Comments on: Into the Forest: Rebuilding Civilization After a Meltdown http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/ I will not fix your computer. Tue, 04 Aug 2020 22:34:33 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.26 By: Luke Maciak http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-12215 Fri, 01 May 2009 01:43:00 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-12215

@treees!: We have to rebuild! I mean how are we going to colonize space without cars and electricity?

Seriously though, going back to simpler times can only be temporary. It will just mean we lose few hundred years of scientific progress and have to start from scratch. But we will eventually figure out alternative energy sources and get our civilization back on track. That is part of human nature – that’s exactly what we have been doing for millions of years now. It is inevitable.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: treees! http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-12214 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:54:57 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-12214

why do we have to rebuild or find more energy sources, why can’t we just go back to a simpler time without electricity and cars and use the sun for our energy source? Let the weak die off while the strong adapt and succeed. It happens in nature over and over, succession is the way of the world.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Alphast http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11297 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:35:37 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11297

I would say that in Europe, the main problem would be transports and maybe public heating, not electricity. Electricity in the EU is mainly coming from nuclear energy and increasingly from renewable sources. Sure, oil and gas disappearing in one day would be bad and a terrible economic blow, but hardly apocalyptic (as the current gas row with Russia and Ukraine has shown). In the USA, yes, I guess you guys would be in serious trouble.

As for how people would get over it, I think it would be a lot faster than we think. Look at modern countries hit by a short but devastating war, for instance. It is a setback and the first months are usually bad. But it is the kind of times where natural leaders and human inventiveness show their efficiency. Also, we live in a globalized world, nowadays. A country like the USA would get help fairly quickly from less hard hit countries (like Canada).

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Tormod Haugen http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11295 Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:27:00 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11295

My take is that this is getting less and less a potential crisis. Although steps are being taken to reduce our need of non-renewable energy sources, you could argue that it isn’t moving fast enough. Facing an immediate shortage of petroleum in any form, we’d still have enough that there would be time to think up alternatives and change the tempo.

We’d still have nuclear power, hydroelectric power, wind power. We’d be able to produce electric cars, and that technology is getting better every year. I agree there would be short term ramifications, but looting would probably be limited to groups that would be dissatisfied with how the governments and corporations handled the crisis.

I guess it would take a generation, or less, before Europe were back on it’s feet again. I’m not qualified to guess anything about the rest of the world. Eastern Europe have already got a taste of this, with Russia shutting of its Gas export through Ukraine earlier.

There is, after all, something powerful in human beings making us capable of acting when it is necessary.

(aside: Norway consumes approx. 90% of its energy production. 98% of that energy comes from hydroelectric plants.)

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Andrew J. Zimmerman http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11289 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:07:02 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11289

@Luke Maciak

Everything’s political nowadays, it’s saddening…

I’m a walking loaded gun waiting to go off most times.
Good read.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Luke Maciak http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11288 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:55:23 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11288

@Andrew J. Zimmerman: I didn’t really say anything about government. I was merely talking about a hypothetical apocalyptic scenario. I’m not saying it will happen or that it is inevitable. I’m merely theorizing what would happen if the scenario in the novel Into the Forest would actually take place. This is pretty much THE doomsday scenario of our generation.

Previous generations worried about nuclear war. Now a global nuclear holocaust seems unlikely. Our current biggest fear is global oil shortage, and the collapse of fossil fuel based economy.

I’m not really trying to analyze who would be responsible for such collapse, and I’m not really pushing “green” agenda here. I was merely theorizing on how would we rebuild our civilization if oil and most other fossil fuels would run out – something we know will happen sooner or later. The fact of the matter is that we would have to learn to use renewable energy in such scenario.

The post was not intended to be political in nature.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Andrew J. Zimmerman http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11287 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:36:54 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11287

There’s so much prosperity here people don’t even realize they’re in a “recession.” I think, thinking about these kinds of “possibilities” is childish…

As if any of us are economists, oil experts, etc…

Living in CAPITALISM is what causes societies like this to grow from the ground up…

“strong leaders would have to rise and provide the masses with direction so we won’t sit down and slowly die.”

No, we don’t need strong leaders, we do need the people to stop blaming everyone else. We need people to stop being so scared, and we need to turn off the tv.

We need to downplay this whole GREEN(!!!) bullshit and fucking Grow Up…

If you’re the owner of a company you will look out for your investments, not the god damned government, like usual.

Government, Government, Government, that’s all I hear anymore. Talk about individual responsibility, and the ability to survive on your own.

That’s why I like guns.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Jakob http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11286 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:01:40 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11286

As mention, the key here is renewable energy. Sure, we wouldn’t have enough power to maintain current levels, but if we focus the power on essential macheniry and scientific research on improving energy supplies and machinery, a couple of decades should be enough to have plenty of power.

I am not even sure that we would see a major internal struggle between humans. We might have to convince pharmaceutical and other hightech companies to freely release their knowledge to the world, but we could possible do that.

Most people in the period will have to start working growing crops, but I am sure that rapid development in our new energy source would allow them to do this only temporaliy.

Now, to avoid a total doomsday scenario, strong leaders would have to rise and provide the masses with direction so we won’t sit down and slowly die.

In short, it would perhaps not be as grim as some think. There will be some conflict, but since most will be concerned with survival they will help each other out. Simple game theory will take effect.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Luke Maciak http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11282 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:13:18 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11282

@IceBrain: Good point. Hydroelectric stuff will probably be very big in post-fossil-fuel world. Also, geothermal energy where it is available. I was watching a show not so long ago about Iceland and their massive investment in that area. Supposedly a large percentage of their energy is produced that way.

So hey, if shit hits the fan Portugal and Iceland may be the next major economic power players – you guys may only see power shortages and rolling blackouts for a while, while the rest of the world shuts down. ;)

Reply  |  Quote
]]>
By: Luke Maciak http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11281 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:04:33 +0000 http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/01/16/rebuilding-civilization-after-a-meltdown/#comment-11281

@Ivan Voras: Not to mention you need oil to produce plastics and etc.

Still, I wonder if given enough time and no other alternatives we would be able to find other energy sources. Alternative energy sources such as wind turbines and solar power are not cost effective right now, because of they just don’t yield enough bang per buck to supply our power hungry infrastructure.

But, with a dramatic reduction in population, and living standards these methods could become viable again. For example solar ponds or floating windmills could potentially yield enough electricity to power energy efficient manufacturing machines. Settlements near rivers would be able to tap the currents building water mills. Places with hot springs and a lot of thermal convection going on would also be energy bearing hot-spots.

Again, we wouldn’t be able to rebuild our society the way it is right now. But these alternative power sources would give us a start. Then research would go into making very energy efficient machines, new energy sources and could potentially lead to a new industrial revolution.

But you are right, nuclear fission is probably the only thing that has a better energy yield than fossil fuels right now. It may be our only alternative, at least until we figure out something better. Or until we run out of fissile materials. Then we are back to square one, having to work with renewable energy sources again.

Cold fusion would be nice, but most scientists believe that the original experiment was just bad science: erroneous assumptions, measurement errors followed by jumping to conclusions. It was never replicated and everything suggests that it is not possible.

Reply  |  Quote
]]>