I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Merry Ol' USA
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
MonteQuest wrote:
Tyler_JC wrote:
We have a tremendous amount of waste that can be removed from the system before the essentially services get cut off.
You know, I'm becoming convinced that people cannot think systematically on here.
There is no such thing as waste, neither in nature or in our current economic system.
Waste in nature is some other species food.
Waste in our economic system is someone's job.
Thank you for that. I, too, am somewhat convinced of the same.
Mostly people use the idea of cutting things as a way of feeling superior about what they're doing:
"I'm good because I drive a Prius"
"I don't keep credit card debt"
Etc.
Now I happen to think there would be great jobs, and just as many, if we took a lot of the meaningless (in the grand scheme of life/the earth?) jobs and reallocated them; think of all the public works that need to be accomplished, for example. But this is neither easy nor instantaneous; it requires a lot of people to be downsized out of their current positions and new skills to be learned. The outsourcing of our manufacturing base would have been a lot easier to accept if the move was from manufacturing to eco-science, for example, instead of door-greeter at Walmart. Nonetheless, door greeter at wallyworld is still a job, and still plays a part in the overall economy. As I posted on another thread, if everyone quit using credit cards to live "beyond their means", the economy (in the US at least) would come apart at the seams and most of us wouldn't have jobs at all. _________________ After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jdmartin wrote:
Now I happen to think there would be great jobs, and just as many, if we took a lot of the meaningless (in the grand scheme of life/the earth?) jobs and reallocated them; think of all the public works that need to be accomplished, for example. .
The decades to come will see many things that are now done by machines handed back over to human beings, for the eminently pragmatic reason that it will again be cheaper to feed, house, clothe, and train a human being to do those things than it will be to make, fuel, and maintain a machine to do them. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Mar 09, 2007 Posts: 226 Location: No. Calif.
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
Getting back on topic: Why aren't we cutting back like in the 80's???
1. We are much, much more dependent on fossil fuels than even then. I do have to agree with this. However, something is still missing? Why aren't we cutting back like we did before??
2. As we get closer to the edge, fantasy appears to rule more than reason. Is there a real reason for this? In the age of the internet, how is it that the American people are more uninformed than ever? Sociologists will be going over this for years and years. It is the difference between a Carter and a Bush presidency. Does anyone even think a Carter-like presidency is even possible anymore??
Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Merry Ol' USA
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jedinvest wrote:
Getting back on topic: Why aren't we cutting back like in the 80's???
1. We are much, much more dependent on fossil fuels than even then. I do have to agree with this. However, something is still missing? Why aren't we cutting back like we did before??
2. As we get closer to the edge, fantasy appears to rule more than reason. Is there a real reason for this? In the age of the internet, how is it that the American people are more uninformed than ever? Sociologists will be going over this for years and years. It is the difference between a Carter and a Bush presidency. Does anyone even think a Carter-like presidency is even possible anymore??
1. If your asking why we don't cut back in the face of escalating gasoline prices, it's because by and large we can't cut back any further. I suspect most people have already curtailed their nonsense driving, and basically everything that's left is essential, get-me-to-work driving. The next cutback is massive carpooling/public transportation/walking-bike riding. I don't think you'll see that on any level until other discretional income is gone, ie the money that would have went to the theatre or the Olive Garden.
2. A Carter-like presidency is impossible unless the guy/gal turns a 180 once they get in. No one wants to hear that we're up crap creek without a paddle; they want to hear that everything's going to be just fine. Someone would have to lie their way in, then drop the bomb once they were in. Unlikely. _________________ After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jedinvest wrote:
We are much, much more dependent on fossil fuels than even then. I do have to agree with this. However, something is still missing? Why aren't we cutting back like we did before??
A recent poll I saw showed that most people consider their driving essential and not discretionary....as I see jdmartin just posted. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jdmartin wrote:
1. If your asking why we don't cut back in the face of escalating gasoline prices, it's because by and large we can't cut back any further.
Is that so? Let us engage in a thought experiment.
