65
Collapse Will Look Nothing Like in the Movies (thehonestsorcerer.substack.com)
submitted 9 months ago by eleitl@lemmy.ml to c/collapse@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago

Nothing about our energy usage is unsustainable, yet. Just our energy sources. We have the technological ability to replace the majority or our petroleum based fuels with electricity or bio-fuels, but we don't because the cost and supply of oil is very cheap and very abundant. When that is no-longer the case there will be a period of stagnated growth while various industries are bailed out and cannibalize each other and probably a few million people perish unnecessarily, but for the rich, they will be almost untouched.

Of course the above is just under-capitalism. A government that prioritized people over profit could make the transition off of oil with much less population fallout. Who knows if such a government will ever exist though. I guess China is close, but still not good enough.

[-] PersonalDevKit@aussie.zone 8 points 9 months ago

What about the little elephant in the room global warming?

If we continue to wait until oil is too expensive we are going to be very far down the "earth is pretty fucking hot" timeline

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 months ago

Oh for sure. Global warming isn't even being addressed, but I was referring to the article which explicitly isn't talking about global warming, it's talking about energy/minerals/etc

[-] eleitl@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

That timeline is now effectively unavoidable due to the phase change in the planetary system Earth we've triggered through our initial greenhouse gas injection pulse. The pulse itself is self-limiting, it began mostly by 1950 and will be rather advanced into its tail phase by 2050. Only about a century's worth of a massive anthropogenic release. Whatever happens then is out of our hands. It arguably never was in our hands: human ensemble behavior is effectively deterministic.

[-] eleitl@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Actually, the growth of our energy use is intrinsically unsustainable https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

As to the technological ability to substitute fossils with biofuels, sorry: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-121912-094620

As to the technological abiltity to substitute fossils with renewable electricity, there are some very serious problems there https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=182

The fossil energy is no longer terribly cheap or abundant, if you look at the numbers. Per capita energy use has been declining, net energy per capita (the only relevant metric) has been quickly declining, and we are about to reach even volume decline perhaps as quickly as 2025, since the global liquid increase is almost completely due to Permian tight oil extraction alone. There are no longer any accessible fossil organics at scale left after tight oil and gas.

As to millions people perishing, the unfortunate suggestions is that it will be billions, though hopefully over a period of a century due to increased mortality and subreplacement birth rate, rather than one fell swoop of nuclear war and famine.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

You are assuming exponential growth forever, where obviously in such a case within ~1500 years we will be using more energy then our sun can provide which is absurd assuming we stay on the earth forever. Plus you are getting to fanciful concepts like type 1 civilizations. Let's get back to earth and say that TODAY at our current energy consumption, we can replace 1 for 1 our current fossil fuel energy budget with something else. But we don't because TODAY oil is abundant and cheap.

If you want to talk about the idiotic Capitalist assumption of infinite growth forever, obviously that is going to stop, it has to. So when it slows (and assuming nothing else changes) millions will die as the quest for profit continues. None of the above is inevitable. I maintain a government that exists for the good of the many people instead of profit for a few at the expense of everything else, can absolutely become sustainable. There isn't even a lot that would have to change for the average person!

As for the doomsaying about 2025 volume decline, I heard literally the same argument with peak oil in the 2000. It's a misleading number that assumes we can't replace oil with literally anything else, even though we and have been able to since the 50's.

this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)

Collapse

3240 readers
1 users here now

We have moved to https://lemm.ee/c/collapse -- please adjust your subscriptions

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.


Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.


RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort posts.


Related lemmys:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS