ashurbanipal wrote:No matter what we do, we will eventually get to a point where conservation means not eating, not having shelter or clothing, etc.
LaurentD wrote:ashurbanipal wrote:No matter what we do, we will eventually get to a point where conservation means not eating, not having shelter or clothing, etc.
Do you think we will get to this point in the next 5 decades? If so, please give some data that support it.
Else, that is, if we get to it after 2050, why do you think a transition to other forms of energy would not have happened by then?
holmes wrote:The situation is the more human biomass it does not matter what energy source we have.
Quality of life will be very very low.
Your techno fixes do not solve anything. Is there a differnece living on top of one another with nuclear or oil.
Nuclear is not a replacement.
PO. com should ban Bullshiters.
Interesting article, well written and passionate.
I'm not certain that sleeping at work, as unappealing as that sounds to me, would constitute such a disconnect from humanity. It might be simply what is considered necessary for many people.
Your article made me think of another great shift in our history, which was the agricultural revolution. To many hunter-gatherers of the time who witnessed that period, tilling the ground must have also seemed like turning away from everything that made us human. I can imagine it must have seemed insane to some.
And yet, the agricultural revolution did not occur because anyone thought it would be a neat idea to grow things. I don't think anyone actually wanted to make the shift to surviving through back-breaking labor. It occurred from geopolitical necessity, like all revolutions - driven, as in our current situation, by overpopulation. Hunting-gathering could not support as many people per square mile as cultivation could. And so, uncomfortable as it must have been, the shift was made.
Ultimately, though, I agree with your conclusions: even if such disconnect takes place (and I think it will - people will try to hold on to as many pieces of their former lives as they can), it won't be enough to stave off the crash for long. Over and over again, humanity has managed to sneak around sustainability ceilings: agricultural revolution, colonialism, industrial revolution, green revolution. But I just don't see it happening this time. There's nowhere else to go.
I'm not a doomer. But I am a hard lander. There will be a depression. A lot of people are going to die. The world is going to change forever. Hopefull, eventually, to something better.
Do you think we will get to this point in the next 5 decades?
If so, please give some data that support it.
Else, that is, if we get to it after 2050, why do you think a transition to other forms of energy would not have happened by then?
holmes wrote:I got one word for u Bullshit. U are detached from reality. Thus the human biomass. U are one of them. Keep away. Read up and do ur homework and do not come near me. Your reality is all evident in this day and age. Detached from reality? your full of SHIT.
ashurbanipal wrote:Surely you are familiar with the data that is already out there? I can suggest some authors if not. If you wish to debate that data and its meaning, I'm open to doing so.
Even wind and solar energy require materials that we will one day use up, or scatter so far and wide that getting the right components back together for recycling will require an insurmountable concentration of energy.
holmes wrote:I got one word for u Bullshit. U are detached from reality. Thus the human biomass. U are one of them. Keep away. Read up and do ur homework and do not come near me. Your reality is all evident in this day and age. Detached from reality? your full of SHIT.
The most likely reason that agriculture caught on was not because of environmental pressure, but rather, to increase overall wealth. Small hunter-gatherer societies can gather all the food they need from the wilderness in a short amount of time. They began to experiment with agriculture (of the type mentioned above) to provide not only security, but also to give them an advantage over neighboring groups in trading.
ashurbanipal, your article is a comment on conservation "if done correctly." It sounds to me like this sleeping at work idea is just a bad example of that. Simple, no need for larger conclusions to be drawn. However, there are plenty of cars at rush-hour with one person in them. The US has alot of wiggle room with extensive conservation efforts.
ashurbanipal wrote: And this is the crux of the conservation issue. For a while, we will have saved money, and for a while, we might be able to afford this solution. But eventually, this will no longer be possible. Prices will continue to tighten, and conservation will have to proceed apace. No matter what we do, we will eventually get to a point where conservation means not eating, not having shelter or clothing, etc.
dooberheim wrote:Concerning living on one income:
My observation is that often people who feel they NEED two incomes are living inefficiently. They have houses that are too large, cars that are too big, and they eat expensive food and wear expensive clothes. I know there are parts of the country that have living expenses such that two incomes are necessary, but most of the US is not in that category.
If people could downscale their expectations of material goods, they would find they have a lot more money, as well as the intangible but important presence of a full time parent in their children's lives.
Some of this ties in with conspicuous consumption, and some of it is social - the idea that a full time homemaker is somehow less of a person than one that has an outside paying job. It is also felt by women's rights advocates that this would undermine the efforts of women to better thamselves in the job market, as women might be more likely to stay home. However, the other side of that is a lot of women would consider a stay-at-home husband a bum.
I think if a significant number of people would try to live on one income, the impact on the labor market would be quite favorable. Less available labor might mean higher incomes for those that did have jobs.
DK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
thuja wrote:So by all means, promote an optimistic viewoint- I think there's too little of that here. But give us plausible scenarios that we can sink our teeth into. I assure you there are many of us hungry for that.
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests