I find my own hands way more efficient in all ways in milking the cow over the machine I used to use to save time. I cherish the time milking, and my cow prefers my company to the machine any day. Way less to wash as well, so water is used efficiently.
One thing I don't see people talk about a lot is whether it's realistic to go back to animal-based forms of power with our current population and density-levels. Is this something we could or should have done but it's too late now too realistically pull it off? I can't really imagine a pathway to it but if you can I'd love to hear it.
First off, asking whether it's "realistic" to "go back to..." seems to more or less imply that one thinks it's realistic to stay with high energy machines.
I don't think we'll have that option.
Second, today there are more farms on Earth powered by donkeys or oxen than there are powered by tractors. Between a third and a quarter of humanity lives like Americans live.
But finally, I think the first step for a majority of survivors will be human power. Only the most fortunate will be able to get animals.
And obviously, I'm guessing. I can't see the future.
The opposite of efficiency would, of course, be inefficiency. But if we were to think of efficiency as a spectrum, the other end of the sliding scale would not be inefficiency. It would rather be resilience. We might also call it durability or redundancy. The efficiency side could also seen as fragility.
This seems to hold pretty much wherever I look. The just-in-time six-continent supply chains? That's the ultimate in logistical efficiency, and it's incredibly fragile. A geopolitical kerfuffle pops off and those supply chains can shatter to pieces, and no one knows when they'll be back.
Meanwhile, back in the day, you had warehouses on site. Stores had "back rooms." Every one of these inventory areas was a buffer against supply shocks, just built right into the system. In the last 40 years or so, this redundancy was considered too expensive and "inefficient," so it was streamlined away.
Nature, conversely, really doesn't seem to concern herself much with efficiency. That just sort of comes with millions of iterations. Instead, she focuses on what works in spite of catastrophes, bad weather, extinctions, whatever. Life is a web of all manner of redundancies and fail-safes. Efficiency isn't the point. The ecosystem is a massive, chaotic, interwoven Gordian knot of resilience.
Efficiency is doing away with all of the "extra" stuff. It's "cutting the fat." It's more efficient to drive without the extra weight of a spare tire or can of fuel. It's more efficient to build your factory without fire escapes or safety systems that would otherwise slow down workflow. It's more efficient to centralize a governmental authority that makes decisions for everyone instead of the messy business of letting people run their own lives.
Problem is when things aren't perfect. If things can go wrong, eventually they will. That's what life "designs" for. The thing about fat? It's great to have when times get lean. It would be far more efficient if our bodies just flushed out all excess energy source that weren't needed in the near future. And, if there were ever was a human who evolved such a trick, they'd die the moment the food ran out. That isn't good for passing on genes.
I love this exploration of the meaning of a word we use all the time but have forgotten or never knew what it actually signifies... Living intentionally is so beautiful!
My hat's off to you, Jeff. I started an essay on efficiency a while back but never finished. One thing I tried to stress is that "efficiency " is yield from inputs - and modern economics seems to count only fuel and money as inputs. It accounts for no externalized costs. Imported goods may consume more human hours in production - but those humans are paid less. A supply chain stretching around the world is not only brittle, it has costs in the fuel required to build vessels and sail vessels. It has massive environmental and human costs in the damages done to developing countries that may have weaker environmental and labor laws, or whose laws are not enforced as they should be. It has costs in packaging that isn't needed if you buy your furniture directly from the local cabinet maker (for example). Modern ag doesn't adequately account for lost soil, poisoned surroundings, lost soil structure, the inefficiency of crops that only occupy the soil for 3 or 4 months of the year, lost communities from farm consolidation, and on and on.
Thanks for the response. I meant that in the unlikely event that we who are living the dominant lifestyle (the one that will ultimately destroy us) were suddenly willing to do whatever it takes to prevent collapse, what is the best path, logistically, for incorporating donkies? We have people everywhere crammed into high rise apartments in large cities.
I'm not mocking the idea because I've had similar ones. And I always get bogged down in the sheer number of people.
But I think I see your answer in your use of the word "survivors." So you, like me, are assuming the worst and planting seeds for those pockets of humans who might somehow remain -- to better sustain themselves.
I find my own hands way more efficient in all ways in milking the cow over the machine I used to use to save time. I cherish the time milking, and my cow prefers my company to the machine any day. Way less to wash as well, so water is used efficiently.
