Peak Tech?

July 23, 2007
     Go anywhere in America, among any class of people -- from the Nascar morons to the Ivy League -- and one expectation is pretty universal: that technology will only bring us more wonders and miracles, and it will certainly save-the-day where our energy problems are concerned. This would seem natural for people living in an age when a simple cassette SONY Walkman is superceded by an 80-gigabyte iPod in one generation. But what if this assumption is off? What if peak technology occurs roughly in the same wave as peak energy?

     Of course, another nearly universal expectation is that we will go through an orderly transition between the end of the oil fiesta and whatever comes next -- implying, naturally, that some new sovereign energy resource is out there in destiny's green room, getting prepped up, waiting to be sent on-stage. The confusion about this, induced by strenuous wishing, is such that most people expect the next energy resource to consist of technology itself.

      This has been the heart of my beef with the rosy future crowd. Energy and technology are not the same thing, not interchangeable or substitutable. If you run out of one (energy), you can't just plug in the other (technology). I certainly believe other energy resources exist besides oil and methane gas, but I maintain that we will be grossly disappointed by what they can do for us, given what we are currently running in society. Nor am I categorically against the idea of using these other things: solar, wind, bio-fuels, what-have-you. I can even be persuaded on nuclear with its many hazards, if that's the only way to keep the lights on. But all of these things will not preclude the extreme necessity to make severe changes in our manner of daily living -- and to do so rather quickly.

     Far from evolving triumphantly to yet-higher realms of technological nirvana, I'd expect a raw struggle to preserve much of the knowledge and applied technique that has already been acquired. I do happen to believe that the petroleum twilight will bring quite a bit of disorder to our society, which almost certainly means that the institutional context for research and development will suffer. Most particularly, I doubt that the big universities will be able to carry on in an energy-and-capital-starved future. Exactly how they might disintegrate is an open question. Last year, for example, I was shown the new bio-medical research "facility" at the University of Michigan, a building at least the size of a Cunard ocean liner, and wondered as I beheld it exactly how they were going to heat the goddam thing ten years down the line. But one might as well ask how the U might fund the paychecks of the building's occupants as Michigan's economy falls into an ever-larger crater. Such is the hubris-induced weakness of mind among those in charge of things that these mundane questions are not even asked.

     The same pretty much goes for the big corporations. Their world is going to change pretty rudely, too. Far from expecting them to take over our lives even more comprehensively than is the current case, I expect them to wobble, fall to their knees, and expire as the tonic of globalism vanishes down the drain of economic history. Just as most people expect technology to save-the-day for energy, the same people expect the world to keep becoming an ever-smaller place of more intricately co-wired parts. Not me. I expect the world to become a larger place. I expect the wiring to unravel in a contest over the world's remaining oil. I expect that the nations of the world will eventually retreat back into their own continental regions (while that retreat may be violent and messy). I expect our energy problems to limit any organization's ability to project power and influence -- whether it is a government or a corporation. I expect that anything now running at the giant scale will either have to downsize real fast or go out of business.

     Few of the rosy futurists foresee anything but ever-greater peaks of affluence among an ever-larger pool of players. I think they have been watching too many installments of "Richistan" on cable TV. My own notion is that capital will dry up quicker than rain on a Scottsdale patio as our energy predicament becomes apparent, since expectations of future growth (of economies and the capital representing them) are keyed to an assumption of unlimited energy resources. When the truth finally hits -- that there are real limits to the things of this world -- it will knock the capital markets on their asses. We will see large numbers of men wearing Rolex watches weep into crumpled certificates as the tranches of hallucinated wealth dissolve in the mists of their hopes and dreams. This means, at least, that investment in technology R and D on the grand scale will probably not meet our current expectations.

     In any case, it is getting pretty late in the day for us to just kick back and nurture fantasies about the future of technology while the prospect of an oil export shock resolves more vividly before us -- the first symptom of an industry that will shortly fly to pieces. Of course the very last thing we should be doing -- which everyone from the Nascar morons to the Ivy League "greenies" is doing -- is focus all effort on how to keep the American automobile fleet running by some magic means other than gasoline. I say, just as a mental jump-start, let's put at least some of that effort into getting the choo-choo trains running again -- but this is too silly for the boys at MIT or even the Pentagon.

