104 comments on Profiting from Scarcity
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
104 comments on Profiting from Scarcity
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
—Antonio Gramsci
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
[emphasis added]
I've recently had some second thoughts about the whole 'sustainability' thing that derive from some similar thinking. Not that sustainability is the wrong target, but that it can only be an 'immediate' target in order to modulate a grander process of evolution. Sustainability implies steady-state at some thermodynamic balance point when nearing limits. But this is a temporary condition given that the embedding environment itself will eventually change and change the energy flux of the system. Reorganizing the internal workings of a system to achieve sustainability should be viewed as a kind of ratchet mechanism that prevents or minimizes collapse, but does not represent a 'forever' end point.
Adaptability, not growth, should be the inherent law of economic systems!
What is "sustainability"?
George
It seems like we have our "sustainability" goals set at way too high a level. We hear from time to time that the truly sustainable level is the level of the hunter-gather. Above that, everything is temporary.
I think your point about being able to change is important as well. We know, for example, that the climate has changed over the years, and will continue to change, whether or not mankind is contributing to that change, and can change its course. As climate changes, there is a need for underlying systems to change as well.
I have more to say on this subject since the author has hit very close to my pet theory with his complexity and "ESP" query, but Gail's remark about actual sustainable society levels reminds me of a conversation I had with a First Nations (Indian) chief while walking through Vancouver.
Calvin is the hereditary Eagle Chief of the Gitxsan in central BC. This is my forecasted parable;
"This is how I see it Calvin in about 200 years. Your people are sitting around the fire reminiscing and laughing."
"Ya...", one elder says, "I remember those white people. They came, they went, I knew they wouldn't last. But they sure made me laugh though."
I'd be interested to hear your theory on emergent self-organization.
Well, my theory of self-organization would be a long post, and is kind of "backwards"... My theory is that complex systems are physical things that are observable and explorable, but not definable. I use math as a diagnostic tool to help me ask better questions about physical systems as if they were "models of themselves", rather than to represent systems with my own constructs.
The way they work as a whole as if they have ESP is by having E.S.P (Equal Stress Principle) in having loops of relationships that share their strains and surplusses. It's something like collective insurance policies and makes the self-forgiving. That said, that is something one can only observe, and can't makes a machine to duplicate because natural systems rely on the cooperation of uncontrolled parts, not controlled parts. So... you can see it gets you exploring a lot of new territory to go into it.
My theory is a learning process, not a way to construct models. I use models for raising questions, not defining answers. The first farily compelling question for anything one observes growing is what is the network of relationships that is doing it, and second, how will it alter the conditions of its own environment to bring itself to an end. Generally, that happens one of two ways, distinguishing between self-maintaining and self-destabalizing sytems. They either switch from growth by beginning their maturation or their decline. fyi Try finding things of interest on one of my web sites www.synapse9.com or www.synapse9.com/blog or www.Connection.metdot.net
Well, here it goes 710 (or OIL) and pfhenshaw... Nate probably thinks I'm a little nuts, but empirical evidence can bear this out. Furthermore, I am pursuing this as a collective effort according to one of the central tenets of the theory.
It starts like this, Einstein theorized energy and mass are transformable and arrived at E=mc^2. Or, he started in some relevant direction and ended with this rather simple and economical formula. The concept and ramifications have been monumental in their impacts, needless to say.
Similarly, I arrived at the theory that energy and consciousness are transformable. I haven't come close to any formula, but I have come up with a few governing principles:
- complexity of the system is necessary for higher levels of energy to consciousness transformation and modulation. As an example, a nebula cloud of primordial matter incorporates massive amounts more mass than either a human being or the earth, but is not that wholly complex and contains very low consciousness density; whereas, the human body and brain system is one of the most complex systems we know of and has the ability to modulate consciousness. Furthermore, the human body's ability to modulate consciousness is not just within the cranial cavity, but throughout the entire organic system. Consciousness density is governed by complexity.
- we partake in the energy/consciousness transform nearly continuously, but because it is all encompassing in our biological existence we are not aware. I came up with "Does a fish know of water?" only to find out its been used before. But, did gravity exist prior to Newton quantifying and describing its behavior? Of course it did. We are involved in the E/C transform by the very act of this message. Just add up the physical systems, (me and you included), involved in this interchange of ideas and their energy usage to start to put together a simple model of E/C physical definitions.
