Wassail, traveler, and welcome to The Gable Grey -- a place of retreat, of renewal, and of resistance: a tree-shaded refuge in Dark Times. Now pass the threshold, and rest from journeys! For a cold wind is blowing; and here, if you wish, you may hear tidings of the world without...

Sunday, May 30, 2010

The Gulf of Nurnen

I spent the last four days -- a long Memorial Day weekend, if you will -- in the vicinity of the shore of the Gulf of Mexico.  My in-laws live in Gautier, MS, between Ocean Springs and Pascagoula.  It was a good trip; I ate a tremendous amount of food, drank (for me) a tremendous amount of beer, swam in the pool, and lazed quite a bit.  I am not used to relaxing trips from home, but this was one, mostly.

The drive down Highways 49 and 90, and Interstate 10, was easy.  Traffic was relatively light for a holiday weekend on the Gulf Coast.  There were also few people on the beaches.  Both those signs should've been fair warning that all was not as it should be.

We generally listened to classic rock on the radio, our only options being what passes for country music these days, R & B, and Shock Gospel.  Interspersed between the obligatory CCR and Lynyrd Skynyrd and the usual commercial babble about the latest "deal" to be found at the "Coast's Premier Auto" deal-ers, was something new:  info-ads proclaiming the beauty and excitement and extreme visit-ability of the Mississippi Gulf Coast.  Later the wife reminded me that the local Chambers of Commerce had provided those ads, courtesy of an injection of cash from British Petroleum.

We visited the creaking, fading Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans on the third day.  Afterward, leaving the Hilton-Riverwalk parking garage, we got stuck behind a real live Protest -- albeit one on wheels.  A veritable throng of bicyclists were wheeling through the French Quarter and the Business District, protesting offshore oil drilling with slogans like "NO DRILL, NO SPILL, NO KILL."  I wanted to lean out the window and cheer, but decided it would be unwise, what with my father-in-law driving the vehicle and all.

On the morning of the fourth day -- Saturday, 29 May -- the wife and kid and I decided to go to the beach with her brother and his wife and their two little ones, ages 2 1/2 and 9 months.  So we headed to Biloxi Beach, and found what we believed to be a nice swathe of sand, with real beachgoers and gulls and everything.  There was no oil to be seen.  Gulls were plucking fish from the brown water.  There was even a fisherman who'd waded out into the water about a hundred yards (an easy meal for a Great White, I couldn't help thinking).  There was also the usual litter, including a sock and a child's discarded green plastic shovel; a Wal-Mart bag floated like a ghostly fish in the surf.

While my brother-in-law and I struggled to assemble the canopy he'd brought, my daughter wandered into ankle-deep surf.  Presently she called out, "Daddy, I found a jellyfish!"  I promptly went to investigate, remembering the multiple run-ins I'd had with a single jellyfish in Pensacola when I was a kid.  (That motherfucker lingered in the same spot, waiting for me, the whole time we stayed.  I know, because I monitored him from the balcony of our upstairs suite at the Howard Johnson's, after the stingings.)  I sure as hell didn't want my five-year old girl getting stung by some bastard jellyfish, much less my little neice and nephew.  So I walked down to where she stood bent over, pigtails pointing downward at the clear, still mass of stinging cells lying in the sand.

"It's okay, it's dead," I called over my shoulder; then told my daughter to leave it be.

Then I looked in the water itself.  More of the same kind of jellyfish floated there.  I walked down the surf, looking.  There were jellyfish everywhere, all dead or dying.  I imagine there were probably hundreds, maybe a few thousand, of them just in the few hundred yards of beach in my line of vision.  I scooped up one the size of a small lemon and studied it.  After a minute, I felt the stinging in my palm.

Naturally we packed up and got the fuck outta there.

The sheer horror of what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now has been heavy on my psyche since it began.  Now the cold reality of it has really set in on me, adding to -- not taking the place of -- the horror and the overwhelming sadness.  I don't know what killed those jellies -- the oil, the dispersant, or the lack of oxygen caused by algal bloom, caused in turn by fertilizer runoff, that had already established a dead zone in the Gulf before the Deepwater Horizon disaster -- but I know one thing:  I will not go back. 

"...But there was in Thranduil's heart a still deeper shadow.  He had seen the horror of Mordor and could not forget it.  If ever he looked south its memory dimmed the light of the Sun..."

 -- J.R.R. Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, Chapter IV:  "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn and of Amroth King of Lorien."

Monday, May 24, 2010

Become the Sky...

Collapse, Transition, the Great Turning, why words matter

by Carolyn Baker

As the work I do circulates around the nation and the world, I frequently encounter resistance to the use of the word "collapse" to describe the unprecedented changes that humans and the earth community is now experiencing. Many people insist that we should focus only on "Transition" and the "Great Turning" because these words make more bearable and palatable the challenges of present and future time. The word collapse, they argue, should be ditched.

I disagree and feel adamant about using the term for a number of reasons. In the first place, I am an historian, and as I endeavor to make sense of human history, I notice that monumental changes do not occur in one fell swoop, but over time through a variety of stages. Personally, I am deeply involved in the Transition movement, and I am also strongly aligned philosophically with individuals such as Joanna Macy and David Korten who frequently use the words Great Turning. I could not agree more that in the larger scheme of the unprecedented changes we are navigating, a Great Turning is indeed occurring. However, I believe that it is crucial to hold both the larger picture and the current predicament in our consciousness simultaneously in order to remain effectively present in this moment, as well as in a state of preparation and anticipation for a more redemptive future.

What is more, the Great Turning/Transition is a process, and like all processes, each stage is important. While it is tempting to minimize the stages in favor of our natural human longing for the desirable end result, we may actually jeopardize our appreciation of the destination by refusing to be present with each segment of the journey. The stage in which we happen to find ourselves at this present moment is the collapse of every institution within industrial civilization. I challenge anyone reading these words to give an example of one institution that is not in a state of obvious, irrevocable decline. While in the larger scheme of things, we are in Transition and also experiencing a Great Turning, we are profoundly in the early stages of a shattering unraveling such as our planet has never experienced in human history. That must not be minimized.

In addition, inhabitants of industrial civilization who have not yet understood its consequences seem particularly averse to the word "collapse". Unlike millions of indigenous and dispossessed peoples throughout the world who have been unconscionably devastated by it, their identities remain invested in the false security that it promises and the hope that the next two or three decades will somehow deliver an extension of what life in present time is like. Therefore, I believe that coming to terms with the reality of myriad, ubiquitous forms of collapse in the first decade of this century is imperative. Long term, a great turning is occurring, and we are in transition, yet we have only to observe the breathtaking changes that have transpired in the past three years to notice an undeniable unraveling of this civilization. A collapse by any other name is nevertheless a collapse.

Within the human psyche reside many themes, including death and rebirth. The two always travel together without exception because both are integral aspects of the human story. Attempt to minimize or eliminate one, and you invariably minimize or distort the other. We all wish to be "in" the later stages of the Great Turning, but we aren't, period. We are where we are, and where we are is painful, sad, frightening, enraging, uncertain, and yes, dark. Who would not wish to be basking in the light of the journey's end or near-end? Who would not prefer to look in the rear view mirror (oops, I use an expression from pre-Peak Oil days) and see clearly that we have come through the ordeal, and we are now on the other side of it--free to live out the new paradigm in all of its promise? We can hardly contain our elation as we contemplate that possibility, right?

But we are not in that stage of the journey yet; we have just begun. Our work now is to be present with what is, even as we hold the larger vision in our hearts. To be present means to be willing to look, and the beautiful thing about being present in this moment is that we can utilize all of the qualities of our deliciously imagined future to buoy us in the here and now. In fact, as I emphasize repeatedly in Sacred Demise: Walking The Spiritual Path of Industrial Civilization's Collapse, without savoring and practicing those attributes moment to moment, we cannot endure the future emotionally or spiritually.

