MonteQuest wrote:Omnitir wrote: Why do I think we will be okay in the long-term? Obviously I’m very pro-technology, but unlike many doomers, I think a serious case can be made for the continuing progress of science and technology, even in a declining energy environment. The historic example of this is the Great Depression and WWII, which both saw smooth sailing for science and technology.
The Great Depression and WWII were times of a declining energy environment?
You are kidding, right?
We were literally awash in energy; from Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams for generating electricity to make aluminum (which many cite as principal players in why we won the war) to the peak in oil discovery in 1930, a year before the Great Depression set in.
Besides, this is not about whether or not technology can advance, it 's about whether or not any technological advance is even a viable solution.
We are beyond the limits. We are in overshoot.
What sense is there to try and find a way to stay beyond the limits?
Rather selfish and short-sighted thinking, I would posit.
I was referring to Nazi occupied Europe towards to end of WWII. Oil supplies were cut, the economy was destroyed, yet tech progress continued.
So now you are basically arguing that it doesn't matter if we can solve the energy crisis or not, all that matters is that we die-off?
Of course it's about technology advancing. How else is PV going to capture the energy we need? You still seem to think that the exponential solar theory involves blanketing the Earth in low-tech PV. Technology advancing is critical in this theory, as only a low cost, easily producible technology will be scalable enough.
But how can anyone argue with you when you fall back to "don't matter anyway 'cause we all need to die. It's selfish to try an stop the dieoff". This discussion is not about dieoff, it's about the energy crisis. Constantly bringing up dieoff when we are trying to talk about the potential for solar power to make a difference is a cop out. It's as bad as me just saying "nah, your argument is irrelevant because Star Trek replicators and other techno-wizardry will extend the limits". Both arguments are besides the point of the potential for solar to meet our energy needs.