[ragged]

[Perfector]

We're swimming against the stream, blaspheming the national religion (which ain't Christianity).

Correct. The national religion in America, Australia and many other countries is Economic Growth. I expect after this no longer becomes viable in its current form, traditional religious belief will return with a vengeance.

But I have tried to bring this issue up. Sometimes people agree with you, but also agree there's nothing much any of us can do about it, which is probably sad but true. Other responses have been more amusing.
"You don't own a car though, so you have nothing to worry about"
"The oil companies are sitting on engines which run on water, and just waiting until the oil runs out before they release them"
"The US government stockpiles lots of oil, enough to last years"

Mostly they just look at you like you're a little mad. But anyhow this will take decades to play out. There won't be a sudden collapse.

[Tanada]

Economic Growth became the national Meme during the first era of Progressivism circa 1910-1919, when Growth was defined as the only real way to measure Progress. That meme has been in effect for a century, and yet people have not caught on to the fact that there are very real limits to growth. You could take a tiny coral atoll like Midway island in the mid Pacific, build an Arcology city on it and give everyone a job doing telemarketing and off shore phone support for companies around the world. You might even be able to pack a million people on that postage stamp size lump of coral if the Arcology was big enough. But you would have a heck of a time feeding them without a large number of cargo ships constantly streaming into port to drop off food. Not to mention energy supplies. And fresh water. And hauling away the trash and sewage.

As much as we like to pretend otherwise the Earth is a closed system, what we consume now is not available for consumption later. We have strip mined, drilled wells, and re-purposed billions of tons of raw materials and the fossil fuels needed to extract, process and move those materials around and refine them is many times larger. We currently burn something like 7 Billion tons of fossil carbon every year. We burn lots of fossil hydrogen in the process because even hard coal has a lot of hydrogen in it and methane/Natural Gas makes a lot of water vapor. When you burn a gallon(or liter) of liquid hydrocarbons Gasoline/Kerosene/Diesel Fuel you get a little more than a gallon(or liter) of water in the form of vapor. Because of the way weather works this water vapor soon precipitates out so it has no net impact.

We are running low on fossil carbon to exploit, especially in the liquid fraction we prefer to use for transportation.

[Perfector]

You could take a tiny coral atoll like Midway island in the mid Pacific, build an Arcology city on it and give everyone a job doing telemarketing and off shore phone support for companies around the world.

By conventional economic theory, that tiny island state should be able to sustain itself entirely without external inputs, relying only on local resources and the ingenuity of its inhabitants. Furthermore the island should be able to increase its population by 1% pa, and its economy by 3% pa, forever. Again sustained only by local resources and ever-increasing ingenuity of its inhabitants.

[Tanada]

You could take a tiny coral atoll like Midway island in the mid Pacific, build an Arcology city on it and give everyone a job doing telemarketing and off shore phone support for companies around the world.

By conventional economic theory, that tiny island state should be able to sustain itself entirely without external inputs, relying only on local resources and the ingenuity of its inhabitants. Furthermore the island should be able to increase its population by 1% pa, and its economy by 3% pa, forever. Again sustained only by local resources and ever-increasing ingenuity of its inhabitants.

That's nothing, by conventional genetic theory some of my ancestors came from England so I am related to the Queen and demand I get the respect I deserve as a 999th degree cousin!

Just saying, theory is great in class, not so applicable in the real world.

[ROCKMAN]

“Again sustained only by local resources and ever-increasing ingenuity of its inhabitants.” So I assume they’ll sustain themselves by telemarketing to the other inhabitants if the island. Otherwise they’ll be dependent upon off island purchasers of their telemarketing operations as well as well as the connection to the www. IOW they wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves without the financial support of the rest of the world. And if the world, in time, cannot support that system I’m pretty sure other than catching fish off the beach this little paradise doesn’t appear very sustainable.

[ROCKMAN]

On such matters from Dilbert this morning. Might explain some of the hostility expressed against PO positions:

Boss: I’m getting reports that you’re being cynical.
Dilbert: It’s called “accurate worldview”. You should try it sometime.
Boss (yelling): If it’s accurate why are people upset!!!
Dilbert: Said the angry guy to the one who isn’t.

[ennui2]

I don't talk about peak oil anymore because it doesn't seem pressing anymore, even to me. Climate change, yes, but not energy scarcity. Even David Holmgren turned the corner by "calling" the future-scenario we're now moving into as brown-tech. If you want to really stretch the definition of peak-oil to incorporate brown-tech, be my guest. But as long as business-as-usual still functions, it doesn't meet my vision of it.

