For some reason or another, this question often arises.
The simple answer is that I live in a place called Dismal. Not a town, really, but a
small area in the hills of Middle Tennessee,below the Cumberland Plateau.
I have not found an accurate account of how it came to be called this, but I
suspect it happened in February. It is actually quite lovely here most of the time.
The more esoteric answer involves the history of economics, which is more or
less affectionately known as "the dismal science." This title comes from the
mid-19th century writings of historian and satirist Thomas Carlyle, initially in
defense of slavery, and later in response to the principles put forth by Rev.
Thomas Malthus. Malthus projected that the earth's population would soon
outgrow its ability to feed itself, and proposed that unless some form of
population control were instituted, the people of the world would eventually
starve to death.
But as we can see today, despite the population explosion, that dismal fate was
fortuitously averted.This salvation, however was not brought about by Malthus'
population control, or by the reinstitution of slavery, as Carlyle advocated,
nor by any other such draconian measures envisioned by those least in
danger of starvation. Instead, the impetus came from Mexico nearly 100 years
later. Mexico, like many other nations at the time, relied heavily on food imports
and made a formal request for help in improving the agricultural production of
impoverished nations around the world. The economists of this next century
were able to see that such self-sufficiency would serve to create a more stable
global economy, and the technological advances that were financed in that era
revolutionised agriculture worldwide.
So, the world did not end up starving en masse. But many individual
communities still do, while others consume without conscience; and our
dependence upon the dwindling supplies of oil that fueled this technological
revolution has brought us full circle to face yet another dismal future. But an
energy crisis differs a bit from a food crisis in that for the most part, using less
energy is not going to kill you. New technology will of course bring about
alternatives to fossil fuel; but there will never be the seemingly limitless supply
we once counted on . So, the key to success will lie as much in how we
consume it as in how we produce it.
The simple answer is that I live in a place called Dismal. Not a town, really, but a
small area in the hills of Middle Tennessee,below the Cumberland Plateau.
I have not found an accurate account of how it came to be called this, but I
suspect it happened in February. It is actually quite lovely here most of the time.
The more esoteric answer involves the history of economics, which is more or
less affectionately known as "the dismal science." This title comes from the
mid-19th century writings of historian and satirist Thomas Carlyle, initially in
defense of slavery, and later in response to the principles put forth by Rev.
Thomas Malthus. Malthus projected that the earth's population would soon
outgrow its ability to feed itself, and proposed that unless some form of
population control were instituted, the people of the world would eventually
starve to death.
But as we can see today, despite the population explosion, that dismal fate was
fortuitously averted.This salvation, however was not brought about by Malthus'
population control, or by the reinstitution of slavery, as Carlyle advocated,
nor by any other such draconian measures envisioned by those least in
danger of starvation. Instead, the impetus came from Mexico nearly 100 years
later. Mexico, like many other nations at the time, relied heavily on food imports
and made a formal request for help in improving the agricultural production of
impoverished nations around the world. The economists of this next century
were able to see that such self-sufficiency would serve to create a more stable
global economy, and the technological advances that were financed in that era
revolutionised agriculture worldwide.
So, the world did not end up starving en masse. But many individual
communities still do, while others consume without conscience; and our
dependence upon the dwindling supplies of oil that fueled this technological
revolution has brought us full circle to face yet another dismal future. But an
energy crisis differs a bit from a food crisis in that for the most part, using less
energy is not going to kill you. New technology will of course bring about
alternatives to fossil fuel; but there will never be the seemingly limitless supply
we once counted on . So, the key to success will lie as much in how we
consume it as in how we produce it.
