<DrumBeat: August 8, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 9, 2007>

190 comments on Energy Transitions Past and Future

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

souperman2 on August 8, 2007 - 11:41am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Thank you Professor Cleveland for this prespective as it greatly helped me to put things in place in my mind a bit more.

This seems like the place to ask a question that has been plaguing me reciently.

If managed properly did we ever have enough resources/ FF to break our Earthly bonds and become God like, Citizens of the Universe, expand our horizons and existence infinitely?

Or do we just get to play around until resources depleated, game over?

Sorry if this is off topic. Perhaps some could point me to refrence sources to address this at least?

Thanks in advance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on August 8, 2007 - 11:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I dunno about god-like, but it is a question of how we use our planetary resources to "progress," (which then also begs the definition of "progress") so it's not ridiculously OT--here's an answer from Michio Kaku (an esteemed theoretical physicist): "The Physics of Extraterrestrial Civilizations"

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/physics_of_et.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
marcosdumay on August 8, 2007 - 2:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"No matter how many millions of years separate us from them, they still must obey the iron laws of physics, which are now advanced enough to explain everything from sub-atomic particles to the large-scale structure of the universe, through a staggering 43 orders of magnitude."

I just love when people say that kind of thing. The laws of physics explain everything on the Universe... Except when they fail.

And they do fail a few times. Other times one set of them don't even agree with the other...

But we know all that is to be known about the Universe!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on August 8, 2007 - 2:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But we know all that is to be known about the Universe!

Except when we don't. :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geek7 on August 8, 2007 - 4:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"No matter how many millions of years separate us from them, they still must obey the iron laws of physics, which are now advanced enough to explain everything from sub-atomic particles to the large-scale structure of the universe, through a staggering 43 orders of magnitude."

marcosdumay:

Where did this quotation come from? What is it's relation to discussion of Prof. Cleveland's article? Am I missing something?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
U-47 on August 8, 2007 - 11:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From Michio Kaku: "The Physics of Extraterrestrial Civilizations" the link provided earlier by Prof. Goose.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 8, 2007 - 10:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Michio Kaku seems to spend far more time in front of TV cameras and radio mikes than in the lab...just how "esteemed" is he really? Quite a few times I've heard him state obviously questionable things with certainty - which may well be just dumbing-down for the sake of the audience, but I have much more time for science writers and journalists who treat their audience with genuine respect.
When he wins his first Nobel prize I'll consider him "esteemed".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Earthbound Misfit on August 9, 2007 - 3:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Michio Kaku seems to spend far more time in front of TV cameras and radio mikes than in the lab...just how "esteemed" is he really?

I think he is attempting to fill the rather large shoes of the late Carl Sagan. IMHO, it would help to have a charismatic figure like this in the Peak Oil and Climate Change camp(s). A popular communicator is required to reach Joe Public. Could Michio Kaku fill the bill?

We all must choose between what is easy, and what is right.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 8, 2007 - 10:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

By definition, an advanced civilization must grow faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes. Since large meteor and comet impacts take place once every few thousand years, a Type I civilization must master space travel to deflect space debris within that time frame, which should not be much of a problem. Ice ages may take place on a time scale of tens of thousands of years, so a Type I civilization must learn to modify the weather within that time frame.

Much as I agree with him on this, I wish I could be as confident that it "should not much of a problem".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on August 9, 2007 - 3:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Remember, our own planetary civilization is considered "Type 0" because we have not mastered our own planet yet, causing huge damage to it, disrupting its weather patterns, etc. A Type I civilization, by definition, lives in ecological equilibrium with its environment while having the ability to manipulate thousands to millions of times our current energy usage.

Thus, I think you are missing the point. IF a civilization is Type I already, THEN it has already mastered energy levels far, far beyond our own. Under such circumstances, a civilization that controls energy levels thousands to millions of times our own would have no problem with near space control.

Now, if you are arguing that you can't see us getting there, I can understand your argument. But if you grant that a civilization that has already reached that extraordinary level of energy manipulation could exist, then you must accept that control of local space for them would be trivial.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 9, 2007 - 4:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The overall implication was that humanity has, at best, a couple of thousand years to get to the point that we're able to deflect civilisation-threatening asteroids. Personally I'd hope to see it within the next two centuries (for the sake of my great-great-great-grandchildren!). I certainly don't say I can't see us ever getting there, but there's a lot that has to change before we even have a chance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on August 9, 2007 - 9:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We have had the technological means for detecting and deflecting most asteroids for about 30 years. But as a civilization we have been preoccupied with other problems and wants and has not turned the technology into functioning systems. It would take about a decade and use the same skillset and manufacturing capability as for planetary probes, aviation and advanced weapon systems.

Its not our most immediate problem to solve but it would be a good example for serious long term planning.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 9, 2007 - 2:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And yet many people here see the only solution to the "long term viability" of human civilisation being to "power down" and end economic growth. Yet without advanced technology and high levels of surplus energy and wealth, we will never have the chance of protecting ourselves against such a disaster.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NZSanctuary on August 9, 2007 - 11:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Quite the opposite actually.

Powerdown for society means more energy and resources available for important projects. You (not just you personally, most people here do it) conflate powerdown with some sort of lack of technology and lack of availability of energy to do anything.

Voluntary powerdown means that we change (among other things):

(1) Population. A reduction not only means more resources available per capita, but makes sustainable options more feasible and frees up resources for important global projects.

(2) The economy and our notion of economic "growth". Our economy is based on a system that fattens the few and bleeds the rest dry. This system can only squander resources. Just because it is our current system I think people have a hard time imagining anything else... but then TV and pop-culture tends to dull the imagination. Economic theory and financial theory are also tied up with current legal and political structures, so there would be some serious changes necessary... which is another reason I think so few people want to consider it. The idea of change doesn't appeal to many, even though it is the only sure thing.

(3) Our lifestyles. We in the developed world, in particular, waste a tremendous amount. That could be remedied with a powerdown lifestyle - living closer to the land (only really possible with fewer people), walking/public transport, more sustainable living practices, etc.

None of this detracts from long-term viability IMO. It only adds to it. Will it happen? I doubt any time soon - at least not voluntarily.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on August 9, 2007 - 11:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Reducing population? You first!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NZSanctuary on August 12, 2007 - 5:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Oooo, clever grade school-level reply.

"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wizofaus on August 10, 2007 - 3:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If that's your definition of "Powerdown" then I'm all for it, but I doubt that's what Heinberg and the like have in mind. And previously when I've mentioned the need for advanced technology to be able to protect ourselves from natural disasters, I've generally been scoffed at by those who see the only solution to the world's woes as some sort of return to a psuedo-agrarian age.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 8, 2007 - 1:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If managed properly did we ever have enough resources/ FF to break our Earthly bonds and become God like, Citizens of the Universe, expand our horizons and existence infinitely?

Or do we just get to play around until resources depleated, game over?

Sorry if this is off topic. Perhaps some could point me to refrence sources to address this at least?

This isn't really off topic in the peak oil question, because ultimately, we have to get down to the Ultimate question of "What are we getting out of all this energy use?", and the penultimate "If we knew what the purpose of Life was, how much energy would we need to accomplish it?"

I'll try to keep it short.;-)
All Monotheistic gods are the ultimate (concept?) in Net Creativity: They create everything from nothing. We who endeavor to be 'God'-like must endeavor to create at least as much future usefulness for the universe as we consume in resources.
All Life exists as the Anti-Entropy force in the universe, with most species consuming decayed material and using it to create usefulness or structures. (Re: Schroedinger.. http://www.dieoff.org/page150.htm )

My hat is off to Professor Cleveland for his power production density comparison. More of this should be done with our production methods, our product usefulness, and our environmental impacts and future potential ("Can we save the Earth from an asteroid?", "Does shutting up a kid with a Happy Meal solve a future problem or create one?" "Does watching TV provide re-creative rest or just tire out our mind with distraction?" etc).

When all is said and done, and TSHTF, what will we have to show for it?

We should not be so enthralled by high power density devices except for exceptional needs. We should be focusing on the least power density, the least needs, and the sustainability of our lifestyle paradigms. Low density means distributed sources, distributed logistics, distributed (and probably lower) populations, much lower risk of failure, lower risk failure modes, deeper redundancy for emergencies, less dependence on large entities for emergency response, less entrapment by infrastructure. "The meek shall inherit."

"Stop collaborating with Evil. If you want Change, keep it in your pocket."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on August 8, 2007 - 1:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I hate to pick nits, but it should be pointed out tht life is not "anti-entropy". It has been indisputibly established in lab experiments that life processes do conform to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life has just established remarkably efficient pathways for chemical reactions.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
auntiegrav on August 9, 2007 - 4:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Schroedinger doesn't mean that life defies the 2nd Law. Only that life works against it as much as it can. In the end, everything still falls apart. It's just that life makes useful things along the way that improve things for other life. If we become advanced enough, perhaps we can harness the power of the origins of matter, also.

Thanks for the nit pick so I could point that out.;-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

190 comments on Energy Transitions Past and Future

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version