Self-sustaining energy and economic policy

[notjenschiz]

Originally published at Jason's Fresh Produce. You can comment here or there.

I have a fairly big concept floating around in my head and I’m struggling to bound it and solidify it. Perhaps writing this (and getting comments from all of you) will help.

When we were a hunter/gatherer society, the output of our efforts had a 1:1 relationship with our

Comments

[swmartin]

You might want to look at recent research on the transition between hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies. A lot of historians and anthropologists are of the opinion that early agricultural food production, at least until modern industrial times, required MORE labor input per calorie than hunting and gathering. (Agriculture also probably reduced general health levels due to shifts in diet and increases in disease.)

Your analogy with modern energy production is also strained, especially in the short term. I'd actually argue that modern fossil fuel "gathering" is closer in nature to agriculture in that there's a large up-front investment in materiel required (e.g. drills, refineries, and pipe lines) followed by a long-term payout -- at least until that specific oil/gas/coal deposit runs dry. That finite end to the payout on fossil fuels has to do with the RATE at which we harvest them in relation to the rate at which they're renewed. Hunting socieites can do exactly the same thing by over-harvesting animal and plant populations, resulting in the depletion and eventual extinction of food species. Most alternative energy sources are still a method of "gathering", they simply target energy sources that are renewed at a much faster rate.

strainer

[notjenschiz]

there's a reason they call oil and coal "non-renewable" resources. With the exception of finding more, organic material doesn't become fuel without thousands (tens of thousands?) of years of pressure and heat under ground.

I strongly question the idea that agriculture was more energy intensive than hunting/gathering. Why would they do it if that were the case? I suspect there are some gray accounting issues here. Like, how do you account for the "cost" of not having a permanent home?

In addition, there are all the associated costs of burning fossil fuels, namely the impact on the environment which, by any accounting, will ultimately be tremendous.

And my overall point still stands, I believe: when fossil fuels run out, the economy collapses. Solar power doesn't run out. Nuclear power does run out, but fairly predictably, and if utilized correctly, is more than adequate for our needs.

Re: strainer

[swmartin]

It's true that the numbers are controversial, but most agree that even if agriculture brought labor savings it wasn't much. Instead it brought other advantages: more predictable food supplies and overall greater food supply per acre. A population that can sustain a large population in a small area will beat out a small population spread over a large area, even if they're less healthy and have to invest extra labor into food production.

And hey, solar power is a finite resource! There's only so much available. It's just renewed more rapidly than we can, with current or even forseeable technology, conceivably use it.

Re: strainer

[doctorray]

Have you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"? I think Diamond really lays out effectively the case for labor-intensive agriculture.

Here's the gist, tinted with my take on things. Hunting and gathering is definitely less labor-intensive than farming. We've got data from contemporary hunter-gatherer societies and pre-industrial agricultural ones to back up that assertion. But here's the rub: the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is only sustainable in small groups. Once a group gets beyond a certain modest size (most h-g bands number 30-60) the resources are no longer capable of supporting the group. Agriculture allows humans to artificially increase the density of food product in a given area through the input of labor. This allows for larger groups to continue to live together. And larger groups of humans will historically kick the asses of smaller groups of humans. As Diamond points out, we are, as a species, on the whole, violent, selfish, and aggressive. Groups that have some advantage will exploit it ruthlessly against their neighbors. The ability to support a much larger population that agriculture provides is a major advantage of this kind.

So, it's not that agriculture is less labor-intensive, but rather that the labor agriculture requires provides more benefits than simply a regular food supply.