"Olduvai" theory is one of those obvious outcomes staring us in the face that, much as I try, I can't rationalize away. It's just number-crunching, after all, and the numbers scare the #$%* out of me. _________________ "By the time individuals discover that remaining resources will not be adequate for the next generation, the next generation has already been born. " David Price
"Tainter suggests that a technological advance can stave off declining return. The only one real candidate for that is fusion power, but its a way off."
Well, I don't think that this solves the collapse problem, but there are advanced fission possibilities too. We COULD have electricity for a very long time (hundreds of years or longer) just from fission. But not, of course, with continued growth. _________________ "cygnus inter anates"
Doly, the Sahara desert can support a few people, but how many can it support? It certainly can't support the entire world, can't support a billion Chinese, so statements that arabs can live in the desert does not take away from what Duncan is saying, that without energy, namely electricity required to support the existing 6 billion people in this world, a massive malthusian crisis will occur to bring world population back to a sustainable leve. He doesn't say everyone will die, not everyone does die, there are always survivors, but that's not the point. The point is, billions won't survive if he's correct. Even here in the U.S. places like Las Vegas could not exist in the desert without without pumping in massive amounts of water from Colorado. That requires lots of electricity to do. Again, though, Duncan doesn't say everyone will die, only that the world will be brought back to a 1930s level, and that's not much.
Well, first of all, Duncan claims that world will go to 1930 levels initially but that it will go to a stone age levels after that. WHich is one of the reasons he named Olduvai theory after the gorge rich in stone age archeological finds.
That said, I think Duncan's theory is complete and utter rubbish. He quotes reduced energy use per capita since 1979 as a sign of an impeding collapse. But the reduced energy use is not a result of energy being unavailabe or us otherwise being forced to use less, but is a sign of our technology being somuch more efficient that despite having more powerful and bigger cars and using insane amounts of electronics we can reduce our per-capita energy use. I.e. our society is becoming more sustainable instead of declining. There is no reason to asume then that the "slope" will lead to a "slide" and eventually the "cliff". By the way, we are already supposed to be halfway in the "slide". I do not see any evidence of that, however.
Duncan also ignores alternatives, from nuclear to renewables. They will be able to eventually replace the gap caused by declining oil and naytural gas, if not for total energy consumption than surely for electricity.
Also, even if we have to get by with third or even a fourth of per capita energy than today increased technological advancement and better industrial efficiency means that we will still have a lot more usable energy than in 1930. Sorry, as much as Neoluddites would want it, we are not about to go back to 1930 or even stone age levels. It's just not going to happen,
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 197 Location: Southern Ontario
Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject:
There are many varied possibilities that exist for the future. One of the issues I take with Duncans theories is that the range of his predictions is very wide. It's like hitting a bullseye the size of a dart board. The analysis was already there to suggest that energy problems would be experienced by most of the industrialized world by the end of this decade, it just didn't get enough public scrutiny, just as it isn't getting now. Most people are energy illiterate. All they know is that you plug the thing into that other thing and it works. There's almost no thought behind the use of energy by most people today, and that is, after all, the crux of the issue.
There's no telling exactly what's going to happen next year, as unforseeable events may transpire that shake the entire world to it's foundation. Conservation could play a huge role when it comes to alleviating the energy problems we face, and it starts with each and every one of us. Don't buy an SUV, or a big house. Don't buy a big screen TV.
If business operated the same way as consumers they'd all be bankrupt. People don't think about the long term cost of ownership of most of the stuff they buy because the economy has been padded by cheap oil and subsequently cheap electricity. Demand will slow down when energy becomes more expensive and has already been reduced in lower income brackets by escalating costs. Efficiency will go up as prices climb higher.
That being said it will probably be too little too late. Eventually, barring a huge breakthrough in fusion power (ie, portable fusion reactors that can power everything) there is not enough impetus to get alternative energy sources going at the rate they will need to be, and so complete an economic transistion. There will be some infrastructure supporting alternative power, but I'd hate to live in one of those areas after an energy collapse.
Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 890 Location: Scotland
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 3:08 am Post subject:
the thing i dont really get about olduvai is this:- it measures energy production/use compared to population. so, in the 1970's, because population was skyrocketing, it overtook energy supply and caused energy production/use per capita to fall for the first time in (recorded?) history.
what does this actually mean though? If i have a house that consumes energy to heat it, light it, make food and do laundry etc., but it is just me in the house, i am using a LOT of energy per capita. If i share that house with 1 other person, the amount of energy use per capita would fall a lot, but the actual energy use might be about the same or slightly more. If i share the house with 3 others, energy use per capita would tumble, although overall energy use would increase a little - simply because, you only need one light per room.
1 light per room split between 4 people = energy use per capita of 0.25 lightbulbs each. 1 light per room for 1 person = energy use per capita of 1 lightbulb each.
there is no decrease in standard of living, blackouts, energy shortages.
that is why i dont really understand olduvai theory. we all know there is a finite amount of energy we can produce per day - but just because this finite amount of energy is being spread between more people, why does that mean a return to the stone age?
and anyway, i would bet that energy use per capita has INCREASED in western countries and decreased in all others - so its not as simple as the olduvai theory.
I would say that having more people in the room is a decrease in standard of living. In third world nations, it's not unusual to have a dozen or more people sharing a tiny apartment. While in the U.S., many areas have laws regulating the number of people you have per residence. Having too many people living in one house is considered a health and safety issue, and perhaps more importantly, reduces property values.
You may be correct in that the energy use of Americans has increased, at the expense of the Third World. I believe Simmons said something like that, as an explanation for why we didn't hit the peak earlier, as some predicted. The '70s predictions assumed the world would catch up to the U.S.; instead, the gap between the haves and have-nots widened.
But I don't see this as proof that the Olduvai Theory is incorrect. If the trend continues, most of us will eventually be have-nots.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 2:29 pm Post subject:
linlithgowoil wrote:
the thing i dont really get about olduvai is this:- it measures energy production/use compared to population. so, in the 1970's, because population was skyrocketing, it overtook energy supply and caused energy production/use per capita to fall for the first time in (recorded?) history.
what does this actually mean though?
I agree, there is lack of causality in the theory. In my opinion the theoretical basis has no merit. I don't even think it is a scientific theory. It is a possible scenario, but he would need to prove there is cause and effect not just a correlation.
There are much better theories. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 197 Location: Southern Ontario
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 7:28 am Post subject:
It's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Duncan has actually done some modelling of the situation and maybe found exactly what he was looking for, but that doesn't mean that his results are completely erroneous. Just because we have no historical precident for a Yellow Stone erruption, doesn't mean that we can't guess at what's possible based on evidence. That's all Duncan has done - put forth his best guess. Also, establishing causality for a system as complicated as this is next to impossible. There's just too many variables all of which play a factor. There are some variables that are more pronounced than others - if there exists a reasonable correlation between two of the most pronounced variables that's the best we will ever have to go on.
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
