Peak Oil - Believe it or Not?

Peak Oil is a large and scary concept to get one's mind around. If there are arguments around the water cooler about finite resources, large depletion rates, Peak everything, etc., there are probably cognitive biases underlying these polarized opinions. In the first two parts of this series, we looked at some of the factual reasons why people disagree on the timing and importance of Peak Oil: gross versus net oil production, better technology vs depletion, productive capacity vs flow rates, differing definitions of "Peak", etc. This post will address some social and psychological reasons why the urgency of our energy situation may not be being addressed on an individual level and only at a snails pace on the governmental level. Among the phenomena we will explore are a) why we have beliefs and how they are changed, b) our propensity to believe in authority figures, c) our penchant for optimism, d) cognitive load theory, e) relative fitness, f) the recency effect, and several others. The fact is, even if the world's energy data was transparent and freely available to everyone, it would be an open question whether people would agree on any near term action to mitigate future oil scarcity. This post is a first stab at examining our cognitive belief biases. It's long, but I believe it will be well worth your time to read. (Note - This is an updated version of a post that first ran in May.)


Have no fear Lovie - if we run low on oil someday we can just buy some more!!

Our societal infrastructure was built with and expected to continue on cheap liquid fuels. This fixed infrastructure coupled with a pretty much insatiable human demand drive for energy services may result in a once-in-a-species crisis if our planetary resource and ecosystems can no longer keep pace. But Peak Oil ultimately is not about geology or technology. At its core it is a human problem. Our collective cognitive belief systems and the resulting behaviours they engender will play pivotal roles in our failure or success in mitigating and adapting to the vast challenges of both Peak Oil and Climate Change.

This post will outline many of the behavioral tendencies we can expect to encounter as we attempt timely and logical solutions to declines in per capita energy availability. It will explore how we process new information and culminate in an examination of our belief systems themselves. As in my recent posts, I preface this one with a discussion I recently had with my Wall St. friend Thomas, (who fittingly has still 'not had time' to read the oildrum story on steep discount rates):

N: Thomas - I'm writing another story for theoildrum.com and would like your comments since you seem to represent the 'non-believer camp'.

T: It's not that I don't believe that oil will peak someday - it's just that the doom and gloom people are always wrong - somehow something will come along and in 5 years you'll say "well, how could I have known about 'XXX'? No one knows the future - including you Nate.

N: I've never said when Peak Oil would be, only that it would eventually mean the end of economic growth as we know it - and that technology and capital can't 'create' energy. The market will be too late to react to the signals once they come. The asset allocators on Wall St have used a formula for the 70 years of stock market history based on cheap oil and high energy gain. That era is over - new rules or maybe a new game.

T: No offense buddy - I know you're very intelligent. But there are thousands of smart people on Wall St and elsewhere analyzing data - don't you think it's a little odd that YOUR opinion is the right one over all those people whose full time jobs it is to pore over oil demand and supply figures?

N: Well, when put like that it always shakes my confidence, but I do believe the street is missing the main tenets of Peak oil - that environmental limits and declining net energy will overtake conventional market and technology solutions. And by the way - there ARE a lot of analysts talking about Peak and its implications - the new GAO report on Peak Oil came out last week and pointed out how unprepared we are..

T: Now you trust what the Government is saying? You used to say the government energy forecasts were terrible and we shouldn't believe in them -now they write something that fits your position and you use it for support?

N: Were you always this argumentative? Wait -don't answer that -I've known you since grad school. Can you honestly say that you've read things on theoildrum and other sources for objective information on this topic?

T: I have 3 kids and work 60 hour weeks so I choose how to spend my reading time. Can you say YOU'VE read all the research saying we have plenty of oil until at least 2040 after which there will be plenty of substitutes? You should talk to some of my biofuel entrepreneur friends - they are telling my 10:1 energy return on cellulosic within 3 years.

N: I've started from scratch 3 or 4 times on the core Peak Oil tenets, thinking I might have something very wrong, but I've been over it enough to unfortunately feel pretty confident I'm right, though less certain on the timing of rationing, etc.

T: Nate, I shouldn't tell you this but our asset management arm is in the top 10 in the world in terms of assets and do you know what our number one position is?

N: Starbucks?

T: No. We're short oil futures. We think its going back to $40 well before it goes to $100. (ED NOTE: This piece originally ran in May 2007, when oil was $65. It subsequently went to $145.)

N: Thomas this is all besides the point. I'm not predicting what will happen in the next 3 months or next 3 years - what I'm saying is that very soon, in our lifetimes, energy is going to be scarce and cause ripple effects we cant even imagine. The bullish supply forecasts either siphon that 'energy gain' from other economic sectors via inflation or by robbing it from the environment via water and ecosystem depletion and increased GHGs.

T: Whatever. And even if you're right. We're here to live life. I'm not going to sit around waiting for 'the next big change' when I can enjoy life with my kids and live large. I work hard you know.

N: Actually you're a grifter. But you're still my friend, even though you're closed minded at times. Later.

The above discussion is in many respects a synopsis of this post - that despite facts, we exhibit certain cognitive biases that prevent us from acting on complex or frightening subjects outside of our day to day realities. What follows below is a brief overview of 10 cognitive phenomenon that may inhibit wider understanding and action on oil depletion. (Caveat - Neuroscience is a complex and growing field that has many valuable contributions to offer. In discussing human tendencies for various behaviours, I am of course generalizing, as are most of the scientific studies - when I say 'people value the present more than the future', I make that claim in the same vein that 'men are taller than women (on average)' )

DENIAL/COGNITIVE DISSONANCE



Denial is a defense mechanism where a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. A related psychological concept is that of cognitive dissonance, originally coined by social psychologist Leon Festinger. Cognitive dissonance describes the negative tension that results from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.

From Wikipedia,

"The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict."

Jared Diamond, in "Collapse" quotes the behaviour of people living below a dam that may break:

"“Consider a narrow river valley below a high dam, such that if the dam burst, the resulting flood of water would drown people for a considerable distance downstream. When attitude pollsters ask people downstream of the dam how concerned they are about the dam’s bursting, it’s not surprising that fear of a dam burst is lowest far downstream, and increases among residents increasingly close to the dam. Surprisingly, though, after you get to just a few miles below the dam, where fear of the dam’s breaking is found to be the highest, the concern then falls off to zero as you approach closer to the dam! That is, the people living immediately under the dam, the ones most certain to be drowned in a dam burst, profess unconcern. That’s because of psychological denial: the only way of preserving one’s sanity while looking up every day at the dam is to deny the possibility that it could burst. If something that you perceive arouses in you a painful emotion, you may subconsciously suppress or deny your perception in order to avoid the unbearable pain, even though the practical results of ignoring your perception may prove ultimately disastrous. The emotions most often responsible are terror, anxiety, and grief.”

Peak Oil is potentially a world-sized dam break. It's no wonder initial reactions to hearing how the world we know might change are met with skepticism. (Note: interestingly, and something I intend to explore on a subsequent post, is the concept of denial is related to the study of addiction.)

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY

"Chocolate Cake?" "or Fruit Salad?"


Cognitive load theory suggests humans have a maximum capacity of working memory. At around 7 'chunks' of information, our working memory maxes out and we can't accept anything else without losing some of the previous 'chunks'. Try remembering the following numbers 1-9-1-4-7-6-7-5-9-5-9. Its quite hard to do. But if they are rearranged in chunks 1-914-767-5959, it becomes much more manageable. Numerous studies have measured this phenomenon - a notable study by Shiv and Fedhorkhin(1) asked a group of people to memorize a two digit number, walk down a corridor and at the end choose a dessert - either chocolate cake or fruit salad. A different sample of people were then asked to memorize a 7 digit number and walk down the corridor (while internally reciting this 7 digit number) and also choose a dessert. When required to memorize the 7 digit number, almost twice as many people chose the chocolate cake as in the sample only memorizing the 2 digit number - the implication being - 'my short term memory is full - I cant access my rational, long term decision-making hardware - just give me the damn cake'.

Of course, in a society with cell phones, taxi-cabs, internet, coffee, soccer practice, Grays Anatomy, corporate ladders and a plethora of other chocolate cake-like stimuli, meaningful contemplation and education about oil depletion and the environment usually represents the fruit salad. Many people are just too cognitively taxed to take on much more.

RECENCY EFFECT

Cognitive psychologists have recognized that people tend to overweight the most recent data and stimuli they receive in their decision-making processes. A possible reason for the recency effect is that these items still linger in working memory when recall is solicited. This recency effect has two important relationships to the peak oil and global warming issues. First, we collectively assume that today will be much like yesterday and tomorrow will be like today - grocery stores chock full of oil-subsidized tasty treats, gas stations with cheap and easy fill-ups, and a plethora of novel entertainment and diversion options preclude our mind from thinking tomorrow will be any different. Second, in the various campaigns to educate and inform the public and policymakers on the dangers of oil depletion, any 'recent' optimistic piece in the mainstream media that dismisses Peak Oil has a tendency to mentally 'overwrite' some of the prior Peak Oil education one might have achieved.

Part of the reason I looked into research on the recency effect is that I noticed myself yo-yo-ing on peak oil and climate change depending on who I talked to or what I'd seen. I started to notice a pattern that my 'belief' was highly correlated to whatever I'd read or whoever I'd spoken to most recently. Since there are so many unknowns on both topics, to hear demonstrative language from confident sources does a lot to sway one's opinion, until and if one has time to methodically explore the arguments during subsequent individual research.

I am not a climate expert but do know enough to believe global warming is being anthropogenically influenced and is of at least moderate concern. As a graduate student under Robert Costanza, a scientist very concerned about climate change, I felt almost embarrassed after viewing The Great Global Warming Swindle. Even though I recognized a few factual mistakes, the rhetoric and confident tone in the movie pulled me in - the general tenor made me feel that climate change is relatively benign and concerns about it are overblown. That is, until the next morning when I got a series of emails from my professors about its content after which my opinion completely flip-flopped again. I expect this is a common experience. The central issues of climate change and oil decline are so broad and complex that both science and advocacy fall victim to the recency effect. Advertisers however, must be aware that the recency effect is both valid and powerful, otherwise we would have long ago decided on which product is superior between Miller and Budweiser on the facts alone.

STEEP DISCOUNT RATES






"The rational vs emotional discount rate"

As discussed in a recent oildrum post, we have evolved neural mechanisms to steeply favor the present over the future (measured by what economists call ‘discount rates’), and modern OECD culture exacerbates this trait. The higher the rate, the more one is 'addicted' to the present moment. Lower discount rates suggest more control of the neocortex in subverting mammalian impulses of 'living for the moment'. Different products are discounted at differing rates. Different subsets of people (drug addicts, young people, gamblers, men, risk-takers, low math scorers, alcohol drinkers, etc) have steeper discount rates - are less able to act for the future and are easier pulled in by short term desires.(2) Steep discount rates work backwards as well - the oil crises and gas lines in the 1970s are like stories in the history books - nothing that carries too much emotional weight in the present - its almost as if our action and motivation triggers are like one of those maps that show the areas of daylight, only caring about the areas that are lit up - the dark areas are too far beyond our ken.

We have evolved to have instant access to our emotional minds in times of stress or danger - a million years ago too much rational thought would have essentially been suicidal. Oil depletion, climate change and loss of planetary ecosystems are long lead time problems. As such, information leading us to believe a peak in global oil production is either a) no big deal or b) beyond 2030 is essentially not 'received' by our emotional minds. The average person and politician will process such information as a free pass to continue the business as usual path. This is especially true if the assessment comes from a confident, respected, mainstream source (such as CERA), because it trickles down through corporate hierarchical society. Collectively it will be difficult to act until these issues become 'in the moment' too.

BELIEF IN AUTHORITY FIGURES






"I have it from high authority that there is plenty of Oil Resource"



theoildrum.com contributor says "Net energy to fall - society needs to change 'metrics of success' quickly"

Think about your initial reaction to the above two assertions. Depending on your walk of life, your gut reaction and thought process might differ. However, science (and history) has shown that humans have a propensity to be externally validated - we believe in and follow instructions from confident authority figures. Though theoildrum.com contributor is clearly confident, he certainly is not an authority figure, at least outside pike fishing circles. The Pope however, influences billions. With few exceptions, most voices advocating immediate steps for mitigating peak oil are not what society would perceive as 'authority figures'.

But what if the tables were reversed?

NEWS FLASH ---“EXXON-MOBIL SAYS THE WORLD HAS PASSED PEAK OIL – THEOILDRUM.COM SAYS NOT TIL 2030”

Imagine if that headline ran through the media around the country. Corporate leaders would hold emergency meetings on how to lock in prices or even supplies. (Some might liquidate their 401ks and not even show up)…. Politicians would be on television urging people to wear sweaters or even winter coats…. A gasoline tax would be quickly implemented…. Purchases of wind turbines and solar panels would soar… Tuna and chocolate hoarding...Cats living with dogs – real Old Testament stuff.

However, the situation is precisely opposite that. Astute, reasoned analysis by concerned individuals gets easily drowned out by rhetorical op-ed pieces in respected newspapers. Portrayal of concern for peak oil as a 'chicken little', 'Cassandra' and 'boy who cried wolf' phenomenon by a credible news source effectively erases what nagging concern or belief about oil depletion someone had started to foment.

Sociology recognizes that we have a propensity to believe in authority figures. Though the why of this is yet to be sussed out, Richard Dawkins believes it is an adaptive byproduct of children who unquestioningly followed adult instructions during the thousands of generations of our ancestral environment.(3) Presumably, the penchant for adults to easily believe things that are confidently told to them is a carryover from the children who did NOT eat the berries, touch the snake, or swim over a waterfall – these children survived to have children of their own. Social psychologist Robert Cialdini has written a book related to this phenomenon, on how certain people can have outsized influence on others using certain authoritative tactics. (I wonder aloud if Messrs. Jackson and Yergin own copies)

Irrespective of its origins and as uncomfortable as it sounds, we DO inherently believe in authority figures, as the famous and controversial Milgram experiments evidenced. 65% of volunteers delivered what they thought were fatal doses of 450 volt electric shocks to human subjects while being calmly assured to continue by the experiment 'administrators' (doctors in lab coats). The other 35% of participants still delivered high voltage shocks to the point of unconsciousness but refused to administer the 'highest level' shocks. Interestingly, none of these 35% insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check that the victim was O.K. without first asking for permission. So much for independent thinking. In interviews prior to the experiment respondents predicted that only the most 'sadistic' 1.2% of participants would be willing to hurt another participant with electric shocks, yet 100% of the participants DID administer the shocks. The power of authority figures is indeed strong.

To be honest, when preparing this post, I read and reread CERAs analyses and interviews – the recency effect combined with the utter confident tone they were written in made me (again) question that maybe I have this all wrong – that we have smooth sailing until 2030. But, after some malted milk balls and a quick review of my colleagues work, which at a minimum shows CERA does not incorporate net energy, understand Hubbert Linearization or include environmental externalities, Peak Oil again had me very worried.

RISK AVERSION

Risk aversion is a financial and psychological concept that posits consumers (people) prefer a certain but possibly lower payoff than an uncertain but possibly higher payoff. With respect to Peak Oil, there is such a societal Sunk Cost that even if the average person or politician is on board with the understanding of fossil fuel depletion, the risk of stepping outside the warm cocoon of modern grid-connected energy intensive society can be emotionally daunting. Too, there aren't too many blazed paths as of yet illustrating exactly what one person or family can and should do to adapt. Our society is SO dependent on oil that most alternatives are too risky for the average family to pursue. Or at least that may be the perception.

RELATIVE FITNESS

My Dad is stronger than your Dad. And Peak Oil is not a 'theory' buddy

As evidenced by the size difference between males and females (sexual dimorphism), our species is midway between a tournament species and a pair bond species. This is suggestive that in our evolutionary past, selection pressures for male/male competition at least partially contributed to higher mating success (though not as much as in sea lions). The advent of language in tribal living expanded the scope of reputation and its influence on mating competition. An individuals comments, actions and opinions thus contributed to increasing or decreasing his status within the tribe. One could argue that a good part of human communication is concerned with getting other people to think, behave and believe as we do. At the same time, those others are trying to get us to behave and believe like they do – it’s the culmination of our biological and political (social) heritage.

This concept has many demand side implications for Peak Oil not the least of which will be some variant of resource grab when per capita liquid fuel availability declines. But it also plays a large role in peoples differing and sometime entrenched viewpoints on the topic of Peak Oil, irrespective of their future actions. My friend Thomas has a career in finance - his income is dependent on his clients buying stocks, which are in turn dependent on the economy growing. He has 3 children and a huge house full of gadgets and requires alot of fuel to continue his planned trajectory (though he admits he could be happier on much less). A Peak Oil world as I've painted it could be perceived as a threat to him, his family and his lifestyle. For him to accept my worldview is in some ways admitting that his own life is built around the wrong premises. Similarly, if our current Disneyland culture continues to extract resources and environmental costs and the day of reckoning comes well beyond my lifetime, perhaps I have wasted some of my time on this planet unnecessarily calling attention to what I view as urgent risks associated with net energy decline and human social traps.

Oh, How sweet it is to hear ones own convictions from another's lips. - Goethe (1749-1832)

Some who are very vocal about the urgency of Peak Oil will take a 'perceived fitness hit' if information comes to light that delays or moderates the impact of a peak and decline in world oil supply. Similarly, those who think we have plenty of oil production and flow capacity for the next 20-30 years will look foolish (e.g damage their reputation leading to a 'perceived' drop in fitness status), if it turns out we never see 90 million bpd and have 5% annual depletion rates beginning in a few years. In truth, for many the facts are mostly irrelevant - their belief systems are relatively immutable and new facts coming to light that support their convictions are viewed as 'victories' even if they add pain to the world as a whole. Similarly, new facts contrary to their beliefs are perceived as 'failures' and are responded to defensively. Curiously, it puts certain people, myself included, in a position of cognitive dissonance - I sincerely hope society manages to amass an armory of silver BBs and reduces consumption enough so that Peak Oil is a seamless transition to a sustainable future, but if that happens, most everything Ive written about in the past few years will have been incorrect. (But maybe I impacted the experiment...;)

Those oildrum.com readers who've participated in these forums for some time now are especially aware that certain people seem to be 'rooting' for peak oil and an end to the current capitalist consumptive system. I believe at least part of this is even though post peak oil they will have less 'absolute fitness', their 'relative fitness', compared to Joe-Mortgage-Trader-Millionaire-Next-Door, will increase. In the end, we are wired to respond to relative fitness.

BELIEF IN OPTIMISM

People vocal about the risks of Peak Oil are often viewed as pessimists, though I suppose they prefer the word 'realists'. We are taught from an early age to 'look at the bright side' and 'every cloud has a silver lining'. Humans do in fact have a penchant for optimism, and this sets up for an immediate bout of cognitive dissonance when discussions of peak oil nasties are undertaken.

Individuals have a tendency to be overly optimistic, and therefore naturally discount 'pessimistic' viewpoints and worldviews. Adults are particularly vulnerable to self-deception when comparing their own intelligence and attractiveness to others.(5) Research has shown that we systematically exaggerate our chances of success, believing that we are more competent and more in control than we really are. 88% of people think they are better drivers than average. 94% of professors believe they are better at their jobs than the average professor, etc. (By definition, almost half of those surveyed are 'overly optimistic'.)

