Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Mark6]

Well that is political nonsense.

It is. ArchKook sees what he wants to see:

The intensity of our faith in progress can be measured by the way we play down the achievements of past peoples in order to make ourselves look better and smarter—for example, popular history books still insist that most of Columbus’ contemporaries believed the world was flat, even though this fable has been disproved countless times.

Where do you find a "popular history book" which "insists" that? They don't exist except in ArchKook's imagination of what world is supposed to be like.

 

[Mark6]

Mmm. Not always true. Easter Island is the most marked counter-example, of course. But there are others, like the Bronze Age collapse when the civilisations in and around the Mediterranean and the Near and Middle East went splat all at once around 1200 BC. No-one's entirely sure why; quite likely it was a combination of various factors. But it went far beyond a mere change of rulers; cities were depopulated right across the region and trade collapsed.

I stand corrected.

Still, most events people think of when they say "collapse of civilization" (e.g. fall of Roman Empire) were hardly extinctions.

 

[Mark6]

Your typo makes a foolish argument very funny!

Yep, when did you last live with a rooster? Have you ever?

I have a strong suspicion TFian has never SEEN a live rooster.

Notice he never responded to this post:

So, TFian, what have you personally done in your life to prepare for the timeline you offered? Because you are describing the total breakdown of society in the next few years. At the least, I think I'd have XOM shorted with every penny I had. I'd have sold off any car I have since it would soon be worthless. I'd probably have a self sustaining garden/farm going (I need to know now that I can sustain myself, not wait until trucks can't deliver groceries to the grocery store in 2 years). Probably 30K rounds of ammunition, minimum. I'd have a well dug - a well I can dip a bucket into - if I didn't have year round water on my property. I'd have probably 5000 gal or so tank of water below the frost line. I'd have one of those nifty solar generators drkitten proposed already set up and functioning. I'd have a full collection of 19th century tools, with an emphasis on tree felling and processing. Etc.

So, have you done this stuff, or are you just arguing on the internet?

 

[GreyArea]

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

Okay, then, you need to read up again on how peak oil works. It's not a sudden halt but a decline over time. Every peak-oiler I've ever read has said this.

I personally think we'll have to go back to pre industrial farming societies, maybe something more complex like Monticello would be possible though.

Hmmm.... I will ask you more about that in a later post.

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.

A degree by itself may not be sufficient, especially when the subject at hand is not in that person's specialty. Then you have to look at the methods used for the conclusions. People can hide assumptions and errors here, even unconsciously, which is why scientists show their work. In fact, science is a collaborative process, and one lone guy isn't enough to settle a question. It's just the beginning of a sequence of multiple people checking each others' facts, testing their methods, poking and prodding their conclusions, etcetera. Consensus holds more water than pronouncements.

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.

I have to ask how many times he has predicted this already.

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

I think we are adaptable, because that is exactly what we do, and have done for hundreds of millennia. Not all of us make it, of course, but enough of us do to keep us going. Sometimes, though, we do need some prodding.

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

I have driven a hybrid for two years now. In another five or ten I expect to buy an electric car. They are real, they exist, and they work. Again, they are not for everyone, but their increasing adoption shifts oil consumption patterns in such a way as to stretch out the oil production decline. This is another example of the early-adopters buying more time for the oil-dependent slackers to make their switch.

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

We Northerners can more-easily afford the transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy than they can. But the Global South uses less to begin with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption

Some can even leapfrog with a little help: Iceland issues call at UN for poorer countries to harness potential of geothermal energy

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

We do the work of building the future infrastructure today with the "last" of the fossil fuels. Then it won't matter that we have "run out of" (more like "left behind") oil.

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?

The curve may be steeper going down than going up, maybe. You have a greater number of customers who can afford to buy oil, but that number is tempered by higher prices. You have oil companies reaching into harder-to-extract pockets, but the higher costs will stretch out this supply somewhat since people won't consume it as wildly as they used to. And on the other hand you will have more oil left available thanks to past and future conservation and switching to alternatives.

But it won't all stop next year. This curve may decline faster than the 150 years since Titusville, but not that fast.

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

One key difference between these two issues is that people don't really see the effects of climate change as immediately as they see bigger numbers on their heating bills and gas pumps. We respond better to consequences that are unsubtle.

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'm not a violent person, but if you want to bring back slavery my friends and I will stop you.

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

Come back in a couple of years, and we'll see if McPherson was right.

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

This has already been answered. You really should look into the links and facts people are giving you. You'll learn a lot, and you'll realize that things aren't quite as bad as you think.

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

I lean toward the bright green, viridian pole, but I'm not really in any particular camp.

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?

Yeah, he overdoes the attitude, but I think it's the intensity of a convert. And I think he's already said most of what he needed to, hence the smaller number of new posts.

