[TonyPrep]

So what are you saying, Kublikhan? That technology is neutral and it is the users of technology that have done us bad? So what it the difference between the developer and the user? What is the practical upshot of the confluence of the two?

I'm saying the advancement of human knowledge and the application of that knowledge is not in itself bad. But in humanity's shortsightedness, we choose the easier path, or the path that is more convenient. Instead of designing and using better trains, we choose the automobile. Instead of designing closed systems with no toxic chemicals produced, we choose instead to simply dispose of the toxins in the environment.

Ok, Kublikhan. I don't see much difference there. Technology has enabled those bad choices. But I'll grant you that if humans were smarter than yeast, technology would not have caused the problems we face.

[yesplease]

If you want to talk about what happens when you don't have cheap energy, call Galileo.

Galileo didn't exactly have access to the manufacturing base of the 1900s.

That's right. That manufacturing base was a product of fossil fuels.

And the manufacturing base for that manufacturing base was a product of biomass, mostly wood.

Do you mean the wood they burned or the wood they used to make the sticks they beat the slaves with?

Slavery is really what preceded fossil fuels when cheap energy was needed.

Keep that one on your radar as we navigate down the production decline curve.

Lemme guess, a blacksmith during the during the Iron Age had a buncha slaves stand in a semi circle and rub the metal till it has hot enough to work with? C'mon....

Sure, we have to bootstrap any different technology w/ what we're currently using, but that fact alone doesn't mean we can't do so.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the U.K. and the U.S. both abolished slavery at more or less the beginning of the fossil fuel age?

They may have officially abolished slavery, but it was still alive and kicking as indentured servitude and/or criminal labor well into the 20th century, and is still the norm in other parts of the world today. Just because we don't call it slavery and outlaw that term, doesn't mean it ain't happening, even in America.

Maybe it was only abolished when a suitable replacement became available.

I am concerned that far from expensive oil being the spur to techno-fixes, it may be a spur to a wave of human rights abuses on a scale no one can imagine right now.

It could be it was abolished for that reason, but ignoring all the other social infuences, I doubt it. The same goes for related oil to human rights abuses. Far be it from me to tell ya not to make all the links you want, maybe Hercules is running the board of exxon-mobile and didn't want to see the slaves rise to become free and at peace w/ the alien love children? But seriously, who knows? You're reaching IMO...

[yesplease]

Given how little energy is required for the manufacturing of large scale renewable power generation, especially compared to the energy output by it.

I'm a large scale renewable power developer. Let's look at wind. An 80-meter tower weighs about 110 metric tons. Try to visualize from digging the mine, extracting ore, transporting, making steel, cutting sheets, transporting, rolling, welding, painting, transporting, erecting, assembling, etc, etc, commission, operation, maintenance, etc, etc. I'm sure I skipped 50 steps and that's just for tower. Think nacelles, blades, cables, roads, etc. There's nothing sustainable or of little energy about renewables. Whereas vital for tomorrow, I wish we had started the day before yesterday. It's a race against the clock, and I'm bearish on technology.

I wouldn't fall into that trap if I were you. Sure, one windmill, or even a few, isn't sustainable, but once sufficient power from different sustainable methods comes online, it is. This is going to happen as fossil fuels deplete, since by our accounting methods, fossil fuels are cheaper for electricity generation, transportation, etc... Barring of course the cases where they aren't due to accounting for the cost of externalities like pollution and whatnot, and as the deplete the price increases until sustainable alternatives become viable. If we had next to no oil/NG, were 3/4s of the way down the coal depeltion curve, w/ no renewables or research into 'em, then I think it'd be OMGz time. But as it stands we may not even be at peak and still there are literally tons of alternatives for the majority of oil use waiting in the wings. Given the price drop of the 80s, I imagine some are being cautious, but the higher oil gets the more alternatives I see sprouting up, and I imagine the same is similar for other industries that rely on other fossil fuels.

[yesplease]

Yes, projections based upon fertility rates to continue to decline in developing nations due to Benign Demographic Transition.

Not going to happen.

Don't just say it's not going to happen, prove it's not going to happen.

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

The economic growth isn't going to happen

Don't just say it, prove it.

[Dezakin]

Yes, projections based upon fertility rates to continue to decline in developing nations due to Benign Demographic Transition.

Not going to happen.

Don't just say it's not going to happen, prove it's not going to happen.

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

The economic growth isn't going to happen

Don't just say it, prove it.

And if you're really brave, bet on it. Economic growth is whats on the menu for quite some time.

Just when do you suppose its going to stop?

[yesplease]

Stop permanently?

[MonteQuest]

5% of the population, 25% of the resources and waste.

4.4% of the population, 25% of the oil, 40% of the resources and 70% of the pollution, no matter where you find it.

Exactly how much "fat" is that in our country? How bad would peak oil have to smash the US to turn us into the equivalent of a Chinese peasant?

Do the math: 300 million Americans = 20 billion Chinese. ( I read that somewhere years ago)

So, 15 million Americans = 1 billion Chinese.

So we would have to cut back those 300 million's consumption, 1,900%.

