Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[TFian]

Future Chaos: There Is No "Plan B"

No plans = unnecessary chaos.

The lack of planning also betrays a very common attitude, which might be summarized as, “We’ll deal with that when we get there.” I detect this attitude in a wide range of individuals and market participants, so it’s not at all uncommon. However, I think it's a mistake to hold this view. When (not if, but when) full awareness of Peak Oil arrives on the international stock, bond, and commodity markets we will discover just how narrow the doorways really are.

Sums up what I've been thinking all along

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-15/future-chaos-there-no-plan-b

 

[PixyMisa]

There are hundreds of Plan Bs, as already discussed. What do you think should be done that isn't already being done?

 

[TFian]

There are hundreds of Plan Bs, as already discussed. What do you think should be done that isn't already being done?

A lot of things. Unfortunately they should have been done 30 years ago.

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.

Source http://www.peakoil.net/files/JOE2010.pdf

 

[PixyMisa]

A lot of things. Unfortunately they should have been done 30 years ago.

What?

 

[TFian]

What?

Move to non petroleum sources, transitioning our agriculture, decrease population, etc. etc.

 

[TFian]

So, there is a slowly approaching crisis with growing food as well. Furthermore, because people are comfortable, they will wait until the very last minute when they begin to become effected by the situation before any changes would be made, which of course would be far too late.

Now part of this is speculation, but based on patterns of habit we see every day, it isn't unreasonable.

Animal farms cause a great deal of pollution, and an increase in those farms wouldn't be a possible solution because they require grown food to survive as well.

As far as water goes, if I have to explain that to you, you aren't paying attention to global news. Dar Fur, Bhopal, Danube, California, etc...

Point, civilization won't change until it's too late.

 

[PixyMisa]

Move to non petroleum sources

Why would you do that while petroleum is more efficient? It just means you'd be wasting energy.

transitioning our agriculture

See above.

decrease population, etc. etc.

That's already under way. Population growth is flattening out worldwide; populations are already decreasing in a number of the most industrialised nations and global population will likely be decreasing by 2050. Certainly I'd consider the outlook brighter overall if the probable peak population were lower, but I'm not prepared to kill billions of people to achieve that goal.

 

[TFian]

Why would you do that while petroleum is more efficient? It just means you'd be wasting energy.

Exactly my point. And when there's not enough left, it will be too late. We're too short minded.

That's already under way. Population growth is flattening out worldwide; populations are already decreasing in a number of the most industrialised nations and global population will likely be decreasing by 2050. Certainly I'd consider the outlook brighter overall if the probable peak population were lower, but I'm not prepared to kill billions of people to achieve that goal.

Where do you base this on? Every source says population is growing exponentially. Malthus was just a little late with his predictions. I think 5 billion deaths at this point is unavoidable, unless we put forth massive sterilization programs or so forth. (And no, it's not directly at the "funny colored foreigners" as someone earlier suggested, I'm not white nor even originally from the US.)

 

[PixyMisa]

So, there is a slowly approaching crisis with growing food as well. Furthermore, because people are comfortable, they will wait until the very last minute when they begin to become effected by the situation before any changes would be made, which of course would be far too late.

Now part of this is speculation, but based on patterns of habit we see every day, it isn't unreasonable.

Based on patterns of habit we see every day, it's completely absurd.

As producing food becomes more expensive, buying food becomes more expensive, and people change their habits. This always happens, and it's no good denying it.

Animal farms cause a great deal of pollution, and an increase in those farms wouldn't be a possible solution because they require grown food to survive as well.

So don't do that then.

As far as water goes, if I have to explain that to you, you aren't paying attention to global news. Dar Fur, Bhopal, Danube, California, etc...

Dam the Ob and redirect it south (before it shuts off the North Atlantic conveyor).

Point, civilization won't change until it's too late.

Point, civilisation is changing every minute of every day, faster than you have any conception of. This is just the argument from personal incredulity, going round and round and round.

Pick up some James Burke, as I suggested before. He's the perfect antidote for the intellectual snake oil you've been fed.

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly my point.

No, why would you switch away from petroleum while petroleum is the most efficient source of energy? You would be wasting energy. Why do you want to waste energy?

And when there's not enough left, it will be too late. We're too short minded.

