Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Hellbound]

Ah well, I doubt it would be able to be replicated in a pre industrial civilization..

Which you've still shown no evidence to be a possibility in the foreseeable future.

 

[drkitten]

Ah well, I doubt it would be able to be replicated in a pre industrial civilization..

But since you've presented no evidence to support the idea that running out of oil will cause people to go back in time, that's not really relevant.

People don't forget things just because they have to burn kerosene instead of oil. (?!)

 

[Dancing David]

Manufacturing needs oil.




Lol

@ Burning. Wood, dead bodies, and kerosene would do just fine.

Say what is kerosene? Are you sure you aren't a Turing bot?

 

[Dancing David]

Um, I never said there'd not be any oil left. I said there won't be enough to power industrial civilization. There's a difference.

Some of the Amish use kerosene. You don't need a whole lot for minimal burning/power applications. There'll be enough for pre industrial uses. Also plenty of wood, cadavers (human and animal alike) among other sources.

You obviously don't know much about burning wood.

 

[Hellbound]

You know, there's another aspect of this TFian is missing: The Hoover Dam. There'll be at least some areas where power won't be an issue, even without oil. There will still be areas, places that are currently using nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, or other sources, that will maintain their current power levels. THese places will still have the manufacturing centers and such to produce high-tech goods, as well as solar cells, windmills, and similar power sources to distribute to other areas.

The idea that just because oil gets scarce we'll have to become subsitance farmers is doubly ridiculous, even assuming all oil on Earth did suddenly quantum tunnel out to the orbit of Pluto next year.

 

[Weak Kitten]

You obviously don't know much about burning wood.

Oh oh, I know this one. It's the reason why London had "pea soup fogs" right?

It takes a heck of a lot of wood to keep a nice warm fire going and the amount of smoke put out is awful, even if you try to dry the wood out before hand. Have you ever even tried to cook without modern appliances? There's a reason a woman's place was in the home, it was a full time job just cooking for a family! And the chemicals you had to use to keep a house and kitchen clean, wow! Lye is nasty, nasty stuff and it's not the worst by a long shot.

Have you ever carded wool? Saved a sheep? Mucked out a barn? I've done all those things and more. I've been stepped on by a draft horse and pinned against a wall by a cow and scratched up by angry chickens. I tell you, it may have been fun for a few months every summer but I would not want to make that my life. It is hard, dirty, smelly work without any mechanical aids and the number of ways you can get seriously injured are amazing. Get your head out of this idealized version of what a pre-industrial world is like. It is not an in-touch-with-nature picnic, it's a scramble-scratch world of hard, long days and all too short nights.

 

[TFian]

Say what is kerosene? Are you sure you aren't a Turing bot?

It's a combustible hydrocarbon. What's a Turing bot?

 

[Weak Kitten]

It's a combustible hydrocarbon. What's a Turing bot?

A Turing Bot is a conversational artificial intelligence renowned for repeating what others have already said or ignoring/misunderstanding answers to questions.

He/she is basically pointing out that it seems that you are not listening to the reasonable responses people have tried to make to your statements.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why would you need that much information for a small village?

Because life expectancy at birth in the US, even in 1850, even for white males, was 38. It's now 76. You are planning to throw away the knowledge that gave us that. Knowledge that will easily fit on a $200 pocket reader. Knowledge that we have, readers that are already widespread.

Actually he doesn't think a die off will emerge. I think he's too optimistic though.

You CANNOT support the current world population with an 18th-century agrarian system. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

World population at the start of the 18th century was ~700 million; at the end of the century it was around 1 billion. And even so they lived, on average, half as long as we do today.

Really? Who?

http://www.homebrewcpu.com/
http://www.stevechamberlin.com/cpu/category/bmow1/
http://www.fpgacpu.org/
http://opencores.org/

Yeah but they'd be useless.

