[MonteQuest]

“Necessity is the mother of invention.” Throughout the history of human civilization, it has been necessity that has always fueled new inventions. However, time and again these inventions were often driven by the desire to make something cheaper or more affordable. Cheapness, not necessity, is often the mother of innovation.

However, if we stick with the original premise of necessity, then why isn’t Bangladesh a technological utopia?

That answer would appear quite obvious: a lack of energy, capital, and resources. During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, the lack of capital was the limiting factor; we had plenty of energy and plenty of resources. Some might say if necessity is the mother of invention, originality is its father. However, in a peak oil world, energy is going to be the father of invention.

I see people posting here time and time again, saying we will just build it; nuclear plants, wind farms, ethanol plants, solar arrays, etc. That we sell human ingenuity short; like available energy has nothing to with it.

In the past, we were never really limited by an available source of energy, or the lack of a new, even more powerful and cheaper one just waiting in the wings to be exploited with gusto. We could innovate and invent at almost will. We produced stuff so fast we had to invent advertising to move it.

Now comes peak oil and a terminal decline in the energy source with which we have built modern civilization. I have written about the scale, the lack of time to mitigate the effects, and the law of the minimum. It would appear that of the three ingredients (energy, capital, resources) for innovations to come to fruition, we may find ourselves lacking all three this time out, with emphasis on energy.

Where will the trillions of dollars come from in a debt-encrusted economy with poor prospects for growth?

Where will we find the resources like silicon for solar cells, platinum for fuel cells, etc?

Where will the energy come from to build all these wonders of technology in an energy scarce world? It’s almost like going from tugging on a rope to pushing it. Technology is only as good as the energy sources to support it. How will we provide energy for growth and energy for massive mitigation efforts while fighting off declining energy availability?

We must innovate and invent long before we peak in energy, or we will not be able to without a massive socio-economical upheaval. The “father” will be shooting blanks. Our inventions will be stillborn. This is what the Hirsch Report is all about.

Remember, in a post-peak world, all new energy expenditures must come from the existing supply. For example: if demand is 100 units and supply is 75 units, we must improve efficiencies or cut use through conservation to meet supply. This will put someone out of work as the economy contracts.

Put them to work building solar you say? Where will the energy come from?

It must come from the remaining 75 units, displacing even more people and contracting the economy even more.

Feel like you are pushing a rope yet?

Like the dollar poor people of the Great Depression, who will loan you "energy" to get your business/ invention/innovation going?

Who will have it to lend?

[jato]

The off topic post has been moved...

here

Please stay on topic.

[DefiledEngine]

Well, if a nation can't get enough resources to offset a decline in energy avaliable to it, it can always try to steal from other countries, right?

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Now comes peak oil and a terminal decline in the energy source with which we have built modern civilization. I have written about the scale, the lack of time to mitigate the effects, and the law of the minimum. It would appear that of the three ingredients (energy, capital, resources) for innovations to come to fruition, we may find ourselves lacking all three this time out, with emphasis on energy.

[azreal60]

Honestly, I'm thinking rwwff is close to a vision of what america is likely to come too. And I'm not too pleased with that vision, because it makes the catastrophic global warming crowd seem more and more correct about which way we will bend over and take it. Way overuse of coal is one of the more likely effects of peak oil, and also one of the worst environmentally.

Simply, I see this as one of the worst paths we can take. I would rather see demand destruction and less electricity usage than us plunder our coal in 100 years or less and kill the ability of this planet to support human life in the process.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'C')oal. Lots and lots and lots and lots of coal.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'C')oal. Lots and lots and lots and lots of coal.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', ' ')It is, however, true that we fundamentally disagree about what peak xyz will do, and how the economy will respond.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', '
')Simply, I see this as one of the worst paths we can take. I would rather see demand destruction and less electricity usage than us plunder our coal in 100 years or less and kill the ability of this planet to support human life in the process.

[gego]

If you listen to Rose Wilder Lane, who wrote "Discovery of Freedom", she chronicles all of human history in relationship to freedom and concludes that all the spurts of advance were periods of freedom, while all the periods of stagnation and general human suffering were periods of slavery.

