Our World Is Finite: Is This a Problem?
Posted by Prof. Goose on April 30, 2007 - 9:20am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: fresh water, natural gas, oil, peak oil, resource utilization, technology, topsoil [list all tags]
This is a guest post by Gail the Actuary.
We all know the world is finite. The number of atoms is finite, and these atoms combine to form a finite number of molecules. The mix of molecules may change over time, but in total, the number of molecules is also finite.
We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources.
At some point, growth in resource utilization must collide with the fact that the world is finite. We have grown up thinking that the world is so large that limits will never be an issue. But now, we are starting to bump up against limits.
So, what are the earth's limits? Are we reaching them?
1. Oil
Oil is a finite resource, since it is no longer being formed. Oil production in a given area tends to increase for a time, then begins to decline, as the available oil is pumped out. Oil production in the United States has followed this pattern (Figure 1), as has oil production in the North Sea (Figure 2). This decline has taken place in spite of technology improvements.
There is now serious concern that world oil production will begin to decline ("peak"), just as it has in the United States and the North Sea. I discussed this earlier in Oil Quiz - Test Your Knowledge . A congressional committee was also concerned about this issue, and asked the US Government Accountability Office to study it. The GAO's report, titled CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production confirmed that this is an important issue.
Exactly how soon this decline will begin is not certain, but many predict that the decline may begin within the next few years.
2. Natural Gas
Natural gas in North America is also reaching its limits. United States natural gas production reached its peak in 1973. Each year, more and more wells are drilled, but the average amount of gas produced per well declines. This occurs because the best sites were developed first, and the later sites are more marginal. The United States has been importing more and more natural gas from Canada, but this is also reaching its limits. Because of these issues, the total amount of natural gas available to the United States is likely to decline in the next few years - quite possibly leading to shortages.
3. Fresh Water
Fresh water is needed for drinking and irrigation, but here too we are reaching limits. Water from melting ice caps is declining in quantity because of global warming. Water is being pumped from aquifers much faster than it is being replaced, and water tables are dropping by one to three meters a year in many areas. Some rivers, especially in China and Australia, are close to dry because of diversion for agriculture and a warming climate. In the United States, water limitations are especially important in the Southwest and in the more arid part of the Plains States.
4. Top soil
The topsoil we depend on for agriculture is created very slowly - about one inch in 300 to 500 years, depending on the location. The extensive tilling of the earth's soil that is now being done results in many stresses on this topsoil, including erosion, loss of organic matter, and chemical degradation. Frequent irrigation often results in salination, as well. As society tries to feed more and more people, and produce biofuel as well, there is pressure to push soil to its limits--use land in areas subject to erosion; use more and more fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides; and remove the organic material needed to build up the soil.
Are there indirect impacts as well?
Besides depleting oil, natural gas, fresh water, and top soil, the intensive use of the earth's resources is resulting in pollution of air and water, and appears to be contributing to global warming as well.
Can technology overcome these finite world issues?
While we have been trying to develop solutions, success has been limited to date. When we have tried to find substitutes, we have mostly managed to trade one problem for another:
Ethanol from corn
Current production methods usually require large amounts of natural gas and fresh water, both of which are in short supply. Increasing production may require the use of land which has been set aside in the Conservation Reserve Program because of its tendency to erode.
Oil from oil sands and oil shale
Oil from oil sands requires large energy inputs, currently from natural gas, as well as fresh water, and creates pollution issues. Oil from oil shale is expected to require even more energy and fresh water.
Coal to liquid and coal substitution for natural gas
"Clean coal" and sequestration of carbon dioxide from coal are not yet commercially available, and are expected to be very expensive if they become available. Thus, coal production is likely to exacerbate global warming and raise pollution levels. If coal is used to replace both oil and natural gas, it is likely to deplete within a few decades, like the natural gas and oil it replaces.
Deeper wells for fresh water
If deeper wells are used, they will requires more energy to pump the water farther. In locations that use aquifers that replenish over thousands of years, the available water will eventually be depleted.
There are a number of promising technologies — including solar, wind, wave power, and geothermal — but the amount of energy from these sources is tiny at this time. Nuclear power also seems to have promise, but has toxic waste issues and is difficult to scale up quickly. A general introduction to alternative technologies is provided in What Are Our Alternatives If Fossil Fuels Are a Problem?
What if we don't find technological solutions?
We can't know for sure what will happen, but these are some hypotheses:
1. Initially, higher prices for energy and food items and a major recession.
If the supply of oil lags behind demand, we can expect rising prices for oil and gasoline and possibly other types of energy. Prices for food may also rise, because oil is used in the production and transportation of food. Recession is likely to follow, because people will cut down on their purchases of discretionary items, so as to be able to afford the necessities. Layoffs will follow. People laid off will find it difficult to pay mortgages and other debt, so banks and other creditors will find themselves in increasing financial difficulty.
2. Longer term, a decline in economic activity.
With fewer resources, economic activity is likely to decline. We will need to find replacements for many products in a relatively short time frame — heating fuel, transportation fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, fertilizer (currently made from natural gas), and asphalt, among other things. Living standards are likely to drop, because we don’t have infinite resources for replacing all the things that are declining in availability.
A graphic representation of how this might happen is shown in Figure 3. Real gross domestic product (GDP) gives a measure of how much goods and services the United States is producing in a year, in constant (year 2000) dollars. The "Fitted" line in Figure 3 shows the expected growth in real GDP, if growth continues as in the past. Scenarios 1 and 2 show two examples of how limitations on oil and natural gas might impact future real GDP. Scenario 1 shows a fairly rapid decline, starting very soon. Scenario 2 shows a slower decline, starting in 2020. If the downturn is still several years away, we have longer to plan, and a better chance that the decline will be more gradual.
3. Transportation difficulties and electrical outages.
Since transportation generally uses petroleum products for fuel, a reduction in the amount of oil available is likely to cause transportation difficulties. These difficulties may extend to all forms of transportation--automobile, trucks, airplanes, boats, and railroads, to the extent that fuel is unavailable due to shortages, cost, or rationing.
If natural gas supplies decline, electrical outages are likely, especially during high-use times of the year. Electrical outages may also result from interruption of transportation of other fuel, such as coal, to power plants, because of petrolum shortages. Outages may be one time events, or may be planned outages at certain times of the day, to compensate for an inadeqacy in the fuel supply.
4. Possible collapse of the monetary system.
This is perhaps the biggest single issue, and the most difficult to understand.
There is a huge amount of debt in the world today. When loans were made, the expectation of the lenders was that the economy would continue to grow as in the past--that is like the "Fitted" line in Figure 3 above. If this continued growth occurred, people, on average, would be a little better off financially when the time came to pay off their loans than they were when the loans were taken out, so they would have a reasonable chance of paying off the loans with interest. Corporations would continue to grow, and because of this continued growth, most would be able to pay off their debt with interest.
What happens if a scenario like that shown as Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 on Figure 3 occurs? When it comes time to repay the loans, people and corporations will be on average, worse off, rather than better off, than when they took them out. It is likely that many people will be unemployed, and cannot pay back their debt. Companies manufacturing goods that are no longer in demand are likely to be bankrupt, and thus will be unable to repay their debt. Organizations holding this debt, such as banks, insurance companies, and pension funds will find themselves in financial difficulty, because of the many defaults on the loans that are the assets of these organizations.
Two possible outcomes of widespread defaults come to mind. One is that there is so much debt that cannot be repaid that banks, insurance companies, and in fact the whole monetary system fails. The other alternative is that the government guarantees all the debt, so that the institutions do not fail. The latter approach would likely lead to hyper-inflation.
In either event, people and businesses would lose their savings, because money either wouid either be no longer available (first approach), or would be worth very little due to inflation (second approach). In either event, foreign countries would be unlikely to accept our currency in trade. Simple transactions, such as purchasing food or paying an employee, would become very difficult. Eventually, some approach would likely be found to circumvent these difficulties--perhaps a more barter-based approach--but this would be a huge change from our current system.
5. Failure of economic assumptions to hold.
We have been raised in a world where supply and demand are generally in balance. An increase in demand results in a greater price, which in turn leads to a greater supply. If the particular item isn’t available, substitution is generally available.
Once we reach geological limits, these basic principles seem much less likely to hold. An increase in energy demand isn't likely to translate into greater supply. Distribution of the limited available supply seems likely to reflect considerations other than price, such as rationing and long-term alliances. There may also be military conflict over available supplies.
6. Changed emphasis to more local production.
Two factors are likely to encourage local production and discourage international trade. One is the higher cost and/or unavailability of fuels used for transportation. The other is difficulty with the monetary system--either hyper-inflation or complete failure of the system. If there are monetary system problems, other countries are likely to want actual goods in trade, rather than IOUs or money. This requirement is likely to greatly reduce the amount of trade with foreign countries.
Food production is likely to be more localized, since this insures a continuous supply, and reduces the amount of fuel needed for transportation. If there are problems with shortages, people may choose to have gardens, so as to grow a few of the foods they need themselves.
7. Reduced emphasis on debt.
Once it is clear that future production is likely to be less than current production, as in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of Figure 3, it will be very difficult to find any lender willing to provide long term loans, since if the loan is paid back at all, it is likely to be paid back in money that is worth very much less than it was at the time the loan was taken out.
If governments still have debt at this point, they will find it difficult to sell new bonds to replace the ones that mature. Businesses desiring to build new plants may find it necessary to accumulate resources for new plants in advance of their construction. Mortgages may not be available for prospective home owners, either.
8. Reduced emphasis on insurance and pensions.
If there are difficulties with the monetary system, insurance companies and pension plans will be among the hardest hit, since thy take in funds and invest them, and pay benefits later.
It is possible that a limited form of Social Security coverage may continue, but this is by no means certain. If a high level of inflation occurs (see point 4 above), benefits that have been promised to date will be worth very little. If a new monetary system is in place, it will be up to the government at that time to determine the level of benefits. Because total goods and services will be lower in the future (Figure 3 above), benefits to retirees will almost certainly be lower as well.
9. More people will perform manual labor.
As the amount of oil and natural gas becomes less available, more work will need to be done by hand, since the fuels to run machines will be less available. In order to encourage people to take jobs involving manual labor, manual labor will pay better in relationship to desk jobs. Because food is such ain important commodity, farming may be particularly highly valued, and may pay especially well.
10. Resource wars and migration conflicts.
If there is is an inadequate amount of a resource (water, oil, natural gas, or food), countries may fight over the limited supplies that are available. Conflicts are likely to spring up regarding areas where resources are plentiful.
Alternatively, people may choose to migrate from an area if resources become less abundant--for example, migration may occur if water supplies dry up, or if land is flooded due to global warming, or if declining oil supplies limit transportation. Receiving areas may not welcome the newcomers, leading to more conflict.
11. Changes in family relationships.
Families are likely to see more of each other, because of reduced transportation availability. Families may work more closely together, tending gardens and running small family businesses. Co-operation may be more highly valued by society. Divorce rates may decline.
12. Eventual population decline.
The food supply produced in the world today is many times greater than the food supply 100 years ago, before oil and natural gas were used in tilling crops, pumping water for irrigation, making fertilizer and pesticides, and transporting food to market. As oil and natural gas become less available, the food supply is likely to decline. Eventually, world population is also likely to decline, reflecting the lower food supply.
Conclusion
We cannot know exactly what the future will hold, if technology is not able to overcome the many issues associated with a finite world, including declining oil and natural gas supply, decreasing fresh water supply, and climate change. Whatever changes occur are likely to differ from location to location, as the world activity becomes more localized.
We tend to think of governments as fairly stable, but these too may change. Countries may subdivide into smaller units. Some have even suggested that groups of states may break away from the United States.
Educational institutions will most likely change. Fewer students will probably attend colleges and universities, and the subjects of interest will likely change. The sciences and agriculture or permaculture are likely to be topics of interest. More students may want to live on campus, if transportation is a problem. Adult education may become more important, as people seek to develop skills for a changing world.
