The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: November 9, 2006

422 comments on DrumBeat: November 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 10:03am

How is it blind faith to be optimistic about the future of humanity? Blind faith is believing something with no evidence, while there is evidence the future will be positive because of human nature. Humans are generally good, when given an opportunity to be. I have no evidence to this only my experience but I have seen people from all walks of life do nice things in extreme situations. I am not laying this in the Judeo-christian arena but the human arena. There are far more mothers than murderers.

matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Darwinian on November 9, 2006 - 10:16am

Humans are generally good, when given an opportunity to be. I have no evidence to this only my experience but I have seen people from all walks of life do nice things in extreme situations.

Humans are generally good when they have a full stomach, clothes on their back and a roof over their head. Have you ever observed a few million people in sheer desperation? Were you in Argentina in 2001?

People, in times of severe crisis, behave entirely different than they do in times of plenty. One does not have to be a psychologist to figure this out. All one must do is study history.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 10:31am

So you are assured of famine in the future? I have observed people act all sorts of ways under all sorts of conditions and I am saying that if someone has to they will steal the coins of a dead mans eyes but if they can they'll buy you a cup of coffee. Believing either scenario is not "blind faith" it is a conclusion based on past observations.

Blind faith is thinking we will overcome X via technology that hasn't been invented because we must.

I am saying this is not a blind faith scenario, thats all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on November 10, 2006 - 10:37am

"I am saying that if someone has to they will steal the coins of a dead mans eyes but if they can they'll buy you a cup of coffee."

ORM,

This is exactly what is happening right now in Iraq. BUsh is killing Iraqis so Halliburton and friends can steal their oil and then slosh the money they make around the private accounts of their friends. =)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

GROK on November 9, 2006 - 2:42pm

A new study shows that the stress of overcrowding and lack of resources trigger primitive parts of the brain in mammals that activate aggression and lots of bad stuff. Our genes are not optimal for the present situation.

Will post article if I am able to find it again.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SaturnV on November 9, 2006 - 8:02pm

A new study shows that the stress of overcrowding and lack of resources trigger primitive parts of the brain in mammals that activate aggression and lots of bad stuff. Our genes are not optimal for the present situation.

However I came accross this interesting article;

General Adaption Syndrome
(cf. Selye, 1974)

Evolutionary safeguards are triggered in social species when populations grow exponentially and stress levels rise. This results in a predictable spectrum of physiological and behavioural responses that invariably reduce the population's fertility below replacement level. The Canadian endocrinologist Hans Selye in 1936 named these responses the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), and many other studies have corroborated Selye's findings. A GAS decline typically appears well before famine and disease begin to cull the population, and its hormonal `fingerprint' often persists in wild mouse populations long after the population has shrunk to preplague levels and the habitat has recovered. GAS has led to the local extinction of a species in some instances.

Why should this concern us? There are four reasons:

There is no evidence that we are fundamentally distinct from other species. We too are shaped, driven and manipulated, both directly and indirectly, by our DNA, and no basic distinction has ever been detected in the biological fabric of our bodies --or in our behavioural drives.

The graph of our population growth for most of the past century was exponential and precisely mirrored that of any mammal entering what we call a plague phase.

All plagues end in similar fashion, with a population collapse that mirrors their exponential growth. Such an abrupt termination is essential to the evolutionary process. If it did not occur, `successful' species could proliferate indefinitely, endangering the existence of all life on Earth. This does not happen.

It follows that evolution's auto-collapse mechanism must therefore reside in the evolutionary process itself and persist via genetic replication. I would argue that this safeguard is essentially expressed via Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome. I would further argue that our species now displays most of the GAS symptoms and has already begun its GAS decline. And most significantly, many of our fertility inhibitors are associated with either a surfeit or dearth of hydrogen.

...<align="middle">

Link Punctuation Marks!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enviro attny on November 9, 2006 - 9:09pm

that graph sucks. I want to live long enough to see the newly unpopulated earth.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SaturnV on November 9, 2006 - 10:58pm

that graph sucks. I want to live long enough to see the newly unpopulated earth.

Odds are you wouldn't if die-off proceeded too fast. But don't be glum. If you're young enough you'll probably get to witness the last stomach wrenching gyrations of a whole planet-wide species in overshoot (complete with its own version of the "undulating plateau") before you're done down here, if that graph plays out.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on November 9, 2006 - 9:38pm

Isn't that an HL for people?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SaturnV on November 9, 2006 - 10:43pm

Isn't that an HL for people?

