203 comments on Our World Is Finite: Is This a Problem?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
203 comments on Our World Is Finite: Is This a Problem?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”
—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
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.