The industrial revaluation would still happen but differently, steam engines started by burning wood, there are also plenty of other clean fuels aswell
@@microwavedcaprisun6521ou wouldn't be able to support a modern, global economy on wood or any other "clean" fuel. Also, only nuclear burns hotter than FF
I doubt technology could advance very far without fossil fuels. Advancements in technology require research and the sharing of research results, which in turn require funding and education, which in turn require a strong economy. Widespread applications of advanced technology would also require widespread education (so more people would know how to build all the hardware) and lots of mining for and processing of raw materials, which again require a strong economy. And what do economies need to become stronger? Energy. And what are the greatest energy sources we have? Fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, any advanced technology we have would be limited to a few locales; life would remain primarily agrarian for most people.
World would starve. Plain and simple. Not enough farmers to go back to horses. Electric farm equipment would result in bread costing everybody 20 dollars a loaf. Food would be outrageous.
After constant global slavery for millenia, it seems curious that a couple years after the first commercial oil well (Titusville, PA, 1859), Abraham Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation (1 Jan 1863), slavery is practically ended in the USA (July 1865), and the 13th Amendment is ratified by the required three-fourths of the states to become the law of the land (6 Dec 1865). Maybe a coincidence, but it seems like humanity wanted to end slavery and for the first time, fossil fuel driven machines provided an alternative to human labor and they acted almost immediately to end the horrible practice. I wish someone smart would investigate this coincidence and help us understand if there were any causation. Makes me fear if the "climate changers" are successful in eliminating fossil fuels, if humanity might be at risk to slavery returning to blight us once again.
Slavery had already been outlawed in a few places, and America was on the way to ending slavery. The first commercial oil well had little to do with the causes of the civil war. It is true that industrialisation played some part. I would say a very important one. Industrialised economies needed specialised workers, thus educated workers. Uneducated slaves began to have lower demand, and a more educated population meant more people wanted more power, leading to democracy becoming a more common practice. Democracy tends to get value from the citizens has supposed to strategic resources or land, so more educated citizens and more free citizens in a democracy can lead to wealthier countries. Essentially, automation through industrialisation shared a few factors with slavery but they weren’t correlated that strongly. Though bear my opinion with some salt, whilst I feel like I know enough I’m certainly not an expect on the subject and would yield to historians in this area. Also, I wouldn’t worry about slavery coming back with the abolition of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are mainly just a source of electricity, and changing from one source of electricity to another will not change how our appliances work or how modern industrialisation is performed.
Unfortunately we couldn't get to our destination. Why, because more people are constantly being born on the bus. We are currently 8 billion on the bus, by 2050 9-10 billion. Also, if we had no fossil fuels, we wouldn't be able to fly, make steel or aluminium or many other modern prducts.
Correlation is not causation. Poor countries get to easily copy new technology developed by rich countries. But it takes energy to power hospitals. And higher population requires more energy. If our energy production drops to 1880 levels, billions will die.
Thanks for your comment John. But I'm not sure you followed my argument completely. The energy numbers I was using are "per capita", so the population is already accounted for. Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we return to 1880's level of energy consumption. My point is that we had the basis for a renewable energy grid in the 1880's and if we hadn't found fossil fuels, we still would have developed a vibrant, healthy and high-tech society. Also, since you brought up causality, there's a strong argument to be made that fossil fuels enabled the exponential growth in population that got is to where we are today.
well it would probably take much much longer to advance but we would figure out a way to make energy dense "coal" by putting biomass in a ceramic pot or bucket and putting a lid and sealing it with clay and then baking it in a furnace with charcoal that way the biomass inside would not burn away because there was no oxygen and it would be completely pure carbon to where we could melt metals with it and advance
Too much energy is not a bad thing. In regards to plastics, even without petroleum or other fossil fuels, one can make plastics, it just requires the necessary elements and chemistry.
How did fossil fuels get from being a byproduct of drilling for salt and when did they start drilling for salt when did they come up with drilling equipment to drill for salt
@@callmethreeone modern industrial farming depends on fossil fuels for fertilizer. We'd need to farm more land due to lower yields and have a good portion of the population to be farmers.
Who needs a political ideology when you can just get free things you need for just the cost of the taxes of things that you want to buy that you don't need make an economy like that it'll work at least what I think will work
@@caesar7734 I disagree with this, without gas there is no haber bosch for creating fertiliser for the yields we have today, therefore famine would likely play a major role in population control. We simply would not have been able to create a consistent enough excess in agriculture to develop the complexity in our economy to develop those technologies.
Humanity has shown that when it has a need for something, it finds a way. The video points out we knew the physics and had the tech. We would probably be driving Teslas not made by Elon Musk. We would have focused on electrical development instead, it’s all relative.
No coal means no steel, no steam engine, no industrial revolution. He should start his thought experiment in 1730.
The industrial revaluation would still happen but differently, steam engines started by burning wood, there are also plenty of other clean fuels aswell
Someone that gets it
Or better, in ancient Egypt, Babylon, or pre agriculture..
If Rome hadn’t collapsed, we would have been better off, without industrializing.
@@microwavedcaprisun6521ou wouldn't be able to support a modern, global economy on wood or any other "clean" fuel. Also, only nuclear burns hotter than FF
I doubt technology could advance very far without fossil fuels. Advancements in technology require research and the sharing of research results, which in turn require funding and education, which in turn require a strong economy. Widespread applications of advanced technology would also require widespread education (so more people would know how to build all the hardware) and lots of mining for and processing of raw materials, which again require a strong economy. And what do economies need to become stronger? Energy. And what are the greatest energy sources we have? Fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, any advanced technology we have would be limited to a few locales; life would remain primarily agrarian for most people.
