Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

[Morkeliph]

Yesterday, the well-known scientist and geographer, Jared Diamond, gave a guest lecture here at Utah State. He spoke about the topic of his new book, which shares the title of this thread. In his book, Diamond talks a great deal about factors that contribute to the survival or failure of soceities. Here are the five main ones:

1) Over-exploitation of natural resources.
2) Climate change.
3) Hostile neighbors and civil unrest.
4) The failure of a friendly neighboring society.
5) Inability or refusal to change core values.

Diamond spoke in great detail, using several historical societies (both successful and failed) as examples, of the importance of societal sensitivity to environmental fluctuations. Over-exploitation of natural resources is a primary example of how societies who are insensitive to their dependancy upon the environment may inadvertantly jeopardize their survival by consuming natural resources faster than is sustainable. Interestingly, the world's "first world nations" consume 32 times as much as the globes "third world countries" in natural resources. If China, for instance, were to increase their level of resource consumption to first world levels, global natural resource consumption would more than double. This, of course, is exactly what China is attempting to do in their efforts to improve their economy and enter the "first world." Deforestation leads to massive soil-erosion, which makes agriculture impossible, and reduces global food supplies and may lead to climate changes. This essentially spells disaster for societies that depend upon agriculture and thouse natural resources of which their are exploiting.

Additionally, because of globalization, Diamond argues that we can no longer assume that what happens to foreign societies many miles away will not affect us in the United States. A closer look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia are clear examples of that fact. Especially where we depend so much on foreign markets for natural resources and economic growth, Diamond argues that we can no longer cling to our isolationist ideology as a nation. This lead into flexibility of core values. The Bikings in Greenland perished due to their refusal to adapt to their environment by changing their cultural practices. Because of cultural taboos and prejudice, the Greenland Vikings perished after 450 years while the Inuit survived as they had for thousands of years. Had the Vikings been flexible enough to adapt their cultural practices to their necessities, as the Inuit had, they would likely have survived, maybe even into the present. To that end, Diamond argued that today, as we face many of the same class of crises, we can no longer cling to traditional core values with ignorant ferver; specifically our ideologies of consumerism and isoloationism, though I'm sure we could think of a few others.

Here's the question: do you think Diamond is correct? Will our society meet the same fate of those failed societies of yore unless we change our current cultural practices? What can be done to prevent our world from following the same course of the Mayans, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, Greenland Vikings, or Romans?

I think Diamond has a good point. Unless we change the course we're on now, years from now we will find ourselves in a much more costly and desperate situation. As Diamond also points out, I agree that part of the problem is that the leaders of countries insulate themselves from environmental problems by exploiting the lower class. As was the case with the Mayans, whose kings were so removed by luxury from their civilization's problems, our leaders and many first-world countries as a whole, are so removed from our global problems that they aren't motivated to solve them. The Mayans revolted, but for them it was too late. For us, hopefully revolution won't be necessary, but unless the first-world and priveledged can be motivated to take some action, the less fortunate will continue to suffer while the priveledged continue to over-exploit global resources and ignore important problems. By the time they realize that things need to change, it'll be virtually too late.

In my opinion, the only way to motivate change is to make it immediately beneficial to do so, because the long-term benefits are too far removed to make a difference. The question is, how?

For a link to a review of Diamond's book, click here! (http://healthandenergy.com/collapse_of_societies.htm)

[GenocideAlive]

I wish I could agree wholly, but this really seems like an oversimplification in order to push a viewpoint rather than any particularly accurate analysis.

Isolationism isn't the US' policy, their policy moves more towards Imperialism. As far as "Consumerism" goes, I'm not really sure how that is either A. Bad or B. Necessarily pertinent to our global "crises".

As a country I think we're fairly flexible, as our nickname "the melting pot" denotes. I'm sure some would nitpick that the US isn't perfect, but I'll go as far as to say at least discrimination is punished here if it can be proven.

The primary goal of the world right now is a solution to our energy crisis. This problem vexes our WORLD, because it would make so many things cheaper and much more long-lasting. It would also avoid a lot of political conflict generated by the oil/gasoline stuff.

Anyway, my diatribe(s) aside, it isn't very poignant or very interesting beyond rhetoric and vague alarmism.

[frazz]

That seems pretty speculant. Especcialy the resource consumption and climate change. 3 and 4 have somewhat contributed to the fall of many nations and empires. Number 5 is iffy. The decline/fall of most nations is only minorly attributed to anything but number 3.

[hammocksleeper]

I've done a fair amount of studies into and taken courses on developing countries and comparative politics etc. And I agree completely that geography is one of the most important factors influencing the success of a nation (to reference Toucan's post, geography encompasses four of the five: natural resources, climate, and neighbors).

There was also a dude who once said, in order for everything to remain the same, everything must change. Or something like that.

[Dark_Magneto]

I think Mr. Diamond hit ze nail on ze head. Right now we're essentially no different than every other failed civilization that died off as a result of refusal to change unsustainable practices. The current population can't even be supported on a sustainable basis (http://dieoff.org/page15.htm). It requires heavy fossil fuel subsidies which are subject to expiration and that no alternative or combination thereof has the potential to replace (http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm).

