I was talking about those pessimistic predictions some make for the course of human history over the next decades and centuries. You've taken that and reapplied it to all kinds of things I did not say.
I suppose you expect me to follow the "fan-out" of your argument, but that simply does not interest me. Sorry.
Sure, I think society will change and respond to higher energy costs and lower availability. My gut says that the path will be painful but not murderous.
But I'm humble. I don't put my gut ahead of anyone else's. I won't pretend that I've charted a sure-thing path for world history.
I certainly don't 'know', but the midpoint of the distribution of probabilities is the end of growth and a slow crash - There are points on either side of that one.
I'm not saying it is, but I think I'm pointing to why these things are so hard to call. The path forward (assuming peak oil) is about an interaction between culture and technology.
That's hard to project, and what I mean by "Tainter folk" are those here who presume to have a "final answer."
* - thanks for the spelling, as I cut and paste
Are you ready for a hard question? Engineers generally see redundancy as a defense against failure. Explain how "complexity" does not include redundancy.
If you are happy with that performance, it only makes things sadder.
I haven't seen an asnwer to that.
Either you aren't getting me, or you are a comedian ;-)
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.