The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones and other annoying nonsense

MPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon has a program talking about high gasoline prices, with some named guest, and call-ins by people telling us how high prices affected their life or business.

On caller mentioned a book "The Long Emergency" by Jim Kunstler related to the "growing pains" society" will face as cheap oil is depleted and everything we know in the modern economy will be challenged.

Anyway, the guest offered the horrible quote I've read before, "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones." along with decades of old claims of predictable oil shortages that didn't happen.

It was confusing to me since in part, the guest seemed fair-minded - recognizing things like that higher prices are good because it'll encourage new development for energy sources. The annoying quote sort of shocked me that he'd reuse a quote meant (in my mind) to comfort people into complacency in a time we should not have any complacency at all.

SURE, "the stone age", which of course was labeled long after it ended, didn't end because we ran out of stones, but whatever. People of the "stone age" didn't eat stones, didn't heat their caves with stones. All they did was HUNT big game with stones, sticks and muscle. This so called age lasted over a hundred thousand years of human's prehistory.


I suppose the quote is correct in the sense that we WON'T run of out oil. It'll just continue to get more and more expensive and rare until society learns to do without and finds something else or whithers into a new dark ages for trying.

It is fun to see our "democracy loving president" humbling himself to the "Crown prince" of Saudi Arabia, looking for "oil relief", and the Saudi's kind offer to raise production eventually from 9.5mb/d to 12.5 mb/d by 2009.

Certainly it is illuminating - the largest world oil producer can increase production by 3 mb/day in 4 years, while the world demand is increases by as much as 2mb/day, and nonopec production is expected to decline by an average of 1-2mb/d. It is gloom for the glory days of consumers, but at least short term, there's yet much we can do to reduce our oil consumption.

Seriously, I don't know what I'd do as President. Of course I know - I'd call for a oil of U.S. oil consumption to decline from 25% of the world's oil consumption, or about 21 mb/d down to say 15 mb/d by 2010, and 10mb/d by 2015. Sometime outrageous like that. The fact is consumers are controlling prices now by their demand. I'd tell the American people - Our security is at stake - we are no longer in control of our destiny as long as we can't control our energy souces.

Well, president Carter offered such a vision, and we know what happened to him, right?

Still, I wish President Bush could just admit higher prices are vital, and lowering prices will give short term relief to a long term problem.

In contrast we have:
"A high oil price will damage markets, and he knows that. I look forward to talking to him about that,'' the president said.

Damage markets? Oh, my! What are we to do with such a vision?

The sad sad thing is probably prices will decline to some degree, as refining capacity catches up or Iraq magically stabilizes. We perhaps can go another 2-3 years without seriously considering the demand side - of conservation, alternatives.

Easy to complain, I know.

Let's just keep the annoying analogy quotes to a minimum, ok? Please!

State promoted gambling

Governor Pawlenty continues to promote a deal with 2-3 northern Minnesota Native American tribes for a join gambling deal somewhere near the Twin Cities Metro area.

I feel overwhelmingly against this or anything like it. I don't know the chances of success.

I see the first argument in support is that it'll help tribes that have not been able to benefit by the casino expansions. The second supporting argument is that the state made a bad deal which unfairly gave indian tribes a monopoly on casino gambling. The third supporting argument is that the state is short on funds and that the new agreement will allow taxes to flow to state government.

I don't know how "saturated" the casino market is. However it is clear that a metro area casino would most surely take business from other near by casinos - Mystic Lakes, Hinckley, Turtle Lake. THUS, it can be judged as an act of economic "revenge" against the success of the tribes that control these without direct taxed profits to the state.

On the other side, it seems clear that the successful tribal casinos ought to be promoting their own revenue sharing with other tribes that are not benefiting. In this case the Governor's actions perhaps will strengthen the bargaining power of the poorer tribes for market access.

On the second argument - monopoly power for tribes. I consider this an asset because expansion is limited. I don't see anyone claiming the tribes are abusing their power, at least on the service side. The only thing people don't like is that it is unfair - that nontribal businesses can't participate. Again, since I don't see gambling as an honorable source of income, at least for a wealthy state that can do better, and so I accept it only because it benefits the economic disadvantaged reservations.

The third argument is countered above. In addition many conservatives argue that wealth exists in our state from income tax. Income tax allows the government to be accountable to the people, since they feel the effects of the taxes. In contrast gambling income is a hidden tax - considered "free money" without considering financial costs from having them. Free money makes the government less accountable because not everyone is directly affected.

All religious organizations are against lotteries and casinos - against promotion of "get rich quick" values.

I can accept gambling as "Entertainment", but it is a sign of corruption to me to require "high stakes" to be entertained. If people really like pulling a lever for a line of fruit, why not make "play" payoffs, keeping costs comparable to other entertainment - $50/night/person or less? Why no set limitations on how much people can lose in a night?

It could be done but it is not, because such decisions "don't make money" for the casinos. THUS they benefit by customers with the least self control.

My rules might be:
1. Lottery - Biggest odds for winning: 1000:1, and return 500:1.
2. Slot machines - Use tokens, limit purchase of tokens to $100/person/day.

How many people would buy a $1 lottery ticket for a chance to win $500? I don't know.

How many people lose more than $100/night in slot machines? I don't know.

I try to imagine the "thrill" of such games. I know just a little of the thrill of gambling.

Listening to a Twins Game for me is a form of gambling, even if my wagers are all in my head. Since I'm generally a pessimist, I get my reward from an unhoped home run, or a strike out of an opponent with the bases loaded. Sometimes I even believe in the Twinkies - that they can succeed - they've done it in the past, and heck, they might even be the top collective talent in the league.

Anticipation, imagination, decision, tension, release. Hmmmm... sounds like a familiar sequence somewhere else...

I gamble when I glance at my watch in relation to a coming bus, and still take an extra risky minute to finish an email before rushing out the door. Will the bus be early? Can I still make it?

It would be interesting to look at the psychology of gambling. It's called "Gaming" because it is a game. Money is the traditional reward, but not necessarily.

I generally think all of life is a game, and we make the rules, we set the goals, rewards and decide when we win. We don't need Pavlov's dinner bell to learn to drool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

I accept that gambling is better controlled than not, but I dislike making it too easy for people.