I'd like to submit this lecture to compound on this subject, titled "Arithmetic, Population, & Energy" (http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.rm). Check it out and then try to come back here and honestly say with a straignt face that the problem is overstated. If anything, it's being grossly understated.

[GenocideAlive]

I think Mr. Diamond hit ze nail on ze head. Right now we're essentially no different than every other failed civilization that died off as a result of refusal to change unsustainable practices. The current population can't even be supported on a sustainable basis (http://dieoff.org/page15.htm). It requires heavy fossil fuel subsidies which are subject to expiration and that no alternative or combination thereof has the potential to replace (http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm).
I couldn't open your lecture because it had a wackassed file extension and I didn't feel like searching through all the programs to figure out which one could convert it. In the meantime, your first study derrives nearly all of its information from the Great Depression as a basis for its findings. That's uh, great, and all...but nothing that I'd actually care to read.

Anyway, most of the "PANIC, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF GAS" articles fail to account for us doing anything besides continuing exponential usage of fossil fuels with our population growth. They fail to account for driving age (>15, <65) and don't account for any public transportation growing. They also fail to account for cities taking up recycling programs and finding alternate energy sources to relieve loads on energy grids.

I'd love to sit here and say that if we don't find an alternate energy source in 10 years that life as we know it would grind to a halt, but it's simply not true. In another 50 or 60 years, I'd be inclined to agree--but in another 50 or 60 years I'm fairly confident that we'll have plumbed at least a few alternate energy sources (like hydrogen pumps).

[Dark_Magneto]

I couldn't open your lecture because it had a wackassed file extension and I didn't feel like searching through all the programs to figure out which one could convert it.

It requires RealPlayer (http://forms.real.com/netzip/arcade.html?h=software-dl.real.com&r=039176a22d07b5fcfa16&f=windows/RealPlayer10-5GOLD_bb.exe).

In the meantime, your first study derrives nearly all of its information from the Great Depression as a basis for its findings.
It uses it as a basis because it is the largest disruption of industrialization the world has seen since it's inception and is therefore the most relevant example to use when discussing the effects of industrialization and what happens when it doesn't function properly.

That's uh, great, and all...but nothing that I'd actually care to read.
Suit yourself.


Anyway, most of the "PANIC, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF GAS" articles

Gasoline is a distillate of oil. The earth has had about 2 trillion barrels of oil since we were able to drill it. We've consumed the first trillion on an exponential growth curve in 150 years. The last trillion, assuming we could recover it all, will be used in the next 30 years. The oil companies (http://willyoujoinus.com/) even concede that much (http://willyoujoinus.com/advertising/print/).

fail to account for us doing anything besides continuing exponential usage of fossil fuels with our population growth.
Well we're not doing nor have any plans to implement anything in the next few decades that will signifigantly impact our fossil fuel use rates, so it's understandable that they wouldn't compensate for things that are not happening.

They fail to account for driving age (>15, <65) and don't account for any public transportation growing.
The public transportation in the U.S. is abysmal, and individual auto sales trump public transportation projects by gross orders of magnitude.

They also fail to account for cities taking up recycling programs and finding alternate energy sources to relieve loads on energy grids.
Recycling programs burn more resources driving around the cities and gathering, reprocessing, filtering, and reconstituting the materials than would be used making them from their source, with the notable exception of metals since they are extremely energy-intensive and become moreso over time.

I'd love to sit here and say that if we don't find an alternate energy source in 10 years that life as we know it would grind to a halt, but it's simply not true.
Unless we have some miracle breakthrough in fusion technology, we're going to have a major energy crisis on our hands, and the U.S. Department of Energy (http://www.energybulletin.net/4638.html) even concedes that much.


A recently completed study for the U.S. Department of Energy analyzed viable technologies to mitigate oil short-ages associated with the upcoming peaking of world oil production.


While research and development on other options could be important, their commercial success is by no means assured, and none offer near-term solutions.


For the foreseeable future, electricity-producing technologies, e.g., nuclear and solar energy, cannot substitute for liquid fuels in most transportation applications. Someday, electric cars may be practical, but decades will be required before they achieve significant market penetration and impact world oil consumption. And no one has yet defined viable options for powering heavy trucks or airplanes with electricity.

To explore how these technologies might contribute, three alternative mitigation scenarios were analyzed: One where action is initiated when peaking occurs, a second where action is assumed to start 10 years before peaking, and a third where action is assumed to start 20 years before peaking.

Estimates of the possible contributions of each mitigation option were developed, based on crash program imple-mentation. Crash programs represent the fastest possible implementation - the best case. In practical terms, real-world action is certain to be slower.

Analysis of the simultaneous implementation of all of the options showed that an impact of roughly 25 million barrels per day might be possible 15 years after initiation. Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking.

Specifically,

* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.
Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.

* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.


Government intervention will be essential, because the economic and social impacts of oil peaking will otherwise be chaotic

And given that we're like right at the peak of world oil production, I would say there's definately sufficient cause for concern.

In another 50 or 60 years, I'd be inclined to agree--but in another 50 or 60 years I'm fairly confident that we'll have plumbed at least a few alternate energy sources (like hydrogen pumps).

Explain to me how hydrogen, which can currently only be produced in commercial quantities by extracting it from fossil fuels, is going to save the world.