Yes. This should not be a surprise that the above graph follows a bell-shaped curve as apparently Hubbert adapted the basis for his model from ones pre-exisiting and proved in the life sciences.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on November 9, 2006 - 11:49pm

But didn't we say yesterday that HL couldn't be used for renewable resources, such as ethanol?

I do realize that it would be a completely separate calculation than the orginal HL for oil (and probably far more complex), but not wrong as such.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SaturnV on November 10, 2006 - 12:11am

But didn't we say yesterday that HL couldn't be used for renewable resources, such as ethanol?
I do realize that it would be a completely separate calculation than the orginal HL for oil (and probably far more complex), but not wrong as such.

But is any resource in the end truly renewable? And even if it could be argued otherwise are not animal populations ultimately constrained by Liebig's law of the minimum? I think this is what this graph is implying. In our case one could argue that oil "is" that scarcest resource.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SaturnV on November 10, 2006 - 12:14am

And even if it could be argued otherwise are not animal populations ultimately constrained by Liebig's law of the minimum?

Sorry, animal populations should just read populations.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on November 10, 2006 - 1:22am

Thanks. I'll look into this a bit more and may have further questions. Will also study up on the "Father of the Fertilizer Industry".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

airdale on November 9, 2006 - 10:27am

Oilrig Medic says
"There are far more mothers than murderers."

And huge numbers of mothers are murderers.

It isn't that the pregancy is 'unplanned' for surely they are not so stupid as to believe that, but desire to turn a blind eye to the facts of reproduction. Rather its that the pregnancy is inconvient or unwanted.

The populace just spoke in many ballot initiatives regarding abortion and they do not wish bans on such. This is obvious judging from the vote.

Again ,IMO ,potential 'mothers' who seek to abort are destroying life and are there for murderers with knowledge and planning a forethought.

Its that ole moral(possibly religious) attitude vs our new bright and shiny 'gimme it now and I don't want anything holding me up' attitude of this generation and that which has brought us close to the brink of doom.

Before someone objects ...there is hardly a single female who would allow any male to force her into an abortion , not with the current outstanding feminine rights that exist.

All that said I agree with Philreg as to the current philosophies (none actually but mass consumerism,ego and greed) that inhabit our land.

I chose the path of moral and spiritual belief. This is not the same as a church-going , diehard , Christian of the 'Vast Right Wing' conspiracy nor of 'The Base'.

To me its personal and how I live.

They chose there's freely. So do I.

airdale--
not meaning to hijack the thread,
just replying to what someone said,

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 10:37am

You just reached into pandoras box with a coat hanger....

Airdale,

While a huge number of mothers may decide to have abortions (a decision I disagree with but not mine to decide) I don't think a huge PERCENTAGE of mothers are doing so. Seriously the media pounds bad things into our brains all day long terrorism, train wrecks, democrats taking over congress. There is never live helicopter coverge of a boy helping an old woman across the street. I think if the media were "Fair and Balanced" LOL with positive and negative coverage we would have more faith in people.

matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on November 9, 2006 - 11:17am

There is never live helicopter coverge of a boy helping an old woman across the street.

The effect of that action yeilds what? And how many times can that action happen?

The effect of you being shot and the shooting taking your food is? How many times can that happen?

The negitive actions can result in death. The positive actions result in, well another day of positive.

The focus on the negative is because of the outcomes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 11:25am

Eric,
I am not talking about the reason for the coverage but the effect. Sex and violence sell, nobody would tune in for little boys helping old ladies across the street except old ladies and they are not the demographic with the most money. My point is the media has brow beaten us to live in fear.
matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on November 9, 2006 - 11:55am

My point is the media has brow beaten us to live in fear.

And my point is the follow-on effects of violence is WHY.

The end of cheap energy will result in people reacting violently.

Feel free to show how the end of cheap energy will have no economic effects. Feel free to show how collapsing economies don't result in more violence. Feel free to show that man has no histroy of figthing over resources.

The "doomers" have pointed to the past as proof. The 'non-doomers' point to 'advances', yet when asked how global climet change, endpoint of Phosperous in 130 years (per USGS), ocean fish stock collapse, prions in the food chain, man-made toxins in the food change AND the end of cheap energy are going to be 'solved' by 'advances'... it is only the voices of the 'doomers' that remain,

So come on, all you 'positive people' - whats your solution to the abouve things 'advances will solve'?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 12:06pm

1Climate change we have the technology Solar wind nuke to reverse this process as well as planting a bunch (billions and billions) of trees.

