“For these reasons, energy consumption needs to grow faster than population, even if technology is making individual processes more efficient.”
I’m sorry. I keep trying to understand, but so much of this is still isn’t getting through. Some points were a little easier to grasp than the above.
I’ve assumed that a global economy with depleting resources has to get more complex to survive the challenge. And that the ever increasing complexity can’t be afforded eventually.
Meanwhile, the entire global economy can’t be understood even by experts. Why aren’t we looking at first principles instead of simply considering what can keep an unworkable, overly complex system going? Where we are now, we need fossil fuels to survive. Many things can’t be wound back and have to grow somehow. But that might be a simple problem of physics that can be planned for? But why does *everything* have to grow in the same way? Why aren’t simple measures to compartment too much top down organization into more bottom up, small-scale units?
Why must the entire economy be viewed through the lens of unyielding top down, unevolved, growth? Why treat the species as hopelessly deranged and incapable of any kind of independent adjustment? For instance, moderately intelligent/educated workers from Mexico would produce oil at a quarter the wages of the average. And if that average pop would cause mayhem through unemployment, the fossil fuels would still be available to address the mayhem in some way…
Posts
