What do diminishing returns, energy return on energy invested (EROI or EROEI), and collapse have to do with each other? Let me start by explaining the connection between Diminishing Returns and Collapse.
Diminishing Returns and Collapse
We know that historically, many economies that have collapsed were ones that have hit “diminishing returns” with respect to human labor–that is, new workers added less production than existing workers were producing (on average). For example, in an agricultural economy, available land might already have as many farmers as the land can optimally use. Adding more farmers might add a little more production–perhaps the new workers would keep weeds down a bit better. But the amount of additional food the new workers would produce would be less than what earlier workers were producing, on average. If new workers were paid on the basis of their additional food production, they would find that their wages dropped relative to those of the original farmers.
Lack of good paying jobs for everyone leads to a need for workarounds of various kinds. For example, swamp land might be drained to add more farmland, or irrigation ditches might be added to increase the amount produced per acre. Or the government might hire a larger army might to conquer more territory. Joseph Tainter (1990) talks about this need for workarounds as a need for greater “complexity.” In many cases, greater complexity translates to a need for more government services to handle the problems at hand.
Turchin and Nefedof (2009) in Secular Cycles took Tainter’s analysis a step further, analyzing financial data relating to historical collapses of eight agricultural societies in operation between the years 30 B.C. E. and 1922 C. E.. Figure 1 shows my summary of the pattern they describe.
Typically, a civilization developed a new resource which increased food availability, such as clearing a large plot of land of trees so that crops could be planted, or irrigating an existing plot of land. The economy tended to expand for well over 100 years, as the population grew in size to match the potential output of the new resource. Wages were relatively high.
Eventually, the civilization hit a period of stagflation, typically lasting 50 or 60 years, as the population hit the carrying capacity of the land, and as additional workers did not add proportionately more output. When this happened, the wages of common workers tended to stagnate or decrease, resulting in increased wage disparity. The price of food tended to spike. To counter these problems, the amount of government services rose, as did the amount of debt.
Ultimately, what brought the civilizations down was the inability of governments to collect enough taxes for expanded government services from the increasingly impoverished citizens. Other factors played a role as well–more resource wars, leading to more deaths; impoverished common workers not being able to afford an adequate diet, so plagues were more able to spread; overthrown or collapsing governments; and debt defaults. Populations tended to die off. Such collapses took place over a long period, typically 20 to 50 years.
For those who are familiar with economic theory, the shape of the curve in Figure 1 is very similar to the production function mentioned in Two Views of our Current Economic and Energy Crisis. In fact, the three main phases are the same as well. The issue in both cases is diminishing returns ultimately leading to collapse.
There seems to be a parallel to the current world situation. The energy resource that we learned to develop this time is fossil fuels, starting with coal about 1800. World population was able to expand greatly because of additional food production permitted by fossil fuels and because of improvements in hygiene. A period of stagflation began in the 1970s, when we first encountered problems with US oil production and spiking oil prices. Now, the question is whether we are approaching the Crisis Stage as described by Turchin and Nefedov.
Why Might an Economy Collapse?
Let’s think about how an economy operates. It is built up from many parts, over time. It includes one or more governments, together with the laws and regulations they pass and together with their financial systems. It includes businesses and consumers. It includes built infrastructure, such as roads and electricity transmission lines. It even includes traditions and customs, such as whether savings are held in gold jewelry or in banks, and whether farms are inherited by the oldest son. As each new business is formed, the owners make decisions based on the business environment at that time, including competing businesses, supporting businesses, and the number of customers available. Customers also make decisions on which product to buy, based on the choices available and the prices of these products.
Over time, the economy gradually changes. Some parts of the economy gradually wither and are replaced by new parts of the system. For example, as the economy moved from using horses to cars for transportation, the number of buggy whip manufacturers decreased, as did the number of businesses raising horses for use as draft animals. Customs and laws gradually changed, to reflect the availability of automobiles rather than horses for transportation. In some cases, governments changed over time, as increased wealth allowed more generous social programs and wider alliances, such as the European Union and the World Trade Organization.
In the academic field of systems science, an economy can be described as a complex adaptive system. Other examples of complex adaptive systems include ecosystems, the biosphere, and all living organisms, including humans. Because of the way the economy is knit together, changes in one part of the system tend to affect other parts of the system. Also, because of the way the system is knit together, the system has certain requirements–requirements which are gradually changing over time–to keep the economy operating. If these requirements are not met, the economy may collapse, just as the eight economies studied by Turchin and Nefedov collapsed. In many ways such a collapse is analogous to an animal dying, or climate changing, when conditions are not right for the complex adaptive systems that they are part of.
Clearly one of the requirements that an economy has, is that it needs to be wealthy enough to afford the government services that it has agreed to. Scaling back those government services is one option, but when these services are really needed because citizens are getting poorer and finding it harder to find a good-paying job, this is hard to do. The other option, unfortunately, seems to be collapse.
The wealth of an economy is very much tied to the availability of cheap energy. A huge uplift is added to an economy when the (value added to society) by an energy resource such as oil greatly exceeds its (cost of production). Over time, the cost of production tends to rise, something measured by declining EROI. The uplift added by the difference between (value added to society) and (cost of production) is gradually lost. Some would hypothesize that the falling gap between (value added to society) and the (cost of production) can be compensated for by technology changes and improvements in energy efficiency, but this has not been proven.
Our Economy is Already in a Precarious Position
As I indicated in my most recent post, if a person computes average wages by dividing total US wages by total US population (not just those employed), the average wage has flattened in recent years as oil prices rose. Median wages (not shown on Figure 2) have actually fallen. This is the same phenomenon observed in the 1970s, when oil prices rose. This is precisely the phenomenon that is expected when there are diminishing returns to human labor, as described above.
The reason for the flattening wages is too complicated to describe fully in this post, so I will only mention a couple of points. When consumers are forced to spend more for oil for commuting and food, they have less to spend on discretionary spending. The result is layoffs in discretionary sectors, leading to lower wage growth. Also, goods produced with high-priced oil are less competitive in the world market, if sellers try to recoup their higher costs of production. As a result, fewer of the products are sold, leading to layoffs and thus lower average wages for the economy.
In the last section, I mentioned that the economy is a complex adaptive system. Because of this, the economy acts as if there are hidden laws underlying the system, parallel to the laws of thermodynamics underlying physical systems. If oil supplies are excessively high-priced, very few new jobs are formed, and those that are created don’t pay very well. The economy doesn’t grow much, but it does stay in balance with the high-priced oil that is available.
The Government’s Role in Fixing Low Wages and Slow Economic Growth
The government ends up being the part of the economy most affected by slow economic growth and low job formation. This happens because tax revenue is reduced at the same time that government programs to help the poor and unemployed need to grow. The current approach to fixing the economy is (1) deficit spending and (2) interest rates that are kept artificially low, partly through Quantitative Easing.
The problem with Quantitative Easing is that it is a temporary “band-aid.” Once it is stopped, interest rates are likely to rise disproportionately. (See the recent Wall Street Journal editorial,” Janet Yellen’s Greatest Challenge.”) Once this happens, the economy is likely to fall into severe recession. This happens because higher interest rates lead to higher monthly payments for such diverse items as cars, homes, and factories, leading to a cutback in demand. Oil production may fall, because the cost of production will rise (because of higher interest rates), while the amount consumers have to spend on oil will fall–quite possibly reducing oil prices. If interest rates rise, the amount the government will need to collect in taxes will also rise, because interest on government debt will also rise.
So we are already sitting on the edge, waiting for something to push the economy over. The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) may provide a push in that direction. Inability to pass a federal budget could provide a push as well. So could a European Union collapse. Debt defaults are another potential problem because debt defaults are likely to increase dramatically, as economic growth shrinks, as discussed in the next section.
Debt is Major Part of our Current Precarious Financial Situation
If an economy is growing, it is easy to add debt. People find it easy to find and keep jobs, so they can pay back debt. Businesses and governments find that their operations are growing, so borrowing from the future, even with interest, “makes sense.”
It is as also easy to add debt if the economy is not growing, but there is an ample supply of cheap oil that can be extracted if increasing debt can be used to ramp up demand. For example, after World War II, it was possible to ramp up demand for automobiles and trucks by allowing purchasers to use debt to finance their purchases. When this increased debt led to increased oil consumption, it greatly benefited the economy, because the (value to society) was much greater than the (cost of extraction). Governments were able to tax oil extraction heavily, and were also able to build new roads and other infrastructure with the cheap oil. The combination of new cars, trucks, and roads helped enable economic growth. With the economic growth that was enabled, paying back debt with interest was relatively easy.
The situation we are facing now is different. High oil prices–even in the $100 barrel range–tend to push the economy toward contraction, making debt hard to pay back. (This happens because we are borrowing from the future, and the amount available to repay debt in the future will be less rather than more.) The problem can be temporarily covered up with deficit spending and Quantitative Easing, but is not a long-term solution. If interest rates rise, there is likely to be a large increase in debt defaults.
The Role of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI or EROEI)
EROI is the ratio of energy output over energy input, a measure that was developed by Professor Charles Hall. To calculate this ratio, one takes all of the identifiable energy inputs at the well-head (or where the energy product is produced) and converts them to a common basis. EROI is then the ratio of the gross energy output to total energy inputs. Hall and his associates have shown that EROI of oil extraction has decreased in recent years (for example, Murphy 2013), meaning that we are using increasing amounts of energy of various kinds to produce oil.
In previous sections, I have been discussing diminishing returns with respect to human labor. Oil and other energy products are forms of energy that we humans use to leverage our own human energy. So indirectly, diminishing returns with respect to the extraction of oil and other energy products, as measured by declining EROI, will be one portion of the diminishing returns with respect to human labor. In fact, declining EROI may be the single largest contributor to diminishing returns with respect to human labor. This will happen if, in fact, low EROI correlates with high oil price, and high oil prices leads to diminished wages (Figure 2). This may be the case, because David Murphy (2013) indicates that the relationship between EROI and the price of oil is in fact inverse, with oil prices rising rapidly at low EROI levels.
Contributors to Declining Return on Human Labor
Human labor is the most basic form of energy. We humans supplement our own energy with energy from many other sources. It is this combination of energy from many sources that is reflected in the productivity of humans. For example, we take it for granted that we will have tools made using fossil fuels and that we will have electricity to power computers. Before fossil fuels, humans supplemented their energy with energy from animals, burned biomass, wind, and flowing water.
What besides declining EROI of fossil fuels would lead to diminishing returns with respect to human labor? Clearly, the same problems that were problems years ago continue to be problems. For example, growing world population tends to lead to diminishing returns with respect to human labor, because resources such as arable land and fresh water are close to fixed. Greater world population means that on average, each gets person less. Oil production is not rising as rapidly as world population, so the quantity available per person tends to drop as world population rises.
Soil degradation is another issue, according to David Montgomery, in Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations (2007). Declining quality of ores for metals is another issue. The ores that are cheapest to extract are extracted first. We later move on to poorer quality ores, and ores in less accessible locations. These require more oil and other fossil fuels for extraction, leaving less for other purposes.
There are other more-modern issues as well. Growing populations in areas where water is scarce lead to the need for desalination plants. These desalination plants use huge amounts of fossil fuel resources (oil in the case of Saudi Arabia) (Lee 2010), leaving less energy resources for other purposes.
Globalization is another issue. As the developing world uses more oil, less oil is available for the part of the world that historically has used more oil per capita. The countries with falling oil consumption tend to be the ones that recently have had the most problems with recession and job loss.
An indirect part of diminishing returns with respect to human labor has to do with what proportion of the citizens is actually able to find full-time work in the paid labor force, and whether the jobs available are actually using their training and abilities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates increases in output per hour of paid labor. I would argue that this is not a broad enough measure. We really need a measure of output per available full-time worker.
Obviously, there are potential offsets. We hear much about technology improvements and increased efficiency offsetting whatever other problems may occur. To me, the real test of whether there is diminishing returns with respect to human labor is how wages are trending, especially median wages. If these are not keeping up with inflation, there is a problem.
We don’t often think about the return on human labor, and how the return on human labor could reach diminishing returns. In fact, human labor is the most basic source of energy we have. Stagnating wages and higher unemployment of the type experienced recently by the United States, much of Europe, and Japan look distressingly like diminishing returns to human labor.
Stagnation of wages is happening despite attempts by governments to prop up the economy using deficit spending, artificially low interest rates, and Quantitative Easing. Without these interventions, the results would likely be even worse. If QE is removed, or if interest rates rise on their own, there seems to be a distinct possibility that these countries will be reaching the “crisis” phase as described by Turchin and Nefedov.
Historical experience suggests that a major danger of diminishing returns to human labor is that governments costs will rise so high, and wages will drop so low, that it will be impossible for the government to collect enough taxes from wage-earners. In fact, there seems to be evidence we are already headed in this direction. Figure 4 (below) shows that the US ratio of government spending to wages has been rising since 1929. Government receipts have leveled off in recent years.
Adding more health care services under the Affordable Care Act will only increase this trend toward growing government expenditures.
One issue is how the financial benefit of human labor (together with the energy sources leveraging this labor) is split among businesses, governments, and humans. Businesses have the most control in this. If an endeavor is not profitable, they can discontinue it. If cheaper labor is available elsewhere, they can cut hold down wages in countries with higher wages. They also have the option of increased mechanization. Humans and governments both tend to get shortchanged. As the overall return of the system reaches limits, wages of humans tend to stagnate. Governments find themselves with greater and greater costs, and more and more difficulty collecting funds from increasingly impoverished citizens.
Most authors of academic articles assume that the challenge we are facing is one that can be solved over the next, say, fifty years. They also seem to believe that the fixes required are simply small adjustments to our current economy. This assumption seems optimistic, if we are really approaching financial collapse.
If we are in fact near the crisis stage described by Turchin and Nefedov, we will need to do something much closer to “start over”. We need to build a new economy that will work, rather than just “tweak” the current one. New (or radically changed) government and financial systems will likely be needed–ones that are much less expensive for taxpayers to fund. We are also likely to need to cut back on basic services, including maintaining paved roads and repairing long-distance electricity transmission lines.
Because of these changes, whole new ways of doing things will be needed. EROI analyses that have been to date represent analyses of how our current system operates. If major changes are needed, their indications may no longer be relevant. We cannot simply go backward, because methods that worked in the past, such as using draft horses and buggy whips, will no longer be available without a long development period. We are truly facing an unprecedented situation–one that is very hard to prepare for.
December 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm N. George wrote: “We have to get out of the present time paradigms, in order to accept alternatives…at the end everyone needs to participate with his best skills….and the resources need to be distributed with priority to sustainable mechanisms as renewable energy production, nuclear energy and agriculture…”
You made a very valid comment N. George but since we ran out of room to reply I decided to move it to a new post so that others can join the discussion. I would like to explore these thoughts a bit more.
Getting out of our present time paradigm. How do we think in ways we haven’t thought before? You pointed out how history has shown that groups working together can accomplish more than individuals working alone, and there is ample evidence that this is true. There is also evidence of times when we have failed colossally. Yes, I agree that it is in our best interest to support a common government in the interest of making large changes towards reversing climate change and the development of sustainable agriculture and lifestyle. A simple well-lived life is better than a descent into war over resources. You also very rightly pointed out that if the U.S. would reduce consumption of energy all the world’s citizens could live a little better. I have often felt this to be true and have tried to live accordingly.
Jan has argued for decentralization of government because in the face of collapse efficiency is not very resilient. I agree that nature builds in redundancy because change is chaotic and redundancy allows the greatest opportunity for survival. Natural ecosystems are generally a collection of interconnected, interdependent individuals and groups with no centralized control other than the laws of nature.
Gail has made the case that without cheap oil we simply don’t have the ability to maintain our current complex system. She does not appear to believe, based on her extensive analyses, that any solution is workable; either because of energy constraints, or because of the unsustainable nature of our current financial system. She envisions the world heading for collapse.
I agree with all of these viewpoints. Humans need to form some type of social organization, but the question is how large a social structure can we afford to maintain and what will a future structure look like? What of anything can we preserve of our current civilization? If we all could live by a high standard of morals and ethics, if our governments all acted in the interest of the greatest good for humanity, we could probably come up with a fair way of finding solutions. Unfortunately, nowhere in the world is this true. Our efforts are ineffective because of irreconcilable political, cultural, moral, and religious differences, and in general our governments are overly influenced by corporations and special interest groups. Multinational corporations continue to merge and dominate our global economy giving us less and less opportunity to find solutions. Ethnic violence is taking over when governments collapse. It is becoming increasingly difficult to determine how to go forward from here.
I think it is when we are the most confused about the course of future action, that governance becomes the most critical. It begins with self-governance, taking control of our own life, and extends to social governance, being responsible for the society we create and live in. It may be extremely difficult or impossible to change the direction of our current society, to solve the world’s problems, or to even reach a consensus. But I think it is imperative we try, even if the solutions are extremely contentious. I will bring up several issues that have been previously discussed on this blog.
Over population. In many ways this is really the 500 pound gorilla in the room. There are simply too many humans making too many demands on the finite and diminishing natural resources of the earth. Many people have stated that a population of 1.5 billion humans may be all the earth can support without oil. Even that number may be optimistic given the degradation of our natural ecosystems and changing climate. But assuming we agree to work with that number there does not appear to be any laws or government policies that would be accepted by the majority. I see various solutions attempted by individuals or countries that are somewhat effective, but also create more problems, such as the one child policy of China. I don’t see a universal solution that we can all agree upon; therefore, attempting to impose laws from a central government will not likely be feasible. However, I also believe it is imperative that birth rates decline to less than replacement level (1.0 births per woman) for a decade or so if we are to avoid catastrophic population collapse due to shortages of water and food. If we do nothing nature will do it for us through starvation, disease, and war.
I don’t believe I have the right to tell others what choice they should make, but I do believe people should have every available choice. Infanticide, abortion, birth control, sex education, longer and more education for girls, economic opportunity for women through micro loans, and international adoption (especially for families in countries where falling birth rates are causing problems), are all options that societies have chosen at some time in history. We should do whatever it takes and set aside our personal beliefs and prejudices until we get our population down under our control. We should agree to disagree until we are past the period of crisis.
Energy consumption. If OCED nations and the rapidly developing BRIC nations, those of us using the vast majority of the world’s energy resources, all agreed that reducing greenhouse gas emissions was in our vital interest, we could reduce and reverse climate change. It would require a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and we would not pursue dirtier carbon-polluting sources of energy. However, as Gail as pointed out, if we pursue this course we will probably ensure the fastest collapse of our financial system and thus our current economy. Truly, a rock and a hard place!
Renewable energy. Renewable energy seemed to be the idea solution thirty years ago and many are still promoting this. The problem now is that we may be out of time. Not everyone can do this because it is very expensive and would require massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce enough equipment to make a difference. And we can’t afford to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels in order to accomplish this. And the same applies to building nuclear power plants. Calculations of resources needed for any of these options show that these solutions would only be a temporary bridge to the future. Changing to renewable energy is not going to be feasible for the majority and even those who can afford to do so can only do so as long as our economy continues to operate. We have reached the time when energy consumption inequality is leading to instability. Do we wait and hope that our governments and industry will develop an alternative energy? And if they could, will this energy be implemented for the benefit of all? I don’t think this is likely given the extreme economic disparity that continues to grow in our world. For me the decision was made two years ago when we installed solar PV and geothermal systems on our house. I am glad we did but I am concerned about all those who can’t afford to do so. Overall, I think our goals should be to learn to live using less and less energy until our lifestyle meets the earth’s energy budget.
Intergenerational and Environmental justice. What do we owe to our descendants? Are human rights more valid that the rights of all sentient life on earth? Do we have the right to impose our decisions (right or wrong) on others? But if we do nothing, if we stand by and let business continue as usual, don’t we face the real possibility that nature will decide catastrophically?
We are faced with many such dilemmas in our world. We must think about the rights of individuals and the rights of society; we must sometimes forfeit our ‘rights’ if they lead to the collapse of civilization, mass extinction, and the collapse of natural ecosystems upon which future descendants rely. I try to listen to the ideas expressed by others and set aside my own personal beliefs and prejudices because I think ‘this time it is different’. Gail and others have made convincing arguments that our economic system is near collapse. We have already entered into the red zone of climate change, extreme danger! Ten years ago scientists warned that climate change will reach tipping points leading to runaway catastrophic warming if we do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten years are up and we have not made any progress. Rate of warming is increasing and we are now entering a critical time. If our climate tips into a positive feedback loop, we have no chance of stopping or reversing the damage we have already done. James Hansen concludes in a recent paper “It is distressing that, despite the clarity and imminence of the danger of continued high fossil fuel emission, governments continue to allow and even encourage pursuit of ever more fossil fuels.” If our economy collapses perhaps GHG emission will fall quickly. But at what cost to our civilization?
When governments fail to provide us with direction and guidance, we have no choice but to decide for ourselves and act on those decisions. In the interest of fairness and justice we should set aside our different values and agree that humanity is worth preserving, that everyone is worthy of a life of opportunity. We should value all our different cultures and perspectives because we don’t know which ones might offer us the solutions we will need. Diversity gives us beauty and strength, it should not be a reason to argue and debate. We should look for reasons to agree rather than to disagree, or at least agree to disagree. We will need each other more than ever if even a small portion of us is to survive the next few decades. And why waste the precious resources we have left by destroying our infrastructure in civil war, killing each other, or plotting ways to steal from others. Now is the time when every country and every citizen of the world needs to set aside our differences and come together in mutual need and support. Now is the time when humanity needs to reach its tipping point and decide not to perpetuate destruction, not to let our beliefs and political differences sway us, not to go down without a fight to preserve our basic humanity. For if we don’t work together, if we can’t sacrifice for the common good, truly there is no hope for humanity.
Kindness and regards to all,
The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, act contrary to the group’s long-term best interests by depleting the common resource. The concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. “Commons” can include the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, national parks, advertising, and even parking meters. The tragedy of the commons has particular relevance in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation, and sociology. Some also see the “tragedy” as an example of emergent behavior, the outcome of individual interactions in a complex system.
The existence of territoriality of animal species is one of the ways nature gets around Tragedy of the Commons, based on Craig Dilworth’s “Too Smart for Our Own Good.” The size of the territory is large enough that there is no concern about food being taken that will be more than a tiny fraction of the total available. The way the territory is maintained is by the male of the group fighting with intruders on the territory. Once we leave this model, we have to come up with some approach of our own. If people are starving, it is hard to make warm fuzzy thoughts about the future environment carry much weight. We can personally take such actions if we choose, but convincing others is likely to be an uphill battle.
We are forming here on this site a small community of people that begun to ask questions, that begun to understand the finite aspect of our world and search for explanations and possible solutions. We all reached this place “wondering in the dark” and aimed about the same doubts.
We are very few, and probably each one of us is astonished by the general level of ignorance and the lack of a dialog in our society regarding the end of fossils and the world after that. We are having the battle now by our own….
There is only a matter of time until this will become the main subject and challenge of the humanity, and by then probably us here will be more informed and prepared than the others.
Facing the threat of extinction some societies will adapt, while others will disappear.
I am personally convinced that the societies with a high level of social cohesions will react faster and more organized. Of course this will not be enough, because some countries are having more access to technology and renewable resources than others. Conclusion? The strong differences of the habitat will lead to war between neighbors , with some exceptions…nuclear aligned countries. I believe that countries like Mexico and Nigeria with an high level of authority dissolution will end in riots and starvation while others like Switzerland and Norway will evolve to centralized equalitarian societies. The nuclear status-quo will keep the peace between USA and China for example, but I don`t expect the same for India and Pakistan… The overpopulated Asia will face brutal correction of the population numbers and Middle East countries will be reduced to small fisherman communities as they were 100 years before.
