[Pops]

Way back in the '90s when I first started doing print graphics on a Mac I thought the web would enable "mass specialization" where a wooden clog maker in Oregon could connect with customers worldwide.

I also told my partner and employees around that time that one day we would have a "Distributed" office with each of us living wherever in the world we wanted and we'd get up in the mornings, put on our Suit Dickies® and meet via the 'net.

I just Googled cedar clogs and along with finding myself telling this story before, I found a bunch of folks making cedar clogs. And though my partner and I dissolved the partnership 10 years ago, he and I and just about all our former employees work from home via the net - I was wrong about the suit dickies though.

Considering how much energy and raw materials are expended to get however many 10's of million of commuters into their cubicles so they can sit in front of the company computer screen all day it is a no brainer to see how easy it will be to simply eliminate the commute altogether.

[centaurian_slug]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'C')onsidering how much energy and raw materials are expended to get however many 10's of million of commuters into their cubicles so they can sit in front of the company computer screen all day it is a no brainer to see how easy it will be to simply eliminate the commute altogether.

[Comp_Lex]

The answer to your big question is currently unknown, but we will eventually know it.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Comp_Lex', 'T')he answer to your big question is currently unknown, but we will eventually know it.

[Comp_Lex]

Perhaps, but I'm working very hard on the answer of his question and I'm really not a happy camper.

[Oakley]

Richard Duncan says the electric grid will fail ultimately for lack of energy to maintain it and to fuel the generators. If that is the case, then forget everything that is driven by electricity. If you listen to those in the electric industry they will tell you that much of the infrastructure is already at the end of its design life.

I don't know the official definition of technology, but mine is knowledge applied to resources. The American Indians has plenty of resources right under their feet, but did not have the knowledge of how to harvest and use them, hence they did not have technology. If we have knowledge but not resources to apply that knowledge to, then we do not have technology either, and in fact even the knowledge will eventually be lost from disuse.

If indeed we are at the practical end of our fossil fuel bank account without adequate alternatives, then we are at the end of the electrical, industrial and technological ages. Peak oil and peak coal seemingly are upon us (peak some other important resources also) and the relentless deterioration of EROEI for fossil and nuclear energy resources continues. It looks to me to be a little late to be scrambling to develop substitutes when we no longer even have adequate energy to maintain the current civilization, much less invest huge amounts of energy into marginal alternatives.

Hubbert not only predicted peak oil, but also the collapse of the population bubble.

I personally can't see much of a future other than a return to the technology of 1800 and the world population of 3/4 of a billion that that technology supported. Isn't that the thunder of the four horsemen rumbling in the distance?

[Comp_Lex]

Your post lacks nuance. Can you give us a time-frame?

[centaurian_slug]

@Oakley - your post is terrifying and far too plausible.

I am definitely in the population reduction camp - global 1 child policy is what we need preferably starting 10-20 years ago (no offence intended to any second child's out there). Zero kids for me, as any future I want seems very unliklely.

I'm still very interested in the original question - will the 1billion or so living in 2100 still have a 'global man-machine hive-mind'.. a hybrid electrical/digital intelligence.

From the perspective of "Ascent of complexity" I would hope so;
this might sound misanthropic, but I'd much rather a future with, say, 1billion people *with* computers rather than 2billion *without*.
If we're gonig backwards, our brains cease to serve a purpose. As destructive as our modern tech is, computing/robot tech would for examlpe be essential for space colonization.
[techno-utopian I know.]

[efarmer]

We will talk to our dogs and they will network to convey our great intelligence and transfer our messages of fear and wonder along with the crushing load of bitching that humans are required to transact in order to lead high quality lives. People without a dog will talk and bitch at themselves and the information will be stored locally, and will overwrite itself and be lost if a dog doesn't happen along for them to be able to accomplish a download operation. Remember to stop your rants and bitching to your dog every once in awhile so they can pray or meditate depending on their religion. This helps them hold up under the intense message burden they are required to provide for us.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oakley', '
')I personally can't see much of a future other than a return to the technology of 1800 and the world population of 3/4 of a billion that that technology supported.

[davep]

Can I have some of what efarmer's on, please?

[efarmer]

I see your avatar Davep, you are already hooked up.