|
Not about the Upton Sinclair novel, still, slightly more than tangentially related. So I wasn't sure if I should put this in D&D or here. I decided on GBS because my post is more of a personal perspective than a prominent public debate (unfortunately). I just finished reading James Kunstler's Too Much Magic,and listening to this excellent podcast, and I felt the need to summarize them in my own words, actually as a persuasive argument to a skeptical friend orginally. Please just tell me what you think. I didn't include the hard data but you can find most of what I refer to in the following links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...e_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI I suppose I am offering this up as an introduction to Kunstler, if you haven't heard of him already. I consider myself a fairly well-traveled cyber person, so I was surprised that I hadn't encountered him before a good friend told me about his blog. So perhaps he's somewhat hidden, I don't know. Most people haven't a clue when I bring him up. He gets a little too pessimistic and old-white-guy-grumpy at times so I think it's best to take his works a in small doses, but his voice is one of the few that seems down-to-earth, realistic, and independent. In some instances, he could be better at providing more detailed hard data. But he makes a good effort. Basically, his writing has given me a good context for developing and clarifying many more or less vague ideas I had about peak-oil, suburbia, delusional thinking, etc. before I even knew about him, and I have highly appreciated his efforts. The eventuality of a post-oil, post-coal, post-fossil fuel world must result in some measure of economic contraction, or localization of economies. This will begin to occur even well before fossil fuel reserves dwindle to near nothing, as scarcity creates a price boundary in regards to personal and industrial transportation, manufacturing (really robofacturing now), industrial scale farming, and maintaining big city infrastructure. Government officials in the US and around the world (excepting perhaps China), have allowed or engineered a macroeconomic reality that precludes the development of renewable industries on a scale needed to replace fossil-fuels, especially bearing in mind the staggering capital already brought to bear on infrastructure investments such as suburban sprawl, a national highway system (to which a large portion of Obama's stimulus package went to maintain), bridges(the president said 70,000 some were in disrepair), and I'm sure I'm missing something. Unless there is a huge shift in political will or the diversion of military funds to this endeavor at some point in the near future, it remains both politically and economically infeasible. Renewable energies may be able to replace fossil fuels locally to some extent in regions that do not require ungodly amounts of electricity for livability and sprawl has not taken such a strong foothold. Regions such as the American Southwest and Florida will probably experience a mass exodus at some point. The 12,000 mile, even 3,000 mile supply lines of today will falter and render local production of most everything a neccessity, perhaps unless the American government and people can summon the will to refurbish exisiting railways and establish new ones. The vast majority of our transportation infrastructure, and more than half of our home and industrial energy consumption is dependent on fossil fuels, rendering the dream of the electric car a pleasant fantasy, as (at least initially, and, I suspect for quite some time) renewable energies will not even be sufficient for people's personal home use. Thus will the vast majority of people be consigned to a much smaller radius. Unless teleportation is developed, intercontinental travel will be even more rare. People have said that cars and air travel will endure, because the combustion engine only requires "something that will burn" (German guy). The problem with this is that every other 'alternative fuel' requires an economically and physically prohibitive amount of energy to engineer in the first place. Not to mention that a whole lot of energy is used to produce cars and planes in the first, first place. That's not to say that we may not make use of them, but they will be prohibitively expensive for most people. As of now, nothing, nothing can match fossil fuels Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI), which is what allows us to live like we do now, technological wizardry and all, and which allowed America to vaunt to the top of the global economic ladder post WWII. But it's not all bad, localization will allow people to form more intimate and humane communities, and people will once again learn what it is like to be in touch with each other and the vast organism of the Earth and cosmos. edit:I should add that I really almost want to be proved wrong, because I don't like this much more than anyone else. So yea, bring it on, bitches. edit edit: Only one rule: 1) Do NOT post anything even close to resembling an ad hom! This means no personal accusations of incompetence of any kind without making a correlating argument, nothing like "your argument says this about you as a person," no "you are a so-and-so and I hate you." I thought we could all be a bit more mature but it's getting a little out of hand with a few individuals. Dengue_Fever fucked around with this message at Mar 1, 2013 around 07:26 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 07:19 |
|
|
I think you're on to something, but I think you should elaborate a bit.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:13 |
