Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[ThatSoundAgain]

I can, but the problem is that it requires so many counter-factuals that one has to wonder if it's possible that TFian is really so wrong about so many things that he really does want a die-off because he thinks its really for the best, or if he's just dreaming about how he's going to be one of the survivors and thinks it would be cool.

I do appreciate your thoughtful argument, but that is precisely why I qualified my statement above with the romantic fantasy bit.

If one believes a situation such as the one you outline is imminent, sitting around arguing on web forums that a catastrophic die-off of most of the world's population would be good right about now, thank you, is about the most sociopathic thing imaginable. If a person truly believed that, they should spend their every waking second preparing and working for humane depopulation, e.g. through birth regulation.

 

[Myriad]

What I can't think of off-hand, though, is any system of morals (current or past) where it's OK for someone to casually wish that their romantic fantasy of being a "green wizard" would come true at the cost of billions of deaths.

It might not be OK, but Sheri Tepper can write some remarkably good novels based on exactly such fantasies. They're so entertaining that you hardly even notice that the moral viewpoint they express, if acted upon, would be as evil as anything humanity has seen in recorded history.

One example is A Plague of Angels, in which aliens have come to earth to

kill most of the human population in horrible ways including spreading AIDS-like diseases, distributing lethal but irresistably addictive drugs, and releasing predatory monsters in rural areas

, and yet

those aliens are the heroes of the story, because they're doing it all to fix what they think is wrong with human civilization, while the humans who try to develop technology to stop them are the villains

.

TFian, have you read any Sheri Tepper? You'd love it, I think.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TFian]

Here's the thing, TFian. We've already established that we are not facing any immediate absolute crisis, that no sudden collapse of civilisation is impending, and that there is no likelihood of 90% of the world's population dying any time soon. In other words, all your predictions are wrong.

Then you say:


In what way can this be regarded as good?

If you say, based on this evidence, it's likely to happen, that is simply an argument about facts. You might be right. You might be wrong.

What you just said, though, is a value judgement, not about facts at all. Now, I'd rather argue about facts, but we've pretty much wrapped that up; you don't have a case.

So, where does this value judgement come from?

Well, if you think about it, previous die offs like the black plague generally had very positive after effects, so they can be catalysts to possible positive change.

Have you ever read Derrick Jensen? He portrays a much better world under a primitivism "uncivilized" framework. I don't think it'd be possible without a die off, and maybe in this case, a die off would be good.

 

[PixyMisa]

It might not be OK, but Sheri Tepper can write some remarkably good novels based on exactly such fantasies. They're so entertaining that you hardly even notice that the moral viewpoint they express, if acted upon, would be as evil as anything humanity has seen in recorded history.

One example is A Plague of Angels, in which aliens have come to earth to

Thanks for the warning. If I read that, it would hit the wall so hard it would leave a hole.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, if you think about it, previous die offs like the black plague generally had very positive after effects, so they can be catalysts to possible positive change.

Sure. But you don't actually need to kill billions of people to effect positive change. Our society is changing and adapting every minute of every day, faster than the 18th century agrarians would have believed possible.

Have you ever read Derrick Jensen? He portrays a much better world under a primitivism "uncivilized" framework. I don't think it'd be possible without a die off, and maybe in this case, a die off would be good.

Don't recall reading any of his work, but the name rings a bell.

(Quick Google.)

Oh yeah, that guy.

TFian, I have a suggestion: Read something by someone who isn't an out-and-out lunatic. It will change your world.

 

[TFian]

Sure. But you don't actually need to kill billions of people to effect positive change. Our society is changing and adapting every minute of every day, faster than the 18th century agrarians would have believed possible.

I'm not sure how that's true. Could you explain?

Don't recall reading any of his work, but the name rings a bell.

(Quick Google.)

Oh yeah, that guy.

TFian, I have a suggestion: Read something by someone who isn't an out-and-out lunatic. It will change your world.

What makes you think he's an out-and-out lunatic? Nothing he has ever said is absurd, and it is very similar to the ideas put forth in Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. He points out that above all of the problems we face today, our greatest challenge is overcoming civilization as a whole because it is the root cause of the catastrophe we face. If you disagree, then give me one example of how our civilization IS sustainable.

 

[TFian]

Anthropological data shows that any species that reaches it's peak in food supply will naturally drop in population by 70% in less than one generation. We are not quite there yet, but at our rate of population increase, we will be there all too soon. That alone is a perfect example. We can't help that many people will die, it may suck, but it's what's going to happen.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not sure how that's true. Could you explain?

Look back 100 years. You'll find a civilisation that's not that much different to, say, the Roman Empire 1700 years earlier.

In 1900 we had steam engines, and guns, but everything else we take for granted now was just coming over the horizon and hadn't had an impact yet - radio and the telephone and electricity and mechanical computers and the internal combustion engine and powered flight.

Since then, we've had one revolution after another in the way we work, the way we travel, the way we communicate, the way we eat - everything has changed.

In the US in 1900, 41% of the workforce was employed in agriculture. It took 41% of our labor to keep ourselves fed.

By 2000, the figure was less than 2%.

That pace of change by historical standards is utterly fantastic.

I have to ask this, how old are you? You seem to have no historical perspective at all.

What makes you think he's an out-and-out lunatic? Nothing he has ever said is absurd

You said:

He portrays a much better world under a primitivism "uncivilized" framework.

He's a lunatic; or pathetically ignorant; or lying.

Under such a framework, (a) you're dead, and (b) you're dead, so who cares about (b).

and it is very similar to the ideas put forth in Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

Which should tell you something.

