<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

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.

190 comments on Energy Transitions Past and Future

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version