Our World Is Finite: The Implications of Resource Limitations
Posted by Gail the Actuary on October 24, 2007 - 10:00am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: ethanol, fresh water, global warming, money supply, natural gas, oil, original, pollution [list all tags]
We all know the world is finite. The number of atoms is finite, and these atoms combine to form a finite number of molecules. The mix of molecules may change over time, but in total, the number of molecules is also finite.
We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources.
At some point, growth in resource utilization must collide with the fact that the world is finite. We have grown up thinking that the world is so large that limits will never be an issue. But now, we are starting to bump up against limits.
What are earth's limits? Are we reaching them?
ED Note by PG: Note that this is an updated version of an article that was run about six months ago. With all of the new folks (Welcome!) around, it seemed like a good time for an article like this. We appreciate your sharing this and all the work here at The Oil Drum with the people you care about.
1. Oil
Oil is a finite resource, since it is no longer being formed (at least in any meaningful quantity). Oil production in a given area tends to increase for a time, then begins to decline, as geological limits are reached. Oil production in the United States has followed this pattern (Figure 1).
Oil production in the North Sea (Figure 2) has also followed this pattern.
The declines in both the United States and the North Sea took place in spite of technology improvements. There is now serious concern that world oil production will begin to decline ("peak"), just as it has in the United States and the North Sea.
The US Government Accountability Office studied this issue, and issued are report in the spring of 2007 titled CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production. The US Department of Energy also asked the National Petroleum Council to look into this issue. Its report, Facing Hard Truths about Energy, further confirms the importance of this issue.
Exactly how soon the decline in oil production will begin is not certain, but many predict that the decline may begin within the next few years. There is even some evidence that the decline may have begun in 2005.
Even if oil production were not to decline, but simply remain level, there is sufficiently strong growth in demand that the shortfall would be a serious issue. Matt Simmons talks about this issue in his talk at the Houston meeting of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. Also, a recent report called Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future by the Interacademy Council states:
Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that current energy trends are unsustainable.
2. Natural Gas
Natural gas in North America is also reaching its limits. United States natural gas production reached its peak in 1973. Each year, more and more wells are drilled, but the average amount of gas produced per well declines. This occurs because the best sites were developed first, and the later sites are more marginal. The United States has been importing more and more natural gas from Canada, but Canadian production is beginning to decline as well. Because of these issues, the total amount of natural gas available to the United States is likely to decline in the next few years - quite possibly leading to shortages.
3. Fresh Water
Fresh water is needed for drinking and irrigation, but here too we are reaching limits. Water from melting ice caps is declining in quantity because of global warming. Water is being pumped from aquifers much faster than it is being replaced, and water tables are dropping by one to three meters a year in many areas. Some rivers, especially in China and Australia, are close to dry because of diversion for agriculture and a warming climate. In the United States, water limitations are especially important in the Southwest and in the more arid part of the Plains States.
4. Top soil
The topsoil we depend on for agriculture is created very slowly - about one inch in 300 to 500 years, depending on the location. The extensive tilling of the earth's soil that is now being done results in many stresses on this topsoil, including erosion, loss of organic matter, and chemical degradation. Frequent irrigation often results in salination, as well. As society tries to feed more and more people, and produce biofuel as well, there is pressure to push soil to its limits--use land in areas subject to erosion; use more and more fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides; and remove the organic material needed to build up the soil.
Are there indirect impacts as well?
Besides depleting oil, natural gas, fresh water, and top soil, the intensive use of the earth's resources is resulting in pollution of air and water, and appears to be contributing to global warming as well.
Can technology overcome these finite world issues?
While we have been trying to develop solutions, success has been limited to date. When we have tried to find substitutes, we have mostly managed to trade one problem for another:
Ethanol from corn
Current production methods usually require large amounts of natural gas and fresh water, both of which are in short supply. Increasing production may require the use of land which has been set aside in the Conservation Reserve Program because of its tendency to erode. The amount if ethanol produced is tiny compared to our fuel need, but still drives up the cost of all types of food.
Oil from oil sands and oil shale
Oil from oil sands requires large energy inputs, currently from natural gas, as well as fresh water, and creates pollution issues. Oil from oil shale is expected to require even more energy and fresh water.
Coal to liquid and coal substitution for natural gas
"Clean coal" and sequestration of carbon dioxide from coal are not yet commercially available, and are expected to be very expensive if they become available. Thus, coal production is likely to exacerbate global warming and raise pollution levels. If coal is used to replace both oil and natural gas, it is likely to deplete within a few decades, like the natural gas and oil it replaces.
Deeper wells for fresh water
If deeper wells are used, they will requires more energy to pump the water farther. In locations that use aquifers that replenish over thousands of years, the available water will eventually be depleted.
There are a number of promising technologies — including solar, wind, wave power, and geothermal — but the amount of energy from these sources is tiny at this time. Nuclear power also seems to have promise, but has toxic waste issues and is difficult to scale up quickly. A general introduction to alternative technologies is provided in What Are Our Alternatives If Fossil Fuels Are a Problem?
What if we don't find technological solutions?
