http://www.energybulletin.net/7021.html
IMHO, this article is very interesting. Feel free to give your opinion about it !
PeakOil is You
Can Democracy Survive Without Fossil Fuels?
First unread post • 8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Can Democracy Survive Without Fossil Fuels?
by Sys1 » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 04:48:25
-
Sys1 - Tar Sands
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
by marek » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 06:11:19
This is a very common analysis of history. All you need to do is go back to Marx and his historical materialism. Marx was one of the first thinkers to analyze history not from the "top down" (ideas and great men change society) but from the "bottom up" (material conditions provide the means for change). Although Marx did not speak directly about energy, he did manage to come up with a decent explanation for slavery, feudalism and capitalism. His main problem was that he focused on labor power and believed that capital was accumulated labor power. Of course, he was right about capital being accumulated labor power (and brain power), but he forgot that capital needed fossil fuels to operate. It is not enough to have equipment, you need coal, oil, natural gas or electricity (derived from somewhere) to run it.
-
marek - Lignite
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Carlhole » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 07:04:45
Exactly true.
A graphical representation of energy usage per capita is shown at the following link: (It's the old Olduvai Theory page by Richard Duncan)
http://dieoff.org/page125.htm
One can see on the chart that the peak is in year 1979. That was the year Human Beings (and especially, Americans including the ordinary variety) were wealthiest from an energy availability standpoint. We've been on the downside of this curve for some time now.
A graphical representation of energy usage per capita is shown at the following link: (It's the old Olduvai Theory page by Richard Duncan)
http://dieoff.org/page125.htm
One can see on the chart that the peak is in year 1979. That was the year Human Beings (and especially, Americans including the ordinary variety) were wealthiest from an energy availability standpoint. We've been on the downside of this curve for some time now.
- Carlhole
by linlithgowoil » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 08:30:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne can see on the chart that the peak is in year 1979. That was the year Human Beings (and especially, Americans including the ordinary variety) were wealthiest from an energy availability standpoint. We've been on the downside of this curve for some time now.
Whilst you cannot disagree that per capita energy use has decline since 1979, i disagree that we were the wealthiest in energy terms at that point. Firstly, who is 'we'? If you look at the average western citizen, they use far more energy per capita now than they ever have. Those in poorer countries likely use a lot less.
I look around me now, compared to even just 5 years ago, and i see FAR more energy use around me (this is edinburgh, scotland). Land development, housing, new shopping malls, everything has exploded in growth, demanding far more energy to run it all, though all this new stuff is likely far more efficient too.
The gap between the energy rich and energy poor is getting wider all the time.
Isnt this a massive flaw with the olduvai theory? It treats everyone on earth the same, when people in the US are certainly nothing like people from bangladesh for example.
Cant we have an energy use per capita on a country by country basis?
Plus - olduvai doesnt take efficiency into account. In 1979, the average electrical appliance or car etc. would have been a lot less efficient. So, even though there is less energy per capita now, you can actually do more with it, thus have a better quality of living.
Olduvai theory is far too simplistic.
-
linlithgowoil - Tar Sands
- Posts: 828
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Scotland
by Battle_Scarred_Galactico » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 08:44:45
Great article.
I'd say an emphatic "NO" to the question. The UK isn't even a fucking democracy now, let alone post peak. The public is against ID cards, yet Blairs' trying to push them through anyway.
I hope, and believe our government will run out of steam before it goes too far down this road.
I'd say an emphatic "NO" to the question. The UK isn't even a fucking democracy now, let alone post peak. The public is against ID cards, yet Blairs' trying to push them through anyway.
I hope, and believe our government will run out of steam before it goes too far down this road.
---
- Battle_Scarred_Galactico
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
by MicroHydro » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 12:16:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marek', 'b')ut he forgot that capital needed fossil fuels to operate.
Nope. Capitalism was doing just fine 1500 - 1750 without fossil fuel use.
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
-
MicroHydro - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
by bart » Thu 30 Jun 2005, 15:29:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')apitalism was doing just fine 1500 - 1750 without fossil fuel use.
It's true there is no exact boundary between feudalism and capitalism, but most people would put the birth of capitalism somewhere in the 1700s in England.
Adam Smith only wrote his description of the emerging phenomenon of capitalism, "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Previously, there were markets and traders, but most land was held by an aristocracy and most goods were created by individual craftsmen. Most production was for home or local use.
With capitalism, goods were increasingly produced for the market. Manufacturing is carried on in centralized factories, owned and managed by a new class (the capitalists -- people with "capital"). The labor force became increasingly unskilled (machine operators rather than craftsmen).
During this time came the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and similar middle-class revolutions in many countries. Gradually, the vote was given to all adult males and we saw the emergence of modern-day democracy.
Kurt Cobb's point is that capitalism, industrialism and the birth of democracy all developed at about the same time as fossil fuels began to be used. His is an appropriate question - what will happen as fossil fuels become tight?
A couple of hyptheses:
1 The history of the past 50 years, a time of cheap energy, may be irrelevant in understanding the future. Perhaps the best thing to do is read history, to understand life in low-energy societies.
2. We may be in for a time of turbulence. Changes in the way goods are produced (for example, going from feudalism to capitalism) bring with them changes in poltical structure. Revolutions, civil wars and (hopefully) peaceful political changes are on the agenda.
3. With energy becoming scarcer, the scale of conflict may perhaps be less. Coal and oil made possible the mass mobilizations of World Wars 1 and 2. Hopefully, with less energy at our disposal, it will be too expensive to mount invasions and protracted wars.
4. Maybe, just maybe, we have learned enough in the last 200 years so that we can make the transition peacefully to societies that are democratic and just.
-
bart - Tar Sands
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest