Energy is a good thing. But it is as obedient to the law of Declining Marginal Utility as everything else. The point is obvious, but I’ll prove it anyway. The real question on the table in this section is this: does it also obey the Rule of The Downside? Do you ever reach the point where further inputs of energy are actually negative…or even disastrous? Is there such a thing as too much energy?
In anticipation of the discussion, here are four observations:
1. Energy cannot be divorced from how it is used2. The more energy resources come under government control, the more unproductive the system becomes3. Government is subject to the Rule of the Downside too4. The debt-drenched economies of today’s developed countries are already on the Downside
After 1943, Germany’s investment of more energy in the war effort was not only a waste — it was almost pure downside. Of Germany’s 5.5 million war deaths, most came after the war was effectively lost. The payoff from every ounce of strength, resources and energy devoted to the Wehrmacht after the battles of Stalingrad, North Africa, and the defection of its Italian ally, was needless death and destruction — leaving Germans poorer and fewer than they had been before.
But what about energy itself? Typically, it is the lack of energy, not the surplus of it, that is blamed for disasters. Some military historians, for example, claim that it was a lack of energy that crippled and distorted the German war effort from the very beginning. Instead of committing all his forces to the assault on Moscow, Hitler was forced to divert a large part of his army to the South, where his armies would seize and protect oil supplies in the Ukraine. Japanese military historians also tend to give “too little” as an explanation for their failures. At the Battle of Midway, for example, their ships literally ran out of fuel. After the battle, the Japanese were doomed. Their energy came from Indonesia. Without control of the Pacific they could not protect their supply lines.
It is also typical for archeologists and historians to blame the collapse of ancient civilizations on too little, rather than too much. The Easter Island civilization, for example, is thought to have perished because the natives ran out of trees. They used the wood for energy. When it was gone, they were out of luck. The trees are also credited with helping to keep the environment in good working order. This analysis has been leveled at Ancient Greek civilization too. The Greeks used up the wood and brought in goats, which ate the young saplings. After a few hundred years, the Greek islands were barren.
Should we call this an ecological catastrophe or an energy shortage? Can energy be separated from the civilization that uses it? If that society is short on water, it must use more energy to quench its thirst. If it is short on farmland, it must work harder (use more energy) to increase yields per acre. If it is short on oil, it must devote more of its energy — as Japan and Germany did in WWII — to getting it.
The abundance or shortage of energy, in itself, is meaningless. The rich deposits of uranium under their feet did the ancient Athabascan tribes of Canada no more good than the huge lakes of oil under the feet of Arab Bedouins. It is not so much the availability of energy that counts, but what you can do with it.
In the case of the Classic Maya, the civilization seems to have risen and fallen along with the rainfall. Scientists studied stalagmites from a cave in Belize and were able to track rainfall on an annual basis 1500 years ago. Comparing the rainfall record to the traces left by the civilization they found that building increased in the wetter periods and decreased when the climate turned dryer. Between 1020 and 1110 a severe drought hit southern Belize, finishing off what remained of the Classic Maya in the region. Here too, on the surface, you would say that ‘too little’ water marked the decline. But you could turn that around; the wetter years were perhaps ‘too wet,’ since they encouraged growth that couldn’t be sustained in the inevitable dry years.
Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia, would argue that using too much energy causes growth, which leads to an environmental disaster…which becomes a disaster for the civilization. Many people believe the world already uses too much fossil fuel, causing the heavens to fill up with noxious ‘greenhouse gases’ and the polar ice caps to melt. They think the downside of all this energy use will begin soon, or maybe it already has. For the moment, however, ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ is just an hypothesis which seems a lot more alarming in the summer time than in the winter. For all we know, the effect of human activity on the world’s climate will be an improvement.
In a broad sense, you could say that all civilizations collapse because they “run out of energy.” Not necessarily oil, wood or coal. Civilizations — like families, businesses, and clubs — depend on the energy of their constituent members. If those members are expansive, innovative and aggressive in their use of the available fuel sources, the organization will thrive. If not, it will decay. But the more aggressive they are in using their energy…the faster it may give out. “More” turns into “too much”…based on the circumstances…and declining marginal utility gives way to the downside.