Suppose that some previously unknown radical group takes control of a nuclear attack submarine, and the launch codes. Each US submarine carries 24 Trident missiles, each capable of carrying 3 MIRV warheads. So that's 72 nukes.
They then fire each warhead at a major oil facility. The Saudi facility, of course - but other critical areas (including refineries) around the world.
The submarine is destroyed, along with the radicals.
However - gasoline and diesel are rather hard to come by.
So - do people get by with less, or do they curl up and die?
Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Merry Ol' USA
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
Jack wrote:
jdmartin wrote:
1. If your asking why we don't cut back in the face of escalating gasoline prices, it's because by and large we can't cut back any further.
Is that so? Let us engage in a thought experiment.
Suppose that some previously unknown radical group takes control of a nuclear attack submarine, and the launch codes. Each US submarine carries 24 Trident missiles, each capable of carrying 3 MIRV warheads. So that's 72 nukes.
They then fire each warhead at a major oil facility. The Saudi facility, of course - but other critical areas (including refineries) around the world.
The submarine is destroyed, along with the radicals.
However - gasoline and diesel are rather hard to come by.
So - do people get by with less, or do they curl up and die?
Moral - Yes, we can cut back further; we just need motivation. And the depletion curves will provide it.
That's a ridiculous "thought experiment" for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because the premise of the thread is the idea of cutting back while still living within the parameters of our life, meaning most people (I'm talking US for the most part) getting up 5 days a week and driving to work, making the occasional trip to the grocery store, etc. Of course I can cut back on gas usage if I don't have a job to go to anymore, which is the scenario you posted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pull off your example, there's not going to be an economy any more.
Now that we've got that foolishness out of the way, let's return to reality. Working within the confines of the American standard of living, driving is not likely to be cut back further in any meaningful way because most people have already cut out the majority of extraneous driving. I can't reduce my weekly gasoline usage driving to work unless I quite my job. There's no public transportation, so that's out. I already drive a fuel-efficient vehicle (upper 30's mpg). I could ride a bike, which would be a hell of a trick considering my commute is over 40 miles, and this is not at all unusual for the average American.
Oh, and by the way: if your experiment did in fact take place, quite a few people would simply "curl up and die", because without the lifeline of gasoline to: get groceries to the store, send paramedics out to 911 calls, transport medicines to ill and elderly patients, there would be no other realistic way to move vitals. Think there's enough farms to feed everyone in the Dallas/Ft Worth, Austin or Houston Metro areas, that could bring goods to market using horse and buggy, or even provide enough fertilizer and farm equipment to get it done? _________________ After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jdmartin wrote:
That's a ridiculous "thought experiment" for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because the premise of the thread is the idea of cutting back while still living within the parameters of our life, meaning most people (I'm talking US for the most part) getting up 5 days a week and driving to work, making the occasional trip to the grocery store, etc. Of course I can cut back on gas usage if I don't have a job to go to anymore, which is the scenario you posted. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pull off your example, there's not going to be an economy any more.
If you think this is ridiculous, then you must be deeply distressed by some of the thought experiments used by physicists in considering black holes and quantum mechanics. The experiment is created to investigate a principle - which, in this case, worked nicely.
I believe we must restate your underlying assumptions. When you say: "cutting back while still living within the parameters of our life" it appears that you are actually saying: "reducing consumption with the additional constraint of not changing any of the usual behaviors of the current American lifestyle."
So, with that stated, you're right. You cannot reduce consumption without violating the stated constraint.
Which begs the question - what happens when the constraint is violated?
jdmartin wrote:
Now that we've got that foolishness out of the way, let's return to reality. Working within the confines of the American standard of living, driving is not likely to be cut back further in any meaningful way because most people have already cut out the majority of extraneous driving. I can't reduce my weekly gasoline usage driving to work unless I quite my job. There's no public transportation, so that's out. I already drive a fuel-efficient vehicle (upper 30's mpg). I could ride a bike, which would be a hell of a trick considering my commute is over 40 miles, and this is not at all unusual for the average American.
