So far, I think agrarian future (for survivors) is more likely than hydrogen economy, fussion, nanobots, etc. Don't you think men made enough of discoveries to live relatively happy/easy, no pressure agrarian lives and ponder about undiscovered stuff?

are you suggesting that we should reverse on technolgy when it offers so much?

current technology offers certain depletion of resources and bust of everything. There are lots of sci fi project of further technological progress. It may happen that none of them will come true. What will happen then? Anarchy, neo dark ages without hope to rise again (no resources)? Controlled transition to the neo agrarian society utilizing the best technology available today could offer some cushion against possible mega bust. For example, millions of tons of oil are being wasted to deliver produce from Mexico to the USA. At the same time millions of Americans are engaged in generally useless activities to make their living. What if instead of pushing useless papers around, scooping cat's crap, etc. 300lb American would spare 2 hrs per day to grow his food or to work on commercial field picking up weeds=no chemicals, no fuel being wasted, no 100lbs of extra fat? Why do we need so much technology? Most of us spend spare time (saved by technology) by watching stupid TV 4 hrs and more per day. People displaced by technology find more and more dead end/no fun/no purpose/little pay jobs. Worshiping technology for the sake of technology (and profit for the few) knowing that bust is just around the corner is not the greatest idea. Neo agrarian society could drastically diminish waste of resources without sacrificing much in terms of technological development/research/etc.

At the same time millions of Americans are engaged in generally useless activities to make their living.
These are also the people who are laboring to enable you to post on an Internet message board: the people at the power plant, the people at AOL or Google, the cops and road repair crews and legislators who make your Internet-using society possible. Are you willing to give up the Internet and go back to the farm?

current technology offers certain depletion of resources and bust of everything.

It also offers the best chance of finding ways to increase resource efficiency and also gaining the use of new resources. Both on planet and off. We go back to the farm and how long will it be before even our soil conservation knowledge is lost?

Do you really think that the precious farmers are such a down to earth people. That they only want to help the earth? Get real! Farmers are more cut-throat than some lawyers. A lot of little farms are swallowed whole by their competition. Both the bank and larger farmers.

Farming is also doing mucho damage to the earth. The pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, all these things (while certainly part of technology and might go the way of the dinosaur in your hypothetical situation) poison and destroy the ecosystem. Aquifers are being polluted because of this crap. Europe's water supply is already poison (right? I've always heard that's why there's so much booze drinkin' goin' on over there.) Now we're working on poisoning ours (USA) pretty damn quick. And you know the funny thing is? The poisons we're polluting them with today are so much more fun and destructive than the older poisons. I've seen towns that had their water supplies shut down because of radium poisoning in the aquifer. What the hell is radium doing there? Don't ask me. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the 40's and 50's the farmers were spraying the crap on everything. The new wonder stuff. It'll cure what ails ya.

Blah. If you want to give up on technology, all power to you. I'll stick with it myself. We should figure out a way to not get hung up on it though. Don't want to become tools of our tools. There's the real danger. IMO.

These are also the people who are laboring to enable you to post on an Internet message board: the people at the power plant, the people at AOL or Google, the cops and road repair crews and legislators who make your Internet-using society possible. Are you willing to give up the Internet and go back to the farm?

There are millions generally useless for my and your survival service/managerial/even manufacturing jobs. Why should agrarian society live without Internet and Google, cops, roads, etc.? Under agrarian society I understand society of small towns/villages/farms surrounded by fields/forests/etc. Small processing plants/shops process yield and make essentials. Cops, road crewmen, etc. work let say 6 hrs per day and spend 2 days growing/helping to grow their food instead of watching some new reality show. They do not drive gasguzzlers and curb meaningless consumption somewhat. Life is not going to be idyllic however it will be resource frugal, which will help to buy extra time for developing a "warp drive" to engage human greed at its fullest again.

[QUOTE=invert_nexus]It also offers the best chance of finding ways to increase resource efficiency and also gaining the use of new resources. [/I]

Small correction: it MAY offer the best chances to increase resource efficiency..... It may NOT. Working in science put down my optimism greatly . Nonrenewable resources will be gone no matter how efficiently you'll use them. What if fussion and warp drive will not arrive? If they will not we (survivors)'ll live agrarian life anyway but it will be indeed barbaric. No matter how optimistic you are you always should keep the worst possibility in mind.