     A few years ago, I went to the famous TED conference in Monterrey, where the mandarins of computer tech gather every year to hear talks about the neat things happening in the world beyond Silicon Valley. (I was part of the "entertainment.") By far the most popular presentation of the whole conference was the one on flying cars. Yeah, I know. It was straight out of a 1937 edition of Popular Science Magazine. But that's where their heads were at. All those twenty billion dollar heads, and that was what really lit their wicks. In case you wonder why I'm skeptical about where we're going in this country.

Comments

[clevelandbob]

As always, there's nothing quite like starting out a Monday morning with the cheery strains of Mr. K scraping his fingernails across our collective unconscious.

While mostly sharing the same grim vision that James has told us about repeatedly, I'm going to give him a shout out this day regarding his style over this particular substance.

What fine and hilarious writing he's ladled out again for us. In particular, I like, "We will see large numbers of men wearing Rolex watches weep into crumpled certificates as the tranches of hallucinated wealth dissolve in the mists of their hopes and dreams".

Classic Kunstler.

[DaveL]

eh, I don't know why JHK falls into the same thought traps that he complains about. Not only are we not going to keep the cars on the road, but the trains will be history(if it gets written) soon after. Then, out go the lights. or maybe lights first and then trains, depending on location.

It's all just the same as crumpled stock certificates with out a staedy, uniterupted supply of gogo(power rangers) juice.

Until we get through the the bottleneck(dr. d knows what i'm talking about) the only really desireable adjustment is an attitude adjustment(take note brandon).

DaveL

[sirbikes]

Yeah, someone needs to delete jerry4837.

The problem is he'll just keep coming back under a different name.

I think we need to move to a real bb with a moderator.

[DaveL]

wow, jerry4837 is at it already. he usually waits until later in the week. Jerry, talk to us. tell us what you really think.

Uncle Remus, by: FZ

Wo, are we movin' too slow?
Have you seen us,
Uncle Remus . . .
We look pretty sharp in these clothes (yes, we do)
Unless we get sprayed with a hose
It ain't bad in the day
If they squirt it your way
'Cept in the winter, when it's froze
An' it's hard if it hits
On yer nose
On yer nose

Just keep yer nose
To the grindstone, they say
Will that redeem us,
Uncle Remus . . .
I can't wait till my Fro is full-grown
I'll just throw 'way my Doo-Rag at home
I'll take a drive to BEVERLY HILLS
Just before dawn
An' knock the little jockeys
Off the rich people's lawn
An' before they get up
I'll be gone, I'll be gone
Before they get up
I'll be knocking the jockeys off the lawn
Down in the dew

[sirbikes]

No, no, no, you have it all wrong, jhk. The real problem is that there's not enough roads for all the cars, and planes for all the passengers. Roads are at or have exceeded capacity (at least according to NC DOT). So the solution is to build more roads.

Same for air travel. According to the FAA, 10,000 more corporate jets are forecast to begin flying in the next 10 years.

[Andy R]

Note that the illegitimate Jerry has a Typekey address different from the legitimate one.
http://profile.typekey.com/rangermom105/
is the culprit.
Anyone know how to isolate his IP address?

[German Mike]

If you want to save the blog kill all the jerry4837s.
Hey JHK, get rid of this idiot.
Asides from that, there's good technology out there that WOULD save our collective ass IF we would put some effort into developing it as well as into energy conservation.
Right now it is not economically viable to use or develop new energy sources/technologies since conventional sources are still realtively cheap and plentiful. Yes, $3/gallon is cheap, not much will change at $5 or $7. Once the local gas station runs dry, only then things will start to change. The problem is that at that point it might be too late to save the day or the economy.
Currently all presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, etc) favor ethanol...bad choice as we all know. Not all industrialized countries are that ignorant when it comes to their energy future. France, Germany, Sweden and even China are well aware of the implications and are taking meaningful steps to prepare for the day when when hydro-carbons become scarce. Some countries will be able to keep their economy going, others won't. There will be winners and losers. Unfortunately we will be among the losers unless we pull a rabbit out of the hat really fast. Looking at the current cast of presidential hopefulls that doesn't seem to be very likely.