Of course there are limits imposed by nature such as the limited supply of oil in the ground, but given that limit, freedom will produce much more for the general population than slavery. There are plenty of places on earth without resources, like Hong Kong, where the living standard is high resulting from freedom. There have been big examples of resource rich areas where the standard of living was poor, such as the former Soviet Union under communism.

It should be evident to most that we are entering a period of significantly declining per capita resource availability; human inguinity will only operate where it is free to operate irrespective of resource availability. Where inguinity is able to operate freely, devistation from this disaster will be mitigated to a much greater extent than in areas where government effectively prevents people from using their abilities.

Too bad there is such little freedom in the world today, just when we need it the most.

[DefiledEngine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Oh, we've got plenty of that nasty black and yellow stuff; and we're gonna burn every last accessible pound of it, and I think it'll take a good fifty years to accomplish that task.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', ' ')Too bad there is such little freedom in the world today, just when we need it the most.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I')t is, however, true that we fundamentally disagree about what peak xyz will do, and how the economy will respond.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'N')one of the science out there supports the assertion that global warming can "kill the ability of this planet to support human life."

[azreal60]

See that's the problem with global warming. I've seen what's called reasonable science both ways. The problem is the reasonable science going the we're fine route seems to always come from someone with an axe to grind. The reasonable science that says we're in deep doo doo if we put too much more in the air comes from well, just about everyone. If it was just one scientist saying listening to me, global warming could be the end of the world, that would be one thing. We are however talking about thousands of the best scientists in the world who also say that most of the error in their models is in the fact they are too conservative, that the bad end of even those models is the turning of earth into a venus like planet.

Now, am I willing to conceed that this could very well not come to pass? Absolutely. Even with alot more co2 in the air hopefully. But isn't a senario that absolutely would kill every human being something that should be worked against? It's not That unlikely that it isn't worth working out solutions too. I mean, I can accept ice age, we have a chance to live thru that. Venus like temps, yeah, don't think we can invent our way out of that in anyway.

Nuclear war and global warming are the only two things on the peak oil list I think mankind couldn't really get out of if we enter into them. Alive that is. So I would say, they are of concern.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Oh, we've got plenty of that nasty black and yellow stuff; and we're gonna burn every last accessible pound of it, and I think it'll take a good fifty years to accomplish that task.

[MonteQuest]

Please?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et's stay on topic, Carry global warming over to the Environment Forum.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et's stay on topic, Carry global warming over to the Environment Forum

[NEOPO]

Take away the energy and you have very little waste - take away the cheap energy and the cheap goods made by them and you have no junk - take away the junk and you have no Edison.

If every man/woman had to sow and harvest their own crops and 1000 other home made/hand made/D.Y.I tasks they would have less time for alot of things - fortunatelty one of these things will be driving

Invention and innovation came slowly thoughout most of history.
Sometimes 1000 years of doing something "the wrong way" or what in hindsite is seen as "The hard way" was experienced before the lights finally came on in someones head and then another 1000 years before the knowledge is spread to considerable parts of the world as old dogs dislike new tricks....

It is no surprise to see a huge and unmistakeable correlation between the rise of the petroleum age and mankinds subsequent rise in technology.

What? ya think we were just collectively retarded and squishy headed before the 19th and 20th centuries?
Of course not - few had time to really think.

Our ability to critically think our way out of this will be greatly diminished post peak and dare I imply that desperation will not be our old friend/motivation as it may have been in the past which is a pre emptive SLASH at anyone suggesting that a manhattan project type effort toward alternatives by TPTB will "fix" anything.

"Rather in the right with two or three then in the wrong with the majority" and "I dont care who said it - I like it " NEOPO

[NEOPO]

am I psychic or what?!!?!?

Dude - we/they can make a small piece of junk spin indefinately on a table top = fusion.

I blame hollywood, the sci fi genre in general and more specifically spiderman2 the movie

My brother in law has this "theory" that we can VENT co2 from the atmosphere through the "already there" ozone hole using a tube thereby solving global warming with a simple straw

I hope Monte found the humor I found in this as that is the only reason I would purposely leave the topic after being asked so nicely not to do so

"ye whom strain at a gnat yet swallow a camel"