DrumBeat: January 8, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 8, 2007 - 10:05am
As to peak oil, predictions of the end of oil have been made often in the past and it is not clear that frightening scenarios will play out in the short run that some suggest. There are complex issues of geology, technology, and prospective efficiency considerations. The accepted definition of proven reserves includes what is known and can be exploited economically with existing technology. Both price and potential supply are conservatively estimated for this purpose, although some experts suggest that producers have a strong interest in overestimating their reserve position. Because OPEC quotas are based on proven reserves it is in the interest of members to greatly exaggerate their reserves so they can pump more. Such “political barrels” are estimated to be 44 percent of the total reserves OPEC claims. Russia’s reserves are also uncertain but probably 30–40 percent lower than officially claimed.9 Some countries have been extracting large amounts of crude but maintaining the same proven reserves figures. Companies too have incentive to exaggerate their reserves. In 2006 Shell had to admit it had overestimated its reserves by nearly a third and its stock price promptly fell. Finally it is also the case that for the past two decades the oil taken out of the ground has exceeded new discoveries.
Goldman Sachs cuts oil forecast again
Bank drops crude outlook for second time in less than a month, expects prices to hit $69 a barrel this year due to warmer weather.
Scientific American and the Silent Lie
As long as the forces of industrial expansion are able to spew pro-growth propaganda that denies the laws of physics and the reality of overpopulation, the sustainability movement is at a disadvantage in reaching the public.
Warm weather spells relief for homeowners
PORTLAND, Maine - That sound New Englanders are hearing in their basements — the sound of silence as their oil-burning furnaces sit idle — is saving them money as heating oil consumption drops with this season's warm temperatures.
Cold Snap Kills At Least 260 People In South Asia
The cold weather has highlighted acute shortfalls in the country's energy supply, especially of natural gas, as households increase their use of gas heaters.Pakistan's current energy crisis is expected to worsen over the next two years as demand rises by an anticipated 50 percent.
Pakistan: Power Ministry to review energy crisis in country
ISLAMABAD: A high level meeting of the Water and Power Ministry is going to be held today to review the prevailing energy crisis and load shedding in the country.
Pakistan: Power crisis to deepen in coming years: 50% demand rise in two years likely
The power shortage that has been estimated to remain in the range of 1000-2000MW during the current year is likely to cross 3,000MW next year and to increase to about 5,300MW by 2010. Overall, Pakistan’s total energy requirement is expected to be around 80 million tons of oil equivalents (MTOE) in 2010, up by about 50 per cent from the current year’s 54 MTOE.“Since four out of five major initiatives, originally planned for meeting this demand, are uncertain at present, the shortage could be anybody’s guess,” said a senior government official.
Is the Anglo-American empire losing the "Great Energy Game"?
As revealed in the San Francisco Chronicle report, both China-Kazakhstan deals have come at a steep price (that China is willing to pay), and over intense and continuous opposition from Washington and western oil consortiums. China has agreed to build and finance the proposed 2,000-mile pipeline from Kazakhstan to eastern Chinese border.
Take biofuels for instance. The use of agricultural products such as sugarcane or wheat has created a dilemma over whether crops should be used to feed people or fuel vehicles and industry.The matter is of course particularly acute in the mainland, where the world's largest national population puts enormous pressure on food security. Moreover, the party has, notwithstanding occasional horrific food policy reversals during Mao Zedong's weirdest phases, historically put food security as its chief priority.
Green Funds Appeal to German Principles and Pockets
FRANKFURT - Renowned for their recycling habits, booming solar and biofuel industry and boasting one of the world's oldest Green parties, Germans are catching on to a global trend in green and socially conscious investing.
Gore mobilizes global warming activists
Hundreds of volunteers from across the country have flocked to Nashville this fall and winter and more are here today as part of a grass-roots training effort to spread the word on global warming.
Policy: A Scene Set For Change
As China pushes 'Green GDP,' officials fear careers may depend on cutting the costs of pollution.
Since majority of the people of Bangladesh live in rural areas, providing energy to them is almost impossible. Only renewable or limitless energy like wind can solve the problem and improve their life style. As has already been mentioned, Bangladesh has strong potential for wind energy and it needs to utilise this opportunity through drastic measures. If we can substitute only 5.0 per cent of our electricity by wind energy that will be bring in great benefit t
Why India's import pipelines have remained pipe dreams
It is high time India tries to bring in the talents of private oil companies to negotiate by giving them a chance to invest in the project. Otherwise our pipelines will remain pipe dreams for years to come.
Grease is the word for Hammonton man
John McQueen still hasn't figured out how to turn worthless metals into gold or grow money on trees.But he can perform one transmutation that might qualify as modern alchemy: Making dirty, used restaurant cooking oil into a cheap petroleum substitute.
Belarus blocks transit of Russian oil
MINSK, Belarus - Belarus has blocked the transit of Russian oil through its territory to European countries including Germany and Poland, news reports said Monday, raising the stakes in a bitter energy dispute between Russia and the neighboring former Soviet nation.
U.S. puts squeeze on Iran's oil fields
A campaign to dry up financing for projects poses a threat to Tehran's ability to maintain exports, analysts say.
General Electric to buy oil-services firm
LONDON - General Electric Co. said Monday it agreed to buy oil services company Vetco Gray for $1.9 billion from private equity funds Candover Partners Ltd., 3i Group PLC & JP Morgan Partners LLC.
Americans covet beach homes, but insurers fret over hurricane risk
Many Americans dream of owning a beachfront home with ocean views, but big home insurance firms are retreating from the Atlantic coast amid fears that climate change will unleash more dangerous hurricanes.The insurers say the risk of a "perfect storm" causing vast damage to communities along the Atlantic coast has simply become too high since Hurricane Katrina obliterated New Orleans in 2005.
General Motors say China sales jumped
BEIJING - General Motors said Monday its sales in China's booming car market grew by 32 percent last year, a boost for an automaker that has seen demand slump in its key North American market.
In other words, the foundation of the "doomer" perspective is implicitly theological - and as such is open to theological critique.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
I hope readers don't suffer surf-fatigue before looking at that last one (Misplacing the apocalypse).
Good stuff.
I posted it, but the article makes no sense to me. Perhaps because I was raised in an atheist family, and in a largely non-Christian culture. To me, it looks like he's a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail. Of course a theologian is going to see it as a religious issue. How could he not?
Leanan,
I am not a Christian, but the article makes perfectly good sense to me. What is being done is an examination of the history of ideas. You can look at the Old Testament as history, and especially a history of ideas, quite apart from any religious perspective.
Prophets prophesy doom for various reasons, and I think it repays our efforts to understand these reasons.
I am a Christian, and I think I agree with this article entirely (and with embarrasment for what passes as Christianity today). This apocalyptic thinking is a theme that runs through certain segments of society. PO doomers and Apocalyptic Christians are pressed from the same mold. Both get a twisted sense of satisfaction from the idea of other people suffering and dying for their false beliefs.
For what it is worth, I am persuaded that the New Testament prophecies about the "end of the age" refer to the destruction of the Jewish temple, preisthood and 1000+ year old system of sacrifices at the hands of the Romans in 66 to 70 AD. The Jewish polity has never existed in this form again. For Jews this was certainly "the end of the age". By the way, the term "end of the world" is an unfortunate King James mistranslation of the Greek word which is the exact same word as the English "aeon" or "eon". Christians are living with the consequences of that mistranslation even today. Most modern translations have correctly rendered it "end of the age" or "end of the era".
I recently watched a History Channel documentary about the end times. It claimed the whole "Rapture" deal is an American invention, and of fairly recent vintage. Based on one man's flawed interpretation of the Bible.
But then, couldn't you argue that god wouldn't allow his word to be mistranslated unless that's what he wanted? Maybe it was the original authors who got it wrong, and this "mistake" is a correction. For only the chosen people, of course.
/the whole "Rapture" deal is an American invention/
This is in large part true. Apocalyptic fever is in large part absent from the writings of the historical church fathers and from modern-day Christians on other continents.
For what it's worth, only the looniest and strictest (American) fundamentalists think that a translation (namely the King James) can be directed by God. Everyone else recognizes that although God inspired the original scriptures, something is always lost when we translate it into our own language. If you translate Greek literally, it comes out as jibberish. Among other reasons, Greek does not use a syntax of word order as English does. A certain degree of "paraphrasing" is inevitable.
jesusneverexisted.com
and the bible was written by idiots.
I can't help smiling. This is true creationism.
They are trying to create a second reality, the determined rewriting of history to exclude elements they don't like. Some people never accept the most probable case, even when confronted with overwhelming arguments.
It's worth noting that the Jesus myth theory is quite new. The early opponents of Christianity didn't question Jesu existence. To be a believer of "the Jesus myth", one also have to ignore the evidence for the historical Jesus.
I'm sure everything fits well and you see confirmations of your theory everywhere.
True creationism.
You ought not to be so haughty about this, especially as the case you oppose is, contrary to your misrepresentations, very strong.
It is rather ironic when you say ‘the early opponents of Christianity didn’t question the existence of Jesus’, when in fact the mythicist case shows, convincingly, that the very earliest Christians, including Paul, had no conception of a historical Jesus at all. That came later, with the Gospel of Mark. In other words, it would be better to say ‘the earliest believers in Christianity didn’t question the historical non-existence of Jesus’ – he was the mythical Son of God, the intermediary between man and the divine, and not a historical person. Even the earliest apologists never speak of Christ as a historical person. One of them, in the Felix Menucius, even laughs at the idea that Christians worship a man nailed to a cross (and no, he doesn’t go on to say ‘because he was really the son of God’ – he just scoffs and leaves it at that, as if he is dismissing some sort of lunatic historicizing process that had then just begun).
You talk about the ‘evidence’ of the historical Jesus. Well, there isn’t any. None. Except the Gospels, which of course were not contemporaneous and are totally unreliable, for obvious reasons. And as I have indicated, earlier Christians appear not to be referring to a historical person. Look at Paul’s writing carefully, without historicist preconceptions. He never attributes sayings to Jesus, but to God or to Scripture. He never mentions anything about the historical details of Jesus’ existence. Why not? We all know religious nuts obsess on such stuff, if they believe in it. But Paul didn’t – because he wasn’t talking about a historical person.
But from your tone, I know I am talking to a closed mind on this. So if anyone else is interested in this, check out Earl Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle web pages at http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm Very extensive, very well argued. Unless you already have some emotional investment in the idea of a historical Jesus (and unfortunately far too many people do, even athiests), you will never accept a historicist interpretation again.
I have an intellectual passion for thruth and strongly feel it's unethical to lie, nor do i desire to subscribe to one.
Hebrew chapter 10, verse 5.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "
You probably have another interpretation of this verse, and several others. Also, i don't see what rationale you have for rejecting the gospels as a historical source. At least Luke's writing style is very detailed and exact, with lot of (unnecessary) historical references and facts.
Perhaps you should do some critical reading of Luke, not just read books written by people whom made up their minds prior to the investigation?
I have never met any scholars (or non-scholars) subscribing to the Jesu-myth theory without also being an atheist and strongly opposed to christian culture.
Well, it's ironic that you pick something from Hebrews, because that is regarded by Jesus mythicists as one of the best examples of an epistle that is talking about a mythical and not historical Jesus. But, I do not intend to argue this with you. It's a Peak Oil site, after all. I posted because I want anyone who is curious about it to realize that the mythicist case is stronger than is usually portrayed, and is worth checking out. So if anyone cares about this debate, they should check out e.g. Doherty, where it is covered in great detail.
Have you ever heard of the historian Josephus? He was a contemporary of Jesus and an eyewitness to his existence and actions.
But in cases of invincible ignorance, I would not expect a person to look at the historical evidence.
No he was seen recently waiting for a train in Sydney.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070108/23/11zxi.html
I thought the concept of the Rapture was invented in Scotland in the late 19th century.
Everyone else recognizes that although God inspired the original scriptures, something is always lost when we translate it into our own language.
Ah, you haven't read Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon...
Why does the meaning of the word 'god' shift for Christians depending on the situation? A quick example: the Bible was inspired by 'god'. Ok, but if 'god' is the all-knowing all-powerful creator of the universe, then all writing is inspired by 'god'. If Christians were to truly examine their various usages of the word 'god', they would realize that attributing anything to 'god' is the same as saying 'anything happens', which quite frankly is meaningless.
By the way why do Christians always assume in the face of strong evidence to the contrary that 'god' is benevolent? Or is 'god' really not very powerful? Or is Christianity, as as all religions, just a form of delusion?
God: My beliefs and I will follow the crowd and make some rather flat , exclamatory statements of which I am sure many will disagree.
First I wanted to find out about God. I had heard years and years of mostly nonsense from the pulpits. Since my religion had only been around a few hundred years (Southern Baptist,Missionary type) I doubt that they had as much knowledge about God as they thought. In fact I found lots of confusion and contradictions.
Therefore I reasoned that God had passed the Torah to the Jews and that since it contained the first 5 books of the Old Testament, and that God had made numerous covenants with them and stated that they were his 'chosen people' and since they had therefore been studying and debating about God for a couple thousand years THAT perhaps they had more insight and knowledge than some country bumpkin preacher who said he was 'Called' and with very little theological or historial perspective ansdwas going to tell me how I needed to live my life and how to take care of MY soul.
I figured it was more my outlook than theirs anyway and I was taking on very little of what I had not proven or experienced my own self.
After a long time I descended into the realm of Jewish Mysticism. There I found the apparent bedrock of the issue. This is what I will briefly speak to:
God is not God's name. The name of God is never pronounced by Jews but another word is substituted instead. The 4 characters in Hebrew that are the name or not known presently. One a year the high priest went into the Holy of Holies in the Temple and spoke the then known name of God. With the disapora the name was no longer known. Still not to this day as I read and study.
The word substituted is Adonai,,or what we anglicized it to. Its possibly greek and translates as LORD. The Jewish word for God is Elohim. This can be pronounced and is and we translate this as the word God. Yet that is not the name of God. The word God does not exist in Hebrew..its Elohim(the sound of it in English--transliterated I suppose). The word Adonai(or Lord) was not in the Hebrew until Elohim had finished with the total creation. After that he was referred to as Adonai Elohim. Very important such distinctions. Almost no one except Jewish scholars note such as this. We do a surface read and never truly understand what is really being stated. Its more like a novel I suppose to many. They read it and then simply trash it and call it nonsense..all the while never having gotten a glimmer of the underlying structure and nuances.
The 4 hebrew characters are not printable here unless the Hebrew font is used. They are referred to as the Tetragrammaton(from the Greek).
Aside: The name of Jesus Christ is not Jesus Christ either. There is no J in Hebrew, none in Latin and none in Greek(as I read). There was also no J in English for a long time , until about the 17xx or 18xx(not going to google it right now) and it was apparently derived from the French.
Jesus was really Ieosus or more yet like Yeshua (pronounced as it sounds)or even other slight variants. Christ is Greek and means Messiah. The rightful name of Jesus would then be Yeshua Ben Yosef. Son of Joseph. The sign that Pilate placed on the cross was INRI Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. Some may disagree but if you look at the sign on the cross in any Catholic Church that is what you will see. It means Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews(as we have rendered in our theology..protestant and catholic I believe) NOTE: No Js!!!!!
As I said we toss about the name God. Therefore what we have done is nicely tied up God, put a name on the unnamable, put him in a merchandisable package and marketed him/her/adonai/whatever.
When anyone makes a statement regarding God such as "God wants us to love one another"....they are telling us that they know the mind of God. Clearly they do not. Preachers do not either. No one knows the mind of God or even if he has one.
God is not definable. God has no limits. God can not be labelled. Gods works can only be judged or realized and yet that does not define God.
Even my stating the above is a travesty for I have no knowledge EXCEPT what I experience myself that I can label as enlightenment and what works for me in that spiritual aspect , I cannot attribute to being true for any other. There is no universal salvation except that which is personal. Mere words can not save anyone. Its actions and others are not able to judge you on what your internal belief system is. Supposedly if you find yourself in a hot place you have chosen wrong.
Perhaps if you chose NO belief then you have nothing to think about. You are simply worm food and there is effectively no soul to translate.
I would suggest that anyone in search of THE TRUTH must investigate upon their own. This is where one departs from the dogma and bullshit of the various religious factions and delves into a personal realm of belief or not as they choose. Its a solidarity path IMO. You go it alone.
Basically in my opinion God(if you believe) does interact with his creations(humankind). How this is effected I am uncertain. I have looked very closely to Quantum Mechanics. It might be possible that the electromagnetic spectrum and energy forces (simplistic I know) might be a form of communication or networking , to put it in a vague light.
I simply believe this. Your thoughts and soul are yours to take where you wish. What comes back may depend on you and what you seek.
This I believe. Those who would place God in a box are those who would cheapen the spirituality and effectively place man's value upon God. This is when it all breaks down.
The worst sinners in the world IMO are the tele-evangalists who are nothing but destructive ego driven con men of the lowest ilk of the lowest scum sewers of the earth. They are not preaching the TRUTH nor the LIGHT. They are filth.
Notes: My wife is a Catholic. My mother is a Catholic. My son is a Catholic, my grandparents on my mothers side were all Irish Catholics.I am by choice a Baptist since the basic baptist creed is that NO ONE needs to come between the individual and his God/salvation. That all he needs is scripture and that is it. Each person is his own priest. No priesthood required and none needed.
Some other points:
1.God did not offer eternal life(heaven). He never placed it on the table. Jesus did,,big time. Look and you will NOT find it in the Old Testament.
2. Jesus told his disciples that he came ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF THE TRIBE OF ISRAEL. Not to the gentiles(us).
3. Jesus NEVER left the holy land(Israel) and in fact expressely told his disciples to NOT go to the gentiles.
4. Jesus NEVER wrote a single word down. His was an oral message.
5. The Jews never really professed a belief in a SOUL. The translations are not usually correct.
Here is the biggie:
6. Man was created by God from the earth(humus) and God breathed the spirit of life into his nostrils. God 'fabricated' woman from man and not from the soil and did not breath into her nostrils. In others words you could say that she derived from Adams DNA.
# 6 will cause many females to become outraged and absolutely NO preacher or priest will speak of this but it happens to be scripturally sound. Translate it your self or not. Thats what is says.
The point I make is that you are not being told the absolute truth about what the bible says. Most are being gulled by scoundrels.
I refer the reader to The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter
As well as the Kaballah(in all its books) in many interpretations by noted scholars.
Also there are many websites devoted to the study of the Torah and other areas. The Dead Sea Scrolls as well as The Nag Hammadi and other
areas. Study of the Gnostics and Essenes are also of value.
IMO the phsical church needs to be more of a POINTER and less of a end unto itself. They become social clubs the longer they control peoples minds. They allow people to sit in pews, drop money in the collection plate and smirk at all the rest whom they consider lost.
The RCC is very serious in this area. I have sat thru the entire RCIA and spent many hours in deep discusssion with priests of the RCC.
The truest religion must have been among those early christians who were chained up and waiting to be fed to the lions for the amusement of the roman crowds or placed on many crosses lining the roads to Rome. Murdered and murdered and yet they held to their faith.
Here in Amurkah were get all pissed off if a sports event is blacked out on the TV.
Perhaps the hungry lions are waiting and we are being led unwitting to the coliseum. I will take whatever faith I can garner and hope for the best. Not a time for me to be shouting denials from the rooftops. Not on your sweet ass it isn't. I been heading down this path a long long time before I started noticing the price of gas and a back-water internet website called TheOilDrum.
I am not slighting in the least the masterful(perhaps arrogant?) work and endeavors that the owners and contributors make on this website. They are truly the modern day prophets crying in the wilderness of this 'fruited plain'. Mostly they go unheeded.
airdale - my story and I wrote it myself so I am sticking to it
everyone gets a chance to write their own
P.S. I do love the women folk. Really I do.
P.P.S.Please don't take it personal...I did not write the bible,
I just read it and try to make it thru.
Airdale,
Whew what a can of worms, religion and Peak oil. Leaving aside that one could argue even writing is vanity (i.e my mistakes may live on after me and your observation that Jesus left no written record though he perhaps wrote in the sand (some theologians I believe speculated he wrote in the sand the sins of those accusing the woman caught in the act of adultery), I'll make the following comments. My understanding is there is an Elohist and Yawhist writing current seen in the Old testament. Yahweh, also translated Jehovah, refers to the revealed name of God given to Moses at the burning bush. It relates to the concept of "being" and is translated now as "he who is" or "I am who am". This word, I think, was reserved in Jewish worship and held sacred. If the idea that God reveals himself as "I am" is not curious to you perhaps you should give it a second thought. Christ alludes to and plays off of this concept more than once in the Gospels. This is not chapter and verse but I will trust it is basically correct. When the pharisees challenge him saying, "You aren't yet 50 years old ... are you older than Moses", he replies "before Moses was I am" Both indirectly declaring his divinity and perhaps contrasting Moses' faithfulness with their doubt. Again when he is captured for crucifixion it is asked are you Jesus and it is related when he declares "I am" the soldiers fall back. You are right the name of God is His and ineffable still I wonder if the beginning of the Gospel of John was presented as an Eastern Koan or new age mysticism, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God", it might be given some thought. The Greek translation used for word is "logos" which also implies reason or rationale thought. Pope Benedict recently discussed this passage while reflecting on Christian Muslim relations basically asking the Muslim world in a round about way "Is there the possibility for rational discussion with you on the nature of God?"
As for the validity of scripture, I would just point out whoever records things like this, I mean read the thing. Lot sleeping with his two daughters, Judah mistaking his daughter in law for a prostitute, Absalom after revolting against his father King David having intercourse with his concubines on the roof of the King's Palace. Who would preserve these things? There are many more examples, say Jeramiah's whole prophecy about "hey you're about to lose this war".
As for atheists, there are very few actual intellectual atheists. If one wishes to better oneself and conceives of that which they wish to improve in themselves, more intelligence, money, strength have they not defined their conception of God? There are many, like I often am, who give fate or God the finger because of, rarely, other's suffering and, most often, that someone or thing hurt us, perhaps a stubbed toe.
As regards Jewish Christian relations I would implore the assistance of Israelites who are dealing with these same questions on such a deeper level. I have the luxury of distance.
I would argue that God has declared in numerous ways that he wants us to love Him and each other. This does not imply I have a full understanding of God just as I may not know my boss but know what he expects from me. This tenant, though I would not speak for other religions, is I suspect at the core of the all the great world religions.
Per disclaimer, yes I am ostensibly Catholic, missed mass last week and might hit you in the nose for absolutely no reason. But all that is really irrelevant as to the question of does God save (the translation of Jesus being "God saves"). A question for a peak oil era and one for 100 years from now.
ZPDM123,
You said "the translation of Jesus being "God saves"
I ask. Have you translated the Hebrew characters for the name?
I thought that EL was the approximation for God. El Shaddai, Micha el,Gabri el,etc. (note the EL)Will have to check.
As to your comments. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Name of God. yah hey vau hey..in english. We then create the word Yahweh and once more try to put limits and labels upon our God. Granted we need a word to describe yet why does it become our most favorite cussword?
The Jews honor the name. We desecrate it.
This discussion could consume the whole TOD website and still not even get started. I just wanted to express my views since so many were expressing theirs.
My personal experience is that some type of entity exists(God is real). It wants ,in fact demands to be worshiped. I worship it with truth as far as I can and ask forgiveness when I falter. What it is is way beyond my (or possibly human) comprehension but the effects it can produce are knowable and can be witnessed. I do not put a real name to it. I just believe in it.
It makes my life more understandable and peaceful. I do the best I can with what it gives me and beyond that I cannot go.
In closing I believe that much of the scripture is not realized. Its read just on the surface like a novel.
Year before last I spent 3 months on just the first few verses of Genesis Chapter 1. The first verse in Hebrew.."Berashith Bera Elohim Ath Ha Shamaim Va Ath Ha Aretz"....can according to Hebrew scholars be translated 16 different ways. Since the Torah was given without vowel points, no spacing and in one continuous stream..so to speak. That is classic bilblical hebrew as put down in the 'Bera' scroll portion.
Note the Jews do not use the Greek names given to their scripture that we use.
The word Elohim is plural. Its says then "GODS" created. On just this one point I spent days and days of study and searching. Interesting that what we with English pass over without a single thought can have such numerous possibilities such that a facile interpretation can easily render a false impression or misunderstanding.
The mystics believe that the Torah mutates and is alive in that sense.
I am a poor judge of these matters and not that good of a scholar. What I do find is what I seek and that is what I term 'enlightment'.
May you find it as well or savor it if you have already. Without something to cling to in this world that is hastening towards a destructive path I would perhaps go mad indeed. I do not foist it on others but if discussed I will speak on it or if asked.
Yesterday a friend(from church) discussed with me a woman of approx 40 yrs of age who had been self-militating herself for some time. Her chest area was covered with numerous scars from using a razor blade on herself. As well as her arms and other areas. He asked me how did I obtain peace with myself since he observed that I had a very bad childhood yet was coping with my life. This woman was seeking my friends help. I could offer little. I believe that she had been badly led astray by religion and dogma. It promises so much by its priesthood(preachers,etc) yet in the modern world seems to deliver so very little and IMO can be very destructive to one. I have seen it time and again. I sometimes attend therefore the gathering together but remain mostly outside the mainstream. I go for the fellowship of neighbors since it is a wonderful method of communication with your neighborhood and community. On occassion a young person will stand before the rest and sing. Sometimes such faith can bring tears to your tired old cynical eyes and then later you see the kid grown up and on hard drugs. Or cut his throat in the county park at the age of 14. (both have happened) Our world cries out for compassion but its in very short supply. We can do almost nothing. We just watch as it circles the drain and try to salvage ourselves or our close ones.
Airdale,
Appreciate your heartfelt response, will consider it more.
Here's a picture of "The One" we pray to:
Any questions?
How ya like me now?
Keep on strokin' ?
Seize the day ?
Ha ha --funny not.
Airdale,
I think you are to be commended for doing your own homework. When it comes to Peak Oil we should all do our own homework--and lots of it. Now in regard to the teaching of the Jews (and of course Yeshua was Jewish) it is noteworthy that Judaism is a strictly ethical religion; in other words, what you DO matters, what you "believe" or "have faith in" is squat.
According to Jewish doctrine, the virtuous gentile stands equal with the virtuous Jew at the gate of heaven. (And sinners won't make it through the metaphorical gate, regardless of denomination.)
I am a proponent of ethical religions such as Judaism and Buddhism: In regard to Peak Oil, what we do (Conserve, discuss respectfully, communicate with others, economize, localize and produce) matters. What we "believe" (as opposed to our actions) does not matter.
Thus, I don't think the nature of your religeous beliefs (or mine) matters. What matters is how we treat people, what we do, how we behave. Arguments over details of belief often detract attention from more important issues of what we should do.
I hereby nominate Don for sainthood.
He stands shoulder to shoulder with Frank Sinatra.
Now we see why:
To do is to be .... Aristotles.
To be is to do .... Socrates.
OObe DooBe Doo ... Sinatra.
:-)
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
airedale
A very well written, passionate & incisive comment. 2 things resonate with me in particular:
"Basically in my opinion God(if you believe) does interact with his creations(humankind). How this is effected I am uncertain. I have looked very closely to Quantum Mechanics. It might be possible that the electromagnetic spectrum and energy forces (simplistic I know) might be a form of communication or networking , to put it in a vague light."
'Conventional' religious types would call me an atheist, but what I really believe is that consciousness creates the world - not the other way around. Therefore we attempt to create god because god IS us, and we don't have souls because the soul has US. Trying to put it the other way around, as the vast majority of churchgoing Christians do, looks to me like a crowd of children waiting in line to sit on Santa's lap at the mall.
"Those who would place God in a box"]
Are you familiar with Doug Pinnick by chance?
The Rapture is American and yes, church hierarchies do not encourage popular religious fancies. Apocalyptic thinking is endemic in Christianity, always has been.
A useful and amusing older work is Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millenium. In paper, in used bookstores, once popular college text.
For a more recent and much more humane take on some of the same notions simply listen to Bob Marley sing 'Get Up, Stand Up'. Examination of most any popular religious music, from anywhere or time, would show more of the same.
As for the article being discussed the preacher gets where he wants to go by stacking premisses one atop the other until the construction can't be taken seriously.
I think the great defensive lineman, and ordained minister, Reggie White was on to something. He bailed on Christianity, learned Hebrew, and read the Torah.
Learning Hebrew and reading the Torah in no way implies a person has "bailed" on Christianity. A great many Christian scholars have studied ancient Greek and Hebrew in order to better understand the messages of the Bible. The Bible has many apparent contradictions which could only be resolved by an understanding of ancient literary styles.
I have seen in the arguments put forth by atheists certain straw man or should I say straw god tactics. The worst is the argument that if God is all loving then why is there war, disease, poverty, etc. They conclude that if evil exists then God doesn't. The usual believers response about free will is just as lame. God created order out of chaos and the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are the way order is maintained. With out these laws then existence would not be possible. People run up against the limits of these laws, bang their heads, and call it evil.
The Torah evolved as a way of maintaining order in a community and is an ancient example of the rule of law. Most ancient societies were governed by the principle of might makes right. Their kings could do no wrong because the king decided what was right or wrong. The Torah put forth a power greater than the king as a decider of right or wrong. A Hebrew king could be wrong if he violated any of the 613 commandments of the Torah. The stories of the Bible are mostly about the mistakes made by their kings.
Let's consider what Jesus said about good and evil. In Matthew 28 he talked about those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the prisoner, and cared for the dying. Those who did those things were practicing the true religion. What is important is not that evil exists but in how we respond as individuals and as nations to those who suffer. Peak Oil is a new challenge for believers in God. Climate change is a new challenge for believers in God. I believe we Christians must advocate the case of those most victimized by Peak Oil and Climate Change. It looks like more than a billion people will lose their homes and livelihoods to PO and CC in the next few decades. We could choose to build walls and gun towers to keep these people in their place or we could use those energies in creating new communities in new locations for and with them. Its what Yeshua ben Yosef would do.
"But then, couldn't you argue that god wouldn't allow his word to be mistranslated unless that's what he wanted?"
Nope. God gave man free will. That includes any mistranslation of the bible. We are allowed to translate it into a nursery rhyme, we can Seuss it or Bork it, if we so please. The copyright has long expired and there are no legal, spiritual or whatsoever consequences for abuse, maybe with the exception of looking silly/stupid.
Free will also includes the fact that the bible is not the word of god but the word of man inspired by god. And inspired man can err just as much as non-inspired man. Probably even more. The bible itself says so, if I am not mistaken in its dislcaimer to be beware of false prophets.
Careful not to be too credulous about the "Jewish temple, priesthood and 1000+ year old system of sacrifices" ...
Well I am not a Christian and the entire article is nothing more than religious gobblygook. How anyone can take such nonesense seriously is beyond me.
That being said, I am the very epitome of a doomer. My doomerism is based on science! I have read "Overshoot", have you? I have read "The Spirit in the Gene", have you? Both books clearly lay out the scientific evidence that we are deep into overshoot and collapse is inevitable. But for all you wide eyed optimists out there who think we doomers have a screw loose, I invite you to read just one short essay, Energy and Human Evolution Price lays out the scientific evidence and reasoning behind his, and my, doomerism. The cornucopians must refute his argument if they hope to make an argument of their own. I have never seen that done, not once!
I have, on this list, referred to this essay many times in hopes of getting just one person to try to refute it. That has never happened.
And by the way, I have read most of the books that argue the opposite side as well. I found Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource" to be absolutely laughable. A nine year old child could refute every argument in that book. And I have read, and have quoted from Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" many times. He argues that every facet of the environment is getting better and better. He argues that we will not run short of oil for hundreds of years because once oil gets above $40 a barrel, it will become economical to produce oil from our very vast reservoir of shale oil.
Nuff said.
Ron Patterson
All the sources mentioned above by Darwinian get a thumbs up from me.
None based on the mushrooms-induced fantasies of "holy men."