[james howard kunstler]

I'm going to start applying full troll control. I would ask those of you who are serious about discussion to report onbnoxious trolls and I will ban them (and delete their posts).
--Jim Kunstler

[Andy R]

Note that the REAL Jerry's typekey address matches his username. We like him!
Scrolling over the linked signature at the bottom of each post reveals the actual source.
Interesting that the illegit Jerry has the address "rangermom105".
I wonder if the little punk's mom knows he's using her typekey addy to spread vitriol?

[David Mathews]

Trains aren't going to solve the transportation problem. To begin with, most of the train infrastructure (the tracks) has been pulled from the ground and recycled into wood chips & fence posts. There is a program called "the Boneyard" on the Discovery channel that described this recycling process.

Secondly, trains will not solve the problem because there is a psychological attachments that Americans (and, evidently, nearly all other car-owners) have with their automobiles. The cars represent freedom and a whole lot more. These people aren't going to surrender their status symbol for anything, including even the survival of the nation.

Thirdly, trains aren't going to solve the problem because when the situation really does get so terrible that automobile culture dies and trains becoming appealing again, it will also really be too late. Once the Titanic hit the iceburg there was no longer any time left to acquire enough lifeboats for all of the passangers.

Finally, trains cannot solve the problem because the US economy is entirely built upon the automobile. All sorts of businesses which make sense for an auto-driving population would not survive in an non-automotive environment.

***

When the technology age ends much of what makes sense now will no longer mean anything. Future generations will look at this world with the same sense of mystification as we look at the pyramids today.

What will the world look like in 2107 A.D.? I imagine: No trains, no planes and no automobiles.

[Uncle Remus]

DaveL - that would be it. Give it a listen if you get the chance.

[steve duncan]

Why do companies still insist on flying so many people all over the world only to have them spend several days eating, drinking, gambling and carousing while occasionally fitting in a meeting allegedly crucial to furthering some new project? My company sends me hither and yon several times yearly only to sit in meetings perfectly suited to a video conference format. I know the airlines depend on business travel but untold millions of gallons of jet fuel could be saved if we dispensed with the notion face to face interactions were crucial to conducting business. Then again many of these meets are to further the interests of the very same hotels, golf courses, resorts, casinos, bars, restaurants, sports venues and whorehouses the meeting attendees frequent while visiting the city they've been air-dropped into. I say if you want to talk about the new inkjet printer marketing campaign pick up the damn phone and hash it out with the rest of the team that way. Three days in Scottsdale, Aspen or Las Vegas aren't required.

[DaveL]

hey DM,

you're absolutely correct in thinking that there is no "solution", other than large scale die off. however, in fairness to JHK, i think that just uses the railroads idea as kind of an itellectual exercise. It's something like, if we can get people to do something, they'll be forced to acctually think about thier predicament.

Of course, we won't get people to think, if we do get people to think they'll probably think about a bowl of rice crispies, or something like that. and, even if they do think about the corner we've painted ourselves into, it's way too late to do anything about it.

no, if you want think about anything, think about how to prepare yourself psychologically for big changes. that's the only way through the bottleneck.

that's one of the reasons i always like your posts about getting outside and just enjoying the world while you can.

DaveL

[DaveL]

uncle r,

i'll give it a try.

[StephenB]

Today's discussion reminds me of the idea of "The Singularity" which is something I read about out there in Internetland a few years ago. In short, the idea is that humanity's knowledge base and learning curve is growing at an exponential rate, and that after millions of years of suffering a life not much better than the other animals, humanity suddenly basically becomes omnipotent in terms of life extension, energy and material wealth, as well as the ability to travel to the stars. Melding with machines was part of the prediction too.

Basically it was all based on extending the various hyperbolic graphs of energy use, population, numbers of people with advanced degrees, the amount of transisters able to be squeezed onto a single piece of silicon, etc. I've heard various voices say that this event should occur within the next 50 years or so.