We can't know for sure what will happen, but these are some hypotheses:
1. Initially, higher prices for energy and food items and a major recession.
If the supply of oil lags behind demand, we can expect rising prices for oil and gasoline and possibly other types of energy. Prices for food may also rise, because oil is used in the production and transportation of food. Recession is likely to follow, because people will cut down on their purchases of discretionary items, so as to be able to afford the necessities. Layoffs will follow. People laid off will find it difficult to pay mortgages and other debt, so banks and other creditors will find themselves in increasing financial difficulty.
2. Longer term, a decline in economic activity.
With fewer resources, economic activity is likely to decline. We will need to find replacements for many products in a relatively short time frame — heating fuel, transportation fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, fertilizer (currently made from natural gas), and asphalt, among other things. Living standards are likely to drop, because we don’t have infinite resources for replacing all the things that are declining in availability.
A graphic representation of how this might happen is shown in Figure 3. Real gross domestic product (GDP) gives a measure of how much goods and services the United States is producing in a year, in constant (year 2000) dollars. The 3 per cent trend line in Figure 3 shows the expected growth in real GDP, if growth continues as in the past. Scenarios 1 and 2 show two examples of how limitations on oil and natural gas might impact future real GDP. Scenario 1 shows a fairly rapid decline, starting very soon. Scenario 2 shows a slower decline, starting in 2020. If the downturn is still several years away, we have longer to plan, and a better chance that the decline will be more gradual.
3. Transportation difficulties and electrical outages.
Since transportation generally uses petroleum products for fuel, a reduction in the amount of oil available is likely to cause transportation difficulties. These difficulties may extend to all forms of transportation--automobile, trucks, airplanes, boats, and railroads, to the extent that fuel is unavailable due to shortages, cost, or rationing.
If natural gas supplies decline, electrical outages are likely, especially during high-use times of the year. Electrical outages may also result from interruption of transportation of other fuel, such as coal, to power plants, because of petroleum shortages. Outages may be one time events, or may be planned outages at certain times of the day, to compensate for an inadequacy in the fuel supply.
4. Possible collapse of the monetary system.
This is perhaps the biggest single issue, and the most difficult to understand.
There is a huge amount of debt in the world today. When loans were made, the expectation of the lenders was that the economy would continue to grow as in the past--that is like the 3 percent trend line in Figure 3 above. If this continued growth occurred, people, on average, would be a little better off financially when the time came to pay off their loans than they were when the loans were taken out, so they would have a reasonable chance of paying off the loans with interest. Corporations would continue to grow, and because of this continued growth, most would be able to pay off their debt with interest.
What happens if a scenario like that shown as Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 on Figure 3 occurs? When it comes time to repay the loans, people and corporations will be on average, worse off, rather than better off, than when they took them out. It is likely that many people will be unemployed, and cannot pay back their debt. Companies manufacturing goods that are no longer in demand are likely to be bankrupt, and thus will be unable to repay their debt. Organizations holding this debt, such as banks, insurance companies, and pension funds will find themselves in financial difficulty, because of the many defaults on the loans that are the assets of these organizations.
Two possible outcomes of widespread defaults come to mind. One is that there is so much debt that cannot be repaid that banks, insurance companies, and in fact the whole monetary system fails. The other alternative is that the government guarantees all the debt, so that the institutions do not fail. The latter approach would likely lead to hyper-inflation.
In either event, people and businesses would lose their savings, because money either would either be no longer available (first approach), or would be worth very little due to inflation (second approach). In either event, foreign countries would be unlikely to accept our currency in trade. Simple transactions, such as purchasing food or paying an employee, would become very difficult. Eventually, some approach would likely be found to circumvent these difficulties--perhaps a more barter-based approach--but this would be a huge change from our current system.
5. Failure of economic assumptions to hold.
We have been raised in a world where supply and demand are generally in balance. An increase in demand results in a greater price, which in turn leads to a greater supply. If the particular item isn’t available, substitution is generally available.
Once we reach geological limits, these basic principles seem much less likely to hold. An increase in energy demand isn't likely to translate into greater supply. Distribution of the limited available supply seems likely to reflect considerations other than price, such as rationing and long-term alliances. There may also be military conflict over available supplies.
I talk more about the economic implications of peak oil in a three part series: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
6. Changed emphasis to more local production.
Two factors are likely to encourage local production and discourage international trade. One is the higher cost and/or unavailability of fuels used for transportation. The other is difficulty with the monetary system--either hyper-inflation or complete failure of the system. If there are monetary system problems, other countries are likely to want actual goods in trade, rather than IOUs or money. This requirement is likely to greatly reduce the amount of trade with foreign countries.
Food production is likely to be more localized, since this insures a continuous supply, and reduces the amount of fuel needed for transportation. If there are problems with shortages, people may choose to have gardens, so as to grow a few of the foods they need themselves.
7. Reduced emphasis on debt.
Once it is clear that future production is likely to be less than current production, as in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of Figure 3, it will be very difficult to find any lender willing to provide long term loans, since if the loan is paid back at all, it is likely to be paid back in money that is worth very much less than it was at the time the loan was taken out.