Where is the exception? Not in the history books. Every organization comes…and goes. Everyone prospers and grows when it uses its energy effectively. Then, when its energy is wasted, dispersed and exhausted, it declines. There is no record of an upside without a downside.
Civilizations based on conquest inevitably decline when they meet their match…or just run out of energy. Civilizations that expend their energy building huge monuments have little energy left to defend themselves against invaders or other challenges. But perhaps most often, civilizations die like humans, from the inside out. They develop power structures, aka government, with almost exclusive monopolies on the use of violence. Then, elite groups get control of the government and use it to shift more resources and energy to themselves. The rich get richer. That is why government is fundamentally a reactionary institution; it is almost always used to protect existing interests. Future interests don’t vote…children don’t stab you in the back…and tomorrow’s industries don’t make campaign contributions. In effect, government moves energy from the future to the past…from what will be to what used to be…and finally, to what will be no more.
You can casually pick up almost any newspaper to see that this is so. In the November, 16, 2012 edition of The Wall Street Journal, for example, was a story with this headline:
Export US Gas, Yes or No?
The headline would be a puzzle to an American reader a century ago. He would say to himself that it was none of his business. It was up to the gas companies to decide what they would do with their product.
But now it is a matter for the Department of Energy, which is being lobbied by Dow Chemical, among others, to prevent the gas companies from selling their output on the open market.
Why would Dow take an interest in this? Because “Dow burns a lot of natural gas in its plants,” the article explains. Dow wants cheap gas, in other words. “The national interest is best served in keeping gas in an abundant and competitively priced position,” argued an executive.
Cheap gas may or may not be in the national interest. But Dow knows where its interests lie. And the politicians can look to see where theirs lie too. Who made more campaign contributions? Dow and other big gas users? Or the gas producers? The squeakiest wheel gets the grease. But the wheels of the future are silent.
Joseph Tainter, in his Collapse of Complex Societies, believes the decline in civilizations can be traced to problem solving. Each challenge, he says, leads to a solution, which involves greater complexity. Bureaucracies, hierarchies, rules, and regulations are imposed. These things cost time, energy and resources. Eventually, the cost is too great and the downside is reached.
In the Roman Empire, for example, agricultural output per person dropped as population increased. The problem was addressed by a policy of conquest.
The Romans took resources — grain, slaves, gold — from their neighbors. But this required a large army, which was an expensive, energy-consuming enterprise. The return on investment declined…and eventually went negative. The Empire collapsed. That was not necessarily a bad thing. When the decline on energy investments is negative, you are better off stopping the program. And archeological evidence from bones and teeth suggest that many people were actually better fed after the collapse of the empire.
As the size and complexity of society grows, the governments that are most competitive are those that draw on the most support (energy) of their subject peoples. That is why the Roman policy of conquest was so successful. They were able to turn the conquered peoples into supporters of the regime, with most of the army eventually comprised of non-Roman soldiers. The British Empire was good at this too. The empire began by subduing the Scots, who became the backbone of the British Army. Today’s American army, too, depends heavily on soldiers from the southern states, who were conquered by Abraham Lincoln’s armies in the 1860s.
The energy available to a society depends on many things, probably the least important of which is beneath the ground. More important is the organizational system and its stage of development. In an early stage, the system tends to be robust and efficient — or ‘simple,’ in Tainter’s terms. Later, additional complexity degrades returns on energy investments. While this complexity may be described as a form of problem solving, it is better understood as an attempt by elite groups to hold onto their wealth and power.
But to fully understand this, we need to back up and look at how government really works and how it too is subject to the Rule of the Downside. That subject, we shall undertake tomorrow…
Bill Bonnerfor The Daily Reckoning
Since founding Agora Inc. in 1979, Bill Bonner has found success and garnered camaraderie in numerous communities and industries. A man of many talents, his entrepreneurial savvy, unique writings, philanthropic undertakings, and preservationist activities have all been recognized and awarded by some of America's most respected authorities. Along with Addison Wiggin, his friend and colleague, Bill has written two New York Times best-selling books, Financial Reckoning Day and Empire of Debt. Both works have been critically acclaimed internationally. With political journalist Lila Rajiva, he wrote his third New York Times best-selling book, Mobs, Messiahs and Markets, which offers concrete advice on how to avoid the public spectacle of modern finance. Since 1999, Bill has been a daily contributor and the driving force behind The Daily Reckoning. Dice Have No Memory: Big Bets & Bad Economics from Paris to the Pampas, the newest book from Bill Bonner, is the definitive compendium of Bill's daily reckonings from more than a decade: 1999-2010.