|
|
What a time to be alive.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:14 |
|
|
Nuclear power will even things out, might be a bumpy ride waiting for it to catch up though. I'd say localization and the death of urban sprawl are the icing on the cake.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:15 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:But it's not all bad, localization will allow people to form more intimate and humane communities, and people will once again learn what it is like to be in touch with each other and the vast organism of the Earth and cosmos. Why do people expect this to work out any better than it did before? We already had this mode of living once and mostly it just led to a bunch of petty tribal feuds because the guys in the next village over grew funny looking turnips. The breakdown of travel and communication is not something to celebrate for ~*~~harmony~~*~
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:16 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:But it's not all bad, localization will allow people to form more intimate and humane communities, and people will once again learn what it is like to be in touch with each other and the vast organism of the Earth and cosmos. No, the poor will die like flies and PurCal and AgriGen are going to gently caress us over immensely.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:17 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:
I don't really want this. That's what I love about my suburban home, or the downtown apartment I used to live in. Privacy. There is no rumor mill, and no nosey neighbors keeping tabs on what you are up to. I like having the freedom to choose who I want to be around. Also, what about fusion energy? Mulefisk fucked around with this message at Feb 27, 2013 around 19:23 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:Why do people expect this to work out any better than it did before? We already had this mode of living once and mostly it just led to a bunch of petty tribal feuds because the guys in the next village over grew funny looking turnips. The breakdown of travel and communication is not something to celebrate for ~*~~harmony~~*~ We shouldn't be talking about going back to being Earth Children or whatever. For one thing, there is no such thing as nature. Everything is natural, nature is a human concept. Two, we can never return to "nature", and we will actually do more for the planet by moving further away from "nature". On the other hand, urban sprawl and reliance on personal fossil-fuel based transportation to commute 40-60 miles each day just to make a living is a tremendous waste of resources and does real harm to the fabric of communities. It's also one of the major life support systems for the enduring racism in the States.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:20 |
|
|
I'll get intimate with cyber-people but not you.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:21 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:Not about the Upton Sinclair novel, This is a really good novel, Sinclair's best, far better than The Jungle. Everyone should give it a read.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:21 |
|
|
Just buy a bunch of hamsters.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:27 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:Government officials in the US and around the world (excepting perhaps China), have allowed or engineered a macroeconomic reality that precludes the development of renewable industries on a scale needed to replace fossil-fuels, especially bearing in mind the staggering capital already brought to bear on infrastructure investments such as suburban sprawl, a national highway system (to which a large portion of Obama's stimulus package went to maintain), bridges(the president said 70,000 some were in disrepair), and I'm sure I'm missing something. Unless there is a huge shift in political will or the diversion of military funds to this endeavor at some point in the near future, it remains both politically and economically infeasible. How is China an exception? The country's dependence on fossil fuels is growing at an insane rate and there's a growing "middle" class that's creating severe traffic and smog problems. It's a little sad that the peak oil movement was forgotten. It was probably wishful thinking, that a economic crisis would come along and force governments to establish sane energy policies. Well, we got what we asked for in the form of a financial meltdown (as well as almost getting a nuclear one in Fukushima). The result was the whole world doubling down on fossil fuels and chucking green policies out the door in favour of short term savings. In that context, theorizing about a post-fossil fuel world is incredibly depressing.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:35 |
|
|
Yeah I'm sure all those huge conglomerates making money off fossil fuel will just lay down and die when they run out instead of finding another source of energy to monetize and sell to their rabid customers.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:36 |
|
|
So I guess the question is, will I be dead before all this post-scarcity poo poo goes down?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:42 |
|
|
Neptr posted:So I guess the question is, will I be dead before all this post-scarcity poo poo goes down? Yeah, if only we can maintain for about 60 more years then I'll be too old to give a poo poo! Why not, in the proudest traditions of generations before us, pass it on to the next generation! Problem solved!