If governments still have debt at this point, they will find it difficult to sell new bonds to replace the ones that mature. Businesses desiring to build new plants may find it necessary to accumulate resources for new plants in advance of their construction. Mortgages may not be available for prospective home owners, either.
8. Reduced emphasis on insurance and pensions.
If there are difficulties with the monetary system, insurance companies and pension plans will be among the hardest hit, since thy take in funds and invest them, and pay benefits later.
It is possible that a limited form of Social Security coverage may continue, but this is by no means certain. If a high level of inflation occurs (see point 4 above), benefits that have been promised to date will be worth very little. If a new monetary system is in place, it will be up to the government at that time to determine the level of benefits. Because total goods and services will be lower in the future (Figure 3 above), benefits to retirees will almost certainly be lower as well.
9. More people will perform manual labor.
As the amount of oil and natural gas becomes less available, more work will need to be done by hand, since the fuels to run machines will be less available. In order to encourage people to take jobs involving manual labor, manual labor will pay better in relationship to desk jobs. Because food is such an important commodity, farming may be particularly highly valued, and may pay especially well.
10. Resource wars and migration conflicts.
If there is is an inadequate amount of a resource (water, oil, natural gas, or food), countries may fight over the limited supplies that are available. Conflicts are likely to spring up regarding areas where resources are plentiful.
Alternatively, people may choose to migrate from an area if resources become less abundant--for example, migration may occur if water supplies dry up, or if land is flooded due to global warming, or if declining oil supplies limit transportation. Receiving areas may not welcome the newcomers, leading to more conflict.
11. Changes in family relationships.
Families are likely to see more of each other, because of reduced transportation availability. Families may work more closely together, tending gardens and running small family businesses. Co-operation may be more highly valued by society. Divorce rates may decline.
12. Eventual population decline.
The food supply produced in the world today is many times greater than the food supply 100 years ago, before oil and natural gas were used in tilling crops, pumping water for irrigation, making fertilizer and pesticides, and transporting food to market. As oil and natural gas become less available, the food supply is likely to decline. Eventually, world population is also likely to decline, reflecting the lower food supply.
Conclusion
We cannot know exactly what the future will hold, if technology is not able to overcome the many issues associated with a finite world, including declining oil and natural gas supply, decreasing fresh water supply, and climate change. Whatever changes occur are likely to differ from location to location, as the world activity becomes more localized.
We tend to think of governments as fairly stable, but these too may change. Countries may subdivide into smaller units. Some have even suggested that groups of states may break away from the United States.
Educational institutions will most likely change. Fewer students will probably attend colleges and universities, and the subjects of interest will likely change. The sciences and agriculture or permaculture are likely to be topics of interest. More students may want to live on campus, if transportation is a problem. Adult education may become more important, as people seek to develop skills for a changing world.
Businesses will also change. Local businesses will become more important, while multinational companies recede in importance. Manufacturing will become less important, and recycling will become more important. Providing necessities will get top priority, while nice-to-have items will not sell well. Barter, or a new monetary system that substitutes for barter, may be the way business is done.
People may choose to live closer to work, or may work at home, so as to minimize costs associated with commuting. Some people may choose to live with relatives or friends, so as to save on utility costs. Eventually, many homes in undesirable locations may be left empty, and the parts of these unoccupied homes that can be used elsewhere will be recycled.
The next 50 years will certainly be interesting ones. Perhaps, with technological advances, some of the potential problems can be avoided. But we will need to work hard, starting now, to develop ways to work around the problems which seem to be ahead.
To Learn More
The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil 53 minute film, available for $20, tells the story of how Cuba adapted to losing over half of its petroleum imports after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Closing the Collapse Gap: The USSR Was Better Prepared for Peak Oil than the United States Humorous talk by Dmitry Orlov
The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century Book by James Howard Kunstler
Discussion Questions
1. What are five things that might improve after world oil production begins to decline? (Hint: Consider exercise, weight problems, family situations, etc.)
2. If there is a decline in oil and gas production, how do you expect the large amount of debt outstanding to resolve itself? Do you think there will be monetary collapse, hyper-inflation, or some other solution?
3. Do you expect that families will have more or fewer children after oil and natural gas production begin to decline? Why?
4. How can businesses prepare for interruptions in electrical service?
5. What types of buildings are best adapted to frequent outages of electrical service? Which buildings are likely to have the most problems?
6. What vocations appear to be most likely to be useful for supporting a family, after oil and gas production begin to decline?
7. What changes might a college make to its curriculum, to better prepare students for the changing world situation expected after production of oil and natural gas begin to decline?
8. In Figure 3, real GDP in Scenarios 1 and 2 are shown as changing in relatively straight lines. Could alternative scenarios have the lines zig-zag or drop suddenly? What real world situations might cause different patterns?
Thanks very much for this summary of the challenges that face us. History suggests that our society will meet that challenge in the same way that previous societies have done: the sum of individual self-preservation and acquisitiveness of the members of our society will likely create another dust bunny in the dust-bin of history. If anyone is around to write the history, that is.
