Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on June 12, 2017

Can we create a durable future?

It is hard to imagine anyone today building something as durable as the Roman Colosseum. Most of the damage we see to the 2,000 year-old stadium comes from two earthquakes and the persistent looting of its marble, stone and brass infrastructure by humans using them for other building projects. Were it not for these unfortunate depredations, the Colosseum might be largely intact today.

We pen fantasies about the durability of our culture in science fiction novels, television programs and movies set hundreds and even thousands of years from now. By then we humans will supposedly be moving with magical ease at speeds greater than light, zipping through the known universe aided by voice-command convenience (or maybe even thought-comand convenience).

But our age seems to be populated by buildings and cultural artifacts that are designed for impermanence. It’s not that we are technically incapable of making things that are durable when we want to, especially when it feeds our desire to turn science fiction into fact. NASA’s Mars Rovers launched in 2003 were designed for a mission of 90 Martian solar days. The Spirit rover operated until 2010. The Opportunity rover is still operating.

We have even more impressive longevity from the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 space probes sent in 1977 to study the outer planets, that is, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Both spacecraft were designed for 5-year lifetimes and both are still working after almost 40 years. Voyager 1 has reached interstellar space where it continues to send back data. Voyager 2 will join it in two or three years. NASA expects to continue to receive data for another decade or so from both.

On Earth we would consider such durability to be over-engineering, too costly for our purposes. We build computers to be obsolete in less than 2 years. We build shopping malls, office parks and other commercial and industrial buildings with the idea that they will be abandoned or torn down in perhaps two or three decades. I am reminded of a New Yorker cartoon in which a developer looking at a model of his newly commissioned building remarks: “Great design, but when it comes time, a bitch to implode.”

Nothing lasts forever. And, a society that has no dynamism, that does not change with changing circumstances, cannot survive. But it is we who are creating the change that we have to adapt to. It is we humans who are causing climate change. It is we humans who are causing rapid depletion of soil, water and energy resources. It is we humans who are increasing our environmental footprint in sheer numbers and in consumption per person.

We’ve initiated a feedback loop that has no end–except catastrophe. What would more durable arrangements look like? If we turn to those arrangements that have withstood the test of time, we have a starting point:

1. Small units of governance. The city of Rome has been continuously inhabited for more than 2,500 years. The Roman Empire, for all its durability, came and went even as the city lived on.

2. Small-scale agriculture and craft. Agriculturally based villages with craft industry have thousands of years behind them. This way of living is being crushed by modern industrial farming and its need for ever increasing scale. But the local food movement and the desire of many to know where their food comes from have breathed new life into small-scale farming.

3. Trade in luxury goods. Some exotic and valuable items have long been traded across large distances because a particular climate is suitable for certain produce, for example, tea or coffee–or the know-how and infrastructure is well-developed, silk from China, for example. What this point implies is that necessities are better produced closer to home to ensure a continuous and adequate supply.

4. Locations favorable to agriculture and navigation. It should be no surprise that many of the world’s most important and long-lived cities are ports. Water has been historically a primary mode of transport. It is also, of course, essential to prosperous agriculture, either from adequate rains or from flowing rivers that can be diverted for irrigation.

All of these will seem obvious to anyone who has thought about the topic, sometimes through the lens of what is called “relocalization.” In its simplest form this merely means returning the production of daily necessities closer to where we live. That seems straightforward enough; but the complex webs of trade and logistics we now have that bring us those necessities will be difficult to abandon. For those wanting to build more durable arrangements, this implies building them alongside the global system we have now. (It does NOT, however, mean abandoning the knowledge we have gained in the industrial age, but rather using it more wisely to attain our goals.)

Building a relocalized system may seem unduly duplicative and wasteful. And, it will be until it isn’t, that is, until the global system stops serving our needs. In many ways that system already has stopped serving us if you count as one of our needs the desire to build a durable human culture that can thrive far into the future.