Both on planet and off. We go back to the farm and how long will it be before even our soil conservation knowledge is lost?

That what will happen if we (our children)'ll go back to agrarian life after global catastrophe. Neo agrarian society I envision is somewhat different than a collection of dark age villages. Why do you think agrarian societies will not be able to support cast of professionals (essential for survival and development)?

Do you really think that the precious farmers are such a down to earth people. That they only want to help the earth? Get real! Farmers are more cut-throat than some lawyers. A lot of little farms are swallowed whole by their competition. Both the bank and larger farmers.

I am really far away from thinking that farming (especially large scale farming) will make a near perfect person from a selfish greedy brute. I never implied that. However, community of small scale farmers has many advantages over revolving communities of lonely anonymous souls in big cities/burbs. Yes, most of the small/hobby farmer care about the Earth and their land a lot. Only when greed kicks in such a care is lost.

Farming is also doing mucho damage to the earth.

Small correction large scale farming, food processing and distribution are doing most of the damage to Earth. Each time you buy tomatoes, for example, from store you hurt Earth/deplete resources 100 times more than if you would have done by 1) growing those tomatoes yourself (very simple, close to zero labor) 2) buy those tomatoes from neighborhood small farmers.

The pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, all these things (while certainly part of technology and might go the way of the dinosaur in your hypothetical situation) poison and destroy the ecosystem.

The Use of pesticides etc. is not necessary provided enough of labor force is available per unit acreage of a field. Millions of Americans are laboring in useless for survival/progress jobs while land is being poluted and resources are being depleted. Had everybody grown vegies near their homes it would have cut drastically polution, chemical use etc. One may use tree leaves and food rejects as fertilizer instead of throwing them in garbage bags.

Aquifers are being polluted because of this crap. Europe's water supply is already poison (right? I've always heard that's why there's so much booze drinkin' goin' on over there.) Now we're working on poisoning ours (USA) pretty damn quick.

Again, you blame agrarian society for the follies of industrialized societies (and large scale industrialized farming).

And you know the funny thing is? The poisons we're polluting them with today are so much more fun and destructive than the older poisons. I've seen towns that had their water supplies shut down because of radium poisoning in the aquifer. What the hell is radium doing there? Don't ask me. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the 40's and 50's the farmers were spraying the crap on everything. The new wonder stuff. It'll cure what ails ya.

Again you blame farmers for the transgressions of an industrialized society. Small scale farming with lots of labor available as well as private gardens would never poison the Earth as much.

Blah. If you want to give up on technology, all power to you. I'll stick with it myself. We should figure out a way to not get hung up on it though. Don't want to become tools of our tools. There's the real danger. IMO.

I do not want to give up on technology. It makes life more interesting and easier. However, technology is driven ONLY by one stimulus = reduction of labor force=boost to profits. So, let assume technology excelled, capitalists do not need anyone to make products, smart machines are doing manufacturing and design as well as service jobs. What is next? Sometimes, boost to profits hurts everything and everybody beyond profits. Reduction of humans (working on renewable energy) and substituting them for machines (working on nonrenewable energy) will sooner or later result in lots of nasty things. Poisoning of our land as a result of progress is just one small nasty thing which happened.

Nonrenewable resources will be gone no matter how efficiently you'll use them. What if fussion and warp drive will not arrive?


We still have nuclear fission. And thats more than enough to face any sort of energy crisis - if there was less idiots and oil crooks in american governement ,who knows maybe by now america could be 100% independent from air polluting coal plants and oil burners.




Small correction large scale farming, food processing and distribution are doing most of the damage to Earth. Each time you buy tomatoes, for example, from store you hurt Earth/deplete resources 100 times more than if you would have done by 1) growing those tomatoes yourself (very simple, close to zero labor) 2) buy those tomatoes from neighborhood small farmers.



You ever did that yourself? You ever lived on substinence farming? - I come from a country where small scale farmign is a surivival necessity for majority of people in the country (real country - village like, not urbanised american luxury and comfort) . -Thats a mind numbing fight for survival.

