Reflections on the futures debate

Hi there,

time to delve into the other stuff that this blog exists for; reflections on the ongoing futures debate.

If someone considers the literature, they find the division between boomers and gloomers.

some of that consideration and reflection is distilled and paraphrased here - I encourage readers to conduct their own thorough research into this area and to form their own standpoint and views thereafter.

The boomers *cough Simon reagan-nomics cough* believe approximately in 'progress' (whatever that ill-defined concept might be); that via decoupling, and exponential scalability/knockon effects, technology can outpace the various rates of decline caused due to overconsumption and overpopulation forces on society.

to varying extents, there is the belief of either infinite resources, or of scalable resources to the point where supply/demand is less a consideration in the short to medium term.

The gloomers are more cautious however,  being pragmatic

and believe that preventative measures might be taken to avoid any Seneca style collapses.

Bartlett outlines much of the facts of the matter, more eloquently than yours truly.

Coutts (of the exponentialist fame) also reflects eloquently and more importantly, objectively - a great resource for the reader to consider while conducting their research.

So,

what are the odds?

what does it all matter?

and as Monckton pointedly asks - what's the point, especially if some of these cycles are beyond controlling or altering in meaningful ways?

This hinges on our resource estimates, on our efficiency and on how our innovation might work.  

To the resources, we are shifting towards offshore and LNG, due to micron-limits and ERoEI considerations established elsewhere. There exists the potential for a peak oil scenario, inclusive of LNG and offshore reserves. This concept also applies to other resources, such as fissionable/fuseable materials...

So, as many have noted, the Green Revolution hinged on hydrocarbons to make fertiliser and countermeasures to ensure high efficiency of crop yield.  As those resources decline, it becomes difficult to manufacture in the same methods...

The estimates for resource futures are highly pliable, and contingent on demand from the populace...

suffice to say, the calculations when run and based on x amount of global barrels per day... can vary from as low as 70odd years of GLOBAL reserves, to as far out as 270years, or more (if consumption patterns changed significantly within the next 10 years)...

There are also many assumptions; notably that certain resources cannot be synthesised in commercially viable manners or quantities (such as fertilisers from electrolysis at this time).

This is also a point of contention... as in a digital economy in which solar methods (chiefly thermal solar plants etc), microwave collectors and catalytic converters are more abundant, and we follow more of an Asimov path (yeast farmed and exponentially growing foodstuffs, anyone?), it may be possible that resource depletion timeframes extend to the thousands of years ballpark.

Hydrogen fuels, if increased and made the norm, would contribute to this extended resource depletion timeframe. The critical resources would shift to fissionable materials and super-heavy metals. This is where astro-mining might make sense. We are presently at a point where this may be the only way to get sufficient quantities of rare-earths at high enough grades.

There are limits to how many people could exist on earth; how much material could be arranged as people before the planet broke up... that number is extremely high, and would equate to a large number of people per cubic metre - I don't think we'd ever get to those densities... we have to ensure that we don't, because we would see fewer and fewer other species in the food web/nature web and environmental cycle. Fewer species mean less diversity and lowered resilience to extinction events - this is especially important given that we are the only source of life thus far known in the universe.

So, to conserve, or not to conserve... that is the question!

Bottomline,

Conserve (just in case the risky alternative of progress doesn't pan out).

Centrist style. Conserve, if only to protect the only source of life we yet know.

But don't impede genuine science where possible. 

Its a delicate balancing act that we'll have to walk to get this to work... it can be done though. I'm convinced that history swerves to favor the longshot and marginal outcome - time and again, those who argue the sky was falling were proved wrong, only due to changing variables and that swerve of history (that they didn't account for).

We don't want a full Borg-like technocracy - where people are only valued in so much as they are contributing to knowledge while they are contributing to knowledge. That feels too much like eugenics, and we all saw how well that panned out... psh. (genetic bottlenecking is not such a good thing).

Flipside of the coin, we don't want luddite levels of ultra-extremeist conservatism that frustrate progress to the point of making a self-fulfilling prophecy .

What do you think?

Do you feel that resources are becoming increasingly scarce?

Do you feel that humanity will somehow "swerve away from the cliff" and progress up the Kardashev scale? Why?

Do you think that cosmopolitanism and an effacing monoculture are an integral part of that "swerve away from the cliff?" I would argue an imposed, effacing, monoculture leads towards and not away from the cliff... whereas if a monoculture/standardised culture is another identity people hold alongside their traditional identities, then there is a chance forward. In that case though, I wouldn't call that so much 'cosmopolitanism' as 'global humanism'. 

What truly is "progress"? Epistemologically speaking... what can progress be as a theory of knowledge (hint, dialectic here...)

Catch you next time!