Notice I said cannot. I am profoundly frightened for the numbers of people I meet who are highly collapse-aware, but who are doing nothing to prepare emotionally and spiritually. Without that preparation, they are extremely vulnerable to breaking down; with it, they are more likely to break through.

The proper response to death is respect and ritual. Respect literally means "to look again." When people die, we review their lives and renew our appreciation for their contributions and accomplishments. We create rituals to honor those and to express our gratitude for their presence in our lives. Ritual simply means "to fit together" which is to say, we reconnect the broken, separated pieces and in doing so attempt to find meaning in the experience. Given the Great American Death Phobia, this culture is particularly challenged in its capacity to respect death as a part of life and find meaning in it. I believe this may be the principal reason for resistance to words like collapse or unraveling.

What is most challenging for us to hold in the throes of the magnitude of the current oil spill, in the face of being daily deluged with increasingly frightening information about climate change, witnessing around us the beginning of the obliteration of world financial markets and possibly the end of money as we have known it, witnessing the extinction of species at previously unimaginable rates, finding ourselves surrounded with unrelenting natural disasters-this, all of this IS the Great Turning. And at the same time, in this moment, it also IS the collapse of industrial civilization.

Who would not want to be reveling in rebirth? Yet rebirth does not, cannot occur, without death. In present time we may feel marinated in death as its ubiquitous presence threatens to overwhelm us. It is as if we are being asked to walk through a war zone, witnessing around us the fallen everywhere and not knowing if we ourselves will survive. And we my wonder, why can't we just get to the other side and as Thomas Paine said, "begin the world all over again"?

It may be that our species, tortured and toxified by industrial civilization as it has been, is incapable of beginning the world all over again without having lived through the ghastly consequences of what unprecedented growth and disconnection from the earth invariably produce. Perhaps we need this death in order to mould, shape, treasure, and protect the new life we ache to create.

In present time, what we can do with the unraveling is honor and respect what everything that is dying has given us. We can creatively construct rituals that erupt out of our hearts and out of the earth, acknowledging what the oceans, the land, the animals, and all other treasures of this beautiful planet have provided. We can thank and bless them, and we can invite our loved ones to join and co-create rituals with us.

Above all, it appears that we are being asked to allow our old way of life to die. Something in us is dying as we walk through the war zone. Something in us is dying with maybe as much as 100,000 gallons of oil being released daily into the Gulf of Mexico, now slithering into the loop current of the Atlantic Ocean. Something in us is dying with all the life that this cataclysm is extinguishing. Perhaps we need that death in us in order to unequivocally grasp in every cell of our bodies that disconnection, endless growth, competition, and entitlement kill everything in the universe. Perhaps humanity requires devastation of this magnitude in order to become a new kind of species-the kind of species that will never again allow such madness to prevail on this planet.

A very old myth written in myriad versions in ancient texts may be instructive in this collapse/transition/Great Turning journey, namely, the story of our old friend Noah who was instructed to build a lifeboat. Storyteller and author Michael Meade, in his latest book The World Behind The World, offers a timely, poetic appreciation of Noah's mission and ours:

The problem wasn't that the end of the world had come; rather the issue was how to act when it seemed that way. Secretly, each of us is a Noah sent on a distinct and seemingly foolish errand that can help the world as well as fulfill us....Noah stands for the timeless dreamer in the human soul who knows what to do when the floods of change gather and the sense of dissolution grows. (102, 120)

I do not wish to imply that we cannot experience joy or celebration until the Great Turning is complete. Even in the face of horror, we can have moments of humor, play, and elation. Our vision of a "greatly turned" humanity can sustain and inspire us, producing periods of unprecedented community and conviviality in the here and now. The turning is happening, and the collapsing of a way of life that does not work is a pivotal piece in the process. In fact, accepting the natural process of collapse as the first step in the Great Turning is profoundly liberating and empowering.

As always, the poets say it better than prose, especially the mystical poets who catapult our minds to the depths then propel us back up into clear-eyed, laser awareness. So often when they speak of love, they are not referring to human love or romance, but to the soul and the unbounded freedom our intimacy with it generously offers us. Within the cacophony of civilization's demise, Rumi whispers:

Inside this new love, die

Your way begins on the other side

Become the sky

Take an axe to the prison wall


Walk out like someone suddenly

born into colour

Do it now

You're covered with thick cloud

Slide out the side.

Die, and be quiet

Quietness is the surest sign

that you have died

Your old life was a frantic running

from silence

The speechless full moon comes out now.

Transition, Great Turning, Collapse? The words matter and don't matter at the same time. It's all about being fully present where we are while holding the vision of being somewhere incomparably different.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

F the Politicians

Forget the

George Carlin

The politicians are put there to give you the idea that

 you have freedom of choice ... you don't. You have no
 choice. You have owners. They own you. They own
everything. They own all the important land. They own,
 and control the corporations. They've long since bought,
 and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses,
 the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets
 and they own all the big media companies, so they
control just about all of the news and information you
 get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend
billions of dollars every year lobbying ... lobbying, to
 get what they want ... Well, we know what they want.
 They want more for themselves and less for everybody
 else, but I'll tell you what they don't want ... they don't
want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.
 They don't want well informed, well educated people
capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in
that ... that doesn't help them. That's against their
interests. That's right. They don't want people who are
 smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think
about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that
 threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago. They don't
 want that. You know what they want? They want
obedient workers ... Obedient workers, people who are
 just smart enough to run the machines and do the
paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept
 all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay,
the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of
overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the
 minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for
 your Social Security money. They want your fuckin'
retirement money. They want it back so they can give
 it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know
 something? They'll get it ... they'll get it all from you
sooner or later cause they own this fuckin' place. It's
 a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The
 big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use
to beat you over the head with all day long when they
 tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over
 the head with their media telling you what to believe,
what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks.
 The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice.
Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working
people ... white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what
 color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working
people continue, these are people of modest means ...
 continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give
 a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you ... they
 don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you
at all ... at all ... at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody
 seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact
 that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of
the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up
 their assholes everyday, because the owners of this
country know the truth. It's called the American Dream
 cause you have to be asleep to believe it ...

Friday, May 14, 2010

Dark Have Been My Dreams of Late

It is here, it is upon us:  the Paradigm Shift is in full swing.  Great change is afoot among peoples, in the Sea, and in the land.  The Earth itself is disturbed in its slumber.  Awareness of the change weighs heavily upon me, constantly; and yet I still cannot clearly see the way forward.  All the old measures of economy, of society, daily render meaningless my compass.  The scope and scale of the Paradigm Shift is vast, bounded only by human experience.  I do not know what to do, other than what I am and have been doing; but that does not seem to be enough. 

We must keep an ear to the ground, nose to the wind, eyes on the skyline.  Those still ignorant of the Paradigm Shift, those still under the spell of Saruman (and they are the majority), will depend on us who have come to reject the Ring, in the dark days ahead.

That said, it is yet an incredible time to be alive.  Anything is possible.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

And now, a word from Marcus

"The sun appears to pour itself down, and indeed its light pours in all directions, but the stream does not run out.  This pouring is linear extension:  that is why its beams are called rays, because they radiate in extended lines.  You can see what a ray is if you observe the sun's light entering a dark room through a narrow opening.  It extends in a straight line and impacts, so to speak, on any solid body in its path which blocks passage through the air on the other side:  it settles there and does not slip off or fall.
  "Something similar will be true of the flow and diffusion of the universal mind -- not an exhaustible stream but rather a constant radiation.  And there will be nothing forceful or violent in its impact on the obstacles it meets:  it will not fall off, but will settle there and illuminate what receives it.  Anything unreflective will deprive itself of that light."

--Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Crime! Cults! Craziness! Chaos! O My!

The Imminent Collapse Of Industrial Society

By Peter Goodchild

09 May, 2010


The collapse of modern industrial society has 14 parts, each with a somewhat causal relationship to the next. (1) Fossil fuels, (2) metals, and (3) electricity are a tightly-knit group, and no industrial civilization can have one without the others. The decline in fossil-fuel production is the most critical aspect of the collapse, and most of the following text will be devoted to that topic. As those three disappear, (4) food and (5) fresh water become scarce; grain and wild fish supplies per capita have been declining for years, water tables are falling everywhere, rivers are not reaching the sea. Matters of infrastructure then follow: (6) transportation and (7) communication ? no paved roads, no telephones, no computers. After that, the social structure begins to fail: (8) government, (9) education, and (10) the large-scale division of labor that makes complex technology possible.

After these 10 parts, however, there are four others that form a separate layer, in some respects more psychological or sociological. We might call these “the four Cs.” The first three are (11) crime, (12) cults, and (13) craziness ? the breakdown of traditional law; the ascendance of dogmas based on superstition, ignorance, cruelty, and intolerance; the overall tendency toward anti-intellectualism; and the inability to distinguish mental health from mental illness. There is also a final and more general part that is (14) chaos, resulting in the pervasive sense that “nothing works any more.”

These are cascading dominoes; all parts of the collapse have more to do with causality than with chronology, although there is no great distinction to be made between the two. If we look at matters from a more purely chronological viewpoint, however, we can say that there is a clear division into two time periods, two phases. The first phase will be merely economic hardship, and the second will be entropy. In the first phase the major issues will be inflation, unemployment, and the stock market. The second phase will be characterized by the disappearance of money, law, and government. In more pragmatic terms, we can say that the second phase will begin when money is no longer accepted as a means of exchange.

The Triad

Modern industrial society is composed of a triad of fossil fuels, metals, and electricity. The three are intricately connected. Electricity, for example, can be generated on a global scale only with fossil fuels. The same dependence on fossil fuels is true of metals; in fact the better types of ore are now becoming depleted, while those that remain can be processed only with modern machinery and require more fossil fuels for smelting. In turn, without metals and electricity there will be no means of extracting and processing fossil fuels. Of the three members of the triad, electricity is the most fragile, and its failure will serve as an early warning of trouble with the other two. [Duncan (a), (b)]

Often the interactions of this triad are hiding in plain sight. Global production of steel, for example, requires 420 million tonnes of coke (from coal) annually, as well as other fossil fuels adding up to an equivalent of another 100 million tonnes. [Smil] To maintain industrial society, the production of steel cannot be curtailed: there are no “green” materials for the construction of skyscrapers, large bridges, automobiles, machinery, or tools.

But the interconnections among fossil fuels, metals, and electricity are innumerable. As each of the three members of the triad threatens to break down, we are looking at a society that is far more primitive than the one to which we have been accustomed.

Fossil Fuels

The entire world's economy is ultimately based on oil and other hydrocarbons. These provide fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, lubricants, plastic, paint, synthetic fabrics, asphalt, pharmaceuticals, and many other things. On a more abstract level, we are dependent on hydrocarbons for manufacturing, for transportation, for agriculture, for mining, and for electricity.

Oil is the lifeblood of our civilization. Even a bicycle, that ultimate symbol of an “alternate lifestyle,” requires oil for lubrication, for paint, and for plastic components. The vehicle that delivers the bicycle runs on oil, over asphalt that is a form of oil. “Rubber” tires are often made of oil.

Oil is everything: that is to say, everything in the modern world is dependent on oil. As the oil disappears, our entire industrial society will go with it. There will be no means of supporting the billions of people who now live on this planet. Above all, there will be insufficient food, and the result will be terrible famine.

A good deal of debate has gone on about “peak oil,” the date at which the world's annual oil production will reach (or did reach) its maximum and will begin (or did begin) to decline. The exact numbers are unobtainable, mainly because individual countries give rather inexact figures on their remaining supplies. The situation can perhaps be summarized by saying that at least 20 or 30 major studies have been done, and the consensus is that the peak is somewhere between the years 2000 and 2020. Within that period, a middle date seems rather more likely. [Campbell (a), (b); Gever; Simmons; Youngquist (a), (b)]

One reasonable description of past and future global oil production is Campbell and Laherrére's 1998 Scientific American article, “The End of Cheap Oil,” which serves as a sort of locus classicus . Their main chart seems to indicate an annual rate of increase of about 4 percent from the year 1930 to 2000, and an annual rate of post-peak decline of slightly over 3 percent, which would mean that around 2030 oil production will be down to about half of the peak amount. [Campbell and Laherrère] The chart is based partly on the bell-shaped curves that M. King Hubbert used in the 1950s when making accurate predictions of American and global oil decline. [Hubbert]

More-recent predictions of the annual rate of post-peak decline tend to range from about 4 to 9 percent. [Foucher, Höök, Poston] Starting at a peak of 30 billion barrels in 2010, a decline of 9 percent would mean dropping to half of that amount in 7 years ? hardly enough time to blink. The most likely figure might be 6 percent, and even that is ominous, resulting in a fall to half of peak production in 11 years. These predictions of larger decline rates take into consideration the fact that advanced technology is used to maximize productivity, which in turn has the ironic result that when the decline actually occurs it is swift. It is not the gentle slope depicted in Campbell and Laherrére's article, but something that looks more like a cliff.
From a broader perspective it can be said that, as oil declines, more energy and money must be devoted to getting the less-accessible and lower-quality oil out of the ground. [Gever] In turn, as more energy and money are devoted to oil production, the production of metals and electricity becomes more difficult. One problem feeds on another. The issue can also be described in terms of money alone: when oil production costs about 5 percent of the economy, the latter begins a downward spiral. [Lardelli]

It should also be mentioned that the above-mentioned quest for the date of peak oil is in some respects a red herring. In terms of daily life, it is important to consider not only peak oil in the absolute sense, but peak oil per capita. The date of the latter was 1979, when there were 5.5 barrels of oil per person annually, as opposed to 4.5 in 2007. [BP]

In 1850, before commercial production began, there were about 2 trillion barrels of oil in the ground. By about the year 2010, half of that oil had been consumed, so about 1 trillion barrels remain ? which may sound like a lot, but isn't. At the moment about 30 billion barrels of oil are consumed annually, and that is probably close to the maximum that will ever be possible. When newspapers announce the discovery of a deposit of a billion barrels, readers are no doubt amazed, but they are not told that such a find is only two weeks' supply.

As the years go by, new oil wells have to be drilled deeper than the old, because newly discovered deposits are deeper. Those new deposits are therefore less accessible. But oil is used as a fuel for the machinery and for the exploration. When it takes an entire barrel of oil to get one barrel of oil out of the ground, as is increasingly the case with new wells, it is a waste of time to continue drilling.

The problem of the world's diminishing supply of oil is a problem of energy, not a problem of money. The old bromide that “higher prices will eventually make [e.g.] shale oil economically feasible” is meaningless. This planet has only a finite amount of fossil fuel. That fuel is starting to vanish, and “higher prices” will be quite unable to stop the event from taking place.

Much of modern warfare is about oil, in spite of all the pious and hypocritical rhetoric about “the forces of good” and “the forces of evil.” [Klare] The real “forces” are those trying to control the oil wells and the fragile pipelines that carry that oil. A map of recent American military ventures is a map of petroleum deposits. When the oil wars began is largely a matter of definition, though perhaps 1973 would be a usable date, when the Yom Kippur War — or, to speak more truthfully, the vulnerability resulting from the decline in American domestic oil — led to the OPEC oil embargo.

