 | Investment in Oil Exploration and Production -- An "Above Ground" Factor | The Oil Drum | First Principle: End Fossil Fuel Subsidies |  |
188 comments on DrumBeat: November 25, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
188 comments on DrumBeat: November 25, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”
—Benjamin Franklin
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I only skimmed the article, but I don't suspect that the author is not also aware that our ability to keep our lives going will have to work with neighbors combining their effort on many of these projects, and get the benefit of some economy-of-scale (ie, 'barnraising') to make a self-sufficient approach somewhat managable.
She mentions the 'salt' question, for example. I can't look at our prospects, even if we have to reinvent great swaths of our suburban lives, without knowing that there will be people on the coast who will be producing salt, and it will be sold at markets, in towns, and where he'll buy some of her neighborhood's Maple Syrup or Honey. Trading and some specialization are not a product of Crude Oil, and will not be peaking with it.
I have to say it really warms my heart when people make an attempt to become even partly self-sufficient. There's just so much personal reward from it.
Ron Patterson
I will not reply again to this thread. I tried, but failed in this instance, to follow my ideal of never argueing with religious people. They deserve to be ignored, not argued with.
Ron Patterson
So peace, man.
It may even be in our nature, but is there such a thing as evil?
And you are welcome to say you don't believe in an abstract, religiously grounded framework, but my question is not based on an abstract, religiously grounded framework either, not that my curiousity requires an answer.
And to be fair - I definitely believe there is such a thing as evil, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists. I also believe that evil is not punished in any form in any supernatural sense, so believing in it doesn't make life more comforting.
Hehehe, that's funny!
Ron Patterson
I believe in beauty, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists.
I believe in self-awareness, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists.
'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.'
A lot of discussions bog down in details - I was merely trying to avoid those detours.
Worse, a lot of discussions bog down because the words are not what is discussed, they are the means.
But my question was merely idle curiousity, nothing more.
For instance, the tsunami of December 2004 killed almost 300,000 people. Was evil involved? If one says it was an act of God, how then can evil be denied for this event? See what I mean? But then I do not believe in God. Well, not a personal god anyway. As to a higher intelligence, I am an agnostic. At any rate I do not believe any kind of God caused the tsunami therefore no evil was involved. But if you believe in God, then he caused it and therefore he is evil.
But to answer your original question, I am a determinist. Not a genetic determinist, nor an environmental determinist, just a determinist. If you know what that means then you have your answer. If you do not, then look it up.
Ron Patterson
Which is why I also believe in evil - though I see a mistake in my question. I should have said do you believe humans commit evil - it never even occurred to me to describe any event not done by thinking beings (just limiting things here, nothing else) to be evil. The world just is, and only those elements capable of self-awareness and thus volition or choice can make moral/ethical distinctions which are more than merely metaphysical discussions.
No need to answer - you are quite right, a deterministic view is an explanation, and a valid one in itself.
A good example is the war in Iraq (my opinion) because we have killed nearly 700,000 humans over "Weapons of mass distruction", or "regime change", or bringing "democracy" to the people of Iraq, or whatever position the Kaliedescope of rationalisation has brought us to this week. What kind of narcicism makes us the rulers of the world and enforcers of morality? If that isn't evil, what is?
And although I'm a Christian, I'm totaly sure that God is a lot happier with Australian Aborigines dancing at a fire in the bush and telling tales of the Dream Time than he is with any church or mosque praying for victory.
Well, in a philosophy of decision a deterministic approach may be rewarding, but I'd like to point out to you a general problem regarding determinism. What was the first cause?
This question is particularly dazzling if one is into ontological determinism, i.e. not just as one views among many.
Many here probably know this, but for those of you interested in issues like determinism I'd like to add that quantum mechanics is probabilistic. Doing an identical experiment several times, one may get a lot of different results. But the distribution of results always stays the same, given that the experiments are identical.
