On Preparing for Sabbatical

Some readers have expressed concern (through e-mail) at the slower rate of postings in QE of late. Of course I had some down time with my travels this summer. And I've just finished work on a chapter for a book deriving from the conference I attended in June: Science, Wisdom, and the Future. My paper on the evolution of sapience will be appearing in the forthcoming book, I presume of the same name. Along with all of that I am preparing for my journey to Syracuse NY to study the ins-and-outs of energy return on energy investment (EROI or EROEI) with Charlie Hall and his students at SUNY-ESF (co-located on the campus of Syracuse U.) I plan to leave the Tacoma, WA area on the 9th and arrive in Syracuse on or around the 14th. I'll be making a stop in Ohio to visit my friend, Professor Emeritus Ken Smail, at Kenyon College, who is my go-to guy on overpopulation and population reduction (by humane means, of course).

While in Syracuse (in the Fall) I plan to do a little cruising around New England, especially when the leaves are in full color. There are a few other folks in that neck of the woods I would like to visit and talk to. If any of you are going to be in the Northeast during the Fall (to early Dec. I think), and want to arrange a meeting, let me know. I was really sorry to have missed meeting some folks in Austria/Germany this summer when I was there. If I had thought to let readers know my itinerary we could have made better plans to link up.

The central purpose of this sabbatical is to learn all I can about the EROI phenomenon and what it means for the global economy in light of the peaking of oil production. I've covered the subject extensively here, at least conceptually. Now it's time to take a harder look at the science with some real pros and see if there is any way to firm up my assessment of what it will take to solve the energy crisis (see Steps Toward an Energy Solution). If the current thinking (both my own and a growing number of others interested in biophysical economic) is right, that the combination of peak oil and what looks like a drastic decline in EROI is strangling the 'real' economy (the one that actually makes stuff), then we suspect we will be able to explain more scientifically the pressures that are driving the debt unwinding and crash of various financial bubbles. Many economists have tried to 'explain' what is happening in terms of "irrational exuberance", "greed", lack of regulation, overheated consumption-based economy, etc. And, of course, all of these have played a factor. But many of us now feel that these are as much symptoms as causes. Each played a part in building up the pressure, in blowing up the balloon. But the impetus that really enabled and pushed all of these factors was the historical increases in the energy available to do work. As long as energy flow was increasing, and it had always done so historically, we got used to the idea of borrowing from the future, expected real work, as opposed to borrowing from savings to fund new activity. We had good reason to believe that there would always be more work accomplished in the future, and hence more excess wealth (capital) created, so that we could always pay back the loans, with interest. That was because that had always been the case with a few exceptions during times of energy supply switch-over (e.g. from wood to coal). These transitions took time and there was a dip in the net energy compared with the built-up demand for goods. But each new source of energy provided a greater EROI than the one before, so naturally, the systems was able to recover and keep growing in the long run.

With the peak of oil production we may have hit a snag that we might not be able to overcome any time soon. Oil is the most useful form of fossil fuel (natural gas has a higher BTU per unit weight value, but is basically only useful as a direct fuel or source of hydrogen as a feedstock). It is extremely energy dense and portable. No other known naturally occurring fuel can beat the energy potential of oil. And we are starting to find the point of diminishing returns on our efforts to extract the stuff from deep underground. This time the transition may not be to a higher EROI source (neither solar, nor wind, and probably even nuclear can compete with oil on this count), but to a disbursed portfolio of low EROI alternatives, hopefully truly renewable (i.e., must be self-sustaining). This may be the first time in human history that we face contraction of economic activity for a very long time to come (see my essay The End of Growth: The Beginning of Contraction for some thoughts on what this means for the population problem)..