- emotions are a high level E/C modulation mechanism, as is music.
- fully understanding the mathematical and physical characteristics as manifested in equations is beyond our capability at this time. We can get a good start, but I believe the communicable descriptions will progress as all technology has, it will evolve with knowledge.
- systems of like consciousness tend to self organize into more complex systems. This speaks to 710's query on emergent self-organization. This may provide the starting point for better quantifying the theory.
- having a higher ability to modulate the E/C transform will significantly alter our understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As I like to say, the cup can be unbroken. There will still be adherence to the 1st Law since conservation still applies in the universe, but there will be the appearance of Entropy reversal employing E/C modulation. The Zeroth Law still definitely applies!
- got thinking on this, probably contemplating Hawkin's "Arrow of Time" from A Brief History. This is a humdinger, but I'll put it out there. The perceived direction of time could be dependent on the direction of the E/C transform. Our predominant current perceived direction is caused by mostly energy > consciousness. A reversed direction (premonition) could be the result of consciousness > energy (think of a film playing backwards as in the point about the cup becoming upbroken). This could provide a sound foundation for understanding premonition and otherwise physic phenomena.
That's it for now. But here are a few more points; we will not be able to engage in any appreciable space travel until we understand this principle of the universe. The Internet has evolved as a tool for a higher level of self organization for our species. How far it will take us is yet to be determined. If this seems all so simple and obvious, maybe that's because it is supposed to appear that way. C'mon, how tough is F=ma now that we have been told?
The really way out there final point to make is I've had some validation of the correct direction of this theory.
Well, I guess that is an imitation of my style of a sort. The trouble I find with "=" signs is they tell you what should happen, but don't get it to happen. You need a complex process that begins and ends to do that.
So, I watch the developmental processes to see how things work as well as equations to see what should be possible. It looks to me that the world economy had a brush with either an iceberg, and so it would be worth running the pumps till we get the hull fixed, or it hit a sand bar, it which case it's probably better to save the fuel and disembark to see where we've arrived... ;-)
That's probably why your essay/article resonated with me. You articulated what I've been trying to say for the past three years.
It's a keeper.
Great comment.
Largely, there are two possible outcomes: a hunter/gatherer society living within a vibrant, complex, and diverse ecosystem, or a herder society scavenging through an environmentally degraded ecosystem caused by the overshoot of humans (much like the Middle East). And Gail is right. All else is piffle, a series of stations on the road away from the cheap energy fiesta and the techno-bubble it created.
I think we have a choice. Or, rather, I should say that a choice is out there. The species will not willingly make the right choice, and it will not powerdown voluntarily in a coordinated fashion in order to end up in that environmentally complex system we all would like to envision. No, more likely, we will be like the goats of today feeding on the corpse of the once green and fertile Middle East, feeding on the detritus like maggots.
Witness the destruction of the Amazon in order to fuel cars and feed cattle. We are cannibals, eating our lungs in order to drive cars.
Diminishing returns is right. And what a diminishing return it is!! Just think. We could, if we all pull together, destroy the planet with complete efficiency while still managing to save the automobile!!
You see! What a great trade. A car culture in exchange for the planet. What a brilliant cancer we are.
Hello Cherenkov,
As usual, I enjoy your postings. I hope you are making progress on that book you are writing based upon my postings [Recall your comment in my blog]. I fully hope you understand Asimov and 'Dune', plus the postPeak implications for Optimal Overshoot Decline. I will be glad to do a 'Nectar of the Gods' Yeasty Peakoil Shoutout upon its publication. Please don't forget Harry Chapin's "Remember when the Music.." and "Wildfire Reloaded" on Youtube. It will be outside-the-box thinking for the downslope ahead, and I think you and most TODers are brighter than Me. Thx[S]
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Gail,
Regarding everything being temporary above the hunter gatherer level:
A biologist might make a fairly airtight case in the affirmative,if she assumes that any cultural or technological advances such as primitive agriculture or the beginnings of specialization(farmer,builder,baker,arrow head maker,etc) lead inevitably to an industrial revolution and all that is entailed.
