The Freezing Point of Industrial Society

[phantom power]

I like that term "freezing point." Meshes nicely with the loss of percolation in adaptive pathways, which we are going to experience as available energy decreases. All of the industrial ecology made possible by cheap energy will "freeze" and collapse, just as we are collapsing the older biological ecologies. It is a true phase transition, just like the process of freezing or thawing.

This piece considers that industrialisation could only happen with cheap fuels, and by looking at the countries of the world, tries to figure out just how cheap fuel has to be before lots of people start using it – before a country can industrialise with fossil fuels. The flipside to this is seeing how expensive fuel must be before it deindustrialises. This then gives us a clue to if and when will industrial society will end.

By an “industrial society” I mean one in which machines are powered not by human or animal motion and are a part of everyday life, and we design our homes and cities with machines in mind. A non-industrial society may have some machines, but it's not designed around machines; a Kalahari Bushman can happily use a radio, but he does not live in an “industrial society”, whereas his cousin who moves to Johannesburg and takes the bus to work does, even if she has no radio.

Going from a mostly-manual or animal economy to an industrial one, you can think of it as like the melting of ice into water at 0°C. When there's enough heat (cheap energy) it melts (becomes industrial). But does the reverse apply? If you cool water down to 0°C, it'll freeze. So if the cheap fuel becomes expensive, will we lose all that industry? Does industrial society have a freezing point, a point at which the heat (energy) has been drawn out of it, and so it changes from liquid (industrial) to solid (non-industrial)?

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3228

[Warpy]

1. We'll certainly reach a point where the cheap and disposable

fashion will be supplanted by sturdier classics. People who are paying through the nose for everything from underwear to refrigerators are going to want things that will last, not things to be discarded frequently because styles have changed just about the time they conk out. Natural fibres will take the place of polymers that don't wear well and planned obsolescence will become a distinct liability for any company that still practices it in order to try to increase sales down the line.

I seriously doubt we'll see a real freezing point. We will, however, see a steep increase in viscosity, to carry the metaphor on, and precious energy won't be wasted in producing cheap crap with obsolescence built in.

[DCKit]

2. "a steep increase in viscosity". You Funny!!!!

Innovation and diversification of our energy sources will only lead to a much richer, less consumer orientated society.

K&R for a thought provoking article.

[The2ndWheel]

4. When has innovation ever created less consumption?

The only way we seem to be able to figure out how to get out of the mess we're in is to buy "green" products.

[DCKit]

6. That's what I meant....

Cotton, linen and hemp products are always going to outlast artificial fibers. And that's just the beginning.

[TheWraith]

5. Actually, polymers wear much better than natural fibers.

The idea that natural fibers are superior is rather a myth.

[Warpy]

8. It's a fact

Take a look at friction points. All those nubbins are called "pilling" and indicate extreme wear. Also, synthetic fibre clothing loses its shape very quickly, which is why most people prefer clothing blended with natural fibres.

If you don't believe this, go check out your local thrift shop for all the polyester little old man and little old lady clothes and compare them to natural fibre clothing of the same vintage.

[XemaSab]

9. Aside from pants (which always get rough wear in chez Xema)

I have rarely had any clothes just fail anywhere other than on the seams. It's less a fiber issue than a cheapshit manufacturing issue, methinks.

[GliderGuider]

3. It's a thought-provoking framing of the problem.

There seems to be a growing recognition these days of the challenges posed by tipping points, inflections or phase changes. I wonder if the literal phase change of the Arctic ice cap this past summer helped the idea break through. The closer you get to it, the less realistic is the notion that we will see long gentle declines that give us time to adapt, whether to the loss of oil or to climate chaos. The real world doesn't work that way, only the projections of amateur modelers using Excel spreadsheets ;-)

Peak Oil, Peak Food, net oil exports go to zero, the Arctic ice cap vanishes, the Siberian tundra melts to methane, the international investment community wakes up to realize that the perpetual growth machine has run down - all these represent inflections in the course of human history (or at least our current civilization). How many bullets can we dodge at once, I wonder?

[phantom power]

7. mental image:

Dodge this.

[tom_paine]

10. That's the thing. Too many problems coincidentally happenung all at once

OK...not coincidentally but the natural outgrowth of skyrocketing population and the technical magnification of each of our footprints many thousands of times.

The point is that this is all happening at a time when the one institution that has done some real good for human prgress...liberal democracy/constitutional republic, is suffering severe decay and breakdown, at least here in Amerika.

We could survive another Dark Ages, but environemntal collapse and massive human reduction at the same time?

Lovelock is right. Get those time capsules of knowledge ready to bury beneath the polar jungles...I guess that would be Antarctic jungles as the oceans' rise doesn't seem to be conducive to one in the Arctic.