The solutions of the future will be centralized and equalitarian, because if today people can accept to be separated in poor and rich, no one will accept the separation between alive and dead…and will become personal…..facing extinction people will fight, or will share. Since no one is ready to accept sharing with other nations and races, the solutions will be national ones. The pillars of the reunited societies will be history, language religion and mentality. For the divided ones there will be now solution….
the concept of sharing, fighting or whatever was clearly illustrated by the conflicts of the mid 20th c. Japan was/is a nation with with few material resources and an expanding population, this gave the impetus to a militaristic regime driven by their notions of a ‘warrior’ history. They were also ‘highly cultured and civilised. But they still invaded China and Korea to grab more ‘stuff’ for their own use. The forces against them were the Americans, British and Dutch, but once set on their expansionist route, they couldn’t submit to American demands to withdraw. The Japanese mentality wouldn’t allow it even though they knew it was suicidal. They had to grab the energy sources of the Dutch oilfields to keep going.
The Germans were/are also a highly cultured people, but driven by economic circumstance to create an illusory economy that could only be sustained by grabbing external energy sources. So we had a resource war… WW2.
The nation with the most resources won, the USA.
WW2 was unique in that instead of looting the conquered lands of resources as had happened in all previous wars, the Americans reversed this and poured resources into conquered nations, thus rebuilding them into viable trading democracies.
All well and good, very civilised. That way there would be no need for wars to break out again. Post 1945 kicked off the global economy that created the delusion that ‘trade’ meant infinite prosperity. We could sell stuff to each other forever and wealth would continue to grow forever. Good business eliminated bad enemies.It was a concept that ignored the limits of available energy. That was something to be dismissed as irrelevant. There was always more oil.
Except for one little problem. Good business depends on grabbing resources just as much as warfare does, When resources are cheap, this doesn’t matter, but when resources get scarce, wars start again, hence Iraq etc. Post 1945, Saudi oil was bought with US protection money. When Saudi oil depletes, it is inevitable that wars will kick off there too.
As with Germany in the 30s, we now have illusory wealth that can only be sustained by input of resources from elsewhere, global business has now replaced global conflict, but the resulting misery is much the same.
The entire industrial economy of the world is now under ‘resource stress’ so conflict is breaking out everywhere. Examine every local dispute and conflict closely, it’s about resources, yet we are assured it’s religion or somesuch nonsense
I would add that globalization through the World Trade Organization added China and other asian nations to the trade group, and greatly enabled the production of coal in that part of the world, thus increasing total energy availability, at least for a while. But increasing globalization also increased demand for oil, leading to greater spikes in the price of oil than would have been the case without adding China etc. Now the oil problems are huge, especially for the countries that use a lot of oil and are not big oil exporters. Perhaps the Asian counties can avoid collapse for a short time, but in a world where trade is important, they are likely to have problems as well.
“There is only a matter of time until this will become the main subject and challenge of the humanity…”
I’m not so sure. There is a strong tendency to blame someone else, rather than look in the mirror.
In order for “humanity” to accept our predicament as our “main subject and challenge,” it will take a lot of introspection. But it’s so much easier to blame Obama, or blame the Republicrats, or blame the bankers, or blame the big corporations, or blame GMO food, or, or, or…
When you point a finger, there are three fingers pointed back at you. Until “humanity” sees that, things won’t voluntarily change, but will inevitably change in a chaotic manner.
Jan – couldn’t find a way to reply to your reply up top…
Mad Max – I agree – if one is relatively remote the odds of many people showing up at your doorstep are very limited…. they simply would not make it given they’d have no food.
Hired Help – our gardener took the course because it is taught in Indonesian – and our Indonesian skills are decent but not up to snuff – he is passing along his knowledge to us in English. Agree – there will be no hired help at some point – one needs the knowledge and the skills – organic farmers will be the ‘rock stars’ in the new paradigm 🙂
I am not going to reply to all of your thoughts. My main observation is that the way of the future has to be much smaller units–either tribes, or family groups or perhaps units as large as states today. We are not going to have any control over what other tribes do, and in fact, these tribes are likely to be warring with each other, more than trading. These units are not likely to be able to provide much energy for the long term, other than what can be obtained with fairly simple devices that capture wind or water energy, and also by burning biomass. In a few areas, hand dug coal may provide some limited energy. The question is, “How do we respond to a future such as this?”
I suppose there is also a question about the down-slope–what we can/should we be doing on a temporary basis, while we still have solar panels that work, as well as some devices the solar panels can operate? What should we do while we are going through huge changes, with governments failing and many more people losing their jobs? Should we be putting most of our efforts into local food and water supplies? Or should we be working on making changes that might be made to enhance long-term fertility of soil, as Don Stewart has suggested? Or should our efforts be on finding seeds suited to local communities, and on training people on how to use them with only the most minimal tools? If we go the latter route, we probably need to work on building up our supply of minimal-level tools, using what fossil fuels we still have. (Solar panels don’t do much for making tools.)
I think on the down-slope it will take all of these things and more we haven’t even thought of. We will never really be prepared because we don’t know what will be required of us. The benefit of a community or a ‘village’ is that we won’t have to do it by ourselves. Others will hopefully have skills we don’t. In all probability my life and yours will be cut shorter than the current average lifespan of our parents. I accept that. But I will keep doing something today in the hope that it may benefit someone tomorrow. It may be my children, it may not. I think the important thing is that we don’t destroy what chance humanity does have by wasting time and resources fighting for the last scraps.
Yea, what she said!
Or as Ben Franklin put it, “If we don’t hang together, surely we will hang separately.”
Reblogged this on Bubble Bloggle and commented:
Excellent article on global energy consumption and links to economic recession.
Pingback: Trendline: Barrels of Oil Affordable at the Average Wage « Transition Brockville
In terms of Secular Cycles. Please see this graph:
The real income of the bottom 90 percent (in the US) hasn’t budged in over 40 years, while the income of the top 10 percent has continued to increase. And we know that the income of the top tenth of one percent has skyrocketed.
So the first question: Is the stagnation in the real income of the 90 percent and thus their inability to increase actual purchases (excluding additional debt) a cycle unto itself, or is it part of a more fundamental cycle?
Second question: Do you think Smith is correct to connect the pattern over the last 45 years with the recurrent bubbles and the growth in debt?
Third question: Since the ability of the authorities to continue the debt inflation is in doubt, do you think we are in for an epic deflation?
I’ll give a little preface prior to my fourth question. A British filmmaker named Mark Cousins made an epic documentary about the history of film (movies). The finale in the multi-part essay happened early this morning, with films from the 21st century. Two of them struck me. A Swedish filmmaker named Roy Andersson makes films which reflect the humiliation people suffer, the unhappiness which has afflicted us for the past 30 years, and the need for a reconciliation (which is perhaps an appropriate topic with the death of Nelson Mandela). One of his films shows a junk heap of Christian symbols, and then a ‘day of judgment’ event.
The second was a film by the Russian Alexander Sokurov. Sokurov made Russian Ark in 2002. It is filmed in the magnificent Hermitage Museum, and is set just before the Revolution. Nearly a thousand aristocrats have been partying all night, and flow out of the various rooms and down the broad staircases in a continuous, 90 minute shot. The camera glides with the aristocrats using a Steadycam. Sokurov, discussing the film, says ‘we feel that when they finally leave the screen, fine young men will be waiting to cut their throats’. He laments that nothing could stop the slaughter, not the Christian church and not our civilization. He continues that the killing of tens of millions in social upheaval ‘is particularly painful’.
I note that Jaimie Dimon rented Buckingham Palace and exhibited his new employee, the former head of the United Nations, just as Dimon concluded a pennies on the dollar settlement with the US Government.
So my final questions is: Given the trend toward ever larger social divisions, given the chains of debt which bind the lower and middle classes, given that at least one Swede perceives widespread humiliation and unhappiness (which seems to be backed up by mental health statistics), given that the corporations which produce things are allied with the corporations which loan money into existence and thus facilitate consumption people can’t aford, and that both types of corporations jointly control the government, do you think we are in for another ‘Sokurov Moment’?
I am afraid I am not seeing a graph at the link you provided. The content must have changed since you put up the link. I also haven’t figured out which Smith article you are referring to.
There can be both underlying causes and proximate causes. Smith could be right about the proximate cause, and miss the underlying cause.
Sorry for faulty link. This should work better:
The graph shows that the real income of the bottom 90 percent of US households has been flat since the late 60s, but the top ten percent took off around 1980. If one posited that ‘the US oil peak around 1970 flattened the growth of income in the US’, then one has to explain why the top 10 percent (and especially the top tenth of one percent) headed for the stratosphere around 1980. So my first question is whether you see one inevitable result of limits to growth as increasing income inequality…a single secular cycle with multiple manifestations. Or, alternatively, that the events since 1980 have been the result of the capture of governments by neo-conservatives in both academia and business…which phenomena is a secular cycle unto itself. Or…however you think the issues should be looked at.
Pingback: Het onvermijdelijke einde van onze technologische beschaving | Cassandraclub
This is a great article. Thanks Gail!
The future does look grim. If we could only pool our resources towards science that aimed to improve efficiency. We are only scratching the surface of AI. Artificial intelligence could help us design systems with efficiency and durability in mind that could dramaticaly lower the energy to keep them online. Micro (nano) machines, new materials, predictive analytic systems…
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem likely that will happen, We will drink from the punchbowl until it is empty.
Artificial intelligence is the same as human intelligence, in that it might be able to think of a way to move something, but whatever it came up with would still be governed by the same laws of physics. Civilisations grow and prosper through the ability to shift stuff around, which as Dolph says above, generates the delusion of endless wealth.
AI cannot come up with a different ‘lever’ to sustain this no matter how smart it is. This confirms the insanity of economists and politicians who insist that software and computer games add to GDP
I am not sure efficiency gets us very far, either. Many processes are already near their limits based on physics. If we really do get energy savings, people spend less on that application and more on others–at least that is what has happened in the past. Efficiency has made processes cheaper, and affordable to more-Jevon’s paradox.
Adding to the discussion above, it is interesting to note that the Victorian British were much closer to natural norms. For example, we don’t talk about it much now, due to the association of racism with the Nazis, but the British were highly racist. They just didn’t take it to the same extreme. And when they went out into the world it was to rule over and develop other places, and profit in the process. It wasn’t to give endless aid to others so they could breed and take over.
It’s becoming clear that the watershed moment of the world really was WW2. That was when the international associations, power, and influence over culture passed to the Americans. In the end, this will prove to be a costly mistake. Chiefly, because Americans forgot what scarcity is. Scarcity is the basis of all natural law. And yet Americans, because of the abundance of their land, came to believe in infinity. Americans really do believe in infinite resources, infinite growth, infinite expansion, infinite riches. They never stop, they are never content, and they never do anything in moderation. American “generosity” is the result of abundance, not morality, per say. Americans are not a bad people, but you can say they are misguided.
In the modern world, a major manifestation is the electro-dollar, which is conjured out of nothing. Ask Americans, however, and they will adamantly deny they are printing money, and deny that there are any consequences. Why? Because, again, Americans don’t understand scarcity, so why should they think of money as scarce? “More of everything” is the American and therefore the world ideal.
So essentially the whole structure of the world for 70 years has been organized around a people who believe in endless wealth. Is it any wonder why we don’t discuss population or energy depletion?
Hello, I studied solar energy in college – but I never finished college – as I had to go to work.
I think there are some great things we can do with solar, wind, Geothermal. But with a smaller population on the planet, I said the other day perhaps a 300 million but not sure maybe with a coupe billion if we were careful and changed our ways to cleaner fuels and fertilizers etc.
As I am sorry to say there are far too many of us now on the planet to undertake that and that is the subject of discussion on this forum.
We have heard from experts on this site, just this morning I read a report from an engineer that works oil and gas overseas. We have heard and read the reports and here we are now looking at collapse in the face. With that said I still see an uneven collapse hitting some places and then others. Sadly the poor will likely suffer first.
On this site we talk about limits and finite resources, and, I think the sad fact and reality is that perhaps we are dealing facts that is that our planet cannot support 8 billion plus for very long and the correction is coming — unless we more than half of us get picked up and taken to some new planet, which looks unlikely at this point.
So that leaves us to our our own problems of dealing with our overpopulation problems and in addition to finite resources, governments that promise more than they can pay it all leaves us in a uncertain future.
I still think we have some time and we should work hard on this as a people because the Earth is very special and in preserving our planet we will also help the others that have passed on that love this place too – including us.
Best Regards to all,
Well there’s always the rapture to look forward to.
Nobody in here is likely to qualify for that of course—but think of all the stuff we can pick up for nothing
LOL! I have never belonged to a church that believes in the rapture.
Interesting article. It is amazing that Greenspan and economists like him can look at the ballooning balance sheets in the banks and scratch their heads in confusion because they can’t figure out why the banks are aren’t lending or why the rate of investments are low? I’m sure they think it is just a matter of time before people start throwing money out with wild abandon again and the econmy will be humming again. They don’t want to accept the limit that physical natural resources put on the economy, and that perhaps we have reached the limit to growth. Just too hard to imagine I guess.
Hi Jody, Yes Greenspan, was author of this whole thing at least the big event of 2008 and now he wonders about uncertainty. How ironic. They used to call him Mr Bubble Man, and thanks to him, we may have avoided a severe recession but now face a sever depression.
You know a trillion dollars laid out end to end would reach the moon and since Greenspan they have have printed many more times that, that money is out there and it cause devaluations and I really see it in markets like stocks and bonds, the grandaddy of all bubbles.
I guess you could say Greenspan gave us a few good years, at first the credit is like a fine wine then it turns to vinegar. Even the USA borrowed far more than could be paid back along with many others around the world including individuals that had their mail boxes full of zero percent credit card offers that really made life nice for a time, a new hot tub etc then the bills are now becoming due.
Until the real estate bubble he engineered fell apart an many of us lost more than half the values of our homes. I am not going to worry about that some much now as fortunately our home is paid off and we do not need to borrow against it, and the reason for that is the uncertainty he discussed, but he is the wizard oz that was behind the first curtain, now we have new ones, many of them.
Or perhaps they have realized we’ve reached the limits – and understand what collapse means – and are therefore engaging in what we would previously have considered insane policies
Because they are trying to delay the inevitable for as long as possible?
Hello all, I just saw this article from Greenspan, most of the folks that used to work in the Fed have been worried, well he is part of the problem, his actions in the past are catching up to all of us. http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Greenspan-economy-wanders-businesses/2013/12/08/id/540682
This is my best effort at elucidating the fact that Fukushima was a nuclear explosion of sorts, AND that we were heavily dosed. I think its an important point. I think that knowledge could sway some “swing voters” in the nuclear debate.
Fukushima WAS a Nuclear Explosion, Here Is The Proof
The only way that the tens of tons of uranium and plutonium shown by US EPA air samples could occur was if the explosion came from within the reactor vessel, and/or spent fuel pool. So clearly the explosion was a nuclear type of explosion from within. Nuclear promoters have long stated that nuclear plants can’t blow up in a nuclear explosion. We know this to be a lie. In fact Chicago’s own Argonne National Lab has video from back in the day when it was “cool” to perform open air tests to blow up reactors to prove the nuclear chain reaction can blow up the reactors. The special type of Nuclear Explosion is called a “prompt moderated criticality”. cont….here
I read in today’s Huffpo that pessimism boosts your well being
You’re all invited to my 100th birthday party, if the invite is reciprocated
I think it’s been shown that elderly believers live on to the next big religious festival and then peg it. So doomers should hang on in hope of The End and all the fireworks that will accompany it……
Ah, something to live for at last!
Hi Gail, thanks for this post, always looking forward to your posts.
I’m part of a Swedish network (www.steg3.se) that tries to persuade the Swedish government to make a sort of “emergency plan” on how society could continue to function when economic growth (and energy supplies) ends and contracts. What do you think could be done by government in terms of preparedness? Can anything be done or Is our pursuit futile?
Also, I wonder if you have any guesses for how long QE could continue?
I can’t answer the whole question here, but I can point out a couple of things.
The one thing the government needs to be aware of is the fact that a contracting economy will necessarily be a much poorer economy. Government services especially will need to contract. If the government is not to fail from being too big to finance, the government will need a plan to start downsizing itself and the programs it provides. It will also need to think about what changes are needed if the system is to operate when oil/electricity are scarce or nonexistent.
For example, if medical care is given, a plan will probably be needed to cut back on the kind of care offered and the extent of care offered. It may be that hospitals will need to be dispensed with, because of the difficulty of getting patients there, and the lack of services they can provide without electricity. If doctors and nurses are to continue to provide services in a post fossil fuel age, they will need to be retrained in treating diseases without modern medicines, and without modern tools such as X-Rays. More emphasis will likely need to be placed on hygiene, and on prevention of illness. Once a person is ill, isolating the sick person so the illness can’t spread may need to play a bigger role.
If plans that are made that assume the continuation of electricity and oil, they probably need to be made in the context of what Sweden can guarantee for itself, not what it is dependent on outside sources for, since outside sources are much less certain with respect to continued availability.
I really don’t know when QE ends, or if something happens to cause it to unwind of its own accord. Anything that causes interest rates to rise will be a problem–for instance, the US defaulting on its debt, or major changes in the Eurozone.
I would agree – we had about 40 years of debt-based growth – when that ended we shifted to money printing – there is nothing after that – so when they are forced to stop QE (some black swan event will likely be the cause – they will not stop willingly because they cannot) – then we will be hit with a sledge hammer of reality.
There is a reason why Greenspan and Bernanke engaged in what would seem to be insane policies that created massive bubbles.
Surely they see the bigger picture – anything is ok so long as it delays the inevitable.
I would agree.
I often see people make comments on sites like Zero Hedge about how they can’t wait for this wall of corruption and insanity to crash down – I would say be careful what you wish for.
I would agree on the “Be careful what you wish for.” It is their insanity that is saving us now.
Exactly right. Everyone rails at the central banks and the bankers (and rightly so in most instances) – but they would be railing at the symptoms – and failing to understand what the disease is.
Very obviously Bernanke knows what he is doing is madness – he is not stupid – so why has he thrown every rule of finance out the window – why is he engaging in a policy that has never in the history of the world worked (money printing on a massive scale).
Surely at the highest levels they are aware of what we are aware of – that the world as we know it will not function without cheap energy. And they know damn well that nothing will replace oil. That technology cannot solve every problem (if so why so many bald men – why so many dying of cancer)
Some things just cannot be solved. And I suspect Bernanke knows that very well.
So he does the only thing he can to fend off the inevitable – he prints — and he prints— and he prints…. and when he is forced to stop (by a crash or a liquidity trap) — he knows what that will bring.
Sometimes I catch myself saying – but this is unthinkable – this is a bad nightmare – when will I wake up from this…
I do not think this will be a slow descent into the abyss… rather it will be like falling off a cliff – when the QE stops the fracking will stop – the deep drilling will stop – the tar sands will stop – and this will unravel like the core of a golf ball.
Enjoy ever day to the fullest. That’s my positive take-away from a situation that I have absolutely zero control over.
Thanks for answering Gail, I appreciate it.
Sweden is in a relatively good position. Lots of trees and hydro power relative to the number of citizens. One big thing you must do is stop population growth. Of course stopping population growth of Swedes while allowing immigration will simply mean an ever diminishing fraction of the population will be Swedes in the future. Good luck. The only nation I see not being overwhelmed by immigration is Japan.
I have been browsing Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo and this is the end of his last book:
Ultimately – and this is the most terrible thing – in the concept of the good man siding with everything weak, sick, misshapen, suffering from itself, everything that ought to perish – the law of selection crossed, an ideal made out of the contradiction to the proud man who turned out well, to the yes-saying, future-assured, future-confirming man – who is called evil from now on… And all this was believed in as morality. – Ecrasez I’infame!
– Have I been understood? — Dionysus against the crucified one…
Of course that seems like a “nasty” and a frightening thing to say but he seems to point to a genuine and very serious demographic dilemma. If society favours the wretched because of sympathy and compassion and keeps them alive and they pass on their genes year after year, generation after generation, century after century, then you end up with a wretched breed. That is how evolution works. Whatever traits are passed on are preserved in the breed.
The breed evolves through selective environmental pressures and it declines when those pressures are relaxed or removed. It is a general principle of evolutionary theory that adaptations are lost once they no longer provide a survival benefit. Thus the adaptive excellence of the breed is maintained only for as long as selective pressures continue to operate upon the breed. The breed will decline once selective pressures are removed. That applies to _all_ beneficial human traits, higher intelligence, self-discipline, motivation, physical fitness etc. A good breed will continue only for so long as selective pressures operate. The good breed will decline when they do not.
Thus the danger when society, in its kindness and compassion, or through the organised power of the lower-classes (unions, Labour parties, leftist mass media etc.) weakens or even removes selective pressures, eg. by charity or the welfare state. An alarming insight: charity is dysgenic let alone socialism.
Humans are animals, “rational animals” as Aristotle defines our species: that means that we are subject to all of the natural laws of the animal kingdom and it means that we are supposed to be able to recognise the operation of natural laws and to rationally plan our course in accordance with those laws.
We cannot expect to constantly act irrationally and to violate the laws of nature and expect to get a good result. The world is not like that. The way that the world works is that you either do what you have to in order to survive or you die. In reality, you do not get an eternal reward because you are “good”. Nature accepts no excuses, you either work with nature or you perish. Our present era may well be the edge of the collapse.
FN argues that Christian morality actually is destructive of the breed and subversive of higher civilization. It actually makes the situation much worse in the long run, causing the breed itself to degenerate. He casts modern socialism, liberalism and egalitarianism in the same mold. Indeed modern secular values are largerly a continuation of Christian morality. We have chucked the Christian God but we have not re-evaluated the value of Christian morality.
It seems that during 2000 years we have bred a breed that is naive when it comes to Christian morality. We punished and exterminated the heretics and free thinkers and we bred the gullible and pius. We bred into the breed a naive belief in the truth and value of compassion and we bred out our ability to critically evaluate not only the truth but the usefulness of Christian morality to the species.
All that is really happening is the evolution of the species through the survival of the fittest: everything else is an illusion. Religion and morality are merely survival and evolutionary stategy that has definate and quantifiable results in the breed and in civilization.
FN seems to be influenced by Darwin, Galton and possibly Malthus but the critique of Christian morality and its lasting influence on the course of the life world is his own original contribution to moral and political philosophy.
We have run with the economics of the English Industrial Revolution and we have totally ignored all of the warnings of the English social philosophers.
Capitalism is irrational: BAU is driven by the profit mechanism, capitalism must expand, no matter how big the population gets and no matter how unsustainable the economy becomes in terms of natural finite limits. Capitalism moreover creates an organised working-class that imposes the welfare state.
But if Christianity, capitalism, liberalism, welfarism, socialism, globalism etc. are all fundamentally irrational and dysgenic, then our civilization is in very real and very serious trouble.
Abraham Lincoln was one of 12 children, only 4 of whom lived past puberty.
“…it is not natural for any species, including the human, that all infants live to reproducing age. This means that if we assume the fertility of the average human female to be, say, five children, then three of those children must die before themselves reproducing. The death of half or more of the children born in a human society is the natural state of affairs” (Dilworth, Too Smart for our Own Good, pg 136).
the economics of the Industrial Revolution, in fundamental terms, provided more food and breeding opportunities for our species.
We had no choice but to run with that, because nature demands that we eat and reproduce, just like any other living organism.
We are unique perhaps in recognising our situation, but we remain in the same situation as all other species in being unable to alter it because of genetic forces. As is pointed out here, disobedience to nature means death. No excuses, no reprieves
I agree with that sentence. FN argues that Christian morality actually is destructive of the breed and subversive of higher civilization.
Some people are starting to take note of that, Christian churches have been completely feminize. Also, young men are feminine and look physically and mentally very weak. Some people are starting to notice how feminize young man are. This video summarized this well. The male presenter is a bit an annoying but his message is still relevant.
