4 ms·

The reason this kind of analysis is irrelevant is that human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Sure, fossil fuels in the form of c

The reason this kind of analysis is irrelevant is that human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Sure, fossil fuels in the form of coal has been exploited before, but nothing on the scale of coal/gas/oil use that started after the Great Depression and ramped up to peak per capita consumption circa 1970s if memory serves. So you always have to look at that historic period discounting that, and the massive population growth that came with it. Tech advancements are slowing down and so is population growth.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Sure, but it begs the question what happens when fossil fuel exploitation inevitably is curtailed drastically; either early by necessity because of reasonable legislation, or a bit later because of a stronger ecological collapse or depletion. Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built. This could be quite relevant for current generations before they retire, but even more so for my children's generation. You can already see the political fallout with various ugly regimes in various petro-states starting to panic. Wait until people's 401Ks start to explode.
- eatsyourtacos 4y ago
  >Wait until people's 401Ks start to explode Maybe we shouldn't have moved to such a completely moronic system them which shifts all the risk to the individual and just "hope" they magically make money on something they have no control over. It all works until it doesn't.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Sure, I completely agree with you. No argument there.
  - astrange 4y ago
    We didn't, we have Social Security. You don't have to contribute to a 401k. And you can keep it all in a money market fund if you want; it'll still be tax advantaged.
- ant6n 4y ago
  > Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built What’s that mean? Solar is providing energy at similar costs.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    It's providing energy with fewer intermediaries soaking up profits along the way, and can be done "anywhere" the sun shines instead of where resource deposits are concentrated. Entire political classes will be (and are) mobilized to push against this. There is a lot to lose for a lot of people. That and a huge % of the stock market's value right now is built up of energy companies. Especially here in Canada.
    - ant6n 4y ago
      So we’ll spread out energy production to more smaller actors, and it will be more interesting how energy is used. That could rejuvenate markets, let old fossil giants die. Trudeau should rejoin the Paris Accords and move to the secondary and tertiary sectors (or as Mulcair put, get rid of Dutch Disease), or Canada (and everybody else) will be fucked.
      - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
        Perhaps you're misreading me as thinking the collapse of fossil fuel energy sector would be a bad thing? It wouldn't be, in the bigger picture. But there's still boatloads of people over-invested in it who are going to be in for a rude awakening if humanity actually gets its shit together.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Solar is within oil's error bars on a cost per kWh basis. Sure, there are kinks in storage and transport to work out. But the fundamental cost of energy doesn't look likely to change in the coming century.
- guhidalg 4y ago
  Does that cost include the externalities of how the oil actually used? I don't believe solar (+ all the other renewables) is equivalent to drilling for oil, piping it thousands of miles, refining it, then burning it somewhere. Happy to be proven wrong but this doesn't pass my smell test.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  What I meant is that oil enabled fundamentally new things like personal car transportation, plastics, space age materials and cheap and convenient gas heating. Solar can still provide all of that, but it's not a revolution, just a substitute.
sauwan 4y ago
>Tech advancements are slowing down Are they? I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years, but it seems like the advances in things like AI and Genomics are rapidly accelerating and may lead to growth like we haven't seen in several decades...
- awb 4y ago
  > I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years Really? 20 years is the difference between a generation being raised pre/post: * smart phones * streaming services (endless free content) * massive computing storage / processing upgrades * mass adoption of eCommerce * video calling * ubiquitous social networking * EVs * mRNA vaccines * Mars exploration * LHC * 3D printing It amazes me to look back at 2003 and see how far we’ve come.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Some of these are really just older tech advancements that have become more mainstream. E.g., Mars exploration is older than 20 years, 3D printing took off in part when decades old patents expired, rna vaccines date back 30+ years etc. etc.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    Compare 1940 to 1960, 1960 to 1980, 1980 to 2000 -- then compare 2000 to 2020. 2000 to 2020 is the least impressive 20 year period by a long shot.
    - icedchai 4y ago
      I would agree. 2000-2020 feels more evolutionary, not revolutionary. I grew up in the 80's and 90's, so perhaps my own perspective is warped.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    > massive computing storage / processing upgrades I feel that the improvement in the previous 20 years was much more massive. Forty years ago PCs had been introduced quite recently and an internal disk was still a non-standard option. Ditto for “smart phones”. Forty years ago 1G telephony was not yet available in the US, nevermind how dumb and bulky those phones were.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Sure, but it begs the question what happens when fossil fuel exploitation inevitably is curtailed drastically; either early by necessity because of reasonable legislation, or a bit later because of a stronger ecological collapse or depletion. Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built. This could be quite relevant for current generations before they retire, but even more so for my children's generation. You can already see the political fallout with various ugly regimes in various petro-states starting to panic. Wait until people's 401Ks start to explode.

