Unfixable (UPDATED)

Chris,

I've been a member of this site for some time and I visit it daily.  I have to say I have tremendous respect for your ability to think logically and with restraint (not skepticism) but healthy realism on the issues that are at hand.  As a mechanical engineer working in specifically the energy research field I have to say there is a great degree of insight your presentations could make even to people of incredible academic background and skills.

It is truly an age of incredible engineering challenges, scientific and application.  But the clarity I get when I digest the material you provide allows me to think as an engineer, to deduce steps, make reasonable assumptions and come to some sort of solution.

Prior to, and I believe without this resource, I would feel much more subject to the eager and loud whims of many voices who lack a more grounded and scientific thought process.

Thank you, I will be sharing this particular video for it's information density many time.

G

So which question got the book? 

Thanks for posting the video.  The presentation was excellent as expected, but I was also impressed with how Chris handled the Q&A, rattling off key data to support his position.  His demonstrated mastery of the subject makes his views more convincing.  He looked very sober-sided and a bit grim though, unlike his usual genial self.  A few more smiles would have helped alleviate the heavy topic.  Great job though.

Travlin 

FNKRoue, I second your comments. The fact that Chris does not come from an energy background (as far as I know) makes the Crash Course, when it came out, ever more visionary.

As another mech. engineer working in the field of energy, what I find interesting / astonishing / distressing is that the majority of even so-called "experts" in these related fields just don't seem to be able to put 2 and 2 together to grasp the predicament we are in. The answer to fossil fuel shortages? Dig more out of the ground! The answer to food shortages? Cut down more forest and throw more fresh water and fertilizers on it! Even amongst the hundreds of employees in my office, the greater picture of "where is all this energy coming from?" just isn't addressed. We need work, and we want to grow the company, and we get that work by building more machinery to gobble up more natural resources. We have our place in the overall machine of the neoclassical economics-modelled economy and even though the people I work with are fully capable of grasping these concepts if they decided to put in the effort, it is not part of our mandate and even if we did understand what's coming, what else is an engineering company going to do?

These issues are complex and it takes a sound understanding of energy, engineering, ecology, economics, and sociology to really come to grips with them all. And then on the other side we have the media .... The current situation is as much an education in how the human mind can be influenced in certain directions under the proper conditioning and suggestion (and television "programming"), even when undeniable evidence to the contrary is presented. I am sure we can alll speak to this from personal experience.

I have suspected as much in the past, but this video confirms for me the following:

Chris's IQ is off the charts. Truly in the 99.99% range. His thoughts are so well ordered that he speaks off the cuff as if he is reading from a book.

Chris has a photographic memory. His command of facts is incredible.

Chris is the opitome of a believable expert witness.  His tone of voice, demeanor and body language portray complete veracity.

In short he is the ideal person, with the ideal message, at the ideal time.  That such people step forward in times like this, in the spirit of altrusim and decency, gives me hope for our future.

Guns trump cheque books.

I follow these issues daily.  I have yet to read anything that disuades me from a die back scenario on some large scale.

1. Top soil depletion cannot be remedied by throwing money at fields.  Add to that the coming oil scarcity and climate change leads me to the suspicion that agriculturally marginal area will have extreme problems with fertility and processing.  Global grain supplies are already strained.

2. Money flows faster than oil.  If there is another oil shock, currencies will fail.  For those who depend upon selling their labor for money to buy food, things will get dicey.  In four minutes you suffocate.  In four days you die of thirst.  In four weeks you starve.  There are currently no massive networks for the distribution of commodities and labor save markets in the developed countries.  Typically, there is a three day supply of food in any urban area.  In the off seasons, the next harvest is months away.  Even people in areas that produce commodity crops will be in trouble for want of access and processing.

3. How far will the well armed countries go to protect their resources interests around the world?  As nation states falter, will regionalism replace nationalism?  Will California stop shipping vegetables east?  Will Montana stop shipping coal south?  Or will these networks collapse for want of currency?

4.  The next oil shock will likely cause some states to fail.  The unrest that can foment such outcomes is already happening.  In an interlocked global system, how many states can fail before the rest of the dominos fall down?

5.  If you follow Michael Ruppert (I don't buy everything he says), the 2013 time frame for the next oil shock may be the make or break point for all his lifeboat builders and the rest of us, too.  It seems plausible that if one is not prepared to grow a significant part of your own food, establish trade networks with your neighbors, and learn what the heck is going on here, one could find oneself in a big pile of doo-doo.

6.  This suburban landscape is like a millstone around our necks.  It's possible that it alone may be the biggest impediment to getting through the rough patch.  It's amazing that we have build deserts around all of our cities.  Here in the Bay Area, large tracts of land were in production as late as the 1960's.  Now, paved over and usless.

I think I need to take my meds now.

Since I first watched the Crash Course several years ago, each time I consume this content I'm left with only one conclusion for the economy; deflation.

Yet, on countless occassions, Dr. M proposes an inflationary endgame in his reports and postings. This seems very contradictory and nonsensical to me from someone who's primary contentions are:

• The next 20 years are going to be completely unlike the last 20 years
• The economy cannot continue to grow (implied)
• Total debt is no longer growing exponentially
• Peak Oil is unfolding
• Dwindling resources

What gives Dr. M? How can there be anything but transient inflation in this predicament?

Thanks for your time....Jeff

Here's a link to Chris's presentation on ZeroHedge, for anyone who wants to read the comments and feedback.

www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-lecture-why-next-20-years-will-be-marked-collapse-exponential-function

Chris, Adam,

If there is anything I can do to help with the updating of The Crash Course I am more than happy to volunteer and assist.

DavidC

THough i am dutch living in france, 8 out of 12 month i make my living in Nigeria. Yep in the oil rich delta.

Nigerians are the most happiest people on our planet but it is also an incredible mess and very dirty. They are very optimistic that their future will be much bigger then it is now.

Unfortunately chris is mainly focused on how the developped world will be in for a chock.

I am also very concerned how the african countries will be stolen from their dream of being a developped country with plenty shops and consumables. An other economic crisis in the developped world will be a hammer slash for the "poor' Africans.

It seems to be sorry for them!

Marteen

They did use coal in the 1770s (in Britain) the Newcomen engine was invented generations previous to this, 1712.

I agree Concobb2, the ecological / social aspect is something that needs greater consideration. The technical energy / monetary aspect of why there is inevitably going to be a collapse is pretty solid, and while not understood or appreciated by our leaders or the vast majority of the public, amongst Peak Oil bloggers it's pretty much accepted and well understood.

I recently found a number for how much fossil fuel energy is required to produce food, and it's greater than I suspected. Apparently to produce one calorie of food requires 10 calories of fossil fuels! That is a HUGE input. Now, if those inputs are taken away or greatly diminished, how much will food production drop? I don't know, let's say five times? This would need more analysis. Not only that, but without the fast and energy intensive food distribution systems we currently enjoy, food spoilage will go up, requiring even more food to be produced.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/

So that is a huge shortfall that is going to have to be absorbed, and there are only two outcomes (short some miraculous new enery supply coming online) -- we either eat less, or we raze every last tree on the planet to get land to produce more food for us. It seems that both outcomes would happen together, however, because there isn't enough capacity on the planet to feed everyone like this.

This then sets the stage for some of the social problems that are going to emerge. On paper, the Hubbert Curve looks nice and mooth and symmetrical. Going up the curve was a dream -- everyone was happy and enjoyed increasing wealth. But going down is not going to be a happy experience; it will be miserable. As mentioned, the Africans and Chinese who have their hopes pinned on a prosperous future as they enter a new middle class like the West has (had) will have their hopes crushed. Westerners will be in even greater dire straits because they will have to accept a substantially reduced standard of living, and Westerners have a can-do attitude that if they just try harder, any obstacle can be overcome. That will be shattered.

But the above paragraph assumes that 1) it will even be possible to maintain 9 billion people at a lower standard of living, and that 2) everyone just begrudgingly accepts the situation and says, OK, let's hunker down and deal with it. But I'm not sure human nature will react that way. As you say, we have the capacity for great destruction.

What is the actual carrying capacity of the planet? I don't know; without fossil fuels probably around 3 bilion or so, I'd guess. Let's just go with that figure for now; if anything it may be optimistic. If that's the case, then 6 billion people are going to die. There is no way around this unless we find some new source of energy; it's simple cold hard ecological energetics. So how does removing 2/3 of the world's population actually pan out? What kind of a world will that be? Will it be one based on collaboration to develop new technologies to bring about energy solutions?

This really has the potential of a classic Malthusian Collapse, which may be much worse than the typical lynx and hare dynamic simply because we have extended ourselves so far over the cliff due to fossil fuels.

I imagine a train hurtling at 90 mph toward the end of the tracks where there is an immovable object.  Chris, others, and even ourselves are now aware of the unavoidable crash and are doing our best (which varies a lot from person to person) to warn others of what's coming and what they can do to try to survive it.  Most of the passengers aren't paying the least bit of attention.  Some have become concerned, but have either turned away because it's too terrible to contemplate or have become frozen in place (the proverbial deer in the headlights).  Some now have sat down in the aisles to protest the situation we're in. Occasionally, someone dives out a window or jumps from the door, never to be heard from again.  Those of us who are preparing have moved to the last car in the train and have set about strapping ourselves in, padding all hard surfaces, stockpiling medical supplies, and so on. Some are trying to uncouple our car from the rest, but I don't see how that can work.  Who can say with certainty exactly what will happen, when, and in what order? Certainly, not me, and I'm pretty sure no one can get it more than 70% right.

However, for me, some of the broad strokes are discernible if only because to some extent they are happening TO us and cannot be changed.  I agree with JAG that the real world is contracting/deflating.  I agree with Chris that governments and central banks will do what they always do because it's all they know -- they'll print and print, and there will be a temporary (months or couple of years) inflation/hyperinflation.  (This is only the monetary world.  The real world of resources will still be contracting/deflating.)  Then there will be a collision (which may unfold over a few years, as if in slow motion to us). This will be the utter collapse: monetary systems, social systems, legal systems, moral systems, trade networks, etc.

I agree with those who see a die off.  I don't know HOW big it will be, but it has to be BIG considering the number of passengers and the speed of the train.  I don't know to what extent people will wither away and die (by starvation, disease, hypothermia, suicide, etc.), or will be killed in local violence in the struggle to survive, or will be killed as nations fight each other for survival. Life will become "nasty, short and brutish."

Then, I think, there will come an eerie silence as the dust settles. At that time, the survivors will face the daunting task of rebuilding. At that point, the changes we could have made before the crash will have been forced on us by powers beyond our control. We'll have no choice but to make the appropriate adaptations we have so far refused to make. I'd like to be there for the beginning of the rebuilding, but I doubt I'll make it.  But it won't be for lack of trying.

As this scary idea has become one of the issues being discussed in this thread, I do wonder what CM's view of such an event actually is.  He is a data person, and seems to get really excited about interpreting information.  To this point almost everything I have seen from him has avoided this gruesome topic, and I am not sure he is specifically forecasting it.  Infact, in the video we are all reacting to, he goes out of his way to say that he is not predicting a massive die off.

I wonder if he chooses not to comment because the horrible reality would scare too many people and the rest of his message would be lost in the fallout.  I wonder if a die off is part of the message, CM just wants you to read between the lines and come to that conclusion on your own.

CM's premise that the world of growth is coming to end and with it a lot of things we really see as "every day" are no longer going to exist is sound.  Energy costing too much, food being delivered from one section of the country....cities not having the space available to support massive populations....yah, I guess thing could get pretty bad.  Perhaps it is hope, thinking the disruptions won't be too distructive or too long lasting, but maybe I just have not thought through the reality of so many people trying to feed themselves.  

If a die off does occur, looking at the present world gives some indication of where things might be most difficult.  Frankly, the countries like China and India, where over a billion people live in each, are likely to get hit pretty bad.  Of course, I know nothing of their food shipment patterns or farmable land.

We in the West will probably get hit pretty bad too, although the potential for growing food here in the long term seems at least doable.  Many Americans don't have much of a concept of physical labor and will have to learn.

Again though, I find myself wondering how far CM has taken these thoughts.

Jason

There are population trends that are already reversing.  Most of the industrial world has a problem with low birth rates, which threaten the  structure of their social systems.  Being they are the high demand end of the game, some of this might take care of itself.  China's one child policy will tremendously affect its population demographics going forward.  Population is declining in Japan  Population is growing in areas where people are already near starvation. 

Coal was used in England centuries before the industrial revolution.  With exception of Newcomen's engine, coal was used for heating things.  The difference is in how the heat is applied.  The prime inovation of the IR was the use of heat in engines to do useful work.  Here's a short list of pre-IR things they did with coal.

Space heating.  Wood was the prefered fuel for this.  As wood became scarce, coal was reluctantly applied.  Beach coal was gathered where the shore cut through coal seams.  As beach coal became scarce and the demand  for coal generally increased, pit coal supplanted it.

Roasting of barley for ale, particularly stout.  One of my favorites.

Coke.  Coked coal is a very good fuel for crucible steel.  Crucible steel prior to Bessimer, et al, was made in small batches for fine cutting tools, clock springs, and such.  It can also be used for the manufacture of glass.

Smelting of iron.  Everyone knows the story of Abraham Darby of Coalbrookdale.  Ore, limestone, high grade coal came together to make greater quantities of iron than previously thought possible.

51:35 into the Presentation Chris said:

"I am not here predicting a mass die off..."

and then....

"I'm not here predicting catastrophe; and I am not going to tell you when...."

Just thought I would include these for sake of the discussion.   If CM is not predicting these things (publically) how does that gel with other views...of a die off?  He has all of the data.  He saw the need to give us all the crash course....does he avoid the die off discussion because it would alienate too many people?  Just wondering....so many seem to be concerned about it here.

Jason

...now biological or chemical I do. This would preserve the lands and resourses. Then again, any of these would be insane so...? Folks, we have all pondered these things, it really is a useless exercise. It may be our reality but the here and now is too., even more so, and way more gratifying. So make good every day. Happy Holidays.

If past wars were fought over economic resources, why would the future be different?  One could imagine that a world war (more noticeable if one is already going on) will occur that moves more economic wealth around the globe than ever before by a large margin.   If this occurs, it leaves Europe very vulnerable since it has relied on the US to provide security.   Since Russia has very old arms it would look like a China (more man power and less machine) versus US (more machines and less man power).  Then it will be a last man standing based on who controls the energy (and maybe steels the gold).  When things collapse on an economic scale, isn't war the usual reactionary result?

Excellent presentation (Unfixable) as usual Chris.

I wondered while listening to your segment on exponential growth if society would react the same way under official declarations of energy emergency?

What if, wave energy and the cultivation of industrial hemp were viewed as the least energy intensive technologies to produce electricity and oil products.  Governments would decree that within a twelve month period there would need to be sufficient infrastructure to produce energy as a substitute for legacy and more expensive renewable technologies.  That decree would be based on, among other criteria the least amount of carbon produced per dollar spent, not invested by the government.  The distinction here is critical because gov would spend into the economy rather than incur debt through borrowing, since Government is the currency monopolist as you have pointed out, previously.

What if, the existing wave energy technology, The Gorlov Helical Turbine, which is scalable and well tested, were manufactured and deployed under emergency conditions? 

What if, half of the 90 million arable acres in the USDA setaside were planted to industrial hemp with its four harvest per year in southern climates?

These are dependent upon political decision makers who are cognizant of your thesis and who realize that we're running out of time for structural shifts in energy production and distribution/use.

More to the point......  Future Energy will cost much more to extract in terms of ENERGY.

To misquote Clinton, "it's the energy stupid"....... not calling you stupid of course, but there is a propensity on this site for people to concentrate on money instead of the REALLY important things.  Like food, energy, and water.  Everything else is a luxury...... and a distraction really.

Mike

I'll second (third?) that!  Bravo!

Eloquently said.

Reminds me of another: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate..."

Poet

Excellent interview.

I think Chris shines even more in question  / interview format than the prepared,  formal lecture mode..  the spontaneity and body language.

Two concepts.

In times of crisis we'll look for what is tried and tested.. (off-the-shelf, "shovel ready" solutions.)  The flight to certainty.

First mover advantage. Beating the rush.

eg: When power cuts become a huge problem, suddenly *everybody* wants candles and torches..

if you prepare ahead, not only do you avoid the panic and shortages, you reduce them by bringing forward demand in advance.

Chris and Adam,

The goldmoney presentation is simply head and antlers above the CC in terms of quality and persuasiveness.

I certainly don't mean to dump on the CC in any way - you know I think it's a masterpiece. But hey, Chris was "new at this" when he started working on the CC. To be brutally honest, that showed in the first several chapters. But this is just plain rock star stuff.

If you possibly can, I encourage you to REPLACE the CC with a shorter (1hr max) version, similar to this one, with Chris' face on camera. Nothing wrong with the CC, but it's time for new material to spruce the place up, and Chris was just plain on fire in this vid.

Best,

Erik

I totally concur with Erik.....  those two videos were smashing!  AND I think they are far more valuable to anyone "just starting out", much more digestible than 3 1/2 hours of CC which, unless you are already convinced and knowledgeable about the looming crisis, can be a bit daunting.

Best

Mike

Chris, 

MMT proponents posit the following: Because the Gov. (Federal Reserve and Treasury) issues all of the currency, as much as it wants whether grants, loans or payments for goods and services, it is not constrained by revenue to spend. 

This is a logical construct for a monopolist issuer of our currency, what then are the fiscal policy purposes served by federal taxation other than to manage aggregate demand?