tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post6309142524445573768..comments2024-03-12T18:37:16.548-04:00Comments on The Easiest Person to Fool: The Bumpy Road Down, Part 4: Trends in CollapseIrv Millshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-12007342533407786172018-01-30T20:35:35.427-05:002018-01-30T20:35:35.427-05:00@ Jonathan Maddox
I am going to bring this discuss...@ Jonathan Maddox<br />I am going to bring this discussion to a close here, sincer I can tell there is nothing to be gained for either of us. <br />It's nice that you agree with my bumpy road down idea and I'll admit that I suspect some areas, especially those with abundant hydro power, may well end up retaining a relatively high level of technology. Note I say "relatively".<br />To make it clear where I am coming from to those who are reading along:<br />Your "vast quantities" of energy are nothing more than a mirage. Surplus energy concerns apply not just to fossil fuels, but to all sources of energy. And it's the overall average EROEI of a country or planet that counts, and goes to determine the level of growth it can sustain. A good rough figure is 15 to support the kind of civilization we are accustomed to. Today's world average is 11 and falling. Already too low to sustain a high tech civilization.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-53729150128131700522018-01-30T19:49:52.283-05:002018-01-30T19:49:52.283-05:00While it's true that for many present-day indu...While it's true that for many present-day industrial processes familiar liquid, gaseous or solid fuels are necessary, it is not true that the only possible sources of liquid, gas and solid fuels are fossil fuels, nor is it especially important for the survival of civilisation (survival, not BAU) that we continue to use those processes as inefficiently as we do today, nor at the same enormous rates as today. There *will* be de-growth in material consumption volumes. Substitution of non-fossil energy for fossil fuels is already widely demonstrated in the processes which use the lion's share of fossil fuels today, namely electricity generation, personal surface transportation, process heat, space heating and nitrogen fertiliser manufacture. Even if we *only* swapped out fossil fuels in those applications, while continuing to use fossil fuels in the same manner as today for aviation, heavy surface freight, metallurgy and other chemical processing, we would indeed find that we "just needed a bit of oil", relative to today's consumption anyway. Those applications represent, very roughly, just 20% of present gross fossil fuel consumption. On our "bumpy road down" not only will gross throughput fall, it's also likely that consumption efficiency will improve at every opportunity.<br /><br />In the longer term, there really are non-fossil substitutes for every fossil energy resource: the existence proofs are synthetic hydrocarbon fuels (can be made using water, carbon dioxide and electric energy) and metallurgical charcoal as used on an industrial scale today in Brazil (dirty and destructive without a doubt, but definitely not fossil fuel).Jonathan Maddoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842100942079342200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-24522593068845396772018-01-30T19:49:30.474-05:002018-01-30T19:49:30.474-05:00Hello Irv, thanks for your reply.
I certainly was...Hello Irv, thanks for your reply.<br /><br />I certainly wasn't attempting to say that "business as usual" would proceed unhindered. There are numerous other constraints to rapacious capitalism and never-ending material consumption besides energy, and a wholesale energy transition itself is not without significant economic costs. I subscribe to the "bumpy road down" theory right along with you ... we are definitely in for a lot of painful bumps, and we will certainly not come out the other end with comparable consumption (magnitudes or habits) as are "enjoyed" today. On the other hand, we won't be bumped all the way down to subsistence agriculture: our technical knowledge and much of our existing infrastructure will remain available for use through any economic disruption.<br /><br />Energy itself is readily available in vast quantities. Not only is the potential supply from the sun (via wind or solar technologies) a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the current rate of fossil fuel extraction, with comparable net energy return to average fossil fuel extraction (today, not historically) but It must be recognised that not all energy resources are of equal cost or of equal utility, and that humans, especially desperate humans, will readily spend lots of a cheap abundant resource to obtain a small amount of a prized scarce one. People incorrectly infer an imminent "energy cliff" from the declining net energy return of petroleum, but so long as abundant and inexpensive energy is available in another form (renewables, coal, nuclear, whatever) which can either be used to manufacture liquid fuel without petroleum, or be leveraged to continue petroleum extraction despite low, zero or negative net energy, no such energy cliff exists. The gross magnitude of the petroleum resource, if net energy concerns are set aside, is staggering, so "there's enough to fry us all". We need to restrict fossil fuel burning through political means because of pollution. Energy scarcity will not do the job for us by itself, because energy just isn't scarce.<br /><br />Despite denialism and heel-dragging in many powerful circles, there most certainly is a political and technocratic movement to restrict the use of fossil fuels and to reduce our technical reliance on them, and it is seeing some success. Coal is the low hanging fruit; global coal consumption has declined for two years in succession. Oil and gas have scarcely been targeted yet, and while there are fewer obvious replacements (especially once we necessarily come to disallow substitution of one fossil fuel for another), they will be targeted and technically can be replaced in their largest applications.Jonathan Maddoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842100942079342200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-17965487524580479832018-01-30T16:52:20.154-05:002018-01-30T16:52:20.154-05:00@ Jonathan Maddox
I have a feeling what you're...@ Jonathan Maddox<br />I have a feeling what you're really trying to tell me is that everything is going to be OK. Pretty clearly I don't agree with that. I could turn the details of that disagreement the subject of a lengthy series of posts (and maybe I will) but I don't feel that here in the comments is the most productive place to get into it at length. I've done this in the past, and looking back, it was a mistake.<br />Just a few points in response, though:<br /><br />1) there simply isn't any viable alternative to oil (or coal or natural gas) in many of the industrial processes on which our civilization is based. If we just needed a bit of oil, then spending some of the available energy from renewables to get that oil would make sense. But in the quantities we need to "sustain business as usual", it's simply not practical.<br /><br />2) As I've said, I've nothing against debt based currencies as long as the economy is growing, but when growth slows, it become less and less likely that the debts can be repaid, until finally the whole house of cards falls down. And growth has slowed, if not quite yet stopped. I gather you disagree, but I'm not so easily dissuaded. My preferred source on this is Tim Morgan, of Surplus Energy Economics, https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/<br />A good summary of his ideas can be found in his essay "perfect storm", https://www.tullettprebon.com/documents/strategyinsights/TPSI_009_perfect_Storm_009.pdf<br /> or in his book, "Life After Growth".Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-78098263930683558492018-01-30T16:34:59.152-05:002018-01-30T16:34:59.152-05:00@Steve
I've been a member of the ROE2 list sin...@Steve<br />I've been a member of the ROE2 list since 2006 and I've been sending notices about my blog posts to the list for some time now. It's nice to see that they haven't been completely ignored. I'm glad you like what I'm doing here--on the fine points, of course, there is room for many and varied opinions.<br />Human beings are extremely adaptable, but we don't go making big changes in our way of life until need becomes extremely clear. That's probably a good thing in most circumstances, but in our present situation it means we'll wait until the only way left to adapt is the hard way. And sadly, it means that most people aren't going to make it through the bottleneck that lies ahead.<br />I just hope that I can help some of my readers be a little better prepared for what's coming.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-82703712202934189342018-01-30T16:19:04.488-05:002018-01-30T16:19:04.488-05:00@anonymus, William Hall
I was a pleasure to hear f...@anonymus, William Hall<br />I was a pleasure to hear from you and rather flattering. I had a quick look through the links you included and I see nothing that I wouldn't want my name associated with. So, yes, please feel free to go ahead and link to my blog. Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-62680264716593748272018-01-30T16:15:27.467-05:002018-01-30T16:15:27.467-05:00@ Joe
I completely agree: regardless of the exact ...@ Joe<br />I completely agree: regardless of the exact path that collapse takes, it would be extremely prudent to prepare for a quick descent to subsistence agriculture, and to situate ones self in an area where that is feasible. I wrote a series of posts on this a few years ago, entitle "Deliberate Descent", http://theeasiestpersontofool.blogspot.ca/2013/08/deliberate-descent-part-1.html. I currently live in a small town on Lake Huron, in the middle of an agricultural area. I am the co-orinator for the town's Community Garden and I'm working hard at learning to garden effectively.<br />During a crash developing countries will find themselves out from under the imperialist yoke, and for those outside the large cities life may go on much as it has for centuries, provided climate change doesn't make low tech agriculture impossible.<br />Before I retired, I worked in the transmission and distribution section of Ontario's power system, for the most part in the switchyards associated with a large nuclear generating plant. We were becoming more reliant on solid state electronics all the time. Because that is a new technology, all development efforts have tended to focus on taking it to the next level, rather than applying it at an "appropriate level". But if that focus was to change, it wouldn't take long to set up small scale chip foundries close to wherever those parts are needed. Failing that, it wasn't very long ago that the whole power system was run with nothing more high tech than electromechanical relays and the odd vacuum tube--it just takes a lot more people. People, as you point out, are one resource we will have in abundance. To borrow John Michael Greer's terminology, we will need to engage in some "rehumanization".Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-78604097069217635122018-01-30T15:56:44.069-05:002018-01-30T15:56:44.069-05:00@Ben
Thanks for your kind words. I hadn't hear...@Ben<br />Thanks for your kind words. I hadn't heard of Michael Parenti. I've put Against Empire on my Amazon wish list and look forward to reading it. Not many are willing to call the USA an empire, but I find it a very useful viewpoint.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-276234597592027762018-01-28T19:51:50.002-05:002018-01-28T19:51:50.002-05:00All sophisticated economies are debt-based. Circu...All sophisticated economies are debt-based. Circulating currency is a debt obligation of the issuing government. Post-war prosperity of Western nations has been underpinned by ongoing deficit spending by governments, ie. ever-increasing debt. This is entirely sustainable. Any large or sustained surplus sucks money from circulation and triggers recession. It is a fiction that currency-issuing governments borrow money from the private sector: they do sell bonds to the private sector, but central banks “make the market”, always willing to buy or sell at the chosen price (thereby fixing bond yield and interest according to policy). Any bonds held by the central bank are “intra-governmental” debt and (just like circulating banknotes) incur no interest burden. Public debt is a monetary tool for controlling the financial conditions in which the private sector operates, not a means of funding the government.<br /><br />Real economic growth in a global sense hasn’t stopped since the 1970s or even since the 1990s: it has just largely left the working classes of the developed countries behind. Workers in most developing countries have become vastly better paid in that period. Even in developed countries there is still ongoing economic growth, it has just been concentrated mainly in the hands of capitalists rather than steadily increasing wages at the low end.<br /><br />National currencies have always been “fiat” and were never really “based on” precious metals. The exchange value of fiat currencies does not depend on *trust* in the governments which issue them, but on the productive capacity of the economies using them, and the power of the issuing governments to levy taxes in their own currency.<br /><br />The real purchasing power of a currency has always been determined through public policy, ie. spending and taxation. Whenever a nation’s supply of precious metal fell behind its spending needs, it would suspend convertibility. For example, Britain unofficially adopted a gold standard in the final years of the 17th century but would repeatedly abandon it when military spending outstripped gold supplies, reimposing it after the peace, forcing deflation and triggering painful recession. Recoveries in the imperial era were driven by centripetal accumulation of wealth from the colonies. What we think of as the “roaring twenties” was roaring enough in the USA and international financial centre London, but most of the UK struggled from the postwar reimposition of the gold standard in 1925 until convertibility was suspended once and for all in 1931. Arguably the British depression from 1925 was the trigger for the flight of capital to New York, the late 20s stock market boom and crash, and the wider Depression of 1929-1938.<br /><br />The final international abandonment of the gold standard really occurred in the 1930s Depression, not in the 1970s. Bretton Woods created an ersatz gold standard based on the US Dollar, with the US Government undertaking to exchange its dollar for a fixed quantity of gold, to foreign buyers only. Ultimately that guarantee had to be repudiated, and the inflation inevitable from decades of deficit spending finally unravelled into consumer prices as currencies were allowed to float.<br /><br />What changed, not really abruptly in the 1990s but gradually starting in the 1970s, has been the movement by developed country governments and central banks to prioritise low inflation over full employment. This was hardly necessary, as the two major causes of 1970s “stagflation” were strictly temporary: the unravelling of the false Bretton Woods gold standard and the co-ordinated OPEC oil price hikes from 1973 to 1981. The tool of choice for unnecessarily combatting inflation has been monetary policy, ie. high interest rates, which reduced private-sector investment and employment, and also cuts to public sector full employment strategies. Any residual post-stagflation inflation has indeed been defeated in the developed economies, as intended, through reduced domestic investment and employment.Jonathan Maddoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842100942079342200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-1732582734392695882018-01-28T19:51:29.002-05:002018-01-28T19:51:29.002-05:00The energy return of wind and solar energy is cert...The energy return of wind and solar energy is certainly nowhere near as high as historical oil gushers, but it is definitely better than current marginal petroleum, ie. fracking. Solar is not as good as wind, but it is catching up, and wind itself is still improving. Petroleum may be a crucial resource for select purposes, but it's not unusual to leverage energy from an inexpensive source into extraction of a more useful resource with a lower or even negative net energy return. Leveraging inexpensive intermittent stationary energy sources into valuable storeable, transportable, dispatchable fuel makes great economic sense, even if the production of the fuel has negative energy return — it’s just bad for the climate if the fuel in question is a fossil fuel.<br />Jonathan Maddoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842100942079342200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-7080150664940185922018-01-27T22:21:24.656-05:002018-01-27T22:21:24.656-05:00Nice series Irv, thank you. I just ran across your...Nice series Irv, thank you. I just ran across your blog while visiting ROE2, and have been catching up with your writings. I am in general agreement.<br /><br />One of the puzzling reason we seem to be headed down this path, would appear to be that it is "hard wired" into life on this planet. Whether you are looking at yeast on a petri dish, rabbits and foxes, or humans and resources, all seem to rush forward full speed ahead, with little thought (or feedback) about the longer term consequences.<br /><br />If you could go down to that petri dish and "chat" with the microbes growing there, and explain how they double every 90 mins and they've half consumed their world already, they need to think about multiplying so fast; do you think they would listen and change their behavior? Likely they'd tell you to "buzz off, things have never been better and look there's lots of agar left". This was the story line behind the various "Are humans smarter than yeast" threads some years ago.<br /><br />I suspect the conversation would go much the same way with the rabbits and foxes too. There do not seem to be too many (any?) "success stories" out there where the "hero" was a critter that shunned the grab as much as you can as fast as you can <br />ethic and prevailed.<br /><br />Having been involved in the peak oil movement for many years, I can say that the conversation certainly does go much this same way with humans too. And while we humans have numerous positive feedback loops (such as our political/economic system) which tends to reinforce the path we are on, in the long run I don't know that is really any different than the biochemical urges the yeast cells feel and act on.<br /><br />That and I see little evidence that people are willing to give up convenience until they absolutely have to. A few do, but not enough to make a significant difference in the outcome (at least not yet).<br /><br />So until this pattern changes, I expect we will follow the curves you've outlined, and reality will take away those conveniences we just "have to have".Steve in Coloradohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11218041789719609301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-43895023935457615622018-01-27T20:08:37.141-05:002018-01-27T20:08:37.141-05:00Irv,
I just found your blogs yesterday, beginning...Irv,<br /><br />I just found your blogs yesterday, beginning with The Biggest Lie.<br /><br />As an evolutionary biologist (PhD Harvard, 1973) and a documentation and knowledge management systems analyst and designer (17+ years with Australia's largest defence contractor and shipbuilder until my 'retirement' in 2007), I too am concerned about the impending collapse of the human species.<br /><br />For more than 10 years I have been working to understand the coevolution of humans and our technologies tracing from our common ancestry with chimpanzees and bonobos. See <a href="http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net/Index/Essays/HOCTF/Master%20Schedule.html" rel="nofollow">Application Holy Wars or a New Reformation - A Fugue on the Theory of Knowledge</a> for a detailed overview of the project. My initial conclusion was that a technological collapse/singularity as a consequence of hyper exponential growth in the technology and associated environmental destruction was inevitable. <br /><br />More recently, as I began to consider environmental impacts, it seems more likely that collapse will be the result of runaway global warming rather than any specific consequence of technology. See <a href="http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net/Index/Essays/Presentations/The%20Angst%20of%20Global%20Warming%20-%20Our%20Species%20Existential%20Risk%20(full).pdf" rel="nofollow">The Angst of Anthropogenic Global Warming: Our Species' Existential Risk</a> and <a href="http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net/Index/Essays/ClimateEmergency/Start%20of%20Runaway%20Warming.html" rel="nofollow">Is this the start of runaway global warming?</a>. I have also established a Facebook presence to discuss such things. See <a href="https://www.facebook.com/william.hall.94214" rel="nofollow">Facebook</a>.<br /><br />In this regard, your analyses of existential risk and the mechanics of collapse are among the best I have read anywhere - and certainly a lot clearer than my attempts. Would you object if I added links to your discussions in my posts and documents? I would also be happy to correspond offline on william-hall@bigpond.com.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-51167274955317792122018-01-27T17:36:25.991-05:002018-01-27T17:36:25.991-05:00Another clear and perceptive post. Well done.
I s...Another clear and perceptive post. Well done.<br /><br />I still think that the most complex industrialized societies will have a tough time arresting any precipitous decline in carrying capacity, but even if I am wrong about that, the most prudent course of action would be to prepare for rapid descent to subsistence agriculture. <br /><br />Even if the decline is as bumpy as you describe, the drops in resource availability will mean lots of premature death (even without any consideration of war and pandemic). If an economy shrinks by half, half of its workers will lose their jobs. Jobs are how we now distribute essential resources. Those who become jobless and still depend on society to provide food, water and shelter will be taking a great risk and great leap of faith. True prudence requires being able to live without money. It's hard to do in a developed country, but that should still be the goal.<br /><br />I suspect that the complexity of high-energy, high-tech societies will mean that they are at even greater risk than poor and predominantly rural developing countries. Developed countries are like finely tuned machines. There are some repair services available, but I wonder how many parts they can lose before the machine stops working completely? <br /><br />I used to work in a combined-cycle power plant. Without the integrated circuits in the SCADA system, the plant would need dozens of operators to keep it going, if it could be done at all. To paraphrase an old saying, "For the lack of a chip, the powerplant is lost; for the lack of a powerplant, the grid is lost; for the lack of the grid, civilization is lost." Perhaps one of your next installments will explain how civilization could adjust to an absence of microprocessors. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01251330546889158364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-24404980892418238962018-01-27T11:30:57.273-05:002018-01-27T11:30:57.273-05:00Thank you for these insightful and balanced posts....Thank you for these insightful and balanced posts. Since I discovered your blog a month ago or so, I've been eagerly checking back here daily for new articles.<br /><br />Just curious to know if you're familiar with the works of Michael Parenti? Some of it is collapse-related. I'm reading Against Empire: A Brilliant Expose of the Brutal Realities of U.S. Global Domination. It was published in the mid 90's and is perhaps somewhat dated, but I doubt things have actually changed much since then. I find it illuminating.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-62546033941424513992018-01-27T09:52:10.905-05:002018-01-27T09:52:10.905-05:00@foodnstuff
Hi Bev! It's nice to hear from som...@foodnstuff<br />Hi Bev! It's nice to hear from someone else who is aware of collapse and can still see that I'm not looking through rose coloured glasses. Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-59780800594602671792018-01-27T09:49:31.273-05:002018-01-27T09:49:31.273-05:00@Jude Lieber
Thanks! And I try not to make precise...@Jude Lieber<br />Thanks! And I try not to make precise predictions about dates or exact events. It's a fools game.<br />But I hope a clearer grasp of the trends that are at work will be of help to people.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-29310229125479820512018-01-27T04:25:24.412-05:002018-01-27T04:25:24.412-05:00Not a pretty picture, Irv, but I think you've ...Not a pretty picture, Irv, but I think you've done your homework well. Looking forward to the next in the series.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-23304189685368115012018-01-27T00:25:02.570-05:002018-01-27T00:25:02.570-05:00Thanks for the insightful article. You have a goo...Thanks for the insightful article. You have a good combination of current facts and predictions, all of which make sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06501562942165288483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-78144349586490806182018-01-26T23:12:36.385-05:002018-01-26T23:12:36.385-05:00Nice to hear from you Rob!
I guess I'd say tha...Nice to hear from you Rob!<br />I guess I'd say that I don't think there are absolutely no adults who could do this. Just relatively few. Few enough that it won't make much difference. Whether that is because of evolution or the nature of the current situation is hard to tell, and doesn't matter that much because the result it the same.<br />A more important question is, can those few who are capable of doing something constructive really make any difference, even for themselves and their families and communities? If it is possible, it won't be easy.Irv Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030800457536589003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2848841213670110129.post-16162281946306682872018-01-26T12:53:29.354-05:002018-01-26T12:53:29.354-05:00Nice essay Irv.
I observe that you do not predic...Nice essay Irv. <br /><br />I observe that you do not predict adults discussing the implications of declining net per capita energy and rationally choosing an optimal system for their predicament. It's tragic that evolved behavior prevents us from using our intelligence in a constructive manner when it really matters.RobMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00264138186584547148noreply@blogger.com