The feminization of men & boys in the church
To believe that men lose their masculinity when they act with kindness and gentleness is to misunderstand human nature. Men and women’s bodies both secrete testosterone and progesterone. There are times when we need to be strong and times when we need to surrender. I wonder which takes more strength, testosterone driven violence or surrender in giving birth to a child? My guess is that testosterone driven acts of violence do not require as nearly as much strength as child birth does. Masculinity and femininity are opposite and equally necessary for human development.
As the Caliph Ali said; ‘He is truly strong who can contain his anger, not the man who feels none.’
Compassion and mercy are not weakness,and those who rave against compassion as ‘weakness’ are themselves lining up with dear old Adolf H and Himmler aren’t they?!
And no man can doubt the immense physical stamina of women.
We will see about that once people have to fight for food. I can wait to see the strong stamina of women LOL.
FN was also…….mad. And best forgotten I’d say.
There are many other things that act counter to natural selection. For example, the fact that I am living in the South of the United States, when I am of a blue-eyed blonde of Norwegian background is a problem. My grandparents should have stayed in Norway, but there was not enough food to go around in Norway in the early 1900s. This is part of the globalism you mentioned above. My relatives are in Wisconsin and Minnesota, which is at least more in the right latitude.
I wouldn’t be quite as hard on Christianity as you are–there are definite advantages for a person living today to get along with others, including helping each other out, when they need help. But as you say, looked at from a distance, there is a tendency for this type of behavior to save the weak, so the next generation is maladapted.
Nearly all medical treatment acts counter what natural selection would do. And one wonders what happens when the ones who could barely make it marry and have children.
As long as there is government elected by the general population, the tendency will be to care for the poor, sick, needy etc. This is what I have always done all my life, yet I can see it doesn’t fit in well with natural selection.
These things are disturbing, but seem to be true.
Maybe we were meant to take care only of our own family group, mark out territories like other primates do, and fight with others who come into our territory. Diverse religions might actually be helpful in this regard.
I disagree. Evolution is alive and well. see The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution by Gregory Cochran and Henry. Judging by the ruthless nature of investment bankers in Manhattan there is no shortage of killing pressure on billions of people.
Ed, I agree with the authors that human evolution did not end when “anatomically modern humans” “appeared”. There would not be separate races after all, if evolution had ended. The prima facie evidence is obvious. I disagree with the authors that “conventional wisdom” says otherwise. Anthropologists and geneticists understand that human evolution has continued. Cultural and environmental changes (LGM, Neolithic, metal ages, IE civilization, etc.) have provided new selective pressures that have directed adaptive evolution.
“Moreover, they argue that these adaptations have varied across different human populations, depending on factors such as when the various groups developed agriculture, and the extent to which they mixed genetically with other population groups…
“The authors suggest we would expect to see fewer adaptive changes among the Amerindians and sub-Saharan Africans, who have farmed for the shortest times and were genetically isolated from older civilizations by geographical barriers.”
Modern industrial society has over the past couple of centuries mitigated evolution by breeding a mass urban lower-class population and through the welfare state etc. Lets be frank about it, persons who have been apart from Eurasian cultural and genetic development for tens of thousands of years in very primitive cultures can succeed in industrial societies and do most of the jobs that we do, certainly enough of the jobs to survive and to raise kids. Evolution only works when conditions are demanding and “failures” die and do not breed.
Industrial society has seriously loosened pressures and has allowed the population to explode. Practicaly anyone can succeed in these societies.
I would agree that many demanding, high IQ, high creativity and competence professions have grouped together many particularly valuable persons into professions but there are plenty of jobs that the masses can do, so there is no evolutionary selection. All or at least most jobs that allow survival would have to be demanding before evolution operated but just about any person can perform the majority of jobs in MIS.
And the welfare net is always there to pick up those who dont succeed. We have millions living on handouts, millions in subsidised housing. And as Gale pointed out, medicine, let alone free universal medicine and health care, further loosens selective pressures and allows the breed to degenerate. Usually we adapt to diseases when those who cannot survive them die. We have stored up untold diseases to plague our maladapted populations once cheap oil is gone. Also, the radical improvements in hygiene, people used to chuck their muck in the street, not very healthy! Now we have flushes and anti-bacterial soaps.
Just about everything is dysgenic in MIS. The easier that we make it to survive, the more the breed will degenerate. Life is easy these days, nearly everyone survives and breeds, so the breed degenerates. Evolution operates when people die and do not breed, evolution goes flabby when everyone breeds.
Evolution works best on a small population with harsh conditions. New adaptations then spread rapidly through the population. We lose adaptations and accumulate loads of junk mutations when the population explodes. Yes past cultural and enviromental changes have provided selective pressures over tens of thousands of years but MIS is a dysgenic catastrophe.
PS. cultural changes cause the breed to evolve only when they make new and significant demands on the population. Cultural changes cause the breed to degenerate if they just make life easier. In MIS it only takes one genius to invent a new vaccine and then the masses need only get themselves down to the doctors. Likewise how many inventors did it take so that the masses could sit and steer the car? Relatively few. MIS are stratified and the masses live off the gifts of a small minority. MIS supports a mass lower-class population for whom life is made easy. That is one reason why MIS is dysgenic.
Grace and predestination, the core of the Christian view of the cosmos. In nature grace is the natural grace of the well-adapted and the superior human being. Predestination to inherit the earth is rightly his. Christianity falsifies reality, subverts the classical, aristocratic concepts of grace and inheritence and reverses the evolutionary process.
“Grace” is supernatural and may be had by anyone, predestination is to the other-world by way of “belief” in theological dogma and charity — and the “righteous” wretched shall also inherit the earth through universal charity. (Faith, hope and charity, the three theological virtues.) Christians become the elite, the “elect”. Thus Christianity subverted the natural basis of human existence.
Christianity is a survival stategy of those who want to avoid natural reality as far as possible and to avoid natural evolution at all costs. It has profoundly subverted the course of European civilization. Of course that does not mean that every Christian is totally like that but it is the general underlying tendency of the religion. Most Christians were slaves in the early centuries of that religion.
The pagan Germanic tribes expressly resisted Christianity because they considered it to be a slave religion in its worldview and morality. To adopt Christianity would be to adopt the worldview of slaves, which they were not prepared to do. The converted Frank, Charlemagne forced Christianity on the continental Germans by the sword; he slaughtered the Saxons in Germany, anyone who would not convert and he cut down all the sacred oaks of Thor. The Christians utterly destroyed all knowledge of Germanic paganism but some pagan texts survived on Iceland, the last to convert. Otherwise we would know next to nothing about Germanic paganism like we know absolutely nothing about the Druid religion of the Celts. Christianity conquered and exterminated European paganism. They converted kings to impose Christianity on the Scandinavians. (The king and his armies are the “secular arm” of the Church in Christian theology.)
If modern industrial society with its liberty, “equality” and universal fraternity (eg. global economic development, socialism) is an economic and political embodiment of Christianity; if it is utterly irrational and unnatural and it is about to fall very hard; then Christian civilization may be coming to its “peak”. What comes next may be radically different and may restore concepts to their natural, classical, pagan European meanings.
Hello, are their any fans out there of the song I put up by Glen Campell Lineman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFCuBLAjXo
I put this one up to remind people that we have been through some pretty tough times over the last century or so and even farther back in the past. And to remind folks that there are some very tough workers out there keeping the power on.
If we do see a collapse, I expect to see a group of these people as survivors. I have written posts in the past about how I believe we can get plenty of electric power… but the problem is transferring it to run things like big rigs and tractors, cars etc mostly due to battery problems and incomplete hydrogen fueling systems. We seem, to be able to heat our homes with electric power well, but it costs more than gas or fuel oil. Many of the homes in my state use heat pumps that both cool and heat homes. But I have written before without getting much feedback from the group about the problem I see with regards to the big problem I see of storing electric power to run the things we need for everyday life like cars, trucks and ?. Forget about aircraft travel as it will get too expensive unless they develop jet powered by perhaps Hydrogen.
In summary, it appears that we seem to be able to make plenty of electric power using nuclear, gas coal and other geothermal (Thorium etc?), and we prefer the cleaner solar power possible, but the point is the point we are focusing on is that we can make enough electric power, but the problem is getting it into storage devices to run all of our machines, I do have hope here and want to bring that into the group, let us not give up hope just yet.
Surely we have an over population problem that may over run us on our efforts to reconcile these issues but we have hope.
I believe we can generate enough electric power to support all of the billions of folks but can we distribute it properly to cars, truck and farm equipment. I believe that the airline industries must downsize dramatically which will damage vacation destinations which really we have no more oil to waste on although I have good memories of them.
In the future we can expect a shorter supply line and Tea from China will be only a few that can afford the price unless we come up with a new system and fast. The powers that be may still have something up their sleeve on that…
In loose discussions on here and out in the big wide world, I’ve come to realise that there is a certainty that ‘electric power’ is all we need to solve all our problems. Generate enough, and maintain the means to transmit it, and all will be well. The wheels won’t come off the wagon of our civilisation.
The above post confirms that, and is typical: We just need to get enough electrical energy and store it, to run the ‘things’ we need—-etc etc.
Those ‘things’ seem to be merely incidental to our way of life. We can just make more ‘things’ if only we have electricity. As if things were a few incidental bits and pieces that we can take or leave as we feel like it, instead of critical to our physical survival in every imaginable context.
Getting down to fine detail, our current civilisation depends on overcoming friction, this is the purpose of our ‘machines’. (If you dont believe that, try carrying your personal water requirements around on your back instead of expecting it to be pumped into your bathroom.). That needs energy input and skilled manufacturing. You cannot have precision engineering without input of high grade raw materials. You cannot have raw materials in quantity without input of hydrocarbon fuel in some form. That is the only way we can produce those elusive ‘things’ we need to survive. Remove the tiniest ball bearing from a windturbine or pump and it falls apart, remove (hydrocarbon) insulation from wiring and we’re back in the stone age. Each of our ‘machines’ is an amalgam of thousands of other machines, all interlocked with one another. Remove one, and they all stop.
No machine can be used in isolation, it needs others to sustain it. This is perhaps the weakness that we refuse to accept.
Windfarms and solar arrays are not going to solve any of our problems, it is not possible to construct a wind turbine solely from the output of a windfarm. Whereas the (energy) output from an oilwell can be used to drill a hundred more oilwells. This is how we created our oil economy, by using the energy collateral of each well (via the industrial prosperity it brought to all of us) to fund the next one.
Unless the ‘powers that be’ have repealed the laws of physics, they won’t have anything up their collective sleeves, but I suspect this fantasy (much like the suppressed technology that lets cars run on tapwater) will persist for a while yet.
These are good points, and, as you seem to have spent considerable effort thinking this through, what do you think of our chances to revert back to a pre-oil economy, say the one we had around 1900 (Is that even the correct equivalent ?), if we can manage the population decrease without war/ disasters ?
I dont think pre 1900 is the right level. Rockefeller had amassed a 30bn fortune by 1880 on oil for heating lighting and lubrication, Vanderbilt, Cunard Carnegie and many others had done the same thing using hydrocarbons one way or another.
Every one of them was lauded for ‘business genius’ when in fact it was coal oil and gas that provided the actual wealth.
The last 200 years have been a anomaly in human history, and its very likely that the past 10000 years have been too. Nature is littered with biological dead ends. It’s guesswork whether we revert to 1700 ce, or 8000bce, but the fact remains that man, like all others, is a competitive species, and thus must continue to compete until there is nothing left to compete for.
Nature cares nothing for us, we are a plague species in biological terms, and we will continue to devour our host unless the host gets rid of us.
Any bets on that?
End of More, I will bet their are humans here in 20,000 years. How many and at what level of technology I have no idea.
Easy to say when you have no way of collecting (or paying) on that bet!
It is rather difficult to know just exactly what we will need in the future. It is like being asked to pack for a very long trip when you don’t know where you are going. We really have no idea what the future will be and so preparing for this unknown is almost impossible. We don’t know what dice climate change will throw for us. We import so much of the things we need we really have no idea how well our local environment can support us. We don’t know the ultimate damage we have done to our natural resource base and its ability to renew itself. We don’t have the tools or skills to do basic farming with animals, or enough animals and skill to work this way. Most people living in developed countries are so used to having the conveniences of a modern life, we are unprepared for one that is not.
In the absence of so many of the natural resources our ancestors had, I’m not sure if going ‘back’ is even the right word. As I look around my community at all the infrastructure, all the houses, all the stuff in those houses, I am quite certain that for a time anyway we will become very good scavengers and traders. Having a good cutting torch and welding equipment, maybe even knowing some blacksmithing skills might be a good idea! Also its a good idea to collect how-to books and good quality hand tools. Its also good to try your hand at something, anything just to get the feel of using your hands.
blacksmithing skill I agree with, after stonebashing that must be one of the oldest professions. but welding torches need gas under high compression—and that means high tech industry again
But even for a few months or years, until your canisters of compressed gas run out, they might help a great deal!
End_of_More, I am afraid you are right.
All sounds good but where things go wrong with all the solutions that people suggest is that fact that because of fossil fuels we have over 7 billion people on the planet.
We can only feed them because we have industrial farming with fertilizers and pesticides based on fossil fuels.
Remove cheap energy from the equation and we have a problem of epic proportions.
We have killed most of our soils and it would take years to bring them back to life – where does all the organic matter required to convert millions of acres back to organic farms? We’d be doing it field by field over many many years – and in the meantime what about all those hungry mouths?
We all take for granted the various bread baskets of the world – they will produce nothing when this crisis hits.
A rather disturbing thought – I wish I could suggest a solution to this – perhaps others can?
There is a learning curve with everything. You are obviously successful at some sort of business or profession or you wouldn’t be jetting around the world and buying gold or property in several places. You applied yourself to learning what you needed to know to be successful in the modern economy. If the world’s economy continued with business as usual, you would probably have no difficulty retiring with ease. But now we face changes to our modern economy. Perhaps it is time to figure out where you want to make your home.
There is a learning curve to growing food organically. It will require that you get to know your soil, plants, seeds, making compost, harvesting crops, preserving or cooking the food, selling crops if that is what you plan. It is best if you know how this works yourself rather than depend on someone else.
It isn’t difficult to learn once you apply yourself, but it does require hard work. As you get to know your land you will soon get to know your neighbors. Most farmers and gardeners are very friendly people. We generally like to help each other out and are almost always willing to share information and advice. We like to see beginners succeed. We smile when we see someone making mistakes, not because we are condescending but because we remember doing the same thing. Everyone learns by experience and patience is rewarded.
If you are fortunate you may find that you really enjoy life on your farm. It is slower pace and some find it monotonous. But if you connect to the land you farm, figure out what you need to do when you need to do it, you will start to feel more secure in the place you have chosen. You will put down roots, as they say, and you will feel at home. Eventually it becomes easier to do and you will not fear starvation as long as you have soil and water available located in a reasonable climate.
best of luck,
Hi Jody – I have a small business in Hong Kong (not some international tycoon heheh) – but spend little time there – we actually live in a small fairly remote mountain village here in Bali (we have no foreign neighbours) – we’ve been here for 6+ years now and enjoy the quiet life. We try to integrate as best we can into the local village.
Likewise in BC, I spent a month there in August and really enjoyed the small town atmosphere – the no-nonsense independence of the people – the feeling of a community spirit – and the total absence of pretension was particularly appealing (I am originally from a mining community). Everyone was extremely welcoming and helpful – these are things that are sorely missing when one lives in a city.
I am currently taking an online permaculture course – and am watching this excellent series of lectures http://mediasite.online.ncsu.edu/online/Catalog/Full/1ec0688b568a4a47a8ca8926e7b4ef1b21
We’ve got to kids staying with us from the Philippines – they are studying here – in the past few months we’ve been investing time with our gardener to do hands on organic work – it’s taken a bit of convincing to get the kids to get involved because in Asia farming is perceived as the lowest of low in terms of occupations (people avoid the sun because if they are too dark they are thought to be farmers!!!)
Anyway – we’re making good progress and they are taking pride in learning these new skills – as are we – the first crop of food is of course the payoff and that hooks people.
“I am currently taking an online permaculture course…”
I hope you’ll take a real PDC someday! 🙂
Seriously, one can read all one wants and not get as much out of it as one day of hands-on.
In my opinion, the best Permaculture classes are in the tradition of multiple instructors from various disciplines. The ones I’ve conducted had as many as ten different presenters.
“A rather disturbing thought – I wish I could suggest a solution to this – perhaps others can?”
I have seen numbers that indicate that Russians are producing some 55% of their own food, using just 10% of the land base in dacha gardens, whereas large, industrial agriculture is producing only about 20% of their food, using 70% of the land base.
I think this was from a presentation on “The Ringing Cedars” series of books, so it may be biased, but it does provide some hope that individuals can produce much of their own food, if necessary.
In many ways, Russia’s experience is a microcosm of the problems heading our way.
That is a positive in a world of negatives – thanks.
Jan – I am also doing hands on work with our gardener here in Bali – he sent him to be trained by highly experienced organic growers in Bedugal here…
I will also have an organic farmer come to our place in BC and do a site plan + spend some time teaching hands on stuff.
Of course none of this is a substitute for the years of experience that a good organic farmer would have – but over time I hope to gain enough experience and knowledge to shift to this lifestyle when it becomes necessary.
I might add that learning in ultra-fertile Bali is not ideal – the saying here is ‘scatter a box of toothpicks and you’ll have a forest in a year’
One might begin to actually believe it was one’s skill that resulted in a superb crop of vegetables 🙂
“One might begin to actually believe it was one’s skill that resulted in a superb crop of vegetables…”
And then nature bitch-slaps you a good one.
I had a goat die last night. He’d been losing weight and had loose stools. I’d wormed him, but chose to spend time typing on this blog than taking better care of him.
Paul, don’t just “send your gardener off for training.” You have to be involved! (You probably are, but there was a hint of “The hired work have me covered” in your posting. They will disappear into the bush if things stop working for them.)
If we have problems with oil, we are likely to have problems with electricity as well within at most a few years. One reason is that we are talking systemic problems–problems with the political system, problems with international finance, and problems with international trade. Another reason is because electricity itself is dependent on oil–the repair of electrical transmission lines depends on oil, the operation of any backup power plant uses oil in the form of grease, and that repair of roads (used in repairing electrical transmission) depends on oil. The manufacture of electrical powered vehicles also depends on oil, for all of the transport of raw materials around the world (not to mention, a functioning international finance system and a functioning international trade system). I don’t see much point in worrying about changing transport to electricity. We need to figure out how to do things without fossil fuel transport–which means walking, pack animals, or sail boats.
A friend of mine who has decades working as an engineer in the oil and gas industry suggested that instead of this pellmell race to burn up fossil fuels – that what we should be doing is conserving the limited amount of conventional fossil fuels for use in key tasks once we hit the wall. Perhaps then we might be able to maintain things like hydro plants.
Of course that will never happen as evidenced by the renewed vigor to get every last drop out of the ground – we frack, rip up Alberta, drill in ever deeper seas.
The time to change course is now – so that there is at least some hope for the future – we will of course not seize the day.
Greed, ignorance and supreme levels of cognitive dissonance prevail
Gail, why assume its health care that is going to bankrupt the government? Maybe it’s “defense” spending or tax subsidies for agribusiness and oil companies that is the drain on our budget. I think a more neutral approach is to indicate that we need to look at what we’re spending our taxes on, and determine our priorities, as we reduce the size of our government to match declining tax revenues.
What I am looking at is the fact that we are already paying out more than we will be able to afford in the future because we made past plans based on growth, and that growth is going away and in fact turning to “shrinkage”. The health care program we are adding is adding more to the total, making it even more unaffordable. We will need huge cuts to government. We will likely need to cut defense spending and tax subsidies and Medicare and Medicaid and a whole lot more. We will likely have to government spending to less than half of what it is today.
Hi Gail, I think we also need to raise taxes on the uber rich, big corporations that aren’t paying their fair share if anything, raise tariffs, raise taxes on corporations that have outsourced our jobs, end all “welfare” for profitable corporations and agribusiness, end crop subsidies, gut the “defense” budget, close our overseas military bases, end foreign aid to Israel & Egypt, end tax deductions for having children etc etc etc.
There are millions of things that need cutting out of the federal budget that won’t happen because the government is corrupt & is in the control of large corporation who are even writing laws & regulations that benefit them! If we had a honest EDUCATED government, things could be better for a while longer but we have too many uneducated, religious fundamentalists that do not act in ways to benefit the country. We need to END all our stupid, illegal, unjust wars & occupations END all immigration, see the writing on the wall & act in an intelligent way that could move us towards a more sustainable & just society.
But that won’t happen, we will continue to favor the powerful while starving the needy & struggle to keep BAU going for a little while longer while we run out of time to make any meaningful changes.
Welcome to our new & shiny police state, what color cell would you like?
I think a lack of taxes on big corporations is a problem. Except for energy companies, most of them can leave the territory where they operate, and thus escape most taxes. It is hard to get around this problem. I am afraid taxing large corporations won’t work, no matter how much it is needed.
I don’t think we can even afford cells in a police state, either. So maybe all the spying won’t lead to much of a result.
Lots of solutions. Corporations may only sell in the US item made in the US. No tax flight. Or any item coming into the US for sale will be taxed X%. Raising X until we have balanced trade and the producer have environmental and labor laws as good as the US. Might require raising X to 800% tax. Can be lowered for production in countries we have balanced trade with and that have environmental and labor laws as good as the US.
Gail, you are exactly right. Less than half. Here in Dutchess County, New York to balance the county budget they just added sales tax to home heating energy (oil, nat gas, not sure about wood). This will increase the rate of people fleeing and result in a new round of tax increases. Oh boy.
Good evening Gail, last week I took part to a meeting under Chatham rules. Nevertheless, it was clearly expressed oil industry is facing a tremendous challenge: US$ 115-117/barrel is the consensus to keeping production at current level of production. As the fields depletion average is by -6%/year, in 2030 approx. 55 mbd has to be filled up with new production… What a huge challenge.
At the moment, it is confirmed several fields are not put on line because higher production prices. The classical example is Arctic sea where it seems exploration and production costs much to expensive and at very high ESG risk. So Shale gas is pushing the production at full power but capex is increasing tremendously and the industry is looking for new demand and new export..
Interesting. Thanks! I hadn’t heard the US$ 115-117 range needed to keep oil production at its current level. Such a range would make sense though. If interest rates go up, the range would need to be higher yet. Consumers would have a hard time living with such high oil prices.
It’s not the price of oil per se, it’s the amount of it available to fuel the excesses of our lifestyle that we see as normal, that is,…A.. the difference between the cost of extracting at the well, and B… the point at which we enjoy the results of burning it.
that ‘gap’ between A and B is what we know as our ‘standard of living’, and within that gap we have to generate sufficient ‘excess wealth’ to buy next year’s oil.
50 years ago, the gap between A and B was far bigger than it is today, we had ‘excess’ oil, we could easily generate all the spare ‘wealth’ necessary to fuel our lifestyle, at least the western industrialised version of it. The gap between A and B got bigger each year, because we kept finding more oil. That was why the livin’ was easy.
We were told that there would always be more oil than last year. We believed that. We had to, because ‘growth’ depended on it.
Unfortunately it wasn’t true, now the gap between A and B is getting smaller each year, which means that our overall standard of living is reducing year on year. It’s why jobs are vanishing and houses (which are blocks of embodied energy) are becoming unaffordable. This is why oil will never ‘run out’, As the gap between A and B closes to zero, we wont have sufficient spare energy to extract what is left in the ground. At that point, our civilised lifestyle is over.
It doesn’t matter how much you pay for oil, it’s the usable excess volume that’s the critical factor.
giving it a cash value is irrelevant
I am an engineer in the oil and gas industry. Now I write here from a Middle East country very close to the “underground illusions” that power our present society.
I strongly share the idea that we are close to a society collapse on the edge of peaking fossils.
I would also like to contribute to this exchange of ideas sharing the 2 things that make me think that the collapse in the future will not be uncontrolled, and the new world that will arise will be far more sustainable than the present one.
1. The first is the communism. I was borne in a communist country of Eastern Europe, I hate with all my being this ideology, but I have to recognize that a centralized economy is more efficient in assuring a global surviving. By contrast it is not able to ensure global prosperity, but this without profits and models of growth based on infinite resources will be obsolete. An equally distributed poorness is more easily accepted even by educated people.
The only thing what needs to be done is to change the term of communism with a different one, as “patriotic rationalism” , then the illusion of freedom of speech and freedom to protest, must be allowed as it is now in Russia for example and It will be enough to preserve state authority.
2. Second is nuclear energy.
I share the ideas of Dr. Barry W. Brook. about the fast reactors. that will be our future source of energy, but I am convinced that this commodity will not be available for everyone in an austere future. The fact that rich countries are not “democratizing” the knowledge of the nuclear energy and don`t encourage the nuclear energy development is the strongest prove
Probably only one of the 7 billion people in the future, will benefit of the nuclear energy “caviar”, and I am convinced that only the “first world” will benefit of this resource, because it has the knowledge and the military power to guard the transition. Population will decrease in the rest of the world, at the levels of XVII century, where in theory a sustainable equilibrium was in place between human and renewable natural resources. The evolution will be harsh but I believe that this scenario is already prepared in the most hidden laboratories of the secret services.
BAU as it is encouraged today, only lets them time to optimize the fall.
“a centralized economy is more efficient in assuring a global surviving.”
I have a strong skepticism to the word “efficient,” and alarm bells go off in my head when I come across most uses of it.
The most “efficient” systems are generally the most brittle and fragile ones. Contrast this to redundant systems, which are resilient, but through duplication, are notably inefficient. A redundant system can be no more than 50% efficient, but has at least twice the survival probability!
So which do we need more these days: economies, governments, and technologies from which duplication of effort has been painstakingly pared away in the interest of “efficiency,” or systems where efficiency is sacrificed for survivability in the event of catastrophe?
I submit that “a centralized economy” is exactly the wrong thing we should be striving towards these days! Rather, we should be working toward a distributed economy, with perhaps many different ways of achieving the same ends. Some of those ways will inevitably be “darwin’d out,” while others may have a chance at surviving. It’s the difference between rolling the dice (or drawing a card) to avoid a number, versus tossing a coin.
I’ll take my chances — and stake humanity’s chances — on inefficient distributed diverse systems, thank you.
Ok, so you suggest that Mad Max on its own, is the key to the future….More Mad Max on their own wondering in the dark will lead to progress? Of course…some of them will be “darwind`d out”, but being so many of them, perhaps others will succeed?
Allow me to disagree…when the ship is sinking individual solutions lead to chaos, while centralized ones (less redundant of course) might succeed or fail miserably. However, it worth’s trying I say…
Defense, nuclear +renewables management, birth control, daily plate of rice and potable water, minimum healthcare, and education will not stay in a world that is not governed any more by profits and market trade. And the small communities of happy hippies will be “waxed out” by hungered huns with their AK 47, even if they will probable succeed in the first place to survive… so allow me to disagree, and learn the lesson of the bee hive…
It takes a lot of energy to maintain a complex system of central authority or a globally linked economy. As the availability of cheap energy declines our system is going to be forced to shed complexity. Decentralization is a given when we can no longer maintain our current central government.
In the absence of oil our global system of economic exchange is not likely to continue. One-size-fits-all solutions, so popular with centralized governments, aren’t likely to work. One could argue that our government is already unable to govern effectively. Our “world”, the part we experience and rely on, will rapidly shrink to our local regions and communities. Interrelations between foreign states and governments will no longer be important. Policing the world will not be possible. How fast the world economy breaks apart will depend on how severe the financial collapse.
We all have different sets of skills and available resources. We live in regions that will be impacted by climate change differently. Demand for food and water will be a greater stress in centers of high population than in rural areas with low populations and good farm land, and small farmers with knowledge of growing food, homeowners with kitchen gardens. Population numbers will decline unevenly based on differences in our ability to acquire food, water, and security.
Even though some areas may resemble the film Mad Max, I don’t think Jan’s point implied that decentralized government necessarily leads to this. I think he is saying that the sooner we start relearning basic skills and trying to solve our own problems the better chance we have to survive this transition. I grant you, high levels of stress and insecurity will lead to periods of insanity and a high death rate that may for a time resemble a Mad Max scenario. But eventually unless humanity is extinct, something not likely to happen anytime soon, some number of humans will survive and live to pick up the pieces on the other side of this transition. Humans are social creatures and we will band together in groups and do as we have always done, establish a set of rules that we agree (out of necessity) to live by.
Thank you for your answer Jody
I have some questions. How did the USA won the WW2? Following a distributed economics model or a centralized one?
Who took the decisions of how many battleships, which type, and where to deploy them? The local communities of the shipyards workers? The labor unions? Or the government of the USA?
What I think it has to be clarified, is that a centralized system also relies on the individual skills. I give only the example of the millions of american women, that forgot the skills of backing blueberry pie, to produce ammunition for the battlefields…
We have to get out of the present time paradigms, in order to accept alternatives.
Try to imagine instead of “Government”, “Council of the wise”, instead of communism “patriotic rationalization” and so on.. Should this be accepted more easily? I believe so…
Of course..at the end everyone needs to participate with his best skills….and the resources need to be distributed with priority to sustainable mechanisms as renewable energy production, nuclear energy and agriculture.
Nowadays renewable and nuclear energy are having a 20% share in the final energy consumption. Used wisely this could sustain many people.
If an average american consumes 300 gigajoules of energy per annum, scaled to 10%, an average american whould be constrained to live, as an average citizen of Republic of Moldova today for example…which is not exactly so bad…even with only 30 gigajoules per annum, they have decent mortality rates and life expectations.
You bring up many good points about what humanity has been able to do in the past when we had the will to do them. Unfortunately, few Americans (or Chinese or Indians or anyone with access to energy) have the desire to cut back on their energy consumption. The world’s leaders can’t even agree on the problems, and we are running out of time to change directions. Climate change scientists say we have to cut back on carbon emissions by 6 to 10% a year starting this year to avoid uncontrollable accelerating climate change. Yet companies are jumping at drilling under the Arctic ocean as the ice melts.
I would very much support any governing body that acted with intelligence and honesty. But I am afraid that we are in such a dire situation that a government would be afraid to tell us the truth. Any cut back in consumption will cause a collapse of our economic system and it would expand to other countries just as the Great Recession did. So we are between a rock and a hard place. I don’t think we have many solutions available even if we could agree on them. I agree with you about Americans cutting back on consumption. Sadly we are finally but only because people have lost good paying jobs and can no longer afford to consume so much.
The earth will not be able to continue feeding 7 billion people much longer, let alone 10 Billion that may be built into the system from population momentum. Sadly, if we continue trying to save lives and feed the hungry it will only allow more children to be born. The fact is that the world is over-populated and resources are finite. Our modern fossil fuel powered system will not last much longer. I cannot see one country or one body of nations forming an agreement on the solutions that might allow us to go through this transition with the least amount of suffering. Our problems are at a different scale than anything we have encountered before.
I’m glad to read your posts. I wish you all the best in whatever Middle Eastern country you live.
Thanks, Jody, for the summary of what I didn’t express so well.
I would not be surprised if some of the new governments that arise are centrally controlled. But without adequate resources, I expect they will have a hard time of it.
I am convinced that nuclear power plants can be built and maintained. These really depend on international trade and long-term financing, things I expect will be harder to come by in the future. Uranium extraction and processing also require a high-tech society.
Did you mean you are NOT convinced that nuclear power plants can be built and maintained? Or do you mean that you think they can be built but may not have the resources to continue operating them?
What we are dealing with is the failure of the political and economic system that we are part of. This means that all aspects of nuclear power plants are not likely to work in the future–we won’t be able to build and maintain them, the financial system we need to finance them won’t work, the money we were counting on for decommissioning them won’t really be available, the ore needed for further operation won’t be available, the electricity transmission lines will not be well enough maintained to be helpful, the back-up power required from conventional power plants in the event of outages like Fukushima won’t be available, the processes required for decommissioning won’t really be available, and a whole host of other problems.
Electricity will leave us, in pretty much the same time-frame that oil leaves us.
Did you leave a “not” out of that last paragraph? Because it seems to fly in the face of much of what you write!
It seems to me that the nuclear industry is nearly as complex as the semiconductor industry, which I believe you say is unsustainable. In its present form, the nuclear industry depends on the semiconductor industry, although I guess we could build command and control systems out of vacuum tubes and relays…
EROI of fast reactors is largely accepted to be over 50. Only the nuclear waste of the military program of the USA would be enough to sustain 150 years of energy consumption at the current rates for the americans. Current reserves of thorium and uranium are pushing this limit to 4000 years. The real problem is how painful would be the transition. And as I previously said, this commodity will not be available for every nation. Strangely in `94 the USA Congress cancelled the fast reactors research program.
Have this continued in secrecy?…Only the future will tell. Anyway, seems that nuclear capability for civil purpose is not something that first world nations are prepared to accept for anyone. Maybe it is better like this..
The control room and the automation of a nuclear plant are not much different of a classical coal plant. The difference is made in redundancy and quality of the hardware.
It is not so important to have fastest CPU and tactile displays….the technology of the `90 is more than sufficient to control the process, therefore, I don`t believe that this would be
the main challenge.
“EROI of fast reactors is largely accepted to be over 50.”
I do not accept that. Please provide references.
The only way to come up with such high numbers is to not include externalities. Decommissioning the Fermi I disaster alone cost more than the value of all the electricity ever produced from all the fast reactors ever made in the US! (And possibly the entire world.) That looks like an ERoEI of less than unity to me. And nobody is counting the people it killed, because they deny cause-and-effect when Phil Harrigan dies of leukemia in his early 50’s, some 18 years after he heroically worked around the clock to keep Detroit from being incinerated by an unplanned criticality.
Even the French, who have the best claim to fast reactor success, never broke even:
If you want to re-phrase your statement as “EROI of fast reactors in theory is estimated to be over 50, assuming everything goes just right, given than no commercial fast reactor has ever broke even,” I’ll accept your statement.
“Strangely in `94 the USA Congress cancelled the fast reactors research program.”
“Strangely?” After the near-Chernobyl at Fermi I, Clinch River’s failure to perform, and the French experience, it seems like a no-brainer to me!
Yea, fast reactors look real good on paper. They have never come anywhere near their potential in practice, using the best minds of six or seven different countries. It’s a little late in the game to revive technology that has had over 50 years to prove itself.
My graph in the previous posting didn’t show up. It compares the expected and actual electricity generation of the French Superphenix fast reactor.
Decommissioning can also be partial, involving the removal of the nuclear fuel and spent fuel, and of the coolant. Of course, the remaining site will not be exactly a playground for children but shall not pose significant risk for the environment or community living nearby. The fast reactors are producing less radioactive waste and the residual products are having low lifetime. In fact the nuclear waste and plutonium of the existing plants can be converted in fuel for the fast reactors.
The nuclear industry was on a learning curve, as any other innovation in technical progress. I am absolute positive that today would be illegal to produce the original “Ford T” because of the safety regulations. The aviation today is extremely safe, but the lessons learned in the past were painful (Comet, Tenerife, Concorde). Many dams collapsed until the design evolved to better safety.
We have to give a chance to the fast reactors. Try not to forget that not only the sodium is suitable for the fast reactor, also lead can be used or molten salts. I believe that being forced to choose between nuclear industry and dark ages, the humanity will chose the first.
If we compare now the investments in research for the oil industry with the investment in research for the nuclear industry we will see that the difference is huge. And by consequence, neglecting the last means also the loss of the specialists and the transition is postponed indefinitely until it might be too late for many countries.
I agree that “largely accepted EROI” is somehow a subjective statement since this criteria is still under debate, but also saying that is less than one is exaggerated. Extrapolating this would lead us to the conclusion that France is consuming more energy with their nuclear plants, than was required for their construction.
They are nowadays producing 60% of their electricity with nuclear energy and don`t seem so unhappy about…
Leben wie Gott in Frankreich ….are germans saying…..
I don’t see EROI making much of any difference on sustainability for the long term. If the systems needed to sustain the nuclear plant are gone, we will have real problems getting any production of any sort out. The calculations are simply numbers on a sheet of paper, regarding a prior system that existed, but is not possible in the future.
“Decommissioning can also be… nuclear waste and plutonium of the existing plants can be converted… humanity will chose the first…”
There’s an awful lot of future tense in there! I think it’s getting pretty late for the “can be” arguments.
“I agree that “largely accepted EROI” is somehow a subjective statement since this criteria is still under debate, but also saying that is less than one is exaggerated. Extrapolating this would lead us to the conclusion that France is consuming more energy with their nuclear plants, than was required for their construction.”
Did you read the paper I referenced? That is exactly what they write! Over its lifetime, the Superphenix produced less than 0.1% of what it was supposed to!
In many ways, nuclear technology follows the “ethanol” model: hide the externalities, because you don’t break even if you include them.
“They are nowadays producing 60% of their electricity with nuclear energy…”
You forgot the word conventional before “nuclear energy.” The fast reactors are through in France, a costly failed experiment on a national level, using their best talent.
Perhaps someone else can do better than the French did, or than the US did, or than Japan did. That’s not something I’d care to stake the future of civilization on!
Experimental Breeder Reactor II, BN-600, Jōyō, CEFR and the lead cooled reactors of the russian submarines didn`t melt an killed anyone. And some of them are having more than 20 years in operation. Today some others are under construction as BN 800, Kalpakkam and Areva just won a contract for MYRRHA.
If Superphenix failed to prove on economical scale, doesn`t mean that all the fast reactors must have in consequence under unit EROI.
I think that fear of the nuclear is a matter of mindset rather than an objective approach. Before working for oil&gas industry, I worked for the design of a Candu 6 reactor for an East European country project . It was enough to convince me that this is our unique and realistic alternative. I migrated to the oil&gas industry, because the nuclear went in the cone of shade, but I would gladly return If I will have the possibility someday.
We are far from telling that all the possibilities of the nuclear technology were explored. Gen V reactors are on the way. I choose to put my bet on it. And if I will have the possibility to help this transition, I will do it with all my best skills. It is my way of believing that I can be a part of the alternatives development. Others might choose to farm cucumbers and basil. It is also good!! At the end we are rejecting the present and hoping to create a better future. “Future tense” is what is aiming our will.
I am afraid I am having a hard time matching up your comment with the comment you think it wrong. But my intent is to say neither of them is sustainable.
I very much doubt we will be able to run nuclear plants – the bigger concern would be being able to maintain and/or shutdown existing plants – the concern would be that we cannot and we have hundreds of Fukashimas running out of control
A couple of things:
How would there be centralized control when there is no energy? Control generally = force. Governments will not have the resources to maintain large armed forces – I think what is more likely is a return to small communities – hopefully democratic in nature but if we look back at the middle ages we had kingdoms – often brutal, never democratic.
As for nuclear energy how are we going to run such things when the world around us is collapsing into a state of mass starvation and food riots?
If anything nuclear plants will be the end of us – because as others have suggested – we can’t even contain Fukushima – imagine what happens when we don’t have the resources to operate existing plants? They will all blow sky high.
And finally, the biggest concern I have is that fact that fossil fuels are what allowed us to reach a population of 7B+ —- and they allow us to feed most of those people.
When the tap is shut off for the reasons explained very well in this article – imagine the mayhem. Billions upon billions looking for food – where will it come from? Converting industrial farms back to organic producing would take years.
We don’t have years.
I have bought two organic farms – one in a warm climate in Asia – another in BC Canada – but the more I think about these two hedges the more I am thinking they will not offer any protection.
How many millions will be flooding into the countryside looking for food?
We really are so very much screwed – and when the printing stops the house of cards will fall
Paul, how are you managing your two farms? Do you jet back and forth between them? Do you see such a strategy as a “bet hedge,” or might it be a dilution of your effort? Do you plan to end up at whichever looks like it’s doing the best? Might it then be too late to “change places?”
I have enough time focusing on one farm. I can’t imagine how you manage… but perhaps I simply lack imagination…
Hi Jan – I am really struggling with what to do – particularly after reading this excellent analysis.
My business is in Hong Kong but I can work remotely.
We live on the place here in Indonesia and would prefer to remain here – but my concern would be that when times get very tough foreigners will not be welcome. Labour is inexpensive here so I have some guys running the small farm (about 1 acre at present – could be expanded)
Hence the purchase of 20 acre BC property in the interior – I hold a CDN passport. If we couldn’t stay here my wife and I would relocate. The property in BC is mainly orchard with lots of berries and a good spring water supply (I had it inspected by an experienced organic farmer before buying). I will spend this summer there and work with the farmer on a proper organic plan for the property… I may consider renting the place to someone who wants to establish a small farm.
So those are the hedges – I also have gold stashed in a couple of secure places.
Will they work? I am increasingly skeptical – I agree with this article that once this current bubble bursts energy will be scarce because we will no longer be able to pay for the expensive extracting techniques (Kuntsler and Heinberg both deal with this issue extensively as well
No cheap energy means no food because industrial farming requires food. Which means if I am in BC the hordes will be flooding from the cities looking for food…
And come winter they will be needing warmth so say good bye to all the trees – as pointed out pre-industrial revolution that was already a problem – and now we have many billions more needing warmth and something to cook over.
See Greece – many are already chopping down trees to keep warm in winter because they cannot afford other heating sources.
So I am not so sure BC will be the answer – assuming we can get there when this busts
In the Bali mountains where we live (and where I type from) the weather is warm – the soil outstanding (I think the island could feed itself on organic crops – although there is a lot of non-organic rice farming…) – there is plenty of rain and an agrarian culture.
But there is the issue of being allowed to stay.
I am left wondering – when this hits do we head off to BC assuming we may not be able to get there later….. or do we just hold tight in Indonesia and hope we are allowed to stay.
Reducing the world from 7 billion to a more manageable number is a frightful thought – I am inclined to believe that there will be no good hedges.
So perhaps the best attitude to take is to enjoy the period of stability that remains. We have been doing a heck of a lot of traveling the past couple of years because we are of the opinion that will likely be not possible in the near future.
I hear ya….I was in the corporate world and now am a journeyman electrician doing a lot of solar work. I live in the cold northwest and I wonder what happens when all the trees are cut down here…my area has grown immensely do to cheap energy and I have worked on a lot of large houses with poor energy design but even Bill Gates needs his heated driveway here….hard to justify that when it is -20 much less any other time….. I am thinking of moving to a warmer climate but want to stay in my country because of the instability that will ensue and possible scapegoating..it is all a toss-up Indonesia has a lot of people per capita when resources become scarce it does not matter how much gold you have….maybe google the fall of the British empire and see how those people fared in their respective places….best of luck sounds like you are knowledgeable of what is going on… I like to show people this cartoon http://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webcomic-2/….. Danny
House of cards is a good analogy.
For those not familiar with the term, a “house of cards” is a structure made by stacking playing cards together on their edges. The slightest push or breeze can knock the structure over.
Gail I am wondering about interest rates…..if they go up won’t that make it easier for the government to repay its debt….is it really a bad thing to let the rates rise? Or would this be the start of more problems to come….What is the correlation between interest rates and oil—–do oil prices necessarily have to rise with interest rates? It seems like MSM is preparing us for this event. Maybe Steve from Virginia can chime in as it seems like he has a good understanding of this as well. Thanks Danny
Thanks for the cartoon – Huxley’s won out so far… but I suspect the fangs will be on show by the people who really control the US government when things fall apart and people lash out… we’ve already had a taste of what is to come with the pepper spraying of peaceful protestors last year.
This excellent article ties into the control issues and where things are headed (at least in the US) http://www.theburningplatform.com/2013/12/09/may-the-odds-ever-be-in-your-favor-hope-defiance/
One has to wonder if this is preparation by the authorities for what is coming:
As much as I hope we’d regroup in small self-sufficient communities – the fact that there are 7 billion people on the planet leads me to conclude that a ‘mad max’ scenario is the more likely outcome
The biggest issue will be feeding all these people – and without cheap energy that is absolutely impossible.
“As much as I hope we’d regroup in small self-sufficient communities – the fact that there are 7 billion people on the planet leads me to conclude that a ‘mad max’ scenario is the more likely outcome…”
Keep in mind the “rule of threes:” you can live three minutes without air, three hours without shelter (in a hazardous situation), three days without water, three weeks without food.
This means that the “mad max” scenario has a limited time span, especially if it happens because transportation breaks down. There are only so many starving people who can show up at your door in a local crisis.
More worrisome would be fiefdom armies, General Sherman eating his way around the countryside. Even that can only last for a growing season.
Thanks for another great article. So happy you could find time to publish during the busy holiday season.
I always think now that each Christmas could be our last.
Happy holidays to all.
Dear Mrs Tverberg, many thanks again for your insights. Since your are an actuary, your pessimism is probably well-grounded, but still very concerning.
Do you not think a transition to a non-fossil based economy with a much smaller world population might not be managed somehow ?
Without cheap oil, I would guess we would have to revert to an economy equivalent to the one we had around 1900. There were about 1.5 billion people then. Now we have 7 billion. But looking at Japan, predictions are that their population in 2100 will be about the same number as in 1900. Many western countries (Italy, Germany) are on the same trajectory already.
Would we not have enough reserve capacity in energy to last us these 2 generations ?
Problem is many of the resources of 1900 such as soil, forests, rivers and lakes are now depleted or polluted and virtually no one alive today has the necessary skill sets to operate circa 1900 technology.
Is that correct? It depends on where the population would live, as we now do have resources for 7 billion. They will not suffice, of course, if we run out of cheap oil, but they would perhaps for 1.5 billion.
As for 1900 technology that no one would be able to operate, perhaps you underestimate human adaptibility ?
My point is that the collapse might take place much slower than the Mad Max scenarios some on this forum are alluding to. If it would take 1-2 generations, it might be possible.
The problem would be that we do not have enough time for that, but this forum has not yet provided the data showing that that is the inevitable outcome.
I am afraid that the outcome will be worse than you are expecting. My expectation is that we would have to fall back to a population level lower than 1.5 billion. We aren’t set up to do what people were doing in 1900, any more. Even at that point, we were using a lot of coal. Before that, we were having a lot of trouble with deforestation. Current population predictions for 2100 are based on a scenario that can’t really happen.
“Economy’ in current parlance is an abstraction. It is an artifact of having a lot of surplus and then finding a means to distribute that surplus. If the surplus does not exist, the “economy” does not either.
The trick you have to accomplish in creating a system which works sustainably is to live within the boundaries of what nature provides, augmented by what you can do to more efficiently harvest that energy, and then leave more than you take out of the system.
Has to be reworked from the ground up. That is what we are engaged with on SUN,
If I read this right, QE and zero interest rates have been postponing the crash until now. They try to avoid the deflationary chain reaction at all cost. You also bring up the possible end of this support.
If the economic policy of Japan – one of the top 5 economies of the world – proves anything, it seems a rather safe bet that QE won’t end, but will turn into overdrive. Yes there will be crash in the end anyway, but I’m interested in how we get there.
I am too slowrider. My question is happens to stop QE? I know that back in May 2013 the Fed broached the topic of tapering and one result was the 10 year treasury rate rose to close to 3%, and at that point Bernanke retracted the idea of tapering. The reason why (which you probably already know) is because the Fed is trying to keep interest rates low on the 10 year so banks do not turn QE into investments in 10 year bonds, but instead have a greater incentive to lend to people for business and home purchases. Why the Fed simply doesn’t require a certain minimum percentage of QE funds received (that are paid for usually at .25%) by the banks to in turn be lent out, I do not understand.