If I spend any length of time reading Desdemona Despair I get the ol doomer anxiety bug again. So the larger narrative of limits to growth hasn't changed. It's always been a race to see what bites first, peak oil or climate change. I don't really care very much which as they're both horrible futures. But I don't think there's much any of us can do to prevent them anymore to the point where raising awareness doesn't even seem worth the trouble. Just do whatever it takes to make the most of your life is my current motto. And there's a growing number of people joining my way of thinking including people involved in the Transition movement. They made certain lifestyle choices largely to assuage their sense of guilt but when push comes to shove they think we're screwed and are just kind of stopping themselves from obsessing and getting on with life.

[Tanada]

“Again sustained only by local resources and ever-increasing ingenuity of its inhabitants.” So I assume they’ll sustain themselves by telemarketing to the other inhabitants if the island. Otherwise they’ll be dependent upon off island purchasers of their telemarketing operations as well as well as the connection to the www. IOW they wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves without the financial support of the rest of the world. And if the world, in time, cannot support that system I’m pretty sure other than catching fish off the beach this little paradise doesn’t appear very sustainable.

Indeed. Back in the 1910's Henry Ford decided he wanted to set up his company to be as self contained as possible. He built the Rouge River auto plant where coal, iron ore, glass grade sand, wood and a few other things like copper wire and tires went in one end of the factory and completed Model T Fords drove themselves out the other end to the shipping lot. At its peak the one factory complex employed around 22,000 men full time, at wages that were better than anyone else in the USA was offering anywhere. Detroit became a somewhat cosmopolitan city as workers from Mexico to Greece came to the city just to work for Ford.

Even with all his efforts Henry Ford never forgot he needed raw materials from outside, and a market to sell his cars to. He dabbled in mining for resources, but in the end gave it up as being too specialized. He also built a large number of parts plants throughout the sate of Michigan to 'spread the wealth' around and generate more customers and more good feeling towards his enterprises. He was a marketing and production genius. But even a genius needed outside resources in the age when Gasoline was $0.06 a gallon. He debated for quite a while between three different engines, Gasoline, Diesel and Alcohol. He wanted Alcohol to help out the farmers, if he bought their crops he would raise their income and they would be able to buy his cars. He wanted Diesel because it was the most efficient of the three and Kerosene was widely available in Michigan and the rest of the USA. He ended up going with Gasoline because at the time it was a waste product of oil refining so it was cheap and abundant, but even then he insisted that his second Model A be flexible between Gasoline and Alcohol by simply adjusting a couple of settings on the carburetor.

[Keith_McClary]

On such matters from Dilbert this morning. Might explain some of the hostility expressed against PO positions:

Boss: I’m getting reports that you’re being cynical.
Dilbert: It’s called “accurate worldview”. You should try it sometime.
Boss (yelling): If it’s accurate why are people upset!!!
Dilbert: Said the angry guy to the one who isn’t.

I came to this thread intending to post that. You beat me to it.

link

[rollin]

Show people your solar water heater, heavy insulation, high mpg car, solar panels, gardens and any other prep you have to reduce the effects of depletion. Don't tell them the world is going to end or civilization will crash, tell them about all the money you have not spent on utilities, gasoline, heat and store bought food. Give them an idea of the savings that some freedom from the system allows. Let them taste real organically grown food fresh from the garden, and say there are no pesticides, herbicides or other synthetics to mess up their bodies. Show off your trim strong figure from all the garden work and other physical projects you do.

If they do ask why you started down this path, say that it has a lot of advantages and that this helps to find some peace of mind and level out the chaos of daily life. Tell them it's a great way to ease up on the world. It also gives a sense of freedom and accomplishment.

In other words, market the positive side that they can relate to without postulating on a dismal and impossible future. You don't want to sound like a bad sci-fi horror film. they can buy or rent those for "entertainment"*.

*entertainment can mean seeing something so horrible, dismal and unbelievable that the viewer is extremely glad that is not happening and probably never will. Essentially feeling a lot better about the nasties they put up with every day because that film showed it could be a lot worse.

[Perfector]

I was using that example of a small island being entirely self sufficient yet able to support a perpetually growing economy and population as an analogy for how economists think the whole planet behaves. It sounds ridiculous when applied to a small island. Yet ultimately its equally as ridiculous to assume that Earth can support a perpetually rapidly growing population and economy, forever.