All of which states the details of the above - you cannot reduce consumption without violating the constraint. You do not address what happens when reality causes the bounds to be exceeded. Unfortunately, those areas outside the bounds (where the constrains are violated) are the areas of greatest interest.
jdmartin wrote:
Oh, and by the way: if your experiment did in fact take place, quite a few people would simply "curl up and die", because without the lifeline of gasoline to: get groceries to the store, send paramedics out to 911 calls, transport medicines to ill and elderly patients, there would be no other realistic way to move vitals. Think there's enough farms to feed everyone in the Dallas/Ft Worth, Austin or Houston Metro areas, that could bring goods to market using horse and buggy, or even provide enough fertilizer and farm equipment to get it done?
Are Americans so weak, so fat, so lacking in the will to live? Then Divine Providence (however defined) will weigh them in the scales of eternity, and will find them undeserving of survival.
But notice that you have gone from one state (living within the parameters of our life), to another (no gasoline to be had for anything) in one step. But that isn't what Peak Oil is saying; rather, there will be a decline over time.
So the constraint will be violated, but not greatly violated. It will then be exceeded to some greater extent each year. The reactions - social, economic, political - are what will define our society and will affect our personal survival.
Joined: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 1206 Location: western Wisconsin
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
Regarding cutting back gas usage--people consider many things to be "necessities" that I consider "frivolous". Just look at the recent Memorial Day holiday weekend in the USA. Record numbers of miles driven and airplane trips taken, and most of these were not necessary, but were vacation trips. Then look at the miles put on ATVs, skidoos, bass boats, etc. Americans (especially) feel that they are "owed" a vacation every weekend, it seems, and a vacation means getting away from where you live, burning gas and spending money. It will take a great awakening and a major change in home and family life to change America's energy use patterns. People just don't want to spend their weekends, vacations, or even time off work, at home--gotta get away from it all!!
Live where you enjoy being, find work within a reasonable distance, and enjoy life. Get to know the neighbors, grow a garden, do things at home.
Last edited by WisJim on Thu May 31, 2007 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Merry Ol' USA
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
Jack wrote:
If you think this is ridiculous, then you must be deeply distressed by some of the thought experiments used by physicists in considering black holes and quantum mechanics. The experiment is created to investigate a principle - which, in this case, worked nicely.
I don't worry too much about black holes and quantum mechanics; they mean nothing to me in the grand scheme of my life.
Quote:
I believe we must restate your underlying assumptions. When you say: "cutting back while still living within the parameters of our life" it appears that you are actually saying: "reducing consumption with the additional constraint of not changing any of the usual behaviors of the current American lifestyle."
So, with that stated, you're right. You cannot reduce consumption without violating the stated constraint.
Glad you agree
Quote:
Are Americans so weak, so fat, so lacking in the will to live? Then Divine Providence (however defined) will weigh them in the scales of eternity, and will find them undeserving of survival.
I believe they are for the most part. There is a lot invested in this way of life, economically, socially and emotionally.
Quote:
But notice that you have gone from one state (living within the parameters of our life), to another (no gasoline to be had for anything) in one step. But that isn't what Peak Oil is saying; rather, there will be a decline over time.
Of course I did, because I was responding to your example. Your example was not "the price of gasoline increases a dollar each year". Your example was "72 missiles wipe out all the oil production and refinery capability". If you can't see a difference in your predetermined conditions, I don't really know any good way to respond.
Quote:
So the constraint will be violated, but not greatly violated. It will then be exceeded to some greater extent each year. The reactions - social, economic, political - are what will define our society and will affect our personal survival.
So what? That's exactly what's happening now. We don't need to imagine rogue missiles on paper to wonder what will happen to the "American way of life". We can watch it unfold. People will first groan and moan, then they'll cut out other expenses, etc. Gasoline will be the last thing to go, I will promise you that.
Quote:
That said, I'm quite confident that the plan of "living within the parameters of our life" will cease to be viable.