All of this is scientifically-based hypothesizing at this point. We have some informative good data (Charlie's EROI on oil is the benchmark) that provides a strong qualitative argument for the above. If I were a betting man, I would lay odds at ten to one that this framework is the correct one and that the science will bear this out. But it will take more science to reduce the uncertainty in a formal way. In these blogs I have exercised the precautionary principle by stressing what I think is happening based on the data and models we have so-far developed. But it will take much more digging to uncover all or most of the complex interconnections and measure their values to increase our scientific confidence that this energy constriction is what is happening to us. I sincerely believe this sabbatical will help me get a handle on this. I just hope we get some clarity in time to do something about it.

My other motive has more to do with what should we do if this model is right? In light of what seems to be an accelerating threat from climate change impacts, how do we respond to the threat of global disasters? This question occupies a considerable amount of my mind time. As I have alluded to in other blogs, I don't think we really will have an option that could be characterized as 'saving mankind'. The notion that we can feasibly keep a significant proportion of the world population from dying early and most likely painful deaths is looking more and more like a receding vision. There for a while, when Obama spoke of sacrifice at his inaugural address, I had a glimmer of hope that with real leadership in Washington, we might yet come to our collective senses in time to minimize the pain and suffering that looks more and more like the most likely scenario. I did publish a caveat (the acid test) saying, in effect, if Obama fails to provide that leadership then there doesn't appear to be much hope at all.

And sadly I watch his administration dealing with the financial crisis (with bailouts), the housing crisis (with bailouts), and generally proposing to throw money, which we don't have, at everything. The one thing he seems to be trying to do is completely AVOID sacrifice. As a result, especially I think of propping up the financial superstructure (house of cards), the actual crash could end up being far worse than it might have been. If, as the data strongly suggests, peak oil has arrived and EROI declines have driven average net energy flows downward then we are going to be faced with sacrifices that will be unavoidable. How bad it gets will depend on how quickly society responds by eliminating discretionary and frivolous spending (Americans have responded to the current jobs market downturn with a major boost in savings rates, which ironically, the economists point out will slow recovery because our consumer economy is based largely on people spending and NOT saving!), and how quickly we move on energy conservation projects that have provable improvements in net energy savings. It will also depend on how willing people are to share and help one another out. Will workers be willing to give up a proportion of their wages, to taxes or simply lower salaries, in order to cover their jobless neighbors? Will they be willing to reduce their work hours and do job sharing to spread the sacrifice? Or will we see the ugly side of a spoiled citizenry? Will we see force applied, by gangs of angry people, by governments? I wish I knew.

What we learn from the science of energy, however, will still apply whatever the aftermath might be. At some point society can try again to build a functional civilization and, hopefully with lessons learned, one that is in balance with the rest of the Ecos. I, and others who are pursuing this race to better understanding, will continue to hope we can influence policy makers in time to avoid total disaster (assuming, of course that we have it right and the neoclassical economists have missed the boat). But my sense of prudence tells me it would be well to consider what to do to recover in the worst case. We will need knowledge, and understanding, and wisdom (see my blog, What is knowledge: the noetic hierarchy?) to build a new civilization based on better principles of social organization and humanity's aspirations in light of the physical realities of a finite world (see series: Sapient Governance)

So for the next several weeks I suspect my posts will be a bit more sparse than usual. On the other hand, while I'm driving east I should have lots of time to think and may find myself spending my evenings in motels with Internet connection, feverishly trying to pound out something that seemed important while driving across North Dakota! Either way I do have several drafts I'm working on and will get back to once settled in Syracuse. The systems science series is about to go into real world examples of systems and systems principles at work. Since I teach computer science, guess what one of the main examples of a Mech-System will be????

Comments

[GaryA]

I have no personal experience of them but I can imagine the eventual frustration of seeing the results (or rather lack of them)of all these conferences you must attend George...?
I can imagine how invigerating, interesting and imaginative the potential solutions painstakingly laid out by the speakers (I'd like to have witnessed the Nancy Abrams and Joel Primack one at your latest) can be. But the depression at seeing the world dragged down the ecological plug-hole by corrupt politicos must make them seem like esoteric talking shops.
For years I have hoped to see some sign of emergence of a underground movement of practically minded intellectuals & radicals prepared to have a go at wrestling control of humanity and the ecos from the planetmongering shagwits in control...but I doubt it will ever happen.
Do many others share my frustration at the endless reading, writing, talking, learning, discussiong solutions while all we really want is some action, some real hope, anything...?
Managing to convert a few hundred(if we are lucky) pales into utter insignificance when confronted by the reality of millions merrily and unselfconsciously belting along the highways in their SUV's looking for the consumerist promised land...!

