What to do in a failing civilization

Post by **mikepepler** » 20 Sep 2005, 13:07

A fairly depressing story reported on Energy Bulletin:
http://energybulletin.net/8990.html

Can global civilization adapt successfully to degradation of the biosphere and depletion of fossil fuels? I argue that it cannot. Important elements of all constituent societies would have to be reformed. Reform would have to be radical and would be uncertain of success. It could be undertaken only in the presence of incontrovertible necessity?a necessity that will reveal itself incontrovertibly only when catastrophic collapse has become unavoidable. I conclude that those who seek to preserve civilization should plan for its survival in restricted regions.

The capacity to produce sustainable income?food, energy, materials?disappears with the natural capital that generates it. Day by day the proportion of capital in our consumption increases. We don?t see that the income portion of our consumption is decreasing as long as we don?t distinguish between consumed income and consumed capital. At some point, retrenching to rebuild our natural capital becomes impossible. If we were to decide to consume only income, we would starve and there would not be any income left over to rebuild capital.

At this point we are trapped. Bankruptcy is inevitable, but we may continue to live still more lavishly each year as long as capital remains to be consumed. The trap is known by ecologists as overshoot. When we finally reach the limits of natural capital, the Earth's support for our presence will decrease suddenly to an astonishingly low level compared to the largesse we have become used to. This necessary consequence of overshoot is called crash, or die-off.

He follows up with some good comments on economics and why we won't change until it's too late.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 20 Sep 2005, 13:20

To preserve civilization at least some of these must choose to stay out of overshoot, establish independence in the production of food, energy, materials, and crucial manufactured goods, and defend their borders against the migrations that will tend to spread overshoot everywhere.

Yes, we can also for a skeletal network of groups (?future clubs?) that can switch over to communities as and when the time is needed.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 20 Sep 2005, 18:59

A well written article, highly recommended.

beev · Post by **beev** » 20 Sep 2005, 19:55

I've been wondering about what it will be like when the die-off begins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that those who are due to die are the ones who have not made any plans for the future. They have not attempted to curb their consumption, they have not bought a bicycle, not got a solar panel or other form of energy source, not joined a community, etc. What I'm really wondering is this: are those people (probably the majority) expected to die-off quietly, or are they expected to be stealing our bicycles and solar panels and raiding our communities and our allotments etc?

I've been wondering about this because I think it is a thing that would make survival considerably more challenging. As a matter of fact, if things like food really were scarce because it was impossible to import, and networked communities were the only realistic form of survival, I would expect the system of law and order to have broken down by then, and the unprepared people who have no idea of the concept of communities to be running wild (trying to avoid dying). I would expect to be in fear for my life, and my bike and my tins of food - basically everything. Without a shotgun and a big dog I would be f^?ked, correct?

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 20 Sep 2005, 19:59

beev wrote:I've been wondering about what it will be like when the die-off begins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that those who are due to die are the ones who have not made any plans for the future. They have not attempted to curb their consumption, they have not bought a bicycle, not got a solar panel or other form of energy source, not joined a community, etc. What I'm really wondering is this: are those people (probably the majority) expected to die-off quietly, or are they expected to be stealing our bicycles and solar panels and raiding our communities and our allotments etc?

I've been wondering about this because I think it is a thing that would make survival considerably more challenging. As a matter of fact, if things like food really were scarce because it was impossible to import, and networked communities were the only realistic form of survival, I would expect the system of law and order to have broken down by then, and the unprepared people who have no idea of the concept of communities to be running wild (trying to avoid dying). I would expect to be in fear for my life, and my bike and my tins of food - basically everything. Without a shotgun and a big dog I would be f^?ked, correct?

Will die off be the same in all parts of the world though?

You are right , if society in the UK fails to hold it together we are totally stuffed. On the hand , it doesn't necessarily have to be that way?

If people aren't fed and watered then we will have anarchy, but surely the EU has the capacity to feed itself?

Agriculture only takes 1% of our fossil fuel usage (UK = 10 million barrels per year and 1 bcm of gas)

Just a thought.

TB

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 20 Sep 2005, 20:39

If you've seen "28 Days Later" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/ ), you'll recall that the "die off" occurs in two phases:
1) people are killed fighting each other
2) the remaining people die of starvation/thirst because all the infrastructure is gone.

True 28 Days is a flawed film in many ways but on this score I think it makes a good illustration.

I think most perceived "die off" scenarios follow this two-phase approach - death by fighting followed by death-by-starvation.

As baffled says tho, this need not have to occur in the UK, it may only happen in other parts of the world (bad tho that will be anyway).

