Inequality determined by means and scale of energy capture

Recently, I attended a fascinating talk by Ian Morris, who put forward the slightly uncomfortable, but also rather logical, argument that there is an “ideal” level of inequality for each type of society and that the defining characteristic of a society is the level of energy it captures.

Very briefly summarising (and you can read more here, or even buy his book), Ian grouped human societies into three types: Forager, Farmer and Fossil Fuels — more commonly but less alliteratively labelled hunter-gatherer, agrarian and industrial. In forager societies, energy capture was very low, in farmer societies an order of magnitude greater, and in fossil fuel societies an order greater still. Loosely, this resulted in societies with low, high and middling levels of inequality, respectively; (there are subtleties around different types of inequality but I’ll leave those aside).

Methods or quantities?

Ian’s argument is that the level of energy capture dictates the type of economy and society, including things as diverse size of social group and the prevalence of slavery. I find this a convincing argument but think that the idea may be better framed in Marxist terms, i.e. the level of energy capture may be less important than the method of energy capture, or means of production, in a society.

In forager societies, there is no means of production, energy capture is basically incidental. This inherently implies a fairly equitable society as no one power can control the means of production. In farmer societies, increased energy capture can only be realised through more complex divisions of labour and larger social groups. The means of production is human (and animal) labour. For this to be effective there must be a high degree of organisation, power and coercion so that sufficient labour is deployed when and where it is needed. In fossil fuel societies, the means of production switches, to an ever-increasing extent, from humans to machines. It is no longer necessary to coerce the majority of the populace into action in order for production to occur. Human effort is instead invested in activities that go beyond, far beyond, what is necessary for survival. This not only reduces the need for coercion, but also its efficacy; in a society in which the basic essentials of life are a given, people have less to fear from rebelling against its structures and norms. However, the control of energy capture still remains in the hands of a select few, and they therefore wield considerable societal power.

What of the solar future?

Ian speculated about the future direction of inequality in modern societies undergoing rapid technological advancement. Focusing on Moore’s Law, he posited the idea that in our lifetimes we will see computers powerful enough to duplicate human brains. I don’t want to dwell on that other than to say that I think there are considerably greater technological hurdles to overcome in that area than his sources suggest. Rather, we should look to the immediate energy capture transition from fossil fuels to renewables. When considering long-term impact, one renewable technology stands out above all others. Solar power ismore scalable, more innovative in its development pathway and subject to a morerapidly falling experience curve than all other renewable energy sources. It is also, in physical respects, more fundamentally aligned to previous methods of energy capture: from an energy capture perspective the plants foraged, the animals hunted, the oxen pulling ploughs, the farmers scything wheat, and the fossilised remains of all of the above are simply vessels for the storage of solar energy. Solar power plus electrical storage enables us to continue with the habit of our species without the aspects of energy capture and use that not longer fit our principles.

How, though, can a switch from fossil fuels to solar power be expected to affect inequality in our societies? For one, the method of energy capture need no longer be controlled centrally. Ubiquitous cheap, efficient, flexible, portable solar power plants will enable even those with very limited resources access to energy, wherever they may be. Cheap energy storage will see them through dark nights and winters. Distribution networks, already struggling to adapt to far more varied energy flow requirements, would have to become more flexible, whereas transmission networks may become providers to only large, industrial consumers and super-dense cities unable to generate sufficient power locally. For many, the change to a new era of energy capture may not just revolutionise how we pay for power, but may mean that Ian Morris’ fourth “F” may be Free, or something near to it.

Of course, not everyone buys into this narrative. Some already believe that the falling costs of solar and energy storage will be short-lived. But this does not yet appear to be the case, and these critics appear to underestimate the levels of both product and process innovation ongoing in the solar and energy storage industries. If the level or method of energy capture is the determinant of inequality in societies, and if the promise of near-free energy is realised, inequality can be expected to fall dramatically as we leave fossil fuels behind.