Phosperous, I don't know what we'll do about phosperous but maybe we could substitute phosphorus which there is quite a bit of in the earths crust all the way to the mantle. As it becomes more expensive mining it will become more economical.
Ocean fish stocks can be mitigated responsible fishery management as well as by iron fertilization, which will also help the CO2 levels.
Prions are in individual links of the food chain and herds can be slaughtered. Not a big threat. Toxins....if we quit burning fossil fuels and acomplish 1 this problem will be largely solved.
Cheap energy? when we run out of coal and thorium and uranium and wind and solar and hydro were f@#$@#d.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on November 9, 2006 - 12:33pm

phosphorus which there is quite a bit of in the earths crust all the way to the mantle. As it becomes more expensive mining it will become more economical.

Really? Huh. Care to show your source?

Because the USGS source says 60 to 130 years of mineable resouce. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2005.tb00413.x

Ocean fish stocks can be mitigated responsible fishery management

Interesting position. Given the fishing regulations that are in place to do just that and yet the stock are crashing, excatly HOW is 'more regulation' going to help?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/image/849/histo rical2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/threatened_species/general/species/black_co d_guide&h=282&w=400&sz=32&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=B_wV64r-O7qgUM:&tbnh=87&am p;tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhistoric%2Blarge%2Bcod%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

as well as by iron fertilization

Got proof of this outcome? A model?

Prions are in individual links of the food chain and herds can be slaughtered. Not a big threat

Huh. Interesting view. Yet, where are these 'slaughtered animals' fed? Or ones that are just simple 'downer' animals?

If it such a non-issue, as you claim, why can't creekstone farms test each of their slaughtered animals?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1110.cfm

http://www.mad-cow.org/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 12:53pm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Relative_abundance_of_elements.png

Phosphorus is common. It is currently used wastefully and there are many ways to recover it.

There are laws in place for lots of things that does not translate into proper management. Less fishermen less boats less waters and rotating waters for fishing as well as more studies on the fisheries.
Fish breed if one male and one female exist they can come back given the right situation.

There are multiple models for nutrient rich waters increasing plankton, then krill and so on google it or read a book.

Prions are self replicating proteins acting like viri but technically not they don't have nucleic acids. If you kill a sick animal and bury or incinerate it it is gone. If you grind it up and feed it to a same level herbivore you spread it. Prions occur naturally in 1/100,000-1,000,000 mammals. It is the bad practices of the meat industry that propogate it. Who cares if they test their animals? We need to not feed herbivores other herbivores.

Non issue.

The only thing on your list that is of real concern is climate change. We have a way to change but not the will at the moment.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on November 9, 2006 - 1:28pm

Phosphorus is common. It is currently used wastefully and there are many ways to recover it.

So that is the rebuttal to the USGS's 60 to 130 year limit.

Recovery - like peeing in a cup?

Less fishermen less boats less waters

And yet, how will THAT happen? Wioll that be like the recovery of P in Pee?

There are multiple models for nutrient rich waters increasing plankton, then krill and so on

And the models I've seen show the other bits in the water being consumed, resulting in a crash laster or worst-case inability for reproduction later.

But feel free to show the models that don't result.

It is the bad practices of the meat industry that propogate it.

And yet, they keep doing it. Now, how will this activity be stopped in the myitical future of 'progress'

If it is such a 'non-issue' then why isn't it being done?

Who cares if they test their animals?

And yet the USDA has stopped them.

Again, you state a buch of 'could be's' - yet I've not seen one of the 'could be's' be addressed in the now, or how the present efforts to address an effect have failed.

Why are you beliving that victory will be snatched from the jaws of failure? Why are the humans of the future going to be better at these issues than the humans of the now who have cheap energy?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 3:32pm

I stated several should be's not could be's...

What are you not getting about prions? They are not contagious, and all we need to stop their spread is kill the herd and not feed it to another herbivore. If you make catfish feed out of it the prion does not jump.

Seriously smallpox or birdflu are way more of a threat and they are still minimal.

I posted a link above to phosphorous and yes you can get it from urine as well as byproducts of the meat industry.