The only other alternative is to electrolyze the hydrogen from water, which sounds good in the surface but breaks down when you get to the math and logistics.

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier. All manufactured hydrogen requires the input of energy from some other source. The bulk of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas. So to make the hydrogen we would have to burn an increasing amount of these fossil fuels to generate more electricity to manufacture the hydrogen at a signifigant energy loss. Hydrogen also has to be stored in special containers binded at the atomic level since it's the simplest element in the universe and will leak right through any other container you put it in. It also has to be supercooled and in most cases, supercompressed. It occupies 7 to 11 times the bulk of gasoline for the same energy equivalent, hence compression. Compression is very unstable though, and if a tank were to be breached in, say, and automobile crash, the results would be "less than desireable" to say the least. Hydrogen is also incompatable with our current automobile fleet and in many cases the fuel cells requires rare alloy catalysts like platinum.

What would be much better would be to address the problem of the unsustainable car culture wasting gross amounts of energy at it's root. The U.S. uses a quarter of world oil and 3/4 of it's oil consumption goes to individual automobiles, so if you want to tackle the problem then you need to hit it right there.

The best way to address the problem would be a massive manhattan project-esque push for mass rail transit. We already have the technology and infrastructure for this, it just needs to beexpanded upon. It is much less expensive than replacing the hundreds of millions of cars, it is the most energy efficient, and it is the single greatest thing we could do if we were really serious about confronting this problem.

Because when it gets down to it, oil is much more than just fuel for transportation (although that's where we use it the most). We couldn't even feed ourselves (http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_eating_fossil_fuels_pfeiffer_d.htm) without oil, so as you see it behooves us to cut wasteful consumption now and keep it for the necessities and buy extended periods of time to develop solutions to absolute oil dependency rather than to burn it all up in a overconsuming orgy and be screwed when depletion rears it's ugly head.

[GenocideAlive]

Ah, well, I'm at work, so audio/video is an IT point of psychosis. They really like to sniff out bandwidth hoggers, and I probably already do my share.

As far as the Great Depression goes, I'm fairly certain it counts more as a disruption of Economics moreso than Industrialization. You could argue that Economics is a facet of Industrialization, but that argument is self-defeating.

I aquiesced in my ~50 year plan that we'd be running out of oil at the current rate, but if you'll re-read it, you'll see that I also believe that we'll have hammered out alternative energy sources to relieve our reliance on oil. Please stop re-posting the same alarmist rhetoric.
Well we're not doing nor have any plans to implement anything in the next few decades that will signifigantly impact our fossil fuel use rates, so it's understandable that they wouldn't compensate for things that are not happening.
Oh, we don't? Let's see:

Europe has been installing at least 1,000MW of wind-power since 1996, which has grown about 50% each year since (the US is about half that). They are now installing somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,500MW of power each year since 2002. They operate turbines that pump the equivalent of 35 coal-fired plants. They also use hydrogen busses to run transportation, which, while it isn't as efficient as belching gaseous cars, it runs tons cleaner.

Additionally, coal (rather than gasoline) can be used to work the hydrogen problem, while storing CO2 elsewhere in order to avert its sudden influx into the atmosphere (which may well be absorbed by a vibrant plant growth). I realize that you mentioned this, but I feel that you ignored the essence of its meaning--it doesn't require gasoline and its a temporary resolution. There's no "silver bullet" to the problem, but this is one of many aspects that will help.

Everyone knows that if we continue population growth at an exponential rate and we use gas in a similar manner that things will run out. But the catch is that we're working on the problem and we need to keep working on it. I think as the gas runs out, it will only increase our work on other forms. As one scientist put it, "You can't go around like a priest, appealing to a man's conscience...there is no alternative."

This can all be found in the August 2005 National Geographic--please check your facts and sources before assing random garbage about how nobody is doing anything. It's a process, not a light switch.
Recycling programs burn more resources driving around the cities and gathering, reprocessing, filtering, and reconstituting the materials than would be used making them from their source, with the notable exception of metals since they are extremely energy-intensive and become moreso over time.
The thing is, trees may be renewable resources, but not at the rate they're consuming them and they're not as simple as to just chop and serve. It makes plenty of sense to attempt to conserve our environment, much moreso than to conserve fossil fuels, which I fully believe we can largely live without.
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier. All manufactured hydrogen requires the input of energy from some other source. The bulk of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas. So to make the hydrogen we would have to burn an increasing amount of these fossil fuels to generate more electricity to manufacture the hydrogen at a signifigant energy loss.
They also burn in orders of magnitude cleaner. While I'm all for saving money, I think at some point we need to be concerned about something other than making gas cheaper.
The best way to address the problem would be a massive manhattan project-esque push for mass rail transit. We already have the technology and infrastructure for this, it just needs to beexpanded upon. It is much less expensive than replacing the hundreds of millions of cars, it is the most energy efficient, and it is the single greatest thing we could do if we were really serious about confronting this problem.
I voted for the light-rail in Austin, and the measure passed. However, I seriously doubt this is really going to help much. It seems to only pass through the "upper-class" or "rich" parts of town. These are already the people that can afford a hybrid car and fancy fuel and environment saving devices that poorer people can't afford to buy or upkeep.

