341 comments on Crisis, what energy crisis?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
341 comments on Crisis, what energy crisis?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
WOW!!!!
Great Post. I have it bookmarked and will refer to it often.
Love it.
However :(
The world is not headed for a peaceful future of powerdown.
This is a geek fantasy.
Name ONE civilization of any importance (and large) that has powered down successfully.
If we were to realize our fate as a global society and take measures to powerdown together we might have chance to bring in a new world.
But anyone can see that this is not happening. ALL nations seem to be preparing for war, we are just waiting for the go signal....
I remember on this site a reference to a study that said that we need 20yrs to prepare for Peak Oil, in order to transition peacefully away from Fossil Fuels.
We have squandered that time.
It seems we now have no option but to fight to the death for the remaining Fossil Fuel reserves in order to try and sustain our country's lifestyles (what ever country you choose to live in).
It is OVER. No amount of technofixes will save us now. It is too late. We need to realize this in order to have a chance to move forward. Forward to an ugly future. A future of countinual WAR. War for oil. War for Water. War for all of Earth's resources.
This will be the last great war. After this there will not be enough resources left to support a world-wide war on this scale. The USA is very aware of this and is trying to prepare. China and Russia are preparing as well. Seen through this lense the events of the last 6yrs make perfect sense.
Soon the world players will make their move and we will see what happens after the dust settles.
One thing is for certain: The world will not PEACEFULLY powerdown for the next 25yrs as some ivory tower fuckheads suggest. WAR is in mankind's blood and WAR it shall be.
Korg, before you meet your doom though, you can say you listened to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En0A8KGMgq8
stay until the very end for the last comment by Simon for kicks.
amazing.
Even if you are correct the journey and the knowledge is still useful.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
PrisonerX
I was expecting some sarcastic but realistic comment but Simon Cowell was 100% pleasant. Did I miss something?
A six year old girl was "pitch perfect", thru the whole performance.
That is an amazing comment.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
I want my 4 minutes and 57 seconds back.
Don't become a Buddhist. The world doesn't need more Buddhists. Do practice compassion. The world does need more compassion. -- Dalai Lama
Korg - you definitely need to listen to Connie singing "Somewhere over the Rainbow"
I guess I do too, because I'm with Korg. We're on the Highway to Hell. The most perverse aspect of this is that the Highway will be paved with gold for those with the right connections.
I do thank you for your efforts, Euan. I will bookmark this.
I agree there...
I think the most ironic aspect of this will be if the USA and co-conspirators decide to stay on that highway whilst turning down opportunities to change direction.
My fear is that the USA is toast. Your fear has to be that we don't take you with us.
Hahahahahah....
But Connie has provided my nation with hope and inspiration for a better future.
Perhaps the humble phone salesman in his brown suit, well worn, ill fitting, would do for them.
That guy blew me away. I like the first show the best. The finals were great, but the little banter and that that that that came from that figure.
amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oxTy7KIAaA
Never judge a book by its cover, and people can do surprising things.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
But in the July 2 Drumbeat:
Japan: Oil imports decline for 13th month
Crude oil imports fell 11 percent in May from a year earlier, declining for a 13th month.
Crude oil imports fell to 17.5 million kiloliters last month, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in a report Friday.
How have they done this without everyone hearing the noise of their economy collapsing? (No it's not a rhetorical question - I'd be grateful for any comment on what has happened there). I'm not cynical enough about governments - at least in Europe - to believe they will let our economies collapse due to peak oil, if avoiding measures can be taken. In my view, the problem is partly one of conditioning the public to accept the changes that will be necessary and this will take time together with some "shocks" that will alert people to the need for change.
It may be that some actions being taken by governments in the guise of climate change prevention, have a hidden peak oil agenda. However, there are still too many signals and trends going in the wrong direction - road building, plans for airport expansion, weak investment in public transport. The most optimistic scenario is that the current steady increase in peak oil awareness in the MSM will continue and main political parties will soon get the message that they must address the issue properly.
Edit: Korg wrote "... fight to the death", "... a future of continual war". I can see why Euan wrote "not recommended for the faint hearted"!
Re: Japan, there was amention later in the Jily 2 Drumbeat: "Japan's population is aging. Old people don't drive much if at all. Japan's population is shrinking. Less people, less cars. People are moving from the rural areas to the city area. You need a car in the boonies but in the city its a huge pain."
So there you have it: electrify transport (politically OK, but you need the investment); move people into cities ("End of Suburbia" - not popular idea in USA, not much more so in UK, better in rest of Europe); end "car culture" (big problems - powerful lobbies, people's freedom, aspirations, etc.).
The other issue was "fuel switching", in that the Japanese are changing over to an "all electric" housing situation, thus reducing consumption of kerosene and oil used for heating. The problem is that coal consumption and strain on the nuclear power plants of the electric grid are becoming a real problem.
The nation that is the home of the city of Kyoto may run into real issues with the Kyoto treay obligations. So oil consumption declines, but leaves yet another liability.
RC
Remember we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Not quite. There is that stupid switch campain
http://www.tepco-switch.com/
but its a relativly new thing and hasn't had much of an impact.
In my experience fuel switching is almost non existant in Japan so far.
The biggest impact the all electric house will have is on gas (ng and lpg) consumption. Not oil.
The grid in Japan is incredibly robust. Blackouts are almost unheard of.
I have been out of the market for a while but the Japanese import crude (sweet) to burn in their thermal power plants. The reason for the sweet is because the emissions are less...
I am sure that is going p off a lot of people...what a waste...The time of peak imports is when the nukes are not running full...a couple of years ago they had some terrible problems with nuke maintainence which prompted a large proportion of their nuke genration down.
Now i have been out of the market for a bit so the market maybe changing (hence the reduction in crude imports) as they switch to to alternatives, however I dont think because crude imports are down is a sign necessarily of lower demand...it needs more research it maybe a fuel switch.
That fits nicely with my anecdotal experience as well. There has been no major change in Japanese consumer habits (that I have seen) that would lead to lower consumption. And as someone in another thread pointed out, demographics would change much to slowly to show such a large month to month decline.
Japan does use a surprisingly large amount of oil to generate electricity. The nuke explanation is the best one I've heard so far.
The bit with the oil peak is real stealth. Governments are keeping it hidden even as they use global warming as the excuse to pull off the policies to try to deal with the peak. A government will want to keep the oil peak hidden so as not to panic the financial markets. But nonetheless, the oil peak is needed to understand why the world operates as it does.
Without knowing about the oil peak, the world makes no sense. But once you know about it, suddenly, the world makes, well, all the sense in the world. The prime example is the Iraq war. The war makes no sense until you find out about the global oil peak. "It's the oil, stupid!" That paraphrase sums up the bit with the war.
