Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[TFian]

Oh, sure, I can agree to that: any solution to our current problems will require changes. For instance, as we transition away from oil we may move to more mass transport rather than personal cars, or if we continue to use cars, they may have to be newly designed models, like electric cars, or hydrogen, or something else that we haven't considered yet.

I can agree to that.

Yes, though I think the transition for us is going to be steep downwards

 

[my_wan]

The fallacy of the OP linked article is the notion that the internet is a product of economic growth. In fact the internet is a part of technological growth, which then feeds economic growth. The economy didn't invent the internet. Thus the internet increases economic efficiency almost regardless of the specific state of economic growth. Then, so long as energy sources play a role in economic trade, sending a few electrons through the internet will always be more efficent that sending trucks full of letters, orders, etc.

The internet only goes away if trade accross borders no longer exist.

 

[TFian]

No, at best he demonstrated that the examples he chose were examples of civilizations commiting suicide. Considering that the book Collapse isn't about societies that were destroyed by external forces (like genocidal war), it's not surprising that he didn't include examples of it.

Actually I think his research came to the conclusion about 90% of past civilizations died off from suicide.

Well it scares me somewhat as well, mainly because of potential unintended consequences. But it's still certainly an option and I for one think that we should consider all options. It's unlikely to be worse than 6 billion deaths.

I don't think geo engineering should be attempted, only terrible things will come about from it.

 

[PixyMisa]

A problem I find with many of the people here, is they seem to forget a very simple sociological truism. A sinking system generally grows more conservative, which is what Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer eloquently points out in his historic and cultural observations. Jared Diamond makes the same exact observations.

Case in point, Europe during the Black Death. The existing, extremely conservative, sociopolitical structure cracked under the strain, and new and far more liberal structure arose, giving rise to the Renaissance and the modern world.

Or, to put it another way: No.

I wouldn't say "cultural change" is my priority, I just find it inevitable. I think McPherson has it right, "Nature bats last", we've been raping the planet intensively, without any regard to nature, and it's now our turn to bend over and "take it". Mother Earth will enact her vengeance in full power, very soon.

That's merely the pathetic fallacy.

This is of course backed up by evidence.

If so, you should probably present some of this evidence.

All evidence suggests we're cooking ourselves off the planet, probably by 2030, so you better hope no alternative scales up for industrial use, or we're going to commit suicide.

No. Not only does no evidence support your assertion, it's a flat physical impossiblity.

All that extra carbon we're dumping into the atmosphere? Once upon a time, it was all in the atmosphere anyway. CO₂ levels have been far higher in the distant past. The Earth is, quite noticeably, not devoid of life.

Remember, civilizations die off from suicide, not murder.

Name one.

Easter Island, as I discussed above, survived its ecological catastrope. It was murdered 250 years later.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yup, Jared Diamond shows this is a painfully true historic fact.

Jared Diamond has a habit of pushing his thesis further than the evidence supports. Indeed, I'd say it's more than a habit, it's his entire literary persona.

But more to the point, this particular claim is not historically true. Medieval Europe adapted. Easter-freaking-Island adapted.

I'm sure you'd be happy to continue industrial society with a "techno fix", too bad reality doesn't work this way.

Sorry, but yes, that's precisely how reality works. Energy is fungible.

"Viridian" design is just some silly techno religion. I wouldn't put much stock into it, especially since the website hasn't even been updated in quite some time. Techno fixes are fantasy.

Our entire genus arose through a series of what you call "techno fixes". We've been evolutionarily shaped through tool use and cooking.

 

[TFian]

Case in point, Europe during the Black Death. The existing, extremely conservative, sociopolitical structure cracked under the strain, and new and far more liberal structure arose, giving rise to the Renaissance and the modern world.

Or, to put it another way: No.

Well yes, a *die off* occured in Europe, causing social changes. What the next die off will result in is up for conjecture.

That's merely the pathetic fallacy.

Whether it's just a metaphor or a real consciousness is moot.

All that extra carbon we're dumping into the atmosphere? Once upon a time, it was all in the atmosphere anyway. CO₂ levels have been far higher in the distant past. The Earth is, quite noticeable, not devoid of life.

Climate change skeptic eh?

Name one.

Easter Island, as I discussed above, survived its ecological catastrope. It was murdered 250 years later.

Easter Island. Who murdered them?

 

[PixyMisa]

I think you seriously misunderstand my position. I'm not looking to engineer some new "ideal" society. I agree with Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer on this, Human societies, like ecosystems, evolve in complex and unpredictable ways, making it futile to try to impose rigid ideological forms on the patterns of evolutionary change.

True enough.

Instead, social change must explore many pathways over which we have no control.

False - the fallacy of hasty generalisation. Yes, we can't rigidly control sociological evolution. No, it does not follow that we have no control.

I'm not looking to create a more "Greener" world, nor do I think a better world would be realized after a serious civilizational crisis.

A better world, with six billion corpses.

I agree with JMG though that the world after the crash will not utilize any advanced technology, both because we'd lack the energy and frankly, there's no real purpose to it.