I spoke with my bro n law a geologist with the USGS and he agrees with me that there is plenty of phosphorous to gow around the question is at what price. Given this is an appeal to authority but no more than yours.

I will post a study on the ocean fertilizer on tommorrows drumbeat I need to leave now to go to dinner.

The less fishermen less boats less legal fishing waters. Be aggressive. Tax ocean products fund the coast guard and hatcheries. Form treaties and enforce them. Sink boats.

Climate change may be out of our control as a nation but the fisheries are not.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on November 9, 2006 - 4:28pm

What are you not getting about prions? They are not contagious, and all we need to stop their spread is kill the herd and not feed it to another herbivore

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/news/bse/cristse.htm
BSE spread from the United Kingdom into Western Europe despite slaughter of infected animals, control of live animal movements, and mandated restrictions on animal feeding practices.

Doesn't seem as simple as slaughter of infected animals and feed control.

On the fish-feed claim, do you have a link for the research on that?

And again I ask - given controls already installed and their failure... how in the new 'happy' future will failure not be the option? The willingness of one human to screw over many others for the one human to gain an advantage is well documented.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 4:52pm

http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/prions.html

There is your link on the prions, mammalian only.

Great page if you are interested in this. Again you are way more likely to die of many other things. This is like asbestos, an industry existed and consequences were found out after people got sick.

Anyway had some argentinian beef for dinner very good free range healthy cow...yum.

I agree with you fisheries are a problem, their management needs an overhaul.

I agree climate change is a problem. Plant some trees and conserve in your own household. Write your congressperson.

matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Hothgor on November 9, 2006 - 3:40pm

A 5-6 generation supply of phosphorous without looking for alternatives is a pretty abundant resource :P

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ET on November 9, 2006 - 6:20pm

Fish breed if one male and one female exist they can come back given the right situation.

This is not true for birds-- the passenger pigeon went extinct after its population fell below a critical level and breeding fell off until extinction, not because the last birds were killed-- and I doubt it is true in many species where similar such critical population sizes have to exist for viable propogation of the species.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sgage on November 9, 2006 - 4:14pm

OK, that's enough. Oilrig Medic, you are simply spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated pollyannish cornucopian nonsense.

"1Climate change we have the technology Solar wind nuke to reverse this process as well as planting a bunch (billions and billions) of trees."

While we theoretically have some technological approaches, the items you mention show any signs of coming on line anywhere near in time on a scale large enought to preclude climate change, which is already well underway. Nuclear is not necessarily carbon neutral, by the way, if you look at the whole cycle.

"2. Phosperous, I don't know what we'll do about phosperous but maybe we could substitute phosphorus which there is quite a bit of in the earths crust all the way to the mantle. As it becomes more expensive mining it will become more economical."

This is a religious belief. The Invisible Hand will take care of everything. What an economistic crock of shit. The atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, so what. It's the form that the element is in that makes it useful for plant growth. And that takes energy, lots of energy.

"3. Ocean fish stocks can be mitigated responsible fishery management as well as by iron fertilization, which will also help the CO2 levels."

There is no sign whatsoever of responsible fishery management coming along. Many fisheries are already totally collapsed, and the Tragedy of the Commons continues to unfold in the oceans. Iron fertilization is a wildcard. We do not understand marine ecosystems (nor any others) enough to know what the real outcome would be, much less the unintended consequences. This is a "solution" proposed by engineers, not by ecologists.

"4. Prions are in individual links of the food chain and herds can be slaughtered. Not a big threat. Toxins....if we quit burning fossil fuels and acomplish 1 this problem will be largely solved."

Prions are not a problem on par with climate change and ocean ecosystem collapse, but whatever.

"5. Cheap energy? when we run out of coal and thorium and uranium and wind and solar and hydro were f@#$@#d. "

Yes, thorium is just lying around all over the place, and we have a clue how to make a working commercial reactor out of it. Not.

Your claims really are simple assertions, and come across like some sort of faith statement. I mean, the solar energy flux that reaches Earth is immense, and could provide as much energy as anyone could want. But it's diffuse, and not easy to harness. It's not exactly in our pocket.

Not saying that nothing can be done, but glib assertion of the inevitability of techno-fixes is not particularly informative.