There are good neural explanations for being optimistic. Even if the pessimistic view may be the more accurate, the stress of incorporating the particular negativity into ones worldview releases a cascade of stress-activated hormones that can seriously compromise a persons health.(6) In addition, pessimism can lead to depression, which suppresses the normal functioning of important neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which in turn can lead to reduced physical activity, mood swings, and a number of other physical symptoms and diseases. Optimistic attitudes also reduce secretion of cortisol, a stress hormone that inhibits the immune system, as well as produce more helper T-cells (4). The placebo effect is a well known but little understood medical phenomenon that improves patients physical response with no actual medication. In depression patients, placebos increase wellbeing by an average of 30-50%. Apparently, when we 'think' positively that something is helping us medically - even if its a sugar pill, it 'works'. We are now seeing that the brain is helping this healing to occur through a different neurotransmitter mix.






"Peak Oil - Glass Half Full or Half-Empty?"

An optimistic outlook actually is neurochemically self-fulfilling. Optimism leads to increased frontal cortical activity which itself is a strong predictor of idea generation, positive emotion and overall liveliness of thought. Similarly, sadness is marked by decreased activity in the frontal cortex, which has the negative side affect of reducing the number of overall thoughts and ideas produced. Cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio points out that our brain exaggerates reality - when the glass is half full - the brain adds a little more for zest - when the glass is half empty, the brain subtracts some and things seem worse than they really are.

Being introduced to peak oil can be quite a shock. Its tough to be cheerful about the facts and implications about oil depletion, though ultimately we definitely could (and should) be happier with less energy. But initiation to the concept of upcoming shrinkage of the lifeblood of society can easily cause internal conflict in a species obviously wired to gravitate towards optimism.

GROUP THINK / HERD MENTALITY

We originated in tribal settings where consensus was important. Consensus building and group projects are taught and experienced in our culture from an early age - though in an era facing true scientific problems, the warm fuzzy group decisions can backfire. One famous example of 'Groupthink' was the Bay of Pigs invasion, where President Kennedys key advisors had serious misgivings about the strategy, but in group strategy sessions refused to speak up for fear of disrupting the seemingly overwhelming consensus. The invasion went so badly that the President specifically ordered his staff to speak up and offer dissenting opinions in future discussions, an order that may have averted a war during the Cuban missile crisis. As most media is quick to dismiss Peak Oil, our nation could use another such warning against 'groupthink'.






"Monkey-see-activate mirror neuron Monkey-do"

There is comfort in the herd. The recent discovery of mirror neurons helps explain why our brains are prone to absorb the beliefs and behaviours of others. Neurobiologically, when we see someone performing an action, whether it is a yawn, a smile or eating an ice cream cone, unique parts of our brains respond in the same way as if we were performing the action ourselves.(4)

Homo Sapiens See - Homo Sapiens Do.

Interestingly, USC neuroscientists (Arbib and Rizzolatti) are suggesting that the origin of language began as facial expressions and hand gestures - these communication tools, along with actual speech, are regulated by Brocas area, a small knob found in the left hemisphere of the cortex. As we will see below this has important implications.

BELIEF IN MAGIC, MYSTICISM, CORRELATION, ETC. (AS OPPOSED TO SCIENTIFIC METHOD)


Knowledge is a disposition to behave that is constantly subject to corrective modification and updating by experience, while belief is a disposition to behave that is resistant to correction by experience. Eichenbaum, Howard – Boston University (5)

The previous nine points were tenderizer for the meat of the article to follow. If you've read this far you're either unemployed, retired, a psychologist, a blood relative, my girlfriend or someone on the edge of a paradigm shift. Thank you in any case.

The difficult transition to a lower energy gain society by definition has a 'best path'. Also by definition we won't ever know what that path is, or at least until well into the future. How we collectively assimilate beliefs, attitudes, science and policy will be the key determinant in how we sink or swim with the Peak Oil tide. Unfortunately, we have baggage.

So far we've looked at our propensity to believe in authority, optimism, recent events, group behaviour, etc. Taken together, these leanings might suggest that we have some sort of pre-packaged neural software for abstract systems of 'belief'. In truth, we actually have no choice BUT to believe. From the moment of birth we depend on others to instruct us about the world. While young, we are given a specific language, a specific religion, a smattering of science and history and all the while we implicitly assume we are learning facts about the world. But we are not. We are simply being told what to believe. Though this is of course practical, it has resulted in 6.5 billion different (but overlapping) belief systems, somewhat modifiable as we grow up but increasingly less malleable as we get older.

What is a belief?

As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘belief’ is:

1. A feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. A firmly held opinion
3. Trust or confidence in.
4. Religious faith.

The English word 'belief' originated in the twelfth century, as an adaptation of the German word gilouben, which means 'to love' or 'to hold dear'. It was first used in association with religious doctrines referring to one's trust and faith in God - faith rather than fact being the operative word, as this particular type of belief cannot be tested by the rigorous proofs developed by science.

What is the Scientific Method?

a. Observe some aspect of the universe.
b. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
c. Use the theory to make predictions.
d. Test (attempt to falsify) those predictions by experiments or further observations.
e. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
f. loop back to "c" above for another test. (8)

Famed scientist Richard Feynman offers an excellent description of 'good science' vs. 'cargo cult science' here.

At the cottage where I write this, there is the unmistakable sound of sandhill cranes calling for mates - when I first heard it I had no idea what it was. The fourth time I heard it I was with my father who identified it as a mating pair of sandhill cranes. The 10th time I heard it I witnessed the actual cranes by a pond. Mentally, my brain created a hypothesis and eventually ‘tested’ it to be 'true'. A certain sound represents sand hill cranes mating. Our ancestors discovered all they needed to know about the natural world in a process something like this one.

However, many stimuli in our society are much less clear cut. If I see a blue BMW sedan with an attractive blonde in the passenger side 2 or 3 times in a week, my mind will naturally extrapolate the 'ownership of a blue BMW' as a signal of successful male competition, when there could be myriad other explanations for the womans presence (the mans personality, his looks, his intelligence, his sister etc) The fact that he owned that particular car could have been completely random - yet my brain observed this pattern and extrapolated it forward.






"An early hominid couple, forming beliefs.."

During the 2 million+ years of hominid brain growth and development, the environment was roughly constant – in most cases for at least for thousands of years at a time. Here we developed ‘pattern-recognition’ systems of beliefs, the precursors of what economists today call ‘correlation’. The human brain was exquisitely designed to favor correlation over causation. We did not evolve mechanisms to follow regimens like the scientific method because our species would have been systematically snuffed out by predators on the african savannah and a different species might be facing oil depletion. Our neural architecture was being built to adhere to correlations we observed in everyday life, because in these stable environmental timeframes, most correlations DID lead to causations. The periods of largest brain size increase in hominids were probably when some tribal leaders got good at noticing patterns and successfully made tools, or repeated routines that added fitness - these genes and thought processes then multiplied.

"The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson

Our stimuli laden modern world presents us with millions of small sample size events that offer our built-in pattern recognition systems plenty of fodder for creating 'beliefs' in situations where the scientific method never comes into play. Our pattern recognition system is essentially misfiring in a world of too many patterns – “NFC wins Superbowl and stock market goes up" (I had clients investing on that one) – “I can’t date guys who are Virgos” – ‘Walk under a ladder with a black cat and get really bad luck’ –‘Your second Chakra looks a little weak today’ ‘The market will solve it’ etc. We unknowingly conflate correlation with causation, a danger that is learned to be avoided early on in the career of a scientist. And overriding it all is the theme of relative fitness where we attempt to justify, through social persuasion, that our 'patterns' are the correct ones. The upshot of this tendency is that charisma, rhetoric, advocacy, and politics can all too easily trump the scientific method, just when our species will need it most to tackle climate change and the attempted transition to renewables. (Note: Scientists are humans too, and are not immune to these neural processes – clearly when they write and publish they are accessing the rational neocortex gray matter and take their time to get facts and figures right – but in everyday communication – once emotion gets involved, the built-in genetic priorities fall back on belief systems.)

Our individual constructs of reality are based on beliefs - some beliefs are changed by new information, reflection, and analysis - others are virtually immutable. (Though my friend Thomas has a decent 'factual' understanding of Peak Oil - he may never incorporate it in the larger sense into his belief system.) From recent results of research into brain injury along with those from experiments on animals, we have begun to chart the neural processes active in distinguishing emotions, fantasies and facts. With fMRI and PET scans we can watch as a priest prays or a monk meditates or even when a person encounters new information that is discrepant with a prior held belief. On brain scans, meditative and transcendent states are in many ways similar to when a person experiences pleasures from sex, music or a good meal.(4) The very concept of the peaking and subsequent decline of oil - a vital resource to our lives that may become less and less available is a very difficult one to understand let alone accept. The 'knowledge' we obtain from scientific research on energy largely depends on how our brains interpret the evidence. These interpretations are subject to the same rules that govern our perceptions of reality - they are replete with generalizations, assumptions, misunderstandings and mistakes. By the time newly acquired knowledge reaches consciousness, each of us transforms it into something that fits with our own unique worldview. This process of reconstructing reality is the foundation from which we build all of our beliefs about our world.(4)

But sometimes, reality is not reality, even to ourselves.

Our time bomb is mysticism. It's delivery system is language. And it's hiding place? The unfathomable coils of our DNA. Reg Morrison The Spirit in the Gene(9)

And finally we come to what (for me) is the most fascinating piece of the human neural puzzle. In the discount rate post last month, I pointed out that we have developed a ‘triune brain’, with the 3 layers representing the 3 main periods of our organismal development (reptilian, mammalian, neocortex regions largely corresponding to primitive, emotional and rational thought). However, the neocortex itself is split into two hemispheres, the left and right, separated by a thin straplike connector called the corpus callosum. Neurobiologist Roger Sperry states that patients who have the corpus callosum removed (split-brain patients) behave as if they have ‘two separate minds, two separate spheres of consciousness…in regards to cognition, volition, learning and memory.’

Only our left brain hemisphere has a ‘voice’ for communicating with others – emanating from 'Brocas area’, the speech control center of our brains. Any findings and opinions analyzed by the perceptive and intuitive right hemisphere must first travel through the left hemisphere before leaving our mouths as communication. If you’ve been following along, you might see how this might relate to Peak oil or climate change.



There are fascinating experiments done on split brain patients - one of note was a brain experiment by Michael Gazzaniga at Dartmouth, a patient with his corpus callosum removed, was shown two large pictures – in front of the left eye – some snow – in front of the right eye, a picture of a bird’s foot. Beneath each image were a series of smaller images, only one of which was related to the image above. When asked to point to the picture below that was linked to the birds foot, the right hand (left brain) correctly pointed to an image of a chicken. Similarly, the left hand (right brain) correctly chose an image of a shovel to relate to the larger snow image. When asked to explain the decisions, the verbally controlling left hemisphere offered the obvious explanation linking its own choice of a chicken to a bird’s foot. HOWEVER, when asked why the left hand (right brain) had chosen the shovel (for the snow scene), the left brain replied that the shovel had been selected for cleaning out the chicken shed! Though our brains are not privy to their own internal workings, the left brain should have admitted it did not know why the right brain chose the shovel because it had never seen the snow scene –but instead it fabricated an answer to fit its own part of the story.(10)

Though most of us fortunately still have our corpus calllosums intact, new research is suggestive that the socially conforming and editing power of our left brains is powerful when dealing with pre-existing or strongly held beliefs, such as 'we have plenty of oil', or 'the market will find a solution'. Thus, in addition to being marketed during the waking hours by Madison Avenue, we are being marketed '24-7', by ourselves.

Reg Morrison succinctly concludes the following:

“It seems our loquacious left brain cannot abide a vacuum. As it ghostwrites our right-brain narrative, it obsessively fills in any gaps and injects snippets of its own propaganda wherever it can. Here then is the source of the so called ‘false-memory syndrome’, and no doubt the origin of most of our mystic visions and spiritual fantasies...By endowing the human brain with its language facility, evolution has ensured that human genes will continue to bypass the cerebral cortex at will, disguising fact with significance and imagination into perceived fact” Reg Morrison – The Spirit In The Gene(9)

CONCLUSIONS

As humans, we have tendencies towards certain behaviours that increasingly can be scientifically measured. While the neurosciences are still expanding and are now asking more questions than they have answered, it is clear that our minds are not entirely rational, or at least not rational all the time. Thus providing us with 'facts' does not automatically guarantee we will use them to solve problems. Competing voices, both from within and without, can easily morph those facts into something different than the pure scientific form they originated in.

Our modern education system, from which arises the standard for our culture and the education of our children, is anchored by an archaic and incorrect premise: that knowledge can come from the human mind based on assertions that require no proof or verification. The origins of this error go back to ancient philosophers who were quite likely geniuses but did not have access to the real scientific data and physical methodologies available to us today. Many modern philosophers and social scientists still adhere to the fallacy that knowledge comes from thought. New evidence from the cognitive neurosciences is demonstrating that pure thought cannot spontaneously come from a brain designed for correlation, emotion and relative fitness. Special steps need to be taken to teach, understand and adhere to the scientific method, which in turn builds knowledge.

In the calm before the storm, we need to take stock in what our assets and liabilities really are. We have energy assets and liabilities and we have mental ones as well. As energy events conspire, and the average person becomes more stressed, we may distance ourselves even further from the rational aspects of our collective behaviour. Plans should be made ahead of time to address local, regional and national energy (and environmental) problems with hope but careful skepticism, for its unlikely we will get too many second chances. Robert Rapier and I share some viewpoints and disagree on others, but one thing I have always respected about him is his immediate skepticism of high claims. Whether he is an expert on a topic or a novice, he approaches a problem from a scientific, provable, verifiable foundation. If more of our countries civic leaders followed the scientific principles of 1)observe something in nature 2) make a hypothesis 3) test the hypothesis using physical methods and 4)repeat until statistically satisfied, we would find ourselves better served and better prepared for an era of energy declines. We must marry facts about geology and the environment with facts about our neural tendencies.

THE BOTTOM LINE

1) Peak Oil is a geologic fact. Global warming is atmospheric climate science. But the words that define them both also represent belief systems. Certain people will 'believe' they are real and others will not, largely irrespective of what future facts come to light.

2) Facts are important and we need to continue to analyze and accumulate them about the natural world. But knowing how our brain will respond to these facts is equally important.

3) Homo Sapiens has been the most successful species on the planet. On a planet now full of humans, our neural tendencies to look for magic solutions will be a blindspot that needs to be acknowledged. Seeking causative forces through scientific methods as opposed to offering correlation as proof is one important step.

4) The stigma of determinism and fear of sociobiology needs to be discarded. The answers to the large scale human problems cannot be solved by facts and science of the outside world alone - we need to incorporate facts about who we are into the equation. The nature and nurture debate has raged for too long without meaningful synergy - there is no nurture without nature. But nurture is how we are going to get through this energy bottleneck.

5) The mere recognition of our tendencies to react positively to authority figures, optimism, recent information, etc, gives our brain a neutralizing agent against these real human phenomena.

6)The motion picture "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" could be nearing a climax. Lets collectively write a happy ending.

References and Further Reading

(1) Shiv and Fedorikhin, "Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Human Decision-making", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 26 1999

(2) "Intertemporal Choice" (pdf) Chablis et Al, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 2007 (to be published)

(3) Dawkins, R. The God Delusion 2006

(4) Newberg, Andrew, Why We Believe What We Believe Free Press, 2007

(5) Gilovich, T. How We Know What Isn't So - The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life 1991 Free Press

(6) Sapolsky, Robert Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers

(7) Eichenbaum, H. “Belief and Knowledge as Forms of Memory in Schacter and Scarry (eds) Memory, Brain and Belief Harvard University Press 2000

(8) Jay Hansons easy to understand laymans description of the scientific method.

(9) Morrison, Reg The Spirit in the Gene (Thanks to Jay Hanson who introduced me to this concept and to Reg)
(10) Gazzaniga, Michael The Minds Past

Further Reading:
Cosmides and Tooby, The Adapted Mind
Taleb, Nissem, Fooled By Randomness (Thanks to Kurt Cobb who gifted me this book)
Pinker, Steven, How the Mind Works
Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate
Konner, Melvin, The Tangled Wing
Boyer, Pascal, Religion Explained
Cialdini, Bob, Influence

4) The stigma of determinism and fear of sociobiology needs to be discarded. The answers to the large scale human problems cannot be solved by facts and science of the outside world alone - we need to incorporate facts about who we are into the equation. The nature and nurture debate has raged for too long without meaningful synergy - there is no nurture without nature. But nurture is how we are going to get through this energy bottleneck.

The problem is that we *don't* all agree that we have a science of sociobiology. It's status as a science in itself is highly in dispute, particularly its current incarnation, evolutionary psychology. Yes, you've mentioned some psychological experiments above, but even they crucially depend on the assumption that the environments in which they are tested aren't deeply biased. Could you repeat the Milgram experiment in every time and place? We don't know, because the times and places vary wildly.

There maybe no nurture without nature, but we don't even know yet which is which.

It's status as a science in itself is highly in dispute, particularly its current incarnation, evolutionary psychology.

Well, heck, I am an evolutionary psychologist, so I'll take exception with that.

There is a large, and rapidly growing, body of scientific literature related evolutionary psychology. It is butting up against the Standard Social Science Model worldview of cultural determinism that has been the main paradigm in the social sciences for about 80 years. We are in a time of academic and cultural transition from viewing humans as psychologically "natureless" (a blank slate) to viewing the brain as a set of evolved adaptations. Paradigm shifts are always full of controversy.

With respect to Peak Oil, the question posed by, I believe, Bob Shaw, "Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?" is yet to be answered. At least if we better understand our human nature, we may be able to see what we are up against, and, perhaps, how to deal with it. An incorrect view of human nature will go a long way to screwing things up further.

More info re the scientific foundations of evolutionary psychology (for those with an interested and an hour or so of free time), see:

hbes.com -- The Human Behavior and Evolution Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Evolutionary_Psychology

and a brief article I wrote for my students: Evolutionary Psychology and Peak Oil

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

Cheers, Mike

Wow! - that is quite the peak oil reference hub!

To me, these cognitive concepts are interesting and relevant on their own, but to have a unifying principle of why they exist is so much more holistic and informative. It takes a lot of reading and/or observing animals, etc. to get the 'aha' of evolutionary biology. But it's a very powerful (and correct) lens with which to view the world. In the end (and I don't mean that literally), we have to know where we came from to know where we are going..

Thank you.
And welcome to TOD....

Nate, beliefs also have to do with the dominant social relations of production and reproduction we are embedded within, have internalized and, though no longer in our best interests, attempt to - and through various means have been and are told and trained to - perpetuate.
Juan de la O

With respect to Peak Oil, the question posed by, I believe, Bob Shaw, "Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?" is yet to be answered. At least if we better understand our human nature, we may be able to see what we are up against, and, perhaps, how to deal with it. An incorrect view of human nature will go a long way to screwing things up further.