Interesting that the government propaganda is so strong, and our capacity for self-deception so highly developed that you can make such a statement. Which government in recent memory is "stable?"
Increasing lack of cheap energy will make local connections and local production more viable-- so there is certainly hope on a small scale. The vision of a harmonious, globalized ("Christian" in most versions of that nightmare) economy and society is going to have to be given up. And none too soon, in my opinion.
Gail,
On discussion question number 4, How can businesses prepare for interruptions in electrical service?
A growing number of businesses are installing solar power. These include Alcoa, Walmart, Costco, Khols, FedEX, GM, Macys, Gap, Frito-Lays, Hall's Warehouse, and others. You can follow some of the developments at environmentalleader.com.
Chris
Those solar installations are probably grid tied, no battery storage...so if the power/grid goes so does their solar power.
Most of the time businesses are open is during the day time. If the solar panels would help keep the lights on and cash registers working then, they would be helpful.
I have seen pictures of programmers in India doing their work using computers with a solar panel attached .
The businesses are installing solar to save money on power but if grid reliability becomes an issue, I'd guess they would make any modification that might be needed to avoid losing business. We expect to have a manual switch that allows operation when the grid is down (but the Sun is not) for our residential systems. A three phase setup might be a little more complex, but likely a smaller cost relative to power output.
Chris
I think before plugin hybrid cars we might see homes and offices with large UPS (uninterruptible power supply) batteries. The talk is they will be able to get 20 kilowatt hours into a suitcase sized battery. That will keep the puters and CF lights going but not the AC.
The talk is they will be able to get 20 kilowatt hours into a suitcase sized battery. That will keep the puters and CF lights going but not the AC.
Consider a smallish well-insulated suburban house with an 18,000 BTU air conditioner (1.5 tons), 16 SEER (you can get more efficient units these days), that runs 8 hrs/day during the worst of the season. That works out to 9.0 kWh/day, so that suitcase-sized battery could run it for a couple of days. If we're talking about lots of short outages, such a battery could carry you over; if we're talking about days-long outages, that's a different matter.
A patent for such a battery that can be sold at a reasonable price (say, less than $3K just as a point to talk around) that can be made reasonably rugged is going to make someone very rich. One such battery gives you roughly a 60-mile all-electric range in a hybrid auto (assuming you don't want to run the battery below about 25% charged); three of them give you a two-day backup for the typical 30 kWh/day suburban household; three days if that household has done the easy things like CFL and reduced their load to 20 kWh/day. In at least some parts of the US, four such batteries, split between the house and cars -- if deployed ubiquitously -- would be enough to allow local solar/wind to power home and personal transportation needs.
Not my goal to be a contrarian but let me pose this question.
Just exactly **why** do we require 'growth'?
Why can't folks live with a life that doesn't have growth in it? Would it be far more peaceable to live in an unchanging neighborhood? Taxes never rise,prices likewise and so on.
Back in the 50s it seemed that way to me.Most people were satisfied with just a good job, nice house and quality food to eat.Neighborhood schools nearby, no strife and traffic not that bad.
Most of that is the way many rural folks live,except for the rising cost of food,gas and medicine.
Just exactly WHY does a company/corp HAVE to grow? If they paid a good dividend as a result of making profits then their stockholders would not always be trading their stock,and would be satisfied with the stock.But instead some kind of cosmic shift said that dividends were out and growth in value was everything and hence we arrive on this runaway roller coaster.
Who and why does anyone have to compete with the Joneses?
Someone or some agency,perhaps the mass media , has forced most of this on us. Frenzied life,,soccer moms exhausting everyone and everything, Doctors promising everything and the list goes on.
Right now it seems that after the chaos to come that we will all have to live a more slow and less changing lifestyle.
I submit that we don't even think of life anymore in that vein and so this is what it brings...*peak everything*. No one is satisfied with normalcy.
Of course! Most don't want to get down on their hands and knees and work in the soil of a home garden or farm based lifestyle...what fun is that? Getting up later, not having to rush hither and yon on vague stupid trips for nonsensical toys and junk. Actually looking up at stars at night. Breathing better air.....yes...so very very boring.
Where is it written that we 'must' have growth? Who voted this bill in? Who hatched this inanity?
Airdale
Ditto, airdale!
I keep saying that if we want to avoid outright extinction, then we WILL be ending up with a zero-growth sustainable economy built on a 100% renewable resource base. There simply is no other alternative, whether we like it or not.
Knowing where we are heading, the only useful questions worth discussing involve: how to get to there from here? Or, since we WILL be getting there one way or another, more specifically: how to get there in the least painful and distressing way possible?
Growth might have been fun, for those who benefited from it, while it lasted. It's had a good run, but the fat lady is singing now, and it's time to go home.
and Ditto WNC!
Might be interesting to graph the increase in disparity of incomes in the world against the growth of things like population, CO2 etc or against the decrease in things like general personal satisfaction with life.
Vancouver in the 50's and 60's was a pretty slow growth place and the greatest city in the world to live in IMO. After Expo in the 80's it turned into a great investment area and just another city to get out of.