The original Iraq war of 1992 was also about oil. Saddam got greedy and we had to push him out of that oil patch called Kuwaut. We could not let Saddam Hussein corner the market. Once Saddam sent in the troops into Kuwait, we had to act. We had no other choice. And now, with the repeat Iraq war, we had to act. After all, Iraq represents the last largely untapped oil reserve of a significant size. Of course, we want to plateau the peak. The only way to do that is to tap the reserve in Iraq.
But beware. The repeat Iraq war is not working out. But it could end up being a good thing. Plateauing the peak might help a politician, but it also means a steeper decline. You don't want a steep decline. A 3%/year decline is going to be maddening enough. A 10%/year decline would be absolutely disasterous.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
*IF* iraq has that much oil
and thats a pretty big iff.
Iraq certainly could be the worlds #1 producer in 5-6 years.
I find that incredulous. Even if Iraq had the potential (debatable) the time frame you stipulate seems incredible.
Boris
London
I pretty much agree with this and don't see a future with everyone living once again on family farms and communes that don't currently exist.
The real question I'm posing here:- "is powerdown essential?" Are there sufficient alternative energy supplies (nuclear, wind and direct solar) to enable industrial civilisation to adapt to a new, sustainable energy future? If the answer is no then we are well and truly stuffed. If the answer is yes then does our industrial society have the will and wherewithall to grasp the opportunity?
Or is it easier to overcome the problem by force? And the elephant in the room is population.
Our only hope
Is to get the Pope
TO HAND OUT CONDOMS
Get Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict v.16 to hand out condoms? He will not do it for an incredibly simple reason: More followers means more power. Any preacher will preach "be fruitful and multiply" because it means more people to brainwash with crap. All the successful religions preach overpopulation.
This is a major reason I hate organised religion. I have come to the conclusion that religion if organised is a force of evil that must be removed. Islam only serves as the present example. Religion is enough to get someone to want to drive an airliner into a building. If there is ANY damn lesson to be learned with the 9/11 disaster, it is that. Organised religion is evil. Pure and simple.
Islam might be the example now, but Christianity is not innocent. After all, the crusades were done up. The only reason more abortion clinics were not blown up is that Americans are on average too stupid to develop a car bomb. We Americans have our own homebrew Al Queda-like group, the "Army of God". The whackos are Christians not Moslems. But they serve as a danger to any abortion doctor. Doctors have been whacked by anti-abortion whack jobs, as well as clinics being torched. So far, they have not yet resorted to the "poor man's air force" of the car bomb.
For peace, the world must give up religion. Religion must be phased out, but it cannot be done by force. We find that out with the former Soviet Union. When the empire collapsed, religion re-started. Sweden is an example of non-force phasing out of religion. We Americans need to get off religion, before we blow ourselves up with the stash of nukes.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Religion is not the problem, human nature is the problem. The new levels of persecution seen in State enforced Marxism amply demonstrate that.
Based on that observation, I think you will find that the backlash from Peak Oil in secular countries such as in Western Europe will be no better than religiously oriented countries. In fact, it could be worse if the individualism so beloved of secular humanism is allowed free course in a crisis.
You're implying that individualism is the opposite of religiosity. It is not; the opposite of religiosity is skepticism.
One look at all the unworkable "solutions" proposed for peak oil, AGW etc. proves that skepticism is a sine qua non.
I was implying that? There are a lot of opposites to religion, not just one thing as you state and individualism, now you mention it, is one.
As for the "sine qua non" of skepticism during a Peak Oil crisis, unfortunately skepticism will cut both ways depending on the prejudices and agendas of the mind exercising it. We already have people applying their form of skepticism to say that Peak Oil is just an engineered scam to send more money flowing to "corporate fascists".
In the secular worldview everything is relative, including skepticism. Excuse my skepticism on skepticism!
Skepticism is demanding that all claims be supported.
Skepticism != nay-saying. Skepticism is most certainly not anti-capitalist dogma. You should know better than to post nonsense like that.
As a skeptic, I'm going to demand that you either support that claim (starting from the implied claim that there is a unified "secular worldview"), retract it, or take the intellectual drubbing you deserve.
You may demand but most people go through life carrying assumptions or an "on balance" approach. Yours is an idealistic approach. Life is too short for idealism as Peak Oil will demonstrate. The post peak oil world will be more the world of the pragmatist than the idealist.
As a free-market capitalist I am not sure where I said skepticism was anti-capitalist "nonsense". If you meant the brand of skeptics who deny peak Oil and say it is a corporate conspiracy, that remains true - whether they are right or wrong. I was merely pointing out that this brand of skeptic exists. You misread me I am afraid.
As a skeptic, you may demand but since you have already hastily misinterpreted me (see above) I am unsure you're not just in this to grab some debating points with no intention of being swayed in your opinions.
In other words, they are using intellectual shortcuts instead of working through all implications and getting facts where they lack them. This means they'll believe many things which are wrong.
"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know that ain't so."
You are a prime example of this:
You "know" this, but you can't support it and won't defend it. If someone calls you on it, you tuck your mental tail between your legs and run away, trying to change the subject.
That's dogma, which is closely allied to religiosity.
Har. One of the things I find annoying about major secular humanist publications is that they are heavily socialist, not individualist. Of course, this doesn't matter to you when you're picking bogeymen.
The USA isn't going to make progress on the energy problem until frank honesty pushes the dogma from center stage and produces a set of responses based on the facts. All the dogmatic beliefs that "ethanol from corn will save us" or "when we throw out the enviros and drilling is allowed in ANWR/off Florida/off California we'll have cheap gas" or "I'll just drive my Excursion until I can buy a hydrogen car" are small variations of the same sort of mental errors you exhibit (and cravenly refuse to address squarely).
Heaven forbid you should change your mind, especially in response to ugly things like facts.
Consider:
(1) Self-imposed population stabilization or even slowing of growth so as to reach an asymptotic limit.
(2) Democracy - rule not according to what's true, but by brute force of the most people voting for the prettiest face on the emptiest head, or the zingiest nonsensical sound bite.
(3) Tribalism and nationalism - nowadays driven by political correctness and ethnic special privileges, ever more firmly enshrined in law. If we can grow to outnumber you, or, failing that, at least grow enough to become able to deafen you with our whining and sniveling, then democracy authorizes us to loot you rather than earn our own living.
So pick any two from the list. You cannot ever have all three unless population magically stabilizes on its own. And if we're in for a rough patch, the often-mooted universal demographic transition based on everybody becoming rich simply will not occur for the foreseeable future. Nor will exhortation have more than a transitory effect, as the subsequent generation will simply consist of those who are not amenable to exhortation.
In reality, the unshakable modern simultaneous insistence upon (2) and (3) renders any serious discussion of population taboo, as we have seen from the periodic fireworks in the Drumbeat thread. No go.
Fortunately, world population appears to be doing exactly that.
If you look at the UN figures on world population, you'll find its growth rate grew until about 1970, but has been falling ever since. Moreover, it's projected to continue falling for decades to come, reaching a growth rate of only 0.36% in 2050, and should become negative before the end of the century.
And if we're in for a patch rough enough that it stops global GDP growth - which even the oil shocks of the 70s could not accomplish - then poor, rapidly-growing countries may become unable to support that rapid population growth. Recent history suggests that will lead to localized starvation (Ethiopia), genocide (Rwanda), voluntary population control (parts of India), and involuntary population control (China).
All of which global civilization has successfully weathered in the past.
I doubt the UN looks into peak oil/NG
if natgas falls down in production, farm production will also drop like a rock!
I assume you are referring to ammonia production requiring natural gas. It doesn't, the Haber-Bosch process originally used coal to produce the hydrogen needed in ammonia production.
C + H2O --> H2 + CO
Any electrolysis of water can make H2 to fix on N2 to make Ammonia. This needs, of course, electricity and water, but can be done in the middle of nowhere without access to the grid - not real cheap, but flexible!
I love ammonia, I really do!!
Huh?
I thought a major reason to discuss these matters was to see if there might be a way to transition out of fossil fuels and out of infinite population growth in a somewhat humane manner. If genocide and mass starvation are satisfactory outcomes, the whole discussion, not only this one but the one on Peak Oil itself, becomes unintelligible, or at least superfluous.
As to the UN figures, they are only educated guesses, not gospel, and I insist that they are predicated on robust economic growth. The "6" in "0.36%" is pure noise, and the "3" is probably pure noise as well. In addition, voluntarism is guaranteed to be transitory, as the volunteers will be represented less and less in each future generation. There are still many large families even in rich countries, and they will "win" out.
Oh, and the Chinese involuntary approach is falling apart.
Oh, and the 1970s were only two transitory blips, with long gas lines for only a few months and really bad only in limited areas.
So, I say, Houston, we really do have a problem.
Genocide and mass starvation have happened throughout human history though - nothing is likely to change that until the entire world is living in prosperous economic conditions (which didn't stop Hitler either, but hopefully our memories aren't so short to allow such a thing to happen again).
Transitioning away from fossil fuels may well happen in a "somewhat humane manner" - if we restrict our focus to developed countries. For developing countries, especially those like China and India that are only just now getting the taste of fossil-fuel power, it's really hard to see how things could be smooth sailing. For truly impoverished countries where fossil fuels are not an integral part of economic conditions, things will probably get worse as developed nations increasing find themselves worrying about their own problems, and aid/tourism/medical assistance/export dollars dry up. I don't hold much hope for sub-Saharan Africa at all, sadly.
The best I think we can realistically hope for is a) prevention of out-and-out large-scale warfare and/or collapse of democracy and b) moderately quick recovery time - perhaps within as little as a decade. Given a major problem with making progress today is the entrenched attitudes of consumers and corporations with vested interests, a decade-long recession should largely rid us of those attitudes.
The biggest unknown is how will various nations deal with huge changes in the global balance of power. If the U.S. does as badly as many here expect it to, and Saudi Arabia becomes an enormously powerful country, global politics will be vastly different.
And the first part of that is seeing if there's a way to transition out at all.
Which, despite the insistence of a few die-hard doomsayers, there is.
False dilemma fallacy.
You're holding peak oil mitigation to an unreasonably high standard. The world already has genocide and mass starvation at times, so expecting a post-peak world to not have those is expecting a substantial improvement. If their prevalence is approximately the same post-peak, I would think that would be a reasonable outcome vis-a-vis peak oil.
Of course; however, they're almost certainly rather more well-founded than most of the population numbers people here throw around.
Meaning population growth is tapering off even without harsh resource constraints, making it basically an upper bound. So the pressures associated with population growth should be assumed to be declining towards zero, rather than increasing towards infinity, as they might with a "constant growth rate" model.
Only if you assume that the reason for not volunteering is genetic and inheritable, rather than cultural and changeable.
Care to back up that assertion with evidence?
Care to back up any of your assertions with evidence?
Oil production fell four years in a row - from 1979 through 1983 - by an average of 3.5% per year, and by almost 5% in the first 3 years.
That that caused only a "transitory blip" is perhaps evidence that declining oil production will not cause the massive disruption you seek, rather than evidence that a sudden 13% decline in oil production was minor.
Yeah, we do - nihilists with a doomsday fetish keep throwing up nonsensical statements without providing a shred of evidence to back them up.
Pitt, do you have UN figures for individual years, going from 2000 to the present? from what I've been able to find out elsewhere, population growth remained only static (in percentage terms) from the UN's 2000 figure, and the latest estimate I've seen shows a slight uptick this year. So I see no evidence for falling growth, at present, even though it clearly fell in the past.
True, but then there was capacity to increase production, which did happen. What evidence is there that oil production will increase in the future?
That doesn't seem to be true recently. I've been following the estimates for the last few years. In 2000, the UN estimated growth at 1.14%. The CIA World Fact Book had the estimate at 1.14% in 2005 and 2006. So it looks as though the growth rate had remained stuck for the first half of this decade. However, the latest estimate is 1.167%. One year doesn't give a trend but I don't think you can rely on those UN estimates of falling growth.
Care to provide a link? Because the one source I can find that does have year-by-year estimates - US Census - disagrees with you, and has year-on-year population growth rate (as % of current) staying the same or decreasing every year for the last two decades.
I gave a link (it's surely not hard to find the CIA World Fact Book on the web). However, you seem to now be placing more faith in the US Census figures than the UN figures. I found a UN estimate for 2000 population growth at 1.14, below the figure given in your linked table. I don't have a link to that at present (I found it about a year ago). That 1.14 figure was identical to the world fact book figure that I saw in 2005 and in 2006. The latest estimate from the fact book has it at 1.167%.
The real question I'm posing here:- "is powerdown essential?"
Powerdown will happen because the collection apparatus for photons when you have to PAY for the externalities of collection. Memory of not having to pay for that act as a block. The present society has alot of energy spent supporting what could be called 'not useful' activity.
The "However, I don't see peak oil as an immediate catastrophe for two reasons. " position seems to ignore how people who remember keeping their homes at 80 degrees in the winter and barely had a balanced budget react when another stressor like a sick child hits. Echos of interviews where people say "I'm gonna do what I have to do" during Katrina, combined with trains being stopped over the theft of 200 feet of wire and 'slogans' like "nuke their ass, take their gas" make me ask
How does this all end well?The memory of how things where and the promises that 'if you just do this and you can get back there' is powerful mojo.
"[I] don't see a future with everyone living once again on family farms and communes.."
Who says 'Everybody' will have to be doing the same thing to solve this problem? That is one of those hyperbolic stereotypes of those who say there are things we CAN do, that there are ways to improve our chances. It's one of the big marketing challenges for solar electric, and even for efficiency measures, which is that it has 'Hippy' written all over it, as much as this is a silly anachronism at this point. Just the same, the image sticks, as shown by your commune comment.