Welcome to the forum.

You can simplify your life a lot if you remember the bull and the barbed-wire fence. I saw a cow in heat back up to the barbed wire fence, and the bull mounted her regardless of the pain or future consequences of his action.

That is what we call "marketing". That is the basis of human behavior (lizard brains) when stimulated. Unrestricted competitive behavior and actions taken based upon Blind Faith in Gods, guns, or gurus, and actions taken without thought (the yeast) are the True Evils in the world. Good luck with using knowledge to overcome marketing. Until being smart is better rewarded than being competitive, the rewards will always go to those who can gather the most resources and use them up the fastest. Gathering the most people to waste the most resources (Globalisation and Economic Growth) has been the goal of thousands of years of 'civilization'.

This human train is on a single, straight track to Hell, and it has spent most of the resources accelerating, with none left to build enough track or brakes to stop it.....
We might be able to derail it, but most of the passengers will die and the ones that are left will be without transportation.

Mike,

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

Great summary. Similar to my presentation in my classes. Do you mind if I link my students to it?
Ric

Please do.... anything to get the word out.

With respect to peak oil, college students seem to be sleep walking. Instead they should be holding "peak oil consciousness-raising sit-ins," staging demonstrations, and getting very pissed at us baby-boomers for guzzling the oil as if the barrel had no bottom. We can respond with "sorry, we didn't know," but we are the generation in power now.

I will vote for virtually any politician who has the guts to utter the phrase "peak oil."

Hi again Mike,

With respect to peak oil, college students seem to be sleep walking.

Why do you think your students are passive about this?

Without answering for Mike, I think its cognitive dissonance. Intuitively they are hearing you tell them about a world that a social science college degree isn't going to be what they thought it was - kind of a hard pill to swallow with a smile.

Education/college, health care, transportation, etc. -there are alot of heavyweight issues that peak oil will change conventional thought on.

Thank you Nate and Perpetual Energy for responding. I'm sure you are both correct. In fact there are probably many reasons depending on the individual.

Here's my limited observation.

I have noticed a certain lack of any radicalism among today's youth in North America and I find that somewhat disturbing. When I talk to young people I find them very charming and polite, after class they will often clap and praise the teacher (I work at a college so I know this is the case ... perhaps it is anomalous to my specific school). I find them, also, to be very respectful of their parents and vice versa.

In fact all the generational tensions that I experienced when I was growing up seem not to be found now. This is class and culturally specific of course and it is from my limited observations.

On the surface this appears to be a good thing, peace and harmony. Yet the cultural implications are profound. I think one manifestation is a lack of collective social outrage.

Perpetual Energy, is the media so powerful? Perhaps it is. Many people where I work think Apple is a cool company ... it's all good at Apple. Yet no one I speak to can adequately converse on the social harm that Apple potentially does.

Nate, is the cognitive dissonance so deep that it gives one unconscious option paralysis? Perhaps so. For example, very few people dig deep enough to resolve the dichotomy created by living in an advanced capitalist state AND being an environmentalist. The debate will often take on very canned "good" capitalism (Apple) vs. bad capitalism (Chevron) polarities or cornucopian market fixing notions (the invisible hand is in harmony with Mother Earth).

Perhaps also the nature of our educational system does not create and foster adequate critical frameworks. Maybe, the so called "self esteem" movement is problematic.

Another possibility is that great wealth creates social stasis. Harold Innis argued that much change comes from the margins (ref below). Although discussing new forms of media communication that are adopted by marginalized groups to effectively challenge the centre, one could extend that argument to say that all social change comes from the margins.

Today, because of our great wealth, marginalized actors of change are pushed far outside our cultural boundaries. Very far in fact.

If this is the case, then I am afraid the doomers are correct. Social change will not occur unless the margins come closer to the centre and this, in turn, will create instability and social breakdown. TODers point out that we need stability to mitigate peak oil.

I find this topic absolutely fascinating and extremely important for the challenges facing us.

Again Nate, thank you for writing this article.

Innis Reference:

http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/innis.htm

When I talk to young people I find them very charming and polite, after class they will often clap and praise the teacher (I work at a college so I know ...). I find them, also, to be very respectful of their parents ... On the surface this appears to be a good thing, peace and harmony.

Dear Professor Piggly-Wiggly,
The stundent-zombies at your college must be truly gifted in hiding their true nature if you find them "charming", polite and respectful.

Here's what happens at night, when their true nature emerges:

1. They embalm their innards with massive amounts of ethanol -binge drinking, blacking out and sometimes even dying from excessive alcoholism (1,700 college students die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries).

Perhaps you even noticed the recent event in South Carolina where 7 students (a.k.a. fraternity members -ding ding ding: does a bell not go off in your head?) "tragically" died in a beach house fire.

2. They immerse themselves in video games that involve maiming, killing and otherwise doing harm to fellow humans while crashing, burning and otherwise destroying the planet.

3. They dream about becoming "famous" MTV hip hop stars.

4. They claw at each other in order to get ahead and succeed in the mad capped Flattening World of Thomas Friedman -where competition for survival is not just among your campus mates, but rather with the teeming masses from India, China, Mexico, etc. who also want to live the "American Dream".

Perhaps it is due to your position as a grade-giving teacher (read that as power over life and death) that they dare not let you see the truth?

Step Back,

You forgot a few more..

They put metal into their bodies. In their tongues,on gentital portions,in their noses..and place needles full of dye into their skin....YET if a parent even slightly 'slapped' then gently they would call law enforcement upon their parents!!!

They listen to music that is NOT music..

They wear ugly clothes that can almost not be worn comfortably.

They put large speakers in the vehicles and drive to where others are and create havoc with the booming sonics.

There are more but well...they need to protest themselves for inane stupidly of the worse sort. Yet they champion it and think its cute...its not...it is degenerate.

Respectable to their parents? Hog wash!

airdale-with children like this we essentially have no future...I put it down to SoccerMomism and CouchPotatoDadism

Or a summary:

I'm old - you damn kids get offa my lawn!

(VS the respectful way one refers to local American Indians eh Airdale?)

airdale, dude, *chill*... people have been getting piercings and tattoos for millenia - check out the Celts and Gauls sometime, same thing for the Scythians and Huns. Just because you prefer neo-Roman culture doesn't mean it's superior.

Their parents have no more right to slap them than they have a right to slap their parents. It's disrespectful and the mark of a person unable to articulate their thoughts, a bit of a throwback, in other words.

Their music is music. It's punk rock, it's metal, it's hip hop, it's electronica. I think most rap really sucks, same for most electronic music. I like grindcore and metal. Sue me. I also listen to classical music and jazz.

Sagging clothes do look funny. But it's part of a culture which you can take or leave.

and so on.

Degenerate? Hitler thought the same thing about the French Impressionists and Picasso and so on. (Invocation of Godwin's Law here...)

None of this has anything to do with Peak Oil awareness amongst the myspace crew: check out this Myspace group:
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&group...

and profile:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendI...

Airdale and Step Back,

You're being selective in picking examples of current youth. Those kids and their seemingly extreme behavior are what jump out at you, but they do not represent the norm, the median or the typical youth. I bet these are the ones that get burned into your retinas when you see them and they shock you, and their behavior and dress is meant to do that.

Unless you work with these kids a lot (teens through twenties) you can't really appreciate how many strengths they have. Even the high number of kids with autism and other disabilities might have the new ideas and insights we will need to get through the ungodly mess OUR generation has made by recklessly burning through the world's oil inheritance so fast.

We have no room to point our fingers at the weird behaviors of youth. There are tons of great kids with manners, self control and inner drive that will stand up when the depth of our need really sinks in (TSHTF).

Anyway, that's my 2c. There's hope out there, but you need to look with some hopeful eyes.

P.S. I'm a PO doomer too...

Step Back,

I really don't know how to respond! You seem to miss the entirety of the argument here. Why don't you respond to the meat of my argument: young people are passive, change will occur only through radical social upheaval, and that change will problematically affect the mitigation of an oil peak.

Why don't you respond to the meat of my argument: young people are passive

PW,

I didn't mean to be impolite. Sorry.
My point is that they are not "passive". They are actively self-destructive.

What would you have them do? Society is not set up so as to empower these young people to do anything.

This is not the 1960's anymore.
"We" should have seen the PO thing coming in the 60's. After all, Hubbert warned "us" in 1956. But no, we (I assume you are about same age as me) were too busy streaking on college campus, puffing on -but not inhaling- weed, and occasionally marching in an anti-war parade. We were "special". We were the greatest generation. "They" are not living up to our tall shadow. They are too passive. [/sarcasm]

Peace. :-)

No problem Step Back and no need to apologize. You're right it's not the 1960's anymore. The lack of activism is what gets me down.

Perhaps I should have said that many young people are politically passive or politically naive. But perhaps this is the case in all of North America I think, and perhaps for NA youth as a whole across time. I think May 1968 is a better example of political activism. Whether it was good or not is up to you to decide, but the lasting effects in France were quite profound.

A couple of corrections to your asumptions: I used to teach sociology and media criticism in university and college, but I have different career now (although I might go back to teaching as I enjoyed it very much). So I'm not developing arguments from any lofty position (like the pope ... I'm like the other guy in Nate's article) ... I'm just a regular TOD reader.

In the 1960s I was eating cheese sandwiches and watching the Mighty Hercules ... I'm a little younger than you I think!

Peace to you to man!

Calling 'us' Generation-X was prescient.

Generation-Y subconsciously realize there's not alot of hope, so why bother - It didn't really work in the 60's, and people really tried and really thought they were making a difference that time round... Can you really blame them for not being motivated - perhaps when my young flatmate tells me there's no point, 'cos it won't make any difference, he's actually the wiser.

And so Generation-Z may appropriately be the last generation of the Modern Age (or the last generation of the Fourth Age of Humanity, if you're Mayan)

--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)

Nate, is the cognitive dissonance so deep that it gives one unconscious option paralysis?

Come on Piggly Wiggly give it a rest, okay? Or better, tell it to eric blair.

Give what a rest CR? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Exactly!:)

Arggggh!!!! :-)

Please CR. I wasn't being facetious when I wrote that (I think you think I was). My point is that cognitive psychological approaches have a direct bearing on social behaviour (like Nate is pointing out). Option paralysis isn't just a Gen-X Copeland thing. I think it could easily be renamed as overload and dissonance. Option paralysis isn't just about the failure to choose your breakfast cereal at Safeway because of the multiple available brands. It's more about the failure to critically anaylyze what the best breakfast cereal for your body is. It's not about choice, it's about analysis.

At the end of the day, young people, in the context of this discussion, do not seem to critically analyze society and by extension fail to appreciate the issues of oil and capitalism.

Sorry to cause that Arggggh!!!! Piggly Wiggley, I guess I was a touch out of line making a cause celebre out of what was meant as communication by yourself to Nate using the lingua franca of your profession.

While I found the Article by Nate most interesting, if slightly turgid, I had just been recovering from some of Jef fvail's convoluted mystifications. An article which, in translation, amounted to unadulterated trash. That is not meant to be a slur on you, as once one deciphers the cryptic, there is sense. Ace on the other hand was wrapping garbage in basic brown paper baffle gab. Not a pleasant experience!

BTW about young people I quite agree and they haven't changed since my youth when we expected nuclear annihilation. Very little reaction to that at the time, we just went on about our business of getting, when one thinks about it, rather useless educations.

I see my pal eric blair has reared his pugly head this morning so I better go sling a bit of mud there, as Popeye might say 'always a good thing to have a emeny about to keep one from drifting'. So best to you for now:)
------
edit:
My apologies to Ace, I had meant Jeffail in the above. Now corrected (to some degree).

Why do you think your students are passive about this?

Marketing is the art of mind-bending. As long as doubt is placed in someone's mind, and the issue doesn't seem to effect them personally, action is not taken.

Institute the draft for the War in Iraq and millions will march on D.C.

When gas hits $5 per gallon and the price of everything goes way up, students in general will become more active.

____________________
myspace

just wait until they can't drive their SUV's anymore, and the next day get a letter in the mail informing them how much more in taxes they owe to keep social security going.

My fear is the current youth generation knows no boundaries and cannot see more than a few seconds in front of them- you'll see a lot of them wasting their last drops of gas for unbelievably insignificant things- then their last cents of change- and their last full meals. I have no clue what they expect to do once its not there anymore.

I like not knowing.

Hi memills,

When you mention peak oil are your confreres all chirpy and bright as buttons ? All ready to view the possibilities of a world of tenure dissolve about them? Or are they very solemn and CERAious and ready to believe the peak is flat like the earth, as any over schooled idiot can plainly see?

You mention you pass this compilation,

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

about PO on to your students and expect them to rush out and change the world? More likely they would rush out for a quick beer and a quicker course change.

I vote for more people whose thinking starts in the solar plexus or heart and not at the pointy part of the head.

Even after my peak oil lecture, and despite my substantial charm and moving persuasiveness (!), I still have a student or two approach me later, asking: "Is that really true?" Or, with over-confidence in a technofix: "But what about fusion? Hydrogen?." (Believe me, I hope their optimism will turn out to be justified...)

Near my office door I have the Peak Oil Poster, as well as other scary looking supporting graphics. In past two years that it has been there, I have yet to be approached by a student with any questions or comments about it.

Well, one student did talk about forming a Peak Oil campus group, which I encouraged. Never heard back from him.

"Cheers," Mike

Help! help! Au secours! First Piggly Wiggly says I Gibber, now you indicate I am trying to make communication points the hard way. What to do?

By the word confreres, I mean your professional associates, the teachers, instructors , professors, those guys, the ones that want to be, or are, locked on to the university gravy trough ... tenure. Hmm did I spell that right? tenior,.. tensor,.. tennis? Anyone, anyone?

Not much good a doctor saying to the patient "Chum you are terminal and about to be pushing up daisies now what besides paying my bill are you going to do about it?"

Me I would go for a beer but first fire that joker:)

And I'll just say you are a sock puppet of Airdale.

Airdale shows up and so do you.

and now you show up all dressed in argyle:)

WOW! Thanks for the link. Dr. Mills has done a an awesome job. Leanan, can you add this link to the "Peak Oil Primer" list of links? Looks like another Defcon 1 or 2 to me =)

Hi Mike,

I think the notion of cultural determination began to ebb quite some time ago.

When I used to teach sociology to college students, I always presented the various theories with acknowledgment to the interaction between nature and nurture. That's how the text books in the early 90's presented it and it seemed reasonable to me. So I think there really isn't a debate here at all. It's been the standard normal way of social science discourse for that past 25 years or so.

Personally, I think that an exclusive reliance on cognitive models to explain human behaviour is somewhat lacking.

"Magical thinking" has a role in this debate (an illustrative role).

Check out the "magic diesel" story from Zimbabwe (ref below). We can explain that from a cognitive perspective using one of Nate's points (Mr. Mugabe sends his advisers to the witches rock thereby legitimizing the claim), or we can look at it from an sociopolitical perspective (rampant corruption has induced incompetence), or a cultural perspective (there is a history of belief in witchcraft). Or an interaction of all three.

Since the example is extreme, it throws into relief the multiplicity of ways one can view human behaviour. Each analysis is correct in its own way.

At the end of the day I'm uncomfortable latching onto a single theoretical framework to explain people's behaviour, but perhaps that's not really being supported here.

Having said all that, I did enjoy the article very much. Thank you Nate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2748936.ece

Well, heck, I am an evolutionary psychologist, so I'll take exception with that.

I'm aware of work in support of the idea. However, I suspect that the "Standard Social Science Model" is a strawman.

http://bostonreview.net/BR23.2/berwick.html

The problem is that we *don't* all agree that we have a science of sociobiology. It's status as a science in itself is highly in dispute, particularly its current incarnation, evolutionary psychology.

Poppycock! Denial of nature is nothing but a kind of religious belief, like denial of evolution. Our genetic nature has been proven time and time again yet the creationist...err, I mean nurture nuts just will not accpet it.

There was the Minnisota Twins study by Bouchard, there was the Stanley Milgram studies, there was the Stanford Prison experiment, and hundreds of others. The Milgram studies was re-done in Germany and several other places with the same results.

During most of the twentieth century “determinism” was a term of abuse, and genetic determinism was the worst kind of term. Genes were portrayed as implacable dragons of fate, whose plots against the damsel of free will were foiled only by the noble knight on nurture.
...................................
For more than 50 years sane voices have called for an end to the debate. Nature versus nurture has been declared everything from dead and finished to futile and wrong—a false dichotomy,. Everybody with an ounce of common sense knows that human beings are a product of a transaction between the two.
...................................
Let me put my cards faceup. I believe human behavior has to be explained by both nature and nurture. I am not backing one side or the other. But that does not mean I am taking a “middle of the road” compromise. As Jim Hightower, a Texas politician once said: “There ain’t nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow line and a dead armadillo.”
- Matt Ridley, “Nature via Nurture”

Ron Patterson

Poppycock! Denial of nature is nothing but a kind of religious belief, like denial of evolution. Our genetic nature has been proven time and time again yet the creationist...err, I mean nurture nuts just will not accpet it.

"Our genetic nature" is a meaningless statement. We lack a relation that maps a stretch of DNA to any interesting cognitive characteristic.

There was the Minnisota Twins study by Bouchard, there was the Stanley Milgram studies, there was the Stanford Prison experiment, and hundreds of others. The Milgram studies was re-done in Germany and several other places with the same results.

Almost all of these studies have been replicated in the social environment that is being blamed for Peak Oil doom. This does not invalidate the experiment---it merely makes it impossible to distinguish a cultural cause for the result from a genetic cause, whatever that might mean. Because the latter has not yet been made meaningful, it is not a testable hypothesis to say that the Milgram experiment has something to do with our "genetic nature."

"Our genetic nature" is a meaningless statement. We lack a relation that maps a stretch of DNA to any interesting cognitive characteristic.

Mandos,
What you say is partly true --about not being able to directly map from a stretch of DNA encoding to a particular cognitive attribute.

However, there is no denying that the human brain is an organ fashioned by evolution just as are our eyes, mouths, opposable fingers, etc.

Our cognitions all arise within the evolutionarily defined lizard, limbic and cortical shells. (Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny --if that short statement about biological destiny rings a bell for you. Or was it the other way around?)

However, there is no denying that the human brain is an organ fashioned by evolution just as are our eyes, mouths, opposable fingers, etc.

Yes, but "fashioned by evolution" is no more scientific a statement than "fashioned by divinity". If we're going to construct claims for the origins of our current predicament, and, perhaps, advice on how to deal with it, we have to be precise about these things.

For a number of characteristics to do with human cognition, it is hard to come up with a strict adaptationist story, much as Pinker et al. would like to have us believe. The ability to map from a selective pressure to cognitive characteristic is almost as hard as the mapping from DNA. There's no reason to think, for instance, that most of the details of human language stem from any interesting selective pressure.

In particular, it's very hard to say what aspects of our "lizard" brains actually dominates our "cortical shells." You don't get the characteristics you *need*, you just get characteristics by accident, and they may or may not help, and rarely in predictable ways.

Mandos,

I'm not sure you are ready for the truth.
I don't think you can handle the truth.

If you can, there are books out there about the latest in neuro-physiology. We are not what we think we are.

