"It puts me in mind of debates about ‘peak oil’ and other about finite resources. These debates rely on the same, basic logic as Tainter’s theory. They all assume that we are overly dependent on a particular resource (oil, coal, gas etc) and that this resource is finite. Granting this finitude, we are eventually going to ‘peak’ in our exploitation of the resource and enter a period of terminal decline. This logic is ineluctable: if the resource in question is finite it simply must be true that if we continue to exploit it we will reach a point of decline. But the problem is that, unless we actually know what the full stock of the relevant resource is, we don’t know where we are on the relevant exploitation curve."
While it is not possible to know with any certainty precisely where we are on the exploitation curve, there are many factors which allow us to have a broad and general sense of where we are on that curve. One means of discerning this is to take note of the lowering of EROEI -- energy return on energy invested, which we can aggregate as a global average. With oil, EROEI in global oil was once -- once much higher than it is now. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember it was something like fifty to one in the not so distant past. Invest one barrel of oil and get a return of fifty. Currently, I think it's something like ten barrels per barrel invested. As 'demand' increases and supply decreases, the price goes up and so it can be profitable (often with plenty of government subsidies) to extract from deep water (think Deep Water Horizon) and Canada's tar sands, where both monetary and energy investment are very high, indeed. When the whole system starts reaching breaking points we can be pretty sure that we're nearing the end of recoverable and affordable oil.
Thank you. I like this article because it seriously discusses this important issue. Personally I use the term 'collapse' a little too loosely to describe what I feel is happening with society and the ecosystem (Gaia) today. What I use it for is a process of disintegration that is taking place in may aspects of our world. I do feel that it's the end of a civilisation that has become unsustainable and caannot be resuscitated, a civilisation that gradually become totally driven by capitalism, which has now run its course. As opposed to a total collapse, I hope for and work for a transformation, that will see a new civilisation emerge as the old one loses power. I am aware that such a transition isn't inevitable, but it's what I work for, and why I am a participant in the Deep Transformation Network. And yes, I do think that a revolution is necessary, both externally and internally.
A couple comments. One is that, early on, you list the energy sources civilizations have relied on b ut you left out an important one--wood. I have a book, A Forest Journey by Perlin, that goes through history showing a pattern where a rising civilization denuded its own forests for agriculture and for energy, eventually including smelting, and also for ship's masts--these largely for warships, often fighting for more resources like timber. Over time the agricultural lands were degraded so grain was shipped from a distance, the harbor silted up, and the capital was reduced to getting its timber supply from farther and farther away. These distant lands rich in timber would then become the locus of a new civilization, which would run the same course. It ends with North American timber being shipped back to England and Europe; whether there was anywhere left to exploit was moot because that was the point where fossil fuels became the new prize--and Perlin wrote a book about that too, which i haven't read.
The other comment is that my reaction to Tainter's book was largely disagreement with a major cause he dismisses--that stratification results in a pattern where the elite can insulate themselves (for a time) against the problems their decisions result in, offshifting all costs to the rest of society. So they come to ignore reality and focus on their own further enrichment, aggrandizement and partying--no one with power in interested in solving problems they can avoid personally being affected by, especially if it involves any sacrifice, and no one interested in responsible action has any power. This is what I saw in all Tainter's own examples.
My final comment is that regardless of whether you see collapsing civilizations as simply evolving into new forms, the current civilization is global and its previous "solutions" have consequences quite beyond anything previous civilizations had to cope with John Michael Greer used to talk a lot about collapse, and said it's generally gradual, a stairstep affair where reduced complexity solves the problem for a while.
Wait, one more thing. That bit about societies, among other things, becoming more transparent? Any examples of THAT? I see quite the opposite--the US empire is increasingly asserting the right to spy on everyone everywhere, the better to apply the coercion when the narrative control stops working--while simultaneously hiding its own doings from the citizens who pay for it through taxes. Legitimacy is plummeting but so far the narrative control of directing dissenters into two camps hostile to each other, is working disgustingly well.