Coal and natural gas are also disappearing. Coal will be available for a while after oil is gone, although previous reports of its abundance in the US were highly exaggerated. [Rebecca Smith] Coal, however, is highly polluting and cannot be used as a fuel for most forms of transportation; the last industrial society will be a bizarre, crowded, dirty, impoverished world. Natural gas is not easily transported, and it is not suitable for most equipment.

The problem of the loss of fossil fuels will, of course, be received in the same manner as other large-scale disasters: widespread denial, followed by a rather catatonic apathy. The centuries will pass, and a day will come when, like the early Anglo-Saxons, people will look around at the scattered stones and regard them as “the work of giants.”

Global Energy and Electricity

Global production of energy for the year 2005 was about 500 exajoules (EJ), most of which was supplied by fo ssil fuels. This annual production of energy can also be expressed in terms of billion barrels of oil equivalent (bboe) [BP; Duncan (a), (b); EIA (c)] In 1990 this was 59.3 bboe and in 2005 it was 79.3, an increase of 34 percent.

However, the use of electricity worldwide rose from 11,865.4 terawatt-hours in 1990 to 18,301.8 in 2005 [BP], an increase of 54 percent. Since the use of electricity is rising much more quickly than the production of energy, it is uncertain whether in the future there will be sufficient energy to meet the demand for electricity. If not, there could be widespread brownouts and rolling blackouts. [Duncan (a), (b)] When electricity starts to go, so will everything else.

Alternative Energy

Alternative sources of energy will never be very useful, for several reasons, but mainly because of a problem of “net energy”: the amount of energy output is not sufficiently greater than the amount of energy input. [Gever] With the problematic exception of uranium, alternative sources ultimately don't have enough “bang” to replace 30 billion annual barrels of oil ? or even to replace more than the tiniest fraction of that amount.
At the same time, alternative forms of energy are so dependent on the very petroleum that they are intended to replace that the use of them is largely self-defeating and irrational. Petroleum is required to extract, process, and transport almost any other form of energy; a coal mine is not operated by coal-powered equipment. It takes “oil energy” to make “alternative energy.”

The use of unconventional oil (shale deposits, tar sands, heavy oil) poses several problems besides that of net energy. Large quantities of conventional oil are needed to process the oil from these unconventional sources, so net energy recovery is low. The pollution problems are considerable, and it is not certain how much environmental damage the human race is willing to endure. With unconventional oil we are, quite literally, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

More-exotic forms of alternative energy are plagued with even greater problems. Fuel cells cannot be made practical, because such devices require hydrogen derived from fossil fuels (coal or natural gas), if we exclude designs that will never escape the realm of science fiction; if fuel cells ever became popular, the fossil fuels they require would then be consumed even faster than they are now. Biomass energy (from corn, for example) requires impossibly large amounts of land and still results in insufficient quantities of net energy, perhaps even negative quantities. Hydroelectric dams are reaching their practical limits. Wind and geothermal power are only effective in certain areas and for certain purposes.

Nuclear power presents significant environmental dangers, but the biggest constraints involve the addition of new reactor capacity and the supply of uranium. Peak production of uranium ore in the United States was in 1980. Mainly because the US was the world's largest producer, the peak of global production was at approximately the same date. [Energy Watch Group, Storm van Leeuwen] Statements that uranium ore is abundant are based on the falsehood that all forms of uranium ore are usable. In reality, only high-quality ore serves any purpose, whereas low-quality ore presents the unsolvable problem of negative net energy: the mining and milling of such ore requires more energy than is derived from the actual use of the ore in a reactor. The world's usable uranium ore will probably be finished by about 2030, and there is no evidence for the existence of large new deposits of rich ore. Claims of abundant uranium are generally made by industry spokespersons whose positions are far from neutral, who have in fact a vested interest in presenting nuclear energy as a viable option. [Storm van Leeuwen] One must also beware, of course, of the myth that “higher prices” will make low-grade resources of any sort feasible: when net energy is negative, even an infinitely higher price will not change the balance. For all practical purposes, the nuclear industry will come to an end in a matter of decades, not centuries.

The current favorite for alternative energy is solar power, but proponents must close their eyes to all questions of scale. The world's deserts have an area of 36 million km 2 , and the solar energy they receive annually is 300,000 EJ, which at a typical 11-percent electrical-conversion rate would result in 33,000 EJ. [Knies] As noted above, annual global energy consumption in 2005 was approximately 500 EJ. To meet the world's present energy needs by using solar power, then, we would need an array (or an equivalent number of smaller ones) with a size of 500/33,000 x 36 million km 2 , which is about 550,000 km 2 ? a machine the size of France. The production and maintenance of this array would require vast quantities of hydrocarbons, metals, and other materials ? a self-defeating process. Solar power will therefore do little to solve the world's energy problems.

The Problem of Infrastructure

Most schemes for a post-oil technology are based on the misconception that there will be a technological infrastructure for such future gadgetry, similar to that of the present day. Modern equipment is dependent on specific methods of manufacture, transportation, maintenance, and repair. In less abstract terms, this means machinery, motorized vehicles, and service depots or shops, all of which are generally run by fossil fuels. In addition, one unconsciously assumes the presence of electricity, which energizes the various communications devices, such as telephones and computers; electricity on such a large scale is only possible with fossil fuels.
To believe that a non-petroleum infrastructure is possible, one would have to imagine, for example, solar-powered machines creating equipment for the production and storage of electricity by means of solar energy. This equipment would then be loaded on to solar-powered trucks, driven to various locations, and installed with other solar-powered devices, and so on, ad absurdum and ad infinitum. Such a scenario might provide material for a work of science fiction, but not for genuine science.

The technological infrastructure will no longer be in place: oil, electricity, and asphalt roads, for example. Partly for that reason, the social structure will also no longer be in place. Without the technological infrastructure and the social structure, it will be impossible to produce the familiar goods of industrial society.
Without fossil fuels, the most that is possible is a pre-industrial infrastructure, although one must still ignore the fact that the pre-industrial world did not fall from the sky as a prefabricated structure but took uncountable generations of human ingenuity to develop. The pre-industrial world also did not include feeding 7 billion people. For both reasons, we cannot suddenly step back into Jane Austen's day, when the population was a mere billion. The next problem is that a pre-industrial blacksmith was adept at making horseshoes, but not at making or repairing solar-energy systems; those who expect to conquer the future with space-age technology will have to pray that nothing goes wrong with toys that were invented at a time of abundant petroleum and the machinery that went with it.

Other Minerals

Global depletion of minerals other than petroleum and uranium is somewhat difficult to determine, partly because recycling complicates the issues, partly because trade goes on in all directions, and partly because one material can sometimes be replaced by another. Figures from the US Geological Survey, however, indicate that within the US most types of minerals are past their peak dates of production. Besides oil, these include bauxite (peaking in 1943), copper (1998), iron ore (1951), magnesium (1966), phosphate rock (1980), potash (1967), rare earth metals (1984), tin (1945), titanium (1964), and zinc (1969). [USGS] The depletion of all minerals in the US continues swiftly in spite of recycling. Rare-earth minerals pose a special problem because so much of the more-advanced technology is dependent on them, and because nearly all of them now come from China. [Adams]

Iron ore may seem infinitely abundant, but it is not. In the past it was ores such as natural hematite (Fe 2 O 3 ) that were being mined. For thousands of years, also, tools were produced by smelting bog iron, mainly goethite, FeO(OH), in clay cylinders only a meter or so in height. Modern mining must rely more heavily on taconite, a flint-like ore containing less than 30 percent magnetite and hematite. [Gever] Iron ore of the sort that can be processed with primitive equipment is becoming scarce, in other words, and only the less-tractable forms such as taconite will be available when the oil-powered machinery has disappeared — a chicken-and-egg problem. With the types of iron ore used in the past, it would have been possible to reproduce at least the medieval level of blacksmithing in future ages. With taconite it will not.


