daniel j. lavigne

At 01:38 PM 7/8/03 -0000, you wrote:


I did indicate various "ifs" with this. It is not a matter of whether I
believe our situation is that dire. It is more that I think it is a
possibility.

It seems reasonable that we have only around 20 years to get alternative
infrastructure in place to prepare for these problems. Even if we do that
I am pretty sure that we are all heading for considerable difficulties. If
we do not then we will slide down the Hubbert curve, and likely do so in a
chaotic fashion.

Assume that this happens. This would mean that the entire infrastructure
behind our world could be lost. This would include universities. As a
result within a few generations the education level of people will have
fallen completely and out right illiteracy could well be the norm.
Attempts to preserve knowledge would be extremely difficult. It is
possible that in the fashion that Lieber (as I recall the author) wrote in
"Canticle for Liebowitz" that monastic orders might seek to preserve
publications and copy them. Who knows? However, I would say that in the
century following this decline the prime concern of people will be simply
to eek out some living. Given that rather few people today really care
much about intellectual concerns, I doubt many would be around to care in
50 years or more during this upheaval.

I would tend to say that a physics textbook, or any scientific book, is of
almost no value or meaning without some communicating community of people
who are able to understand them. Ancient knowledge of the Hellenic world
was almost lost because of a problem similar to this. If this nearly
happened then, then what would happen to say quantum mechanics if there is
nobody who understands it? If there are people who faithfully copy books
into manuscripts for preservation, the question is whether this in fact is
of any relevancy? There really has to be a well educated community in
order for these books to really survive. If such a community is gone then
a future "brotherhood" copying these books might as well be copying Marvel
comicbooks.

One then of course has the next problem. Assume that by the year 2500
societies have stabilized somewhat and there emerges a few schools and
learned societies. There would still be the problem that the Earth will
likely be so depleted that the artifacts of our world could only be
reproduced in small numbers as demonstrations. Recall that the CPU
computer chip running your machine is manufactured in a plant that is
almost the size of a town. I live near one. It might simply be impossible
to erect such things.

Again, I am not saying that these scenarios are a certainty, but I see them
as possible. As for unique periods of time, I would imagine that the
asteroid impact 65 million years ago was rather unique. In the Earth's
history there are these punctuations of equilibrium, a'la Stephen Jay
Gould, and our current period could very easily be one of these
punctuations as a planetary mass extinction enginnered by ourselves. If so
then the entire human condition could well be about a peak-out, where we
could easily be close to the peak.

Lawrence B. Crowell
***********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

quatrell beasley

<lcrowell@swcp.com> wrote:

I think we should all convert to Jehovah's Witnesses and become an agrarian
society, free of the torment of technology -

daniel j. lavigne

Without energy, - cheap, high-EROEI, surplus energy, ideas do not
get implemented; having the blueprints to build a car without the
energy to do that does not produce the car;

The Age of Hydro-carbon Man IS unique in all human history; to not
recognize that is to not recognize reality [don't despair, it took me 30
years...];

When hydro-carbons are gone, humankind will get back on the track it
was prior to 1850 or so; the past 150 years have been an aberration in
human history of the worst kind; we had the keys to the kingdom and we blew
it!

**** Lawrence's view on this is more 'right on' than you can,
apparently, at this moment, comprehend.

Religion has nothing to do with it...reality does.

Perry in Utah

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregson Vaux
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:38 AM
Subject: [energyresources] Lawrence's Despair

Lawrence belives that we live in a unique time in which humanity is
at its absolute peak and from now on will decline perhaps to the
point of extinction. This belief that we live in a time different
from all others is in itself suspicious. It is akin to saying that
the earth is at the center of the universe because we see a universal
redshift or because all of the stars obviously rotate around the
earth.

However, I do not want to criticize Lawrence's position only on the
basis of egocentricity which would be an insult to a well argued
world view. The main thrust of his argument is that an energy decline
is unavoidable and lack of energy will destroy civilization.

My counter argument is that knowledge is one of the true foundations
of our civilization and it is much more durable than Lawrence
believes. If we look at history, we see an evolution of ideas that
very seldom stepped backwards. Civilizations rose and fell but
technology continued to progress because some ideas are harder to
destroy than things. Some very durable ideas which are almost
indestructable are: the world is round, diseases are caused by small
creatures that are not spirits, wheels make moving things easier, if
you heat some kinds of rock, you can get metals.

