[Heineken]

For at least a century the world has been rapidly "shrinking" thanks to the transportation miracles fueled by oil. Phrases like "the world keeps getting smaller" are hard-wired into our cultural brain, and certainly into our cultural practices and economy.

The airline industry in particular has shrunken the world, temporally tying together weirdly disparate places like Borneo and New York. You can leave one and be in the other in a day.
And the shipping industry. And trucking. And of course the almighty automobile.

But almost exactly now, this long-entrenched trend is shuddering to a halt, and reversing. The airline industry is dying before our eyes, and shipping people are talking about a return to sail power. People are shortening or eliminating automobile trips, and giant RVs are growing cobwebs. Independent truckers are going out of business.

The world is no longer shrinking, but expanding. Isn't that incredible? The implications make my head spin.

[Duende]

Speak it, brother Heineken.

We take low transportation costs for granted - what we know of as globalization will begin to reverse.

Yes, obviously a lot of the junk from China will not be making the 12,000 mile trip when fuel costs so much, and there will be less 14 hour drives to Disney World.

But what I think is interesting is to think about what will remain of our 'global' civilization as time goes by. For instance, international communications (the internet specifically) seems on the face of it to be relatively fossil fuel free. However, when one considers the implications of maintaining the infrastructure which makes cell phone calls possible (ex. satellites), it looks like a lot of our instant communication dependencies could be greatly compromised too.

[TireFire]

This point of view is gaining acceptance. i read an article recently that was predicting job creation in the US and Canada due to the fact that cheap products from India nad China would no longer be competitive in our markets before of shipping costs.

Of course there remains Mexico who still has large availability of cheap labor, but the view point was interesting.

furthermore, leess shipping world wide will inevitable lessen the demand for oil making an argument for a 'soft' landing.

[KingM]

Actually, I think Disney may do very well, at least in the short to medium term. Our trip to WDW this fall will cost roughly 1/3 of what our trip to Provence cost last spring. This disparity will only grow as people are forced to abandon airplanes for rail, etc.

And the world will keep shrinking in terms of information. The internet is not going anywhere.

As for relative terms, do you think it will be easier to travel from London to New York in 2070 or from London to Paris in 1270? The world is still a far, far smaller place than it ever was before about 1900 and will be for the conceivable future.

[hope_full]

The world is still a far, far smaller place than it ever was before about 1900 and will be for the conceivable future.

The WORLD may be a far, far smaller place than it was before 1900, but that is NOT true for the United States. Up until a few years after WWII, we had a passenger rail system that was very impressive and boasted of routes to all places great and small and with a degree of pride on TIMELY arrivals.

Last time I complained about a delay in air travel, I was admonished by a gate agent, "Would you rather get there on time or get there alive?" A poorly phrased question for sure, but I think the point she was struggling to make was, "don't gripe if you're six hours late, just because we had to replace that window in the passenger cabin so you wouldn't be sucked out into the unfriendly skies at 38,000 feet above sea level." (BTW, a window did blow out recently on an aged MD-80, American Airlines).

Trains were reliable, speedy (steam engines hitting 80 mph on some long runs) and there were plenty of tracks. In fact, in the early 1900s, I believe we had something close to 400,000 miles of rail line in this country. And there was no "pulling off to the side to give right-of-way to a passing frieght train."

I'd dare to say that our United States were not a lot "smaller" in the early 1900s, due to the proficiency and expediency of train travel.

HF

[cube]

The world is still a far, far smaller place than it ever was before about 1900 and will be for the conceivable future.

The WORLD may be a far, far smaller place than it was before 1900, but that is NOT true for the United States. Up until a few years after WWII, we had a passenger rail system that was very impressive and boasted of routes to all places great and small and with a degree of pride on TIMELY arrivals.

I think you're glorifying the past. Nobody ever said what we have today is sustainable but make no mistake there has never been a time in history where so many people have had it so good.
//
To:Heineken
yeah I think the world is expanding right now.
If you can't afford the fuel to go from point A to B then I guess you won't be going very far.

Have you ever seen those science fiction "alternate reality" movies where a society has a bizarre combination of technologies? I think PO is going to look like that. Imagine a future world where people have things like cell phones with internet surfing capability but some farmers use horses to plow fields or maybe we'll dig a hole into the ground and live like hobbits because nobody can afford air conditioning.

[TheDude]

Shrinkage?

The WORLD may be a far, far smaller place than it was before 1900, but that is NOT true for the United States. Up until a few years after WWII, we had a passenger rail system that was very impressive and boasted of routes to all places great and small and with a degree of pride on TIMELY arrivals.

Until the railroads finally gave way and installed air brakes you had hundreds - thousands? - of brakemen being crippled or killed every year, too. You can even buy a book of railroad disaster songs.

And there was no "pulling off to the side to give right-of-way to a passing frieght train."

US started out mostly single track but converted to double by the mid 19th century, I believe. Not so much the case now - one of many things we need to fix with the national rail system, along with revitalizing passenger rail.

Anyway, yeah, shrinkage. Never was much of a tourist anyway so don't really give two puffs. The outside world will again become mysterious. Kunstler did a good job of conveying that in WMBH. Whitley Striber's account of touring a bombed out US in Warday was effectively done as well.

[cube]

On average steam locomotives had to stop and resupply with coal every 100 miles. Imagine how long a coast to coast trip would take.
and this is what New York city looked like before traffic congestion due to cars


to: hope_full
I'm not trying to be mean or jump on you. I'm just laying down the facts here. The good old days wasn't really that great.

[Heineken]

Needless to say, I don't agree with Hopefull's post.

Yes, there was a better train system in 1900 than now, but in 1900 there were no planes and virtually no cars. Even a trip by train was sort of a big deal for the average person. Trips overseas meant long journeys by ship.

In the future we'll be forced to stay closer to home, and international travel will be very expensive and relatively infrequent for the average person.

The tourism industry, a vast force for environmental and social evil, will shrink into insignificance.

These trends will change our place in and interaction with the world as radically as the Oil Age did.

I see this as a good thing, very beneficial for the wilder places. Another big benefit will be reversal of the homogenization of human cultural differences (the frightful McDonaldization of the world that's been going on---the spreading "sameness").

The world will inexorably get bigger again and in Dude's words, "more mysterious." (Right on, Dude.)

[dunewalker]

Don't forget the bicycle. It was an important part of United States history until squelched by the automotive industry.

"Cycling steadily became more important in Europe over the first half of the twentieth century, but it dropped off dramatically in the United States between 1900 and 1910. Automobiles became the preferred means of transportation. Over the 1920s, bicycles gradually became considered children's toys, and by 1940 most bicycles in the United States were made for children. In Europe cycling remained an adult activity, and bicycle racing, commuting, and "cyclotouring" were all popular activities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle

[Heineken]

I see growing bicycle use as a sign of the "expanding world" we're discussing here, Dune. And horses and buggies!

All far more local in their scope, by contrast with what they will replace.

[Jack]

For instance, international communications (the internet specifically) seems on the face of it to be relatively fossil fuel free.

Not really. The internet requires large server farms - with row after row of computers stacked from floor to ceiling, each consuming power 24/7.

LINK

The world will become quite a lot bigger.

[hope_full]

hope_full wrote:
The WORLD may be a far, far smaller place than it was before 1900, but that is NOT true for the United States. Up until a few years after WWII, we had a passenger rail system that was very impressive and boasted of routes to all places great and small and with a degree of pride on TIMELY arrivals.


Until the railroads finally gave way and installed air brakes you had hundreds - thousands? - of brakemen being crippled or killed every year, too. You can even buy a book of railroad disaster songs.

Hmmm...I've been accused of aggrandizing the past, but my point here is, we weren't all traispsing through the tall grasses of the midwest in our prairie schooners back in the early 1900s. Trains were speedy, ON TIME, and there were plenty of routes to get you from point A to point B.

As to the safety issue, 21st Century cars aren't proving to be altogether safe either. Car accidents kill about 46,000 people each year.