Annual world production of grain per capita peaked in 1984 at 342 kg. [Earth Policy (a)] For years production has not met demand, so carryover stocks must fill the gap, now leaving less than two months' supply as a buffer. Rising temperatures and falling water tables are causing havoc in grain harvests everywhere, but the biggest dent is caused by the bio-fuel industry, which is growing at over 20 percent per year. In 2007, 88 million tons of US corn, a quarter of the entire US harvest, were turned into automotive fuel.


The world catch of wild fish per capita peaked in 1988 at 17 kg; by 2005 it was down to 14 kg. [Earth Policy (b)] The fishing industry sends out 4 million vessels to catch wild fish, but stocks of the larger species are falling rapidly, so the industry works its way steadily down the food chain. Janet Larsen notes in particular that “over the past 50 years, the number of large predatory fish in the oceans has dropped by a startling 90 percent. Catches of many popular food fish such as cod, tuna, flounder, and hake have been cut in half despite a tripling in fishing effort.”

The losses in the production of wild fish are made up by aquaculture (fish farming), but aquaculture causes its own problems: inshore fish farms entail the destruction of wetlands, spread diseases, and deplete oxygen. Although her study is otherwise excellent, Larsen omits the fact that millions of tonnes of other fish must be turned into food every year for use in aquaculture. The FAO, with its usual pro-industry stance, labels these as “low-value/trash fish.” [UN Food and Agricultural Organization]

Fresh Water

Fresh water is declining in many countries around the world, particularly Mexico, the western US, North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, India, China, and Australia. If a population crash does not occur in the next few years, by the year 2025 about 2 billion people will be living with extreme water scarcity, and about two-thirds of the world will be facing water shortages to some extent. [UN Environment Program] In Saudi Arabia and the adjacent countries from Syria to Oman, the annual water supply per capita fell from 1,700 m 3 to 907 m 3 between 1985 and 2005. In the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, most fresh water is supplied by desalination plants.

The diversion of water for agriculture and municipal use, combined with the effects of global warming, is causing rivers to run dry. The Colorado, the Ganges, the Nile, and the Indus are now all dry for at least part of the year before they reach the sea. In previous years, this was also true of China 's Yellow River ; whether better management will prevail remains to be seen. The Amu Darya, once the largest river flowing into the Aral Sea, now runs dry as its water is diverted for the cultivation of cotton. [Mygatt]

Most countries with water shortages are pumping at rates that cannot be maintained. The shallower aquifers could be replenished if pumping were reduced, but the deeper “fossil” aquifers cannot be rejuvenated when their levels are allowed to fall. Among the latter are the US Ogallala aquifer, the Saudi aquifer, and the deeper aquifer of the North China Plain. [Brown]

Agriculture uses more than 70 percent of the world's fresh water and is mainly responsible for the depletion of aquifers of both types. [UN Environment Program] World grain harvests tripled between 1950 and 2000, but only with increases in irrigation. The US depends on irrigation for a fifth of its grain production; in parts of the grain-producing states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the water table has fallen more than 30 meters, and thousands of wells have gone dry. [Brown] The situation is worse in China, where four-fifths of the grain harvest depends on irrigation. The fossil aquifer of the North China Plain maintains half of China's wheat production and a third of its corn. As a result of the depletion of water, Chinese annual grain production has been in decline since 1998.

All this excess use of water is leading to political strife. While the seas have long been generally subject to international laws, it is only in recent decades that there have been major international problems with the world's fresh water. Because of falling water levels, new wells are drilled to greater depths than the old, with the result that the owners of the old wells are left without water. The result is a cycle of competition in which no one wins.

A similar competition exists with the world's rivers. Sixty percent of the world's 227 largest rivers have numerous dams and canals, and there are not many other rivers that are free from such obstructions. [UN Environment Program] Most countries sharing a large river with others are in the midst of violent struggle or about to become so. For example, India's Farakka Barrage, completed in 1975, diverts water from the Ganges into its Indian tributary, thereby depriving Bangladesh of water. [Dan Smith] Egypt and Sudan signed a treaty in 1959 allocating 75 percent of the Nile's water to the former and the remainder to Sudan , with no provisions for the other countries through which the river flows, and Egypt has threatened military action against any of those countries if their irrigation projects reduce the flow. [Elhadj]

It is not only military strength that settles issues of water distribution: countries with more water can produce more grain and thus influence the economies of less fortunate countries. It takes a thousand tonnes of water to produce a tonne of grain. In the short term it may therefore seem more sensible for water-poor countries to stop depleting their water by producing grain, and instead buying it from water-rich countries. [Brown, UN Environment Program] Between 1984 and 2000, at a cost of about $100 billion, Saudi Arabia foolishly tried to produce its own grain but then gave up and switched to importing it. Buying grain has its own negative side-effects, however, in terms of national security, foreign exchange, and lost local employment. [Elhadj] The biggest question of national security may be: What will happen when the grain-exporting countries themselves start running out of both grain and water?

Arable Land

With “low technology,” i.e. technology that does not use fossil fuels, crop yields diminish considerably. David Pimentel explains that the production of so-called field or grain corn (maize) without irrigation or mechanized agriculture is only about 2,000 kilograms per hectare. That is less than a third of the yield that a farmer would get with modern machinery and chemical fertilizer. [Pimentel; Pimentel and Hall; David Pimentel and Marcia H. Pimentel]

Yields for corn provide a handy baseline for other studies of population and food supply. At the same time, corn is an ideal crop for study because of its superiority to others: it is one of the most useful grains for supporting human life. For the native people of the Americas, it was an important crop for thousands of years. [Weatherwax] Corn is high-yielding and needs little in the way of equipment, and the more ancient varieties are largely trouble-free in terms of diseases, pests, and soil depletion. If it can't be done with corn, it can't be done with anything. Of course, in reality no one would live entirely on corn; the figures here serve merely as a basis of comparison with other crops in a mixed diet.

A hard-working (i.e. farming) adult burns about 1 million kilocalories (“calories”) per year. The food energy from a hectare of corn grown with “low technology” is about 9 million kilocalories. [Pimentel] Under primitive conditions, then, 1 hectare of corn would support only 9 people.

Even those figures are rather idealistic. We are assuming that people will follow a largely vegetarian diet; if not, they will need even more land. We need to allow for fallow land, cover crops, and green manure, for inevitable inequities in distribution, and for other uses of the land. We must account for any rise in population. Finally, most other crops require more land than corn in order to produce the same yield. On a global scale, a far more realistic ratio would be 4 people to each hectare of arable land.

The average American house lot is about a tenth of a hectare, including the land the house is sitting on. Those who expect to get by with “victory gardens” are unaware of the arithmetic involved. Perhaps some of the misunderstanding is due to the misconception that humans live on “vegetables” in the narrow sense of the word (e.g., in the sense of “green vegetables”). In reality, it is not “vegetables” but grains that are the foundation of human diet. Thousands of years ago, our ancestors took various species of grass and converted them into the plants on which human life now depends. Wheat, rice, corn, barley, rye, oats, sorghum, millet — these are the grasses people eat every day. It is members of the grass family that are used in raising the pigs and cows that are killed as other food. A diet of green vegetables would be slow starvation; it is grains that supply the thousands of kilocalories that keep us alive from day to day.

In the entire world there are 15,749,300 km 2 of arable land. [CIA] This is 11 percent of the world's total land area. The present world population (in 2010) is about 6.9 billion. Dividing the figure for population by that for arable land, we see that there are about 440 people per km 2 of arable land. On a smaller scale that means about 4 people per hectare. Only about a third of the world's 200-odd countries are actually within that realistic ratio of 4:1. In other words, we have already reached the limits of the number of people who can be supported by non-mechanized agriculture.

