Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[GreyArea]

You know, the kind that sleep furiously.

 

[TFian]

You know, the kind that sleep furiously.

I don't understand?

 

[GreyArea]

I don't understand?

Read your Chomsky.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I'd suggest not reading Chomsky, but yeah.

Read your Hofstadter instead. (Gödel, Escher, Bach.)

 

[drkitten]

Read your Chomsky.

Yeah, yeah. Smart arse.

Alternatively, you could have actually answered her question.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a famous sentence invented by the linguist Noam Chomsky to illustrate the difference between syntax and semantics (and to support the idea of "autonomous syntax" [q.v.]). The concept behind the sentence is that its grammar is unassailable, but the sentence itself is completely meaningless -- in fact, no pair of words in the sentence is meaningful.

 

[TFian]

Well, I'd suggest not reading Chomsky, but yeah.

Read your Hofstadter instead. (Gödel, Escher, Bach.)

Well I'm a little familiar with Chomsky, but not Hofstadter. I'll check out works done by both.

 

[GreyArea]

Yeah, yeah. Smart arse.

I figured TFian had already heard of him, but might not have known he is a linguist.


Anyway, TFian, with that aside about ideas behind us, I would like to point out the list of six technologies I wrote up in post #839. What do you think of them?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Um, you said three years your source says centuries, what kind of time do you think a transition takes?

 

[Dancing David]

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

If the real effect of peak oil is at least twenty years away, not three years as some unsubstantiated source says, why is 20 years to short a time. And that is before peak oil causes a real reduction in production.

 

[Dancing David]

What do you think?

I think you are playing games, no evidence, even your source says centuries. Why would the transition take more than fifty years?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

So you can't support your ideas and resort to just a garbage bag full of further unsupported assertions.
Sure climate change is an issue, and it will impact the quality of life, if it gets as far as it might. IF IF IF
Extinction rates will not lead to the collapse of civilization, it won't be good for those species.
Water toxicity will not destroy civilization.
Overfishing is dumb, but won't end civilization.
Bee hive abandonment? You mean CCD? Bad, but won't end civilization.
"Breakdown" of ecosystems, unsubstantiated.
Increase in physical and mental health, look dude or dudette, more people died from sepsis one hundred years ago, and there has been no rise in mental health issues, they just don't hide us mentally ill people any more.

 

[TFian]

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.

But we lived much longer without cities.

TFian, how do you resolve the disagreements between MacPherson and Greer?

Well I mix and match them. I think both have good points and make interesting predictions.

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?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Are bicycles advanced technology?

 

[TFian]

I think you are playing games, no evidence, even your source says centuries. Why would the transition take more than fifty years?

Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects by Vaclav Smil makes a good case why it takes decades for an energy transition.

“The inertia of existing massive and expensive energy infrastructures and prime movers and the time and capital investment needed for putting in place new convertors and new networks make it inevitable that the primary energy supply of most modern nations will contain a significant component of fossil fuels for decades to come.”

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, it takes decades for an energy transition.

However, none of the fossil fuels are going to run out in the next few decades. We have time.

The first thing that will run out is the conventional oil reserves. But tar sands and shale oil each provide further recoverable oil reserves equivalent to - possibly significantly greater than - all known conventional oil reserves combined.

 

[GreyArea]

But we lived much longer without cities.

Sorry, no.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Are bicycles advanced technology?

Yes they are, especially the pedal-driven safety bicycle and its descendants. This is by your own definition:

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

Is the bicycle a sensible technology? Will it be useless three years from now when all the oil disappears?

 

[TFian]

Sorry, no.

No, I didn't mean life expectancy, I meant humans lived without cities far longer than we have lived with them.

Yes they are, especially the pedal-driven safety bicycle and its descendants. This is by your own definition:

Is the bicycle a sensible technology? Will it be useless three years from now when all the oil disappears?

Actually I think bikes and crystal radio receivers will stick around. Though I'm worried how we will produce and maintain bikes without petroleum.

Oil won't disappear in 3 years. I don't think it will all disappear (especially if you count all forms of oil) in 3000 years.

 

[GreyArea]

No, I didn't mean life expectancy, I meant humans lived without cities far longer than we have lived with them.

Got it. And, of course we have.

Actually I think bikes and crystal radio receivers will stick around. Though I'm worried how we will produce and maintain bikes without petroleum.

Do you cycle? Think about how you would build and maintain a bicycle without using any petroleum products. There are probably already answers to these questions.

Oil won't disappear in 3 years. I don't think it will all disappear (especially if you count all forms of oil) in 3000 years.

That's what confuses me. I thought that's what you said McPherson was claiming.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oil won't disappear in 3 years. I don't think it will all disappear (especially if you count all forms of oil) in 3000 years.

Then why did you predict that the freeways will be empty in 3 years?

 

[Giggywig]

Then why did you predict that the freeways will be empty in 3 years?

Superbowl will be really good that year? World Cup finals maybe?

 

[Myriad]

No, I didn't mean life expectancy, I meant humans lived without cities far longer than we have lived with them.

If there ever was a time that humans lived without cities, it was when the human population was very low. Low even by ancient standards.

So, far more humans have lived with cities than without them.

Actually I think bikes and crystal radio receivers will stick around. Though I'm worried how we will produce and maintain bikes without petroleum.

Cities make bicycles.

But, it probably makes more sense for cities to make tractors.

Tractors win.

Respectfully,
Myriad