Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
Wow. If is Nathan Lewis of Polycomics, he's a supply-sider. I thought they believed the solution to all problems was to cut taxes. _________________ "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place." - Albert Einstein
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
There are some good ideas here, but I'd like to think things through a little further.
MrBill wrote:
I have been doing some reading recently about food production, processing and fuel usage. Some interesting findings. The Economist did an article on it a few weeks ago.
They concluded that tightly packed crates of food delivered to the store near you in containers probably used less energy, or in this case petroleum, than the SUV used to drive to the corner store to buy the groceries.
So we have an extremely efficient system of food delivery that, per crate, uses less energy than the person uses in getting to the store. The ease with which we get food contributes to uncontrolled population growth. So "efficient food delivery" contributes to both the feeding of humans and growth.
Quote:
And there is less waste in terms of spoiled produce. Also a factor. Spoiled food is of no use to anyone, but it still takes land, water and energy to grow.
Spoiled food isn't waste. You can compost it, put it back in the field, thus depleting less than you would have otherwise.
Food storage is certainly necessary in many parts of the world, where the seasons don't accomodate farming and hunting year round. But why is most of our food "wasted" (unused by humans) in the first place? Addressing root causes, and not the symptoms, will use less overall energy than efficient crating.
The storing of resources breeds hoarding and exploitation.
Quote:
Also, I am lucky to get German TV via satelite and they seem to do a lot of programs on food processing. I am struck by how efficient these factories are. I am also convinced they are far more fuel efficient than having decentralized processing done in many smaller batches.
Again, why is food processing efficiency beneficial for the planet as a whole?
Quote:
I will agree that if we run out of petroleum that long distance transport of perishables will cease to happen.
However, stationary sources of power will still run much of the food processing done to preserve food. It is simply way more efficient than human labor. Labor that also has to be fed to keep it working.
Machines need maintenance to keep them working. Machines need to be built. Machines break down and need to be repaired and replaced. All of which could be said about humans as well. Machines, intrinsically, need a specific industrial infrastructure that supports their maintenance, production, replacement. Oh, and all that unrenewable fossil fuel upon which we have built our world.
Humans, intrinsically, do not have any of these additional specific requirements. Humans require food, and the majority of work required to grow food ultimately is provided by the biospehere.
Unfortunately, humans also don't really like to work.
Quote:
And I think ditto for water usage. Yes, these plants use a tremendous amount of water for processing, but divided by the sheer tonnage of food processed (or however you measure it) they are very efficient.
Efficiency, again, needs to be looked at in situ. In this frame, efficiency is still spurring uncontrolled growth.
Quote:
I do not see peak oil depletion as changing that. We have used a period of cheap energy to introduce best practices into food manufacturing as well as spreading crops to many countries from their country of origin, and this somewhat insulates us from crop failure in any one region of the world.
Industrialized agriculture most of the time feeds people, but it will also breed famines, because when crops do fail, the people previously supported by those crops now have no food. Food transported from another region requires extra energy costs, and either depletes another region's resources or requires stockpiles. Stockpiles, in times of no famine, will again encourage hoarding and exploitation. To manage hoarding and exploitation through laws and government, again requires extra energy costs. It also consolidates power, thus promoting corruption, abuse, and further exploitation of resources.
It seems to me that the system is the reverse of deus ex machina, in that it contains the seeds of its own demise, rather than any long-term solution. _________________ "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
MrBill wrote:
I guess none of us would be here at peak oil dot com if we did not understand the implications of hydrocarbon depletion and the end of our current living standards as we now enjoy them. That is a reality even if it is a distant one or somewhat more immediate as some here suggest it is.
What I really hate though are the fear mongers! My father, may he rest in peace, got caught up in the whole The World Will End back in the 1970's. Used to read The Coming Great Depression of 1975/76/77/78..... Doomers such as The Ruff Times. I have back issues of Mother Earth and Harrowsmith stacked to the rafters. There is no time like right now to stock-up on dehydrated food in your basement.
He never bought stocks or bonds. Just worthless pieces of paper. We were property rich and perennially cash poor. But we have three of every hand tool known to modern man! Okay, someday, some how those may come in really handy. Along with the knowledge of how to use them. But you have to also plan for future just in case the world does not blow-up on schedule.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
While all the comments so far are quite sensible, what people here are not considering is the "Panic Factor".
Consider New Orleans (Katrina) and what a balls up mess that was. Lots of talk about how it was the gov'ments fault, but little if any critique of the civilian reaction. And that was for an identifiable event.
If the general public is panic'ed they can collectively believe an awful lot and do incredibly stupid things.