The UK, for example, has a population-to-arable ratio of slightly more than 10 people per hectare. What exactly is going to happen to the 6 people who will not fit onto the hectare? But many countries have far worse ratios.


The world's population went from about 1.7 billion in 1900 to 2.5 in 1950, to nearly 7 billion in 2010. It has been said that without fossil fuels the population must drop to about 2 or 3 billion. [Youngquist (a)] The above figures on arable land indicate that in terms of agriculture alone we would not be able to accommodate the present number of people.

Another calculation about future population can be made by looking more closely at the rise and fall of oil production. The rapid increase in population over the last hundred years is not merely coincident with the rapid increase in oil production. It is the latter that has actually allowed (the word “caused” might be too strong) the former: that is to say, oil has been the main source of energy within industrial society. It is only with abundant oil that a large population is possible. It was industrialization, improved agriculture, improved medicine, the expansion of humanity into the Americas, and so on, that first created the modern rise in population, but it was oil in particular that made it possible for human population to grow as fast as it has been doing. [Catton] If oil production drops to half its peak amount, world population must also drop by half.

Of course, this calculation of population on the basis of oil is largely the converse of the calculation on the basis of arable land, since in industrial society the amount of farm production is mainly a reflection of the amount of available oil.

If we look further into the future, we see an even smaller number for human population, still using previous ratios of oil to population as the basis for our figures. But the world a hundred years from now might not be a mirror image of the world of a hundred years in the past. The general depletion of resources might cause such damage to the structure of society that government, education, and intricate division of labor will no longer exist. In a milieu of social chaos, what are the chances that the oil industry will be using extremely advanced technology to extract the last drops of oil? Even then we have not factored in war, epidemics, and other aspects of social breakdown. The figure of 2 to 3 billion may be wildly optimistic.

Overpopulation is the overwhelming ultimate cause of systemic collapse. All of the flash-in-the-pan ideas that are presented as solutions to the modern dilemma — solar power, ethanol, hybrid cars, desalination, permaculture — have value only as desperate attempts to solve an underlying problem that has never been addressed in a more direct manner. American foreign aid has always included only trivial amounts for family planning [Spiedel]; the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world.

The reasons for this evasion of responsibility are many, including the influence of certain religious groups with the misnomer of “pro-life”; the left-wing reluctance to point a finger at poor people, immigrants, or particular ethnic groups; the right-wing reluctance to lose an ever-expanding source of cheap labor (and a growing consumer market); and the politicians' reluctance to lose votes in any direction. [Kolankiewicz]

Overpopulation can also be seen in terms of the distribution of resources: there is some validity to the argument that imposing family planning on poor countries is unfair if rich countries consume far more resources per capita. That argument, however, can be countered by the statement that overpopulation in one country leads to immigration, which in turn leads to overpopulation in another country; the onus of responsibility therefore lies on poor countries, not rich ones. It is also countered by the simple statement that people should not have children if they have no means of feeding them. And in any case, spreading the misery out universally can hardly be considered a solution, no matter how anyone tries to juggle the figures.
Overpopulation can always be passed off as somebody else's problem. It is the fundamental case of what Garrett Hardin calls “the tragedy of the commons” [Hardin (a), (b)]: although every oversize family knows the world will suffer slightly from that fecundity, no family wants to lose out by being the first to back down. Without a central governing body that is both strong and honest, however, the evasion is perpetual, and it is that very lack of strength and honesty that makes traditional democracy an anachronism. For all that might be said against their politics and economics, it is the Chinese who have made the greatest effort at dealing with excess numbers, although even their efforts can hardly be considered a success.

Discussion of overpopulation is the Great Taboo. Politicians will rarely touch the issue, although we no longer hold our breaths waiting for such people to speak the truth about anything. Even the many documents of the United Nations merely sidestep the issue by discussing how to cater to large populations, in spite of the fact that such catering is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

To speak against overpopulation is an exercise in futility. How likely is it that the required massive change in human thinking will ever take place? For such a thing to happen, it would be necessary for a large percentage of the human race to become literate, to read books, and to understand difficult scientific abstractions, scholarly entanglements which are neither comic nor tragic but simply unpropitious. Yet that is precisely the opposite of how most people behave. To broach the topic of overpopulation is only to invite charges of racism and elitism. Instead of dreaming of ways to reduce a population of several billion to a reasonable number overnight, therefore, it might be more sensible to think in terms of the medical system of triage: let us save those who can be saved.

Like so many other species, humanity expands and consumes until its members starve and die. The two basic, reciprocal problems of human life have still never been solved: overpopulation and the over-consumption of resources. As a result, the competition for survival is intense, and for most people life is just a long stretch of drudgery followed by an ignoble death. It is ironic that birth control, the most important invention in all of human history, has been put into practice in such a desultory manner. There is still no intelligent life on earth.

In view of the general unpopularity of family-planning policies, it can only be said euphemistically that nature will decide the outcome. Even if his words owe as much to observation of the stages of collapse as to divine inspiration, it is St. John's Four Horsemen of war, famine, plague, and death who will signify the future of the industrial world. Nor can we expect people to be overly concerned about good manners: although there are too many variables for civil strife to be entirely predictable, if we look at accounts of large-scale disasters of the past, ranging from the financial to the meteorological, we can see that there is a point at which the looting and lynching begin. The survivors of industrial society will have to distance themselves from the carnage.
The need for a successful community to be far removed from urban areas is also a matter of access to the natural resources that will remain. With primitive technology, it takes a great deal of land to support human life. What may look like a long stretch of empty wilderness is certainly not empty to the people who are out there picking blueberries or catching fish. That emptiness is not a prerogative or luxury of the summer vacationer. It is an essential ratio of the human world to the non-human.


Humanity has struggled to survive through the millennia in terms of balancing population size with food supply. The same is true now, but population numbers have been soaring for over a century. Oil, the limiting factor, is close to or beyond its peak extraction. Without ample, free-flowing oil, it will not be possible to support a population of several billion for long. Famine caused by oil-supply failure alone will probably result in about 2.5 billion above-normal deaths before the year 2050; lost and averted births will amount to roughly an equal number.

In terms of its effects on daily human life, the most significant aspect of fossil-fuel depletion will be the lack of food. “Peak oil” basically means “peak food.” Modern agriculture is highly dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizers (the Haber-Bosch process combines natural gas with atmospheric nitrogen to produce nitrogen fertilizer), pesticides, and the operation of machines for irrigation, harvesting, processing, and transportation.
Without fossil fuels, modern methods of food production will disappear, and crop yields will be far less than at present. Crop yields are far lower in societies that do not have fossil fuels or modern machinery. We should therefore have no illusions that several billion humans can be fed by “organic gardening” or anything else of that nature.

The Green Revolution involved, among other things, the development of higher-yielding crops. These new varieties could be grown only with large inputs of fertilizer and pesticides, all of which required fossil fuels. In essence, the Green Revolution was little more than the invention of a way to turn petroleum and natural gas into food.

Over the next few decades, therefore, there will be famine on a scale many times larger than ever before in human history. It is possible, of course, that warfare and plague will take their toll to a large extent before famine claims its victims. The distinctions, in any case, can never be absolute: often “war + drought = famine” [Devereux], especially in sub-Saharan Africa, but there are several other combinations of factors.
Although, when discussing theories of famine, economists generally use the term “neo-malthusian” in a derogatory manner, the coming famine will be very much a case of an imbalance between population and resources. The ultimate cause will be fossil-fuel depletion, not government policy (as in the days of Stalin or Mao), warfare, ethnic discrimination, bad weather, poor methods of distribution, inadequate transportation, livestock diseases, or any of the other variables that have often turned mere hunger into genuine starvation.
The increase in the world's population has followed a simple curve: from about 1.7 billion in 1900 to about 6.1 billion in 2000. A quick glance at a chart of world population growth, on a broader time scale, shows a line that runs almost horizontally for thousands of years, and then makes an almost vertical ascent as it approaches the present. That is not just an amusing curiosity. It is a shocking fact that should have awakened humanity to the realization that something is dreadfully wrong.

