[orz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot good for much but electricity, really.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bbadwolf', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omnitir', '
')A transition to a new system is obviously inevitable, because we are at the end of the oil age.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

The age thing is neither here nor there. Evidence of what's going on on the ground is clear whether you're 15 or 50. Despite how much certain people wish to ignore it.

Overall I agree with Bwolf long term, although I don't like the idea of losing access to all metal. Bronze can be fashioned using charcole for heat.

Omni, I don't think we've damaged the Earth as much as we can. Going to 9 Billion would be a disaster, as would going down any route that involves using more coal.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'T')he damage is well and truly done. It doesn’t matter if we ‘stop harming the planet’ now, we did the worst damage already.

[OneLoneClone]

Nice thread...going back to what tech will be maintainable post-peak...

I've been wondering about the viablity of networked computer technology, post-peak turbulence. While I doubt we will be able to continue to mass produce microprocessors (very energy intensive), we will still be able to use the laptops that have already been produced for 10-15 years.

That will at least give us a major tool for mechanical engineering, industrial design, and running simulations. That will be a major help, for a while.

I'm not sure if we can count on the Internet staying on. I realize it was designed to keep running after a nuclear war, but I'm still not convinced a global system like that can stay active without cheap energy. The servers need a lot of electricity, and produce so much heat that they need airconditioners (also electricty intensive).

Even if the internet goes down, I'm sure we will at least be able to construct local versions (like the Bulletin Board Systems in the 80s) which can act as a knowledge sharing/trading platform for idividual communities.

Even if we can't connect all the community 'intranets' via old methods, we might be able to connect them via periodic sneakernet updates; ie someone physically takes a flash drive to the next community to exchange knowledge, mail, etc. Regional intranets.

We're going to need a way to continue to leverage our collective smarts (what I call "The BIg Brain") against the huge problems we will face.

PS How long will the GPS sattelites keep working? Anyone know?

[DoctorDoom]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'L')et's go back to the question I posed in posting this thread:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, the question must arise: How much technology would the world have achieved without the advent and exploitation of fossil fuels? Or better still, how much of this technology can we maintain in a world that soon will not have them in cheap abundance? One has to think to the future, beyond grandfather-father-son. What renewable energy will directly smelt steel, make plastics, rubber, medicines, and fertilizers? There are plenty of existing alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels, but none of them are cheap, and none offers a comparable EROEI, much less can even be made into anything. If we don't save a significant amount of our fossil fuels for the maintenance of our infrastructure, rather than burn them up trying to meet our energy demand, where will the replacements come from? A Star Trek replicator?

[bbadwolf]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')I try to choose my words carefully. A transition to a new system is indeed inevitable

[orz]

#1, It is wrong to assume we will never find anything with as much energy density as oil.

In fact,

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~wright/fuel_energy.html

Take a look at uranium there at the bottom pal. So even by today's standards your statement is patently false. Fusion makes the energy density of oil look like we were trying to burn dirt for energy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow it doesn't take a rocket scientist (ha ha) to figure out that when you send a fuel ship to space for fuel, it MUST come back with more than it left with, or you're wasting fuel and effort. And once you do the math, you find that the fuel needed for the space travel is many times more than you could possibly bring back. It's automatically a losing proposition. Sorry, just not workable. Not even close really.

[Ludi]

Omnitir, you're a student, so I don't mind telling you this. You really very seriously need to learn more about biology and ecology. I mean it. I'm saying this to you because I think you are a very intelligent young person, but rather ignorant.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bbadwolf', ' ')We haven't evolved for a while, since evolution depends on not just "survival of the fittest" but also "death to the less fit". With our near 100% survival rate, there has been no differential in survival and thus no evolution. Once we begin to evolve again, who knows.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')And, because the earth's population is beyond the carrying capacity of the earth by 4.5 billion heading for 9 billion.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')The damage is well and truly done. It doesn’t matter if we ‘stop harming the planet’ now, we did the worst damage already.

[Ludi]

Omnitir, I think you have a somewhat incorrect understanding of how ecology works. Here's an example:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ')Secondly, there is no such thing as equilibrium with nature. It is a constant war between the various species, and we happen to have the right stuff to be winning the war.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ') The point isn’t to try and save modern civilisation from peak oil so that we can go on business as usual. I’m not sure if that would even be a desirable goal. The point of space industrialism is that it is the epitome of sustainability. Humanity would attain it’s material needs from space, instead of continuing to rape the Earth. Production, industry, would mostly happen in space, leaving the Earth for nature. Surely even the most technophobic doomer can see that such a system would be the ideal system to strive for?

[bobcousins]

Don't get me wrong, I love science fiction and technology. But I am very pessimistic about humans utilising space in any extensive way. The costs are simply horrendous. It also depends on several advances which are not certain, just to get to a break even point. Assuming that the technology becomes available, how are you going to sell this to the public? Even when not in the middle of an energy crisis, it would be impossible to persuade people that spending trillions on a space program over 100 years is a good idea.

Sad to say, I think our venture into "space" has peaked already. Apart from dabbling a toe in the water with a quick dash to the Moon, I don't see a Moon base or a trip to Mars ever happening. There is just not the will to spend the money. Vision is great, but even Kennedy just wanted to stick two fingers at the Soviets. Modern leaders are overwhelmingly pragmatic.