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:49 |
|
|
Neptr posted:So I guess the question is, will I be dead before all this post-scarcity poo poo goes down? No, you get to watch the entirety of North America slowly turn into Detroit.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:49 |
|
|
Why do people keep citing James Kunstler? He's not smart and he's not really an expert in anything but he shouts and stammers and stamps his feet in all the right places so people who don't know better pay attention to him.
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at Feb 27, 2013 around 19:52 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:50 |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves Don't worry goons I don't think we'll run out of coal until the oceans boil dry. Steam trains own anyway.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:52 |
|
|
Neptr posted:So I guess the question is, will I be dead before all this post-scarcity poo poo goes down?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:52 |
|
|
I see what you're saying, but consider this... If you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw (------- <- there it is, that's the straw) and my straw reaches ACCCRROSSSSSSSSSS the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... DRINK... YOUR... MILKSHAKE! SSSHHHHHLLLLUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRPPPPPP!!! I DRINK IT UP. Mr. Gibbycrumbles fucked around with this message at Feb 27, 2013 around 19:57 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 19:55 |
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:I see what you're saying, but consider this... So, the Keystone Pipeline?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:00 |
|
|
A few years ago during the height of the peak oil hype people were posting these "insights" daily in GBS. Society still hasn't collapsed although we are supposedly on the downward slope of global oil production. This isn't even remotely news to most people. It is just pretty depressing to think about  .
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:01 |
|
|
Yeah, energy scarcity is unlikely given the coal, natural gas, etc reserves. Food shortages due to a lack of oil, phosphates, and climate change are much more likely and fun to think about. Fusion power is a good 80 years off. 4th generation nuclear is a possibility, especially with thorium and other methods, but none of those really solve the climate change and fertilizer shortage issues.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:03 |
|
|
NihilismNow posted:A few years ago during the height of the peak oil hype people were posting these "insights" daily in GBS. Society still hasn't collapsed although we are supposedly on the downward slope of global oil production. It wasn't hype, the peak actually happened right when people said it would. Only nutcases claimed it would lead to collapse. This is news to most people.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:07 |
|
|
I'm not worried about it. When it gets BAD bad instead of grumble-grumble-petrol-is-30%-more-expensive bad, the West will kick the nuclear/alternative energy solutions into overdrive. It's the developing world I'm worried for. But then again, a lot of those guys haven't quite got so much to lose right? This is a Western problem with a Western fix that will conveniently come along when the relevant corps' bottom line gets jeopardized.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:09 |
|
|
312 posted:It wasn't hype, the peak actually happened right when people said it would. Only nutcases claimed it would lead to collapse. Depends on who you believed, the peak has been predicted dozens of times. The only reason oil production is lower now would be the economic downturn, a LOT of new capacity has come online in form of tar sands since then. edit: Even now i can't find consensus about this, some say we peaked in 2010, some say the peak will be 2014. So many predictions someone is bound to get it right sometime. The argument is still the same as 5 years ago, it won't play out like the doomsday sayers say it will. We will strip mine the earth for its sweet tarsands, burn all the methane clathrate we can find, convert coal to oil if we must. Not revert to some pre-industrial society.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:14 |
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:We shouldn't be talking about going back to being Earth Children or whatever. For one thing, there is no such thing as nature. Everything is natural, nature is a human concept. Two, we can never return to "nature", and we will actually do more for the planet by moving further away from "nature". Alright, I agree with this. If nature needs to be wild to be true, our presence in it represents its fall. If we could use technology to separate ourselves from nature as far as impact, I would be all for it. Also, fine, I know the last part may be some hippy-dippy nonsense, but I really wanted to add something more positive and dreamy to all the realisitc pessimism. But honestly, if you can have your fantasies about techno utopia, or at least believe that technology will save us, why can't I choose to believe optimistically that humans living simply while maintaining some key elements of civilization will save us and not technology? We are so ingrained to think that technology will solve all our problems. It's such dogmatic thinking that completely excludes history. Dengue_Fever fucked around with this message at Feb 27, 2013 around 21:10 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:21 |
