31 replies to this topic

[Nick1984]

Terrifying!

http://watd.wutherin...es/futures.html

My view of the near future then is pessimistic, a view that the oil crisis will hit us hard with wars, famines and the environment drastically devastating the population. Assuming that we can avoid a nuclear war, I believe that the world would eventually settle down. It has been estimated that, without hydrocarbons to provide energy, fertilisers and pesticides, agriculture could not support a population greater than two billion. This reduction would take us back to pre-20th century levels but the disruption to society and its infrastructure would probably mean a reversion to pre-industrial revolution.

The industrial revolution though required an organised, peaceful society and plentiful supplies of wood and coal. After the crash, we will find that forests are limited and the easily accessible coal will already have been mined. With no coal to begin the revolution and no oil to continue it, there is certainly no way that humanity could ever reach the same levels of population and energy usage it now has. I think it is likely, a hundred years from now, that Homo Sapiens will be living in small communities, supplying most of their needs from the surrounding farmland, rather like medieval Europe. The one advantage they will have though is knowledge. It took thousands of years before the Norfolk Four Course crop rotation system was discovered in 18th century England. That is now available to anyone near a library, bookshop or Internet connection. While the medieval villager looked upon a windmill as something to grind corn or raise water, we could look upon it as a means to generate electricity (although that may not last beyond the Scavengery period (see What to Do). With light and heat available in the evenings and centuries of learning in books, there would be time to contemplate the future, consider solutions and possibly progress in ways not imagined now. The villages of the future would be an interesting subject for a science fiction novel. For our great grandchildren, it will be science fact.

[Zachemc2]

This won't happen in the 21st century. But by mid-century most cars and houses will be electric, so yeah.

[Nick1984]

Well let's assume that 2060 will be the year oil becomes to expensive and production stops, you'd think that by now half of our energy would come from renewables and 1 in 50 people would drive an electric car, right. In my whole life I've never seen a fully electric car on the roads barring a couple of Prius'.

Perhaps we should do an alternative time-line that predicts our decline into the middle ages.

[jjf3]

Um, what happened to technology? Did it all of a sudden just vanish? It's a neat idea, but I don't think the tech world will allow this to happen. I think the Venus project is more likely to happen than this. Only if some sort of natural disaster (like a giant solar flare knocking out all the satellites) along with Peak oil this might happen.

[truthiness]

Technology takes time to reach the masses... research must be done, safety testing must occur, factories must be refitted, parts must be manufactured, and finally products must be assembled, one at a time... Pricing will reflect all of these steps, and electric cars won't be cheap for the first few years while manufacturers recoup their costs for production... as long as they aren't cheap, a significant proportion of people will opt for old-fashioned internal combustion...

The same principle goes for replacing the rest of our petroleum-based world...

The question becomes, how strong is our economy and our society? How many of these gas shocks can we weather? How much unemployment can we take? How many people can we have go without food as food prices rise beyond their reach before society itself begins to come unraveled? If society is strong enough, we might actually endure, and enough of these oil-replacements will reach the street to get things going again, but only after a Depression unlike anything we've ever seen.

[jjf3]

As far as I am aware technology is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce, not the other way around. iPads come out every year, a new android comes out like every couple of months. People are obsessed with their phones because its personal to them. When new ones come out they buy the ones that they like and have the most practical use for.

It's a bit different with electric cars, because there are soooo few choices for electric vehicles and they remain relatively expensive for the millions of people out of work. As I've stated before the electric car has not even dented the market with 2% of consumers buying them since they've been mass produced. I know it sounds silly, but they are just not practical to a lot of people yet.

They are expensive to buy at first (not everyone has $30,000 laying around) and they are expensive to maintain as well...

[KingstonDon]

As far as I am aware technology is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce, not the other way around. iPads come out every year, a new android comes out like every couple of months. People are obsessed with their phones because its personal to them. When new ones come out they buy the ones that they like and have the most practical use for.

It's a bit different with electric cars, because there are soooo few choices for electric vehicles and they remain relatively expensive for the millions of people out of work. As I've stated before the electric car has not even dented the market with 2% of consumers buying them since they've been mass produced. I know it sounds silly, but they are just not practical to a lot of people yet.

They are expensive to buy at first (not everyone has $30,000 laying around) and they are expensive to maintain as well...

Not to mention the lackadaisical response of certain governments to providing incentives to the electric car market, as personally I wouldn't mind buying an electric car right now, but the charging points are not widespread enough to use them practically to -for example- pay a visit to family in the UK like I can with my diesel car. Because I know i'll be 100 miles into France to eventually run out of juice and be forced to invade someone's house and commandeer one of their sockets.

And i'd just not like to invade people's houses and subsequently commandeer their sockets or just generally endure that discomfort just yet.

[Nick1984]

Um, what happened to technology? Did it all of a sudden just vanish?

In a word, yes

1. High end technology requires alot of energy to produce.

2. It also requires a stable economy for mass production, to make something like an iPad costs thousands if there's no production line.

3. Most people don't understand technology, anyone could make a typewriter or a sewing machine, no one can make a computer from scratch.

4. Looters and scavengers will destroy infrastructure like data centers and Internet hardware.

5. Superstition and new religions formed after the collapse of society will see technology as the devil and discourage it's use.