Why? MCUs work, they use trivial amounts of power, they're extremely reliable, they're significantly faster than the processors that kicked off the microcomputer revolution, they're dirt cheap, and they're cranked out by the billions every single year.

It won't be peaceful, I know.

So let's not do that. Let's solve the problem rather than consigning 6 billion people to death.

Ok

I'm glad that's settled then!

 

[PixyMisa]

Manufacturing needs oil.

Nope.

Lol

Learn some economics before you "Lol".

Globalization means that jobs move from higher-paying regions to lower-paying ones. As conditions, training, expertise and so on improve in the lower-paying regions, they become more expenisve and pay increases. These regions that were previously only able to attract unskilled work now start developing as suppliers of skilled labour and building up their internal economies.

In the process they become more expensive as sources of unskilled labour and those jobs move elsewhere.

@ Burning. Wood, dead bodies, and kerosene would do just fine.

There won't be any wood. There won't be any kerosene; your entire doomsday scenario is predicated on that.

 

[TFian]

Globalization means that jobs move from higher-paying regions to lower-paying ones. As conditions, training, expertise and so on improve in the lower-paying regions, they become more expenisve and pay increases. These regions that were previously only able to attract unskilled work now start developing as suppliers of skilled labour and building up their internal economies.

In the process they become more expensive as sources of unskilled labour and those jobs move elsewhere.

I think Mark6 was right, let's stay on topic.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think your economic illiteracy is the very heart of the topic at hand.

 

[TFian]

I think your economic illiteracy is the very heart of the topic at hand.

You really want to switch this to a globalization vs. anti globalization argument? If that's the case, probably a new thread should be made...

 

[TFian]

Well, with 6 Billion bodies stacked like cordwood. . . .

They'd make very easy disposable resources

 

[TFian]

Here is one point where we are seeing the problem completely differently. I think that these new forms of electrical power will become commercially viable when they are the cheaper alternatives to oil, even if they are more expensive than what we are using now. To me, more expensive oil will guarantee it; the only question is how long it will take. But for you, and at the risk of putting words in your mouth, the question of time is a question of how long before industrial-scale manufacturing world-wide hits an imminent brick wall of having zero oil available to anyone. Am I misunderstanding how you think this will play out?

No you're not misunderstanding what I am saying. Or rather, how I think it will play out.

I don't see Peak Oil as "no oil left", but rather as a situation with more customers clamoring for oil, and extractors not being able to draw more oil up to satisfy all of them. The result is price increases, which not everyone can afford. Where people can, they will change personal and business behaviors. Where they can't they will have to do without.

I agree with you that when people can't, they do without, and change their personal and business behaviors with less. We just disagree on how they will change. I personally think we'll have to go back to pre industrial farming societies, maybe something more complex like Monticello would be possible though.

Okay, that gets us away from the original post. That might damage a lot of the Internet. But you'll have to back up your reasons for that initial assumtion. And even if you did, you should remember that recessions (not to say anything about depressions) ease demand for oil. And then you'd have to remember the "inter" part of "Internet". It's an international network of networks, so it would still work somewhere. Remember why it was built in the first place.

I'm generally following what Guy R. McPherson, PhD is saying on this timeline. Unlike Greer, he is a scientist himself, so his word should carry more weight around here.

Again, here is that key point where we seem to be thinking about this problem completely differently.

Peak oil refers to the point at which the largest amount of oil is extracted in a single year, with smaller quantities in every year after that, due to limitations in the available supply within the ground. It does not mean that all of the wells stop producing all at once. You probably know this already, but your comments seem to demonstrate a confusion of these two scenarios as well as their different consequences.

You're right, it's a decline. However, Guy R. McPherson makes a good case as to a very quick shock, where our economies won't be able to adapt.

If I could permanently stop all oil extraction today, sure, we probably would see a collapse of industrial society around the world. Except maybe for Iceland. But this is not in the cards.

I don't know, I just don't see humans as very adaptable.

Instead, each year will see a little bit less oil produced than in the previous year. As a result, the price increases. Those who can afford the more-expensive and slightly-smaller quantities of oil will continue to buy it. Whose who can't will conserve or do without, just as we already have since 1973, 1979, and 2003. Eventually, the logic of substitution will affect even the rich.

I agree, I just think it will play out differently. When we do without, it will be Amish style technology.

As prices stay high, or rise, year after year we will use less oil for transport. I suspect that electric vehicles will expand, de-emphasizing oil use for transport. The smaller petroleum pie will be weighted more toward heating, where it's harder to replace equipment with non-oil infrastructure.

From what I can see, the electric car is a lot like a pipe dream to me.

But (ignoring what I wrote above) where would this happen first? Rising oil prices make this scenario more likely to happen in the Global South than in the North, and more likely to happen in the South first. You and I will probably face fewer difficulties in this transition than the people there will because we can afford more-expensive fuel. But, of course, they don't use oil as much as we do, so maybe it will be a wash.

I think the Global South is where the die off will start. I think the Global North will be luckier in the transition.

And maybe some of them will get lucky and leapfrog over car culture to go directly to a smarter all-electric infrastructure.

I don't see how that's possible, especially without cheap abundant fossil fuels.

And vice versa. Tell me, have you seen anyone forecasting the annual decline in oil production after peak AND the annual increase in oil price? A realistic forecast would make it easier for us to explore reactions and other consequences.

Please bring us numbers.

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-27/next-oil-price-shock-update

Sort of. We are approaching a point where we won't have 10% of the oil we currently need for light industry. However, (1) oil is not the only source of energy, (2) we need to pass through the 95%, 90%, 80%, and 70% points first, (3) we will find that we don't need that much oil for such work, and (4) we will find that we're better off doing that work and so much more by not using fossil fuels.

Oil is the only source though that's so abundant and cheap. Remember, just because it's technically possible doesn't mean it's feasible.

Let me ask you this: What reasons are there for not expecting the decline in production to follow a similar curve down as it followed up?

But we are adaptable. Gas prices doubled between 2003 and 2007, and Americans (of all people!) adjusted. Reasons for change may be complex, but it really does happen.

Those are minuscule changes. I've not seen any evidence humans can adapt to widespread changes quickly. Just look at climate change.

I can see such a society as well, as a subculture or as a network of experimental communities from which the rest of us non-participants might (maybe) learn a thing or two. I don't think it's for everybody, and fortunately for everybody it probably won't be the only option.

I'm not so sure, I think it may be our best option. Monticello would be a good model too, but I'm not sure where we'd get the slaves to get it running.

Even more fortunately (and part of the reason for this conclusion), the global civilization of next century will by necessity be more sustainable than today's, especially regarding energy. Ecotechnic tools and methods will come from more places than the green wizards' backyards. The rest of us have our own ways which work just fine, and possibly more-reliably.

Maybe the future will be more diverse than I think. I hope it turns out you proved me wrong.

Sure, but you also need to factor in substitutions. How do you think computer manufacturers will make their machines differently after sustained increases in the price of oil? Would they use non-petroleum-based plastic for parts? Would the UPS and FedEx shipping fleet have switched to non-petroleum fuels

How can you make any viable plastics without petroleum? how would UPS and FedEx even be able to function without petroleum?

What do you consider this ilk to which I allegedly belong? I'm not one of the conservative engineers on this board. I'm probably more like you than you realize. There are more perspectives than the "doomer" and the "cornucopian

My apologies, I thought you were with the market nuclear techno cornucopians myself. What would you consider yourself if I may ask?

I don't read the Oil Drum, except maybe Jerome a Paris if I happen to see an interesting citation elsewhere. I occasionally look at Energy Bulletin. You already know that I prefer Big Gav's blog, and WorldChanging.

Isn't Jerome a Paris a "doomer", at least a bit? I heard he was...

What do you think of "Peak Oil Debunked"? That blogger accepts peak oil (despite the blog's name), but he no longer accepts the doomsday case. You might find it interesting.

I never really looked through it, it didn't seem updated in a while, and he seems quite abrasive. But I'll look through it. Any particular posts you'd recommend?

 

[PixyMisa]

You really want to switch this to a globalization vs. anti globalization argument? If that's the case, probably a new thread should be made...

We don't need to. I'm right.

You're wrong about peak oil, about all other energy sources, about manufacturing and industrial civilization in general, about computers and the way the internet is structured, about history, about economics, about well, pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

1. Peak oil is fast approaching; indeed, it may well be here already or recently passed.
2. It will mean changes to the way we do things. Those changes are already taking place, and have been for decades.
3. It will not mean the end of industrial civilization. It will mean a resource boom in Alberta, Canada. Good for them.
4. There is plenty of energy available to run industry at a much higher level than at present, should we desire this. This is limited by capital, labour, and demand, NOT by energy.
5. The internet is as successful as it is because it is cheap and makes things possible that would otherwise be impossible. It will only become cheaper and more capable in the future.

I personally run a server that hosts several hundred websites. The server I run at the moment would have cost around $6000 new (I rent it). I'm planning to replace it soon with an equally powerful but more modern server costing half as much. Either one would be roughly twice as fast as a Sun E10000, a server that cost well over a million dollars in 1998.

And there's still a three or four generations of price/performance doubling left in lithography scaling before silicon hits its limit. And after that the prices will continue to tumble because the main costs involved are non-recurring engineering (the design of new chips) and capital outlay (the construction of new, more advanced factories). Even if we fail to move to graphene or some other new technology, server costs and energy requirements are set to fall by another order of magnitude in the next decade. Very conservatively, at that.

The internet is cheap. Google provides most of its services for free, and even so is an enormously profitable company.

The world is vastly larger than the tiny imagination of your ArchDruid can encompass. What he's feeding you is no more than disaster porn; an unworkable solution for a problem that will never happen.

 

[TFian]

We don't need to. I'm right.

You're wrong about peak oil, about all other energy sources, about manufacturing and industrial civilization in general, about computers and the way the internet is structured, about history, about economics, about well, pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

1. Peak oil is fast approaching; indeed, it may well be here already or recently passed.
2. It will mean changes to the way we do things. Those changes are already taking place, and have been for decades.
3. It will not mean the end of industrial civilization. It will mean a resource boom in Alberta, Canada. Good for them.
4. There is plenty of energy available to run industry at a much higher level than at present, should we desire this. This is limited by capital, labour, and demand, NOT by energy.
5. The internet is as successful as it is because it is cheap and makes things possible that would otherwise be impossible. It will only become cheaper and more capable in the future.

I personally run a server that hosts several hundred websites. The server I run at the moment would have cost around $6000 new (I rent it). I'm planning to replace it soon with an equally powerful but more modern server costing half as much. Either one would be roughly twice as fast as a Sun E10000, a server that cost well over a million dollars in 1998.

And there's still a three or four generations of price/performance doubling left in lithography scaling before silicon hits its limit. And after that the prices will continue to tumble because the main costs involved are non-recurring engineering (the design of new chips) and capital outlay (the construction of new, more advanced factories). Even if we fail to move to graphene or some other new technology, server costs and energy requirements are set to fall by another order of magnitude in the next decade. Very conservatively, at that.

The internet is cheap. Google provides most of its services for free, and even so is an enormously profitable company.

The world is vastly larger than the tiny imagination of your ArchDruid can encompass. What he's feeding you is no more than disaster porn; an unworkable solution for a problem that will never happen.

Mmm, disaster porn, my favorite.

You think Tar Sands in Alberta is a good thing economically? Well, maybe short term, but the environmental consequences will bite you in the A$$ in the long run

 

[PixyMisa]

I agree with you that when people can't, they do without, and change their personal and business behaviors with less. We just disagree on how they will change. I personally think we'll have to go back to pre industrial farming societies, maybe something more complex like Monticello would be possible though.