He points out that above all of the problems we face today, our greatest challenge is overcoming civilization as a whole because it is the root cause of the catastrophe we face.

That is stupid.

If you disagree, then give me one example of how our civilization IS sustainable.

You're really not paying attention, are you?

You claim that civilisation is "the root cause of the catastrophe we face".

You have failed to show that we face any catastrophe at all.

You say that we're running out of oil, and the freeways will be empty in three years. It's simply not true. We will run out of oil, but the timeframe is a whole lot longer than that.

You say that we're running out of Uranium and can't switch to that as an energy source. It's simply not true. There is enough Uranium in the oceans - readily recoverable by known processes - to power our civilisation for hundreds of thousands of years.

Population is rising? Yes, it is, but the curve is flattening; rather than continuing exponentially, global population will reach a peak mid-century and then begin to decline. Life will still suck if you live in sub-Saharan Africa, but life in sub-Saharan Africa has always sucked.

Stop reading doomsday porn and pick up some James Burke.

 

[PixyMisa]

Anthropological data shows that any species that reaches it's peak in food supply will naturally drop in population by 70% in less than one generation. We are not quite there yet, but at our rate of population increase, we will be there all too soon.

What is the rate of our population increase? What is our peak food supply? What is the carrying capacity of the Earth?

I'll give you a hint: The carrying capacity of the Earth is calculated to be much higher than the human population is ever expected to reach.

That alone is a perfect example.

Yes it is. Just not in the way you think.

We can't help that many people will die

Yes we can.

it may suck, but it's what's going to happen.

It may happen. I can't predict the future. But you certainly haven't presented any evidence for this.

 

[TFian]

30,000 people die a day of starvation because of our civilization. This could be avoided by giving them their land back so they can plant food for themselves instead of for global trade. Our civilization requires several forms of direct slavery for cheap products to be made in other countries. There is some really awful **** that happens, and there are things we can do to help stop those things, but ultimately these things MUST happen for us to live this way.

 

[PixyMisa]

30,000 people die a day of starvation because of our civilization. This could be avoided by giving them their land back so they can plant food for themselves instead of for global trade.

No it couldn't. There's already more than enough food for everyone in the world. It's a political problem - you would actually need to shoot people simply to be able to distribute the food.

Another thing you don't seem to understand - small-scale low-tech subsistence farming is abjectly inefficient. If we go back to that we're dead anyway.

Our civilization requires several forms of direct slavery for cheap products to be made in other countries.

No it doesn't. That's simply a lie. In fact, the opposite is true - even sweatshop conditions (which are not necessary, but do exist) are preferable to subsistence farming, and people flock to them.

I don't say that as an excuse for deplorable labour practices, merely as a statement of fact.

There is some really awful **** that happens

True.

and there are things we can do to help stop those things

True.

but ultimately these things MUST happen for us to live this way.

False. Hopelessly wrong, in fact. What we see instead is a continued pattern of global change in the labour market that is improving the standard of living almost everywhere.

 

[TFian]

Cities are not only energy inefficient, but they produce no resources! Every single resource the require must be imported, wasting even more energy! They are the MOST unsustainable part of our civilization!

 

[PixyMisa]

Cities are not only energy inefficient, but they produce no resources!

Again, this is simply untrue. Cities, with people clustered closely together and consequently drastically reduced travel requirements, are far more energy efficient than rural areas of equivalent population.

Every single resource the require must be imported, wasting even more energy!

Bulk transport of resources to a single densely-packed population is far cheaper and more efficient than sharing it across a widely distributed population.

They are the MOST unsustainable part of our civilization!

Quite the opposite. The megacities can be tricky to handle, but up to a million or two they are the most efficient, least resource intensive, most planet-friendly way for us to live.

 

[JihadJane]

No it couldn't. There's already more than enough food for everyone in the world.

Only for as long as there is enough cheap energy available to produce it.

And only for as long as there is a stable climate.

 

[PixyMisa]

Only for as long as there is enough cheap energy available to produce it.

We've covered that already, thanks. If you want to look beyond the next million years, fine, but perhaps in a different thread?

And only for as long as there is a stable climate.

That's a a half-good point. A changing climate doesn't make it impossible, but it makes it more difficult. Change complicates things; you can't pick up farmland and move it to follow the rainfall.

 

[Dancing David]

It's why they aren't good energy sources.

You haven't a clue, solar and wind are part of the solution. Unlike catastrophic predictions that will be laughable in three years.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah but some of the sources you indicated are intermittent, and even used in conjunction, only provide a tiny sliver of what we get out of oil.

Kill us all? Nah, though it'll probably be good if there's a die off in the works.

This just shows how much you are willing to consider, the fraction of energy currently being produced is not an indication of what can be produced. And many of the sources are not intermittent.

Keep promoting death, that seems to be part of your agenda.

 

[TFian]

This just shows how much you are willing to consider, the fraction of energy currently being produced is not an indication of what can be produced. And many of the sources are not intermittent.

Keep promoting death, that seems to be part of your agenda.

Death is an important part of the cycle of life. Every once in a while a good cleanings of sorts needs to happen.

 

[Dancing David]

I wonder how well they work in practice.

Smart grids aren't practical yet, and probably won't be for a long time.

Most people feel that peak oil will not effect the supply for decades.

You are the only one waving the tin foil flag of 2013. So you can also use the non-intermittent sources as well.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not really sure that's true. It's not like reality cares if something is "sociopathic" or "psychopathic", or what not. Those are essentially cultural labels anyway.

All words are cultural labels, so peak oil is just a cultural label. And if you think that living with untreated psychosis is functional, then you are sadly mistaken. Sociopaths do not follow social mores.