Display:
There is a lot of karmic / relative moral accounting going on when people envision the future, particularly when examining these particular issues. I think there is a part of people (including a lot of Americans) that can't believe that the US, with its radical overconsumption, could possibly come out better than much of the world once we've entered a permanent era of being energy limited, either in the literal sense or the moral "eye for an eye" sense. There's probably an article to be written there. We haven't had a good pie fight in a while either.

The American suburbs are my favorite example. The idea of abandoning them is ridiculous - if it comes down to it, you start putting two or three families in one house, abandon certain houses and subdivisions, and fill in with farms. The near-term doomers have a comical over reliance on assuming that there will be no adaptation.

In the medium term I still think Europe is better off - in a world of declining (but not critical) energy resources, infrastructure efficiency becomes the main variable in determining your (mostly material) quality of life.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 25th, 2007 at 02:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Europe has a few hundred years' head start on the US in the resource depletion department.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2007 at 02:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what the suburbs notably lack is any transportation infastructure other than private autos.  so in a fuel-poor future they might easily split off into townships quite separate from the urban cores they sprawled out from.  the yuppies with no survival skills who built and originally inhabited them might leave, but I think they would quickly become microfarming belts, with each ridiculously huge house as you say, occupied by more than one family or by extended families.

the real problem is the quality of construction, for whuch in many cases "gimcrack" would be too kind. w/o endless inputs of repair/maintenance I don't see the average carburb home standing up well over a 40 year period.  the structures are so flimsy that they rely on high-tech and lightweight roofing materials -- anything heavier wouldn't be borne by the spindly little wall joists.  I imagine that creative survivalist families and townships would encase the entire structure in strawbale and adobe (or cob or whatever was locally available) to improve insulation and create a stronger perimeter to support more traditional roofing materials...  but this is idle speculation and more appropriate for a sci fi story than our immediate discussion...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Jun 25th, 2007 at 03:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
40 years is enough time to allow a "soft landing".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2007 at 03:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series