The collapse of nations

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Not every failure follows an historical template. Seems to me that our awesome planetary luck of having easily accessible fossil fuels to power our industrial and economic revolution is also slated to be our undoing. Without that benefit we'd be scrambling about at best. Some of us see that burning that limited resource, instead of conserving it for the even greater value those complex molecules provide over time, is detrimental. But we are all already defeated, seems to me. I think it's all over but the crying. Time to open the taps and hope we can fix it before we kill ourselves.

[airdvr 197]

Good point but I think a 23 Trillion dollar deficit will be our undoing long before we run out of fossil fuels.

[lippy 771]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Good point but I think a 23 Trillion dollar deficit will be our undoing long before we run out of fossil fuels.

Are we talking about the fate of the species, or just ‘Murica?

[wmw999 2,121]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Not every failure follows an historical template. Seems to me that our awesome planetary luck of having easily accessible fossil fuels to power our industrial and economic revolution is also slated to be our undoing. Without that benefit we'd be scrambling about at best. Some of us see that burning that limited resource, instead of conserving it for the even greater value those complex molecules provide over time, is detrimental. But we are all already defeated, seems to me. I think it's all over but the crying. Time to open the taps and hope we can fix it before we kill ourselves.

Personally, I think that water will be worse than gas/oil, because the rich nations will use what remaining gas and oil there is to secure their water sources. People need water to live, gas and oil just to live well. And just as there are plenty who are burning oil willy nilly because they can, there are still golf courses in Arizona watering away. Because they can.

A big difference between a crowded world, and one that isn't crowded, is that you have to fit yourself into a crowded world; you can make room more easily in an uncrowded one. It's all about who you're willing to displace.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Good point but I think a 23 Trillion dollar deficit will be our undoing long before we run out of fossil fuels.

If that's the case, at least it's dropping now.

[gowlerk 1,912]

24 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

A big difference between a crowded world, and one that isn't crowded, is that you have to fit yourself into a crowded world; you can make room more easily in an uncrowded one.

The root of all these potential problems is that the human population has been growing like an invasive species. Either that stops by design or the natural order of things will make it stop when we run into the limits of the planet we are never going to escape from. Our history in relation to that of the earth is very brief, there is little reason to think it will continue long term in the form that we now live it. It's a great time to be a living human for many of us, perhaps most of us so enjoy and appreciate it instead of fighting useless culture wars. The one single thing that would extend our ability to continue to thrive is simple. More power and agency in the hands of women. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Without that benefit we'd be scrambling about at best.

We wouldn't be skydiving that's for sure. Most likely we would be living in smaller tribes and fighting wars that are even more brutal than what we do now. What has made us so successful is probably what will be our undoing. As you said.

Edited October 26, 2022 by gowlerk

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Good point but I think a 23 Trillion dollar deficit will be our undoing long before we run out of fossil fuels.

That is not very relevant to the subject. You are talking about mere money that we owe to each other. Joe is talking about overdrawing our account with the planet.

[Phil1111 910]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

...But we are all already defeated, seems to me. I think it's all over but the crying. Time to open the taps and hope we can fix it before we kill ourselves.

There is that defeatist attitude again.

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Good point but I think a 23 Trillion dollar deficit will be our undoing long before we run out of fossil fuels.

As the worlds reserve currency there is still room. But US politicians will have to get serious soon.

43 minutes ago, lippy said:

Are we talking about the fate of the species, or just ‘Murica?

Isn't the whole world just Murica?

31 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Personally, I think that water will be worse than gas/oil, because the rich nations will use what remaining gas and oil there is to secure their water sources. People need water to live, gas and oil just to live well. And just as there are plenty who are burning oil willy nilly because they can, there are still golf courses in Arizona watering away. Because they can.

A big difference between a crowded world, and one that isn't crowded, is that you have to fit yourself into a crowded world; you can make room more easily in an uncrowded one. It's all about who you're willing to displace.

Wendy P.

Rich nations will cope with water and energy issues. Poor ones won't and their people will have to emigrate.

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

If that's the case, at least it's dropping now.

Well sort of.

America is facing a persistent drought in the west. Immigration from countries dealing with climate change and poor fiscal decisions. The debt is manageable but will hinder freedom of actions in the future.

Covid, war, debt and recession is punishing the third world. Issues of which have been largely ignored because of the current war. Climate action has been sidetracked because of these issues.

[Phil1111 910]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We wouldn't be skydiving that's for sure....

No we all need more efficient A/C. Put Joe in charge and mandate Caravan Blackhawk conversions as a DZ requirement.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, Phil1111 said:

No we all need more efficient A/C. Put Joe in charge and mandate Caravan Blackhawk conversions as a DZ requirement.

Without oil I suppose we might be able to make hemp rope harnesses, silk canopies, and do some cliff jumps. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Without oil I suppose we might be able to make hemp rope harnesses, silk canopies, and do some cliff jumps. 

And Tandems out of tall trees. Students might need to do their own hand cam, I suppose.