Capitalism and Energy

DEFINITION
Capitalism : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Because I'm somewhat simple-minded, I sometimes feel a need to stop pretending I know anything about a word I've long heard, but never really considered what it means.

I started with a definition above from Merrian-Webster: http://www.m-w.com

The above definition seems reasonable enough, but I'm mostly curious how debt and economic growth fit into it.

I've heard an analysis that suggests that economic growth is required for capitalism to function. AND specifically a claim the the depletion of fossil fuels will threaten to destroy economic growth and our economic success.

Probably capitalism is WIDER than such an analysis, but perhaps an accurate representation of our specific implementation of capitalism or economic conditions.

The basic idea is that I start a business and borrow money and pay interest on that loan. I invest the money in the business startup costs and hopefully business revenue will be enough to make payments on the loan and eventually pay it back with interest. The investor is taking a risk that my business may fail and I might declare bankruptsy and the principle will be lost. The risk justifies the interest payments.

So far so good. So how does this model demand economic growth? I mean I can see a new business IS GROWTH, but it need not necesarily be NET growth? We can imagine my new business offers something cheaper than before. Cheaper means the market can expand because it will be more affordable - that causes growth. For instance, reducing costs by 20% might mean a 50% increase in marketability, leaving a net gain in economic activity.

On the other hand, cheaper prices can reduce gross activity, if can I cut prices by 50% (keeping same profit/unit), perhaps sales will only increase by 25%. My profits still increase by 25%, but gross activity have been reduced. This means that consumers will have more money left over for other consumption.

Basically the capitalistic trick for cutting unit costs is to use cheaper materials and energy and mass production to minimize the proportion of fixed costs.

It would seem cheaper energy leads to cheaper material costs, cheaper product costs, allows larger profits, and allows more consumption from those profits.

I worry about peak oil, and increased energy costs, but before I go there I wonder if we can imagine simply steady-state within our economy?

If population is steady, energy prices and supplies are steady, where is the cause for growth? Partly I'd imagine it comes down to a time delay in exploiting opportunity. Steady input along with competition still encourages more consumption as long as that consumption benefits by cheap energy costs. Ultimately if you imagine a "Star Trek" universe of projected "free energy", then there's no reason at all for consumption not to continue to increase as we find new uses for it.

Thus "cheap energy" alone appears to be a driver of all economic growth. Of course population increase also drives economic growth, but cheap energy encourages population growth too. I'm just saying that "cheap energy" is the fundamental driver, even if other feedback loops exist.

Well, I think there'll always be environmental limitations even if energy and raw materials are not the limiting factor. Pollution in general can limit growth. But otherwise cheap energy can keep riding economic growth continually.

Partly I'm imagining that any given fixed cost for energy, might asymptote growth to some predictable level. If energy cost was zero, other factors would limit growth. If energy cost is very high, economic activity will be fully limited by energy. Intermediate costs will produce different potentials for growth. I'm fuzzy on the feedback forces. If energy prices half, economic potential can double, EVEN if current exploitation isn't optimized to an equilibrium.

Maybe nonsense, but if somewhat true, perhaps at our current energy costs the economic is 60% optimized - at 60% of our potential with an infinite amount of time to refine it. That means if everything stays the same, we have a 40% margin for symptotic growth.

Now if energy costs double, perhaps our economic activity potential is cut by 25%. Perhaps this cuts our economic activity itself by 10%. Then we can still grow above our previous 60% absolute level, although only if more efficient.

If energy costs continue to rise, our economic potential will continually be reduced, except by improving our potential faster.

I imagine as fossil fuels become more expensive, our economic potential must decrease, even if our actual economic activity might decrease less through efficiency.

There's a fear that higher energy prices will cause economic decline and this will destroy our system of repaying debt. Certainly higher energy prices will encourage development in new efficiency at least, but unpredictable high energy prices are bad for the economy because debt repayment plans depend on assuming costs and profit. Higher energy prices generally mean lower profits as raising prices too much will reduce consumption to a point where net profits decrease.

I can see the failure of businesses to plan for higher input costs and being left with unpayable debt payments. Business is risky enough under good conditions.

I think of my employer - small consulting and software company, growing with microcomputer power. Our power grew as we grew.

I suppose farming is a good example of failing businesses. Technical advances encouraged more food production which caused lower prices. Farmers who have high debt may be unable to make their expected payments given prices lower than expected.

Competition in the beginning encourages efforts to reduce costs which is good, but also encourages investment in new equipment and debt which saves work and encourages consolidation of small farms into larger ones.

If energy was really free, it is hard to imagine the end-game for farming technlogy, but probably in the end we'd have a fully mechanized farms where people sit in computer terminals to analyse information and make higher decisions. One "farmer" might be able to manage a million acres. Of course he likely wouldn't be able to get all the debt required, but over time consolidation would allow this. In the end the "farmer" would just be an employee, and the "owner" would be a distant company - with vast debt, but also vast ownership of property. He'd also be employing R&D on new equipment, new seeds, new fertilizers, new methods of conserving soil, etc, etc.

Cheap fossil fuel prices have encouraged such developmental direction, whether we've long past a point of transitioning to another energy source is another story.

Politicians are reluctant to interfere with farmer failures because ultimately the economic is stronger by the elimination of farmers without the resources to compete.

Well, lots of thoughts, and no clear truth in these word games. Capitalism builds empires on opportunity and dismantles them when they no longer serve. On the surface it would seem capitalism can as well reverse course if conditions return to older ones where chemical energy is more expensive. Right?

I just see that businesses succeed by accepting debt, taking risks, and that unpredictable energy prices will disrupt businesses causing failures. Failures lead to holes and new opportunity.

Perhaps the biggest thing left open from my thoughts is I imagine everyone has access to wealth and capital which is untrue. The "potential" for development is huge if you simply imagine the rest of the world is going to catch up to the U.S. consumption patterns. We live the way we do because of cheap energy, but there's no guarantee our lives can continue when everyone catches up to us.

I wish I understood more, but perhaps everyone's models are limited anyway. I wish I could predict difficulty of clearly unsustainable activity.

NOPEC?

I saw a new bill exists dubbed NOPEC intend on punishing OPEC exporters for limiting supply and causing high prices. I wonder how we'll do that?

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200504/041405a.html

“We are one step closer to getting this bill on the books and available for use against the oil cartel,” said Leahy. “OPEC nations openly conspire to violate the norms of our antitrust laws, yet they expect to do business with us and reap the benefits. It is past time for Congress to approve these antitrust tools as a check on OPEC’s abuses.”

