Two Intellectual Paths

Who remembers the oil crisis of the early 1970's? The world reached a fork in the road during that time. A look at the past three decades show the inclination towards economic optimism and the growth in consumption of resources to the capital gain of the few.

Thus we come upon two conflicting paths of action, with which we still may choose, that correspond with the "two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual systems". The results of these two 'systems of thought' produce observable results. If one feels lost in the arguments of possible future scenarios (the favorite source of spin, debate and distraction in our media), a look at the empirical, historical evidence may be a preferred method towards understanding.

On the one hand is the path based on the "monetary culture that has evolved from folkways of prehistoric origin." This is the path of the optimists, who I find are predominantly economists by profession or fundamentals. My research shows me that for decades most economists have been united in proclaiming that resources are effectively infinite, and that the more of any resource we consume, the more its reserves will grow. The human intellect is the greatest resource of all, the optimists tell us, and so population growth means that we all benefit from an increasing collective problem-solving capacity. Like money in the bank earning compounding interest, humanity is growing an obviously brighter future through population growth as it invents new technologies, transforms its environment and consumes resources.

On the other hand is the path based on 'the accumulated knowledge of the…properties and interrelationships of matter and energy." For decades we have also been hearing from ecologists, petroleum geologists, climatologists, and other scientists who tell us that resources are limited, that the Earth's carrying capacity for humans is finite, and that the biosphere on which we depend cannot for long continue to absorb the rapidly expanding stream of waste from industrialized civilization.

[Our U.S. leader’s hesitancy to listen seriously to the latter point of view is understandable; if they did so, they would logically and morally be compelled to:

1. adopt the ethic of “sustainability” in all aspects of planning, thinking ahead for many future generations;
2. institute systematic efforts with programs to reduce the total amount of energy used by society;
3. encourage the rapid development of all varieties of renewable energy technologies throughout society;
4. systematically discourage (through taxation and other means) the consumption of nonrenewable resources; and
5. find humane ways to encourage a reduction of human fertility in all countries, so as to reduce the population over time

As a result of their inaction along these lines, our leaders have in effect chosen the first path, that of the optimists, which implies an opposing pattern of choices and compels them to:

1. make plans to meet only short-term crises because that is the only kind we will ever face, and don’t worry about future generations because they will have advanced technologies to solve whatever problems we may be creating for them;
2. forget about efforts to impose improvements in energy efficiency since the marketplace will provide for improvements when and if they are needed;
3. forget about government programs to develop renewable energies because if and when alternative are needed, price signals will trigger the market to turn in their direction;
4. continue to use fossil fuels at whatever rates are dictated by the market since to do otherwise will hurt the economy; and
5. treat population growth as a benefit rather than a problem, and do nothing to slow or reverse existing growth trends.

This latter path involves less short-term intervention in the economy and works to the near-term advantage of many significant power holders in society (including the oil and automobile companies). By taking it, our politicians have simply followed the path of least resistance.

This may be understandable, but the consequences – if the economists are wrong and the physical scientists are right – will be devastating for nearly everyone.]

I think a long hard look at what our options are as a common people, is needed. How do we mitigate the impacts of a declining energy base? What are our alternatives to fossil fuel? How long would it take to implement them? How can an industrialized society cope with the terminal decline of hydrocarbon fuel? What is the cost of shifting our transportation fuel production to our food supply (biofuels)? What is our policy in the county, and foreign policy in the world, to cope with such things?

The pieces of reading and excerpts that inspired this short essay come from:

- Richard Heinberg’s book – “The Party’s Over”

- Writings of M. King Hubbert (the oil geologist that predicted the 1971 peak in American oil production)

- The Hirch Report – the 2005 report commissioned by the Department of Defense - mitigating the impacts of peak oil for the United States