- sgage

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 4:42pm

None of these are things that don't exist (thorium aside but thorium reactors are close) We have Solar and plenty of wasted rooftops. Wind blows by unused and with breeder reactors uranium will supply hundreds of years of electricity.

read all my posts in this thread I am replying to what eric is stating with real solutions that exist today. Our problem is policies not technologies. Tax the crap out of fossil fuels and fund alternatives.

Responsible fishery management is not technology it is policy. Technology is increasing in floating fish farms.

I am not glibly asserting anything. I believe climate change is real but how can you say "well on the way" we have had a half of a degree rise. If we start now converting and conserving there things should be OK (NOTE: this depends on policy.)

Eric threw out a bunch of what ifs I am contesting and I said climate change is the only real threat.

Meanwhile my belief as the price of phosphorous goes up the economy of mining becomes better is not a religous belief. Would you sift a ton of sand for thirty copper BB's? How about gold, one man could sift a ton of sand in a day the current price of copper would not make sense but gold sure. Phosphorus is everywhere and it is recoverable.

Also if I am a cornucopian pollyanna why did I spend the past six months paying off my parents house and putting solar panels on it? Why did I sell my truck and move to Brasil? (besides my wife) I am preparing for a future lifestyle different than the one I was raised in. I have a large garden here with a half meter of topsoil with a three meter wall around it, this fall (march) I am put a solar setup on this roof.

Just because I don't buy into mad max/dieoff doesn't make me a cornucopian.

matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

vtpeaknik on November 9, 2006 - 5:47pm

Price is not everything. You can't eat money. When it costs more in food (needed for the labor) to sift the sand (so to speak) to get the phosphorous to grow the food, die off results.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

sgage on November 9, 2006 - 7:11pm

"Just because I don't buy into mad max/dieoff doesn't make me a cornucopian."

I don't buy into that either. My point was simply that your various refutations of various points were on the very, very optimistic side.

You indeed glibly asserted a lot of things, which, if you ran some numbers, you might be less chipper about. It comes across as whistling past the graveyard.

Again, I am NOT saying there is nothing to be done, nor am I saying that technology has no role in addressing our predicament.

In fact, you get close to my point with this comment:

"Responsible fishery management is not technology it is policy."

This is precisely my point. The technology is extremely simple - make large areas of the ocean off limits to fishing, period. It ain't gonna happen. Look up "tragedy of the commons". The policy is no where near forthcoming, much less some ability to enforce it. The gulf between theoretically physically and biologically possible and what we might choose to do as a global polity is enormous.

This is why I labeled your posting "pollyannish". I labeled your posting cornucopian for your apparent belief that the market system can make something from nothing, in the absence of energy. You need to run some numbers, that's all.

In simple terms, the "problem" is not technological. It is something else. It's about how we fundamentally approach our relationship to finite resources of all kinds...

- Steve

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oilmanbob on November 10, 2006 - 8:14am

A woman is not a mother until she has a child. A foetus is not a child. By the way, the early church did not consider a child a human until it had survived 3 months and infanticide was common and not a sin.
But, what does anyones religeous beliefs on abortion have to do with peak oil? By kidnapping this thread you discourage many serious folks from being introduced to the concept and therefore do a diservice to TOD

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

eric blair on November 9, 2006 - 11:11am

I chose the path of moral and spiritual belief.

You have also expressed a belief that one group of religious/genetic people have superior genetics to others without any more 'proof' than what you have 'observed' with all your training as an IBM programmer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

beggar on November 9, 2006 - 11:34am

One person I've been priveleged to know for some years is a nurse who has administered the OB/GYN depertment of a respected hospital for many years. She is an Evangelical Christian who once believed that abortion was always wrong.
After her years as a nurse, she has seen too many situations where she now believes that it was obvious that a pregnancy should have been terminated but was not. Many of these children suffer terrible abuse or disease or deformity, and then die very young after a short and brutal existence.

My wife and I openly adopted two children. We have nurtured the relationship between birthmothers and children so that they will always be close. These birth mothers have gone on for more education and marriage in both cases, and have children by their marriages. The kids know each other.

My feeling is that if one wants to prevent abortion, the law is a lousy way to do so. The way we live will either give women options and control over their lives or will be brutal and punitive toward women. Most "pro-lifers" do not enter into adoption, let alone open adoption so that young birthmothers are not punished.

