Enlightened Primitivism

Haven't posted recently but I have been thinking about our predicament just the same. Oil has nearly reached $100/barrel and gas is creeping up towards $4/gallen hereabouts. I am still convinced that we are heading inexorably towards a showdown with finite Earth. We don't seem to be aware except on the fringes. Really big things happen slowly enough, and so overwhelmingly, that we don't notice them I guess.

I am working on an idea that I am now thinking of as Enlightened Primitivism. Putting aside the divisive questions of "when the peak will arrive?" and "can alternative fuels make up the difference?" I think we can all agree that we live in a finite world and, if we continue to consume its bounty, we will eventually use it up. When that time arrives we will be returned to a state of lower expectations because without cheap, abundant, dense energy sources, todays technology does not happen. Many fear that we will then digress to a primitive, pre-industrial agrarian society. But that doesn't have to be the case. If we are careful we should be able to take, if not our technology, our knowledge with us. Much of what we know about the world around us has been gained with the help of industrial technology and abundant energy. If our cultures are to return to a lower energy, lower technology state then let us do so benefiting from the knowledge that we have gained. Primitive maybe, but hopefully not ignorant. I have not thought through all of the implications of this yet. As I do, I will share it here.

Have a good new year.

World Energy and Population

[Link: World Energy and Population]

This article is the first of two articles on global availability of energy through the first half of this century. This article discusses the actual energy likely to be available and the second article delves more deeply into the consequences of these trends and is shown here. This is not the only attempt to approach this subject in the popular press. Several writers, most of the peak oil variety, have done these same sorts of projections. Some of those articles are more strident than this one and I consider that a plus. We don't need additional reasons to fear the future. I like the scope of this presentation though, because the author has tried to isolate the effects without overly complicated or hopeful assumptions about future developments in the field.

With gas and heating fuel prices heading for the sky we have all begun to feel that something new and momentous is happening. When new circumstances arise unexpectedly, it is sometimes difficult to keep from looking for a magical cause or maybe even hoping for a magical cure. Forget it. That won't happen this time either. The best we can do is try to understand what is really happening. Articles like this can help with that. A rational solution can only be derived from a realistic perception of the problem at hand.

'Humanity's very survival' is at risk, says UN

Thirty per cent of amphibians, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds are under threat of extinction, while one in ten of the world’s major rivers runs dry every year before it reaches the sea.

[Link:
Times Online]

When I read an article like this I realize that all life on earth, including humanity itself, is in anywhere from serious to fatal trouble. It isn't what is in the article itself that scares me though. It is the fact that an article like this can be written about the conclusions of a huge number of learned scholars in pertinent fields of study, representing the only international "governmental" body there is, and nobody, especially those who might have some chance of doing something about it, will even notice. From where will a solution to the problems we are facing come I ask myself. There is no one seeking a solution. We have the brains, certainly, to see the problem and even to imagine a solution but we don't seem to have the intellectual courage or political will to face those answers.

Global over-population is the real issue

"The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves."

[Link: Telegraph]

I have actually seen a few articles in the media recently on the subject of population. It is about time. It is probably way too late in fact. As the author of this article recalls, there was a time a few decades ago when the subject was discussed but the moment quietly passed. Today we are not only neglecting to discuss the subject we are purposefully avoiding it.

The world is facing a myriad of problems today but most, if not all, of those problems can trace their roots to over-consumption of resources by humans. Even the global warming problem is derived from excessive burning of hydrocarbons and the subsequent loading of the atmosphere with carbon compounds. Consumption is, in turn, a product of both increased living standard and, most importantly, increased population. A few are suggesting that we should voluntarily reduce our living standards but not as many are suggesting that we should similarly limit our population in order to curtail consumption. In fact, it will probably need to be both.

Let's face it. Most exercises in population control are not only controversial they are actually unpleasant. Simply put, either less people have to be born or more people have to die. One solution toys with the very essence of humanity and the other smacks of murder. That is probably why we can't talk about it but it shouldn't be the reason we can't do any thing about it. That is because the other side of the coin is that we will all die if we don't.