Your statement that QE won’t end, seems to be what a lot of experts think as well because of the above scenario. Once QE tapers the stock market will correct but more importantly interest rates will rise reducing the amount of loans being issued, reducing GDP/growth, and the amount paid on the US long term debt will rise too. Higher interest rates will also cause more defaults. Part of QE is to monetize the debt by reducing the value of the dollar and I keep wondering if that in itself is the overriding reason the Fed is set on more QE.
What I can’t figure out and have never read or heard a coherent explanation of is what causes QE to have to stop (overriding the Fed’s desire to QE)? Gail, do you have an idea?
For one thing, too much QE takes up too much of US debt, leaving little to be used a collateral for other types of loans.
Another issue is that when it come time to unwind, the selling will need to be done, instead of buying. The amount of selling would ridiculously affect markets. So perhaps it is best to stop earlier than later.
Yes this is interesting. I think you mentioned some of the real reasons for QE. Another one would be that international demand for treasuries is declining while the trade deficit remains high, and the Fed has to jump in ever more. It might also be the international bond market who crashes (not really ends) QE. When foreign investors stop supporting US debt because it is no longer in their interest, the game will be exposed and the dollar is finished, first as world reserve currency and soon as currency itself.
It is kind of funny to tell banks “you have to lend more into the real economy”. Well, if nobody wants to invest (except for housing at low interest rates) that is a little difficult. Corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, waiting what to do.
Yes, many ask “How long can this go on?”
JM Greer has the concept of a LONG DESCENT, saying it will take decades. And that it happens individually. Someone loses a good job and has difficulty finding a good one again, so for him collapse has already happened. That’s how it will start anyway, like in Greece, Portugal: life goes on very normal considering 30-50% unemployment.
I think the collapse has in some sense already started, as well. The question is what shape it takes from here. He is looking back generally at past collapses. I am not sure how much of the modern research he has looked at. I don’t think he is taking into account the interdependencies that we have today that we didn’t have in the past. In particular, electricity is essential for a lot of processes. Once that goes, we are in very tough shape. Roads are essential for any kind of vehicle. Some of our roads will last for a while, but bridges are likely to be washed out in not too many years, leading to loss of long distance travel, without fording rivers. The international trade we have now, especially going into making high tech goods like computers, mean that they likely can’t be made for long. So computerized processes are gone for manufacturing, within a few years even if we have electricity.
Rising interest rates would be enough to do it. Or defaulting on our debt.
Japan has been able to get away with excessive borrowing longer than a person would ever think might be possible, so that does raise the possibility that things can go on for a while.
Hi Gail, I have also wondered about Japan and about how long they put on their QE. Program.
Kind of like to project an artificial economy, Wizards in charge…
Do you think the US and the Euro zone can do this for like nearly 20 years like Japan?
I would say yes. Perhaps the status Qou can last another generation or so.
We can do it for a long time maybe longer than Japan which stared earlier, the reason why is that we still hold the world reserve currency, the US Dollar. But we are also walking on an ice pond.
I am still confused whether inflation or deflation will take the main stage?
Either deflation, or a completely missing financial system. The latter could happen because the government disappears (similar to the Former Soviet Union).
Hello Gal,Interesting a new system will surely be in place awaiting to replace the old one?
Most likely not a good deal for us trading in our old money for a new “money”.
Back thousands of years ago, the equivalent of general stores ran tabs for individuals, giving them credit for what they brought in, and charging them for what they took out. In doing this, they converted everything to a common basis, say bushels of wheat. This could easily be done again. The problem is that the choice of goods one gets is very limited. There is no way that such a system will lead to the creation of a computer or other high tech device using raw materials from all over the world, for example. Instead, such a system gives you only local goods made with local materials. This is the problem.
One theory proposes that the core, today being the US, is the last to collapse. So far this seems to be true as Japan and EU look even shakier than the US.
Will the US be the last to fall?
Hi Gail and all I would still argue that deflation would be the end result if not for the Fed and World Central banks like in the EU injecting so many new digits…
They are able to make inflation and they have the ability to direct money into public hands if they wish, thus far they have not really done so except for the low mortgage rates.
Remember those checks Bush sent out to all Americans from Bush. They can write them for any amount and that money would be inflationary if they went that route and I think that is their only choice after they try to taper the fed bond buys and see the economy crater.
I think that so far the inflation has been exported overseas and also into the bond and stocks.
All and all I think we had a pretty good 2013 compared to the possible outlooks we have studied that are down the road a ways (I hope).
Thanks Gail. So once the Fed has bought up all that dubious paper, they must at some point go about the business of selling it. That will be interesting.
Yes, like Japan this could go on for a while, but it seems the longer it goes on the higher the crest of the wave must rise and extend before crashing. Not meaning collapse, but certainly asset bubbles bursting.
They don’t care how deep the fall will be, their job is to postpone it. Look at former East Germany or Greece. The old powers stayed in place as long as possible. But when they had to default, just in time they put some unknown technocrats in place to make the tough announcements, who were immediately replaced by a new government making a “new start”.
I think you’ve hit on the operative word, postpone. Print fiat, borrow from ourselves, whatever it takes.
In my opinion and also in the opinion of Mr. Heinsohn (https://blog.malik-management.com/stand-der-deflation/) we have only seen the start. I try to summarize the article from Mr. Heinsohn.
What has happened up to now?
1. Zero-Interest (first 1996 in Japan) – this makes positions in wealth and assets with low interests profitable. This first step insured the artificial creation of markets and the upward driving of asset prices (which – by the way – secure debt).
2. „Forward guidance“ (first 1999 in Japan) – the public promise of a long-term low- or zero-interest period, so that everyone can happily and risk-free participate in (1.)
3. „Quantitative easing“ (first 2001 in Japan) – the purchase of bonds and mortgages by the central banks, so that their value stays above the market price. Also to assure that these are still accepted as securities for debts and their value stays at least constant.
4. „Qualitative easing“ – the acceptance of unsellable papers assets (bonds, etc.) for their nominal value – so that private and national central banks get fresh liquidity (a special discipline of the southern EU states)..
Thats whats done… first Japan, then the US – and at last the EU.
This is all done to avoid a lower price of real- and paper assets. Then those are often the security for debt. If the asset prices fall, debts can’t be repaid and the balances of the under capitalized banks, the pumped-up markets, etc. implode. What would be a normal event (debt deflation) – isn’t normal now – because this event got pushed ahead to long now. It would implode the whole global system.
Brilliant summation! Sobering to see it laid out so baldly.
Gail, you wrote: “Clearly one of the requirements that an economy has, is that it needs to be wealthy enough to afford the government services that it has agreed to. Scaling back those government services is one option, but when these services are really needed because citizens are getting poorer and finding it harder to find a good-paying job, this is hard to do. The other option, unfortunately, seems to be collapse.”
Looks like we are headed for another battle in Feb. for keeping all our commitments vs. cutting back to come closer to balancing the budget. We over committed during cheap oil times, and now it’s logical to cut back, but, ah yes, alas, if they cut back too much many people will suffer and if there are too many people suffering it can always lead to unrest, and power hungry politicians don’t like that because it possibly endangers their livelihood and golden parachute. What a conundrum as eroei continues its inexorable downward march.
You are right. I am worried about February as well.
Hello for you that are fans of: Glen Campbell – Wichita Lineman – this is the live video I had meant to send you all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFCuBLAjXo
We need strong people out there working to maintain these systems, do not under estimate them they will surprise you in time of crisis as to their abilities to deal with emergencies.
If we run short on money, fuel etc. then we can only hope for able folks to deal with the emergencies, aside from the Giant Star Ships arriving to move us to our new garden planet. But seriously there are many strong able folks out there that is why I do not see a sudden collapse.
I do see our future full of band aid fixes, moving from crisis to crisis but hopefully limping along.
A lot of people have been comparing the great financial crisis to the great depression of the 1930s. While reading Gail and quite a few others in the “alternative” narrative blogsphere, I am becoming more convinced the great financial crisis is actually a mirror image of the great depression. Much like James Howard Kunstler gave us the vocabulary to describe the tragedy that is suburbia, what we need now is a blending of these alternative narratives to develop a vocabulary for the emerging physics/chemistry/thermodynamics-based economics to counter Keynesianism. With inputs from this great author (Gail), and the likes of Herman Daly, Tad Patzek, and Tom Murphy on the technical side, and observers like Kunstler and John Michael Greer on the philosophical side, I’d like to see new resource-constrained modern economic theories injected into the discourse of the early 21st century.
I think your’s is a good phrase: “resource-constrained modern economic” theory. I’d like to have taken that class circa 1984-1988. As it was, the econ classes I took seemed to be like trying to quantify the supenatural. Drawing graphs of things thatcould not be reliably predicted (human behavior that comprises “markets”) seemed to be a waste of time to me.
Alan Greenspan finally wised up in 2008. https://www.google.com/search?q=alan+greenspan+i+made+a+mistake&oq=alan+greenspan+i+made+a+mistake&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.29559j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
That link may not work.
Anyway, Alan Greenspan walked the corridors of power for almost 20 years as Chairman of the Fed. Too bad he didn’t start ‘fessing up to his human shortcomings until after his tenure was over. He ‘fessed up in his 2007 book (right smack dab in the middle) that the second war on Iraq was about oil (he didn’t mention “defense” contractor profits) and finally eschewed Ayn Rand in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY
I would agree with you, but I am not sure if we will have long enough for these discussions to even go on.
Our ability to discuss these issues depends on the continued availability of the Internet, and political systems that allow free expression of views different from what the political establishment is espousing. It is not clear how long we will have our current capability of discussing these issues.
Hello Lindon, I Agree with you they are not telling us the truth about the state of the world. Correct that no politician speaks of doom and advocating ending reducing world trade to conserve oil would get elected. Only those that promise things like free health care will be in office as they cater to a more and more Nanny State.
madronehill1 — I see the attempt to provide “free” health care to everybody as setting the stage for the “new world order” that is just down the road a ways. I’m not one of those that believe economic collapse will bring on total chaos and disintegration of civilization — at least, not in America. The American military is too strong, too disciplined, and I guarantee you that they are making plans to deal with collapse. Those plans, I’m sure, involve martial law and population control. The widget factories will be shut down. The ships bringing exotic items from halfway around the world will rust in port. The hundreds of millions of personal cars and trucks will burn their last drops of fuel and remain where they sit until they are hauled away and melted down for other purposes. The military and security structures including militarized police will suppress riots, facilitate command economy decisions, eliminate instigators and provide material support. The military WILL maintain guaranteed sources of oil and fossil fuel energy, far into the future. Masses of unemployed will be organized into local community work groups to grow food, restore the environment, and other work projects. Millions of elderly and feeble and sick will pass into eternity, deprived of their medicines and specialty treatments and critical care. Billions of barrels of oil annually will be conserved on a world-wide basis. The remaining fossil fuels will be distributed in command-economy style to keep basic community needs (water, electricity, public transportation, limited commerce) going. Radio, television and internet will be converted to highly regulated government educational and informational (propaganda) broadcasts. Porn and pop-ups and commerce will disappear from the internet — millions of web servers will be shut down forever, conserving vast amounts of energy, and providing unlimited replacement part supplies to keep critical computer systems operational. Medical care will still exist in this new world order and it will be FREE and provided by the government, because there won’t be any insurance companies — the “for profit” medical system will end. Yes, we’ll have much less medical options available, but on the plus side, individuals who are so weak or ill that they serve no use to society will not be artificially kept alive for years and years, at unbearable expense to society. I see the ACA — backed by the supreme court, an idea originally proposed by Republicans and one implemented by Romney, and one that enjoys elite support whether they publicly state so or not — as the prelude to the “free” socialist medical system that we will have in the not too distant future. All pure speculation on my part, of course…:-)
I agree with your “Nothing to gain, everything to lose” statement regarding U.S. leader’s non-discussion of fossil fuel power-down but this post is far too speculative.
The future of humanity could be better than you portend. It could be worse. It could be not extant at all due to asteroid impact or what have you. No one knows the future.
Knowledgeable people know that the technological systems of civilization are irreversibly using up the limited natural material resources, including the fossil fuels. They know that is an unsustainable process. Consequently, they know the demise of the infrastructure in the future is certain. But we do not know how people will cope with the loss of the goods and services the infrastructure currently provides
OK, you’re right — it was very speculative. Except about the part where the military and militarized police force(s) ARE planning to implement strict population control when collapse arrives. And except about the part where the for-profit medical system will cease to exist, as will the greedy rapacious health insurance companies that are a significant component of that for-profit system. I still believe that the move toward “medical insurance (read: treatment) for all” is a part of a grander long term strategy that has significant support, despite all the right-wing/left-wing bickering — but THAT IS pure speculation.
you live in a pretty scary world- I’m glad we have free at the point of delivery health care, few guns and diminishing armed forces, and it is something that our imperfect democracy has voted for.
Although I’m not sure about the “New World Order” stuff, I agree about most that you say. Centralized state control in a severe crisis will be accepted by most poeple. Resources will be confiscated in the name of national security. I don’t know why to believe in local farming as an option. It is much more likely that some kind of command economy will take over and continue our industrial agriculture.
I agree that after collapse, in a command-economy, industrial agriculture will continue to be used, along with all the oil-based pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers that must be dumped onto the land in huge quantities to support industrial agriculture. But I firmly believe that long term, the trend will be to move away from industrial agriculture and all of the oil-based inputs that are required, toward a more localized and community-based system of productive organic farming. I personally grow all my own stuff, well mostly, and find it much better tasting, always organic and much healthier. It doesn’t even take a lot of land — but you have to know how to preserve and have the capabilities to do so. Read “Mini Farming” by Brett L. Markham — he tells you how to do it. Look for people who survive the collapse to quickly come to the same conclusion — they can grow their own and be more self-reliant and healthy.
I think that by doing this, the façade of democracy will be no more. It’s a dangerous path, because from this type of change to a fullblown dictatorship is a possible outcome. If you are not a democracy, you can’t blame your opponents if they topple you by force.
The feeling of moral superiority will no longer be a weapon used to attack non-democracies by those in power, nor their ideas.
The pandora’s box will be opened.
The problem is paying for the governmental system. We can’t pay for our governmental system now. I don’t see how we will be able to pay for such an elaborate system in the future. Adding ACA is going to make paying for our current governmental system even more difficult, so pushes the system toward collapse, in my view.
Hello, I have been watching the government expand in recent years adding all of these new federal agency names mostly “three letter agencies” and the tax base is not growing fast enough to support this type of big government.
Just look how huge this has gotten…
Many if not most of them KNOW what is happening, what is coming, but they are not going to voice their fears in a public forum for pretty much the exact same reason the Nazis wouldn’t as described above. Nothing to gain, everything to lose.
U.S. politicians also have learned the lesson that Jimmy Carter learned in April of 1977 when he gave the “moral equavlent of war” speech just four months after his inauguration.
He told the American people that ending our dependence on foreign oil was the “moral equivalent of war.” He put solar hot water heaters on the White House and turned down the thermostat as an example to the nation.
In response, the nation elected a Hollywood actor to tell them to buy a bigger truck and go shopping because, “It’s morning in America!” Reagan defunded NREL, ripped down the solar panels and turned up the thermostats immediately after inauguration.
For a politician, there’s nothing to be gained by telling Americans the truth.
I am afraid you are right. Politicians have nothing to gain by telling the truth.
As was said of the unscrupulous Indian leader Mrs Ghandi: ‘She never knowingly told the truth’.
Hello Gail, Thanks for another comprehensive article. That seems to sum things up, just like it take something like 20 days to catch the same amount of fish using the same boat that could be caught in only one day about 100 years ago. The lower grade ores and oil deposit will take more energy and it is surely slowly degrade and decrease production making things scarce. I do hope that world oil production chart that portrays that deep decline in the next twenty years is wrong.
I read articles like the one I linked below about expanding world trade which would lengthen already too long supply lines. It seems like the big push is to create a more globalized economy, but instead we should be moving the opposite direction and shortening our supply lines.
It seems like the world today is speeding ever faster towards the cliff of UN-sustainability and an eventual collapse looks like sometime in the first half of this century it appears to me.
The “Simple Village Lifestyle” using permaculture etc. that Don, Jan, Xabier and Jody etc and many of us have discussed – using mostly only local items is not being embraced by the world currently. Instead the world has embraced and ever expanding global trade. In the simple village lifestyle some things could still be imported, but all the the “junk” that we get today. Things like coffee and tea and certain healing herbs could be imported much as the way they were old days. Our supply line is too long for most of the goods we buy. We send the raw materials across the world and finished products are returned back across the sea. The world does not yet see any problem with energy or other finite resources, Exxon commercials touting growing supplies from new sources etc.
I agree that a “Simple Village Lifestyle” is probably the one that makes the most sense in the absence of cheap oil to transport goods around the world. It not be easy, however, for large urban city dwellers to move or desert regions to grow their own food without land, good soil or water. We definitely need smaller localized economies but there are many people for whom this will not be an option if collapse happens rapidly.
I am probably dreaming, but I am hoping that we can downsize our large Federal government without a revolution and revert more decision making back to smaller local governments. It will be easier for smaller groups to govern their own individual situation because one size fits all solutions are likely to apply everywhere. People will certainly make mistakes, but better to make a decision and do something than waffle in confusion.
I noticed you have a different login name with new picture. Nice to see what you and your wife look like.
Hi Jody and All, Yes it is still the same Scott – I had to set up that new account put up our photo and that is our picture my wife Tessie and our little cute little dog Maple from last summer during those wonderful warm days, snow on the ground here now! No sign of global warming here today with the temps in the 20’s for the high of the day. So it is cold over a large area this winter here, that does not mean that the planet is cooling, We will have to look at the ice melt maps next summer to see if the ice form on the poles more this year.
My new login name is named after a cabin in California we used to have we called it Madrone hill because it had lots of Madrone Trees there. We sold the place in order to move to Oregon a few years ago, it was a place that I had in order to go to in case of bad times, but we sold it because we decided better to head north into the wilds of Oregon… Although we live small town but has been nice so far. I just worry that too many people even here depend on the government, I am one of them to a point since I get a government pension from my nearly 30 year job working in a courthouse collecting taxes.
I have been reading this old book Lonesome Dove and I am like page 500 and it is a 1000 page book, pretty good book it is fiction but like many books of the old west it describes folks living in the elements walking of across great open places sometimes in snow and rain and soak clothes cold to the bone or dry to the bone looking for water. They were some pretty tough folks in those days out there, not to mention the Indians they best suited to live on the wild lands. I wonder if we are going back to that again in our future.
I was thinking about something Gail said about how fragile our power grids and systems we use and I had come across a really good version of this old song from 1970 called Wichita Lineman – by Glen Campbell. It is true our power grids would not survive more than a winter or two without constant attention and maintenance, availability of spare parts. A financial collapse like we almost saw in 2008 almost brought down the system. I think the next financial emergency will be worse and I have followed this for years. Since the fed has inflated its balance sheet so far and I wonder how long they can keep adding zeroes before we see problems with inflation or just deflation due to inability to pay the higher prices for scarce commodities.
For any interested….Here is the link to that great Glen Campbell live video from 1970 —
I think you are right. The push is for longer supply lines in a more globalized economy. No one wants to tell the truth.
Reblogged this on Orcop: A Connected Community?.
So you don’t see US shale oil as a game-changer? WSJ had a report recently on US oil glut. WTI moved up a bit the last few days after dropping to low $90s after US shale oil companies are selling off as media is full of stories about the oil glut and coming low prices.
Jeffrey Currie from GS writes, the boom in U.S. shale oil output should keep oil prices in the US low and lead to a “substantial acceleration” in its economic activity.
Stronger U.S. growth will lead the Federal Reserve to scale back its monetary support, which is likely to strengthen the dollar. That should put pressure on emerging market demand by making oil and other commodities priced in the greenback more expensive for users of other currencies.
Weaker oil demand growth in countries including China and India should help keep markets well supplied, limiting inflation in developed countries.
“This new emerging commodity cycle is the exact opposite of the ‘super cycle’ where weak U.S. economic growth, exacerbated by a lack of domestic energy supplies and conflicts in key commodity-producing regions, helped facilitate more accommodative monetary policy,” Currie said.
“U.S. policy reinforced emerging market demand growth and a weaker U.S. dollar, which largely offset the higher oil and commodity prices to emerging market countries,” in the last decade.
Ultimately, the reversed trend will lead emerging market economies to “shift from being consumers to producers”, Currie said forcing countries such as China to follow the U.S. path in tapping unconventional resources.
Like the man said, “If you close the door on reality, it comes in through the window”; “real life” will answer these questions.
Mark if you look at the background of these so called reporters…. one has a degree in History and the other in English Literature but they are from Ivy league schools so that means daddy probably got them their jobs but we are supposed to read their stories as the gospel truth!! What industry can take someone with no knowledge or experience in a particular field and make them an expert? Danny
I wrote a post on a little bit broader topic recently–It is Our Oil Problems are Not Over. Basically, high oil prices cause financial problems, like the ones that lead to low wage growth and the need for super-low interest rates. But we can’t get the shale oil out without these high oil prices and super low interest rates. If interest rates go up, everything falls apart, from oil production to our ability to buy houses and cars.
There are some details I didn’t get into in that post either. Oil from shale formations is very “light”. It doesn’t produce much diesel, which is what we are short of.
Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t “light” oil the “good stuff”? I thought that “light” was better than “heavy” oil.
Can you tell me the basic difference betweem them?
the stuff coming out of the ground in the ‘Oil Shale’ is gas with some Very light liquids like propane and things slightly less volatile that they call liquids but used to be called gas. The stuff from the Tar sands are tar, and combining the two make a sludge that will flow in a pipe to a refinery that can break some of it down to gas and use the volatile liquids as a fuel source. While ‘true’ light oil is actually oil, and the lack of sulphate is what makes oil ‘sweet’, the stuff from the shale is not oil as you or I would understand it.
Let me start out by explaining what petroleum is. Everywhere petroleum is found, it is a mixture, ranging from very short chain hydrocarbon molecules to very long chain hydrocarbon molecules. The very shortest molecules are Methane (with only one carbon molecule), which is the primary component of Natural Gas.
The next longer molecules with about 2 to 5 carbon atoms make up natural gas liquids. Natural gas liquids are gases at room temperature, but become liquids when chilled enough. They are known by the names ethane, propane, butane, and pentane. These are often used as fuels, and as input for making plastics.
The next longer hydrocarbon chains are ones that are liquids at room temperature–those with about 5 to 19 carbon atoms. Those with 5, 6 or 7 carbon atoms are very light, easily vaporized liquids called naphthas. These are used as dry cleaning fluid and as paint solvents. The chains with 7 to 11 carbon molecules are blended together and used for gasoline. Chains with 12 to 15 carbon atoms are used for kerosine and for diesel fuel. Those with 15 to 20 length carbon chains are used as lubricating oils and semi-solid greases.
Chains with more than 20 carbons are solids at room temperature. They range from paraffin wax, to asphalt, to bitumen.
When we first started drilling for oil in the US, some of the mixtures we found were heavy on the carbon chains in the 7 to 11 range. These are the carbons that could be used directly for gasoline, with little need for refining. If there weren’t too many pollutants like sulphur, all the refiner really needed to do was separate the gasoline, and sell it in its original form. Oil that was heavy on chains in with 7 to 11 hydrocarbons, and didn’t have much sulphur polluting the mixture, were known as “light, sweet oil”. In the US, we built cars to use gasoline, because our wells produced a lot of light sweet oil, and this light, sweet oil in turn produced a lot of gasoline.
As time went on, we discovered that it was possible to get better mileage using diesel than gasoline. Refiners also figured out how to “crack” long molecules to make shorter molecules, so the preference for light sweet oil went away, except in the cases where a particular refinery was set up only to handle only light sweet oil. In fact, now there is almost a preference for heavy oils, because (1) heavy oils are available more cheaply, (2) they make more diesel, and other products that are more in demand than gasoline now, and (3) refiners can make more money refining these oils than they can the light sweet oils. In addition (4) US natural gas sells for less than in other countries, so US refineries have a price advantage when it comes to refining very heavy oils into products such as diesel.
