<DrumBeat: January 14, 2007The Oil DrumThe Book>

175 comments on Is the World's Biggest Machine Breaking Down?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on January 15, 2007 - 4:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think I understand the point of the article and it is stupid.

Its like watching a caravan of cars loaded a kg from having their springs bottom out and conclude "one bump or disturbance and all cars will be destroyed, it is INEVITABLE". Build more cars and distribute the load, duh.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slx on January 15, 2007 - 9:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The problem is not foremost in the number of cars, but who will drive them, where and when do they take lunch, who tells them where to drive, who repairs, who decides, etc. etc. The problem is that so much effort is required to control and maintain the system, that it becomes less and less able to fulfill its original purpose. Much like ballooning civil administration, or commercial management remuneration.

Maintaining the grid is indeed possible. They just need to reassess their priorities, though, since it does require more resources than it used to.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on January 15, 2007 - 9:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is not wrong, of course - which is why we are suffering such horrible problems from the lack of stables in cities, as supporting the huge number of horses as common in 1880 just got too complex - who (edit) would mow the hay, clean the manure, etc.

Sure, this is not a real example - but changing the way something is done is not evidence that proves only 'inferior' alternatives of reduced complexity are possible.

It just may be that priorities have changed, or a particular technology or custom has changed.

It is certainly true to recognize that increasing complexity has its own limit - but then, so what? Unless you implicitly believe that how we live right now is the only 'correct' way to live.

Again, this is not to dismiss facts behind this discussion, but the framework which often grows from it.

If, as in your reply, you focus on cars, and I say why use cars, would the ensuing discussion be enlightening or frustrating? Why are so many of the people who point out collapse as an unavoidable fate so unwilling to see that adaptability is also a social response, and one which is applied in any number of situations. Whenever diesel engines fade into the past, and for whatever reason, most people in Germany will not mourn for stinking, loud motors no longer being around. They may mourn what the motors provided, unless alternatives are used - including living in a way which does not require diesel motors. This life could be worse, could be better - welcome to the real world.

This is not collapse, I would argue.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slx on January 15, 2007 - 5:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's an interesting example, the horses. Around 1900, the car was hailed as the solution for the gridlock in the cities caused by horses and carriages. Cars only take half as much space, so now that problem is solved once and for all!

Legislation is similar. Most nations start out with a fairly basic, fairly simple set of rules. Every time there is a (real or perceived) problem, rules are added. At a certain point, the amount of rules becomes too much to enforce, or even understand with all their interactions. That point is the point of diminishing returns on complexity. So far Godesky's argument (familiar from Tainter). But he's not only smart, he's also religious, and really wants/believes an apocalypse as redemption/salvation/punishment. That is where I disagree.

As for Germany: I live close enough, and I grew up seeing 80-year olds quietly peddling into the fields, balancing a weeding tool over their shoulder.

I have the impression that rather much of the sentiment on peak oil and the future in the US goes towards either extreme: death or glory. Maybe because there is little US history without oil. Maybe because shows and make-belief seem to hold a special place in the US, judging by the popular culture that filters through to the other side of the pond.

Everything will be alright. There are many ways from now to the future. The American Way, however, is special - but everyone knows that. ;)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on January 16, 2007 - 6:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Also intriguing is the current experiment in European (more Dutch) traffic planning - removing all the signs, markings, etc as a way to reduce accidents. In a sense, this 'simplicity' seems to cause everyone participating in traffic to pay more attention to what is going on around them, and react appropriately to other people and vehicles - obviously, something not really imaginable in the America I visited last summer.

Complexity is one answer to a problem, but it is rarely the only one. That complexity tends to have a lot of support from those involved in creating/maintaining that complexity is another question. Including the idea, certainly not espoused by all people who believe in complexity leading to collapse, that complexity is equal to 'progress,' and thus automatically good.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
slx on January 17, 2007 - 6:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, that is the key cultural change that will need to happen: wanting enough instead of wanting more.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.