Evidence?

Where do you base this on? Every source says population is growing exponentially.

Tell that to Japan.

The UN produces regular forecasts of world population. They are forecasts, of course, not fact, but we see the same trend everywhere: Better education and more industrialisation lowers the birth rate. The single biggest factor appears to be education of women, but you can't get very far with that in a subsistence agriculture ecomonmy, which is why industrialisation is so important.

Malthus was just a little late with his predictions.

No, he ignored the fact that people adapt to changing conditions.

I think 5 billion deaths at this point is unavoidable, unless we put forth massive sterilization programs or so forth. (And no, it's not directly at the "funny colored foreigners" as someone earlier suggested, I'm not white nor even originally from the US.)

Yeah, we know you think that. The point is, you have no evidence to support your beliefs.

 

[TFian]

No, why would you switch away from petroleum while petroleum is the most efficient source of energy? You would be wasting energy. Why do you want to waste energy?


Evidence?

What I just said. Just because it's efficient *now*, doesn't mean if it runs scarcely, it is somehow doable in the future. It's also filled with negative externalities (IE climate change). And once we're running short, it will be too late. No plan B!

Tell that to Japan.

Weird, I thought Japan had a population problem.

The UN produces regular forecasts of world population. They are forecasts, of course, not fact, but we see the same trend everywhere: Better education and more industrialisation lowers the birth rate. The single biggest factor appears to be education of women, but you can't get very far with that in a subsistence agriculture ecomonmy, which is why industrialisation is so important.

Why can't education happen in an agricultural economy? Where I come from there's high literacy rate without industrialization.

No, he ignored the fact that people adapt to changing conditions.

Because they don't.

Yeah, we know you think that. The point is, you have no evidence to support your beliefs.

Every closed system has a carrying capacity. Earth is no different..

 

[PixyMisa]

What I just said. Just because it's efficient *now*, doesn't mean if it runs scarcely, it is somehow doable in the future. It's also filled with negative externalities (IE climate change).

Yes, but none of that means you should change to an alternative source while petroleum is more efficient - all that will do is waste energy.

And once we're running short, it will be too late. No plan B!

We've already established that this is untrue.

Weird, I thought Japan had a population problem.

They do: There aren't enough children being born. This is a problem spreading across Western Europe too.

Spain: 1.39 children born/woman (2009 est.)
Italy: 1.41 children born/woman (Istat 2009 est.)
Germany: 1.41 children born/woman (2009 est.)

These are obviously well below replacement rate; Germany's population is already in decline, like Japan's.

Why can't education happen in an agricultural economy?

As I said, subsistence agriculture. In that scenario, there is little left over for education, and women invariably get the short end of the stick.

Where I come from there's high literacy rate without industrialization.

Where do you come from? If you mean California, then the statement is absurd.

Because they don't.

Laughably untrue.

TFian, in 200 years the Western world has gone from having 75-80% of the population engaged in agriculture - four people required to support one person doing something else - to 2% - one person required to support FIFTY people doing something else.

The level and rate of adaptation is staggering.

Every closed system has a carrying capacity. Earth is no different..

True, but as I said before, the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth is higher than our population will ever reach.

We're looking at a maximum population of around 10 billion, sometime late this century, followed by a gradual decline. The Earth's carrying capacity, without significant changes in lifestyle or technological advance, is conservatively estimated at 15 billion.

I'd like there to be a bigger margin, but your belief that five billion deaths are inevitable is simply a fantasy fed by the doomsday porn you've been reading.

 

[TFian]

Yes, but none of that means you should change to an alternative source while petroleum is more efficient - all that will do is waste energy.

And kill the climate.

We've already established that this is untrue.

But if we wait until the last minute, then it'll be too late!

They do: There aren't enough children being born. This is a problem spreading across Western Europe too.

Spain: 1.39 children born/woman (2009 est.)
Italy: 1.41 children born/woman (Istat 2009 est.)
Germany: 1.41 children born/woman (2009 est.)

These are obviously well below replacement rate; Germany's population is already in decline, like Japan's.

Hmm, well that's a bit encouraging I suppose.

As I said, subsistence agriculture. In that scenario, there is little left over for education, and women invariably get the short end of the stick.