Personally I don't buy this argument,as a theoritical matter.
Tropical peoples engaged in slash and burn agriculture can easily move often enough that they have little effect on the ecology if thier numbers remain small-and thier numbers almost certainly will remain small,if they never learn to work metal,domesticate draft animals, or come into contact with tech savvy outsiders.
Warfare between local bands in itself is probably adequate to control the population.It might be hundreds of years after a clearing is abandoned before that spot is used again.
People in more temperate climates have lived for thousands of years in many parts of the world by subsistence farming supplemented by hunting and gathering,eventually becoming efficient enough to support more complex local cultures.Some Native American tribes were living this way at the time of the European invasion.
Although primitive farmers and herdsmen frequently despoil thier immediate environment,some people have always survived either locally or remotely.Sfaik the environment USUALLY returns to a state capable of supporting primitive agriculture again within a fairly short time- a few hundred years or less.It can then be recolonized by nearby people.
Sometimes the land is more or less permanently ruined for farming by the buildup of salts(deposited by irrigation water)in the soil,extreme erosion,or desertification.Even this degree of degradation does not always drive every body out.There may be a few people left scratching out a living as nomadic herders.
I do not see any reason why these scenes,or variations thereof, cannot be played out again and again for tens of thousands of years,IF something prevents technology from advancing beyond a critical tipping point.Such a restraint might be something as simple as there being no workable copper or tin ores located on the surface where they can be found easily.
Now on the other hand as a PRACTICAL matter,it does seem inevitable that once you have a reliable supply of food and a few specialists,progress towards an eventual industrial society is almost inevitable,and that if such things as metal ores,coal and oil exist,they will be found and put to use.
If so we do the Stanley Kubrick thing from banging the bones together to the rocket ship in the blink of an eye-on the evolutionary time scale.
Personally I believe we can live on this planet indefinitely while still using whatever non replaceable resources are at hand.The only thing I can see killing us off totally is a flat out nuclear war,a meteor strike, or some other equally catastrophic event.Human life might Hobbesian,but it will persist.
Hi Mac,
Thoughtful comment.
My hope - probably a fantasy - is that humans can indeed live on this planet indefintitely (baring catastropic cosmic event). As Carl Sagan said - we must first conquer our bent for agression that allowed us to conquer the planet in the first place. Next we must cast off the superstitious belief in gods and supernatural things. Then we could apply reason and the scientific method to work our way out of this mess and achieve balance with the biosphere.
However, all the right-wing (nut) chatter that hammers every day for "stronger defense" and "stronger family values" (ie - breed more humans) and trys to portray Americans as a superiour race (funny notion given we are a nation of immigrants) prevents us from having any kind of sensable conversation.
2 billion people, freed from superstition, using all available scientific knowledge could (IMHO) achieve that indefinite status. The real question is how to liberate people from the tragic burden of superstition.
Dave,
How indeed?
I have an intelligent right wing radical friend who understands the world very well,but he is quite comfortable with his philosophy,maintaining that wars,famines,ecological catastrophes natural or manmade,emergent diseases,and so forth are facts that cannot be avoided.He sees the eventual cultural and physical survival of his intellectual band of companions as the likely outcome of an eventual third world war.
One of his favorite remarks is that the ecologically conscious(He uses stronger language.Self imposed physical and cultural genocide is one variation.) folks who refrain from having children are so clueless that they don't even need nature to weed the gene pool on thier behalf,as they're taking care of it personally.
Now this is a very scary way to think to most people,but he is internally consistent.
Intellectual honesty requires that the possible truth of his arguments be evaluated seperately from the desirability of adopting his philosophy.
The more I study in the fields of biology and history,the more I conclude,reluctantly,that he may be right.Most visitors here are probably familiar with the the dictum that accurate quantom measurements are an impossibility because the very act of measuring changes the outcome.
I haven't figured out a graceful way of saying so but I think a very large part of the confusion about our so called shortcomings and failures are nothing more than the result of "us trying to understand us",which may be somewhat analogous to the physics measurement problem.