Overall I think it's just going to take us running out of fuel. I don't see it as a civilization-collapsing catastrophe, I see it as a final impeteus for us to make the change. As another scientist put it, "There's a sense of excitement...there's a sense of urgency. There's a sense that we cannot fail." Gogo science! ;)

[hammocksleeper]

I voted for the light-rail in Austin, and the measure passed. However, I seriously doubt this is really going to help much. It seems to only pass through the "upper-class" or "rich" parts of town. These are already the people that can afford a hybrid car and fancy fuel and environment saving devices that poorer people can't afford to buy or upkeep.

Why should the poor be subsidized by giving them very expensive light-rail systems? Spending more on energy is not an appropriate solution to any energy crisis. That extra money that you are spending needs to go toward R&D that will generate technology that is just as efficient (cost-effective) as the stuff we use currently. Without research and innovation, we will just keep spending more and more money on alternative energy sources as we run out of the old ones until we spend ourselves into oblivion.

[L2_1989]

I fully agree with Diamond. I watched a documentary about China one day a couple months back. The deforestation of Northern China caused erosion, and millions of farmers suffer to get back what's theirs. Many of them lost hope, but a woman planted trees on the dunes. Many people thought she was insane and it won't restore farmland. They were wrong. It slowed down erosion. In our world today, enviromental concerns are rising. Extinction, Kyoto, etc... I think it's time for all people to stand up and save the world before it's too late.

Is this what I'm getting at?:rolleyes:

[GenocideAlive]

Why should the poor be subsidized by giving them very expensive light-rail systems? Spending more on energy is not an appropriate solution to any energy crisis. That extra money that you are spending needs to go toward R&D that will generate technology that is just as efficient (cost-effective) as the stuff we use currently. Without research and innovation, we will just keep spending more and more money on alternative energy sources as we run out of the old ones until we spend ourselves into oblivion.
Honestly, I'm not really sure where you're coming or going with this. I thought I was pointing out that using rail is usually a "solution" that generally only benefits those that can afford it: the rich. The rich are also the vast minority, so it's not truly solving any problem it's just a proposed solution that in practice seems to heavily favor people that don't really need it anyway. Rail isn't much of a solution unless it's implemented properly--which seems to be a Catch 22 of its existance.

Otherwise, before you work yourself into a panic about energy cost-effectiveness, you should check out some of the work they're doing with solar panels and nanotechnology. Solar panels are currently some of the best producers of electricity, but they're very expensive. They're inventing a semiconductor that comes in a liquid form--you paint it onto the surface and it matrixes itself into a semiconductor for solar electricity.

I don't know about you guys, but I just had a intelligasm.

[hammocksleeper]

Otherwise, before you work yourself into a panic about energy cost-effectiveness, you should check out some of the work they're doing with solar panels and nanotechnology. Solar panels are currently some of the best producers of electricity, but they're very expensive. They're inventing a semiconductor that comes in a liquid form--you paint it onto the surface and it matrixes itself into a semiconductor for solar electricity.

Solar panels require a shitload of startup capital, but not only do they reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but they are clearly cost-effective in the long run. Which is why places like California are subsidizing people for making "smart homes" or whatever they call them.

[Dark_Magneto]

Oh, we don't? Let's see:

Europe has been installing at least 1,000MW of wind-power since 1996, which has grown about 50% each year since (the US is about half that). They are now installing somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,500MW of power each year since 2002. They operate turbines that pump the equivalent of 35 coal-fired plants. They also use hydrogen busses to run transportation, which, while it isn't as efficient as belching gaseous cars, it runs tons cleaner.


My focus was on the U.S., specifically, since they consume a quarter of world energy every year. The optimistic projections call for us getting 2% of our electricity through renewables such as solar by 2030, which is a sliver of what we'll be needing given the state of the electrical system (http://endofsuburbia.com/preview2.htm).


Additionally, coal (rather than gasoline) can be used to work the hydrogen problem, while storing CO2 elsewhere in order to avert its sudden influx into the atmosphere (which may well be absorbed by a vibrant plant growth). I realize that you mentioned this, but I feel that you ignored the essence of its meaning--it doesn't require gasoline and its a temporary resolution. There's no "silver bullet" to the problem, but this is one of many aspects that will help.


Yeah the popular mentality amongs most the uninformed is that there is some "silver-bullet" solution, or combination thereof, that will allow us to keep doing what we've always been doing the way we've been doing it and go about our merry way. What we'll ultimately have to do is make some lifestyle changes. Either sooner by our own planned initiative, or later because we have no other choice.

The big hanging point with carbon sequestration of the coal is that it is very expensive and generates a massive amount of liquid carbon that has to be stored. If you put it underground and something happens like some tectonic activity, it could easily all go right back into the atmosphere.


Everyone knows that if we continue population growth at an exponential rate and we use gas in a similar manner that things will run out.

Yeah, they would run out. But the big problem comes when the shortages hit, not when you've actually run dry. After a while of being at that point, you're either living in some small agrarian survivor enclave, or society has avoided collapse and progressed beyond the use of fossil fuels and uses some other substance that won't deplete and put us right back in the same hole.

But the catch is that we're working on the problem and we need to keep working on it. I think as the gas runs out, it will only increase our work on other forms. As one scientist put it, "You can't go around like a priest, appealing to a man's conscience...there is no alternative."