It seems that at least some of the yeast in the dish have found a way of deluding themselves into imagining a life beyond our little, plastic bowl.

[Uncle Remus]

Technology isn't, won't and can't be our savior.

Becoming a Luddite world is a certainly a possibility, but not necessarily absolute.

After the smoke clears from the bubble bursting and bottom falling, beware the new fundies preaching the evils of revisiting technology with all it's sin and dehumanization. Which of course is true, since we as a species seem to fall under the spell of the bright and shiny so easily.

But as for solutions to the problems in the here and now, technology isn't the only tree to bark up, but the leaves are so pretty...

[Andy R]

On the paradigm of "automobiles = freedom"

Seems to me that this paradigm is already being chipped away by the reality of I-95 rush hour congestion.
I concede that it will die hard, but at some point, it get through our thick skulls that reading the paper on the train for an hour is a lot easier on the psyche than sitting in bumper-to-bumper, popping blood pressure meds.
Te other reality that needs to be overcome is the stigma of public transportation, which has beceme somewhat of a self-fulfiling prophecy, as middle-class ridership is sitting on the highway, while only the lower classes and a few others are utilizing the substandard mass transit infrastructure.

The changes will take some time, but I think at some point a critical mass of higher fuel prices and lower fuel availability will drive the changes pretty quickly. Once people start seeing their neighbors on the train, the paradigm will shift.
It's being proactive in the absence of consumer demand that makes it such an uphill battle.

[Uncle Remus]

The "herd" isn't particularly bright and rising fuel costs and deflated incomes will do more the cull the driving herd than rational epiphany's.

[urbanarcher]

As energy starts to quickly dry up, it's going to be a lot like teaching little kids how to share: "cindy and mandy, you're now going to be sharing a room." They (we) will pout, throw some tantrums, and then just start to deal because there won't be another choice.

Local economies that share technologies will become essential (so we can all take a turn riding the flying car, or listening to our "old" mp3s for that matter). The "commons" will return to prominence, with places like libraries, parks and public transportation becoming important hubs. This won't happen on a wide-ranging middle-class scale until it's necessary. But that's coming sooner than later, so save me a seat on that rickety ole rail line.

[DaveL]

Urban archer,

I'm sorry, but that's kind of like dieoff ala norman rockwell or maxfield parish.

Think more in terms of puking blood while finishing the mass grave that you just put your entire family into. but probably you won't have the energy to bother with digging graves. the buzzards and rabid feral dogs are gonna have a field day.

just providing a little contrast.

[David Mathews]

The techno-utopians and problem-solvers take offense at the idea of "Peak Technology". Apparently these people really do believe that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Technological progress is not guaranteed. Humans walked on the moon back in the 1970's and never returned. The science-fiction authors assurred us that humans would have a base on Mars and explore "outer space" by now.

Much of this world's technology -- and the knowledge base which made these technologies possible -- could evaporate away very quickly. After the "Golden Age" there is often a "Dark Age".

I doubt very much that the Internet, computers, cellphones and GPS will exist in a century. Our godlike powers exist only by virtue of unlimited, nearly-free energy. Once the fossil fuels begin running out these other tings will pass away.

The forces of erosion are also against the survival of technologies very long into the future. The infrastructure of modern civilization is growing old and eroding away. The roads and pipes are cracking already. While money and resources might maintain these for a while longer, eventually the price of maintanence will become prohibitively expensive and therefore civilization will have to surrender to Nature.

Finally, when civilization begins running out of food & water it will cease caring so much about Ipods and television. Overpopulation, climate change and resource depletion will overwhelm civilization's ability to cope.

Peak Technology is coming. Humankind's dominance over the Earth is coming to an end, too.

Nature has survived & prospered for billions of years. Technology will not.

[Laura Louzader]

Kunstler is correct, I believe, in that ever newer and more glamourous technologies will not "save" us, but refining the technologies we have for greater efficiency and conservation will help immensely IF, and only if, we adopt a national ethic of strict conservation in resource consumption and in spending and consumption in general.

