In today’s NYT there’s an article titled “Finding New Ways to Fill the Tank.” It is predicated, like much of our fantasy life, on the assumption that technology and energy are interchangeable.
(It’s true most of us know this assumption to be false, be we know it to be false the way we know that there’s no monster following us up the stairs from the dark basement, which is to say we don’t know it. Otherwise we wouldn’t be sprinting.)
I’ll grant that the article does attempt to focus on energy rather than on the gee-whizzery by which we get it, but still the underlying assumption is that when we finally crash into the natural limits of ancient sunlight, we’ll simply flip a switch and be on our merry way. We’ll hit the pedal and drive away from the wreck, this time on cotton (which isn’t cotton but “pure cellulose”) or lithium or Lucky Charms or used golf balls popping in popcorn poppers or hamsters running in their exercise wheels.
A second assumption at work in the piece is that of course we’re going to keep the world that we’ve built running. A third is that we’re going to keep it running the way it’s running–at current speed and across great distances: that is, according to specs.
But in any case we’re still not filling the gas tank. We’re inflating a fantasy. And we’re apparently going to keep at it until the blow-up doll pops.
Prediction: the future is going to be a lot more like that past than the present. We’re going to run it on contemporary sunlight and build (or rather rebuild) it by hand.
As Housman said, “luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure.” We would do well to prepare for the real future, not the one imagined by those with all the large research grants–or, worse yet, by those who stand to benefit from our believing in their dream-world solutions.
Related posts:
- Does Kauffman count as good Good Friday reading? Fr. Michael Orsi reviews Kauffman's Luther Martin, and finds wisdom...
- Although it’s been said many times, many ways… BURNED-OVER DISTRICT, NY—Merry Christmas to all friends (and enemies, too)...
- The Social Network Fantasy In today’s Los Angeles Times, Neil Gabler has an insightful...
- Long Live the Luddites Rock Island, IL. Having been called a “Luddite” by a few...
- Back to the Land Economy Well, we are all localists here, watching our national economy stagger...
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
The end of cheap energy in the US might be the gravest threat the world faces going forward. It seems we Americans feel so entitled to cheap energy, and the mobility it brings that we are willing to destroy everything and everyone to maintain access to it.
I grew up in West Virginia, where Mountain Top Removal coal mining has rendered parts of the state unrecognizable to me. And what have we gained for this destruction? Nothing. Sure, some of us get to live in 3,000 square foot, air conditioned monstrosities we call houses, but these houses have no character, no soul. The old home place is no more. Do people speak of passing on their vinyl sided, suburban, tract house to their children? God I hope not.
Tell the average American the future might be defined by limits, and they will most likely respond with an indignant tirade about greeny weenies destroying the country and trying to make everyone live in the dark and cold. Many West Virginians, when told of the destruction MTR is wreaking upon their home, respond by saying some combination of the following: “Well me and my kids got to eat. Who is going to pay my trailer and truck payment if we stop mining coal? Or those mountains, birds, deer, fish, etc. ain’t as important as me.” Certainly we all realize that food and shelter are necessities, though perhaps we could all do with a little less. But is life really a zero sum game? Is the only choice to either destroy the Earth or starve?
So far the only thing I’ve been able to figure out the Tea Partiers stand for is that they are willing to do whatever it takes to keep the cheap energy train rolling. Don’t believe me? Look at Kentucky. When Rand Paul is not spewing forth some Randian inspired nonsense, he is talking about how Kentuckians ought to be able to make their own coal regulations, and blow up the mountains if they want to. The same goes for Alaska. I think many Alaskans would strip mine, clear cut, and drill the entire state full of holes if it meant more jobs and higher pay.
Where does it end? I don’t know. But does anyone really think that if things get really bad someone is not going to suggest using a few of the three or four thousand nuclear warheads the US has stockpiled for, um “constructive purposes.” I heard people say as much when gas approached four dollars a gallon in the spring and summer of 2007.
i was reading a “conservative” site yesterday, where the writer was describing what we should do to get our country back on track. Except for a few quote”environmentally sensitive” places we should drill every where we can. Some people won’t stop until the country is one vast gas field, with shattered mountains, and coasts. Mercy, I wish some of these people could just quit bowing down to the Baal god of MORE, MORE energy, MORE sprawl, MORE ugly landscapes, polluted water supplies, MORE species driven to the edge of extinction, so we can have one more big screen TV, play video games or drive beamers around. We are terrified that we might not be able to have a 4000 square ft house, 2 Lexus, 2 jetskis, and a bass boat to boot, if a modest 1000 square ft house {even this is large for just two people} a couple of modest used cars, and a john boat would do as well. Some “Conservative”.
Ya know – not all “conservatives” fall under the very large & sweeping generalizations you have made in these responses. I happen to be somewhat conservative myself – but more in the “crunchy con” vein. I am with the Tea Party in terms of lack of trust of “Big Gov’t” be it Rep or Dem. I think that’s where most of the Tea Party sentiment is coming from. Unfortunately – I ALSO happen to have a distrust of anything BIG – including Corporations. I don’t think it’s a good idea to allow companies to grow so large that they are “too big to fail” becuase they’ll sink our entire econimic ship (which was pretty darn leaky to begin with). That said – the devil is always in the details, so how do we balance competing needs: the need to keep Big Gov’t from growing so big and over regulating to the point we have NO economic engine, and the need to maintain oversight & reasonable regluation. Seems to me – neither Rep NOR Dem really want to do what’s right for this country. They simply want to keep playing to their respective power bases while the country sinks deeper into debt. (Dems – sure we’ll take from the “rich” and give it to all you poor huddled Union workers while they sink the corp ship, give everyone Healthcare we can’t sustainably pay for, etc. Reps – sure we’ll deregulate the heck out of businesses and let the execs make billions while the workers get the bare minimum, kill the environment in the name of profits and jobs, etc.
To me – the Tea Party is in danger of being co-opted by the Republicans when it should be staking out different political territory. TRUE – fiscally conservative policies, strong on defense (including our borders – while seeking to encourage immigration of entrpreneurs and inventors), encouragement of equal rights AND equal responsibilities for ALL irregardless of race, rooting out corruption and the profit motive from all PUBLIC OFFICE positions, personal responsibility and not dependence on Gov’t handouts for people AND corporations, etc.
Chuck