The main focus needs to be on using less energy and reforming the system to facilitate that goal. Alternatives are important, but alone they will not remedy the issue. It's a package deal.


The thing is, trees may be renewable resources, but not at the rate they're consuming them and they're not as simple as to just chop and serve. It makes plenty of sense to attempt to conserve our environment, much moreso than to conserve fossil fuels, which I fully believe we can largely live without.


We can live without fossil fuels if we had a system that wasn't absolutely dependent on it from everything you eat to medical treatments. This means basically reinventing the industrial world. Without fossil fuels we lose those long molecule chains we use to synthesize on an almost unlimited basis all the chemical substances which we require to operate industrial society.

We also lose the materials such as plastic, nylon, synthetic rubber, etc.

A little history teaches us that the market for natural rubber collapsed from the moment on rubber could be synthetisized from oil. We must ask what will happen when peak oil arrives.

Today, synthetic rubbers make up roughly 70% of the entire elastomer industry, natural rubbers covering the rest. The total world consumption for all rubbers is roughly 20 million metric tons. With the booming economic growth in China, we will see a steep increase of world consumption over the coming years (all Chinese people want a car, to put it in strong terms). An increase of 30% by the year 2010, and a 60% increase in world consumption by 2020 is realistic.

Now, knowing that it takes approximately 5 kilos of crude oil to create one kilo of elastomer, let's look at the projected numbers:

-In 2010 world consumption of synthetic rubber will be roughly 18 million tonnes, requiring 90 million tons of crude oil per year (540 million barrels)

-In 2020 world consumption of synthetic rubber will be roughly 24 million tonnes, requiring 120 million tons of crude a year (720 million barrels!)

The price of synthetic rubber will skyrocket. And rubber is a basic commodity, for which there are few alternatives.

Only a dramatic increase in natural rubber production may cover the gap.

In short, the only option seems to be the creation of gigantic natural rubber plantations. But this is a nightmare scenario, since it's an agricultural production method requiring years of investment prior to production (it takes 4 to 6 years before newly planted rubber trees can be tapped), and which is highly risky (dependent on climate, and susceptible to disease). Moreover, rubber harvesting is labor intensive (not yet automated) and thus in the end, rubber may become a very expensive commodity, no matter how you look at it.

During the cold war, the US once had such a thing as the "strategic rubber reserve". This was some massive amount of rubber that the government had bought up and stowed away in a cavern in Kansas in the event of a supply cutoff from Indochina. They did away with the program in the late '70's, and sold off all of the rubber (which was still useable), but it is possible to store this stuff for several years if you had to. This showed that the planners had the foresight to plan for this type of shortage, which we evidently no longer have the capacity for.

We're talking about O rings, seals for jars, tires, shoes, and much more.

O rings are used on a lot of machines that need lubrication, even if they don't burn fuel. For instance, treadle sewing machines have an o-ring part.

And keep in mind that this is a very very minor example. A big example is the petrochemicals that enable our food production (http://tinyurl.com/dfwao) to feed us as well as enable enough excess production to make extra food to export to China.


I voted for the light-rail in Austin, and the measure passed. However, I seriously doubt this is really going to help much. It seems to only pass through the "upper-class" or "rich" parts of town. These are already the people that can afford a hybrid car and fancy fuel and environment saving devices that poorer people can't afford to buy or upkeep.


Whoever designed that was an idiot. People that don't have vehicles are the ones most likely to use rail. Those people usually tend to not be able to afford vehicles. Those people tend to not be "upper-class" or "rich".

They made a service and cut off virtually their entire customer base.


Overall I think it's just going to take us running out of fuel. I don't see it as a civilization-collapsing catastrophe, I see it as a final impeteus for us to make the change. As another scientist put it, "There's a sense of excitement...there's a sense of urgency. There's a sense that we cannot fail." Gogo science! ;)

Severe, permanent fuel scarcity is nothing less than a civilization collapsing event at the minimum.

Think about it for a minute how you get the food you eat. You get in your vehicle and go to your local grocery store. Okay, where does the grocery store get it from? They get it from distributors that ship it in by individual truck. The distributors get the source foods from the farmers (more trucking/oil use) and the farmers plant, fertilize, pestrid, harvest, and process the crops using machinery that runs on petroleum distillates.

Without cheap and abundant oil, our entire way of life comes grinding to a halt and in short order.

Europe is much less oil dependent than the U.S. and look what happened there toward the end of the year in 2000.

The French fishermen blockaded the Channel Ports because their fuel costs had doubled, even though their fuel was already tax-free. The dispute spread rapidly to England and other countries.

- Schools were closed

- Hospitals had a red alert

- Supermarkets started rationing bread

- Trade and industry were seriously interrupted

The cost was huge. People lost confidence in their government and its popularity dropped precipitously.

Now if an interruption in supply lasting only a few days could cause such havoc, it surely demonstrates how utterly dependent on oil we have become.

It doesn't take much of an imagination to predict what effect a permanent decline in supplies would have.

[GenocideAlive]

Yes, D_M, you have access to three shit-tons of alarmist propaganda. You even have links. Congratu-fucking-lations. However, the only proposed solution that you have is "EVYEROBYD SHOTP USING YORU REIGHT NOWNWO CARS!!!!111!114O" which isn't going to happen. Ironically, it's also not a solution, because halting use of cars doesn't change the fact that we still don't have an alternative to fossil fuels.