At this point, gasoline is not as much in demand for a variety of reasons including the fact that (1) a lot of young people don’t have jobs, so can’t afford cars, (2) the cars that are built are more fuel efficient, and (3) ethanol is substituting for about 10% of gasoline use.
A major problem with oil from shale formations such as the Bakken and Eagle Ford is that this oil is producing many hydrocarbons with short chains in the range of 2 to 6 carbons. These chains are not good for powering our vehicles. We don’t have an economic process for making longer chains out of short chains–that is the wrong direction–we can go from long to short, but not from short to long. So in that sense, oil from the shale formations is “too light”–it is too close to a gas. The data doesn’t really distinguish how much of crude oil is “condensate” which is the very light stuff, so if inventories are building, we can’t tell whether the excess is in the very short chains that are in low demand.
Thanks for that, Gail!
It’s all information I have seen elsewhere, but I’ve never seen it put together so succinctly.
Thanks for clearing it up for me.
Awesome summary, Gail. You have a great talent for that. One addition:
“Natural gas liquids are gases at room temperature, but become liquids when chilled enough.”
Don’t know about the other two examples, but butane and propane are often compressed, rather than “chilled,” to convert them to “storable” liquids that are used as fuels. I sent this to a couple of friends who are intelligent but not scientific with an asterisk that included “or compressed.”
I wish our so-smart media moguls cared enough to EXPLAIN things to at least this extent. The general population, I think, is not really stupid at all — just often ignorant due to lack of even basic instruction in such matters that they never “studied in school.” A television media that were more than pure entertainment might very well serve to edify the general population to a very beneficial end. People, most people, simply do not “appreciate” the pickle we are in. They don’t know how to.
The archiving of The Oil Drum was sad in that respect. I often referred friends to articles or Drumbeat comments there, during discussions in which I had not the knowledge to edity, but a contributor at TOD most certainly did. You are “filling” in that gap to some extent, but I miss the “gang.”.
That makes sense. Oil price is high enough and technology is keeping costs low enough for shale producers producing flat out. Low interest rate also helps marginal projects. Ban on US oil exports, low demand and infrastructure bottlenecks have created divergences where Brent is at 110, WTI at 97, Bakken at 84 and WCS at 65. I know you are talking about years down the road but we have localized gluts. Emerging market economies are struggling and Libya, Iraq and Iran are off-line. Once they start exporting Brent may fall. I wonder what that will do to WTI and WCS. Personally I don’t see QE ending anytime soon as households keep on de-leveraging.
Just a quick look at Wikipedia – as of 2010 it gives the following ranking for oil exporting countries:
That may have changed a bit, but “off-line”?
Technology is keeping costs low enough? Only finance is keeping shale producers producing–for now. Take a look at this table. If a well is at least $6M, then the marginal costs of oil productions are extremely high. $1B in additional wells per month for about 1M additional barrels
It probably helps to have optimistic auditors and lenders who will provide ever-more debt. At some point, the treadmill stops. If interest rates rise, or if oil prices drop a bit, that could be enough to push the system over.
Also, I do have an interview up now on my Presentations/Podcasts page, done by Chris Martenson. He titled the interview, “The Shale Oil Boom is More Mirage than Miracle.”
http://davecoop.net/seneca.htm has a graph & equation for a hypothetical “Seneca curve” of world crude oil production.
Thanks! Yes, I know you sent it to me. It is based on a 20 year crash assumption with respect to oil supply. This is what it looks like.
Now that I think about the situation, it is not clear to me exactly which aspects of the economy would drop over a twenty year period. For example, oil production might drop more quickly, and population decline more slowly.
David, Gail, and everyone,
I have followed PO, including PO web sites, for many years, I have grown a little skeptical about seeing new oil production graphs which depict peaks in the next year or two (as this one does) from the date of posting, followed by a very steep decline to zero production in a relatively short time. I wonder what data and assumptions went into the analysis making this graph? I cold imagine a global nuclear war, an asteroid strike, or perhaps a very-high mortality pandemic leading to such a production curve. Short of those situations, I wonder if the graph would feature a drawn-out peak-plateau for a decade or two followed by a ‘fat tail’ production decline function? Or perhaps a steeper decline function, punctuated by secondary and tertiary peaks, such as the case for the United States? A global financial system collapse without recovery would lead to a graph such as this due to the demand crash leading to no money to pay for high-cost production, but I have been very surprised by TPTB’s ability to ‘extend and pretend’, and I am not able to nail down a limit to that charade…the day will come, but perhaps further off than some of us think. Graphs resembling this were in vogue circa 2006-2007, with peaks depicted at 2009, 2010, ’11,’12 and so forth as time went on…
All tat being said…time is running out for society to prepare for life with much less fossil fuels.
The issue I am writing about is not “peak oil”. I am talking about collapse of a financial and political type, that is brought about by the disruptions high oil prices are already bringing to the economy. The collapse doesn’t have anything to do with the amount of oil or gas or coal in the ground–it is more like the collapse of the Soviet Union, only worse. If we lose the political system, we are likely to lose the international financial system and the international trade system.
Read my full article again, especially the part about complex adaptive systems.
Gail, I truly enjoy your articles, including this one, which I read thoroughly before I posted my comment.
I think this text was ‘lost in the sauce’ in my post:
‘…but I have been very surprised by TPTB’s ability to ‘extend and pretend’, and I am not able to nail down a limit to that charade…the day will come, but perhaps further off than some of us think. ‘
I imagine the types and magnitude of ‘creative accounting’ and public/private ‘messaging (propaganda) and other measure to maintain control of the situation exceed most of our imaginations.
I do think the threat of collapse has /something/ to do with the amount of /easy and cheap-to-extract/ oil in the ground…the migration of production to smaller, more widely scattered, and lower-quality resources has been a primary cause of the increased oil prices, along with strong demand from countries such as China and India, and geo-political factors in Iran and Iraq and Vz and other places. In turn, these high prices will likely cause destabilization of political-business systems, leading to difficulty financing ever more expensive FF extraction.
The resilience (this far and perhaps for another decade or maybe two) of our globalized complex adaptive system has been and may continue to be surprising,
Unfortunately, the effort spent to maintain some semblance of BAU so far and for as long as that charade holds up would be better spent on transitioning to societal systems better suited for the age of declining FFs. No politicians in power are going to level with the people, because many of the people are not well educated in science, math, and critical thinking, and many are deluded into thinking things will stay the same or even improve – ‘people will invent the ‘next big things and it will be OK”…
I will summarize my previous post and my point: I do not disagree with your premises, just with the shape of your graph (and the timing of the ‘great decline’ phase of oil). It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
One interesting facet of Turchin and Nefedov’s book which I don’t see you mentioning, is the idea that the government and the society cannot correct the problem because it doesn’t want to. The situation of the masses starts declining because their wages start falling due to overpopulation. But this actually benefits the elite class because they can hire more and more cheaper labor and thus increase their profits. The system doesn’t collapse until the elite class becomes overcrowded from everyone wanting to be a millionaire, and they start fighting with each other. It is really quite Marxist, and “Secular Cycles” explicitly credits Marx with understanding key things about what drives collapse.
Because collapse is a political event, as Joseph Tainter also argues, it might be argued that political action could accelerate societal change in the needed direction. In other words, we might have a rational society in which there would be a massive, organized scale-down, sort of like Richard Heinberg’s “Powerdown” scenario. Tainter’s question is, why doesn’t this happen? He seems to be clear that resource shortages (declining EROEI, for example) do not by themselves cause collapse; it is the political collapse that determines the outcome. Turchin and Nefedov seem to answer Tainter’s question by saying that it is the elites who (in effect) cause the collapse. I am not sure I agree with either of them on these points, but this seems to be the argument.
Plus, actually has reformulated the model from Secular Cycles, since the model only fit to Agrarian Societies. He presented the new model, which covers the United States, a few months ago, in a book lengh manusscript, which will be his new book, when it’s finished.
It’s current name is “A Structural-Demographic Analysis of American History”
Thanks very much for the link. Research becomes very much easier, when a person has helpers! Now all I need is a few more hours in the day.
So true, Gail. This is why I miss The Oil Drum’s “Drumbeat” forum.
Very interesting link! Thanks very much! More reading for me. It seems that he envisions 1780 to 1930 as a complete secular cycle.
Those are good points.
The current situation is that the government is so tied to business (even though they don’t get much in the way of tax revenue from them) that they seem to cheer for increased efficiency in the form of fewer workers. They don’t even object much to jobs being sent overseas, because doing so keeps prices lower for American consumers. And businesses clearly have no problem with lower wages for workers–it helps them get higher profits.
From what I have seen of recent collapses, I would agree that government collapse seems to play a huge role–although not necessarily in precisely the same way as Turchin and Nefedov suggested. High wages seem to come now from business positions, rather than government positions.
One of the recent collapses I am thinking of are the collapse of the Former Soviet Union in 1991. The government collapse clearly played a big role. This happened after low oil prices made it non-economic to expand oil production and also cut back funds for the government.
Other oil related collapses include Egypt and Syria. Even the collapse of Argentina seems to be connected to the drop in oil exports. There were definitely political changes that came to the forefront, hiding the oil problems from view.
How would American society react in lieu of an economic collapse? One cannot speak with any certainty about such a question, yet it is not purely a rhetorical question. Our society grows more fragmented with each day. We’re increasingly divided based on political views that often lack any congruent beliefs. Many of us are heavily caught in the daily grind of commuting and work. We become isolated from all but our co-workers and co-dwelllers. More and more we see each other as separate, not as a community. The enormous quantity of firearms in our population coupled with mass desperation, and a sense of righteousness and retribution could easily result in a great deal of chaos and bloodshed. It is very difficult to imagine the reaction of the government being anything except a brutal martial law in which citizens would be better off scavenging than seeking refuge with the government.
I think part of our problem is that it is quite possible to see to possible fixes to the problems we have today, if a person doesn’t really understand the situation:
1. Work on climate change, because that appears to be our long-range problem. Use government funds to subsidize intermittent renewables. And give funds to all of the needy, because we have more and more needy.
2. Fix our financial situation, by cutting back programs.
I can understand the reasoning behind both of these views. My own background, if I didn’t know what I know today, would lead me to solution (1). (In fact, my husband and children have voted Democrat in every election I can remember. My son and my sister both own Priuses, and other cars in the family were chosen for low fuel use/ low energy use in construction.)
I can also understand wanting to cut programs, although probably for somewhat different reasons from the reasons some Republicans want to cut the programs. My reason is that there is no possible way we can afford them.
The fact that there are two possible understandings of our current predicament based on the partial facts given leads to this huge polarization of beliefs. Unfortunately, I am afraid we end up with a financial collapse regardless of which we follow. The route of the Democrats may get us there a tiny bit quicker, but maybe the collapse is so close that it really doesn’t matter.
The polarization is probably unavoidable, given the two views of the situation. It may look like this polarization is what brings the system down–gridlock on passing legislation of any kind.
In relation to the US situation- and it has been well over a decade since I last visited and the polarisation in recent years and guns will restrict where I visit if I do- as a European observer is the US could be a leader given that even in a post peak world it has the technology and ability shown in the space program and Manhattan project- unfortunately capitalism is seen as the free world rather than the route to a highly restricted one.
What amazes me as an observer is no-one looks to radically reduce the US military machine. what is it? $600- 700 billion, plus veterans, plus proxy armies as part of US aid to Egypt/Israel etc, and the funding of private business- ie- the war machine. There isn’t a country any where near US might. Your article reminded me of the fall of the Roman Empire- in their case it was EROEI concerning the lengths of roads and running out of countries to economically conquer- when they got to Scotland there was neither the slaves or resources or farm land to justify such an investment in the military. and some of the Empire’s methods to stave off collapse were equal to those of today- we haven’t quite adopted the rule that made children follow in their father’s profession but lack of social mobility [another indicator perhaps] is restricting choice.
stripping the military down to a fifth would free up a lot of debt and buy time. Unless the plan is to conquer to acquire wealth!
and yes it is amazing that governments commission reports by academics on peak oil/ climate change/ environmental limits, water etc etc and it gets ignored.
maybe they really think we have time. smart people I know say ‘they will come up with something’ not too sure who ‘they’ are- wizards perhaps.
Hello, Yes, they are expanding things like that at a time that we are running into roadblocks or so called limits on resources. The whole world seems to have taken it for granted that the cheap oil and gas we have enjoyed in the last 75 or so years will continue. What a surprise the world at large is facing, especially the younger generations that expect things to remain the same as their parents generations, I believe we are all in for some changes, but I think they will be slow unless war breaks out in a bad way. But it is going to be a big change ahead for us all.
It is so easy to get used to the comforts of our economy which relatively cheap oil and we are all used to the comforts including us, a warm shower for example. In the old days the cowboys were lucky to take a bath once a month.
Let’s face it we are not really ready for what is coming if we cannot get the things we think we need, but you know if you think about it we really could do with much less, and that may be what is ahead. For our generation if we understand this I think most of us will survive and perhaps those that live in the lap of luxury are the most vulnerable to the first leg down.
I think we can all rest assured that the HUGE American military is there to insure two things: 1) A guarantor of safe world trade commons as clearly described in the Joint Operating Environment 2010, and 2) A protector of the United States (and protected nations), a guarantor of order and rule of law in post-collapse America (and protected nations) also as described in the JOE of 2010.
For all who doubt: The American military command knows that collapse is coming and they are preparing to deal with that situation. People who think the American government and American military are going to dissolve due to lack of “money” in a post-collapse world need to realize that some things are more important than money — food, shelter, guarantee of safety, commitment to ideals, a common goal to rebuild a better world. The American military will not “fall apart” due to lack of funding. And either will America. We should welcome this reality, because the alternative is local despots and strong men and religious fantatics springing up all across America, imposing their own “rule of law”. And we all know how that would work out.
“People who think the American government and American military are going to dissolve due to lack of “money” in a post-collapse world need to realize that some things are more important than money… The American military will not “fall apart” due to lack of funding. And either will America. We should welcome this reality, because the alternative is local despots and strong men and religious fantatics springing up all across America, imposing their own “rule of law”. And we all know how that would work out.”
Replace “America” with “Roman Empire” in that paragraph.
Don’t you think the ruling elite of other fallen civilizations had similar expectations of exceptionalism? Pray tell, why is this time different?
Perhaps you are right, and things are different, just this once.
I think the government & military will fail when there is no longer enough fuel to power their war machines & energy intense farming. “Money” is not a resource, it’s a artificial means of exchange for resources, it has no value in itself.
How many military people will fight to preserve this government when their families are starving?
For a short time, we could become like N.Korea is now but with the absence of fuel, how long would even the dictatorship of communist N.Korea or China last?
World governments would become no more dangerous than the people they rule without oil, coal & natural gas to build, maintain & fuel their weapons.
A return to a “stone age” like economy can’t support large imperial armies. Governments would again be susceptible to civil uprisings & being overthrown if they become too burdensome.
As you no doubt noticed, this PDF talks about peak oil, and its limits on oil consumption.
The peak oil view of how these limits work is wrong–the impact is likely to be much more through the political system and international financial system and international trade. I am not as optimistic as you that the military will be able to work around them.
“2. Fix our financial situation, by cutting back programs.”
You paint this as a “Republican” approach, and yet it depends on which programs are cut, no?
I’m in favour of cutting back the military and corporate welfare. Does this make me a Republican?
Both the military and the corporatocracy can be seen as arms of the government, as they “govern” what we are allowed or required to do, and yet, neither of them get “haircuts” when the notion of austerity comes up.
There are not enough military programs and corporate welfare programs to provide enough dollars. It unfortunately becomes necessary to add programs aimed at individual citizens as well. Corporations also tend to stay out of the reach of the government, through offshore tax havens.
Nothing wrong with ‘scavenging’ except the word…
I am new here. I have been watching your site for a Few Months now. Big fan of JHK…he directed me to your blog some months back. It has occured to me that I have never seen a Graph of Average US Wages Priced in Oil before…similar to the Priced in Gold, (or Oil Priced in Gold) charts for example.
Since Crude Oil is about 97% of US transportation and a Primary function of our Whole Economy, it seems that a Chart of US Wages Priced in Crude Oil might be an interesting thing to look at.
I am a big fan of JHK too, but don’t always get a chance to read his blog.
Attached is a chart I made showing the number of barrels of oil that average wages (defined as total wages divided by total population) can buy. There are only five years that the amount dropped below 200. Those were 1979, 1980, 1981, and 2011 and 2012. You can see why we have a problem now. Making the graph was a good idea. I may use it elsewhere.
I appreciate that so much…The peak years for one of Businesses coincide with the peak around late 80’s – Early 90’s. I meet so many young Persons Today that have Work experience in the 90’s but have no Idea why they are so Poor Today. Many of these people born in 80s. Now this chart clearly shows the Crushing Poverty that is resulting from Products ( in the Form of Energy…both to Manufacture, and Distribute) including Food, Shelter, & Transportation Falling rapidly away from their paycheck.
Now if I could just get perople to think in terms of the Energy Embed of a product (that fan belt, those 4 Tyres) instead of just the Dollar Price Tag. The Obverse of this chart is thus your Real Inflation rate.
You are welcome. It was a good idea.
It is hard to get “real” energy embedded, because our whole system works together. A lot of what we are paying for is embedded energy in things like roads, bridges, electric transmission lines, hospitals, and the world’s education system. All that we can measure is the small fraction that seems to create the goods we use today. But without the whole system, the supposedly “low energy” goods are not possible.
I think of our human bodies. It is as if we are losing all our blood, and want to save our bodily system. Someone does a study, and determines that hair, fingernails, and toenails are least dependent on blood. Then someone else decides that we will expend huge funds to modify our bodies so that hair, fingernails, and toenails are a much bigger percentage of the total. Does this work? Not really.
Another way we can think of ‘our human body’ is to make a virtue of voluntary denial of stuff it does not need, and trusting ourselves to find self-respect in so doing.
Interesting chart (barrel oil with average wage). If may be even more interesting to use the “median wage” instead of the “average wage” – because later is distorted to the upside by the “1%”. The median wage does much better reflect the buying power the “average” citizen has available.
I am not sure I have a history of median wages. Most show men and women separately. I know the others exist–I haven’t looked hard enough.
Interesting post. Although I think one element that is missing in the analysis is the effect of increase in efficiency per unit work.
The efficiency can be in terms of human labor (at a cost of energy). For example a truck is more efficient than horse but uses more energy.
But it may also be increase in energy efficiency for the same basic technology (better has mileage )
I think our (American) society has significant improvements that can be made in energy efficiency that would offset declines in energy production efficiency.
At some point if eroei becomes too high (or too high too fast). The effect you describe becomes catastrophic. But we are not there yet.
One problem with increased energy efficiency is that it takes increased investment in new vehicles and other devices that use oil. It is not clear that we have the time or the money to do this.
Another problem with increased energy efficiency is Jevron’s paradox. People tend to spend the income they have earned. If they less on oil for one usage, they will use the money on something else, which probably also uses oil (but perhaps less oil).
By the way, I think you mean “if EROEI becomes too low.” (rather than too high). Too low EROEI is the problem we seem to be having already. If we were doing better, we wouldn’t have so much of a problem with low wages.
Very nice post. I am wondering about your comment that “People tend to spend the income they have earned. If they less on oil for one usage, they will use the money on something else, which probably also uses oil (but perhaps less oil)”.
Does Jevon’s paradox still apply when we are in a period of declining resources, higher prices, and falling wages? I can see how it applies when our economy is growing and oil is still cheap, but that is no longer the case. Smaller wages and higher prices mean that we can’t buy as much as we used to. Easy access to credit allowed American families to make up the difference for the last few decades but that access has declined. Families are being forced to eliminate or reduce purchases they can no longer purchase.
If we choose to improve energy efficiency in our home or we buy a Prius, it may not mean that we will use the savings by buying more stuff. It may mean that we don’t have to eliminate things we are already purchasing.
If you are correct in your analyses of the direction our economy is likely to go, then we are faced with austerity at the least or deprivation due to collapse. If our future is going to be one of declining resources, wages, and payments from government entitlement programs, then having smaller energy efficient homes will mean we don’t need as much money (or resources) to heat and cool our home if we lose our job or the government cuts social security benefits. It seems to me that it is in our best long-term and short-term interest to reduce our consumption of goods and services in order to plan for a future with much less.
I really don’t know to what extent downsizing will be helpful. It really depends on how long the current system “works”.
My concern is that we will very quickly get to a point where the financial system doesn’t work. If this happens, there may not be many things to buy in the marketplace. The things that will be in the marketplace are likely to be local things that others are willing to trade–used clothing and tools, for example. The electricity system won’t work, and oil, gas, and coal won’t be available. If we live in our houses, it will be without heat, cooling, and probably running water. If people happen to have a some solar panels, they can use them assuming they have them hooked up right–with an inverter and perhaps with back-up batteries. But banks won’t be operating, nor will the Internet, nor fuel stations. Replacing the batteries and the inverter for the solar panels is likely to be a problem, so over time the usefulness of solar panels will become more restricted. Shovels and seed would have been much better investments.
I am afraid in such circumstance, many people would decide that just can’t continue to live in their current homes, with or without solar panels. They will need a way of getting enough food and water, and will leave their homes to get that food and water.
The big question is how long our current system lasts. If our current system last a long time, then fixes to downsize could be helpful.
Sounds like there will be a booming market for services from a time-honoured profession: tinker.
I fancy myself a tinker. I can hot-wire solar panels. I can refurbish lead-acid batteries. I can re-build many electrical and electronic things. I can maintain a diesel engine — and make fuel for it.
Just today, someone in our household threw out an expensive 7W LED lamp. “Oh, the inverter’s probably fried,” he said, “You can’t really fix them these days.” I took off the front and noted it was intermittent, that flexing the LED circuit board would make it go on and off. I re-soldered the connections on the circuit board, and all is well.
That’s not to say that electricity for soldering irons will be available forever. I could heat up a copper soldering iron tip in a fire and still fix things, if I have access to solder and flux. I think I could make the flux from turpentine and pine pitch, and I could probably make turpentine, and the actual solder could be scavenged from old circuit boards, but all this has a cost in the effort needed.
The survival of the generalists will require a somewhat orderly regression, and I don’t know if that is possible or not. Even the smallest, least expensive consumer electronic item rests on the pinnacle of a pyramid of other technologies. They put microprocessors in electric tea-kettles these days!
I look at the technology that was available in the first part of the 20th century, and I think, “Yea, I could do that.” It rested on a much smaller technology pyramid, mostly revolving around basic refinement of resource materials, and much of those refined materials are available in dumps and landfills. You won’t necessarily need to mine, transport, and smelt iron ore — all you’ll need to do is re-process existing steel.
At least for a while. But if we can stair-step down the technology pyramid in a more-or-less graceful manner, there might be a way to proceed.
At least that’s my theory, and I think it’s as good as anyone else’s, and certainly much more likely than a future with thorium reactors and mining the other planets.
An orderly regression might be possible if all of the parts for tinkering can be kept in place. If we lose too much, though, the process just gets frustrating.
One thought would be if we all decided to aim for a specific lower level of technology–say trains at the level when we first made them–we could perhaps make trains that could be repaired with parts made locally. But no one would agree to step back that far–it would be inconceivable that we couldn’t keep up our current way of doing things.
Hi Gail, you mentioned somewhere that ‘nobody would go back that far’ to certain old technologies – like steam for instance? You are not helping by categorizing moving to older technologies as moving ‘back’. Let the remaining oil and derivatives cost $5000 a barrel, and be prohibited from burning for personal transportation and heating. Let plastics not be wasted on luxury leisure items and toys. Deny the ‘needs’ created by marketeers and supplied by manufacturing for profit. Bring back the horses and the horse-drawn canal barges. Plant some more trees NOW – so what if profit is 40 years down the road? (The oxygen will come in handy as well!) Let fossil fuels be used to create their own alternatives.