Example.

"I WANT THE TRUTH!"
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!11!!"

The point, I'm afraid, is that this begs the question: that someone knows The Truth. The problem with neurophysiological data is that, well, some of it is very nice science, but it still offers no reliable way to separate causes from effects, and without that, it's impossible to make any interesting or meaningful statements about "What We Are" vs. "What We Think We Are."

Even the most obvious case, language, for which almost every child born is born with the same capacity for acquisition and no more---well, even there we don't have a reliable reason to say that "it's encoded in DNA."

There's many slip betwixt the cup of phylogeny and the lip of ontogeny.

I was making a mocking allusion to an American movie starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men". (One good woman, Demi Moore also appears in it.) What country do you hale from Mandos?

Canada, actually, though temporarily (?) living in the USA. Yes, I know the allusion. That's why I quoted the trial scene.

We will soon be able to map DNA sequences to cognitive characteristics because the rate of advance of DNA sequencing and microfluidics device advances is so fast that DNA sequencing and testing costs are dropping by orders of magnitude.

Once we can affordably collect DNA sequence information on hundreds of thousands of people and compare both their cognitive characteristics and DNA sequences a lot of connections will pop out.

And how much is epigenetics?

(My vote is more effect of epigenetics than DNA)

Precisely. And even worse, if you were to be able to find all the DNA variations in a population, that just means you have an exponential search space of potential cascading biological pathway variants each which could account for variation in phenotype.

That doesn't mean that you'll find *nothing*, it just means that you won't find *enough* to make Deep Impressive Statements about the suckitude of human genetic nature.

Also, most of the dispute is not *merely* the geological fact of Peak Oil. Even the most diehard libertarian, deathly afraid that recognition of Peak Oil will result in the sin of planning, accepts that any finite resource with a limited rate of extraction MUST peak...at some point.

The disagreement is whether we can adapt without catastrophe, and they claim that the facts of human nature suggest that we can adapt, when allowed to do so when the price reaches the appropriate level. So I'm not sure whether anything in this article really bears on the survival question.

Actually, Peter Huber explicitly states that our aggregate energy consumption will increase forever. If pressed, he will acknowledge that conventional oil will eventually peak and decline, but he asserts that nonconventional oil and alternative energy will pick up the slack.

So, Huber concedes that discrete energy sources will peak and decline, but he asserts that our aggregate energy production, which is the sum of discrete sources, will never peak and decline.

I should add that, in my opinion, Huber's position is the prevailing implicit working assumption worldwide, even at this late date.

I don't disagree in theory. We could in theory either build fusion generators or space born collectors that create effectively a infinite source of energy beyond that managed black holes and matter are a effectively eternal battery.

I know its sci-fi but between this far out ending exist wind/ground solar, fission, hydro, wave and biochemical energy sources. From this perspective oil is effectively non-renewable because it took millions of years to create and concentrate and decades to burn.

This points out that the underlying problem is not energy but time scales. And the real problem is will we not only convert to new energy sources but continue to grow our energy usage on a time scale that will prevent major disruptions in our society.

On top and really a different concept is the desire to not continue to pollute our planet. Even nuclear plants have a lot of thermal pollution for their cooling sources.

People are concerned about our ability to transition are also suggesting that we take a more balanced approach to energy and energy usage and maintain and increase our standards of living in the happiness and health sense.
It does not have to be measured in energy consumption.

We can probably build enough coal/nuclear and even better renewable resources no matter what to ensure that some small fraction of society can maintain an nice lifestyle. I think the chance of a complete breakdown is very low.

So for me the real underlying problem is who gets technology
this is a issue of how much we create and when.

So the real insidious issue and the moral danger is that technology and energy will become controlled by a fairly small elite group and their supporters say less than 5% of the population maybe as low as 1%.

I think that we are on the verge of falling into a society of a small number of people with access to decent electrical power and high technology with the vast majority reduced to subsistence living. None of the cornucopians have convinced me that we can continue to expand the standard of living on the planet with the current approach much less maintain it.

This social argument is actually the key behind the electric rail proposals. The wealthy could easily fly in helicopters and planes between well defended estates and closed city centers. They don't need us any longer outside of technical support staff that can readily be replaced from the teeming masses. We are so far along towards this concentration of wealth technology and power now that I cannot see how it can be prevented. I believe that it would have happened anyway even without peak oil given the wealth concentration we have today and globalization. We where and are on the edge of Brazilificaiton of the entire world. Peak Oil and Global Warming left unsolved simply hasten the process. Even without them we probably would have collapsed into a society completely controlled by the ultra rich within a few decades at most anyway.

The cornucopian technocrats who actually believe they will be able to always have a safe place providing for the ultra wealthy have no problem with this most of our technical literate have already been sucked into this lifestyle.
And they all believe their job and lifestyle is secure.
I bet every single person that dismisses peak oil also believes that they are indispensable to society and will prosper no matter what. This personal arrogance underlies the cornucopian argument.

You state "The wealthy could easily fly in helicopters and planes between well defended estates and closed city centers. They don't need us any longer outside of technical support staff that can readily be replaced from the teeming masses."

But where does the wealth of the wealthy come from? It comes from the voluntary cooperation of the people who work in factories and business, who voluntarily produce at least three to four times in profit what their labor costs their employer. In exchange for their labor, they voluntarily allow their employer to make the huge sums of money needed to buy the houses in the gated communities, pay the paramilitaries to defend them, and pay the servants and domestic staff to serve them.

Note that the wealthy also have to eat. And drink. Someone has to grow the food and either sell or give it to the wealthy.

On top of which, the sewers, sewage and water treatment plants have to be kept in repair and the garbage has to be hauled away. A wealthy neighborhood where the toilets no longer work and where the garbage accumulates (think garbage strikes in New York City) becomes a really unpleasant place, really quickly - about two weeks will do it.

Most wealthy people haven't got a clue how to do this kind of thing, and if no one will let themselves be hired to do it...

It only took a general strike of 10 days to bring down the Jaruszelski government in Poland.

They power of the people rests in general on their ability to strike this gets tenuous when you have a large bastion of desperate poverty on which to draw new workers.

I think Poland is a bad example a better ones for what I'm describing is Cuba, North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia.

These countries have the social structure I'm talking about and the wealthy have all of their needs met and you don't have strikes.

Cuba, North Korea, and Burma... wealthy? I don't think so. I doubt that the ruling class lives much better off in any of those countries than a middle-class person would in the US. You "don't have strikes" - you don't hear about them because the rulers have tight control over communications to the outside world. Both North Korea and Burma have sizable dissident populations, and Burma's government will be overthrown by this time next year. Read some of Bob Baer's books about Saudi Arabia, you'll see they've got problems too. As for Cuba, I don't know enough to say straight out.

Also neither Cuba, North Korea, Burma, nor Saudi Arabia have any manufacturing to speak of; their economies are bare subsistence (Cuba, North Korea, and Burma) or extraction/commodities based (Saudi Arabia). Burma exports sizable amounts of opium (Golden Triangle) which keeps its junta in power. Poland's economy is more similar to that of the US than any of the countries you have cited.

I think you should dig a bit into how the world works.

Saddam Hussein was a multi billionaire.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11746/samore.html

Kim Jong seems to be making a 100 million or so selling counterfeiting cigarettes. They also traffic in drugs.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501060206-1154254,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/asia/2003/int_roh/nkorea.html

Not to mention all the legitimate business ultimatley controlled buy the leadership of North Korea. They are certainly multimillionaire's and probably billionaires

For Burma

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45c8f650-83e9-11dc-a0a6-0000779fd2ac.html

Cuba I don't know about but the sugar industry provides a basic source of wealth. I think its the least corrupt of the
totalitarian regimes.

These regimes stay in power in a large part because of the extreme concentration of wealth at the top.

The exact problem we are facing. I think a lot of Westerners need a bit of exposure to raw power to really understand how the word works. I experienced it first hand in Vietnam.

Just to press the point home if your a doomer and want a taste of post peak living you can emigrate to the exotic locals of Burma, Iraq, North Korea or Cuba.

You have no reason to expect a different outcome. If your wealthy or have a needed skill post peak and play your cards right you might be able to maintain the lifestyle of a low level bureaucrat or army captain in one of these societies.
For the technical you have employment opportunities with the North Korean network providers or say at a fertilizer plant.

Or are we somehow better or special in someway over the citizens of these countries ?

I don't think so. We pissed away our freedoms.

I don't think so. We pissed away our freedoms.

Or perhaps they were an illusion we were allowed simply because we had so much cheap energy. I don't know, but this is something I've tossed around in my head for awhile.

I think you can see from my comments I believe that they are closely related. The well paid working class or about 70% of the middle class thats not professional or tradesmen grew with the growth in energy and the "infinite" growth economic model.

The places I've mentioned are examples of the alternative stagnant or stable economies. The reason you need infinite growth is that power and wealth continue to flow to the top they are like a black hole for money and resources. Only by constantly growing could the middle class continue to pay tribute to the wealthy and still maintain their life style.

The recent concentration of wealth is not new thats the way the world works we have more millionaires and billionaires and absolute wealth today than at any time in the past so true wealth has grown considerably but whats happened is as energy and resources become strained the middle and lower classes have increasingly become unable to replace much less expand their wealth so its concentrated because its no longer being renewed not because this concentration of wealth is a new occurrence.

So I believe your correct in your assessment that cheap energy allowed a lot more people to live the good life even as that paid tribute to the wealthy. Whats happening now is the wealthy are still trying to extract more wealth out of society and convert it to luxury items but its not being replaced or better its causing the lifestyle of the rest of us to degrade.

This cycle occurs when growth stops. The problem is the rich cannot understand that when growth stops they have to also reduced their spending.

A lot of people that think the future will be better seem to think that for some strange reason this cycle thats been going for tens of thousands of years will stop because their special. In my opinion humanity would have to make some deep intrinsic changes for it to finally stop. I actually feel it may take further evolution before we finally get off this cycle. Humanity is simply not capable of changing greed is to intrinsic in our nature.

I feel it may take further evolution before we finally get off this cycle.

Evolution actually favors the splitting of the human species into a parasitic upper class and a subservient under class.

Witness what has happened in the "evolution" of domesticated animals (cattle, dogs, chickens, etc.). The smarter humans have manipulated the selectivity to give rise to a docile population that serves them.

Does not Global outsourcing of jobs effectively do the same thing for people? Jobs equal survival. Unemployment equals selective weeding out of nonsubservients.

Evolution actually favors the splitting of the human species into a parasitic upper class and a subservient under class.

Evolution will eventually split humans into two species

SB - you see this?

Look at where and when that was published. It made the rounds last year and somehow bubbled back up this year.

And it was a pandering piece for Bravo!

There's be no need for a subservient underclass because robots will do the work that the manual laborers now do.

Evolution actually favors the splitting of the human species into a parasitic upper class and a subservient under class.

You're making a joke right?

As far as classes go that more a matter of removing real education and replacing it with propaganda then ignorance for the masses. And then removing those who show real understanding. Humans are very adaptable and we tend to have sex as often as possible. Many of the slaves in the south carried quite a few genes from their masters.

They pyramid of power exists in all human social structures. The poorest person is arguably better of than on in prison buy you have the same concentration of power in prisons.

In fact the dynamics of raw human society somewhat distorted by the lack of male/female interaction are probably the most obvious in a prison situation. Outside of prison and more diverse are the poor neighborhoods and gangs. The exact same social structure exists as you move out into mainstream society with wealth and the taking of wealth substituting most of the time for outright violence. Organized crime and governments mix in the use of brutality with laws.

As you can see material wealth is intrinsic in producing the social pyramid and serves the role of substituting for violence or allowing the weak to pay the physically strong to perform violence on their behalf. A genetic change is in my opinion required for us to move away from the pyramid social structure wealth acts simply as a substitute for physical brutality.

This intrinsic social structure is in my opinion at the root of the problem with trying to create some sort of nirvana society based on material goods. In fact even in the Christian bible heaven is described as a place of great material wealth.

There are no windmills in heaven.

You're making a joke right?

Evolution actually favors the splitting of the human species into a parasitic upper class and a subservient under class.

Actually, no.
I think it already happened ...

And we on TOD are the evolutionary odd balls
because we do not exhibit blind faith in what the
overlords (TPTB) tell us about "progress" and our bright energy future.

Look at how the nation (I'm talking USA) splits so closely, 50% versus 50% among those who bend to authoritarian dictatorship and those who lean against it.

In the future, I think we are going to see more and more blind minded allegiance to authoritarianism and fewer people who are willing to question the status quo.

Globalization is going to drive it in that direction.
There will be two kinds of people.
Those who obey.
And those who do not have jobs.

Only by constantly growing could the middle class continue to pay tribute to the wealthy and still maintain their life style.

I think that says it all. Thats why life was good in the late 40's 50's and 60's. Then Peak US Oil, Gold Standard abandonment, and manufacturing started leaving in the 70's. Then it turned into Money Making Money in stead of People making money.

Imagine a raft of a 1000 ants floating on the water. Some are underwater, but they supply the support of those who are on top.

More and More of us ants are underwater and a very small portion is above water line with all the money.

Don't look good for calm times...

Absolutely perfect example of a society based on infinite growth hitting the resource limit and the concept of power concentration. The ants are in a sense a mix of individuals and their personal wealth.

The ants that are in the pile only notice when the water level reaches them they cannot see all the other ants that are also drowning until its too late.

The individual ant cannot tell whats happening in general he sees a few ant near him climb higher and a few get pushed lower. To the ant it feel like he fell into the water or was pushed down he cannot actually fathom that the water level is rising or that the whole ant pyramid is sinking.

I think this cognitive problem goes to the heart of the current paper. Its sort of a forest for trees problem that most humans cannot comprehend. And it has nothing to do with intelligence a lot of very intelligent people post on this blog and can seem to see this problem. I don't think they can actually comprehend it. I think that why people are labeled as doomers or in other case green activists because the see a real problem thats simply beyond the comprehension of a lot of people. It a sort of survival mechanism. If you can't understand a problem thats causing another group of people to take risks you give them a derogatory label that implies a sort of insanity. The cornucopian label is a sort of backlash labeling describing people that are incapable of seeing any problems. Certainly a lot mental health problems are related to people that have a hyper and incorrect assessment of problems. But the inability to understand problems that have indirect effects is generally considered normal probably because these people make pretty good citizens instead its probably a undiagnosed mental disorder.

So the inability to see that the whole pyramid is sinking is literately normal.

I think I've just proven I'm crazy :)

The ants that are in the [pyramid social structure ("the pile")] only notice when the [rising] water level [finally] reaches them, they cannot see all the other ants that are also drowning until it's too late.

Memmel,

No. You are not crazy.
This is a very good analogy.

Substitute the American nuclear family for each ant in your Ant Movie analogy. They are doing just fine until the poverty line rises to ensnare them in its grips. Maybe they were treading with economic head just barely above water in a lower end neighborhood in New Orleans or maybe they were just barely meeting monthly mortgage requirements in a plush McMansion in the northern suburbs of San Diego. Then the flood comes. Then the fires come. And it's too late. There is nowhere to retreat to. They were living on the edge and only now does it become apparent that they can't sustainably tread water anymore.

For the individual family it "feels" different. The waters are not rising. No, it is "they" who are falling down. It's their fault. It's their fault. They weren't "competitive enough". They weren't creative enough. They weren't young enough. Fill in your version of the elitist explanation here: They weren't _______ enough. They got what waz commin' to them.

________________

P.S. Add this:
It will never happen to me or my family because I/we are "special". I/we are:____
1. American
2. The right ethnic makeup
3. Educated
4. Irreplaceable
5. Specially loved by my deity
6. Not an ant, not a yeast in the petri dish

I actually feel it may take further evolution before we finally get off this cycle. Humanity is simply not capable of changing greed is to intrinsic in our nature

Memmel have read any Ken Wilbur? Take a read on one of his books, His concepts of Quandrants, and Levels and Holons are really good maps/models.

Like Integral Psychology or A Theory of Everything

http://wilber.shambhala.com
http://www.kenwilber.com

Thanks I'll take a look but to be honest I'm more of a raw power and kill people type of guy the veneer of civilization is to thin and comes off quickly under duress so I think we are little better than savages.

Intelligent yes but in general we are all brutes. Once we maintain a high civilization for a few million years then it might be worthwhile to consider what we are.

In my job I actually work towards how to create systems that can in a sense self assemble or process meta information. Sort of a basic foundation for real artificial intelligence.
Not that I know how to build a real AI but I'm pretty certain that what I do is a prerequisite. Its like knowing about lava and knowing a fire is required to melt rock but understanding that your simple wood fire is not good enough to melt rock.
I know you need to build a fire to melt rock I don't know how to build a fire that will melt rock. So I build the fire I know how to make :)

If that makes sense ?

The problem I work on is that for real AI you have to be able to mechanically merge code and end up with a functional result.
Think about randomly mixing to source code files together and trying to compile the results. 99.9999999% of the time this fails. I'm trying to make it work .0001% of the time.
A real AI probably requires that this sort of synthesis works at least 10% of the time. Obviously if you could get this sort of mixing to work then you have the basis for evolution.

Until we either create real artificial intelligences or discover aliens or raise another species to intelligence we cannot understand ourselves the sample size is to small.

I think we are at least 100 years from a true AI if not a thousand. Although theirs a lot of rooms for breakthroughs since AI is a emergent property so we won't create AI it will just happen.

stream47,

Manual labor is becoming less necessary for wealth accumulation. We are going to end up with engineers programming robots and little manual labor in manufacturing.

The amount of manual labor for many classes of products has already plummeted. Look at the auto industry. The US domestic makers have lost only half their market share to importers. But their manufacturing labor forces have probably gone down by an order of magnitude from their peak.

I tend to agree also although I don't think things like cellulose ethanol or other biofuels will save the world its seems that robotics and efficient farm equipment could keep the EROI high on farms. Solar furnaces also seem like a technology that just needs refinement also of course electric arc based heating is viable. This may mean that the best places to do heavy manufacturing are near good hydroelectric sources or in some cases nuclear reactors.

On the manufacturing side or more correctly assembly I think that we will actually see a interesting change. Robotics for the actual manufacture of the parts and things like a lot of welding but I think we will move towards careful hand assembly of the final products. The reasoning is the the full cost of the final products like cars will be high simply because the scale of manufacturing would be reduced amongst all the other reasons. So durable goods would actually be durable and built to last decades and in time 100's of years. This probably means they will be designed to be easily refurbished for parts that do wear. The ability to recycle will be important.

Also a lot more custom or flexible manufacturing will probably occur instead of dedicated assembly lines so we can eliminate the economies of scale that keep us from doing custom manufacturing even though we have the technical ability now. One off production would in a sense become the norm. This would also allow us to do light manufacturing and assembly of most of the goods needed locally and generally out of recycled materials.

Looking farther out these assembly plants would get smaller and more versatile until everyone would eventually have their own mini factory or at least one per town. Its not obvious what the right balance is.

Also I think a lot of disposable goods of today will become durable goods of tomorrow.