|
|
Mulefisk posted:Also, what about fusion energy? Actually, I thought about adding a caveat at the end such as, "all this will happen, unless...but you just did it for me. Fusion may come around, may not. At this point there's no reason to think that it will be viable in the next 100 years, if ever.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:25 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:But honestly, if you can have your fantasies about techno utopia, or at least believe that technology will save us, why can't I choose to believe optimistically that humans living simply while maintaining some key elements of civilization will save us and not technology? Or you can go for the grimdark version where the biosphere is raped by humans in a attempt to maintain our standard of life. I like to think of this as the realistic option.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:25 |
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:How is China an exception? The country's dependence on fossil fuels is growing at an insane rate and there's a growing "middle" class that's creating severe traffic and smog problems. Fair enough, but my point was that China still has the financial resources to take on monster industrial and infrastructural projects. But hey, you're right, they probably won't anyway, and they'll get hosed by their housing bubble like we did. quote:It's a little sad that the peak oil movement was forgotten. It was probably wishful thinking, that a economic crisis would come along and force governments to establish sane energy policies. Well, we got what we asked for in the form of a financial meltdown (as well as almost getting a nuclear one in Fukushima). The result was the whole world doubling down on fossil fuels and chucking green policies out the door in favour of short term savings. Couldn't agree with you more.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:29 |
|
|
NihilismNow posted:A few years ago during the height of the peak oil hype people were posting these "insights" daily in GBS. Society still hasn't collapsed although we are supposedly on the downward slope of global oil production. Six months ago in D&D, too. The fact is there is enough non-renewable energy on Earth - not counting nuclear - to last multiple hundreds of years at current usage rates if you add up coal, oil, tar sand pits, shale, gas, etc. There just isn't enough of it to last that long at current prices. But given the difference in quality of life between $20/barrel oil and $100/barrel oil, I am not willing to read endless Peter Schiff-equivalent handwringing threads that predict DOOOOOOOM as soon as we hit $200/barrel oil. It seemed like bullshit six or seven years ago when the right wingers were doing it during the original oil bubble, it seemed like bullshit two years ago when the left was doing it during PEAK OIL GLOBAL DEPRESSION FRENZY and it seems like bullshit now when the US has miraculously found enough oil to match the Saudis in 24 months as soon as prices spiked enough to make it worth extracting. We'll have next generation power sources long before $economic collapse/barrel because every time the price of a barrel doubles so does the potential payoff.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:31 |
|
|
Neptr posted:So I guess the question is, will I be dead before all this post-scarcity poo poo goes down? How old are you, amigo? If you're under 40 and you don't die of a heart attack when you're 60, you'll probably see this poo poo go down.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:32 |
|
|
Fruits of the sea posted:(as well as almost getting a nuclear one in Fukushima)
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:37 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Why do people keep citing James Kunstler? He's not smart and he's not really an expert in anything but he shouts and stammers and stamps his feet in all the right places so people who don't know better pay attention to him. Mind telling us who you pay attention to, as a sort of contrast, instead of just blithely insulting one author without uttering a word about his ideas?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:37 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:Fair enough, but my point was that China still has the financial resources to take on monster industrial and infrastructural projects. But hey, you're right, they probably won't anyway, and they'll get hosed by their housing bubble like we did. True, the Three Gorges dam is a pretty drat impressive feat. It can be fun speculating about crazy science like subterranean geothermal steam engines or replacing Arctic pack ice with a fleet of floating solar panels. That sort of engineering project comes with a massive human and environmental cost too though. China didn't just have the money to build Three Gorges, it also had the balls to relocate (and likely destroy the livelihoods of) over a million people, and that's not counting the tens of thousands who died in floods. NathanScottPhillips posted:Please don't spread fossil fuel propaganda, especially in a thread about energy. I was just riffing with the "meltdown" word, it sounded good at the time. Nuclear energy is A Good Thing and an incredibly important source of energy. Fruits of the sea fucked around with this message at Feb 27, 2013 around 20:49 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:45 |
