Humanity and why we will return back to the Stone Age

[Guest chen2739]

What are the problems we are facing?

 

Having being recently informed of the issues of peak oil, peak water, global population overshoot http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2376190597731898896&q=dr+albert+population+energy&hl=en, unsustainable Infinite Growth Machine fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, decline of petrodollar hemegony, etc and having read up somewhat on the Olduvia Gorge Theory and other Post Industrial Stone Age theories, I propose that we as a species will soon (2008-2050) return back to the Stone Age and become extinction within the next few million years.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, I am also aware of the conflicting theory of “omega point”. Keeping everything in mind:

 

My purpose for this post is not to debate whether or not peak oil will happen, or even whether a global depression of never before seen scale and intensity will strike as we go down forever the energy decline slope. That is a mathematical certainty, and its going to happen whether we like it or not.

 

 

In Darwin’s Struggle For Existence he has often said:

 

“A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them.”

 

Also he goes on to say:

 

“There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would literally not be standing room for his progeny. Linnaeus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds and there is no plant so unproductive as this and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be a million plants. The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pairs of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair.”

 

So what is nature’s motivation for designing life that it produces at a rate so high that if not destroyed (some unlucky most die) the earth would soon be covered entirely by progeny of a single pair? Why is the purpose of this seemingly uncontemplateable cruelty that the vast major must die and only a select lucky few from each generation will ever get the chance to survive and pass on its genes for the next generation? Easy, the answer is 'PROGRESS'. This is the way of 'life' and is dictated by the laws of physics that are in this universe we live in.

 

Do you people realize that since the dawn of life on earth over 4 billion years ago, the vast majority of all species that have ever walked on this earth are now long gone and extinct fossils? All the diversity and variety of life on earth that you see today actually originated form a single ‘branch’ lifeline from the many many others.

 

Seen in this new light, we homo sapiens are certainly nothing special or unique, and if history is any indicator, our species will become extinct and all but forgotten once it has served its purpose.

 

So in an evolutionary sense, the dieoff.com website was correct when it said:

 

“It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.”

 

And Savinar was on the mark when he said in his book “THE OIL AGE IS OVER”

:

 

“God sat in her chair and thought for a moment. Then, in what amounted to the ultimate

"Eureka" moment, God jumped out of her seat and exclaimed, "I know what I'll do! I'll create a species that's dumb enough to use the stuff!"

 

So I can say with confidence that as far as the attribute of abstract intelligence is concerned, evolutionary speaking, we are a failure. And because as the human species declines it will necessarily leave with it an earth exhausted of the physical prerequisites for another transition from primitive conditions to high-level technology, we have denied any other future species the chance for intelligence. Super intelligence will never evolve on this planet, perhaps intelligence is not the best attribute to have in the long run, at least not from a biological/evolutionary stand point.

 

 

The industrial revolution was the result of a complex set of causes, none of which, by itself, could have given rise to the phenomenon: the crucial technological innovations would have meant little without notable population growth, an increase in agricultural efficiency that released much of the workforce from field labor, and key economic changes, such as greater mobility of capital.

 

As Mike Ruppert has said:

 

“As the human race enters the first stages of inevitable collapse resulting from Peak Oil, it does so ***-backwards, in complete denial, and in the one way most certain to guarantee the greatest amount of suffering and death for future generations.”

 

Our current lifestyle and population is and can only be maintained because of the necessary efficiencies that come with mass production, industrial revolution, structured society due to high level of population, social contract, and high technology. As we slide down the slope of Oludvia Gorge, the exact reverse appears to happen. As population decreases, and we know that it necessarily MUST, much of the workforce will once again be forced back to field labor, there will be less mobility of capital, less mobility of transportation, less ability to communication, education, organization, cooperation, and of technological innovations, thus leading to a double problem of much lower efficiency.