That's not true from my personal experience.

Where do you come from? If you mean California, then the statement is absurd.

I live in California now, but I don't originally come from here.

Laughably untrue.


TFian, in 200 years the Western world has gone from having 75-80% of the population engaged in agriculture - four people required to support one person doing something else - to 2% - one person required to support FIFTY people doing something else.

The level and rate of adaptation is staggering.

What would be wrong with more people working in agriculture?

True, but as I said before, the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth is higher than our population will ever reach.

We're looking at a maximum population of around 10 billion, sometime late this century, followed by a gradual decline. The Earth's carrying capacity, without significant changes in lifestyle or technological advance, is conservatively estimated at 15 billion.

I'd like there to be a bigger margin, but your belief that five billion deaths are inevitable is simply a fantasy fed by the doomsday porn you've been reading.

Actually I believe the carrying capacity is less than a billion.

 

[PixyMisa]

And kill the climate.

If you use a less-efficient energy source, you do more damage to the climate.

But if we wait until the last minute, then it'll be too late!

What last minute.

Hmm, well that's a bit encouraging I suppose.

That's why you need to read things other than doomsday porn. If you're arguing that we're heading for a Malthusian catastrophe, and you're not aware that an increasing number of countries are facing population decline, then your argument is not as effective as you might think.

That's not true from my personal experience.

You have personal experience with a subsistence agriculture economy?

I live in California now, but I don't originally come from here.

Okay.

What would be wrong with more people working in agriculture?

Less people not working in agriculture. Less scientists, engineers, doctors, writers, artists, poets, musicians...

Actually I believe the carrying capacity is less than a billion.

No-one else does.

 

[TFian]

If you use a less-efficient energy source, you do more damage to the climate.

How does that work? Efficiency means little when you're energy is dirty. Trade me petroleum for a windmill anyday.

What last minute.

It's nigh

That's why you need to read things other than doomsday porn. If you're arguing that we're heading for a Malthusian catastrophe, and you're not aware that an increasing number of countries are facing population decline, then your argument is not as effective as you might think.

Ok, I'll read into it further. Though just because they're declining and possibly stabilizing(?) doesn't mean it's from industrialization. Correlation doesn't equate causation. In fact where I'm from in particular, birthrates have stabilized without industrialism.

You have personal experience with a subsistence agriculture economy?

Yes, much of my home country operates that way.

Less people not working in agriculture. Less scientists, engineers, doctors, writers, artists, poets, musicians...

Well first some of the things you bring up only have subjective value, like artists, poets, musicians, but those would be easily to continue in an agricultural economy. We don't need as many scientists, engineers and doctors as we do now.

No-one else does.

Paul Ehrlich does. As does Derrick Jensen. Derrick has theorized our carrying capacity is probably only 400 million.

 

[lionking]

Where do you base this on? Every source says population is growing exponentially.

This comment shows that you have no idea at all. As Pixy says, 2050 will see a reduction in world population. Did you know that China will, in about 20 years or so, have the same problem Japan has now? An aging population without enough young, working aged people to supporting the aged.

 

[lionking]

As does Derrick Jensen. Derrick has theorized our carrying capacity is probably only 400 million.

Derrick Jensen is an idiot then.

 

[TFian]

This comment shows that you have no idea at all. As Pixy says, 2050 will see a reduction in world population. Did you know that China will, in about 20 years or so, have the same problem Japan has now? An aging population without enough young, working aged people to supporting the aged.

Well it's a prediction, so I'm not sure if it will end up coming true. If it is true though, I don't see how it's a problem.

But China declining in birthrate? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[TFian]

Derrick Jensen is an idiot then.

Excellent argument Lionking! You've really convinced me! Have you ever even read a book by Derrick Jensen? I doubt you even know who he is!

 

[lionking]

Well it's a prediction, so I'm not sure if it will end up coming true. If it is true though, I don't see how it's a problem.

But China declining in birthrate? I'll believe it when I see it.

You really need to do some proper research and no rely on your druids and so on. I would like to see an authorative demographic projection showing anything other than a population reduction by about 2050.

As for China, you did know that the government is currently reviewing it's one child policy because of the serious problems of an aging and declining population (just like Japan's)? No I don't think you did.