We are how many we are essentially because of the use of hydrocarbon fuels, insecticides and fertilizers in the growing and delivering of our food. Without hydrocarbons we would not be able to achieve nearly the crop yields we have become accustomed to. But hydrocarbons are soon to be less available than they have been in the past. We must find a way to limit our numbers consistent with that reduction and/or we will suffer a proportional reduction in living standard. It is that simple. I cannot say that any woman (or family) should be denied the opportunity to procreate. That is what being human is all about. But I am willing to ask that everyone consider the possibility of limiting one's contribution to the human gene pool. If I were to put it in a simple phrase it would be: Have two if you must but one is best with the understanding that it is admirable to remain childless. More than two children today is unfair to the future. Even with this constraint it will be decades before any serious population reduction will occur but we should think of it as preparation for the real future. We will never again have the energy resources we have today. Clearly, there will be a way to keep our population in line with this new reality. It is up to us to make that way our choice rather than nature's.

Manufacture and Transport of Export Goods Accounts for About 25% of Chinas CO2 Emissions

"The study, carried out for the Tyndall Centre, suggests that counting carbon emissions within national borders, as is currently the case under the Kyoto Protocol, may be inadequate in deciding who is responsible for emissions reduction. Fair, globalized trade might imply that a nation’s entire carbon footprint should also include imported goods and services manufactured elsewhere, the researchers suggest."

[Link: Green Car Congress]

One of these days the jig is going to be up for the United States. It is common knowledge that we have, for quite awhile now, been using an inordinate amount of the worlds oil for our own purposes. Now it looks like we are producing a lot of other people's pollution as well. It won't be possible for us to pull this off for long I'm afraid. If you follow the energy news you know that oil producers are already hedging their future commitments in favor of assuring oil supply for their own citizens. It can only be a matter of time, in this age of global accountability, until exporters of manufactured goods start refusing to accept the responsibility for the pollution associated with the manufacture of goods for other nations. The United States will have a lot of decisions to make when the global accounting books are opened to the public.

Did Katrina Hide the Real Peak in World Oil Production?

"We also look at the question of whether the impact of Hurricane Katrina may have hidden the real peak in world oil production. We find that if an adjustment is made for hurricane impacts, the peak month of production seems to be December 2005 on a crude and condensate basis, and September 2005 on an all liquids basis. The higher adjusted peaks, and greater declines since the adjusted peaks, further suggest that we may be post-peak."

[Link:The Oil Drum]

This is a very enlightening article. It points out very clearly that one can't base one's opinion about Peak Oil on one, or even a few, country's oil production numbers. The production of oil is effected by a multitude of factors, many of which are specific to only one producer, and obviously can't be viewed piecemeal. I think that the most significant insight that this article provides is the clear graphical evidence that the powerful production growth areas are not keeping up with the multitude of declining sources.

Solving Fermi's Paradox

...On another level, though, Fermi’s Paradox can be restated in another and far more threatening way. The logic of the paradox depends on the assumption that unlimited technological progress is possible, and it can be turned without too much difficulty into a logical refutation of the assumption. If unlimited technological progress is possible, then there should be clear evidence of technologically advanced species in the cosmos; there is no such evidence; therefore unlimited technological progress is impossible.

[Link: The Archdruid Report]

I have proposed occasionally on this blog that I think the belief in ongoing technical progress that defines the human world view of the future, is probably wrong. It is my opinion the future of mankind will be much more humble than most of us imagine and that our dreams of space travel and unlimited growth will prove to be an unobtainable destiny. Up until now my doubt was based on a gut-level instinct and I felt that for someone to make the move to this trend of thought would require a major leap of faith because my, and most of humanity's, world view has been severely distorted by living in the midst of the age of hydrocarbons.

To my delight, however, I stumbled on this article by John Michael Greer of the Archdruid Report in which he develops a logical and, for me, cogent argument for the impossibility of unlimited technological progress not only for humanity but for any living species. I really believe that in order for us to begin to repair the damage we have done to the earth and to prepare for our "real" future we will first all have to accept this reality of ultimate limitations. In this article, Mr. Greer has done a good job of helping us to get to that point. Read it and see if you don't agree.