I like how the author of this essay claims he's a DOOM prophet, and than ends up being terminally optimistic. xD That said, I have some general comments.
> After the peak, according to the Hubbert Curve, global oil production will decline at about the same rate it rose before.
This has been proven true for CONVENTIONAL oil reserves. But what Hubbert, and the essay's author, couldn't have predicted was tight oil, which is currently being exploited. Even with all the talk about EROI (energy return on investment: how much energy you get per unit of energy invested, into drilling, fracking and processing) we're currently still comfy and cozy due to nonconventional oil bying us a few more decades.
This puts a tiny little chink in the entire thesis, although it's base assumptions and basic derivation are all rock solid: modern global civilization is using non-renewable resources, and it obviously can't continue once they run out.
> it’s now possible to grow a spare but adequate diet year round for one person on less than 1000 square feet of soil, with only hand labor and no fossil fuel inputs at all
This is science fiction to my ears. That's a plot of land 10 by 10 meters. At least the mathematics of energy flow eke out some basic sense, as 1000 square feet (110 square meters) has a total energy inflow from Sun (averagin out everything, INCLUDING the weather) of 150 W/m2 * 110 m2 = 16 kW (approximate, and depending on location), and a human needs 100 W. So the conversion efficiency needs to be only 0.6% for this to work, which should be OK (crops normally convert 1-3% of their energy input into edible food). However, the conversion efficiency still makes me a little jittery, as that no doubt assumes modern advanced crop varieties, and I'm assuming it doesn't take into account pests or drougths. So I would imagine this claim is just marketing overselling the idea, in reality you probably need 10 times as much land for this to be RELIABLE, and that's for just a single person, which means you need a proper field worked by the entire family for this to work in practice. Yet this is labor-intensive work, done for subsistence reasons, so I fail to see how this is actually an improvement over the medieval agriculture (at least in the context of Europe). Back then a single person could plow and plant the entire field, and he needed help only during the harvest (which lasted a few days per year). That's a vastly better use of human time, especially in a subsistence regime.
You know what can compete with medieval agriculture? Abiotic chemical synthesis of food. THAT has a promise of conversion efficiency above 50%, meaning a few square meters of thermosolar installation will be able to feed a human. Plus much of it can be automated, meaning you also get your time to work on more interesting things than merely staying alive. :) Plus you can retarget that producion from food to vehicle fuel, meaning you still get to drive a car (somewhat) or fly a plane (few times in a lifetime) or perform autogenous welding (when you need it).
The Grandmaster does not claim to be a 'prophet.' This piece does not in any way make such a claim either.
"we're currently still comfy and cozy due to nonconventional oil bying us a few more decades."
Berman says we get to a Peak Plateau per the Exxon Mobil & other numbers sometime next decade & beyond... so No. The 'few decades' are gone.
Re: Organic Farming... Not my wheelhouse, so feel free to ask your questions to those who are well trained & read on the subject.
Finally, 'Abiotic chemical synthesis of food' will not be a thing next century & beyond. This is because most of industrial inputs needed to do that stuff will not exist.
The Great Simplification will mean people eating a lot more simpler meals... often this will mean a lot more gruel & porridges, as opposed to all the flavour we enjoy today.
I like how the author of this essay claims he's a DOOM prophet, and than ends up being terminally optimistic. xD That said, I have some general comments.
> After the peak, according to the Hubbert Curve, global oil production will decline at about the same rate it rose before.
This has been proven true for CONVENTIONAL oil reserves. But what Hubbert, and the essay's author, couldn't have predicted was tight oil, which is currently being exploited. Even with all the talk about EROI (energy return on investment: how much energy you get per unit of energy invested, into drilling, fracking and processing) we're currently still comfy and cozy due to nonconventional oil bying us a few more decades.
This puts a tiny little chink in the entire thesis, although it's base assumptions and basic derivation are all rock solid: modern global civilization is using non-renewable resources, and it obviously can't continue once they run out.
> it’s now possible to grow a spare but adequate diet year round for one person on less than 1000 square feet of soil, with only hand labor and no fossil fuel inputs at all
This is science fiction to my ears. That's a plot of land 10 by 10 meters. At least the mathematics of energy flow eke out some basic sense, as 1000 square feet (110 square meters) has a total energy inflow from Sun (averagin out everything, INCLUDING the weather) of 150 W/m2 * 110 m2 = 16 kW (approximate, and depending on location), and a human needs 100 W. So the conversion efficiency needs to be only 0.6% for this to work, which should be OK (crops normally convert 1-3% of their energy input into edible food). However, the conversion efficiency still makes me a little jittery, as that no doubt assumes modern advanced crop varieties, and I'm assuming it doesn't take into account pests or drougths. So I would imagine this claim is just marketing overselling the idea, in reality you probably need 10 times as much land for this to be RELIABLE, and that's for just a single person, which means you need a proper field worked by the entire family for this to work in practice. Yet this is labor-intensive work, done for subsistence reasons, so I fail to see how this is actually an improvement over the medieval agriculture (at least in the context of Europe). Back then a single person could plow and plant the entire field, and he needed help only during the harvest (which lasted a few days per year). That's a vastly better use of human time, especially in a subsistence regime.
You know what can compete with medieval agriculture? Abiotic chemical synthesis of food. THAT has a promise of conversion efficiency above 50%, meaning a few square meters of thermosolar installation will be able to feed a human. Plus much of it can be automated, meaning you also get your time to work on more interesting things than merely staying alive. :) Plus you can retarget that producion from food to vehicle fuel, meaning you still get to drive a car (somewhat) or fly a plane (few times in a lifetime) or perform autogenous welding (when you need it).
The Grandmaster does not claim to be a 'prophet.' This piece does not in any way make such a claim either.
"we're currently still comfy and cozy due to nonconventional oil bying us a few more decades."
Berman says we get to a Peak Plateau per the Exxon Mobil & other numbers sometime next decade & beyond... so No. The 'few decades' are gone.
Re: Organic Farming... Not my wheelhouse, so feel free to ask your questions to those who are well trained & read on the subject.
Finally, 'Abiotic chemical synthesis of food' will not be a thing next century & beyond. This is because most of industrial inputs needed to do that stuff will not exist.
The Great Simplification will mean people eating a lot more simpler meals... often this will mean a lot more gruel & porridges, as opposed to all the flavour we enjoy today.