You're rational discussion won't mean a thing then. _________________ Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: Australia
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
That is quite an unfair way of judging.
Selection of the third word makes a big difference. i.e. he may have published lots of articles just none containing the
work "economist". i.e. search on "nathan lewis economy" would already give a different result.
Having that said, I have no idea who this bloke is.
But given that the daily reckoning published his article, one would think that he can't be a total nobody.
Secondly whether he is right or wrong is a differnt matter.
Even media superstars seem to be more wrong than right nowadays. I follow most of them for their entertainment value and listen carfully only to a few, like Marc Faber. _________________ It's not a bailout, it's a buy-in" - Nancy Pelosi
Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 3904 Location: over here
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
well, ok, a second search resulted in "better" links. Are there more than 1 nathan lewis' btw? (I also saw nathan lewis miller and a Nathan S. Lewis, are these persons one and the same? _________________ "The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: Australia
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
N.S. Miller seems to be someone who died back in the 50s.
And Dr Nathan S Lewis works for Caltech so that is probably some other guy. _________________ It's not a bailout, it's a buy-in" - Nancy Pelosi
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:02 am Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
JustinFrankl wrote:
There are some good ideas here, but I'd like to think things through a little further.
So we have an extremely efficient system of food delivery that, per crate, uses less energy than the person uses in getting to the store. The ease with which we get food contributes to uncontrolled population growth. So "efficient food delivery" contributes to both the feeding of humans and growth.
MrBill:
Quote:
Unfortunately most the growth in terms of human population is taking place in the developing world. This has little to do with the efficiency of manufacturing and storing food in the western world, and has more to do with cultural, religious, ethnic and status reasons.
But you are right. Out of moral grounds we often perpetuate acute problems like draughts and the famine they bring by delivering emergency food aid that turns these problems into chronic ones as the local population then do not adjust to the new realities of perhaps living in an area incapable of sustaining high population numbers.
I think it was pop55 who wrote about Scrooge saving Tiny Tim who went on to produce 142.000 offspring in the next century. Clearly there is a link between saving a life and the chain reaction of uncontrolled population growth exacerbating a pre-existing problem.
Spoiled food isn't waste. You can compost it, put it back in the field, thus depleting less than you would have otherwise.
MrBil:
Quote:
Unfortunately, we do live in an age of waste. And much of the food that is spoiled either in the supermarket or at home is not composted but simply thrown away.
For anecdotal evidence I can say this. In a company cantine in Germany for example food has to be thrown away. Employees cannot take it home. They cannot donate it to charity to feed the needy. It is against the law. All unserved food has to be thrown away whether it is edible or not.
That is not a sensible policy, that is decadence. Post peak oil energy depletion will hopefully put an end to useless laws and regulations that serve no purpose whatsoever. They also have nothing to do with efficiency. So therefore what is is not what can be.
I will state this once again because I think it is crucial to understanding post peak oil energy depletion. Efficiency matters. Doing more with less. Feeding 'extra' workers or 'surplus' labor to perform the task easily done with stationary power is not efficient. It is a luxury we can enjoy now because we have an abundance of cheap energy. That will change because it will have to.
Food storage is certainly necessary in many parts of the world, where the seasons don't accomodate farming and hunting year round. But why is most of our food "wasted" (unused by humans) in the first place? Addressing root causes, and not the symptoms, will use less overall energy than efficient crating.
The storing of resources breeds hoarding and exploitation.
Again, why is food processing efficiency beneficial for the planet as a whole?
MrBill:
Quote:
Human history in the past 6000 years since we stopped being hunters and gathers as a whole and settled into communities has been about nothing but food processing and storage. Being able to store an agricultural surplus is what lead to a division of labor in the first place.
People stopped being hunters and gathers approximately when existing supplies of wild game were insufficient to support approximately 300 million inhabitants. We are now 6.5 billion and headed for 9 or 10 billion.
To talk about not producing and storing food is nonsense. Even if we hope to manage a controlled shrinking in population against a backdrop of not just post peak oil depletion, but a collapse in marine stocks as well as climate change and other challenges, we have to address basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter and a means of distribution. Otherwise in the words of Jarrod Diamond those that do not have will be swamping the life rafts of those who do.
Machines need maintenance to keep them working. Machines need to be built. Machines break down and need to be repaired and replaced. All of which could be said about humans as well. Machines, intrinsically, need a specific industrial infrastructure that supports their maintenance, production, replacement. Oh, and all that unrenewable fossil fuel upon which we have built our world.
MrBill:
Quote:
Form follows function. Machines run on petroleum or power derived from fossil fuels because up to now it was cheap and abundant.