Our youngest child's birthmom had just turned 15 when she gave birth to him. She was a beautiful young woman, but too young to parent by herself. We can create better options, but mostly we don't think about it that way.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

shawnott on November 9, 2006 - 10:50am

Hello Matt

If I may challenge your statement by asking you to define 'good'. I guess I would challenge the idea that as long as one is not a murderer then one is good. I think we are all screwed up and bad. Oh sure, we may not murder, but do we get angry driving down the road when someone cuts us off? Do we lie? Do we lust after someone or something?

Thanks, :)
Shawn

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 10:57am

Donnie Darko:
Donnie: Ling Ling finds a wallet on the ground filled with money. She takes the wallet to the address on the driver's license but keeps the money inside the wallet.
[Scoffs]
Donnie: I-I'm sorry Mrs. Farmer. I don't get this.

Donnie: Life isn't that simple. I mean who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
Kitty Farmer: Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
Donnie: Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!

Shawn I agree with you, I was using murderers vs mothers because they maybe represent ends of the spectrum better than road rage and smiles. Human nature is complex but beautiful.

matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

pickyreader on November 9, 2006 - 12:39pm

Humans are generally good, when given an opportunity to be. I have no evidence to this only my experience but I have seen people from all walks of life do nice things in extreme situations.

I'm not clear what you mean by humans here if you are describing individual humans, then I would agree with you however there are those early psychological studies where subjects were ordered to administer electrical shocks to a 'patient'(really an actor). Most of the subjects would follow the orders of the person in charge of the study, administering increasingly large shocks, up into the lethal range, simply because they were ordered to do so. I am going to disregard this for the moment because I want to believe that humans are generally good.

If however, you are describing large collectives of humans, i.e. society, I must strongly disagree with you. Humans as a whole are wasteful, callous, destructive, etc. Think about things like war, famine, genocide, and religion. If humans as a whole were generally good I don't think these things would be as prevalent as they are currently.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 1:05pm

war famine genocide and religion. Does a minority or majority start wars? Famines are symptoms of other things (war, drought, blight) when genocide occurs it is ussually blood on the hands of a few while others are blinded or often times (under ground railroad, nazi germany and many more) other HUMANS step up and protect their fellow HUMANS at great personal risk.

Religion. I think of all the horrible things buddism and the ways of the Inuit indians have caused. I also think of the plot jesus and his disciples hatched on how his teachings could cause suffering world wide? Individuals abuse power yes but more often than not people are good.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

shawnott on November 9, 2006 - 1:14pm

Sorry I need some clarification on this. Is it sarcasm or are you really suggesting Jesus teachings were a plot to cause suffering?

Also let me bring up the point, that without an absolute being, God, where does one get 'right' or 'wrong'? How can one say Hitler was wrong? Sure it may not be beneficial to others if one murders, but how can that person be called evil?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oilrig medic on November 9, 2006 - 1:22pm

yes sarcasm with jesus. his teachings and philosophys were nice, the franchise guys screwed it up.

Look up the word evil. There is a picture of a german guy with a little mustache next to richard simmons, thats hitler. Seriously you can get as deep as you want and question what is "right" and "wrong" but pretty much everybody would fear being murdered and not want to be murdered. In addition it has taboos in almost all cultures except in wartime when it is suddenly ok. Except when soldiers do kill it screws up their heads and damages them emotionally because it is a horrible personal act.

Hitler was evil and sick.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davidsmi on November 9, 2006 - 1:38pm

"Also let me bring up the point, that without an absolute being, God, where does one get 'right' or 'wrong'?"

Same place you get it without an absolute being.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davidsmi on November 9, 2006 - 1:43pm

should have read:

Same place you get it with an absolute being.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dinopello on November 9, 2006 - 3:46pm

Great answer!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

thegoodshipkship on November 9, 2006 - 10:44pm

Also let me bring up the point, that without an absolute being, God, where does one get 'right' or 'wrong'?

I'm agnostic. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I abandon my heretical philosophy and decide there is a conscious creator. In order for my moral choices to be guided by this belief, I need to select from the infinite permutations that could be God's nature. For the not particulary creative, I guess this means choosing a preexisting religion. How would I make that decision, given that they do not all agree on moral issues? Select the one aligning with my own personal preferences? Listen to the advice of wise elders? Conform with societal norms? Anyway you slice this, there is human intervention in deciding right from wrong. Even if God exists, we do not know God, and must, therefore, thumb it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

422 comments on DrumBeat: November 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

“This order [i.e. capitalism] is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with the economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt.”

—Max Weber, 1905