World would starve. Plain and simple. Not enough farmers to go back to horses. Electric farm equipment would result in bread costing everybody 20 dollars a loaf. Food would be outrageous.
After constant global slavery for millenia, it seems curious that a couple years after the first commercial oil well (Titusville, PA, 1859), Abraham Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation (1 Jan 1863), slavery is practically ended in the USA (July 1865), and the 13th Amendment is ratified by the required three-fourths of the states to become the law of the land (6 Dec 1865). Maybe a coincidence, but it seems like humanity wanted to end slavery and for the first time, fossil fuel driven machines provided an alternative to human labor and they acted almost immediately to end the horrible practice. I wish someone smart would investigate this coincidence and help us understand if there were any causation. Makes me fear if the "climate changers" are successful in eliminating fossil fuels, if humanity might be at risk to slavery returning to blight us once again.
We never left the blight of slavery, it just became less seen.
Slavery had already been outlawed in a few places, and America was on the way to ending slavery. The first commercial oil well had little to do with the causes of the civil war.
It is true that industrialisation played some part. I would say a very important one. Industrialised economies needed specialised workers, thus educated workers. Uneducated slaves began to have lower demand, and a more educated population meant more people wanted more power, leading to democracy becoming a more common practice. Democracy tends to get value from the citizens has supposed to strategic resources or land, so more educated citizens and more free citizens in a democracy can lead to wealthier countries.
Essentially, automation through industrialisation shared a few factors with slavery but they weren’t correlated that strongly. Though bear my opinion with some salt, whilst I feel like I know enough I’m certainly not an expect on the subject and would yield to historians in this area.
Also, I wouldn’t worry about slavery coming back with the abolition of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are mainly just a source of electricity, and changing from one source of electricity to another will not change how our appliances work or how modern industrialisation is performed.
Unfortunately we couldn't get to our destination. Why, because more people are constantly being born on the bus. We are currently 8 billion on the bus, by 2050 9-10 billion. Also, if we had no fossil fuels, we wouldn't be able to fly, make steel or aluminium or many other modern prducts.
Not from fossils...
Correlation is not causation. Poor countries get to easily copy new technology developed by rich countries. But it takes energy to power hospitals. And higher population requires more energy. If our energy production drops to 1880 levels, billions will die.
"if" no, when.
Thanks for your comment John. But I'm not sure you followed my argument completely. The energy numbers I was using are "per capita", so the population is already accounted for. Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we return to 1880's level of energy consumption. My point is that we had the basis for a renewable energy grid in the 1880's and if we hadn't found fossil fuels, we still would have developed a vibrant, healthy and high-tech society.
Also, since you brought up causality, there's a strong argument to be made that fossil fuels enabled the exponential growth in population that got is to where we are today.
And that would be necessary to live sustainably. Many have to die, so part of the population can live.
well it would probably take much much longer to advance but we would figure out a way to make energy dense "coal" by putting biomass in a ceramic pot or bucket and putting a lid and sealing it with clay and then baking it in a furnace with charcoal that way the biomass inside would not burn away because there was no oxygen and it would be completely pure carbon to where we could melt metals with it and advance
Could yall do one on the reason we need salt to live the first search for salt the first salt mining equipment
Too much energy is not a bad thing.
In regards to plastics, even without petroleum or other fossil fuels, one can make plastics, it just requires the necessary elements and chemistry.
it takes trees
How did fossil fuels get from being a byproduct of drilling for salt and when did they start drilling for salt when did they come up with drilling equipment to drill for salt
Hard to take seriously anyone who believes oil is a fossil fuel.
Is it not a hydrocarbon? Most people believe that
Cant get food without fossil fuels gg
Right, no one ever ate food before the 1880’s.
@@callmethreeone modern industrial farming depends on fossil fuels for fertilizer. We'd need to farm more land due to lower yields and have a good portion of the population to be farmers.
But with nuclear power yes.
Totally Agree Great Presentation 👍
Who needs a political ideology when you can just get free things you need for just the cost of the taxes of things that you want to buy that you don't need make an economy like that it'll work at least what I think will work
I'm doing a small project and I'm wondering how are daily lives would change if gas was never found?
You would most likely be working in agriculture or the military and you certainly wouldn't be doing a project for higher education.
There would be slower global warming but our technology would be many decades back in history
@@caesar7734 I disagree with this, without gas there is no haber bosch for creating fertiliser for the yields we have today, therefore famine would likely play a major role in population control. We simply would not have been able to create a consistent enough excess in agriculture to develop the complexity in our economy to develop those technologies.
Humanity has shown that when it has a need for something, it finds a way. The video points out we knew the physics and had the tech.
We would probably be driving Teslas not made by Elon Musk. We would have focused on electrical development instead, it’s all relative.
Do a project on how life would have been without mining...
He ought to tell us that we need to cut our living standards by half.
You are a crazy person! 🤣
you are so far left you’ve become libtarded honestly, oil is not a fossil fuel… no know. fossil past 16k oil is found at 28-33k so wake up mate
More like reduce our American living standards to 1/6 of what it is now.
@@rajeevdsamuel Actually our living standards would be cut bu far more than half, as would our average life spans.
@@stuarthirsch Yes the anti-fossil fuel crowd is completely insane
Phase out fossil fuels will be perfect
Funny, my dad shares the same name!!
I've found there's a lot of John Gardner's around.
It’s pharmaceuticals that’s killing us..!
🤢😂😎🤣😢😢
o(≧口≦)oヽ（≧□≦）ノ:D
This is so boring let's just keep burning fossil fuels.
It's already over, what you gonna do then?
@@gurjotsingh8934 ?? It's already over...
If you want to keep ruining earth, go on.
No, just use nuclear power.
Greta thunberg: “ how dare you .“