You work from dawn till dusk to feed and care of lifestock , grow crops, take care of your house. - Its not "close to zero labor"- it will be your life, no books ,no education , no entertainment - just a hard working ignorant farmer , dirty with soil and manure , struggling day to day to survive.



Again, you blame agrarian society for the follies of industrialized societies (and large scale industrialized farming).


You know that without "large scale industrialized farming" humanity won't be able to feed themselves? Medieval methods of food production just dont cut it anymore. You know that a lot of countries ( like my own for example) have very limited possibilty of farming -as 5 month a year fields are under snow. Or - another extreme ,under sand.


Agrarian society is utopia.

We still have nuclear fission. And thats more than enough to face any sort of energy crisis - if there was less idiots and oil crooks in american governement ,who knows maybe by now america could be 100% independent from air polluting coal plants and oil burners.

Uranium deposits will last 200-400 years if mined with the present rate. If share of nuclear energy will rise from 11% to 80%, Uranium will be gone as fast as oil.


You ever did that yourself? You ever lived on substinence farming? - I come from a country where small scale farmign is a surivival necessity for majority of people in the country (real country - village like, not urbanised american luxury and comfort) . -Thats a mind numbing fight for survival.

Sure I did. I do agree that subsistance farming is body/brain numbing occupation if you do not entertain yourself with schemes how to make things easier and lazier. But even if you don't make things easier, it can bring certain joy. Hobby farming (if you have an independent of farming income) is pure fun. However, I am not talking about subsistance farming society. I do talk about hobby farmer/small farmers societies lliving in small towns. Not all of the folks will be farmers, but near all of them will be gardeners. Imaginary neo agrarian society will ridirect substantial portion of its labor force (engaged in junk mail/e-mail sending, for example) towards farming in order to preserve resources and keep land from further poisoning. One should not sacrifice any technological advances for this. It will help to save lots of resources and buy some time for "warp drive" research.

You work from dawn till dusk to feed and care of lifestock , grow crops, take care of your house. - Its not "close to zero labor"- it will be your life, no books ,no education , no entertainment - just a hard working ignorant farmer , dirty with soil and manure , struggling day to day to survive.

I was there. It was hard but I had time for books etc. Pure subsistance farmer's life is hard but still it's far from being void of free time, education (self-education at least), joy, books, real entertainment (like having holidays with other folks, dancing, celebrating weddings, etc.). And, again I do not advocate introduction of neo subsistance farming. A farefighter (for example) should spend close to zero labor to grow a tomato plant in his backyard. State could introduce 7 hrs working day with condition that folks will grow certain amount of food in their backyards or will work for a neighboring farmer 30 hrs/month. On the national scale, it will cut waste of resources dramatically besides being environmentally friendly. It will help with obesity epidemics too.

You know that without "large scale industrialized farming" humanity won't be able to feed themselves? Medieval methods of food production just dont cut it anymore. You know that a lot of countries ( like my own for example) have very limited possibilty of farming -as 5 month a year fields are under snow. Or - another extreme ,under sand.

I must disappoint you, the largest yields are collected by devoted hobby farmers on their small spots not by big industrialized farms. I do not call for forgeting fruits of agricultural science and going back to medieval times. Who said that small scale/hobby farming should be medieval? Big farms are more market competitive because they are big (i.e. can afford machines/chemicals/etc. to get rid of relatively expensive people) not because they have bigger yields. Naturally, productivity of big farms (income/per worker) is larger than that for small farms. That is why big farms win market rat race. But, who gives a damn about farm productivity if 1) there are millions of unemployed/underemployed/working meaningless jobs people. 2) we trade productivity for norenewable resources and polution?

Agrarian society is utopia.

Could be. But so far savagely agrarian future is more likely than hydrogen or nanobot future. Neo agrarian state could give extra time for research. People may like it too.

Okay now...why exactly does the world need to revert to an agrarian lifestyle?

I'm going to go back to the very first post on this thread:

So far, I think agrarian future (for survivors) is more likely than hydrogen economy, fussion, nanobots, etc. Don't you think men made enough of discoveries to live relatively happy/easy, no pressure agrarian lives and ponder about undiscovered stuff?

No, I don't think man has made enough discoveries to live as you said. It is in the very nature of a human being to want to not just ponder about undiscovered stuff, but to try and make that undiscovered stuff work. To try and go to where that undiscovered stuff is. Should we to just kick back and live the agrarian lifestyle(which as others have point out, isn't exactly kicking back to begin with!), our minds would rot. We would lose our ambition, we would lose our inquisitive nature.

There is no need to wait for the warp drive or something like that...as a matter of fact...why wait? We need to be constantly advancing in order to get to that point to begin with. If the concern is over our depleting fossil fuels, there are alternatives - they're just not in the kind of use they should be. Aside from nuclear, what about hydroelectric and wind? Solar power? Hydrogen cells?

For those who wish to practice such a lifestyle, such communities do exist. In the meanwhile, not only is it not in the nature of many people to live the agrarian lifestyle, but also not favorable given that we do in fact have a good food supply, and we do in fact have alternative sources of energy. The problem does not lie in whether or not the resources exist, it lies in the supply chain where it is not properly distributed. There is no real need to revert to an agrarian lifestyle...rather, there is need to ensure the worlds food supplies are available to all and to ensure that alternative energy sources are put into widespread use before our fossil fuels are exhausted.

No, I don't think man has made enough discoveries to live as you said. It is in the very nature of a human being to want to not just ponder about undiscovered stuff, but to try and make that undiscovered stuff work.

Small correction: it is in the very nature of very limited % of human beings to ponder about stuff (5% of population max) and to make things (another 10-15%). The rest? Well they just want to live happy life. Sure, there are not totally free of curiosity and such, but there are tonns of other things which make them tick. 50% of Americans or so have not read a single book for the past 3 years. 17% are technically illiterate. You slightly exaggerating propensity of the average human to strive for unknown in earnest. BTW, ancient Greeks were quite content to just ponder about things, which was considered absolutely superior to the making staff. Ancient Romans did not ponder much about things they just made limited circle of things to work. had they crossbred somehow 2000 years ago, we would have gotten warp drive by now.

To try and go to where that undiscovered stuff is. Should we to just kick back and live the agrarian lifestyle(which as others have point out, isn't exactly kicking back to begin with!), our minds would rot. We would lose our ambition, we would lose our inquisitive nature.

Minds of ancient Greeks did not rot of the similar lifestyle. Quite to the contrary. Secondly, there are 80% of folks genetically unable neither to ponder about things nor make them work. They could lead quazi agrarian life style and support those who can.

There is no need to wait for the warp drive or something like that...as a matter of fact...why wait? We need to be constantly advancing in order to get to that point to begin with. If the concern is over our depleting fossil fuels, there are alternatives - they're just not in the kind of use they should be. Aside from nuclear, what about hydroelectric and wind? Solar power? Hydrogen cells?

Again, only small % of people are capable of advancing knowledge. No amount of education will make GW to want to ponder about things or to make them work. There are billions of similar folks. Hydroelectric power is at its peak. Damming big rivers is not exactly environmentally friendly. Almost every more or less suitable big and medium river is dammed by now. there are few locations suitable for large wind mills. Considering entire energy balance of building a wind mill (extracting and smelting metals/etc.), modern powerful wind mills are just breaking even. Solar: some serious physics breakthrough is needed to bring solar power from hype/get funded world to the widespread use. Hydrogen cell: I gave up on them. folks research hydrogen cells for 50 years by now, progress is quite ridiculous. It's time to quit and redirect resources. Futility should have some time limits.

On the other hand, small, independent of the big grid hydroelectric/wind/solar units for small farm communities could be quite competitive and environmentally friendly (small pond is good for nature, could be made of clay/dirt, etc.). Small wind mills do not require tons and tons of steel and concrete.

For those who wish to practice such a lifestyle, such communities do exist. In the meanwhile, not only is it not in the nature of many people to live the agrarian lifestyle,

There is nothing more "natural" than spending 4-6 hrs in the front of TV as the average "striving for the newest reality show knowledge" Joe does. Work is in nature of the most folks. Any work.

but also not favorable given that we do in fact have a good food supply, and we do in fact have alternative sources of energy.

Wait untill greed will pump out undeground water in AZ, Mexico, India then we'll see if world will have enough of food. Secondly, your alternative sources are mostly on the paper. Food is grown by burning good old oil, by burning lots and lots of oil. Expensive oil=food crisis. Alternative sources buzz is more about sci fi than about anything else. Besides lots of crooks from science are feeding on that buzz (personal experience). You may wait for quite some time (if not forever) before hype will become reality.

