236 comments on DrumBeat: June 16, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
236 comments on DrumBeat: June 16, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base.”
—Bruce Sterling
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
And I am one of them. Indeed, that's how I came to peak oil. I always figured technology would save us. Until I started wondering why we weren't colonizing other planets, like those 1960s SF TV shows predicted.
I came to the conclusion that The End of Science was real. As for why...I think Tainter has the right explanation. The low-hanging fruit is plucked first. We're running out of low-hanging fruit.
We have discussed this before, more than once. Someone posted a nice link to a Business Week story about it, but it's on my other computer. And Discover magazine had an article about it a few months ago, too.
I've long been convinced that intelligent species exist, but only for very short periods of time cosmologically speaking. I now believe that those species probably exist near the peak of their technological capabilities for only an extremely short time, probably less than 500 years, depending mainly on their rate of reproduction (less fertile species exist longer).
The reason is twofold: first, we develop on spheres where stored resources are axiomatically finite, and secondly our techological development allows us to rapdly dominate all the resources of that sphere. This leads automatically to a situation of overshoot, where the easily available stored resources support exponential population growth, followed by a Malthusian collapse. The time required to enter that overshoot depends on three things - the availability of resources, the overall fertility of the species, and their ingenuity. A reduction an any of these factors leads to a broader curve (slower ascent and descent) without changing its fundamental shape.
I no longer see expansion into space as a saviour. the reason is that the growing ability to exploit local resources causes the population to start exploding well in advance of the development of pinnacle technologies like mass space flight. I also expect that the utilization of renewables would not play a major role in saving a species, because by the time the need to collect such diffuse energy was obvious it would be too late due to exponential population pressure and the depletion of the foundational stored energy sources.
I'm obviously guilty of massive anthropocentrism here, because my primary assumption is that intelligent species arise in conditions much like those we have here. Still, it seems like a reasonable first approximation.
Therefore, the existence of Fermi's Paradox proves that such an energy source does not exist.
The conclusion: Ultimately there is no way out of the finite-resource box.
Given the enormous energies that are just barely beyond our grasp, it is hard to believe that no civilization anywhere could manage to bridge that gap and produce a solar-powered interplanetary and then interstellar civilization.
One clarification: a "space travelling species" beaming out lots of electronic signals is still the same species after it returns to the dark ages, right? It's just that we're no longer detectable to other civilizations with advanced receivers.
What about Dilithium Crystals?
Actually, my main objection to manned space flight for research and exploration isn't that it costs too much, but that it takes too long. We spend extraordinary amounts of effort (effort=time and money) trying to make sure nobody gets killed. Launch a robot, and if it blows up on the pad nobody but the designers (and maybe the odd computerized kitchen blender) mourns.
The usual reasons given for going further into space than geosynchronous orbit have generally been resources, energy and human diaspora. All have been revealed as pipe dreams as we got past the gee-whiz stage of space flight. I used to be a Solar Power Satellite fan, but lately the idea of spending that kind of money to beam microwaves through the atmosphere has pretty much lost its appeal for me.
We do need lots of observation and communications satellites to keep an eye on our planet in crisis and to link those in remote places into the global village. Beyond that, we have ground-level problems aplenty to spend the money on. Manned space exploration isn't going to mitigate the impact of $100 oil on villages in Botswana, or even Indiana.