There are apparently a bunch of people out there who are convinced that the rate of innovation is slowing drastically.

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 was just reminded about the Fermi Paradox: the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for or contact with such civilizations.  As I thought about it, I realized it dovetails neatly with my opinion about the Peak Oil endgame.

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.

Those with time to indulge in a little escapism might enjoy the recent SF novel Spin (by Robert Charles Wilson).  It employs Gliderguider's notion about brief windows for advanced civilizations as a key element in the story (sorry to give away a bit of it!).
It does seem like the Fermi Paradox has something important to say about a potentially harnessable source of infinite energy just waiting out in Nature to be discovered, to save an upcoming intelligent species from the sociobiological karma of its origins:  then where is it?  
So, the existence of the Fermi Paradox proves that Zero Point Energy is a chimera?  That's a useful notion.  I think :-)
Here's a fuller statement of the chain of logic about energy implied by Fermi's Paradox:

  • An intelligent, space-going species needs lots of energy if it is to persist.
  • Planetary resources and insolation are insufficient to permit such a species to persist.
  • Such a species needs access to small-scale, controllable, high-density energy.
  • Such an energy source must not depend on overly limited inputs - indeed, the less limitation on inputs (up to and including an infinite source) the better.
  • The availability of such an energy source is necessary (though admittedly not sufficient) to ensure the species' survival.
  • The lack of such an energy source will doom the species in short order.
  • The fact that we can detect no such species is a good hint that they don't exist.
  • They should exist, so the best explanation for the fact that they don't is that they existed at some point but did not persist.
  • The surest explanation for their lack of persistence is the lack of an appropriate energy source.

    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.

  • Unless we're living in a simulation (groan) :-)
    I don't know the explanation for the Fermi paradox, but "lack of energy" doesn't make much sense to me. Stars are everywhere we look, pouring out inconceivable amounts of energy. Every second the sun puts out more energy than we use in a hundred years. Only a modestly higher technology level than our own would allow creating a solar-based economy that would be more than enough to get started on interstellar exploration.

    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.

    Stars are also inconceivably far apart so that the energy density from those stars is extremely low throughout most of the universe, unless you happen to be close to one of those stars. If we built a solar-powered vehicle it would receive extremely little energy from the sun by the time it reached the outer planets of our solar system. Currently, the fastest space craft built would take 40,000 years to reach the nearest stars - the triple system Alpha Centauri. That doesn't take into account the extremely hostile environment of space - hard vacuum, radiation, micrometeorites, etc. At present, interplanetary space travel is a pipe dream. It would take radically new technology to make it feasible.
    (that's 80,000 years, round trip ;-)

    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.  

          I think we need a fellow named Andy Libby...
    I think you mean interstellar travel. Interplanetary is routinely done now via robotic probes and is certainly feasible with manned spacecraft using the existing technological base.
    But but but!!!

    What about Dilithium Crystals?

    Zero point energy is a well-accepted phenomena in physics. It has been verified experimentally by the Casimir effect, and in other ways. However, what I think you mean is the notion of a "free energy" device that can tap into the zero point energy to produce usable energy. Claims of free energy devices are shams similar to perpetual motion machines.
    Yes, that's indeed what I meant.  I know about the Casimir effect, but the jump from there to perpetual energy machines or scalar energy weapons requires just a bit too much suspension of disbelief even for this old hippy.
    I think it is a mistake to appoint energy as the only crucial resource for the survival of intelligent species. Far more important IMO is the depletion of biological resources needed to sustain life. We can survive without cars but we can hardly survive without food.
    I understand your concerns and share them. Ironically, I think that the only viable solution is to expand into space yet I am unsure that we will ever possess the political will to do so until it is too late. Interestingly, we possess the technology to do much of what such an effort would entail but instead of doing it we are doing other things, including driving ourselves into a population overshoot crisis. In one sense, from an energy perspective, it's "raining soup" out there but if we as monkeys are not smart enough to fashion ladders to get there and bowls to collect it, I guess we don't deserve it.
    You've got to be joking. Manned space exploration is extraordinarily expense and a complete waste of scarce resources.
    I agree with that!
    Ten years ago I'd have disagreed violently.  Today, not so.  With the advent of robotic technology like we've seen in the Mars Rovers I'm much less convinced that a human presence is required (or even helpful), at least for the things we need to do in space over the short term. Even pure science requiring microgravity has been successfully automated.

    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.

    The "mission to planet earth" stuff impressed the heck out of me.  finding lost cities, etc.
    Unless we can keep our numbers in check once they fall back to something sustainable, we're fucked.  And evolution does not favor keeping our numbers in check.  Successfully getting into space, and gaining access to more solar energy and the other resources in out solar system, is our only way out of this problem in the long run...not that it would support unbounded growth, but it would give us a LOT more maneuvering room than we have now.