I find myself more optimistic than you on the prospect of our coping with Peak Oil. Perhaps I could discuss my different perspective, using some of TWilliam's posts as starting points.
TWilliam wrote:As far as any techno-messiah goes, ANY addition of technology ultimately represents an increase in mass which requires an increased energy input to maintain. If it requires any form of finite resource to produce or maintain, it will inevitably lead to an acceleration of the very problem it seeks to resolve, even if it appears at first to ameliorate it...
I don't think this statement, as presently formulated, is true.
An addition of technology can very well lead to a decrease in mass and a decrease in required energy. Within my lifetime, the energy requirements for computation and radio communication have decreased by orders of magnitude (vacuum tubes -> transistors -> chips).
Likewise with systems, it is possible to replace an energy-intensive system (e.g., suburbia and personal vehicles) with a much less intense system (e.g., traditional city/country with less mobility, using walking and bicycles for personal locomotion.) It's possible to replace our present fossil fuel agriculture with traditional ("organic") agriculture.
I'm guessing that you mean something else than what you apparently said. Perhaps re-stating it or giving some examples might make it clearer.
It's important to distinguish between technology that aggravates the problem and technology that can alleviate it. Under the category of "good technology," I would list technology which is low-energy, resilient, recyclable, and local. "Bad technology" would be that which is high-powered, fragile, wasteful and centralized (and thus controlled by an elite).
Good technology is not always low tech. For example, I would disagree with Permanently_Baffled when he says;
I think if people had the choice between the heating and the PC they would go for the former.
There are many ways for people to stay warm (wood heat, clothes, insulation, etc.), so I would not waste high-quality energy on heat... but think what the 250 watts spent on a PC connected to the Internet can yield! Even a low-energy society will require computation, communication, and technical knowledge. What would it be worth to find a technique that doubles your potato crop? Or a medical remedy for a dying child? Got to find a way to keep those PCs running!
TWilliam wrote: Whether or not we conserve what's left for "key uses" is irrelevant to whether or not that point will be reached. It is simply one of the factors relating to how quickly that point is traversed as the fulcrum slides the other way, and thus it impacts only how rapid the descent, but not IF it will occur.
If you are saying that there will inevitably be an energy descent, I'd agree with you. The key question is how we negotiate the energy descent. We desperately need time for attitudes to change and new technologies to be developed.
Example of the importance of time: jumping out an airplane with a parachute versus without a parachute. In both cases one will fall thousands of feet and in both cases there will be an impact. The difference is that in one the process is spread out over time, and we can walk away from impact unharmed.
TWilliam wrote:Considering that studies in population dynamics have revealed a consistent pattern amongst all species when given virtually unrestricted access to a basic resource, namely that they subsequently overshoot their resource base (overshoot being defined as the point at which half of said resource has been depleted, also known as peak), experience at that point a doubling (at least) of population followed closely (i.e. within the lifecycle of the latest generation) by a precipitous drop in total population of around 90% (and in some cases complete extinction); I see no reason to expect that we shall escape a similar degree of decline (human arrogance regarding mathematical law notwithstanding).
You've nicely expressed an idea that commonly comes up on this board. There are several reasons I think the overshoot idea is weak when applied to humans.
First objection. It's risky to jump from a biological principle to generalizations about human society. We are an anomalous species because of culture -- our ability to learn and transmit knowledge. How could you predict agriculture, cities, exploitation of fossil fuels on the basis of biological studies?
Intellectual history is littered with crackpot theories and ominous worldviews (e.g., Social Darwinism), which based themselves on half-understood biological ideas. At most, biological ideas can serve as thought-provoking hypotheses. They can be useful AS LONG AS ONE RECOGNIZES THEIR LIMITATIONS.
Second objection. Overshoot is NOT a consistent pattern amongst all species. According to one textbook:
E.P. Odum p.126 wrote:In summary, some populations tend to be self-limiting in that the rate of growth decreases as the density increases. Such population growth can be said to be inversely density dependent. Other populations are not self-limited but tend to grow exponentially until checked by forces outside of the population (that is, other populations or general ecosystem limitations); such populations may overshoot their energy and habitat resources, literally crowding themselves to death in the case of plants, or eating themselves out of house and home, in the case of animals. Their population growth can be said to be density independent, at least until the density becomes very great.
(Ecology by E.P. Odum. 2nd ed, 1975... Sorry! I know it's old; it's what I have on hand right now.)
And these are only two simplified tendencies; in real life, the patterns are more complicated.
Actually, I am in qualified agreement with your overshoot idea. Like you, I believe the population will decrease, but unlike you I don't think it will necessarily decrease precipitiously, as if we were lemmings.
E.P. Odum p.128 wrote:...the size of most populations, even those with high reproductive potentials, remains remarkably constant year after year. As we have already pointed out, there is a general correlation between diversity and stability on the ecosystem level and homeostasis at the population level. That is, irruptions and outbreaks are more likely to occur where the biological structure is simplified, either by man or by severe natural limiting factors, or where there is a sudden increase in energy [!! fossil fuels !!] or resources that gives the opportunistic species a chance to grow exponentially.
Human population seems to have been relatively constant for most of our history -- which means that we are basically a self-limiting species. If we look at cultures throughout history, we find customs which tended to keep populations constant (one example, the tendency for hunter-gatherer cultures to space births out over time, e.g., by long-term breast feeding).
Human innovations, such as agriculture and fossil fuels, opened up resources for the population to grow to new, higher levels. Since innovation got us to this point, isn't it reasonable that innovation can help us adapt to the coming peak? (By innovation, I don't mean techno-fixes that enable us to keep our SUVs; I mean adapting our way of life to a low-energy reality.)
Some of the places to look for ideas:
1) History: in the past, how did people live on a fraction of the energy that we now squander?
2) Current low-energy cultures: Gotta get beyond our US (and European?) stereotypes and look for outselves.
3) Appropriate technology: Applying state-of-the-art science and engineering to the problem of sustainable living.
I'll admit that at the moment it's hard to feel optimistic in Bush's America.
On the other hand, it encourages me to see the many efforts underway in other countries, and to read how people in other periods of history have endured and prospered.