'A problem that was created with intelligence won't be solved with ignorance.' Einstein
The answer is no. We must consider that the harnessing of renewables (I'm discounting nuclear, since it is not renewable) requires non-renewable resources. And that leads to the more general case of the world using up (and usually at growing rates) other finite resources. Yes, population growth is possibly the number one problem (and, the latest CIA World Fact Book estimate has it up to 1.167% growth now), but our refusal to give up economic growth and rising living standards (not necessarily equated to quality of life) is just as big a problem, particularly with the rapid growth in China, India and some other countries.
Unless we change course, in both population and how we organize societies, we're stuffed.
That's why we shouldn't do it. "Power down" means decreasing the standard of living as fossil fuels deplete, and trying to maintain networks without the wherewithal to run them. This would be very difficult to do even without politics in the way.
We have no shortage of energy. A 1/4 acre lot in Kansas receives an average of 1.5 megawatt-hours of sunlight per day. There's an estimated 72 terawatts of available wind power world-wide (current human energy consumption from all sources is roughly 13 TW). We do not need to power down, we ought to re-power.
The US has spent perhaps $500 billion on the Iraq war thus far. That $500 billion could have paid the $3000 premium to put hybrid technology in 100 million cars (roughly 6 years of US purchases), plus buy 40 GW of PV systems at $5/watt. That money could have gone a long way toward eliminating the problem.
It's no wonder your view of the future is so dark; the only cure you can see is more of the disease.
I recommend Thom Hartmann's book, "The Last Rays of Ancient Sunlight". Less energy, simpler living do NOT equate to a lower 'standard' of living, but higher. The current measure of our standard of living seems to be tied to our consumption, rather than quality of life. Instead of measuring property ownership(which equates to additional government protection, disposal, clutter, and overtime worked), we should measure the standard of living by how much time is actually spend working (for someone else?). People who are constantly worried and working are constantly buying and burning energy they don't need to get to places they don't need to go. If we are forced into a more laid-back, conserving lifestyle, perhaps we wouldn't be going to war to prove we can go to war. Just because no other civilization hasn't powered down intelligently doesn't mean we CAN'T. We have the technology, the networks, and the resources to do it. We only need the right motivation. Almost everyone polled wants a simpler life, so why make it complicated? Give people what they want. Turn off the switches, park the cars, set up systems of shared transport and shorter work weeks. Most people are 'working' at jobs that don't produce anything necessary to the future of the human race, anyway.
Put them at home in a garden. It doesn't have to be a commune. $500 billion doesn't even begin to cover the cost of Iraq, especially when depreciation and wear and tear on the equipment is considered. Plus interest.
"Doing more with less" doesn't mean doing things we don't need done. It means doing more USEFUL things with less resources wasted. If we COULD have fusion or some other cheap energy, then what? What, exactly, should be done by humans in the long term. I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve blowing up things for the sake of blowing up things, or buying things (eventully, leading to blowing up things) for the sake of buying things.
Just because it works for you doesnt make it universally true. You have a vision for utopia; Guess what, you arent the first. Millions have died for such dreams over the centuries and we're no closer.
Millions have died for which dreams over the centuries?
Are you talking about the hippies that went off to live off the land or are you talking about the Amish?
(Or are you talking about something that you though he was talking about, but he really wasnt..)
Cheers, Dom
Dont be obtuse. People have fought wars and staged bloody revolutions over ideologies is all. What he views as a happier life will not be shared by the rest of the world, and getting people to fall in line requires force.
Achso!
Now I understand. You were talking about a very specific historic event (ideology) called communism.
< obtusion - pedantism>
It is usually better to give the baby a name than to assume you are talking about the same thing as your partner/opponent.
Now, on communism - wasn't the idea NOT to power down but to take the power away from the few (the capitalists) and give it to the many?
Communism (USSR) industrialized hell-bent, and was not in the least interested in powering down.
Or were you talking about some other specific "event"? Do you mean some other "idealistic" world view? Maybe you could point to islamic fundamentalism or something - but again, the idea here was not powering down, but to TAKE POWER FROM OTHERS.
Nationalism (Nazi Germany and Japan, breaking up of Yugoslavia): TAKING POWER FROM OTHERS
Emperialism: TAKING POWER FROM OTHERS
Terrorism: TAKIMG POWER FROM OTHERS
"getting people to fall in line requires force."
I agree with you 110%! And if there's no open warfare, it's called *Politics*: a subtler from of COERSION.
Who has intentionally powered down in history, other than 3rd century desert monks, a few hippies in the '70s and the Amish?
But please - if you're going to refer to something (refuting someone else's non-differentiated claims), give the baby a name.
< /obtusion - pedantism>
Cheers, Dom
Munich
Or the French Revolution.
Or the English Civil War.
Or the American Civil War.
Or...
You (I hope) get the idea. People have died for many ideologies and views of "how things should be" over the years. Communism, reviled though it may still be in America, is only one of them.
Pitt, now let me get pedantic again.
I get your point, but you don't get mine.
My comment was not about Communism or ideological revolution. My comment was, that Dekazin assumed something was being discussed which wasn't.
The French Revolution was not about powering down, was it?
The English Revolution was not about powering down, was it?
The Am. Civil war was promoting industrialization instead of slaves (powering up), now, wasn't it?
Anyway, Do you see Autiegrav saying anything about Revolution?
I see him saying something about using less.
Besides, I agreed 110% with Dekazin, remember?:
"and getting people to fall in line requires force"
Yes, that's right, even for idealists!
Please read my comments in context next time.
Thank you.
Dom
The hell it wasn't. Read it again and stop being obstinate and off topic. Theres no way you will get me or most of the industrialized world to volantarily power down.
There you have it, the pithy epitaph of our arrogant folly.
Equally, you are susceptible to the folly that "powering down" is the best way we can give ourselves a secure future. I certainly don't buy it.
Did you miss the title article? Powerdown is not necissary; We aren't running out of energy.
To wizofaus & Dezakin:
Aye, I am well aware of the article title, but I guess right there is my biggest mistake. Silly me. I was figuring our problems are not just about energy and how much of it there is to be had but rather how and what we do with it on this earth that counts. In short, the reality based contextual interplay between our unlimited desires juxtaposed with our human liabilities and this finite earthly creation is what is crucial. Or so I thought.
Dezakin's sentiment, which amounts to nothing more than, I am and I (we) will have it, is but the individual expression of a supremely self-centered cultural ethic devoid of any context to earthly creation as something humans are dependent upon, and absolutely so. Gee, I'm glad to have it pointed out it just ain't so!
It's great to now know that the western (techno-industrialized) belief that whatever we don't like about how things are we can control it so that one day (much sooner than later, of course; like tomorrow) it'll all be better and all without any repercussions within or upon the human and biotic realm. Man, that's a relief!