We try to look at Homo Sapiens as a biologist should-impassively,w/o injecting our prejudices and preconcieved notions into our observations,but we fail miserably because we insist on injecting our values-which are ephemeral cultural artifacts-into the examination of the problem at an inapropproiate(too early )stage.
As I see it life and evolution are emergent properties of complex but purely physical(in the sense that physicists use the term) phenomena.The properties of life result in a second round or generation of emergent phenomena exponentially more complex.(Anybody interested in pursueing this line of thought should start with Darwin and work his way up to EO Wilson if you are like me and have little money but abundant time and curiousity.Books are cheap.Specially used on the net.)
Any impartial and intellectually disinterested biologist from some other dimension would probably write a paper eventually resulting in something as follows:
Synopsis of the biological survey expedition report.planet III,gstar cat 666-131313
The dominant organisms have evolved such that thier fundamental behaviors are determined almost solely by thier lower brain centers which evolved in the earlier stages of thier lineage.
Food, sex,and status(power)are the most immediate first level drivers of thier behavior,with secondary drivers including kin selection and remarkably rapid Lamarckian cultural evolution.
As in all technologically evolved species so far encountered,randomly generated but self sustaining cultural and technological memes have caused the planetary population to coalesce into various factions that view all others as threats in general but allies of convenience.This species is one that has evolved thru a hunter stage and a territorial defense stage,and as such thier current status is consistent with the work of the socioboilogy school of thought which has guided our progress in the biological sciences for the last thousand orbits of our home planet.
There is of course a slight chance that a cooperative meme will come to dominate culturally and that they will therefore continue to remain numerous and potentially capable of defensive measures,but this is statistically highly unlikely.
It is reasonable to expectthat these organisms will burn thru the fixed resources of thier planet and either become extinct or techonlogically impoverished and few in number well before the scheduled expansion into this sector.
Entered this 237 day of the 2167 th Year of the Empire in the Master Budget Plan.
The full report may be accessed upon entering your security code.
MS Barf Battle Axe
MOS G9 Statistician
Back in the days when I used to read a lot of sci fi,my friends and I speculated that deliberately broadcasting high energy radio messages would be the best possible way to gain the attention of any space going predators and hand them our address on a silver platter.
It may be that we are DESIGNED(SUCH an unfortunate word,but none other fits as well,despite the erroneous implications)in such a way that we can only function within the "Us versus Them" paradigm.
Nature doesn't give a rats ass either way.
We make it.
Or we don't.
Go outside.
Climb a mountian.
Watch the sun rise.
Watch the sun set.FROM THE MOUNTIAN TOP.
Sit up there on a still quiet clear night and watch the stars do the dance of the neverending circle.
It will be very good if you can see the cemetery where your forebearers rest.
You will be able to accept reality if you do this as needed.
No prescription necessary.
No known cases of developed tolerance resulting in loss of Efficacy.
Either way. An astronomer can count ten thousand galaxies looking thru the window formed by the cup of the Little Dipper.All the "billions and billions"(Sagan fan here too!) of stars in each of those galaxies will continue to burn,and planets to rotate around a good portion of them,and life to arise on some of them,and to evolve intelligence on at least a small portion of those,which is still a lot.
"No such thing as a happy ending,Grandpa(?)"
"No child.No such thing as an ending."
That reminds me ,I need to go back and hunt up the title and get that book ordered.
As for all of you with no taste for this sort of metaphysics(?),I would snidely remind you that my pig doesn't care either.He's been squealing for his dinner for the last fifteen minutes,and he knows to the minute what time it is because he knows that certain cars pass at a certain time every day,and fifteen minutes is a long time to wait,when you have nothing to look forward to but your dinner and another nap.
If you ever overimbibe of reality altering substances and cannot decide if you are a figment of your own imagination,take off your shoes and go outside and kick a tree or something,hard,toes first.You will get Saul on the road message back in about a tenth of a second.
Gotta feed that pig before the busy body who moved into the nieghborhood lately calls PETA.
I believe I may kick over her beehive by inviting her over on the day we butcher.There's nothing like fresh hand raised pork tenderloin on a grill,even though the corn will be out of the freezer.
Great comment.