6. Unlike historical information like books, modern information is digital and requires computers and electricity to read it.

[jjf3]

HM... very well thought out doomsday scenario, now i have something to think about in ENGLISH class which will do me no good in the future!!!! I don't care about the epic of Gilgamesh, sorry

[Nick1984]

The bit about the industrial revolution scares me too. The idea that if society goes back to the middle ages, it couldn't develop into a modern one ever again because all the easy to access coal is gone.

Ive looked at various arguments and trends, I think society will survive, we'll still have the Internet ect, but millions will starve in the third and developing world, and for most in the developed world will live a 1950s lifestyle.

I'm not sure how technological advances will continue without a booming oil economy, but as long as we have the Internet and shared knowledge I think we'll be able to struggle through.

[Prolite]

The bit about the industrial revolution scares me too. The idea that if society goes back to the middle ages, it couldn't develop into a modern one ever again because all the easy to access coal is gone.

Ive looked at various arguments and trends, I think society will survive, we'll still have the Internet ect, but millions will starve in the third and developing world, and for most in the developed world will live a 1950s lifestyle.

I'm not sure how technological advances will continue without a booming oil economy, but as long as we have the Internet and shared knowledge I think we'll be able to struggle through.

You're such a pessimist. I think you need to put some fruit in your cereal every morning or something. Solar energy, hydro, thermo, coal, advanced batteries, oil, and natural gas are obviously going to be the prevailing energy sources between now and 2050. Society is not going to blow up . After 2050, fusion will be added to the list. What more can be said? Oh yeah: the devices that require energy will required a whole lot LESS energy in the future. Oh boy, I love graphene. Actually, I think graphene is going to be the biggest technological achievement of the 2st century, right next to quantum computers.

[Nick1984]

Graphene and quantum computers, as with the 'renewable' energies you pointed out require abundant fossil fuels.

You're simply shouting out solutions without seeing the bigger picture.

[Nick1984]

[Prolite]

Graphene and quantum computers, as with the 'renewable' energies you pointed out require abundant fossil fuels.

You're simply shouting out solutions without seeing the bigger picture.

Not really. I'm reiterating reality. The most practical solution is to do as many diverse things as possible, just as I mentioned. You're just setting up the conversation for an impossible scenario for the world to fail. You want pessimism for some weird reason. You haven't mentioned anything positive, yet except for the "internet and shared knowledge" - - which is really just "shouting out solutions without seeing the bigger picture."

[Nick1984]

Not really, just some credible answers to the problems I've talked about. So far its just crap like 'We'll just build wind farms' like people can make them in sheds, or solar panels that'll cost as much as a chocolate bar.

People are talking about this stuff like America's going to have another 50s style boom and problems can be fixed by clicking your fingers.

[Prolite]

So far its just crap like 'We'll just build wind farms' like people can make them in sheds, or solar panels that'll cost as much as a chocolate bar.

Graphene will make our devices a lot cheaper to run because of energy efficiency (newer materials will probably be invented anyway), and quantum computers will be able to simulate matter and biological systems including those from nature. I can't believe you didn't consider this in your retort. This is a technology board. Technology will some day contribute to curing cancer as so it will with solving our energy problems. But what I am NOT saying is that energy will ever be cheap. I believe energy will always be damn expensive so long as their are conglomerates in the energy industry. And I say conglomerates, not monopolies. The government can always engage in 'trust busting' - not that that's an easy thing to do:


Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."[/indent]

The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended, though Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's federal government sued 45 companies, and William Taft used it against 75. The Clayton Act of 1914 was passed to supplement the Sherman Act. Specific categories of abusive conduct were listed, including price discrimination(section 2), exclusive dealings (section 3) and mergers which substantially lessen competition (section 7). Section 6 exempted trade unions from the law's operation. Both the Sherman and Clayton acts are now codified under Title 15 of the United States Code.

[truthiness]

I think the real problem here doesn't lie in energy production - we could hypothetically produce quite a bit of energy through nuclear power and a combination of renewables... We can produce plenty of electrical power without oil - the trouble is that we don't have a good way to store that power into a portable form that is the equal of oil. Batteries are bulky and run down. Hydrogen is highly explosive, must be kept under pressure, and is difficult to transport. Biofuel costs more oil to produce than it is able to prodcue itself. Many, many things have petroleum-based components. On top of that, oil is such a good source of energy that switching away from oil right now would cost you more than just staying on oil, and generally speaking people (and corporations) do what is economically logical right now. Trouble is, if people don't start making the transition away from oil now - to start producing the infrastructure now for an economy that isn't oil-based, even though it may be more expensive right now to do so - and if they wait until a time when oil becomes the more expensive option, they'll be forced to spend a lot more money to make that transition, and making the transition will cost you some of that portable energy (oil), and it is possible that our economy won't be able to afford it. We will have collectively run out of gas.

[wjfox]

Batteries are bulky and run down.

There's massive progress being made in battery technology though.

[truthiness]

There's massive progress being made in battery technology though.

I really hope it comes together in time. That'll really be the ticket out of this mess, I think.

Too bad you can't fly a jet airplane on batteries, though.....

[Craven]

Battery capacity ain't a real problem. We already have batteries that could give cars +500km range. But as long as there's plenty of oil (or as long as peolpe are convincing themselves there is), no one wants to start transition.