3 ms·

Industrialisation was made possible by the existence of large deposits of fossil fuels which were relatively easy to extract. Most if not all of those readily a

Industrialisation was made possible by the existence of large deposits of fossil fuels which were relatively easy to extract. Most if not all of those readily available energy sources, along with many other useful materials, have long been exhausted. Modern society has been using increasingly complex technology to continue to find and extract those resources. Presumably, we might be able to keep this going for quite a long time. However, if humanity somehow reverted to pre-modern technology, I don't think that it would be possible for us to industrialise again.

smallmancontrov 2y ago
(Picture of an industrial plant powered by water wheel and burning biomass) Noooooo it's impossibbblleeeee!
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  To crush grain? Sure. To build iPhones, not likely
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    One step at a time. Remember, you have to show not that one step fails, but that one step fails and cannot be worked around. It's a heavy claim.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  > burning biomass Murphy goes into this in one of his posts. The energy density of fossil fuels is such that it's hard to convey that vast quantity of biomass it takes to equal it. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/#more-3803 https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/#more-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    Hence charcoal. It sucks, but on the path of bootstrapping lots of things are going to suck. I'm split on whether or not to read those posts. On one hand, now that I know his credentials, I know it won't be a complete waste of time -- but on the other, I fully expect his analysis to be chock full of infuriating "the way it was done was the only way it could have been done" assumptions that I would disagree with, discover that many before me had disagreed with, to no response because this isn't a dialogue. EDIT: I read the post. I really shouldn't have. He's not just unimaginative in the industrial sense, he's spurred on by terrible objectives. I am going to save my sanity and bail on this before I get suckered into arguing with madness. Still, thanks for the link.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      The problem with charcoal is that the input fuelwood requirements are absolutely immense, particularly where charcoal itself is an input to further industrial processes (e.g., glassmaking, iron forging, steelmaking). Great Britain had cleared its own forests by the 18th century or earlier just producing modest quantities of glass and iron, and was importing lumber from Sweden and the American colonies (both as fuel and structural timber). Vaclav Smil's numerous books go into great detail on the fuelwood demands of iron production. Based on an earlier comment of mine, that's 40--80 kg of source fuelwood per kg of produced iron. Charcoal is renewable but it is far from limitless. In other matters, you're giving Murphy short shrift.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    There's an excellent paper, "Burning Buried Sunshine" by Jeffrey S. Dukes (2003) which details just how much biomass goes into fossil fuel resources (coal, oil, and gas), and over what time periods that accumulated. Murphy doesn't cite it, though I'd run across mention of it in Vaclav Smil's books and elsewhere after discovering the paper initially on my own. <https://plus.maths.org/content/burning-buried-sunshine https://plus.maths.org/content/burning-buried-sunshine> <https://web.archive.org/web/20170207103418/https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170207103418/https://dge.carne...> (PDF)
- felipeerias 2y ago
  Modern technology enables us to cover part of our current energy needs with renewable sources. Absent a great technological regression, it is likely that eventually we will transition to a future where fossil fuels are no longer needed. However, the question at hand is what would happened if we somehow did revert to pre-modern technology. In that case, IMHO it would not be possible to reach again the industrial capacity that we have in the XXI century because the non-renewable resources that were required in the past have long been exhausted. We might be able to catch up with the XVIII century though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromford_Mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromford_Mill
- M95D 2y ago
  Did you ever forged a knife? Just an ordinary kitchen knife, nothing special. I bet you didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_making Possibly the most important industrial tools we would need is cutting tools. That's not kitchen knives. Those are easy. It's drill bits and lathe cutter heads. That type of steel can't be made with a water wheel and burning biomass. High quality steel that can't be made in those conditions is also needed for rail tracks.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Canals are a reasonable substitute for railways in many cases. They're slower, yes, but can move far more goods at scale, and with only modest power inputs. In colder climates (should such exist), they also become ice highways in winter time, which permit for year-round bulk transport. Though the elevation gain/loss features of canal locks are lost in the latter case.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  It's useful knowing that the typical water wheel or James Watt steam engine which replaced it was only putting out 5--10 horsepower (~4--8 kW). Modern industrial plants require megawatts, and occasionally GW (e.g., aluminium smelting, electric-arc furnaces).

smallmancontrov 2y ago

(Picture of an industrial plant powered by water wheel and burning biomass) Noooooo it's impossibbblleeeee!

readthenotes1 2y ago
To crush grain? Sure. To build iPhones, not likely
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  One step at a time. Remember, you have to show not that one step fails, but that one step fails and cannot be worked around. It's a heavy claim.
cratermoon 2y ago
> burning biomass Murphy goes into this in one of his posts. The energy density of fossil fuels is such that it's hard to convey that vast quantity of biomass it takes to equal it. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/#more-3803 https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/#more-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  Hence charcoal. It sucks, but on the path of bootstrapping lots of things are going to suck. I'm split on whether or not to read those posts. On one hand, now that I know his credentials, I know it won't be a complete waste of time -- but on the other, I fully expect his analysis to be chock full of infuriating "the way it was done was the only way it could have been done" assumptions that I would disagree with, discover that many before me had disagreed with, to no response because this isn't a dialogue. EDIT: I read the post. I really shouldn't have. He's not just unimaginative in the industrial sense, he's spurred on by terrible objectives. I am going to save my sanity and bail on this before I get suckered into arguing with madness. Still, thanks for the link.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    The problem with charcoal is that the input fuelwood requirements are absolutely immense, particularly where charcoal itself is an input to further industrial processes (e.g., glassmaking, iron forging, steelmaking). Great Britain had cleared its own forests by the 18th century or earlier just producing modest quantities of glass and iron, and was importing lumber from Sweden and the American colonies (both as fuel and structural timber). Vaclav Smil's numerous books go into great detail on the fuelwood demands of iron production. Based on an earlier comment of mine, that's 40--80 kg of source fuelwood per kg of produced iron. Charcoal is renewable but it is far from limitless. In other matters, you're giving Murphy short shrift.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  There's an excellent paper, "Burning Buried Sunshine" by Jeffrey S. Dukes (2003) which details just how much biomass goes into fossil fuel resources (coal, oil, and gas), and over what time periods that accumulated. Murphy doesn't cite it, though I'd run across mention of it in Vaclav Smil's books and elsewhere after discovering the paper initially on my own. <https://plus.maths.org/content/burning-buried-sunshine https://plus.maths.org/content/burning-buried-sunshine> <https://web.archive.org/web/20170207103418/https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170207103418/https://dge.carne...> (PDF)
felipeerias 2y ago
Modern technology enables us to cover part of our current energy needs with renewable sources. Absent a great technological regression, it is likely that eventually we will transition to a future where fossil fuels are no longer needed. However, the question at hand is what would happened if we somehow did revert to pre-modern technology. In that case, IMHO it would not be possible to reach again the industrial capacity that we have in the XXI century because the non-renewable resources that were required in the past have long been exhausted. We might be able to catch up with the XVIII century though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromford_Mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromford_Mill
M95D 2y ago
Did you ever forged a knife? Just an ordinary kitchen knife, nothing special. I bet you didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_making Possibly the most important industrial tools we would need is cutting tools. That's not kitchen knives. Those are easy. It's drill bits and lathe cutter heads. That type of steel can't be made with a water wheel and burning biomass. High quality steel that can't be made in those conditions is also needed for rail tracks.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Canals are a reasonable substitute for railways in many cases. They're slower, yes, but can move far more goods at scale, and with only modest power inputs. In colder climates (should such exist), they also become ice highways in winter time, which permit for year-round bulk transport. Though the elevation gain/loss features of canal locks are lost in the latter case.
dredmorbius 2y ago
It's useful knowing that the typical water wheel or James Watt steam engine which replaced it was only putting out 5--10 horsepower (~4--8 kW). Modern industrial plants require megawatts, and occasionally GW (e.g., aluminium smelting, electric-arc furnaces).