Try this essay about how "JD" changed his perception of the energy situation: "Confessions of an Ex-Doomer" He has a few other popular posts in a box at the basic URL, which include "Debunkers and Doomers: What's the Difference?" and "The Solution to Peak Oil: Electrification + Conservation".

And, remember, I don't agree with everything "JD" writes, but I agree with his sense that Peak Oil is not doom.


I will have more later, and in a different vein, so you might not want to reply to this post point-by-point.

 

[drkitten]

Mmm. Not always true. Easter Island is the most marked counter-example, of course. But there are others, like the Bronze Age collapse when the civilisations in and around the Mediterranean and the Near and Middle East went splat all at once around 1200 BC. No-one's entirely sure why; quite likely it was a combination of various factors. But it went far beyond a mere change of rulers; cities were depopulated right across the region and trade collapsed.

Actually, that kind of proves my point. With all of recorded history (and prehistory) to draw upon, there's one recorded example of a society collapsing due to resource scarcity -- Easter Island.

Actually, there are a few more. The Anasazi of the American Southwest, the Norse colonists in Greenland, perhaps the Maya (although that appears to be largely collapse due to conquest, rather like the fall of Rome).

But to put it in perspective, no society of more than 10,000 people with the capacity to work iron has ever collapsed due to resource scarcity. With more than 2,000 years of human history since the beginning of the Iron Age, covering millions and later billions of people,.... nothing.

 

[TFian]

What culture? Which culture? Whose culture? What progress? What is "up"?

Our culture, the western industrial culture.

"Up" is advancing more in technology, and scientific understanding. The idea that we'll be a "Roddenberry" style civilization one day.

Accelerating technological change hasn't stopped since it kicked off again in the 14th century (having mouldered for a thousand years thanks, pretty much, to a bunch of druids).

And it just keeps getting faster.

I expect it will slow down again at some point. That's fine too.

Actually the rate we've progressed didn't happen until the invention of the steam engine in the 1700s, but that can't go on forever. We're going to crash and go back to little progress per century.

How were druids responsible for what you claim?

 

[TFian]

What evidence is there that he understands those subjects enough to reach valid conclusions?

Any peer reviewed papers, citations in relevant journals?

Here's what he's said about peer review.

My analyses here and elsewhere rely heavily on data.

We know we’ve passed the world oil peak, so we know how much oil remains. We know the form of the derivatives (usually called alternatives), and we know how abundant they are. And, as much as I appreciate the process of peer review, I don’t want to wait three years to publish this essay, in part because I doubt we’ll avoid a new Dark Age by then.

If, however, you would like a hopelessly optimistic assessment completely watered down by the process of peer review, here’s my latest publication, due to appear next month on the prestigious pages of Conservation Biology (let me know via email if you’d like the entire paper in pdf form). For a more realistic and time assessment of near-term oil prices, check out Jeff Rubin’s recent forecast for record-breaking oil prices next year. That’ll almost certainly finish off the industrial economy.

Source http://guymcpherson.com/2010/04/what-works-maybe-individual-options/

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, there are a few more. The Anasazi of the American Southwest, the Norse colonists in Greenland, perhaps the Maya (although that appears to be largely collapse due to conquest, rather like the fall of Rome).

A long tern drought is thought to have stalled the Mayans and caused a crash in population.

Now many american inhabitants were wiped out by small pox and measles. (Hardly resources)

 

[Dancing David]

Here's what he's said about peer review.



Source http://guymcpherson.com/2010/04/what-works-maybe-individual-options/

Resounding no, BTW where does he say that the oil infrastructure will collapse in 2013?

 

[Hindmost]

for information:

This is interesting in that the projections for fossil fuels providing the primary source of the world's energy is expected for a long time.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fuels-of-the-future

If you want to avoid some of the pitfalls of blogs...try this:

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/index.html

glenn

 

[TFian]

Resounding no, BTW where does he say that the oil infrastructure will collapse in 2013?

Here

I know no energy-literate person who thinks we’ll be able to avoid the post-industrial Stone Age by 2025. Assuming a conservative 4% annual decline rate of crude oil between now and then indicates we will have access to the same amount of oil in 2025 as we did in 1970, when the planet held half as many people as it now does and the world was considerably less industrialized than it now is. And that’s merely the gross rate of decline, whereas the net rate of decline will be much more rapid because it takes so much energy to extract and deliver energy. Oil priced a $147.27 per barrel nearly brought down the industrial economy five times I know about, and we’re hardly out of the woods yet. There is little hope for the industrial era to persist more than a few years, and the next spike in the price of oil could very well be the trigger that brings the industrial era to a sudden close in an unprepared nation.

I suspect we’ll pass through a new Dark Age en route to the post-industrial Stone Age. Indeed, many countries in the world are already there because they lack the world’s reserve currency and the world’s largest military. Bully for us: We have both, thus ensuring a steady supply of fossil-fuel-driven energy into every city and town in the United States. Well, so far.

