[ashurbanipal]

This is not a post rehashing the fact that nitrogen fertilizers derived from natural gas have been used to significantly increase crop yields since the industrial revolution. That's all true (tragically so), of course, but that's not what I'd like to point out.

I've seen, on these boards and elsewhere, a rather curious argument from history that attempts to show that Peak Oil will be a "non-event." Specifically, the argument goes that because there were not massive die-offs and social disintegrations during previous energy-source depletions throughout history, oil peaking will be similarly manageable. For instance, when firewood "peaked" and was eventually entirely depleted in England, people were worried, but they found ways to cope with the problem that did not result in serious discomfort. Or, when whale oil became scarce in the middle nineteenth century, people adapted quickly. They found new ways to light their lamps. Economies did not collapse. People did not die off. There was no mass tragedy of the proportions that Peak Oilers believe will occur. Therefore, proponents of this argument ask, why should we believe that Peak Oil won't be handled in the same facile way of which people have generally shown themselves capable throughout history?

Good question. I intend to show that this argument is based on a number of flawed assumptions that make it untenable. Properly analyzed, oil is not the equivalent of other usually recognized energy sources throughout history. This is because historical analysis of this type should proceed functionally, not categorically. Oil should not be taken to be equivalent to firewood, coal, or whale oil even though they are all in the category of energy source. Functionally, they are very different. When comparing our current situation to historical eras and events, the proper thing to compare oil to is food. Functionally, oil is much closer to historic usage of food than to any other energy source.

To see why, we need to look at how oil functions for mankind today. Oil does a number of things for us, some of the most important including:

1) Powering our most common means of transportation
2) Powering machines that do the majority of the work of agriculture and essential industry.
3) Powering and supporting the aparatus and infrastructure that brings food to the markets that require it.
4) Powering the machines that we use to build our important physical structures such as roads, bridges, houses, governments and commercial buildings, public works buildings, hospitals, etc.
5) Producing electricity, which is in turn commonly used to heat or cool homes, refrigerate food, and light communities.

In the past, other energy sources have, at best, been used as functionally equivalent to point 5. Points 1 through 4 were all accomplished, in their historical analogs, by food. Considered point by point, here is how this works out:

1) Pre industrial earth's most common means of transportation was animal-power. People walked, rode horses or camels, used oxen or mules to haul goods, etc. Animals require food and water; food is the principal energy source used for transportation on pre-industrial earth.

2) Again, most of the work of agriculture or industry on pre-industrial earth was done by animals. Mules, horses, lamas, and people all kept farms running by their own physical exertions, which were powered by food.

3) Goods were hauled from their places of production most typically by wagons hauled by horses or mules. Again, these animals are powered by food.

4) Construction was most commonly carried out by people, though animals were also employed in the process. Again, people and animals require food for energy.

5) Heating and lighting was most commonly accomplished by burning a flagrable substance, such as wood, coal, or whale oil. In this sense, and this sense alone, is oil functionally similar to pre-industrial sources of energy. But even in this case, it is not precisely comparable, because those flagrable sources of energy were produced and brought to those who required them by animals, who used food to power their efforts.

Now, food has another function that oil does not precisely have--namely, food is necessary to the sustainment of life. Theoretically, we could sustain life, and produce food, without oil, though the analyses that show that we will not be able to produce nearly enough seem very sound to me. But in the grand picture under consideration, this point is of little importance. When one considers the intimate role that oil plays in the production and distribution of food, one realizes that the analogy holds. How many people in the industrialized world would know how to produce their own food? Functionally, there is no difference between someone who doesn't know how to produce food, and someone who does but cannot. Oil and the energy it produces allows a great many people to work in a non-agricultural occupation, and still eat. The vast energy that oil contains has freed up unprecedented portions of the population for the production of non-essential goods. In this way, then, supplies of food as a sustainer of life in the developed world will be substantially reduced in a post-peak world. Food production will, at least initially, decline as oil does.

This analysis seems solid. When employing historical analysis, therefore, we should compare an oil shortage to a food shortage. But even here, historical analysis that proceeds by comparison is flawed, because it has very rarely been the case in history that food production has crashed such that it could not be restarted. This would clearly be the case with Peak Oil--once it peaks (by definition), we will never again produce as much. This is suspected to have happened only a few times throughout history, but when it has, it's been utterly devastating. The demise of the Inca, the collapse of Egypt at the end of the Early Kingdom, and the demise of the Scythians, are all attributable to this kind of irreversible food shortage.