I am quite aware, as in anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes at peak oil dot com, that alternative energy cannot replace petroleum to keep our existing infrastructure operating at its current capacity much less provide for unlimited growth.
However, if you have ever used a chainsaw versus an axe you will realize that some sources of power are 'almost' infinitely superior to muscle power. That is not to say that a man cannot walk 10-days with a 100 pound pack on his back. Clearly the porters between Tibet and Nepal do this everyday for pennies. But all that manpower still needs to be fed.
Stationary power built around renewables like wind, solar, geo, etc. will not replace petroleum. Not even coal to liquids. However, they will be still more efficient than human labor. Therefore, in the demise that we call post peak oil depletion machines will be more important than they are today. Even if they are fewer in number and clustered around sources of stationary power.
Preserved, canned food that has a long shelf-life can be transported a hell of a long way by water or rail and then distributed from central depos. On the other hand fresh fish without refrigeration is spoiled in less than 3-days.
If you do not think that creating an agricultural surplus and then perserving it is central to the problem of post peak oil depletion then we are not even reading from the same script.
Humans, intrinsically, do not have any of these additional specific requirements. Humans require food, and the majority of work required to grow food ultimately is provided by the biospehere.
Unfortunately, humans also don't really like to work.
Efficiency, again, needs to be looked at in situ. In this frame, efficiency is still spurring uncontrolled growth.
MrBill:
Quote:
Again you are comparing an age of indulgence fuelled by cheap and abundant energy. Where luxury goods have become common place necessities. Suffice it to say, and I hate to carp on about post peak oil depletion, but that will hopefully end non-essential consumption. What we want to consume today versus what we need to consume to preserve life and limb are two different pairs of work boots.
Industrialized agriculture most of the time feeds people, but it will also breed famines, because when crops do fail, the people previously supported by those crops now have no food. Food transported from another region requires extra energy costs, and either depletes another region's resources or requires stockpiles. Stockpiles, in times of no famine, will again encourage hoarding and exploitation. To manage hoarding and exploitation through laws and government, again requires extra energy costs. It also consolidates power, thus promoting corruption, abuse, and further exploitation of resources.
MrBill:
Quote:
Storage is a means to an end. Hoarding is a human desire if you will. You may well say that all private property is the root cause of crime as the have nots covet what they do not own? In fact laws that protect private property actually lead to order and to prosperity not vice versa.
Then you see that even in our prisons there is crime, and drugs and cigarettes are used as a form of currency. Because people are by nature both bad and good. No matter how small the advantage people strive to become part of the pecking order. Look at academia. The fights are so great because the stakes are so small.
Government, laws and all those customs developed over 6000 years of living together in communities did not happen by accident. They were by their very nature a means of survival of the group. Only by subjugating individual rights and creating obligations in their place could the collective survive.
Peak oil depletion is not going to change human nature. Quite the opposite. It will reinforce lessons learned and long since forgotten. Again blame cheap, abundant energy for running a quasi-welfare state where everyone seeks to live at someone else's expense. Now strip out the easy means of production and you will see it is luxury an energy poor state cannot afford and one that workers will not tolerate to pay for.
It seems to me that the system is the reverse of deus ex machina, in that it contains the seeds of its own demise, rather than any long-term solution.
MrBill:
Quote:
To all life comes death. This is a timeless truism. Nothing lasts forever. Man will replace man. Machine will replace machine. I would be much, much more worried about a collapse in fish stocks then I would be about man forgetting how to build the next machine.
_________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
JustinFrankl wrote:
Industrialized agriculture most of the time feeds people, but it will also breed famines, because when crops do fail, the people previously supported by those crops now have no food.
Famines happened a hell of a lot more before industrialized agriculture. And they happened even more before agriculture. Each step was an effort to reduce famines.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13191 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
JustinFrankl wrote:
Humans, intrinsically, do not have any of these additional specific requirements. Humans require food, and the majority of work required to grow food ultimately is provided by the biospehere.
Unfortunately, humans also don't really like to work.
I think they LOVE to work, instead of letting the biosphere do it for them. Thus they cut down trees, collect and burn crop "wastes," and plow, plow,plow. Much of this work is not only unnecessary, it has proven extremely harmful to the future of humans. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
Has anyone calculated the EROEI on humans, yet? I haven't, but I bet it is really lousy! My plan is to drastically reduce the human population from 6.5 billion to 3 instead of letting it increase to 9 or 10 billion in the next several decades. It is very similar to working with fruit flies, so that they can think they're having sex to reproduce, but they're sterile. I figure massive amounts of my serum dumped into all the world's potable water supplies ought to be the ideal medium. Old folks will just have to save for their own damn retirement instead of waiting around for the next generation to pay for it. My only problem is getting enough willing volunteers to sign-up to my program to put it into action. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Aug 13, 2005 Posts: 603 Location: BlueRidgeVA
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
MrBill wrote:
Old folks will just have to save for their own damn retirement instead of waiting around for the next generation to pay for it.
Yes righto.
But you are neglecting the possibility (probability?) that we will see three generations of a family living together as in old times.
Instead of gramma and grampa kicking back in Sun City and soaking up a cool million or so of public funds, they will end up either living with their children or in collective homes with other oldersters. Older people can contribute quite a bit to a household in terms of gardening, repairs, home-schooling, child-sitting, and numerous other tasks. This would combines households and save heating and general energy waste.
Their contributions are now largely wasted. _________________ "In Jerusalem ... the angry face of Yahweh is brooding over the hot rocks which have seen more holy murder, rape and plunder than any other place on earth. Its inhabitants are poisoned by religion."- Arthur Koestler
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: Economist goes doomerish
Doly wrote:
JustinFrankl wrote:
Industrialized agriculture most of the time feeds people, but it will also breed famines, because when crops do fail, the people previously supported by those crops now have no food.
Famines happened a hell of a lot more before industrialized agriculture. And they happened even more before agriculture. Each step was an effort to reduce famines.
I am under the (perhaps incorrect) understandings that:
Industrialized agriculture centers around a few major foods and provides the overwhelming bulk of food to a society. When a crop failure happens or a disease sweeps through feed animals, it is potentially devastating because of the reliance on that resource. I'm thinking potato famine, mad cow disease. Most of the time, however, famines are not an issue, and the surpluses produced by this type of agriculture promote population growth. The space needed for food production is the least.
Primitive agriculture is an adjunct to hunting/gathering, resulting in less reliance on given crops, but more variety. Crop failures or animal migrations are difficult on people, but the larger variety of diet means there are other foods to be eaten. Modest food surplusses may support modest growth.
Hunter-gatherers possibly have the hardest lives overall, but the overwhelming majority of their "working" time is spent doing just that: hunting and gathering. The hardship of the lifestyle takes its toll on the population, but (given enough territory in which to hunt and gather) lack of "food" itself is not the problem. Having virtually no durable settlement, and no food stockpiles, population growth is exceedingly difficult.
So are these understandings incorrect, and why? I never said that famines happened more under industrial agriculture. I suggested that the effects were more devastating to more people under industrialized agriculture.
I would say that each step (hunter-gatherer -> primitive ag -> industrial ag) was in an effort to make things easier overall, but each step brought new problems.
Despite Ludi's claim that:
Ludi wrote:
I think they LOVE to work, instead of letting the biosphere do it for them. Thus they cut down trees, collect and burn crop "wastes," and plow, plow,plow. Much of this work is not only unnecessary, it has proven extremely harmful to the future of humans.
The farmer, the one who actually works the fields and tends the animals, physically works the hardest of most of the people in our culture. I don't think that most of them do so, however, by choice. Our culture, because of how it's built, always has people in it who will work harder for less money because they lack the resources, skills, smarts, background, connections, confidence, or education to do something that takes less effort. I don't see it as being their fault, as society takes advantage of them or neglects them in some way. Most of the people directly involved in resource acquisition fall into the category of difficult work with little pay, like farmers and miners. Most of them come from poverty and remain in poverty, and the system as a whole continually reinforces this condition.
There is a process that nearly all living things adhere to: the process of keeping yourself living. At a bare minimum, people need breathable air, drinkable water, food, and shelter. Air is usually never a problem, the big three are water, food, and shelter. Most people never give a second thought to these fundamental processes, because food doesn't come from the environment, it comes from the market. Water doesn't come from the rivers or the rain, it comes from the tap or a bottle. Shelters aren't made out of trees and rocks, they're made out of wallboard, two-by-fours, nails, and cement, and all the pieces come delivered on trucks and are assembled by professionals.
My point is that it is usually only the farmer who really understands where the meat and potatoes come from, and how much work and energy went into producing them. The secretary who works 9 hours a day 5 days a week may be tired at the end of it, she may hate her boss and her job, but her food takes only minutes to get and prepare. And her work is a lot less than the farmer's 14 hours a day 6-7 days a week. The work the farmer does means that the secretary doesn't have to spend hours after work each day in the field tending to her own food.
But the secretaries, the lumberjacks, the farmers, and the miners, they all work at their jobs because that's how they get money, and money pays for food, keeps the water flowing, keeps a roof over their heads. It is because the system demands it, not because biology does. And certainly not because most of them want to. _________________ "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