Let's say 300 milllion are equal to 4 billion Chinese based upon oil consumption. 21 mbpd versus 5.6 mbpd.

75 million Americans = 1 billion Chinese.

So we would have to cut back those 300 million's consumption, 300%.

You seem to be trying to change the definition of overshoot to match whatever suites your current argument. First you agreed with Coyote's definition that once in overshoot, nothing a population does could avert a die-off. Now you seem to be saying if a population consumers more resources than is sustainable, that is also overshoot, even if their population would be sustainable at a lower, sustainable resource usage. Please clarify.

See above.

Overshoot means way beyond carrying capacity, so far it is impossible to become sustainable without a die-off.

It's like trying to lighten an overloaded boat by losing body weight. You'd have to cut off arms and legs.

However I don't agree that technology per se is bad.

Neither I, or Catton has ever said it was.

Sorry you couldn't get your head around what he wrote.

[MrBean]

Just when do you suppose its going to stop?

In US, stopped last year. Rest of the world, this year, next year, perhaps even five years from now. That's about it.

[MonteQuest]

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That is just plain wrong, oil is not a main factor (except for rubbers). Demographic Transition is made possible with trust that you don't have to breed children to support you in your old age, but that the community will take care of you when you get ill and grow old. Plus womens liberation and patriarchal power structures crumbling.

Good lord!

The "Demographic Transition" is a model that describes population change over time. It is based on an interpretation begun in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson, of the observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the past two hundred years or so.

By "model" we mean that it is an idealized, composite picture of population change in these countries. The model is a generalization that applies to these countries as a group and may not accurately describe all individual cases. Whether or not it applies to less developed societies today remains to be seen.

Industrialized, fossil fuel consuming societies.

Oil is not a major factor in the economic growth of developing countries that leads to better health care, family planning, contraceptives, empowerment of women, etc?

That is just more of the "you can grow without energy" crapola.

[MonteQuest]

Not a personal definition, just common sense understanding about importance of social change:

Some versions of the DTM assume that population changes are induced by industrial changes and increased wealth, without taking into account the role of social change in determining birth rates, e.g, the education of women.

Social changes not possible without a rise in the standard of living as a result of economic development fueled by fossil fuels.

[MonteQuest]

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

So, you posit that developing countries can become industrialized and urbanized, like the developed countries have, without cheap, readily available energy?

The economic growth isn't going to happen

Don't just say it, prove it.

I have to prove to you that business as usual is not going to continue post peak? LOL!

[MrBean]

Oil is not a major factor in the economic growth of developing countries that leads to better health care, family planning, contraceptives, empowerment of women, etc?

That is just more of the "you can grow without energy" crapola.

No. In fact, the more sever the oil addiction, the less social development seems to be the rule of thumb.

You still think oil is actually good. No it isn't.

[MonteQuest]

No. In fact, the more sever the oil addiction, the less social development seems to be the rule of thumb.

But the greater the decline in fertility as a result of DMT.

[MrBean]

Social changes not possible without a rise in the standard of living as a result of economic development fueled by fossil fuels.

You can't make the paradigm shift from quantitative thinking to qualitative living by sticking to quantitative thinking.

[VMarcHart]

I wouldn't fall into that trap if I were you.

Which trap, please?

Sure, one windmill, or even a few, isn't sustainable, but once sufficient power from different sustainable methods comes online, it is.

By the time fossil fuels are totally depleted, and in order to meet our then-electrical demand alone, we'll need a dozen wind turbines in every county from coast to coast, plus solar panels, geothermal plants, hydro, etc, etc. I sincerely doubt we can power all the infrastructure to build renewable energy plants on renewable energy and meet budgetary and schedule constraints.

But there is already a technology in place; the index finger. Just turn off that light switch.

[MrBean]

No. In fact, the more sever the oil addiction, the less social development seems to be the rule of thumb.

But the greater the decline in fertility as a result of DMT.

Not supported by facts. If oil addiction (oil per capita) really did correlate with lower total fertility rate, US should have the lowest rate, which is not true, US tfr is 2.05. EU 1.5 (about same as Cuba) and Japan 1.22.

See list of all countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ility_rate

So, multiple social variables in play and the whole picture cannot be explained by one variable (oil consumption) alone.

[MonteQuest]

But the greater the decline in fertility as a result of DMT.

Not supported by facts.

Duh? It is an observation of those facts that created the DMT model.

DMT is an observation of the decline in fertility in industrialized nations. Industrialized by the use of fossil fuels. To show that the US doesn't have the lowest fertility rate doesn't negate the fact that the fertility rate did decline. Each country has it's own varibles.

Falling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of female education and employment.

Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural influences.


Man....you got a serious case of the denials.

[kublikhan]

Overshoot means way beyond carrying capacity, so far it is impossible to become sustainable without a die-off.It's like trying to lighten an overloaded boat by losing body weight. You'd have to cut off arms and legs.

So, you are saying it is impossible for 300 million people, living in a country the size of America, with all it's resources, to survive post-peak oil? I don't mean have their lifestyles survive, I mean they can't find the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive? Post-peak oil, the average American would be denied even 1/1900 of a percent of his current needs?