Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[Dancing David]

Is 50 to 100 years "immediate depletion"?

You said 2013!

You said there would be no time to transition.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
-Ghostbusters

 

[Dancing David]

Why is it irrelevant?

He's not saying it will collapse, he's describing a slow decline, in the process of 3 centuries actually.

2013 is three years not three centuries, you said there would be not enough time to transition to alternatives.

 

[TFian]

2013 is three years not three centuries, you said there would be not enough time to transition to alternatives.

We won't. But it's a long way down to the mudhut

 

[PixyMisa]

We won't.

Evidence?

 

[TFian]

Evidence?

The mice. We'll eat all the grain before we can properly conserve and harvest new energy sources.

 

[excaza]

Are you being purposely dense, or are you really this unintelligent?

 

[TFian]

Are you being purposely dense, or are you really this unintelligent?

What do you think?

 

[PixyMisa]

The mice. We'll eat all the grain before we can properly conserve and harvest new energy sources.

That's not evidence, it's an analogy.

Evidence, please?

 

[PixyMisa]

What do you think?

I think this is the first time you've tried to run these ideas past a well-informed group who habitually examine every statement looking for flaws.

I think it's not a lot of fun to be on the receiving end of that.

I think that if you hang around that you can learn an awful lot. I know I have.

 

[TFian]

That's not evidence, it's an analogy.

Evidence, please?

Well, there's civilizations effects on global warming, extinction rates, water toxicity, soil erosion, fishing, bee hive abandonment, GMOs, the breakdown of ecosystems, the rise in physical and mental health complications. There's also the potential complete breakdown of our infrastructure after whatever next global war occurs. Possibly over oil and/or water. As Einstein said, I don't know what weapons would be used in world war 3, but sticks and stones will be used in world war 4. Or something to that effect.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What do you think?

I think it's hard to top Julie Brown (Cause I'm a Blond).

 

[Roboramma]

Well, there's civilizations effects on global warming, extinction rates, water toxicity, soil erosion, fishing, bee hive abandonment, GMOs, the breakdown of ecosystems, the rise in physical and mental health complications.

TF, that's not evidence either, that's a list of problems which vary from very serious through not particularly important to actually beneficial.

There's also the potential complete breakdown of our infrastructure after whatever next global war occurs. Possibly over oil and/or water. As Einstein said, I don't know what weapons would be used in world war 3, but sticks and stones will be used in world war 4. Or something to that effect.

And musing about the possibility of world war 3 has what to do with us not having time to transition to different energy sources?

 

[TFian]

TF, that's not evidence either, that's a list of problems which vary from very serious through not particularly important to actually beneficial.

Well, I think there's more to our lifestyle and economy than just the ability to generate electricity, don't you think?

What's beneficial in what I pointed out?

And musing about the possibility of world war 3 has what to do with us not having time to transition to different energy sources?

Well as I said, we'll probably destroy the majority of our infrastructure, regressing ourselves back quite some time. The ecotechnic future is looking better every minute...

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, there's civilizations effects on global warming, extinction rates, water toxicity, soil erosion, fishing, bee hive abandonment, GMOs, the breakdown of ecosystems, the rise in physical and mental health complications.

Some of those things are real problems we have to deal with.

GMOs are one of the solutions.

What you've presented here is not evidence that civilisation will fail, but an environmental activist's grab-bag of Stuff I don't like.

There's also the potential complete breakdown of our infrastructure after whatever next global war occurs. Possibly over oil and/or water. As Einstein said, I don't know what weapons would be used in world war 3, but sticks and stones will be used in world war 4. Or something to that effect.

That's not evidence, that's speculation.

Where is that war, TFian? My parents expected it to happen in the 1960s. After all, only 20 years passed between what we now call World War I and World War II. It's now 65 years since the end of WWII, and what have we had?

We've had the Cold War, with its attendant localised proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and so on). Some people do regard the Cold War as World War III, but it was a very different sort of war, a war fought by people who'd actually learned the lessons of the previous global conflicts.

