the impending oil crash (?) and {my, our society's} future

[jrtom]

Something like a year or 18 months ago, a friend of mine sent a message out to a bunch of her friends basically saying that she'd seen the handwriting on the wall and that she and her SO were preparing to find a piece of property where they could survive and support themselves when our society came crashing down around our ears from lack of oil.

At the time, my basic reaction was a combination of the following:

• "Wow, she's serious about this."
  
• "Sounds a bit kooky, though."
  
• "Is this a viable long-term way of life, i.e., were my friends planning on having access to little things like steel tools (which implies quite a lot of industrial society, when you stop to think)?" (It's not just about oil-based fertilizers.)
  
• "If everyone tried to 'drop out' like this, the collapse of society becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."
  

More recently, my friends amnesiadust and fdmts have been pointing to sites like Life After The Oil Crash. In addition, I've seen transcripts of interviews on NPR (sorry, no link handy) with people that state that the reserves that Saudi Arabia, for instance, claims to have are overstated.

Whatever else happens, I think I will be contacting my friend and apologizing for the second thing I thought. (I didn't actually respond to her email at the time, so she doesn't know that I thought it--it's the principle of the thing.)

As far as I can tell, a couple of things about this issue are clearly true. First, the essential fact that oil is a finite resource, and second, that how close we are to running out of oil--and what will happen when we do--will depend on how much we really have left. . .which is apparently in dispute.

A few days ago I saw a Chevron magazine advertisement that makes it clear that Chevron considers the oil supply problem to be real. It's hard to say whether this is motivated more by (their desire to manipulate) public opinion than by their concern over the facts on (in?) the ground, but I'll hand them some guarded praise nonetheless.

Side note: one thing that the LATOC website referenced above doesn't really address is the possibility that nanotechnology may save our collective butts here. I'm not talking about the solar nanotech that LATOC actually mentions, but about more general uses (e.g., can we use nanotechnology to create gasoline from available materials, or to reduce oil's necessity in other areas, such as manufacturing and agriculture)? I'm not a nanotech expert--heck, I'm not even much of a nanotechnology-article-reading dilettante--so any more informed opinions on this point would be appreciated.


It's not clear to me, really, how redundant my skills and talents would be in a post-oil-crash society: it depends on how far the crash goes. Working my way down the Employment Great Chain of Being...

• There are certainly organizations--both industrial and governmental--that have indicated that my research and ideas are of interest to them...but how interesting or useful is large-scale social network analysis if travel, and even communication, is seriously curtailed by its expense? For that matter, if things fall apart sufficiently far, there may not _be_ governments or companies that have the resources to pursue such avenues.
  
• I'm also skilled in other areas of mathematical modelling, some of which have some pretty solid real-world applications (operations research, e.g.). But again, the utility of such analysis depends on the scale at which you're operating.
  
• I'm an experienced software engineer, with some major projects I can point to. However, I suspect that if we hit an oil crash, that there will be a glut on the market of such people that makes the tech bust look like a minor correction.
  
• I'm pretty good at teaching (technical subjects at least, and probably some others).
  
• I can communicate effectively in writing and speech. (As a side note, not to wrench my arm patting myself on the back here, but it's become clear to me that most computer scientists and mathematicians are not very good at this.)
  
• I'm a competent musician.
  
• I'm in decent (although not excellent) physical shape, except for my very-flat feet.
  

This ordering does not specify my opinion of the worth of these various fields of endeavor--this is just my preferred ordering of fallback positions, based on my own strengths and experiences. For example, if I'd spent as much time working on my musical abilities, I have reason to think that I could be making a living as a professional musician...but I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much. This doesn't mean that I think less of pro musicians.

I can't really know how far down this chain I would end up falling. However, if things go sufficiently far south, I suspect that someone would probably shoot me for my shoes and/or canned goods before I'd get to the point of supporting myself and my family with my physical labors. (Not saying that that eventuality's not worth preparing for, but just that many, many people will die if we all have to go back to subsistence farming or the like.)

Assuming some kind of oil crisis--even a moderate one that doesn't involve the partial or total breakdown of societal norms--staying in Southern California would be a profoundly stupid move for a few reasons: (a) the public transportation system is not good, (b) if SoCal didn't have water from other places, it would not be able, I'd estimate, to support 10% of its current population, and (c) it's at best a day's drive from our nearest friends and family. The Pacific Northwest, by contrast, has none of these problems...which is causing me to reweight the factors that we'll need to consider when we decide where to move once I'm done with my PhD.

Anyway, I need to do some more thinking, both about what I can personally do to make the transition to a post-oil-rich world less painful, and about what kinds of preparation would be appropriate. There's such a scope of possibilities, though--everything from personal travel becoming considerably more expensive (but not unheard of) to the collapse of civilization--that it's hard to know what to prepare for.

