by Jack » Tue 27 Jun 2006, 09:43:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')Hard to say really. I think I have a fairly pathetic and feeble understanding of what it is you envision, but I think it includes elements of:
1.) reduced population.
2.) sustained technology, but with much less mass industrial production.
3.) more localization of skills and products
4.) emphasis on renewable energy sources
5.) current economic model has to die, new model based on quality instead of quantity.
I'm sure you'll say I'm all wrong, but I have done my best to understand your proposal; perhaps it is simply beyond the capacity of my limited intelligence and education to truly comprehend.
But I have a fine rule that has served me well. If you don't fully understand it, don't sign it, and don't vote for it.
No, not wrong. But why does a move towards these concepts give rise to the visions of poverty, hard labor, and strife that we see trotted out?
MonteQuest, I guess I don't understand how it can be otherwise.
Reduced population implies an increased death rate. If we assume that's due to natural causes that have previously been suppressed or mitigated, those dying are going to see that matter in a negative light. Furthermore, those caring about the dying will probably object. If the reduction is due to famine, we can be sure that hordes of desperate refugees will assail any oasis of plenty. That sounds like a formula for strife to me. Starvation also seems like an aspect of poverty.
I really don't see how one sustains technology without mass production. How does one produce CPUs or DRAM? For that matter, how does one produce large runs of books? I can see having a small bakery, a tailor, or grocer - but maintaining technology without the extensive support infrastructure seems problematic.
Localization of skills and products is fine - but see above. Does it make sense for every city to have a fab line for chips? (Yes, that's a silly example, and I know it.) But although localization is great for some things, I question whether the general case will work for most things.
An emphasis on renewable energy is fine, but given the EROEI, I get the impression that much more expensive energy is implied. If less available energy means economic shrinkage, it seems to me that some level of poverty is implied. I would note that a modest little house of the late 1940's era in the U.S. would, today, be regarded as a quite meager abode. So, if poverty is reduced material abundance, yes - I think the masses will experience some degree of poverty.
Finally, the issue of quantity versus quality. I like quality. But quantity has its merits - quantities of food, for one example. Quantities of clothing for another. Keep in mind that quality costs. A bespoke suit costs far more than a rack suit - and is also a lot better. But fewer people can afford the bespoke version. That will, I think, be perceived as impoverishment.
So - with all due respect - yes, I think the coming festivities will involve strife, poverty, and hard work. Perhaps you could show me how or why it wouldn't?
by Wildwell » Tue 27 Jun 2006, 19:50:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')ell I said that the world wouldn't power down to agricultural levels, nor do I think there's a need to. Under no conceivable scenarios would millions of people throw years of education away, remain within walking distance of where they were born and go and shovel horse shit. Its pointless putting forward such a proposition and even more pointless enforcing it.
Governments have enough problems trying to get people to leave their cars at home let alone turn to hard labour and subsistence living.
Well, I can see that few even have an inkling of what a powerdown entails. Yes, I see a move away from machines and toward more manual labor, but
hard labor and subsistence living?
Hardly.
Why is it that so many people haven't a clue as to what powerdown means?
Where does this mindset come from?
Powerdown in many cases will mean giving up speed of acquisition in return for quality.
It would be nice if people were interested, instead of leaping to the conclusion that powerdown means people becoming serfs on the land or something.
Nope.
Adjusting our culture to work with Earth's life systems rather than against them will probably mean more people will need to be at least somewhat involved with growing their own food and other needs, but it certainly doesn't require everyone become a farmer. In fact, I don't even promote farming, myself. I promote
gardening, which is a much more productive use of resources than farming (in general) and far less physical labor. See websites below for more details.
If you want my honest opinion some of this self-sufficiency stuff is a little naive, that's not to say there's not a place for some of it. Most people don't want to live 'the good life' and are more than happy enough with their microwave meals, widescreen TVs, electricity and clean water supply, all of which implies some sort of interdependence and industrial scale civilisation. We’re also not going to un-invent this stuff and do things ‘the hard way’. If families have moved about they are going to want to travel, people still want to know the news, have clean running water and food on the table.
You cannot sustain a modern city by growing a bit of veg in the garden. Materials have to come it and out, people actually have to do something to sustain themselves, and will naturally move to trade, making things to better their lot and invent things to make life easier – this is human nature and sets us apart from the animals, not to say some of the inventions are always sensible!
More interestingly the whole notion of 'localisation' (in the sense peak oilers mean it) is also void. Again, that's not to say growing food and making (some) products a little closer to have isn't beneficial, but I get the impression people think this can happen all around animal power and everything you want can be found within walking distance. And if it’s not based around animal power, even using humble bikes, it’s still industrial.
Materials, goods and labour to sustain the population are not found where you want them. Bad harvests have been known to kill millions. This is why transportation grew up – hence your oil use. We didn’t do it for fun, we did it to make life easier. Getting rid of all of that, or even a substantial part of that will make life much, much harder. Personally I don’t think motorised personal transport using throwaway vehicles is sustainable. Growing your own biodeisel sounds great on that site, only trouble is who is going to mine the iron ore, make the steel, design and make your car? It’s all far too hippyish to take seriously. I have included cars because erasing them is not acceptable to most people BUT with the caveat life is not planned around them in all but rural areas.
In essence you are talking about either an agricultural economy or an industrial one, there's no 'half way' house. My argument is using the right checks and a balance the industrial one doesn’t have to get out of hand, but that requires vision and policy, and responsibility, at every level. It may be the human civilisation is naturally boom/bust and we must let nature take its course somewhat and can never come up with an ‘acceptable’ solution that satisfies ‘working with the planets life systems’, but we can go a long way in getting most of the way there.
If you think people have got the wrong end of the stick, set out your stall, but make it attractive otherwise you have failed.
by MonteQuest » Wed 28 Jun 2006, 00:01:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I') really don't see how one sustains technology without mass production.
You mean how do you sustain consumer consumption and economic growth, don't you?
You don't. You meet needs and not wants.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-

MonteQuest
- Expert

-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Graeme » Wed 28 Jun 2006, 01:37:28
You're partly right. But so am I.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, technologies such as renewable energy, recycling and the provision of services can, if carried out appropriately, provide for growth in the economic sense, either without the use of limited resources, or by using a relatively small amount of resources with a small impact. In the latter case, even the use of small amounts of resources may be unsustainable if continued indefinitely.
wikipedia
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
-

Graeme
- Fusion

-
- Posts: 13258
- Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Wed 28 Jun 2006, 01:56:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'Y')ou're partly right. But so am I.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, technologies such as renewable energy, recycling and the provision of services can, if carried out appropriately, provide for growth in the economic sense, either without the use of limited resources, or by using a relatively small amount of resources with a small impact. In the latter case, even the use of small amounts of resources may be unsustainable if continued indefinitely.
wikipedia Ah, good old Wikipedia. Does it explain how this (in a sense) economic growth can go on without using an increasing amount of resources? It can't be done.