At 00:50 31/08/2012, Pete wrote:
(PV) It's not about how much oil is left, it's about how much oil is left
which is 1)cheap to extract, and 2) able to be extracted at a rate
which can keep up with demand. We are already on the edge of the
downslope there, it is only the continuing weak world economy
which prevents this from being obvious.
(KH) It's not the weak world economy which is keeping us at the "edge
of the downslope". Ever since the oil shocks of 1972 and '74, Europe
and America have been using oil more efficiently. We only use half
per capita as then, and improvements are still being made.
Considering the certain steep decline in indigenous populations of
advanced countries within the next 15 years then oil/electricity
usage by them will be even less. China's usage will be close to
stabilization by then also -- the take-up by the presently rural
population being balanced by more energy efficiency in the already
industrialized coastline population. After then, China's usage will
go down. Half (soon to be three-quarters) of the world's poor are
already in the mega-cities, use only a fraction of electricity/oil
per capita and whose family size -- and ultimate population -- are
already declining fast. There are still major oil- and
superficial-gas-fields to be exploited for at least a century to come
at a cost/barrel much less than the artificial high prices of today.
(PW) It rather appears that this
situation may continue for a while, and though I don't immediately
see how the connections would be made, I'm beginning to suspect
that the weak economy can in fact be traced back to the fact that
we have reached the edge of the downslope.
(KH) The weak economy is due to a lack of incentives (uniquely new
consumer goods and services) and a stupifying amount of credit (and
correlated debt) which has accumulated since the '80s and now
clogging up our financial system.
(PV) And as for fracking, what good is an abundant supply of natural
gas if it comes at the cost of injecting poisons into the entire
continental groundwater supply? Now how much of that newly won
energy is going to have to go into processing water to make it
safe to use even for agriculture?
(KH) " . . . entire continental groundwater supply?" Whatever do you
mean? "Continental groundwater" hardly exists (where it is needed and
is economical to pump up) because: (a) it has already been mostly
exploited; (b) much is naturally poisonous anyway (usually arsenic).
Most of the world's population depends almost exclusively on rain and
river water. Out of the thousands of fracking wells in America only a
handful have produced problems.
(PV) Nothing like the profit motive
to deliver a pathological solution to every problem, which just
kicks the pebble down the road to where it becomes an avalanche
of giant boulders rolling back on us...
(KH) There's nothing like the profit motive to get anything done --
good things as well as bad things. Try altruism beyond family and
closest friends and see where that gets you!
Profit is the bonus I receive when I obtain the best skills of
someone else in exchange for my best skills.
The pejorative use of "profit" shows just how deeply the medieval
Church still lies in Western culture.
Keith
-Pete
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Keith Hudson wrote:
> Jeremy Rifkin is right, overall, when he says that the present
> industrial-consumerist era is coming to an end. He's wrong to say that it's
> anything to do with a carbon economy. In the post-hunter-gatherer
era, trees
> have been burned for fuel and coal outcrops and oil seepages were exploited
> wherever found. Even natural gas was used for street lighting in China at
> around 200BC. He's wrong about the 30-year supply of oil. There's
at least 100
> years of this left, plus the natural gas associated with it.
Also, fracked gas
> and methane clathrates will last for centuries yet, particularly
if city-bound
> excess populations of the undeveloped world follow the steeply declining
> fertility trends of the advanced countries. The last two sources
will produce
> energy with only about half the residual CO2 as present energy-production
> methods.
>
> Jeremy Rifkin is quite right about the power-groups at the top
(which I call
> the 20-class). But man, like all social mammals, has always tended to
> stratify. Once a new species comes into existence, stratification is
> absolutely necessary to maintain quality control and to fit the species
> evermore efficiently into the environment around it. Be it ever so weakly
> expressed in some cultures, females always tend to partner
themselves upwards
> in order to leave handicapped and inept males behind without
issue. The only
> difference between today and, say, 300 years ago when the
> industrial-consumerist revolution was just getting started, is that we now
> have more different types of power-groups than before.
>
> Keith
>
>
> At 19:04 29/08/2012, Ed wrote:
> > Jeremy Rifkin was the guest on TVO's Agenda during the past two
nights. His
> > ideas flowed out like tidal waves so I can't remember everything he said,
> > but his central idea seemed to be that the past 200 years shouldn't be
> > thought of in terms of being market or ideologically driven but
in terms of
> > being driven by the discovery and availability of carbon - ie.
coal, oil and
> > natural gas. A carbon based economy, he argued, leads to "vertical"
> > economic and social organization of the kind we've had for the
past two or
> > three centuries. The carbon that fuels the economy is something somebody
> > gets for us and controls us with. Hence it puts some groups at
the top of
> > the heap and makes everyone else subservient to them in a
highly stratified
> > and multi-specialized system.
> >
> > Ah, he then said, but the carbon economy has to come to an end, and in
> > Rifkin's opinion it will end very soon. A carbon based economy
can't last
> > more than another 30 years or so. What then? I didn't quite fully grasp
> > what he was saying, but it was something like vast horizontally organized
> > networks based on green energy with everybody pitching in and everybody
> > benefiting would come into being. It all sounded very beautiful though
> > somewhat idealistic if one considers continued rapid population growth,
> > diminishing agricultural potential, the growth of cities and
global warming.
> >
> > However, it was interesting. If you want to hear what he said
yourselves,
> > go to the TVO/Agenda website and take a look and listen.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > P.S.: Chris Hedges, co-author of "Days of Destruction, Days of
Revolt" is
> > on the Agenda tonight. I've read the book, and it's not an uplifting
> > happiness pill.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Futurework mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