The problem does not lie in whether or not the resources exist, it lies in the supply chain where it is not properly distributed.

As for present, you are right there is not global shortage of food. Future is quite murky at best.


There is no real need to revert to an agrarian lifestyle...rather, there is need to ensure the worlds food supplies are available to all and to ensure that alternative energy sources are put into widespread use before our fossil fuels are exhausted.

Most of Alternative fuel sources are not competitive yet for large scale use. If oil prices will start to rise some of them may become viable. MAY or MAY NOT. However, I doubt it will be enough to substitute fossils completely. Then agrarian life style may become very attractive. But it will be too late.

Perhaps it is in the nature of the typical human being to want to simply relax and be happy. However, it is also in human nature to obtain what we do not have. In short, to innovate.

Secondly. That 80% who are incapable of pondering(or perhaps just unwilling to do so, or do nothing to make their ponderings happen), are responsible for society on the whole to advance. They are the common working people. The ones who do the small jobs that allow the big projects to work. If they reverted to the agrarian lifestyle, the other 20% would be very hard pressed to get their projects working and our society's advancement would come to a screeching halt.

Energy sources. You underestimate just how far we have advanced there. There is only one reason why alternative energy sources ar enot in widespread use. That reason being, that fossil fuels are cheap and still readily available, so the average person has no desire to switch. It must be realized however, that these alternatives can be put into place and used. (on a side note, I forgot to mention biogas in my earlier post) Nothing is put into widespread use until it is commercially viable, and while we still have readily available, cheap fossil fuels, this will not happen.

My final real point to make is that people work many hours a day. They then go home from work or school and watch their 4 hours or however long of tv, sit at the computer, whatever their choice of leisure...and for a reason. If they do not take this time to relax, they will suffer from exhaustion, become ill and die early. Sleep is not enough, relaxation is also necessary. Spending ones recreation time working in a field is not relaxing to most, but rather an added stress.

The reason the above is my final post for now, is that you have contradicted yourself. If the alternative energy sources are not feasible or not advanced enough, then how can they become viable alternatives when oil prices go up? In order to be a viable alternative, then it has to be developed enough in the first place.

Perhaps it is in the nature of the typical human being to want to simply relax and be happy. However, it is also in human nature to obtain what we do not have. In short, to innovate.

To obtain what we do not have - YES, it's basic human instinct. To innovate - NO, it's not universal instict. It's rather very rare one. Otherwise, people would flock to science and engineering schools instead of law and medical schools. There are many ways to get what one wants (robbery and expropriation for example)


Secondly. That 80% who are incapable of pondering(or perhaps just unwilling to do so, or do nothing to make their ponderings happen), are responsible for society on the whole to advance. They are the common working people. The ones who do the small jobs that allow the big projects to work. If they reverted to the agrarian lifestyle, the other 20% would be very hard pressed to get their projects working and our society's advancement would come to a screeching halt.

I do not know where you live, but in the USA there are tens of millions of unemployed/underemployed/working shit jobs people. In the USA, an engineer past 40 y.o. is usually an unemployable garbage. In the USA, Ph.D. career failure rate is around 80%. Economy, research are doing quite OK without those lost people. Therefore, any talk about screeching halt if some of those people will turn to agriculture instead of flipping burgers, etc. are way too far from reality. I have first hand experience in research, and glut of workforce in research is simply extraordinary. The glut is so huge that younger folks (especially US citizens) prefer pretty much any career to research and engineering. Desire to innovate does not bother them much, it seems.

Energy sources. You underestimate just how far we have advanced there. There is only one reason why alternative energy sources ar enot in widespread use. That reason being, that fossil fuels are cheap and still readily available, so the average person has no desire to switch.

I worked in the research hype factory whose primary business was/is selling bright future (including bright energy future) to Uncle Sam. I know all grant selling tricks. Actually, I do not trust a single word about the future horizons coming from the mouth of an interested scientist. It's the same as to trust a used car salesman. At the present level of development, energy of fossils cannot be substituted completely by alternative sources even if oil will cost the same price as gold. quite a cut back on energy consumption will be needed. Simple as that. Who knows what will come out of the sudden energy starvation - revolutions, new dark age, you name it.