[ennui2]

It is pressing to folks in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Sudan, Mali (perhaps Ukraine?) and dozens of other countries and billions of people who can no longer afford food and

You've seemed to make a hobby of connecting events to peak-oil (i.e. peak oil caused the credit crisis! circa 2008). Meanwhile, the topic is so relevant these days that TheOilDrum, once the hub of peakerdom, has packed it in.

What do folks at Transition have to say?

They are putting up a brave face while quietly despairing and starting private Dark Mountain groups. Myself and people in my neck of the woods are the 1%ers or close to it, white, well educated, land-owners, and family members bringing in big paychecks from high-paying jobs, and we may be riddled with eco-guilt, we have a lot of protections in place before we're likely to die of starvation or get plugged by a zombie. The big bad wolf of doom is still far off in the distance.

If I were in a third world village in africa drying out, sure, that's a different story. But even people in California suffering from the drought, the engine of BAU does what it can to make sure the system holds. Discomfort and inconvenience or even a little temporary rationing is not the same as doom(tm).

[ROCKMAN]

Perfector - I get it now. Sorry...didn't have my sarcasm radar working. LOL. I suspect it's becoming more obvious to some (including a few economists) that technology and global trade, while beneficial on many levels, also sets us up for some harsh realities as the system becomes less sustainable.

One small example I’ve never forgotten even after more than 4 decades. In northern Mexico I once saw a huge field of yellow marigold blossoms in an area were nothing but cactus was growing. Found out the village was making a very good living by hand picking the blossoms, drying in the sun for free, grinding into flour and shipping to the EU. Since some of the folks in the EU like very yellow yokes in their eggs they feed the marigold power to the chickens. The little Mexico village was completely sustainable (mostly because they had little to sustain other than basic life) EXCEPT for their income from the marigolds. I don’t know if the trade still exists but I have my doubts given the harsh times many in the EU have gone thru. In a world of $100/bbl oil I suspect bright yellow egg yokes are not as important as they once were.

[nocar]

Actually, marigold is (still?) put into commercial feed for egg-producing hens here in Sweden, to make yolks yellow. Probably in many other places as well. Yet on may first visit to Africa last fall, Tanzania to specific, we noticed that the yolks were almost white. So probably no marigold in the feed there. For whatever reason.

[Perfector]

Perfector - I get it now. Sorry...didn't have my sarcasm radar working.

I was going off on a tangent there indulging how incredulous I am at conventional economists.

I am honestly astounded how stupid they can be. Fossil fuel energy is like food, air, and water combined for our current civilization. I see people say how we are facing critical shortages of fossil fuels, water, soil, metals, as if all these resources are equal. No, fossil fuels are far far more important than even water and soil. With abundant energy you can turn seawater into fresh water, coax crops out of the most awful soil imaginable and extract metal from the worst quality ores.

Yet I look at so many articles and speeches by economists who bemoan the lack of economic growth or the potential end of growth and do not even consider that diminishing fossil fuels could play a role in it. Look at this recent speech by a famous economist:
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_gordon_ ... _of_growth

But still he doesn't mention once peak oil, or coal, or natural gas. Instead he casts blame on all sorts of things. Never fossil fuel depletion. Its almost like it has never occurred to him. In fact right at the start he mentions how strange it is that passenger plane speeds peaked in late 1960s and supersonic passenger planes never became popular. Gee I wonder why that is?

[ROCKMAN]

Perfector - It may be no more complicated then a lack of geotechnical understanding on the part of many economists. Most folks on this site have a fairly good idea of the oil/NG exploration and production process. But this is a rare collection compared to the general population including many economists. Many economists just assume the production of widgets can increase just as function of increasing demand. Which is not only untrue about oil/NG (except in the short run) but also a fair number of other products. But often economic analysis is about generalizations. And in that process they don't want to be distracted by "details".

[Pops]

I used to be really down on economists but then realised that like lots of folks who spent a great deal of time and money to "get an education" they stopped learning as soon as they closed the books and started pontificating.

Economics isn't that old and I'd bet most of the gurus are younger than the age of fossil fuels (Smith, Ricardo, Malthus and probably more excepted). But throughout the FF age, energy has been a demand driven market (see Kopits). Early on, FFs were so readily abundant as to be a nuisance. Once they were found to be valuable, the supply was readily increased to meet demand, regardless of amount - for many years forecasting demand was the easiest way to predict the production of FFs because supply always increased to meet demand. Only recently has supply not been able to keep up.

So who can blame economists for believing that money makes energy: after all it has been that way as long as the "science" of economics has been around.