WNC Observer,
I agree we need to get to a zero-growth sustainable economy. For now we can use non-renewable resources, but these will deplete over time.
I wish we didn't have so many problems to deal with simultaneously, including:
- Soon to be declining fossil fuels
- A monetary system that needs growth to continue
- Global warming
- Fresh water shortages
- Soil problems
- Serious balance of payment problems (import more than we export)
- A debt system that is out of control
- Population overshoot
- Elected officials who are unwilling to deal with the situation
If we only had one problem, the task of trying to fix it might be reasonable. As we discover more and more problems, it is harder to see how one might find a solution and implement it on a broad scale. Relocalization would work much better as a solution if we had a stable climate, higher water tables, and fewer people.
Yes, we need to get to zero growth sustainability but I now think this is unlikely. Just reading many of the comments in this and other TOD posts, it is clear that even those who understand the threat posed by resource depletion still hope for some technological solution to just the energy problem, without regard for what continued growth has done to our world. The latest GEO report from the UN (actually from 390 scientists, reviewed by a thousand others) shows continued degradation of our planet in the face of continued economic prosperity and population growth. Everyone wants to find a solution but no-one wants to do anything about it.
So long as we continue to use resources beyond their renewal rates and continue to emit waste materials faster than the rest of nature can deal with them, there is no way we can head for a soft landing, no matter how many substitutions we make for the resources that are already running out.
WNC, you have expressed the exact same points Hubbert did in his 1976 paper "Exponential growth as a transient phenomenon in human history" at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/wwf1976/
"we are now in a period of transition between a past ... and a future also characterized by slow rates of change, but by means of utilization of the world's largest source of energy, that of inexhaustible sunshine," (by which Hubbert was referring to both direct and indirect utilization of sunshine, i.e. including hydro, wind and bio.)
"It appears therefore that one of the foremost problems confronting humanity today is how to make the transition from the precarious state that we are now in to this optimum future state by a least catastrophic progression. Our principal impediments at present ... are cultural. During the last two centuries we have known nothing but exponential growth and in parallel we have evolved what amounts to an exponential-growth culture, a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of nongrowth."
I also suggest reading his 1949 work "Energy from fossil fuels" at
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/science1949/
Notably, on page 108 he repeatedly raises the possibility of future "cultural degeneration" (predicting a Mad Max scenario in 1949!) whereby the final steady state could end up being roughly the pre-industrial one.
Airdale,
Why is growth necessary?
Part of the reason for growth is simply to pay back all of the debt with interest. If you stop the growth cycle, there isn't going to be enough money to pay back the debt with interest. When limitations on oil make growth more difficult, one way around the problem is to just borrow more, to keep up the illusion of growth. I think that this is what has happened recently, and is part of the reason that the whole system is coming close to collapse.
Another reason for growth is that all of the economic models are predicated on growth. Stock values reflect the net present value of future earnings (at least sort of). If earnings are rising it is easy to justify a high stock price. If earnings are level, the price is lower. If earnings are expected to decline year after year in the future, the stock price goes in the toilet.
A third reason for growth is that benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare were priced assuming that there would be more and more people paying into the system, and that they would be earning more and more, so that the benefits would not be excessive in relationship to the future earnings of the people who will be paying into the system at the later date. If we don't have growth, the benefit programs cannot be funded at the promised levels.
Pension programs have some of the same issue as Social Security and medicare (won't work unless there is growth), but the reason is different. Pension programs are usually funded using stocks and bonds. If there are major defaults on bonds because of lack of growth (leading to an inability to pay back the interest plus principal), or the stock values fail to grow by the assumed rates, the pension plans will not have enough funds in them when it comes time to pay benefits.
One thing people did do back in the 50's was have lots of children. This has been part of the growth cycle too.
Hi Gail good show!
About debt ,I feel it is merely an outgrowth of original communal living. We began by doing for each other communally , if for instance a barn or house needed building the community would do it. (for brevity(and maybe other reasons:) this is rather a simplistic model). As communes grew to cities basic community was lost but houses etc were still needed. Debt is merely a substitute for what each member of a commune owed each other member.
I think what one might see from this that interest on a loan is unnecessary and in reality a theft by nonproductive middlemen.
Thanks for the reply.
Gail said :
"One thing people did do back in the 50's was have lots of children."
Mhhh...when the war was over and my father returned..sometime in 1945-6 or so.we lived in Ky still..some trips back and forth to city living but briefly...and yes, I agree that on the farm people did have more children BUT that was a biological necessity for in order to continue to farm one needed offspring..to carry on and in case of disablity or accidents and to take care of the parents in their old age. Far better to have a few sons to help out..and daughters to marry well and increase the kinship and extended families that are so important in the rural outback.
And it did happen that way, where the offspring housed and cared for the elders...in fact to this very day you see it happening albeit to a far lesser degree. But old habits and customs die slow..
So then in 1949 my father came to the farm and hauled us up to St. Louis county to something that looked weird..suburbs..the very very early beginning of suburbs...
And I an my brother(the only two offspring) were set admidst a lot of other families BUT looking back most all of them either had no children, or two children and in the odd case three children. Most had two.