eatsyourtacos 4y ago
>Wait until people's 401Ks start to explode Maybe we shouldn't have moved to such a completely moronic system them which shifts all the risk to the individual and just "hope" they magically make money on something they have no control over. It all works until it doesn't.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Sure, I completely agree with you. No argument there.
- astrange 4y ago
  We didn't, we have Social Security. You don't have to contribute to a 401k. And you can keep it all in a money market fund if you want; it'll still be tax advantaged.
ant6n 4y ago
> Solar, wind, or whatever Future Tech is unlikely to have the same direct mine->refine->commodity->sell->use cycle on which a lot of this edifice is built What’s that mean? Solar is providing energy at similar costs.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  It's providing energy with fewer intermediaries soaking up profits along the way, and can be done "anywhere" the sun shines instead of where resource deposits are concentrated. Entire political classes will be (and are) mobilized to push against this. There is a lot to lose for a lot of people. That and a huge % of the stock market's value right now is built up of energy companies. Especially here in Canada.
  - ant6n 4y ago
    So we’ll spread out energy production to more smaller actors, and it will be more interesting how energy is used. That could rejuvenate markets, let old fossil giants die. Trudeau should rejoin the Paris Accords and move to the secondary and tertiary sectors (or as Mulcair put, get rid of Dutch Disease), or Canada (and everybody else) will be fucked.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Perhaps you're misreading me as thinking the collapse of fossil fuel energy sector would be a bad thing? It wouldn't be, in the bigger picture. But there's still boatloads of people over-invested in it who are going to be in for a rude awakening if humanity actually gets its shit together.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> human civilization has only been exploiting oil since ~ early 1900s. Solar is within oil's error bars on a cost per kWh basis. Sure, there are kinks in storage and transport to work out. But the fundamental cost of energy doesn't look likely to change in the coming century.

guhidalg 4y ago
Does that cost include the externalities of how the oil actually used? I don't believe solar (+ all the other renewables) is equivalent to drilling for oil, piping it thousands of miles, refining it, then burning it somewhere. Happy to be proven wrong but this doesn't pass my smell test.
antisthenes 4y ago
What I meant is that oil enabled fundamentally new things like personal car transportation, plastics, space age materials and cheap and convenient gas heating. Solar can still provide all of that, but it's not a revolution, just a substitute.

sauwan 4y ago

>Tech advancements are slowing down Are they? I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years, but it seems like the advances in things like AI and Genomics are rapidly accelerating and may lead to growth like we haven't seen in several decades...

awb 4y ago
> I think they've been slow for maybe the last 20 years Really? 20 years is the difference between a generation being raised pre/post: * smart phones * streaming services (endless free content) * massive computing storage / processing upgrades * mass adoption of eCommerce * video calling * ubiquitous social networking * EVs * mRNA vaccines * Mars exploration * LHC * 3D printing It amazes me to look back at 2003 and see how far we’ve come.
- bumby 4y ago
  Some of these are really just older tech advancements that have become more mainstream. E.g., Mars exploration is older than 20 years, 3D printing took off in part when decades old patents expired, rna vaccines date back 30+ years etc. etc.
- nostromo 4y ago
  Compare 1940 to 1960, 1960 to 1980, 1980 to 2000 -- then compare 2000 to 2020. 2000 to 2020 is the least impressive 20 year period by a long shot.
  - icedchai 4y ago
    I would agree. 2000-2020 feels more evolutionary, not revolutionary. I grew up in the 80's and 90's, so perhaps my own perspective is warped.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  > massive computing storage / processing upgrades I feel that the improvement in the previous 20 years was much more massive. Forty years ago PCs had been introduced quite recently and an internal disk was still a non-standard option. Ditto for “smart phones”. Forty years ago 1G telephony was not yet available in the US, nevermind how dumb and bulky those phones were.