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.
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.
posted by Ares Olympus at 4:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home