I dated girls and had lots of friends back in those days as a teenager and most of those early suburban families usually had just two children.
So where did the huge increases come from then? Was it that divorce became common and therefore new 'mixmaster' families were created...like my wifes? One from a previous and two from the original? The sexual revolution?
Or was it new arrivals in our country? Or illegal immigrants?
Mostly in the burbs where I then lived and grew up..2 was usual and 3 did happen and 0 was there as well.
My wife and I had two. That was all.
My grandfather and grandmother had 14!! Most all of those 14 aunts and uncles had at most 2. And of the males none had another male except for one and so me and my brother were two and he never married..of my two, a boy and a girl..my daughter has only one and no more..my son will never marry.
So out of 14 total that line is about to die out..and in fact no male children of those 14 offspring..only 2 males were born and they never propgated,except for me.
I find this in many kinfolk around here...so I am at a lose as to the dynamics of childbirth of those who have been here for some time...I am 5th generation on my grandfathers side and 12 generation on my grandmothers. Mostly on both sides we are slowly disappearing instead of increasing.
Perhaps my experiences are just far different.
As for Social Security..those of us who are on it surely recognize that the day will come , and not too far , when there will be no more EFTs deposited in the bank. We all pretty much know that its a ponzi scheme.
My feelings on SS is that a lot, a whole lot, more recipents have been 'added' to the roles than those who paid in. All for political gain I think. And then there was those who never paid in but get benefits anyway. Forget the name of that program. Then children were added and so on .....
airdale
... on the farm people did have more children BUT that was a biological necessity for in order to continue to farm one needed offspring ...
You've answered your own question there. It is in the nature of biologicals to reproduce. And the "Economy" is thought of in similar grow-or-die terms. We are victims of the success of humanity.
As a side note, I think your family tree is typical. My own is similar: Dad came from a family of 5, 2 of whom were male. None of his sisters ever had children, nor did my brother, and he has a total of 1 grandchild (my child). It doesn't look like she's interested in propagating, so his brother's kids, and theirs, are the only outcome of 3 or 4 generations of our family. His brother's widow is so obnoxious we don't talk to her very often -- I'm not sure how many descendants they have. Dad's other siblings and most of their spouses have passed.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
Airdale,
You and I are in 100% agreement today. There has been a fundimental shift in values in our civilisation over the last 60 or 70 years, and the winning set of values aren't values that will help us survive in a more resource constrained world. What is being mislabeled as capitalism and democracy is actually greed and materialism, and its about to strangle us all. The Islamic conflict with the West is to a very large extent revulsion with this part of our society and an attempt to return to values that are 1400 years old. Unfortunately, they don't work well either with the modern world, and don't include tolerance.
I put the blame on how we get our information. Its pretty unfortunate, but televisions rule most households in America, they are on on a constant basis. And, television isn't an information medium or an entertainment medium, its an advertising medium with that other stuff just to keep us hooked.
We're not that far from the same age. I'll be 56 on Tuesday, November 6 and I think from the things you've said you are about 15 years older than I, but we can both remember the changes that came in society between about 1960 and 1975, when TV pretty well took over. Before then, people satisfied their need for a feeling of community by participating in the community, by being members of churches, local political organisations, local social organisations like lodges or service clubs like the Rotary or J.C.'s. At any rate, they went out and actively participated with actual people in making their communities a better place. People often had their families living near, perhaps a relic of most people having a farm.
But around 1960 the sitcom ideal on television started to make people who didn't live in a big house with two family cars feel inferior, so Mom got a job so the family could purchase these things, and they did. Credit expanded, and instead of people saving up to buy a house, they purchased it with a down payment and a twenty year note. And instead of Mom being home when the children came home from school, even cooking dinner and eating waited on her coming back from her job. And, our society became much more fearful from the advent of all the cop shows on television. Kids weren't allowed to play outside until after dusk.
And because of exhaustion, we left the TV on and didn't talk to each other any more. So we've sowed the wind, and reaped the whirwind. People seem to have forgotten that they only wear one pair of pants at once and sleep in on bed. We are fixing to start the third generation of people who seldom eat home cooking and have no idea of how to grow a tomato. Even churches have become giant megachurches on television, instead of groups of friends and neighbors doing their charity at home and working on community problems.
Peak oil though has the potential to reverse this process and set us back on the right path as humans. Its going to be such a huge shock to materialism that people wil be forced to look within themselves for the answers, rather than seeking other places to put the blame. The survivalist hole up in the woods with sardines and canned pinto beans and enough guns and ammo to terrorise the world mentality won't be nearly as succesful as organising a community garden and setting up jitney routes to the local train station. In one you have friends and neighbors, in the other you've got to worry about someone to watch your back when you sleep. What has more social status-a 12 MPG Hummer with an empty tank and no ration left or an electric bike that recharges from a solar cell set up on the garage roof? Bob Ebersole
Bob,
I am in my late 60s but I feel more like late 50s.
We agree on a lot more than we likely disagree on.
But to answer my own question, after thinking about it some,I would assume the big change was the 'baby boomers'.