"It puts me in mind of debates about ‘peak oil’ and other about finite resources. These debates rely on the same, basic logic as Tainter’s theory. They all assume that we are overly dependent on a particular resource (oil, coal, gas etc) and that this resource is finite. Granting this finitude, we are eventually going to ‘peak’ in our exploitation of the resource and enter a period of terminal decline. This logic is ineluctable: if the resource in question is finite it simply must be true that if we continue to exploit it we will reach a point of decline. But the problem is that, unless we actually know what the full stock of the relevant resource is, we don’t know where we are on the relevant exploitation curve."
While it is not possible to know with any certainty precisely where we are on the exploitation curve, there are many factors which allow us to have a broad and general sense of where we are on that curve. One means of discerning this is to take note of the lowering of EROEI -- energy return on energy invested, which we can aggregate as a global average. With oil, EROEI in global oil was once -- once much higher than it is now. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember it was something like fifty to one in the not so distant past. Invest one barrel of oil and get a return of fifty. Currently, I think it's something like ten barrels per barrel invested. As 'demand' increases and supply decreases, the price goes up and so it can be profitable (often with plenty of government subsidies) to extract from deep water (think Deep Water Horizon) and Canada's tar sands, where both monetary and energy investment are very high, indeed. When the whole system starts reaching breaking points we can be pretty sure that we're nearing the end of recoverable and affordable oil.
Richard Heinberg's article, Our Bonus Decade, is a good overview of some of the recent history of "peak oil". https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-10-29/our-bonus-decade/
Thank you. I like this article because it seriously discusses this important issue. Personally I use the term 'collapse' a little too loosely to describe what I feel is happening with society and the ecosystem (Gaia) today. What I use it for is a process of disintegration that is taking place in may aspects of our world. I do feel that it's the end of a civilisation that has become unsustainable and caannot be resuscitated, a civilisation that gradually become totally driven by capitalism, which has now run its course. As opposed to a total collapse, I hope for and work for a transformation, that will see a new civilisation emerge as the old one loses power. I am aware that such a transition isn't inevitable, but it's what I work for, and why I am a participant in the Deep Transformation Network. And yes, I do think that a revolution is necessary, both externally and internally.
A couple comments. One is that, early on, you list the energy sources civilizations have relied on b ut you left out an important one--wood. I have a book, A Forest Journey by Perlin, that goes through history showing a pattern where a rising civilization denuded its own forests for agriculture and for energy, eventually including smelting, and also for ship's masts--these largely for warships, often fighting for more resources like timber. Over time the agricultural lands were degraded so grain was shipped from a distance, the harbor silted up, and the capital was reduced to getting its timber supply from farther and farther away. These distant lands rich in timber would then become the locus of a new civilization, which would run the same course. It ends with North American timber being shipped back to England and Europe; whether there was anywhere left to exploit was moot because that was the point where fossil fuels became the new prize--and Perlin wrote a book about that too, which i haven't read.
The other comment is that my reaction to Tainter's book was largely disagreement with a major cause he dismisses--that stratification results in a pattern where the elite can insulate themselves (for a time) against the problems their decisions result in, offshifting all costs to the rest of society. So they come to ignore reality and focus on their own further enrichment, aggrandizement and partying--no one with power in interested in solving problems they can avoid personally being affected by, especially if it involves any sacrifice, and no one interested in responsible action has any power. This is what I saw in all Tainter's own examples.
My final comment is that regardless of whether you see collapsing civilizations as simply evolving into new forms, the current civilization is global and its previous "solutions" have consequences quite beyond anything previous civilizations had to cope with John Michael Greer used to talk a lot about collapse, and said it's generally gradual, a stairstep affair where reduced complexity solves the problem for a while.
Wait, one more thing. That bit about societies, among other things, becoming more transparent? Any examples of THAT? I see quite the opposite--the US empire is increasingly asserting the right to spy on everyone everywhere, the better to apply the coercion when the narrative control stops working--while simultaneously hiding its own doings from the citizens who pay for it through taxes. Legitimacy is plummeting but so far the narrative control of directing dissenters into two camps hostile to each other, is working disgustingly well.