The fantasy of a spacefaring society has us fixated on an ever evolving technological future that asks us to abandon one set of gadgets for another almost continuously–all premised on the availability of unlimited resources and a climate crisis that somehow won’t turn out to be a crisis. Few people are even contemplating the need to build a durable society because few imagine ever needing one.

We humans like the novelty afforded to us by our rapidly changing society. The world of information and communications technology has brought that novelty to us in addictive oversupply through ever more powerful cellphones and other electronic devices. What strikes me about this supposed novelty is its overwhelming sameness. It seems like novelty largely because new participants appear. But it is actually monotony itself because the stories we are told are as relentlessly interchangeable as they are shallow.

The durable society is not a dull society. It is rather a deeper society. We get to spend more time with the very landscape of our lives–the people, the buildings, the everyday objects, and the activities–than the frantic pace of the electronic message now allows us. The slow food movement is one expression of this desire for deeper engagement.

That deeper engagement is really the foundation of a durable future. It should come as no surprise then that it is difficult to build a durable future in a world that people don’t have time to understand…with others they don’t really know.

Resources Insights

21 Comments on "Can we create a durable future?"

onlooker on Mon, 12th Jun 2017 5:26 am

If the Earth allows it perhaps we can restart in ways described above. But only after the coming worldwide holocaust of our civilization and a vast reduction in our numbers

Davy on Mon, 12th Jun 2017 6:37 am

These are great ideas but these ideas are like what was left on the planet we just departed. These ideas are answers but not for man in the aggregate of modernism and globalism. We can’t innocently go back to that world we consciously rejected and moved on from. We opened a door and walked through it and there is no going back.

We are trapped in modernism globally. There is no country or community of any size that can leave this entirely as if on an island far out in the ocean away from disturbance. Everywhere in this global world has been delocalized. Resources and their finance are global. Subsistence farming of the poor 3rd world is dependent on the globalized world for basics and for stability. We are all dependent on globalism being stable. If globalism goes unstable wars and destructive decay of nuke plants and mega urban regions unwind catastrophically.

This does not mean these ideas should be rejected or diminished. There are places that are closer to sustainability and resilience. There are places that may have the right stuff to survive the worm hole of collapse we are entering. No place is safe and all places will suffer the threat of random destruction because the predicaments of collapse are global and macro. Just as the small mammals survived the demise of the great beasts of the dinosaur era so too it is possible small communities and groups will manage.

That is in the extreme if our decline is less dramatic and longer term there is still the basics of reliance and sustainability that will help some areas decline less. Let say climate change is less severe and longer term. Let’s say a more robust energy transition occurs. Let’s say populations level off after a traumatic brick wall of limits is hit. It is possible a transition of sorts based on the basics of relocalization can be implemented in certain locations. These are the answers in this situation not more of the same in the status quo.

Mega urban areas will not fare well. Locations in zones of inhabitability because of warming and loss of modernism will not be the places to be even with proper efforts at alternative living. For the seeds of survival to take root you will have to be in habitable areas. Surely not everyone in these vulnerable locations will be destroyed in decline and decay but it is certain populations and economic activity will rebalance. It is this rebalance that will distill out many including those who are enlightened. Leave these traps if you want a reasonable chance of success or take your chances.

We can’t know what is ahead in regards to catastrophic decline. What you can do is start the process of change now because change in regards to attitudes and lifestyles takes years to implement. Change can occur abruptly and with force. This is when change is the most effective but also the most destructive. Until that happens your personal change will have to come slowly and metered.

Learn to downsize with dignity and collapse in place when you find a reasonable refuge. Practice relative sacrifice. This sacrifice is more adaptive than moral. Sure random acts of kindness to man and nature is good but it is also good for you to do good things personally. Sacrifice in this context is adapting to a potential world of poverty and scarcity. If you are already partially there then you have a leg up. You have to live in the status quo to leave it. You have to pay bills and buy goods that are made and sold in the status quo of market based capitalism with liberal democratic global laws. There is no leaving this world but you can take a detour.