I agree. What is the point against the original context of the thread? The point posed was, essentially, "We cut back in 1980 and everything ended up great - why can't/won't we do the same thing now?". To wit, my responses. _________________ After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Merry Ol' USA
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
WisJim wrote:
Regarding cutting back gas usage--people consider many things to be "necessities" that I consider "fivolous". Just look at the recent Memorial Day holiday weekend in the USA. Record numbers of miles driven and airplane trips taken, and most of these were not necessary, but were vacation trips. Then look at the miles put on ATVs, skidoos, bass boats, etc. Americans (especially) feel that they are "owed" a vacation every weekend, it seems, and a vacation means getting away from where you live, burning gas and spending money. It will take a great awakening and a major change in home and family life to change America's energy use patterns. People just don't want to spend their weekends, vacations, or even time off work, at home--gotta get away from it all!!
Live where you enjoy being, find work within a reasonable distance, and enjoy life. Get to know the neighbors, grow a garden, do things at home.
Again, it sounds good on paper. Go back to MonteQ's posts regarding waste in a system. All those "fri(v)olous" drivers are pumping money into your economy, like it or not. There's not much money changing hands when people are sitting at home chatting with Mister Rogers in their neighborhood. _________________ After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jdmartin wrote:
driving is not likely to be cut back further in any meaningful way because most people have already cut out the majority of extraneous driving. I can't reduce my weekly gasoline usage driving to work unless I quite my job. There's no public transportation, so that's out. I already drive a fuel-efficient vehicle (upper 30's mpg). I could ride a bike, which would be a hell of a trick considering my commute is over 40 miles, and this is not at all unusual for the average American.
Agreed that some people have long commutes and can not ride a bicycle. But, 90% of the people in my office have commutes of 5 miles or less. All of these people could be riding bikes. The poll that Monte mentioned states that people "SEE" their driving as essential. That is the barrier here--the way people SEE their driving. Now the point I keep making is that the way people SEE their driving is going to change gradually the more it cuts into their monthly income until we hit a tipping point. When we do...
*A lot (not all) of the people who can bike to work will do so;
*A lot (not all) of the people who can share rides will do so;
*A lot of people will start to subscribe to grocery delivery services;
*Other radical ideas, etc, ad infinitum,
*A lot (not all) of the people who can move closer to their office will do so;
*Even people who would not dream of biking, carpooling or moving closer to the center of town will find themselves reevaluating as gasoline prices climb;
*Some people (particularly those with higher incomes or more fuel efficient cars) will not do those things and will continue driving; nevertheless, it will still represent a fundamental change in our culture.
Getting back to my original post, gas has to be about 40-50% more expensive than it currently is before we see this shift in any big way. The poll that Monte referenced backs me up on this. _________________ Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
jdmartin wrote:
I What is the point against the original context of the thread? The point posed was, essentially, "We cut back in 1980 and everything ended up great - why can't/won't we do the same thing now?". To wit, my responses.
Where the hell did you come up with the "...and everything turned out great." part? I sure didn't say that. I posed a social/economic question without any such value judgements. All I said is that people changed their behavior then and not now. I wondered why and then presented evidence to explain what the difference was and when we could look for a similar change in behavior.
All the rest of you are making value judgements. You all seem to be choosing up sides in the debate of doom versus utopia.
That's fine. Do what you want, but I want to state for the record that NONE of that originated from my first post. You all added it for yourselves. _________________ Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
Joined: Mar 09, 2007 Posts: 226 Location: No. Calif.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: Why We Aren't Cutting Back Like in the 80's
Thanks for some of your responses -- it makes me feel connected, which is something many of us have lost from the reality we have made for ourselves. When you see a problem and nobody reacts to it, you have to wonder whether there really is a problem. Well, of course, there is a problem.
Pixie said:
Quote:
Getting back to my original post, gas has to be about 40-50% more expensive than it currently is before we see this shift in any big way. The poll that Monte referenced backs me up on this.
The first Bush said it well: "It's a vision thing." Our politicians have no vision. The financial institutions think so short time, that they must deny the whole thing. Only when it starts to hurt, well, it may be too late then.
I'm of course thinking why aren't we considering putting in place the infrastructure and framework and just planning for what lies ahead? I know, I know: It is ethanol and coal gasification. Precisely the technologies that will delay the necessary reactions.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pull off your example, there's not going to be an economy any more.