Perhaps "so many people have never had it so good" but the strain and stress of living in our post-modern world seems to be wreaking havoc with people's mental well-being. As of a few years ago, the number one and two best selling drugs in the country were tranquilizers and remedies for dyspepsia. We have an abundance of stuff and we may have cheap energy, but are most people really enjoying their life?

HF

[MrBill]

The interesting thing about life-expectancy, longevity, accidents, diseases and drugs is that eventually something kills us. So there is always going to be a leading cause of death.

Even if all cars come equipped with outside and inside airbags out of 100 models there will be one safest car and one unsafest car. So if on an absolute scale between 1-10 with 1 being unsafe and 10 being safe if they are all above 9 then 9.9 is safer than 9.1. Does that make the car that is 9.1 unsafe?

Let's see. My grandmother lost her mother to the outbreak of influenza in 1918. Then she lost her brothers and sisters to a chimney fire in their farmhouse. Life on the farm was dangerous enough with machinery with uncovered moving parts. Polio was still a fact of life as were the serious consequences of chicken pox, measles and scarlet fever. Or getting kicked in the head by a horse or a milk cow. But then my grandfather worked in a gold mine as a driller, also not a very safe place. And then as a brakeman on the railroad that was also not a very safe profession.

Life today is almost boring by comparison. Maybe that is why we eat and drink ourselves to death, or get depressed enough that we need prescription drugs? The childhood diseases no longer get us, so we develop Type II adult-onset diabetes from our lethargic lifestyles instead. That's progress! ; - ))

[dunewalker]

Life today is almost boring by comparison. Maybe that is why we eat and drink ourselves to death...

I'm not sure that is what Heineken meant by our "amazing expanding world"! Ironically, Americans will begin to shrink as our world expands...

[cube]

...
The world will inexorably get bigger again and in Dude's words, "more mysterious." (Right on, Dude.)

Does that mean I won't be eating Alaskan king crab and New Zealand apples if I live in Florida post peak?

I certainly don't expect the world to become as "exotic" as when Marco Polo made his trip to China, but make no mistake there's going to be a severely reduced selection of types of foods in a grocery store.
//
Does PO == the death of franchises and a return to mom and pop shops? My gut says no.
Franchises will still dominate the retail industry. (or what's left of it)

[Heineken]

Why do you think franchises will continue to dominate? Don't they depend on all the stuff that's going bye-bye?

I definitely see a return to mom-and-pop stores. Local, cottage industries. The village blacksmith, if you will.

Already, in the small town (pop. 500) I live a mile from, a regular weekly "farmer's market" has suddenly appeared. It's doing well.

[cube]

Why do you think franchises will continue to dominate? Don't they depend on all the stuff that's going bye-bye?
...

Lets go back to the 1980's. and look at how Blockbuster Video became the 800 lb gorilla in home video rentals. How did they do it?
By being bigger than any other competitor (especially mom and pop shops) they could purchase videos at a wholesale price much cheaper because they bought in huge bulk quantities. The money saved was then funneled into advertising and interior designing to make their storefronts a whole lot nicer looking than an independent store. In a nutshell that's how franchise businesses across the board from (restaurants to clothing stores) have defeated the mom and pop shop.

Peak oil or NOT it will always be cheaper to buy in bulk quantities so I see no reason why franchises have to disappear. However one thing is certain, society's disposable income will drop. Therefore there will be much less retail stores in existence. Look at this graph comparing the square footage of retail space. ---> overshoot?

[TheDude]

You have to be able to get to the store in the first place, though. My crystal ball shows zoning laws being thrown in the garbage, little local stores built in the middle of subdivisions. With fuel scarcity it will be one of the simplest ways to conserve - or eliminate demand, rather.

Awaiting my copy of Dimitri Orlov's new book. Dunno if this was an approach used in the FSU. Did they fall prey to the franchising urge in the first place?

[cube]

You have to be able to get to the store in the first place, though.

woah hold on there. I think you're getting a little too overly excited. First we have to shut down all these stores before we get to your vision of PO *see previous chart* will it happen eventually? Definitely yes. I think the key word here is "eventually".
I think my position can best be summarized as:

You must cut the fat first before you cut the bone.