Mankind is always prey to its own “exuberance,” to use Catton's term. That has certainly been true of population growth. In many cultures, “Do you have any children?” or, “How many children do you have?” is a form of greeting or civility almost equivalent to “How do you do?” or, “Nice to meet you.” World population growth, nevertheless, has always been ecologically hazardous. With every increase in human numbers we are only barely able to keep up with the demand: providing all those people with food and water has not been easy. We are always pushing ourselves to the limits of Earth's ability to hold us. [Catton]
Even that is an understatement. No matter how much we depleted our resources, there was always the sense that we could somehow “get by.” But in the late twentieth century we stopped getting by. It is important to differentiate between production in an “absolute” sense and production “per capita.” Although oil production, in “absolute” numbers, kept climbing — only to decline in the early twenty-first century — what was ignored was that although that “absolute” production was climbing, the production “per capita” reached its peak in 1979. [BP]

The unequal distribution of resources plays a part. The average inhabitant of the United States consumes far more than the average inhabitant of India or China. Nevertheless, if all the world's resources were evenly distributed, the result would only be universal poverty. It is the totals and the averages of resources that we must deal with in order to determine the totals and averages of results. For example, if all of the world's arable land were distributed evenly, in the absence of mechanized agriculture each person on the planet would still have an inadequate amount of farmland for survival: distribution would have accomplished very little.

We were always scraping the edges of the earth, but we are now entering a far more dangerous era. The main point to keep in mind is that, throughout the twentieth century, oil production and human population were so closely integrated that every barrel of oil had an effect on human numbers. While population has been going up, so has oil production.

Future excess mortality can therefore be determined ? at least in a rough-and-ready manner ? by the fact that in modern industrial society it is oil supply that determines how many people can be fed. An increase in oil production leads to an increase in population, and a decrease in oil production leads to a decrease in population.

In round numbers, global oil production in the year 2008 was 30 billion barrels, and the population was 7 billion. The consensus is that in the year 2050 oil production will be about 2 billion barrels. The same amount of oil production occurred in the year 1930, when the population was 2 billion. The population in 2050 will therefore be the same as in 1930: 2 billion. The difference between 7 billion people and 2 billion is 5 billion, which will therefore be the total number of famine deaths and lost or averted births for that period.
We can also determine the number of famine deaths and lost or averted births on an annual basis. From 2008 to 2050 is 42 years. The average annual difference in population is therefore 5 billion divided by 42, which is about 120 million.

Many of those annual 120 million will not actually be deaths; famine will cause a lowering of the birth rate. [Devereux, Ó Gráda] This will sometimes happen voluntarily, as people realize they lack the resources to raise children, or it will happen involuntarily when famine and general ill health result in infertility. In most famines the number of deaths from starvation or from starvation-induced disease is very roughly the same as the number of lost or averted births. In Ireland's nineteenth-century famine, for example, the number of famine deaths was 1.3 million, whereas the number of lost births was 0.4 million. The number of famine deaths during China's Great Leap Forward (1958-1961) was perhaps 30 million, and the number of lost births was perhaps 33 million.

The “normal,” non-famine-related, birth and death rates are not incorporated into the above future population figures, since for most of pre-industrial human history the sum of the two — i.e. the growth rate — has been nearly zero. If not for the problem of resource-depletion, in other words, the future birth rate and death rate would be nearly identical, as they were in pre-industrial times. And there is no question that the future will mean a return to the “pre-industrial.”

Nevertheless, it will often be hard to separate “famine deaths” from a rather broad category of “other excess deaths.” War, disease, global warming, topsoil deterioration, and other factors will have unforeseeable effects of their own. Considering the unusual duration of the coming famine, and with Leningrad [Salisbury] as one of many precursors, cannibalism may be significant; to what extent should this be included in a calculation of “famine deaths”? It is probably safe to say that an unusually large decline in the population of a country will be the most significant indicator that this predicted famine has in fact arrived.

These figures obliterate all previous estimates of future population growth. Instead of a steady rise over the course of this century, as generally predicted, there will be a clash of the two giant forces of overpopulation and oil depletion, followed by a precipitous ride into the unknown future.

The Passage

What seems the best general concept of human society later in this century is not easy to formulate. The only keyword that seems applicable is “survivalist,” although for various reasons even that name is rather clumsy. With a slightly optimistic view of the future, one can say that a few people will succeed, and that such people will generally be those who have the skills to do so, even if there will be other people who stay alive by sheer chance. The greatest “resource” of all will be the knowledge inside one's own head. People with the information and skills required for supplying themselves and their community with food and shelter, however, can certainly be called survivalists, even if there should be a better label.

The trouble with the term “survivalist” is that it is often more suited to people who have been brought up on purely fictional accounts of Armageddon, as churned out by Hollywood film studios. The pleasure derived from watching such depictions of violence is not as innocent as it seems. Watching a movie is only one step removed from watching gladiators in an amphitheater hacking each other to pieces. In both cases our moral sensibilities are dulled: we fail to disapprove of the behavior we are observing. In both cases, also, the underlying message is that violence is the quick road to success. In the real world of the future, however, such forms of behavior might be of questionable value in the long run. The problem with cycles of revenge is that there is often no obvious distinction to be made between the “good” and the “bad.” Bloodshed will be no more a lasting solution in the future than it was in Viking times. We must not forget that even in the Dark Ages there were many who sought a better way of life.

We must also keep in mind that as the centuries unfold the human world will always be much smaller than it is today. It may seem odd to speak of the social implications of hematite versus taconite, for example, but what we are really examining is a human population that will be shrinking considerably from its present numbers and living a less complicated life. The world will not be smaller in the sense of “the global village” with its rapid communication and transportation, but smaller in almost the opposite sense: that each person's life will be lived within a smaller geographic range than today, and that the total of human numbers will be small. That smallness will be repeated mile by mile, league by league: people will be counted in groups of hundreds rather than billions, and the kingdoms of the distant future will be the size of our present counties.

Other than the numbers and the technology, that future way of life may remain somewhat of a mystery for now. We might think of the Dark Ages of Europe, as previously mentioned. But then we must also consider scenarios of the past that are more pleasant ? for example, the first people to cross the Bering Strait, many thousands of years ago, discovered two entire continents entirely uninhabited by humans. What they found must have been an absolute paradise, or so it may seem us in our crowded day. Of course the difference between AD 1000 and 10,000 BC is obvious: at the earlier time, there was an excellent ratio between population and resources.


Adams, Mike. Global Supply of Rare Earth Elements Could Be Wiped Out by 2012. Natural News. 26 January 2010. http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html
BP Global Statistical Review of World Energy . Annual. http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview
Brown, Lester R. Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization . New York: Norton & Co., 2008.
Campbell, Colin J. (a) Colin Campbell's Response to the Guardian IEA Reporting. The Oil Drum. 16 November 2009. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5970
-----. (b) The Coming Oil Crisis . Brentwood, Essex: Multi-Science Publishing Company, 2004.
-----, and Jean H. Laherrère. The End of Cheap Oil. Scientific American , March 1998. http://www.dieoff.org/page140.htm
Catton, William R., Jr. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change . Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1982.
CIA World Factbook . Annual. US Government Printing Office. http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook
Devereux, Stephen. Famine in the Twentieth Century. IDS Working Paper 105. http://www.dse.unifi.it/sviluppo/doc/WP105.pdf
Duncan, Richard C. (a) The Olduvai Theory: Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization. The Social Contract, Winter 2005-2006. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf
-----. (b) The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge. Geological Society of America , Summit 2000. Reno, Nevada, 13 November 2000. http://www.dieoff.org/page224.htm
Earth Policy Institute. (a) Earth Policy Indicators. 15 June 2006. Grain Harvest: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C54/
-----. (b) Earth Policy Indicators. 22 June 2005. Fish Harvest. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C55/
EIA (Energy Information Administration), US Department of Energy. World Consumption of Primary Energy by Energy Type and Selected Country Groups. Annual. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls
Elhadj, Elie. Dry Aquifers in Arab Countries and the Looming Food Crisis. The Middle East Review of International Affairs , 12:3, September 2008. http://www.meriajournal.com/en/asp/journal/2008/december/elhadj/index.asp
Energy Watch Group. December 2006. Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy. EWG-Series No. 1, 2006. http://www.energywatchgroup.com/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Uranium_3-12-2006ms.pdf
Foucher, Sam. Analysis of Decline Rates. The Oil Drum. 25 February 2009. http://iseof.org/pdf/theoildrum_4820.pdf
Gever, John, et al. Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades . 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1991.
Hardin, Garrett. (a) Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos . New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
-----. (b) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science . 13 December 1968. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243
Klare, Michael T. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict . New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002.
Knies, Gerhard. Global Energy and Climate Security through Solar Power from Deserts. 2006. Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation in co-operation with The Club of Rome. http://www.desertec.org/downloads/deserts_en.pdf
Kolankiewicz , Leon , and Roy Beck. Forsaking Fundamentals: The U.S. Environmental Movement Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization . http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/forsaking/forsaking.pdf
Lardelli, Michael. The Oil-Economy Connection. Online Opinion. 25 November 2009. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9694&page=0
Mygatt, Elizabeth. World's Water Resources Face Mounting Pressure. Eco-Economic Indicators. 26 July 2006. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/indicators/C57/
Ó Gráda, Cormac. Making Famine History. Journal of Economic Literature , March 2007. http://www.ucd.ie/economics/research/papers/2006/WP06.10.pdf
Pimentel, David. Energy Flows in Agricultural and Natural Ecosystems. CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies). 1984. http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/s07/c10841.pdf
-----, and Carl W. Hall, eds. Food and Energy Resources . Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1984.
-----, and Marcia H. Pimentel. Food, Energy, and Society . 3rd ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2007.
Salisbury, Harrison E. The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press, 2003.
Simmons, Matthew R. Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy . Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
Smil, Vaclav. The Iron Age & Coal-based Coke: A Neglected Case of Fossil-fuel Dependence. Master Resource. 17 September 2009. http://masterresource.org/2009/09/a-forgotten-case-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-the-iron-age-requires-carbon-based-energy-like-it-or-not/
Smith, Dan, and Janami Vivekananda. A Climate of Conflict: The Links between Climate Change, Peace and War. International Alert. November 2007. http://www.international-alert.org/pdf/A_Climate_Of_Conflict.pdf
Smith, Rebecca. US Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal. Wall Street Journal. 8 June 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124414770220386457.html
Spiedel, J. Joseph et al. Making the Case for US International Family Planning Assistance. United States Agency for International Development. http://jhsph.edu/gatesinstitute/_pdf/publications/MakingtheCase.pdf
Storm van Leeuwen, Jan Willem. Nuclear Power ? the Energy Balance. February 2008. http://www.stormsmith.nl/
UN Environment Program. Global Environment Outlook 4 . 2007. http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/report/GEO-4_Report_Full_en.pdf
UN Food and Agricultural Organization. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/A0699e/A0699E00.htm
USGS ( United States Geological Survey). Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States . Data Series 140. http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/
Weatherwax, Paul. Indian Corn in Old America . New York: Macmillan, 1954.
Youngquist, Walter. (a) Alternative Energy Sources. Oil Crisis. October 2000. http://www.oilcrisis.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
-----. (b) Geodestinies: The Inevitable Control of Earth Resources over Nations and Individuals . 2nd ed. Portland, Oregon: National Book Company, Education Research Assoc., 2008.

Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American Indians, published by Chicago Review Press. His email address is odonatus [at] live.com

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Deepshit Horizon; Or, Spill, Baby, Spill; Or, Man, We Are SO Fucked

The image is only marginally relevant to the post title(s).  One has to wonder if the warrior is in trouble, what with the somewhat sensual, certainly wicked spectral things looming up at him from noxious mists.  I for my part feel equally threatened today, by all the bad news on so many fronts:  the Goldman Sucks show this week, the riots in Greece (and the promise of More to Come on 5 May); and, of course, the massive clusterfuck that is/was BP's Deepwater Horizon rig, now resting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.  Where, as my brother suggested hopefully, one day it may provide a great habitat for wildlife.

"IF there's any wildlife left by that point," I'm thinking.  As of this moment, the spill is said to be the size of the island of Puerto Rico, and growing.  GREAT.  And, of course, our Fearless Leader has promised to hold BP accountable, and responsible for shouldering the costs of the cleanup.

Well, sure.  I'm not arguing otherwise.  But what I'd like to see is a more direct effect on us American consumers of gasoline, something that makes it finally hit home to my fellows among the Great Unwashed that No, we can't have it all.  (Dovetails beautifully with the article in the previous post.)  I propose a "Hazard Tax" on gasoline, which would help pay for extra environmental safeguards on all drilling sites on US territory and in territorial waters.  It doesn't really matter if the money is actually used for that purpose, or lines politicians' pockets, as long as me and the rest of the Happy Motoring crowd are shelling out the cash.  I figure about $2 extra per gallon should do the trick.

You want fresh seafood?  Be ready to pay $5 a gallon gas, buddy.  Now that kind of money would just be kick-you-in-the-crotch, spit-on-your-neck fantastic to me and mine, who are already paying a big chunk of money to BP/Chevron/Exxon each week.  It would send grocery prices even further into the Blue than they are now, and effectively shut down my already sputtering efforts at action figure collecting, which is admittedly embarrassing in certain circles, but hey, it's me.  It would sock it to the video rental business, which is how I make a living, since it would make driving to Blockbuster to rent and return movies a Very Bad Deal for a good number of my clientele, many of whom come in from the boonies to git they fix.  It would, in fact, put our zombieconomy out of its misery.  (Or, for my fellow RM/MERP geeks, a roll of 66 on any Weapon Critical table.)  But that's the only way people will cut down on their driving, and all the myriad other ways we take advantage of cheap oil, and thus maybe, MAYBE begin to have some positive impact on the environment... or, I guess, no impact at all.  (As far as government use of petroleum, well, that won't end until the oil really runs out.  They'll have access to it for a lot longer than we will.)

It would only be fair, it would only be right.  It's coming, anyway, of course:  higher gas prices, I mean.  But I worry that it will not come soon enough to prevent us from completely ruining our world.  I mourn the Gulf, and we all should; but then, too, we should all mourn our own greed and lack of vision, and the fact that we are not yet wise enough to know what to do with something as incredibly useful and potentially destructive as cheap, abundant oil.

Meanwhile, I'm looking into buying a bicycle.  Afterward, I will cut and paste an image of myself astride a Schwinn, 12-gauge in hand, onto the Frazetta painting above.  THAT will be SO COOL...
Whiles carried o'er the iron road,
We hurry by some fair abode;
The garden bright amidst the hay,
The yellow wain upon the way,
The dining men, the wind that sweeps
Light locks from off the sun-sweet heaps --
The gable grey, the hoary roof,
Here now -- and now so far aloof.
How sorely then we long to stay
And midst its sweetness wear the day,
And 'neath its changing shadows sit,
And feel ourselves a part of it.
Such rest, such stay, I strove to win
With these same leaves that lie herein.

-- William Morris, from
"The Roots of the Mountains"