It must be realized however, that these alternatives can be put into place and used. (on a side note, I forgot to mention biogas in my earlier post) Nothing is put into widespread use until it is commercially viable, and while we still have readily available, cheap fossil fuels, this will not happen.

And what are those secretive alternatives which will magically turn into a beautiful swan provided conveyer assembly? As for biogas, do not hold your hopes high. Available annual supply of biomass for burning is simply too small to make a dent in the use of fossils. Humanity burns 150 years supply of the stored biomass (fossils) each year. So do the math.

My final real point to make is that people work many hours a day. They then go home from work or school and watch their 4 hours or however long of tv, sit at the computer, whatever their choice of leisure...and for a reason. If they do not take this time to relax, they will suffer from exhaustion, become ill and die early.

Actually, change of activities is the best rest. What could be better change than thinking about innovations and origin of the Universe after hard working day at Burger King? Or looking how flowers and vegetables growing (just sitting and looking). It takes a quite an effort to dull burning desire to innovate and sit in front of TV I guess. BTW, people relaxing in the front of TV indeed die earlier than those who do not.



Sleep is not enough, relaxation is also necessary. Spending ones recreation time working in a field is not relaxing to most, but rather an added stress.

It may become a necessity soon. So it's time to start adjusting. "field" and 5-10 plants in a small garden are two absolutely different things. there is nothing stressful about looking 5 min/week at two tomato plants one planted in spring. Absolutely nothing.

The reason the above is my final post for now, is that you have contradicted yourself. If the alternative energy sources are not feasible or not advanced enough, then how can they become viable alternatives when oil prices go up? In order to be a viable alternative, then it has to be developed enough in the first place.


there is no contradiction. As I've told, small wind mill/hydroelectric turbines are inexpensive, they do not damage environment. There is not need for million tons of concrete/steel/etc. to install a small hydroelectric turbine on the output of a small pond to power several houses. There is no need for hundreds tons of steel and concrete to build a small windmill. Etc., etc., ...

a lot of the time communes are agrarian societes. :m:

At the present level of development, energy of fossils cannot be substituted completely by alternative sources even if oil will cost the same price as gold. quite a cut back on energy consumption will be needed. Simple as that. Who knows what will come out of the sudden energy starvation - revolutions, new dark age, you name it.


I think you are completely off track of current energy production technologies. Oil and coal are 19 century technologies -they are still popular because of huge lobby and dirt cheap cost . When oil price raise significantly things will change. - Nuclear power is already well developped and researched area, new generation reactors are safe ,efficient and can supply whole humanity much more longer than 200 years (if you use breeder type reactors and use weapon grade radioactive material ) . France supplies 80% of their energy needs by nuclear power plants. -It is already there. Question is only about establishing proper infrastracture and break the oil/coal lobby (which is not easy) .

5-10 plants in a small garden won't feed a family for the long term.

Here's the thing, I think DarkMadMax has made the point I would have liked to make. Alternative sources are developed more than you appear to be giving credit for. The simple truth is that the only reason we have not switched over to them in full yet, is because fossil fuels are still readily available and cheaply so. There is no need to spend the money to switch over to alternative sources on a widescale basis, but when that day comes...they are there. The masses just won't switch away from "old faithful" unless they have to - but it's there whenever they're ready.

really quick about uranium deposits running out

" Unlike coal and oil, Uranium is in very short supply, but alternate sources such as using existing stockpiles from nuclear weapons and using "breeder" reactors which actually create more fuel than they use, can prolong the life of nuclear reactors for many hundreds of years. The warheads in nuclear weapons provide enough weapons grade fuel to provide energy for 2.26 billion days, or about 6 million years(Adams). "

i wrote a paper in like 10th grade and found a bit of it, lost the source but i had a notecard!

We dont have to worry about running out of resources, we have roughly a few years of oil left, 16 years of coal and 200 odd years of uranium and plutonium available, plus renewable energy sources can be used for most things, its just that when something like a solar powered car is invented the people with most money(oil companies) are the ones that buy the rights to make it, they then wont make it until oil runs out so as to maximise their profit. We wont ever be going backwards in technology(barring nuclear war or some other huge disaster).