Just looking around me I have several cheap file folders laying around these could easily be replaced with ones made from better materials say wood/leather or even better replaced with electric paper displays so wasting paper for throw away writing would be uncommon. Probably 90% of the stuff in my living room and kitchen could be made to last hundreds of years and be handed down.

As many people not for transportation we could probably use a tenth of the energy we use now and still have basically the same if not more flexible lifestyle. I think the same metrics apply to manufactured goods.

Its a bit funny but it really seems that if we converted fro m a growth/throw away society we would actually have durable goods that where of very high quality and long lasting. And finally of course of something is going to be setting around for 100 years it makes sense to invest a bit of time in making it beautiful not just functional.

Sure. The argument is that, one way or another (by increased alternative energy consumption or by increased efficiency), we can, in fact, have limitless (for our purposes) economic growth, absent the sin of planning. The argument sounds stupid prima facie, but the case can be made that, if there is a limit, we are not close to reaching it.

Huber expects a fossil fuels production to peak but sees a big future for nuclear power. Why is he incorrect? Why can't we build nuclear power plants to generate the power we currently get the from oil?

The biggest problem with nukes is that they don't easily substitute for liquid fuels. But we have plenty of ways to use non-liquid energy sources as substitutes for liquid fuels and our ability to do that substitution will improve as assorted technologies advance.

"Why can't we build nuclear power plants to generate the power we currently get the from oil?"

We could, if we really wanted to, but that would require accelerating construction timelines.

I think the likelist path is wind/solar, because they can be built so much more quickly.

"Ive never said when Peak Oil would be, only that it would eventually mean the end of economic growth as we know it - and that technology and capital can't 'create' energy. "

Nate, you're not just asking your friend to accept Peak Oil, you're asking him to accept a lot of other theories:

that:

Peak Oil equals Peak Fossil Fuels,
Peak FF equals Peak Energy,
Peak Energy equals Peak Economic Growth.

In the strong form (Peak "A" MUST equal Peak "B"), these are clearly false. Even if they weren't, as you note in your discussion of information overload, that is indeed a whole lot of stuff to expect him to absorb all at once. You might want to start with just educating him about Peak Oil...

Nick - totally agree. But this is how real conversations go - I talk to him weekly about these topics and we both subtlely or not so subtlely try and one up the other on rhetoric.

I agree that there is enough 'energy' out there to decouple Peak Oil from Peak Economy - but there are MANY assumptions there too - how to change from liquid fuel transportation system? How to turn down the energy service volume knob when we are accustomed to turning it up? How to do this all in time, etc?

"Nick - totally agree. But this is how real conversations go - I talk to him weekly about these topics and we both subtlely or not so subtlely try and one up the other on rhetoric."

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's really hard to not get emotionally involved with the conversation, so that you stop being an effective communicator. We've all been there....

I think this is a key point: presentation has a lot to do with it. If you're patient, humble & non-judgemental, and listen to feedback, you'll actually get somewhere faster. People absorb information slowly, so one has to deal with one thing at a time, and go over things repetitively. You have to listen to people's key objections, and really address them, with info, evidence, personal perspective, etc. You have to think of it as a collaborative truth-seeking partnership, in which the other person is intelligent and informed (even if you can't imagine it), because people always know things you don't, in unexpected ways. If you don't address those things thoroughly, and with respect, you won't make progress.

For instance: I had a conversation with "GliderGuider" lately. He had a personal experience with the telecom bubble that informed his perspective on the potential for growth of new tech, like wind & solar. He wasn't likely to accept my proposal (that wind/solar were going to grow quickly) unless I addressed his experience. That, of course, wasn't the end of the conversation by any means, but it was an important potential sticking point.

"I agree that there is enough 'energy' out there to decouple Peak Oil from Peak Economy - but there are MANY assumptions there too - how to change from liquid fuel transportation system? How to turn down the energy service volume knob when we are accustomed to turning it up? How to do this all in time, etc?'

I agree, too. That's a long conversation. For instance, people get hung up about total energy availability, when to my mind that's not a problem at all: in the first world, at least, I see no real problem with producing all the electricity we need. OTOH, eventually (and possibly pretty quickly), most liquid fuels will need to be replaced with electric transportation, PHEV/EV's and rail. That's a big project, and if it's not fast enough it will be pretty painful...

I think this is a key point: presentation has a lot to do with it.

One of the points I gleaned from the ASPO Houston conference was contacting the media when we hit a peg. Pegs are the psychologically important boundaries like $100 oil, which will be coming soon. When we hit $100 oil most publications will run a story on it. They will be looking for an angle to distinguish their story from every other $100 oil story running that day. This is an excellent time to contact the press about peak oil in part because you are more likely to get coverage and in part because the populous is more likely to pay attention when it is coupled with a psychologically significant milestone like $100 oil.

Again

I think this is a key point: presentation has a lot to do with it.

It would probably be better if you had a reputable geologist contact the press when oil hit the $100 mark. So, your assignment for next week is to find a geologist willing to talk about peak oil and to find the reporters for him/her to get in touch with before we hit that peg.

Tim Morrison

It is incorrect to say a person thinks. One participates in thinking further what others have thought before.

Peak energy does not equal peak economic growth. Energy is just one of the inputs determining economic growth. According to a lot of posters, simply jumping in your SUV and doing circles in the parking lot magically causes "economic growth" to spurt through the consumption of gasoline. That is a religious belief that is unrelated to logic.

Peak energy does not equal peak economic growth.

Prove it does not.

The various "Laws of Thermodynamics" may be wrong - but to show it you would need proof. So I'm asking yo to show proof of your claim.

Feel free to show how Nate's

Our societal infrastructure was built with and expected to continue on cheap liquid fuels.

is wrong too.

Energy is just one of the inputs determining economic growth.

Ok, and how is that one statement proof?

According to a lot of posters, simply jumping in your SUV and doing circles in the parking lot magically causes "economic growth" to spurt through the consumption of gasoline.

One factor of economic growth is the velocity of money. Activities like you mention will increase the 'velocity' of money, but what happens in the future? Money is not supposed to be "infinite" - because if money is infinite, it would have no 'value' - right?

Eric: It appears that you actually believe that the spin around the parking lot magically raises the standard of living. Fine. I didn't comment on the statement re the USA societal infrastructure was based on misinvestment (at this point most observers would agree that the suburban model is finished). Economic growth is not the same thing as auto sales and suburban sprawl. The money thrown down the drain on autos is huge-mostly to impress someone else. There will be a transition to other methods of impressing those you need to impress other than driving a low MPG automobile. It is possible right now to exhibit high status in NYC without even owning a car. Is the US economy in big trouble? Yep. Is it all because of oil depletion. No. The US economy would be in big trouble with oil at $10 (IMO). The sharp guys have peed in the pool and now everybody else in the country has to swim in it.

It appears that you actually believe that the spin around the parking lot magically raises the standard of living. Fine.

Huh. It seems that YOU can not defend your own statements.

According to a lot of posters, simply jumping in your SUV and doing circles in the parking lot magically causes "economic growth" to spurt through the consumption of gasoline.

Here you said 'economic growth' and your "response" is about 'the standard of living'.

AND you make claims that are not even close to correct.

Please feel free to come back when you can answer the questions asked, not post the screed you want to.

Edit: I see after 24 hours you have not bothered to respond. Good for others to see that you are not here to debate, just to post screeds.

So the transition is conservation, drill in ANWR and elsewhere, more oil from the oilsands and shale, temporarily ramp up biofuels and alternatives, ramp up nuclear and wind and solar, convert to more efficient cars, trucks, rail, planes, ships and industry and shift from liquids to electrification. Shift more freight from trucks to barges and rail.

Conservation measures can be initiated and strengthened when necessary.
55mph speed limit saved (380000 gallons per day back in the 1970s


Increased fuel use for transporation (around double the 1970s. Fuel saving of 750,000 gallons per day from 55 mph.

Deleware fuel shortage measures
http://www.delaware-energy.com/DELAWARE-PLAN/DE-Chapter-4-Motor-Fuel-Sho...

Carpooling, transit, odd-even and other measures can reduce fuel usage by 8-15% right away and several can be sustained without harming the economy. A mid-term transition would be to require and setup satellite offices and wifi buses and trains (so that people could be productive while travelling on transit)

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energy_tips.htm

If peak oil hit, ANWR would be drilled. Which is basically an emergency fuel reserve of perhaps 10.3 billion barrels *(mean estimate). It would take a few years to being online and would supply about 1.4 million barrels per day.

More Nuclear power plants are being licensed now in the USA and around the world. The past peak was 12 reactors completed in one year in the USA. The US economy is over twice as large now. Full (non-emergency production of nuclear plants in the USA would be twenty-four 1.5 GW reactors completed per year and could be at that level by 2020. Business as usual production could be far higher if a climate change bill is passed which would make coal more expensive.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/10/pro-nuclear-ruling-in-usa.html


EIA projection based on climate change bill passage

Diesel and truck engine efficiency work. Which could double diesel and truck efficiency over the 2010-2020 rollout period.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/proceedings/index...
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/proceedings/2007_...
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/proceedings/2006_...
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/08/31/141727.html

Electrification of vehicles
60 million electric scooters and bicycles in china already. By 2015 there could be 500 million in China. This would be the faster and easier route for the rest of the world as well. The vehicles can go at 55 mph (72 volt versions). There can be GPS enforcement of 55mph limits. Folding electric bikes are compatible with transit. Major transition conversion possible if needed by 2015.

Alternative fuels
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/

In the US biodiesel : Total biodiesel production shot up from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 250 million gallons last year. Worldwide biofuel is at 51 billion liters (about 13 billion gallons) in 2007. USA production projection of 2.5 to 3.5 billion gallons by 2010. 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2012
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/25/technology/biodieselboom.biz2/

thermoelectronics will start to be significantly rolled out by 2010
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/10/thermoelectronics-for-cars-truc...

Superconducting motors in 2010 for industrial efficiency
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/follow-up-superconducting-motor...

Superconducting power grids
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/05/secure-superconducting-power-gr...

If it was required a draconian conservation scheme could be instituted for 5 years to reduce fuel usage by 50% or more (WW2 style conservation, rationing) and then a mobilized effort to convert to electrification. After which the economy would be completely sustainable and able to grow again.

====================
http://advancednano.blogspot.com

The climate change bill passed the senate today. this is the one which if passed could triple nuclear and renewables by 2030.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/01/congress-environment-climate-biz-wash-c...

===========
http://advancednano.blogspot.com

I dream for the day that the cost of securing the nuclear waste for the next 250,000 years is correctly added to the price per kWh. Renewables? Yes! Nuclear? Never!

I posted to quickly on the climate bill it only passed a senate panel.

For Perpetual error, Nuclear waste is 98% unburned nuclear fuel. All of the actinides (uranium, plutonium) can be used for fuel with molten salt reactors or some other high burn reactors. The remaining material is equivalent to background radiation within 300 years. Storing material for 300 years is straight forward. Also, it is safer than coal or oil. Just count the actual deaths.

=====
http://advancednano.blogspot.com

We can cut our transportation fuel usage more than in half by making smaller cars and shifting to diesel hybrids for power.

We can also move closer to jobs and move jobs closer to worker homes.

Why is the belief that an energy decline means a declining economy non logical?

As far as I can see from looking at economic growth data and an understanding of basic scientific theories:

1. There is a long historic correlation between total global growth in human population and measures of the human economy and total growth in human energy consumption.

2. For any system to grow, materialistic resources are required, both matter and energy, and usually in greater amounts over time.

3. Laws of thermodynamics set upper bounds on the efficiency of conversion of matter and energy from one form to another.

"Why is the belief that an energy decline means a declining economy non logical?"

There's no question that there is a relationship between energy and economic growth. The question is, how tight is that relationship?

1st, energy input isn't the same as useful "work done". For instance, thermal electrical generation wastes 2/3 of the energy input, and thermal ICE's waste 5/6 (in the US). Using conventional energy accounting, a switch from coal & gas generation to solar/wind would reduce our primary energy consumption by 2/3, and yet the electricity generated wouldn't change at all.

2nd, an information economy doesn't require growing resource inputs to grow - for instance, in the US light vehicle sales have have been pretty flat for 30 years.

The laws of thermodynamics set upper bounds, but that's not very important: we never need to get to 100% efficiency.

Now, if oil prices go up, will the US economy suffer? Sure, but that's mostly because of the transfer of wealth from the US to oil exporters: there's so much inefficiency, and marginal energy use, we could reduce oil consumption by 25% in 6 months without greatly hurting the economy: just outlaw single-occupancy non-emergency travel. Car-pooling...the horror...

Nick: What you have said is very politically incorrect. Don't you understand "thermodynamics"?

uhmmm...

Humor is hard to interpret online - you are joking, right?

Only partly. I love this site, but it has its own cultural rules, and one of them is to never question the simple assertion that lower oil consumption means a lower standard of living. When one points out the incredible waste of the product for no logical purpose other than it is inexpensive, usually the response is that you don't understand "thermodynamics", so that is the response I threw out.

and one of them is to never question the simple assertion that lower oil consumption means a lower standard of living.

Show how it won't. Use actual examples.

When one points out the incredible waste of the product for no logical purpose other than it is inexpensive, usually the response is that you don't understand "thermodynamics", so that is the response I threw out.

If a product is "inexpensive" how is that "thermodynamics"?

As far as I know every culture thats been cut off from growth has show declining standard of living. The key would be to show cultures that continue to increase the standard of living with a decreasing resource base.

Since this does not exist the alternative i.e a increasing resource base is required to drive a increased standard of living is true.

Just a note on this I've seen villages in the poorer countries and in general the construction of the homes tends to be of poor quality you would think in the hundreds and in some cases thousands of years that the small agricultural villages have been in existence the homes would have become very nice small villa's of some sort. Instead they seem to remain poor villages. As a alternative the Indians of the American southwest seem to have created very nice structures based on a agrarian lifestyle but we know that these where predominantly for defense and the cultures eventually died.
Constant warfare obviously makes it difficult to determine why villages with a constant renewable income source from agriculture have not become over time very nice places but thats part of the puzzle.

" The key would be to show cultures that continue to increase the standard of living with a decreasing resource base."

Well, first we have to demonstrate that PO means "a decreasing resource base".

Oil is just one of our resources. In the long run (15-40 years), it can be replaced.

I don't agree show me a culture that has thrived in the face of decreasing resources they don't exist.

This means no culture has ever successfully accomplished a transition in the face of decreasing resources. They have all vanished. Oil is mentioned often as a example of replacement but oil usage grew in a period of abundant coal resources.
And it actually took a long time for oil to displace king coal for a lot of uses.

For other resource like food/agriculture I can't even think of a example that could be used for debating.

The lack of historical precedent for transitioning a society to a lower resource usage scenario makes it doubtful we will somehow accomplish it.

I'd love to see a realistic scenario for how our society which is barely aware of peak oil would accomplish this transition.

Not I'm fairly confident that a small percentage of the worlds population probably less than 5% will probably be able to create technological retreats probably nuclear powered and wind/solar/nuclear coal may even keep a larger percentage out of the stone age. Outside of full scale nuclear war I'd be surprised if we don't manage to save most of our technical advances in enclaves.

But this is not the same as our current culture. Most of the proposals I have seem might with a lot of work ensure that a fairly large percentage of Americans or Europeans may maintain a decent standard of living but what of Africa/India/China ????

How is some sort of nuclear/renewable society going to be created in the face of billions of people facing the loss of fossil fuels ? Without credible examples of this I just don't see it. I can see a lot of ways that a few hundred million people will survive well in what amounts to city states but thats not the culture we know. Most people seem to equate solving this problem with cultural survival.

I hope that I'm one of the lucky ones that both manages to get into one of these city states as it forms and proves valuable. And if I'm really lucky it will not have a ruthless government. But I'm not deluded into thinking that its some sort of utopian dream its survival.

If you think about it building a few nuclear reactors/coal/wind/solar etc to support a few million people in a rich agricultural region is not a big deal and is readily doable. Trying to expand this to cover say the whole US much less the globe shows that its probably not going to happen. ELP actually has some intrinsic constraints.

At the moment this rat is carefully observing how the ship is sinking and deciding where to swim.

"This means no culture has ever successfully accomplished a transition in the face of decreasing resources."

Well, you haven't established the "decreasing resources" part.

"Oil is mentioned often as a example of replacement but oil usage grew in a period of abundant coal resources."

Well, the US certainly has enough coal for a transition to wind/solar.

"what of Africa/India/China "

I'm not so worried about China, and even India will probably be OK. Africa, on the other hand....

"building a few nuclear reactors/coal/wind/solar etc to support a few million people in a rich agricultural region is not a big deal and is readily doable. Trying to expand this to cover say the whole US much less the globe shows that its probably not going to happen. "

Could you show your calculations? I think the US will be fairly straightforward. I think the key for poor countries will be dirt-cheap PV, which seems to be coming - manufacturing costs are plummeting, and distribution and installation are streamlining (of course, installation in Africa is more of a question of autonomous packaging - probably few rooftop installations...).

Nick the problem is we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Lets start with your one concession Africa. How will the world handle the failure of Africa which provides a lot of oil and mineral resources for our economies ?

I'm suggesting that more will fail but even the failure of Africa is enough to unravel our global civilization. And next this is my point your willing to concede that a whole continent will have serious problems yet somehow everything will be ok ?

Next your arguing that loss of oil will not lower our standard of living yet your conceding that thats exactly what will happen in Africa. Why is all of South America immune the demographics are similar ?

And whats the magic line that allows peak oil to crumble only certain regions but leaves other unscathed ?

The cornucopian world view requires that our entire globe remain relatively stable as oil supplies diminish losing Africa or good parts of South America or Asia is enough to crumble the rest. Its conjecture how many people may be able to retreat into high tech enclaves and how large they are but I think unless you can show how the whole world is going to make a smooth transition off oil all talk about mitigation is really talk about how to build post peak enclaves that save a small part of the worlds population.

Lets say the US converts to 20% wind power how long before Africa gets the high tech windmills ?

I think your just unwilling to admit that what most people who discuss mitigating peak oil are really talking about are exclusive enclaves for a few since the reality is uncomfortable.

I've got no problem with the concept and I have every intention on ensuring I'm in one of these as they form.
My selfish gene is alive and well.

But call a spade a spade a lot of people are going to be facing one of the most horrific times in human history.

“How will the world handle the failure of Africa which provides a lot of oil and mineral resources for our economies ?”

I’m not sure. First, Africa is a very large & diverse place, so there will be a lot of different dynamics, and 2nd, Africa is already doing pretty badly, but still managing to export oil & minerals. What minerals are you most concerned about?

“your willing to concede that a whole continent will have serious problems yet somehow everything will be ok ?”

I never said everything will be ok.

“your arguing that loss of oil will not lower our standard of living “

I never said that. The question is, how much? I don’t think a deep depression (let alone collapse), is likely.

“Why is all of South America immune?”

It’s not, but SA is in much, much better shape than Africa. Peru isn’t in great shape, and there are a lot of very poor people in SA, but like India most of SA has a fairly strong, well educated middle class.

“losing Africa or good parts of South America or Asia is enough to crumble the rest.”

I’m not clear how.

