I have some difficulty with Duncan's assumptions. He posits the rise and fall of civilization in general based on a rise and fall of energy spent per capita (e). This assumes that his 'industrial civilization' and high 'e' is some sort of evolutionary high point, reflecting civilization's highest moral and ethical values and standard of living. This is quite a reach; so-called industrial civilization may just be a relatively energy-inefficient and high consumption per capita phase, following which the 'e' will drop off as energy efficiencies rise and energy economics necessitate less consumption. So what? These are good things, unless he is advocating rampant consumerism and waste. His further predictions of a great decrease in population and the necessity for sustainable living practices are also good things, so again, where's the problem? I think a better measure of human progress than 'e' might be the realized 'technology per capita', which would include and facilitate things like sophisticated health care, communications, and economic empowerment.
William R. Porter > Folks -- > > I do not post this reference lightly, and just discovered the updated > analysis of well-defined and transparent empirical data by Richard Clark > Duncan this evening. Duncan is an energy specialist of national, if not >
