One of those theses I'd been considering writing about just became redundant. And that's a good thing. For various reasons, none of which I can pinpoint, I'd been building on the idea that our problem is just energy. I don't know that this is novel, but it's not been the basis of any analysis I've seen in memory. Analysis is political or religious or whatever.
But the fact remains: the distinguishing characteristic of human "progress" is just large per capita energy expenditure. Whether that energy expenditure necessarily makes us more "civilized" is a significant question. But the change in societies can be simply measured in BTUs.
So, I was sipping rum and cable surfing, and came across "The History of the World in Two Hours" on History International (or H2). I caught the last half hour or so, but was struck by thesis: "progress" was the result of energy consumption. I guess I don't have to write the piece. Check your local listings. It's worth a look.
The question not answered: is there really any difference between a hairy Neanderthal using a club to kill his neighbor in order to take his neighbor's stuff, and not so hairy homo sapien using a laptop to reach the same end?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lyn LeJeune
Ernesto Che Guevara
Ablonde
Tom Cordle
Peter Breschard
Alan Nothnagle
Salon.com
Comments
I've been making that argument for some time now. From coal to oil to nuclear power, the Industrial Revolution that dragged men kicking and screaming from the Agrarian Age has been utterly dependent on relatively cheap energy. I say relatively cheap because the externalities, or social and environmental costs of that energy, are seldom if ever figured into the economic equation.
It is my untutored but considered opinion that there is no way out of our current troubles short of finding a new source of abundant, cheap energy -- say cold fusion. I wouldn't hold my breath on that score, since that seems more and more to be akin to alchemy.
That being the case, economic Neanderthals -- aka Neocons -- will gladly club their neighbors to get at their oil and gas stuff. Hell, they've been doing exactly that since the British Navy decided to convert from coal/steam to oil/diesel back at the turn of the last century, and thus brought on the First World War.
Even an abundant source, say fusion, won't solve the social problem. The characteristic of gasoline/diesel is energy density and portability. Europeans, those sots, manage to live a good life on half the per capita BTUs, and largely because much of the use is communal; public electric transport for example. The Montana Militia won't stand for that, so we have a pipe line from Canada. The "oil" in that pipe will end up draining most of the water from central Canada. I suppose that's a Good Thing.