These ideas listed above will be passed on in oral tradition no
matter what, but there are also a large number of people who will
value books and preserve them. Think of how many basic physics,
chemistry, and and biology textbooks are in existence. Even if
society were to completely collapse for a thousand years, some of
these books would survive due to their sheer numbers. I will be even
so bold as to say that in a collapse, many of the advanced science
and technology books will survive.

Civilizations have collapsed before and risen again so there is a
precedent for our times. Lawrence also seems to believe that our
current civilization can only exist based on oil, gas, and coal. He
seems to forget that the Romans, Greeks, and other built advanced
civilizations based on simple agriculture and charcoal from trees.
But, we will do better than just agriculture and wood fuel. We will
not be able to support 6 billion people but that may not be a bad
thing. I believe that 1 billion people can create a technological
society that rivals the one we have today and be fairly sustainable.
I am not saying that all 1 billion people will live well, I would
expect that there would be a large number of workers who would
support a small elite. I will even be so bold as to say that this
future civilization would be able to travel back into space and if
that is done, then power can again be nearly unlimited.

I don't understand Lawrence's despair but I suspect that it has more
to do with psychology than with facts. He despises religious thinking
but some of what he writes bears striking resemlence to end of the
world thinking which is so treasured by religious groups.

Gregson Vaux
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:


***********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

daniel j. lavigne

At 09:11 AM 7/8/03 -0600, "Perry Arnett" <pjarnett9939@hotmail.com> wrote:


That is exactly the point. It also goes further, if there is no energy to
run the car then what is the point in knowledge that goes behind the car?
There might be a few groups who try to preserve knowledge from our age, but
without the industrial backdrop it will be almost impossible to produce
instruments required to pursue knowledge. The whole intellectual process
is ended.

Even without a collapse much the same might happen. Suppose that the human
race decides to restructure things on a purely renewable and sustainable
basis, or at least to some relative approximation of that. In doing so we
might avoid the leeward downslide on the Hubbert curve towards collapse.
There are some consequences to that. It tends to imply a very static
socio-economic existence. Such a world would not be very dynamic. Maybe
for a time knowledge could be better preserved, but I doubt it would be
advanced. Further, such a society that would run on much smaller amounts
of power would probably not be able to fabricate devices for advanced
studies. Such a world would be very dedicated to squeezing out what power
they have just to keep the renewable infrastructure maintained.

In either case knowledge would degenerate into stories and myth, and then
get increasingly buried into various religious ideas. Consider that today
there is a growing belief that men were never sent to the moon and it was
all a conspiracy of some kind. In 50 years there will be very few who
lived to see that, and much after that there will be no living witnesses.
That whole affair could easily pass into some mythic story, or maybe
forgotten in the long run. It could easily happen that 500 years from now
that very little of anything known today is recorded or remembered.

One interesting thing about quantum gravity and cosmology is that it
involves a Planck scale, which is a sort of ultimate barrier to what is
knowable. Quantum gravity is sort of the limit of what is knowable. So if
we manage to figure it out and to get some data points then we may have
approached the limits of what is knowable. So I do think that the
hydrocarbon age, maybe for a stint followed by a nuclear age, could well
represent the peak of what humanity will ever achieve.

Lawrence B. Crowell
**********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

daniel j. lavigne

I agree that every civilization has been more evolved technologically
than the previous one. But many have made the same mistakes and don't
seem to learn from the experiences. Also, a major difference is that
older civilizations did not have the worldwide impact this current one
is having. There were places for the survivors to move to and start over.
There just aren't that many places left that hasn't already been touched
by our influence.....and degraded in the process.

We may well survive to build yet another civilization but if we don't learn
from our current mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them because the only
thing that is getting more sophisticated is our ability to annihilate the
entire planet. We ourselves are not that far advanced from the cave
dwellers that were our ancestors. We have spent our energy looking outward
rather than inward, and advancing science and technology rather than
ourselves.