World War III was fought with economics, capitalism against communism, and capitalism won.

World War IV will be fought with ideas.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I think there's more to our lifestyle and economy than just the ability to generate electricity, don't you think?

No, actually. In the end it all comes down to energy.

Subsistence cultures don't give a rat's arse if they're driving the blue-footed pot-snipe to extinction by cutting down the pot forests in which it lives. They need that pot to build their dugout dirigibles.

Or whatever.

It's only our affluent modern civilisation that both cares about and has the resources to do something about endangered species. If our civilisation crashes, all those endangered species are crashing with us.

What's beneficial in what I pointed out?

Genetic engineering, obviously. Why did you list it as if it were a problem we needed to address, rather than a technological advance of immense value?

Well as I said, we'll probably destroy the majority of our infrastructure, regressing ourselves back quite some time.

Evidence?

 

[TFian]

Some of those things are real problems we have to deal with.

GMOs are one of the solutions.

What you've presented here is not evidence that civilisation will fail, but an environmental activist's grab-bag of Stuff I don't like.

I'm not really sure how I feel about GMOs, I can see some advantages in building crop resistance, but there's also the gene's escaping their confined crops.

World War IV will be fought with ideas.

What ideas?

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not really sure how I feel about GMOs, I can see some advantages in building crop resistance, but there's also the gene's escaping their confined crops.

Yes. Which occurs with all natural crops, and always has.

What ideas?

Colourless green ones.

 

[TFian]

Colourless green ones.

 

[GreyArea]

What a peculiar view of economy you have. It sounds like you believe cities are there for people to grudgingly travel to and sustain.

Yes, is that inaccurate?

Jericho, Çatalhöyük, Uruk, Thebes, Xi'an, Carthage, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Pataliputra, Baghdad (first city with a million residents), Nanjing, London.

These were all major cities with large populations well before the steam engine. We've been living in cities for about 9,000 years, and just recently the majority of humans alive on the planet are urban. There are reasons people like cities, a lot of it having to do with the fact that we like people and the cool things they can do.

That it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually, it is relevant because it means that two of TFian's favorites contradict each other. TFian, how do you resolve the disagreements between MacPherson and Greer?

What is an advanced technology that uses no fossil fuels and has a real purpose?

I can't think of any

Who decides purpose and genuineness of purpose? Does "advanced" mean anything developed after the steam engine?

The purpose and genuineness is decided on how much energy it uses, and if a more primitive version can do the same task just fine, with less energy.

I'm referring to advanced as anything after the advent of the steam engine yes.

Here are six technologies developed since Newcomen's steam engine of 1709 and Watt's engine of the 1770's.

• The smallpox vaccine -- 1796
• The electric trolley car -- 1880's
• The crystal radio receiver -- 1922 (in its fully-developed form)
• The Solar One power plant -- 1981 -- This is another kind of steam power, but one using solar thermal energy concentrated by mirrors to drive a turbine.
• The Passivhaus -- 1990 -- super-insulated, low-energy buildings. The heating is so well-balanced that they even factor in human body heat.
• The bicycle -- late 19th century -- (I can't believe I almost forgot this one.)

For each, answer these questions:

How much energy does each of these need that can only come from fossil fuels? Can a more primitive version accomplish the same task with less energy? And why is energy efficiency the only criterion for it being practical?

 

[PixyMisa]

Here's the thing about genetic engineering, TFian:

It's not just a question of disease-resistant crops, or drought-resistant ones, though those are clearly essential to the survival of billions of people over the next century.

It's algae that produces oil. You grow the algae in a shallow lake of seawater, and you harvest the oil. All you need is sunlight and seawater and CO₂. We're not exactly short of any of those. The whole process is carbon-neutral, of course, since the carbon in the oil just came out of the atmosphere a week ago.

And so, at the cost of about 5% of the Sahara Desert being covered with algae ponds, the entire crisis is averted.

And that's just one of the solutions to the problem. One of the better ones, true, but one of many.