>>1569151That's a rather wordy way to say "EROI of renewables isn't high enough."
>>1575198Since I realised that our industrial society is most likely doomed now, I've often wondered just how far we'd have made it without fossil fuels. Looking at history, fossil fuels were not the primary source of energy until the mid 19ths century. Pic related refers to the united states, a country with ample firewood... the graph would be quite different for england and still somewhat different for most of europe. Still, it seems reasonable to me we would have gotten to late 19th century tech levels sooner or later... maybe not much further, but still. And, assuming humanity survives the coming catastrophe and a long-term recovery of the environment (might take thousands of years, but hey...) we might eventually arrive at such a level in a sustainable way again.
>Right now, humanity is a toddler hopped up on morphine so that it doesn’t care that it’s being slowly consumed by the maw of a Chinese escalator.>we're more like an adult with a shoelace caught in the escalator, but we can't fathom removing our shoe to save ourselvesI have to say, I agree with the former assessment much more than with the latter. Making the global economy truly sustainable would require the non-existence of billions of people, and drastic change to the way of life of the rest. It is, frankly, no surprise people prefer to simply not believe this fact, rather than stand up to it and still realize how impossible it would be.