“I think unless you can show how the whole world is going to make a smooth transition off oil all talk about mitigation is really talk about how to build post peak enclaves that save a small part of the worlds population.”

You’ve got a point, although I think you’re going a bit overboard.

“Lets say the US converts to 20% wind power how long before Africa gets the high tech windmills ?”

I think solar will be much more useful in Africa.

“most people who discuss mitigating peak oil are really talking about are exclusive enclaves for a few”

No, I think most people will get through OK. I agree we should pay a lot more attention to poor areas.

“ lot of people are going to be facing one of the most horrific times in human history.”

A fair amount are now, and PO will make things harder, no doubt. I just wouldn’t go overboard....

Now we are getting down to the heart of the matter your thinking that we will in effect have a soft landing. While I after looking at all the issues and historical precedence find no case basis or case for a society transitioning to a lower resource base and remaining intact. Your argument is really the wedge effect in other words we can transition faster than we decline and the new economy will grow offsetting the decline of the old. I don't disagree that its theoretically possible and we have seen a large number of posts covering all aspects of transitioning our economy. What we don't have is historical examples of cultures successfully making such transitions.

The reason is simple your ignoring feedback conditions.
Positive feedback literally rips the rug out of attempts to transition relentlessly forcing the system into collapse.

The only known successful approach is the Monastery. These relied on a communism sharing and zero population growth via
abstinence to preserve knowledge and skills. Since this is known to work I have no problem with the concept that we can create such environments. With birth control sex is not off the table this time around ! So lets now focus on the point I think we are in agreement on enclaves are possible and probable.

The question is what happens outside of these enclaves or modern Monasteries ?

In this case I'm asserting that your underestimating the importance of globalization on all countries not just the wealthy we all break down as localization is forced on us.
And finally your missing one of the key points this is a issue of social order not of the absolute availability of resources. To look at oil I'm very confident we will extract around 200GB more of oil period thats it. As societies become disorganized only a fraction of the resources are extracted look at Iraq.

The problem is that we don't have a case history for any of this at all. This is the first time that we've been able to expand the carrying capacity at anything like this kind of growth function, as I understand it.

" I after looking at all the issues and historical precedence find no case basis or case for a society transitioning to a lower resource base and remaining intact. "

Well, we still have the basic question of whether the resource base is declining in the longterm. I could see a recession, while we transition to wind/solar/PHEV's, and then growth after that.

"What we don't have is historical examples of cultures successfully making such transitions."

What about Europe going from wood to coal?

"we all break down as localization is forced on us."

But why would localization be forced on us? Water and rail transportation are very efficient, and won't be stopped by Peak Oil.

I hope that I'm one of the lucky ones that both manages to get into one of these city/states as it forms and proves valuable. And if I'm really lucky, it will not have a ruthless government. But I'm not deluded into thinking that it's some sort of utopian dream; it's survival.

Memmel,
Over the weekend I had a chance to see Apocalypto (Mel Gibson's movie) on cable.

Your mention of ruthless governments and the hope to be the lucky, special one who gets away and survives brought that movie to mind.

Don't we all hope to be the "lucky one" who gets away?

Warning: plot killer
In this remake of Naked Prey, Gibson's protagonist is incredibly "lucky" over and over again as he escapes death and extinction at every turn in the jungle. Don't we all dream of being "lucky"? Truth is, it doesn't happen in the real world. You may get "lucky" once in an eclipsing blue moon, but not over and over again.

I got lucky last weekend...;)

I didn't mean that way ;-D
That's the problem with our species
We get lucky all too often
And then pay the price from 37 weeks later to 37 years later

"never question the simple assertion that lower oil consumption means a lower standard of living. - Show how it won't. Use actual examples."

Switch from a Hummer (used, as most are, mostly for single occupancy urban driving) to a Prius, cut gasoline consumption by 80%.

Car pool (get company for the commute and drive in traffic only every 4th day at the cost of the loss of some convenience), cut gasoline consumption by 75%.

Nick: You don't understand. Switching from a Hummer to a Prius or carpooling will crash the economy. Everytime you pump gasoline into your tank you are magically creating wealth. It is not surprising that so many believe such nonsense when MSM economists promote the idea that consumption leads to wealth creation. Consumption leads to wealth destruction-the appearance of wealth can be maintained while the substance crumbles. This is what has been happening to the overall USA economy for decades.

I like your irony, but you might want to alert readers - most won't catch it.

Ah. You weren't joking, you were using irony.

When you say you were only partly joking, I think one might describe that as "grim irony".

we could reduce oil consumption by 25% in 6 months without greatly hurting the economy: just outlaw single-occupancy non-emergency travel. Car-pooling...the horror...

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Doing this would essentially stop our economy cold. Discretionary spending would be reduced as people wouldn't be stopping on the way home from work or going out on weekends to stock up at Walmart and all of the other stores that convenient individual transport make possible. Output would probably drop as people working extra hours would stop so that they could be sure of making their car-pool or scheduled mass transit.

Our economy is predicated on cheap easy transportation of people and things. Removing half of that equation is not going to be done "without greatly hurting the economy."

- Scott
"Winter is coming"

" "we could reduce oil consumption by 25% in 6 months without greatly hurting the economy: just outlaw single-occupancy non-emergency travel. Car-pooling...the horror..." -
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Doing this would essentially stop our economy cold. Discretionary spending would be reduced as people wouldn't be stopping on the way home from work or going out on weekends to stock up at Walmart and all of the other stores that convenient individual transport make possible. Output would probably drop as people working extra hours would stop so that they could be sure of making their car-pool or scheduled mass transit." "

Well, I might be exaggerating a bit. Possibly. The point is that we could reduce commuting by more than 50% (not to mention other kinds of single occupancy travel as well), without people losing their jobs. Discretionary spending might be delayed a bit. There would be inconvenience. OTOH, the enormous potential of modern telecom and computing power make it possible to connect people up for trips in ways that were unimaginable 30 years ago, when car-pooling was basically limited to something organized by employers.

Think about zip-car. This kind of short-term, completely automated car-rental scheme was completely impossible 30 years ago.

Commuting is 45% of gasoline consumption. Other kinds of single-occupancy travel are a large % of the remainder. There's enormous potential for conservation in an emergency, with relatively little reduction in actual travel.

we could reduce oil consumption by 25% in 6 months without greatly hurting the economy ... we could reduce commuting by more than 50%

Well, we could, except we actually can't, 'cos of all that stuff up there that Nate's kindly set out...

As each day goes by, I regard think or talk about the BIG changes that would save all of us (for a decent chunk of time at least) just a little bit more intensely as just more time spent in futility, and avoidance of think and talk about humanly-achievable change that at least might help some of us.

Ho hum.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)

"Well, we could, except we actually can't, 'cos of all that stuff up there that Nate's kindly set out..."

Nate is talking about pre-emergency consciousness-raising. He's talking about planning. I'm talking about post-emergency, in-the-recession responses.

I am not concerned by a reduction in our "standard of living" in the U.S., which in general isn't so hot for most people. The marketing system creates all sorts of desires that mostly go unfulfilled or are short-term pleasures with long-term cultural decay. So, a bit of economic "suffering" in the U.S. could be a very good thing as long as we don't go politically too wacky and elect even worse "leadership."

I also agree that we are incredibly inefficient in the conversion of energy into work. But it takes a long time for that inefficiency to be wiggled out of the system, and in a recessionary/inflationary period brought on in part by high energy prices in the importing nations it is more difficult to invest in the alternatives.

The U.S. appears especially vulnerable because our "service" economy relies heavily on discretionary income, exactly the stuff that gets cut out when essentials like food and energy costs are rising rapidly.

I have heard the theory since the Clinton era, but don't see it in practice--that an information economy doesn't require more resources to grow. As far as I can actually see, our so-called information economy has been consuming more and more resources every year--more people, more food, more housing stock, more cars, more stuff for those people to buy to fill their houses, take vacations, etc. Have emissions of greenhouse gases actually declined in the U.S. in the past several years as GDP has risen?

^I am not concerned by a reduction in our "standard of living" in the U.S., which in general isn't so hot for most people.

Which is fine, 'cept how shall people react? With your non-concern, with force VS others, or some way else?

Yes, Eric...hence my caveat:

"as long as we don't go politically too wacky and elect even worse "leadership."

On another board, DeRonin has this simplified version as his by line.

Our pending energy supply contraction= no economic growth= insufficient debt service= chaos + oilwars.

It's certainly possible. Not inevitable, but possible.

I would have said very unlikely, before Dubbya. Now I would say that it's not the likeliest scenario....

I read this when you first posted it Nate; I liked it so much I wanted to copy it to my HD but something came up and I lost track. Thanks for reposting it. This time I'll make sure I put it on the H.D.

"you can cure ignorance, but you can't educate stupitidy"

cc

OH-
You are welcome. Like Shrek says, grasping peak oil is like peeling away layers of an onion, or something like that.

FYI - you can access all old posts by either searching in the toolbar, or clicking on the author. For example, clicking on my name on the right, then clicking on "stories by Nate Hagens" brings up everything Ive done here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/user/Nate+Hagens/stories
Each of us has all of our posts stored (the lists by Stuart, Robert, PG, Leanan, are quite lengthy)

You are welcome. Like Shrek says, grasping peak oil is like peeling away layers of an onion, or something like that.

Interesting analogy.. And the more you peel, the more it just makes you want to cry..

Interesting analogy.. And the more you peel, the more it just makes you want to cry..

Ain't that da truth....

The world is freakin' doomed unless we can figure out how to get food from the layers of bureaucracy and stupidity without onions, stable climate, cooperation between cultures, manual skills, or natural seeds.

Not to mention the active efforts of hidden bureaucracies and debt burdens which devalue the majority of human beings in favor of a very few.

Tell me again why we bother to bring it up?

Because a 1% chance is infinitely greater than a zero percent chance.

An individual transition to a new belief system of whatever sort requires much effort. You have to dump out the old ideas , become convinced of new, readjust everything in your thought processes and daily life to take account of the new paradigm, religion, political theory, whatever. Everything you ever thought or believed may need to be rethought to fit into the new paradigm. This takes lots of time and energy and commitment and if EROEI is not sufficient then the job won't be taken on. If it ain'T broke then don't fix it. You need a supportive environment of literature, support groups, leaders, etc. so that psychological isolation and or pariah status status does not ensue the switch. Perhaps the switch has to be made gradually or perhaps a shock therapy is necessary where "the truth" is suddenly recognized and then slowly adapted to.

Others come along slowly letting an idea filter into their reality in bits and pieces until one day they wake saying "they knew it all along" generally when most people have "gotten it" too. In the case of global warming or PO it seems that the vast majority of the population takes this stance and then we get the "tipping point" where only a few "reactionaries" still hold on to "denailist attitudes". However hardcore activists such as on this website active are probably always the smallest subset of people and foment revolutionary cells or new religions or scientific paradigms waiting for the most opportune moment to create the "public opinion tipping point". This is propaganda basics or PR101.

I personally believe that the wrold is just about at the public opinion tipping point which will change everything. We just need some sort of event or definitve proof of theory where even the last of the hard score skeptics throws in the towel and calls it a day preferring another job that is easier, i.e. one where where the people don't start to jeer when he steps up to the podium to make his speech.

“Without a video the people perish”-Is. 13:24

galacticsurfer,
Would you recommend some strategy regarding practical implementation of your suggestions???

wood pellets suppliers
wood pellets boilers

Our societal infrastructure was built with and expected to continue on cheap liquid fuels.

I was so hoping for more expansion on this. :-(

Otherwise from the work noted here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy

I'm reminded of a passage between Hagbard and George. George is handed a gun by Hagbard and then 'cycles' through all of his past 'successful' behaviors and when they 'fail', George is left crying.

Hagbard then comments on man learning a behavior then trying that behavior "over and over" even with failure.

It strikes me that Man will use the past behaviors (burn everything, go at your neighbors with knifes to take what they have, and other destructive behaviors before trying something else.

I noticed myself yo-yo-ing on peak oil and climate change depending on who I talked to or what Id seen. I started to notice a pattern that my 'belief' was highly correlated to whatever I'd read or whoever I'd spoken to most recently.

Try listening to wack-job radio/TV (GCN, RBN, FOX, Le Show et la) then walk away without some change.

Oh and you don't see the Fnords^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeak oil, there is no Fnords^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeak oil.

The news media, politicians (including the U.S. president), some environmentalists, and some scientists have been telling the public for years that we will develop significant quantities of alternative energies. But according to government and scientific studies, all of these sources will yield at most a few million additional barrels of liquid fuels per day (this includes coal liquifaction [GTL], hydrogen, oil sands, oil shale, biofuels, and solar.). This literature is reviewed on pages 16-29 of the following report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html The public and some scientists do not understand that the major problem is the lack of liquid fuels and fertilizer. Thus, unlimited availability of the electric power will not solve our problems. Although we can develop liquid fuels from solar energy, the quantity is meager, according to scientific studies. The public and leaders in business, government, and the media need to read and comprehend all of this, which is highly unlikely. As a consequence, there is an ingrained belief that we can put ingenuity, hard work, technology, and resources into fixing the energy problems facing the world and the U.S. in particular. This another reason why the public, media, and leaders are generally complacent about the crises that await us in the near future. In the last few weeks, a large number of voices have indicated that global oil production peaked in 2006.

"Although we can develop liquid fuels from solar energy, the quantity is meager, according to scientific studies. "

It would be awfully convenient to develop new liquid fuels, but it's not essential. PHEV's and EV's can replace liquid fueled vehicles.

None of the alternatives to FF will on their own stop the root cause of resource depletion -- over population. As long as populations grow and not just physically grow, but also immigration that grows due to people moving from low evergy coutries to high energy countries, we will still eventually hit the energy wall and face energy shortages. All alternatives will do is allow more time for more people to be born (and fewer to die due to better medicical treatment). Imagine, by the turn of the century the predicted 9 billion of us. That's almost a 50% increase. Imagine 50% more people in our cities, 50% more homes to be built, 50% more (electric) cars and trucks on the road.

Are we really helping ourselves with alternatives expecting things to carry on as is?

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

"None of the alternatives to FF will on their own stop the root cause of resource depletion -- over population."

Well, the majority of the world is already at or below replacement fertility. The remaining places are very poor, or badly educated. The cure is better development.

"As long as populations grow and not just physically grow, but also immigration that grows due to people moving from low evergy coutries to high energy countries, we will still eventually hit the energy wall and face energy shortages."

Not really. Population will stabilized, especially in OECD countries.

"Are we really helping ourselves with alternatives expecting things to carry on as is?"

Sure. The more energy we have, the more leeway we have to reduce our ecological footprint. Poverty destroys our environment more surely than anything else.

And by what evidence do you have that the "majority of the world" population will stablize on it's own? If that is the case, what will that level be? The 9Billion the UN claims it will be? We keep hearing this notion that somehow the population will level off. But the evidence does not support it. China is still growing, India is expected to beat China's population. You have deeply religous countries who are pressing for more people. Hell, Newfoundland is giving a $1000 for each new child born in an attempt to increase their population!! Canada imports 250,000 people every year and the envrionmenalists claim they have no effect on either energy consumption, urban sprawl or increases in CO2 emissions. Head in the sand or WHAT?? The Sierra Club was given hundreds of millions of dollars from a single donner on the orders that they drop population control from their message. IDIOTS!!!

Why are people so shy of the root cause of our problems. It's OVER POPULATION people plain and simple. The population is still growing, and immigration is making more energy consumers.

It has nothing to do with racism, or fear of other cultures. It's BIOLOGY and the Carrying Capacity PERIOD!

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

"by what evidence do you have that the "majority of the world" population will stablize on it's own?"

Well, once women start having less than 2 children on average, the only way population will keep growing will be if we discover immortality.

In the transition, population continues to grow some, but it can't forever. Japan is hitting that point this year, Italy will in a couple of years.

" Newfoundland is giving a $1000 for each new child born in an attempt to increase their population"

A lot of relatively prosperous countries are doing that, because women are having so few children...

Great, so a few highly developed small Westernized countries have (or will soon have) a slighly less-than-replacement birth rate. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the World's 6.7 billion people keep breeding like rabbits, with the lion's share of population increases coming from the most impoverished, backward, unstable, violent, ignorant and overpopulated countries. Sounds like a recipe for future Good Times to me.

Please tell me you're not another "Birth Dearth'er".

If perchance it's actual information you seek:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83307/phillip-longman/the-g...

"Yet a closer look at demographic trends shows that the rate of world population growth has fallen by more than 40 percent since the late 1960s. And forecasts by the UN and other organizations show that, even in the absence of major wars or pandemics, the number of human beings on the planet could well start to decline within the lifetime of today's children. Demographers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis predict that human population will peak (at 9 billion) by 2070 and then start to contract. Long before then, many nations will shrink in absolute size, and the average age of the world's citizens will shoot up dramatically. Moreover, the populations that will age fastest are in the Middle East and other underdeveloped regions. During the remainder of this century, even sub-Saharan Africa will likely grow older than Europe is today."

Not likely. Once the carrying capacity of the planet is yanked out from under the current 6.5billion people trying to jockey for food, there will be a reduction in population all right. Just not the nice easy drop because women around the world are freed from baby slavery.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

But the development of rejuvenation therapies will put an end to a world population decrease.

"But the development of rejuvenation therapies will put an end to a world population decrease."

Probably better not to raise that here. It will alarm people unnecessarily.

It won't affect a large % of the population very soon. By the time it does, hopefully we'll be sufficiently prosperous to pay for the cost of reducing our ecological footprint to the point of sustainability.

Nick,

The people on this site need a lot of reminding that technological advances will occur. They tend to overweight the effects of natural resource depletion.

As for alarms: The doomsters are way overweighted here. But I'm not going to avoid bringing up realistic problems just because they exaggerate other problems.

Some analysts here are really good in their own fields (e.g. petroleum reservoir depletiion). But they have a bias toward oil and fossil fuels as the only practical sources of energy. So they assume that when oil goes away everything comes to a halt.

I expect the decline from the peak to be very disruptive. Just in terms of the amount of capital equipment obsolesced it will cut living standards. But industrial civilization will continue to function.

They [the PO doomsters here] assume that when oil goes away everything comes to a halt.

Well, obviously you are one who does "not" when Nate asks in his post title: Believe It or Not?

The people on this blog are far from stupid or obsessively pessimistic.

Oil has the highest density of safely portable, fluidic energy (useful energy) known to man.

People have been searching for a very long time for the next great thing. They have come up empty handed.

Your blind faith belief in "us" coming up with some new replacement technology is commendable. But at the same time it is like telling us that "they" (the techno-elite, well actually that's us too) will come up with dozens of new stable elements to add to the Periodic Table between N(7) and O(8). The simple answer is NO, they won't.

I believe we are peaking. What I disbelieve is that we are doomed.

We can switch to nuclear and solar as energy sources.

We can develop far better batteries for vehicles. We can electrify railways. We can keep moving.

Granted, living standards will decline. The amount of capital made useless as oil production declines is going to be enormous. But some here predict civilizational collapse. Maybe in some countries. But the most advanced industrial societies have too many capabilities to just fall apart.

Future-Pundit,

I too used to want to believe in that stuff.

