Rising energy prices

[kenneal - lagger]

You only just worked that out, Steve?

[clv101]

Without the massive, carrying-capacity leverage of hydrocarbons that we have relied upon for the last two centuries or so we are left with the brutal equation of a world with simply too many people and not enough stuff.

It only looks this brutal if you discount the demand/behavioural/adaptability aspect of the equation. Obviously if 7bn+ attempt to live as they do now despite the declining net energy, the result will be brutal. But that's a strawman.

I think it's far more likely behavioural change and adaptability will play a large role this century, allowing a far better life than many project. The amazing range of energy consumption from the Gulf states, US, Europe... through to Kerala and Bhutan show quite simply that people can live happy lives with a tiny fraction of the energy the typical Texan family "needs".

[Keela]

So, the alternatives can be basically defined as shit or shitter.

Either we don't find an alternative to hydrocarbons, in which case we face the collapse of our modern industrial civilisation accompanied by a very high probability of a global resource war and a massive die-off of the human population.

Or, we do find an alternative to hydrocarbons, in which case we destroy the environment which fundamentally supports us and drag the rest of life on earth down to hell with us.

I tend to agree with this summary of our future prospects. However the time scales affect how the current population of humans react to this. And I suspect that "we" are not the generation that will see the ultimate catastrophe take place.

IMO Those of us living now may well live out our days before either alternative above reaches a true crunch situation. (I don't deny that we will face some tough times though... just I don't think we'll see the full scale of the disasters possible.) Sadly because of this, as a species, we are some what complacent.

So, despite our ability to think rationally as individuals, I think it unlikely that our species as a whole will escape from these alternatives. I think like this, because hydrocarbons give those who extract them and use them such a competitive edge, that there is no incentive to stop doing so. Those with the best energy resources have the power and the finances to ensure they can continue be in power. The rest of us, who downsize, give up the power (both social and physical) to bring about tangible changes in the direction of our species' activities.

So the fate of our species (and therefore all those on the planet) is unlikely to be "saved". In my view, one of the two scenarios above will eventually come to be. Perhaps not within the time scale of our lives, but in geological time it is sure to happen in the blink of an eye......

[emordnilap]

Tomorrow I may feel more optimistic.

You may - and it won't be because you're wrong, because you're not - but because the more people who realise the same things, the more hope there is.

[ujoni08]

Steve,

I'm afraid you're right. We can't know the timescale, or the extent of the decline, but it's unavoidable if you look at the numbers.

Jon

[snow hope]

Either we don't find an alternative to hydrocarbons, in which case we face the collapse of our modern industrial civilisation accompanied by a very high probability of a global resource war and a massive die-off of the human population.

Or, we do find an alternative to hydrocarbons, in which case we destroy the environment which fundamentally supports us and drag the rest of life on earth down to hell with us.

Welcome to reality Steve. Glad you took the red pill?

Oh, by the way, I wouldn't look to hard for that silver bullet.....

[Ludwig]

It only looks this brutal if you discount the demand/behavioural/adaptability aspect of the equation. Obviously if 7bn+ attempt to live as they do now despite the declining net energy, the result will be brutal. But that's a strawman.

I think it's far more likely behavioural change and adaptability will play a large role this century, allowing a far better life than many project.

I don´t know where you get your view of human nature from Chris, but it sure isn´t reality.

[biffvernon]

I think it's far more likely behavioural change and adaptability will play a large role this century, allowing a far better life than many project.

I don´t know where you get your view of human nature from Chris, but it sure isn´t reality.

Are you suggesting you are not able to change your behaviour and adapt?

[Ludwig]

I tend to agree with this summary of our future prospects. However the time scales affect how the current population of humans react to this. And I suspect that "we" are not the generation that will see the ultimate catastrophe take place.

I don't see how we can't be that generation.

IMO Those of us living now may well live out our days before either alternative above reaches a true crunch situation.

Keela, I'm afraid you are missing the economic consequences of Peak Oil on countries that are dependent on energy imports to keep themselves going.

In the immediate future the issue is not going to be whether there's technically enough oil left to keep everyone alive - it's who will be able to pay for it when the economies of most of the importing nations have collapsed.

Our governments thus have nothing to lose by trying to get their hands on the oil by fair means or foul. And there are only foul left.

[Ludwig]

I think it's far more likely behavioural change and adaptability will play a large role this century, allowing a far better life than many project.

I don´t know where you get your view of human nature from Chris, but it sure isn´t reality.

Are you suggesting you are not able to change your behaviour and adapt?

It has nothing to do with whether I personally am able to change my behaviour.