I think the way to look at human overshoot is exactly the way one would look at any other species in destructive overshoot. The altruistic alien viewpoint is the gold standard. The species in overshoot shouldn't get a vote; that's like giving fat cells veto power over the decision to go on a diet.
I'm just saying...
Hi Mac,
What a great post! Too bad you don't live within my biking range. I'd love to bike over and chat about the fate of the planet while the pig has lunch!
There is a funny cartoon that shows another planet that has just approached earth. The other planet is dressed like a doctor. The doctor planet is saying to earth planet: hmm... it appears that you have "humans".
I suspect that you have read "the fabric of the comos" or something similar to get the your insight on about measurements in quantum physics - I really enjoyed that book.
This was Sagan's point - we can either move beyond this paradigm or your right wingnut friends are correct. Either we resolve the current mess rationally or we let nature run it's course: a collapse followed by the survival and dominance of the most aggressive and ruthless.
I always find this cosmic view a real dichotomy: one one hand we see the insignificance of planet earth and the human race; on the other hand, the very essence of our species (and our families) is to survive and find fulfillment in our individual lives (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc)
As your right wing friends seem to be the ones who are mostly in charge of world events, it is reall hard to see how we break out of this boom and bust cycle for species like humans.
I'm often reminded of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" and the Easter Island story. In the end, there was just a small band of survivors who apparently did not care much about political ideology - they were just subsistance folks.
Dave,
Thanks.
As regards the right wingers,they are certainly numerous enough to win elections nationally and world wide..They are particularly thick on the ground in this area area.I am acquainted with quite a few,but I count only a couple among my real friends.Otoh,I can count my real friends on my fingers w/nary a qualm about running short!
You would like these guys even if the conversation turned to politics.These two at least are serious thinkers and can defend thier paradigm with long recitations of history and quotes from the Bible and from Darwin.They understand very well that we are on an unsustainable path in general,and and unsustainable path in our warmaking abilities in particular that can be described as extreme offensive overshoot.
As they see it,our wars up until 1860 were nothing more than the equivalent writ large of the territorial clashes of wolfpacks or prides of lions.People died in large numbers of course in earlier wars,but not enough in biological terms to matter.
The American Civil War ,the so called (with great justification)first modern war,ushered in a new paradigm of war.Machine guns,repeating personal weapons,breechloading rifle artillery,railroads, self propelled armored ships,the telegraph,and industrial scale manufacture of war making materials all came together for the first time in a big way.The industrial revolution,in short, revolutionized war.
The Bomb sealed the argument.We have been locked into the ultimate mexican standoff since Alamagordo,and no one knows HOW to defuse the situation.These guys spend a lot of time worrying about thier kids future.The one thing they absolutely are not willing to do is let thier gaurd down,unless some means can be devised so that everybody disarms silmantaneously.
Unfortunately I can find no serious flaw in thier reasoning,given that the driving behavioral imperative is survival personal/family/tribe/ nation.
"Some Native American tribes were living this way at the time of the European invasion."
From my studies and research I think its more like ,
3,500 years before the whites came the tribes living in the Eastern Woodlands were already using permanent sites and engaging in a early form of farming. As they replanted seeds and used the seeds that were larger eventually more modern corn (bigger kernels from what was seeds) came into being.
Since the soil was very rich they could establish sites near rivers so they had good water, mussels and fish as well as gardens. The women were in charge of the gardens and each daughter inherited her mothers plots. The men engaged in hunting and fishing and other activities.
Berries and other fruit were tamed and planted as well. Logs were set upright with spaces filled with saplings and mudded over for shelters.
Eventually they became 'towns' and were more or less permanent but still the tribes could move about if desired.
Above the Ohio the Shawnees established many towns named after the chiefs. This was later in the history of Native Americans but was viable. When the white man wished to render the natives to starvation they simply burned the crops that would have been stored for their winter supplies.
Ample evidence of this is recorded. The midwest and upper areas were mostly plains and so there the natives engaged more in hunting and gathering. A different environment than the Eastern woodlands. As it is today and still is.
That is still true and why those who live in my area do not have huge tracts of land such as in the upper midwest...even in upper parts of Illinois and northern Missouri.
