The Oil Drum: Net Energy | A Net Energy Parable: Why is ERoEI Important?

A Net Energy Parable: Why is ERoEI Important?

Share | Show without comments | PDF version

156 comments | Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 11:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

This is what I mean by diffuse, rather than brass tacks.

I was talking about those pessimistic predictions some make for the course of human history over the next decades and centuries. You've taken that and reapplied it to all kinds of things I did not say.

I suppose you expect me to follow the "fan-out" of your argument, but that simply does not interest me. Sorry.

Kevembuangga on August 5, 2006 - 12:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Still weaseling!

Not to be "diffuse", do you think or NOT that the shortage of oil or more generally cheap energy will bring a major downgrading in "civilisation", that is the average standard or living for people world wide, in, say the next 30 years (to be generous...)?

And spare us the questions:

What is generally?
What is cheap?
What is major?
What is downgrading?
What is civilisation?
What is average ?
Etc... etc...

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

That's not the same question. I'll answer out of politeness, but I'll also note that we've changed subjects.

Sure, I think society will change and respond to higher energy costs and lower availability. My gut says that the path will be painful but not murderous.

But I'm humble. I don't put my gut ahead of anyone else's. I won't pretend that I've charted a sure-thing path for world history.

Kevembuangga on August 5, 2006 - 4:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

painful but not murderous.

That is OK for an answer.
So, either you didn't understood Tainter, or you don't believe him, or you think it will not happen that soon.

I think it WILL BE murderous and pretty soon.
I am not alone and this is not "from my guts" but from VERY SIMPLE reasoning.

sure-thing path for world history.

Tainter (and more or less Diamond) DO GIVE a "sure-thing path" for any civilisation.
The trouble is that today the whole world is a single civilisation, even those who seemingly reject it, the Jihadists get most of their FOOD and WATER from the Kafirs.
Upon collapse ALL will be hurt except for a few crumbs like the Sentinelese who will likely survive it as well as they survived the tsunami.
Naysayers will find out, just like everybody else...

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 5:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

I think Tainter folks are thinking from their gut, but just don't want to admit it. They assert more than they prove.

nate hagens on August 5, 2006 - 5:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Im not sure what a "Tainter-folk" is. I respect his writings and can see beginnings of parallels in modern society - Governor Schwarzenegger bypassing US Govt and negotiating directly with Tony Blair? That sounds like seeds of collapse to me. Its not just Tainters work but Odoms, Lotkas, Georgescu-Roegen, etc. Organisms with the most energy win. We have to increase our energy or decrease our population. The opposite is happening, so we are relying on history to guess what the current trajectory might bring.

I certainly don't 'know', but the midpoint of the distribution of probabilities is the end of growth and a slow crash - There are points on either side of that one.

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 5:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

Why wouldn't Schwarzenegger's(*) move be an example of adaptiveness in the network?

I'm not saying it is, but I think I'm pointing to why these things are so hard to call. The path forward (assuming peak oil) is about an interaction between culture and technology.

That's hard to project, and what I mean by "Tainter folk" are those here who presume to have a "final answer."

* - thanks for the spelling, as I cut and paste

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 5:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

(BTW, it almost seems that one needs "collapse" as a premise in order to see Schwarzenegger's move as a bad thing.)

Kevembuangga on August 5, 2006 - 6:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

seems that one needs "collapse" as a premise

Short circuit in the neurones again!

It is the OPPOSITE :
"Such moves" are premise for collapse.
The early signs of the demise of centralized power.
I bet you DID NOT read Tainter.
Answer? YES/NO (only 2 choices...)

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 6:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

No, and to be honest you are reducing my impulse to read Tainter.

Are you ready for a hard question? Engineers generally see redundancy as a defense against failure. Explain how "complexity" does not include redundancy.

Kevembuangga on August 5, 2006 - 6:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

you are reducing my impulse to read Tainter.

Going "emotional" ?

Explain how "complexity" does not include redundancy.

Redundancy is not "granted", either it is DESIGNED or GROWN by selection, natural or just thru maturing, that is once all the brittle "solutions" have failed the surviving ones usually do so by redundancy.

This is EXACTLY what we are about to face as a specie, is the human specie brittle when faced with it's own crappy habits?

Are you ready for a hard question?

Your "bozoity" index is amazing, read Tainter, read my explanation about how complexity brings failure and tell me WHAT you did not understand
I will help you...

P.S. I suspect you know zilch about any kind of technology, chemical or otherwise and are just a PR guy.
Beware of unemployment, it happened before.

Kevembuangga on August 5, 2006 - 7:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

BTW, Thanks for the fun.

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 9:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

All you've demonstrated is that you can't answer a simple question without spinning off to handwaving and abuse.

If you are happy with that performance, it only makes things sadder.

Kevembuangga on August 6, 2006 - 1:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

All YOU've demonstrated is that EITHER:

- You are unable to understand a VERY SIMPLE STATEMENT (repeated below)
- or YOU are SPINNING by pretending not to understand such.

Repeating:

Redundancy does not come AUTOMATICALLY with any kind of complexity.

1) It has to be planned and built by the designers of the system if the system is ENGINEERED (*).

2) Or it is the outcome of a selection process which takes TIME and many trials whenever the system is grown, naturally or by being the result of trials and errors by society.

"Happy ... makes things sadder", turning to "emotional" when you run short of arguments.
Talk about spinning and handwaving, yeah!

Please EXPLAIN why you would not read Tainter and still pretend to argue about Tainter's ideas!
Not that much reality-based, Eh?

* Difficult thing, this is what Murphy's laws are about, especially the sixth one:

6. If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.

odograph on August 6, 2006 - 9:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

The question was specifically about the measure of copmlexity, and how redundancy was excluded from that measure.

I haven't seen an asnwer to that.

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 12:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

BTW, if you think you can name a standard of living 30 years hence, you haven't really digested "fooled by randomness."

odograph on August 5, 2006 - 12:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top

On third thought this is really funny! I say that I don't think human history, decades hence, is predictable. You tell me to "stop weaseling" and give a prediction for 30 years in the future.

Either you aren't getting me, or you are a comedian ;-)