Must have shepherded in a new order of thinking perhaps.
I remember that even when TV came along..we might watch Howdy Doody and a bit of the other but mostly we preferred to be outdoors and the burbs hadn't yet killed off everything,,then later I joined the Boy Scouts and found my outdoors environment there,,then later hunting,fishing and canoeing, then spelunking in caves and on and on but always a hankering to return to living on a farm.
Straddling two far different ways of living , I am more comfortable with the rural lifestyle even though I still work on computers for some of the businesses in town and keep my hand in electronics.
airdale-watching as the future approaches on the horizon
I, too, am from the not-so-young group. I remember the days before television and having lots of cousins and aunts and uncles around when growing up. My grandparents lived on a farm, and my mother grew up on a farm. I sometimes visited a one-room school with my cousins.
I have never watched much TV - can't understand how some folks have it on night and day. We have a TV in the basement and watch it when we are there because of tornado warnings. Once in a blue moon there is a particular program I want to watch, and go to the basement and see it.
You are probably right that peak oil has the potential to set society back on the right path again. The story of economics and capitalism and "buy more" has been so pervasive that many people do not recognize it as anything other than the "truth" and the way things are.
The question of societal change, and particularly of when and how and why we started changing for the worse, is an interesting one. I suspect that it is a complex set of factors, and can't be put down to any one factor.
Whole books have been written about this, and many more will undoubtedly follow in the future. Here are just a few fragmentary, incomplete thoughts:
Television certainly has played a role. Of course, it was around in the 1950s, but not everyone had a set, the programming was all black & white, and except for a few classics the programming was really not very good - inferior to the old radio programs in some ways. I am old enough to remember turning on the TV and seeing test patterns, so it wasn't on ALL the time. And speaking of radio, of course that filled the niche that television supplanted. It is strange, but listening to the radio seemed to be more of a family and even neighborhood social event than was television. Part of it might have been that an entire room could hear a radio program, while you had to sit pretty close to view TV in the old days -- large screen televisions are a relatively modern invention, in the 1950s the screens were SMALL. Since it didn't require watching, one could be doing other things while listening to the radio: knitting, darning socks, shelling peas, whittling, building a model airplane, etc.; thus, families could be sharing work at the same time that they were sharing the experience of listening to the radio. Maybe there is something deep about visuals + sound hooking our attention in a way that sound alone doesn't. Then too, remember that people were used to watching visuals + sound already -- they had been going to the cinema for years. Even when one went as a group, one sat in individual seats all facing the screen, and everyone's attention was focused on the screen (well, except for the young couples making out in back). Thus, television became more of a cinema-in-the-home instead of a visual radio, and family television time didn't work the same way that family radio time did.
The Kennedy assassination seems to have been some sort of turning point, maybe even a tipping point. I'm not sure why. Lots of people loved him, but in retrospect he was only so-so as a President, and certainly had his share of personal flaws. Yet, it seems to have hit a lot of people pretty hard. The whole psyche of America did seem to change in some sort of strange way after that; I'm not sure how or why, I just know that I felt it at the time.
Of course, the Vietnam fiasco was another thing which damaged the country terribly. We're still paying the price for that in so many ways. Prior to that, I think there was a pretty high level of genuine patriotism and of trust and respect for the government and for those in positions of leadership. That all pretty much died with Vietnam. What patriotism one sees today seems to me to be somewhat forced rather than flowing naturally. Government and people in positions of leadership are despised, not respected, and certainly not trusted. It also permanently damaged the relationships between the generations. Even today, one can still sometime sense a certain strain in interactions between boomers and the elderly. This might have something to do with the decline of civic clubs and other organizations. Most of these are dominated by the elderly, you see very few young members. It is not just the case, I suspect, that people are not active in their communities any more (though there is truth to that); I suspect that a lot of boomers became alienated from these organizations during the Vietnam era, and have never come back around. Unfortunately, they never got around to forming their own alternatives to replace them.
Kids stopped playing in the neighborhood unsupervised and stopped walking or biking to school in the 70s. School consolidations and interracial busing played a small part in ending the practice of kids walking or biking to school. However, the really big factor was that this was when a lot of crimes against children started making the news, and parents freaked out. Why did the crimes start happening in the 70s? Certainly their were mentally deranged people around before then? Yes, but there were also plenty of stay-at-home mothers around then. As a kid, you knew that if you got too out of line, somebody's mother was likely to march out of their house, intervene, send you home, and call YOUR mother to report on you. Everyone's parents knew that they could count on each other to keep an eye out for the general safety of the neighborhood kids. Of course, when women started entering the workforce in increasing numbers, that went by the wayside.
I'm not so sure that it was the case in the late 60s or early 70s that Mom went to work because the family needed the money. Remember that by then, most of the boomers were at least teenagers, so increasing numbers of mothers at last felt free to be out of the house and at work during the day. Since they now also had washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, etc., there really wasn't all that much for them to do all day in the house. Remember, too, that they had seen THEIR mothers work during WWII, so the thought that they might too didn't seem so strange. I'm not sure if the women's lib movement is what prompted many women to take the plunge and head to work, or if it was the fact that increasing numbers were already heading back to work that made the ground fertile for the women's lib movement. Maybe it was a mutual feedback system. In any case, it was only a few years after women started working in greater numbers when the 1973 oil embargo hit, and inflation started spiraling out of control. What had at first been a discretionary thing became a necessity.