Of alien visitors, Fermi said "why aren't they here yet?" If you do the sums, any space faring civilisation could colonise the galaxy within a few million years, certainly within 4,500 million years of the Earth's existence. I suspect the answer to this question is that if they exist, the reason that aliens have not paid us a visit is that like us, they burned up their resources and now find the barriers to space travel are insurmountable.

Edit: sorry, I strayed off topic

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')Of alien visitors, Fermi said "why aren't they here yet?" If you do the sums, any space faring civilisation could colonise the galaxy within a few million years, certainly within 4,500 million years of the Earth's existence. I suspect the answer to this question is that if they exist, the reason that aliens have not paid us a visit is that like us, they burned up their resources and now find the barriers to space travel are insurmountable.

Edit: sorry, I strayed off topic

[Omnitir]

So much I’d like to say, but can’t without straying further off-topic. But staying strictly on-topic, as I said earlier, I don’t think we would have achieved a high level of technology without fossil fuels. It’s easy to see the importance fossil fuels played in getting us to this point. However, I don’t see this as proof that in the future we can’t function without fossil fuels (which is where the discussion strayed into talking about the future – explaining the concept that fossil fuels are only necessary for the growth of civilisation, but once it’s grown advanced it is capable of making a transition. When asked what the transition would be I was forced to explain how we would continue to be a technologically advanced civilisation without fossil fuels. So considering the world before fossil fuels leads to considering the world after fossil fuels).

Now if I may very briefly address Ludi’s and Bob’s responses to my off-topicness: Ludi, as I said, I was trying to say we can’t merely stop damaging the Earth, but must proactively seek to restore it. We need technology to help us do that. Bob, Fermi’s paradox is very interesting, but I think the highest probability is actually that humanity is alone in its intelligence in the galaxy. And the fact that it has not been done before (developing space) doesn’t mean we should not attempt it. The potential benefits are too great to ignore.

MonteQuest, do you feel that because civilisation most likely would not have developed high technology without fossil fuels (a likely scenario), that it therefore cannot sustain high technology once the fossil fuels are depleted?

[orz]

Fossil fuels are not the reason why society became so complex. It was the reason that this happend so quickly. I think that is the fundamental difference in viewpoints here. Doomers see it as the only main source of energy, whereas, technologists see it as a catalyst for growth. And it's easy to see why. The system that people like Monte see consists only of the earth and the sunlight entering it. In that system, fossil fuels are the most readily available sources of compact energy. On this, I would agree, that we're never going to get energy as "easily" as fossil fuels. However, the fact is there are much more powerful fuels out there, like uranium or thorium or helium, BUT you can't just light these on fire. This is where technology comes in. So the question is, could we have bridge the gap between fire and nuclear energy(and others) without fossil fuels. Doomers say no. I say yes, but over a much longer period, perhaps 1000 years, instead of 200.

But in reality, neither of us can prove either point. So the debate is futile.

[mididoctors]

Its a slightly silly question. a world with no fossil fuels is just not going to happen... a shortage of supply a long way short of total depletion is likely to trigger some sort of combined catastrophe including war. and maybe soon.

Fossil fuel depletion down to zero fossil fuels is a strange scenario... a collapse will preserve some fossil fuels and any regeneration of civilization would be built around realistic notions of depletion. or if it didn't its doomed to crash again on a shorter time-scale until there is nothing left
IMO in a resource poor world all the technology more or less would be there just a lot less of it

but then again there would be a lot less of us.

when you freeze materials in place with production you need to make things that last rather than with a built in life span and obsolescence.
clipless pedals first brought out in the 1990s were a expensive specialist item... now they are mass produced rubbish that last a year or two .
I still have my original pair and have done 100,000s of miles on them and they still work and are designed for maintenance unlike a lot of sealed parts that are throw away

things can be made to last a lot lot lot longer..


as for carrying capacity well yes less energy and fossil fuels =less people i guess

as for space... seems rather short of answers to our current dilemma.. not as thou you could offload india's growth to the off-world colonies at a rate of 17 million year or something equally significant..


but maybe in the next thousand years we get up and go somewhere

why not? perhaps you accumulate the resources for such an endeavor in caches made at a sustainable rate to be exploited a compressed timeframe at later date..

if you achieve sustainable civilization then only sustainable resource allocation to such a project is possible or 'legal"

but the one asset you do have in such a scenario that is non-exsistent now is TIME.

you can plan across unprecedented time-scales..

"ok its gong to take us 500 years to accumulate the resource made with renewable power for our space colony program.."

fine.. no problem

powering down is about concepts of TIME..

there is no energy crisis but a POWER crisis.... using too much per unit time which is our current problem

TIME becomes the new fuel for future human activity and using the swear word expansion... in a way space colonization is not possible without understanding sustainability.. not just on the technical grounds of understanding environments and ecosystems but the notions of rates of resource use.

sustainability creates the bedrock for off world activity in a permanent way... what ever goes has to have that understanding and ability

once you calm down you are no longer rushed for time and the fact you are running at a slower speed means nothing as the total you accumulate for a given task is the same as rushing it... the SU is the same just the time is different. a sustainable hippie world is just as capable of achieving the same ends in viable timeframes that compare to the length of human civilized history

mass of activity compressed into a too short of span of time... thats one of our current problems.

Boris
London

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'M')onteQuest, do you feel that because civilisation most likely would not have developed high technology without fossil fuels (a likely scenario), that it therefore cannot sustain high technology once the fossil fuels are depleted?