Sorry, Keith, but I do find Pete's arguments compelling. We may indeed be
using oil more efficiently now than we did a few decades ago, but there are
many more users now than there were then, and there are many more to come.
According to the UN, even if population growth settles down to being relatively
moderate, we could still have an additional three billion people on the earth a
few decades from now. If it continues to grow at its present rate, we could
have an additional ten billion by the end of the century. This doesn't bode
well for the continued existence of petroleum reserves, nor indeed for the
reserves of any essential commodity.
On another matter, you argue: "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."
I don't disagree that the clogged financial system is a factor in the weak
economy, but I wonder if the lack of new consumer goods is that important.
Surely there are more important factors. One must surely be the high rate of
unemployment and growing poverty, especially among the young, in our dominant
societies. Another factor, especially in America, is the decline of the class
that once powered the economy through its purchases -- the middle class. There
was a clip of an automobile assembly line on TV the other night. You couldn't
see a single worker along the assembly line. Instead of people putting cars
together, machines were doing it. How very different from even a couple of
decades ago!
And in support of Pete's point on the dangers of fracking, I'd point out that
there are vast underground supplies of water that we depend on. The US alone
has some 20 major aquifers, including the huge Ogallala Aquifer, which recently
required the rerouting of a major pipeline so that its relative purity wouldn't
be affected. Given the prospect of continued population growth, I would be
very concerned about anything that could endanger our water supplies.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION ; pete
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] The future according to Rifkin
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
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