The ozarks are extremely rich in woodlands, clear rivers and much game. That makes it an excellent location to live sustainabily but you never hear it told that way. Its isolated and shutin to a large degree ever since I roamed it in my latter teens and til I moved out of that area in the 70,s. Its still primitive in many areas.
All history of the Native Americans depends heavily on the locations where nature is more diverse. Near here are the mounds of the Mississippians. Very permament settlements. You just don't build huge mounds and they flee. You also find fewer stone tips since hunting was not as important as gathering.
I once found a spot where one of them had buried a cache of river mussel shells. I wondered about it some but looking at their pot shards(which one could also pick up in fields) I noted that they used the shells bits to give stiffiness to their pottery as it was laced with the bits of white shell.
The rivers were full of mussels. There are some who still drag for mussels. We have them often , or used to on the buffet bars on Friday when many go out to eat fish. I don't see them much anymore but not too long ago(2 years ? ) they were in good supply.
So the time line is very long. They originated farming back then long long ago. As the white man came they imitated what the natives were doing.
Airdale
Airdale,
You said it a lot better than I could.
The catch with sustainable development is that nearly all sustainable design is driving the system as a whole to use more and more physically expensive resources. It's really a continuation of the whole growth system's drive to use up the least expensive resources that can be found, as fast as possible. That's what SD is now a major contributor to. The effect is to greatly hasten the approach of the point where our resource and system overhead costs will be too great to sustain, will no longer pay for themselves, and large networks of previously necessary functions will have to fall away.
These are sliding conditions, with the wealthy and highly productive people pushing up the global price of resources for everyone, systematically, and without end, forcing nature to use her way of shedding demand... That's the 'big crunch'... unless, we do what we should have done decades ago and turn off the compulsive growth pump and guide the system to grow only as fast as we can learn to reduce oyr basic resource demand.
"turn off the compulsive growth pump and guide the system to grow only as fast as we can learn to reduce oyr basic resource demand."
Nicely put. Who in your opinion has the best ideas on how to set up an economy/political system to do this?
Michael Hudson has a financial approach similar to mine, but I have not been able to find out much about it, and I seem to have a much better handle on the physical system requirements. You can see my approach at www.synapse9.com/issues/concept$.htm
Paul Krugman and others have also made note of the problem that lending people more money when they don't have the earnings to support the debt they already have is not sensible, particularly if nothing is selling. My basic approach is that the financial system created a lot of false information about how much wealth the physical system was producing and is still trying to hold the debtors liable for the erroneously inflated earnings projections… It’s a mess, but it would be less costly in the end to correct the information to fit the physical world than the reverse… :-)
Hello Dohboi,
I would offer my prior post on understanding our 'Societal Prey' as a method of achieving some degree of Optimal Overshoot Decline [see TOD archive].Since I hope many here are now practicing the Peakoil Shoutout: this creates synaptic wildfires when they inhale [S]ulfur. The following should thus be intuitively obvious to committed Shoutout Devotees:
Recall the [P]hosphorus is #1, S is #2 on Asimov Bio-elemental Intensity list. Since P is already extremely geo-limited, but S is largely treated as waste: a non-BAU Webb/Pomerene approach to elevating S pricing to levels commensurate with its #2 ranking can clearly semaphore to the world a Paradigm Shift. IMO, this is entirely in keeping with Asimov's Foundations concept of Predictive Collapse and Directed Decline.
The Porridge Principle of Metered Decline can be driven by this willful acceptance of S-scarcity [or will it be forced upon us?] and its subsequent ripple effects throughout the global economy. The diminishing return constraint will first, foremost, and largely be felt in the I-NPK pull-system supply chain and postPeak FF/I-NPK latency will magnify this effect, thus causing a more rapid ramp of O-NPK recycling.
The spreading ripple effect of constrained-S upon industry will cause rapid collapse of pointless goods, but will tend to create a sustained demand for vital goods which can be locally manufactured. Recall that S is the primary Root Element that drives all manufacturing processes as energy is applied.
Have you hugged your bag of NPKS today?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
An additional exploration of my proposed Optimal Overshoot Decline can be obtained by applying a postPeak analysis to Frank Herbert's classic "Dune": [S]pice, or melange was the central theme; Fremen, Harkonnens, et al.