This is the kind of article I like to read, makes me think about the bigger patterns I seldom think about. Having the name of an interesting book is nice too. I might send for it. Nice article Bill.
Indeed, the government is less efficient than the private unencumbered sector. But that we already knew. And even without government, things are not guaranteed to work out well. Did those Greeks on the islands perish because of too much government? What about those peasants on the Easter Islands? We don’t know, but it’s reasonable to assume that probably not.
What about a complex unencumbered private sector with very long production chains, so that the ultimate energy inputs are divorced from 99% of those working in the private sector (the only sector in this imaginary world)? In this case, I would assume that it would be an organization supported by various “scared” members of the private sector that would rise to raise the alarms, while a good part (most?) of those in the private sector would dismiss this organization as an attempt to form a government and to do central planning.
In the first paragraph it was probably the peasants’ stupidity isolating them from the signals needed to ensure their survival, while in the second paragraph it was probably the complexity of the system.
Bill , u r one of the greatest minds of our time! What an incredible insight
Pingback: My Homepage
Pingback: M-drol for sale
Pingback: papulas perladas
Pingback: tips on how to increase sales
Pingback: work at home jobs
Pingback: read the full info here
Pingback: Gereedschap online
Pingback: payday loan
Pingback: how to charm a girl
Pingback: seo green valley golf course bangkok
Pingback: payday loans quad cities
Pingback: outdoor kleding
Pingback: important site
Pingback: Check this out
Pingback: Article source
Pingback: Quit Your Job
Pingback: at here
Pingback: How to Remove Fluoride from water
Pingback: mortgage leads company
Pingback: cell phone in israel
Pingback: Reverse Osmosis Filter
Pingback: youtube to mp3 download free
Pingback: original site
Pingback: Camfrog Advaced Server
Pingback: Visit Us
Pingback: BV treatment
Pingback: Aries Daily Horoscope
Pingback: Beer Types
Pingback: 20x20x1 air filters
Pingback: How to Astral Project Easily
Pingback: cigarette electronique
Believe it or not, more capital for a company doesn't necessarily mean better returns for investors. In fact, in a recent study that dug through data from more than 200 acquisitions going back to 2006, they found a "sweet spot" for the most likely acquisition targets. And it's lower than you think. Matthew Milner explains...
The Affordable Care Act dumped 2,000 pages of regulations into the health care sector, stifling any innovation that could have brought about real cost savings. But even with these obstacles, there are still people looking for ways to do things better and at a lower cost. These new technologies could be the key to fixing health care in America...
While many of the newer social media stocks struggle for gains this year, old-school tech stocks have become some of the best trades on the market. With the rare exception (Facebook is doing well—shares are up 26% year-to-date) the social stocks are in the gutter. They got off to a fast start in January and Februray, but ran out of steam in the spring. Aside from a few feeble attempts, few have posted anything close to a noteworthy comeback. Twitter, LinkedIn, and Groupon are all down double-digits year-to-date. Groupon—the worst performer on this short list—is down 47%. On the other had, the biggest of the big tech stocks on the market are helping traders pile up even larger gains right now. Greg Guenthner explains…
In the 1960s, total credit in the U.S. broke the one trillion dollar mark...and since then, it has expanded over 50 times. But now, as Richard Duncan explains, the explosion of credit that's made America prosperous, threatens to take the entire economy down. And that could mean the return of another depression...
Despite rapidly rising food prices, American households still spend relatively little on groceries. And while plenty of factors contribute to lower food costs in the US, that can lead to serious competition... and that means a good investment opportunity is right around the corner. Dave Gonigam explores...
News flash: The future is uncertain. (Gasp!) But given this uncertainty how are you supposed to invest successfully? It would be nice to ride stocks on the way up... and bow out before the crash... but few are able to do it without sheer luck. Chris Mayer, searching for a successful method, looks back to the 1929 market crash for clues...