Yearning and Longing

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 14 Nov 2005, 17:18

skeptik wrote: "Spaceflight is utter bilge"
The Astronomer Royal, Richard Woolley, January 1956

Launch of Sputnik 1 by the USSR, October 1957.

which conforms nicely to Arthur C. CLarkes First Law

1 - When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Luckily, I'm not a distinguished elderly scientist.

skeptik wrote:
Hmm... scrabbling about in 20th century rubbish dumps for old brass bedsteads... my idea of fun, not. Which reminds me have you ever read Ridley Walker by Russel Hoban?

No. What is it?

skeptik wrote: Like the pyramid of Cheops - fun to visit, but the thought of actually building the damn thing using only sand ramps, log rollers , rope and human muscle power is my idea of a Holiday in Hell..

Mine as well, but it just shows what can be done,

Peter.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 14 Nov 2005, 18:07

Blue Peter wrote:
Luckily, I'm not a distinguished elderly scientist.

Luckily you're not, otherwise many people would be more uncritically accepting of your arguments than they deserve. Clarke is just re-stating the fallacy of 'appeal to authority' in a more interesting form, with a poke at the rigidity of thinking that comes with age. You have to be young to believe in three impossible things before breakfast.

skeptik wrote: Which reminds me have you ever read Ridley Walker by Russel Hoban?

No. What is it?
Highly recommended fiction (..at least by me it is

)
England Post Apocalypse. Well worth the ?3.44 being asked by DODGY TAX AVOIDERS if you have not read it. Warning - a challenging read as it is written in a fictional future dialect of English. To be taken slowly and thoughtfully.

skeptik wrote:o
Like the pyramid of Cheops - fun to visit, but the thought of actually building the damn thing using only sand ramps, log rollers , rope and human muscle power is my idea of a Holiday in Hell..

.

Mine as well, but it just shows what can be done,
Peter.

Touch?. But not by me if I have anything to do with it.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 15 Nov 2005, 08:02

skeptik wrote:
isenhand wrote:<<my only problem with this is the thought that if the current global technological civilistation collapses, the survivors on their lifeboats end up back in the stone age with no conceivable way of ever getting out of the stone age>>

Hence the need to network! What you say is always possible but I think we can go beyond that if we plan and network together we can maintain a high standard of living.
Should the current global scientific / technological civilisation which we all depend on collapse, all a 'network of lifeboats' will be able to maintain is a stone age level society based on sticks, stones and animal sinews to bind them together. The network of lifeboats will never be able to acquire the wherewithal (excepting scavaging rubbish dumps) even to make a bronze axe.

Why? because all the copper and tin ore deposits which were workable with stone age technology were used up a long time ago. The networked lifeboats will never be able to use copper ore where the grade is measured in ppm. This is what copper mines now look like. The grade of copper mined here ranges from 0.6% to 1.3%

http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/escondida/

do you think a network of survivors would ever be able to create and operate a mine like that? In Chile? Obviously not. I think you'll have to settle for tallow and beeswax candles, sheepskin clothing and stone axes. My advice - learn flint knapping while you still have the benefit of the WWW to locate somebody who can teach you. Personally, I pass.

All our technology wont disappear over night, it will still be around. With reuse, repairing, recycling we could keep what we have for some time with out even having to produce something new (do we really need a new mobile phone every 6 months?).

Forming communities, ruralisation of cities etc will put us in a position where we can have shelter, produce food and keep going. More complex talks would require a bit of cooperation with local communities but you could get a small scale industry going that could maintain what we have. Personally I see it well with in our capabilities to, at the very least, maintain a pre computer level of civilisation like the 50s or 60s. With a bit more networking we could even do better than that but that would require more complex projects.

To be able to do it requires:

Sustainable communities + networking

It can be done, weather or not it will be done depends on what we do now. Do we all team up and form a network? Do we start forming communities?

Certainly there are people who are forming communities and the skeletal frame work for such communities. I haven?t seen much in the way of networking (other than my little project).

If we don?t start asap or (even sooner!) then going back to the stone age will become more and more likely. It?s up to us.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 15 Nov 2005, 08:05

<< It's the lifeboat scenario as some people envisage it that I'm having a go at. Collapse. Society at large goes down but the lifeboats continue with solar electric and handcranked radio, homegrown carrots. Not a realistic option. the lifeboats can't operate independently of wider society, they have to work with it. Even the Amish don't make their own nails and rely on natural gas for heating and power - though illogically, not electricity.>>

A lifeboat is only a temporary stage, a steeping stone and you are right it can?t last long by itself with out a wider society, hence networking

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 15 Nov 2005, 14:16

Tess wrote:

I am starting to hope that we can in fact find ways to extract sufficient renewable energy from the sun, atmosphere and oceans to escape our current peril.

I think that renewable energy is our ONLY hope.