--------------------
Elysium is referenced in the Schiller poem which inspired Beethoven's Ode to Joy (9th symphony, 4th movement):
"Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
Touched with fire, to the portal,
Of thy radiant shrine, we come.
Your sweet magic frees all others,
Held in Custom's rigid rings.
All men on earth become brothers,
In the haven of your wings."
---------------------
Recall from my extensive postings that S is important in everything from simple matches, to industrial fertilizers, to explosives, to mineral extraction of other Elements, water purification, tire vulcanization, and many other items. The application of S-scarcity to induce Liebig Minimums in most things, while concurrently driving O-NPK towards building a high agri-ERoEI of a Liebscher's Optima can serve us well on the Hubbert Downslope ahead.
"She comes down from Yellow Mountain..."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gord99/280466011/
------------
Sulfur block
------------
IMO, we need to accept the criticality of S, not mentally block it. Please consider this as just another reason to spread Peak Outreach by the Peakoil Shoutout.
George, not to skip over your question of “what is sustainability” that you suggest is “adaptability” . I quite agree. I think adaptability is being a versatile and resourceful learner about your world, and the key reason for the historic collapses of civilizations have been that the societies became fixated on one world working one way and their solution for that lasting forever, and it didn’t. What hit me at one point was how very common versatile learning is for most kinds of human and other living system activities.
All animals spend their time resourcefully learning their way along, foraging and dodging. When you watch what people and animals do they not being driven by “global pressures” the way the mathematical models describe. So, I think the question is almost the opposite, not just how can be design responsive and adaptable systems and become adaptable ourselves. Why aren’t we resourceful all the time, by nature, when in personal relations and in the arts we demonstrate such skill and pleasure with that. I have a paper in Cosmos & History called Life’s hidden resources for Learning that also discusses this puzzle.
Eventually the sun goes red giant and we vaporize, so there is no such thing as eternal sustainability, at least not within this space-time continuum. The question is: how can homo sapiens sustain itself on earth for as long as possible? Recognizing natural limits and adapting to live within them is an excellent place to start.
I'll offer a slightly different version of sustaining life. Rather than ask how to sustain our current species we should be asking how do we sustain (perpetuate) a life form capable of symbolic reasoning, invention, exploration, etc. A form like us but necessarily more advanced in that facility which we seem to lack - greater wisdom. The human brain, currently represented by the species sapiens is conceivably still subject to evolution, especially under the selective forces that our world is developing. Evolution tends to work by building on top of what already exists. Humans have developed a level of sapience (probably associated with Brodmann area 10 of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) that provides some amount of integration of all of the other areas of the brain/mind, e.g. intelligent and creative problem solving, emotions, moral sentiments, etc. But that integration is incomplete, or at least still immature.
Evolution and the adaptation of Homo's brain to become more integrated through further development of the BA10 (and other associated areas) is completely conceivable based on what we understand now about evolution and brain architecture/behavior.
What we need to work toward sustaining is our genus rather than our species per se. That our species happens to be the only one extant for this genus means that we have to act to preserve the potential for the species to evolve, meaning we have to ensure the survivability of at least some population of Homo sapiens, living in a long-term sustainable fashion. My work is mostly geared to understanding how this can be achieved given the current trends and challenges we have created for ourselves.
Question Everything
George
Wonderful comment, impressive vision, fascinating worldview. I'll probably be in touch.
until then, on behalf of mutants everywhere; kudos.
I'm not sure mere survival is all that difficult, really. Say we go +6C. We're going to have a lot of die-off, regardless. Go underground. Actually, don't even need to go under, just tear down the excess concrete/steel and use it to seal up other buildings. It would be the same as going underground, so long as they were either well insulated or concrete. Dig tunnels between 'em.
For food, have strong, thick/well-insulated shutters on open areas of the building for milder weather and reflect in, or refract in, some way sunlight. As long as water is around, you're set. Hell, wouldn't necessarily need clothing in such a closed system.
So, no, the issue isn't survival. That's pretty certain, in fact. The issue is how many of us get to pass through The Century of the Perfect Storm, and can we mitigate enough to have a viable, healthy *and* comfortable society.
At least, that's my 2c.
Cheers