Where art thou, 21st century Alaxander the Great?

[GaryA]

Apologies for the occ lapses in spelling...I write this stuff in my wage-slave lunch hour....

[George Mobus]

GaryA,

I don't think Alexander (great or otherwise) is in the wings waiting. There is no point in trying to save the unsustainable social fabric we have created in our general lack of sapience. Neither logic nor subjugation of the populace nor any feasible method exists for solving the world's problems.

It is always evolution. This world will come to an end and give rise to a new world, one that will most likely seem freakish to us, but one in which new evolution will take place. The age of Homo sapiens is coming to an end and the question is, will there be a Homo 'something' that will succeed us. It could go either way. Either a new species of more brutal beasts might emerge -- no joking, I sometimes think we're witnessing the emergence of those beasts in the guise of the right wing nut jobs protesting "killing squads" in the US -- or Homo eusapiens might result from an evolutionary bottleneck. I would certainly vote for the latter. And the only way I could hedge my bets is by finding and grouping the breeding stock in a safe location. The progenitors are almost certainly in the population right now. Providing them a beacon that they would recognize and follow to form an aggregate community where nature can take its course as far as breeding is concerned -- assortative mating -- seems to me to be a prudent exercise. The "few hundred" will be self-recognizing and self-selecting. Then if the worst happens to the sub-sapient and merely sapient populations extant in the world today (and insisting on their wasteful lifestyles), as I suspect it will, we will have provided a genetic pool to squeeze through the bottleneck and let evolution do the rest. Whatever happens in that distant future, it will be evolutionary, not intentional or clever.

In my view.

George

[GaryA]

I admire your candour George..but will you be promoting this POV in conferences...? Once the media get wind I have a shrewd idea they will be crying elitist or eugenics!
I broadly agree but would like a better idea of the personal qualities of sapient individuals, I personally see a need for practical down-to-earth skills as well as (for the lack of a better word) cerebral skills. I work with enough doctors and professors who have high academic abilities but little interpersonnel or practical finesse...the thought of these types being our 'salvation' fills me with dread.

[George Mobus]

I am already expressing this POV. I've been in discussions with a number of evolutionists, psychologists, and neurobiologists regarding natural breeding dynamics and assortative mating (no coercion involved so no eugenics implied). BTW: if you haven't already seen Marc Hauser's article in this month's Scientific American, you should take a look -- especially at the last paragraph. You might recognize some similar sentiments. I've been in contact with Marc about it and we are trading ideas.

To be blunt I have absolutely no respect for most of the media and care not a whit how it might be spun. I am not trying to influence the general public, especially on a topic that is as subtle as this. A significant number of Americans don't even believe in evolution let alone understanding genetic sorting by sexual selection! I also have very thick skin. Besides, the s**t will be hitting the fan in such a way that the general public will be desperate for solutions at some point. That is the time to try to influence the sentiments.

AFA: personal qualities of sapient individuals, the only real difference that I could conjure is that they are better able to grasp the broader and longer-term significance of what is happening around them. They don't have to be geniuses, just able to accept reality for what it is and not be in denial because they pre-possess some ideological beliefs. They are better able to get along with one another and are more tolerant of other people's personalities and quirks, as well as their views.

Actually, I would strongly recommend you take a look at the literature on wisdom, especially Sternberg's (et al) work. He and his compatriots do a great job of describing attributes of wise people.

As I have said several times, people, in general, don't need to be smarter or more creative. We are already that in droves. What we need is to be more wise in how we use our cleverness. And academic ability is no gauge of how wise someone might be -- I certainly agree with you on that.

George