[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'S')ometimes fear of the bottleneck outweighs the knowledge that our species will be much better off afterwards than we are today. In my younger days I would presume to think I had a pretty good chance of seeing the other side and learning lessons on the way through. As I grow older the odds of seeing the other side decrease each year. Most of the time I do not let it bother me, but every week or ten days something will happen and I will see that things are getting closer inch by inch to the start of the bottleneck. Rationally I know this, emotionally it stirs up fears and regrets.

[Timo]

I fully understand, and mostly (mostly) embrace the strong probability of more physical labor required by humanity to do much of anything in the not too distant future. I actually agree with Ibon (yes, it's true) that this eventuality will be a net positive for humanity.

The problem i have in fully embracing this eventuality is that it is only one factor of the equation that's barreling toward us with much more power and devastation than the downslope of Hubbert's Peak. The other factor is the climate, which i'm awfully afraid, will not be hospitable enough to allow humanity the mere option to engage in more manual labor.

Some small portions of humanity will probably survive, but i have a very hard time acknowledging that as a net positive for the planet. My vision of the future is much less favorable to humanity than Ibon's. In my view, any potential cultural or religious realignment with the planet will be meaningless because the basis for that realignment will be destroyed beyond any value to humanity. I'm much less optimistic that there will be much of anything left worth living for. It will be a living hell for all of life on earth for several tens of thousands of years.

[ROCKMAN]

"...the strong probability of more physical labor required by humanity to do much of anything in the not too distant future. I actually agree with Ibon (yes, it's true) that this eventuality will be a net positive for humanity." A point, of course. But here's the problem as I see it: how much of what you use daily can be replaced by physical labor? Will PL preveng brownouts when fossil fuels get short? Fill you gas tank so you can driver to work? Increase mass transit so you don't have to drive your car? Make more of the medfication that keeps you healthy? Hand rivert materials together instead of using a welding machine?

The list is rather long, isn't? What about food production: replace tractorsd with PL? If you've ever grown a small veggie patch you know how inefficient that is when it comes to feeding many more folks then just your family. Everyone herer that still works for a living can answer: how much of your out put could be replaced by subbing PL for machines? How many folks would it take to replace your computer? LOL.

Of course years down the road such changes might not be optional. OTOH much of the global population lives today in that future world. And who thinks many US citizens could make such a transition. I would be glad to see any examples of PL on a SIGNIFICANT SCALE being substituted for mechanized labor.

[Timo]

"I would be glad to see any examples of PL on a SIGNIFICANT SCALE being substituted for mechanized labor."

Me too, but that is only relevant in the here and now. A majority of the human population presently lives this way, and most could continue doing so for centuries to come IF climate change does not destroy their habitat. I don't believe the earth will have much habitat left in 200 years to sustain human society. A cultural realignment with the resources of the planet depends on a habitable planet to realign with. I don't see that happening in our future.