Businesses will also change. Local businesses will become more important, while multinational companies recede in importance. Manufacturing will become less important, and recycling will become more important. Providing necessities will get top priority, while nice-to-have items will not sell well. Barter, or a new monetary system that substitutes for barter, may be the way business is done.
People may choose to live closer to work, or may work at home, so as to minimize costs associated with commuting. Some people may choose to live with relatives or friends, so as to save on utility costs. Eventually, many homes in undesirable locations may be left empty, and the parts of these unoccupied homes that can be used elsewhere will be recycled.
The next 50 years will certainly be interesting ones. Perhaps, with technological advances, some of the potential problems can be avoided. But we will need to work hard, starting now, to develop ways to work around the problems which seem to be ahead.
To Learn More
The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil 53 minute film, available for $20, tells the story of how Cuba adapted to losing over half of its petroleum imports after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Closing the Collapse Gap: The USSR Was Better Prepared for Peak Oil than the United States Humorous talk by Dmitry Orlov
The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century Book by James Howard Kunstler
Discussion Questions
1. What are five things that might improve after world oil production begins to decline? (Hint: Consider exercise, weight problems, family situations, etc.)
2. If there is a decline in oil and gas production, how do you expect the large amount of debt outstanding to resolve itself? Do you think there will be monetary collapse, hyper-inflation, or some other solution?
3. Do you expect that families will have more or fewer children after oil and natural gas production begin to decline? Why?
4. How can businesses prepare for interruptions in electrical service?
5. What types of buildings are best adapted to frequent outages of electrical service? Which buildings are likely to have the most problems?
6. What vocations appear to be most likely to be useful for supporting a family, after oil and gas production begin to decline?
7. What changes might a college make to its curriculum, to better prepare students for the changing world situation expected after production of oil and natural gas begin to decline?
8. In Figure 3, real GDP in Scenarios 1 and 2 are shown as changing in relatively straight lines. Could alternative scenarios have the lines zig-zag or drop suddenly? What real world situations might cause different patterns?





We hope that you will use the reddit and digg buttons for our authors, it helps them get readers for their hard work...and seeing as how this is a good "primer" kind of post, this would be a great first read for new people.
Thanks.
There is a way to have continuing economic growth with a finite, fixed resource base (and a stable population that is within the carrying capacity defined by those finite resources). Any economic growth that happens under such circumstances must be due to intellectual development. The products of human creativity and scientific discovery can lead to more efficient usage of those finite resources. Demand can increase for products that require increasingly fewer resources to produce. Many of the fine and popular arts, for example, require only small material inputs, and with the applications of technologies such as digitalization, those inputs can be continually reduced. Yet the arts have expanded to become a huge component of our modern economy, and there appears to be very few constraints limiting their continuing growth in some form or another, other than the obvious ones of the discretionary wealth and available leisure time of consumers.
While some level of continuing economic growth might thus be possible under a stable resource base, my guess is that we are talking about a very low rate of growth -- maybe 1-2% annually at best. It also must all be hard growth rather than easy growth. In other words, the growth must be genuinely earned through real improvements in humankind's intellectual and cultural patrimony.
Perhaps there is a way to have continued economic growth for awhile, but even at 1 or 2%, the music has to stop somewhere, sometime.
The key, regardless, is that total material production and consumption must stabilize and decrease soon because we do not have enough planets for our current level of consumption, much less increases in our current level of consumption.
In any event, economic growth, as represented by GDP, has become an increasingly flawed parameter to even approximate well being. We need to focus on other measures of well being, which may or may not be reflected in changes in GDP.
Even within the strict context of GDP, the number is not a good guide to economic well being since most of the increase s in GDP over the last couple of decades has gone to the very rich. At least in the U.S. the level of inequality just increases year by year. To focus on the gross overall GDP or even the per capita GDP is a terribly distorted way of looking at the economy.
And then we have this perverted way of looking at greenhouse gases. The Bush administration prefers to focus on intensity as if the overall level doesn't matter as long as we are becoming more efficient. Well, efficiency isn't getting us where we need to be. Whether it could ever result in the overall reduction of GHG is a matter of debate, but in any event, the overall level needs to be capped. If, within those constraints, economic growth continue for awhile, perhaps that is acceptable.
A further related note. As more and more of us economize,localize, and produce, our efforts will larely not be reflected in GDP. But our well being will increase. The religion of economic growth is a curse.
NO, there is not "a way to have continuing growth with a finite, fixed resource base."
Growth is growth. Any increase in resource use beyond its capacity to replace itself means collapse.
We are not going to think ourselves out of this. This is the first canard that must go away. If you go to the Sudan and tell the starving there to just think about food and everything will be all right, you will be beaten to death. Then, if they are smart, they will eat you.
Do not tell me that people will grow an economy based on art. That is specious at best. Have you heard of the Tulip bubble?
What all Westerners and much of the rest of the world must come to realize is that a growth economy is a poisonous illogical, cancerous, waste of time and resources designed to enrich a tiny minority and screw the rest. Give up this paradigm. Live outside the patriarchy, escape the mean daddy paradigm.
The system is closed basically as far as mass goes but its a open system for energy primarily from the Sun but in general fusion creates a open system vs energy and breeder style fission effectively creates a open system. Also mining of solar system creates a system that is effectively open for critical raw materials also of course nucleotide synthesis can be used if needed and if energy is abundant. A element synthesizer orbiting close to the sun can provide effectively unlimited amounts of elements for a price at a finite rate.
I know it sounds like science fiction but nothing I said is not doable starting with todays technology it a engineering problem.
The problem is EROEI cannot be solved simply and constrains the system. The real constraint is thus EROEI which is constrained by...
E=mc^2
This constrain is one we don't know how to beat yet.
Surely you mean, "....is constrained by the Second Law of Thermodynamics...."
E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the case. In fact, if we ever get Fusion working (which we almost certainly wont) then E=mc^2 will solve our energy problems.
We're depleting the capacity of the sky to act as a heat sink?
Yeah yeah he knows, it was just to get you out posting! Welcome :)
Growth is growth, but there are different types of growth. Of course, you and everybody around here is thinking about exponential growth most of the time. Take a second and imagine a logarithmic growth curve, or better yet, a curve that approaches but never reaches an asymptote, like the logistic growth curve. Those curves allow for endless growth with an endlessly shrinking growth rate.
Asymptotic curves are what we can expect in the long run for most processes.
You didn't read what he wrote. He said:
"Demand can increase for products that require increasingly fewer resources to produce."
i.e., he is not talking about increasing resource use. He is talking about producing more with the same level of resource use - i.e., sustainable growth.
Consider, for example, the situation where a widget takes 1% less resources to produce every decade due to technological improvements. Production rate can grow indefinitely on a fixed rate of resource consumption, or production rate can remain fixed indefinitely on a finite, non-renewable resource. So long-term growth is possible, at least in theory.
In practice, there is the potential for long-term growth as well. Our energy use could expand enormously before solar would be unable to supply it, and - with enough energy available - projects to increase other resources (such as deorbiting asteroids for mining, or large-scale desalination for fresh water) may become possible.
In other words, there is a much weaker case for impending terminal decline of economic growth than there is for impending terminal decline of oil supply growth, and conflating the two like this does little more than dilute the peak oil message. If you are terminally pessimistic about everything, nobody will listen to you about anything.
So next year the same amount of nutrition, sunlight, water and care will product two turnips where this year we only have one. I don't think so. Maybe it's semantic - we could have qualitative change. We need it.
Growth is "more" - an increase in size, quantity or number. 2% is still a doubling in 36 years or so.
cfm in Gray, ME
No - we were discussing economic growth, not agricultural growth. The two are different.
In particular, with synthetic goods, we have more control over the production process, meaning there is more scope for improving efficiency.
Sure you can produce some widgets more efficiently for a few year, but for infinite sustainable growth you have to produce every widget more efficiently for ever. That is utterly impossible, Moore's Law or its equivalent lie in wait for you sooner of later - and normally sooner. Eventually, all else failing, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will hit as you try to make widgets measuring less than Plank length.
