[onlooker]

I think related to actual physical work by people, we would have to assign everyone to work within a relatively close distance to where they live. It would be a universal requirement.

How quaint, you get assigned whatever work is closest to you no matter what your skill set or aspirations are.

the only thing I can say to that is at some point sacrifices would need to be made. This is not thy solution but may at least be one of them.

[KaiserJeep]

I think related to actual physical work by people, we would have to assign everyone to work within a relatively close distance to where they live. It would be a universal requirement.

You are proposing to constrain our freedom to choose when you say "assign everyone to work". I just want to point out that History has proved time and again - literally dozens of times in actual fact - that planned economies DO NOT work, and Democracies and personal choice DO work.

Whatever happens in the future must happen as a result of natural economic forces and natural human responses to these forces. It will not happen because some Komisar assigns you to a profession or job you do not want.

It is a real tragedy that our institutions of higher learning are occupied by so many academics who have never had to be in the real job market. They comprise the largest remaining group who are deluded about the writings of Marx and Engels.

[Pops]

I think related to actual physical work by people, we would have to assign everyone to work within a relatively close distance to where they live. It would be a universal requirement.

Actually if zoning was changed to allow more people to live, work, shop and recreate in a mixed use environment, there would be no requirement to add such requirements.

Command economies are like serial engineering, the solutions just lead to more problems requiring more solutions ... I think the reason the US "won" the cold war was it could adapt faster to changes in technology and switched from "Manifest Destiny" to economic colonialism (read that "globalization") while the USSR was still fighting feudal battles over territory. But that's another thread.

The thing about markets (in this case "market" is mixed use zoning) is they allocate resources efficiently, brutally so. In a rising economy, markets allow the smart and lucky guy to make money; in a falling economy they allow him to change course and perhaps not go broke. Or, in a situation where personal transport is prohibitively expensive, the market could decide what is the best use of a certain "zone".


Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to zoning per se, I wouldn't want a tallow works or a rowdy nightclub or a WallMart next door. But a small neighborhood bar or a shoe store or sign shop on the next block? Why not?

[onlooker]

I think the question of Transport demands a holistic approach. It has to be tackled though as Transport is 70% user of oil. We went down the wrong track with mass personal vehicle use and sprawling suburbs. Now we have to change. It occurs to me that the suburbs could be perhaps retro-fitted or renovated to allow a large area to be very integrally connected. Kind of like a sprawling city. In terms of zoning I think it is controversial right now but should be less in the future as people realize that society would best function within a tightly knit, easily accessible town or city. The author James Howard Kunstler has some good ideas about this.

[ROCKMAN]

"I don't doubt that Big Oil and Coal wants us to keep consuming FFs". Which leads to the obvious question: how many consumers want to stop consuming FF's? Folks can babble away about being "addicted" to FF's but it's still a choice they make. No one has ever been forced to buy a home in the burgs that requires them to drive 60 miles r/t to work. No one has ever been forced run the AC to drop their temp to 70 degrees or their heaters to 82 degrees.

Consider the life expectancy of any politicians that instituted any taxing protocol that forced a significant reduction in FF consumption by the public. Consider the reaction of the govt if energy companies openly agreed to jointly reduce the delivery of their products. There is no component of the FF consumption dynamic that doesn't fully support the system: the energy companies, the utilities, the govt and the consumers.

[ralfy]

My understanding is that total oil and gas production will keep rising for decades only if heavy regulation takes place, with producers going for maximum depletion rates and economies accepting lower returns.

In relation to that,

"The Peak of the Oil Age"

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009- ... gy-outlook

[Keith_McClary]

I just want to point out that History has proved time and again - literally dozens of times in actual fact - that planned economies DO NOT work, and Democracies and personal choice DO work.

Whatever happens in the future must happen as a result of natural economic forces and natural human responses to these forces.

By "work" you mean they enable exponentially increasing material (and energy) consumption?

[Revi]

We need to start up the village economy again. We are going to need the butcher, baker and maybe even the candlestick maker again. We are going to need farms that produce for local consumption as well. Unfortunately the era of cheap food is coming to a close. Along with that end will be a lot of people without the means to eat.

It's already happening around here. Look around.

My wife runs a soup kitchen and the numbers have gone from a high of 100 meals a day to now over 300 most days.

[ROCKMAN]

Revi - I get your point. But how do you define "local"? Are they going to turn a large portion of NYC, LA. etc. into farmland? That's the basic problem isn't it: much of our society is dependent upon the high efficiency Big Ag to feed it. Consider the good work your wife is doing: I suspect much of the bread and pasta she serves comes from fields hundreds of miles away. Even local veggie gardens have limits...how many neighborhood gardens would it take to supply a nice balance to those 300 meals per day? And who is going to give up their land and time to build and maintain those gardens? And are they going to sell those veggies at the higher prices required for less efficient ag business to make an acceptable profit? Or is the land and labor going to be donated for free? If so by whom?

Society has not only built itself into a corner with energy but also with high efficiency ag where a very small portion of the population feeds everyone else.

[onlooker]

So true what Rock states in various ways society has tied it's own hands. Of course FF predominance in all facets of society is the common thread that ties all the strands of this civilization. Prying ourselves loose from dependence on fossil fuels is easier said then done. In the areas of farming, transportation, energy production, manufacturing , how are we going to transition away from FF? That is the 64 million dollar question at this time. If we try and disengage we hurt our economy pretty badly as it is so tied into fossil fuels, what politician-lawmaker is ready to propose that? Ideally, we should have done this gradually and started quite some time ago. Oh and not to mention how we have distorted our landscapes in agriculture fields to accommodate Big AG and in our habitation areas in the form of sprawling suburbs.

[careinke]

I think related to actual physical work by people, we would have to assign everyone to work within a relatively close distance to where they live. It would be a universal requirement.

Economics will take care of this without the need to have some government pointing a gun at your head to make you comply. Remember government (always) = Force.

[Revi]

I am not saying that I have the answers, but big ag will have a very hard time feeding everyone in the large cities. I'm not saying big ag will go away, but the products they create will be harder to give away when they could sell them for money. Almost all the food that my wife is feeding comes from far away, even though some comes from local farms. Her soup kitchen is just a symptom of the problem that faces us.

[ennui2]

I think Revi sees things mostly from the lens of rural america, and for how long has there been a trend of rural depopulation and moving to the city? It's been going on for at least 100 years and is now only accelerating. You'd think the internet would allow more opportunities for people to make a white-collar life outside of the city, but no. Cities get bigger and rural america gets further depressed. This is especially bad in the NE because all of the pre-industrial-age uses of rural New England are now null and void. No more uses for those mills hooked to water-mills, and why try growing anything there when you've got pivot irrigated fly-over country? So you're left with potatoes, paper, and maple-syrup (probably not for long due to CC), and maybe some apple orchards here and there.

I have relatives who live on the border of Massachusetts and NH. It's a notoriously bad area because it attracts people who rely on the lack of sales tax in NH. If I lived there, I would think it's TEOTWAWKI. Everything is different depending on where you live.