[BIGUN 1,053]

I sometimes wonder why Elon continues to claim to save the planet with EV's and solar, whilst dumping massive amounts of carbon from rockets to get us to another planet that we can fuck up.  Why don't we send people to the Arctic or Antarctica. Why aren't we doing more ocean exploration - I mean the population could quadruple and we could fit them in underwater cities. We could have electric water propulsion vehicles for moving around underground cities and the Boring company could use water to propel us from underwater city to underwater city. This is the kind of shit that keeps me up at night. 

Well, that AND - you ever wonder if WWIII wouldn't be a good thing?  I mean, really, it seems like the only time we unify as a nation is when someone else kicks us in the gonads. We damn sure don't give a shit about trans, or ethnicity, or Karens on a rage. We focus as a nation. Why is that?

I gotta go to the store. I'm making fajitas from rib eye and need to make sure they don't run out because of the cow fart tax.     

Edited October 26, 2022 by BIGUN

[riggerrob 558]

While the First World burns ridiculous amounts of oil and gas or birth rates declined rapidly during th e1960s and 1970s. Ever since then we have had to import laborers from the Second and Third World. As birth rates slump in Second and Third World countries, our overall human population will start to decline. My guess is 2050 when the last of the Baby Boomers die off.

[wmw999 2,121]

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Well, that AND - you ever wonder if WWIII wouldn't be a good thing?  I mean, really, it seems like the only time we unify as a nation is when someone else kicks us in the gonads. We damn sure don't give a shit about trans, or ethnicity, or Karens on a rage. We focus as a nation. Why is that?

Backed into a corner. I thought one of the worst things done during the Iraq war was to tell Americans to go about their business like it didn’t affect them. Took the “together” away from it. Yes, it was a bullshit war, and one of our worst national ideas ever, but taking the together away made it even worse.

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I sometimes wonder why Elon continues to claim to save the planet with EV's and solar, whilst dumping massive amounts of carbon from rockets to get us to another planet that we can fuck up.  Why don't we send people to the Arctic or Antarctica. Why aren't we doing more ocean exploration - I mean the population could quadruple and we could fit them in underwater cities. We could have electric water propulsion vehicles for moving around underground cities and the Boring company could use water to propel us from underwater city to underwater city. This is the kind of shit that keeps me up at night. 

Well, that AND - you ever wonder if WWIII wouldn't be a good thing?  I mean, really, it seems like the only time we unify as a nation is when someone else kicks us in the gonads. We damn sure don't give a shit about trans, or ethnicity, or Karens on a rage. We focus as a nation. Why is that?

I gotta go to the store. I'm making fajitas from rib eye and need to make sure they don't run out because of the cow fart tax.     

I have no idea why anyone persists in the idea that we should be putting humans in space with todays technology. Besides the current infeasibility of it the arrogance is just stunning. Just look around at humanity. Do you really think we're fit to be showing up unannounced anywhere? Unless it's a sticks and knives WWIII I think we're best avoiding that as a team building exercise but that's probably just the liberal in me. Lastly, please do trim the fat off of that rib eye. It's marbled enough and you were probably told to look after your heart.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Well, that AND - you ever wonder if WWIII wouldn't be a good thing?  I mean, really, it seems like the only time we unify as a nation is when someone else kicks us in the gonads.

IIRC that was the plot of the Watchmen.

Quote

whilst dumping massive amounts of carbon from rockets to get us to another planet 

I would point out here that the Starship (the one that he's using to go to Mars) uses methane and oxygen, and he's planning to use the Sabatier process to make the methane (carbon neutral.)

[olofscience 421]

50 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

whilst dumping massive amounts of carbon from rockets

No, rockets don't emit a lot of carbon, just because there are so few of them. They're a rounding error.

52 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

We could have electric water propulsion vehicles for moving around underground cities

well, in an enclosed space, you REALLY don't want to be running any gasoline or diesel engines. Electric is definitely the way to go.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Well, that AND - you ever wonder if WWIII wouldn't be a good thing?  I mean, really, it seems like the only time we unify as a nation is when someone else kicks us in the gonads. We damn sure don't give a shit about trans, or ethnicity, or Karens on a rage. We focus as a nation. Why is that?

I guess the same reason police hate responding to domestic violence cases. Often the fighting parties turn on the newly arrived 3rd party.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Well, that AND - you ever wonder if WWIII wouldn't be a good thing?  I mean, really, it seems like the only time we unify as a nation is when someone else kicks us in the gonads. We damn sure don't give a shit about trans, or ethnicity, or Karens on a rage. We focus as a nation. Why is that?

Because it isn't true, for a start. In WW2 Asian Americans probably didn't feel very unified from their internment camps and black soldiers in their segregated units may not have felt it either. Muslim Americans during the height if the war on terror, same thing. A whole bunch of people were sure as hell giving a shit about ethnicity during all of that time.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The root of all these potential problems is that the human population has been growing like an invasive species. Either that stops by design or the natural order of things will make it stop when we run into the limits of the planet we are never going to escape from. Our history in relation to that of the earth is very brief, there is little reason to think it will continue long term in the form that we now live it. It's a great time to be a living human for many of us, perhaps most of us so enjoy and appreciate it instead of fighting useless culture wars. The one single thing that would extend our ability to continue to thrive is simple. More power and agency in the hands of women. 

