 |
www.hopedance.org
|
| <back | home Chicken Little Was Right: More on the End of Oil by George Vye Everything you ever wanted to know about the end of civilization, and then some. In the November/December issue of HopeDance there was a series of responses by various authors to questions posed by Bob Banner regarding Peak Oil (the coming depletion of the world’s oil reserves) and what might be done about it. One expert, Jay Hanson, declined to participate, because he felt his message was so bleak that people could not deal with it. Jay maintained a very comprehensive website about Peak Oil and population, http://dieoff.org/, but stopped updating it a few years ago, perhaps out of discouragement. I have no such compunctions. So when Bob suggested I write something for HopeDance about the coming collapse of civilization, I readily agreed, with the caveat that I am neither a writer nor a scientist, so what I propose to do is lay a foundation and then provide some links to the sources from which I derived my conclusions, so that you, Dear Reader, may investigate them for yourself and decide whether you agree that they have merit. My basic premise is that the world is overpopulated. Over 200 years ago Thomas Malthus recognized that we were heading in that direction (http://tinyurl.com/7ydjd). Many modern economists have tried to discredit the good reverend, and I have been labeled a "neo-Malthusian," which I take as a compliment. Malthus was just a little off on the timetable because he did not anticipate how emigration to the New World and the development of petroleum-based industrial agriculture would serve to relieve population pressure in the Old World, for a time. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich revisited Malthus’ message by publishing THE POPULATION BOMB (http://tinyurl.com/6bm77). Again he was derided by such economists as Julian Simon. (For a really good rebuttal of Simon, and neo-classical economics in general, see SHOVELING FUEL FOR A RUNAWAY TRAIN by Brian Czech (http://tinyurl.com/49d7k). For a more in depth discussion of this issue see Al Bartlett’s article, "The Massive Movement to Marginalize the Modern Malthusian Message" (http://tinyurl.com/3htzz). The foundation for the overpopulation thesis lies in ecology, not economics. An absolutely brilliant discussion of this is to be found in William R. Catton’s 1980 book, OVERSHOOT: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (http://tinyurl.com/44co9). It is not easy sledding, though. David Delaney’s abbreviated recap of Catton’s thesis can be found in his on-line essay, "Overshoot in a Nutshell," found here (http://tinyurl.com/3op3q). In essence, an environment can support only so many individuals of a given species at a given level of technology. This is called the carrying capacity. Carrying capacity fluctuates, depending on several factors, such as rainfall, harvest, number of SUVs, etc. The population that can be maintained on a long-term basis without starvation or environmental degradation is referred to as the permanent carrying capacity. Life is a competition for energy. The energy which supports life on Earth comes from the sun. When, about the time of Malthus, humans discovered the means to utilize fossil sunlight, in the form of coal, and later, oil, the temporary carrying capacity of the planet was greatly enlarged. As we run out of oil, the present carrying capacity will shrink: the world will be able to support far fewer humans. (http://tinyurl.com/4uof8), (http://tinyurl.com/66mjs). Despite the claims of the those who believe that human ingenuity can solve every problem, and that energy supplies are inexhaustible, there are really no adequate substitutes for fossil energy, petroleum in particular. One only needs to read Richard Heinberg’s THE PARTY’S OVER: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Society (http://tinyurl.com/69khy) and his more recent POWERDOWN: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (http://tinyurl.com/5vl79) to fully understand why. Richard also maintains a superb website, (http://www.museletter.com/). It contains a wealth of informative essays and links to other sources. In particular I recommend reading his essay "A Letter From the Future" (http://tinyurl.com/4ku4w). There is no way the Earth can support six billion+ humans on a permanent basis. See Richard Duncan’s essay "World Energy Production, Population Growth, and the Road to Olduvai Gorge" (http://tinyurl.com/593nd). I also highly recommend Al Bartlett’s (yes, him again) paper "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis" (http://tinyurl.com/6o5e8) on the Negative Population Growth website (http://www.npg.org/index.html). A copy of Dr. Bartlett’s fascinating lecture, "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy," which he has presented over 2000 times in the last 20+ years, can be obtained on DVD from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (http://scimath.unl.edu/exp/exp.html). So, it is clear to me that there is going to be a significant, probably catastrophic, reduction in the human population. A couple of issues spring to mind. First, how will the coming die-off occur, and second, can anything be done to mitigate its consequences? The traditional ecological means of population reduction have been starvation and disease. Humans have added war to this repertoire. The U.S. government is committed to a strategy of what Heinberg refers to as "last one standing." If it comes down to armed conflict between the two superpowers, the U.S. and China, the ensuing mushroom clouds will take care of the population problem, and pretty much everything else. Should this not transpire, Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute seems to be betting on famine. (Listening to Lester speak a year ago at UCSB is what launched me on this investigation in the first place). He warned then that within a relatively short time there would be a world food crisis. But in his book PLAN B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, he seems to hold forth some hope that humanity still has time, and the will, to deal with the eco-catastrophe. The book can be read in its entirety in pdf format on-line (http://tinyurl.com/3p93d). Lester just published a new book, OUTGROWING THE EARTH: The Food Security Challenge in an Age of Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures (http://tinyurl.com/45ybw). I have not yet obtained a copy but, judging by the table of contents, he just amplifies his previous theme and still clings to the belief that, with appropriate measures, the planet can support 7 billion people. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. Supply-side solutions are a case of too little, too late. Go ahead and buy your hybrids, and install your solar panels, but they are not going to save the planet. (See Robert Hunter’s SIMPLE THINGS WON’T SAVE THE EARTH http://tinyurl.com/4jgdy). Another excellent discussion of this can be found in Ed Ayres’ great book, GOD’S LAST OFFER: Negotiating for a Sustainable Future (http://tinyurl.com/4t6om). But, is the situation really all that hopeless? Depends. Could human beings recognize the coming crisis and voluntarily reduce their numbers before the food stocks, medicines, etc., are totally depleted? Are we destined to emulate the reindeer population on Matthew Island (http://dieoff.org/page80.htm) or the aboriginal population of Rapa Nui, as described by Jared Diamond in this 1995 essay (http://dieoff.org/page145.htm), and more recently in his recent blockbuster COLLAPSE: How Societies Choose to End or Succeed (http://tinyurl.com/5pnu2)? Actually, humans have voluntarily reduced their procreation rates in response to environmental pressure on many occasions, but this has usually occurred in small, organic, tribal societies. It has also happened on a larger scale, but usually in totalitarian societies. For example, the mullahs in Iran implemented a remarkable reduction in fertility rates after the Iraq war. They recognized that high birth rates were bankrupting the country. Could a similar reduction be accomplished in a so-called "free" society? Garrett Hardin, professor of biology at UCSB, who passed away in 2003, seems to doubt it. In his classic essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" (http://tinyurl.com/6p33g), he asserts that the freedom to breed is intolerable, but that appeals to conscience (self- limitation) are self-defeating. This message is unpalatable to most people, who believe the right to bear children is God-given, regardless of the consequences. It seems likely, therefore, that population limitation will arise only from autocracy, war, famine, or disease. Not a pretty picture. Under these circumstances, can anything be done to insulate oneself, and one’s loved ones, from the most dire effects of the collapse of industrial society? I don’t know. I do know that quite a few people are trying. In POWERDOWN, Heinberg has one of the more comprehensive discussions of possible survival strategies. This is an absolute must-read. We are talking basic survival here, food, water, and shelter. Forget about luxuries like automobiles, cell phones, television, and indoor plumbing. Being in the right place is certainly going to enhance one’s chances of surviving the collapse. A place where the climate is not too severe, and there is abundant soil and water, and not too many people, especially not too many people with guns, would definitely be preferable to being in a large city dependent on the importation of water and foodstuffs from elsewhere. I don’t think I would want to be in Los Angeles. Even being so close, in a fairly urban locale like Ventura, is unnerving. With the proper amount of community organization, San Luis Obispo might be a decent place to be. But community organization is the key. Individuals aren’t going to make it through this on their own. There is a movement going on now called re-localization (http://tinyurl.com/6ywqk). It is based simply on the recognition that if humans are going to survive at all, they will do so through cooperative exploitation of local eco-systems. The folks in the Willits area have begun to do so (http://tinyurl.com/5wv7u). And organizations such as the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center in Sonoma County (http://tinyurl.com/3qmfj) are attempting to show the way. But there is an important difference between survivalist communities and preservationist communities. You will have to read POWERDOWN to appreciate the distinction, but the latter have far greater survival chances than the former. When you start trying to organize your own community, it may be important to keep this distinction in mind. As I wrap this up, I am wondering whether saving humanity is such a good idea, anyway. Has there ever been such a destructive organism unleashed upon the planet? Do all the Bach partitas make up for Hiroshima, or all the Monets and Picassos offset Auschwitz? Perhaps mankind is just another evolutionary mistake. The fossil record is full of them. My favorite author, Philip Slater, in his seminal book EARTHWALK (http://tinyurl.com/6wrxc) observed that the human species is a cancer on the planet, and that Western Civilization is the most virulent form of that cancer. So what’s the big deal if we die out? The best answer I can come up with is that if humanity does survive the coming environmental apocalypse, it will be on a vastly different scale than we are now accustomed to. People will once again be obliged to live in organic, cooperative communities, as they did for the millennia prior to the discovery of agriculture. They will have to look to one another for social stimulation and emotional gratification, rather than their televisions, X-Boxes, and Game Boys. If there’s golf, it will be played with sticks and leather-wrapped feathers like it was meant to be. There will be no symphony orchestras, but even the most primitive societies have found a way to fabricate simple musical instruments, and the human voice is the greatest instrument of all. And, most important, they will lack the technological ability to make WMDs or wage wide-scale war or make the machines that are killing the planet now. I believe that if this comes to pass, not only will the Earth be better for it, so will all its denizens, including us. Let me finish with a passage from POWERDOWN, which Heinberg entitles "Sermon on the Collapse": Blessed are those who depend least on modern technology, for they have not forgotten how to take care of themselves. Blessed are those whose culture is communitarian and not individualistic, for they will share and prosper. Blessed are they who have no exploitable natural resources, for no one will bother them. Blessed are those who know how to grow food, for they will eat and feed others. Amen, Richard, amen. George Vye lives in Ventura and can be reached at gmvye@pacbell.net. <back | top^ |