What technology will never do is make it possible for us to consume greater amounts of energy without facing a severe crunch.

Tech can, however, become more efficient and help us use our resources more efficiently. What most people fail to grasp is the sheer amount that we use right now because of our auto dependence, and inappropriate and wasteful use of other technologies, and how little there might be to go around 5 years hence.

Most of all, they don't want to be told how desperate things are becomiming. I was talking to a rather clueless female friend about the situation last night, and she said, "REALLY!!??" in a tone that suggested that she found what I said to be just too incredulous, when I told her that the fuel situation had the ability to wreck our lives and cast us into deep poverty. I said, have you noticed the price of gasoline? (She does not drive, and neither do I)Have you noticed the escalating utility rates? Have you noticed the stratospheric increases in the prices of food staples? She saw no connection between the steeply increasing cost of living and the fuel situation, and point blank asked me what on earth elevated gasoline prices had to do with fuel prices?
The problem is that people have let our proven technological talent gull us into thinking that we need make no change in the way we do anything at all. So far we haven't taken even baby steps toward making the "other arrangements" that Kunstler refers to.

If we start TODAY, we could make our fossil fuels such as coal and uranium at least run good rail systems and power plants. However, the things we will have to do and the laws we will have to enact are politically very unpopular.

One really easy "baby step" would be to enact legislation making the minum driving age 19, so as to get all the high school kids off the roads. This would also save many young lives, as teens are far away the most dangerous drivers on the road, as well as many millions of gallons of gas every week. Yet we don't have the will to do even this little thing.

Another would make 40MPG mandatory for vehicles. Why is it so difficult to enact legislation that would require this? Why is there so much resistance to doing what the Japanese auto makers have been doing for years?

The most important would "sunset" all highway and road improvement programs and instead redirect the money to local transit systems and national passenger railroads. No more funding for highways after, say, 2009. Yet there is nothing so unpopular as the proposition that tax money should go to transit everyone can ride cheaply instead of roads you must buy a $20K energy-guzzler to utilize.

Among the presidential contenders, only Ron Paul has even hinted at the pass we are at or suggested making any structural changes in the way we live our lives or conduct business. He and Sen. Bartlett of Maryland are the only voices of reality among our political leaders. Forget Obama, Edwards, and Clinton- all Obama can think about is generating more socialized "affordable" housing programs that will only drive housing costs higher and generate more schlock building at taxpayer expense.

We could, with real will and determination, make real strides in changing our manner of life while still retaining basic technological comforts, such as electric power, motorized public transit, central heat, modern medical and dental care, and other benefits of tech that have made a night and day difference in our level of comfort.

But since people in this country have become spoiled, lazy, and possessed of an outsized sense of entitlement and the notion that someone else, the famous "they" ought to take care of them and come up with instant solutions to insoluble problems,without anyone having to suffer any dislocation or discomfort, we are in for a long, nasty, ordeal lasting decades that will probably cost millions more lives and much more irreplaceable resources than necessary.

[Uncle Remus]

"But since people in this country have become spoiled, lazy, and possessed of an outsized sense of entitlement and the notion that someone else, the famous "they" ought to take care of them and come up with instant solutions to insoluble problems,without anyone having to suffer any dislocation or discomfort, we are in for a long, nasty, ordeal lasting decades that will probably cost millions more lives and much more irreplaceable resources than necessary."

THAT's not going to win any votes...

[zerotsm]

Even if we were to master hydrogen fusion in the next ten years, there are still many petroleum products that there is no ready replacement for.

The real problem is that there are four times as many people in the world as the planet can support in a sustainable manner. Unless humans start controlling their population, nature will do it for them the hard way.

[montysano]

Nice post, Laura.

The point that you, and others, make is well taken: until there is a serious national dialogue, we are well and truly fucked. But our corporate controlled media is committed, totally committed, to preventing this dialogue from occuring, and to destroying any candidate who dares breath a word about it. Are people spoiled and entitled? Yes they are, but partly because TPTB have the best psychologists that money can buy working 24/7 to reinforce, via marketing, that notion.