4 ms·

None. The books are printed on cheap paper that will rot. Furthermore, our civilization is unrebuildable. In the mid-1800s, oil was so shallow that it bubbled

None. The books are printed on cheap paper that will rot. Furthermore, our civilization is unrebuildable. In the mid-1800s, oil was so shallow that it bubbled out of the ground. It was possible to pump it with mid-1800s technology. Call that "level A". Soon though, that oil was gone, people wanted more. It took "level B" technology to drill for that... but we were at level B by then, thanks to the level A oil. Today, we drill for oil through 3 miles of water, and a mile of rock below that. That's "level Z" oil. If they need oil to get from level A to level B technology, but all the oil requires level Z to drill for it, then you don't get to rebuild civilization. It's not just oil, this is true for every resource we use. If our civilization stumbles, it dies.

mjevans 12y ago
This is an entirely valid point. The 'natural resources' that enable /easy/ development of civilization aren't anywhere near as common, if they even exist. What's necessary is a more adaptive approach and possibly some caches of resources that would be necessary to bootstrap once again; also a form of storage which won't degrade in just a few hundred years.
- zipwitch 12y ago
  It won't solve the fuel problem, but for metals, junkyards are pretty easy to dig up.
WiggleYourIndex 12y ago
Thankfully, some people already have much more reliable lifestyles on this planet. Thankfully, some people already sense coming storms (ie ecological, financial, electrical grid dependency collapse, pandemic, etc), and work on adjusting their lives for independence. Thankfully, some people end their addictions, cut out distractions, tune out mass media lies, etc to focus on what's important and build new lifestyles with beauty and abundance... Unfortunately, many more people want to stay asleep and enjoy these pretty, blinding lights before they'll notice a wider world changing around them.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
I met a guy here in Spain that mines with X gram /ton of a given metal and makes money. In America, with 10 times more grams/ton they don't exploit it, because "it is so expensive, not worth it". In America over half of the mineral(you can analyze the terrain in the laboratory and compare what is has with what you extract with industrial processes) goes away with the drain because it is in a different physical shape that what the industrial machines are designed for. They just couldn't care less. This is what prosperity could make to you. Like bears eating the livers of salmons and leaving the rest. We used to open a coal or oil well and BURN(without using it) THE NATURAL GAS first. A 1 meter of diameter burning pipe could burn for years!! In fact, in lots of places in America, where there is no gas pipeline they continue burning the gas, because it is so cheap, not worth it. Old American cars use to be machines for wasting oil. This is what happens in Venezuela today, when with the money it takes to fill the tank you could fill 1500 tanks in Venezuela. People have problems eating in Venezuela, but they could use the biggest 4x4, or speedboat you could dream of.
- hammock 12y ago
  What metal?
hga 12y ago
One thing left out of this analysis of oil availability is all the places where the incentive structure has not resulted in the exploitation of easier to access oil. E.g. places where land owners have no mineral rights and oil exploration and exploitation by the government is a major negative, and the government isn't strong enough to get around lots of these land owners. I think Argentina is one of the classic examples of such a nation. There's also coal -> oil, if you've got some hydrogen handy. As for "every resource we use", you've got to separate the ones we "use up" like fuel, and ones that are still available after use, like most metals. E.g. access to iron/steel and copper will be trivial, just mine ruined cities, land fills, etc. etc. I can't say with 100% confidence this would work out, but I know the sort of people our betters despise will roll up their sleeves and give it a try.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > There's also coal -> oil, if you've got some hydrogen handy. Which only works if you already have a technological civilization. The Germans were able to do this because they already had a large industrial base. The South Africans were able to do this because they had an industrial base, and could find expertise internationally if needed. If you're living with 19th century technology (16th century?) you don't get to do coal-to-oil. These problems simply aren't solvable in the situation we're talking about, and you seem to mistake the fact that you can think of solutions for them with 21st century technology means they are universally solvable. That's not even close to true. If civilization stumbles, it dies.
  - hga 12y ago
    Obviously I disagree, but I can't believe I forgot the #1 easiest way to bootstrap: hydroelectric power. Unless the disaster is so great it destroys all these dams, multiple groups of people have the potential for a perhaps small, but generally reliable source of electricity. From that you can build back everything. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you from believing it's impossible, and ... what will you and yours do after a sufficiently big disaster? All I know is me and mine won't lie down and die.
jjoonathan 12y ago
Trees. You forgot trees. There isn't enough high-energy carbon there to sustain an industrial revolution, but there's definitely enough to get a pocket of civilization back on its feet.
- hga 12y ago
  And then you bootstrap with that. Maybe with coal, or maybe go straight to nuclear. You might even be able to refurbish/restart a reactor complex. Or a carrier's or sub's. And single one of these surviving whatever the disaster is would really change the picture, that's a background theme of Lucifer's Hammer.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  No. We deforested entire continents getting our industrial revolution going. There aren't enough left to do it a second time. And if what I read is correct, it will take between 750,000 and 2 million years for reforestation to occur naturally. > but there's definitely enough to get a pocket of civilization back on its feet. What's "back on its feet"? You've watched too many movies. The only metal such a people would ever use would be salvaged... no new iron works. No electricity, no internal combustion engines. If civilization stumbles, it dies.
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    No. > There aren't enough left to do it a second time. Why do you think it would take an amount of resources comparable to the first time? We know what we're doing now so there will be much less fumbling around AND we would have an abundance of high-grade feedstock left over from the pre-fall civilization. > What's "back on its feet"? "Back on its feet" = a level of sophistication in resource extraction capable of facilitating resource use beyond recycling, i.e. the ability to avoid the exact scenario you described. To make things more concrete, let's call it the level of sophistication required to build and fuel primitive fission reactors. I think that even you will agree that by that point fears of energy scarcity would be bunk. > You've watched too many movies. If you can't imagine "shortcuts" to take on the path to re-industrialization I would hazard a bet that you don't have training in the relevant industrial chemistry. Here's a fizz-buzz level self assessment to check if you're going all Dunning-Kruger: name one or more plausible post-apocalyptic alternatives that would be used in place of the WSGR and Haber processes. > The only metal such a people would ever use would be salvaged... no new iron works. Why do you think that salvaged metal could not suffice for bootstrap purposes? Hell, you don't even need to make your own mining / refining / manufacturing equipment, you just need to patch up the stuff that got broken in the commotion.

mjevans 12y ago

This is an entirely valid point. The 'natural resources' that enable /easy/ development of civilization aren't anywhere near as common, if they even exist. What's necessary is a more adaptive approach and possibly some caches of resources that would be necessary to bootstrap once again; also a form of storage which won't degrade in just a few hundred years.

zipwitch 12y ago
It won't solve the fuel problem, but for metals, junkyards are pretty easy to dig up.

WiggleYourIndex 12y ago

Thankfully, some people already have much more reliable lifestyles on this planet. Thankfully, some people already sense coming storms (ie ecological, financial, electrical grid dependency collapse, pandemic, etc), and work on adjusting their lives for independence. Thankfully, some people end their addictions, cut out distractions, tune out mass media lies, etc to focus on what's important and build new lifestyles with beauty and abundance... Unfortunately, many more people want to stay asleep and enjoy these pretty, blinding lights before they'll notice a wider world changing around them.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

I met a guy here in Spain that mines with X gram /ton of a given metal and makes money. In America, with 10 times more grams/ton they don't exploit it, because "it is so expensive, not worth it". In America over half of the mineral(you can analyze the terrain in the laboratory and compare what is has with what you extract with industrial processes) goes away with the drain because it is in a different physical shape that what the industrial machines are designed for. They just couldn't care less. This is what prosperity could make to you. Like bears eating the livers of salmons and leaving the rest. We used to open a coal or oil well and BURN(without using it) THE NATURAL GAS first. A 1 meter of diameter burning pipe could burn for years!! In fact, in lots of places in America, where there is no gas pipeline they continue burning the gas, because it is so cheap, not worth it. Old American cars use to be machines for wasting oil. This is what happens in Venezuela today, when with the money it takes to fill the tank you could fill 1500 tanks in Venezuela. People have problems eating in Venezuela, but they could use the biggest 4x4, or speedboat you could dream of.

hammock 12y ago
What metal?

hga 12y ago

One thing left out of this analysis of oil availability is all the places where the incentive structure has not resulted in the exploitation of easier to access oil. E.g. places where land owners have no mineral rights and oil exploration and exploitation by the government is a major negative, and the government isn't strong enough to get around lots of these land owners. I think Argentina is one of the classic examples of such a nation. There's also coal -> oil, if you've got some hydrogen handy. As for "every resource we use", you've got to separate the ones we "use up" like fuel, and ones that are still available after use, like most metals. E.g. access to iron/steel and copper will be trivial, just mine ruined cities, land fills, etc. etc. I can't say with 100% confidence this would work out, but I know the sort of people our betters despise will roll up their sleeves and give it a try.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> There's also coal -> oil, if you've got some hydrogen handy. Which only works if you already have a technological civilization. The Germans were able to do this because they already had a large industrial base. The South Africans were able to do this because they had an industrial base, and could find expertise internationally if needed. If you're living with 19th century technology (16th century?) you don't get to do coal-to-oil. These problems simply aren't solvable in the situation we're talking about, and you seem to mistake the fact that you can think of solutions for them with 21st century technology means they are universally solvable. That's not even close to true. If civilization stumbles, it dies.
- hga 12y ago
  Obviously I disagree, but I can't believe I forgot the #1 easiest way to bootstrap: hydroelectric power. Unless the disaster is so great it destroys all these dams, multiple groups of people have the potential for a perhaps small, but generally reliable source of electricity. From that you can build back everything. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you from believing it's impossible, and ... what will you and yours do after a sufficiently big disaster? All I know is me and mine won't lie down and die.

jjoonathan 12y ago

Trees. You forgot trees. There isn't enough high-energy carbon there to sustain an industrial revolution, but there's definitely enough to get a pocket of civilization back on its feet.

hga 12y ago
And then you bootstrap with that. Maybe with coal, or maybe go straight to nuclear. You might even be able to refurbish/restart a reactor complex. Or a carrier's or sub's. And single one of these surviving whatever the disaster is would really change the picture, that's a background theme of Lucifer's Hammer.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
No. We deforested entire continents getting our industrial revolution going. There aren't enough left to do it a second time. And if what I read is correct, it will take between 750,000 and 2 million years for reforestation to occur naturally. > but there's definitely enough to get a pocket of civilization back on its feet. What's "back on its feet"? You've watched too many movies. The only metal such a people would ever use would be salvaged... no new iron works. No electricity, no internal combustion engines. If civilization stumbles, it dies.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  No. > There aren't enough left to do it a second time. Why do you think it would take an amount of resources comparable to the first time? We know what we're doing now so there will be much less fumbling around AND we would have an abundance of high-grade feedstock left over from the pre-fall civilization. > What's "back on its feet"? "Back on its feet" = a level of sophistication in resource extraction capable of facilitating resource use beyond recycling, i.e. the ability to avoid the exact scenario you described. To make things more concrete, let's call it the level of sophistication required to build and fuel primitive fission reactors. I think that even you will agree that by that point fears of energy scarcity would be bunk. > You've watched too many movies. If you can't imagine "shortcuts" to take on the path to re-industrialization I would hazard a bet that you don't have training in the relevant industrial chemistry. Here's a fizz-buzz level self assessment to check if you're going all Dunning-Kruger: name one or more plausible post-apocalyptic alternatives that would be used in place of the WSGR and Haber processes. > The only metal such a people would ever use would be salvaged... no new iron works. Why do you think that salvaged metal could not suffice for bootstrap purposes? Hell, you don't even need to make your own mining / refining / manufacturing equipment, you just need to patch up the stuff that got broken in the commotion.