[Pops]

Asset Inertia says as long as you are making money you are reluctant to change, fair enough.

What about when you aren't making money anymore, will you change?

Will a possible GD-II cause change even with the evaporation of a good portion of liquid assets, investment capital and borrowing ability?

Will GM, Weyerhaeuser, SCE, et al change or dry up and blow away?

[MonteQuest]

We have to fight our cultural direction and world view at the same time as asset inertia. Our current world view is based upon classical, or “Newtonian mechanics” after Sir Isaac Newton and his laws of motion. The answer, it was assumed, was to use the principles of mechanics to rearrange the stuff of nature in a way that best advanced the material self-interest of human beings: The more material well-being we amass, the more ordered the world must be getting. Progress, then, is the amassing or ever greater amounts of material abundance which leads to a more ordered world.

Science and technology are the tools to get the job done. Our monetary system soon followed.

I don't think we will change until we hit the proverbial wall. And even then, we won't readily acquiesce to reality.

[aldente]

And even then, we won't readily acquiesce to reality.

Definition of "reality". please!

1: Birth-Death - time line
2. Question-answer- brain line
3. consciousness: spirit and then again "time"

it seems to be a loop circle!

[Pops]

I don't think we will change until we hit the proverbial wall. And even then, we won't readily acquiesce to reality.

Yea, but I'm encouraged that even at this modest level of discomfort how consumers are cutting back and businesses "reorganizing".


Capitulation is a tough pill to swallow but better than swallowing nothing.

[MonteQuest]

Definition of "reality". please!

There are limits.

[MonteQuest]

Yea, but I'm encouraged that even at this modest level of discomfort how consumers are cutting back and businesses "reorganizing".

Yes, but I just watched a show on CNN called "I want my money back" and how to do it.
The cutting back and reorganizing will be a permanent reduction in the standard of living, wages, and available employment.

[Pops]

The cutting back and reorganizing will be a permanent reduction in the standard of living, wages, and available employment.

Agreed.

I guess I'm wondering how much inertia there is when the roller coaster car can't reach the top of the next hill?

[MonteQuest]

The cutting back and reorganizing will be a permanent reduction in the standard of living, wages, and available employment.

Agreed. I guess I'm wondering how much inertia there is when the roller coaster car can't reach the top of the next hill?

Thats why the govt is making a double or nothing bet with taxpayer money on a roulette wheel of pure chance that it might.

[Ibon]

Yea, but I'm encouraged that even at this modest level of discomfort how consumers are cutting back and businesses "reorganizing".

Yes, but I just watched a show on CNN called "I want my money back" and how to do it. The cutting back and reorganizing will be a permanent reduction in the standard of living, wages, and available employment.

Energy consumption and standard of living run parallel up to a point. From there consumption rises but not standard of living. Obesity and depression are more prevalent in high consumption societies. A permanent reduction of standard of living, wages and available employment will be positive for a huge segment of society as it will remove the excessive and indulgent aspects of consumption.

I have for years said that one of our greatest energy reserves is our wastefulness and that the amount of energy required for the basics in life of food, sanitation, shelter and basic transportation of goods is a small percentage of energy used today. Most goes into consumption that doesn't increase our standard of living but rather makes us more parasitic.

Many of us underestimated demand destruction because we assumed that oil consumption was not elastic.

Our asset inertia hides huge reserves of energy since most of the asset inertia isn't really keeping us either alive physically or spiritually. Therein lies a hope in more energy than we think being available for a transition toward sustainability. It might be squandered but we may be seeing shifting values away from consumption and moving toward frugality and conservation.

Things are too fuzzy to predict anymore because the assumption that our culture is as entrenched and immobile as our asset inertia is no longer for me a safe assumption. I never really believed this anyway.

[MonteQuest]

Our asset inertia hides huge reserves of energy since most of the asset inertia isn't really keeping us either alive physically or spiritually. Therein lies a hope in more energy than we think being available for a transition toward sustainability. It might be squandered but we may be seeing shifting values away from consumption and moving toward frugality and conservation.

Yet, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population. That so-called "more energy" for a sustainable transition must be taken away from the systems it once supported. Who gets the pink slips and who doesn't? Millions are employed in these avenues of wanton consumption. What do they do now that their livelyhood is banned or verboten?

[Byron100]

Our asset inertia hides huge reserves of energy since most of the asset inertia isn't really keeping us either alive physically or spiritually. Therein lies a hope in more energy than we think being available for a transition toward sustainability. It might be squandered but we may be seeing shifting values away from consumption and moving toward frugality and conservation.

Yet, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population. That so-called "more energy" for a sustainable transition must be taken away from the systems it once supported. Who gets the pink slips and who doesn't? Millions are employed in these avenues of wanton consumption. What do they do now that their livelyhood is banned or verboten?

And this is exactly why we have no choice as a society to move to a collectivist economy - and the sooner we do this, the better. There will be no new "investment", as that simply requires more energy, resources, encourages population growth, etc, etc. Getting rid of capitalism is the only way that we'll be able to achieve a long-term powerdown without society coming unglued at the seams, as there has to be some way of making sure *everyone* is able to have the minimum basics of living - whether they have a job or not. All this talk about socialism removing any incentive for growth and development is a wholly moot point, as that's not going to be possible anyhow, from this point forward. And if the middle class is going to be impoverished by all of this this, well, the rich can suffer right along with us.

