Just as with coal, automobile efficiency was supposed to reduce our dependence on petroleum. Ironically, today we use far more crude oil than we did back in 1979.
It reminds me of something else I was thinking about yesterday. Back in the '70's there was much ado about the "population" explosion and the burdens it would pose around the world. Our current world population is twice what it was back then, yet I keep hearing chatter about a "fertility crisis". Corporations complaining that they can't find enough employees - while simultaneously complaining about a "skills gap". A byproduct of corporate efficiency?
So which is it? Is the population too large, or too small?
Stephen Hawking predicted that at some point in the future, the Earth would glow red hot from all of the energy consumption. Isaac Asimov described the city/planet Trantor as having massive heat sinks/stacks from the planet's surface all the way out into space to expel the excess heat. What a waste of energy!
What we really need, ultimately, is to get all the psychopaths out of power. Then, and only then, can we move forward to a sustainable future.
Thanks for the great comment! Yes, the oil consumption figures post-efficiency drive home the paradox perfectly. The population narrative shift you mention is another fascinating example of societal contradictions, definitely food for thought regarding perceived needs vs. reality, perhaps influenced by different kinds of 'efficiency' drives.
Good that you brought up population. Just last week I was discussing the Club of Rome, an international think tank, who published the extremely influential report "The Limits to Growth" in 1972.
This report used computer modeling to project the consequences of exponential growth (in population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion) on a finite planet. It gained massive public attention and significantly fueled the debate and widespread concern about the "population explosion" and its potential impact on resource availability and environmental stability throughout the 1970s.
So, while concerns about population existed before, "The Limits to Growth" was a pivotal publication that brought these fears into the mainstream discourse during that specific decade.
The sci-fi visions are powerful warnings about where unchecked consumption could lead. And your final point about leadership really gets to the heart of the matter, suggesting that technological solutions can only go so far without fundamental changes in priorities and power structures guiding our path. Really appreciate you sharing these thoughts!
Now that you mention that report, I do have a vague recollection of that coming out. I was all of nine years old at the time, and my attention was more focused on Watergate (I was rather precocious). But the population explosion was quite a big story and definitely blipped my radar.
"So which is it? Is the population too large, or too small?" Fair question; it might be neither - just the wrong skill-mix. And personally I doubt there are 8 billion people on the planet. Someone did a large survey using data from city, town and village populations, added some % for very-rural and 'missed', and the figure came out about 4 billion. If you think about it, they can't even count accurately how many people have died in Gaza (a very delineated space) - so counting global population leaves plenty of room for error (manipulated or not).
"What we really need, ultimately, is to get all the psychopaths out of power." I agree, but I've come to the conclusion, having watched it (equality, social mobility, health) all go downhill since the 1980s neo-liberal ideology took hold, that there's plenty more waiting in line to take the place of the current crop of ruling psychos. Some kind of "point of enoughness' must be reached by the masses, and for it to cohere into a real force (I advocate disengagement) for any real change to have a chance of happening. I'd love to live in a world that is governed by sane people.
I agree that a global population count has a very wide margin of error, but I don't think that invalidates my point. As for the "wrong skill-mix", that could >easily< be rectified with training. Of course, that won't help prostitute the job market - which is the real goal.
We're rapidly approaching - if we haven't already arrived - at that point of enoughness. Let's see how big the crowd will be tomorrow. I'm hoping it's double April 5, but I won't know till I get there. Stay tuned.
No, I agree with your point. I let my 'population bugbear' get the better of me. A guy called Paul Ehrlich (now 92) wrote "The Population Bomb" in 1968 which was hyped into a population-scare thing; he was sort of right on some things but many of his predictions did not come true.
Generally I'm with Gandhi ("There's enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed"). However, with the birthrate now so low, and the increased age that people live to having topped out, it seems there will be a natural decline in population (Here in Portugal the birth-rate is 1.3 per couple).
I hope too the "point-of-enoughness" is reached with tomorrow's crowds. Good luck. Meanwhile in the U.K, there's big demo at RAF Lakenheath with the peace-camp April 14th-26th, against the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain. But that's another story ... or is it?
It's not another story. It's international solidarity. There are rallies taking place all over the world. We're all in this together. We have to fight autocracy wherever it rears it's hideous cranium.
Thank you Gavin, it's fascinating how you've connected the essay's themes to much larger questions about history, consciousness, and our collective future.
Your interpretation of historical conflicts as reflections of inner battles is a compelling perspective, leading to the striking conclusion that external wars might be futile projections if the internal work isn't done – regardless of our technological sophistication (iPhones don't equal enlightenment!). This ties into your point about technology potentially occupying our 'lower nature' rather than fostering true growth, which certainly resonates with the essay's caution against techno-optimism.
I was also struck by your prediction of our era being remembered as the "Age of Profit," potentially defined by finance and commerce rather than the arts or other ideals, and your powerful call for a redefined "profit" encompassing ecological, social, and personal well-being. That vision of true cooperation aligns beautifully with the hope, however tentative, expressed at the end of my essay for a shift towards needing less and valuing differently.
Just as with coal, automobile efficiency was supposed to reduce our dependence on petroleum. Ironically, today we use far more crude oil than we did back in 1979.
