The Illusion of Limitlessness

In my last post, I discussed the phenomenon that brought us to our current state: the more energy was available to us, the more we used, and the more we grew to depend on having that level of energy.  But there is an additional, and, in my opinion, more dangerous, thing our energy usage patterns have taught us.  In addition to become accustomed to large amounts of energy, we also became accustomed to the fact that energy availability always increased.  As such, our societies and economies became based on the idea of growth.  On page 47 of The Energy Reader, its authors compared this practice to a global Ponzi scheme, and I think that comparison is accurate.

In addition to, or perhaps because of, our being accustomed to energy increase, our lifestyle is based on a general idea of limitlessness. We consider an economy to be successful when it is growing.  We constantly consume resources as though they are endless.  As Barbara Kingsolver says in her book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, we seem to be a people allergic to limits.  This is expressed in many ways, and exists to differing degrees in different countries.  The US, from my observations, seems to be more afflicted by the idea of limitlessness than other countries.  Politically, the US places more value on concepts of freedom than do other countries, especially Europe.  In some ways this is good, as when we value individual rights, but in some senses it exemplifies an idea that everyone deserves to be able to do whatever they want, without regard to the negative consequences others will suffer.  Economically, we certainly buy into the delusion of capitalism that you are entitled to whatever you can buy, and limited only by inability to monetarily afford something.

People are beginning to realize that we are running out of money and other resources, but their proposed solutions still follow the narrative of limitlessness.  Some people (as evidenced by the Unbridled Energy summit in Louisville Kentucky, discussed on page 34 in The Energy Reader), are striving to find ways to getting the most energy we can out of existing sources of hydrocarbon-based fuel.  Others put their faith (which The Energy Reader points out as, ironically, unscientific) in solutions based on science and technology.  The solutions are based on the idea that if we just invest more energy, expertise, and innovative skill into the problem, we will solve it.  The issue there (at least, if we agree with The Energy Reader’s argument) is that word “more” – a problem created by assumptions of abundance cannot be solved by yet more abundance.  The way to solve the problem, then (at least according to The Energy Reader, is first to accept that we are limited.