Now, if only someone would release some sort of "infertility" virus out into the population....hmmmm....

[Ibon]

Yet, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population.

The inevitable correction downward of our population can also not be accurately predicted, neither the rate or the eventual equilibrium reached. Proactive mitigation is being replaced with reactive responses to external limits. What mitigation is left in an overcrowded petri dish but to yield to the chaos of external forces that will set the agenda? Conservation and frugality will represent a reactive response to external limits more than an enlightened proactive mitigation to our overpopulated planet. But it seems possible that what starts as a reactive response in our culture can turn into proactive mitigation.

We have been assuming that we have to understand first and then fix it. I am wondering more and more if we don't have to suffer first the consequences of our ignorance and from this understanding will emerge.

I wonder how this will shape population trends. History is only a partial guide.

[Ibon]

And this is exactly why we have no choice as a society to move to a collectivist economy - and the sooner we do this, the better. There will be no new "investment", as that simply requires more energy, resources, encourages population growth, etc, etc. Getting rid of capitalism is the only way

The asset inertia of our physical infrastructure mirrors the cultural inertia of so many billions of us believing in the current economic model. But again, can we actively mitigate and change this with enligtenment up front or don't we get to enlightenment through suffering the consequences of our ignorance? Whether capitalism crumbles or mutates into something else do we really believe we are piloting the ship any longer? Or that we can actually dismantle willfully and reengineer 6.7 billion people's heads? The inertia is far to great and now requires external catalysts.

We don't need to educate any longer our fellow human beings because the dynamics that are taking over now going forward are the best teachers. It is humbling to recognize ones obsolesence.

[dinopello]

Energy consumption and standard of living run parallel up to a point. From there consumption rises but not standard of living.

Society needs to quit telling citizens they are 'comsumers' and we need to get away from 'standard of living' as the metric. SOL measures material consumption so by definition it goes down with energy use. 'Quality of life' is a better metric.

from wiki

The idea of a 'standard (of living)' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up to human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues etc. More complex means of measuring well-being must be employed to make such judgments, and these are very often political, thus controversial.

[yesplease]

Energy consumption and standard of living run parallel up to a point. From there consumption rises but not standard of living.

Too much energy consumption may even degrade the standard of living past a certain point. Even an increase in standard of living may not be a great thing if it comes at the expense of a decrease in quality of life. Most people wouldn't want a better standard of living if it means they'll be unhappy during most of their life.

[yesplease]

Yet, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population. That so-called "more energy" for a sustainable transition must be taken away from the systems it once supported.

That is demonstrably false. We can conserve energy while both population and GDP grow.

[Ibon]

Society needs to quit telling citizens they are 'comsumers' and we need to get away from 'standard of living' as the metric. SOL measures material consumption so by definition it goes down with energy use. 'Quality of life' is a better metric.

We don't need to waste time pondering what society needs to do or not needs to do. Or trying to educate people to recognize that their consumption is not tied to their quality of life. Won't the consequences of being forced to abandon parasitic consumption behaviors force many to realize that their quality of life has actually gone up once their consumption goes down as they are forced initially to rediscover their own innate resourcefulness, forced initially to lower their sense of self entitlement, forced initially to ride public transportation, forced initially to cooperate and communicate with others. The education that results from these external limits will increase the quality of life for a lot of consumption parasites against their will initially. This is something that is not adequately appreciated.

We are going to be forced to increase our quality of life......

[Ibon]

Yet, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population. That so-called "more energy" for a sustainable transition must be taken away from the systems it once supported.

That is demonstrably false. We can conserve energy while both population and GDP grow.

Yes. This is possible for a brief time in populations where high consumption levels hide a reserve of energy in their wastefulness. But considering our species globally this in incorrect.

We may be stupid enough to increase our population and GDP from the energy released from conservation. But this is filling in a gap that will only box us further into a corner. It might happen.

[Ludi]

We are going to be forced to increase our quality of life......

It helps if some people can model this for their neighbors, though. Modeling is different from "educating" and usually more successful. People often resent being "educated" but don't mind observing and being inspired by new models.

[yesplease]

Yet, we have yet to understand that conservation only works in a powerdown with a declining population. That so-called "more energy" for a sustainable transition must be taken away from the systems it once supported.

That is demonstrably false. We can conserve energy while both population and GDP grow.

Yes. This is possible for a brief time in populations where high consumption levels hide a reserve of energy in their wastefulness. But considering our species globally this in incorrect.

That graph was of global, not local, energy intensity, which, like you said, isn't surprising considering what we waste. Odds are adaptive behavior would allow global civilization to avoid problems w/ issues that are sufficiently long in terms of duration. As usual disasters that occur over a shorter time frame and aren't predicted/reasonably prepared for tend to result in the most damage.

We may be stupid enough to increase our population and GDP from the energy released from conservation. But this is filling in a gap that will only box us further into a corner. It might happen.

Personal opinions aside, GDP just refers to the level of human activity, not energy use specifically. A new video game and ~40 gallons of gasoline may both command the same share of wealth, but they don't impact other portions of the economy and society in the same way. We can have growth in GDP w/o a growth in energy consumption, although considering it's use as a luxury we definitely tend to see energy use grow w/ GDP. As for population, that too depends on the circumstances. Even if we drop back down to a billion people, if we have ten times the externalized costs we'll be creating more trouble in most ways than our current population does.