 

 

This viscous downward cycle and chain reaction will eventually lead to the supernova of mankind. As much of our industrial efficiencies are lost, and as we lose the ability to grow food from oil, to plant, harvest, package, transport, food and other basic fundamental necessities of life are all lost due to our dependency on petroleum and its derivates, as we also lose the benefits of an orderly and structured society and social contract and cooperation (which is maintainable only by high population)our earth will have an even lower ability to sustain our overpopulated species, And our total global carrying capacity will be that much lower. As our population corrects to a lower number once again we will experience the phenomenon of reverse efficiency. As our efficiency dips to lower and lower abysmal levels each time this happens, our population will become less and less.

 

Eventually we will revert back to the Stone Age. With stone age technology, Stone Age language, and a stone age view and ideology of the world and the universe. And of course, this means we will have the carrying capacity that natural always had intended us to have, the level will be equivalent of that of the first original Stone Age.

 

So the next time a comet or asteroid comes around, and it will, we can say good bye Flintstones.

 

 

I care not about the ultimate fate of humanity (after another 100 billion years in this universe all protons will decay and material will revert back into radiation , and everything will suffer a cold death). I am simply stating the facts, we as a collective species are going to become extinct whether you like it or not. So much for Star Trek.

[CraigD]

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that pessimistic (but not unreasonable) predictions of the decline of available energy are accurate, and do lead to a scenario similar to the one described by Richard C. Duncan. I think several critical points need to be examined.

 

Would a post-industrial age cultural complex be truly “stone age”? That is, would it be characterized by the use of stone tools?

 

19th and 20th century industrial culture has created very large amounts of durable metal, especially aluminum. Stone age people used stone (and other found materials) because they were abundant and easy to find. Were one to magically remove all the human beings on earth now, and replace them with all the human beings alive 10,000 years ago, it’s unlikely they would prefer to use stone tools, given the availability of all that metal.

 

Neolithic people were very good at using their found materials, and at selecting the best available found materials. I suspect, therefore, that this transplanted culture would begin with found metal using technology, and progress quickly to a fairly modern metallurgical technology.

 

Would a stone (or found metal) age culture remain that way for millions of years? Accepting the paleontological record, the Neolithic period lasted only a few thousand years, followed by the classical period, which in many ways was as advanced as our present culture, despite it’s low per-person use of energy.

 

There’s a good bit of historical data suggesting what might happen following the collapse of present-day society. 5th century Britain society experienced a decline from a culture with regular trade and correspondence with most of the old world and a legal system in principle centered in Rome, to a subsistence agricultural one culturally almost pre-historic. Within a few human generations, however, British society had regained and in many areas exceeded the technology, legal, and governmental benefits it enjoyed as a province of the Roman empire.

 

Would a decline in per-person and world energy use be an altogether bad thing?

Implicit in this claim is that, without near present-day per-capita energy consumption, the cultural qualities that hypographers appreciate, such as math, science, and language, would suffer terribly. However, much of the math, science, and use of language regarded by many people as among the best ever was a product of cultures with per-capita energy consumption closer to that of 10,000 years ago than to today.

 

While I, and, I suspect, most members of this forum would lament such a decrease in per-capita energy availability, IMHO history does not indicate that such an event would preclude the continuation of math, science, and language.

 

Would world population decline substantially if per-capita energy consumption decreased to pre-1930 levels?

IMHO, yes

 

Though a complicated and technical subject beyond the scope of this post, I agree with Duncan and others’ analysis that such a decrease around the year 2030 would result in a decline of the present world population of about 6.5 billion, after an increase to about 7 billion, to about 3 billion by the end of the 21st century.

 

In summary, I disagree with key details of chen2739’s thesis. Even assuming the reduction in per-capita energy consumption predicted by Duncan and others, I believe the impact on society would be far less dramatic than a “return back to the stone age”.

 

Furthermore, while the predicted energy decline appears to me reasonable and well-researched, I don’t accept that it is inevitable. The planet is literally awash with energy, of which our present culture takes advantage of only a small fraction – about 1.7*10^14 W vs about 10^12 W , or about 0.6%. Compared to the total available energy of the solar system of about 3.8*10^24 W, the fraction is miniscule. (sources: Earth's energy budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

While it’s uncertain if our culture can successfully increase its use of available energy, it’s also not certain that it cannot.