No purpose to it, he argues on an internet forum.

I agree more though with Guy R. McPherson on a timeline, and the die off.

Your timeline is utterly delusional.

I do think though we'll be lucky if we don't go extinct.

But this takes the cake.

If a dinosaur-killer meteorite arrived tomorrow (the only actual candidate for tomorrow is far too small), the species we can be sure would survive are humans, rats, and cockroaches.

 

[PixyMisa]

Whether it's just a metaphor or a real consciousness is moot.

Nope.

Climate change skeptic eh?

No, not at all. Those times previously when the atmospheric CO₂ levels were much higher than today, temperatures and sea levels were also much higher.

Life thrived during those periods.

Easter Island. Who murdered them?

Peruvian slave traders, French general-purpose bastards, and diseased Catholic priests.

When the Dutch arrived in the 18th century, the population of Easter Island had declined from its 16th century peak, but the society was still stable and relatively prosperous. The real disaster came in the 19th century, between 1860 and 1880, and it was entirely due to external factors.

The Peruvians enslaved one third of the population of Easter Island in a single year, killed 99% of the slaves through overwork and disease, and returned the handful of survivors infected with smallpox.

A Catholic priest with tuberculosis passed it on along with his religion and killed a quarter of the survivors of the Peruvian slaughter and the smallpox epidemic.

The French outright killed half of the survivors of that. Missionaries evacuated whoever they could; by 1880 only about 100 natives remained on the island.

 

[TFian]

Nope.

Read some James Lovelock.

No, not at all. Those times previously when the atmospheric CO₂ levels were much higher than today, temperatures and sea levels were also much higher.


Life thrived during those periods.

So, you believe the changing climate will actually have a positive effect on human societies? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Peruvian slave traders, French general-purpose bastards, and diseased Catholic priests.

When the Dutch arrived in the 18th century, the population of Easter Island had declined from its 16th century peak, but the society was still stable and relatively prosperous. The real disaster came in the 19th century, between 1860 and 1880, and it was entirely due to external factors.

The Peruvians enslaved one third of the population of Easter Island in a single year, killed 99% of the slaves through overwork and disease, and returned the handful of survivors infected with smallpox.

A Catholic priest with tuberculosis passed it on along with his religion and killed a quarter of the survivors of the Peruvian slaughter and the smallpox epidemic.

The French outright killed half of the survivors of that. Missionaries evacuated whoever they could; by 1880 only about 100 natives remained on the island.

That's all very debatable. I'll have more later on this.

Love ya Pixy :*

 

[PixyMisa]

Just our general callous nature towards Mother Earth and nature in general. It will be our undoing.

The End is Nigh, you mean?

That all we need to do is apply a "fix" to our problems and we can go on with business as usual. Nice fantasy, but that's all it is, a fantasy.

It's a straw man. New inventions, new discoveries, always cause social change. We don't expect to go on with business as usual. That's not the point, that never was the point. Did we continue on with business as usual after the invention of the steam engine, the railroad, the automobile, the radio, the computer?

No. Everything changed. Everything changed.

Your denial of human adaptability is a curious delusion and a perversion of history.

 

[PixyMisa]

Read some James Lovelock.

Biology's answer to Jared Diamond. No. Lovelock is wrong too.

So, you believe the changing climate will actually have a positive effect on human societies? Or am I misunderstanding you?

It's certainly possible, but it's not at all what I'm arguing.

I'm pointing out that global warming is a nuisance if you live near the ocean, or in a location whose climate is likely to shift dramatically (and we can't necessarily predict where those places are).

It's a problem economically because we have invested huge amounts of money building cities and farms in places that will no longer be tenable for those purposes; because good farmland will go bad; because there are at least a hundred million people who will need to relocate over the next century - and we don't really have anywhere for them to go.

The idea that it will kill us as a species, or even as a civilisation, is absurd. Malaria does far more damage.

 

[TFian]

Biology's answer to Jared Diamon. No. Lovelock is wrong too.

He's very much respected in his field though.

It's certainly possible, but it's not at all what I'm arguing.

I'm pointing out that global warming is a nuisance if you live near the ocean, or in a location whose climate is likely to shift dramatically (and we can't necessarily predict where those places are).

It's a problem economically because we have invested huge amounts of money building cities and farms in places that will no longer be tenable for those purposes; because good farmland will go bad; because there are at least a hundred million people who will need to relocate over the next century - and we don't really have anywhere for them to go.

The idea that it will kill us as a species, or even as a civilisation, is absurd. Malaria does far more damage.

I think you're way downplaying the potential effects of climate change, and I don't think I'd be the only person who you'd disagree with here on that issue, but fair enough, time will only tell I suppose.

 

[PixyMisa]

Western Industrial civilization in particular.

1.) A sinking system tends to grow more conservative, so we'll continue our failed ways rather than new adaptive ways. Case in point, Albertan tar sand extraction and shale oil.

This, again, is entirely delusional.

Oil works. Indisputable.