I actually think the Uk is well placed to avoid such a nightmare scenario, but the world has a whole is likely to hit some form of over-population metric sooner or later and that really can only end one way for some.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 20 Sep 2005, 21:10

I actually think the Uk is well placed to avoid such a nightmare scenario, but the world has a whole is likely to hit some form of over-population metric sooner or later and that really can only end one way for some

Oh I agree, the worlds population is far to high. But I feel the type of "die off" will be determined by where you are in the world.

It is plain to see that Africa (for example) will have the "mad max" scenario. They cannot hold it together now , let alone a couple of decades post peak.

The west is more likely to have the "slow die off".

The reason I think this is because , 20% of our population is/will be over 65. This is the main driver for the maintenance of our population despite a very low birth rate (EU is below replacement almost everywhere).

Now if you consider that the NHS and heating will be the first victims (over time anyway) of economic recession/depression, then you can see that our ability to live to 75+ will be gone. The population will therefore slide naturally.

Of course this is not a very nice pill to swallow (as we will all be over 65 one day - we maybe when this all comes down

). But at least this will take the pressure off resources.

I also think that nothing will happen overnight. Hell people quote New orleans as a post peak scenario. But that is a poor example, if you have flooding , explosions, chemical clouds, loss of shelter, food , water, electricity , oil , gas , petrol , everything overnight you are going to get chaos! Peak oil is about a gradual decline of energy resource and it becoming more expensive.

I also think that governments in the west will retain control. It will be a priority, we will probably see martial law , curfews and rough justice (yobs and persistant trouble makers will get themselves shot). This is shite I know , but drastic times will require drastic measures. This could go on for decades.

Assuming the yanks dont start a global nuclear feck fest, our future is more likely to be of no retirement, hard labour , very crap wages, allotment tending , rationing and a lot lower standard of living. But I dont see the Anarchic/chaos mad max scenario anytime soon.

Just my opinion.

TB

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 20 Sep 2005, 21:18

Ahh, I was about to warn easily baffled

(okay last time I call you that) not to come in here as it is a bit of a downer and I am about to make it worse.

Why the heck does anybody expect things to be better in the UK? If people run short of food or just access to affordable food, or warmth and shelter, then we had all better watch out.

Can somebody explain to me why things might be better in the UK? I want somebody to convince me..... please.

Anybody remember Maslow's Heirachy of Needs Pyramid? http://www.businessballs.com/freemateri ... iagram.doc

Well I think we are about to reach the bottom level again.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 20 Sep 2005, 21:43

snow hope wrote:Ahh, I was about to warn easily baffled (okay last time I call you that) not to come in here as it is a bit of a downer and I am about to make it worse.

Why the heck does anybody expect things to be better in the UK? If people run short of food or just access to affordable food, or warmth and shelter, then we had all better watch out.

Can somebody explain to me why things might be better in the UK? I want somebody to convince me..... please.

Anybody remember Maslow's Heirachy of Needs Pyramid? http://www.businessballs.com/freemateri ... iagram.doc

Well I think we are about to reach the bottom level again.

Hi snow.

I guess the answer is that people need not go short of food and the essentials.

The UK has the ability to produce enough food, and the EU has massive agricultural capacity(remember the food mountains?)

This only requires a tiny amount of fossil fuels to acheive (circa 1%)

This could be moved around by rail powered by Nukes/renewables/pick you poison.

The north sea will be producing 300,000 bpd in 2020 and probably still 100,000 beyond 2035. This is enough oil to power agriculture/. Even without oil you can make fertilizer and diesal from coal. Which Europe and Russia have fecking tonnes of. China produces 40% of its fertilizer from coal.

Water and sewage can be powered by eletctricity.

There is also the possibility of UCG:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cfft/ ... report.pdf

This is the use of natural gas from coal which is not accesible from normal minig techniques. It also can be used on massive coal reserves under the north sea.

The report states that this has the potential to power the equivelant of coal contribution to power generation in 2004 for decades. It also could be used for fertilizer production.

The ability to produce what we need is there. The big issues is how the economy/political system will function. The latter isn't like the laws of physics, they are made up by man and can be changed (I know thats simplistic but you know what I mean)

Now compare this situation to say countries in Africa, who even if they have the resources do not have the skills to exploit them , and without the major food exporters to help them , are in big trouble if harvests fail.(the big exporters of food are the US, EU , Canada)

Look at Japan, 120 million people, with less land than the UK (one third less arable land). Isolated from key trading partners, and has a massive Chinese navy parked on their doorstep nicking anything they can get there hands on!

Look at the China, India, South east Asia area. Represents over half the worlds population (even higher in 2050

). Without food exporters bailing them out in poor years, they are also in deep ****. Remember China had a massive famine in 1950's which isnt that long ago.

It will be tough , but I don't think it will be as bad as a lot of other places.

There will better places to be , I think France , Germany, Spain, Canada will be better off (canada being number 1 if they can keep the yanks out).