Expanding the scope of our inquiry to famines in general, we can see that all signals point towards this apocalyptic picture of the future. For, even in instances where food production was not entirely interrupted, or where the populace in question was able to restart it quickly, the results were nothing short of horrific. The decline of Western Europe during the fourteenth century is a prime example (though there are many others) of what we ought to expect on the downslope toward entirely inadequate petroleum production. The suffering of this century was caused in great part by systemic and frequent interruptions in food supply to the people of northern and western Europe. Wars, climate change, and disease conspired to lower crop yields. While food was mostly never completely unavailable, shortages led to yet more disease, peasant revolts, economic hardship, and prolonged internecine and international conflict. Populations declined all over europe. The art of the period is grim and preoccupied by death. There was a widespread rejection of the learning that took place in the 13th century and a concomittant seeking of refuge in fundamentalist forms of religion. Anti-semitism was widespread as many people sought scapegoats for their troubles. In general, there was a devolution to the social and technological level of the dark ages nearly 700 years prior.

Again, this is the picture that emerges again and again throughout history as famines have gripped societies. Each particular famine has its own flavor (or lack thereof, perhaps), but the overall patterns are the same. They dictate that people are in for very hard times, and that many will die.

[drattom]

Great analysis.

I have only a little knowledge about previous episodes but, I suspect the demographics were a lot different than today in North America and Europe. Even in African or Asian recent crisis, there were not a massive elderly population like we have today.

A lot of people can be in trouble really fast, the elderlies who stay functional only with a daily pill cocktail, the smokers(how many can live a week without cigarettes and without food to reduce stress?), the obese and anybody that don't remember the last time they walked 5 minutes.

Just look at "starving" people out of the superdome after Katerina. For 50% of the world population, this kind of privation is so common it's a non-event.

I think the occidental population will drop really fast and those who will survive the first months will not be so bad.

[Jack]

Excellent analysis. Please accept my compliments.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', 'T')his is not a post rehashing the fact that nitrogen fertilizers derived from natural gas have been used to significantly increase crop yields since the industrial revolution. That's all true (tragically so), of course, but that's not what I'd like to point out.
.

[RonMN]

I agree, excellent analysis! This is why i find it so important to learn what are "foods"...like cattails, acorns and dandelions etc...etc...

While others starve amid a field of food (because they don't recognise it as food) I hope to be picking my fill.

[ashurbanipal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-') fertilizers ONLY need electricity, air and water to be synthesized

[xerces]

Doomers, lend me your ears!!!

A few points to correct here:

1. Coal-based fertilizers work just as a well as petrol fertilizers. Understand that synthetic fertilizers existed before petro was a major source of energy.


2. Food is not the basis of the first 4 energy requirments in pre-industrial society.

1) Keep in mind that by the 16th century, bulk transport of food was done as often with wind-powered ships as with pack animals

2) Food processing was mostly powered by wind/water/biomass power by the 16th century.

3) We did use a lot of animals for land transport/construction, but they weren't fed EDIBLE food. People cannot eat hay. And most hay were grown in land that was too poor to grow human-edible crops.

[Ebyss]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')1) Keep in mind that by the 16th century, bulk transport of food was done as often with wind-powered ships as with pack animals

2) Food processing was mostly powered by wind/water/biomass power by the 16th century.

3) We did use a lot of animals for land transport/construction, but they weren't fed EDIBLE food. People cannot eat hay. And most hay were grown in land that was too poor to grow human-edible crops.

[ashurbanipal]

Thank you, Xerces, for giving me an example of the sort of thinking I'd really like to dispel. This is imprecise thinking. I don't mean to be insulting, but it is; there's no accounting for details, and in this case, as with many others, that's where the devil is waiting.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')oal-based fertilizers work just as a well as petrol fertilizers.

[MonteQuest]

A very good post, ashurbanipal. I concur with your analysis.

If you have read my Liebig's Law thread, you will see I was making the same argument from a different angle.

But, nonetheless, oil/food will be the limiting factor that will determine carrying capacity. One should be able to easily grasp this from the laws of ecology or from your fine post.