Determinism, in physics, deals with physical causes. And first cause is a problem. Determinism in philosophy deals entirely with acts of the human will! In acts of the human will first cause is not a problem. Think about it. You were determined to wish this or that because of some cause, and that cause had another cause, on back to infinity. (Before the human will existed.) Or, it need not go back near that far. The cause of your wish might originate entirely from the physical, like a storm or lightening bolt, and have no human cause. But your every desire must have cause. But since that first cause need not necessarily originate with the human will, yours or anyone else's, first cause is not a problem.
Just remember, when speaking of determinism in philosophy, determinism deals with acts of the human will and absolutely nothing else.
Ron Patterson
(Many philosopher enjoy the Heisenberg uncertainly relation and the probabilistic quantum nature, and think the key to understanding free lie in those topics.)
But i understand what where you want. Free will in a materialistic reality is perhaps what most philosophers address. The context above was human behavior, and perhaps you're right, that first cause is not problem - i don't know. Either way, what's really being discussed here is the mind/body problem, a discussion that i'm not very qualified to discuss.
"Shut up and calculate!"
Paul Dirac when being asked philosophical questions about the interpretation of Schroedinger's equation. (from my memory)
Dead Wrong! When you are discussing the determinism-free will debate, you are talking only about acts of the human will. Free will is acts of the human will by definition. You are talking about why you wish to this or that. Why you choose to do this or that. You are not talking about determinism in the physical world, you are only talking about acts of the human will. That is the very definition of free will!
Wow! You really are confused. The determinism-free will debate has absolutely nothing to do with the mind/body problem. How on earth did you make that connection? Whether the mind is seperate from the brain (body) has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have free will or not.
And you really do not need any qualifications to discuss the mind/body problem because if you believe they are two seperate things, then you are discussing faith, not science. Anyone can believe anything they wish where only faith is concerned. Science is an entirely different matter. There is absolutely no evidence that the mind is seperate from the body.
Ron Patterson
I referred to determinism in general, not suggesting that bricks and stones are subject to a free will debate. BTW the definition from Biology online does not explicitly tie free will to humans, and therefore seems to be more general than your approach in defining free will. (But for what it's worth, i tend to agree with you)
I must admit often being confused, sometimes also on topics regarded as simple, yes.
You are somewhat correct, but stating that there is absolutely no connection is a bit strict. It's a very common connection to make and it felt natural for me to do. I did a google on "mind body problem", and observe for example that wikipedia also make such connection.
There are two subjects that, in connection with the philosophy of the mind, have aroused special attention: free will and the self....In the context of the philosophy of mind, the question about the freedom of the will takes on a renewed intensity. This is certainly the case, at least, for materialistic determinists.[1] According to this position, natural laws completely determine the course of the material world. Mental states, and therefore the will as well, would be material states bla bla bla
This is enough philosophy for me. If you insist, please correct me (preferably citing someone if possible) and I'll happily stand corrected.
And even more to the point, as a determinist, why should you even care whether we share your point of view, since any consequences of our beliefs will will be irrelevant to any event that happens in the future.
Are you predetermined to care about inconsequential matters?
Tony Verbalis
I've read Susan Neiman's "Evil In Modern thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy" (Princeton, 2002). It's a good one for all to read -- check it out!
Basic Outline:
1. "Fire From Heaven" -- Leibniz, Pope, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Marx.... Is the wish to be God the "Driving force behind much of metaphysics"? (p. 110) And is a need for certain Knowledge an attempt to be God? Where does morality come from, if not from God? Do we have values or "dignity"? And so forth....Reason challenges religion....
2. "Condemning the Architect" Whoooo boy! Here we go...as a fundamentalist preacher's kid, this section was quite a ride of a read! -- Bayle, Voltaire, Hume, de Sade, Schopenhauer....interesting quote from Schopenhauer:
"Every fulfillment of our wishes won from the world today is only like the alms that keep the beggar alive today so that he may starve again tomorrow. Resignation, on the other hand, is like the inherited estate; it frees its owner from all care and anxiety forever."