Thanks, Ron, you stated my position much better than I could have.
I keep coming across the assumption that people who warn about the bad things that may happen are for some reason accused of wanting the bad things to happen.
So let me state it myself: I don't want bad things to happen. I like my life just the way it is.
At the same time, for purely objective, scientific reasons, I think that collapse is inevitable. But, and please pay attention here: I hope I'm wrong. That's right, I hope that my evaluation of the current and likely future state of the world is incorrect. I really do. One of the reasons that I spend time here at TOD is to see if anyone has any rational reason for me to revise my "doomerism".
So far, nada, IMHO. Please keep trying, though...
Ditto. Darwinian does a masterful job articulating the reasons why resource scarcity is likely to cause worldwide suffering and death.
Scientists are trained to evaluate and weigh the importance of variables likely to affect an outcome. Additional information is analyzed to decide if it strengthens or weakens the general assumption. Just because the trajectory of evolutionary biology, tenets of behavioral genetics, and geological imperatives support a view of societal entropy and a massive correction towards a realistic long term carrying capacity that does not mean that "doomers" (an overgeneralized term, anyway) have a psychological dysfunction compelling them to irrational predictions.
Neither is it reasonable to assert that doomers have some sado-masochistic desire to see and experience suffering. Equally unreasonable is the idea that most doomers are futilitarians.
Such statements are absurd and irresponsible.
Self-serving instinctive reactions (a very low level of cognition) that attempt to discredit reasoned arguments based on the highest levels of cognition (synthesis and evaluation) are blatant attempts to derail the discussion to protect an emotively based paradigm.
I can buy into the idea that a sufficient resource scarcity would be likely to cause more worldwide suffering and death than already exists.
But on the rest, is there really a scientific way to peg "probable" resource scarcity?
Or is the doomer thing resting on an assumption of severe scarcity, without that scientific proof?
Or is the doomer thing resting on an assumption of severe scarcity, without that scientific proof?
The "doomer thing" is resting on plain arithmetic : WHEN YOU KEEP SUBTRACTING FROM A FINITE QUANTITY IT ENDS UP AT ZERO.
Hey b3, don't take it out on the mushrooms!
They could cleanse some cornocopian minds!
peace
I don't get it. So you are saying doomers are hippies?
Each one of use, as individuals, are doomed. Civilization is not doomed because what we currently have does not merit the name. The fact that millions, maybe billions of us, may be doomed before our time because of a massive and rather sudden collapse because of exhaustion of easily obtainable resources, energy, water, etc. would not necessarily be a bad thing within the context of the eventual renewal of the planet. We only consider collapse a tragegy within the context our own self centered view that we are the end all and be all, perhaps created in God's image.
We are just one little planet going around one sun in a universe of billions and billions of suns. It is said that the entire universe may have been created within a millisecond. We need to get over our feeling of significance, a feeling that God would weep if all this turns to shit within a relatively short time frame. Mass extinction has occurred before and will probably occur again. It would probably be helpful to just get over it and ourselves.
tstreet, that's one of the most insightful comments I've seen on here for awhile.
I as a doomer(not really but you all insist on labels) agreed with Ron as well.
I am a Christian and I see a whole lot of Christian bashing going on so whenever a real Christian speaks I would expect a lot of latitude and no cries of 'we don't want a religious debate here'.
You can't have it both ways.
That said: I have been going to church most of my adult life. I have very personal views that are not exactly mainstream evangelical. I believe mostly in transcendentalism of the Emerson/Thoreau variety but not of the diehard variety. They just speak to me of a reasonable interpretation.
I am a doomer but not an apocalyptic doomer.
Over on another thread Don Sailorman made the comment that he considered those who tried to predict the future ..arrogant. I know he will likely refute this but in essence that is what he said.
It seems to me that senior editors and contributors are using technology on this website to precisely attempt to predict the future.The future that is of supreme importance as affected by petrochemicals and its products.
I don't call that arrogant.
Here is his post:
*********************************************************************
I agree entirely.
The doomer perspective to me seems to be based on arrogance--a totally unjustifed arrogance of "knowledge," the idea that the behavior of complex systems such as societies under stress can be predicted. Any claim to knowledge of the future is highly questionable.
As Yogi Berra is alleged to have said: "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future."
******************************************************************
As I said, seems to me that this is what a lot of this website is about. Trying to determine the future of a complex system and making predictions based on knowledge.
I don't think trying to access the future is ARROGANT. I also recall a poll which showed that the majority of members did not have a cornucopian outlook for the future.
I could write a large post concerning this topic as I was indoctrinated in the fundamentalist ideal; however, the bible is filled with references of future events that allow for the interpretation of these events in a manner consistent with Peak Oil. I am of the opinion that if one applies science to the Bible, it becomes at least plausible that the events outlined in the book have relevance. I can provide a detailed review of each of these items, but Daniel Quinn's Ishmael got me down the path. To preface these items, please no laughter as no matter what anyone says about the stories of the Revelation and the Interpretation of Hal Lindsey in the "Late Great Planet Earth", the world would not have as much problem with religion if the world's most prolific supply of Oil was not located in the Middle East. If there is a God, he is an extremely funny guy.
1. The Story of Cain and Abel is about God telling the World to maintain the Hunter Gatherer Shepherding Lifestyle of Abel and not to rend the ground to grow what you want lifestyle of Cain. Cain gets 4 curses for the problem; one is that he is denied the Strength of the Earth. The Strength of the Earth is Oil. I could provide more backup on the other curses and why I think they apply, but there seems to be no ability to mix science and religion in any context by either side of the argument.
2. The prophecies of Ezekiel appear to be one of areas that deal with transportation where the following quote was taken from Ezekiel's Wheels
... So God might have been saying, that after he scatters the 12-tribes, when the time of modern transportation comes, they will be a nation again.
Another possible meaning is that the descendants of the people he scatters will be those who invent and manufacture automobiles and airplanes. But it may mean that the people who will be using these modern machines will receive a similar judgment to that of the Israelites!
Included in the book of Ezekiel are prophecies about World War III and the time of God's judgment upon the whole world. And according to Revelation 9, World War III will start at the Euphrates River-- Iraq. Could it be about oil? It is something to think about.
This vision also serves the purpose of confirming that only the God of Israel and Judah knows the future, and determines the destinies of nations.
I know this is a science based site, but the fastest way for people to change their minds about how to live is through religion, so if we scientists can utilize the book to get it done, let’s do it.
And you wonder why so many that post to this site dump on Christians? 'Hey, let's interpret when we want, but not when you want' is the mantra of the fundamentalist, a word which you used to describe yourself.
Go away!
I read your other response about God and you appear to have no background in religion, so you summarily dismiss it. That is fine and maybe in a different world it would be OK, but we are in this world where religion plays a large roll in shaping societies. If religion can be bent to purposes that are beneficial to the survival of mankind then we should do it. If all you can say is that religion is stupid and contradictory then you have no business in the discussion. It is beyond your capabilities to understand. However, from where I sit as close in observer of religion that most people who go to church do want the world to be a better place and are in fact educated. They can be convinced, given the correctly scoped message. I believe the message is defensible from a science as well as scripture base.
It just might be beneficial to support alternative interpretations of the good book that are valid in science and are valid in scripture. It helps all mankind.
The reason I am a Doomer is that I walk in both worlds and they are both ignorant. I became a Geologist, because I could not fathom the world being 4000 years old, but whatever you think of the bible it has and still does command a great deal of influence, so learn it and fight fire with fire.
I became a Geologist because I believed in evolution, but I got pissed at Science when they attacked Intelligent Design. My God the fundamentalist’s backed down and had to promote a science based approach to God's creation. Instead of embracing the victory, science screamed heresy and claimed it was a strawman for the Creation Story. Science won and then they acted like religious zealots. They could not understand the victory and accept the Intelligent Design. Think about the discussion over that curriculum. The discussion of how the Creator made the Earth would have had to include a great deal of Science and much progress toward bringing religious people into the realm of Science to learn how their beloved Creator created would have been accomplished.
But what did Science say to Religion, the same thing that Religion used to say to Science.
GO AWAY!
I read your other response about God and you appear to have no background in religion, so you summarily dismiss it.
I have no background in alchemy or astrology and I don't need to to dismiss lunatics.
But there is no way one can argue with a religionist : You reject the axioms of his epistemology, and he rejects yours..
I'm not sure. Sounds like it could be Westexas after a few good rounds of Golf. Or Bowling. I'm not sure. What do those people do? In Texas, I mean. I spent a good deal of time over the holidays with a guy that had spent a good deal of time in Saudi working for ARAMCO. He told me the only people in the world who could deal with the Saudis and their "thang" were from West Texas. I shit you not.
I like South America, or the Greek Isles. Australia, I've got to check out.
Where you from, Partner? Maybe we can hang out. Discuss bankers.
Where you from, Partner? Maybe we can hang out. Discuss bankers.
Likely not!
I am a "cheese eating surrender monkey" :-D
I'm not sure what that means. Can I get the full quote?
I was just saying. I know who you are. Wink. It's too bad. We could have been a decent team in another world. Somebody spanked you and you never recovered. Marathon Man. Children Of Men. Got any teeth?
Don't fuck yourself. You know who I am. You know my name. I scurry too fast? I don't think so. I've been trying to get caught. Apparently, WT is retarded.
You'll have to make up your mind someday, Oil CEO, Hugo Chavez, James Bond...
Haven't tried Benedict XVI yet?
> posted it, but the article makes no sense to me. Perhaps because I was raised in an atheist family, and in a largely non-Christian culture. To me, it looks like he's a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail.
The author is making the assumption that doomers believe that they are doomed. However, this is incorrect, since doomers believe a collapse is inevitable, they believe its vital to construct sustainable lifeboats. Another words the author got the concept of doomerism backwards. Doomers by a large are those that are willing to take personal action in order to save themselves instead of hopeless waiting for gov't or industry to take action. Those that believe their gov't, some technological mircle or even God is going to save them are fatalists, since they simply ignore the crisis ahead and choose to do nothing.
The only group of doomers not preparing, are those that are already retired (age > 65) which is understandable. Although, there are some 60+ folks that are still preparing for their children and grandchildren. Doomers are also the group that sounded the alarm bells over declining energy resources and population overshoot, and that its important to adopt to a sustainable system as soon as possible.
Hey, pardner, as one of the old farts here (68) I take offense at that. Well, not really but I am one of the best prepared people here. Interestingly, in my rural community, it is the people over 50 who are most concerned about peak energy and resources. Few younger people seem to care. My guess is that we oldsters have a better historical grasp and, perhaps, better educations. I also know that most of us have been working toward self-sufficiency and sustainability for a lot of years because that's what it takes to live in the boondocks.
As an example of the age gap, a friend put on a canning demonstration last year. The attendees said, "Oh, isn't that interesting." But I never saw a rush to buy canning equipment at our local general store. And, for those who care, people need to figure on canning 300+ quarts of fruits and vegetables per person per year.
>Hey, pardner, as one of the old farts here (68) I take offense at that. Well, not really but I am one of the best prepared people here.
Well of course I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I look towards wise and experienced folks, such as yourself for information, since much of the old ways have completely disappeared in the high-tech modern age.
>As an example of the age gap, a friend put on a canning demonstration last year. The attendees said, "Oh, isn't that interesting." But I never saw a rush to buy canning equipment at our local general store.
That very true, but I suspect that none of those attendees would be concidered as doomers. I believe they are probably followers of environmentalism or just interested in country lifestyles. Its very likely that older folks are indeed more aware of the problems. The majority of folks 60+ years I discussed with, believe a crisis is comming, but also believe that it won't arrive until after they pass on and therefore it makes no sense for them to prepare. Second, the majority of these folks are not in physical or financial condition required to change lifestyles. Regardless of age, very few are will to change lifestyles from pencils and keyboards to pitchforks and barns.
For me, the change isn't all that hard (although the learning curve is steep). I have no problem switching to rural living and I believe I'll be much happier anyway. I think if even energy crisis wasn't an issue, I would still relocate. Who needs to put up with the traffic, the congested streets and the megamalls? The only reason to remain in urban areas is for jobs, which will quickly disappear when energy shortages begin along with rising crime and drug abuse.
TechGuy,
I don't want to let the cat out of the bag that we discussed some of this stuff in the past, but the real issue many people are going to have to confront are the psychological ones. Men will find they have few useful country skills while women will lose their support network of friends. Men will try to BS their way through it but the reality is that if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. This isn't a joke. My experience is that most relationships of city people moving to the country break up after 5-7 years. It's a hard life.
Todd
I can attest to that. Mine lasted a bit longer. Maybe 10 years but we dropped the divorce and are living our lifes as best we can.
My plans are a return to my home county when it gets bad. My wife has too many health issues to even try. My son is in total denial. My daughter never speaks to me.
Most of this because I have a hard time with their chosen lifestyles and that is the destructive life I sensed long ago when I lived in the burbs and hated being crowded together. After that I only brought land with acreage and built my own houses or brought farm houses.
It is extremely difficult to find a wife who can cope with rural life. Only back in the 60's and 70's were there willing companions to be had who had the desire, or so they said so, to by into the 'back to the land' movement.
Most communes I heard of folded.
It takes a lot of skill and energy and motivation. Yet the payoff is there. Eating very good food, fresh air, good water, no noise pollution. The list is endless.
When you harvest some vegetables you grew yourself you have just eliminated every middleman in the food chain.You have eliminated almost every cost that would have been placed upon the product.
If you saved your own seed and used organic methods then all cost disappears except sweat equity--and you don't have to pay to get on a treadmill for exercise..so its good for your health to till the soil.
You are Adam in the garden again and as close to what the Creator originally might have intended. Til the soil...yada yada...(of course after the fall from innocence--Adamic Covenant-2nd one)
You, the dirt , a seed,the sun and voila, food. Simple yet so very very far from the mind of our society that some can not even discuss it nor imagine it.
The cost to fire up the car and run to WallyWorld?
What is the EROEI on that? 1 to 10,000 or some enormous power of ten?
I submit that even though its said and forthrightly stated that in Amurkah , "we have the worlds best food" ...I say we have likely the filthiest and world's worst most contaminated products. Oh lots of it and at rapidly escalating prices yet its geneticaly engineered for shelf life,eye appeal and transportablity and not taste or health. Or highly processed such that you become obsese or suffer onset of serious health problems.
OK InfinitePossibilites...your turn.
Same here; very difficult for my wife living out away from her friend/famiy network,& they are within 10-20 miles.
>I don't want to let the cat out of the bag that we discussed some of this stuff in the past, but the real issue many people are going to have to confront are the psychological ones.
Hi Todd,
That is not a problem for me since I am not married. I do agree with your assesment though. Overall, very few people will bother to make a transistion anyway. The only group of people that will make any effort to change, is folks such as yourself and I, that don't believe our system is sustainable, nor can a sustainable system be achieved on a national or global effort, do to social, political, population, and environmental factors. I would imagine that our group is extremely small.
>My experience is that most relationships of city people moving to the country break up after 5-7 years. It's a hard life.
Although your assesment of 5-7 years doesn't differ much from young couples remaining in the city either. These days divorce rates are extremely high. The majority of friends, coworkers, etc that are under 40 already have at least one divorce under thier belts. Some are already working on their second divorce. These days most younger folks are required to work long and hard hours to meet ends and it takes a toll on marriages.
Few younger people seem to care. My guess is that we oldsters have a better historical grasp and, perhaps, better educations.
This may be a reason but I think the main cause is that the youngsters (of whatever era, not just ours) have some "feeling of immortality" which allow them to tackle life problems with optimism.
This is delusional but used to be rather helpful as long as the whole tribe wasn't imperiled.
I agree entirely.
The doomer perspective to me seems to be based on arrogance--a totally unjustifed arrogance of "knowledge," the idea that the behavior of complex systems such as societies under stress can be predicted. Any claim to knowledge of the future is highly questionable.
As Yogi Berra is alleged to have said: "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future."
Great thumbnail summary Don. And to be fair we could say the same thing is true of any other group that "knows" any other particular future. Economic (and technological) cornucopians suffer the same questionable certainty.
I wonder if we are too fixated on the peaking of conventional and non-conventional oil. I wonder if in fact the “market will provide,” but not in ways we are anticipating, and in such a way that the effects of peak oil will be much more subtle than we might imagine.
What I mean by this is the fact that as sources of oil deplete, there is an increasing push into other transportation fuels, especially biofuels and electricity. This, coupled with conservation, might actually slow the rise of prices so that they are noted, cursed at, but suburban civilization will keep motoring on for many years after peak.
Let's say gas prices hover between $3 and $5 for a number of years, people switch to econoboxes again, while grains, cooking oils and other organic substances are converted to motor fuels; and many vehicles are powered by the electric grid.
With this view, the rising price of motor fuels will be restrained by the rising price of everything else; from bread, meat and cooking oil to lumber and paper pulp, to electricity.
It might be possible that everything eventually will be convertible to transport fuels, so the prices of everything go up at the same rate, as everything is used up at the same rate, and the entire global civilization seamlessly declines, falls, or is converted into the various replacement states.
This, of course, might be a view of how the market would react if left alone; but based on a reading of history, we can expect this steady trajectory to be interrupted by human caused cataclysms, which, of course, are unpredictable.
"With this view, the rising price of motor fuels will be restrained by the rising price of everything else; from bread, meat and cooking oil to lumber and paper pulp, to electricity."
How much of the retail cost of bread etc comes from raw biomaterial cost?
Clearly gasoline has a large embedded crude oil cost.
I can go to a local supermarket which sells bulk foods and buy flour at a very low price. Even a doubling of that would still enable very inexpensive bread and other foods.
But I find it much more likely that non-food sources will be converted: coal. Just like the 19th century.
I disagree with the doomers for one reason: Peak Oil Is Not Peak Energy.
They seem to conflate the two, which is erroneous.
Doomers project a scenario of Peak Energy.
Peak Oil is a transportation fuel problem, period. Given powerful human forces I suspect that much attention will be devoted to extracting energy to replace oil depletion. It is inevitable.
There are substitutes, though of lower quality, for all uses except air travel. That is indeed one difficult area.
The real danger is to preclude the use of coal for these alternative substitutes. Coal is unfortunately the cheapest and the most widely available, and the climate destroyer. We have to avoid it, by maximizing all other alternatives, including the most practical for large-scale deployment quickly, nuclear.
The Really Big Problem remains climate change.
You don't have an air-conditioner? Bird Flu is the big problem. And after that - women.
It's just another bunch of generalizing nonsense.
To say that people who think present problems put our present civilization at risk, follow religious undertones, you'd have to feed me really bad drugs.
And that's what happens here: there is a clear suggestion that "doomers" are a large group of people, not just those who see the end of the world, it includes many with much more subtle views. Hardly anyone placed in the "doomer" group says the world will end, but that's no obstacle for this kind of agenda-carrying lifeform to state it anyway. He cites dieoff.org. Shall we make a bet on how much of the content he's actually read?
As soon as you say that people may die from resource depletion, this kind of genius is more than willing to put you in the "doomer" camp. Which makes him a religious freak, not the people he's targeting. Well, he's a reverend, maybe they're all religious freaks (see, I can do it too, that generalizing). But he still is the one here who misplaces the apocalypse. By lightyears.
In the meantime, people already die from the depletion. Hiw now father?
Maybe put aside the book of fiction for a bit, nothing wrong with fiction, but a poor reference for making claims like this, and read what dieoff.org holds in information. Once you've done that, come back and we can talk.
You move the bar when you describe "doomers" thus:
I actually "think present problems put our present civilization at risk" but I've been called a "cornucopian" (and worse).
And then later you refer to dieoff.org ... are they only concerned that civilization is at risk? Or are they committed to an outcome?
I get the impression that, like the father, you haven't read much of the wealth of files on dieoff either. I don't think it's fair in any way to say that jay Hanson (it's HE, not THEY) is or was committed to an outcome. Yes, he has drawn conclusions after reading thousands of pages on all angles to the problems he, like you, saw. And most people who draw different conclusions haven't read half of what he has.
If you would do that, and arrive at different ideas, and can express them, that's fine. Until then it's a bit of an unequal contest.
PS if he was "committed to an outcome", it was to find a solution. The fact that he couldn't, is something that he sees as a defeat, more than anything else, I would guess, but you'd have to ask him.
I understand that people "see a defeat" but I digging for the scientific proofs for such defeat. Is it a "contestable conjecture?"
Is the "cliff" drawn on this page happening:
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
And more importantly how would you make the case that it is? Would you pull out the stops and try to make me "feel" the same way, or do you have a rational proof?
There is no more scientific or rational proof for the fact that there is no solution than for the opposite. Richard Duncan uses system dynamics to arrive at his Olduvai outcomes. Scientific and rational enough for you?
You seem to propagate a "soft landing" future, and the Rev. has his little pocketbook. Where's the proof for all that?
There is no such proof for CO2 induced climate change either, but there are very strong indications.
So, if you were a betting man, where would your money be?
If I read what James Hansen and Tim Flannery say about the climate, I arrive at the conclusion that we may very well already be too late in any mitigation efforts (system inertia). But we're still waiting for the proof. And we still will be while New York is flooding and the last polar bear dies. Maybe that scientific rational approach isn't all that it's made up to be, maybe there's flaw here and there.
I was perfectly aware, when I wrote the words:
That I meant "any other particular future."
And most importantly I am able to distinguish between that which I like (nice futures) and things I am convinced of (very little, other than that "time will tell").
And most importantly I am able to distinguish between that which I like (nice futures) and things I am convinced of (very little, other than that "time will tell").
Sure, no need to worry, "time will tell".
(Moron!)
You forget that I've got the Prius, the low energy appliances, the cold house.
There are obvious things we can do now and I favor them, just as you do. You don't actually differ from me on those, you only get angry and stalk because I won't do one final thing ... buy into the case for certain doom.
You forget that I've got the Prius, the low energy appliances, the cold house.
Even if EVERYBODY does that the problem of GROWTH will still be there, this will only get us a reprieve of a few years.
You still don't understand anything about what an exponential IS, do you?
Or may be YOU DON'T WANT that Joe Average figure out that problem?
To respond here to another of your replies, you are NOT using any kind of rationality only rhetoric and there is no point to "keep a civil tongue" toward a sorta "criminal propagandist".
Exponentials are simple enough math. The interesting bit is where societies follow, or break from, them. China broke from their fast exponential population curve to something slower.
But for some reason the superficial doomer will stick with the theory ....
I wouldn't waste your breath on Kev. He "looks forward" to the end of oil because to him it will be the impetus for a social reorganization, one in which he thinks will put humanity on a path that he believes should be followed.
That is the fundamental link I find with most doomers on this site. They are enthralled with the prospect that they will get to see this social order crumble because they dislike it for some reason or another and believe that a severe depression and social collapse will somehow bring about a new social order that will somehow mirror their own personal utopia.
The worse thing for them and they even admit this, is for humanity to solve the energy problem and continue the path of growth. Because so long as growth continues they will not see the social restructuring they long for.
This is the reason that in pass months I've come to dismiss Kev and others like him as total whack jobs.
People like RobertRapier, WestTexas, Prof Goose, yourself, AlanfromBigEasy, InfinitePossibilities, and the others like them who are actually looking at the current technological problems, and potential solutions to these problems are the reason I bother skimming through this site anymore.
The rest are defeatists, and perhaps ultimately they will be proven right, but then since when is being the naysayer the hard thing to do? All they have to do is sit back, moan about anyone else's optimism and do nothing.
The optimists have to look at the problem, and then think and work hard to come up with solutions, and shrug off the unuseful leeches of optimism like Kev there.
The fact that Kev resorts repeatedly to calling anyone with different viewpoints than his, entire tirades of names or resorts to stalking posters off to other forums, only strengthens my conclusion that he wants to see this system or any system in which growth can be maintained fail and those who are striving to save(though perhaps transform) a growth system humiliated. The fact that other doomers are quite often smug in their dealings with anyone of optimism enforces similar feelings of holier than thou superiority complex whenever I read their often grossly exhaggerated extrapolations of what the future with diminishing oil holds, quite often with no other "scientific" premise than "when oil declines" we will see X Y and Z.
It is almost as if they willingly seem to ignore the multitude of Silver BBs which I have seen posted throughout this site and others, along with the very impactful possibility of efficiency improvements that can be taken due to our current system being in dire need of streamlining anyhow. For a time I had some agreement with them in that I was concerned that the US and the World would not react in time to Peak Oil. That concern is steadily waning as I see projects and interest in new energy growing, and even on a more personal level I note that those around me are reacting to higher energy costs even if they don't directly know the full reason for it.
Perhaps in the end the doomers will be proven right, but then that is the safe bet. The more noble path, the better path,albeit the tougher path, is to try and help all or as much of humanity through this problem as possible. More prone to failure granted, but then anything worth doing is usually more prone to failure.
I wouldn't waste your breath on Kev. He "looks forward" to the end of oil because to him it will be the impetus for a social reorganization, one in which he thinks will put humanity on a path that he believes should be followed.
Nice mind reading capabilities or may be a direct phone line to "God"? :-D
If you know about my "beliefs" and "devious plans" for social reorganization may be you could tell others how to prevent that.
When I say religionists are total wackos I don't think I miss the mark by much.
No mind reading or phone calls to God needed. You stated yourself with Emphasis that Growth will remain a problem. And hence that is where you are wrong.
Growth in and of itself isn't a problem. Misdirected growth however is. Hence that's the difference between you and me. You believe growth is a problem and I have never seen you indicate a qualifier on that. So given what I've seen from you, and others like you, all growth seems to be bad. If you wish to qualify that sentiment and say certain types of growth are good or bad, I would be willing to hear you out on this, but til then you've given me no reason to perceive that belief in you.
I, however, believe Growth for the time being has a critical role to play in humanity's existance at this stage of the game. To stagnate or reverse it at this point will endanger humanity to being stuck on this rock. We are at the peak of our resource extracting abilities at this point in time. That means we need to be looking for new resources to be tapping into, both to provide a more resilient and cleaner source of energy and to expand humanity to the next resource base. We need to be using our current resources oil/gas/coal to build the mechanisms that will allow civilization to continue onward, with the eventual goal of coming up with a self sustaining base on Earth, wihch will then give us the infrastructure to pursue additional resources elsewhere.
Personally I believe this will be in space though the oceans could prove to be an interesting frontier also. And granted while the challenges are tough, I believe they are solvable both on Earth, and in space. In fact much of the technology proposed for long term space habitation and travel centers around developing relatively closed systems of self sustainability. Systems in which energy is used with utmost efficiency and other resources such as water, soil, minerals and materials are reused/recycled as many times as possible.
These systems are the very model of the ideas that many here espouse as being what is required for a sustainable future. And perhaps if we apply ourselves to solving those issues in space, it will like many other space oriented technologies have impacts for those on Earth. Growth ultimately is going to be humanity's salvation, provided we can direct that growth towards enterprises that will allow us to first "lock in" a certain minimum level of energy (solar, wind, hydro, ocean) and then eventually leave this closed system of Earth and gain access to new resources which will perpetuate growth with the goal being to gain even more resources. Vicious cycle granted, but its what organisms do, and we are the first organism from this planet with the possibility of taking that paradigm off world.
The other path... the path you seem to be locked into is decline. Many scientists think that the current civilization is this species one shot at becoming space born. If we lose too much of our civilization, and our technology, we will not have the resource base to try again... or at least we won't be able to try again for any practical time period. The prospect of moving out amongst the stars is noble enough in and of itself, but the fact that the same path of growth into a more responsible stewardship of the Earth could also ease human suffering adds another element of nobility. To sit back and scoff at optimists and naysay those who are hoping and working for a better future is the way of the ignoble and lazy, because all they have to do is sit back and do nothing and failure will be self fulfilling.
Better to try and fail in my opinion than to do nothing, or worse to try and discourage those who want to do something.
I think the Reverend's position boils down to one very useful maxim: defeatism has no place in spiritual life.
Yes, it's become obvious to me that most people who rail against "doomers" are setting up straw men. I'm not sure if it's intentional, or if they honestly cannot wrap their minds around other points of view. I'm inclined toward the latter.
Indeed, that is one thing that makes me pessimistic. We are all victims of our own mental filters, and for most of the U.S. anyway, that means the American way of life is indeed non-negotiable.
The article talks about people who:
The key words for me are "contestable conjecture."
Sure, we can trade conjectures, we can even try to work out probabilities for those conjectures. But as we've seen in the past, assigning probabilities for far future events is difficult, and as I'm fond of saying "relies on nested assumptions."
Personally, I see "doom" less supported by "proof" than by "group affirmation" - and that's what I predict we'll see here today - group affirmation for doom, by a particular sub-culture.
The key words for me are these:
It's a rare doomer who thinks there is nothing we can do to mitigate the situation. In fact, I'm not sure I know of any. "Mitigation" may be burying gold in the backyard and stocking up on guns and ammo, but they do believe there is something they can do.
When you say "burying gold in the backyard and stocking up on guns and ammo" do you mean that nothing can be done to save industrial society at large?
Well...nothing that an individual can do.
Well I think this is the thing that the original article discusses. In a strict rational sense such a conjecture is debatable. The interesting thing with respect to the Peak Oil movement in general (and TOD in particular) is the degree to which it is debated, and left as an unproven question ... and the extent to which it becomes a "value" within a "community."
Of course it's debatable. That doesn't mean taking a position is wrong.
Politics is debatable. Does that mean a rational person does not join a political party? Heck, maybe we shouldn't vote, either. Since, you know, every issue is debatable.
Religion is debatable. Does that mean a rational person must be an agnostic (or maybe a Unitarian)?
Using the pragmatical argument of William James, the perfectly rational person will be a believer. The pragmatism argument comes down to saying, "Well, if I believe I become a happier and better person and have a much more satisfying life. Thus, given the existence of doubt, it makes sense to be a believer."
Most serious philosophers reject the argument from pragmatism and regard it only as an apology for Christianity. However, this rejection is wrong (for one thing, it applies to any religious faith), and if you grant James's premises, then his conclusions follow rigorously. Note that James did not argue that God actually existed, only that it was wise to BELIEVE in God--which is an entirely different proposition. It might be wise to believe in God even if (in fact) there is no God, or God is dead, or God is a sadistic extraterrestial intelligent life-form that created earth, evolution and ultimately humans for amusement and satisfaction of perverse desires.
(However, James seemed sometimes to imply that it is wise to believe in a Christian kind of God, and that won't fly, because philosphers have, I think, rigorously demonstrated that the traditional Christian God who is all benevolent, all powerful, all knowing, eternal and perfect is a logically incoherent concept. I know Christians will disagree with me here, but I think on this point they are mistaken and would do well to fall back on Tertulian's maxim: "Credo quia absurdum est," "I believe [in God] because It [the Christian concept of God] is logically absurd.")
Don wrote:
"...the traditional Christian God who is all benevolent, all powerful, all knowing, eternal and perfect is a logically incoherent concept. I know Christians will disagree with me here, but I think on this point they are mistaken and would do well to fall back on Tertulian's maxim: "Credo quia absurdum est," "I believe [in God] because It [the Christian concept of God] is logically absurd.")"
As a Christian, I agree that the Christian concept of God contains what seem to be contradictions. Don lists one of them, above. The idea of the Trinity is another example of a concept that is hard to grasp. I submit that if the idea of God was entirely understandable to the human mind, that would be evidence that the human mind made it up. Should we think we can totally understand the Creator of the universe?
All that aside, it is important to realize that Christianity was not born in the mind of philosophers or theologians, but rooted in history, in the hearts of some scared men whose world-view changed radically after they saw Jesus risen from the dead.
But Christians always claim that they understand the intentions of the 'Creator of the universe', don't they now? I find it amusing that fundamentalist Christians have no depth in the history of the religion, how it was constructed after the merger with the Roman Cahtolic Church from which it obtained most of its beliefs. So actually, the religion was born in the minds of philosphers and priests!