I respect and find hope in your words, thank you.
One thing I don't see people talk about a lot is whether it's realistic to go back to animal-based forms of power with our current population and density-levels. Is this something we could or should have done but it's too late now too realistically pull it off? I can't really imagine a pathway to it but if you can I'd love to hear it.
First off, asking whether it's "realistic" to "go back to..." seems to more or less imply that one thinks it's realistic to stay with high energy machines.
I don't think we'll have that option.
Second, today there are more farms on Earth powered by donkeys or oxen than there are powered by tractors. Between a third and a quarter of humanity lives like Americans live.
But finally, I think the first step for a majority of survivors will be human power. Only the most fortunate will be able to get animals.
And obviously, I'm guessing. I can't see the future.
The opposite of efficiency would, of course, be inefficiency. But if we were to think of efficiency as a spectrum, the other end of the sliding scale would not be inefficiency. It would rather be resilience. We might also call it durability or redundancy. The efficiency side could also seen as fragility.
This seems to hold pretty much wherever I look. The just-in-time six-continent supply chains? That's the ultimate in logistical efficiency, and it's incredibly fragile. A geopolitical kerfuffle pops off and those supply chains can shatter to pieces, and no one knows when they'll be back.
Meanwhile, back in the day, you had warehouses on site. Stores had "back rooms." Every one of these inventory areas was a buffer against supply shocks, just built right into the system. In the last 40 years or so, this redundancy was considered too expensive and "inefficient," so it was streamlined away.
Nature, conversely, really doesn't seem to concern herself much with efficiency. That just sort of comes with millions of iterations. Instead, she focuses on what works in spite of catastrophes, bad weather, extinctions, whatever. Life is a web of all manner of redundancies and fail-safes. Efficiency isn't the point. The ecosystem is a massive, chaotic, interwoven Gordian knot of resilience.
Efficiency is doing away with all of the "extra" stuff. It's "cutting the fat." It's more efficient to drive without the extra weight of a spare tire or can of fuel. It's more efficient to build your factory without fire escapes or safety systems that would otherwise slow down workflow. It's more efficient to centralize a governmental authority that makes decisions for everyone instead of the messy business of letting people run their own lives.
Problem is when things aren't perfect. If things can go wrong, eventually they will. That's what life "designs" for. The thing about fat? It's great to have when times get lean. It would be far more efficient if our bodies just flushed out all excess energy source that weren't needed in the near future. And, if there were ever was a human who evolved such a trick, they'd die the moment the food ran out. That isn't good for passing on genes.
Sorry for the mini essay there. My mind wandered.
Ah, but Patrick, you let them define efficiency and then you addressed it by their definition.
I refuse to do so.
Under their definition, your essay is accurate. But I reject their definition.
I love this exploration of the meaning of a word we use all the time but have forgotten or never knew what it actually signifies... Living intentionally is so beautiful!
My hat's off to you, Jeff. I started an essay on efficiency a while back but never finished. One thing I tried to stress is that "efficiency " is yield from inputs - and modern economics seems to count only fuel and money as inputs. It accounts for no externalized costs. Imported goods may consume more human hours in production - but those humans are paid less. A supply chain stretching around the world is not only brittle, it has costs in the fuel required to build vessels and sail vessels. It has massive environmental and human costs in the damages done to developing countries that may have weaker environmental and labor laws, or whose laws are not enforced as they should be. It has costs in packaging that isn't needed if you buy your furniture directly from the local cabinet maker (for example). Modern ag doesn't adequately account for lost soil, poisoned surroundings, lost soil structure, the inefficiency of crops that only occupy the soil for 3 or 4 months of the year, lost communities from farm consolidation, and on and on.
Thanks for writing this.
Thanks for the response. I meant that in the unlikely event that we who are living the dominant lifestyle (the one that will ultimately destroy us) were suddenly willing to do whatever it takes to prevent collapse, what is the best path, logistically, for incorporating donkies? We have people everywhere crammed into high rise apartments in large cities.
I'm not mocking the idea because I've had similar ones. And I always get bogged down in the sheer number of people.
But I think I see your answer in your use of the word "survivors." So you, like me, are assuming the worst and planting seeds for those pockets of humans who might somehow remain -- to better sustain themselves.