If people where closer to their food and produced a large portion of what they ate themselves, ie a small farms future as envisioned by Chris Smaje , then yes, we probably could feed ourselves in an energy constrained future . But currently about 30% of our total fossil fuel energy goes to transportation , refrigeration, packaging, merchandizing , and cooking food, a small percentage of which powers tractors and farm equipment. If we eliminated energy use except the current food 30% part we would still be pumping out ~13 billion tonnes of CO2 every year and no that isn’t a long term solution. The alternative small farms future would require a huge expenditure of resources and no small amount of time and convincing to relocate all the city dwellers and provide them the tools to reconstruct our ancestral infrastructure .
If the energy runs out then the choice of using less becomes mute. So people have a choice to anticipate a slower , energy constrained lifestyle or crash into it the hard way later. The crash will guarantee population crash included , that is our choices have a diminishing timeline.
Well yes people have to move but like I said they will need lots of new infrastructure to reinvent a rural life . Ain’t gonna happen so they will die. You save em’ Jeff.
Cities demand energy that will be in decline, slowing down is a bandaid, they need a new life. Some will make it through, they may be the ones who eat your donkeys.
Most of us pollute our water with perfectly good fertilizer every day.
https://richearthinstitute.org/urine-diversion-guide/
If you watch tv, I’d be interested in your thoughts on Pluribus (Apple TV).
I don't watch TV and haven't since 1966.
I had a feeling that might be the case.
I thought by your question that you'd spotted me.
Lots of excellent food for thought here. Reading all of this at least twice to let it sink in…
Well said. Possibly your best that I've read yet.
If people where closer to their food and produced a large portion of what they ate themselves, ie a small farms future as envisioned by Chris Smaje , then yes, we probably could feed ourselves in an energy constrained future . But currently about 30% of our total fossil fuel energy goes to transportation , refrigeration, packaging, merchandizing , and cooking food, a small percentage of which powers tractors and farm equipment. If we eliminated energy use except the current food 30% part we would still be pumping out ~13 billion tonnes of CO2 every year and no that isn’t a long term solution. The alternative small farms future would require a huge expenditure of resources and no small amount of time and convincing to relocate all the city dwellers and provide them the tools to reconstruct our ancestral infrastructure .
If the energy runs out then the choice of using less becomes mute. So people have a choice to anticipate a slower , energy constrained lifestyle or crash into it the hard way later. The crash will guarantee population crash included , that is our choices have a diminishing timeline.
What an absurd point.
I mean, seriously - “Because we’ve designed an energy wasting system we have to waste energy to survive…”
So. Fucking. Move.
Well yes people have to move but like I said they will need lots of new infrastructure to reinvent a rural life . Ain’t gonna happen so they will die. You save em’ Jeff.
Cities demand energy that will be in decline, slowing down is a bandaid, they need a new life. Some will make it through, they may be the ones who eat your donkeys.
You superbly failed to understand the essay. I don't know why I bothered to reply.
The point I was making is that we don't need to expend all this energy to feed 8 bilion people.
You responded that we need a lot of this energy to feed 8 billion people if we intentionally do it as stupidly as possible.
OK, I'll grant that.
I'll even grant that we are.
In spite of that, and right now today, we don't need all this energy to feed 8 billion people.
We don't need ANY of our global trade in rubber duckies and polyester clothing to feed 8 billion people.
We don't need ANY air travel to feed 8 billion people.
We don't need ANY 75 mile an hour highways to feed 8 billion people.
You, lilke so many I have been bitched at by over the years, actively do not want to find solutions, you are too busy proving that none are available.
I return to my original response:
What an absurd point.
If people were
And going animal free would even greatly reduce all
Of our emissions.
And stopping procreating.
.
No, I haven't. I've read excerpts and quotes, but never any of his works in full.
My defining reading was mostly Lynn Miller of Small Farmer's Journal, Wes Jackson, and Wendell Berry.
My energy and emissions work is 100% self reasoned as a system repairman and has almost no inputs from other energy/climate/environmental writers.