Tar sands and shale oil are an alternative source of oil. Each one has as much recoverable oil as all the conventional reserves combined. The cost is higher, which is why they haven't been developed before (the first serious exploration was during the 70s oil shock, but when oil prices declined, they became economically unviable again).

For from "continuing our failed ways", what tar sands and oil shale do is deny you your catastrophe. They are adaptive, and they address te problem. So, sorry, no; we have oil for a hundred years. Your "empty freeways by 2013" prediction is simply spite; it has no evidentiary or logical basis whatsoever.

2.) Our desire for more, and better life styles, which is incompatible with a proper ecological lifestyle.

There is no such thing as "a proper ecological lifestyle".

I can't think of any

I'm not surprised.

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.

More primitive versions of a given technlogy cannot do the same task as well with less energy. If they could, they would be less primitive.

This is simple historical revisionism. Even reading Jane Austen would given you a better idea of 18th century life.

Jane Austen nearly died as a child from typhus, a disease now easily cured by cheap antibiotics.

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

You just killed Jane Austen.

 

[PixyMisa]

He's very much respected in his field though.

No.

I think you're way downplaying the potential effects of climate change, and I don't think I'd be the only person who you'd disagree with here on that issue, but fair enough, time will only tell I suppose.

No, I'm not "way downplaying" the effects of climate change. We know what will happen as the world gets warmer, we just don't know the exact schedule or how every particular location on the globe will fare.

We know what won't happen, too: We won't all die.

 

[TFian]

This, again, is entirely delusional.

Oil works. Indisputable.

Tar sands and shale oil are an alternative source of oil. Each one has as much recoverable oil as all the conventional reserves combined. The cost is higher, which is why they haven't been developed before (the first serious exploration was during the 70s oil shock, but when oil prices declined, they became economically unviable again).

For from "continuing our failed ways", what tar sands and oil shale do is deny you your catastrophe. They are adaptive, and they address te problem. So, sorry, no; we have oil for a hundred years. Your "empty freeways by 2013" prediction is simply spite; it has no evidentiary or logical basis whatsoever.

I don't think you get what I meant there. Yes, of course they work as petroleum based energy sources (albeit more crudely), but their extraction is offset by the environmental cost, which is rather huge, especially with Albertan tar sand extraction. Instead of adapting to other cleaner energy sources, we'll go after the harder, dirtier, and more destructive sources, until we self implode.

There is no such thing as "a proper ecological lifestyle".

Derrick Jensen would disagree.

just killed Jane Austen.

Good, her literary works sucked anyway

 

[PixyMisa]

Actually I think his research came to the conclusion about 90% of past civilizations died off from suicide.

Since that plainly didn't happen, if that is his conclusion then we really need to doubt his research.

I don't think geo engineering should be attempted, only terrible things will come about from it.

Oh noes!

Look, TFian, I'm always hitting people over the head with the Law of Unintended Consequences. It's certainly true that large-scale geo-engineering will have surprising and quite likely unwanted results.

Your statement, though, is not founded in reason or evidence; it's pure, rabid ideology.

 

[TFian]

No.

Uh yes? Very much so.

No, I'm not "way downplaying" the effects of climate change. We know what will happen as the world gets warmer, we just don't know the exact schedule or how every particular location on the globe will fare.

We know what won't happen, too: We won't all die.

Actually James Hansen (the leading authority on climate change) would very much disagree we know what's going to happen. Climate change is accelerating a lot quicker than anyone thought, and we don't know how destructive it's going to be.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think you get what I meant there. Yes, of course they work as petroleum based energy sources (albeit more crudely), but their extraction is offset by the environmental cost, which is rather huge, especially with Albertan tar sand extraction. Instead of adapting to other cleaner energy sources, we'll go after the harder, dirtier, and more destructive sources, until we self implode.

Again, this is purely delusional.

We'll always go after the easiest, cleanest, least destructive sources. We want to make a profit here, and hard, dirty, destructive sources are unprofitable sources.

The day that synthetic oil from algae works out cheaper - or even reasonably competitive - the Alberta resource boom is over and everyone with an excess of hot desert and access to the ocean is set to make a killing.

 

[TFian]

Again, this is purely delusional.

We'll always go after the easiest, cleanest, least destructive sources. We want to make a profit here, and hard, dirty, destructive sources are unprofitable sources.

The day that synthetic oil from algae works out cheaper - or even reasonably competitive - the Alberta resource boom is over and everyone with an excess of hot desert and access to the ocean is set to make a killing.

Short term profits begate long term consequences. The consequences of Albertan tar sand extraction are very well documented.

 

[PixyMisa]

Uh yes? Very much so.

No.

Lovelock has done some good work. His pioneering work on atmospheric CFCs led to his Nobel Prize. He's a staunch advocate of nuclear power too.

On other matters, he's a loony.

Actually James Hansen (the leading authority on climate change)

Just by saying that, it's clear you have not the remotest idea how science works. There is no "leading authority on climate change".

Climate change is accelerating a lot quicker than anyone thought

Cite.