Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Support Us

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

CC Videos

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

 



Our Site

Web

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Two Scenarios for Our Post-Petroleum Future

By Peter Goodchild

04 March, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Even those who admit the existence of a problem with petroleum decline are a small minority of the human race, but working within that framework we can nevertheless say that there is quite a spectrum of opinion. In the general absence of established liturgies, creeds, or canons, no absolute definitions are possible, but there seem to be two intellectual poles.

(1) "Moderate" or "transitional": The world will go through somewhat of a struggle as oil is declining, but eventually oil will be replaced by solar power and other forms of energy. Human life will then go on smoothly, although we may have to be somewhat more frugal.

(2) "Extreme" or "apocalyptic": When resources such as fossil fuels and metals go into serious decline, there will be widespread famine. Large-scale political and economic systems will vanish. There will be no substitutes for those previous natural resources, and civilization will disappear.

At the risk of unfair pigeon-holing, and certainly with no wish to create a "star system," it might be said that, among the more visible creators of scenarios, Heinberg, Kunstler, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, and New Society Publishers (among other publishers) can be lumped into that first group. Hanson, Duncan, Catton, and Youngquist would probably all belong in the second. Gever, Meadows, Kaplan, Klare, Brown, and Simmons are somewhat harder to place. There are also those who write on the issue of overpopulation -- e.g., Hardin and Ehrlich -- without necessarily bringing in the question of fossil-fuel decline.

Between those two poles there are of course many possible variations, and many subordinate questions. Will there be a rise in the crime rate, or will the need for cooperation prevail? Is overpopulation a serious (or the most serious) problem, or is it a matter of a more-equitable distribution of resources? If we assume that alternative forms of energy are possible on a technological level, is there enough time to implement these on a global scale before humanity succumbs to the loss of fossil fuels? To what extent will politicians wake up and begin to play a leading role? Do artificial "debt crises" (kleptocracy) cause more damage than resource decline? How long can we go on dabbling with nuclear war in order to control the oil supplies? And so on.

But these variations and subordinate questions are secondary matters. What is first needed is to recognize that there are at least two distinct "schools" of futurology, and that they are, to a great extent, mutually incompatible. From "electric cars and wind turbines" to "beans, bullets, and band-aids" is an enormous gap, the distance from one planet to another. The first scenario means we can wait for technicians and politicians to solve any problems. Partly because politicians do not like to deal with unpleasant topics, however, the second may require more in-depth planning on a personal level, beginning with food and shelter.

Even then, we cannot simplify matters by saying that one vision is utopian and the other is dystopian. Probably most people would regard a return to the Paleolithic as undesirable, but members of our genus lived in that pre-civilized world 400 times longer than in civilization. Diamond, Lee, Ferguson, and Gowdy generally claim we were happier in those early days: warfare, inequality, disease, and resource depletion are far more typical of the post-Paleolithic world.


References:

Brown, L. (2008). Plan B: Mobilizing to save civilization. New York: Norton & Co.

Catton, W. R., Jr. (1982). Overshoot: The ecological basis of revolutionary change. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Diamond, J. (1987, May). The worst mistake in the history of the human race. http://www.environment.ens.fr/perso/claessen/
agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

Duncan, R. C. (2005-06, Winter). The Olduvai theory: Energy, population, and industrial civilization. The Social Contract. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf

Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1972). Population resources environment: Issues in human ecology. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Ferguson, R. B. (2003, July/August). The birth of war. Natural History. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~socant/Birth%20of%War.pdf

Gever, J., Kaufmann, R., & Skole, D. (1991). Beyond oil: The threat to food and fuel in the coming decades. 3rd ed. Ed. C. Vorosmarty. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

Gowdy, John, ed. (1998). Limited wants, unlimited means: A reader on hunter-gatherer economics and the environment. Washington, D.C.: Island.

Hanson, J. (1999, Spring). Energetic limits to growth. Energy. http://www.dieoff.org/page175.htm

Hardin, Garrett. (1995). Living within limits: Ecology, economics, and population taboos. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heinberg, R. (2011). The end of growth: Adapting to our new economic reality. Gabriola Island, B.C. New Society Publishers.

Kaplan, R. D. (2001). The ends of the Earth: From Togo to Turkmenistan, from Iran to Cambodia A journey to the frontiers of anarchy. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith Publisher.

Klare, M. T. (2002). Resource wars: The new landscape of global conflict. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Kunstler, J. H. (2003). The long emergency: Surviving the end of oil, climate change, and other converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Lee, R. B. (1968). What hunters do for a living, or, How to make out on scarce resources. In R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, eds., Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/lee_1968_1.pdf

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe.

Simmons, M. R. (2006). Twilight in the desert: The coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Youngquist, W. (2008). Geodestinies: The inevitable control of earth resources over nations and individuals. 2nd ed. Portland, Oregon: National Book Company, Education Research Assoc.

Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American Indians , published by Chicago Review Press. His email address is prjgoodchild{at} gmail.com

 



 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.