WNC and Gail,
How odd it is that we are all of about the same age group and view our society almost exactly the same!! Well it reinforces to me the changes and how we can recall so clearly how it all was back then.
I agree totally with both of your inputs and views.
When I try to talk to the younger generations about 'how it was' and what might work and why do they do what they do....
I get this very huge 'disconnect'. They just seem to completely lose the whole thread and their attention is always somewhere else..usually due to their cell phone going off..
..and the odd thing is that they consider the cell phone call,,even if irrelevant.to be far more important to answer than to even pay attention to what the other party is saying...its very dismissive..and I usually about then say to myself "well screw them then"..and a bit goes out of our relationship at that point..
I also remember that sitting with my wife when she was always so completely absorbed with nonsense on the TV that I would say something to her and she would not even turn her head,,just give an off the cuff reply..
And so when she started staying more and more away from the farm where we lived...I finally disconnected the satellite and eventually removed the tv...I got the idea then that what was on TV was more important than what her husband of 45 years had to say.
She still sits for many many lost hours watching the TV and the nonsense on it..and thinks that what they say is the
'absolute truth'. Since she lives in N.Carolina now I took the tv down to her for good but I stayed here on the farm.
Perhaps the boomers raised on TV think that everything they hear by the MSM is in fact the truth!!
airdale
WNC Observer,
Your post brings back lots of memories. I was still in high school when Kennedy was shot.
I walked to and from school, or rode my bicycle, every day through high school. My mother was always at home, with the seven children. My mother said as long as she was home with one, she might as well be home with several. Also, the first five were girls, and my parents wanted a boy. (The seventh one was unplanned - another girl.)
My mother worked until a few weeks before I was born. She had a master's degree, and was in charge of the medical laboratory in a large hospital. She hid her pregnancy with her lab coat-thought she might be fired. She never worked after I was born.
Some time in the mid to late sixty's, there was quite a bit of publicity about it not being desirable for women to have so many children, so the birth rate declined . When women only had one or two children, working outside the home became easier. The US Statistical Abstract (Table 76) shows that there was a big drop in the birth rate between 1957 and 1972. This big drop in the birth rate, together with the other conveniences, made it easier to work outside of the home.
The usual pattern was for women to work full time and leave their children in day care (or with relatives) for long hours. I was fortunate enough to be in a position where I didn't need to do this. I chose to work fewer hours, and pay someone to come to the house and help with cooking and cleaning (mostly while kids were at school) and do some child care. This way I was able to spend almost as many hours with my children as a stay-at-home mom, and avoid quite a bit of the household chores. This approach was not a method of maximizing net income, but it was closer to what I was used to growing up.
We can know what the future holds, particularly when it comes to the issue of technology saving our butts.
Not going to happen. Technology is not energy, nor water, nor topsoil, nor any other finite element that allows us to live in our current farcical way.
But what really chaps my ass is your statement:
Oh lord, what a high crime it would be if we didn't pay back the fictive element known as "interest."
Economists lose all credibility when they start touting the idea that "interest" is more important than the actual PLANET!!!!!!!
To me, the tone above is a bit like a parent patiently explaining to a child that the reason we tithe the slithing toves is because the Wanderal Wraiths are loath to come to the fourth plane of existence and breath the loamy air of Barthing Time. Of course, this explanation is being given even as they are about to be ripped to pieces by an onrushing tornado.
These fictive financial devices are artful conceits and nothing more. With a pen-stroke, we could simply write them away like so many tears in the rain. The problem is many very greedy, uncaring people who are largely responsible for our situation want what they feel is rightfully theirs, and damn the planet!
I say we declare a Jubilee Year, or Decade!!
Let's increase taxes on the rich to 75%. Growth on a finite planet is just short of retarded, perhaps criminal, so let's just wipe out these criminals and put ourselves to work building an actually sustainable world.
Oh lord, what a high crime it would be if we didn't pay back the fictive element known as "interest."
Great stuff.
For anyone wanting to know how we (in the US) got into this, read a little history about it. It will be good for you.
AMERICA'S FORGOTTEN WAR AGAINST THE CENTRAL BANKS
john
Take much care Cherenkov!.. you are not doffing cap and tugging forelock in suitable manner. There are even now intractable forces that have entered loamy air of Barthing Time, they are watching, watching!! :)
The only reason for interest on debt is that the fix is in. As I was trying to say, in a bit of a rush above, is that debt itself is a substitute for the help one has from and is returned to ones fellow tribe, commune, village, mates. No interest paid then Why now? It is just a way for leaches to suck much blood. A fee for service okay but interest is a crock and if (big, big if) any civilization worthy of the name should develop after the great undoing (polite form for dieoff..must be careful careful), it would be a fine thing for it to develop keeping that in mind.