 

[TFian]

Mmm. Not always true. Easter Island is the most marked counter-example, of course. But there are others, like the Bronze Age collapse when the civilisations in and around the Mediterranean and the Near and Middle East went splat all at once around 1200 BC. No-one's entirely sure why; quite likely it was a combination of various factors. But it went far beyond a mere change of rulers; cities were depopulated right across the region and trade collapsed.

Interesting you bring up the Easter collapse. We peak oilers generally use it as an example of why our current civilization will collapse and die off. Why was it possible for them and not us? As Jared Diamond put it, civilization's die off from suicide, not murder.

 

[PixyMisa]

Interesting you bring up the Easter collapse. We peak oilers generally use it as an example of why our current civilization will collapse and die off. Why was it possible for them and not us?

Because they were stuck on an island.

As Jared Diamond put it, civilization's die off from suicide, not murder.

Jared Diamond is a lunatic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Our culture, the western industrial culture.

Which is fractally complex and embodies every idea imaginable and many that aren't.

"Up" is advancing more in technology, and scientific understanding.

Which always advances - unless you start burning books and shooting people, knowledge doesn't vanish.

The idea that we'll be a "Roddenberry" style civilization one day.

Star Trek is magic, not science.

Actually the rate we've progressed didn't happen until the invention of the steam engine in the 1700s

The rate has been accelerating since the 14th century.

but that can't go on forever.

Accelerating scientific and technological advance can't go on for ever, unless the Universe is not only infinite but infinitely complex. But scientific and technological advance in themselves can continue until the Universe fades away.

We're going to crash and go back to little progress per century.

So you keep saying. You have yet to produce any evidence to back up this claim.

How were druids responsible for what you claim?

*

 

[PixyMisa]

Here's what he's said about peer review.

Source http://guymcpherson.com/2010/04/what-works-maybe-individual-options/

That article is just a random assemblage of falsehoods. Like the assertion that military spending is 58% of the US federal budget, which is simply a lie.

Jared Diamond may be nuts, but he can at least assemble a coherent argument - he just pushes his hypotheses far behind what the evidence supports.

That article by McPherson ignores contrary evidence and invents supporting evidence. There is no reason to pay any attention to him at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

A long tern drought is thought to have stalled the Mayans and caused a crash in population.

Now many american inhabitants were wiped out by small pox and measles. (Hardly resources)

Population is a resource. Viewed that way, European civilisation collapsed following the Black Death. In the long run that was a good thing - it broke the feudal systems and opened the way forward to more efficient socio-economic structures. Can't have been much fun at the time, though. (Cf. Connie Willis's Doomsday Book.)

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Now many american inhabitants were wiped out by small pox and measles. (Hardly resources)

The pre-Columbian buildings constructed by the Pueblo People (aka Anasazi, to whom drkitten referred) were, until the 19th century, the largest buildings in North America. That culture began its decline before European diseases were brought to the Americas.

The decline of the Chaco culture coincided with a multi-decade drought during the 1100s. Mesa Verde was abandoned circa 1275, leaving a major clifftop temple only partially completed; drought is one of the leading hypotheses for that abandonment. Canyon de Chelly appears to have been abandoned, for reasons unknown, before contact with Europeans; the area was later settled by Navajo, who referred to the original inhabitants as "Anasazi". Similar statements can be made about Hovenweep, "Aztec" Ruins, Bandelier, et cetera. (Acoma (Sky City) was an exception, and may be the oldest continuously inhabited town within the United States; it was settled during the 11th century.)

Summary: Explanations for the decline of ancient Puebloan culture within the Four Corners area remain controversial and may be complex, but droughts and concomitant exhaustion of resources are leading contenders.

BTW: Jared Diamond may be wrong about many things, but he may also be right about many things. He is not a lunatic.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Actually the rate we've progressed didn't happen until the invention of the steam engine in the 1700s, but that can't go on forever. We're going to crash and go back to little progress per century.

Quick note, that's a substantially different claim than the ones about catastrophic change. One I and many here still disagree with in the near term, but not entirely unreasonable. Progress may slow down at some point.

The error you and Greer are making is in thinking that because progress may slow down, humanity will just give up and abandon its most valuable survival tools. No, in such an unlikely scenario, quite the opposite would happen - we'd turn to the highest tech we have, not the lowest.

 

[PixyMisa]

BTW: Jared Diamond may be wrong about many things, but he may also be right about many things. He is not a lunatic.

Read his early paper about the invention of agriculture. He all but foams at the mouth.

Having said that, Guns, Germs and Steel is an interesting read, if somewhat one-sided.

 

[TFian]

That article is just a random assemblage of falsehoods. Like the assertion that military spending is 58% of the US federal budget, which is simply a lie.

No it's not http://countercurrents.org/ananda250410.htm