The bill is of course misdirected. When dealing with a nonrenewable resource like oil, that will SOON ENOUGH, be worth $100+/bbl and more as supply fails to keep up with demand, there can be no complaint in my eyes on fixing prices.

If I were an oil exporter, I'd say, MY OIL is "on sale" at a bargain price of $180/bbl. Buy it now, or buy it later, your choice. Of course oil exporters aren't easily in a position to do that given foolish dependence upon oil income.

The blame game is of course to be expected, but it is a little scary. What actually do "consumers" do when faced by high prices? Of course what they SHOULD do is conserve and look for alternatives.

Sure, I suppose the "antitrust" laws imply monopoly power on key resources is a bad thing - especially because high profits create large amounts of wealth which can be used to use buy-out or sabotage the competition. However it is still hard to apply to nonrenewable oil. By-in-large governments control oil reserves and all have the right to control exports. If OPEC nations want to collectively limit oil exports, how is this offensive to buyers? For me the offensive part comes from expectations. Economies run by smooth transfer of goods and materials, and buyers want steady suppliers so they can plan on the future.

Not only do buyers want steady supply, they want steady prices, but is it the responsibility of exporters to keep prices low?

The U.S. has under 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's oil each year. That means we have 5x our "fair share". How can we expect this imbalance to continue forever? If China and India also can find ways to benefit from cheap oil, who's responsible for that?

WE are responsible for our own demand. As long as our demand is "above average" WE are the problem, not the suppliers.

I've been having fun watching the high gasoline prices, riding the bus this winter, and now biking. Today I saw $1.94/gal - disappointed prices are falling again.

I have been wondering what the future will be like - soon future - next 5 years as the current production is projected to decline, and current projected new production can't even match this loss, much less any projections of increased world consumption - running at 2-4% for the last few years.

Will we just be faced by high prices? As oil prices are bid up into the $150-$250/bbl range (from $58/bbl high lately), will gasoline just cost more, like $5/gallon, OR will there be actual shortages?

Will there be gas-lines like in the 1970's? Overall I expect not since the 1970's had an OPEC embargo which reduce actually supply, while now we might expect the U.S. is wealthy enough to continue bidding for as much oil as consumers are willing to pay for. I lean towards the second - I expect, if price rises are relatively smoothly increasing, distributors will keep producing as long as demand exists.

If there was a real disruption - like a terrorist attack that suddenly reduced world supplies say by 20%, perhaps shortages could come, but under such a crisis, the president could justify a short term dipping into the strategic reserves to make up the difference. It's actually a money maker for the government, given short term shortages since the government can sell high and buy again when prices moderate later. We have like maybe 4 months supply in the reserves, and perhaps over 6 months given imports alone, and probably over a year given a small percentage reduction of supply. So it might seem actual shortages except localized ones could be minimized.

Probably higher prices are the bigger factor in affecting consumption. I expect the U.S. could cut our oil consumption by 25% if we needed to in the short term. I'm not saying the economy could handle that well.

The big question in "transitioning" towards conservation and alternative fuels, is there's no clear point in time when it is necessary. I'd say we're long past security in an oil economy, but prices can go down again, and everyone must wonder if higher prices now are a sign of short term issues, or a sign of long term trends.

I see long term trend as oil prices will keep going up, when measured by yearly averages, but short term prices can do anything - from falling to $10/bbl as at least as likely as jumping to $200/bbl under opposite events.

Back to high prices and shortages, myself I'm not strongly affected by high gasoline prices or shortages. A scarier shortage for me would be natural gas, given I live in the cold state of Minnesota, where most houses are heated by natural gas. I don't know anything about the dangers here, or how they'd represent themselves. I know that gasoline and natural gas prices tend towards moving together, even if there's little direct competition for fuel usages. So if oil jumped and gasoline rose to $5/gallon, I could expect natural gas prices also to spoke.

My home heating costs averaged $88/month in 2004, before I got my high efficiency furnace this winter. Perhaps that will go down by 1/3 now - to $60/month average with luck. If prices quadrupled, and say fuel costs are 50% of the bill, that $150/month average, or $1800/year. Costwise I can handle that, although it would encourage perhaps some investment in improved insulation, energy efficient windows, or just the plastic over the windows in the winter to help keep heat in. Such improvements are probably already cost effective, but I don't notice while prices are expected.

Jumping in prices encourages a big jump in reaction more than gradual price increases - just like the frog in the slowly boiling water.

I suppose the same is true for oil and gasoline. Price spikes will do more to encourage short term reaction than gradual increases. Perhaps both are limited in their ability to get action.

The short term solution to high natural gas prices will be government subsidies on poor people, but better long term solutions would subsidize efficiency and conservation and invest there for poor people.

At the moment there's still minimum wage people (<$10/hr) who will commute 30 miles to work (each way) in a poor mileage pickup truck because of cheaper exurb housing, but their livelihood is slowly getting degraded as prices rise. I know such people.

The best "wake up call" for them is a price spike - like a summer of $4/gallon gasoline, and then a gradual reduction to maybe $2.50/gallon, and occasional new spikes. The first shock would cut into their budget, and when opportunities came up - like needing a newer car, or a different housing arrangement, they'd remember this danger and make a choice that can help them.

I CERTAINLY see it vital (as President Bush has said) that the strategic reserves NOT be used except under clear large scale acute shortages. Anything else gives the wrong message.

Well, even as I learn about things, it is still hard to believe how fast (and slow) things will be changing in the coming years.

I try to imagine what it might have been like in the 1920's - things going fast and furious and overall measurably irrational and dangerous levels of debt all around. The signs were there, even if the crisis date was unknowable. I don't think individuals can "play the crisis" for profit, but I think we can prepare now as we have money and resources to invest in reducing our own need for big incomes and high consumption.

A part of me believes the conspiracy theory that the Republicans are purposely bankrupting the government as a way to roll back government programs. Certainly there is some value in honest debate here - like the Concord Coalition, and I project the federal government will be forced overtime to reduce itself and state and local governments will have to renew localized programs to help their own poor, and areas that are too poor to meet these needs will suffer the most.