Thankfully there are actually people working on this problem in its multiple facets, rather than trying this moralistic condescending finger-pointing bullshit that you keep recycling over and over. Yes, we need an alternative, no the way to getting people motivated and educated isn't via attempting to scare the bejesus out of them and claim the end of the world as we know it is coming about.

Let's think, rationally, for a moment without landing ourselves on a slippery slope straight into oblivion. I know it's hard to actually think about a problem without presenting the collapse of civilization as we know it as an alternative to your point of view, but try with me.

Once gas becomes more and more scarce, it will become more and more expensive. It will rapidly go out of poorer people's price ranges; they will switch to busses and public transit. Some middle class people that can still afford the gas will elect to transfer to public transit anyway.

Once this occurs, pressure on the government and sciences to find an acceptable set of alternatives will skyrocket. The government will be spurred to act in terms of finding more permanent solutions and means of transit. I seriously doubt we're going to get to the level at which gas is $5.00 a gallon and people are driving just as much as they always have.

Fuck, after it broke the $2 mark I bought a fucking bike. Was it because I couldn't afford gas anymore? No, it's because I don't give a fuck, $2 is too much. I'm not going to get assraped at the pump over and over just because I like driving a classic musclecar. I love driving, make no mistake--but I'm not stupid. And I'm not alone...I know at least 4 other people that bought bikes too.

Perhaps you should take a few steps back from all the movies you're watching to think, rather than pantomime everything you've seen and heard.

[Dark_Magneto]

As much as you may want to blow this problem off as some hollywood hype, hand-waiving and blithe dismissals have no impact on reality. As I pointed out before, you need look no further than what happened in Europe in 2000 to see a prototypical small-scale example of what I'm talking about.

History is not "alarmist propaganda". It's a glimpse of the future if we fail to learn from the past. The lesson of history is those that forget it are doomed to repeat it. Industrial society is entirely dependent on oil. I've shown what happens when oil stops but for a few days. The 1970's showed us in the U.S. what happens when you have shortages. Again, this is not an issue of running out completely, but there not being enough.

You seem to have a myopic view of the problem that is centered around gas and gas only.

It's not just an issue of how you're going to get to work, but an issue of how you're going to feed yourself when transnational agribusiness companies that only operate in the context of cheap oil have increasing difficulty conducting normal business operations in the face of a ever-worsening fuel crisis.

Again, I point out that the food you eat is a product of petroleum. Modern agriculture is nothing more than the use of land to convert oil into food. Industrialization, modern medicine, food production capacity, population, and the human lifespan all rose synonymous with oil and are very much products of it. It was enabled and supported by oil, and we're going to have a hard time supporting everything without the foundation it was built on. The only way we're going to remedy this issue is if we confront it and take action.

There are no quick-fix solutions or last-ditch-efforts when the crisis hits. By the time it comes, it's too late to do anything to prepare for it and the best we can hope for is to minimize the damage.

This is the product of shortsighted energy planning, political hubris, overconsumption, and Walt Disney's first law: wishing makes it so.

I'm a man of action myself. If I see there is a problem, I don't fuck around. I get on it and get it fixed. Unfortunately we have a global system with so many permeating interests that interfere at the political level needed to garnish enough support to effectively implement impacting change that it simply serves to exacerbate the situation. We're at the complete opposite of where we need to be and time is of the essence. If we continue to ignore the issue, downplay it's importance, and refuse to deal with relaity, then reality will deal with us. It will be a very sobering time for those that assumed all trends would continue indefinately and the future would always be better than the past.

As I said before, if we are to go to mass transportation to mitigate the oil crisis, we need the infrastructure in place in advance. You can't do these major projects in the face of an energy crisis where prices are astronomical and fuel is scarce. It's prudent, logical, and plain common-sense to put any preventative measures/mitigation program in advance of the event. The best way to cure cancer from your cigarette addiction is to never get it in the first place, which involves making the right choices in advance. If you're a smoker, then it behooves you to quit while you are ahead. The same goes for our oil addiction predicament. We need to reform the system now before any major systemic problems arise.

[Desert_Eagle]

The current trend of the US capitalist economic system is entirely unsustainable thanks to the impeachable geological fact known as "Peak Oil." [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)

Economic growth has to slow down, period. There is no way around it. Our globe contains a population which it will not be able to support thanks to the artificial population we've managed to make out of oil. When the oil runs out that population goes right back down to sustainable levels.

Arithmetic, population, and energy. (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461)

To deny the fact of limited growth in a closed system is to reject the notion of mathematics.

[GenocideAlive]

As much as you may want to blow this problem off as some hollywood hype, hand-waiving and blithe dismissals have no impact on reality. As I pointed out before, you need look no further than what happened in Europe in 2000 to see a prototypical small-scale example of what I'm talking about.

History is not "alarmist propaganda". It's a glimpse of the future if we fail to learn from the past. The lesson of history is those that forget it are doomed to repeat it. Industrial society is entirely dependent on oil. I've shown what happens when oil stops but for a few days. The 1970's showed us in the U.S. what happens when you have shortages. Again, this is not an issue of running out completely, but there not being enough.
Nice. Now you've begun misquoting me and are assigning me random emotions in order to marginalize my point. Maybe you should add in there that my points that you refuse to directly address are all "bad" and "dumb".