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:I'm not worried about it. When it gets BAD bad instead of grumble-grumble-petrol-is-30%-more-expensive bad, the West will kick the nuclear/alternative energy solutions into overdrive. It's the developing world I'm worried for. But then again, a lot of those guys haven't quite got so much to lose right? This is a Western problem with a Western fix that will conveniently come along when the relevant corps' bottom line gets jeopardized. Lazy, lazy thinking all around. You just typed a bunch of words that literally says nothing other than your faith in faceless corporations.  Berious posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves Previous estimates on coal reserves have been either later greatly reduced or shown to be misleading: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ite_note-EWG-10 Besides, do you trust those 'intergovernmental energy organizations'? I don't. Or loving BP for that matter? You could say, 'oh I don't trust sourcewatch', but then, why would you trust Wikipedia either? Dengue_Fever fucked around with this message at Feb 27, 2013 around 21:03 |
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 20:58 |
|
|
Oh, and there's this as well: I am more and more convinced that energy journalism is rooted even more in business ideology than other topics covered. A lot of newspapers use shock headlines meant to jolt a particular reaction out of the reader (oftentimes their aim seems to be to induce fear and consternation) in order to hook the potential reader and make the sale. Energy journalism seems to take a remarkably different tack, where optimistic tones in regards to sustained oil production and cynical lies about future American energy independence through domestic oil production are bandied about, instead of the more dire tones of other news beats. I can only speculate as to the reasons for this. One, people are living in a disneyworld bubble of oil fantasies which, in a collective sense, psychologically refuses to acknowledge any realistic information about the problem, understandably. Second, energy is tied to market confidence to such an extent that propaganda by such organizations as the IEA (perhaps at the behest of the US government), and subsequently advertised by certain news outlets, has been deemed necessary to maintain the current fragile recovery. And third of course is entrenched oil industry interests. How long they can maintain this artificial confidence remains to be seen. Well, it's really quite easy to foresee, actually; it will end the exact moment that the world leaves the bumpy plateau of peak oil production, buttressed by the fleeting boon of shale and tar sand oil, and global production begins to decline.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 21:07 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:Oh, and there's this as well: Dude, you are the worst combination of a conspiracy theorist and the guy standing in the corner with a placard that says "REPENT, THE END IS NIGH!" Relax bro, if and when oil becomes too high, it'll to economical to invest in green technological. Now I know your going to come back with paragraphs saying this simple economic truth will not happen because of big oil, blah blah. But seriously, just read your above post. It reeks of doom-lust and "The truth is out there" conspiracy. Edit: Two hundred years ago, you'd be publishing pamphlets about "Big Whale Oil!" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 21:12 |
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Dude, you are the worst combination of a conspiracy theorist and the guy standing in the corner with a placard that says "REPENT, THE END IS NIGH!" I cannot believe I just read that, "relax bro." Relax?? RELLLAAAAXXX???!!!! Just kidding. I am not a doomsayer, really, I'm not. I write this because I love people (except you), and want them to survive. Though I wish you would address what I've written and not just engage in ad hominem insults, bro. 
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 21:19 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 07:19 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:I cannot believe I just read that, "relax bro." Relax?? RELLLAAAAXXX???!!!! What's there to address? Yours is just a hodge podge laundry list of polemics. You want facts? Humanity has never been more prosperous, peaceful, well fed, and interconnected in its entire history. You should relax, because we are doing great. It's obvious you just have a grudge against corporations, and some weird holistic boner. I mean "But it's not all bad, localization will allow people to form more intimate and humane communities, and people will once again learn what it is like to be in touch with each other and the vast organism of the Earth and cosmos." Seriously? Or to put it more succinctly, anyone trying to argue that they can see some *secret* collapse of society coming is just arrogant beyond belief.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 21:28 |
|