Postlude: in the light of fdmts's recent comments on the fragility of society, and the news reports I've read describing how fast things have gone to h-e-double-hockey-sticks (as my friend Judson would say) in New Orleans and the vicinity (and even if the rate of descent may now have slowed, the nose isn't yet pointed up) here are some practical questions that are worth asking about your general state of preparedness, in various aspects, along with an addendum by yours truly in the comments.

Comments

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

One thing you'll like about being up here is how popular the bio-gas movement is. I mean, most people don't use bio-fuel, but it's visible, which is more than I can say for, well, anywhere I've been. Which is a fairly extensive set lately.

You may think I'm paranoid, but one of the reasons I got the eye surgery was to cope with emergency situations up to and including The End of the World As We Know It. Harder to do if your glasses can break and turn you blind--remember that "Twilight Zone"?

The part that depresses me is that I've given some thought to whether I can make it again as a freelancer, or if I'll HAVE to take the straight job. I don't expect to get a whole lot of sympathy over this one, but if airpland travel becomes prohibitively expensive (and it's working on it) then it's going to be harder for me to stay in my house and work from there.

I wonder if recent events will bring on the housing bubble's pop?

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

One thing you'll like about being up here is how popular the bio-gas movement is.

In general, I expect the PNW to be a good place to find people who've come up with reasonable viable alternate solutions to problems that are normally solved with the use of petroleum products. This is one example.

You may think I'm paranoid, but one of the reasons I got the eye surgery was to cope with emergency situations up to and including The End of the World As We Know It. Harder to do if your glasses can break and turn you blind--remember that "Twilight Zone"?

You think _I'm_ going to call _you_ paranoid when I've just outlined the possibility of getting shot for my shoes before I get the opportunity to do hard labor for a living in a post-quasi-holocaust environment? *wry smile* I've read enough post-holocaust fiction (including some that mentioned the potential problems of being blinder than any bat in a world in which "optician" is no longer found in the nonexistent Yellow Pages) that this motivation occurred to me, too, although it wasn't a big part of my decision (or I might have got it done sooner).

I must admit I don't remember the Twilight Zone episode you're referring to, though.

I don't expect to get a whole lot of sympathy over this one, but if airpland travel becomes prohibitively expensive (and it's working on it) then it's going to be harder for me to stay in my house and work from there.

There's someone I know at HP Labs who does this (lives in Port Orchard, WA, and (tele)commutes to the Bay Area). I'd thought of this as a possibility down the line, although I've definitely come to appreciate the advantages of having an office that isn't colocated with my residence. (Among other things, it makes it much harder to know when to stop working.)

I wonder if recent events will bring on the housing bubble's pop?

I don't see how _recent_ events would contribute; clarify, please? I've been wondering whether the fact that there are a whole bunch of people who've been buying housing on interest-only and variable-interest contracts--that they can't really afford otherwise--might cause it, though.

Food for thought: one of my friends is starting to move some of her more liquid assets into euros. Might be more useful than dollars if the US economy starts to (oil) tank for any reason--which, considering the current ruinous rate at which we're acquiring new debt, is becoming more likely. (On the other hand, of course, if it tanks hard enough, she may neve see those euros again...)

Reason...

[fdmts.livejournal.com]

For my part, I've started looking seriously at The Plan for such dark times. Important factors (and keep in mind that I've just started thinking about this):

* What's the evacuation trigger? At what point do I actually unplug from society and run like hell. Simple fact is, as long as I stay plugged in, (a) the higher my standard of living (b) the more likely it is that my retraction will not hasten the collapse.

* What constitutes preparedness? Do I need (a) gun (b) gallons of water? How many? (c) fuel for the vehicles? How much? (d) food? How much, what sorts? (e) alternative modes of production? (f) land?

* Where would I go? There are two primary places I would consider, which are with my family in VA (a farm that has been used in a demonstration by my hippie parents that they could store up enough food for winter) and up near Ann Arbor (where I'm confident that there will be a colony of intelligent and motivated people trying to preserve civilization.

* Can we make a positive change now, which obviates this dark future? I think that the nanotech answer is very 'head in the sand.' We might as well say "genetics will save us" (it might), or "artificial intelligence will save us" (it might too). However, the fundamental problems leading us towards collapse will still be there. Unsustainable economic patterns, overpopulation, ....

As you mention, how useful are our skills? If useless, then what skills do I need to build? Besides the fact that I like gardening and preserving the foods that I grow, that seems clearly useful. What else? Sometimes, when it plays out in my mind, I introduce myself as "fit, a hard worker, and able to solve problems." I really doubt that my ability to write parsers for bioinformatics applications will be worth a damn if were' riding through the desert shooting mutants.

Re: Reason...