People will try to refute the logic with pot shots or solutions in isolation, but as you have already observed, it will be futile.

[jato]

Great work ashurbanipal!

I would like to see more soft landers take a shot at this thread! Your argument appears to be water tight!

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-') fertilizers ONLY need electricity, air and water to be synthesized

[flametree]

The largest city pre-industrial revolution where up to a million people due to transport and supply constraints. For example Rome at it peak may have got to around that size but no bigger.

Most cities where always much smaller. A 100,00 would be huge, 10,000 more likely.

Only in China (sorry I forget it name, one of the old capitals) and the Aztec capital are populations of more than a million know to have been reached. Both cities reached about 3 million but they both had extremely efficient canals systems which allows large quantites of food and resources to be produced and distributed extremely efficiently.

No-0ne listened to Cassandra either, does mean she was wrong. (:

[Ebyss]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', '
')2) Hay is often part of the product of food grown for people.
3) Hay itself is essentially a grass stem; wheat, barley, and oats are all grasses that can be grown anywhere that any other kind of hay (such as alfalfa) are grown. Therefore land devoted specifically to the production of fodder for animals is land that is not producing food for people.

[wilburke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')k, quit reading Heinberg , Hanson and apply common sense logic.
First of all, a government can help their people. Rationing fuel (remember it will not go away overnight), optimizing agriculture (check FAO for example). Most of the countries are using way too much fertilizers - they are operating on the flat part of the I:O curve. Cutting back will make no difference at this point. As long as you stop framing your scenarios around an on-off event (Sunday 31st of January 2010 (day before PO): production X million barrels, Monday 1st February (day after PO): production zero barrels a day) the reality is vastly different.

[deconstructionist]

very very good thread. it made me hungry... ashurbanipal, may I copy your original post and post it elsewhere? of course giving you credit and linking to this thread as a source.

that the down-trend will be gradual doesn't change the fact that anything other than an up-trend means supply is not meeting demand. in that way, oil=food. of course oil nor food are going to dissapear, and i don't think ashurbanipal was implying that. simply that a "small" downtrend (1 or 2% per year) will disrupt things quite a bit, and there will be shortages. how many millions of people in 1st world nations around the world would starve if there was no food at the local supermarket? yes, alternatives are possible, but they are simply not being put into action in a timely or large-scale fashion. unless we're going to start eating soilent green, the shortages will get worse and worse untill the population gets smaller and smaller.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', 'F')unctionally, there is no difference between someone who doesn't know how to produce food, and someone who does but cannot.

[holmes]

"unless we're going to start eating soilent green, the shortages will get worse and worse untill the population gets smaller and smaller. "

this is it. Take it to the bank. anything else is just well, anything else.

[Ghog]

Excellent post ashurbanipal.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost of the countries are using way too much fertilizers - they are operating on the flat part of the I:O curve. Cutting back will make no difference at this point

[ashurbanipal]

Thanks, everyone, for the positive response, and for those who have offered critiques of the ideas I'm presenting.

Deconstructionist, please feel free to post wherever you like, though I'd appreciate a link back to this thread. No other credit necessary. I've no problem at all with anyone doing the same.

[holmes]

urbanpal is the kind of human that could live in a paradigm shift society. The simple understandings of how nature works is vital to maintain important aspects ina close knit "tribal" community. Once this culture finds out u have something of value they invade.
Need these in a community dependent on each others skill:
urban pal has the base understanding to deal with the rest.

boundaries (no nosey infiniter growth nose in your business)
privacy (no nosey infinite growth mad men).
low levels of complexity and the symptoms of health problems, insanity, chaos, hypertension, anxiety, etcc...
Understanding that overbreeding kills and drives insanity.
No welfare.
no need for never ending wants.
happy with nature, peace and oneself.
That a sustianable society breeds common sense, creativity, etc..

and the list goes on.
Ohters that are addicted to the infinite growth and "want" a consumer culture can never be a part of a paradigm shift.
In fact in order to maintain a sustainable culture one must make hard decisions. One might have to exterminate a low IQ or aggressive gene that threatens the existence of all. There is no "love and bring em all in" associated with a real community.
urbanpal I hope u understand this.
Thats how we got into this mess to begin with, greed and overcompassion.

now urbanpal are u ready for the gauntlet?