On the other hand, economic depressions perhaps might trigger a new rise of the liberal "new deal" politics and big government will assert itself through an era of high unemployment, high inflation.

Lots to think about, not overly healthy to project too much, except if it triggers action now. What can I do to minimize my needs for money, for government services? What can I do if I lose my job? What can I do to help strengthen my community to help those worse off than myself?

It's overwhelming even on the smallest questions. Maybe the ultimately question comes down to rediscovering frugality. Even that is hard - so much opportunity around us now - how can we "step back" and limit ourselves? If tougher times are coming, why not enjoy the power and freedom now - travel, learn, explore, and do all the things that may become much harder in the future?

No answers from me. I do both in my own way - trying to be responsible, yet time is precious and lots to take in now.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time blaming for higher prices. We get what we deserve, at least in the long term. Conserve now or later.

Transitioning to Sanity?

It seems to me to be an obvious fact that the world economy is addicted to cheap energy from fossil fuels. We are addicted to growth and using ever more energy as we are able. We are out of control.

One proof of this is the insane statement that Saudi Arabia is now going to maximize their output of oil for fear that continued high prices will dampen further consumption growth. Well, if true, it shows they are addicted to oil income and fear economic slowdown will cause oil prices to fall from their happy "$30/bbl" to an unhappy $10/bbl like has happened before.

I wonder - in the history of addiction, has ANYONE ever escaped addiction without a crash? Without trying every possible way to continue a doomed lifestyle?

The "addict's hope" is that something will come along and save him from making any hard decisions, at least for now. So even higher prices will just bring more denial and bargaining efforts.

I try to imagine what more I can do as an individual to reduce my personal dependence upon fossil fuels. I do the 3 R's - reduce, reuse, recycle. I bicycle for commuting, with mass transit for a backup. For the moment I don't even own a car, although I am helping to subsidize my girlfriend's minivan insurance costs. I participate in Xcel's "WindSource" program which adds $0.02/KWH to my electricity costs which supposedly covers extra costs of wind power, and supposedly will encourage expansion. I purchased a new furnace this winter - 94.1% efficient, and a new "high" 14.0 SEER central A/C, although I don't plan to use it much.

Still, I benefit from an economy that can make $1000 super-speed home computers, and $400 digital camera, and I'll purchase books online because it is convenient to me and shipping often free. I purchase food grown and transported using cheap energy. I grow some of my own veggies in my backyard garden, but I also freeze much of my surpluses which takes a fair amount of energy.

Perhaps gaining 2 roommates last month, I've increased my efficiency of my home - since it takes not much more energy to heat or light for 3 versus 1.

I think overall I do a lot to keep my lifestyle less dependent upon cheap/dirty fossil energy, AND I gain much myself from these efforts in lower cost of living, which I can put towards my mortgage, or invest into better efficiency, or just donate to others doing good things.

When I think of my job, working for a small Engineering consulting company, doing programming, I wonder how our company will do in the future as energy gets more expensive. Overall I think we're fairly strong company, minimal to no debt, but we depend on a world market for our consulting, and our money comes in partly from mining operations which are perhaps dependent upon cheap energy for their viability, as well as a strong economy that needs a constant influx of new materials. In short, we exist because the global economy exists. As an individual it seems, like the OPEC nations perhaps, that we'd better capitalize on opportunity while it still exists.

Meanwhile a future, one that doesn't support our skills/tools, may be coming and we might benefit by recognizing this and putting some of our eggs in a different basket. What skills might we need in the future? How can anyone know this? Is there any value at all in trying to imagine?

Ideally, any activity that is started before it is NEEDED, has a short term cost liability. A high school graduate might be happy with a $12/hour job, but considering longer term goals of a house, marriage, and children, it is clear that a college education might help get a better job in the future.

Knowing our ambition encourages investment of time and energy now for a brighter future, but how do you invest time and energy now into a darker future?

Periodic darkness is one thing, like the seasons, when you store up resources now for a hard time of winter, but what if there's no evidence the winter will ever end?

It is hard to imagine our future without oil, but it is a task we must take. Whether things will one day get better, it is clear to me that "The party is over", nearly [For cheap energy], and all our past success becomes a liability for the future - all our collective expectations, ambitions, and sheer mass of humanity.

As usual, I don't see much more I can do. The only "greater" step is to do something like "Experiments in new living" - setting up communities that practice self-sufficiency and sustainability.

perhaps it is a silly vision. We are "one world" afterall. How do you define the walls of sustainable trade? How do you refuse "easy street" when it is packaged so prettily? How does an addict, surrounded by addicts DECLINE to continue the easy path?

I look for easy boundaries, but they're all arbitrary. If everything must be judged on a sustainability criterion, life will be pretty boring, but if nothing is judged, then we're dooming our future.

Perhaps in human past, tribes of people defined "rules" of living which supported contining the success of the past. Rules are judged as "morality" or ethics, but really they are honest decisions individuals can make.

If I'm in a field of 1 million flowers, picking one is "harmless" because they will come back, and I'm just one. But if a million people each pick a flower, we may destroy all the flowers for the future, even if they are "renewable".

Ethics are relative because they must consider the circumstances of their use.

I'll end with a quote:

"There is nothing so blinding as success. ...
Success has the vicious consequence
that it seems to breed almost inevitably
the conviction that it will necessarily continue.

Success is a poor guide to wise policy.
Failure at least often leads to reflection;
success seldom does."

-Immanuel Wallerstein

Manned Spaceflights

USA Today had a front page article about NASA's mission and the balance between science and manned spaceflight and President Bush's "vision" for humans to return to the moon and onward to Mars in the coming decades.

It opened the thought that hadn't occured to me before:

What is the Purpose of human spaceflight? What can humans do in space the robots can't do?

Well, it might not be that simple. Apparently the Hubble space telescope can be much more cheaply serviced by humans than robots.

Certainly you can argue there's "science" in learning about the effects of space (weightlessness) on humans, and the challenges of the extreme environment of space encourage technical advances in efficient use of resources and recycling.

The article had some quotes that suggested that space tourism is the way to go for the purpose of humans in space. Obviously as-is, traveling into space is too expensive to all but perhaps a few hundred of the superwealthy of the world.

The Spaceship One experimental civilian spacecraft was perhaps a good start last year, even if it was far short of reaching orbital velocity. Perhaps "airplane" models of launching can help cut the energy costs of getting into space. Myself, I don't know. Obviously air helps airplanes keep in flight with less energy than a mere trajectile.

My guess is that "small scale" aircraft/rockets are NOT more efficent energywise. It seems clear that if you're talking payload efficiency, you want to minimize "dead weight" and maximize cargo plus fuel. Larger rockets have less dead weight than smaller ones because there is a minimum weight needed for the structural weight of the rocket.

Perhaps "new materials" are part of the answer to make smaller rocket/aircraft effective.

If you're talking energy itself, I expect that overall we can only do what we do because of cheap fossil fuels, and in the future we won't have the energy available, or at least it won't be a priority.

I believe whether manned or unmanned missions, reducing the energy requirements for getting mass into orbit is a vital area of research. I accept than manned missions, which are more demanding mass-wise, PLUS possible "market" for tourism, might be what it takes to develop more efficient travel into space, while small science missions might just keep on as-is because NASA's costs outside fuel are still dominant.

I find it hard to believe spacetravel will ever be cost-effective for "space tourism". I mean in the short term you might find a few superwealthy candidates, but just think of the airline industry now - how they're being killed by fuel costs. A few hundred dollars to travel across the U.S. is very cheap now. I wonder how much prices could increase or how that would affect air tourist travel volume. I imagine a graph might be extrapolated - double the cost, and cut travel by 25% perhaps. Quadruple the cost and cut by 50%. And as travel volume is cut, fixed costs will rise quickly to increase costs further.

Perhaps for spacetravel tourism we'll have costs like:

Cost/person	People/year	Gross revenue
$100 million	0.1	$10 million
$10 million	3	$30 million
$1 million	50	$50 million
$100,000	1000	$100 million
$10,000	50,000	$50 million

That's fully made up, but who knows? Even if my demand vs cost table is realistic, the question is what is a projected cost? (Of course it also must define what level of space people are getting - I think suborbital is not acceptable, but I guess that would be a different graph. I'd expect people would like to say spend 10 days in space, and of course then you have to have a place to put them - like the space station. If we get 50,000 people/year, 1000/week, how big would a space station have to be to support them all?

Perhaps it could be expanded to support so many people, but looking at the gross revenue side, NASA spends $6 billion/year for the Shuttle and space station, so this WORLD market potential appears to be under 10% of NASA's budget.

It seems unlikely to me that you could get the customers to support R&D to a point that might make it feasible. It would HAVE to be subsidized, but by who? I suppose NASA could do R&D and civilian businesses could capitalize on advances.

Overall my judgement is that science missions for the indefinite future ought to be the first priority for NASA.

If we want to do research on human space travel we have plenty of research we can continue more cheaply on earth.

I might be wrong, and I admit I am awed and inspired all around by space travel. We've learned much in a short period of time. We truly live in interesting times!

Someday our descendants, hundreds of years from now, might look up at the moon and tell their children "fairy tales" of men who landed on the moon, and no one will really know if it happened.

Not Running Out Yet

Somehow it is really a hard concept: Shortages don't imply we're running out of oil. It only means demand is exceeding supply.

The most conservative estimates suggest the world has about 1 trillion barrels of conventional oil left that is economically extractable. That doesn't necessarily imply how much it costs, or environmental costs, only (ideally) a positive energy balance.

Current world useage of oil, about 84 million barrels/day imply this 1 trillion barrels could last about 32 years - until 2037.

There's lots of variables on such a simple prediction. How much will world demand go up in the coming decade? How much could higher prices reduce demand? How much will higher prices encourage development of alternative energy sources? How much could a global recessions slow production?

THEN there's more technical and geological limits. How fast can we pump oil from the gound? Can we continue increasing from 84mbbl/day OR are we approaching "peak oil" by physical limits where production may decrease no matter how much money is invested, no matter how high prices go?

The idea of "peak oil" is a useful one, but we should realize there's also limitations before that. Ideal economics says that supply ought to just keep up with demand. That keeps prices on the higher side and encourages more investment for more production. Before "peak oil" occurs or current 2-4% world oil production growth curve must slow. This suggests economic growth can support 4% oil growth per year, and when oil production fails to meet this growth, opportunities are lost and prices rise.

This is perhaps what we're seeing now, at least in part. Demand is being limited by supply, so prices will remain high even when there's still plenty of oil, even if oil production can continue to increase.

Overall I think America should be scared. We use 25% of the world's oil each year and only have 10% of the world's production and our production continues to fall each year. The rest of the world will be competing for the same oil we're competing for, and with our trade deficits, our standard of living MUST eventually fall as our wealth is accumulated by other countries.

If there were easy answers to this, politicians would be debating it. We're in a transition zone "hoping" high prices are temporary, hoping our problems will go away.

We are being tested now - by OPEC and the world. Can the U.S. reduce our demand for oil? Can we use our science and technology to find alternative energy? The test is PASSED if we can reduce our demand WITHOUT a recession. The test is failed if our consumption continues to increase with higher prices, but there's no end-date for this test. Prices will continue to RISE until we pass and reduce our demand.

What are you doing to reduce your demand for oil? What is your community doing?

Poor president Carter was 25 years ahead of his time. Perhaps I'm still 5 years ahead of mine. We can NOT win this race to ever increasing consumption of oil.

When will we learn?

State versus Individual violence

I wish I could be a pacifist, but I secretly admit I like a good fight - you know, the good-versus-evil type. Well, at least each side believes they are on the good side.

The politics in Israel is very interesting to me, even if I understand very little. Apparently Israel has committed to forcefully "unsettling" areas of land held by israelis.

Usually I go for the underdogs, but I must admit I have zero sympathy for the Israeli settlers who have built homes in areas that they should not be there.

It seems like a real CIVIL war, at least that's how determined the settlers seems to be - many of them would rather be killed than retreat from their position of defense of their homes.

It is a tough place for a government, but I lean towards the hardline that says - if unlawful citizens REFUSE to surrender, AND use any sort of lethal force against the state, the state has the right AND NEED to do whatever it takes to overcome them, even at the cost of their deaths.

I really don't want to take this position. I have one alternative position which is not much better. Israel could simply WITHDRAW "protection" of the settlers and grant the Palestinians the right to treat them as criminal invaders into their territory and use whatever force is needed to capture and/or kill them.