Hi Ken,

I agree.  Some of us have been talking about this for a very long time:  The Limits to Growth - Club of Rome

Just as a gut guess, I think we need to reduce the world population to about 1/3 of what it is today.  I'm thinking that is about the number for continued sustainability.  YMMV.

I do think you would like this book:  The Long Emergency - Wikipedia

I consider it a very fascinating read.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  As I read all of these posts & the one Winsor posted the other day, I think we can all agree that the long-term future is not going to be pretty.

PPS)  I agree, escaping from this planet to somewhere else to live is a pipe-dream.  It is a nice concept, but ultimately, one has to face reality.

 

[billvon 2,400]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I do think you would like this book:  The Long Emergency - Wikipedia

That book emphasizes that so much of our economy is dependent on oil - not as a fuel but as a raw material.  We make fertilzer, plastics, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc from oil and gas.  Which is the best argument that we should not burn it all as fast as we can.

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Just now, billvon said:

That book emphasizes that so much of our economy is dependent on oil - not as a fuel but as a raw material.  We make fertilzer, plastics, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc from oil and gas.  Which is the best argument that we should not burn it all as fast as we can.

 

That's the real point in my view. If we don't blow ourselves up we have, the cosmos willing, maybe 4.5 Billion years to go. It's not too soon to start conserving our 100 years supply, seems to me. Of course, in another billion years Amazon Galactic may be delivering complex molecules overnight through Prime worm holes. So there's that.

[mbohu 77]

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Without that benefit we'd be scrambling about at best. Some of us see that burning that limited resource, instead of conserving it for the even greater value those complex molecules provide over time, is detrimental. But we are all already defeated, seems to me. I think it's all over but the crying.

Yes, that's a question we'll have to come to terms with sooner or later--independent of the current distractions and divisions (not that they aren't serious as well.)

No matter what the ultimate quantity limit of fossil fuels on the planet is, fact is:

1) They took millions of years to be created and we are burning them down tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of times more quickly (i.e.: they will run out)

2) The energy they are supplying (as well as the materials) are completely at the base of almost everything we do right now; our entire way of life is completely impossible without that amount of energy

3) There is no great incentive to reduce their use, because we are only paying for the cost of extraction, not the real cost of what it would take us (or nature) to recreate them, or the costs to the environment for generations to come, etc. So they are extremely underpriced and we only do not notice that, because the real costs are (or have been) very much projected into the future, or otherwise externalized

4) It's not even really a question of when we run out completely of fossil fuels, but when we run out of fossil fuels, that can be extracted with less energy use, than they will provide after extraction. Original oil was best in that way, fracking already has a much smaller payoff (even ignoring all the other issues that it may have). Eventually we may come to a point where there may very well still be significant untapped sources of fossil fuels in the ground, but getting them out of the ground would take more energy than the extracted resources can provide.

5) We have a worldwide economic system that depends on constant growth for its very existence. On the other hand, it seems that--on a worldwide scale--there is an almost exact one-to-one relationship between total energy usage and total GDP (so if GDP goes up, energy use goes up by the same percentage) This means, if we want to preserve this system without changes, not only do we need to continue to use the amount of energy we use now, we need to increase our energy use exponentially--and in fact, we have been doing this, which is why all this new sustainable energy creation we have recently added, has not helped us to reduce our fossil fuel use, and has instead just added additional capacity to our system, and been used up in addition to the fossil fuels.

The following is not meant to be a realistic scenario that we'll ever have to deal with, because other things will (have to) happen long before that happens, but mathematically speaking, this is a very sobering (and interesting) thought exercise:

• Most economists would think that a GDP growth of 2.3% is quite conservative and required to keep an economy healthy.
• If we applied that growth worldwide, it means that about every 30 years GDP doubles and every 100 years it grows tenfold
• If the relation to GDP and energy use remains constant (as many argue it must), energy use (and therefore energy-production/extraction) has to grow tenfold every 100 years.
• Therefore, looking at this in even tiny time periods as far as the evolution of humanity is concerned:

> within a few hundred years we would have to cover the entire surface of the earth with solar panels, even if we could get solar panels to 100% efficiency (right now we seem to be at 15%-20%) just to get all the energy we need

> even if we built a sphere around the sun and captured all of its radiated energy (rather than just what hits the earth) that would give us about 1,000 years at that growth rate

> Even if it was physically possible to transfer energy at speeds faster than light, so we could capture energy from suns other than our own, in 2,000 years, we'd need more energy than the output of all suns in our galaxy combined.

 

Sure, it's ridiculous...but then again: No economist is called out for being ridiculous when they demand (constant and exponential) growth of GDP

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

25 minutes ago, billvon said:

That book emphasizes that so much of our economy is dependent on oil - not as a fuel but as a raw material.  We make fertilzer, plastics, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc from oil and gas.  Which is the best argument that we should not burn it all as fast as we can.

 

Hi Bill,

And, THAT is why I say, 'Wherever you are, just do a 360* turn & see all of the stuff that is a product of oil.'

IMO it is a frightening experiment.

Jerry Baumchen