Reply #11: Let's hope it's no bigger than a "lifestyle" choice

[Terry in Austin]

>> ...should be far more energy efficient but that does not mean regressing to an 1800s lifestyle.

I suspect, however, that by 2100 we won't have much choice about regressing to a 2100's lifestyle.

"Progress" is a very comforting industrial-age concept that we hold dear, but nature is absolutely indifferent to. There never was any guarantee that tomorrow will be better than today, yet we assume it will always be so because of our belief in progress.

But when it comes to energy, there's a built-in contradiction in the progress narrative, at least to the extent that progress means technology -- at its core, technology is mostly about finding fancier ways to burn energy. Ultimately, something always has to turn the crank, and turning it by hand is something that progress forbids.

In fact, Leslie White made a good case that the whole "upward" path of any civilization is basically a measure of its energy per capita. More energy, more progress; less energy, less progress.

What we need (and will get, one way or another) is a major reduction in use -- efficiency is a means of slowing growth in use. Very different.