Amicus
If a society has stayed the same for 50,000 years, the people in that society would be happy enough.

Granted that individuals in such societies would not have a very long life expectancy, and they would not have morphine to ease the pain of the inevitable.

But on the other side, we currently live in a society that is non-sustainable, and our children are expected to die younger than their parents, due to diseases such as diabetes and obesity.

Would below be the pinnacle of life in the US (remembering that the Australian way of life normally follows the US way of life)?

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Snooki-Gets-32K-to-Dish-on-Jersey-Shore-Lifestyle-at-Rutgers-119052504.html

One has to think “Are people such as Snooki Polizzi actually human, or the end result of a rather tragic aberration in the history of the human species?”

Leckos,
I would agree that there will be a major collapse within a decade or so, but unless there are substantial changes made to the way we live, there will be no recovery.

I cannot see any technology that will be able to maintain our current lifestyle, except perhaps some form of nanotechnology that enables recycling on a molecular or atomic scale.

But then, I would definitely question if our current lifestyle is worth maintaining anyway.

I read a paper a few years back about agricultural production with
unobtainable or unaffordable fossil fuel.
It went something like this;

A farmer on a tractor can plough 100 acres in a day.
A farmer with a single furrow plough and a horse can plough just five
acres in a day.
Therefore we will need 20 times the number of farmers that we have now.
I don't remember the absolute values but you get the idea.

For those that think coal will be the answer, peak coal is around 2025.
One study said peak coal would be 2011. Hmmm.
In any case we are really up against Peak Everything !

Hello Poirot,

If you really think that people were not over reacting to a situation that wasn't then proven, so be it. MSM did not help, really. Barry Brook's web site was defintely more rational and informative in response to a situation that was changing daily, do you disagree?

Yes, it is foolish to use words that 'colour' the situation - as you yourself acknowledged. This is what MSM do all the time, to get the biggest hits no doubt.

If you recall, I said:

"this is a most tragic event and will put nuclear power on the back-burner (pun intended) for years to come.

However, new generation reactors really are required, to replace the old ones still in place (there are still 100's arround the world).

Unfortunately, profligate growth and consumerism is placing enormous strains on our energy resources, placing huge stresses on international/national security, food, water and agricultural resources, transportation, and of course the environment.

This is not sustainable in a future world ... despite the shill to the contrary."

Poirot, do you disagree?

Poirot: >> Perhaps the "fools" are the ones that built and operated a nuclear facility on a major fault line near the ocean in a country prone to tsunamis. <<

Yes, perhaps they were ... 40 years ago.

Question:
How should Japan source its energy 'needs' now given this latest turn of events and given this most tragic event will put nuclear power on the back-burner (pun intended) for years to come ?

Fools need not answer.

And Poirot, you certainly are no fool :)

Hi bonmot,

There is no alternative to the West lessening its dependence on manufactured energy.

Japan is a technically advanced country which has, like many countries in the West, grown overly dependent on technology for many of its comforts and, indeed, for the smooth operation of daily life.

But I wonder how much energy is simply wasted. How much of the electricity generated by those reactors was used to power electronic advertising in Tokyo for example? This is the sort of wastage and excess that humans will have to despense with - for a start. If we tackle these areas of excess, we may be able to stop the inevitable slide.

But, as you point out, it's all tied to consumerism and that is the crux of our dilemma...it's imperative that Western society find an alternative paradigm.

Our folly appears evident - and yet we carry on in the same vein - business as usual.

It makes you wonder just how "intelligent" is our species after all.

I agree with Poirot about our response to what is a new paradigm already. It amazes me that amid all the discussion of responses to the energy crisis no one talks about conservation, about cutting back on the rate of consumption. This is because our economies depend upon rampant consumerism, and because current generations have adapted to that means of production. The old spirit of capitalism, the protestant ethic Weber wrote about, would serve us well now. But the new spirit of profligate consumption is the only thing that keeps economies limping along. The ramping up of "lifestyle" has been so dramatic that only a generation or two separates the minimal and the maximal consumers, indeed there's a mixture of the two I think in my generation and presumably Poirot's (50s). The product looks like moral outrage, and to an extent it is, but it's just as much the lived awareness of glaring contradictions.
It's true that exaggerated or hasty predictions have damaged the campaign for action on the raft of issues that "catabolic collapse" captures so well, but then the campaign is only half-hearted anyway: consumption as usual with just another tax. It's not merely a matter of getting the minimifidianists on board, after all, it's a matter of getting democratic consensus without putting the money cows off their exotic diet. Insanely, conspicuous consumption is supposed to be the means by which we address problems associated with conspicuous consumption.
In any case the projections are every bit as dire as some hysterics salivate about. If a general collapse does take place the current generation of hyper-consumption-hybrids are doomed--even those who do have the nous to grow their own produce and hive their resources; in our tightly packed yet atomistic suburbs they'll be looted and murdered for it.
Even should we avoid that fate, the consequences are dire for future generations, which ought to concern us just as much. But we're safely isolated in our own little hothouse of time.

The dilemma for Japan is exquisite; with their dreary economic performance they could lead the world, but too much debt!

Squeers,
Generally speaking, people are paid for their labour, (or paid by the hour), so they have to produce something, which means that others have to consume what they produce.

So we have production and consumption.

I would agree that much of what is for sale in current times is actually junk or unnecessary, and many careers and industries are also unnecessary.

The danger is that peoples lives eventually become unnecessary, and I can think of a few already like that.