If society were to fall completly and we had to restart, would

>>2197448
Fossil fuels are not the only type of fuel out there, they are simply the most efficient.

But >>2197454
But would we be able to do it again with a less efficient fuel if all technical knowledge of it was lost for a time

lmao wtf am I reading our current industrial base and coal consumption is many hundreds of times larger than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution

us manufacturing output continues to grow it's the number of people employed by it that is dropping

>>2197464
I'm sure we'd figure something out.

>>2197448
Because there would be far smaller populations

>when we have already exausted most of our coal

???

What >>2199158 said

But even if we did, we'd just invent other technology to work with what we got

We don't use our current technology because it's ordained by God, we use it because it was/is convenient at its time. That's also why technology changes; to adapt to the needs of the day

there is lots, and lots of coal left

lots of it

we may be putting a noticeable dent in petroleum tho

>>2199268
There is still a lot of coal left, but easily obtainable sources are dwindling. A proto-industrial society is not going to utilizing longwall mining.

You need easily accessible coal to get the ball running in the first place. Almost every nation has significant coal reserves if you dig deep enough, but not every nation industrialized at the same time.

>>2197464
Well, yes. The one main advantage humans have in times of crisis is the ability to adapt and innovate with chosen technologies. A solar or wind or nuclear based industrial revolution would certainly be slower growth compared to our Industrial Revolution powered by abundant hydrocarbons, but it wouldn't be negated. Of the three non-hydrocarbon power-generation solutions I mentioned, two have precedents in pre-industrial society.

we can fuel on our shit