TB

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 20 Sep 2005, 21:44

I imagine a combination of the two scenarios,

A general grinding downgrading of our standard of living interspersed with mini-panics when events get the better of us. A bit like watching history in reverse at double speed.

There are large, poor, overdeveloped yet under-utilised areas of our biggest cities (places like Ilford, ?sorry if you live there?) which probably won?t fair very well during any mini-panics that might occur. I guess we will see generalised increased crime levels throughout our society, this will be more apparent in areas, which already have high crime rates.

However I think that villages and smaller communities with access to natural resources will not suffer too badly. They still have the remains of a sense on community, and that is the most important thing in the troubled future we face.
.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 21 Sep 2005, 07:11

beev wrote:What I'm really wondering is this: are those people (probably the majority) expected to die-off quietly, or are they expected to be stealing our bicycles and solar panels and raiding our communities and our allotments etc?

I would hope the idea of forming skeletal groups or ?future clubs? would address that problem in some way. The idea being that these clubs would be formed before the worse happened. The would clue themselves up on things they need to know and as things get worse would be in a position to set up communities by drawing in local people and building a community as and when needed.

Post by **mikepepler** » 21 Sep 2005, 07:25

fishertrop wrote:True 28 Days is a flawed film in many ways but on this score I think it makes a good illustration.

The best illustration I've seen recently is the book "The Death of Grass" by John Christopher. It's out of print but you can get it on DODGY TAX AVOIDERS Marketplace for under ?10. I'd say it's a bit like "Lord of the Flies", only with adults instead of kids, and set in England rather than a deserted island. Thoroughly depressing, and enough to motivate you to build up your stocks of essentials and move to the country iuf you can!

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 21 Sep 2005, 12:05

snow hope wrote: Why the heck does anybody expect things to be better in the UK? If people run short of food or just access to affordable food, or warmth and shelter, then we had all better watch out.

Can somebody explain to me why things might be better in the UK? I want somebody to convince me..... please.

Well I'm not sure I can convince you snow, but I think it's worth noting the following (as said by others):
1) At a fundamental level the uk could be fairly self sufficient for essentials
2) Most western governements see the way to staying in power as a combination of martial law and enough initatives to make the people think that all that can be done is being done

If people get food, water, shelter then decent into "mad max" or "28 days" can be avoided.

Lots of protests and demonstrations, some ugly, are a world away from the total societal colaspe that everyone (rightly) fears.

Many parts of the world tho are always one inch away from civil unrest and many such places will need little hardship to decend into chaos.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 21 Sep 2005, 12:17

fishertrop wrote: 1) At a fundamental level the uk could be fairly self sufficient for essentials

The problem is getting to that fundamental level from where we are now - and I'm not convinced that that fundamental level really exists. We're told that the world is (way) beyond its carrying capacity, and that the UK is one of the most densely populated countries in the world....

Leaving that aside, as I say, the problem is getting to that fundamental level. We have built a colossal, fossil-fuel powered superstructure on this fundamental level. Even though the superstructure was built "smoothly", its removal will not be a smooth process, because it can't be removed bit by bit. Bits will fail in unexpected ways, and those failures will have knock-on consequences, etc. How it will turn out is not predictable, but I doubt that it will be very pelasant,

Peter.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 21 Sep 2005, 12:42

I appreciate the explanations and reasonings and can certainly see where you are coming from. I really hope you are right of course.

But, I think a lot depends on this statement, "If people get food, water, shelter then decent into "mad max" or "28 days" can be avoided." which I would agree with.

My problem is that I can forsee a worst case scenario where this simply won't happen - to me it is a hell of a big IF. I forsee government and rule of law will not exist. If I was short of water, food or shelter for my family, I would go searching for it whatever way possible. If I will do it when under pressure so will everybody else - it is the survival instinct of us humans.

What worries me, is exactly what Blue Peter has highlighted. The change from orderly complex society to
a) lack of transport and all its ramifications re food, nevermind all other products
b) lack of heat and electricity that will likely happen when oil and gas shoot through the roof (we have seen nothing yet in terms of price increases imo)
c) lack of income due to massive job losses (in the millions) causing an escalation in job losses everywhere (downward spiral) - think of a house of cards falling down.
d) loss of homes as economy crashes hard, a depression descends like never before, banks crash, all loans are called in, people become marauders trying not to starve to death.

I know I paint a black picture, but the reason I do is because we as a civilisation are so totally unprepared for what may (is likely) to happen if oil and gas deplete as quickly as we predict. Lets not forget these cheap fuels have underpinned our civilisation's growth for the last 100 years. We will not have the same time to ungrow or roll backwards. It will be such a immense shock to most of the population, they will not have a clue what has hit them.

I just can't see this being a slow affair and I have no confidence that we as a race will manage it.

I didn't know I was such a doomer.