Walter Miller wrote a great book a few years ago called "A Canticle for
Liebowitz". In this book, the great knowledge of the world is preserved
by monks in monasteries who painstakingly transcribe it from book to
book. Unfortunately, over the decades, many vital pieces are forgotten
or left out or translated incorrectly. Slowly, they start to rebuild
their science and technology based on what they can figure out from
diagrams that are no longer totally correct. I will leave it to you
to figure out what happens.

We are making a big assumption here that the humans of the future will think
as we do. We forget the years of standardized schooling and brainwashing we
have had to get to this point or to be able to understand even the most
basic textbooks. To assume that the people of the future will be able to
pick up even a high school physics book or a chemistry book and figure out
the basic principles is maybe asking too much of them. To assume that the
so-called science and technology of today is the only correct path and will
still be appropriate for the future may be a bit arrogant on our part. It
may end up being a unique set of ideas brought forth because of a unique set
of cir***stances. In other words, it may end up being a dead end,
evolutionarily speaking.

Or, for all we know, all of our current knowledge, our science and
technology may be banned as too dangerous by those who survive. And,
considering some of the scenarios that have been discussed, it may be
a long time before the people of tomorrow have the luxury of sitting
down and deciphering the knowledge of the past. By then, it may be
hard to piece together since even today we have to have specialists
in many different areas of technology and science; it has all been
compartmentalized and separated into various disciplines. And
these specialists have trouble communicating with specialists
in other disciplines.

To cling to something like this and not consider that there may
be a better way to live only shows up our own total dependence
on our own creations. We can no longer even conceive that there
might be a different way if only we could open ourselves
up to the possibility.

Enough ramblings,
Lise
************************************************** *
"When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds
it attached to the rest of the world." --John Muir ************************************************** *
From: "Gregson Vaux" <gvaux@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [energyresources] Lawrence's Despair
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:38:01 -0000

I don't want to pick on Lawrence because his argument that I want to
address is shared by a number in this group. However, I am singleing
him out because he is so articulate and best represents his position.

Lawrence belives that we live in a unique time in which humanity is
at its absolute peak and from now on will decline perhaps to the
point of extinction. This belief that we live in a time different
from all others is in itself suspicious. It is akin to saying that
the earth is at the center of the universe because we see a universal
redshift or because all of the stars obviously rotate around the
earth.

However, I do not want to criticize Lawrence's position only on the
basis of egocentricity which would be an insult to a well argued
world view. The main thrust of his argument is that an energy decline
is unavoidable and lack of energy will destroy civilization.

My counter argument is that knowledge is one of the true foundations
of our civilization and it is much more durable than Lawrence
believes. If we look at history, we see an evolution of ideas that
very seldom stepped backwards. Civilizations rose and fell but
technology continued to progress because some ideas are harder to
destroy than things. Some very durable ideas which are almost
indestructable are: the world is round, diseases are caused by small
creatures that are not spirits, wheels make moving things easier, if
you heat some kinds of rock, you can get metals.

These ideas listed above will be passed on in oral tradition no
matter what, but there are also a large number of people who will
value books and preserve them. Think of how many basic physics,
chemistry, and and biology textbooks are in existence. Even if
society were to completely collapse for a thousand years, some of
these books would survive due to their sheer numbers. I will be even
so bold as to say that in a collapse, many of the advanced science
and technology books will survive.

Civilizations have collapsed before and risen again so there is a
precedent for our times. Lawrence also seems to believe that our
current civilization can only exist based on oil, gas, and coal. He
seems to forget that the Romans, Greeks, and other built advanced
civilizations based on simple agriculture and charcoal from trees.
But, we will do better than just agriculture and wood fuel. We will
not be able to support 6 billion people but that may not be a bad
thing. I believe that 1 billion people can create a technological
society that rivals the one we have today and be fairly sustainable.
I am not saying that all 1 billion people will live well, I would
expect that there would be a large number of workers who would
support a small elite. I will even be so bold as to say that this
future civilization would be able to travel back into space and if
that is done, then power can again be nearly unlimited.

I don't understand Lawrence's despair but I suspect that it has more
to do with psychology than with facts. He despises religious thinking
but some of what he writes bears striking resemlence to end of the
world thinking which is so treasured by religious groups.