Your and Chris's attitude consistently and completely ignores the dark and brutal aspects of human nature. You think that your outlook is the "correct" one, when in fact it's only correct for nice educated people who have never been brutalised by hardship.

[Little John]

I don´t know where you get your view of human nature from Chris, but it sure isn´t reality.

Are you suggesting you are not able to change your behaviour and adapt?

It has nothing to do with whether I personally am able to change my behaviour.

Your and Chris's attitude consistently and completely ignores the dark and brutal aspects of human nature. You think that your outlook is the "correct" one, when in fact it's only correct for nice educated people who have never been brutalised by hardship.

I can agree with this up to a point Ludwig. That is to say, humans are indeed capable of the most heinous of behaviour to each other when needs must. However, I would argue that, for the most part, when given a choice, most humans will tend to take the peaceful route towards achieving their objectives. A peaceful route based largely on the mutual exchange of goods and services.

Nevertheless, history does appear to show a long litany of violence. The thing to remember, though, is that history tends to be written by those who are in charge and they, undoubtedly, tend to be the most ruthless, the most violent, the most psychopathic examples of humanity. That’s why they got be in charge in the first place and why they held onto their power. Even so, their violence and the violence in which they have forced the rest of humanity to engage in the service of their agendas can still be contained in just a mere handful of books.

Compare the above to the vast majority of daily human interactions which are essentially peaceful. If you don’t believe me, go out into any public area anywhere on the planet and, for the most part, you can expect to be able to interact with your fellow humans in ways that are basically benign. The thing is, though, these literally uncountable daily interactions don’t make it into the history books.

So, the obvious answer is to round of all of the psychopaths who are in charge and who are spoiling it all for the rest of us……

…..and then kill the fuckers



Of course, we won't.

That's why we're not in charge

And why they are.

[lurker]

Ecotricity is a rip off!

Wouldn't it be better to donate the extra £300 they charged for lecky per yr to some charity instead?

[Ludwig]

Nevertheless, history does appear to show a long litany of violence. The thing to remember, though, is that history tends to be written by those who are in charge

History´s written by historians, not politicians. It generally takes decades, if not centuries, for the truth about a period to come to light, but usually it does.

and they, undoubtedly, tend to be the most ruthless, the most violent, the most psychopathic examples of humanity. That’s why they got be in charge in the first place and why they held onto their power. Even so, their violence and the violence in which they have forced the rest of humanity to engage in the service of their agendas can still be contained in just a mere handful of books.

If by "a mere handful of books" you mean "tens of thousands of books" then yes!

Compare the above to the vast majority of daily human interactions which are essentially peaceful. If you don’t believe me, go out into any public area anywhere on the planet and, for the most part, you can expect to be able to interact with your fellow humans in ways that are basically benign. The thing is, though, these literally uncountable daily interactions don’t make it into the history books.

We may interact with each other in benign ways but there is always violence under the surface. It's easy to be nice to your fellow human beings when the going is good, but when times get tough, so does human nature.

Like other species, human beings generally avoid fighting to the death by playing "chicken": the animal that backs down loses out, but both survive. Nevertheless, the underlying instinct is destructive, and the ultimate desire is to kill. Both men and women, in their different ways, compete with each other for status and goods, and the ways they compete are mere sublimations of the urge to kill.

The point of fighting is to get what you want, and it is built in to human (and animal) nature. Just look how aggressive and selfish children are by default.

[DominicJ]

History´s written by historians, not politicians. It generally takes decades, if not centuries, for the truth about a period to come to light, but usually it does.

Does the truth out?
Perhaps, perhaps not.

Dr Norths "Days of Glory" blog (and book soon) is a stunning view into just how much of accepted "history" is pure fiction.

[Totally_Baffled]

It only looks this brutal if you discount the demand/behavioural/adaptability aspect of the equation. Obviously if 7bn+ attempt to live as they do now despite the declining net energy, the result will be brutal. But that's a strawman.

I think it's far more likely behavioural change and adaptability will play a large role this century, allowing a far better life than many project.

I don´t know where you get your view of human nature from Chris, but it sure isn´t reality.

Ludwig - you may turn out to be right, I don't dismiss the fact that things could be horrible very quickly but, you could argue that humans have been coping with/adapting to declining energy for decades already?

When was "peak oil per capita" or "peak net energy" per capita, I suspect it was some time ago - and the world hasn't gone completely to hell.

Of course when oil does go into decline, then yes the energy per head is going to take a marked step downwards - so it will be a challenge, but it doesnt have to be the end IMO