So we go from theodacy to a nihilism that expresses "the kind of decadence only rich men's sons enjoy." (p. 200 -- Note: not "rich man's daughters"!)
3. "Ends of An Illusion" Nietzsche, Freud... the world is fukll of pain and of "obstacles that thwart our desires" and this is usually what we think of as "evil" or "bad." We try to manage ourlives to get what we want in spite of this. Fulfillment of our desires is "good."
4. "Homeless" -- Earthquake; mass murders; losses; intentions; terror (after September 11); Remains: Camus, Arendt, Critical Theory, Rawls; Origins: Sufficient Reason...
Neiman concludes that we do not find reason or meaning in the world, and we create it ourselves.
Most interesting is her treatment of the infamous "911" attacks (pp 281-288). Our shared morality tries to prevent death and fear. Terrorism brutally violates that shared convention. Those who believe in God, Satan, and Demons felt their beleifs to be confirmed. Some aboard flight 93 acted like heroes in light of our shared morality, and attempted to stop the spread of fear and death, even though they had little or no hope of saving themselves...?
My questions: Was this terrorism moral or natural evil? Is there a difference? Why or why not? Is "Shock and Awe" warfare good or evil? Who can know beforehand whether an act of violence will do more to prevent death and fear than to incite further death and fear?
Are wars ultimately a matter of animals fighting over a carcass, with no moral element at all?
How does the problem of evil relate to peak oil? Is peak oil good or bad, or simply the way it is? Can human responses to Peak Oil be said to be good or bad, or are they simply whatever they are?
Whoa, have you guys goen philosophical today! Gotta' love it, folks actually thinking about goals, values and aesthetics, the driving engines (or as the guy who walked the walk as well as talked the talk, Albert Schwietzer said,, "What the West faces is essentially an ethical crisis."
Sadly, even he seems to have someone overlooked that great driving engines of philosophy, aesthetics, politics, organized religious dogma, engineering and design, and most of all economics....THE SHEER POWER OF HUMAN STUPIDITY. Great philosophical question: How often has what was seen as evil been nothing more than just plain stupidity?
Could it be that Schwietzer would have been more accurate to say, ""What the West faces is essentially a stupidity crisis."
Gotta' love it, then we could take things a bit less seriously and just enjoy the "play" of learning! That sounds childish. Indeed, our nation is becoming a nation of the old. Playing at learning and design and taking care of each other is becoming a lost art.
I have trouble trusting even an "old" kid who refuses to at play a little.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
If one accepts the premise that good and evil are real, then Arendt's observations seem spot on to me.
If one accepts that "good" is the reduction of death, suffering, and fear, then "evil" might be seen as the proliferation of death, suffering, and fear. Our culture is good to the extent that we do the first, and evil inasmuch as we do the latter.
Jacques Ellul points out that the problem of evil in our complex culture is that evil is so diffuse throughout that we are unable to effectively identify or address evil.
That fits what I call "intentional ignorance" which is a reduction of one's field of focus to include only the bubble of personal peace and affluence of one's tiny life. Without context of the larger habitat as a reference, one's tiny "normal" life may be wreaking enourmous evil, especially together with others doing the same.
So evil is diffuse and banal and any who dare to point that out are marginalised or excluded from discussion. sometimes quite violently.
"The world would not be in such a snarl, if Marx were born Groucho instead of Karl"
-- nothing personal to the 'fellow travelers' out there. I don't think communism or democracy are failed ideas. We should try them sometime. (Maybe together)
That decision can be expensive. Fuel subsidies are expected to chew up about $7 billion of Egypt's annual budget this year, or 15% of total planned spending."
15%!!! I can't even imagine 15 percent of an entire country's budget being spent on fuel subsidies....