But Christians always claim that they understand the intentions of the 'Creator of the universe', don't they now?
Most theists, even more so monotheists, claim simultaneously that God's plans are inscrutable and that they are out to enforce God's will.
You can't win any argument once logic is thrown out of the window.
“A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.”
Finley Peter Dunne
Nice smear there, and totally innaccurate. Most Christians I would wager don't even pretend to know the intentions of the 'Creator of the Universe'. I know I don't claim to know the mind of God, and I am a Christian, so right there your statement is out and out false.
It would seem that quite a few on these boards have a very distorted view of Christians. Christians are no different than any other person save for one thing. They have accepted forgiveness for their sins, of which they commit about as often and as atrociously as non-Christians.
Christians are no better or worse than non-Christians. Their sins are no better or worse than non-Christians. To God, a liar, an adulterer and a murderer or any other sinner are equally loathesome. Sin is unholy (*ANY* sin) and unholy is unacceptable to God. Thus he created a way for the unholy to be redeemed. The ball is in our court at that point. We can choose to be unholy, or choose to be redeemed. All other characteristics of Christians and non-Christians are essentially the same. There are kind, idiotic, smart, mean, generous, greedy, loving, hateful, and any other dichomity of characteristics which make up Christians and non-Christians.
So please... Why doesn't everybody stop the Christian bashing? Honestly you folks are beginning to sound like Origin of Species thumpers. If you claim thumping doesn't work for Christians and your superior to that, then why are you so quick to adopt their ways?
"Well, if I believe I become a happier and better person and have a much more satisfying life. Thus, given the existence of doubt, it makes sense to be a believer."
Don, thanks for pulling this out... I find the self-defeating logic of many theologists quite intruguing. I'm interested in the first part of the statement "if I believe I become a happier and better person and have a much more satisfying life". I don't see anything supporting this except that the author beleives so. For a self-critical person it is fun to watch this thought twist, as in the end it turns out that James, who obviously is what he calls "a believer", believes, just because he believes. And vice versa obviously :)
Exactly. Lots of religious people are hardened criminals, and lots of religious people are so depressed they kill themselves. While lots of nonbelievers are happy, successful, upstanding citizens.
Leanan,
Everything you say is correct. But those who study human happiness and well being and try to get solid quatitative data on these elusive concepts have come to some strong conclusions:
1. Religious people, on the average, are happier than nonreligious people. They are (as discovered more than a hundred years ago, by Emile Durkheim) far less likely to commit suicide than nonbelievers. Also, they are far less likely to suffer clinical depression than nonbelievers.
2. Agnosticism is associated with anomie (Durkheim's concept), and this anomie is closely associated with the demoralization of both individuals and societies. Now we may not like this conclusion, but there have been scores or hundreds of replications that robustly support this generalization.
3. Other things being equal (age and education, for example) religious people live longer and healthier lives than do nonbelievers.
4. As Durkheim and many others have pointed out, religion is a kind of capital--and as societies secularize they can live off their capital for a while, but over time they tend to become less cohesive.
5. As Max Weber pointed out in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," religion has been a driving force behind modernization.
6. As Robert Merton and others have shown, the great driving force behind scientists such as Isaac Newton has been religious motivation. To oversimplify just a bit, Newton thought that the great goal was to understand God, and to understand God you first had to have physics which would enable you to understand astronomical motions based on divinely given universal laws. In other words, the search for scientific truth is fundamentally religious in origin. To know physics is to know the mind of God.
Did those studies unclude Middle East, Saudi Arabia for example?
I think in the West you may very well reverse the causual direction. People who are better off and have more content and non-turbulent lives tend to be more religious. People whose live is a constant struggle have much more reasons to reject any transcedent authorities. Gives some explanation of the popularity of religion in the USA.
On the other hand I do agree that between being religious and having no spiritual life at all, religion is the much better choice. At least it comes with a certain set of values and a moral authority to back them - this can help people with not high enough level of consciousness to become better. But it can also act in the opposite direction IMO. What really troubles me is that today religion proliferates in times of relative plenty. Makes you wonder how will the same people behave when times get bad and all masks come off. I think the hypocricy of many of them especially at the top will show up, but the majority of the sincere believers will likely be thrown behind.
Good points. Correlation is not causation. Maybe, say, having the "god gene" is linked with long life, but if you don't have it, going to church may not help.
Maybe believing in Santa Claus would makes you a happier and better person, too. Kids sure seem happy. ;-) But I have never believed in Santa, even as a small child, and I suspect trying to fool myself into it would have done more harm than good.
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."
Miracle on 34th St.
Of course there is a Santa Claus. Unbelievers just don't get it;-)
There is a saying I like very much:
"If you are 20 and you don't believe in communism you are without a heart, if you are 40 and still believe in it you are without a mind."
Here you may replace communism at will with Santa Claus, world brotherhood, even love - any idealistical abstraction, representing some fundamental values of life, but having little value in the real world if taken literarily. Or even ending up in having disastrous consequences in the case of communism. I think believing in Santa Claus (or Father Frost - his East European cousin I grew up with) had it's place when we were little kids, and hopefully helped us become better people... actually that's exactly what he told me a couple of weeks ago :)
In many ways religion is like Santa Claus for adults - it even has similarities in the central role of symbols in it. I [tongue in cheek] think for myself that I have grown beyond the need of that particular Santa, but I can not extend this generalisation to everyone and everywhere... it's a free country after all.
Religeous truth is very much like poetic truth. Some people just don't get poetry, others don't get religion. My own views on God and the nature of religeous truth have been much influenced by the writings of Mortimer Adler--who also happens to be my favorite twentieth century philosopher.
Good, but poetry does not require you to go to services or pay tributes every Sunday. Neither does it impose a certain set of questionable life guidances - like for example to be fertile and multiply (here the die-off crowd may have something to add). Or to turn the other cheek - to those abusing you and even the planet we live in??
Taken as poetry, as a symbolical representation of core life values it is of great contribution to the moral of any society. Personally I feel a Christian in my soul, but I am an agnostic in my mind.
On the dark side, the tendency religion(s) to be accepted literary and abused by its preachers for their benefit, especially in the US can not be ignored. At some point this starts bringing confusion in the heads of way too many people, and IMHO the net benefit starts going way to the negative part of the scale.
I'm saving this one.
My sweetie ('wife' to some) would appreciate it. She is actually an agnostic as well as being dyslexic and insomniac to boot. She often lies awake at night wondering if there really is a Dog.
:>
Neither does the Bible. While the Bible encourages the assembly of fellowships with other believers and points out the benefits of those assemblies, it does not as far as I recall *command* it be done on Sunday or for that matter every week. The fact that assemblies occur weekly on Sundays is probably more of a cultural and tradional thing, not to mention that the human mind seems conditioned (again probably through tradition) to handle things on a weekly basis. Most folks expect to work 5 days a week. Most expect 2 days of rest/worship a week in which they don't work. It is simply ingrained in our traditions pretty much the way it has been for hundred and even thousands of years.
As for the tributes... they are actually called tithes, and this distinction is important because a tribute is something usually taken by a ruler from his subjects. A tithe is something sacrificed from a subject to his ruler willingly. It is better to not tithe at all than to tithe grudgingly, because it is the heart which is measured when one tithes not the amount of money/time/resources being given. Hence the two pennies given by the lady was more than the rich man's offering. She gave from her heart and gave true sacrifice, where as to the rich man, it was just extra cream he could skim from the top.
At the time this statement was given, there was no concern about being fertile and multiplying and outstripping your resources... in fact had humanity not done so, humanity may not have survived as a species. Now however I believe the verses about being a good steward should take on greater importance, and we should rethink how we multiply, or else find new areas to multiply into that won't endanger our other commission of being good stewards.
Again this is way out of context and it because people are using todays setting for an event that was supposed to be set in a very different time and culture. The origin of this verse was meant to warn Christians from being easily baited into confrontation. Striking the cheek was an insult at the time (perhaps one of the very gravest) and intended to be a provocation to start a fight. It is an insult that was carried throughout the Roman Empire, and even perpetuated in many countries through many centuries later. Another variation was taking a glove and slapping it across someone's cheek to declare a duel. Another equivilent was the "throwing down the gauntlet". The point that Christ was trying to push was for Christians to not be baited by senseless and often stupid insults for no reason. In otherwords it was better for Christians to be insulted twice(by turning the other cheek) and avoid a pointless and unjust fight than to somehow be tricked/trapped into harming/killing someone for some sense of honor that God did not recognize.
However there are times in which God permits violent behavior. Self defense is one, war on unjust nations or groups of people is another. The Commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" is actually very poorly translated and mis-represented. Because of the translation which while close is not exact enough, due partly to English's own ambiguity in the use of "kill" and "murder" and the fact that they can be so easily interchanged. The more accurate translation is "Thou Shalt not Murder" which has a very specific application to a certain type of violent action. Christ himself was moved to violent action when he whipped the money changers and the animal sacrifices being sold by merchants out of the Temple. Those people were acting unjustly, and desecrating a sacred place, and as such were subject to the wrath of a just avatar in this case God himself in the form of God the Son.
I would highly recommend taking an Old and New Testament Survey course from a college sometime. If done well, it will avoid the spiritual overtones one would get in Sunday School or Church and provide a much better historical context for many of the stories in the Bible. A context which changes quite a bit about those stories and their meanings once you begin to read them again with a spiritual context in mind.
My own views on God ...
You've said on TOD that you are not Christian and you are not Muslim, what's your "poetic" God looks like then?
P.S. I am puzzled by your use of the word "truth" (re my previous link to http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2007/01/what_is_scientism.php)
I would take these conclusions with a grain of salt.
Some of the world's most resolutely secular countries, including those in Europe and Japan, have the world's longest life expectancies, lowest infant mortality, best public health statistics, and rank highest in the Human Development Index (HDI). If all the arguments above were true, then one might expect the decidedly more religious United States to do better in these areas, but we don't. Instead, the god-fearing USA has much higher infant mortality, teen pregnancy, murder, and violent crime rates than the secular countries do.
I also recall that Weber's argument was that it was not religious belief per se that was the driving force behind the development of capitalism, but rather the Protestant belief in a more personal and unmediated relationship with god (individualism), and the notion that material prosperity is a sign of god's favor, which he contrasted with Catholic belief.
Weber's views were complex and subtle. Therefore, I'm going to oversimplify them;-) He focused on Calvinism and also Lutheranism, the two varieties of Protestantism he was most familiar with. Now both Luther and Calvin were believers in predestination: You are saved (or not saved) by God's grace and by nothing else. However . . . maybe God gave clues as to who was saved by showering them with good things on earth. Now there is NO way to KNOW that you are saved, and this can lead to a salvation panic (because there is nothing whatsoever you can do to assure salvation of your immortal soul). Luther and especially Calvin taught frugality, hard work, thrift, all those great virtues we associate with Geneva and Scotland and Germany. God does not like you to chase women, gamble, booze and squander your money on outward appearances.
So, what exactly can you DO with the rewards of your hard work, enterprise, thrift and years of saving? You can reinvest it in the business--and over generations build capitalism.
Now this is the quick and dirty version, but what it comes down to is that Protestants worried about salvation seven days a week and all day every Sunday: They saved their money, reinvested it in the business, and this built capitalism.
(On the other hand, Catholics in pleasant warm countries such as Spain and Italy and France enjoyed many saints' days off from work, had a much more relaxed view about consumption of luxuries, and also Catholics tend to belive in "works and faith" as a means toward salvation. Anyway, the Frenchman eats his fine meal, the Italian goes on vacation, and the Spaniard has a fine big house with art works on display--that's where their money goes. So where does capitalism develop? Scotland, England, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia.)
Once again, I'm presenting almost a caricature of Weber's views, because the reality requires hundreds of pages of close study. To a large extent, Weber was refuting Marx. Marx said that religion is merely a superstructure constructed to serve the interests of the upper classes--a dependent variable. Weber argued, I think successfully, that religion can also be a dynamic independent variable.
Don Sailorman and views on Weber:
Very good comment. Its what makes reading TOD so valuable. I must read some of Weber's writings.
Predestination vs Free will. I spent many years trying to unravel this puzzle. To wit: Does God know the future totally and therefore everything is predestined or does man with free will control the course of events and therefore his own life and thus HIS salvation?
I ask then since you have evidently studied religion in detail, just what is Don Sailorman's take on this philosophical puzzle. I take it as a given that you do believe in God else the argument is moot. If you did believe in God what would be your answer(in case you don't and its not moot)?
This to me is the crux of the whole matter of religion and theology.
The Elect, Calvinism,etc.
The debate can run thusly: If God has chosen you to be saved then anything you do cannot affect the outcome and your afterlife. If by your actions you control the events and outcome then God does not have foreknowledge. Other issues are numerous as well but the biggie in my mind is the salvation of your soul.
I reject predestination. I also do not believe in the immortality of the soul. On the other hand, I do believe in salvation through works. In other words, I see the great religions as ethical systems of thought--systems of beliefs that justify the Ten Commandmants (accepted by three great religions), the Sermnon on the Mount, etc.
In regard to my belief in gods or a God, I follow Aristotle. Logic says that infinite regress is self-contradictory, and therefore we must (whether we like it or not) postulate a Prime Mover Unmoved.
BTW, I do believe in the power of prayer; I see the evidence in this regard as compelling and conclusive. In my Royal Canadian Air Force survival manual, the closing section has prayers--Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish prayers (may as well try them all if you've crashed and broken your leg while the temp is minus forty degrees;-) I think prayer works whether or not there is a God who listens to them; in other words, prayer or meditation is a kind of mental focusing.
Although I am not a Christian, I cannot disprove the tenets of the Christian faith any more than I can those of Islam or Judaism. What I find striking is the convergence of thinking of many of the Great Names in various religious faiths. In other words, why waste effort discussing the nature of the Trinity, when what we need to focus on is how to save both ourselves and the planet?
Darn. I had mistaken you for a Sinatraian. (The Frank type, you know, oobe doo be do.) Not an Aristotlian ("To be is to do".)
As for the Trinity, IMO it matches nicely with the 3 major shells of the human brain:
1. Father= reptilian core, our origins,
2. Son= limbic layer, family feeliings,
3. Holy spirit= the abstracting neo cortex
It is therefore understandable as to why the Chrisitian beliefs resonated with so many people and spread so quickly around the world.
You realize, of course, that your triune division is lifted straight out of Plato. What is even funnier is that Freud's id, ego, and superego are also lifted straight out of Plato, and so is Descartes mind/body dichotomy.
In regard to the soul, Aristotle disagreed with his teacher Plato in only one big way: Trained as a physician (by his father) and biologist, Aristotle believed that death must end the soul because of the inseparability of flesh and thought; Aristotle was not a dualist. Plato, on the other hand, either firmly believed in the immortality of the soul or--possibly--he was telling a "noble lie" to get people to behave better.
The early Christian theologians were neoplatonists. I have often wondered what Christianity would have been like if they had been Aristotelians, as, for example St. Thomas Aquinas was a thousand years later.
(Augustine was, if anything, more platonist than Plato.)
Don Sailorman and views on Weber:
Very good comment. Its what makes reading TOD so valuable. I must read some of Weber's writings.
Predestination vs Free will. I spent many years trying to unravel this puzzle. To wit: Does God know the future totally and therefore everything is predestined or does man with free will control the course of events and therefore his own life and thus HIS salvation?
I ask then since you have evidently studied religion in detail, just what is Don Sailorman's take on this philosophical puzzle. I take it as a given that you do believe in God else the argument is moot. If you did believe in God what would be your answer(in case you don't and its not moot)?
This to me is the crux of the whole matter of religion and theology.
The Elect, Calvinism,etc.
The debate can run thusly: If God has chosen you to be saved then anything you do cannot affect the outcome and your afterlife. If by your actions you control the events and outcome then God does not have foreknowledge. Other issues are numerous as well but the biggie in my mind is the salvation of your soul.
Excellent counterpoint regarding the higher life expectancies and HDI scores for more secular populations. We should view the conclusions in Sailorman's post with a far more critical eye. As Leanan said, correlation is not causation. I recall a discussion with a Christian colleague about a study which concluded that very ill patients who were the object of intense prayer had a better chance of survival. We found that the researchers did not control for confounding variables such as close family ties and lifestyle factors (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption, general nutrition patterns, excercise).
It seems plausible that a religiosity gene is tied to a propensity for conformity and conformity tends to reduce social stress so there would be some selective advantage there. On the other hand, an excess of conformity reflects a lack of critical or reasoned thought and would set up a situation where the extremely conforming group would not question when their leaders decided to engage in violent warfare with a neighboring tribe based on specious claims of threats. Is this not what has taken place countless times on various scales whether the dispute was between clans, religous factions, or economic ideologies? Millions have died fighting such battles. If you take this all into account, it is clear that with a wider perspective it becomes a dubious claim that studies have shown those with a religious gene or propensity necessarily have an advantage for a happier, healthier, and longer life.
And it has been noted before:
Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
For anyone who has studied the sociology (or anthropology or history) of religion, the benefits of religion to both society and individuals are so huge, so obvious, and so robustly replicated that to ignore or deny them is blatant ignorance and nothing but invincible ignorance when people refuse to examine the large body of research for quality and quantity of results.
You can be as secular as you like--many sociologists are assertively agnostic. But it does not matter as to what your personal beliefs are when it comes to doing science. On the functions of religion, both for individuals and for societies, there is no serious question--again regardless of personal beliefs.
With functions come dysfunctions. If you have a strong religion, then you can have a Spanish Inquisition--no doubt about that. If religion provides great benefits for the socialization of children (and it does), the pain of mixed marriages can be excruciating. If religion helps in social control and social cohesion (and it does, no question about it), then it can also be a force for stifling conformity.
You never get something for nothing--no benefits without costs, no functions without dysfunctions.
Marx, by the way, was by no means condemning religion without qualification when he called it, "the opium of the people." At the time Marx wrote opium and its derivatives were by far the most potent means of killing pain--and since most peasants and workers lived a miserable existence (according to Marx) religion was the only relief for their pain. Indeed, Marx had a number of interesting things to say about religion and how it supported an existing mode of production; he recognized the functions of religion, and in his refutation of Feurbach explicitly rejected the "religion is the source of all ills" position.
As Leanan said, correlation is not causation.
Yes, and a TOTAL LACK of correlation, if not implying causation of the opposite, at least surely implies NO CAUSATION of the purported benefits of religion.
Rant: Fucking stupid buggers religionists liars!
[ duplicate post ]
Note to Super G: I guess everybody is eager to see what "improvements" were spozed to come with the upgrade to Drupal.
Though an amazing technical feat as such (YES!) all we have seen are nuisances, the most annoying being may be the SLUGGISH response time, the keyword search is horrible too.
There is probably something to this. However, one might hypothesize that while having religion ( as opposed to 'getting religion':) might contribute to a sense of well-being for an individual, it might very well bode ill for the society as a whole. The basic notion would be that a society comprised of a majority of secular-humanists would act in a much more rational and foresightful self-interest than a society comprised mostly of religious
nutspeople. Such a religiously-based society might spend its energy on fruitless crusades in Mid-East countries and the like, raising significantly the possibility of nuclear war, not to mention the squandering of natural resources because of our religiously-based ignorance of basic natural laws.Gee, maybe I'll pursue a PhD with this as a thesis.
The pragmatism argument comes down to saying, "Well, if I believe I become a happier and better person and have a much more satisfying life. Thus, given the existence of doubt, it makes sense to be a believer."
I am not dumb enough to knowingly fool myself and STILL believe in my own fabrications.
There must be something weird in the psychology of those who fall for such an argument.
I think the parting of theists v/s atheists comes from much deeper causes which are not reachable by "logic".
I already posted that in this thread, but let's repeat, there is no way one can argue with a religionist : You reject the axioms of his epistemology, and he rejects yours...
I will contend that the Scientist is as adamant as the Religionist and often just as incorrect.
The only point I am driving at is that you cannot change religionist over night, but you can construct an argument where science is considered by the religionist more so than the reverse.
You are as stubborn about your beliefs as those who espouse the "John 3:16" get out clause.
I read your link and while some religionists are in this mode, these are the people I can "argue" with because I have credibility with the scripture. I spent enough years with the book to make it a fun and rewarding experience.
For instance take a look at the tactic used by the makers of Exodus Decoded where Science is used to explain the release of the Hebrews from the Egypt.
The only point I am driving at is that you cannot change religionist over night, but you can construct an argument where science is considered by the religionist more so than the reverse.
Right, but that's not my agenda I am not proselytizing though I am happy some other atheists do.
I just want to keep religionists at bay as far as I am concerned.
I knew about the explanation of Exodus feats by the Santorini eruption.
What kind of "consideration" do you think you get from the religionists by that sort of discourse?
The vast majority will still howl blasphemy.
So then what is your agenda with all these snide attacks on anyone who remotely professes to being a religion?
By hurling barrages of insults at them? I love that statement that "religionists" need to be kept at bay. Tell me would you prefer they were all locked up somewhere?
So then what is your agenda with all these snide attacks on anyone who remotely professes to being a religion?
To ridicule them so as to deprecate their opinions.
Tell me would you prefer they were all locked up somewhere?
Not locked, parked!
Since I am European we could use Poland to the same effect.
But I don't care that much, apart from the newly imported Muslims the wackos are less offensive here.
My how mature and tolerant of you. What a shining example you make for the world. A Defeatist, foul-mouthed bigot. Did I hear you say you were a cheese eater before? I'm assuming the French variety? If so, you make your country proud by being the stereotypical Frenchman. If not, might I suggest you apply for citizenship.
My how mature and tolerant of you.
Just as "mature and tolerant" than the delusional wackos who pretend to "enlighten" the unbelievers or send them to "hell", possibly in this "lowly world".
I bet your eyes skipped over this quote which I will repeat :
“A fanatic is a man that does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.”
Finley Peter Dunne
TRASH!
What a clever quote that puts Christians in a catch 22. Christians are commissioned to try and be Christ-like. We fail of course, but the attempt does matter. But because Christians attempt to be Christ-like and thus try to do what they think Christ aka God would've done, he/she is labeled a fanatic (which has a negative connotation).
However if they reject trying to be Christ-like so as to avoid being labeled a fanatic, then they are failing their commission from God.
So given that the judgements of men are unimportant in the eternal scheme of things, I will gladly take on the label of fanatic and do so with contentment. I will continue to give of my money talents and time to help my church, my community, and the poor, and I will do it with Zeal (another one of those words of negative connotation).
Given your zeal with which you attack Christians and other "religionists" I would argue you yourself are a fanatic of a different stripe. You will of course deny it, but then I would challenge you, that for the rest of 2007, could you maintain a civil tongue when discussing religion or conversing with those you know to be of a religion?
I know it is impossible for you however to do so because the bigoted hatred inflames your fanaticism to a point where to not let your ranting tirades loose on those "Morons" would simply drive you even more mad.
So from one fanatic to another... Peace be with you.
The point NO religionist seem to catch and probably never will is that the "fanatiscism" of atheists is NOT DIRECTED AT ENFORCING ANYTHING on the religionists but at REJECTING the meddling and compulsory pretenses of the religionists toward atheists.
Saying this, I exclude of course the proselytizing atheists, this is why I am not one of them.
Be happy among your fellow religionists of different creeds, the Islamists are intent on making you eat your own balls in the name of Allah.
And the point you seem to be missing is no Religionist(at least on these boards) is meddling or compelling you to do anything. We are simply sharing our view point and opinion.
It is *YOU* who are trying to drive the Religionist from the discussion by belittling and insulting them.
It is *YOU* and your bigoted view of Religionists that have said that ideally Religionists should be segregated.
It is *YOU* who (despite your own claim) are proselytizing by shouting down any descenting view point on Spiritual matters and claiming your view is superior.
There may be exceptions I've missed, but most of the posts in this thread where someone admits they are a Christian, simply state as such to provide background for their opinion on the matter of the article or someone's interpretation. They state they are Christians not because they are trying to force anyone else to be a Christian, but to simply provide everyone else a reference point on how they came to the conclusions they did.
They do not thump bibles on this forum, they do not call the non-Christians barrages of venomous names. The only people I see doing such are, oddly enough... the Atheists.
If they allow me to be, I will be perfectly content to have a Jew, a Buddhist, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Muslim, an Atheist or whatever other creed living next to me as a neighbor. I have no intractable ill will towards them, so long as they have none towards me. Something I doubt you can claim given your all to clear disdain for those "Religionists".
But for the Muslims you are referring to... the type that chop off heads, and blow themselves up... to them, you and I are in the same boat. In fact you are probably worse off than I, for while I may be an infidel, I still believe in God, and moral right and wrong. To the extreme Muslims, Atheists are of the devil himself, infidels with no sense of a higher power and thus no moral compass to guide by.
If you are concerned by them, then most Christians are your allies as most Christians are content to live and let live. I doubt you will find such an offer from the Extreme Muslims.
They cannot howl blasphemy anymore as they have embraced "Intelligent Design" which implys God as a Scientist and not Merlin the Magician.
I want to say that Science won, but remember they only argued about the first sentence of the Bible. Science has more work to do, like the Exodus work.
Your assumption is that doubters are unhappy. Little could be further from the truth.
When I was a kid, I got a firm introduction to Catholicism and its dogma. Sadly enough, I also got an introduction to rational thinking and mathematical logic. And, truth to be told, Christian dogma sucks once you are used to analyze things logically. There are not only gaping holes in almost everything but the whole thing is messy, self-contradicting and pracically unsalvagable without performing an act of schizophrenic self-lobotomy.
God might be perfect, but practical religion isn't. God also is said to have given me free will. I used that free will to replace messy dogma in my life with a moral framework based on humanism which is not only self-consitent but for all practical purposes lets me live a good life without the need to lie, cheat and break arbitrary moral laws in defense of my own religion before I even get to apply it to the real world.
I am very happy with my choice. I have no doubts, no fear of death and no need for any other spiritual input than what I am getting from science. And it saves me a lot of money for not having to support some preacherman and his "message" ...
"Does that mean a rational person must be an agnostic (or maybe a Unitarian)?"
Indeed, a truly rational man can not be anything but agnostic (although the opposite, that an agnostic man is also rational, does not hold).
Unitarianims, of course, is nothing else than YAFOR (Yet Another Flavor Of Religion) and is, in the end, just as nonsensical as the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
I'm born and bred atheist myself, but my Unitarian friends tell me that Unitarianism does not require belief in god. (Hence that line from MASH, when Father Mulcahy accommodates the Unitarians by saying, "God, if he exists" in a prayer.)
Neither atheism nor any brand of Unitarianism needs to apply for being rational. To define a concept that is not self-consistent and then spend any time discussing it is not rational. It might be fun, though. As such it falls into the same category as golf in my mind: it is someone else's definition of fun that just looks awfully silly for an outside observer who does not share it.
What about what 100 million individuals could do when acting in a coordinated fashion? Consider what Ghandi did in removing the British from India. He inspired 100s of millions to not go to work on the same day. That single day was more effective at changing the status qou than centuries of military efforts.
Mitigate? For whom and for how many? Of course we can, for a fraction of humanity, make the collapse a little softer. But the situation is not being mitigated right now for the people of Zimbabwe. The population of Zimbabwe is collapsing right now and there is no mitigation to be found anywhere.
Bob Shaw posted this link yesterday, along with an ode to the dying children. And the only replies he got was about music. Music for God’s sake! The article was about dying children and dying everyone else in Zimbabwe. And the only reply’s he received concerned music. People just shut their eyes and stop their ears to facts they do not desire to see or hear.
What is happening in Zambabwe right now will be what’s happening in the entire world in a couple of decades, perhaps sooner.
But no Leanan, I do not believe the collapse will be mitigated for the vast majority of people on earth. It may indeed be mitigated for a small percentage of the population.
Ron Patterson, (just call me Doomer!)
Yes, but that kind of thing happened even when oil was cheap and plentiful. And, despite the fantasies of the Gene Roddenberry types, will likely continue as long as humans walk the earth.
Of course we do. It's our Stone Age brains.
They're doing some fascinating research on this. Basically, it's a different part of our brains that activate when we are confronted something in the abstract (children dying in Africa) vs. the immediate (a child dying in front of you). Otherwise, how could we possibly justify spending money on computers and designer clothes and electric guitars and SUVs when there are children starving to death elsewhere in the world?
"Otherwise, how could we possibly justify spending money on computers and designer clothes and electric guitars and SUVs when there are children starving to death elsewhere in the world?"
Truth to be told, if you call yourself a Christian, you can't. If, moreover, you call yourself a Catholic and believe in hell, you can be sure to find yourself there in a bit if you did not devote your life to change that situation.
:-)
It is a conundrum that if we stopped buying certain things because of distant starving children then the people who build and distribute such things would become those who are starving. The problems of Africa's children could be solved by investing 10 cents of every $100 of the income from the richest one billion of the world's people.
Your last sentence is strange to me. I understand what you meant, but I don't think that is possible. What you meant was- the 10 cents goes directly into the investment accounts of these theoretical African children. But, of course, in real life these accounts don't exist. You would have to build these accounts first. Then the distribution network. The market has to exist first. I'm trying to give free advice to people and not having any luck.
It's not really a conundrum. It's two sentences that have nothing to do with each other. But it looked good.
A.) It's the way it is. If we want to help, we should concentrate on workable solutions.
B.) Africa is a problem.
We tried to help in Somalia. Probably the best example of the modern era. I'll bet you more people in the world could tell you what Blackhawk Down means than could tell you how far Mogadishu is from Eritrea. So much for Americans trying to hand out free stuff again.
Those richest billion know where that 10 cents is ending up. Bill Gates should be reporting on that shortly.
The investments would not be made in securities markets. The investments would be made in transportation infrastucture so they can connected with the global economy. The investment would be made in health care so adults are healthy enough to produce goods and services and children are healthy enough to learn to skills needed to become productive workers. The investment would be made in realizing the agricultural potential of the tropics. The investments would be made in leapfrog energy technologies so their new economic activity isn't powered by fossil fuels. Investments would be made in microeconomics so the poor can acquire the tools they need to increase their productivity. Perhaps a little bit could be invested in teaching the developed world a broader definition of investment.
Absolutely! In modern industrialized society this is all but forgotten. The natural world is Disneyfied for the general public in heartwarming movies about penguins and censored when IMAX's version of the Shackleton adventure omits the most disturbing descriptions of survival such as killing the dogs for meat.
The extremes of human barbarism are too much for us to digest unless we are practiced or self-trained to interrupt the usual neurochemical sequelae that lead to profound shock and despair.
Heck, how many could really get their heads around some of the extreme cruelties involved in butchering animals for food or animals used in medical research? We even have a sanitized vision of death and decay. Human bodies are whisked away to be refrigerated, disemboweled, and pickled to then be put briefly on display in a satin lined box and buried for everlasting rest.
If the horror of scarcity and resource war is represented by sanctioned torture and the horrific death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians while citizens of the empire go about their daily activities undeterred then we can assume that many will remain equally detached as the reports of widespread famine, disease, and conflict heighten. The neural mechanism for avoiding painful empathic understanding of human nature and nature in general is highly developed in humans and most people will never escape this avoidance pattern. The development of their prefrontal cortex will never be such that it can regulate the strong emotions of fear and anxiety generated by the amygdala. Thus, their only option is to disconnect the informaton from its true meaning. Otherwise, their mental and physical health would be placed in at risk by the resulting cascade of responses by the autonomic nervous system.
Maybe if one's "doing something" is stocking up on guns & ammo, or burying gold in the backyard, one becomes part of the problem; if sufficient numbers of folks go down that road, we end up in the realm of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Christian Fundamentalist belief in the apocalypse, finding itself in a position to mobilize the resources of the world's last superpower, may be generating just the sort of disorder that the fundamentalists expect to see in their end times. Dominionists and capitalist ideologies that favor liquidating the planet's resources may be exacerbating the freakish weather, plagues, famines, and the like that are anticipated in fundamentalist readings of the Bible.
Kunstler's quote about American suburbia being the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world, which appears frequently in the top-right corner of the oil drum, may have a corollary: enough doomers stocking exurban fortresses with guns, gas, and gold may be yet another misallocation of resources which could unwittingly be helping usher in the horrible future they fear. I think it is smarter investing my time and energy trying to create a sustainable collective future that I would enjoy living in, so long as I still see a chance of it.
That said, I wouldn't call myself a corncopian either; I worry about continued population growth and unsustainable development, and think that during the next century the planet is in for rough times, as we overshoot the limits of various resources, including oil and gas, but also the limits of ecological systems to provide "natural services" like an agreeable climate, food, and fresh water. Some of these crises will be local or regional, others worldwide. I wish that the world's rich countries would invest in effective public health, family planning, and girls' education programs to slow the rate of population growth in poorer countries by improving basic life conditions; many poor countries think they are growing too fast, and would welcome the aid, and slowing the planet's population growth rate improves all of our chances for a better future.
It is possible that all the "limits to growth" arguments are nonsense and everything will turn out fine, but since the dangers of "undershoot" are trivial compared to those of "overshoot", making a concerted effort to land on the near side of resource and natural system limits, as we best understand them, seems like the most rational approach.
I don't think there's much danger of that. For every doomer building a homestead in the hills, there's probably several who are not doing anything because they aren't sure what to do, others who are leaving the country for Costa Rica, Canada, or the Ukraine, and still others who think salvation is in new urbanism or Kunstler's small towns.
And that's good, IMO. Lots of small lifeboats is better than one big one.
I hate to stick this under Leanan's post but I am really, really pissed at the postings so far and I will go into Oil CEO overdrive, for me, on this one.
Why don't you idiots who aren't doing it and don't care, shut the fuck up? I'm not interested in your bullshit rationales, philosophies or beliefs. You think the non-negotional life will go? That's your belief so live with it if you are wrong. My actions aren't costing you a dime. I am not asking for your permission to live as I do or spend money as I do nor are any of you sending me money for my pursuits.
But, if I am right and you somehow manage to make it to my door if there is a societal collapse, I will have no compunction shooting your pretty pregnant wife in the belly because I can't feed her and if I give you food you, you might tell someone else. Do you understand that? Do you really understand that?
Like others have said, I absolutely hope I'm wrong. i'm old and don't want to kill people. Do you understand that? But, I will if necessary. Do you understand the angst that that entales?
Before you run further at the mouth, why don't you buy a copy of Jim Rawles' book, Patroits: Surviving the Coming Collapse. Or, at least read Lights Out. I've posted a link a few times before. Do a google search.
Sorry for the rough post but it has to be said.
Todd; a Realist
Todd you said it and it definitely had to be said.
Thanks.
airdale--who isn't gleeful and laughing because there might be a dieoff
who isn't hoping that all my family perish and I live on alone
yet who can't make them see what is coming and will have to
play it out as it goes. In Ky we have a CCDW.law.
That is so you can protect yourself and further a law that says
you do NOT have to retreat from threats in your home,on your
land , or elsewhere for that matter. You are not breaking the
law if you use deadly force to protect yourself.
Odo, you don't define "doom", and that is exactly the problem. The Rev doesn't either.
There have been self-described "doomers" on TOD, and flavors, like "fast-crash doomers."
I'm not sure they would agree amongst themselves on a single definition, but I'd say that they start with economic collapse, with some expecting political collapse, and finally the furthest wing expecting "die off."
You've never seen those guys, right?
I don't throw them all on one heap as you do.
And it's a dishonest argument now on your side, like below where you say "Are you saying there are no "lifeboaters" out there".
You know very well nobody made that claim in this thread.
Generalization may be easy, but it's not a very high level of thinking or discussing.
That is my issue with this type of article. That is why I used the term "straw man." They lump everyone who's less pessimistic than they are into one heap, and call them all "doomers." That makes as much sense as calling everyone who doesn't believe in a fast-crash dieoff a cornucopian.
"Straw man" was the theme I was responding to. If there are "faith based" doomers out there, it isn't a straw man.
You may be upset that he addresses those folks, but if you aren't a "faith based" doomer then you can relax. He isn't talking about you.
I should read HeIsSoFly's comments more carefully when I return. It could be that we are talking past each other a bit, because of this idea - whether the original article is (or needs to be) talking about all Peak Oilers.
And then there is the wider issue of how common the doom faith has become. I was saddened to see the theme pop up again in Nature's recent peak oil article. They wrote:
First: "If the subsequent rapid drop in production crashed the world economy, though — in the way that peak-oil supporters fear — those benefits might be hard to appreciate."
Second: "If oil production does start to collapse, peak-oil supporters who want to stock their bunkers with luxury goods have the opportunity to make a killing, by buying tomorrow's oil comparatively cheap and selling it, when the time comes, much more dearly."
Crashed? Bunkers?
Is that what Peak Oil is about? Is the movement becoming identified not by the geological underpinnings (Hubbert's curve, etc.) but rather by the "collapse" and "bunker" crowd?
I disagree.
I disagree, too. There are nothing but faith based doomers out there. So far I have not seen one rational argument why mankind can not live without oil, gas and coal. I have seen a lot of hand-waving, tooth-grinding, saber-rattling, prosletizing, condemning to Mad Max hell and incense smoke screen throwing. Most often, though, I see third rate cranks write fourth rate books to make a first rate buck. It works wonders for Barnes&Noble, Booksellers... but, of course, it does not solve any of the real problems. That will require gas taxes, carbon taxes and energy initiatives by the states and the federal government.
Now this is what I call faith-based.
If you think the federal government wil solve your problems, it's about time to start praying. Not that they would oppose raising taxes.
I am not suggesting the federal government is there to solve your problems without wetting your back. I am suggesting that it was put there by yourself for your own good. It is there to force you and your neighbor to actually get your asses moving to solve those problems that you already know exist. Government is nothing but a presumably higher form of communcal rationality that transcends individual greed. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it does not work at all. But you better make sure yours works well or you will have hell on Earth.
Seriously... the ONLY solution to the problem is to throw money at it to replace our current energy infrastructure with renewables. This will take a few percent of GDP over the next 40 years. You can start spending that money today or you can wait until energy becomes a really burning problem. Your choice, really, in all cases it will be your money and sweat that will solve the problem.
Gas tax, carbon tax etc. are simply the proper administrative means to get the process started and to collect the money necessary to achieve that transformation. If you are an all-insightful person who does not need to be forced to do the right thing, the better for you. In that case I am sure you are driving a small, efficient car, already and you have solar panels and a solar water heater and buy green energy whenever you can. Right?
What you propose might have helped a little in 1965, but not now. Forget about gas taxes. You're way after the buzzer.
And though you seem not to like doomers, you are the biggest one yourself, you're the first one here who proposes hell on earth.
That's the darkest view I've seen in ages. I know of quite a few governments that don't work well, and all of those have "slight" problems "transcending individual greed"
A gas tax is a gas tax, no matter when it is raised. If you slapped a dollar on every gallon, today, and raised it by 10cents annually would see demand drop by a couple of percent a year. That might not sound much, but it would be enought to make a serious dent in both foreign imports and world oil prices. I even dare to claim that the net effect would be close to zero on the consumer but leave the US with a vastly lowered foreign trade deficit and PLENTY of money to start investing in conservation.
I don't think my view of government is particularly "dark". We have witnessed what happens in a one party system for the past six years: special interest takes over and abuses the system for its own purposes. This is not any different from the USSR where the communist party was mostly a self-help organization for party members. We shall see if the latest elections will change that enough to establish a practical level of government that will eventually solve problems rather than cause more of them. It seems enough people have had an epiphany that they actually have to vote for the other party or things were just going to get worse. As they say... in a democracy you get the politicians you vote for...
I am not even saying you need great politicians... but you do need politicians who are good enough to get the job done!
So far I have not seen one rational argument why mankind can not live without oil, gas and coal.
Rational argument: think indigenous peoples, Native Americans, etc.
Whenever people don't "get" the doomerism of PO, I assume they do not "get" the economic issues or the overpopulation issues. Also, it depends what time line you are talking about. 50 years from now, 100 years from now, 1000 years from now? At some point in time we will no longer have the means to manufacture silicon to make solar PVs, at some point in time we will not be able to maintain a national power grid, at some point in time we will cut down our forests. In a perfect world, we could power-down in a controlled, sensible manner, but we do not live in a perfect world, neither is human nature perfect.
"Rational argument: think indigenous peoples, Native Americans, etc."
That is not a rational argument because indigenous people had neither solar cells, wind turbines, hydroelectric plants or nuclear energy at their disposal. Sorry... try again.
"Whenever people don't "get" the doomerism of PO, I assume they do not "get" the economic issues or the overpopulation issues."
What exactly is the economic issue? That I will have to pay 20 cents for my kWh instead of 12 cents? Or that I will have to buy a Prius to pay the same for gas every week that I pay now. Big deal... I dine out a couple of times a month for $100 or more. You think I will be able to absorb the price shock? I think so.
"Also, it depends what time line you are talking about. 50 years from now, 100 years from now, 1000 years from now?"
I usually operate on the realistic level, not the fantastic level, so I prefer to talk about ten years from now and twenty years from now. I don't really care about what kind of fusion or anti-matter technology will be running on our inter-planetary space ships 1000 years from now.
On the ten year scale the answer to PO is: buy a freaking hybrid and stop squirming. On the 20 years scale it is: buy a freaking EV and a few solar panels and stop squirming. Whatever you do, stop squirming. It is of no use and sounds whiny.
"At some point in time we will no longer have the means to manufacture silicon to make solar PVs"
Huh? Why would that be? Did you notice that we make plenty of electricity from hydro, nuclear and coal and that EROEI of solar panels is 5-10? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Same for all your other points.
"In a perfect world, we could power-down..."
Why, exactly, do we need to power down? You really think the sun will stop shining, the wind will stop blowing, the rain will stop falling and nuclear reactions will stop? Looks like it...
We need to stop the waste. That is absolutely not the same thing as going back to digging up roots with a stick. At least not if you spend two seconds thinking about it.
I, for one, don't think you're for real. I think you seek entertainment in seeing what kind of responses you can get from people here.
That just proves you don't know me. I am still waiting for someone to give me one argument why the world as we know it will end with an oil price of $6/gallon. My parents are paying close to that right now. And please trust me... my parents do not have much money. So I know about the problem first hand because I am picking up some of that tab, already. My point is: I look at this as just another expense I have to pay. It is nothing that kills me. And compared to some of the other exploding cost I have to deal with (housing prices!) this is just a pin prick.
I think what is missed is that both outcomes will happen. Much of the developing world is just hanging on today. If they lose the cheap petroleum benefits that have made it possible for them to support so many people, through improved agriculture, and the rest, they will probably have a large die-off. They do not have any resource that can save them. And the richer parts of the world will bid up the price of oil so that the third world gets none.
But there does not have to be a big die-off in the developed world. There is a large supply of Uranium in the world and the energy potential of Thorium is about 750 times as great. We have a transportation fuels (and material feedstocks and fertilizer) problem but do not have to have a massive power down. Computer technology can help dramatically to allow us to avoid travel. Even large scale, intensive agriculture will survive, because it is more efficient. It will just serve local markets. Vehicles can be built of very light weight materials and run mainly on batteries. Liquid fuels (and material feedstocks and fertilizers) can be created from low grade hydrocarbon even if this requires more energy than we get out of the hydrocarbons. Civilization will survive in significant parts of the world and technology and knowledge with advance rapidly. Necessity is truly the mother of invention.
Perhaps the parts of the world that are coping will not be able to wall off the parts that are dying. Perhaps the leaders in the part of the world that has the potential to survive will not rise to the challenge and destroy the world trying to secure the declining energy resources instead of figuring out how to make due. Perhaps the people who could survive will not have the stomach to watch much of humanity expire. But it does not have to be that way.
To be perfectly honest with you, I think cheap oil was a curse for the developing world. You have to keep in mind that much of their problems are structural and that structure does not enter the equation as a multiplier as much as an exponent. Add cheap oil to an equation where we have a great exponent and they will fall relatively further behind because oil does so much more for us than it can do for for them! And indeed, it has. Many countries which were subsistent in the developing world a century ago have stayed subsistent while our GDP was growing exponentially. They were not be able to take cheap oil and invest it to educate their populations and to make a better living for themselves. We, on the other hand, have seen stellar returns from all our investments. On a relative basis we are now much better off than we were before oil.
I am a lot more optimistic about information technology producing quality of life to much of the developing world than I am about energy. The energy demand needed to get information and communication to any place on earth is so small that it can be easily satisfied with locally generated renewables. A solar panel coupled to a UV water sterilizer and a tv/radio/internet phone is a much more important improvement to anyones life than a truck would be that eats 80% of people's income just for the gas. Even more so if the truck is converted into a machine gun platform and used by the local warlord.
To be perfectly honest with you, I think cheap oil was a curse for the developing world.
A solar panel coupled to a UV water sterilizer and a tv/radio/internet phone is a much more important improvement to anyones life than a truck would be that eats 80% of people's income just for the gas. Even more so if the truck is converted into a machine gun platform and used by the local warlord.
On these I have to agree with you, strange...
I wonder where you "plug" growth upon this, is it because growth WAS required at some point?
I wanted to stay out, but this comment encapsulates part of the debate - 'So far I have not seen one rational argument why mankind can not live without oil, gas and coal.'
Few are arguing about 'mankind,' but a good number are arguing about a human population of 6+ billion and growing - mankind can certainly survive, but the question of how many in what time scale tends to be a little less comfortable.
And yes, those discussions can be very fact based. Often, they are also historically limited - famine was a constant of many societies, while plague, social disturbances/collapse, and war were fairly predictable, and not exceptional. The time since the Enlightenment has been quite unusual in human experience, and is not the historical norm. It is hard to grasp concretely that Japan, for example, suffered famines like Zimbabwe's repeatedly over centuries, when using today's Japan as a measure.
Expat, you are exactly correct. Of course we can live without gas, oil or coal. Hell mankind lived without any fossil fuels for about a million years or so. The question is "how many people can the earth support without fossil fuels"?
And I am still waiting for one of those cornucopian geniuses to refute David Price's argument. They are all awful quick to badmouth us doomers and say our argument is "faith based" but when a good scientific argument is put to them they shut up quick.
http://dieoff.org/page137.htm
Ron Patterson
Hold on buddy, and pull that argument over to the curb!
You just made the classic doomer shift, going from "peak oil" to "without fossil fuels."
This time I'll let you off with a humorous posting.
Where in that text does the man make a quantitative argument that hydrocarbons can not be replaced by solar energy, exactly? Here is what he says:
"Solar thermal collection devices are only feasible where it is hot and sunny, and photovoltaics are too inefficient to supplant the cheap energy available from fossil fuels."
He says PV is to inefficient to supplant CHEAP energy from fossil fuels. First of all, the efficiency of PV only has an impact on area needed to collect the energy. You can check for yourself that we have plenty of area even with 10% efficiency (but our best cells are already above 40% right now and that number will continue to grow while we create concentrator cells with more junctions). I am too tired to repeat that calculation again... do it yourself.
Secondly... who is to say that energy has to be as cheap as the cheapest oil you could every buy on the spot market? Why is cheapness a necessity for mankinds survival? To live on the cheap is not the same as to live. Actually... I don't like to live on the cheap. There are too many downsides. I like to live sustainably, instead, no matter at what cost.
In short: all this dieoff crap is just that: cheapshot arguments by people who are not willing to face reality that life will get more expensive while it goes on. But that is what happens when you bolt your purse to your cohones... you will feel every change in weight and think the world is ending when in reality you simply have to spend a few bucks more.
All but 1+ of the 6+ billion are alrady rather uncomfortable and that has nothing to do with PO. The vast majority of mankind does not suffer from an energy crisis but from the fact that they are not yet part of the elite family of rich with well established social, administrative, political and technical services. There was war in Africa before we even discovered the first oil. The bush people in Papua-New Guenea were not any better off before electricity was invented in the 17th century and utilized in the 19th. I doubt that life for the Chinese peasant is much harder today than it was in the 5th century BC. But I would be glad to hear EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Sorry, but yours is an ideological argument, not a valid technical one.
"And yes, those discussions can be very fact based."
If that is so, why aren't they? You are hand waving yourself right now. Instead of giving me hard numbers you make a diffuse claim that the end is near.
"The time since the Enlightenment has been quite unusual in human experience, and is not the historical norm."
You will hardly find one historian who uses a nonsensical term like "historical norm". There is nothing like that. The Egyptians were different from the Greek who were different from the Romans and they all were different from the Chinese. And all of these are different from the US. There is not one stretch of history that has ever repeated itself.
You are talking a lot about Enlightenment, but then you fail to use its most cherished treasure: rartional thinking. Why is that? Because it does not support your hypothesis?
What I am asking for should be easy to come by if you were right. So please, show me the money.
Infinite, it is hard to make heads or tails of your argument. You appear to be trying to say something without saying anything at all. Are you saying that fossil fuels have little to do with “All but 1+ of the 6+ billion”? Are you saying that without fossil fuels the population of China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sub-Sahara Africa and all the other vastly overpopulated places on earth would still be about the same without fossil fuels? Are you actually making that claim, or are you trying to say something else?
Do you deny that: Starvation will be a direct outcome of the depletion of energy resources. Today's dense population is dependent for its food supply on mechanized agriculture and efficient transportation. Energy is used to manufacture and operate farm equipment, and energy is used to take food to market. As less efficient energy resources come to be used, food will grow more expensive and the circle of privileged consumers to whom an adequate supply is available will continue to shrink.
Do you deny that fossil fuel supplies the food that feeds the world?
Just curious but what the hell is your argument Infinite?
Ron Patterson
I am saying that most people in the world do not participate in the "big energy schlachtfest" that is the US. They get by with MUCH less and still live. I am also saying that oil demand in the US is not a function of agricultural essentials but one of unlimited and unregulated gasoline hog growth. Please compare economy standards in the US and elsewhere. An American car consumes roughly twice as much as a European car and performs the same function: it gets you from A to B. Nothing more.
My argument is not hard to understand. It is uncomfortable, though, because I am basically saying that US consumers are whining about a situation they have brought onto themselves. And, to be perfectly honest with you, I don't think the average US consumer cares whatsoever about any possible side effect of his actions on populations in the developing world. If they did, they would realize that corn to ethanol is the most unethical thing one can do. For one gallon of ethanol we could probably feed a dozen people for a day. I did not hear the US churches speak out against that. Did you? So much for morals.
On the bright side: if food production in the US should ever suffer from a problem, we know that corn to ethanol will stop immediately. A dozen people who spend $3 each per day more to buy corn or wheat based products will drive the cost of corn ethanol up by $36/gallon. I doubt very many people can afford to fill'er up for that much. And now you can also see why there is starvation in the world: we can afford to price basically everyone in any developing country out of ANY food market at will. We don't need PO to help us. We can do it simply by going to the grocery store. Sad, isn't it?
You should inform yourself. Many people suffer the illusion that heavily populated countries like India and China still live in 'primitive' agricultural conditions, where 'primitive' is taken to mean that the agriculture is done with little more than cattle manure (or 'night soil'). Over the past 30 years these countries have become heavily dependent on fossil-fuel-based chemical fertilizers. This is something I haven't seen you addressing in your facile 'back of the envelope' calculations. In fact, almost everything you have asserted I find to be facile and without much depth of thought. In addition, there is the annoying tendency to totally hijack a thread and always have the last word. I won't respond again to this nonsense.
In addition, there is the annoying tendency to totally hijack a thread and always have the last word.
Propaganda tactic...
[ duplicate post ]
I wasn't talking about the primitive villages in India alone. Even those who live in urban slums consume MUCH less energy than the average US citizen. Many people have to live on the monthly gas budget of an SUV driver for a year and they can because an SUV is the absolute energy wasting machine. That is a simple fact. Ask the manufacturers why they build SUVs. Because they could be marketed well while gas was $1-2/gallon, not because people need them desperately.
I cite from:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
"In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994). Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:
· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
· 19% for the operation of field machinery
· 16% for transportation
· 13% for irrigation
· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
· 05% for crop drying
· 05% for pesticide production
· 08% miscellaneous"
For 400 gallons a year you can at best drive a Prius to work (375 gallons annual consumption for 150000 miles). Not to mention that a lot of the energy in our agriculture is wasted on an overproduction of cheap meat or for driving stuff around to make a few bucks with higher prices or lower cost. We would live better and far healthier if we reduced this by a hundred gallons a year or more.
The 31% for the fertilizer production, 13% for irrigation etc. can easily come from solar or wind. There is no need to use oil for that part. Not sure I am really thrilled about field machinery being operated on oil based hydrocarbons. The emissions of those machines land (partly as cancerogens) on your veggies.
By the way... 60+% of oil use in the US is in transportation fuels... and that is where we can cut back the easiest and the most.
In short: these things are part of my "back of the envelope calculations". Any more questions?
Historical norms - for example, things like human societies numbering in the hundreds of millions are not the historical norm, or societies whose members can cross continental distances in hours to days are not the historical norm, or being able to monitor the Earth using satellites to predict weather are not the historical norm (nuclear weapons are also not part of the historical norm). Further, it seems as if only those societies which were either directly part of the Enlightement or those who were able to integrate many of its principles in their own context (Communist countries like China or Russia or a British colony like India) have mastered self-sustaining technical progress, whereas other societies seem to fit into what I would consider historical norms - agriculturally based, with extremely sharp distinction between rich and poor, and generally, religious belief used to sustain a static social order. And no hesitation to crush opposition, through any means required.
Of course such arguments are open to discussion - but hopefully what follows is factual enough to get to the real point.
'Famine Mortality in Nineteenth-Century Japan: The Evidence from a Temple Death Register
Ann Bowman Jannetta University of Pittsburgh
Abstract:
Economic and demographic historians who have studied Japan's early modern period argue that preventive checks to fertility were the primary cause of Japan's stationary population in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and that the role of 'positive' checks was negligible. This paper presents evidence and a claim that mortality crises - famines in particular - also played an important role in checking population growth during this period. It analyses data from the death register of Ogen-ji, a Buddhist temple in the Hida region of central Japan. These data provide a remarkably detailed picture of the short-term demographic consequences of Japan's last great famine, the Tenpl famine of the 1830s. 'Normal' mortality patterns, by age and sex, are compared with patterns of mortality during the famine. Mortality of males rose considerably more than that of females, with the greatest rise occurring among young boys aged 5-14 and adult men aged 30-59. A surprising finding was that mortality at ages 0-4 rose relatively little, in part a consequence of a marked fall in the number of births during the famine. The Tenpl subsistence crisis was not the sole cause of population stagnation in the Ogen-ji population, but it was a prominent feature of the 'high mortality regime' that this population experienced during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.'
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(ha4pgqeesrvn0f45exk5qu45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,11;journal,43,67;linkingpublicationresults,1:300383,1
Or
'Tanuma's rational and progressive political attitude is best revealed in his attempt to develop Ezo (present-day Hokkaido) as a bulwark against the southward advance of the Russians; he even considered trading with Russia. Various natural disasters occurred in his time, however, and peasant protests rose to more than 50 per year during the 1780s. A great eruption of Mount Asama in 1783 was followed by a widespread famine during the Temmei era (1783–87), in which large numbers of people starved to death. An uncommon number of crop failures, fires, epidemics, and droughts reconfirmed peoples' sense of divine displeasure with the performance of the ruler. The protests of the farmers were now most often directed against wealthy members of the village community. In 1787 large-scale riots threatened Edo, Osaka, and other major cities.'
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23172/Japan
Or a nice section of abstracts at http://www.aasianst.org/absts/2000abst/Japan/J-31.htm
We are not talking about theoretical perspectives in terms of Japanese famines, we are talking about very well documented facts.
Though you may doubt that many Japanese would starve without coal, oal, and gas, I am pretty sure that the Japanese, based on their thousand plus years of well documented experience, would disagree with you. As would the Chinese or the Indians, two other cultures with thousands of years of history, and lots of experience in excess population being reduced through starvation.
You are welcome to believe that as population keeps growing, it can also be fed - but that is in no way the historical norm. And on that point, facts on my side, not yours.
But who knows, maybe it is different this time. Though that is a hope, not a fact based argument. The best hope is that population growth will slow, and then reverse. This is happening in a number of places, all of them notably reliable on oil, gas, and coal at this point. You are welcome to describe how that process will occur more broadly - however, it is not occurring in most populations and most regions of this planet, which I certainly live on.
"Historical norms - for example, things like human societies numbering in the hundreds of millions are not the historical norm, or societies whose members can cross continental distances in hours to days are not the historical norm, or being able to monitor the Earth using satellites to predict weather are not the historical norm (nuclear weapons are also not part of the historical norm)."
I don't agree. Societies which have exploited all available natural means to grow and create great population densities are the historical norm, if you want to really use that term (I don't assign much meaning to it personally). The problem is not the absolute number of people or the absolute density but the sensitivity of that society to the natural environment. And in that sense the Middle Ages were much closer to their limits as the plague and other epidemics demonstrate: they had overused their sanitation and public health capacity and were paying a price. We are not the first to live very densely packed. We are the first to live very densely packed succesfully.
Travel accross continents is not new. People have done it at least since antiquity for trade. The Romans had silks from the orient. Greek artifacts made it to Asia. At the same time there was trade across Europe into Africa. The hardships of that trade were much harder... but it did exist. Communication is faster today than in the past but the Chinese, the Romans, the Empires in Medival times spent enormous resources on mail and fast courier services. They were not affordable or available to everyone but they were being entertained because people had figured out the advantages of knowing in almost real-time (i.e. a month or two) what was going on.
I don't think I have an argument with your historical accounts of Japanese famines. But you are drawing the wrong conclusions for modern Japan when you say
"Though you may doubt that many Japanese would starve without coal, oal, and gas, I am pretty sure that the Japanese, based on their thousand plus years of well documented experience, would disagree with you."
Like I said... it matters little what happened a thousand years ago. What is important today is what happened yesterday. And, interestingly, Japan is one of the premier solar markets in the world:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsJapan.htm
http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2006-intro.htm
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/neasia/003818
The Japanese are very active in supplementing their traditional energy sources, much more so than the US. 22% of all Prius are being sold in Japan. Here is a chart of fuel economy standards:
http://www.bluefish.org/guzzling_gas.gif
So far Japan is leading, with the EU to take over in 2010. To me everything indicates that the Japanese are very aware that they will need to switch and they are doing it. Compared to that the US is a sleeping beauty far, far behind reality.
Here is an interesting chart:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/g7energy%20capita.jpg
Per capita energy consumption seems to be converging in the industrialized world with both the US and Canada being about double of everyone else.
And a different plot of similar data:
http://criepi.denken.or.jp/trilemma/en/tpx/tpx_img/fig1.gif
CO2 emissions:
http://www.eccj.or.jp/databook/2001e/img/02_01_04.gif
No matter how you look at it: USA is the hog. Japan is part of the problem but they are trying to mitigate. Are we? How does this fit into the "historical norm"?
I left out one point about the Japanese - the last time they starved was in the mid-1940s, after their access to oil and coal was cut off - this was because the U.S. Navy effectively destroyed the Japanese merchant fleet, which also meant that no food could be imported. Along with their cities being burned, of course.
Sometimes, you really need to get a broader picture than narrow technical solutions to narrow technical problems. Famine can have a number of causes, and even today, isn't really that rare in countries like North Korea (edit - when floods caused a massive harvest failure) or Cuba (edit - when the Soviets no longer supplied oil).
The Japanese know they are in a very hard place if oil, gas, and coal are not available for import - after all, they don't really have any themselves.
Many of these discussions are not as theoretical as they may at first seem. Part of the discussion concerns how societies will react when confronted with a no longer possible to avoid reality, not how we hope they will react.
So far I have not seen one rational argument why mankind can not live without oil, gas and coal.
Of course mankind CAN live without all that, like we did before 1700.
There were just about 600 millions people then, we can get back to that, or may be half of that to account for the disappearance of some ressources (wood, mostly).
Who said there's any problem? :->
And it's a dishonest argument now on your side,
Honesty is ALWAYS the problem with odograph!
I don't know that foreseeing collapses makes one a doomer, nor are collapses always the worst thing imaginable; sometimes it's the way we get rid of big institutions who have outlived whatever use they may have had, but don't know their time is done. I don't miss certain of the 20th Century's notable collapses, including the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, or the Soviet Union.
I think that Diamond, Tainter, Greer, Patrick Kennedy, and the like have done us a great service in pointing out the diminishing returns of many investments in complexity to a culture obsessed with quantitative growth -- to have the most or be the biggest is always better; shrinking, retreating, simplifying, and dismantling are always failures. Many folks here, for example, would see it as encouraging that most of the world's richest countries (with the US as the notable exception) have stable or shrinking populations, but none of the governments of these countries see this as a positive; there is no notion that there might be an optimum population, and no inkling that we might have passed it.
The trouble with collapse comes when useful analysis hardens into prediction. Others have pointed out that Marx wrote many, many pages analyzing 19th century capitalism, and a very few pages predicting the future arc of history, but it was the prediction, or rather the hardening of the prediction into an article of faith, that caused so much trouble with 20th Century "really existing socialism".
Hopefully we will see more conscious efforts to individually and collectively powerdown, simplify, or dismantle to levels that are sustainable over the long term, rather than wait for collapse. However, unless conscious engagement and intelligent debate about the pros and cons of growth and complexity becomes more widespread rather quickly, it seems likely that we will see more political, economic, and institutional collapses.
I agree Rose, that "The trouble with collapse comes when useful analysis hardens into prediction."
Humans (even very bright humans, like Marx) have a hard time with it. Though of course he might have been "push-predicting" a future he desired ;-)
I agree, but for what it's worth, I have a modern programmer's view that complexity arising from simple rules is completely different (and very often more stable) than complexity arising from central control. See also "self organizing systems."
I have a modern programmer's view that complexity arising from simple rules is completely different
You don't know shit about complexity, you "modern programmer", we already discussed that.
On the other hand, I can keep a civil tongue, and try to discuss things rationally.
On complexity itself, I don't set myself as an expert. The "for what it's worth," which you clipped was simply because I've thought about it, off and on, for 20 years.
I think it is interesting that the approaches to computational complexity have changed so dramatically in that time ... but maybe that's just me.
[typos corrected]
Well, of course, I'm a tad sorry to use sharp words against a reverend, but his arguments are nothing but air. If all anybody had ever read in his life was the bible, the world would be a different place. It might have been better for all I know, but it didn't turn out that way.
And that means that people will read Tainter and Catton and Hardin et al in their effort to understand what they see around them. Is that such a terrible thing? In my humble opinion, it's not. There are, and have been, very smart and dedicated people in this world who have looked at problems like resources and populations, and have come to conclusions that some people find hard to stomach, because they are negative. Others have come to other conclusions. Read them all and see how you feel, what you think.
What I don't like is that those who make the effort, and afterwards reach a point where they see troubles ahead, are thrown together as an "unrealistic" bunch. Facing the future with only one book in your hand might be less realistic.
Sometimes I think Jay should have named his site "The Last Supper.org", to not scare people away.
But the site is still probably the best rounded collection of its kind of information I have seen to date, so it irritates me to see the father diss it as easily as he does.
"If all anybody had ever read in his life was the bible, the world would be a different place."
I beg to differ. The world would be exactly the same place. Just the house that man builds in it would be different. If all anybody had ever read was the bible, we would be living in cathedral decorated cities with rat infestation and an occasional outbreak of the black death, not to mention the smoldering stacks of firewood to burn those who were reading something else. We've been there and have done that. No need for a re-run.
"There are, and have been, very smart and dedicated people in this world who have looked at problems like resources and populations, and have come to conclusions that some people find hard to stomach, because they are negative."
Again, you are wrong. The people who have come to those utterly negative conclusions are not smart. They achieve their "conclusions" usually by making arbitrary assumtions to rationalize their own prejudices about what the world should look like. Doom for doom's sake (and that is most of what the doom subculture is) is not a matter of smarts but one of polishing a particular brand of crystal ball. Smart people do not waste their time on trying to reach foolish conclusions about the far future but they are using their intellectual power to make the present better.
You cite Tainter, for instance. His analysis of the fall of complex societies might be perfectly accurate - the problem with transferring it to us is the little fact that the Romans, the Maya etc. did not have nuclear power plants and solar cells and theu did not have birth control, either. They did not possess the ability to cut their energy waste by 70% because they were living on the basis of mostly subsistence agricultural techniques - to them decline meant problems, to us decline simply means nuisance. None of the reasons why these cultures vanished apply to us. The foolishness of doomerism based on these historical analysis is that it completely ignores that there is very, very little of overlap between the foundations of our civilization and theirs. And that is bad thinking, at best. At worst, it is bad New Age Religion.
Infinite, good rebuttal of the doomers perspective. I would like take a different stance on the following paragraph though:
You cite Tainter, for instance. His analysis of the fall of complex societies might be perfectly accurate - the problem with transferring it to us is the little fact that the Romans, the Maya etc. did not have nuclear power plants and solar cells and theu did not have birth control, either.
I think you are totally wrong about this one. The fact that we are technologically superior to the Roman Empire guarantees almost nothing. In fact it could be used in exactly the opposite direction as it is well known that the higher you stand, the worse you fall.
IMO, the fallacy of Tainter is the way it is used. It is used as a crystal ball which tells that every complex society must collapse. While in fact we have seen many examples of just the opposite in human history - there are successfull societies which evolve, and diversification and complexity are becoming a fundamental part of their success. For example China and Japan have evolved into very complex societies with a lot of rules and rich culture. The Byzantium Empire also was a successful organisation until it was destroyed by largely outnumbering it rival. The point is that societies evolve and the success of a society depends on its adaptivity, not exactly on the level of complexity it has reached.
For example the only meaningful purpose of our discussions here should be to increase our preparedness for the changes to come. Curnocopian and doomer outlooks are two eqiuvelently dangerous distractions, as the first denies the need for improving adaptivity levels, while the other asserts it is basically pointless to do it.
"I think you are totally wrong about this one. The fact that we are technologically superior to the Roman Empire guarantees almost nothing. "
Then please demonstrate to me that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to generate enough energy to keep our civilization running without burning oil, gas and coal. You can't because the premise of the idea that we are dependent on carbon is false. We might be addicted to carbon because it is cheap. That does not mean we really need it.
"In fact it could be used in exactly the opposite direction as it is well known that the higher you stand, the worse you fall."
Your thinking is one-dimensional in this case. We are not standing on a ladder of civilisations as some people like to believe. Our civilization is not different from the Roman's because it is in some way "higher" but because it is TOTALLY different in every conceivable dimension. In the Roman Empire probably 90% of the people were working on the fields. In comparison In 2004, of the 145 million employed workers in the US, 834,000 held jobs as agricultural workers. That is one person in 174. In total that is less then a third of a percent of the total population. In the Roman Empire crop production probably failed every dozen years or so and people went hungry. Our agricultural production has to convert corn to ethanol just to keep the farms running. We have probably more administrative workers than the Roman Empire had citizens! Heck, we probably have more people selling used cars than the Roman Empire had soldiers... think about it!
These are not small, linear differences but completely different worlds. The failure modes of one of these societies have absolutely nothing to do with the failure modes of the other. Our failures are called recessions and are fluctuations in the functions of markets (not the underlying production machinery), the Romans called theirs famines (those were real biological failures of their farming system).
"IMO, the fallacy of Tainter is the way it is used."
I am not blaming the man per se. Doomerism is a psychological phenomenon, just like Rapturism and Creationism. Tainter's historical analysis, like I said, might be perfectly sane. But it simply has nothing to say about what is happening in the year 2007. Just like Genesis has nothing to say about the big bang.
"For example the only meaningful purpose of our discussions here should be to increase our preparedness for the changes to come."
I agree. The simple answer to PO is: buy a Prius or a Yaris. The complex answer is "Here is why you should buy a Prius or a Yaris...", but for most people it does not matter. They will simply be forced to do the right thing once gas hits the $4/gallon mark.
Sorry, but your opinion shows the type of arrogance that has brought us here, and at least in my opinion will bring a lot of suffering in the years to come.
The problems you cite are quantitive, while the outcome of this particular challange we are facing will be determined by the qualitive properties of our civilisation. You say "show me why can't we run our civilisation on this or that..." I say "why Roman empire did not simply plant more and more diverse crops to avoid crippling femines"? What you are missing is that there are some fundamental flaws both in the Roman and our society which may prevent us from doing what I know that we can do. Flaws, which in both cases can be generalised to the term "vested interests". Keep the course towards the iceberg type of thing.
You are concentrating on the technical aspects of the problem, which is not even that major one IMHO.
"The problems you cite are quantitive,.."
PO is a quantitative problem. It can be measured in barrels and $/BTU. Or do you disagree about that?
"...while the outcome of this particular challange we are facing will be determined by the qualitive properties of our civilisation."
Nonsense. Civilizations do not change because of their "qualities". The change from no-ligthting to gas-lighting to electric lighting in our cities has to do with the QUANTITATIVE availability and the price of gas and electricity. That you have a computer in front of you is a direct result of the quantitiy $/gate for CMOS technology. If nature hadn't given us the band structure of semiconductors and if it couldn't be modulated with an electric field across an isolation oxide layer, computers as you know them wouldn't exist. These are all highly physical and quantitative processes at work here.
"I say "why Roman empire did not simply plant more and more diverse crops to avoid crippling femines"?"
Because they did not have chemists who found out that nitrogen and phosphorus and a few trace elements make plants grow WAY better. It is as simple as that. Please read up on the history of modern agriculture and how much hard SCIENCE is behind it.
"Flaws, which in both cases can be generalised to the term "vested interests". Keep the course towards the iceberg type of thing."
I think you need to learn a few things about the Roman Empire... for one thing: it was in continuous change over its history. For another: it wasn't by far the only civilization of its time. The Chinese were far larger and more durable. Tough luck... Chinese civilization is some 3500 years of administrative and cultural continuity.
"You are concentrating on the technical aspects of the problem, which is not even that major one IMHO."
And that is where you are wrong. The technical aspects of the problem are the ones that allow you to post on the internet and go shopping at Walmart. Without them, you wouldn't even exist, let alone survive. Without them, you will not survive in the future. But thank god we have plenty of experts in their fields which will make sure that you will never go without water, food, transportation and your tech toys.
"PO is a quantitative problem. It can be measured in barrels and $/BTU. Or do you disagree about that?"
Yes, I disagree.
And the fact you can not understand my point and can't go one level deeper is showing we are talking different languages. No reasons to discuss further - on your level of reasoning you are right and I can only agree with you.
Re: IMO, the fallacy of Tainter is the way it is used. It is used as a crystal ball which tells that every complex society must collapse
Apparently, you have no knowledge of Tainter, but, rather, make statements like this.
Could be, but at least I read what other people say, before responding.
Well, I do apologize. I did not, in fact, read your full remarks.
However, reading the part of your remarks I just quoted above, your claim that societies succeed based on "adaptivity" rather their level of complexity strikes me as naive. In fact, complexity is their downfall. It all has to do with energy inputs -- which no one here has mentioned. As a society becomes more complex, it requires greater and greater energy inputs (fossil fuels, in our time) to sustain it's current state and growth. This is one of Tainter's main points! But, this would seem to be impossible, as we discuss on The Oil Drum, right? Now, adaptability to what? To fewer energy resources to keep that complexity going? How does that work? What are the consequences of fewer energy inputs? How does a complex society sustain itself over time with fewer energy inputs? I've got lots of questions here.
Well I largely agree with the problem stated like this. Several objections:
First let me complement it - energy is just one of the key resources, that may turn out to be in short supply, thus causing the collapse. For example for the Roman Empire it was slaves - though in the broader term these could be classified as energy. It could be food. It could be also competent leadership.
Second: the relationship complexity - energy/resource usage is dubious for me. Middle age empires like Byzantium or China had fairly complex, but low input and quite successful societies. And yes complex societies can and do respond successfully to resource misallocations. They can downsize, replace resource wasting elements with leaner ones. What is important is for the essential parts of these societies to remain intact.
Third: we are not for a shortage of energy now! We have an imminent problems with liquid fuels only. There is coal, nuclear and solar and wind in the long run. Whether we will be able to ramp them up is the real question and it also comes to adaptivity.
My whole point was to move the focal point of discussion from the complexity as an evil by itself. I suggested the much broader term "adaptivity" which basically can mean anything. Moving to the industrial civilisation, one can easily imagine a society where everyone gets by with mass transit powered by nuclear, wind and solar for all practical purposes indefinately. Whether we'll do it is the question - and it is a political and societal question, not technical one.
The bottom line is that there always is a choice. If Roman rulers were so far-sighted to abandon slavery in favor of a more productive societal structure like the feudalism that followed, maybe we'd all be speaking latin now. But they did not - though I am sure there were many people proposing it. Clearly the vested interests of the rich roman oligarchy were preventing them to do that. Are we going to follow their path? I hope not...
The bottom line is that there always is a choice.
Then what are OUR choices now?
I mean beside the "nucular option" you are in love with?
If Roman rulers were so far-sighted to abandon slavery in favor of a more productive societal structure like the feudalism that followed, maybe we'd all be speaking latin now.
That's an extremely summary and WRONG appraisal of the Roman demise.
How can a societal structure be more productive from a depleted ressource base?
Feudalism was indeed more cost effective than the Romans but it was not for the slaves (they were replaced by serfs) and it took many centuries to build up an economy comparable to the Roman one.
You don't seem to understand much about complexity either, it is not "an evil in itself".
You are confusing Tainter with the primitivists.
Complexity WORKS it is just that it becomes MARGINALY less and less cost effective, read Tainter.
Then what are OUR choices now?
I mean beside the "nucular option" you are in love with?
There is always the choice of scaling back. Even if this means some form of population control. But you are correct that at some point no choices are left - and if we were behaving like rational creatures for our long term survival we would have taken the appropriate measures before this point. Knowing it (Club of ROme, 70s) and not taking the measures needed means we made the wrong choice back then.
And yes, if you exclude nuclear then there are not many choices.
You don't seem to understand much about complexity either, it is not "an evil in itself".
You are confusing Tainter with the primitivists.
It turns out to be evil if coupled with resource depletion, where it seems to be leading to overshoot. My argument is that whether we go to "overshoot" or not could be still in our hands. It's a question of how resilient is the society and how far-sighted public policies are.
Excuse me, it would be exactly the same place, but different?
What are we supposed to make of that? Not going anywhere, are we, like this?
Make up your mind, which of the two is it?
.
All you do is make arbitrary assumptions about what you personally define as other people's arbitrary assumptions. Again, we're not getting anywhere.
Smart people all reach only positive conclusions, right? Good luck with that. Do you have any idea what you look like when you say such things?
The laws of physics have not changed since the Middle Ages. We have simply learned to use them better for our advantage. Just like anyone could have built a house of clay or wood at the time when we were sitting in caves. It just didn't occur to anyone to do that - they were way to busy finding a better cave. Silly, isn't it? The world does not change fundamentally, only we do.
"Smart people all reach only positive conclusions, right?"
Where did I say that? I said that smart people work on making the world a better place or to collect information (like in science) that could be used for that purpose. They do not sit around polishing crystal balls. An analysis of PO is not a negative prediction. It is, if done well, a tool to motivate us to start looking for other ways to run our cars. But you will not stop there becrying your fate. Instead you will run a simulation asking what needs to be done to mitigate the effects? And the answer is, among others, to raise the gas tax and to invest in conservation and renewables. I do not see any of the doomers discuss these obvious solutions even once. Because if they did that, the doom would go away and they would actually have to get off their asses and do something.
"The laws of physics have not changed since the Middle Ages. "
Normally I try to not label folks but with this kind of posting I have to consider you totally full of shit.
And sure they understood the atom did they not? Hey buddy they still thought the world was flat!!!!
Get real or get better dope.
You cite Tainter, for instance.
May because he ACTUALLY read him while you didn't?
Because you would know that his arguments apply as well to relatively recent technical achievements up to 1982, like "Productivity of the US health care system" p103 of the 1988 edition.
The foolishness of doomerism based on these historical analysis is that it completely ignores that there is very, very little of overlap between the foundations of our civilization and theirs.
The foolishness of the suckers who pretend to argue about PO & collapse while only having picked their sources at CERA, Exxon and Faux News is pissing many people.
At worst it is sponsored propaganda.
To say that people who think present problems put our present civilization at risk
Is this, what doomers are saying?... My observations are different. Actually I'm fed up with talks about how industrial civilisation will collapse and 90% of the population will go with it. Moreover we hear proposals of the type "let's stop living today as there is no tomorrow anyway". Like dismantling power stations or collectively going back to farming. Preferably using our own waste as fertilizer.
FWIW, there is a (quite credible) risk for a nuclear exchange that can wipe out 99% of us in only several months, and I can only wonder why nobody stays fixated on this one. Instead the other, much more hypothetical one is presented as more or less of a certainty, or should I say DOOM.
My explanations why this happens goes to 2 categories of people:
1) People who push their own hidden political agenda. I call them eco-nutz. Ad hominem intended.
2) People who hate the world we live in and life in general. I call them plain nutz.
My explanations why this happens goes to 2 categories of people:
1) People who push their own hidden political agenda. I call them eco-nutz. Ad hominem intended.
2) People who hate the world we live in and life in general. I call them plain nutz.
How do you call people who "push their own hidden political agenda" AGAINST eco-preservation, PO awareness and Global Warming preparedness?
Criminals. Now you figure out how will we end if we let a bunch of criminals and looneys make the decisions.
Re: to assert that, eg, civilisation will come to an abrupt end
Who claimed that? The guy is right in his analysis of apocalyptic thought but who among us is longing for the end? Just who is he criticizing? Other than a reference to dieoff.org, he is not specific. Even at dieoff, they don't say anything about an "abrupt" end. From that perspective, I thought the article was nonsense.
I called it "the Scarborough Incident" when this went out over cable TV:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14375558/
Are you saying there are no "lifeboaters" out there in Peak Oil (or at TOD)?
Are you saying there are no "lifeboaters" out there in Peak Oil (or at TOD)?
I try to keep a foot in 2 worlds. I love technology, and keep up with the latest trends there. I am hopeful that technology will solve at least a portion of the problems that we will encounter from peak oil. In this category, I put improvements in wind and solar power, and transportation electrification.
On the other hand, I am aware that if we peaked and had a sharp decline rate, things could get very bad. I think the Katrina reference was spot-on, because it shows how quickly order can break down in an emergency situation. A sharp decline rate could cause the sort of problems that we saw with Katrina. Even a slower decline rate, if we couldn't adapt quickly enough, will lead to a lot of chaos, although spread over a longer time frame.
So, I have my hope that we will muddle through, but I also have my backup plans in case we don't. I have tried to scheme for many different scenarios. I just hope I never have to try any of them out.
"On the other hand, I am aware that if we peaked and had a sharp decline rate, things could get very bad."
And this is where you switch from being rational to being fear-driven. You seem to default to apocalypse when you are confronted with a slight uncertainty. Actually, what happened after Katrina does not even qualify as slihght uncertainty. We know and fully understand what happened: the market kicked in and reacted to a shortage of refined gasoline with higher prices which depressed demand. Did you see empty highways? Did you notice people not getting to work? Was there a shortage of food in the grocery store? No. All there was was excitement over gas prices that were still 40% short of those in Europe.
"So, I have my hope that we will muddle through, but I also have my backup plans in case we don't."
And how long do you think those backup plans will allow you to survive in a collapsing society? Do you have a mountaintop super high security facility with hundreds of guards with machine guns which will allow you to defend yourself agains the government coming to seize your possessions when it comes to you being the one guy left who has gas? Please... these are David Koresh fantasies. They might keep you warm at night, but I doubt even that.
And this is where you switch from being rational to being fear-driven.
If I live in a hurricane-prone location, and I say that things could be bad if a hurricane hits, and I therefore make preparations, this is not being fear-driven. It is called being prepared. And you are being silly if you deny the statement that you responded to, which was "things could get very bad."
All there was was excitement over gas prices that were still 40% short of those in Europe.
But we don't all drive compact cars like they do in Europe, and we commute a long ways to work. Katrina caused hardship, but it was only temporary and only a preview of what things could be like in the face of a peak and sharp decline. There would be tremendous pressure on oil prices. And we would respond by conserving to the extent we could. But the situation could become quite bad. Even as we start conserving, oil supplies will continue to decline. The rate of decline is the all-important key here. A slow decline will be much more manageable than a sharp decline, which was my point.
And how long do you think those backup plans will allow you to survive in a collapsing society?
Even in a collapsing society, plenty of people will survive. They will be those who are lucky or those who have made well thought out plans.
Do you have a mountaintop super high security facility with hundreds of guards with machine guns which will allow you to defend yourself agains the government coming to seize your possessions when it comes to you being the one guy left who has gas? Please... these are David Koresh fantasies.
You are right. That is a David Koresh fantasy. But it belongs to you, not me.
I live in an earthquake prone location. You think a hurricane is bad?
But PO is not like a hurricane or an earthquake. It is not a one time event after which you re-build or from which you can shelter. It is much more simple than that: PO is the initiator of an infrastructure change, just like the first oil wells were initiators of infrastructure changes.
You don't have to be prepared personally for PO. It won't help you. Instead WE need to prepare collectively. One way of doing that is to elect politicians who care about the problem more than they care about the special interest groups that pay them. But I guess that is a lot tougher than buying a generator and a wood burning stove... isn't it? Suddenly you need to become a political person and give up that lonely wolf attitude! I know that can be tough for some.
"But we don't all drive compact cars like they do in Europe, and we commute a long ways to work."
To drive a compact is an utterly personal decision which has utterly non-personal consequences. You should try it some time. As for the commute... there are ways to cut it in half (in terms of miles driven): share a ride. Bid deal. You might even find someone to talk to every morning while on the roll!
"Even as we start conserving, oil supplies will continue to decline. The rate of decline is the all-important key here."
You are grasping for straws now. Even if oil declines at 5% a year, buying a compact car will solve YOUR personal PO problem for 10 years. Sharing a ride saves you for another 10. The next generation hybrids will add another five. So that is a quarter century now... but wait... EV vehicles powered by solar cells can be bought today. They are expensive toys but technological reality. How far do you think that technology can go in 20 years? Just asking...
"You are right. That is a David Koresh fantasy. But it belongs to you, not me."
I don't think so... let me replay your own words in the sentence before:
"Even in a collapsing society, plenty of people will survive."
YOU are the one counting on people to die. YOU are waiting for it. YOU want to be among those survivors, the chosen. Me... I will simply buy a compact car and then a plugh in hybrid or an EV in 2020 and be saved with another 320 million people in this country.
:-)
IP,
I used to respect your comments, but I cannot any longer.
You ask everyone else to provide numbers and sources... why don't you provide some numbers to back up claims like:
"Even if oil declines at 5% a year, buying a compact car will solve YOUR personal PO problem for 10 years. Sharing a ride saves you for another 10. The next generation hybrids will add another five. So that is a quarter century now.."
Do you have a wife or kids? Are you really this isolated from reality? What in the hell makes you believe that everyone can go buy a Prius or Yaris?
Do you have any idea what the economic impact will be in a scenerio of 5% oil declines year over year?
Didn't you say you are a physicist? Ever heard of Mr. Bartlett?
I'm sure you will trash me like everyone else. But to me, you have no credibility. You are quick to ask for everyone else to back up their positions, when you do not even back up your own.
Good Day.
"Do you have a wife or kids? Are you really this isolated from reality? What in the hell makes you believe that everyone can go buy a Prius or Yaris?"
What makes me believe that is the phalanx of almost new pickup trucks on the parking lot with loading surfaces without a single scratch. They are not being owned by our highly paid engineers who all drive compacts or a Prius or two. The 5.8l V8s are being driven by company employees who I know make less than half what the engineers make. The people who buy these "cars" are wasting a large fraction of their income on gasoline operated toys they can not really afford. Toys they will definitely not being able to afford a few years after PO hits the markets.
So in my personal experience the gas comsumption of the US is nothing but the result of bad choices made by people who should know better but don't. But people can learn. There are plenty of affordable economy cars in the market for everyone to undo their mistakes. A lot of people will lose $10k or more in value on their hogs, but that is simply a painful learning experience. They could have avoided it. Just like any rational person who did not buy in the pickup hype in the first place. If you would ask our smarter employees why they drive the smaller cars, they will tell you so they can pay for the college education of their kids! It seems to me that once you have a PhD or at least a good technical background, you can suppress your cohones and act with the frontal lobe.
"Do you have any idea what the economic impact will be in a scenerio of 5% oil declines year over year?"
Sure. People will finally start to conserve. Something they could have done 20 years ago... saving the US trllions of dollars... How would that be bad? Or how would it have been bad if the country had acted a little bit more rationally?
"Didn't you say you are a physicist?"
Which is probably why I am not afraid. I can toss a few energy units around on the back of an envelope and always find that the demand in the US is not for real. It is always blown out of proportion by the waste terms. Now, I do fear for major problems for Europe... they are much closer to the efficiency limits, so they will have to be a lot more aggressive a lot sooner to escape the pressure. Same for Japan and much of the rest of the world.
"I'm sure you will trash me like everyone else."
I am not trying to trash you. What I am saying is that you have to put things in perspective. And the perspective is that the US among all countries sits on a vast unmined reservoir of energy waste. It will the country close to two decades of a buffer once PO hits. The rest of the world probably has five to ten years. What I am hoping for is that people around here wake up and smell the roses. I am not counting on it, though. There are plenty of ways to get this wrong and so far the US has only made mistakes. It is high time it does something right.
..>>Which is probably why I am not afraid. I can toss a few energy units around on the back of an envelope and always find that the demand in the US is not for real. It is always blown out of proportion by the waste terms. Now, I do fear for major problems for Europe... they are much closer to the efficiency limits, so they will have to be a lot more aggressive a lot sooner to escape the pressure. Same for Japan and much of the rest of the world.<<..
If supplies of fossil are uniformly (not necessarily in the strictest mathematical sense :-)) reduced over time the waste in the current system will be squeezed out. There will, however be issues of progressivity and that may read to social unrest. Unfortunately it is possible and even likely that corrections will be sharp and will likely result in sudden shortages that can lead to social unrest, sharp economic retracement and maybe even economic collapse. The whole US economy is based on high production/consumption to quote Leanan/Washington times from a few days ago.
That above is the first big risk. The second risk is severe environmental destruction - this is more so for India, China and some other areas. The United States with its plentiful rainfall will escape that. This is after all the country where its residents burn CORN directly in CORN burning stoves because it produces less ash than burning wood. So the US will have plenty of food but may need a high fence on the borders.
..>>Which is probably why I am not afraid. I can toss a few energy units around on the back of an envelope and always find that the demand in the US is not for real. It is always blown out of proportion by the waste terms. Now, I do fear for major problems for Europe... they are much closer to the efficiency limits, so they will have to be a lot more aggressive a lot sooner to escape the pressure. Same for Japan and much of the rest of the world.<<..
If supplies of fossil are uniformly (not necessarily in the strictest mathematical sense :-)) reduced over time the waste in the current system will be squeezed out. There will, however be issues of progressivity and that may read to social unrest. Unfortunately it is possible and even likely that corrections will be sharp and will likely result in sudden shortages that can lead to social unrest, sharp economic retracement and maybe even economic collapse. The whole US economy is based on high production/consumption to quote Leanan/Washington times from a few days ago.
That above is the first big risk. The second risk is severe environmental destruction - this is more so for India, China and some other areas. The United States with its plentiful rainfall will escape that. This is after all the country where its residents burn CORN directly in CORN burning stoves because it produces less ash than burning wood. So the US will have plenty of food but may need a high fence on the borders.
Please ignore the two posts below. Something went wrong and they were both duplicated and truncated.
You ask everyone else to provide numbers and sources... why don't you provide some numbers to back up claims
odograph's school of propaganda!
PO is the initiator of an infrastructure change, just like the first oil wells were initiators of infrastructure changes.
At least that's the hope. But if we are at peak today, and start to decline rapidly, there will be huge problems. Now, I honestly think you have my position confused with someone else's, since I am not a doomer. I do, however, acknowledge the potential for some pretty big problems post-peak. I certainly don't relish the thought, as you imply. Rather, I hope we learn to live sustainably.
To drive a compact is an utterly personal decision which has utterly non-personal consequences. You should try it some time.
I am driving a compact right now, and will soon be driving a sub-compact. Your conclusion jumping is leading you to make all sorts of silly statements.
You are grasping for straws now. Even if oil declines at 5% a year, buying a compact car will solve YOUR personal PO problem for 10 years.
I can see that you have not come to grips with the fact that the entire economy is driven by cheap oil. All sorts of things, not just gasoline, will become more expensive when oil supplies decline. Food supplies, for instance.
YOU are the one counting on people to die.
That's insanity on your part. I am counting on no such thing, and I am waiting on no such thing. I am merely trying to make sure that I am personally prepared in case of the worst. I don't have auto insurance because I am counting on being in a wreck. I have it in case I get in a wreck.
In conclusion, I think you have mistaken me for a doomer, when it is obvious from my posts that I am not. I just believe in preparing for the worst, and considering those scenarios. Doesn't mean I expect them.
Now, you may continue whacking away at your straw men.
Robert,
I posted a long rebuttal to IP on oil and the economy here
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/21/172942/47#comment-142822
He never responded as he did above those posts. He keeps drumming his drum that "Oil has only bought us cheap luxuries" without coming to grips that oil has increased the ability to apply labor and grow the economy.
Ah, I forgot that he was the one with the goofy diamonds versus oil example. If his example were valid, then nobody would ever starve to death for lack of money, since they obviously did not "demand" the food they lacked. But I didn't even respond to that example, because I thought it was so inappropriate.
Robert, I think you inserted yourself into an argument between IP and the doomers, and are taking personally comments aimed at the doomers. IMO, IP has added some real value here by pointing out several facts and implying others:
1. There is tremendous waste in the trasportation sector in the USA [and Canada too].
2. As the price increases, efficiencies and/or substitutions will emerge for most if not all products;
3. We are nowhere near the end of oil; since the doomers' scenario is based on the end of oil, it is nonsense at this time and for at least a few decades; we'll all be dead before doom arrives [barring that space rock hitting us in 2029].
4. I believe that most USAns are reasonable people and will cooperate rather than revert to the 'war of all against all' that the doomers envision.
5. Mcmansions may not be the disater that Kunstler, who is a novelist first, thinks; they could be used to house more than family of more than generation of a family.
6. The USAn public is slowly changing its transportation methodology, including PHEV's. A group living in a mcmasion could have Smart type electric cars to do basic chores.
There was an article posted here on TOD on January 1(?) stating that the suburbs have a lot more going for them than Kunstler says.
Robert, I think you inserted yourself into an argument between IP and the doomers, and are taking personally comments aimed at the doomers.
Well, he did respond directly to comments that I made (quoting me), but his responses did indicate that he wasn't actually paying any attention to what I was saying. Look back at the comments he responded to. He was merely responding to me as he would a typical doomer. If he had spent less time on his stereotypes, and more time on what I actually wrote, then he wouldn't have wasted time spewing comments about David Koresh fantasies and my wish to see hordes of people dying.
Other than that, I agree with much of what you wrote. My point was simply that I am trying to keep open the possibility that things could get worse with a quick peak and fast decline. This is what he disputed; my comment that things "could" get bad with a quick decline. But I have been one of those arguing here that we are at least 3 years away from peaking. At least that's the view from where I stand today. I also don't think the decline will be quick, because I think demand will slow as prices rise. Thus, my hope that we can muddle through this, albeit with much lower per capita energy usage.
Hope you are right re peak & decline; however I think either way you are underestimating people's fear/panic responses with the idea that their lifestyles will have to change to much less energy use. I'm thinking reasource wars, etc. making the decline much worse. Thanks for you input on this board.
". There is tremendous waste in the trasportation sector in the USA [and Canada too]."
I am not attacking you but I think it would be interesting to truly look into why this happened and what will happen as we move away from a wasteful society in regards to energy. How does this waste of energy effect our lives in regards to the economy, pscyhology, infrastructure design, etc.
I think the idea of waste is not only one of choice but also one we have locked ourselves into through years of doing it and transitioning away from it at least in America will be more difficult than buying a compact car.
what space rock?
We are nowhere near the end of oil; since the doomers' scenario is based on the end of oil, it is nonsense at this time and for at least a few decades; we'll all be dead before doom arrives [barring that space rock hitting us in 2029].
CRAP!
The "doomers' scenario" isn't based on the END of oil but on DECLINING oil supplies in face of unabated growth (or rather, unabated craving for growth).
uh, have you read recently the stories about the continuing hardships and chaos and homelessness because of Hurricane Katrina? Temporary? I think not.
I think I've said often enough that a fast/steep decline would scare me as well, which is why I've asked a couple times how well grounded such a thing is. My understanding is that projected production declines are all over the map. And declines for national reserves are somewhat all over the map as well.
There are some steep projections, but then there are other's, like Stuart Staniford slow squeeze that look less dire.
So sure, I'm with you Robert, if we are double-checking with the "best guess" for decline we are staying rational.
I'd put out there on the religious end those who gather with like-minded peers to reaffirm their belief (without solid evidence) that a steep decline is the one we'll get, and that it will wipe us out.
Answer: quite a few ___ but let me explain:
Apocalyptic stories generally include revelation of the "special" someone who finds favor in the diety's eyes and escapes the bad things that happen to "everyone else".
The attractor in all these cases is that "I am special". For example: I am just like Noah, I am "good" while the rest of them are "bad" and therefore they will all perish in the oncoming flood, but not me. No. I'm special.
The same kind of underlyng theme runs through Peak Oil discussions: "I'm special because I know about and pray to PO while the sheeple are dumb and don't know anything and they deserve to die while I deserve to live and thrive because I know, or because I have made special preparations."
I wonder...is this universal, or a peculiarly American thing?
The "Rapture" idea was supposedly invented by an American preacher because he didn't think we should have to suffer through the unpleasantness of the end times.
Even Lemmings believe that the bad thing won't happen to them.
It is a fundamental rationalization regarding ultimate outcomes.
Rapture: Ever heard of the 77 virgins?
(I read the correct translation is goats)
It may not be universal, but no-one can claim a patent either.
It's funny that in the thread, now dieoff is in the picture, it happens to have lots of files on why we are wired for religious beliefs.
But that doesn't make it any more meaningful to say that people who read Tainter and Catton are faith-based. That one is a complete blubber straw-man, and an insult to some of the world's sharpest minds.
While we're at it, let's make fun of Darwin and Einstein too. Everything is religion, if that's what you want to see.
I think Tainter is essentially "faith" based. There is a stong element of dogmatism in Tainter, seen not least in his rather vicious review of Diamond.
For Tainter there is exactly one way to see things--his--and other points of view, e.g. Jared Dimond's are wrong, unscientific, based on a straw-man fallacy or whatever. Indeed this pseudoreligious dogma in Tainter is a huge turnoff for me--an archaologist who is so arrogant as to see a single theme (complexity) that supposedly explains why complex societies collapse.
I am not at all impressed by Tainter's claim to knowledge of complex societies, and I have a very strong suspicion that he did not do his homework. Diamond, on the other hand, is a trained biologist who understands scientific methods--and Diamond most emphatically did do his homework.
And this is what is called straw-man tactics.
Nobody here has said anying about Tainter's views. Only that he is one of a group of writers that are read be people who think that there may be a few problems on the horizon.
It doean't matter one iota to the discussion whether you think Tainter is faith-based or not. That's not what this is about.
If you need to give your personal opinion on what any single author has written, this is not the place.
Don,
Where is that review of Diamond by Tainter? I haven't seen it. Tainter did take some shots at another author in Nature a little while back. But, I've never seen his take on Diamond's book.
Asebius
I think the review (or a link to it) was posted on TOD some months ago. Should not be hard to find with Google--just look for reviews of Diamond's books, and Tainter's review in particular.
One thing really bothers me about Tainter: He is an archaeologist. What archaeologists do is to dig holes in the ground and look at pot sherds, etc. and try to make some sense out of them. (O.K., once upon a time there was an archaeologist/anthropologist who was the real-life prototype of Indiana Jones; my father knew him at the U. of Chicago some seventy years ago--but mostly archaology comes down to digging holes and trying to make sense of what you dig up.) Anyway, here is a guy with credentials for looking at pot sherds of simple often primitive societies--what gives a person with this kind of education the background to know about or understand complex societies at all? When I want to understand complex societies, I look at the work of historians, political scientists, sociologists, demographers and others with appropriate credentials. Now if Tainter had educated himself in the writings of people in these disciplines I'd be inclined to take him more seriously than I do. What I wonder does Tainter know of public health? Of demography? Of sociology? Of modern European history? If he has knowledge of such areas, I have not seen much evidence of it.
I think Tainter's basic thesis of marginal returns reaching a limit with increasing complexity is a good one in the sense that it provides another lens through which to see the phenomenon of social collapse. But it seems to become the boy with a hammer seeing everything as a nail type of situation where he tries to shoehorn everything into this hypothesis. The point I found most discouraging about his thesis was the unwillingness to acknowledge that plain simple stupidity plays a large part in social collapse. I believe there are plenty of examples of stupidity playing a large part in the decline of formerly great powers. Simply witness the current leader of the World's Most Powerful Nation. I rest my case.
Ahah! Found it. Glad you mentioned it.
A.
I don't think Tainter has ever reviewed Diamond. Richard Heinberg compared Diamond to Tainter unfavorably, in one of his Museletters. Perhaps that's the review you're looking for?
http://www.energybulletin.net/4182.html
It is possible that my memory is faulty; in any case my reference to Tainter's remarks goes back some months in time, and I did not read the whole review, only certain excerpts.
Your memory is fine:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Publications/deMenocal.Coo...
His review can be found in that pdf near the end.
Asebius
Thanks, great link.
I have to say, I'm a little surprised that Tainter is so critical of Diamond's "societies in competition" idea, since he argues much the same in his book.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with his review (and with Heinberg's). But Diamond, IMHO, is aiming at a different audience than Tainter. I'm a fan of Diamond's, too, ever since he started writing occasional columns for Discover magazine (way before he starting writing books), but he's much more of a popularizer than Tainter. Tainter is more profound, with more emphasis on the theoretical underpinnings, but Diamond is certainly a lot more accessible.
And I wonder if there's really so much difference between them in the end. To Diamond, everything is environmental, while to Tainter, it's a matter of energy resources. Maybe one day we'll invent a matter-antimatter engine like on Star Trek, but for now, the questions of energy and environment are pretty closely entwined.
Agreed, Tainter is an academic writing for academics.
To Diamond, everything is environmental, while to Tainter, it's a matter of energy resources.
Energy definitely is a huge issue for Tainter. But of even greater importance is the effect of complexity and society's capacity for problem solving.
Am working through his 2000 piece, available here:
Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability
http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~jstallin/complex/readings/Tainter.pdf
Does Tainter realise that compexity is not an issue once you know how divide-and-conquer strategies work? We all use them in our daily lives but societies depend on them on a much more grandious scale. Divide-and-conquer means that there is a guy who can dig up sand and another guy who can make magnesium. A third guy uses the sand and magnesium to make raw silicon. A fourth guy knows how to purify that by converting it into trichorsilane and another one knows how to make giant single crystals of perfect order. Then a lot of people take that single crystal and cut it into thin wafers. After a couple hundred processing step using the masks provided by the physical designers which were working off the VHDL and Verilog code of the logic designers who were implementing the computer architects vision, we end up with a gazillion CPU chips. Now the packaging people put that into a flip-chip BGA package and the board level designers put the CPU on a printed circuit board together with the memory. And the programmers add a BIOS and an Operating system to that using the compiler written by the language people. And then somebody writes a web browser and somebody else writes a server and they connect them through a seven layer OSI protocol over TCPIP running on a physical fiber optic link made from the same silicon that the chips were made off (this time re-oxidizing the silicon to extremely pure fibre optic glass). And at the end of all this dividing-and-conquering we can write posts on a web site called TOD because millions of people have built a perfectly stable system of high-tech production based on four centuries of scientific progress and technological innovation and nothing is cracking at the seams and everything is working just fine without many people even breaking a sweat.
Now... where again does an archeologist who digs up bits and pieces of pottery from ancient civilizations have anything to say about complexity? I just wonder... personally, I think all this talk about complexity is just crack-pot nonsense of people without the tiniest of insight into how things work in the modern world. May I suggest the reading of
http://www.howstuffworks.com/
before further dwellings into the problem of "complexity"? It just might help to put a few things in perspective. And since it is written for kiddies, even non-engineers will understand one thing or another.
Have you read Tainter?
For instance quotations like these are common:
(Tainter, 2000)
There is nothing in Tainter that is anti-tech or anti-complexity. He is definitely not pro-simplicity. I could dig up quotations where he thinks our best prospects are to forge ahead in many ways with high tech. In fact, he would say we have no choice.
One of his key points is that a civilization is in danger of collapse when the cost/benefit of additional complexity starts to rise sharply. He is definitely not saying we are at that point.
He is saying that point will likely come. It always has.
BTW, he is very aware of the effect of new tech can have on marginal returns.
There is a clear sense in which Tainter is a long-term doomer. But in the meantime if complexity continues to pay big dividends for us, there could well be a golden age ahead of unknown length.
I'm almost sorry I brought up Tainter earlier today, he was just an example for the fact that there are people who have READ books, not even written, by (I think) smart people such as Catton, Hardin and Tainter. It's like a red flag went up and the bulls charged en masse.
There's lots of examples I could have named, Odum, Bartlett, Youngquist, Georgescu-Roegen, Daly, Pimentel, Popper, etc etc. That's what got me going, the Rev's far too easy dismissal of dieoff.org, where all these people come together. Throwing all that intellect togetehr under "doom" is ridiculous.
Now the entire thread is about Tainter, and opinions about his work, that have in essence zilch to do with what I used him as an example for. Not one comment is about Catton or Hardin, which is funny in itself. But it was never about the content of Tainter's work in the first place, it was about the people who read him being labeled negative fools.
Funnier still is that the reason I brought him up, the "doomer" sticker that a certain reverend far too willingly sticks on people who have read certain books, and have come away with something that is not 100% Hosanna, that reason has disappeared entirely.
Maybe someone should start a Tainter thread.
Leanan, you could write a "real post" on the subject, and take it from there. It seems there would be many takers.
Been there, done that.
Tainter is one of those things there will always be disagreement over. Rather heated disagreement. Kinda like religion, so both in one thread is a double whammy. ;-) Most of the people who criticize Tainter don't seem to have actually read his book. Though admittedly, the book is expensive and not exactly an easy read.
Thank you. When did you write this?
I honestly don't remember when I wrote it. Over a year ago.
I do recall it was in the fall, because I decided to give my sister the book for a birthday present. She really loved it, BTW. (She's a card-carrying academic conehead, so perhaps it's not surprising.)
Book is available free through Interlibrary Lending Service. Go to any public or college library; the book is found easily and quickly.
And IMO it is not worth the purchase price . . . .
Thanks for finding the review--on rereading it I see more than ever that with Tainter it was a matter of sour grapes: He envies Diamond and resents the much greater success that Diamond has had compared to his own books. Parts of Tainter's review are puerile, and I'm surprised the editor did not ask him for revisions.
Don Sailorman wrote:
with Tainter it was a matter of sour grapes: He envies Diamond and resents the much greater success that Diamond has had compared to his own books.
A little while back Tainter wrote a hard hitting review of Turchin's book in Nature. That has been his style.
I suspect what's behind Tainter's ire is a huge impatience with simplistic theses that don't help us understand ourselves.
Diamond's Collapse often comes across as tract designed to shock the masses and their leaders into changing their ways. As an environmentalist, I can't see how that can hurt. I'm as green or greener than Diamond.
BUT, what I want to know is how things actually work, not how I wish they worked or what's convenient for my agenda.
Diamond's book is too simplistic for that purpose.
Tainter's work is based on data & analysis. Do you know his Byzantine (as opposed to his Roman) model? Religion doesn't enter into it. Dogmatism? What are talking about? One way to see things? Again, what the hell are you talking about?
Sometimes I wonder if you (others) and I are reading the same material. I shall take care of all these misconceptions in time -- and that will be soon.
I am praying for the day when people commenting here at TOD apply the same energy to reading & thinking that they do to expressing their emotionally affective opinion on the subject, whatever it is.
I'll tell you straight up that I'm not going to read it. One reason has been that I cannot buy into a useful comparative measure of complexity and collapse, coming as it always does, from pre-industrial nations.
Right, there is always the leap from Romans to 2006
Secondly, what strikes me very much today is that doomers are using Tainter for something that I'm very sure he himself never intended. I'm sure he never intended his analysis to give you a single "YES/NO" answer for the fate of this civilization. Period.
Right, there is always the leap from Romans to 2006
Secondly, what strikes me very much today is that doomers are using Tainter for something that I'm very sure he himself never intended.
Entirely gratuitous claptrap!
"very sure" !!!
How can you say ANYTHING about what you even refuse to know?
(Moron!)
If you want to have a rational discussion, why don't you add to that yourself. Tell me, what is the most modern societal crash that Tainter looked at, and how similar is it to our own?
BTW, I really groaned when Robert Rapier said he was going to read Tainter "because everyone is"
Check the amazon rank, and consider if it is "everyone" , or "everyone making a peak oil -> doom connection."
[edited for clarity]
BTW, I really groaned when Robert Rapier said he was going to read Tainter "because everyone is"
That's not what I have said. The book has been recommended to me a number of times, I see it being discussed all the time, and I don't know anything about it. So, I should probably read it.
It is heck trying to find a specific post in the current system, but my recollection was that similar words were used when book lists were discussed for last year and next. If I got that wrong I'm sorry ... but man I wish I could find it.
I'm not sure, but I think Tainter-the-man is less convinced in a single definite future than many people who quote him here. No?
That's my take-away from Tainter-the-man:
http://www.archaeologychannel.org/commentary/Tainter.html
ROFLMAO, an economist sneering at an archeologist for lack of scientific rigour in his tinkertoy pretend science...
What makes you think my only academic credentials are in economics?
Questionable premise fallacy.
Your problem with making fun of Darwin and Einstein is that I can show you any numer of experimental verifications for their ideas while you can show me none for Tainters. Tainter is a historian (not a scientists) who makes invalid extrapolations of history on the future (good historians don't do that). His ideas can, unlike Einstein's, not be measuered with a precision of one part in 10^10 and they can not be verified in billions of base pairs. And if you are willing to look at reality, they are being disposed off in the garbage can of history as we speak.
Tainter is not a historian. He is an archaeologist. His book is mostly used as a college anthropology textbook. (The reason it has remained in print so long.)
That is even better... so people are trying to predict the demise of a technological civilization with nuclear reactors and solar panels from the remains of broken pots and pans and the number of fossilized olives in ancient jars? Sounds like a sound approach to me. I am totally convinced now.
:-)
Hey, you should give Tainter a chance. He has a unique take on the subject, even accounting for his particular bias (Tainter himself notes that all critiques of history are subject to the author's bias).
The question that Tainter addresses is why do complex societies revert to a simpler state when they are subject to stress? Virtually all other authors put the collapse of a society down to the stress factor itself. But that does not answer the question. Why doesn't the complex society just "downsize" - retain it's complexity but simply adjust to a new carrying capacity, i.e. reduce it's population and carry on? Diamond suggests for example that primitive societies destroyed the environment due to religious or social need to compete despite obvious environmental degradation. That is possible of course, but would societies who are far more aware of their environment than we are really be likely to engage in this collective death wish?
The other problem that Tainter notes is that many societies encounter stress but don't collapse. So Tainter looks for a more general purpose explanation.
What Tainter suggests is that there are systemic reasons why societies collapse, and not merely downsize. This a lot more subtle and abstract than other theories, which is probably why so few people get it. He bases his theory on the law (observation?) of diminishing returns. The impact of this is that the middle part of the growth curve is an unstable region. During a growth phase, where a "resource subsidy" is available, growth can be maintained through the unstable period. Indeed, stress can create a creative response in a society, spurring further growth. The problem is that if no response can be found, and contraction is required, the unstable region is entered. A spiral of decline ensues, which is only terminated when the society reaches a much simpler state.
As an engineer (of a sort) the idea of looking at society as a system with feedbacks appeals to me. I also like the idea of a general purpose theory, rather than ad hoc explanations.
However, a valid criticism of Tainter is that his theory is qualitative, and it is hard to draw any solid conclusions about our future from it. There are also significant differences between our society and previous ones. For example, although much derided, economics is a social engineering "technology" that we use to exploit resources. The question is will economics be as effective on the downslope as on the upslope. Many people think not, but it is a key difference. Additionally, we cannot predict what technology is around the corner, so we could not predict when we have reached a point of technological exhaustion.
There are two possibilites for the future: either we are the first civilisation in history where population growth levels off and we achieve a stable complex society, capable of withstanding stresses (e.g. Global Warming), or we will collapse in spectacular fashion back to a pre-industrial society, and try to rebuild (if we can) from there.
I don't know which will happen, but either way, it will be remarkable.
One serious problem with Tainter's approach is that he simply does not understand the principle of diminishing marginal returns as it was developed in economics. By definition, the "law" of diminishing marginal returns applies ONLY where technology is fixed. Thus, he is totally confused, because the principle cannot be applied where technology is a variable (something that Malthus understood but did not emphasize, because Malthus failed to understand the implications of the industrial revolution).
I do not find evidence that Tainter has studied the history of science, the discipline of demography, the field of public health, or economics. In other words, my reading of Tainter is that he is a guy with one hammer who sees everything as the nail of increasing complexity.
Yes, complexity matters, but as indicated by Diamond and others, plenty of other variables are at least as important as complexity--e.g. climate change.
Regarding technology I think it is physically possible to develop close to magical nanotechnology, breeder reactor technology that gives no waste that need to be stored more then a few decades, truly intelligent computers, colonizing Mars and conquiring death and manny other wonderous things.
But I can not depend on it being done, it would even be bad moral to not try to solve problems today and depend on technology magically appearing in time. There is no way to predict how fast we will get technological break thrus. We must use what we have here and now even if future generations will develop technology that make our problems look like stone age men worrying about running out of flintstone.
About running out there were in Swedish media today articles about a statement from Norways oil authorities that their oil production is shrinking faster then earlier predicted and thatfuture increases will be in natural gas. They predict a production of 129 million m3 during 2007 compared with 136,7 million m3 during 2006 and 148,1 during 2005.
Production prognosises up untill 2011 have been adjusted downwards but I dont have the original data.
Its a pity not all countries are as open with this as Norway.
There is nothing magical about nanotechnology. Neither would is nanotech a harmless power tool. For now it is more hype than anything. And it does carry very serious long term health hazards. Breeders don't make short lived waste, they just use the fuel better but the fuel processing chain is extremely problematic. You are looking at the wrong technologies.
"But I can not depend on it being done,"
You are simply not aware on how much you already depend that you have not the slightest clue about. And because you don't know about it, it does not even make you uncomfortable. And once you knew, you wouldn't be uncomfortable, either, because there is not much that can go wrong with most technologies we depend on. They are well understood and tons of people spend their lives working on them.
Your discomfort zone begins where you think you know while in reality you lack most, if not all the objective information. That is a very common human reaction which can be solved in two ways: get yourself a sixpack and watch college football in front of your wide screen tv. Just forget about it and let the people who have learned this stuff do their jobs. That is what most people do.
The alternative is to get yourself an engineering textbook about all the technologies you feel uncomfortable about and to start learning. That is the more entertaining and reassuring approach. Trust me. It is great fun. In your case I would suggest to get a textbook on solar energy.
What is not an alternative to these two approaches is to run around like a headless chicken. It simply looks silly. Trust me: it does look silly. And it does not help, either.
As to your demands that ALL problems be solved NOW, they are just as silly. We do not have to solve ALL energy etc. problems now and forever. We need to solve next year's energy problem today. But that has already been solved in 1997. The solution is called "The Prius" and you can buy it at your local Toyota dealer. Or buy any other car with half the consumption of an SUV. There are tons of them out there. They might not look great... but then, what do you really want: great looks or a good character?
The most conservative solution to the problem, of course, is to ride the bus and trains. You might be doing that already. I for sure do. I am an early adopter of the public transportation solution who got on trains and busses 25 years ago and never had a car in his life. And look at me! I am living and I am living very well... so can you.
Magnus Redin is a Swede (or resident) and somehow involved in the nuclear industry, that explains...
I am a Swede but I am only involved in nuclear industry as an engineering interest and as an advocate for nuclear power. I have never worked in nuclear industry but I would be happy to work in that field.
I already study engineering with some success although I need to study more math.
I also do some hobby politics and try to figure out how things fit togeather technologically, culturally and morally. I have no problem to trust that lots of things work even if I dont understand how they work.
I am sure that lots of new things will be done but if I were to influence any real world policy decicions I would not gamble on any new wonderous technology emerging to easily solve todays problems. It is very good to keep research running and business flexible to make such transitions easier but I have no faith in exactly the right progress appearing like a movie cavalry charge.
I find it wise to do what we can do right now with technology we already know while better stuff is developed. I also think that is an ok way to get better stuff developed, creating new markets, getting people used to change in a positive direction, making people want more of it and starting to think about how it can be done, making lots of hopefully small mistakes and get some good successes.
I mostly bicycle and then I have a small car. My home is not energy efficient, it is a flat with a lousy 10 cm of insulation built cheaply in the late 1960:s and now due for its first renovations, windows changed last year. But at least it is heated via district heating, mostly with heat from garbage incineration wich also cogenerates some electricity.
All city busses in my home town Linköping run on biogas and its a popular wehicle fuel, unfortunately I cant find the reference but if I remeber right about 10% of the fuel sold is biogas.
I advocate four alternative wehicle fuels, everything mixable with petrol, everything mixable with diesel, methane and electricity.
I think it would be reasonable to within about 5 years have a methane/natural gas/biogas network over most of Sweden and start large scale explotation of our abot 15 TWh biogas potential that could replace a lot of the 90 TWh of diesel and petrol used.
Within the same time frame most public parking could be equipped with 10kW outlets for recharging plug-in hybrids and EV:s to pave the way for the post prius cars. Dead simple and grid capacity is freed now when resistive heating is being replaced with mostly ground source heat pumps, district heating and wood pellet burning. There is also very large reinvestments in the grid that could be done with slightly larger capacity.
And we should build two more nuclear powerplants asap, more district heating cogeneration plants, more hydro "infill" powerplants and export excess power to our coal burning neighbours.
Investments in railways are being made and hopefully my municipiality this year will decide to build a new railway stations for the likely new high speed tracks and traffic to our capital Stockholm and then the second largest town Göteborg a decade later if good investments continue to be made.
No trolley lines so far but one combined rail/trolley line is planned to facilitate town growth withouth choking our streets, cars need space even if they are efficent and run on electricity or biofuels.
You've got to be kidding me!
Re: he simply does not understand the principle of diminishing marginal returns as it was developed in economics
Did it ever occur to you that the principle of diminishing marginal returns (respecting technology) as it was developed in economics might be wrong?
As it is wrong in the oil business.
No, I am not kidding you. I am a student of the history of economic thought, and as many economists (most notably John Maynard Keynes) have noted, we are ruled by the ideas of defunct madmen and scribblers. Few people outside the area of economics understand the principle of diminishing marginal returns simply because few outside economics have studied it.
For example, Dave, if you still have your econ text around, look up "diminishing marginal returns," and see if it is defined as you remember it.
Definitions are not "right" or "wrong." However, terms such as diminishing marginal returns can be misused. For example, diminishing marginal returns has NOTHING to do with economies or diseconomies of scale, yet this misconception is widespread.
Tainter is free to reveal his ignorance of economics; after all, why should an archaeologist be expected to know something in another discipline . . . . unless he (mis)uses it?
To a large extent we live in a reign of error. Much of this error is simply that people do not know what they are talking about because they do not know what the words or numbers or equations that they use mean. BTW, economists are not without sin: Many of them gravely misuse the calculus by conveniently assuming that nondifferentiable functions are differentiable. Why such an egregious and widespread error? Simple. It is physics envy. Physicists uses calculus all over the place, and so some misguided economists think it is approprite for economics to use calculus in building models.
IMO hardly anything of real-world economic interest can be expressed as a well behaved function because discontinuity rules the real economic world.
I'm looking forward to your Tainter post.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns
Please tell us in what way Tainter got it wrong?
You restrict yourself to contruing this concept very narrowly. Part of Tainter's thesis is that it has broad applicability. And he marshalls evidence to support that view. It's not something he simply defines and assumes.
There is nothing wrong with taking a concept from a given field of inquiry and applying it more broadly.
Tainter made a fallacious analogy. In economics we use the priciple of diminishing marginal returns to explain why you cannot grow all the world's food in a flower pot. As long as one input (amount of soil in the pot) remains fixed (and as long as technology remains unchanged) you will first get inreasing returns, then linear returns for a bit and then diminishing marginal returns and finally negative returns as you add more inputs (water, sunlight, fertilizer, seeds) to the flower pot.
Two things to emphasize in the law of diminishing marginal returns:
1. At least one input must remain fixed.
2. Technology is fixed.
Thus if you introduce a new technology, such as hydroponics, you may not need any soil at all to produce all the world's food.
The concept of diminishing marginal returns cannot apply to technological advances, because, BY DEFINITION, technological advances are excluded from diminishing marginal returns analysis.
The most famous use of diminishing marginal returns was by Malthus, who said as you add labor to land you tend (at best) to increase output by a series of numbers looking like 1,2,3, . . . n-1, n, where these units represent inputs of labor. But, assumed Malthus (correctly, in the long run), the amount of land can be taken to be fixed (at least for analysis purposes). Now the problem, as Malthus saw it, is that population, if unchecked, tends to increase 1,2,4,8, . . . and so on by powers of two. The result, as predicted by Malthus, is misery and vice. For a specific example, see Zimbabwe today, or see what happened to Ireland in the first half of the nineteenth century during the first Green Revolution, i.e. the cultivation of the Irish potato, when population went from two to four to eight million--and then crashed to four million.
Malthus was criticized for failing to forsee the Industrial Revolution and the Green Revolution, but these critics miss the point. Nature always bats last, and as long as you have one fixed input (land or natural resources in general), and as long as population (unchecked by misery or vice; Malthus considered birth control to be "vice" by the way) tends to increase 1,2,4,8,16 then you have one heckuva economic problem. Because of Malthus's views, economics became known as the dismal science (and of course charity does not help).
The concept of diminishing returns to complexity is incoherent. Why? Because where is the one fixed factor? If it is land (or fossil fuels, or whatever), then you get into the well-understood Malthusian problem, which has nothing to do with what Tainter is saying.
For a good specific example, look at the Roman Empire. Complexity had little or nothing to do with the decline and fall of Rome. Deforestation had a lot to do with Rome's food problems. Low birthrates of Roman citizen women (compared to barbarians) had a lot to do with the decline of Rome. The bad laws in the Edicts of Diocletian (price controls, forcing people into serfdom by requiring them to stay on the land) had a lot to do with the decline of Rome. Possibly, as Gibbon thought, the rise of Christianity had a lot to do with the decline of Rome. But none of these factors has diddly squat to do with increasing complexity.
But none of these factors has diddly squat to do with increasing complexity.
WRONG!
You are swapping cause and effect.
It is because of complexity COSTS, i.e. supporting an increasing bureaucracy and ever far reaching military campaigns that all the nefarious incidences you mention came to be.
- Deforestation for military implements.
- food problems, crushing taxation in kind to feed the military.
- price controls to counter currency debasement. (budget deficits anyone?)
- forcing people into serfdom by requiring them to stay on the land, so they could be taxed, the LAND was taxed, easier than figuring out the income.
- why would Roman citizen women be keen to send their children to the Legions?
Complexity bred upon itself, a sales tax was introduced which required more tax employees, etc...
All this is EXPLAINED in Tainter's book.
ASSHOLE!
Asebuis, I think Tainter has very good ideas for his audience. That is improvement of a probably very bad academic model for societal collapse. All good stuff, and worthy of a great many mighty and inconsequential arguments in those halls.
But what amateurs look for in Tainter is a clear signal, that NOW is or is not the time for this society's collapse. Do you seriously think Tainter has one? Do you seriously think Tainter himself thinks he has one? I hope not.
(and from a nuts and bolts perspective, I think the most obvious thing to question is whether a clear signal can be extracted by numeric methods which would be valid in societies as diverse as stone age, bronze age, and the modern age.)
Tainter is definitely saying our society is *not* going to collapse anytime soon. At least not from systemic causes. A random meteor is always possible.
The reason he is associated with doomer views is that he does lay out a detailed case that in the long term (of undefined length -- could easily be centuries) societies tend to collapse.
So, what is Tainter good for? Well, he offers a general theory of sustainability and collapse. And, yes, it does span the ages.
If you are going to plan for sustainability, you need a good grounded theory. Otherwise, all you have is luck and intuition no matter how certain you feel.
What I'm looking for is a theory of sustainability that takes into account how societies actually function. Tainter is the best I've seen so far.
One of the things that have struck me, as I looked first at markets (predictions on the Dow, etc), at oil production, and finally at societal outcomes, is how "the best guess" has so little to qualify it.
By that I mean that a guess which is "best" may still not be "likely."
(For what it's worth my two favorite books on that are The Winner's Curse and Fooled by Randomness)
So while I appreciate academic improvement, I personally have not seen anything that weighs so heavily as a guide that it would displace others, become a cornerstone, etc.
But strangely Tainter is a cornerstone to a sub-culture. And that sub-culture is the one that spans the gap between Peak Oil and Collapse. These are the folks that make Nature think of "bunkers" (and not the oil kind) when they think of Peak Oil.
Asebuis, I think Tainter has very good ideas for his audience.
You "think" ?
Did you read Tainter yet before "thinking" or do you have psychic capabilities?
(Moron!)
Call me naive but I thought any succesful Mom and Pop business is operated by its owners based on that principle (among others). My boss calls it the "Life is too short" or "Good is good enough" principle when we nail down a new product for our R&D. We usually come in "too good", anyway, and forfeit some earnings...
Technology is indeed variable.
But the thing that has the most influence on how it varies is money, more specifically, that form of money called capital. The vast majority of engineers work for some company that is trying to make money by doing 'something'. That 'something' determines how the engineers in their employ expend their efforts. The engineers do not determine what they work on; the people paying their wages do.
And when you get right down to it, most engineers don't give a damn as long as they're being paid. I would have to say (and am quite ashamed to say it) that engineers as a group have very little social conscience. Most would be just as content designing concentration camps as they would free medical clinics. It's all the same to many of these people. I feel I have a right to be so critical of engineers because I happen to be one. It is always easy to justify what one does for a living. (For a good example of the banality of evil, watch the movie 'Brazil'.)
So, I guess what I'm trying to say, in a rather roundabout way, is that technology is inextricably intertwined with basic economics. Implemented technology doesn't exist without capital. Capital is created (in part) through technology. The two go hand in hand. Engineers, for the most part, are merely the tools of capital, and they call very few of the important shots.
By definition, the "law" of diminishing marginal returns applies ONLY where technology is fixed.
Yes, in the sense that the Romans could not foresee nuclear power.
Unfortunalely for morons like you Tainter EXPLICITLY deal with this point in his book, p 125 of the 1988 edition, Figure 20 "The marginal product of increasing complexity with technological innovation or acquisition of an energy subsidy".
We "just have" to bet on fusion power or the like, the pornucopian stance!
Rant: Fucking stupid bugger religionists AND propagandists.
And don't tell me that I have to keep nice and polite when faced with such dishonesty!
"Hey, you should give Tainter a chance."
I am not critisizing Tainter specifically. All I am saying is that there is no way in hell you can learn anything about US from the study of what put the Romans in. We are not AT ALL similar to the Romans. Or the Maya. Or anything that has come before us. A quick look at the 1 million plus books in a typical science library will make that absolutely clear. If the Romans had had just one of these books, say Newton's "Principia" in their library, history would have been different.
"The question that Tainter addresses is why do complex societies revert to a simpler state when they are subject to stress?"
I don't know the answer but one thing is for sure: ours doesn't. Over the course of the last three hundred years it has always responded to stress with increasing complexity. Every time we had a famine, chemists and agricultural biologists came up with new ways of growing more crops and we are by far not at the end of that process (just ask Monsanto). The last two centuries have seen an expansion of personal energy use by over two orders of magnitude and complexity of our technological systes has risen by, I would say, at least six, if not eight orders of magnitude. And every engineer will tell you that this was just the beginning!
"But that does not answer the question. Why doesn't the complex society just "downsize" - retain it's complexity but simply adjust to a new carrying capacity, i.e. reduce it's population and carry on?"
Maybe he needs to ask an engineer? They could tell him that in order to get some things done you need so many people. You can't build an Intel CPU without roughly the number of people Intel employs and then some. You can't run Google without roughly the number of people Google employs and then some. Complexity scales with size and resources. It is not an independent variable. This much IS TOTALLY TRIVIAL. At least to everyone who works on complex products. To an archeologist, I admit, it might look like magic. But that only says that he is asking the wrong questions. Happens to a lot of guys with B.A.s... reality is not their specialty.
"This a lot more subtle and abstract than other theories, which is probably why so few people get it."
No, actually, I get it. He seems clueless about how things work. That's all. Now... since I didn't read him myself, I simply extrapolate that from what you said. So I am really critiquing YOUR reading of Tainter, not the man himself. He might be asking a far more subtle question than we are discussing here.
"The problem is that if no response can be found, and contraction is required, the unstable region is entered. A spiral of decline ensues, which is only terminated when the society reaches a much simpler state."
The problem with this is that you have been told over and over and over again HOW PO can be mitigated. It is a problem we can solve with our technological means TODAY. The problem is that YOU (and by that I mean the general public) keeps asking for a solution of the kind "wash my back but don't get me wet". Sorry folks, it ain't exist. You WILL pay serious amounts of money for this. You can start paying today or you can pay more tomorrow. As a technologist, I really don't care. What I care about is to make clear that at some point we will have to pay the piper.
In short: Tainter's thesis would not apply because we alrady have the solutions...
"For example, although much derided, economics is a social engineering "technology" that we use to exploit resources. "
I think you bought into the hype of the economists here. Economics all by itself creates nothing. It can't even control anything. It simply explains what is happening in the market and players can use it to maximize their own profits if they are smart. But in totallity economics can not change how much oil there is or what the minimum cost for iron ore is. Those are physical and geological givens, not free parameters that can be magically re-adjusted. Economics is happening on top of facts, not despite them.
"Additionally, we cannot predict what technology is around the corner, so we could not predict when we have reached a point of technological exhaustion."
That, again, is not true. Any serious technologist can look five to ten years ahead in his or her field. If you ever worked in the R&D divisions of large companies, you will know that they are planning years ahead. Heck, even small companies do that. Technological breakthroughs are a myth of the press which is always surprised by "new stuff". Usually the stuff is not new, people outside of the business just haven't heard about it, yet. Most "breakthrough news" provokes a "Yawn... I've seen that a decade ago!" reaction in me. Much is simply hyped by the marketing people. Especially in the energy sector a lot rides on physical limits and those are hard. You can't expect any breakthroughs because there are no perpetual motion machines.
"There are two possibilites for the future: either we are the first civilisation in history where population growth levels off and we achieve a stable complex society, capable of withstanding stresses (e.g. Global Warming), or we will collapse in spectacular fashion back to a pre-industrial society, and try to rebuild (if we can) from there."
There is another possbibility: we keep growing, just not in as trivial a sense as American consumerism. Personally I bet on that one.
IP quotes somebody:
This is nonsense. There are many possibilities, including half-way collapse with or without a rebound. This is the problem with the 'doomers': it's all or nothing, an attitude that is proven wrong in the real world.
There is another possbibility: we keep growing, just not in as trivial a sense as American consumerism. Personally I bet on that one.
You bet on WHAT, exactly?
What could "grow" which does not entails consumption of finite, non renewable ressources?
Your arrogance really does get the better of you quite often, doesn't it.
Of course, it is inconceivable that someone acquainted with the physical remains of societies of the past could possibly come up with some generally applicable theory of complexity and collapse ... only a real scientist like yourself could do that, huh?
If you even partly understood the argument, you would realize that just having nuclear reactors and solar panels does not, per se, exempt a society from diminishing returns on complex social organization. Put another way, if the argument is about complexity, you can't say 'Hey, but we're, like, really, really complex, so it doesn't apply to us!' That's an obvious non sequitur, but it is what you are saying. You are simply putting forth your own personal version of what Dawkins once called, in a different context, the Argument from Personal Incredulity. You need to find another way to deal with the argument.
His influence is by no means waning.
For instance:
A few weeks back, Thomas Homer-Dixon's "The Upside of Down" topped the non-fiction bestseller's list in Canada and currently remains in the top 10. This author as recently been featured in the nytimes.
Homer-Dixon has been massively influenced by Tainter.
Asebius
That is on my list of books to read. I am a big fan of Tainter's myself.
What I really like about Tainter is that he really tries to analyse societies from the outside. For his analysis, he is absolutely not interested in value judgements or taking sides about how "good" or "evil" we or any other society is. There is no meta-narrative of human progress playing away constantly in the background. He is a martian anthropologist.
And I think that is some of what got his goat about Diamond's work. But I just read the review quickly. Will look more carefully later. I'm glad Don mentioned it. I really didn't know it existed.
Yes, I like that about Tainter. How it should be for an anthropologist, IMO.
Diamond's writing is very much colored by his left-leaning politics. (Which is one reason I found that passage about "overcrowded lifeboats" and immigration so striking.)
The "overcrowded lifeboats" metaphor was popularized by Garrett Hardin, a biologist, nearly forty years ago.
Unlike Tainter, Diamond has a solid background in biology--and it shows.
Re: That is on my list of books to read. I am a big fan of Tainter's myself
Then I hope you will enjoy my upcoming article on Tainter. I just need to send him an e-mail and straighten out a few things so I present his position correctly. I, too, am impressed by his work.
Looking forward to it!
You should, very seriously, point him to how his work is used here to support the idea of inevitable collapse.
You should, very seriously, point him to how his work is used here to support the idea of inevitable collapse.
Only in your fantasms (since you didn't read him you could not know...), Tainter says that in an open competitive world of "jockeying peers" there could be NO collapse, just a "slow crush" of ROI.
And contrary to your assertions, many "doomers" expect some slow decay not a fast crash.
But you lump together this two views as "doomerism" in your propaganda campaign.
The two views are alike in that they both layer assumptions about the course of the world from this point in time, until they reach the destination which so attracts the believer.
Strange attractors indeed.
Strange mumbo-jumbo indeed.
Doomers are not believers, PORNUCOPIANS are the true believers:
YET TO BE MADE innovations will show up whenever wished for.
Doomers are believers just like the optimists. They believe that their forseen outcome is what awaits despite the fact that innovations have thwarted calamity multiple times throughout human history. That is not to say that calamity is averted everytime, but hardly is the doomer crystal ball such a sure thing either.
Sorry but your pompous holier than thou attitude regarding your predictions predicated on BELIEFS is tiresome Kev. You are just as much in the dark as the cornicopian, the other doomers, and all the other people who are in between or not even decided. To pretend otherwise is fallacy.
[ duplicate post ]
The response time is a real pain in the ...
(sometimes several MINUTES!)
Dave -he serendipitously emailed me tonight. I invited him to do a guest post.
Incidentally, at our Peak Oil and Environment Conference in DC last May, the emcee introduced him as "Jared Diamonds' Jared Diamond"
yes ,needed!
Can you name the American preacher?
Assuming you did a google on this can you give me the URL?
I believe that most of the rapture(just a label) is derived from the writing of John in Revelations.
There are splits as well on the subject of the millennialism as to pre or post and other aspects that are sharply divided as to the time and so forth. Daniel prophesies on this as well as others in the Old Testament.
Not every religion is in accord. In fact the Baptist in the USA are descended from the Anabaptists of Europe(via Baptists in England). source below
source: Earle Cairns Christianity Through the Centuries..Page 25 chart
1981 edition ISBN 0-310-38360-9
Didn't Google it. Just something I saw on the History Channel. I wasn't interested enough to Google it.
However, looking at Wikipedia's Rapture entry, the man in question was likely William Eugene Blackstone.
I think when I meant us (as in "who among us") I was referring to those who needn't be carted off to Bedlam Asylum. On the other hand, come to think of it, this is a group with fewer and fewer members.
Your remarks about people feeling that they are "special" are dead on. Now, for today's puzzle.
Guess Who?
William Cobbett?
Cotton Mather
Jonathan Edwards?
You are today's winner! There is no prize, unfortunately...
I cheated.
In any event, I'll settle for a barrel of abiotic oil, to be delivered whenever someone can find it.
A quick right click and properties on a picture is usually a good place to start. Or did you have another method of cheating?
A barrel of abiotic oil, right. I'll get back to you
This whole religious deal put me in the mood to allude to psychologically unbalanced Christians from the past eg. Cotton Mather, who apparently never read the Sermon on the Mount or, glossed over that part of the New Testiment.
Adam Smith
I liked that article too. It looks like he's getting at the right idea (what is and isn't supported by the evidence...), but still could use some work. He's right to point out that it's a theological position, but seriously, old testament verses do what here exactly? It seems like he has the right idea, but can't put together a very coherent statement of it.
The "apocalypse" article is garbage of the worse sort.
Peak oil is about science. The "apocalypse" article is about how medievel thought patterns can turn a serious issue into mush.
The irony of the article calling disastrous scenarios "unsupportable speculation" and then going on to say that "Jesus came into the world to save it" is inexpressibly ironic.
One should:
a) look at the data
b) look around oneself
The data HIGHLY SUGGESTS falling oil production
A look around REVEALS UNAMBIGUOUSLY a public not only unprepared but blissfully unaware that there's even a problem.
Therefore...
Reading the article by Albert Bartlett, on the other hand, gives me a modicum of hope that the stupid reverend horton says we doomers lack. Bartlett at least addresses the facts clearly and unapologetically.
You left out the final step though...
c) Chaos reigns.
Now, what evidence exactly supports step C? You go from evidence (which few people disagree with) to uninformed speculation (No advanced society can possibly exist without oil...), which is highly questionable. Very rarely is any motivation whatsoever given for such a statement, and when it is, it's without exception severly deficient.
I'm not saying it can't happen, but the whole "then the world ends" step in your process is never very well supported. That's what people have a problem with, not the concept that oil will someday (even very soon) run out.
EXCEPT THAT YOU HAVE TO PREPARE FOR IT AND THAT IS NOT HAPPENING.
The WHOLE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO END.
Repeat: The world is going to go on. You've just posted strawman argument.
God should be so merciful as to make the world end.
Some of us will be wishing the world would end.
It ain't.
that's doomerism.
I apologize. The reply thing is acting goofy.
My point exactly. The above statements are all, 100%, entirely unsupported. No evidence is given whatsoever. Civilization is going to end because you said so, and anyone who doesn't agree 100% is a cornucopian or a fool. Sorry, no thanks. Come up with some evidence, or at least some logic to support this.
Please specify who made that claim.
Hey! Let us not confuse what this debate is all about. It is not about advanced societies. It is about the collapse of civilization as we know it. There just may survive a very small percentage of the population and they just might, eventually, have a very advanced society, without a single drop of oil.
The world cannot, for very long, support 6.5 billion people. The world just might support one half billion people, perhaps more, in a very advanced state of civilization. But that is an entirely different debate. It has nothing to do with the inevitable collapse of the present population.
And please note: "Civilization" does not depend on material things. It is possible, to my mind anyway, to have an advanced civilization without any of the trinkets we take for granted today.
Ron Patterson
And now that you predicted the future for us, please give us a detailed description of ALL the assumptions that went into this prediction. We shall have fun invalidating every single one of them for you.
"The world cannot, for very long, support 6.5 billion people."
Proof?
"The world just might support one half billion people, perhaps more, in a very advanced state of civilization."
Proof?
"We shall have fun..'
We, Kimosabe?
I think Infitite will think he having fun, thinking that he is invalidating everything everyone says..
DeCartes "I think, therefore I am."
Later Ammended as: "DeCartes THINKS he thinks, therefore he THINKS he is.."
Anybody notice how much of this open thread has been usefully swept up with the mention of DOOMER and RELIGION in just one News Article. We're making a serious dent in the essentials today! Red Five, cut the chatter and stay on target!
Bob
(I'm feeling as Smug as Infinite today, since I just got a free Treadmill through Freecycle, and now have a 95vdc motor for a wind turbine! Just trotting on the treadmill belt I was moving 40volts! Film at 11)
I noticed you did not reply to ANY of my points. Did you notice that, too?
Not so much whether the assumptions are true or false, but just that they are never really given, and yet the outcome is accepted as flowing from the evidence that everyone agrees on. That's my problem. World can only support 1/2 billion people, fine, but lets see some sort of evidence or logic to back it up, rather than just stating it as fact.
A simple emperical observation (that the world currently has 6.5 billion people) would seem to indicate that this assumption is untrue, so there needs to be some sort of justification for it. Doomers (pardon the expression...) just take these statements as axioms, which I don't think is legitimate.
That's the problem I have with them. Of course, when I coughed up the numbers for nuclear power awhile back, nobody objected to the numbers, but some doomer objected to the thought that we could overcome legal challenges to situate the needed reactors. Is that really what it's come to, nobody disputes that the scheme will work, but they just think that the greens will stymie it long enough to plunge us into mad max days? I mean seriously, come up with a compelling reason why the technology doesn't work, or the numbers are wrong, or something. This whole "Green party lawsuits will prevent that, so 6 billion people are going to die." rationale isn't very compelling.
Anyway, this is my personal dead horse, and I feel like I beat the poor thing about twice a day.
per last beating comment... yeah, I've had days like that too.
I don't even worry about whether someone needs to validate or prove the 6.5 billion statement, as Ron states below, it is abundantly clear that we are straining water, soil, numerous animal populations in our ribbon-thin whisper of a biosphere..(migratory birds as a general category, for one horrifying example.. how many cascading dependencies could collapse from these alone before we hit our second or third degree of separation and found our food supplies directly smacked down?)
You could look to other aspects of our human activies besides population, but getting all didactic about it ('state ALL ASSUMPTIONS'..) isn't going to change the facts before our eyes.. we could be inches from a massive disaster in countless directions right now. There was a similar comment on Air America today (Franken show) talking about the climate-change detractors' insistence that we don't do anything while there's 'still some bit of doubt or unanswered question' about exactly how or when this disaster will hit, (Scalia had a knee-thumper last month with one like 'When exactly will this cataclysm be?') while they can have all sorts of doubts around and be more than happy to go to war with someone elses' kids and tax dollars.
INFINITE has been particularly blusterous about having 'no big problem' cause we have all the solutions figured out.. it's just a simple matter of changing over.
I don't subscribe to a 'Doomer' tag myself, but I do think we're on insanely thin ice. I just think that my projection of human nature and responses to a presumed chaos would not be categorically 'Mad Maxian', and every time I hear the Arsenal discussions, think that this kind of thing will go on here and there, now and then, but that Hollywood does it better, and it can only become a self-fullfilling prophesy to keep licking that sore prognostication.
As far as the empirical observation of our existing with 6.5B, I hope you've already taken it back.. otherwise, think about empirically observing how someone could go 90mph on your street.. how much street is left when that baby hits 88? You would see some serious shit alright..
Bob
IMO, IP has been talking about energy. If I'm wrong, I apologize to his critics, but to me his position on energy is more correct than the doom position, for now [ie., several decades].
As far as the environmental problems are concerned, they are much scarier.
That's the other thing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, or that nothing should be done, just that it is unclear (even unlikely) that this will be the collapse of civilization as we know it.
There are many facets to a problem.
1) Do we all agree on the same underlying evidence (probably most of it at least).
2) Do we all agree that it would be wise to not do what we currently do (yes, though alternatives vary widely).
3) Do we all agree that western civilization is about to collapse into shambles (no, or at least this doesn't look very compelling).
It's part 3 that I think is badly unsupported by available evidence, not part 2.
>>"The world cannot, for very long, support 6.5 billion people."
>Proof?
Can you prove that world can sustain 6.5 billion without fossil fuels? Please enlighten us!
Proof? Infinite, you obviously know nothing about the state of the world. Water tables are dropping, deserts are expanding, rivers are drying up and many no longer reach the sea, the land is blowing away, the land is washing away, lakes are drying up, species are disappearing faster than they did during the great extinction 65 million years ago.
And you think this can continue? You doubt that the carrying capacity of the earth is dropping like a rock? Try reading this one: Outgrowing the Earth
After that try reading Overshoot by William Catton or The Spirit in the Gene by Reg Morrison. Then try reading David Price: http://dieoff.org/page137.htm I have asked you time and time again to refute Price but you, very wisely, ignore my request. Wisely because his argument is scientifically sound and dumb rhetoric cannot refute it.
You are all rhetoric and no argument Infinite. You continually ask for proof but never provide on iota of proof yourself. I don't think understand fossil fuels at all or the affect they have had on the world's population. You stated in another post that little had changed in the life of the Chinese pesant.
That is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard. In the fifth century the population of China was stead, death's just about matched births. The population of China at about the year 0 was 60 million people. During the next 1100 years it increased only to about 100 million. But currently the average lifespan of the Chinese is 72.5 years. (CIA World Factbook)
To claim that little has changed for the Chinese pesant since the 5th century is to display unfathomable ignorance of both historical China and present day China.
Ron Patterson
This inludes a long list of assumptions that dont necissarily pan out, and ignores that all these inputs are functions of avaliable energy. You can make water or pump it, and really we dont care about extinctions that arent crops. Rivers that are diverted towards irrigation? So what?
All these deep ecology arguments treat humans like fish or moose populations, and its just dumb. When we start running out of energy, sure theres a problem. That wont be this side of a million years though.
For starters you cannot make water other than by burning hydrogen. And there is no free hydrogen anywhere on earth. So you are all wet on that one. And the rest of your post is just as dumb. You may not care about extinctions but a lot of other people do. And rivers diverted to crops damage the environment far more than anyone realizes. The Aral sea is a salty cesspool that once supported millions. The rivers feeding it were diverted to grow cotton. Now the cotton land is salting up. Everyone is worse off than they were before.
Dear God, I am glad there are people like you who make such dumb arguments. This tells me that the cornucorpian argument simply gets dumber every year.
Humans are animals. Humans must eat just like any other animal. We are destroying the ability of the planet to produce food for humans. Of course we are destroying most other species in the process but you seem to think that humans are the only species that matters. Well, be that as it may, we are destroying the ability of the world to feed humans. And yes, the sun will still be producing energy a million years from now just as it was producing energy a million years ago. But in just a few years we will be out of petroleum, and not long after that we will be out of fossil energy altogether. And without fossil energy the earth can probably support less than half a billion people.
Dezakin you really need an education about energy and human evolution. Try reading this essay and you will know infinitely more on the subject than you do now. http://dieoff.org/page137.htm
Ron Patterson
And much of california was once barren desert. Its all engineering.
Last I checked we ate crops, and cropland is doing fine. Oh theres all these environmental assessment studies with lots of morbid trepidation on how it will effect the carribu population in some godforsaken hellhole no one cares about, sorry pristine wilderness, but crop production ability continues to climb.
First, peak oil and peak fossil isn't peak energy. We have a trillion tons of recoverable uranium for light water reactors, and about 120 trillion tons of recoverable uranium and thorium for breeders. With just light water reactors we can support all of industrial society for the next 20000 years. One might assume that we should be able to figure out fusion or cheap solar by then.
Second, theres no reason to assume that you cant support billions without cheap energy. Oh deep ecology types love to assume that, but its a far cry from a realistic assumption. Not that it matters, because we'll have cheap energy for as far as the eye can see. Transportation fuel might be more expensive, but energy is there for the taking.
"With just light water reactors we can support all of industrial society for the next 20000 years. One might assume that we should be able to figure out fusion or cheap solar by then."
Someone might. But you couldn't. Are these figures from the Brooklyn Bridge InvestCorp?
The croplands.. have you seen the grain stocks figures lately? Heard about Australia? China is importing food. Genetic rice snafu in Africa.. lookin' good. Just keep those soil-suspenders comin'. (Nat'l Gas, no prob, man)
Of course, if you eat Meat, Fruit, Dairy, Vegetables, Nuts, Fish (Don't get me started on fish.. talk about a hellhole)- well, you might start to recall that there is a broad array of symbiotic functioning that makes any of them or us able to survive.. Pollenation, Disease Control and Pest Control would be impossible with out a vast army of specialised insects around us.. You might not give a Rats Ass about them, but you owe your life to them anyhow.
'The problem with foolproofing, is they keep coming up with better fools'
Its a trillion tons of uranium. if you have 20000 1GW light water reactors, that will take about 20000 years to consume. If you get into reprocessing or any breeder reactor regime, you get to use 120 trillion tons of fuel 100 times more efficiently.
Nat'l Gas isn't a problem, its just chemistry and energy, and thats easily demonstrably avaliable. As for food, its so damned plentify farmers are trying to get you to burn it in your car.
Oh pollinators (of which not all crops depend on) and predators are often useful, but you misunderstand. These things have their niche carved out around farms. Its carribu, great apes, and other specialized whatsits from whogivesadamn that I dont care about.
"Its a trillion tons of uranium. if you have 20000 1GW light water reactors, that will take about 20000 years to consume."
Yeah, adding is fun, and you get some fantastic outcomes, as long as you don't worry about all the subtracting that would have been appropriate to include, too.
Look, you don't seem to have any problem with the possibilities of chain reactions and complex dependencies. Both Nuclear Energy and our Food Supply are involved in complex chains of supply and environmental conditions to operate well or at all. Food supply is more than 'We eat crops', and 'just making 20,000 reactors' is more than just engineering.
I agree with INFINITE in the sense that we do have many tools out there that we MAY be able to salvage a disaster with, but when either of you conclude that it's 'Not really an issue, it's just a matter of putting the new stuff in place.. the energy is there, the engineering has been solved..' - I just wonder if you appreciate the time, labor, financing, materials and politics that all add prodigious amounts of friction to the seamless implementation of your idealised theories?
'In Theory, Theory should be a good predictor of the real world, but in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.'
Sure, its also financing, but thats something that is really quite affordable in a 50 trillion dollar global economy that continues to grow.
Oh we may run into rough spots, but the point is that civilization isn't on the brink or anywhere close to it.
Dezakin sez:
"Last I checked we ate crops, and cropland is doing fine. Oh theres all these environmental assessment studies with lots of morbid trepidation on how it will effect the carribu population in some godforsaken hellhole no one cares about, sorry pristine wilderness, but crop production ability continues to climb."
Has anyone discovered the nesting site where these podpeople are hatching out at?
Perhaps a starting freshman in the virtual University of Phoenix in School of Engineering, Nashville campus online?
Its all engineering. "the prof told me this was all BS "
And can I watch while you consume those raw soybeans? Right offen the stalk? Its all about engineering then.
Not that it matters, because we'll have cheap energy for as far as the eye can see.
Really?
It's been discussed before to no avail, just repeating nonsense isn't an argument.
From the article:
"So I repeat my point – those who have a convinced "doomer" perspective are making a theological assertion, not a scientific one.
Now as a theological assertion, it is open to theological critique."
I call bullshit. Most "convinced doomers", whatever that means, have looked at lots of data and has come down on the doomerish side of the spectrum. And there surely is a wide spectrum of scenarios that people entertain. They may have interpreted the data correctly, or incorrectly, but it's a response to actual information. Unlike theology, which is based on, well, whatever it's based on.
Hope is nice, and we all, I think, hope that somehow things will work out less than apocalyptically. But history shows that many, many times there have been fairly stark "ends of eras", and to simply deny that something fairly awful might be setting itself up is not particularly useful.
And the notion that all "doomers" actually want some sort of apocalypse is really just a way of brushing the whole thing off. I don't personally know anyone who is looking forward to the potential shitstorm ahead, though presumably there are some that are. But that's completely irrelevant.
So, I repeat my point - A doomer point of view, whatever else it is, is _not_ a theological assertion, and theological critiques are _absolutely_ the last thing we need at this stage of things.
Perhaps we need a slightly more subtle way of describing various interpretations of the data...
- sgage
PS - Some forms of doomerism are actually highly optimistic. It all depends on what's getting doomed. :-)
"Most "convinced doomers", whatever that means, have looked at lots of data and has come down on the doomerish side of the spectrum."
What data, exactly, would that be? And how does looking at data allow you to construct a infallible crystal ball? Or would you admit that, at the end of the day, doomerism is nothing but a half-ass guess driven by a real fear of the future?
"But history shows that many, many times there have been fairly stark "ends of eras"..."
Can we get an example, please? One that is halfway relevant to PO?
"So, I repeat my point - A doomer point of view, whatever else it is, is _not_ a theological assertion, and theological critiques are _absolutely_ the last thing we need at this stage of things."
I agree about not needing theology in here. But a little bit of psychotherapy might help.
With all the posts about "doomers" (more than 80%) perhaps this thread should be renamed Doombeat.
this thread should be renamed Doombeat
I rather see this DrumBeat as a pornucopian suckers fest.
THEY are the ones who use the word and keep whining about "doomers", the so called doomers rather talk about scenarios of mitigation and limits to remediation.
The "doomers" are the ones with the POSITIVE approach contrary to the pornucopians and various "sponsored trolls" from the nuclear lobby, ethanol lobby, Big Oil lobby and (possibly) CIA/NSA minders.
[ duplicate post ]
"What data, exactly, would that be?"
Well, the facts and figures and trends of fossil fuel production, the dependence of our "way of life" on fossil fuels, particularly petroleum, the imminence if not fact of PO, the lack of current technology to fill the gap, combined with lowering water tables, climate change, etc., etc.
"And how does looking at data allow you to construct a infallible crystal ball?"
Who the hell is talking about an "infallible crystal ball"? Some people weigh the data, and see certain probabilities. You tend towards a really black and white argumentative style.
"Can we get an example, please? One that is halfway relevant to PO?"
Human history. If you are unfamiliar with history, you might read "Collapse", just for starters. Societies are very capable of going into complete denial about what they need to do to cope with resource problems.
"But a little bit of psychotherapy might help."
Now you're becoming rather snotty and ridiculous.
- sgage
"Well, the facts and figures and trends of fossil fuel production, the dependence of our "way of life" on fossil fuels..."
That's hand waving... nothing more. Give me ONE hard, physical fact that life without oil is IMPOSSIBLE. Is it going to take effort to transition? You betcha. Will it be expensive? Of course it will. But will it be impossible??? You realize that calling "DOOM!" requires you to demonstrate that there is absolutely no other way of life... which, of course, is nonsense. I agree with you that most people don't want change, but change usually does not ask. It simply happens.
"Who the hell is talking about an "infallible crystal ball"? Some people weigh the data, and see certain probabilities. "
Probabilities would require MEASURED outcomes of real parallel scenarios. Probabilities are nothing you can assign a-priori in serious science. And that is exactly my point: doomerism is not serious science. It uses pseudo-science terms to publish popular books. It has not done its homework and it hasn't proven anything. It's just a bunch of commercially succesful people sounding off what the public wants to hear.
"Human history."
Great! Which part of history? The one where Alexander goes to India? Or the one where the good people of Cologne decide to build a Cathedral? Come on, you got to do better than that.
:-)
"Now you're becoming rather snotty and ridiculous."
You won't think that once you are done with a couple dozen therapy sessions. Instead you will realize that I was right all along.
:-)
>Give me ONE hard, physical fact that life without oil is IMPOSSIBLE.
OK, stop immediately using all energy resources that use fossil fuels or require fossils to manufacture. Don't use any resources (food, water, aeration, pumping), etc) that are also depend on fossil fuels to produce or deliver to you. Accept no handouts or charity from anyone that are still using fossil fuels. You must also accomplish this task while living in a urbanal region since most of the population now lives in urban regions. Try it for year. Let us know if you survive. This would be an excellent test to prove your case.
Thanks for voluteering!
Look, facts are not handwaving. And strawman arguments are not particularly convincing. You are the one that's handwaving, with your pie-in-the-sky faith in technology swooping to the rescue.
But in any case, I'm not saying life without petroleum is impossible. It's almost certainly impossible at our "standard of living", and it's probably impossible for 6+ billion people on this planet, but whatever. But it sure looks pretty ugly up ahead, and nothing on the horizon seems to mitigate that, and no amount of techno-faith "hand waving" changes that fact.
And kindly don't tell me what I'm required to demonstrate, when all you do is skate by on some pollyannish cornucopian nonsense. In fact, that's all you seem to do around here - demand "proof" from people regarding this and that. Where is the proof that any of your vaunted "infinite possibilities" are either possible or applicable or scalable? You are the one with a religious belief - in the great god technology.
"You won't think that once you are done with a couple dozen therapy sessions. Instead you will realize that I was right all along."
Yeah, whatever. You really are a ridiculous troll.
You won't think that once you are done with a couple dozen therapy sessions. Instead you will realize that I was right all along.
Interesting suggestion.
I have another one for you InfinitePossibilities, what about "a couple dozen Water Boarding sessions" til you "realize" that it is not so good to work for "dark side" and YOU could ultimately end up there yourself?
sgage, I think you're the snotty and ridiculous one. Yes some water tables are dropping, but no one knows the deppth, so no one knows how long they'll last. Besides, while GW does seem to be occurring, any particular climate phenomenon, like a drought, may be more random than ordained, at least for awhile.
There are two ideas that float around here that are truly indicative of the USAn mind space:
1. What may be true for the US is ipso facto true for the world at large [agricultural methods, effects of warmer temperatures, for two].
2. What may happen to certain parts of the USA will happen to all parts [Las Vegas and Phoenix being unsustainable doesn't mean that Detroit or Chicago is at risk].
What happens to the disadvantaged, they adapt; there are Central Americans coming across your souther border with nothing and they adapt, why can't US citizens?
Yes some water tables are dropping, but no one knows the deppth, so no one knows how long they'll last.
Yeah! they are half-full NOT half-empty.
Besides, while GW does seem to be occurring, any particular climate phenomenon, like a drought, may be more random than ordained, at least for awhile.
Didn't know that unit, how many years is there in an "awhile"?
I'm with you as far as the "theological critique" part. It's not really clear what a theological critique would be, especially as applied to some theology (in this case, for the sake of argument, doomerism) that the theologin doing the critiquing doesn't share. Kindof a strange article, really.
For me, the Reverend's position boils down to one very sensible maxim: that defeatism has no place in spiritual life.
Odograph. the problem with Mr. Norton's diatribe is that he is proselytizing. Christians always try to insert God into any argument [lack of logical arguments precludes anything else] and so he characterizes the 'doomer' position as theological. They try the same trick with atheism saying that it's a theological argument. Locked into their fantasy, they can't conceive of truth other than through fantasy.
It [looks] like I parsed past many religious elements that others took more seriously. The bit I was interested in was the "faith" in "unprovable outcomes" associated with strong doomerism. You know, I'm talking about people who get up every day to find support for, and argue in favor of, the idea that we are cooked. The idea that it's a done deal. It's over.
That cannot be rationally proven, so there has to be something else going on.
Now, when people gather to reinforce and provide affirmation it does look a little church-like ... but I wouldn't go further than that.
I was watching "Meet the Press" yesterday and Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden were being asked about the "Surge" tactic being discussed in regards to Iraq. Tim Russert asked Graham about the Democrat's suggestion to leave Iraq within 6 months, and Graham kept referring to the "Risk to our national security" if that strategy were employed.
He kept saying that no one that supports that strategy (accepting defeat) wants to discuss the conseqences of that strategy, but even he himself wouldn't say in detail what the consequences to our national security would be. The most he would say about it is that the region would be destabilized and that Iran would try to take over the southern part of Iraq.
What is the significance of Iran taking over the southern part of Iraq? I'm guessing that's where major oil installations are, and that Iran's control of the area would mean we can't count on the oil. Is this what he was getting to? If so, why can't politicians who support the war come out and say that the consequence of leaving Iraq is that our supply of imported oil becomes that much less certain?
Tom A-B
I think one thing they are worried about is destabilizing the entire region. That is why Saudi is so opposed to our withdrawal. They didn't want us to go in, but now that we are in, they don't want us to leave.
Regional warfare could do very bad things to the oil supply.
Iran will not take over Southern Iraq - this is ridiculous idea. If this happens they will likely have to go to war with Saudi Arabia backed by half Middle East. And Israel will certainly use the opportunity to bomb their nuclear installations in the mess that follows.
Iranians are not suiciders and Ahmadinejad is not an idiot, whatever the MSM may be trying to convince us. For example the famous words "Israel must be wiped out of the map" are a manipulative misrepresentation. The correct translation goes along the lines that since the West created the artificial country of Israel to get rid of the jew minority, it is his responsibility to dismantle this unsustainable country and accept them back.
In addition Iran does not need to annex South Iraq, all they need to do is to support the Shia minority in gaining autonomy for this area. Eventually it will get it and guess who will be the most influantial country in the government of South Iraq.
"The correct translation goes along the lines that since the West created the artificial country of Israel to get rid of the jew minority, it is his responsibility to dismantle this unsustainable country and accept them back."
The translation is closer to "being swept from the pages of history" as was the USSR, or something like that.
A difference: after the USSR as a state was eliminated it didn't mean that the Russians also had to be eliminated as a nation and their wealth and property and homes physically stripped from them, but that is what the Iranians want.
...and if they don't want to go {which they don't} we'll vaporize them?
Of course nearly all of the modern nations in the Middle East are 'artificial' creations out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.
Pakistan is also an artificial creation.
Do you by any chance work for Fox News? Because the following is entirely your fiction:
after the USSR as a state was eliminated it didn't mean that the Russians also had to be eliminated as a nation and their wealth and property and homes physically stripped from them, but that is what the Iranians want.
Interesting why this logic was not valid 50 years ago, when Israelis did the very same thing to the arabs they drove out of the land they were living for centuries. Nobody is going to eliminate jewish people as a nation. Jews have been living everywhere around the world for well over 2 milleniums already. And of course the property they leave behind must be compensated if we are going to do this in a civilised manner. By whom? I would say Western powers that created this whole mess at the first place. Technically it would not be a problem - the whole population of Israel fits into a typical US suburban city.
Of course personally I don't support this idea. But with time the vicious circle of violence-contraviolence starts to look more and more unesolvable. And it is both sides that I blame, not only Israel. Israel is the historical agressor and the only nuclear power in the region. The only way peace can be achieved is that it provides gurantees to its Muslim neighbours that it will not conduct offensive wars in the future. So far I am waiting to see that. In the absence of such there is no way to counter Iranian nuclear ambitions for example, which obviously have some weapons backthoughts - may be not immediate, but they definately want to be in the position to obtain them. The arabs of course are not helping to solve this conundrum - breaking cease fires and peace agreements etc. But it must be had in mind that this is the way they are and always have been - let's say nations who have little experience with how civilised countries approach such conlicts.
The bottom line is that the Iranian president did not call for the Israel's destruction - which is what the media has always implied. Iran has a valid historic right to fear Israel and since it has never received guarantees for its own survival from its mighty (further) neighbour it has only two options - either invest in its own security or call for the Israel retreat. That's the logical result of Israel's policy and it's self-positioning outside any international laws.
Is this old? An Almost Friendly Update on World Oil. I thought I'd seen the title here at TOD, but it is datelined today. Anyway, I'm trying to slow down and read it carefully. It looks good.
Posted and discussed in yesterday's DrumBeat. (I have a time machine, did you know? ;-) A lot of people really liked it. But others found it rather inaccessible.
Ah yes, the "flying man" sub-thread ... skipped that one. ;-)
We (AEREN - ASPO Spain) have translated to English a Peak Oil Primer titled "The World in the Presence of Peak Oil" (PDF file, 2,2MB).
I hope you like it.
Quote of the Day! (From April 2005)
Yes of course water flooding is now used to try to put new pep in tired old Saudi fields. And it should be noted that water flooding serves two purposes. It is supposed to sweep the water from the periphery of a field toward the wellheads closer to the center of the reservoir. This sometimes works very well but also can cause serious problems. If there is a fault then the water will often bypass the oil cut directly to the wellheads.
But second, and most important, it keeps up the pressure and pushes the oil out at a higher rate. Gas injection can do this as well as water. The gas can be any kind of gas. Pemex used nitrogen on Cantarell and actually doubled the output for a few years. But of course it could not last, and the sudden burst of new production is only making the decline in Cantarell that much more drastic.
Back in the early 80s Saudi Arabia, in a very few places, injected natural gas in an attempt to rejuvenate declining fields. Saudi had much more natural gas to reinject in the early 80s than now. Since then they have build a very massive gas fired desalination plant and gas fired power plants. Also they are exporting much more LNG than back then.
At any rate Khurais was an example where gas injection was tried in order to increase the pressure of a well. Khurais was brought on line in 1959 but production was disappointing and the field was closed down. In the early 1970s was brought back on line and produced between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels per day for the rest of the decade. In 1980 Saudi new wells in the area and production in 1980 was 68,000 barrels per day. In 1980 production from Khurais was an astounding 144,000 barrels per day. But then pressure in the field dropped dramatically and production took a nose dive.
Then in 1983 Saudi began a massive gas injection program to try to restore the Khurais complex to its former glory. 50 gas injection wells were put into Khurais, and another 22 in Abu Jifa and Mizalij. Production was increased slightly, from 1 percent in some to as high as 200 percent in others. But the increase was very short lived and never even approached the former high of 144,000 barrels per day the field produced in 1981. Then the complex was shut down due to low production. Perhaps they had more valuable use for the natural gas elsewhere.
The very fact that the pressure dropped so dramatically in the field, along with the flow rate, was a sure indication that the field held a lot less oil than they expected. Though the area of the field is quite large, the porosity of the reservoir is quite low. In other words, there is not, and never was, very much oil in the field. If there had been then the pressure would not have dropped so fast. And when the pressure was increased with gas injection, the flow rate should have picked back up, and stayed up for at least several years. It did not. After a slight increase in flow rate, production quickly dropped off to below the point it was before the gas injection program began.
But hope springs eternal. New technology of horizontal wells and a new fracturing technique, along with a massive water injection program is supposed to turn this very tired old sow’s ear into a new shiny silk purse. At first this new program was supposed to produce 800,000 barrels per day from Khurais. But the optimism was contagious and soon that already absurd number was raised to 1,200,000 barrels per day. And even some oil pessimists are expecting this massive amount of new oil to be there by 2009.
However let me throw some cold water on your party. Saudi’s actions betray their words. Saudi is planning 4 new gosps for the area. Each gosp will handle 200,000 barrels of oil per day. The very fact that they are planning only four tells us that they have very little confidence in the field ever producing 1,200,000 barrels per day. But all four gosps are not under construction, only one is. When that one is brought on line, the others will be built as needed. I consider it very unlikely that they will ever be needed.
My information comes from several sources. Of course one source was Matt Simmons’ Twilight in the Desert. Other sources were a couple of people who has served, or is currently in Saudi, and for obvious reasons request that their names not be revealed. And of course there is the net. I search every day for information on Saudi. And of course I lived in Saudi Arabia and worked for ARAMCO for five years, though I left in February of 1985. However peak oil was not even on the horizon back then. Very little of my information comes from my experience in Saudi, except of course the nature of how they operate. But that is no small factor I assure you.
Ron Patterson
Ron,
Apparently, the latest "voluntary" cut in production will take them down to 8.5 mbpd (presumably C+C) in February.
I have commented a couple of times that David Shields has discussed how Pemex had one set of (optimistic) numbers for public release on Cantarell, and one set of (pessimistic) numbers for internal use.
Surely, Saudi Aramco wouldn't do this? And it's just a "coincidence" that the Saudi stock market started crashing at the same time that they started announcing their "voluntary" production cutbacks. As they say, actions--especially actions involving money--speak much, much louder than words.
There is a hilarious program on HBO called "Assume the Position," that looks at various myths and legends in American history. They quote a great line from a John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart movie (The man who shot Liberty Valance): "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The legend (myth) of energy abundance, and especially the myth of inexhaustible oil reserves in Saudi Arabia is so enduring, that even people on a Peak Oil website of all places are oblivious to the facts right in front of them.
Given the overwhelming historical and mathematical models, if you and I can't convince people on a Peak Oil website that we are past the peak of world and Saudi production (at least conventional crude production), what chance do we have of convincing the general public?
"Given the overwhelming historical and mathematical models, if you and I can't convince people on a Peak Oil website that we are past the peak of world and Saudi production (at least conventional crude production), what chance do we have of convincing the general public?"
*laughs.
*cries.
What chance do we have of convincing the general public?
Maybe about the same chance that the Mythical Meteorologist Noah had of convincing the general public of his day that there was a need to build arks.
I find myth and wisdom literature to be rich with insightful stories and images. Sure, all mixed up with things that seem pointless and pointlessly violent. (Kind of like our egocentric culture at its worst.)
So what did old Noah do? He kept at it, and somebody survived.
Theology? Psychology? Mythology? I suppose.
We are forecasting the unthinkable. Even after the fact many will develop alternative Meta-Narratives to deny the geological reality and the to guide various responses that may or may not be helpful.
"Even so...."
"And so it goes..."
The only problem with the Noah story is... the man did not exist and the great worldwide flood never happened. Apart from that, your comparison is sound.
But seriously... the main problem with all the gloom and doom scenarios is that they assume PO means there won't be any oil left the next day. That is not what is going to happen. Instead, we will see a smaller and smaller demand in response to a smaller and smaller supply. The mitigating factor in this DYNAMIC system is price. Prices will simply rise to the level that is being tolerated by the consumer. IMHO that will be close to, if not well above $6/gallon. Just look at Europe, where that is the prevailing price level and people haven't stopped driving. Even at $7/gallon, driving a Prius or Yaris or any other economic car is not going to kill anyone economically. And sharing a ride with someone is also not known to cause cancer. Driving one of those stupid SUVs or trucks, on the other hand, might become an obsolete idea driven by penis envy. But that's OK because we simply don't need these genital enhancements...
Your words from a post earlier:
.. and to which the Great Pumpkin will simply reply to Infinite..
"How long can you tread water? Huah, Huah, Huah.."
Very good. But did you notice that YOU did not invalidate any single one of my observations? The $6/gallon gas pricing is reality in Europe today. Europe lives. And builds great, living cities with nice public transportation. Not quite as great as Singapore with its 100% import tax on cars... but close.
Joules, you got nothing, my man. Not one coherent thought that you can add to the discussion. If you do, please bring it forth and cut out the cheap shots.
:-)
Cheap? In pointing out that your predictions for the future are no more based on solid evidence than any of the so-called doomers? The fact that Europeans currently pay $6/gallon can hardly be called convincing evidence that such a price represents a ceiling that will be maintained with a continuous 4%/year drop in global oil supply.
Many here would agree that oil is a depleting resource and that it is technically possible to substantially replace the lost energy with that from other sources, including solar and wind. But the non-technical challenges are as much or more of the problem, and there is no precedent for how this will play out.
I frequent this site to learn about the problem, and I have learned much from doomers and near-cornupocians alike. What are you trying to achieve by insulting everybody who disagrees with you?
This is literally the first time that I have ever seen this assertion made by anyone.
"the main problem with all the gloom and doom scenarios is that they assume PO means there won't be any oil left the next day."
Just to repeat it, so people can see the LIES.
No one ever asserted this.
It is an assertion you need (in one way or another) to get anywhere close to a gloom and doom scenario. A 4% reduction in oil supply can be mitigated in the US with people buying smaller cars and sharing rides. The sky does not fall if that is what we are talking about. China is not going to buy ALL the oil that is out there. They will only buy as much oil as they have money for and need for their own transportation/production. If the US slows down buying Chinese products, their economy will slow down quite a bit (but not stall) and that will take pressure of the oil markets.
There are any number of negative feedbacks in this system and we already have seen some of them engaging. Gloom and doom is all about a roller coaster ride to the bottom without any brakes. That is not a lie but the truth which gloomers and doomers who talk about die-off and wood-burning stoves don't like to hear.
If you want to be a gloomer and doomer, fine, but be at least honest about it. Or just admit that reality does not work that way. Reality works through people who bought an SUV last year selling that useless thing and buying a compact next year. Reality works in little baby steps and price sticker shocks and people finding ways around their problems, one at a time.
None of reality makes for a good movie, though, so people tend to spice it up a little. With PO the gloom and doom version has simply grown into an over the top caricature for the comic books. That's all. Time to get back to reality and the question how we want to make the US energy independent?
My answer: slap a gas tax on and see how far that gets you. Support a more economic fleet. Start installing solar panels and wind turbines on a large scale.
I certainly don't argue with a gas tax, but the problem is the overwhelming message in the MSM that energy is essentially a never depleting resource.
Meanwhile, the US needs close to 5% more petroleum imports every year to meet new demand and to offset domestic production declines.
For our imports to just stay flat, our consumption, in bpd, has to fall at the same rate that our domestic production, in bpd, drops. And we have to do that every single year--just for imports to stay flat.
al3zdn3b, our oneline visitor fromt the lunatic fringe said:
"the main problem with all the gloom and doom scenarios is that they assume PO means there won't be any oil left the next day."
"Just to repeat it, so people can see the LIES."
"NO ONE EVER ASSERTED THIS."
perhaps he missed his neighbour Ron Patterson:
"But in just a few years we will be out of petroleum, and not long after that we will be out of fossil energy altogether. And without fossil energy the earth can probably support less than half a billion people."
This doomer crap just goes on and on and on...
Yet when we are pointed to Colin Campbell for their proof ... we see that:
in 2010: 90-mbd
in 2020: 75-mbd
in 2030: 58-mbd
in 2040: 45-mbd
in 2050: 35-mbd
in 2060: 26-mbd
in 2070: 20-mbd
in 2080: 15-mbd
And then we gotta work on nat'l gas, coal & methane:
in 2090: ...
"But in just a few years we will be out of petroleum, and not long after that we will be out of fossil energy altogether. And without fossil energy the earth can probably support less than half a billion people."
yeah ronny ... irrefutable!
I'm sorry, but to me half of the 'doomer' postings seem predicated on this idea.
A while ago I posted the same idea as IP - that if USAns switched to smaller cars with smaller engines, and the highway speed limits were lowered significantly, the amount of oil available would be more than sufiicient. But everybody here thought it was nonsense.
So I remain sceptical.
I'm sorry, but to me half of the 'doomer' postings seem predicated on this idea.
Really?
Please spot ONE occurrence of a "doomer" arguing that "there won't be any oil left the next day"!
There may not have been a Noah, but there certainly have been great worldwide floods. Melting glaciers create huge glacial lakes dammed by ice, which when breached cause huge floods, and also sudden jumps in sea level. There is geological evidence to confirm this, although it's controversial.
Most of these floods would have happened >5000 years ago, before recorded history. I think it is no coincidence that many cultures have stories about catastrophic floods passed down in oral history.
There may not have been a Noah, but there certainly have been great worldwide floods.
Depends on what you mean by "worldwide." There has never been a time where the entire earth was flooded (covered with water). Civilization grew up around sources of water, which is why I believe there are so many flood stories. Rivers flood. But the entire earth doesn't.
Depends on your definition of the "world".
We take for granted that the "known world" is... well the whole world.
What we often forget in historical context is that this was not always so. Before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the "whole world" was Europe, Africa, and some distant land in the far east.
Heck even when Columbus hit the Americas he thought he had hit Asia, not a whole new set of continents.
The further back in time you go, the smaller the "whole world" was to humanity. At one time to a certain segment of people, the whole world was the borders of the Roman Empire.
Before that, it was the realm of the Arabian empire, or the Greek empire.
The term "whole world" means a much different thing today with our more complete picture of our universe.
But heck, even today the term Terra Incognita is still used to describe the unexplored/invisible portions of our Universe(Dark Matter), just like it was used on the edge of maps from hundreds of years ago.
To the people of those times... The *whole* world was flooded.
"Let us go to the banks of the ocean,
Where the walls rise above the Zuider Zee.
Long a-go, I used to be a young man.
Now dear Margaret re-members that for me."
The Dutchman-- Michael P Smith
>But seriously... the main problem with all the gloom and doom scenarios is that they assume PO means there won't be any oil left the next day. That is not what is going to happen. Instead, we will see a smaller and smaller demand in response to a smaller and smaller supply.
This is correct, but only addresses half of the issue. Namely as the world discovers peak production, exporters will voluntarily cut production steeply in order to reserve remain reserves.
Consider a situation when a family goes camping for a long weekend. During the first day they consume all the food and beverages their hearts desire. The next day the wake up to find a flash storm has knocked out the bridge and they are many miles from help. Pretty fast they will start conserving their remaining food and water. This is no different from world recognition of PO. Why would Russia, Norway or any significant Export continue to trade Oil and gas for paper money? They already have to hold on to significant dollar reserves just to prevent the dollar from depreciating.
>Even at $7/gallon, driving a Prius or Yaris or any other economic car is not going to kill anyone economically.
1. By a large majority of the US population now purchase vehicles using credit and it takes considerable time to pay them off. If Gasolinee goes to $6/gallon next month or even in a few quarters few americans are capble of purchasing new vechicle since they still have many payments on thier existing gas guzzlers.
2. Auto manufactures need many years to revamp existing production. They can not simple reconfigure plants and order the required parts overnight. Plants need to be retooled, workers retrained, and part suppliers need to do the same. Shortages of available vehicles will prevent the majority from purchasing a replacement vehicle perhaps for years, not to mention the run up in vehicle prices (shortages tend to drive up prices).
3. Much of the US economy is dependant on cheap oil and gas. Even today margins on goods and services produced in the US are razor thin (and in the case of airlines, they lose money). US unemployment will rise to EU levels (in many countries its about 10%). Since the US has less public transportion and much greater suburban sprawl it the public will not fair as well with $6/gallon. I would guessimate that any "long term prices" (over a year) above $4/gallon would kick off a depression in the US with more than 20% of the working population unemployed. Of course a depression in the US would lead to a world depression.
4. We also use Oil and gas for lots of industrial processes. Agraculture is now heavly dependant on petrochemicals for fertializers and pesticides, as well as running farm machinery. Because the cost of natural gas has already too expensive, the US has virtually closed all of its fertializer plants and we now import it from regions that still have abundant natural gas reserved. Food in the US travels an average of 1200 miles to reach consumers.
5. Fossil fuels are also used to heat homes, businesses and supplies domestic hot water. Natural gas now produces nearly 20% of the electricity in the US. The US imports the majority of its natural gas from Canada, although shortages in North American may arrive as soon as this late summer (depending on how hot it gets this summer).
6. The Yaris and Prius originate overseas. Even if the cars are manufactured in the US. Much of the parts are still imported. Japan and China have already huge trade surpluses and would probably not continue business as usual, when global shortages begin. If they were to end currency controls, the dollar would depreciate pretty rapidly causing the cost of the Yaris and Prius to the price of an exotic foriegn sports car. Businesses and countries only lend if they expect to get repaid. US manufactures of hybrids would fair no better since they too would need to import parts from overseas suppliers.
these genital enhancements...
Good grief it always dives to the low end. At 6'6" 250lbs you might like a fricking suv too. Nothing like having your genitals hanging off the seat while you reach under your leg to turn some knob designed by a 4'11" 90 lb engineer with his "version" of luxury. Does anyone have legroom head room problems besides me?
MGB now that was a car with leg room...
But seriously... the main problem with all the gloom and doom scenarios is that they assume PO means there won't be any oil left the next day.
You are spouting a plain strawman!
NO "gloom and doom scenario" assume that "there won't be any oil left the next day".
The gloom and doom scenarios only needs DECLINING oil production versus a growing population.
And WE ARE THERE OR CLOSE TO.
[ duplicate post ]
Thanks.
Hadn't thought about Noah, lately. Good example, both the story for its own sake and the fact that we have these stories for exactly this reason. 'Art is the lie that tells the truth..', as I think Picasso said.
There's something about the way people are clinging to all things 'Scientific and Realistic', that it seems to trump sense and sensibility. Lies, damn lies and statistics.. or as Joseph Campbell said about Mythology, 'I don't think people are looking for "The Meaning of Life", I think they are looking for the Experience of Being Alive.' Which, if I understood him properly, meant that the stories from our 'Myths' are broad blueprints that explain the truths of living our lives. Heroes are simply reflections of ourselves, doing what needed to be done to get through it all, and truly be a part of life.. (The Power of Myth series)
There's a joke that's like the revisionist/postmodern Noah story.
A pastor hears that the town will be flooding in the coming storms, and his parishioners ask him where he will evacuate to. "Nonsense!" He declares. "I have faith, and a promise that the Lord will provide for me and for our fine chapel." They try to insist, but he will have none of it. As the storm commences, and the water begins to rise toward the Church, a Trooper in a Dinghy hollers out to the Reverend to get aboard, but the Holyman waves him off with a grin, "I have an agreement with the Almighty, thanks! I'll be fine!" .. Sometime later, Clinging Fairly precariously, albeit faithfully to the 3/4 mark on the Steeple, a Helicopter swings in, braving the terrible winds to come for him, but the strident servant of the Lord tosses the expertly deposited lifebelt away into the water, with a shiny grin, and a deft, one-handed benediction for the Pilot and Rescue Personnel, who swoop away with the next gust, empty-handed.. In the howling winds, they hear him singing "Don't worry, the Lord and I have an understanding.. he won't let me down!!" Finally, at the gates of Saint Peter, a soggy, puzzled and cranky minister demands to go right up to the big Guy, and is politely escorted in, and given a dry towel. "My Lord, I have to say I'm actually Angry with you, sir! I thought we had an agreement, an understanding! Why did you just let me die?!!" and the Lord puts his hands up in helplessness.. "Yeah, sorry about the Church, but what more could I do, Fred? I sent you a Boat and a Helicopter!?"
Reminds me of the Monty Pythonesque movie, "Eric The Viking."
The vikings come on an island paradise, and because they wield a sword the spell is broken and the island sinks into the waves.
The vikings can't get the inhabitants to save themselves and climb onto their boat, because these people sit at the feet of the leader, who tells them "this is not happening; ignore it" as the water rises and their heads disappear.
Tainter should have watched this movie:-)
Even if you could convince the public oil production has peaked all you would get is a bunch of blank stares. The public doesn't understand it. Less oil? So what?
I have said before the illusion created by a hundred years of rising energy production is very powerful. The vast majority have no ability to grasp how different the world will be on the downside. They will continue to project their experience into the future until they really get their butt kicked.
I'm not a doomer because there are no theoretical possibilities. I'm a doomer because I am surrounded by energy wasting monster trucks every day. I don't see any positive actions by the vast majority. Even if Dick the war criminal understands peak oil the Bush administration has done everything completely wrong on energy.
Until we hand over control of the world to the Dilberts I will remain a doomer.
One world, under Dilbert, indivisible, ...
LOL
BTW...the esteemed SuperG has fixed the HTML open tag problem. Open tags will now automatically be closed. So feel free to experiment with HTML again.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4454445.html
It wasn't Belarus that cut the oil....
It was a little known empire by the name of Transneft.
Force Majeure.
MOL says Hungarian oil supply could stop by Monday night
So much for "don't worry, we have strategic reserves."
This subject has been discussed before but it does bolster
WT's Export Land model argument.
Iran actually is short of oil
WT might be an optimist IMHO
A posted above these exporters might not need "paper money" after they realize that what they have is "more valuable"...
The US is in deep kimchee...
That article "Scientific American and the Silent Lie" was excellent, but the best line may have been at the bottom rather than the top.
"[Scientific American knows] that population growth is the underlying source of the problems, but it is politically incorrect to state this obvious fact."
Indeed. Not only is it politically incorrect, raising the issue also raises the question of solutions. Proposing a solution would be even more politically incorrect. They're already in enough trouble for supporting lame theories like evolution ;-) Why go further out on a limb?
No, I'm not going to offer a solution to overpopulation either. I don't want my head bitten off tonight. Mother Nature has a solution (maybe even a whole menu of them); I'll defer to her.
No need to offer a solution. Your username says it all. ;-)
IIRC, SciAm published a paper about ten years ago, about the nitrogen cycle. It claimed that the carrying capicity of the world was 2 billion people (without artificial fertilizers).
The solution to the population problem is stunningly simple: Educate women! The more education women get, the fewer babies they have. I know of no exceptions to this generalization.
Indeed, high on my worry list is that very bright very well-educated women are having hardly any kids at all. Their less bright and less well-educated sisters have more kids. Their distant relations who drop out of high school and start making babies at age sixteen tend to have lots of kids.
Population growth has been "solved" by every single modern society that educates girls and women. But I do worry about the quality issue and have no useful suggestions as to how to get around it.
Show me a society with a high birth rate, and I'll show you a society that does little to educate its girls.
Don S,
Didn't Issac Asimov come to the same conclusion about population control? Did you get that idea from reading his work, or did you formulate your own opinion?
My ideas go back to a 1963 Population seminar I took from the late great demographer and sociologist, Kingsley Davis. He may have lifted the idea from his beautiful wife, Judith Blake Davis, also a demographer.
it was not nice of me to call u an old fart the other day but 1963 tells me i had a reason.
where are these countries with high birth rates and the dum broads?
the usa?
I agree that educating women is helpful. Educating men wouldn't hurt either.
In places where women have no rights, education, reproductive rights and all that other nice stuff will remain pipe dreams.
Educating men is a good idea, but in terms of birth rates it does not make much difference.
One thing I really like about the Quakers (Society of Friends) is that they say that if in a family there is not enough money to educated both sons and daughters, the money should go to the education of daughters--because they have so much impact on the future through their interaction with young children. To the best of my knowledge, the Society of Friends is unique in this point of view.
Don't judge a book by its cover. This is the Internet, after all.
When I was younger, I enjoyed some of Harry Harrison's SF novels, and "Make Room, Make Room" was probably my favorite. The film wasn't bad either. But none of that means I believe the scenario will work out that way.
As one of today's other threads shows, there are many scenarios; Soylent Green is just one of them. I'm neither a doomer nor a cornucopian.
Ahhh, don't be coy!
It's the other, other white meat!
Ah want teh eat yeh! Get in mah belly!
Goldmember
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/1413248
Just a couple of observations on the latest EIA figures.
Mexican production appears to be drifting downwards with Oct production a new recent low (3,173mbd). The 10 month moving average is down about 1% from 2005 (3,293 vs 3,334).
Mention has been made of the fact that production from Cantarell is in pronounced decline - it seems that until recently Cantarell's decline had been masked by production increases elsewhere. A pattern now seems to be emerging whereby overall Mexican production is drifting down. Will this accelerate?
Comment has also been made that Burgan in Kuwait is in decline. If so Kuwaiti production appears to be holding up very well - 10mo moving average 2006 of 2,548 as against 2,529 in all of 2005.
Comment has also been made that Burgan in Kuwait is in decline. If so Kuwaiti production appears to be holding up very well - 10mo moving average 2006 of 2,548 as against 2,529 in all of 2005.
That's very interesting. One question westexas keeps asking is how we are not at peak, given the decline of 3 out of the 4 super-majors, one of which is Burgan. As I pointed out over the weekend, Richard Heinberg claimed a source told him last summer that Ghawar was already below 3 million bpd. Again, if so that means that Saudi production held up quite well through this 2 million bpd decline. At the time of that claim, the Saudis were still producing at near-record rates. Now you point this out about Burgan.
So, in response to Jeffrey's question, one might answer that the decline of a country's super-major oilfield doesn't necessarily mean that the entire country will go into decline right away.
As noted down the thread, that is true, but there doesn't tend to be much of a difference, for obvious reasons, between the peak of the super giant or (giants) and the overall peak of the region.
My observation is that, in the absence of political constraints on production, regions tend to peak at about 50% of Qt. The peaks before or after 50% tend to be associated with political restraints on production, e.g., the Iranian revolution, and the swing producer status of Texas and Saudi Arabia.
BTW, you might want to check out Khebab's HL plot for Saudi crude + condensate production over on the TOD Europe thread.
David Shields has written extensively on Mexico, and he is predicting a drop of 800,000 bpd in overall production, I assume from 12/06 to 12/07, rather than a 800,000 bpd decline in average production. The problem for Mexico is that they, just like Saudi Arabia, are highly dependent on one field.
Note that Mexico just crossed the 50% of Qt mark on Khebab's plot. A very rapid decline in production from Cantarell, combined with the fact that they just now crossed the 50% mark, suggests that production may rebound somewhat in the future, but almost certainly not back to its peak level.
In regard to Kuwait, they are not quite yet to the 50% of Qt mark:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/20/193723/259
But they are getting very close, and like Mexico and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is highly dependent on one field.
The Mexican series is interesting.
The averages for each recent year are:
02: 3,177
03: 3,371
04: 3,383
05: 3,334
- not much happening there then by the looks of it?
But if one then looks at recent production by quarter (better then monthly figures I reckon):
3rdQ 2005: 3,390
4thQ 2005: 3,306
1stQ 2006: 3,344
2ndQ 2006: 3,328
3rdQ 2006: 3,247
Oct 2006: 3,173
The last four months certainly indicate that they are having problems maintaining production at previous levels, a consequence of an inability to cover Cantarell's decline? If October's figure is a bellweather (or is it merely a bad month???)then 2007 production may be back down to where they were in 2002 (and an 800,000 total decline in a year looks optimistic). all eyes peeled for Nov and Dec figures.........
The math on Cantarell is relentless--as of early 2006, a remaining oil column of 800' thinning at about 300' per year.
David Shields said that the 800,000 bpd number might be optimistic But as I said above, I suspect that the Cantarell decline will hit them so hard that, mathematically, there probably has to be some kind of future rebound, but to a production level lower than their peak.
If Saudi Arabia is having severe water encroachment problems with Ghawar, they may be in a similar situation, facing a vicious short term decline followed by a rebound to a production level lower than the peak.
However, you can imagine the effect on net oil exports worldwide, if, as I suspect, these two fields are crashing.
I'm trying to think of some kind of model for a region that is dependent on one field (around 50% of production) and that has gone into decline. I suppose that the closest that one could come would be to look at overall Alaskan production.
In any case, we are facing the prospect of three exporting countries--Saudi Arabia; Mexico and Kuwait--that are, or were, dependent on one field for half or more of their production going into permanent and (perhaps very rapid short term) declines.
If you then plug in the ongoing rapid decline in the North Sea and the probability (IMO) of Russia starting a terminal decline this year, we could actually see a much sharper world decline--especially a much sharper decline in net exports--than I have been anticipating.
Alaska peaked in 1988 at 2,017,000 bpd. It had fallen by about 50%, to 970,000 bpd, by 2000. This is a decline rate of 6%. The decline rate from 1988 to 2005 is about 5%.
In contrast, Texas has shown a long term decline rate of about 4% since 1972 and the Lower 48 has shown a long term decline rate of about 2% since 1970.
The Alaska case history would seem to support the simple premise that regions highly dependent on one field tend to decline more sharply than regions not dependent on one field.
I expect the world to still show about a 2% long term decline rate in conventional production, but we may be seeing some very, very sharp declines in production from Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Kuwait (all highly dependent on one field) and from Russia and Norway (way, way past the 50% of Qt mark). This is a lot of export capacity going down the drain.
Again, we may, and probably should, see some rebounds down the road in Saudi Arabia and Mexico, if Ghawar and Cantarell are both crashing. But it could be very "interesting" in the short run.
With all due respect I do not like reading your posts. I think you make a little too much sense. That is the best backhanded compliment that I have tonight, my appologies.
I wish you the best and I want another drink.
Cheers buddy!
ELP...very good advice...I will follow....
D
The November figures are already out. They are 3,163 kb/d, 10,000 barrels per day below October. It is here under "total crude":
http://www.pemex.com/files/dcpe/eprohidro_ing.pdf
These figures come out somewhere around the middle of the month. So in about a week or a week and a half we should have the December figures.
Ron Patterson
The letter-to-the-editor I can't bring myself to send:
I've got a big mouth but small balls.
I absolutely loved it.
Rick
Well written, b3, really.
If mouth is what you've got, use your mouth, forget your balls (for the moment)..
I'm not always a big fan of the smack upside the head, but now is definitely the time to stop being 'pleasant'..
Talk Hard, Steal the Air!
HHH -- Hot Harry Hardon
Great letter! Pretty much says it all.
Go ahead and submit it. What's the worst that could happen to you: a two-year government paid vacation at Guantanamo or some other unspecified KBR-built government resort for people with 'attitude'?
Quite seriously, I would not be at all surprised if regional FBI offices have in their employ some college-student junior interns whose sole job it is to clip local newpaper letters to the editor with the purpose of producing files on people 'unfriendly' to the current regime.
If such a government 'enemies list' exists, then I am definitely on it, as I have had published quite a few letters to the editor that were highly critical of both our local and federal governments.
See you in the gulag.
Russia-Belarus oil row hits supplies to Germany, Poland
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070108/bs_afp/polandrussiabelarus
Now this is what I call pornucopian...
LIFEBOAT FOUNDATION SPECIAL REPORT ENERGY 2020: A VISION OF THE FUTURE
Their motto is "Safeguarding Humanity."
GO HUGO!!
Interesting. There's more:
U.S. puts squeeze on Iran's oil fields
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iranoil7jan07,0,4572...
powder river basin coalbed methane brought $ 1.48 per mmbtu (net after fuel and transportation) in october, 2006 ...........no damn wonder the canadians were shutting in wells.
"Instead, we will see a smaller and smaller demand in response to a smaller and smaller supply. The mitigating factor in this DYNAMIC system is price."
Excellent. I'm sure, in the case where food supply is a problem because it is too expensive, that people who cannot afford food will simply lay down and die because they realize that its acquisition is simply impossible for them.
There are limits to the demand destruction price causes, and those limits will be reached fairly quickly with an exponential decline. By quickly, I simply mean faster than your DYNAMIC system can adapt. Infinite, you are correct in that there is much energy wasted, but your fundamental ignorance of how an exponential function works is apparent in that energy savings cannot compete with an exponential decline.
We may however, be saved by the fact that, as so clearly stated by an earlier poster, equating humans to mere animals is ridiculous, and we should not be so crass as to think that humans would actually act irrationally when it comes to them being hungry or thirsty. We will, of course, not buy food or water, because it is too expensive for God's sake.
Depreciation rates
Apologies for any formatting mistake, ths is my first post in TOD.
I am trying to find out how and what sort of depreciation criteria are applied to Drillign Rigs.
Any info is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks and kind regards,
Croaker
Your post is buried under one of the longest threads I've seen here.
Consider reposting it early in a discussion where people are talking about rigs.. you'll prob get a knowledgable response fairly soon.
Bob
OK, thanks Bob.
Pheeew...
This whole DrumBeat is a pornucopian suckers fest!