Gregson Vaux
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
***********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

mr. finnegan

The only practical alternative is to go "matrix" - i.e. become a type of
cyber eletro-magnetic wave and exist in the ether -

daniel j. lavigne

You're probably correct. We may have a future society where thousands
of slaves toil so that a pharoah and his priests can drive around in
remanufactured Cadillacs, running of biodiesel. It would be an
excellent deomstration of personal power, to seperate them from the
masses.

Do I think that all of these impoverished and hungry slaves will have
personal computers, cell phones and other high energy technology? No I
do not.

I don't even think that chemically treated water will be sustainable
for the masses. Forget high energy pharmaceuticals that are dependant
on large quantities of purified water and high energy chemical feedstocks.

Technology is nothing without energy. Education is nothing without
slaves, whether they are energy powered machines or laborers in the field. Jack Dingler
--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Gregson Vaux" <gvaux@m...> wrote:

**********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

kris nagle

President Bush just said "No" to slavery, that means absolutely no more
slaves! (other than those in the Sudan and Somalia)

daniel j. lavigne

"Jack Dingler" <weaseldog2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

for the masses. Forget high energy pharmaceuticals that are dependant
on large quantities of purified water and high energy chemical feedstocks.

Technology is nothing without energy. Education is nothing without slaves,
whether they are energy powered machines or laborers in the field.<

It could be - and lets hope so - that population densities will have
to start evening out around the world, and also inside nations
That is de-urbanization inside countries, and a North -> South shift in
population density (including mass migration to below about 45° each side
of the Equator)

Its easy to suggest what the world "could do if sanely organized". Take the
subject of petroleum-based pharmaceuticals. If simply the highest oil users
(firstly the USA) cut their utilization by 50% we get decades more of
adjustment time for energy transition, but we also get centuries more of
petroleum supplies for pharmaceuticals

In the next 5 years or so we are going to hear suggestions like that - let
us hope. Who would have thought that a thing like Kyoto Treaty or - before
that - the Montreal Convention on freon gas elimination in the atmosphere
could have been proposed, and accepted (even the USA accepted and ratified
the Montreal Convention, despite a personal friend of R Nixon, holding a
patent on nozzles for freon based spray cans, losing a whole bunch of cash)?

As you will easy accept, where was the free play of market forces in
deciding to eliminate freon gases from the atmosphere? What is the Kyoto
Treaty (and the Heritage Foundation will tell you this for free) except a
grotesque violation of all market laws ?

When it concerns survival, human beings get very flexible about
what they hold near and dear in the way of notions and doctrines

A McKillop
***********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

daniel j. lavigne

"Lise Maring" <lonewolf1366@hotmail.com> wrote:

for Liebowitz". In this book, the great knowledge of the world is
preserved by monks in monasteries who painstakingly transcribe it
from book to book. Unfortunately, over the decades, many vital
pieces are forgotten or left out or translated incorrectly. Slowly,
they start to rebuild their science and technology based on what
they can figure out from diagrams that are no longer totally
correct. I will leave it to you to figure out what happens.<

That was (not is) a great book. Talking of translation, I read a French
translated version of that book just a few months back. Badly translated!
Made it seem more disconnected but also more timeless.
Maybe what counts is that Miller's fable features nuclear facilities being
attacked (isnt that "modern"?) repeatedly until huge tracts of land around
the world are unable to be lived in except by mutants, not including
Iranian ladies joined at the head.

Which brings us to something much more contemporary: the tear-jerking
effusions of pity and concern for 2 very brave Iranian ladies, from media
and even politicians who - tomorrow - will be sternly telling us all that,
with regret, it is necessary to bomb all Iran's nuclear facilities, its
water treatment plants, electric power stations, bridges (etc - around
which the cowardly I-ranians dare to place antiaircraft weapons can you
imagine !)

After killing 20 000 or 50 000 I-ranians, directly, and polluting the
country for decades to come with depleted uranium, I-ran can be
'administered' for the prosperity of all, with cheap oil and gas
flowing to the world's most civilized nation. Dont tell me this
isnt what we hear pretty damn often.

A McKillop
**********************************************
Add your voice to reason's call. Join the Tax Refusal.
***********************************************
http://www.taxrefusal.com http://www.dieoff.com
***********************************************
"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead