site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 2, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

First time poster so i'm not very well versed in the formalities here just to let you guys know.

Will try to be as direct as possible.

Im of the coviction that modern civilization is doomed to collapse. Because of energy constaints, namely the energy return on investment (EROI) of: peak oil and renewable energies. Further more the energy density of oil alternatives is not dense enough to accomodate the modern standard of living.

Here a couple pieces of information that support my viewpoint: Number 1: "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society (2014)" research paper by Charles A.S Hall and others. Number 2: The article "renewables-ko-by-eroi" on the website energytransition.org. Number 3: "Energy, EROI and quality of life (2014)" by Jessica G. Lambert and others.

A couple of assumtions i made are that high EROI is needed for modern living. In case of big EROI losses there will be a massive increase in civil unrest. There is enough coal in the ground to supply our energy needs. However this is not very applicable in cars nor is it good for the envirmoment, which in turn will cause civilisation collape in the longhaul.

If i forgot anything here please let me know.

It would be very nice to hear some counter viewpoints! Because looking at the future and seeking a bleak one is not nice.

All the best,

William

P.S. How do you post links here?

What do you consider a collapse? How far back will civilization regress? Stone Age? Iron Age? Early Modern Age? Steam Age? Atomic Age?

I think population decline will hit us quicker than fossil fuels. P.R. of China speedran the demographic transition, but so did South Korea. African countries will do the same in the next 50-70 years.

I think @Stefferi had some stats about how the global fertility rate is below replacement because of the mortality rates in poorer countries, despite technically being above 2 per female.

I think it's basically on the edge, might dip below replacement this year or somewhere in the close future. I discussed this on Twitter a while ago and it seems the mortality rates are a bit lower than I though. The point is, though, that while generally replacement rate is considered to be 2,1, it's a bit higher than this globally, maybe like 2,2 or 2,3, and the global fertility rate is pretty close to this already.