[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ' ')While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'Y')es we need to stabilise and reduce populations in the third world, but we have the opposite problem in the industrialised world!! Just look at Japan, much of Europe and Russia - here the problem is the birth-rate that is too little to sustain the population at current levels.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')This cheeses me off no end, this constant blame of the third world and putting the responsibility for population reducation on the people who are not causing the bulk of the problem.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')A business doesn't have to constantly increase its volume of sales to thrive, it has to maintain a level of sales that keeps its workforce employed, and produces a profit.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')o them, it seems much more plausible to reduce their numbers rather than give up our standards of living. And they also seem to forget the US is the third most populous country.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

[DavidFolks]

I've been so busy taking exception to your phrasing of this statement, that I've completely sidetracked the point. Sloppiness on my part.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'C')apitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

[mkwin]

See here for a view supporting conservation: http://www.energybulletin.net/14695.html

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')Taken piecemeal, there are no single solutions. Moving from our current consumption society to a sustainable society is going to be painful. Long term though, we're going to have to make the changes, and find a way to live within the carrying capacity of our planet and whatever other resources we can manage. Doing this proactively will be less painful than having change thrust upon us by depletion.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'S')ee here for a view supporting conservation: http://www.energybulletin.net/14695.html

[Permanently_Baffled]

Hi Monte

I have a question - now I am having difficulty wording this so please bear with me!

I fully accept 100% your argument regarding conservation = recession/lower economic activity.

Indeed - one of the major problems post peak oil/conservation seems to be unemployment and how we get a system to work which employs enough people so they can earn enough to afford the very basics of existance (food, water, shelter)

So looking it at the other way around - do you think there is enough potential sustainable energy available in the US (plus what ever dribble of FF is left) to acheive said levels of employment?

Now I realise, this would require drastic cuts in wages. For example , if automakers reduced their output by say 90%, as their was a transition to public transport, could the production of public transport vehicles like trains and buses absord most of the workers IF THE WORK WAS LESS MECHANISED AND MORE LABOUR INTENSIVE (to get around the expense and lack of availability of FF?)

Of course the wages would have to be very low - but then I guess prices would also have to adjust to the lower wages being achieved in the economy? (so people could afford enough to sustain themselves but at massively lower standards of living?)

Other examples maybe the energy and agricultural sectors.

If for example - mechanisation and automation in food production/growing became more labour intensive and more local - could enough people be employed to give them at least SOME income? In effect replacing some machinery with muscle power?

In the energy sector - as FF power stations lay off workers - could they be absorbed making wind turbines, tidal turbines etc - which return some at least some energy into the system to make yet more turbines etc, and so create a virtous circle this way?

I am not challenging the view - I am trying to throw ideas around and see how possible we can meet the challenge of mass unemployment in a post peak contracting economy...

Hmm.... Maybe a topic for another thread, - what to do with the surplus of labour post peak. What can economies get them to do?

Is seems post peak there will plenty of work need doing (eg work on more sustainable infrastructure) , its what on earth a system would look like to get it to 'work'. Of course the other issue is to get people to accept the new paradigm - very challenging indeed!

Hope this makes sense...

[Ludi]

Just butting in here...


It might be possible to enable people to have the basics of existence by providing them with the means to provide for themselves -- land, water, and community. With those things they don't necessarily need a "job" or "wages" as they can be self-employed making a living for themselves, as people did for tens of thousands of years. This could be sustainable.

It's hard for me to imagine an economy based on very low wages to be desirable. For whom would they be making the wind turbines? They could not afford energy from them if they were being paid mere subsistence wages...who would be the beneficiary of this virtual slave labor?

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust butting in here...

[Ludi]

It doesn't seem a desirable plan....the "plebs" could have food in their bellies without having to work for The Fortunate, if they were given the opportunity. With no prospect of earning more (remember, you are keeping wages at subsistence level) and improving life for themselves or their children, what would be the incentive to do this work for the rich? Unless they were forced or coerced into it....

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', 'H')i Monte

I have a question - now I am having difficulty wording this so please bear with me!

I fully accept 100% your argument regarding conservation = recession/lower economic activity.

Indeed - one of the major problems post peak oil/conservation seems to be unemployment and how we get a system to work which employs enough people so they can earn enough to afford the very basics of existance (food, water, shelter)

So looking it at the other way around - do you think there is enough potential sustainable energy available in the US (plus what ever dribble of FF is left) to acheive said levels of employment?

Now I realise, this would require drastic cuts in wages. For example , if automakers reduced their output by say 90%, as their was a transition to public transport, could the production of public transport vehicles like trains and buses absord most of the workers IF THE WORK WAS LESS MECHANISED AND MORE LABOUR INTENSIVE (to get around the expense and lack of availability of FF?)

[careinke]

Somehow Monte’s doomer predictions make me smile. In a perverse sort of way, I find comfort in the fact that my huge reduction in spending, coupled with my ongoing attempts at self sufficiency, are contributing to the downfall of our “Taker” society.

Cliff (Start a revolution, grow a arden)