I'm doing a study at the moment for a 'sustainable energy strategy' for the Borough where I work. I reckon you could power about 0.01% of the homes in the Borough from waste wood, maybe another 1% from wood sustainably harvestable from the surrounding forest.

Not good numbers . . . if you start bringing in coal, the figures get better but pollution jumps, and health plummets.

Possibly the best option for new-build homes without a chimney would be a ground source heat pump. Powergen are selling one called "heat plant", which uses a vertical borehole for the ground loop, so you don't have to dig up your garden. I think they use the Calorex pump:-

http://www.calorex.com/company/indus04a.htm

They ain't cheap though - a GSHP system will probably set you back about ?8000 - not including the heat distribution system (radiators, underfloor etc). But then, it might be a small price to pay to avoid freezing to death!

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 15 Nov 2005, 15:18

Andy Hunt wrote:Possibly the best option for new-build homes without a chimney would be a ground source heat pump.

Surely the best option for a new-build home is super-insulation (so you don't require very much space-heating) and solar hot water?

Peter.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 15 Nov 2005, 15:28

Yes I agree - but it would have to be very good insulation for the home not to require any space heating at all in the winter, though! In fact, I think it would have to be built underground! Unless you have some info that I don't know about! (always possible . . . )

Solar water heating generally only provides hot water for washing etc - and then, only in the summer. The best solar hot water systems would provide your domestic hot water from maybe March to October. In the winter, you might get tepid water out of it, but certainly no space heating.

The only other way to get around space heating in the winter is to build your home into the side of a hill, or cover the North-facing side with earth, like an Earthship:-

www.earthship.org

Whichever way, the people who can't afford major heating works on their home are going to freeze when the crisis really starts hitting. It will serve to reduce the population, anyway, I suppose. When there are lots of uninhabited houses, I wonder if we could replace the roofs with glass or perspex, and convert them into greenhouses for growing food locally, and during the winter? Waste plastic bottles might do the trick . . .

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 15 Nov 2005, 15:49

Andy Hunt wrote:Yes I agree - but it would have to be very good insulation for the home not to require any space heating at all in the winter, though! In fact, I think it would have to be built underground! Unless you have some info that I don't know about! (always possible . . . )

Solar water heating generally only provides hot water for washing etc - and then, only in the summer. The best solar hot water systems would provide your domestic hot water from maybe March to October. In the winter, you might get tepid water out of it, but certainly no space heating.

Yes, you'd still need some space heating and some water heating. I guess that I was trying to say that rather than look at better ways to generate energy (expensive Ground Source Heat Pumps), it's better and cheaper to try to reduce the amount of energy needed. If only the building regulations could be suitably beefed up,

Peter.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 15 Nov 2005, 15:55

God only knows why building regs don't specify renewable energy measures. It would do wonders for the retrofit market too, as the mass take-up of the technology would make it far cheaper for householders.

But of course it would mean a drop in profits for the big hydrocarbon suppliers, who still have an enormous say in Government policy. So they don't do it!

Madness!

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 15 Nov 2005, 16:20

Andy Hunt wrote:God only knows why building regs don't specify renewable energy measures. It would do wonders for the retrofit market too, as the mass take-up of the technology would make it far cheaper for householders.

But of course it would mean a drop in profits for the big hydrocarbon suppliers, who still have an enormous say in Government policy. So they don't do it!

Madness!

www.aecb.net (Association for Environmentally Conscious Builders) do their best, but it's an uphill struggle. We pay so much for our houses, but I believe, at least on an energy basis, they're the worst in Northern Europe,

Peter.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 15 Nov 2005, 20:58

isenhand wrote: A lifeboat is only a temporary stage, a steeping stone and you are right it can?t last long by itself with out a wider society, hence networking

third time lucky... then I give up.

Networked lifeboats do not an ocean liner make... and after a collapse of civilisation never will. There are no stepping stones. We used them all up.

Nobody knows how to make a pencil. Once the system that can has gone, its game over, for the reasons already given which I wont bore people by repeating again..

Delusions of self sufficiency - in the context of this discussion it starts to get interesting at about para 9

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 16 Nov 2005, 08:07

<< third time lucky... then I give up.>>

Maybe I should try again, as I don?t think you are following me.

<< Networked lifeboats do not an ocean liner make.>>

Correct and never said they would. The are a temporary means of moving from a sinking ship to one that is still afloat. You begin with self-sufficient communities and then network them together then that forms the foundations for a new society. Then you have a new liner heading to a new destination. One that is not the same as the one that sank, one that is in balance with nature.

<< Nobody knows how to make a pencil. Once the system that can has gone>>

If you just allow civilisation to collapse then it has the potential for knowledge to be lost but that is not necessary the case. We lost the knowledge of concrete, safety pins and hamburgers (to name but a few) when the Roman civilisation collapsed but we managed to reinvent them. Knowledge can also survive civilisation collapse. Greek philosophy passed from the Greeks to the Romans to the Arabs to us as each civilisation collapsed. The knowledge of what wood to use for what applications and the knowledge of using metals goes back to the Stone Age. So what you say is not true.