 

I am simply stating the facts, we as a collective species are going to become extinct whether you like it or not. So much for Star Trek.

This statement is an assertion about a future state, as is the statement “By the 25th century, humans will have expanded to inhabit thousands of nearby star systems, whether you like it or not”. It is not common usage to refer to such assertions as facts.

 

This is not to say that either assertion is incorrect, just that the the future states they predict are not reasonable certainties.

[Boerseun]

I tend to agree that a major readjustment to our way of life and even our population figures is inevitable, in the near future, say the next 50 years or so.

 

And debating whether we'll go back to the neolithic or the classical ages, is, in my opinion, simply splitting hairs. Fact is, we won't be able to sustain our current exorbitant lifestyles. The thing is, however, that this might mean an adjustment in lifestyles only to the most advanced nations. The backward Third World already lives close to what might lie in the First World's future in the face of a total energy supply collapse. The Third World will feel the repercussions of it only in higher mortality, and the die-off that'll follow the total collapse of distributed medical services, etc.

 

And on a big scale, humanity might use the metal that's available, left over from the previous age, in the form of knives and forks that'll still serve them well. But there will no be no new supply of pre-ordered pre-cut metals from forges and steel mills - they won't have the energy to run their operation, let alone distribute on a national scale. And give it a few generations, and the know-how would've gone to pot as well - the immediate pressures of tending the fields and guarding against roving hordes of hungry have-nots will take time away from hitting the books left over in the libraries of yore.

So sooner or later all the left-overs will have been scavenged and used up, and seeing as there's no fresh supply, gradually humanity will sink back further and further, until through a massive, but gradual die-off, population figures have been reached where there are few enough people for the resources to go around. Then, in the ensuing peace, the pursuit of knowledge might once again be a profitable exercise, and humanity might rise from the ashes once again. But this time, the heights reached in the late 20th/early 21st centuries might never be seen again, because the next generation will not have access to an easily storable, pumpable, portable, cheap energy source like the old generation had in oil - it'll be used up. They might reach the levels of Europe in the late 19th century - and stagnate, and rise again, like the Romans falling to the barbarians, but never again will we see what we see around us today.

 

Unless, of course, humanity wakes up and finds an alternative to the oil economy now.

 

Excellent thread topic, by the way!

[Eclogite]

The original post and the subsequent responses have been well argued. I concur with several of the counterpoints presented by CraigD and Boersun, so rather than simply reiterate these let me take a different tack: the flaw in chen's argument is more philosophical, than factual.

 

What is that flaw? Pessimism. It is reminiscent of the Victorian gentlemen who predicted that London would soon cease to function, as the growth in road transport would leave the streets awash in two feet of horse droppings. Or, more recently the complete failure of the Club of Rome's dire predictions in Limits to Growth, to be fulfilled. In the first instance no account was taken of new technology, in the second case a (overly) simplistic model was used to describe a complex reality.

 

Are we in for interesting times? Certainly. Can we adapt and survive? Almost certainly. Can we adapt, innovate and prosper? Most probably.

 

How might this be achieved? If I could answer that I wouldn't be amusing myself on an internet forum. However the following issues do seem worth addressing:

 

Population: six or seven billion is just way too many people. It is apparent that wealth provides a solution to this. Note that more than one European country would have declining populations were it not for immigration.

 

Energy: Until nuclear fusion becomes a reality then energy conservation, nuclear fission and reneweable energy sources must be developed in concert to meet the potential crisis of peak oil.

 

Global Warming: the intransigent attitude of the US and other governments in this matter is the strongest argument I know of for selective political assassination. In the meantime carbon sequestration programs need to be developed and implemented with vigour and scale.

 

Resources: it has always horrified me that we take a versatile chemical feedstock, of limited availability, and then burn it. The ultra-optimist would envisage a rapid application of nuclear energy to save those materials for proper use. An equally rapid and vigorous expansion into space to mine asteroids would take care of civilisations metal requirements.

 

Where I would agree with Chen is that humans will become extinct as a species. However, this will be because we evolve into something else. The average mammal species only lasts 200,000 years.