1. You need to do a deep dive study on battery chemistries and battery technologies. So far, the holy grail is nowhere to be seen. And plenty of very smart & capable people have been trying and keep on trying. Maybe some big break through will come in nanotech. Let's hope. However, we need a Plan B in case it doesn't happen.

2. Nuke plants are not the saviors they're cracked up to be. If nuke plants were profit centers and were pumping out so much energy it's too cheap to meter, we would have them all over the world. Guess what? They're not spread out all over the world. Guess what? The US Federal Guberment can't even figure out what to do with the measly amount of toxic spent fuel rods we've generated so far. When will Yucca Mt. become operational? I suspect never.

"You need to do a deep dive study on battery chemistries and battery technologies. So far, the holy grail is nowhere to be seen. "

Not really. Actually, lead-acid is perfectly workable. It's just not quite as convenient, or as cheap, as really cheap gas, but it's cheaper than $1.75 gas. There are a number of perfectly good battery chemistries. Really, the problem is just choosing the best. Have you looked at A123systems, and Firefly?

"Oil has the highest density of safely portable, fluidic energy (useful energy) known to man."

So what? Batteries are good enough.

Actually, lead-acid is perfectly workable.

What?
You've solved the surface sulfination problem?
Kudos to you Nick. Also you are probably deserving of a Nobel prize in chemistry.

As I said: "You need to do a deep dive study on battery chemistries and battery technologies. So far, the holy grail is nowhere to be seen. "

"You've solved the surface sulfination problem?"

Uhmm, are you referring to sulfation?

More importantly, are you simply suggesting that lead-acid batteries don't last long enough?

Let's take extremely conservative assumptions: Trojan T-105 batteries, with 1.3 KWH at $80. That gives $65/KWH. Now, let's assume an extremely short life of 200 cycles at 80% depth of discharge (they're rated at 400). That gives $.41 per kwh discharged. Let's assume a conservatively high .35 kwh per mile for a PHEV (Chevy Volt is spec'd at .2): that gives $.14 per mile. That's equivalent to $3.13 gasoline in an average US car which gets 22 MPG.

So, you see, lead-acid chemistry batteries are already competitive with gasoline.

Now, have you looked at A123systems, and Firefly, both of which have better specs and value??

Hi Nick,

Are you an accountant or something? :-)

All this economic talk had my head spun until I started worrying about "pricing" in the cost of the electricity itself and the fuel that generates it, and the pollution from the fuel, and the health cost of all these used up lead plates being shipped around and the fuel costs for refurbishing the sulfated (thank you) plates, and the labor costs for replacing end of life battery packs, and ...

Didn't the Roman Empire bet its future on lead?

"Are you an accountant or something? :-)"

Thanks!

"I started worrying about "pricing" in the cost of the electricity itself and the fuel that generates it,"

Well, the worst case is the average cost of $.10/KWH, which would add $.035 in my example, and raise the worst case point of competitiveness with gasoline a bit.

The likely case is night time cost of about $.03, which would add a pretty trivial $.01/mile. See www.thewattspot.com , look at the upper right corner for today's hourly pricing.

"and the pollution from the fuel"

Less than from gasoline/diesel in the worst case, and much, much better in the long run as we add wind power at night.

"the health cost of all these used up lead plates being shipped around"

?? A very high % are recycled.

"and the fuel costs for refurbishing"

Not much, and from electricity, mostly.

"sulfated (thank you)"

You're very welcome!

"the labor costs for replacing end of life battery packs"

Well, you'd design it for a pretty easy swap at a dealer.

"Didn't the Roman Empire bet its future on lead?"

IIRC, they lined their aqueducts with it, and possibly poisoned themselves. Better not to drink from your battery...

Finally, this is the worst case (and also using worst case specs) - no one's really planning to use existing lead tech, as there are better alternatives. Take a look at A123systems and Firefly!

deleted 2nd copy

Yeah.

It's funny that TOD people are often as overly focused on oil & FF's as the major oil companies. When this happens they're mirror images of each other: the majors say alternatives are impractical, and people believe it. I don't know why....

Nate,

Did you not mean to say, "our cognitive belief **bases**" rather than just "biases"?

In a snippet I caught on PBS, a scientist was explaining that human symbol manipulation is built up hierarchically in the brain.

In other words, each complex cognition associates itself with a handful of simpler cognitions, and those each network in tree like, root-to-leaves fashion to even more basic cognitions.

It could be that your friend's tree is built on "market funda-mentals" while your tree is built on "physics funda-mentals".

You both make similar noises, but they decode very differently in your internal mental trees.

Nick,

The Union of Concerned Scientists (MIT based organization of scientists and citizens who promote renewable energy sources and conservation) concluded in "Renewing Where We Live" http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/renewing-where-... (2003) that with a maximum effort, the U.S. could "achieve 20% of electric supply from renewables" (including hydroelectric power). This would reduce natural gas consumption (used for generating electricity) by 6%. Natural gas provides 23% of total energy supply; hence, solar could add a little more that 1% (6% X 23% = 1.38%) of total energy supply. Because hydroelectric dams are ecologically damaging to rivers and estuaries (artificial lake creation, higher water temperatures, eutrophication, and loss of habitats and farms lands), both the Union of Concerned Scientists and the NAS/NAE "Energy in Transition 1985-2010" http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=R1 study oppose the expansion of this source. And there are few rivers remaining that can be dammed for hydroelectric power generation. Solar and wind power development is limited for several reasons. (1) Areas with ample sun light or wind are limited. (2) Constructing solar panels and wind turbines uses much energy, as does running power lines to far away cities. (3) Spreading solar panels (or wind turbines) over a large area will degrade vegetation and animal habitats in fragile deserts and semi-arid areas. Precipitation on steel and aluminum panels reduces water reaching the ground and it causes oxidation of supporting structures and leaches metal oxides into soils and aquifers. Cleaning and maintaining a vast array of solar panels requires road construction and vehicular operations over vast areas of fragile land. Given the enormous investment costs for home-based solar or wind turbine installations, individuals will not be able to afford solar and electric cars. And now, with the price of oil going up, these costs will increase.

cjwirth,

Where did you get "that with a maximum effort, the U.S. could "achieve 20% of electric supply from renewables""??

I think the USC is presenting a minimum, not a maximum. This is what I find in the UCSUSA web site:

"The United States is blessed by an abundance of renewable energy resources from the sun, wind, and earth. Combined, the technical potential of major renewable technologies could provide more than five times the electricity this country needs.1 Good wind areas, covering only 6 percent of the lower 48-state land area, could theoretically supply more than 1.3 times the total current national demand for electricity. A 12,000- square-mile area in Nevada could produce enough electricity from the sun to meet annual national demand. We have large untapped geothermal and bioenergy (energy crops and plant waste) resources. Of course, there are limits to how much of this potential can be used economically, because of competing land uses, competing costs from other energy sources, and limits to the transmission system, but there is more than enough to supply 10 percent, or even 20 percent, of our nation’s electricity needs."

Your comments said: " (1) Areas with ample sun light or wind are limited."

Where does this come from? Please refer back to my quote, above.

You raise several points, which are worth addressing, but let's stick with this basic question of resource limits:

First, as the UCS site says, CSP would only need an area that's 110 sq miles on edge. 2nd, PV is best installed on rootops, and there's more than enough rooftop in the US to provide all the solar electricity we might need.

Hi Nick,

Good comments. The quote came from the UCS website on this page:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/renewing-where-...
and it said in April 2007 that America could "achieve 20% of electric supply from renewables." That is where I copied the quote from. Today, I put this phrase in quotes and Googled it and nothing came up. So I guess the text on the page has changed, but the webpage says the page was last changed in 2005. I am saying to myself: I don't make mistakes like this!!! Yikes! But another source from 2001: http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1015-01.htm has this UCS quote: "America could achieve at least 20 percent of its electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy sources by 2020..." Since I copied the quote in April 2007 and could not have gotten it from somewhere else (I only used USC as the original source), I conclude that it was on that webpage and someone forgot to indicate that the page has been updated. More importantly, USC at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-e...
USC asks "Is it feasible to supply 10 percent of U.S. electricity with non-hydro renewable sources by 2020?"

This section "(1) Areas with ample sun light or wind are limited." and the other points there come from my general understanding of solar and wind derived from the NAS/NAE study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=R1
This is the most comprehensive energy study ever undertaken and it says a lot. Also, the following source discusses the limitations of solar/wind when current nature is slow (soft winds or cloudy days):

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/pubs/LTRA2007.pdf

There are incredible amounts of solar energy, but it takes a lot to concentrate this energy. Chris Shaw has 5 articles that say much, one and the other 4 are here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5964

About Enhanced Geothermal Systems: According to the Geothermal Energy Association (2007),
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=48465
EGS currently generate 0.371% of the electric power in the U.S. New projects in 12 states will double this amount to total nearly 6,000 Megawatts of power in several years. A 2007 study by MIT, "The Future of Geothermal Energy,"
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
concludes that by 2050 the U.S. could increase this amount by 100,000 MW, thus generating about 10% of the nation’s electric power. Hence, EGS power will not be available for making significant reductions in the use of oil and natural gas in producing electric power for at least several decades.

No matter how much solar energy we have, it won't solve our transportation and fertilizer problems (18 wheelers and tractors are not going to run on solar; we have not solved the storage battery problem for 80 years trying). And without oil, electric and solar energy will fail. See pages 16 to 41 of this report:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

Oil is now at $100 per barrel, when it is at $500 and then $1000 per barrel, which I calculate will come very soon, we will be locked into what we have for power generation and transportation.

"UCS quote: "America could achieve at least 20 percent of its electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy sources by 2020..." "

Yes, they're saying 20% is a minimum, not a maximum. They see no need to prove that something higher can be done, because that's some time in the future.

The NAS/NAE study doesn't give any space limits for solar. I didn't look at the wind section, because this is 25-30 years old! That's not useful for something that changes as quickly as solar and wind...

I'll add more..

Hi Nick,

This does not look to me like more than 20%: At http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-e...
USC asks "Is it feasible to supply 10 percent of U.S. electricity with non-hydro renewable sources by 2020?" Much electricity can be generated, but at what investment, and how much energy is lost in transmission. These are real obstacles that the MIT scientists look at. Little has changed in solar technology and wind turbines. For turbines, the shape of the blades, the generators, and the bearings are very old technology. As for solar, the costs of the precious metals for manufacture are skyrocketing and so too are the energy costs in manufacturing. Solar is one of those approaches that fits into what Chis Shaw refers to as "Quicksand"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5964
He asks: "Shall we empty the treasury into the bog in order to get a little more traction?" Why waste good oil to get solar/electricity (which we don't really need) and the payback on solar/wind is 20 years. And if we calculated all of the energy that goes into solar/wind (oil, natural gas,coal) used in manufacture, transport of all the people who went to work to construct all of the parts, the energy in mining and transport or ore (bauxite), manufacture of trucks, trains and railcars for transport --- then we see that Shaw knows his stuff: "In the (alas, too few) years to come, we will see great argument over the proper allocation of dwindling oil reserves. It will be realised that other sources of energy cannot deliver sufficient surpluses to replace the potent portable energy we know as gasoline and diesel. It is not generally understood that poorer quality energy sources can be critically dependant on oil for their extraction, processing and distribution. In other words, oil is the precursor for other sources of energy; gas, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, because these require oil fuel to create and maintain infrastructure. It also gives them the illusion of being profitable." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3837
Those solar installations cost a lot, will cost more and more, and then will fail completely from a lack of maintenance that requires oil. From my report: The production of each type of energy is highly dependent on other types of energy. Shortages or high energy prices for one type of energy will limit the production of other energies. Oil is critically important in the production of all forms of energy. Shortages in oil will mean shortages in gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Thus oil rig workers won’t be able to travel to the oil fields and off-shore platforms; coal won’t be mined or transported; electric power won’t be generated in some plants; roads and bridges won’t be maintained; and spare parts won’t be delivered for oil drilling and refining, electric power generation, and for natural gas production. Shortages of natural gas will constrain oil production from Canada’s oil sands. ....: (1) Shortages in gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel will limit travel to work for oil rig/platform workers and technicians, coal miners, highway maintenance personnel, and maintenance workers for electric power generation stations and power lines. (2) Without truck and air transport, spare parts for virtually everything in the economy won’t be delivered, including parts needed for highway maintenance and energy production equipment......The power grid for all of North American will fail due to a lack of: spare parts and maintenance for power lines and electric power generators, as well as from shortages in the supply of coal, natural gas, or oil used in generating electric power.....Phillip Schewe, author of "The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World," writes that the nation’s power infrastructure is "the most complex machine ever made." In "Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, the Global Economy, and What It Means To You," author Jason Makansi emphasizes that "very few people on this planet truly appreciate how difficult it is to control the flow of electricity." A 2007 report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) concluded that peak power demand in the U.S. would increase 18% over the next decade and that new power supply sources would not meet that demand. NERC also noted concerns with natural gas disruptions and supplies, insufficient capacity for peak power demand during hot summers (due to air conditioning), incapacity in the transmission infrastructure, and a 40% loss of engineers and supervisors in 2009 due to retirements. According to Railton Frith and Paul H. Gilbert, power failures currently have the potential of paralyzing the nation for weeks or months. In an era of multiple crises and resource constraints, power failures will last longer and then become permanent. When power failures occurred in winter, millions of people in the U.S. and Canada will die of exposure. The links to the sources above can be found at page 40 of my report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
These 2 are worth reading:
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1257
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Blackouts_America_Cyber...

Deffeyes has commented that we will be back to the stone age in 25 years. But I think sooner than 25 years, as the power grid will go out sooner than that, as indicated in my report. And that's it. Better to conserve and not waste that precious oil on solar. But at this point, energy costs and inflation will rise so fast that we have what we have, and that's it. Solar will go no further, no matter what anyone wants. Most all of the voices say oil/liquids production peaked in 2006. And we've peaked on costly metals too. So here we are.

Deffeyes has commented that we will be back to the stone age in 25 years. But I think sooner than 25 years, as the power grid will go out sooner than that, as indicated in my report. And that's it. Better to conserve and not waste that precious oil on solar.

Hate to rain on the parade , but what do you think that oil is?

The correct answer is solar energy. From a long time ago, but it is solar energy.

Yep, I been telling my students for years that we have old and new solar energy.

Solar costs too much.

One day of spending on the war in Iraq equals the entire annual U.S. government budget for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL).

Despite its small budget, a grant from NREL recently helped scientists develop a breakthrough 40% efficient solar cell. What might happen if renewable energy and energy efficiency got what the U.S. spends on Iraq in just two days or a week?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/02.08/09-energy.html
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=24666

Why won’t we get serious?

Hi Bigelow,

Good point. The opportunity costs are great. Not only is the war in Iraq wasting money and lives, but it wastes lots of oil, natural gas, coal, and metals/mineral resources. It would be nice to see those funds going into an accelerated oilgae program. www.oilgae.com Maybe there is some net energy gain there, and surely in geothermal, and maybe in nuclear/breeder reactors too. Geothermal does not consume much oil in production. The others more so.

Solar costs too much.

Bull. Solar is cheap. A man, working a generator can get 200 or so watts for 8 hours.

Yet for $2500 I bought 4 150 watt solar panels. For 20+ years I should get, as long as the sun shines on them, the labor of 3 men.

Please show me where, per the bible, I can buy and keep 3 Canadian or Mexican Slaves for 20 years for under $3000.

The population is used to buying their energy in a 'pay as you go' model, with Gas being some $.10 a cup. So of course solar looks expensive

Solar is very expensive. I've seen someone's home set up for solar. 20 panels, some 30 batteries, and it only supplies 20% of his home. Big juicers, like fridge and stove, can't be on it. The system costs $25,000.

For people who do not have such money or cannot borrow any more, it is totally beyond reach. Don't try to justify that eventually prices will come down. That's only if there are enough people now buying systems at that cost. If the demand is low due to price too high, then the price may not come down much. It would have to lower by 90% to make it affordable to the masses. And with oil going up, that's not likely to happen any time soon enough.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Yes, solar is expensive. When oil goes to $200 to $400 and to $800 per barrel, the cost of solar will be 2X, 4X and 8X times more expensive than today. As Chris Shaw says, oil provides an illusion of utility for other sources of energy, like solar and nuclear. When oil is very expensive, almost no one will be able to afford solar panels. The oil that goes for constructing solar panels would be better saved for use in tractors and trucks to keep us from starving to death in the years ahead. When the power grid goes out, which I discuss below, electric power will be mostly useless. Solar has the illusion of being sustainable, but it is not. Better to learn to do without: stop using the TV, hot water, and most lights. One day we will be without these luxuries, better to start now. Up until 100 years ago, few people had a regular hot bath or shower. A super navy shower (soap up with a sponge and wash hair at the sink, and into the shower for less that a minute) can save a lot of energy in a year, probably as much as a solar panel puts out in a year. I take a navy shower daily and the wife says I don't stink anymore than usual.

" When oil goes to $200 to $400 and to $800 per barrel, the cost of solar will be 2X, 4X and 8X times more expensive than today. "

Are you clear on the concept of E-ROI???

" 20 panels, some 30 batteries, and it only supplies 20% of his home. Big juicers, like fridge and stove, can't be on it. The system costs $25,000. "

Batteries don't make economic sense, except as a UPS. Efficiency is much cheaper than PV - this house uses way too much electricity, if they're serious about reducing energy usage/CO2.

"Don't try to justify that eventually prices will come down. "

Why not? It's true.

"That's only if there are enough people now buying systems at that cost."

But they are! PV is growing at 40% per year, and costs are plummeting. You should do some research on PV...

Solar isn't quite competitive with cheap fossil fuels that don't account for pollution, etc.

Even now it's cheap enough to be viable, and costs are plummeting.

To be fair, Bigelow was only saying that solar should be made cheaper, and of course, he's right.

"Solar costs too much.

Bull. Solar is cheap."

They just made a 40% efficient solar breakthrough too!
So if those who spend the money in our name chose to fund energy like they did war for a week, a month, or a year, we might just find a bit more about our alternatives, including how to do them even less expensively.

"This does not look to me like more than 20%: At http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-e...
USC asks "Is it feasible to supply 10 percent of U.S. electricity with non-hydro renewable sources by 2020?""

And this is how they answer: "there is more than enough to supply 10 percent, or even 20 percent, of our nation’s electricity needs."

This is a minimum, not a maximum. Now, look at what they give as constraints: "Of course, there are limits to how much of this potential can be used economically, because of competing land uses, competing costs from other energy sources, and limits to the transmission system,"

Competing land uses applies to biomass, not wind or solar."competing costs from other energy sources" means that past a certain point, you start to run into lower marginal returns. For instance, if you have lots of nuclear power at night, wind is less useful. What does this mean? That there is an optimal mix of power sources, and that neither wind nor solar would be expected to provide 100%, or even 50% (probably, though Alan Drake thinks wind could go that high). "limits to the transmission system" applies to wind, not solar, and is a short term limit.