Additionally, I'm not entirely sure how you're claiming that "what happened in Europe" is either a prototype or a good small scale example. It would seem to me that you're running a cute little bait-and-switch scam. I'm not sure how a few countries losing oil for three days completely unexpectedly translates into a perfect prototype for the entire world gradually draining their oil reserves, of which we'd have decades of advanced notice.
You seem to have a myopic view of the problem that is centered around gas and gas only.

It's not just an issue of how you're going to get to work, but an issue of how you're going to feed yourself when transnational agribusiness companies that only operate in the context of cheap oil have increasing difficulty conducting normal business operations in the face of a ever-worsening fuel crisis.

Again, I point out that the food you eat is a product of petroleum. Modern agriculture is nothing more than the use of land to convert oil into food. Industrialization, modern medicine, food production capacity, population, and the human lifespan all rose synonymous with oil and are very much products of it. It was enabled and supported by oil, and we're going to have a hard time supporting everything without the foundation it was built on. The only way we're going to remedy this issue is if we confront it and take action.
I don't get it. You just insulted me and my viewpoint based on the fact that I keep saying that the problem is centered around gas and gas only. You then go on to spend the next 3 paragraphs connecting and oil to agriculture, industrialization , modern medicine, population, etc. You even go as far as to say they're synonymous. I really don't know how to refute you any better than you just did.
There are no quick-fix solutions or last-ditch-efforts when the crisis hits. By the time it comes, it's too late to do anything to prepare for it and the best we can hope for is to minimize the damage.

This is the product of shortsighted energy planning, political hubris, overconsumption, and Walt Disney's first law: wishing makes it so.

Unfortunately we have a global system with so many permeating interests that interfere at the political level needed to garnish enough support to effectively implement impacting change that it simply serves to exacerbate the situation. We're at the complete opposite of where we need to be and time is of the essence. If we continue to ignore the issue, downplay it's importance, and refuse to deal with relaity, then reality will deal with us. It will be a very sobering time for those that assumed all trends would continue indefinately [sic] and the future would always be better than the past.
Wow, and the point of this little diatribe was...?
I'm a man of action myself. If I see there is a problem, I don't fuck around. I get on it and get it fixed.
Why the holy hell are you fucking writing about yourself in a debate in regard to gasoline/oil lifespans? I don't really give two squirts of piss about what you consider yourself or what your preferences are for solutions to your little two-bit flunky problems. When your problems include a global oil crisis, feel free to start filling out your posts with your resume.
As I said before, if we are to go to mass transportation to mitigate the oil crisis, we need the infrastructure in place in advance. You can't do these major projects in the face of an energy crisis where prices are astronomical and fuel is scarce. It's prudent, logical, and plain common-sense to put any preventative measures/mitigation program in advance of the event. The best way to cure cancer from your cigarette addiction is to never get it in the first place, which involves making the right choices in advance. If you're a smoker, then it behooves you to quit while you are ahead. The same goes for our oil addiction predicament. We need to reform the system now before any major systemic problems arise.
Wow, it's like you're getting paid to point out the obvious.

Hey guys, the solution is to go to mass transportation! It's prudent, logical and plain common sense! Here's a little argument via analogy with cigarettes and cancer....

Feel free to go to the government with your proposed solution. I'm sure that nobody has thought of that before and is currently waiting for someone to step forth and say something like "mass transportation". It'll really sing when you point out that you have no idea how it's to be implemented and that ultimately it'll slow down use of oil, not stop it. Sort of like stepping down from 10 packs a day to 5, using your trite analogy.

Oh, and good luck convincing China to stop industrialization and switch to spending billions they don't have on mass transit. China, India, and others. The US will throw their economy in the crapper to develop mass transit, slow down their oil usage, and India and China will just take up the slack when our lack of demand makes oil cheaper. Then we'll be back in the same spot as before with the impending doom of oil, but now we'll be playing catchup with our economy.

Let's face it: an alternate energy source is the only hope. Not some fucking eco-orgasm of living in the trees without oil or camping around singing songs. We either get a renewable source to power our cars, our homes, and our businesses, or there's going to be a shitload of reckoning. And riding the fucking bus or some train that's 25% as efficient as our current system isn't going to solve anything.

[Dark_Magneto]

Nice. Now you've begun misquoting me and are assigning me random emotions in order to marginalize my point.
You said my argument was bullshit alarmist hollywood propaganda when, in fact, it is geological science and in several nations a matter of historical record.


Additionally, I'm not entirely sure how you're claiming that "what happened in Europe" is either a prototype or a good small scale example.

It's a prototypical example of what happens when fuel becomes scarce, and an excellent small-scale example of what to expect in similar situations. The larger the problem, the larger the scale - and thus the larger the consequences.


It would seem to me that you're running a cute little bait-and-switch scam. I'm not sure how a few countries losing oil for three days completely unexpectedly translates into a perfect prototype for the entire world gradually draining their oil reserves, of which we'd have decades of advanced notice.