Again, I'm advocating killing of individuals who believe themselves basically as defending their homes. REALLY I find killing as the most convenient solution, and by killing I mean by ULTIMATUM. "On date/time XXXX, this land will be taken peacefully. However if any offensive resistance is made, bombers will level the entire community until it is completely gone. There is NO negociations and we HOPE that you are stupid enough to resist because then you will be killed and no longer be a problem."

I'm not absolutely advocating mass murder. I MAY just be expressing my frustration of what I'd like to do. WHY should the israeli army need to risk their lives fighting a civil war? I don't see any honor in a "fair fight". I say "burn the SOBs" and thank god when they are gone. Power is nice illusion.

AND besides, when faced by people who are willing to die for their cause, WHY not give them what they want? Won't we all be better off for this? Why leave a new generation of orphans to hate the state and bring a new round of violence in another 20 years? Just finish the problem now and kill them all.

Damn unbelievable I can believe such things. The problem is for every time that I believe the State is in the right, there'll be another time that I'll believe the opposite. When a "State" kills its own people, ultimately it comes down to individuals killing - even if pilots bombing settlements, or shelling from a distance.

Overall, I recognize a lot of anger, and I'm sure it is misplaced against these Israeli settlers, since I don't know enough to really judge. I only know that peace is only possible by people who want peace, and the world seems better off if those no interested in peace are no longer here.

Very ugly all around. I'm rather glad I don't have much power, and even less reason to use such power close to home.

Greenspan Expects High Price to Lead to More Fuel Supplies

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/business/06greenspan.html?pagewanted=print

According to Greenspan
****
ASHINGTON, April 5 - Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, said on Tuesday that oil and natural gas markets were under the heaviest strain in a generation and suggested that prices might remain high for some time.

But Mr. Greenspan was optimistic about the long-run outlook for energy supplies, and he warned against efforts to "distort" or "stifle" prices set in global markets.

Mr. Greenspan was silent about the potential impact of higher oil prices on inflation or economic growth, or on the central bank's monetary policy.

"Markets for oil and natural gas have been subject to a degree of strain over the past year not experienced for a generation," he said in a speech beamed by satellite to petrochemical executives in Texas.

Noting that investment in new production capacity has lagged the growth in demand for oil, particularly from China, Mr. Greenspan said much of the "slack" in world energy markets had disappeared.
...
He noted that demand for oil had climbed sharply but speculated that prices had also been driven higher by concerns about the shortfalls of investment in both crude oil production and refineries.

Natural gas prices have been kept high in the United States, he said, largely because of the limited infrastructure for importing natural gas from overseas. Gas prices, he said, have been "notably higher" in the United States than in other parts of the world.

In the long run, he said, higher energy prices should lead to higher production of oil and natural gas as well as new sources of energy.

"We must remember that the same price signals that are so critical for balancing energy supply and demand in the short run also signal profit opportunities for long-term supply expansion," he said.
*****

Greenspan says higher prices SHOULD lead to higher production. He warns AGAINST efforts to control price.

I agree pretty much. Prices are OVERLY high based on fear of shortfalls, but this is good because it can encourage new production.

The question is how fast new production can be added to meet demands, and what the price will do until that happens. I accept it likely in the short term (<5 years) it may be possible to ramp new production. I'm not convinced it is a good idea to try.

The best thing for us all is for prices to continue to rise steeply for quite a while. Demand must be squashed, whatever the economic costs now. Better a little pain now than more later.

Greenspan doesn't seem worried about inflation, so I won't worry either.

Exodus to the promised land

When Moses lead his people out of Egypt into the desert, he was travelling apparently in "no man's land", a place unclaimed by humanity.

Is there any such place left? Where might a modern day Moses lead his people?

Just a curious question in regards to thoughts of economic collapse. Well, if not collapse, then a generally high unemployment and failure of the money economy to "work" for a good number of people.

Biking around the city sometimes I see homeless people with their signs asking for money, or the more active "Will work for food." Overall I can avoid such people and overall they don't seem to have much interest in approaching bicyclists. Still I'm in danger if they can get a conversation going with me. It's not a problem in sharing some money - the problem is I worry that my little money isn't really helping them AND that a good fraction of any boon granted by me may end up going for cigarettes or other nonessentials that make life bearable on the bottom of the bottom.

My brother was homeless 18 months ago when I kicked him out. He went through his second annual "treatment program" this Winter to avoid the cold. Now he's back in a housing deal IF he can find income to pay his rent. My relatives think I'm cold for not helping him. I did help him with $115 last summer when he could get a car which would help him get to a job, but the car didn't last a week. Even had the car lasted, I probably was enabling him to drive without insurance, so was I really helping him?

Is there a place for rejects like my brother - who have limited skills in a "modern" world? Even if he has money, he doesn't seem to have the skills to manage it. I'm not saying living on the bottom is easy, but I do imagine many people end up on the bottom terminally BECAUSE of a lack of management skills.

How much can we blame drugs and alcohol for holding people down? Do people on the bottom resort to drugs BECAUSE they are on the bottom, or are they on the bottom because of drugs?

It seems hopeless to me to imagine people like him ever "making it" in the modern world. The only hope is that someone comes along to take care of him. He made it through 2+ years of marriage, and only succeeded in achieving bankrupsy as a result - and a daughter whose child support is YEARS behind.

He IS a hard worker, but it does seem like his 20's passed him by and soon 30's also with his insanely poor diet of fast food, coke, cookies, and tobacco may finally be catching up on him and he'll be a physical cripple before another decade passes, unable to do physical work like he's done when he was younger. Truly, it seems like a downward spiral of self-destruction. He's unable to take care of himself well enough to offer anything sustainable from the world, and to the degree the world pushes back and MAKES him fight for survival, he'll kill himself slowly or quickly.

Whose responsible for his sorry life? Who can change it?

Unfortunately it is stories like my brother that make me be unable to be "prolife". My brother was adopted and according to my mom was sick frequently as a baby and cried continually and when school came along he clearly had learning disabilities. I imgine perhaps his mother was an alcoholic or something.

Bringing a baby into the world like that seems worse than death. I mean if a mother is unable to take care of her own health, she brings a baby who will grow into a child and adult without the intelligence and skills to thrive. SURE, no one can predict these things - and perhaps only some, like my brother fail to thrive, and most do well, for all I know. Still, it pains me so greatly that I can not be prolife. Is it better to die quickly before you're born or slowly over a lifetime of misery? How can anyone with compassion be fully prolife?

