<DrumBeat: September 1, 2006 The Oil Drum Cornucopians - A Guide for the Perplexed>
<DrumBeat: September 1, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 3, 2006>

DrumBeat: September 2, 2006

Show without comments | PDF version

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

odograph on September 3, 2006 - 1:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
How do we make the "no growth" argument without invoking Tainter mumbo-jumbo?
Kevembuangga on September 3, 2006 - 3:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
To escape Tainter "mumbo-jumbo" (which you CANNOT qualify in any way since you DON'T knwow it)
  • You don't pay attention to odograph mumbo-jumbo and handhull of others, they know who they are...
  • You keep growing and try at any time to cherry pick the BEST of every FINITE ressource or opportunity, for energy, metallic ore, arable land, clean water, you name it...
  • You find out as time goes by that only the POOREST and MOST EXPENSIVE ressources are left.
  • You don't switch to ALL RENEWABLE ressources.
  • You die because though "something" is left of every ressource it costs MORE to gather than the value you can reclaim from it, EROEI < 1.
But you don't have to die if you are not a stubborn idiot or PR troll.

If you switch to renewable ressources AND don't grow such as not to erase the ressources CAPITAL you need for ongoing operations you can keep going until the sun itself dies, not quite eternity but not that bad...

odograph on September 3, 2006 - 3:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
I will be humble enough to admit the possibility that I am a stubborn idiot, but tell me, why does a google-advanced search, to look at the ASPO site for "Tainter" show no hits?

Your search - tainter site:http://www.peakoil.net/ - did not match any documents.

The copy and pasted URL carried a lot of grunge with it.  To reproduce my humble effort, go to the site below, put "tainter" in the search box, and "http://www.peakoil.net" in the box labeled "[only] return results from the site or domain":

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

Best wishes (I wish Leanan and you all the best, I just think you suffer an unnecessary pessimism).

Kevembuangga on September 3, 2006 - 5:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
I will be humble enough to admit the possibility that I am a stubborn idiot,

I would rather say a stubborn PR troll and not so idiot since you are trying ONCE MORE to use a diversion:

If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a diversion - that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent.

to evade a conclusion which you CANNOT escape otherwise.
  • Did not you ASK "How do we make the "no growth" argument without invoking Tainter mumbo-jumbo?"
  • Does my argumentation makes ANY reference to Tainter?
  • Does my argumentation SHOWS that "no growth" is mandatory in a FINITE setting of ressources?
  • Do you understand the argument?
You may not be an idiot but you are certainly a piece of shit!
And it shows MORE and MORE!

odograph on September 3, 2006 - 5:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
I really thought we could have a friendly conversation.  If you are going to answer my "best wishes" like that though, I'm going to hold back.

The answer to your bullet list didn't seem that earth shattering.  I didn't feel like I had any stunning contribution.  It is just that it contains some things that are recyclable and/or restorable (minerals, land, water), and some things that are truly use-once (fossil fuels).

The pronouncement that we "can't" move to "ALL RENEWABLE resources" confused me.  In what time frame?  Who is we?

Remember that I think we have fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and that beyond that it's incalculable anyway.

Kevembuangga on September 3, 2006 - 5:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Remember that I think we have fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and that beyond that it's incalculable anyway.

An opinion: "I think".
A "diffuse" (I would say meaningless) wording: "the foreseeable future".

No more "brass tacks"?
No more "good models"?

You seem to withstand insults pretty well today.
Your newly developed "humility" ?

Still you can't resist a little weaseling, it feels sooo good :

Who is we?

Yeah! the mysterious "WE"...

odograph on September 3, 2006 - 6:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
The good reserve of uncertainty I've had in the last few months might come from a peculiar combination of humility and hubris - humility to know I don't have the answer, hubris to think that I've worked it out, and put a boundary on the unpredictable!)

In case it doesn't translate across the Internets, I am laughing out loud as I read that last sentence back ;-)

odograph on September 3, 2006 - 5:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Also, maybe I'm misreading you, but this part didn's sound that bad ... for some meanings of the word "grow":

If you switch to renewable ressources AND don't grow such as not to erase the ressources CAPITAL you need for ongoing operations you can keep going until the sun itself dies, not quite eternity but not that bad...
bjj on September 5, 2006 - 9:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
K,

Easy does it.  TOD excels at providing a relatively flame-free environment for disparate data, views, and opinions.  Please do what you can to keep the dialogue above scatalogical levels.

Kevembuangga on September 6, 2006 - 1:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Parent subthread | Comments top
Please do what you can to keep the dialogue above scatalogical levels.

I already answered that kind of critiscism :

Je ne puis rien nommer si ce n'est par son nom;
J'appelle un chat un chat, et Rollet un fripon.
Translation: I can call nothing by name if that is not his name. I call a cat a cat, and Rollet a rogue.

You should use the RIGHT TERMINOLOGY, lest you forget whom you are talking with.

DrumBeat: September 2, 2006

Show without comments | PDF version

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