"As an example, why would it be so inconceivable that some kid in a garage can come up with a PED (personal energy device - powered by, say wind, that is connected to an global energy grid and that changes the energy paradigm?)."
You mean just cuz nobody has figured out how to repeal the laws of thermodynamics in the past doesn't mean we can't repeal them in the future? Aside from the fact that, due to scaling up, it is already too late, I doubt even a kid in a garage in China can do that, and American kids don't know enuf science and math to even build the garage, which they couldn't do anyway cuz they are too fat and out of shape. Long term, as Mac points out here, we will rebound. In the meantime, I scan the skies for sight of the Cosmic Tanker, coming to give us a refill.
=
Mr David MURPHY,
I suppose you are well named, considering your subject matter. ;)
As I see it, there is no way, theoritically, to prove that we can't have a growing economy with a shrinking oil supply, as the answer depends on the asumptions made both pro and con.
As a practical matter, I also see a lot of stuff held up as "proof" by economists as merely good indicators of likely outcomes, were history to repeat itself.
An economist would look at five or six plays run successfully, or unsuccessfully, by a football team, or even three or four plays sometimes, and draw sweeping conclusions about the effectiveness of certain defensive or offensive strategies, where as even a junior high school player would understand that dozens or hundreds and thousands of other factors must be considered to accurately evaluate what happened during those few downs.
As a practical matter,I do not doubt that a shrinking oil supply means a shrinking economy, and that the shrinkage will continue for a very long time.
Large elements or players, physical and cultural, are so tightly embedded in our economy that we might as well regard them as builtin or structural-the automibile industry physically and the driving habit culturally;the people and businesses involved will fight a viscious rear gaurd action as they see thier livelihoods and life styles beginning to disappear;this will slow down any transition to mass transit by decades at least.
I am sure you and many others can think instantly of many other examples of a similar nature;change is not dependent on mere technological progress.
But I have not seen a good argument made by anybody to the effect that once we hit bottom on the oil supply, the economy cannot begin to grow again, this of course after Mr Malthus finally gets his long overdue the last laugh.
The post oil economy probably won't approach the size of the current oil based economy for centuries, if ever, but there is no way to know that for sure .GDp is a truly rotten metric anyway, and we should be measuring the economy on a quality of life basis instead.
If culture changes such that people invest a much larger portion of thier disposable income in long term capital type goods(people who don't see houses as investments are intellectually blind to the fact that a house provides a steady but non cash income stream to its owner occupant) such as building and improving a truly "built for the future" house, they don't need to travel so much to have an equally desirable life.
Since our family home is provided with a swimming pool, a masonry storage barn, nice landscaping, a glassed in porch,lots of outside recreational areas, and so forth, we are happier than many people with far more money living in far more expensive places;and although we never have had much money, we were able to fix this place up the way it is simply by forgoing some other consumption-such as by driving one new truck into the dirt every fifteen years instead of trading every few years for a new one.
I don't belive that new tech can save us from a long period of decline, as there simply does not appear to be time for such tech to be invented, commercialized, and built out before the oil issue knocks us on our collective economic butts.
But otoh, there is no reason to think that technological progress will come to a halt, either,over the next century or two, unless we descend all the way back to a stone age.
Even very expensive , scarce renewable enery can provide us with a very comfortable lifestyle, if we are willing to give up our current habits.
The amount of money most middle clas people pee away on UNNECESSARILY expensive automobiles alone-( often hundreds of thousands of dollars over thier working lives) would be more than ample, if added to thier housing budgets, to put them into zero net energy houses, using todays existing technology. HOUSES CAN BE LEFT as gifts TO CHILDREN OF COURSE , and often are-depending on the culture involved-in exchange for helping look after the elderly who after all, are soon enough departed.
We can garden for exercise and relaxation instead of playing golf, bicycle locally and swim in a community park instead of hopping a jet to Colorado.
Is this growth?
I guess it depends on the way you define the word.
The only real difference, in the grand scheme of things, is that it will probably never be as fast as the growth experienced during the oil era.
oldfarmermac on September 17, 2010 - 10:24am
theoildrum.com |
