[Heineken]

For at least a century the world has been rapidly "shrinking" thanks to the transportation miracles fueled by oil. Phrases like "the world keeps getting smaller" are hard-wired into our cultural brain, and certainly into our cultural practices and economy.

The airline industry in particular has shrunken the world, temporally tying together weirdly disparate places like Borneo and New York. You can leave one and be in the other in a day.
And the shipping industry. And trucking. And of course the almighty automobile.

But almost exactly now, this long-entrenched trend is shuddering to a halt, and reversing. The airline industry is dying before our eyes, and shipping people are talking about a return to sail power. People are shortening or eliminating automobile trips, and giant RVs are growing cobwebs. Independent truckers are going out of business.

The world is no longer shrinking, but expanding. Isn't that incredible? The implications make my head spin.

[Duende]

Speak it, brother Heineken.

We take low transportation costs for granted - what we know of as globalization will begin to reverse.

Yes, obviously a lot of the junk from China will not be making the 12,000 mile trip when fuel costs so much, and there will be less 14 hour drives to Disney World.

But what I think is interesting is to think about what will remain of our 'global' civilization as time goes by. For instance, international communications (the internet specifically) seems on the face of it to be relatively fossil fuel free. However, when one considers the implications of maintaining the infrastructure which makes cell phone calls possible (ex. satellites), it looks like a lot of our instant communication dependencies could be greatly compromised too.

[TireFire]

This point of view is gaining acceptance. i read an article recently that was predicting job creation in the US and Canada due to the fact that cheap products from India nad China would no longer be competitive in our markets before of shipping costs.

Of course there remains Mexico who still has large availability of cheap labor, but the view point was interesting.

furthermore, leess shipping world wide will inevitable lessen the demand for oil making an argument for a 'soft' landing.

[KingM]

Actually, I think Disney may do very well, at least in the short to medium term. Our trip to WDW this fall will cost roughly 1/3 of what our trip to Provence cost last spring. This disparity will only grow as people are forced to abandon airplanes for rail, etc.

And the world will keep shrinking in terms of information. The internet is not going anywhere.

As for relative terms, do you think it will be easier to travel from London to New York in 2070 or from London to Paris in 1270? The world is still a far, far smaller place than it ever was before about 1900 and will be for the conceivable future.

[hope_full]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he world is still a far, far smaller place than it ever was before about 1900 and will be for the conceivable future.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hope_full', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he world is still a far, far smaller place than it ever was before about 1900 and will be for the conceivable future.

[TheDude]

Shrinkage?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hope_full', 'T')he WORLD may be a far, far smaller place than it was before 1900, but that is NOT true for the United States. Up until a few years after WWII, we had a passenger rail system that was very impressive and boasted of routes to all places great and small and with a degree of pride on TIMELY arrivals.

[cube]

On average steam locomotives had to stop and resupply with coal every 100 miles. Imagine how long a coast to coast trip would take.
and this is what New York city looked like before traffic congestion due to cars


to: hope_full
I'm not trying to be mean or jump on you. I'm just laying down the facts here. The good old days wasn't really that great.

[Heineken]

Needless to say, I don't agree with Hopefull's post.

Yes, there was a better train system in 1900 than now, but in 1900 there were no planes and virtually no cars. Even a trip by train was sort of a big deal for the average person. Trips overseas meant long journeys by ship.

In the future we'll be forced to stay closer to home, and international travel will be very expensive and relatively infrequent for the average person.

The tourism industry, a vast force for environmental and social evil, will shrink into insignificance.

These trends will change our place in and interaction with the world as radically as the Oil Age did.

I see this as a good thing, very beneficial for the wilder places. Another big benefit will be reversal of the homogenization of human cultural differences (the frightful McDonaldization of the world that's been going on---the spreading "sameness").

The world will inexorably get bigger again and in Dude's words, "more mysterious." (Right on, Dude.)

[dunewalker]

Don't forget the bicycle. It was an important part of United States history until squelched by the automotive industry.

"Cycling steadily became more important in Europe over the first half of the twentieth century, but it dropped off dramatically in the United States between 1900 and 1910. Automobiles became the preferred means of transportation. Over the 1920s, bicycles gradually became considered children's toys, and by 1940 most bicycles in the United States were made for children. In Europe cycling remained an adult activity, and bicycle racing, commuting, and "cyclotouring" were all popular activities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle

[Heineken]

I see growing bicycle use as a sign of the "expanding world" we're discussing here, Dune. And horses and buggies!

All far more local in their scope, by contrast with what they will replace.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', 'F')or instance, international communications (the internet specifically) seems on the face of it to be relatively fossil fuel free.

[hope_full]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ope_full wrote:
The WORLD may be a far, far smaller place than it was before 1900, but that is NOT true for the United States. Up until a few years after WWII, we had a passenger rail system that was very impressive and boasted of routes to all places great and small and with a degree of pride on TIMELY arrivals.


Until the railroads finally gave way and installed air brakes you had hundreds - thousands? - of brakemen being crippled or killed every year, too. You can even buy a book of railroad disaster songs.

[MrBill]

The interesting thing about life-expectancy, longevity, accidents, diseases and drugs is that eventually something kills us. So there is always going to be a leading cause of death.

Even if all cars come equipped with outside and inside airbags out of 100 models there will be one safest car and one unsafest car. So if on an absolute scale between 1-10 with 1 being unsafe and 10 being safe if they are all above 9 then 9.9 is safer than 9.1. Does that make the car that is 9.1 unsafe?

Let's see. My grandmother lost her mother to the outbreak of influenza in 1918. Then she lost her brothers and sisters to a chimney fire in their farmhouse. Life on the farm was dangerous enough with machinery with uncovered moving parts. Polio was still a fact of life as were the serious consequences of chicken pox, measles and scarlet fever. Or getting kicked in the head by a horse or a milk cow. But then my grandfather worked in a gold mine as a driller, also not a very safe place. And then as a brakeman on the railroad that was also not a very safe profession.

Life today is almost boring by comparison. Maybe that is why we eat and drink ourselves to death, or get depressed enough that we need prescription drugs? The childhood diseases no longer get us, so we develop Type II adult-onset diabetes from our lethargic lifestyles instead. That's progress! ; - ))

[dunewalker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', ' ')

Life today is almost boring by comparison. Maybe that is why we eat and drink ourselves to death...

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '.')..
The world will inexorably get bigger again and in Dude's words, "more mysterious." (Right on, Dude.)

[Heineken]

Why do you think franchises will continue to dominate? Don't they depend on all the stuff that's going bye-bye?

I definitely see a return to mom-and-pop stores. Local, cottage industries. The village blacksmith, if you will.

Already, in the small town (pop. 500) I live a mile from, a regular weekly "farmer's market" has suddenly appeared. It's doing well.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'W')hy do you think franchises will continue to dominate? Don't they depend on all the stuff that's going bye-bye?
...

[TheDude]

You have to be able to get to the store in the first place, though. My crystal ball shows zoning laws being thrown in the garbage, little local stores built in the middle of subdivisions. With fuel scarcity it will be one of the simplest ways to conserve - or eliminate demand, rather.

Awaiting my copy of Dimitri Orlov's new book. Dunno if this was an approach used in the FSU. Did they fall prey to the franchising urge in the first place?

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'Y')ou have to be able to get to the store in the first place, though.