No conservation method or new energy source can ever hope to meet this demand, and, provide a net increase of energy into the system. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2066 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:30 pm Post subject:
Sorry Monte, it was my poor attempt at playing the "optimist" card.
:D _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Monte - Yes I know quite a lot of people who are doing things 'about the pond' on an wholly realistic basis. One thing such people recognize, which sadly seems rare on this site, is that the issue of peak oil is wholly intertwined with that of climate destabilization, and that the resolution of the latter is eminently achievable. This perspective should I think inform speculation on the possible scale of dieback we face.
Please don't think I can't see the probable scale of dieback looming; what is in question is the extent to which that dieback can be ameliorated, and how this can best be achieved.
Thus progress is not about 'abandoning' the monetary system but relacing it.
I recognize the pond story from the first publication of "Limits to Growth" but my copy was lent out some years ago. As it's a uniquely effective description of exponential growth, which is a critical concept that few are familiar with, could you post it in detail with its numbers in place ? (Assuming you've still got a copy ?).
I'm quite surprised at the civility shown in what amounts to a rather broad and complex topic.
I would request we leave the buzz words of aggressive language at the door though, as I'm not too interested that so & so thinks someone else is ignorant... Perhaps a clear & instructive mention of specifically why a particular argument is misdirected, without referring to the poster at all.
This is a forum though, so flame if you must...
I think this topic dove-tails nicely with Jevon, and is a higher-order expression of the related concept. The center cannot hold... things fall apart.
A concept I wrestled with for some time is the consequence question.
It was not until I realized the actual interdependent nature of our globalized world that I really understood the mess we are in. It's not so much that the developed world is in serious and immanent danger of collapsing into chaos, rather the extent to which the 3rd & developing world relies upon the engine of the global economy.
While comparatively wealthy nations are better positioned to handle major economic disruptions, many places have highly leveraged economies which are symbiotic and dependent on larger, more developed economies to support them.
While we lambaste the US for it's 5% population consuming the incredible amount of goods and energy it does, we neglect the other side of this argument, that US consumption supports the developing world, and provides a market for businesses world wide.
While a serious economic depression in the US might mean high unemployment, inflation etc in the US, think of the economies which depend on this vast marketplace. The developing world perhaps has a bigger stake in maintaining the juggernaut growth of the US economy than the US does...
This is the aspect of PO which bothers me the most... regional destabilization of marginal economies, and the possibility of escalation into international conflicts. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 397 Location: United Kingdom, Various
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:49 pm Post subject:
jato wrote:
Quote:
My question is how did it get into the ordered state in the first place?
I mean everything, down to the basic laws of physics.
Guess this becomes a religious discussion at that point.
Your are correct. My answer is God. However, there would have to be a creative force (for lack of a better term) causing life (order) to happen. I have never seen a valid reason to deny this. Back on topic...
This thread is fascinating. I have not seen any good arguments, other than finding another energy source to replace fossil fuels, that would lead me to believe a die-off can be avoided.
If sane, rational scientific minds were in charge of the worlds' governments, I think we would have a chance at a slow, controlled reduction of world population. We would have a chance to power down peacefully.
However, that is not the case. I fear, the government's public denial of the problem is a signal of things to come.
5.8 billion people over 184 years = 28 million people dying (by natural causes or otherwise) per year. That's half the 'official' population of the UK per year.
And to be honest, I was thinking in terms of 100 years not 184.
Anyway, the answer to 'who put order here' or whatever - well it might be god, but what happened for the case of the earth was that initially the universe was a singularity with random quantum fluctuations within its structure. It expanded, at initially extremely high temperature, and as it cooled matter and forces evolved from a single unified force ('the theory of everything' governs this) to four (or possibly more) fundamental forces. Matter evolved from a plasma of elementary particles to quarks, to subatomic particles, to atoms, to compounds, leaving the lightest compound which was Hydrogen.
Because of the initial random fluctuations, these clouds had density fluctuations which caused those volumes of universe with heavier clusters of hydrogen gas to attract surrounding hydrogen, creating more and more clouds. These then formed bigger and bigger clouds, and in some places the hydrogen packed together so much that it heated up, causing a rise in temperature. When the temperature reached a certain point, nuclear fusion began and hence stars formed.
The Sun is the product of two former generation stars in the solar system. The Earth, and all things on it including us, formed from the heavy elements synthesised by fusion processes within those former stars.
At all points since the beginning therefore, energy has been steadily transferred from an ordered, usable state (mass hydrogen gas clouds with lots of gravitational potential energy) to less ordered states. Eventually, this Universe will either expand so much that it just becomes like a dormant desert; reach a point where it just stays the same; or crunch in one big contraction.
Sorry Monte, it was my poor attempt at playing the "optimist" card.
:D
That's ok. :D You know, many people on here may see me as a pessimist, but I am a realist. People often forget that there is another "ist" besides pessim and optim. We can't help but think in "fix it" terms, as we have not been orientated any other way. Myself, in studying nature, you see the limits to growth and begin to understand the complex web of nature and its laws.
We are loathe to admit defeat in the face of over-whelming odds, and we shouldn't; but we need to be realistic in what we can hope to achieve while swimming against the tide. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