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I think that the nanotech answer is very 'head in the sand.' We might as well say "genetics will save us" (it might), or "artificial intelligence will save us" (it might too). However, the fundamental problems leading us towards collapse will still be there. Unsustainable economic patterns, overpopulation, ....

I don't think that it counts as sticking my head in the sand if I _ask_ whether something is possible (or feasible). :)

I doubt that AI could save us: it's not that there's a specific key question that we can ask for which our current answers are of insufficiently high quality, but that we're _running out of (certain kinds of) stuff_. The technologies that are most likely to be relevant are those that either decrease our need for such stuff, or that improve our reuse/recycling of that stuff, or that help to generate said stuff from other stuff that we don't need as much. AI might help, as far as I can tell, only insofar as it might highlight the existence of a composite solution to the "stuff" problems that we hadn't yet recognized.

A final thought: the technology that we have available is part of what determines how sustainable an economic pattern is, and how much of a population we can sustain. I doubt that this planet could support 7 billion people with Stone Age technology.

conservation of energy

[amnesiadust.livejournal.com]

can we use nanotechnology to create gasoline from available materials, or to reduce oil's necessity in other areas, such as manufacturing and agriculture?

The "technology will provide" argument needs to be carefully assessed (as opposed to the "market will provide" argument, which I think can be dismissed almost out of hand). I admit I don't know what kinds of amazing things we're going to think up in the future, given enough resources for research and enough time and luck in finding cool techniques and making them scalable. But if I were going to start thinking about this I would appeal to some very broad considerations which can put upper bounds on the rate at which we can consume energy and the manner in which we produce it.

For example, I have a lot of confidence in the law of conservation of energy. All the energy we use on this planet comes from one of two sources: radioactive isotopes in the earth's interior (nuclear fission and geothermal) and solar radiation (everything else, including fossil fuels if you consider how they form -- they're really just distilled biomass). The convenience of geothermal energy is limited by geography; nuclear fission has its own problems, and in any case depends on digging a limited supply of stuff out of the ground. Fossil fuels we've discussed. We might be able to hit a home run if we figure out how to make nuclear fusion work, but barring some amazing breakthroughs fusion-powered cars and tractors are not in the forseeable future. Therefore I think it's a pretty safe bet that the instantaneous rate at which we use energy in the future will be limited by the flux of solar radiation on the earth's surface.

This consideration will affect any use of nanotech to make oil substitutes, or just convenient liquid fuel, from any known materials on earth. Nanotech can convert energy from one form to another, but it can't create it. Even if the process of making substitute oil, say from biomass, is astoundingly efficient, say 10%, the energy will still ultimately come from the sun. The same goes for biodiesel and for attempts to produce hydrogen from bacteria (currently being researched at Berkeley Lab).

This article about a recent meeting at LBNL corroborates most of the above, and might give you some idea about the challenges we'll have to overcome. Let me know if you find it helpful or want to discuss.

Re: conservation of energy

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

There's a completely insane amount of energy available from solar power if you put the solar power collectors in orbit (which makes them harder to protect, but also increases the amount of energy input). There are still engineering/technical questions to be solved here, and even resource limitations (e.g., running out of the raw materials out of which to make the solar collectors) but I don't think that either energy budget or land surface area, per se, needs to be very much of a limitation in the long run.

brief postscript

[amnesiadust.livejournal.com]

What I would then ask next are questions like the following: At what rate do we currently use energy associated with food production (the most basic of human needs) -- this includes farm equipment, pesticides, fertilizer (in the form of stored energy put back into the depleted soil), and distribution? How much land area do we need to seed with photovoltaic cells, hydrogen-producing yeast tanks, switchgrass for biodiesel, or whatever in order to make available this amount of energy, assuming 10% efficiency in converting from sunlight to an end-usable form?

Assume now that we cut synthetic pesticides and fertilizers 100% (i.e., farm organically), and distribute all food no farther than 50 miles from where it was produced (the closer the better). Now how much energy do we use? How much food can we produce this way, assuming a decent balance between land used to grow food and land used to produce end-usable energy? How many people can we sustain, assuming a 2,000 cal/day/person diet?

If the answer is "not as many as we have in our country", then we have a problem. If we get lucky and can sustain more, then we might ask how much industry uses, and how much technology we can sustain with the remaining land area.

One other thought on biotech/nanotech: Not too long ago they started studying the genomes of diatoms (ocean critters that suck up lots of carbon). I am terrified that they will start trying to genetically engineer these things, trying to change the carbon cycle balance in the ocean. While it doesn't relate directly to energy production, it is certainly related to the use of fossil fuels and global climate change. Messing with the oceans will have far-reaching consequences. It could be a brilliant solution to our problems, or it could result in the rapid extinction of all life on earth. I've just downloaded a recent report from LBNL on carbon cycles which looks like it will be very interesting reading.