The joy of -- and praise for -- fossil fuels

August 8, 2022. Perhaps it was my understanding of Karl Marx's theory as to the role of labor in the economy that started me thinking about this. Or maybe it was the paradigm shift model I taught in class, i.e., the multiple paradigm changes over thousands of years that characterized the growth of prosperity, health, life expectancy and quality of life, from mythology to markets. And the recent book, How the world really works, probably brought it all together with a systematic, comprehensive analysis of just that, i.e., how the world works.

In brief, the history of the development of human life on this plant can be characterized by the shift from human physical effort, i.e., labor as the dominant source of the energy needed to sustain life (perhaps 90% of all energy at one time), to a world where fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil and natural gas (also kerosene, diesel) have become the overwhelming source of energy for human life, again perhaps 90%. Recognizing the very recent growth of nuclear and 'renewable' energy sources, e.g., solar, wind, ethanol, does not diminish the importance and impact of fossil fuels in first freeing mankind from lives of disabling physical labor, to one of significantly more comfort and convenience.

One outcome of this shift has been the significant decline of the acceptance and role of slavery in sustaining life. Whereas slavery forced physical labor without freedom or compensation, a world in need of human effort found slavery to be a useful if not necessary tool, regardless of the moral or ethical arguments against it. Of course, there have forms of 'voluntary' slavery, including indentured servitude and cases where individuals found life more viable by selling themselves into slavery, usually on a temporary basis. [The subject of slavery of over the years I touched upon in a recent post.] Recall that as recently as two hundred years ago, over 90% of the world's one billion people lived in poverty -- by more than one estimate, 94% -- creating a rational argument for selling children or even own's adult labor into a contractual form of slavery, if only to survive. Up until that time, children had a 50% mortality rate by the age of five, and children were employed or sold at a young age, again at times just to have them or their parents survive.

Between a time when all productive energy came from human effort to a time when the human physical effort plays a very small role, there have been numerous innovations and technological changes, including the domestication of animals, the burning of human waste and wood to create heat, water wheels, steam engines, mechanical pumps, grinding wheels and more. Yet after two millennia of civilization, it was the convergence of innovation, technology and fossil fuels that powered the period known as the industrial revolution and moved billions of people out of a life almost pre-destined to be lived in abject poverty.

Then there is also global rich list, from the archives (the internet never forgets). And here is an interesting take on the meaning of the list.

Rich List Based on Wealth (Net Worth)

The Global Rich List only lets you put your assets into the wealth calculator, but you can subtract out your liabilities if you want which will allow you to arrive at your net worth. Their calculator won’t let you enter an amount lower than $1,000 though.

Related: Not Sure How To Track Your Net Worth? We Explain!

Based on a net worth of just $1,000, which in this includes all of your possessions like clothes, you would be in the top 69% of the world’s wealthiest people. That’s not quite as dramatic as with the income side of things, but it would be easy to only have a net worth of $1,000 based on Americans’ awful consumer habits.

What about $10,000? That would put you in the top 32%. $100,000 would put you in the top 9% and $250,000 in net worth would put you in the top 5%. It would take a net worth of $770,000 to break into the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest people.

Rich List Based On Income

On the income scale, if you made minimum wage (which equates to $7.25 an hour or $15,080 a year), you would already be in the top 10% of global income. In fact, you’d be in the top 7.8% of income earners worldwide.

If you make $50,000 per year, you would be in the top 0.31% of the world’s population in terms of earning income. Earning just $50,000 per year puts us in the top 1% of the world’s population.

Now does that make you wonder about all of the hate about the 1%? Granted, we’re not the 1% in the United States, but if we make $50,000 per year you’re in the 1% of the world.