Now coming to PO and its possible consequences, and PO is just one of a number of problems we face, I consider that one way (and this is not the only way) to survive and go beyond survival is to form self?sufficient communities and then to network them together. If we do that before we run into trouble we have a foundation that will enable us to survive a potential collapse. If we start now we also have the opportunity to preserve knowledge as well.

The type of networking I like is one where each community is independent and self-sufficient but forms part of a network that is a federation of communities (or maybe ?confederation? would be a better word). I would see it as a global federation that is non-authoritarian and allows communications between communities and self-organisation to occur to form projects. Any one community would then be part of a society and not isolated. That could allow industry to form and things to be made as they are needed. Each community could produce one part of a product so no one person nor community will need to know everything in detail to make anyone item (NB, I don?t see capitalism as part of this).

In addition, if civilisation were to collapse then things would not disappear over night. Machines and technology would still be there as well as having a supply of raw materials. It would not all just vanish from the face of the Earth.

Just to summaries:

Self-sufficient communities = lifeboats

+ networking = network of lifeboats which forms the foundations of a new society

+ self-organisation = a new advanced society which a good standard of living and is in balance with the ecosystem.

I know I?m not good at explaining things but I hope that makes things a bit clearer.

Just as an aside, have you ever seen ?Survivors?? There is a lot in that programme that is relevant to this discussion. Its interesting to see that a lot of what I have been thinking about also pops up in that programme.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 16 Nov 2005, 10:04

Hi Isenhand,

I think you are pretty much along the right lines. Fundamentally, there are enough resources to support a certain number of people to a certain quality of life. True, there won't be many mineral resources actually left inside the planet, but there will be huge amounts of processed stuff left above ground, in the form of metals, concrete, and technology.

There will be enough renewable energy to support those who can tap into it. There will be enough copper pipe and black paint lying around to make lots of solar hot water panels. An industry will spring up around re-conditioning pumps.

I think there will be a large attrition of population over a relatively short space of time, though - but I think the management of this decline is possible. For example, if houses with young families in are powered by wood stoves or ground source heat pumps, and houses with old people in are left powered by gas boilers, once the old people have moved onto the next cosmic phase, the houses will be left uninhabited, as they won't have a viable source of heating. People trying to live in unheated houses will likely suffer high mortality rates. If people don't control their own fertility, then nature will do it for us. People living in heated houses will likely have to defend them, but they will probably get help from the army, police etc, who will most likely have orders to shoot maurauders. Well, if people have to die, it might as well be the bad guys, no? I think we may see an extremely zealous enforcement of law and order.

The 'lifeboats' - be they homes or communities - will be aligned with the new state of affairs, i.e. they will be working on the assumption that they will be the hardy buds which survive the new-age frost which kills everything else back. As Tess rightly assumes, even some of these 'lifeboats' will succumb in the chaos, as desperation gives rise to desperate acts. People who are 'floundering in the water' will inevitably try to get into some of the 'lifeboats', and some may even 'capsize' because of that.

But the sooner we start to put them together, the stronger they will be when the destruction comes. They may survive better because communities are not so much physical buildings as spiritual co-operatives, so direct physical assaults may well be survivable.

The thing to bear in mind is that there IS a shore for the lifeboats to land on. It will be a very different place from where we live now, and many of us may not make it. But there IS something to aim for. Which of us end up there will basically be down to 'natural selection', as Darwin put it. But I think with a bit of thought it will be possible to manage the decline so that it is as smooth as such a thing could ever be.

Grow food - build renewable energy infrastructure - collect knowledge - maintain communications. We'll get there in the end.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 17 Nov 2005, 16:42

<< I think there will be a large attrition of population over a relatively short space of time>>

Maybe that will happen. I think we can actually support more people and haven?t reached a limit yet but we can?t do that yet not the way we are doing things now. If we have network of communities as the main way of living than we could support the population we have now and maybe even more. That depends on what we do today. If we try to maintain what we have we will lose it, if we go for something radically different we will be able to live well.

<< As Tess rightly assumes, even some of these 'lifeboats' will succumb in the chaos, as desperation gives rise to desperate acts.>>

That is also something that may happen. Those who are well prepared will be victims of those who are not so well prepared. But networking could help guard against that. The more networking there is and the more communities there are the less desperate people there will be around and the stronger the network would be.

Just to add to that, a distributed system is very robust. It can take a lot of damage and still function. Yet another advantage of networking communities together.

<< But the sooner we start to put them together, the stronger they will be when the destruction comes.>>

Spot on! I?m trying

<< The thing to bear in mind is that there IS a shore for the lifeboats to land on.>>

Yes

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 17 Nov 2005, 17:42

hey isenhand - any particular reason you ignore the conveniently named [quote] tag in favour of those odd double chevrons << >>

I find it hard to follow your posts.