Jan Steinman and his friends cannot do everything themselves, but show the people that his skills and wisdom matter more than the skills of CEOs who manipulate power and resources destructively. Their days are over, and not because fossil fuels are getting scarce, but because the people are vermin. Fortunately for them they can become human again when they are forced to do human-sized tasks for other humans. Like the rest of us.
What will it take the hand-full of governments to accept that a central world government is going to be the only way the population will be brought back to the pre-industrial levels needed for sustainable and humane governance? Human rights? Stupid dreams! What about the right of the human race to survive without wars of ambition, or without leaving disease and starvation to limit population growth in the ‘natural way’ ( by evolution)?
“Jan Steinman and his friends cannot do everything themselves…”
It’s frustrating. I feel a strong sense of vorsicht (a fine German word that combines “foresight” and “caution”) and I don’t understand why more people aren’t doing more.
While agreeing that change will happen, people seem to be in willing denial with regards to their own actions. “Yea, what you’re doing is necessary, but I need to stay in this job for three more years to max out my pension.” AAARRRGGGHHH!!! Pensions are going away left and right! OPEN YOUR EYES, FOLKS!
That’s just one example. I could write a book on all the excuses for inaction I’ve heard!
But on another level, I don’t hold EcoReality up as an example or template for everyone to follow. Diversity is important! What I’m trying to do might fail, and something else may succeed. There’s likely to be a large mix of approaches that succeed or fail for a large variety of reasons. A “social darwinism” approach is the most likely to have some success. The days of “one size fits all” civilization is over, thank Goddess!
“What will it take the hand-full of governments to accept that a central world government is going to be the only way the population will be brought back to the pre-industrial levels needed for sustainable and humane governance?”
Sorry, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I see lots of ways that “population will be brought back to pre-industrial levels.” The pretty ones aren’t possible, and the likely ones aren’t pretty.
I’m not sure a world government is either possible, nor pretty. I’m convinced that even if it does happen, it would be ineffective. Diversity will win out in low-energy situations.
A world government is only possible in an energy-rich environment, and any effort to that end is bound to be frustrated by falling energy availability. This is not just some guy expressing an opinion; this is Ecology 101, and civilization is nothing if not the ecology of human interaction.
But when all you have is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. Perhaps my bias toward ecology and natural systems overly biases me against human exceptionalism. That’s where diversity comes in — prove me wrong!
“A social darwinism” approach is the most likely to have some success.” What characterizes the natural world is the general lack of cooperation between species, and the unpretty existence of food chains. How societies evolve is easy to see, but how the strongest survive without violent domination across borders and anarchism within borders is what defines civilization, at the moment.
I was brought up in the kind of environment you might appreciate Jan, an old style farm in Devon, England – large underground waterwheel used for milling grain, sawing logs, chopping chaff and sweeds (turnips) – one small Ferguson tractor, etc. My father retired just before they started paying farmers to let the land go to pot, as the only known way to keep food prices high. Different times eh? Or not.
If population explosion and widespread starvation IS a problem, can it be dealt with by social groups independently unless under local dictators? Solutions are ugly – mostly from the resistance to them.
“What characterizes the natural world is the general lack of cooperation between species…”
In university-level ecology classes, I was taught that competition dominates in high energy environments; co-operation dominates in low-energy environments.
In tropical biomes, there may be 4-5 flying predators. In arctic and alpine biomes, there are generally just 2 or 3, and they “co-operate” by splitting the “harvest” temporally, a hawk by day, an owl by night.
“and the unpretty existence of food chains…”
Again, less true of low-energy biomes than high-energy biomes. Cannibalism, for example, is more prevalent among high-energy biome species, while “opportunivores” are more prevalent in low-energy biome species.
“If population explosion and widespread starvation IS a problem, can it be dealt with by social groups independently unless under local dictators?”
Most low-energy social groups have flat, egalitarian social structures, primarily based on age. It’s the high-energy social systems that tend to have deep hierarchies, based on ability to hoard.
There need not be “dictators” involved in a low-energy situation.
What is volatile is “changing energy” situations, which is the case we find ourselves in. Then you can see artifacts of both high-energy and low-energy systems.
‘Lack of cooperation between species’ Coexistence yes – occupation of different niches, competing for the same ones. Cooperation in the sense I meant – modification of behaviour deliberately (not instinctively) to allow for that of another if very rare even among primates. And nonexistent between other species.
Large poor populations are never aware of or concerned with population statistics. If a new category comes into existence – poor, numerous, connected, and cooperative – the situation will evolve, and as someone has mentioned, social norms may evolve to find a way of reducing the population. And I don’t mean reducing the expansion of population.
When people like us draw on intellectual analyses of natural forces and trends I am afraid we are contributing absolutely zero to the real problems of human survival. But when people also like us – well, you anyway – can spread the message about living with less, then we can justify the space we take up.
I appreciate your comments Jan.
What I thought would happen is that the supporting businesses would not be there to “go back”. In theory, you can get there, but it will take a lot of work, and combined effort of different businesses. The oil won’t be there are any price. The price will be too low, so it won’t be extracted.
Don’t you mean the price will be too high for “consumers” but not high enough to cover the cost of extracting it? At least that’s how I see the problem, the cost of extracting keeps rising but the wages of the remaining “consumers” are either stagnant or declining.
Also I read today that Bernekki is going to reduce to amount of bond buying the fed has been doing, so here comes the decline of the QE. I wonder how that’s going to play out.
He believes that the economy is strong enough to continue growth without so much QE.
what growth? Only the top 1% have seen much growth. In the meantime the gov. is still pushing through TPP that will result in even more jobs being moved to 3rd world rat hole countries with slave labor & no regulations, hence the thick smog in Beijing & their dead rivers.
We are so very very SCREWED!!
Dig in “sheeple” here comes the shears!
“One thought would be if we all decided to aim for a specific lower level of technology–say trains at the level when we first made them–we could perhaps make trains that could be repaired with parts made locally. But no one would agree to step back that far–it would be inconceivable that we couldn’t keep up our current way of doing things.”
What a lovely thought! How long would a politician last who espoused such a philosophy?
I try not to buy things with microprocessors in them — and I used to design the damn things! So perhaps there can be a grass-roots movement to simplify our artifacts, and to select for maintainability, rather than for the latest and greatest whiz-bang functionality.
I agree with your comment that “our (American) society has significant improvements that can be made in energy efficiency that would offset declines in energy production efficiency.” We don’t seem to be learning that lesson.
Locally I am seeing the housing recovery in full action. Hundreds of acres of farmland have been cleared this year and construction of small cheaply built single family homes (starting in the 90’s) are slapped up as quickly as possible. The attached double garage is bigger than the main part of the house. Why is it that planners, developers, and bankers still approve of this type of housing? It is a very inefficient a use of current and future resources. JHK discussed the future prospects of urban sprawl so well.
They keep doing that because that’s all they know what to do to encourage “growth” & make profits. It will fail of course & more valuable irreplaceable farmland will be lost under more concrete.
That’s not “recovery” that’s just an economists idea of prayer, if they build it “they” will come – NOT.
Our “planners” are considering approving yet another sure to fail golf course on an even windier part of the coast !
Does stupidity have any limits? Apparently not.
“Does stupidity have any limits?”
Not if you strive to be “off-grid” and subsequently end up getting evicted from your home.
Hope she sues the pants off her city council.
I hope she can sue more than their pants off. What kind of “logic” are they using to justify posting her off the grid home as “uninhabitable”? Looks habitable to me.
The portable gas stove inside could be a carbon monoxide problem though as CO2 has a greater affiliation to red blood cells than O2. Those stoves have warnings on them that say for outdoor use only.
She would be better off perhaps with a vented wood stove for both heating & cooking.
Where does she get her water if no inside plumbing?
Does she have a well? Living in Florida, any well might just pump up salt water.
Certainly living in that home is a far better option than losing her paid for home & existing on the cruel streets, but those city guys probably couldn’t care less, it’s all about power & CONTROL!
(Note the emphasis on CONTROL!)
we are still adding 70-80 million extra humans to the planet each year
the fact that there are over 7 billion of us is the fundamental problem because
the vast majority of us want to be consumers
the only scenarios in The Limits to Growth that avoid collapse are the ones
where population is stabilised
that means policies to encourage women globally to stop at two children
no it won’t solve every problem but it is fundamental to bending the curve
The scenario that at least temporarily worked in the 1972 Limits to Growth book was based on a much lower population than today. Encouraging women globally to stop at two children (or one) would still be a good idea now, as you say.
The problem with that is irrational belief systems. Even here in the US, we have “leaders” who are fighting tooth & nails to prevent women from having access to birth control or abortion & children from sex education. These ignoramuses have power in many countries all over the world whether christian, islamic or hindu, they make rational actions impossible.
It is too late to prevent the collapse. We use more & more fossil resources to mine poorer & poorer ores, to grow food on poor soils & yet because of uncontrollable population growth, we are falling further behind in meeting the need.
Our grain carryovers are shrinking, we have gotten to the point where we are consuming more than we can grow. When we start eating our seed grain, the game will be over.
With all the information & technology we have had for decades now, why do we continue to ignore the lessons we should have learned from past failed civilizations?
Why do so many people continue to insist that we are not “animals” & that the laws of physics & geology don’t apply to us? Even most of our so called “leaders” hold these false, insane beliefs.
As many have said, the best we can do now is to save what non electric tools, open pollinated seeds, low tec. weapons, & technology we have, get to know others who also know what is needed & prepare for the worse. We need to find & preserve those books that will give us the knowledge to live in a new, sustainable way by combining that knowledge with the information we now have about how planetary systems function.
One thing we need to free ourselves from are these ancient, irrational belief systems as they are our greatest hindrance from acting rationally.
I think governments will be our worse enemy, they are dangerous to we the people, not supportive.
I am afraid you are right. I think at least part of the answer to why this is happening is the reason given by Lindon earlier in the comments is a big part of the problem. He said:
So even if those in leadership positions understand the problem, they can’t say anything about it. And as you say, there are a lot of people who are morally opposed to birth control, and even more morally opposed to abortion.
sheilach2, in the 3rd grade I got in an argument with all the other kids in class one day, in which I said we are animals and they all insisted we are not and back and forth we went. Seemed obvious to me and they did not change my mind then or since, but I’ve met many people that think people are something different. A reflection of that attitude can be seen in the question; if a tree falls but no one hears it, did it make a noise? Well, of course it did, but some people think things only matter if at least someone hears it, and if not they really think it didn’t make a sound. It’s time for a wake up call, titled ‘contraction followed by collapse’. They will all know then we are indeed animals.
You have to be realistic, it’s not “women all over the world” that are responsible for the increase. How are European women with their 1.3 ~ 1.5 fertility rate pushing the population up? Do they have to sacrifice themselves for other nations, say, if Africans give birth to 4 children, must European women give birth to 0.2 children so that the the total birthrate is equalled to 2.1 children per woman? Now that’s fair, huh?
The problem is related to continental populations and races. It does not matter that you have the Duggars in the West if the average continues below replacement level.
Don’t treat a complex issue with an universal brush, you will punish those who don’t deserve. When you see the Singers of the world preaching to American students that they are to blame for the world’s misery, and must avoid having children, for me there’s an agenda there. You know who the targets are.
And, worse yet, WHAT if the population in the West starts to shrink? One would think that the result is just what the likes of Singer wanted, but lo and behold! We have a demographic problem now, it’s time to tear down the borders, because — gasp — we need immigrants!!!
You cannot win with these people, because they are driven by hatred of you-know-who, not by genuine compassion.
The impact of a western baby is many times that of a third-world baby.
It’s been said that every time some celebrity adopts a third-world brown baby, the CO2 burden shoots up by about 50 time what it would have had that baby stayed in the third world.
Yes these are interesting thoughts but let’s understand a few things.
Mortality is much higher in the developing world. Yes, the growth still outpaces, but it may not for much longer. Yet in the developed world, we somehow think it’s a good idea to spend enormous amount of resources to keep people with failing minds and failing bodies going forever on machines.
Also, the idea of “infinite growth in all things including population” is in fact a western one, which originated in the capitalist and industrial system. Without these, and without massive fossil fuel agribusiness and aid, the population of third world places would have long ago stabilized.
It’s easy to point the figure at the the illiterate browns and blacks. It’s much harder to point the finger to the white scientists, priests and celebrities who kept telling you that you need to feed all of them.
Unfortunately, I think that allowing immigration and infant adoption is part of our problem as well (even though that I know my own grandparents came here from Norway, because conditions were bad there). Such practices allow people who would otherwise use very little resources to use a lot of resources. It also relieves population pressures in the homelands. Children who would not live without medical treatment are brought to a country where they can live, also adding to world population. Good in some ways, but bad from a world population point of view.
Globalization, where we outsource what we buy to developing countries, adds a great amount of fossil fuel use to these countries, helping the populations of these countries to expand as well.
I live in the deepest darkest heart of the so called Bible Belt in the southern Appalachians, and most of my family, as well as most people I know, are the sort of fundamentalist christians so often ridiculed in forums such as this one.
( For what it’s worth , I’m a Darwinist and quite well educated in the physical and biological sciences, and put no stock in Christian or any other dogma.)
I seldom attend any church services, except weddings and funerals, but i do know quite well what is going on in American christian churches and families; and what is going on is by and large a very far cry from what the mass media and liberal elite would have you believe.
In respect to population and birth control for instance, in my “Primitive Baptist’ family church, and a couple of nearby “Missionary” baptist churches, and any number of churches associated with the Southern Baptists organization, this is the real story in relation to family size and birth control:
My great grandparents had very large families, but a lot of infant and childhood mortality and my grand parents somewhat smaller ones, four on my Mom’s side , nine on my Dad’s, for an average of 6.5 .
My own parents had five kids who lived to grow up.My gray haired siblings and I have seven kids between us for an average of 1.4.
The next generation of grown up already women in the family are quite adamant that one or possibly two children is all they will ever have , no matter what. they are quire plainspoken in saying the only conceivable way one of them might have a third child is to make a second husband happy by having the third, in the event of being divorced or widowed.
You can visit as many churches as you like in my part of the world, and you will seldom ever see a woman with more than three kids, and not more than maybe one woman out of a dozen has three. two is the usual number planned for, but just one is a very common choice.
You can hear a Baptist preacher preach against abortion, premarital sex, and same sex marriage almost any random Sunday, but you will have to attend a one hell of a lot of services before you will ever hear one say a single word about birth control. It wouldn’t accomplish a thing if he did, any more than it has accomplished anything for the Pope for telling the Italians, the Brazilians, and the Poles not to use birth control.
People like the Duggars are looked on by every Christian I ever met as irresponsible or worse , in the event they have heard of them at all.Only a very ,very few have even heard of them.
I used to post at The Oil Drum as Oldfarmermac.
reply to myself since I forgot something:
My aunts and uncles all have small families with one exception who has five kids and another who has four. But taken as a group, my parents generation averaged only about 2.4 kids.
My own generation of cousins mirrors the birth rate of my own siblings- well under two kids per woman.
I’m quite sure that even those who remain devout church goers will average well under two kids per woman in the rising generations.
Thanks for your observations.
I think that religions as they develop and change, pass on values about family size of the day. But as the external situations changes, some religions are slow to change. The show change of some religions does not stop the population from picking up on the external queues. Not having enough wealth/resources to support a large family greatly decreases a couple’s interest in having a large family. Having plenty of resources encourages large families.
I am one of seven children, but the large number of children in the family had nothing to do with my parents’ religious views. My mother said, “If I am staying at home with one, I can just as well stay home with several.” My father had a strong interest in having a son (because in Norway, inheritance what through the son, and the son passed on the family name). Unfortunately, the first five were girls, of which I am the oldest. (The last child was unplanned, when my mother was 45.) My parents could afford to raise seven children–in fact, they could afford to send all of us to private colleges, without my mother working and without any of us children ever paying a cent. My mother has a masters degree, and worked up until practically the time I was born–concealed her pregnancy with a lab gown.
None of my own three children are married, even though the youngest is turning 30 in March.
My husband has one sister, and only one of her two children is married, even though both of them are in their 30s.
Even if the population were to stabilize in the near future, the infrastructure would continue to use up the limited natural resources. This is an unsustainable process and society will be hard pressed to cope with the withdrawal of the goods and services they have become very dependent on
People don’t seem to be able to understand the complexity of systems. Obamare care is a perfect example of failure of complexity. Complexity of human invented technology, depletion of natural resources, human survival behaviour leave only one solution to this problem : brutal and rapid collapse of human civilization and probably die off of human. The collapse cannot be managed. We cannot control and managed the collapse of such a complex system. We can barely get obama care web site working.
Let me clarify-
Maybe For me:1 barrel every 10 days.
For the world: 1 billion barrels
every 10 days.
@ dashui; ” 1 barrel every 10 days ” ?
1 billion barrels every 10 days consumed globally.
puts all those ‘big’ oil finds into perpective.
“Oil production is not rising as rapidly as world production, so the quantity available per person tends to drop as world population rises.”
i think this is supposed to say: Oil production is not rising as rapidly as world population, so the quantity available per person tends to drop as world population rises.
great assessment… it would be nice if the powers in charge would at least admit the world is finite and a growth based economic system no longer works. but, “the american way of life is not negotiable”… so i assume the train will continue on until it goes off the cliff. wise people are doing what they can to mitigate this.
Thanks for the pointing out the typo–I fixed it.
Admitting the real situation seems out of the question. Commenter “Lindon” said earlier,
I think this is a pretty good assessment of the situation.
Absolutely. If the “elites” say that the world gonna crash soon, the world gonna crash for sure. It is all about trust in the system! If they say so, people will loose confidence instantly and stop buying stuff which is of course unthinkable for the system itself…. So even if they know that the situation is out of control, they will never never never aknowledge it in public…. they are not paid nor elected to tell such things…. they are elected to keep the system up and running, not to crash it….
Even some of The Oil Drum staff members were concerned about this issue. They did not want to mention the possibility of collapse.
Also 2 days ago my father went to a luncheon with some big shots, including Newt Gingrich. The topic was domestic energy and the consensus was that we have huge amounts of Nat gas and shale oil but it is Obama who is stoping us from exploiting them. The figure they gave was 90 billion barrels of oil, of course I said,”you do know that the world uses 1 barrel every 10 days don’t you?” The big shots were also for no gas exports, which is of course resource nationalism.
Thanks for these observations. I imagine most of them only know (part of) what they have been told. In fact, they may be gullible enough to believe what they read in the papers.
Domestic natural gas will not be extracted unless the price is quite a bit higher. Natural gas producers figure that exports will drive the price higher, and also give them a reasonable return for extraction. We will see what really happens–debt collapse could prevent price from ever going high enough.
By the way, I think you meant to say in your comment that you said, “you do know that the world uses 1 billion barrels every 10 days, don’t you?”
Actually ex senator Jim Demint is a friend of the family. At least he is a businessman not a lawyer. He, in my living room, said America has 200 years of natural gas. 200 years seems a little too perfect a number. 2000 years no one would believe, 20 years and people would worry, 200 is perfect near enough to be believable, far away enough not to worry.
Demint also said he was in the market for a 30 foot sailboat, maybe he has been reading D. Orlov, and wants a escape from dc pod?
The 200 years of natural gas is based on extra-ordinarily optimistic view of what is available. The truth of the matter is that we can’t get the US price of natural gas up high enough to encourage extraction the gas from US shale formations, even at today’s very low interest rates. This is the reason for the interest in exporting the natural gas. The price might be higher, and the shortage might raise US prices.
Another issue is that the extraction of this gas is hugely dependent on large amounts of credit being available at very low interest rates. Our current situation is very temporary.
The technology also is not really exportable to other countries, either. Being able to do this extraction as cheaply as in the US depends on several conditions in the US that are not available elsewhere–plenty of fresh water for fracking, property laws that allow the property owner to get a share of the profits, so the property owner will not object too much to the fracking, and the fact that we already have extensive pipelines in place, enabling this extraction.
The situation that will stop natural gas extraction is the upcoming crash. This is not factored into any reserve numbers.
This is interesting Gail,
as Natural Gas is always brought out as a bright spot in the U.S economy…I think were I live Natural Gas has gone up 13 percent; but when I tell people that they are shocked they have no idea….they don’t pay attention. I cringe when I see these giant houses with wasted space and we have been below 0 degrees F for over a week. What will happen with the price of Natural Gas? Will it shoot up eventually….over in the Baakan they are flaring it to get it out of the way…Any government official that ends his or her talk on Government problems will end it with a positive caveat ie….look at how much NG and Shale Oil we have!!! What do you believe the supply of NG to be and is it possible to export it? I remember the last few months of Greenspans reign he was talking about exporting NG…..Thanks Danny
If we run into financial collapse, then natural gas will be as much a dead end as oil will be. Our problems will be political and financial, and they will bring down international trade as well. These problems will spill over into natural gas production as well.
I don’t really expect natural gas prices to rise, any more than I expect oil prices to rise, although I suppose, over the short term natural gas prices may rise. Debt defaults can be expected to lead to lower demand and lower prices, not higher prices.
I think we will have major problems before the natural gas export facilities ever get built. The reason why producers of natural gas from shale deposits want to export natural gas is because they cannot get a high enough price for natural gas to make extracting it worth their while. (Thus the amount available at current prices is very low.) They think that by exporting it they can get a higher price for it, and perhaps drive the US price higher. In the absence of other problems, this reasoning might work–I am doubtful that it really will work now, though.
The politicians and the public figures who are part of the establishment will continue to PRETEND that everything is just fine, that BAU can continue forever, right up until the day it stops. I’m betting that secretly, 90% or more of these same individuals (like Demint) are making plans for the inevitable that they know for a fact is coming, perhaps at a time and with a catalyst that they are privy too. The fact that figures like Demint publicly and even privately PRETEND that BAU is safe far into the future means zero — they are just putting on a show. It is all part of the establishment plan to keep the masses calm and unaware, all the better to take advantage of BAU so as to secretly leverage themselves into a position of long-term survival once TSHTF. You and I should be doing the same.
20 years, 20, 2000:
For some time now, the EU leaders, when they make a lying statement on ‘recovery’, have used the following formula:
‘The rest year will be bad, (and we feel for you!) most of next year will also be like that, but at the very end of next year, Growth Will Be Back!
Dangle the carrot in front of the starving donkey, but make sure it doesn’t lose hope and die or try to bite you……
Now we are getting wise to this, a new version has been formulated: ‘The recession is over, but there is still a lot to do!’
A Stalin said: ‘Things Are Getting Better Comrades!’
dashui — The Republicans blame Obama for everything, don’t they? Always have. Always will. True or not, deserved or not, everything is Obama’s fault if you ask a Republican. I’m not even an Obama supporter, or a supporter of any particular political party. I’m just making an observation here. He gets blamed for bad weather, for the Mexican hijacking of radioactive material, for — everything. Maybe he deserves it, who knows?
The take-away from your father’s meeting with the Republican big-shots is that they are part of the establishment and they either truly believe (Cornucopian) that the world will never run out of fossil fuels to burn (they are truly ignorant) or, more likely, they are PRETENDING, engaging in the well-documented establishment attempt to keep the masses calm and in the dark with false predictions and a constant stream of propaganda.
well yes I went to to see former treasury secretary snow speak recently and he is totally drunk on the Shale oil story. If you ever questioned any of this you would be a laughing stock. Politicians are like a beauty pageant contestant…smart ones don’t make it though only the dumb ones make it. I live in Mt and Max Bacchus is the the most dull knives
in the drawer but he is one of the highest ranking senators….sad but true. The dumber you are the more you advance. ……danny
I work in a bank and the government just mandated that 6% of our employees must be veterans. we already have 10 or so and we must hire 40 more. Sounds like the government knows it can’t afford veterans benefits and wants to avoid another bonus army by pushing the cost on to private business.