However, putting that aside, given this potential underling infinite supply of more efficiently built widgets, you have to find the energy and investments to switch to sustainable energy using solar or wind, and keep growth going at the same time. That's a bit like doing a valve job on an engine while the engine is going! As the old Irish joke goes, "I wouldn't start from here.";
Surely there is a gap between terminal pessimism and being a realist - although I can't see much difference at the moment.
Well, realists realize that these problems are at the very least centuries in the future, and more likely millenia.
It depends on which problems you're referring to.
Peak oil? Definitely less than centuries, much less millennia. Current oil demand levels would consume over 3T barrels in the next century, which is about the sum of petroleum believed to exist, including tar sands and oil shales.
Peak energy? Centuries or millennia. Solar irradiation onto the earth's surface is more than ten thousand times the world's current power consumption (link). Converting that to electricity (~30% efficient) and placing solar cells only on infrastructure (~3% area for US-like country) still gives a thousand-fold increase in available energy, without even leaving the planet.
Of course, there's only so much energy available in the solar system - the sun only produces a finite amount of radiance - so there are theoretical limits to growth of energy consumption here. But those theoretical limits are so enormously large that they're utterly irrelevant right now.
So we need to be a little careful with terms. Oil supply? Bound to peak soonish. Energy supply? Functionally limited only by ingenuity and capital.
Conflating those two is not useful.
You do realize that Moore's Law is (a) not a law (it's just an observation), and (b) says the opposite of what you're saying?
If you wished to provide evidence that infinitely-increasing efficiency is impossible, you'd do much better to argue from the perspective of thermodynamics. It's not clear that production must inherently be non-reversible, though, meaning there's no clear path to proving that continually reducing the energy requirements of a recycle/produce system is impossible.
So, really, all you're saying is that you believe continually-increasing efficiency is impossible. That you believe something does not make it true.
Why would you make widgets of less than Planck length? You'd recycle and reuse the finite resource base, including the resource requirements for that in the overall production requirements.
That'd lead to a faster and faster update cycle for the widgets in the constant-consumption-rate scenario, of course, but that's really not a practical concern - demand for a type of widgets typically follows a logistic curve (see, for example, railway installation or cellphone adoption), meaning the number of units we want to produce would eventually approach an asymptote, shunting us into the fixed-production-rate scenario.
Not at all.
It's like doing valve jobs on a fleet of engines while the fleet is still in operation. And that happens all the time.
If you don't see a difference, there's two cases:
Never underestimate the chances that you don't know everything. Skepticism about your beliefs is tremendously important.
i.e., that you believe something does not make it true.
Neither of us, thank God, can know the future. However, I have great difficulty in imagining one in which we mange to continue expanding the production of everything (including, I presume people) for ever. There are many constraints to prevent this and I touched on only a few in my post yesterday.
Honesty must compel you to admit that all previous civilizations we know of have collapsed and that there is no particular reason to expect our society to be different.
I agree that such a scenario is beyond unlikely.
The rate of population increase has been going down for quite a while - both as a percentage of current population and in raw millions per year. Indeed, the UN projects world population will peak at 9.2B in 2075, and the cessation of population growth will mean that only per-capita factors can drive increased consumption.
Some of that will happen, but - as the last few decades in Germany suggests - eventually people's consumption levels will saturate and stabilize. There's no particular reason why consumption rates of anything should increase indefinitely - like I said, that kind of thing tend to follow a slow-fast-slow curve that eventually approaches an asymptote.
A lack of growth in consumption of resources doesn't imply a lack of economic growth, as mentioned previously. A lack of growth in consumption of goods, though, might - economics is the study of allocating scarce resources to competing uses. If resources aren't scarce, then the notion of "the economy" is not entirely well-defined. Some fiction looks at that kind of scenario, though, and what might occupy humanity's time and energy. "Star Trek", oddly enough, is probably the best-known example.
Not at all.
First, I don't agree that all previous civilizations have collapsed, and I think that's either an ethnocentric or naive view. Some groups of Australian aborigines have oral records going back - literally - tens of thousands of years, as confirmed by references to geographic features that are not present anymore but can be determined to have been present at the time. I haven't seen particular evidence that they've "collapsed", unless you'd prefer to say they don't count as civilized.
