Powerdowner vs doomer

I read a post the other day that was commenting on the difference between a powerdowner and a doomer. These were new terms to me, but I think I can figure them out from context -- powerdowners think we need to figure out how to live on less energy, so we can all get along and doomers think ... well, that we're doomed.

One powerdowner remarks:

Even though I understand the reasoning, my mind just won't accept the scenario in which billions die. And I would add that I think some people toss those scenarios around pretty casually, without really reflecting on the horror of what it would mean if a billion plus people died of starvation. Look at your family, imagine them starving, and then imagine this playing out on a horrific scale. Then maybe we can get past the casual talk of billions dying off.

I surely hope people aren't casual about billions dying off. It isn't a question of how we feel about it though -- the question is, will it happen?

I don't think it is impossible or even unlikely (given a high tech society) that in the long run we can figure out a source of energy that is both more abundant and less expensive than oil and fossil fuels. In the short run, the next 10 to 20 years, I think the odds are that we'll see serious energy shortages.

The big question for me is, will we have a high tech society? I personally think that it is something that is very much worth striving for. I think the benefits of the world we have made, the science, the knowledge, the opportunities that are available to people, are worth having and very much worth preserving.

On the subject of die-off -- I think it is obvious, but worth saying, that without a high tech society, we will have a die-off in the billions. Before we had our present technology the world population was much lower than it is now. This wasn't because there hadn't been enough generations since the advent of modern humans to produce a population of 6 billion and counting. It is because until recently, the combination of hunger and disease ensured a high death rate and capped the population. It is modern technology that eased those limits, without it we should expect to return to the previous state and the population limits that went with it.

I'm expecting serious disruptions of the systems we work with now. The question is, will the entire structure come totally unglued and leave only scattered human settlements here and there, or none at all? Or will our technology survive and we'll come to a new Renaissance, a new beginning? I'm hoping for the latter, not because I think it is the likely possibility, but because I don't see much point in working or hoping for anything else.

Given a new Renaissance, one that has room for change, the imperative then becomes to find a way to build a society that is able to grow in wisdom, knowledge and real quality of life in a sustainable way? How do we build a world where each child really is wanted and needed, one where the overall population stays within a bound that lets us live in harmony with the rest of the world and future generations?

This is a Utopian goal, I'll admit, but it is mine. It is this goal that I am interested in. Ending hunger, world peace, saving the environment -- all of these are good, all are important and none can be met without finding a way to live in balance.

I guess that makes me an optimist, a starry eyed optimist, in fact. :-)