I hadn’t heard about that requirement for banks. “Unfunded mandates” seem to be a popular solution.
The observed response of the financial community to Quantative Easing seems to be to accept the money from the Fed — and, figuratively speaking, stash in under the mattress. Why? Perhaps those who have really good information about various proposed investment opportunities have run the numbers and found them wanting. The numbers don’t indicate that the proposal will yield a return for the investors, whatever is the return for the entreprenure. Why no good investment opportunities? Maybe there is no resource base that can be exploited with current technology in a way that will yield sufficient return. Conclusion: BAU will never return, no matter what the Fed does.
This article from Zerohedge seems to suggest that the excess reserves are being used as a basis for speculation. According to the article:
This is a little out of my area of expertise, though.
Excess reserves cannot appear outside the central bank reserve account unless there is a corresponding shrinking of private sector banking liabilities. Reserves are never ‘new money’, the arguments of certain archaic economists suggest that they are … for political reasons.
What sort of private sector shrinkage? A severe bank run.
During a bank run the balance sheet of the bank collapses. The bank closes before it is able to return its depositors’ funds. The bank will ALWAYS run out of reserves before it can meet all the claims of the depositors.
Zero Hedge has tried since the crisis began to promote the idea that central banks create new money (‘money printing’) thereby causing hyperinflation. This is completely wrong and Zero Hedge knows it.
Thanks! Banking “ins and outs” are not quite my field.
Comparison with previous societies going back to pre-christian times tell us little about our present situation. As the saying goes: “This time is different.” But — it really is different in a really differnent way: The societies of the past that are referenced were all based on agriculture for which the fundamental resource is fertile land. For us the fundamental resources are a constellation of NON-renewable commodaties. For agracural society, each inter-cycle will end. For us, the inter-cycle may very well last forever.
Some things don’t change though. We are having trouble paying for our government now. How is this differnt?
> We cannot simply go backward, because methods that worked in the past, such as using draft horses and buggy whips, will no longer be available without a long development period.
Yes, but also this means spending MORE money and energy on infrastructure and labour that produces a LESS efficient outcome. Any society that values efficiency over resilience will NEVER take the political decision to go down that road, wise though it may be in the face of imminent collapse.
One might imagine a society that sensibly values resilience over efficiency, the “powerdown society”, but this threatens so much of the current paradigm that it won’t happen without a bloody revolution – the 1% will not allow it. It won’t have escaped your notice that that is precisely what the 1% is preparing to confront – mass spying on the population, censorship and repression of dissent and whistleblowers, stockpiling of bullets, equipping and training the police with ever-greater weapons of mass control, building interment camps.
Despite all this the 1% will fail, so we are condemned to a financial/industrial implosion, with the 1% still trying to accelerate the bus as it approaches the cliff. Once that implosion has played out, with efficent supermarket food shortages leading to mass starvation, a point will be reached where that inefficient, but resilient, society that was shunned before the collapse, will look like an IMPROVEMENT to the survivors, and maybe we can begin again with the new paradigm.
This kind of societal change will be played out over a time period of decades, if not centuries. So there is little that we do, or even plan for, at this stage except how to survive the early stages of the collapse. Mad Max scenarios look increasingly likely.
I suppose if we were smart, we would decide what kinds of metal tools would be most helpful and last longest, and work on making them. But governments are in such poor condition, they could not finance such an effort. Or permaculture advocates might have a different idea of what investment might be most helpful for the longest time.
As a practical matter, I expect whatever investment is made will need to be made by individuals. These individuals will have different ideas. Some of them may work for a while. Things like metal tools and clothing will last for a while, so not all problems will need to be solved immediately.
All governments are Soviet now, backing the wrong horses with massive expenditure of money they don’t have and lying about the results or prospects.
The British Government, for instance, is concentrating on creating a ‘high-speed’ (it won’t be really) railway to some economically insignificant regions with poorly-educated populations. The population of the UK be so glad of that in 100 years time! And importing vast numbers of low-grade ‘workers’ from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe (admittedly some skilled workers from the latter region.) Whilst proclaiming that Growth (Oh Allah, or whatever God you may choose, I think a Voodoo deity is appropriate now) be praised!) is back and making the UK the envy of the developed world!
One watches in amazement……..
It’s sad to watch euroskeptics attacking immigration from Eastern Europe. Not that I don’t agree with them on the need to leave the EU. In fact, I want it abolished. But when they pick on these Eastern Europeans in order to attack mass immigration (which the majority of citizens resent), they show themselves to be complete cowards. it’s harder to be accused of racism when you attack fellow Europeans. If not these Eastern European immigrants, then who do you think the government will import?
Europe will either go down on history, slowly but steadily (unlikely if the economy continues to go downhill) or it will burst into flames and new leaders will surge and reform the entire continent, and the current political and social views will disappear.
What’s your bet?
No, I’m not a closet racist as you imply. Freedom of movement in the EU has profoundly de-stabilised the British employment market, and played into the hands of exploitative capitalists who just love cheap and desperate labour, above all semi-skilled. Not to mention the movement and spread of professional and very brutal criminal gangs from that region.
The UK in particular is in complete denial. But you can’t blame them, it’s all they have left.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see it eventually break apart.
I think “breaking apart” may become the new normal condition.
This article is an insightful view of the demand situation. However, the continuing irreversible supply of natural material sources from the limited crustal stock is the bottom line. That is an unsustainable process whatever decisions are made by society or the processes that use this stock.
I am afraid I don’t understand. Without our society economy sticking together in something close to our current form, the vast majority of the fossil fuel resources and uranium resources that now seem to be left will stay right where they are–in the ground. Extraction will fall, far more quickly than the most ardent climate change advocate would ever hope. Whether this will make a difference is not entirely clear–but if most of us aren’t around to find out, perhaps it won’t matter. The world is set up to cycle from state to state, with different climates and different species that are dominant. The earth will recover, with or without humans.
YEP. I have been pondering which one of the social insects will next be the Earth’s dominant life form. Higher intelligence, as E. Mayr asserted some time ago, is a lethal mutation.
“Lethal mutation” is a good way of putting our problem. As Craig Dilworth named his book, “Too Smart for our own Good.”
Or ‘Too Cunning to reach The Good’.
The stock of natural material resources is running out because systems of civilization are irreversibly using them. That is what is happening. Mentioning that fossil fuels will remain in the ground is a hypothetical future situation. I was commenting on the reality of what is happening now and is likely to continue while the systems of civilization (cities and the like can continue to operate)
It is as if the blood supply of civilization is running out. The possibility that the fossil fuels will remain in the ground is not really a hypothetical future civilization, any more than saying that a patient that it quickly losing its life blood will die. Our civilization as it is formed today cannot exist without cheap fossil fuels. The oil that is essential is already risen to such a high price that governments of countries that use much of it need Quantitative Easing to hide its problems. QE is only a temporary band-aid. The economy acts like a complex adaptive system, so If doesn’t take much foresight to figure out that it will collapse, in the not too distant future. There are so many different things that could crash the system (removal of QE being one of them) that is it hard to see precisely what will bring the whole system down. But without our current high tech system, the vast majority of our fossil fuel supply cannot be extracted.
The technological systems of civilization (the cities, roads, factories, etc) are what consumes most of the natural resources, including the fossil fuels, The population has become very dependent on the goods and services provided by this aging infrastructure. Operating and maintaining this infrastructure with the declining stock of natural resources is an unsustainable process. It is this tangible infrastructure that will inevitably collapse. Society will have to cope with the loss of the goods and services as best they can with intangible money having an impact obn the decisions being made.
Dennis–You are right. It is the technological systems of civilization (the cities, roads, factories, etc.) that consume most of the natural resources.
There are a couple of related issues. EROI calculations don’t really look directly at these systems, yet these are the systems that we lack the “wealth” in terms of resources to maintain. This is why the minimum EROI has to be very high–probably 11 or more. This minimum EROI keeps increasing, as population rises and other problems continue to make our current system less able to handle the situation.
Also, we can’t have solar panels and wind turbines without the cities, roads, factories, and schools we have now, and we can’t build the cities, roads, factories and schools we need with wind turbines and solar PV. Thus, these ideas are a dead-end from the point of view of keeping society going. It is an open question as to how much they can do for individuals, on a local basis.
Small pox was eradicated despite some who wanted to keep a live supply – just because. The future is green and bright, and the human equivalent of small pox – the greedy, ambitious, hyper-active, ignorant youth now taking over everywhere, will be eradicated. The US is preparing, and perhaps the Chinese will join forces. Not exactly ‘close to our current form’ Gail, but I was a bit surprised to hear you stating this a possibility. My father was a farmer, born at the end of the 19th century. Green fields – unlocked doors – policeman on bike – phone number, South Molton 64…….
We live in a topsy turvy world. Everybody insists that “growth” is the solution, but in fact it is the problem.
You see, the problem is too deep now. The all conquering private capital system defeated all resistance, whether it was from indigenous peoples, nazis, communists, unions, religious fundamentalists, environmentalists, and even national governments themselves.
Its success is its downfall, because there is nobody left to place a check, to oppose it. The whole world must be commoditized, and all of the fossil fuels must be burnt. The system does not stop until it burns itself out. It doesn’t recognize any limits, it never has and never will. In fact the idea of limits is the existential threat to it. Private capital must expand everywhere…it must dig up everything from the earth, pave over the globe, and move into the solar system and beyond.
There are times when it expends considerable effort (great depression, current financial crisis) to survive, but it always does, because there is always more out there to exploit. This system is perfectly adapted to humans as biological and cultural creatures with the urge for life and expansion.
Is it starting to dawn on people that we won’t even write the history of our own demise, because all 7 billion of us are connected to and captured by the system? Is it starting to dawn on you that a ragtag group of human survivors 500 years from now, living in the ruins, will have to place together a narrative of what happened?
Since “growth” is an absolute requirement of our current system, expect to see warping of what constitutes growth. The last few years’ growth has been in financial magic. That is likely to continue but I expect things like intellectual property to become a larger share of the “growth”, as well as systematically converting commons like fresh water into institutions that can convert either quantity or price of drinking water into “growth”. Things that were free or assumed were common for all will be “priced”, leading to more “growth”.
In fact, it is not even growth that is the problem, from the point of fossil fuel resources. Simply extracting the same amount of resources years after year would be a problem, because total supply is limited. Population at current levels also seems to be too high for resources, excluding fossil fuels.
I think you are right–we may not even be able to write the story of our own demise. The few survivors 500 years from now may have to piece together the story.
As Paul Chefurka and George Mobus discussed earlier this week, will some evolved hominin get through the bottleneck or will it be extinction of the genus? I rather think that the story will not be written.
No Gail – several rich people will have computers and satellites and stuff, and your very own words will tell part of the story.
Those computers and the electrical system that operates the satellites will not operate for very long (perhaps a few years, but 50 or 100). Today’s rich people will be poor as well. My words on the Internet will disappear, because the Internet will disappear.
When simple tools (but only the best available) cost $1000 each, and jeans $400, you will preoccupied with getting them – not having a vast choice of styles! Will you be unhappier? No.
Choice HAS to be removed – nobody will suffer. Rubbish HAS to be removed from the inventory of consumables, and good stuff must cost a fortune. Nothing wrong with that. You will be proud of your tools and your strength to use them. You will be admired for contributing to the reputation of the local area. Liars and cheats will be KNOWN, and they will not prosper.
If cities figure in this scenario, they will NOT be so densely populated, but will be a natural environment for the brainy as opposed to the brawny – designing and making the tools – making and servicing the computers – redefining and constructing the government. Shame will become more manageable.
I question whether we will be able to make jeans at all, in a collapsing world. Putting together supply chains based on local materials will be difficult. We will likely mostly be trading in used clothing.
Our choices will be much less than you even can imagine–probably not tomorrow, but 20 or 50 years from now.
20 to 50 years? How do you extrapolate that? If there is going to be a crash like that; we would start to see collapse happening right now…a fall so to speak. I see a lot of people talking about financial collapse happening first and if that is the case won’t that draw out the peak oil crash…I guess we are all in agreement of the crash all that is left is to see how long this is drawn out. I think we are all and will be surprised at how far it can be drawn out. Too bad we can’t mathematically figure it out. I personally find it so hard to have one foot in the present world pretending everything is fine and the future world where a mad crash might happen. sometimes I think ignorance is bliss because there is really nothing we can do…..Danny
Hello, Well – Danny, I think we have some time before things really fall apart…. But our kids and their kids may be witness to the new depression and experience shortages, also we will likely see it, as my wife and I already pay almost twice what we paid in food along with several children just in the 1990’s. We also could likely see this next year or so young and old.
They say inflation is tame but all of us know we are paying big bucks for food these days. I have been saying this for awhile now, I see a slow decline unless something happens to escalate things.
The threat of nuclear war seems to wane as — The good news I see lately is that the situation in the Middle East seems to be calming for now — so let us try to look at some positive news, as the rest of the news only worries us. Hopefully things will continue and limp along for a generation or so before severe trouble sets in. So for now lets hope things calm for a time and the current system status will prevail as we are not prepared yet to change over to a new system.
If you understand the financial situation, you would be more worried. All it takes is rising interest rates to mess up the current situation.
I don’t go out of my way to tell young people about the problems. They have enough problems already, with the job situation they are facing.
Once the obstructionist federal government has fallen, I expect people will be growing hemp all over the country. Good sturdy pants, shirts & gowns can be made from hemp as can strong ropes & sails, it all depends upon how closely you grow the plants. We won’t be stuck with just used clothing although for a while that may be true until things get sorted out.
Hemp has many uses, medicine, clothing, rope, food, oils, even plastics & recreation & it’s sustainable as it doesn’t require chemical fertilizers or pesticides.
Cotton can still be grown in the steamy south but everywhere else, HEMP will be KING!
Too bad growing hemp now is illegal.
Depends on which side of the 49th you’ve chosen to live in.
I think the survivors will be too busy trying to survive to care much about how we messed up. The digital library will be unreadable, the paper libraries will be burned for fuel & the old who might have remembers will have long died off.
“In fact, it is not even growth that is the problem”
Yes, that is a point that is often over looked, the key problem is the use of non renewable resources for our current “society”, growth or not.
And a steady state economy in the current set up just means burning the same amount of barrels per year (and building the same amount of cars, houses, etc).
To me this is also linked to the “fashion” of externalities in economics, which could be summarized as :
– Ok using this thing pollutes, let’s just compute the “cost” of this pollution, and take it into account.
But nowhere the “internalities” approach is taken :
– How much does it costs to use that amount of this non renewable resource stock ?. what should be its price ?
Which is quite understandable, as if you had to define a cost or price for the above, and staying in an “optimistic progress mindset” doing it, then it means that what you leave to future generations is at least as good as what you now have, which for non renewable resources (and especially when used as fuel), would mean putting an infinite price tag on it.
Otherwise you end up with things like “it is reasonable to use that amount per year”, but why not “that amount”/2 or “that amount”*2.
I hadn’t thought of the fashion to compute externalities as being part of reason economists can support the idea of a steady state economy. I have complained about a steady state economy being ridiculous, unless we can get our resource use down to zero, which we can’t. Not being an economist myself, it is hard for me to think in their terms.
I think you –should– consider yourself as an economist Gail 🙂
Even if one, more in the “reality based” Malthus or Jaevons tradition (or maybe even the physiocrats before), than in the current kind of “compulsory wonderful world ahead” dogma.
At least some economists agree with many of your main points regarding the end of economic growth. In today’s “Wall Street Journal” on the Opinion page is an article by William A. Galston that discusses recent papers by economist Robert J. Gordon. The gist of Gordon’s thinking is that there are at least six “headwinds” that will tend to reduce long term economic growth in the U.S. The original papers by Robert J. Gordon are highly readable and easy to find with Google. One of Gordon’s main points is that we face diminishing marginal returns to innovations in technology–one of your main points.
Robert J. Gordon is a mainstream economist of impeccable credentials. When he writes, other economists take notice. I also find it quite interesting that the “Wall Street Journal,” a mainstream conservative publication, would put Gaston’s short article on its Op Ed page.
I don’t know of any mainstream economist who emphasizes your point that increasing debt (or any debt for that matter) is hard to service in a no-growth economy, but this lack probably reflects my ignorance of what is current in economic thought. Simple arithmetic is all the math you need to show that large quantities of debt are untenable without economic growth. Small amounts of debt can be serviced in no-growth economies such as those in Europe of the Dark Ages, but increasing debt requires economic growth–or the result will be default of some kind. Typically, governments use increased rates of inflation to repudiate national debts, but some governments (e.g. several in Latin America, or the Soviet Union after the overthrow of the czarist regime) directly repudiate national debts.
Good to hear from you, Don. I found the article you mentioned. It is A Brief Economic Uptick Hides Grim Truths, a headline which I certainly would agree with. Gordon does seem to mention the impact the rising overhang of consumer and government debt on the economy, so he is at least getting close.
It is optimistic to suggest that we will have a “start over” moment with a new financial system that benefits the taxpayer. Last I checked, the Dodd-Frank act was 9000 pages, and “less than a third” finished. It outlines among other things what happens in a doomsday financial meltdown. To be sure, the taxpayers get the short end of the stick and have even less control over the matter. Fear tends to suppress smaller voices and amplify authorities’.
Human labor is quickly becoming the most costly expense for businesses (that, and debt maintenance). After a financial “reset” with presumably overwhelming unemployment, I doubt we will have a “middle class” at all. There will be too much supply of expensive human labor for the demand. While you and I can see societal trouble with paying less than a living wage, businesses don’t have the same scruples and planners have seen the same thing. With cheap, ubiquitous drones overhead in the next few years it will be more cost effective to “manage” the unemployed population than to appease them.
A person wonders how these things will work out–whether the 9,000 pages will be followed, or whether there will be a break-up. I suppose we could follow one approach for a while, and eventually move to another. Historical systems seemed to be a lot simpler than today though–tribal leader or king, for example.
“While you and I can see societal trouble with paying less than a living wage, businesses don’t have the same scruples and planners have seen the same thing.”
And yet, if customer/consumers can no longer afford to buy products, the businesses will suffer, no? Or is this the “greater fool” theory, in that there will always be someone willing to buy cheap plastic crap from China?
The more stuff people don’t buy because they don’t have a job the fewer workers that are needed make the stuff who in turn will also then not have the money to buy stuff. Isn’t it a vicious ciycle downward to where only the farmers and gardners are left? After that it is just starvation and death.
“Isn’t it a vicious ciycle downward to where only the farmers and gardners are left?”
Thank you for sparing me.
As long as I can produce food, I’m thinking someone will want to keep me around.
St.Roy. Nearly right. It is a VIRTUOUS circle upward to where farmers, gardeners, labourers doctors, nurses, some new teachers, the army, armed police, bus drivers, (add your own categories) are left. Jan, please – the farmers will prevent starvation, and nobody will prevent death.
The question is whether the farmers and gardeners can support themselves. In a much poorer world–which is where we are headed–we end up with mostly farmers and gardeners. Or a world of hunter-gatherers (really gatherers, with a little hunting added), which is closer to sustainable.
At anywhere close to current population levels there are not enough animals or plant resources to sustain a “hunter-gatherer” world. It is only through modern farming techniques that we are able to feed today’s numbers.
I agree. It seems like a reasonable guess as to world population with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would be 5 million or less. The fact that resources are degraded from the original (for example, fish stocks down, large animals mostly killed off by earlier hunter-gatherers, mercury polluting lakes and rivers) may make the carrying capacity less than it otherwise would be.
Jan, a great point. The ‘plastic crap’ is where oil and energy are still going – because the fools who buy it are still making a profit for the greedy animals who produce and market it. However , if business spends as much effort promoting a better life of less consumption, as it did promoting consumption at any cost to the consumer’s health, and if the government will start promoting the truth (alongside Gail and others) the future need not be so dreadful. Technology will not disappear, people are mostly much smarter than ever before, but cannot expect to be allowed to vote in the kind of liars who promise ‘business as usual’
Technology largely depends on oil and electricity. It may not disappear overnight, but we can expect it to be pretty much gone in 50 years.
Hi Gail! Great post as always. I agree with your comment that oil extraction/use inte the economy in 50 years will be pretty much gone (in my eyes probably much earlier). Yet in terms of electricity I wonder how you come to the same conclucsion (if that is what you meant). I am aware that 40 % of the electricity in the world is generated by coal, and coal indeed is finite. Prof. Kjell Aleklett and the researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden has estimated to world coal production will peak in 2030 (China coal prod to peak already in 2020). I am also aware that coal has much lower EROI than oil and that today´s coal has a decreasing EROI because of lower quality (lower energy density).
But my point is that solar energy for electric generation, today (and for the forseeeable future) with a much lower EROI than oil and fossil fuels, is only in its infancy in terms of our understanding of how to make use of the photosynthesis. After all, our whole planet runs on solar energy. Elon Musk (founder and CEO of both Tesla Motors and SpaceX) often mentions that 70-90 % of the solar energy that reaches earth´s surface can potentially be harnessed.
I am by no means talking about giant solar parks in the dessert of Sahara, transporting energy long distances to be used for use in the energy intensive world we live in today (this is a mediahype). Rather, I am thinking of solar panels used locally but improved in material and used even in countries up North, like here in Sweden where I live.
Solar vacuum tubes for heating (This Swedish guy built one from old beer cans-see: http://www.brunzell.com/projekt/solfangare/index.httm) and solar panels, moving with the sun or in an optimal 45 degrees angle in combination with small wind mills is very promising. (I will experiment with this on my mothers farm soon). I don´t see this a an universal solution to peak oil or the financial crisis but my point is that we very well may see solar energy solutions that are either totally produced/transported without fossil fuels and capable of supplying local communities with enough electricity/heat to make life quite manageable.
Maybe Hyperloop and Mars is stopped by financial collapse and energy crisis but I am quite convinced that electricity will survice much longer than the oil age, in fact I think it can be used in many more ways (sustainably) than what is convetional/possible today.
What are your thoughts?
The problem is that we are dealing with a complex adaptive system. You can’t assume that one system, such as coal or wind turbines, will continue to work, when the rest of the system dies. It is in some ways like assuming that one human system, say hearing, can continue to work, after a patient dies of blood loss.
Coal as it is extracted today requires machinery made from metals, using oil in their contraction and transport. The coal, once it is extracted, needs to be transported using some method, nearly always using oil–certainly for track or road maintenance, if nothing else. Once electricity is created using coal or wind, it needs to be transported to via long distance transmission lines. These require oil for maintenance. The whole system needs to be balanced using computers. Building and maintaining computers requires a system of international trade, which is dependent on cheap oil.
Actually, the most vulnerable part of the whole system is probably the political system. It fails as the economy fails to generate enough tax revenue to pay for the promises that have been made. The international financial system and international trade system are tied in with the political system.
Suppose the US governmental system fails, in the same way the Former Soviet Union’s governmental system failed. Then it would suddenly be “every state for itself.” Some states might band together, but there would suddenly be a need for a whole lot of different new currencies, and different new international treaties. Some states themselves might fail, leading to smaller grouping yet–say Northern California vs Southern California. The European Union could go away as well. In such a changed political landscape, trade would suddenly become more difficult–it would depend on, for example, Texas setting up a trade agreement with Louisiana. It could very well be this kind of problem that brings an end to electrical system, among many other things.
“Technology largely depends on oil and electricity. It may not disappear overnight, but we can expect it to be pretty much gone in 50 years.”
That’s a pretty broad brush, Gail!
I agree heartily that technology will be simplified, but “gone?”
I’m hoping locally-fueled diesel engines can last for my lifetime, and I expect the wheel, fire use, and written language will probably be around as long as there are humans.