What I really don't get is: If there is so much energy to be had for fulfilling such energetic desires as Dezakin makes clear he will not do without, why don't we have it and wizofaus' "secure future" now? After all, it's all there to be had and has been there all along, right?
Ah, what the hell. Screw all this nonsense of energy shortages. You're right, fellas, and that's great! Now excuse me while I run out to buy that Hummer I've always wanted, the diesel powered motorboat and my vacation home in the sun! Man, life's great getting it my way! No powerdown for me either. What a world, baby! I'm the man! Hoooowee!
Beam me up, Scotty.
If human beings had perfect foresight and were even close to rational most of the time, no doubt we would have planned everything perfectly and obtained our "secure future" by now. We don't, and we're not, and we won't ever obtain a truly secure future. But we will keep doing what we do best, which is approaching new challenges with a will to solve them, building on what has come before, and continuing our ambitions for a better future.
Those that believe that the technology we have now (or had 50 years ago, or 100, or whatever) is more than enough are welcome to stick with it, but I can almost guarantee you that if the entire population of the Earth made that same decision, we wouldn't be around much longer - a few centuries at best. At any rate, it simply isn't going to happen, so wishing for it is seems fairly pointless.
I'm glad to see you grasp the essence of our problem as I proposed it. Still, it would help if you defined a "secure future" by your reckoning because I do think there are (or were) ways to, if not to "truly" or completely 'secure' the future, at least 'assure' a more viable future for our species and all the rest of earthly life than our presently arranged prospects grant. Yet, this does not mean living an uncivilized life. Of course, we would have to define what that means for each of us and how we would envision securing it.
I question this proposition of yours, especially the idea of a "better future" built upon our "ambitions." Haven't we already established that such a future as so determined by man (particularly our techno-industrial model of ambitions) is inherently not assured? If so, how does one suppose it can ever be "better" by building upon that which is failing us? By my way of reckoning, better would, of necessity, mean more assurance for our species and all the rest of earthly creation's survival tomorrow (the future), not less.
To which I say: Those that believe that the technology we have now (or might have in 50 years, or 100, or whatever) will be enough are welcome to stick with it, but I guarantee you that if the entire population of the earth makes this decision, we won't be around much longer -- a few decades at best. At any rate, it simply isn't going to happen, so wishing for it seems fairly pointless.
Aside from mirroring hyperbole, the point is simply this: Man's attempt to fulfill his unlimited ambitions built upon a failed model of relationship to the earth is more than tragic, it's insane. But that's where we at. Until mankind (of the 21st century industrial based civilized kind) recognizes the true context of his place on this planet, he'll continue to do not at all what is his best to fit in and better ensure his survival, but continue to ruin it for himself and all the rest of life he is dependent upon.
As Aldo Leopold recognized: "The question is, does the educated citizen know he is only a cog in an ecological mechanism? That if he will work with that mechanism his mental health and material well being can expand indefinitely? But that if he refuses to work with it, it will ultimately grind him to dust?"
No matter how much energy there is to be had, it is all about how and what we use it for -- our survival or our selfish petty ambitions of a "better future" we can never have.
In any event, wizofaus, I would suggest that despite the disagreement of minutia expressed here, based on other thoughts of yours, there is probably a good range of semi, if not total, agreement in some other regards. Nuance is easily misunderstood here. Not so with Dezakin and that is what I thought worth pointing out. And to the extent that his statement encapsulates our culture's self-centered arrogance my original reply still stands.
To the future, better or not...
I guarantee that the experiment with the whole of human population consuming as much as the average american will be tried, and prove you wrong within fifty years.
For a population of, say, 9 billion humans (est. pop in 2050) to be consuming as much as the average American today, we'd effectively be consuming at at least 10 times our current rate. Estimates of many available critical resources give us in the order of 100 or 200 years at current consumption rates, so they would potentially be fall to 10-20 years' supply. The effort that would be required to support the scale of recycling necessary to enable us to continue to make do with what's available would be truly phenomenal, and I can't see how we're going to get there within 50 years.
And that's all without taking into consideration the economic and political reality of transforming the third world into a thriving economy within that time frame.
Eventually we may well get to a point where the whole human population is able to enjoy a high standard living with levels of consumption not dissimilar to many in the first world today, but it will take a lot more than 50 years, and most likely a significant reduction in population too.
Now the baby has a name.
Thank you.
No, you don't. My point is that you're the one misunderstanding the discussion.
Dezakin said:
i.e., imagining utopia is easier than achieving it, and muscular attempts to do so have lead to millions of deaths.
All of those wars I listed involved a common thread of one group trying to enforce its vision of the common good - a limited utopia, if you will.
None of them involved powering down, but, then again, that wasn't Dezakin's point, now was it?
You had a good point in your initial post that Dezakin was talking about forcing a lifestyle into people whereas the previous poster had not talked directly about that; however, you tried to take that way, way too far - even after Dezakin explicitly clarified that he was indeed talking about that - and ended up with a non sequitur.
If you were a little more direct and tried to make fewer strained analogies, it'd be harder to make those kinds of errors. Much clearer, too.
I can see that Dezakin and Pitt are off topic in this case. Sorry guys, but something just hasn't clicked for you yet.
Utopia was suggested by Dezakin in response to
This does not mean "ideologies" must be adopted. It mearly suggests there is a different way of looking at quality of life issues that aren't about ideology. This is not about following the Amish or hippies. Bringing civil wars and revolutions into the dialog doesn't make sense (unless something hasn't clicked for you yet).
Civilization isn't the same as humanity. History doesn't begin with the plowing of fields. Cities define people separated from the natural world upon which they depend and/or people living in numbers that exceed the carrying capacity of the land upon which they inhabit (food must be transported to them). By definition, civilization, or city culture, requires work performed by other people or the equivalent in cheap energy.
As cheap energy declines, it means many of us will be sent back to the fields to support this "non negotiable". Unless, of course, we abandon the paradigm of living beyond our natural means. Sure we can get away with it for a good long time, but the longer we keep pretending to be something special in nature, the worst the consequences when our fate finally arrives.
Earth was not "given" to us. We must participate, or face our end (perhaps taking 70% of all other life with us). After Peak Oil and Climate Change, you still have to reckon with Extinction Rates and Overshoot. All the while, life would be much more pleasant without any of this cheap energy. All you have to do is stop fighting to get away from nature. It's silly to think otherwise (not an ideology, just a fact of life).
"...life would be much more pleasant without any of this cheap energy"
That sounds very much an ideology, and one you can't possibly prove.
I agree that cheap energy has been a reason that we've allowed ourselves to get to a point where we have serious problems on our hand, but there's no reason that should necessarily be the case. A few decades of considerably more expensive energy, and a bit of soul-searching might just change attitudes enough to allow us a future where we have ample cheap energy (from whatever source) and a robust pace of technological advance both contributing towards a style of existence that doesn't continually degrade our natural environment.
