> From: "Barry B. Bean" <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:08:34 -0700, Jan Steinman wrote:
>
>> My solution was to drop out and seek something totally different.
>
> Idle curiosity: If everyone lived on a self-sufficient commune, how
> would we react to widespread drought, flood, or other crop killing
> crisis? Where would the surplus food come from? How much land
> would that require, and what would society look like? ... I don't
> think its a prescription for society as a whole.
First, a nit: a "commune" is a term-of-art in the intentional
community movement, also called an "egalitarian community." It's a
group of people who share almost all resources in common ownership,
including income and financial assets. You don't have to be "self-
sufficient" to be a "commune," nor vice-versa.
You may be surprised to hear that I'm not particularly interested in
communes. I believe there should be incentives and motivations. I
believe, like Garrett Hardin, that "freedom of the commons brings
ruin to all."
What may well be the greatest challenge facing the entire planet
since we hairless apes came down from the trees and stood erect is
due to a type of "communism" that you and I and nearly every human
alive takes advantage of: no one owns the air, so we all feel free to
dump wastes into it. It's ironic that farm machinery and fertilizer
production (both big produces of CO2) may in part be a cause of
future "widespread drought, flood, or other crop" failures!
Second -- and this is another point I think we'll have to agree to
disagree on -- nearly everything in modern society that we hold dear
is a direct result of cheap fossil energy, including our food
production system. Unless a miracle occurs, this is not going to
continue!
Many people deny fossil energy is in (or nearly in) decline. They'll
eventually come around. Many others say "technology will save us."
This is really more of a faith or belief, because there are no
"facts" to prove it, and using projections, the technology growth
curve just doesn't make up for the fossil energy depletion curve.
For example, at some point, with greatly diminished fossil fuel, we
may no longer be able to make solar panels. Sounds far-fetched, but
no more so than attaining nuclear fusion or creating an entire
hydrogen-based economy, both of which have been proposed as a
solution for fossil energy decline.
From an impassive point of view, I think this is a fascinating time
to be alive. But I also don't think it will be a very pleasant time
to be alive, unless you are very rich, or very resourceful. I'm
working hard to be in the "resourceful" group.
So, "what would society look like?" I spend a lot of time with my
crystal ball. It's not a clear picture. But I think a "business as
usual" society is going to look much, much worse to many more people
than a "re-localization" society will:
http://www.ecoreality.org/wiki/
Community_survival_during_the_coming_energy_decline
http://www.beyondpeak.com/scenarios/steinman.html
http://www.ecoreality.org/wiki/An_energy_primer
:::: We can only continue to use oil as long as it lasts. We should
be looking for other sources of energy. There's only one that's big
enough, it's free, and good for at least a billion years. That's the
sun. We must move into solar energy. -- M. King Hubbert, 1976 ::::
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.EcoReality.org> ::::
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|