Similarly, many of the native groups in North America were destroyed by conquest rather than collapse. That may represent (one of the) potential differences between our current (global) situation and previous (isolated) civilizations, which is that there's (a) a broad-based desire for peace, and (b) nobody "outside" our current civilization to come in and knock it over.
Indeed, the claim that every prior situation has "collapsed" is far from obvious, and needs to be backed up before it's taken seriously. And remember that universally-quantified claims ("for all") are not demonstrated by anecdotal evidence; merely claiming this or that civilization collapsed does not show that all of them did.
If you would like the claim that "all prior civilizations collapsed" to be taken at all seriously outside of the doomer community, you'll need to examine much less favourable cases than Easter Island. What about China, for example - it's been trucking along pretty well for a couple thousand years, despite periodic civil wars. Or Iceland - it has the oldest continually-sitting parliament in the world (the Althing), meaning it's had governmental continuity since it was settled a thousand years ago.
If honesty was going to compel me to say anything, it would compel me to note that either you have a very restrictive definition of "civilization", or that you simply haven't thought about whether your claim is true - and that I strongly suspect the latter.
Civilization comes from the Greek word Cives which means cities (by extension an urban, urbane, and literate society).
Aboriginal culture was indeed long lasting (>60k years possibly) but was static, not constantly growing (which is where we started this thread if you can remember).
Aboriginal society introduced no innovations and was sustainable. They made the minimum of widgets the same way for long periods of time and eschewed agriculture.
As I said before, you need to be much broader when attempting to supply evidence for your claim. You've noted that your definition does not support Aborigines as "civilized", but you've failed to address any cases that your definition does cover.
What about China? It's had large cities and literacy for millenia. When did it collapse?
What about tiny, harsh, isolated Iceland, surely a prime candidate for collapse? It's done pretty well for itself over the last thousand years (although it may not have had cities per se until about 250 years ago).
In fact, if your definition of "civilized" is "city", then what about all the major cities - Paris, London, Venice, ... - that have continually existed as large and stable cities for well over a thousand years?
You really haven't provided any evidence for your claim that all prior civilizations have collapsed, so how could you possibly expect anyone to believe you unless they already agreed with you? (That's one of the key dangers of insular communities such as Peak Oil, by the way - you get so used to people sharing the same beliefs that you can forget to check whether those beliefs are actually true.)
Hi Pitt and Le, (and others),
I like the conversation.
Just wanted to note about Easter Island AKA Rapa Nui
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?full.... It looks like the history was a bit more complex than the story one usually hears.
Professor, please excuse my ignorance, but most folks, including me, are not knowledgeable enough about this entire "Peak Whatever", GW, Super Volcanoes, Meteors, Gamma Rays, etc. to even pose rational questions.
What we want to know, is: How much of any of this, from any side or expert, is bullshit, and how much is something we ought to worry about?
We've seen the films, read the publications, and listened with rapt attention to pronouncements on all of it from hundreds of experts, celebrities, politicians, and Bubba down at the local watering hole. But we still don't have an answer.
I do enjoy reading your posts and the oildrum in general, but all the analysis doesn't answer the basic question posed above.
Help us out, please. We have lives to live.
No one really knows for sure. At best these are all educated guesses. I'd really like to see an IPCC-style panel address global energy/water issues.
Do the best to prepare at whatever level you deem is reasonable.
If worst case scenarios do come to pass (not saying they will), it may be that any preparation (short of a Vault) could be fairly worthless anyway. :)
If you don't want to study the science, then you must accept an "Argument from Authority". Internet blogs run the Gamut - from those who think the earth is 7,000 years old or don't believe in thermodynamics, to very knowledgeable Phds with years of experience.
The best way to sort out the silly stuff is just reject those who don't believe in the basic laws of physics (or evolution etc) or those who have a political philosophy so set on some agenda (like avoiding government taxation or control) that they are willing to bend all facts.
I would recommend reading "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update" It does a good job explaining how exponential growth crashes into a wide variety of limits and tends toward collapse. Unthinking creatures follow population booms and busts. And so do thinking creatures that refuse to think (or act). It may be a tough book to get into, but it will pay back far more understanding than reading hundreds of posts.
If that book is too technical, then try "Plan B 2.0" by Lester Brown. It does not do as good a job of explaining the theory behind why systems collapse, but it does have a great list of all the limits the human race is crashing into. And it has helpful ideas of what can be done to act smarter.
There are also a bunch of "state of the planet" type books from reputable sources like Science magazine.
gTrout, some good reads, of course you could go back to 1980 and read Alvin Toffler's "The Third Wave" and see every single issue we think is new now discussed then. His view then was that the time of the end of the worship of growth was THEN, 27 years ago. Was he correct in fact, but just wrong on the timing?
By the way, Toffler did not see the end of growth as growth was then (and now) narrowly defined as the end of human experience, far from it. But he did see it as the beginning of a change in human history as powerful (and as potentially chaotic) as the birth of the prior two great changes in wealth production, agriculture (recall that at what time, every human on Earth was a hunter-gatherer, now, not even 1% is) and industrialism (recall that at one time 90% of the human race was involved agriculture, now, barely 3% in the developed countries are), that would change at the core humanities way of existing and creating wealth and surplus. I will talk in another post about some of the directions we thought we would go back in those days, but there is a change a'comin', there always is, the only question is how fast and hard it will hit....and who will benefit (some will) and who will get hurt (someone always does)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Malthus was in fact correct 200 years ago. A finite planet will not support an infinite population of anything. At that time no one could foresee how far we would overshoot that limit, but I believe we've done it.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
That's a very good question, but really unanswerable. If we are frank, there is an awful lot of BS written about PO (and everything else) - that applies to both sides of the argument. Anyone claiming to be able to predict the future with such accuracy is obviously a charlatan or a fool.
If you can't decide on the evidence yourself, then you would have to ask someone you trust to give a verdict. Personally, I trust the scientific method to eventually come up with the truth, but science is poor at predicting one-off events. Observation of events as they happen will be the only way to know for sure.
In the event that there is something to worry about, if you decide there is nothing that you can personally do that will make any significant difference, either to your own future or anyone elses, then the best thing is to ignore it, and get on with your life. Worrying about stuff you cannot change will only cause stress, to no useful end.
Then, every pronouncement on these issues (from whoever ) should be preceded by a disclaimer. Eg. "This is my opinion, and it's quite possibly complete BS." Logically, then, lacking any definitive proof, the avg Joe should ignore all of it, and deal with whatever comes his way, when and if it does.
Put simply, "Tomorrow will take care of itself". Right?
Therefore, why on earth should anyone consent to higher taxes, limited life style, and so on, "just in case"?
Thank you.
Logically - which is to say, acting rationally - he should do no such thing. Definitive proof is highly overrated, largely because it's almost entirely lacking.
If Joe wants to act sensibly, he should examine the arguments about the issues, kick their tires, maybe educate himself a little, and then make a reasoned judgement about which ones are most likely, how likely they appear to be, and what he should do about it.
Doing nothing until definitive proof exists is just silly. It's like not locking your car until it's stolen, since you don't have definitive proof of the existence of car thieves until then.
I have to agree with Pitt. Humans have a clever brain, why would it be "Logical" to pretend we don't and act like sheep?
Watch a movie like Titanic if you want to see what happens when people set aside rational planning for wishful thinking. It would have been a lot easier to save all the passengers if they didn't hit the ice berg in the first place.
That is the whole point of peak oil planning. 30 years ago the first population limit debates raged that we should not allow growth to get larger than the "lifeboat" that we live on. The people arguing for the limited lifestyle lost.
The next argument will be about who gets to be in the lifeboat.
Go read a "State of the Planet". I think you will find the water is up around your ankles. But don't worry about that because the Titanic can't sink! "God himself cannot sink this ship". Return to your state room. Have another beer. Ignore the highly qualified engineer saying ships of iron can and will sink. Do nothing. Watch more TV. Take out another mortgage. Buy another big car.
You won't need to consent to a limited life style. It will be the only choice available.