That is the worst possible outcome.

Choice: You can eat steak twice a week rather than daily, because it's become more expensive; or, six billion people die and you eat steak once a year, if you're lucky.

Choice: You catch the train to work or telecommute rather than maintaining a car; or, six billion people die and you swap your high-paying job as an architect/engineer/advertising executive for one as a hardscrabble potato-farmer.

Why, why, why are you choosing the latter?

I'm generally following what Guy R. McPherson, PhD is saying on this timeline. Unlike Greer, he is a scientist himself, so his word should carry more weight around here.

Why?

You're right, it's a decline. However, Guy R. McPherson makes a good case as to a very quick shock, where our economies won't be able to adapt.

What is this case, please?

I don't know, I just don't see humans as very adaptable.

Then you are remarkably ill-informed regarding human history and indeed the realities of the world today.

I agree, I just think it will play out differently. When we do without, it will be Amish style technology.

Why do you believe this? We've been through oil shocks before. And other energy shocks. They passed. Civilization advanced.

If we revert to Amish technology, 90%+ of the human population is DEAD, and you're almost certainly one of them.

I suggest we don't do that.

From what I can see, the electric car is a lot like a pipe dream to me.

They already exist.

I think the Global South is where the die off will start. I think the Global North will be luckier in the transition.

That, again, is absurd. The southern hemisphere has far more resources in proportion to population than the north. If you live in Argentina or Australia, you're much safer than most of the rest of the world, even with respect to your flights of fancy.

I don't see how that's possible, especially without cheap abundant fossil fuels.

We have coal for a couple of hundred years, oil for more than a hundred (adding up alternative sources), uranium for hundreds of thousands. We have cheap abundant fossil fuels.

Oil is already unthinkably expensive by the standards of the '50s and '60s. We've adapted. We continue to adapt.

Oil is the only source though that's so abundant and cheap.

Coal is more abundant and cheaper. Oil is merely more convenient.

Remember, just because it's technically possible doesn't mean it's feasible.

The other factor is economics. As oil prices rise, alternatives become economically feasible. This is happening today.

[quoe]Let me ask you this: What reasons are there for not expecting the decline in production to follow a similar curve down as it followed up?[/quote]
I see no reason why the downward curve would be similar to the upward curve. I do agree that there will be a downward curve.

Those are minuscule changes. I've not seen any evidence humans can adapt to widespread changes quickly. Just look at climate change.

Gas prices doubled. The economy barely noticed.

I'm not so sure, I think it may be our best option. Monticello would be a good model too, but I'm not sure where we'd get the slaves to get it running.

I'll just leave that there.

Maybe the future will be more diverse than I think.

It could hardly be less so.

I hope it turns out you proved me wrong.

We have; that's already established.

How can you make any viable plastics without petroleum?

Coal. Biowaste. Algae.

how would UPS and FedEx even be able to function without petroleum?

Starts with e and ends with either lectricity or thanol. You choose.

 

[PixyMisa]

TFian, just to give you an idea of the true state of things:

A single Opteron 4162 EE processor, using 35W of power, can replace 80 1998 UltraSparc II CPUs using 25W each. For $300, a fraction of the cost of just one of the Sparc CPUs.

The internet ain't goin' nowhere but up.

 

[excaza]

TFian, just to give you an idea of the true state of things:

A single Opteron 4162 EE processor, using 35W of power, can replace 80 1998 UltraSparc II CPUs using 25W each. For $300, a fraction of the cost of just one of the Sparc CPUs.

The internet ain't goin' nowhere but up.

Hell, my graphing calculator (TI-89) runs on 4 AAA batteries. Its processor was developed in 1979, and it's many, many orders of magnitude more powerful than ENIAC, which weighed 30 tons and used about 200 kW of power.

Really, TFain, you have no idea what you're talking about. And neither does the ArchKook.