Being so gloomy as I can be is not a good idea I'm sure. It allows me the freedom to not really care - because I can't believe I can make a difference.

Actually when I began this blog I was thinking more of my recent question if economic downturn would eventually send people back into the rural land where they might be able to make a living somehow from nature.

It is a hopeless vision from the point of view of people like my brother. I look at farming and I see a science and art of vast proportions. It's not something that a person can learn from trial and error. Of course it depends on the scale of effort. A person can garden from trial and error, but NOT if they must survive from the results. The skills of a rural life are skills that ideally are passed from childhood and are slowly gained into adulthood and then passed to the next generation.

A hunting and gathering lifestyle is not clearly any more likely to succeed from trial and error. Overall I imagine "country folk" can survive in multigenerational poverty from a previous age of more abundance. I can imagine such survival comes as a slow and steady depletion of the natural systems that can support a simple life, especially if population rises and the inefficiencies of past behavior are not corrected over time.

Overall it is clear that only within "community" is there any hope for a group of people to maintain themselves within the contraints of their environment. Without community, without some top-down renewal, I imagine any group of people will overextend themselves and deplete their support systems.

I think to my idea of a "Martian Colony" on earth. Rather than trying to spend 100s of billions of dollars to get a small group of people on the moon or mars, why not try the same on earth? Much cheaper, much easier, and yet not clearly within our reach, at least with regards to our standard of living.

It does seem the "natural" vision for "living off the land" is to imagine the pioneer farmers pushing back nature, cutting the sod, and trees to build their home and squeaing out an existence. That's apparently how our nation was developed. Small scale effort followed by further and further consolidation.

The whole idea of "building a community from scratch" seems overwhelming to me, but I can see a little how it might work. Perhaps it needs a "religious" focus of some sort. It seems to me that there must be some sort of connecting force to hold people together. This religious focus need not be too theistic - just the idea that God provided this world for us and that we can work WITH nature for our own survival. It's quite natural belief, at least before we were bamboozled by the thought that nature was merely a store-yard of resources to exploit.

I must admit I am pretty well sold to the idea of a militaristic level of organization for community building. A military force is a fair model because it BEGINS on the assumption of COLLECTIVE first, individuals second. Everyone has a place and work is done for the collective rather than directly for financial reward.

I'm not sure how far this model can extend, and I'm not sure how it differs from a capitalistic model of every person for himself and letting greed lead work. I accept this military/communistic focus is of limited scale. It is a hierarchy of power which CAN become very large in scale. Maybe part of the issue is what scale has the power. Capitalism puts absolute power for individuals. Communism puts absolute power on the supreme leader. Perhaps socialism is the middle ground - giving power closer to the bottom.

It is interesting that in general groups are not trusted from the outside. Mainly religious groups when they start holing themselves up away from the wider culture.

AND it does go against the "American values" to suggest community has power over individuals. It is "unamerican" to suggest that a community should be able to restrict capitalism within it's membership, to restrict capitalism from the outside from interacting with individuals within.

Well, my "ideal experimental community" would outlaw the use of fossil fuels WITHIN the community. No natural gas, no oil, no gasoline, no coal. AND no buying products made from these sources OR transported with these substance. That would be a radical community from the modern point of view. It would perhaps be like the Amish communities which have a religious focus against modern inventions they can't build themselves or power themselves.

My purist view is probably flawed - the idea that people can't mix - that the entire community must agree to these restrictions. On the other hand, I don't easily see how to mix them.

One model would say "Take a 'dying' town" somewhere in rural america, and lead a group of wild environmentalists there to start their vision. It's tough to have to deal with "neighbors" who don't all agree, but it would in sorts be a hostile take over of a town. If the newcomers become a majority, they could dominate all the local laws and eventually drive away all the oldtimers who are not interested.

I think there is a group call "The Free State Project" http://www.freestateproject.org/
interested in a population takeover of the state of New Hampshire.

Well, they seem to have somewhat of a different focus that me - leaning towards Libertarian view of "maximum individual rights", "Minimum government". I have nothing against them and I welcome their experiment - somewhere else from where I will be!

I can see in part I am just as much an elitist and idealist as the Libertarians. When I think of a "person", I think of an abstract, well educated, skilled, intelligent, public-minded, individual who wants to be a part of a cooperative collective effort for the greater good.

I don't see people like my brother. I don't see mental illness. I don't see people who value a quick buck or gambling or senseless consumerism or drugs as a part of their daily lives. In fact overall my vision is very utilitarian, and holds some resentment towards others who don't have a strong work ethic.

Overall, I see the biggest flaw in my focus is I can't well see past survival. I can't see people's needs for pleasure, for novelty. I can't see people's NEED to work through their own addictions on their own time and self-destructive behavior. I can see how easily I would propose laws "for people's own good" that prevent destructive behavior.

I can see it is possible that a "first generation" of dedicated fools like me might survive and even thrive on a "virtue train", or at least make a good show, but how do you teach virtue to a new generation? Overall I imagine a virtuous generation will raise children BEST able to make their own way.

This is one of those divergent problems of E.F. Schumacher. Freedom versus responsibility. There's no final answer on either side.

Still, I wonder, what does a community do with its "rejects" - those members who are unable to control their addictions, unable to face their demons honestly, unable to live without hurting others?

Partly I imagine every population may have 10-20% of the people who are simply unable to live as independent adults.

Well, let's take this further if I dare. I have an elistist attitude that says that some people should NOT be parents, YET nature overall doesn't provide a mechanism for limiting parenthood except for luck.

An elitist attitude says that parenthood should be seen as a privledge rather than a right. AND even if you deny the perspective partially, clearly there are people who are not capable of being good parents who, if left to their own decisions, WILL have child after child. I must admit that I don't accept the premise that individuals have the right to breed without limitation from the wider society. It is only a matter of how much control is offered.

Take the "Martian colony" ideal. A colony on a hostile landscape MUST consider what level of population and reproduction it can handle. It is not FAIR to make reproduction a "first come, first served" operation. That is imagining we say "We can handle 10 births this year", and the first ten pregnant are accepted and the rest are forcefully aborted. In the "Martian Colony" ideal, children would have to be "applied for" and accepted.

WELL, given perfect birth control, that might work, but do we REALLY forcefully abort unintended pregnancies?! My heartless approach says YES - it is the only way to discourage people from having children without permission. On the other hand, we MIGHT allow substitutions. If woman "A" gets pregnant, AND she can find another already promised a child license but not pregnant yet, could "give" the license away. Of course that creates an economy where child licenses could be SOLD. Who knows - perhaps capitalism might have a place, but I'd be worried.

Limiting births on earth colonies has some other dynamics. Specifically it is ANTI-evolutionary. If one community limits births, while another grows without limits, then the larger group can eventually through sheer numbers crowd out the "responsible" group, OR through war itself exterminate the smaller group.

Isolated colonies are fun to imagine, but they need to be respected within a larger framework of defense and laws that protect minority rights from a stronger group.

Another name for colonies might be "Tribalism" - the idea of a group of people working together for their collective survival AND limitations upon joining from the outside.

Exclusivity is ALSO an unamerican value. You can't have a company and exclude people from being hired because of their racial or community/tribal affiliations. You can't rent housing out while excluding people. Laws of inclusivity are true modern ideals of equality and access to opportunity.

Tribalism may have some positives, and exclusivity may be necessary, but it is not without a dark side.

I suppose heterosecual marriage might be the ONLY exclusive collective sanctioned by individualistic culture. There's no equality of access to marriage. Marriage is a mutually agreeable decision. There's no power to compel anyone to marry anyone else just BECAUSE they're open for marriage.

I'm not really sure what the limitations of exclusivity in associations are. If I start a "club", can I say "No women allowed"? Why not? However if I start a business, I can't discriminate against women and refuse to employ them.

Well, back to my "commune", perhaps the best model for it would be as a corporation, within the modern view. A group of people start a nonprofit corportation and combine business and housing as collective ownership. Members are all salaried employees and agree to be paid whatever income the group decides, and overall the salaries can be small since people will have many basic needs met by the group, and much net income can be invested back into the community.

So "benefits" come from membership. Membership can be restricted by certain requirements of behavior - INCLUDING reproduction - and members not following the rules can be forced to leave. Ah, great fears of a dictatorship arise in my mind, but there's no reason democracy can't flourish within a corporation. A rule can be made for 2/3 majority decision or even Consensus if they like!

I must admit I am attracted to the idea, at least for exploration. A corporation might be inclusive in not discriminating based on individual racial, gender background, but still be exclusive in discouraging people from joining who are not interested in the collective rules.

Lots of fun thoughts, but must go now!

Test image link

The Falling Star Economy

When you consider the rate of "progress" of the human race, it is truly stellar in appearance.

People say we have "progress", it's not clear if our progress is anything we can sustain over time.

If you look at a period of 10,000 years, our "age" as defined by fossil fuel use will be blindingly short - sort of like watching a bright falling star on a dark night. Energy released spectacularly intensely and quickly, and just as quickly fading into dust again.

100 years of oil and natural gas, and 200 years of coal are impressive shows to behold, but in the scale of geological time, measured in millions of years, it is truly a falling star show. You ooo and ahh for a moment, and it's gone.

Unfortunately this falling star we are riding is a one-time show, and a one-way ticket. We have a long time to wait before it can be repeated - well, maybe 10 million years under optimal conditions, but probably much longer and possibly never again will future conditions be right for the accumulations of biomass in the ground. Even 10 million years is as good as "never" as far as humanity is concerned.

Who will be the first ones to jump ship from this crash and burn path we have chosen? Will it be the urban poor when FINALLY it becomes clear to them that the city doesn't have the jobs that will sustain them? Will it be the rich who accumulated enough wealth at the end to build some sort of high-tech "sustainable" enclaves, walled and soldiered from the rest of society? Will it be the "traditional societies", native americans, amish, or other small tribes that live simply within means within their own grasp?

Okay, so people have been predicting doomsday since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution with the transfer from dependence most upon human and biological energy into burning materials to run machines. Maybe the experiment is still not quite complete. Maybe we still have a few more tricks up our collective sleaves that'll carry us another few decades? Who can say?

I for one would like to believe it - believe we have a couple decades before "doomsday" - believe there are yet things we can do to change our future. However as long as we believe we still have a few more decades we can continue ignoring our peril and push ourselves into higher heights of "progress" and even further from a sustainable culture.

On the other hand, perhaps the "Falling star" analogy is the correct one. How does an intelligent being, riding a falling star "get off" or "try to live sustainably?" Perhaps it is just a joke? When everything you know is initiated from a source of energy that must burn out sooner than later, how can anyone expect anything but doomsday?

We're a little better off than a falling star. We still have "old models" of survival. We at least have the farmer model - that is 90% of the population living on the land, growing their own food in small plots and a little extra for next year's seeds and perhaps some for selling on a good year. We have horses for transportation and oxen for plowing. I'm not sure about fertility - that is whether we can sustain our farms w/o chemical inputs from far away for nitrogen and other nutrients that help plants grow.

Some people still would prefer another choice, and myself, I'm very open for the possibility if we can find a world where computers and advanced communication exists and can be sustained.

Some will say nuclear power is the long term answer, but nuclear may be not much less sustainable than fossil fuels. Whatever else it is, it must be mined and processed and eventually disposed of. It offers help for electricity, but less useful for heating or transportation. It is not a level of technology that promote local control of energy.

I guess in general, I expect nuclear power will be a part of our energy future. I'm not convinced it will ultimately be price-competitive in a post-fossil fuel world.

I guess I expect that nuclear power will always be with us, but tend towards "specialized usage." For example, solar power out by Jupiter and Saturn and beyond is too feable for active spacecraft, so it makes sense to use plutonium there. Perhaps there are uses on earth that it also can be considered. Maybe economy of scale encourages LOTS of use or no use of nuclear power. I don't know.

Overall, I must lean towards solar power - sunlight, biomass, wind and water - as the most free and sustainable energy. I believe it best that every region try to be as energy self-sufficient as they can and transported energy perhaps can be more of a short term trade when local crises demand. Overall I lean towards every region being as food self-sufficient as they can and transported food also be for short term uses under local crisis.

It seems to be inevitable for this direct to come back as cheap energy declines and we must cut back our extravagant trading practices.

It has been a brilliant light we generated in our rise to glory.
http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif

Someday the night sky may again be dark.