There will always be a place for those who wish to live "outside the system", and stick with older technologies (and it's all relative - even the Amish rely on sophisticated technologies and agriculture that took millenia to develop and perfect), but it's never going to be a realistic or even desirable option for the bulk of the population.
The word "life" is not exclusive to humanity. Life won't be more pleasant with civilization still around and no more cheap energy. For life to be more pleasant, civilization must go. As it is, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, and Human Population Overshoot will be sad facts in the short history of civilization and long history of humanity.
The Great Forgetting:
http://www.davidsheen.com/b/b1.htm
We gave it a try and cities require somebody having to do the work getting the rest of us food and goods, as if nature never tended to this before we made it into work. If we try to replace this human labor with machines, we will then need cheap energy, which it self only carries the veneer of reducing labor (see "One Straw Revolution" by Masanobu Fukuoka).
As Fukuoka began exploring what "farm work" was "required", he found very little actually required (understand "do nothing" as an overstatement and avoid negligence). In fact, he discovered countless "modern technologies" created ever greater work. The more you understand about human ecology, the more you will understand what I'm typing about.
Humanity has only very recently even known about millions of fungi and millions of bacteria in places our advanced technologies never thought to look. Though our human minds are certainly impressive, we couldn't possibly grok the whole (not even with computers; think unknown quantities of snowflaking many-to-many relations for all you data modelers).
This is not ideology, just telling you that you must breath clean air, drink clean water, and eat healthy food, which science hasn't begun understanding as much as you might think. The Amish have nothing to do with this, as they are just a pre-industrial version of the same culture. After cheap energy is gone, you'll have to consider the Amish lifestyle to continue the failed experiment called civilization. If you'd like a less grim choice, consider your attachment of civilization to humanity.
otherwise....
Begin here: http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/
or here: http://www.tagari.com/
or here: http://fungi.com/
buy a farm: http://permaculture.org.au/2007/03/01/tagari-farm-designed-and-establish...
learn: http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/permaculture/
For the meaning we're discussing, it is.
In world of 7, 8, 9 billion human beings, there will be plenty of room for any of those ideas (permaculture especially, which may go some way towards weaning us off the need for oil/gas-based fertilizers and pesticides).
If you don't care for civilisation, no-one's forcing you to be a part of it. We have a model for what humanity as a whole is like without civilisation - millenia of tribal hunter/gatherer societies, who engaged in constant violent attacks, were constantly susceptible to disease, starvation and predation, forced to practice infanticide to keep their populations in check etc. etc.
Civilisation may be a veneer, but it's a veneer that allows to avoid a style of existence that few would choose voluntarily. You have your utopian vision of what our existence could be like, and are welcome to it. I have mine too, except that I'm realistic enough to accept that human nature is too flawed and the future too unpredictable for it to be likely.
There are too many flaws in your message to get every detail. However, I suggest you actually research some of these claims. I believe one suggested reading was the start to this dialog.
See if you can find this out there:
Those quotes demonstrate precisely that people tend to prefer to stick with the devil they know - another reason that no-one is going to voluntarily ditch civilisation.
At any rate, it strikes me that many Native American peoples were quite advanced, and possessed a form of civilisation that was almost certainly not the case for the bulk of human existence (i.e. the first 195,000 years).
It doesn't surprise me in the least that they saw little attractive about what C17th European culture appeared to be offering.
There is much to praise about the Native American way of life, and I don't believe any objective case can be made to show that it is measurably better or worse than modern industrial civilisation.
But do note, there's no way that America could support a population of 300 million living as the natives did - I gather it was at most 2 million before Columbus arrived.
So what do you propose the remaining 298 million do?
E-P, the current course of action may not seem rational to you and me, but it seems to make sense to someone, does it not? So, we have two problems here -- one technological and the other (far more difficult to deal with) political.
It makes a huge amount of sense if you consider it as blatant corruption: using public office and influence for private gain.
The API quiz correctly says that the US oil majors have only a tiny amount of the world's oil reserves (and countries like Russia and Venezuela like to confiscate their investments when it looks profitable to do so). The left was calling the war "blood for oil", and I dismissed them... until now. The new Iraqi hydrocarbon law, written behind closed doors but with the plans for it laid out in detail even before the 2000 elections, is the smoking gun. The whole point of the effort was and is to move control of the last major untapped oil deposits on Earth to the international oil companies. The US taxpayers (or whoever gets stuck with worthless US debt) pay the bill. Public expense, private gain. They have also done what they can to block the alternatives. From the killing of the PNGV in 2001, it all fits together.
Depending how much traction that narrative gets, the disillusionment and consequent backlash could make the political job a lot easier.
It doesn't hurt that a prosecutor with a gift for words has already written an indictment of Bush for conspiracy to defraud.
The left was calling the war "blood for oil", and I dismissed them... until now.
I am impressed that you've been able to change your mind.
And thanks for the link to De La Vega's "indictment". Recommended and sobering reading.
I find this a particularly unconvincing argument, yet I've heard it often. It implies that we have the resources to harness as much of that energy as we want, that diverting any amount of sunlight to our own use will never have any side-effects and that energy is the only resource problem that we'll ever have (and also that it is the only problem we face).
It's also a fallacy to assume that because you see a solution (regardless of the validity of it), then that solution will be implemented, either at all or in a timely fashion.
No it does not. It only tells you where the energy is; going where the energy is not guarantees failure, but going where it is does not guarantee success.
Technologies like the $2/watt solar vapor engine that the MIT students built for Lesotho... that would practically guarantee success.
Well, of course. However, if nobody recognizes that a solution is possible or requires certain things, it is almost guaranteed that it will not be implemented or the attempts will fail. First things first.
So the availability of energy does not mean that we can harness it in any amounts we choose. Consequently, we need to realise that, at some point, we need to figure out how to live with a static supply of energy, not a growing supply. And probably at a lower level than we harness now.
Consequently, we need to realise that, at some point, we need to figure out how to live with a static supply of energy, not a growing supply.
Right on the head of the nail.
I would even say that it is not so much the exact level of this "static supply of energy" which matters but HOW it is somehow enforced by social/political/technical/whatever regulatory feedback.
This is the "safety valve" which we should look for and build.
The mistake both of you make is that the "limited" supply of energy is several orders of magnitude greater than what humanity is using now, even if we limit ourselves to the disc of the Earth.
I don't make that mistake at all. This huge "supply" of energy doesn't come free; it takes all sorts of other much more limited resources to harness it and use it. I thought I'd make that plain, but obviously not.
Consequently, we will have to make do, at some point, with a non-expanding supply of energy. Unfortunately, many simply assume that such a point is in the distant future, so I don't expect any preparations for such a situation until it stares us in the face.