It reminds me of something else I was thinking about yesterday. Back in the '70's there was much ado about the "population" explosion and the burdens it would pose around the world. Our current world population is twice what it was back then, yet I keep hearing chatter about a "fertility crisis". Corporations complaining that they can't find enough employees - while simultaneously complaining about a "skills gap". A byproduct of corporate efficiency?
So which is it? Is the population too large, or too small?
Stephen Hawking predicted that at some point in the future, the Earth would glow red hot from all of the energy consumption. Isaac Asimov described the city/planet Trantor as having massive heat sinks/stacks from the planet's surface all the way out into space to expel the excess heat. What a waste of energy!
What we really need, ultimately, is to get all the psychopaths out of power. Then, and only then, can we move forward to a sustainable future.
Thanks for the great comment! Yes, the oil consumption figures post-efficiency drive home the paradox perfectly. The population narrative shift you mention is another fascinating example of societal contradictions, definitely food for thought regarding perceived needs vs. reality, perhaps influenced by different kinds of 'efficiency' drives.
Good that you brought up population. Just last week I was discussing the Club of Rome, an international think tank, who published the extremely influential report "The Limits to Growth" in 1972.
This report used computer modeling to project the consequences of exponential growth (in population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion) on a finite planet. It gained massive public attention and significantly fueled the debate and widespread concern about the "population explosion" and its potential impact on resource availability and environmental stability throughout the 1970s.
So, while concerns about population existed before, "The Limits to Growth" was a pivotal publication that brought these fears into the mainstream discourse during that specific decade.
The sci-fi visions are powerful warnings about where unchecked consumption could lead. And your final point about leadership really gets to the heart of the matter, suggesting that technological solutions can only go so far without fundamental changes in priorities and power structures guiding our path. Really appreciate you sharing these thoughts!
Now that you mention that report, I do have a vague recollection of that coming out. I was all of nine years old at the time, and my attention was more focused on Watergate (I was rather precocious). But the population explosion was quite a big story and definitely blipped my radar.
"So which is it? Is the population too large, or too small?" Fair question; it might be neither - just the wrong skill-mix. And personally I doubt there are 8 billion people on the planet. Someone did a large survey using data from city, town and village populations, added some % for very-rural and 'missed', and the figure came out about 4 billion. If you think about it, they can't even count accurately how many people have died in Gaza (a very delineated space) - so counting global population leaves plenty of room for error (manipulated or not).
"What we really need, ultimately, is to get all the psychopaths out of power." I agree, but I've come to the conclusion, having watched it (equality, social mobility, health) all go downhill since the 1980s neo-liberal ideology took hold, that there's plenty more waiting in line to take the place of the current crop of ruling psychos. Some kind of "point of enoughness' must be reached by the masses, and for it to cohere into a real force (I advocate disengagement) for any real change to have a chance of happening. I'd love to live in a world that is governed by sane people.
I agree that a global population count has a very wide margin of error, but I don't think that invalidates my point. As for the "wrong skill-mix", that could >easily< be rectified with training. Of course, that won't help prostitute the job market - which is the real goal.
We're rapidly approaching - if we haven't already arrived - at that point of enoughness. Let's see how big the crowd will be tomorrow. I'm hoping it's double April 5, but I won't know till I get there. Stay tuned.
No, I agree with your point. I let my 'population bugbear' get the better of me. A guy called Paul Ehrlich (now 92) wrote "The Population Bomb" in 1968 which was hyped into a population-scare thing; he was sort of right on some things but many of his predictions did not come true.
Generally I'm with Gandhi ("There's enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed"). However, with the birthrate now so low, and the increased age that people live to having topped out, it seems there will be a natural decline in population (Here in Portugal the birth-rate is 1.3 per couple).
I hope too the "point-of-enoughness" is reached with tomorrow's crowds. Good luck. Meanwhile in the U.K, there's big demo at RAF Lakenheath with the peace-camp April 14th-26th, against the return of US nuclear weapons to Britain. But that's another story ... or is it?
It's not another story. It's international solidarity. There are rallies taking place all over the world. We're all in this together. We have to fight autocracy wherever it rears it's hideous cranium.
Solidarity is indeed what we need.
Nice to be reminded of the Jevons Paradox, thank you. Its importance still stands.
We have completely lost sight of building a Civilization in favor of technological advancements which pander only to the ego’s greatness.
https://open.substack.com/pub/gavinchalcraft/p/was-gordon-gekko-a-prophet?r=s3qz0&utm_medium=ios
Thank you Gavin, it's fascinating how you've connected the essay's themes to much larger questions about history, consciousness, and our collective future.
Your interpretation of historical conflicts as reflections of inner battles is a compelling perspective, leading to the striking conclusion that external wars might be futile projections if the internal work isn't done – regardless of our technological sophistication (iPhones don't equal enlightenment!). This ties into your point about technology potentially occupying our 'lower nature' rather than fostering true growth, which certainly resonates with the essay's caution against techno-optimism.
I was also struck by your prediction of our era being remembered as the "Age of Profit," potentially defined by finance and commerce rather than the arts or other ideals, and your powerful call for a redefined "profit" encompassing ecological, social, and personal well-being. That vision of true cooperation aligns beautifully with the hope, however tentative, expressed at the end of my essay for a shift towards needing less and valuing differently.