Guess what. We have had decades advance notice (Oil in the lower 48 states peaked in 1970 in addition to OPEC embargos), so that should have been our wake-up call. Now we're at a point where we're right at the peak and we haven't prepared in the slightest.

http://tinyurl.com/m6lut

So, yeah. We don't have decades anymore. We did, but we squandered them.


I don't get it. You just insulted me and my viewpoint
I didn't insult you or your viewpoint. I pointed out that you (as most people do) dismissed the problem entirely prematurely.

based on the fact that I keep saying that the problem is centered around gas and gas only. You then go on to spend the next 3 paragraphs connecting and oil to agriculture, industrialization , modern medicine, population, etc. You even go as far as to say they're synonymous.

Right. So as you can see, the issue is clearly about much more than just gasoline, which you were apparently oblivious to earlier.


Why the holy hell are you fucking writing about yourself in a debate in regard to gasoline/oil lifespans?
I was pointing out that getting things done requires action. We need men of action, not people that will sit around catering to interests and trying to get everything done at the last minute to do too little too late.

Incidently, this happens to by my personal philosophy since in my experience, last-ditch efforts have a way of not panning out more often than working.

The basic idea was that a calculated, well-reasoned, precautionary approach is a superior choice to pushing the problem off until the consequences rear their ugly head.


Hey guys, the solution is to go to mass transportation! It's prudent, logical and plain common sense!

You would be suprised how many people would sooner send their children to die in oil wars to keep their car-culture lifestyles than give up some of their luxuries.

There's a deep psychology of previous investment we're dealing with here. People think that they have this entitlement of all the luxuries of the past as well as more in the future. The terms "conservation" and "sacrifice" are political kryptonite. There's a huge resistance at the political level for conveying any kind of need to change lifestyles. That would explain why you don't see politicians talking about it much, despite it's necessity.

What we see, rather, is a desperate attempt to maintain the old car culture/exponential annual growth in consumption of energy status quo despite circumstances making it clear that we just simply can't continue living that way.


Feel free to go to the government with your proposed solution. I'm sure that nobody has thought of that before and is currently waiting for someone to step forth and say something like "mass transportation". It'll really sing when you point out that you have no idea how it's to be implemented and that ultimately it'll slow down use of oil, not stop it. Sort of like stepping down from 10 packs a day to 5, using your trite analogy.

That's exactly what it is. Unfortunately, we can't even get a political will to cut back, much less make plans on quitting.

What you see now is absolute bullshit. The President gets on TV and says "We're addicted to oil". That's good. That's the first step - acknowledging that we have a problem. It's taken us up until now to even get to the point where we'll concede the problem, even though it was just as true 30 years ago as it is today. Now we actually have to take action and reduce our oil dependency. The President puts forth a hydrogen proposition (which is little more than a hand-off to big coal) and the FreedomCAR initiative, which basically amounts to replacing one unsustainable car culture with another. Conveniently lacking is any emphasis on mass transit. Somewhere around 9 barrels of oil go into the manufacturing of a single car. So just replacing the auto fleet isn't addressing the root of the problem, which is overconsumption due to all this exponential growth we've been experiencing. Mass transit addresses this, but is not being implemented anywhere near the necessary scale.

Oh, and good luck convincing China to stop industrialization and switch to spending billions they don't have on mass transit. China, India, and others. The US will throw their economy in the crapper to develop mass transit, slow down their oil usage, and India and China will just take up the slack when our lack of demand makes oil cheaper. Then we'll be back in the same spot as before with the impending doom of oil, but now we'll be playing catchup with our economy.


And guess who will be screwed when supplies start dwindling then? The nations most dependent on oil. Then their economies will be beyond screwed.

If China and India want to buy up what they can of what consumption we can cut, then that's their damage. They know the oil situation and where unyielding dependency on it ultimately leads.

So there's no valid reason to maintain a high oil dependency when it's an option. The less oil we use, the less we depend on and the better off we are.


Let's face it: an alternate energy source is the only hope.


That depends on the scenario. If you're talking about continuing growth trend mentality, then we don't have even have a hope. You can't have infinite growth in a closed system.

If the population of the earth were to become signifigantly lower, then we could rely on the remaining fossil fuels for the remainder of humanity until some cataclysmic event finally wipes us out.

At current populations, we need some form of abundant, cheap, readily available, easy to transport and store alternative energy source that will not deplete anytime soon. If we continue the growth, we'll wind up in the same situation again on an even larger scale.

So as you can see, our energy problems are only a symptom of an underlying root problem: growth. We need to become sustainable. The first law of sustainability states that growth in populations and/or consumption of resources cannot be sustained. This means reforming everything. Making steady-state economies that don't have to grow every year or die like our current system, getting a handle on population, acknowledging the limits, imposing our own, and adhering to them.


We either get a renewable source to power our cars, our homes, and our businesses, or there's going to be a shitload of reckoning. And riding the fucking bus or some train that's 25% as efficient as our current system isn't going to solve anything.

If most people in the U.S. rode a mass transit system (it doesn't exist anywhere near a scale that would allow for that, but if such a system existed) that was primarily electrically operated, that would cut out 3/4 of U.S. oil consumption. The U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil production every year. So just think about that for a minute. The average electric trolley gets 2.5 million miles before it has to be retired. You'll never see a car with mileage like that.