This is the exact assumption *that cannot be made*.
Where the level is, is the unknown.
Engineer-Poet says it's higher.
You say it's lower. I *assume* it's many degrees higher, but that the transition away from FF is the big "if" (will it work?? - that's why I hang out at this board) - but I hardly know where that limit is!
Like many here have pointed out, the earth is hardly a closed system.
Cheers, Dom
The earth receives very few resources from outside - apart from solar energy. So saying it is hardly a closed system implies a dismissal of limits.
However, you're right that I should not make the assumption that energy will ultimately be harnessable at a lower level than we have now. Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion (and it remains an opinion) is that the level is much greater than now. It is this prevailing assumption that is likely to hinder any kind of relatively calm transition to some stable system. On the other hand, an assumption that the level is lower (or at least lower on a per person basis, globally, is less likely to adversely affect our ability to transition, provided that assumption is acted upon.
I'm not sure what you mean by "if". We will have to transition away from fossil fuels so I assume that you mean transition with no essential change in our way of life. I really can't see that working because it requires continuous growth (and not at a linear rate).
"The earth receives very few resources from outside"
Right now I would say that we are only dealing with energies from the Earth-Surface-System.
Drilling/Mining for FF was the first step outside of this system (although very limitted in total amount and non-renewable; or you could call them "surface" energies collected from the past), geothermal would be another step outside. Satelites collecting solar energy outside of the atmosphere are also (although only to an infintessimal amount) already outside of the system, but serving it!
One step could be mining deuterium from the moon. Might be Sci-Fi, might not be.
"So saying it is hardly a closed system implies a dismissal of limits."
Exactly. I am dismissing presently perceived limits. Whether these perceived limits will present real limits is the question.
"I'm not sure what you mean by "if"."
Sorry, I meant if we transition *successfully*, whatever that means (my meaning would be: no significant/sudden collapse i.e. the proverbial soft landing/transition, whether we power down or not).
"I really can't see [the transition] working because it requires continuous growth (and not at a linear rate)."
Not necessarily. It would probably mean continued growth at the present - at least til a new level (of consumption/energy collection) is reached. Whether growth continues/can continue after that next step is of no concern now.
Cheers, Dom
Nitpick: Deuterium is far too common in ordinary water for this to ever be likely. Its often assumed that He3 would be a good source of fusion fuel present on the moon, but its also ridiculous seeing you could manufacture it from neutron irradiation of lithium far easier.
:-)
No problem.
I'm no expert and I don't usually mind nitpicking..
Cheers, Dom
Well, I'd profoundly disagree with that. By disregarding possible limits now, we make it harder, in the future, to cope with those limits, because we just continue consuming more and become more reliant on that level and on growth.
Aahhhh,
I figured you wouldn't like that statement.-)
I think I'm saying too much here.
The "next level" to me is not what we will be presented with in 10 years. This will be what we have after the turbulance of PO and the digestion of the flattening (my assumption) population growth, with or without a "long emergency", with all its sollutions and failures.
I do not know how that world will look.
I do not know what level of consumption, whether sustainable or not, we will have.
I do not know if we will be ready to attack the next level (eg moving to outer space / colonizing our upper atmosphere / reaching the "singularity" / what have you) at all.
So why worry about the next-next level?
It would be like asking the first farmers to start thinking about planning for industrialization, or even about modelling society in the River Valley Civilizations or dealing with metalurgy - just things which did not exist in their paradigms..
Dig?
Cheers, Dom
Sorry; I quoted you out of context. You said:
So growth is necessary, in your opinion, to reach the next step. However, you've now said that it is not so and "the next level" is merely what we'll have after the coming energy crisis is over (whatever that means).
It's a sad thought that whatever trials the human race goes through over the next few years or decades, the remnants will simply pick itself up and start the party all over again, learning nothing from even, what will then be, the recent past.
Just saw a news article about Clove flavored cigarettes targeted to Indonesia. How is this related to Peak Oil and transition? I think it shows a good case where we KNOW that cigarettes are bad for the population, yet investors see a profit potential by owning stock of tobacco companies. The companies see a profit opportunity by targeting sectors of the population and creating the market, even though the consequences are known and can be seen as immoral. Do the directors of Philip Morris not understand that hooking a new generation of users in a 3rd world country will end badly for many of those people? How is it different from Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the NOCs?
For an effective PowerDown strategy, powerful corporations will need to promote the effort because the see a profit potential greater than the potential of the current status quo.
Just my take,
ej
Great comment. However, I do not see the majority of corporates joining in this ideal...
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
"All nations are preparing for war" Tell me what Denmark is devoting to preparation for war? How about Costa Rica? Burkino Faso? Bhutan?
One of the remarkable things about the last 60 years is the lack of war between nations. There have been a few surrogate wars between the US and the Soviet Union but mostly acts of war have been between groups of people within nations using the technology of the 19th century. A large percentage of the Earth's surface has been free of open warfare since 1945. North America hasn't had major warfare since 1865.
thomas, funny that you should first name Denmark. Denmark is a Bush ally in the "War on Terror."
With all due respect to you, it strikes me that your point that "a large percentage of the earth's surface has been free of open warfare" is a bit sheltered -- even naive. First of all, we live now with "the bomb" and this -- so far, anyway -- has served to discourage open hostilities amongst major powers. But how long will this hold, especially as petroleum, nat gas and other resources become limited?
I don't have the time to add up all of the numbers but I would remind you that, since 1945, several million have died in America's wars alone -- and those are just wars in which America was directly involved. Throw in the proxy wars and the number is certainly several times that. Then, you've got Rwanda, Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, etc.
The old methods of fighting wars are fast becoming obsolete -- much to the frustration of those with half-trillion dollar military budgets. Going forward, it's going to be 4GW and 5GW. These conflicts may not make the imperial history books but they will be costly and bloody, nonetheless.
* 1945-1949 Chinese Civil War
* 1945-1949 Indonesian National Revolution
* 1946-1949 Greek Civil War
* 1946-1954 First Indochina War
* 1947 Paraguayan Civil War
* 1947-1948 Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
* 1947-1948 Palestinian Civil War
* 1947-1949 First Arab-Israeli War
* 1948 Costa Rican Civil War
* 1948-1960 Malayan Emergency
* 1948-1965 Sino-Taiwanese War
* 1949-1959 Chinese Invasion of Tibet
* 1950-1953 Korean War
* 1950-1961 Indonesian Civil War
* 1952-1955 Tunisian War of Independence
* 1952-1960 Mau Mau Uprising
* 1954-1975 Second Indochina War
o 1959-1975 Vietnam War
o 1962-1975 Laotian Civil War
o 1967-1975 Cambodian Civil War
* 1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence
* 1955-1972 First Sudanese Civil War
* 1956-1957 Suez War (Second Arab-Israeli War)
* 1956 Hungarian Uprising
* 1956-1959 Cuban Revolution
* 1957-1958 Ifni War
* 1958 Lebanon Crisis of 1958
* 1958-1987 Columbian Civil War
* 1960-1965 "Congo Crisis"
* 1960-1996 Guatemalan Civil War
* 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion
* 1961-1991 Eritrean War of Independence
* 1961-1974 Portuguese Colonial War
o 1961-1974 Angolan War of Independence
o 1963-1974 Guinea-Bissauan War of Independence
o 1964-1974 Mozambican War of Independence
* 1961 Invasion of Goa
* 1962 Sino-Indian War
* 1962 Indonesian Annexation of Western New Guinea
* 1962-1966 Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation
* 1962-1970 Yemen Civil War
* 1962-1975 Dhofar Rebellion
* 1963 Sand War
* 1963-1967 Shifta War
* 1964-Present Colombian Armed Conflict
* 1965 Dominican Civil War
* 1965 Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
* 1965-1993 Chadian Civil War
* 1965-1989 South African Border War
* 1966-1988 Namibian War of Independence
* 1966-1979 Second Chimurenga(Rhodesian Bush War)
* 1967 Chola Incident
* 1967 Six-Day War (Third Arab-Israeli War)
* 1967-1970 Nigerian Civil War
* 1967-1989 Second Malayan Emergency
* 1967-Present Communist Insurgency in the Philippines
* 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia
* 1968-1970 War of Attrition
* 1969-Present Islamic Insurgency in the Philippines
* 1969 Football War
* 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict
* 1969-1994 The Troubles in Northern Ireland
* 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War
* 1971 Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
* 1972 Libya-Sudan conflict
* 1973 Yom Kippur War (Fourth Arab-Israeli War)
* 1974 Turkish Invasion of Cyprus
* 1974-1991 Ethiopian Civil War
* 1974-2002 Angolan Civil War
* 1975-1991 Western Sahara conflict
* 1975-1991 Lebanese Civil War
* 1975-1978 Indonesian invasion of East Timor
* 1975-1998 East Timorese War of Independence
* 1975-2006 Independence War in Cabinda
* 1975-1989 Cambodian-Vietnamese War
* 1976-1983 Argentina's "Dirty War"
* 1977-2002 Mozambican Civil War
* 1977 Libyan-Egyptian War
* 1977 Hutt River Province-Australian War
* 1977-1978 Ogaden War
* 1978 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon
* 1978-2005 The Aceh War
* 1978-1979 Uganda-Tanzania War
* 1978-1987 Chadian-Libyan conflict
* 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War
* 1979-1982 First Chadian Civil War
* 1979-1989 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
* 1980-1992 El Salvador Civil War
* 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War
* 1980-present Internal Conflict in Peru
* 1981 Paquisha War
* 1981-1986 Ugandan Bush War
* 1982 Falklands War
* 1982 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon
* 1983 U.S. Invasion of Grenada
* 1983-Present Sri Lankan Civil War
* 1983-2005 Second Sudanese Civil War
* 1984-present Kurdish insurgency in Turkey
* 1984-present Free Papua Movement
* 1984 Siachin War
* 1985 Agacher Strip War
* 1987-1993 First Intifada
* 1987-present Second Ugandan Civil War
* 1988-Present Casamance Conflict
* 1988-Present Somali Civil War
* 1988-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh war
* 1989-1991 Mauritania-Senegal Border War
* 1989-1990 U.S. Invasion of Panama
* 1989-1992 Afghan Civil War
* 1989-1996 First Liberian Civil War
* 1989 Romanian Revolution
* 1984-present Kashmir conflict
* 2003-present Balochistan conflict, Pakistan
* 2003-present Central African War
o 2003-present Darfur conflict, Sudan
o 2004-2007 Central African Republic Civil War
o 2005-present Chad-Sudan conflict
* 2003-present Iraq War
* 2004-2006 Waziristan War
* 2004 Haiti rebellion
* 2004-2007 Sa'dah conflict
* 2004-present South Thailand insurgency
* 2006 Israel-Lebanon War
* 2006-present Palestinian Civil War
* 2006-present War in Somalia
* 2007 North Lebanon conflict
Homo sapiens in all his glory.
Isn't it though? There is a reason that paleontologists have called our species "red of tooth and claw" and it's not because of covergirl makeup.
[begin sarcasm] Amazing how peaceful the world is, eh? Maybe it can get a little more "peaceful". After all "peace" is "profits", don't you know?[end sarcasm]
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
I'm going to grow up and be an arms dealer.
screw saving people, ima help kill them and make a quick buck.
shoddy arms, misfiring bullets, unstable munitions, screw you all! Ima strip the copper out your houses and make bullets to kill you with it all! Melt down your cars, turn aluminum for folding stocks, bore axles for missle tubes, turn gas to napalm, and burn it all down.
ILL BE RICH, RICH!!! RIIICCCHHH!!!
A peaceful half-century century indeed.
Don't become a Buddhist. The world doesn't need more Buddhists. Do practice compassion. The world does need more compassion. -- Dalai Lama
Plus present Afghanistan war...
Wow - is this all you got to offer?
I think the first point I'd like to make is that this is an energy blog - therefore, I'd ask of you is to provide a revised list showing conflicts that are directly related to grabs on energy resources. Socio-economic depravation or sectarian and racial discrimination won't do I'm afraid. How many of these conflicts are related to energy?
Second point then is you need to show these data in the context of deaths, casualties and economic cost - on a global population / GDP basis - if you want to illustrate some point about the 20th / 21st century world declining into armed conflict and chaos - trends need to be compared.
Third - I'd just like to piick up on this point:
* 1969-1994 The Troubles in Northern Ireland
And point out that "Southern Ireland" is now one of the most prosperous countries in the world - since joining the EU - and is dragging the N along with it. And I won't go into discussing the US role in sponsoring terrorism here! But its well worth noting the benefits of a political and equitable solution.
Your list confirms my point about open warfare between nations is rare compared to what occurred before 1945. North America has been free of open warfare since 1865 which was 80 years before the "bomb". It is hard to say if the Balkans War of the 1990s was within a nation or between nations because it certainly started out as a civil war. With this one exception Europe has been free of open warfare between nations for the last 62 years. When you add in the vast territory of the Soviet Union to that of Europe and North and South America It all adds up to a majority of the Earth's land being free of war between nations.
The USA though has been the biggest violator of international peace since 1950 by invading Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Domino Theory didn't die in Viet Nam and has been the dominant doctrine of US foreign policy for over 50 years. We also have troops in over 100 more countries. It is way past the time to bring the troops home from more than just Iraq.
whoa, and you say others are having geek fantasies?
Some geeks dream of Utopia, others prefer Conan.
"To Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the Women.." Ahnold..
or to jump accents over to Kissinger..
'Nonsense, our geeks are better than their geeks'