"Much electricity can be generated, but at what investment"

For wind: about $1.50 per watt of nameplate capacity, for onshore US generation, and about $.04-$.08 per KWH, which is competitive with natural gas. For solar CSP: about $.10 per KWH, which is very good for peak power. For PV: about $.30 per KWH, which is not quite competitive for peak power, but PV costs are plummeting. It looks like it will be competitive with retail grid prices within 5 years.

"how much energy is lost in transmission"

About 7%, on average, for all generation sources. HVDC has about 6% loss per 1,000 miles.

"Little has changed in solar technology and wind turbines. "

In the last 25-30 years??? They've changed enormously. PV has fallen in cost by a factor of 10 to 1. Wind turbines are 10x as large, and cost 1/4 as much per KW.

"As for solar, the costs of the precious metals for manufacture are skyrocketing and so too are the energy costs in manufacturing. "

Not at all. What precious metals are you referring to? 90% of PV is silicon based, which is extraordinarily abundant - think sand! Now, lately the capacity to purify silica has lagged behind demand, and so there's been a very temporary spike in cost for pure silicon. As a result, PV cell manufacturers have been reducing their usage of silicon (300 microns to 200, 200 to 150, and so on), and therefore dramatically reducing their energy inputs.

Chris Shaw has a small point: PV is somewhat expensive at the moment. But in the long run, he's dead wrong: PV costs are plummeting due to economy of scale (that's the purpose of the subsidies), and PV has a very high E-ROI. Further, wind is now competitive with natural gas generation.

Solar isn't dependent on oil. This seems to be a "cult of oil". By that, I mean this idea that oil is the "precursor" of everything. PV is mostly made with electricity, and has an E-ROI of 20-50. Wind pays it's energy investment back in less than a year, including everything. PV and wind have almost no maintenance, and their maintenance don't "require" oil.

Transportation currently mostly uses oil, but 1st) the cost of oil for that transportation is a tiny, tiny % of the cost of electricity generation. Oil could go to $1,000 per barrel, and utilities could still afford to bid for enough to fill their needs. 2) transportation can be electrified. Freight can go very easily by electric transportation ( long-distance rail and short distance rail spurs and electric trucks), and passenger travel can go by long-distance rail and locally by PHEV/EV's.

Do we have a really serious transitional problem? Should we wake up out national leadership, and get aggressive in mitigating PO?

Of course. But there's no reason that we can't be fine in the long run, at least relative to energy supply.

HI Nick,

"Even 20%" ... this sounds like a maximum to me. A minimum would be zero. This 20% is enough to reduce the use of natural gas for power generation by 6 percent, and clearly not enough to run all the trains and trucks, and we still don't have good storage batteries after 80 years of trying (100 miles between charges, and we are not talking about 18 wheelers). And there are tractors too, hard to electrify, like 18 wheelers. UCS says: "The future of battery-electric vehicles is somewhat cloudy at this time, but their development has already made important contributions to advancing electric drive-train and storage technologies needed by both hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. If further breakthroughs in battery technologies occur, BEVs could yet prove to be the future of clean transportation."
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/batteryelectric-v...

I like your rail ideas, it would have been nice to see, and long ago we had intercity urban electric, but now the capital costs will be very high, and as costs and inflation go higher the capital will shrink. As global oil production drops, most oil will go for emergencies, vital transportation, and survival, not for the development of alternative. Oil is capital and as oil shrinks so too will capital for solar energy development. Oilgae appears to be a good bet, too bad time has run out.

""Even 20%" ... this sounds like a maximum to me. A minimum would be zero. "

What I mean to say is that UCS is saying "renewables can reach at least 20%, and maybe more (who knows, we don't care)". You have to understand, they have a different perspective. They're setting short term goals for reducing CO2 emissions, and they don't care about replacing oil in the longer term.

"This 20% is enough to reduce the use of natural gas for power generation by 6 percent"

How did you calculate that? NG only has a 18% market share of generation, so in theory a new market entrant with 20% share could replace it completely.

"clearly not enough to run all the trains and trucks"

Again, how did you calculate that? Trains and trucks use less power than you might think.

" we still don't have good storage batteries"

Sure we do. They just haven't been cheap enough to compete with really cheap fuel. They're competitive at $1.75/gallon. UCS is talking about BEV's, but PHEV's are good enough: they can reduce oil consumption by 75-100%, depending on your travel pattern.

" Oil is capital"

Could you explain that? That sounds a bit like the cult of oil I talked about before.

"as oil shrinks so too will capital for solar energy development."

Not really. If electricity becomes expensive, wind/solar will become very, very high $-ROI.

Hi Nick,

You write that "they [USC) don't care about replacing oil in the longer term." Are you sure about that? I would think that is one of their main objectives in supporting conservation and reducing greenhouse gases.

The 6% is of all natural gas.

Trains and trucks use enormous amounts of energy, that is why battery powered trucks/trains/tractors are a dream, and the UCS knows it. It is not just the cost of batteries, it is tiny capacity and few miles between recharging. And clearly not enough to run all the trains and trucks -- only 20% of the nation's power. So where is the spare power for those trains, trams, trucks, and tractors? Also, see:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3084

Oil is capital. Give me a just 1% of a cubic mile and I'll have some captial. Oil is the big daddy of all energy sources.

"as oil shrinks so too will capital for solar energy development." Yes, those solar panels cost a lot in oil, natural gas, and coal energy to mine bauxite ore, make aluminum, glass, cells, construct, transport, and service. In tough times, there won't be much spare capital around for building panels etc. And when the power grid goes out, which is not too far down the road, those solar panels will be worthless.

"You write that "they [USC) don't care about replacing oil in the longer term." Are you sure about that?"

Oh, they'd be delighted to see it happen, but it's not their primary concern. They're looking at the short-term, they're thinking more about generation here, and they're not thinking about peak oil.

The point is, they think the 20% is a perfectly good goal, and they'll worry about more when they get there.

"The 6% is of all natural gas."

But how did you calculate that?? Electrical generation uses much more than 6% of natural gas supply in the US.

"Trains and trucks use enormous amounts of energy"

Not really. Light vehicles use much more, in the US. IIRC, light vehicle VMT (vehicle miles travelled) is about 10x that of trucks, while truck MPG is about 25% of that of light vehicle VMT.

"that is why battery powered trucks/trains/tractors are a dream"

We don't need battery powered trains - wires work just fine. We don't especially need long-haul trucking - rail works just fine. PHEV trucks for short distances work very well.

"clearly not enough to run all the trains and trucks -- only 20% of the nation's power"

I'm not sure what you mean here - could you expand on this?

"Oil is capital. "

Um, not really. Sure, you can make a lot of money selling it...

"Oil is the big daddy of all energy sources. "

Not really. Coal is just as big. The resource of wind and solar are much greater.

"Yes, those solar panels cost a lot in oil, natural gas, and coal energy to mine bauxite ore, make aluminum, glass, cells, construct, transport, and service."

Not to my knowledge. Are you familiar with the concept of EROI? Wind, solar (CSP, PV, and low-temp thermal) all have a high E-ROI.

"when the power grid goes out, which is not too far down the road, those solar panels will be worthless."

What makes you think it will go down? Again, utilities can pay $20/gallon for fuel if they have to: transportation fuel is a very small part of their costs. Also, utilities are moving to hybrids as fast as they can, and they'll move to PHEV/EV's when they're available (which will be very soon).

Hi Nick,

The 6% is the USC calculation. The USC is of course extremely interested in promoting solar energy, but they know the limits. Yes, we agree that 20% is the UCS goal. 18 wheelers are far more efficient than light trucks and cars, but they use a lot of energy -- 5 MPG of diesel is a lot of energy. Have you calculated how many square miles of solar collectors to move all of the cars, trucks, rail, and light rail, as well as the cost of infrastructure and time needed to get all of this on line. According many voices/studies studies of Peak Oil, the oil production decline begins this year, and those capital costs will just go up and up. That is a lot of infrastructure and oil used to construct it. Time has run out. It is tragic that conservation and some of these ideas were not begun in 1977 when the NAS/NAE published their study, or earlier with Rear Admiral Rickover. Oilgae, geothermal, and breeder reactors would have been a good bets. If we can only get 20% of the electric power from solar/wind energy, where will the enormous additional amount of power come from?? Yes, oil is the big daddy of all energy sources, you need it to get oil and natural gas and mine coal. Look at the cubic mile data on TOD, cited above. Not only is energy is capital, but as Chris Shaw notes, it is the only true currency, always has been and always will be. EROI is nice, but when we don't have oil and natural gas, how will we mine coal and ore, and make glass for solar panels and batteries. Using up a lot of oil and natural gas to make an unsustainable solar energy hardware does not sound good to me. And the oil is running out. Look at the data cited in the past peak and conclusion sections of my report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Natural gas shortages are coming for North American, as covered on TOD. No natural gas = major power reductions and grid failure. Time is running out.

"The 6% is the USC calculation. "

Were you referring to this, at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/increasing-re... ?

"Second, by displacing some of the projected growth in natural gas use for electricity generation, the RPS was shown to reduce projected average natural gas prices by 6 percent and lower costs for all gas consumers. "

That's not an estimate of NG consumption, it's an estimate of NG prices, based on a 10% RPS.

"The USC is of course extremely interested in promoting solar energy, but they know the limits. "

No, they're not suggesting limits, they're just suggesting what they consider to be modest, short term political goals.

"5 MPG of diesel is a lot of energy"

Not really, if the trucks don't drive very much. Trucks only drive about 10% of the miles of light vehicles, and that should/could be reduced greatly.

"Have you calculated how many square miles of solar collectors to move all of the cars, trucks, rail, and light rail, as well as the cost of infrastructure and time needed to get all of this on line"

Light vehicles (cars, SUV's, pickups) would require roughly a 20% increase in generation, and very little new generating capacity or transmission. Rail, maybe 2%. Trucks, maybe 2%.

"those capital costs will just go up and up"

No. Are you familiar with the concept of EROI??

"If we can only get 20% of the electric power from solar/wind energy"

Ah, but we can get more, much more.

"oil is the big daddy of all energy sources, you need it to get oil and natural gas and mine coal. "

No, you don't. Much coal is mined with electrical equipment right now (you don't want an ICE in a deep-mine).

"Not only is energy is capital, but as Chris Shaw notes, it is the only true currency, always has been and always will be."

Not really, but even if it is, we have plenty of wind/solar, in the long run.

" when we don't have oil and natural gas, how will we mine coal and ore, and make glass for solar panels and batteries"

You don't need oil for those things. Coal and ore are mined with electrical equipment right now. Glass doesn't take much heat, and that can come from electricity, if need be. Battery manufacturing? Electrical.

"No natural gas = major power reductions and grid failure. "

No, NG is only 18% of US power. NG makes a very nice peaking/load following power source, but it can be replaced. Heck, look at the French, with nuclear. It's a bit expensive to overbuild with one power source, like they did, but it's perfectly doable, and no one is suggesting that kind of over-reliance on a single source.

This is probably one of the top 10 postings IMHO.

For me the big problem is that we will need to impliment a radically different form of socio/economic organization if we are to exploit alternative forms of energy, cut waste and profligacy and really take on the challange of Peak Oil.

We'd need to put the economy onto a kind of "war-footing" or at least something like a "Energy New Deal". This would mean overturning the last thirty odd years of right-wing economic and social policies. Unfortunately, the rich and powerful, have become so fabulously more rich and powerful, that they are unlikely to relinquish these massive benefits without a fight.

Potentially, in theory, we can lick Peak Oil, Climate Change, Overpopulation and everything else; but, but, but; it would require a very different form of social organization, which would mean taking-on, deep-seated, powerful, vested, interests.

I believe Peak Oil will emerge as fundamentally a huge political challange.

If we wish to handle peak oil and all the other problems facing humanity with dignity then we have to change.

If we don't then we fall back into the trap of a few with absolute power and the many in abject poverty.

It a question of ensuring we have a enlightened and equitable if poor society or one with most enslaved by tyrants.

We will soon relearn that true freedom is not cheap.

Memmel, Writerman,

We are in for a change, one way or the other, the nature of that change is up to us. Writerman, you are right that we are "taking-on, deep-seated, powerful, vested, interests" but those interests are unsustainable and by definition that means they won't last. Memmel, you are right that the consequences will be negative if we don't create an enlightened and equitable alternative.

We are in for a reworking of the statice quo. I think that we all know the choice is between competition and cooperation. The details are up to us.

Tim Morrison

Peak oil, global warming, and economic collapse are not the problems, they are the result of the problem. The problem is a collective action problem and an inability to make good long term plans.

The problem is a collective action problem and an inability to make good long term plans.

Thats the root of the problem and generally why I dismiss both people that think we will change and proposals for changing without a lot of problems happening.

I'd probably add long term plans for the common good of current and future generations. The closest example we have in the west is new immigrants that work crap jobs so their children can go to college. But this is a single generation willing to sacrifice its life for its children. And even then a crap job in America is often a nicer life than they left.
Thats about as far as most collective efforts go. They rarely extend beyond the immediate family. I'm not talking about roads or schools for which everyone derives some benefit but working collectively to ensure individuals of future generations actually have a happier/wealthier personal life vs previous generations.

I'd guess you would need a stagnant to contracting population and then force all property to be redistributed equally throughout the community upon a persons death.
Everyone would get "shares" in property that are relinquished on their death. To inhabit or use a property you would need to have a controlling number of shares.

These shares backed by real property would replace money and generally grow in value over time is more property becomes owned by less people. If the population is to small or a say a building decays is share value would drop just like a company. The key points is that wealth has to both continuously be redistributed and grow and population has to be stable to falling vs property/resources.

Norway kinda does this with its oil reserves.

I'd guess you would need a stagnant to contracting population and then force all property to be redistributed equally throughout the community upon a persons death.
Everyone would get "shares" in property that are relinquished on their death. To inhabit or use a property you would need to have a controlling number of shares.

Then there would have to be some exculpatory clause that if a person died from 'unnatural causes', his/her property would be given to some foreigners, otherwise there would be an incentive to rub people out.

I don't think so actually the exact opposite. If someone dies you only get a small percentage share of the wealth. All we are really saying is that your shares revert back to the commons and you lose the right of occupancy which is not useful when your dead.

Now if someone collected a lot of shares and concentrated wealth then yes their may be pressure to kill him. But thats not a bad thing and it happens now the death rates for the wealthy are a lot higher then in the general population.

A bit brutal but it does act as a deterrent for someone trying to control everything. I really don't see anything wrong with periodically killing the wealthiest citizens if they have concentrated enough wealth to cause it to be worthwhile. This is the basic thesis of communism.

Basic checks and balances in any society are based on killing people.

Memmel, Nate,

Actually, what I propose is a system where ownership cannot be transfered. Worker owned businesses and cooperative housing where ownership is vested in employment or residence. A worker or tenant has ownership in the sense that they have a vote in the decision making process and they profit from the operation. They don't have ownership in the sense that they can liquidate or transfer ownership of that commodity. I'm calling the system commonwealth economics.

A worker owned business would have a board of directors elected by the workers, one worker one vote. The board would appoint management. Management runs the business like every other business with a few important differences: Broader distribution of wealth, greater transparency, more democratic decision making process, greater employee involvement, and finally more receptive to social pressure. Think of a few businesses and their troubles past and present and then think of that business as a worker owned business.

Some examples
Chrysler: union vs private equity
Enron: cooking the books for a short term gain
Your local utility company: renewables vs coal
Countrywide Bank: subprime vs sensible practices

A cooperative housing development would work in a similar way, but instead of shared profit the benefit would be lower rent. Rent is usually priced relative to a comparable mortgage. In a cooperative rent would be priced relative to upkeep costs. In my vision of this a newcomer would pay a deposit and then start paying rent and attending mandatory meetings. The meetings would allow otherwise isolated tenants to get to know their neighbors. It would be conducive to positive social behaviors like recycling programs and car pooling. The price of rent would consist of upkeep and maintenance, property taxes, future upgrades, insurance, and an increase in equity. The increase in equity is an additional cost to continuously increase the size of the deposit. In essence add X% to rent and transfer it to the deposit balance every month. So that there is a strong interest to keep the unit in good repair and the individual receives a large payment when moving out. The large payment would make a good down payment for a house or retirement plan (nursing home, moving in with the family, life in the country, whatever)

For the record. I don't think that commonwealth economics will save us from peak oil, global warming or economic collapse. We are already committed to those problems. I do expect commonwealth economics to make a difference in the future on the downside of the oil slope and beyond. I think that the daily involvement will change individuals behavior. Things like carpooling and turning the heat down. (present examples, the details will doubtless be different in the future) And, I think that individual involvement will influence longterm industrial planning.

It occurred to me while writing this that these structures are more tribal than our present ones. You have a work tribe and a housing tribe. You make collective decisions that effect the people in your group. People that you know and deal with on a regular basis. Social pressure becomes more important.

Tim Morrison

Peak oil, global warming, and economic collapse are not the problems, they are the result of the problem. The problem is a collective action problem and an inability to make good long term plans.

"the death rates for the wealthy are a lot higher then in the general population."

Are you sure? That doesn't fit with anything I've seen. Could you give your source?

I'd have to really dig. But in general they take more risks in sports and other games. And also are more often to die in personal and business quarrels. I googled without success but this is vs the middle class the death rates of course increase in the lower classes.

If you think about it a bit it makes sense they go boating more often on average have sports cars travel more etc etc. I remember the study because once I read it I was like Doh of course. What I found a bit interesting is you would think that the wealthy would have better medical care but it looks like that does not offset the greater risk they take on.

This is for rocks starts but its actually generically true for the wealthy and sorry I can't find the general reference.

http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/health_library/reuters/2007/09/20070904e...

I've been collecting posts on the difficulties people have had convincing their family and friends for over seven years now. To see illustrations of Nate's column, I've posted my favorite comments from energyresources and runningonempty between 2000 and 2005 at

http://www.energyskeptic.com/TellingOthers.nxg

My husband is a techno-optimist, an extremely bright, funny, aware person, but we can't talk about energy or we get into a huge fight, so we don't talk about it at all. He believes a solution will be found. To undermine that belief, I've been writing about the problems with each alternative when I can find the time.

He "subscribes" to me through google alerts, so if I post an article on energy, he'll get an email and read my article -- that's one of the reasons I wrote "Peak Oil and the Preservation of Knowledge", "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and a Threat to America’s National Security", "The Hydrogen Economy – Energy and Economic Black Hole", etc. But he still believes one or more of solar, wind, nuclear, and coal will bail us out -- by the time I write those articles it will be too late, sigh...

Alice

Alice,
As they say, opposites attract...;)

Alice,

Although hardly anyone replied to your post, many read it.
I enjoyed your linked-to collection of observations.

PTPOA (Prior To Peak Oil Awareness), I too was deluded into believing that my family, co-workers, etc. are "rational" people and that if only you tell them of some impending real danger they will react in a calm, rational way.

Peak Oil opened my eyes. They are all zombies. All sleeping walking towards the cliff.

I am new here and just found out about peak oil last week.
I am convinced about it, but not the timing. I am only about 50% convinced that we are now at the peak or will arrive there within a few years.
Yes, it is a geologic fact that we are running out of oil, but I am seeing that the peak oil phenomena is really an outgrowth of our economic-political systems.
What if we did have real planning? The peak oil curve would not have to look the way it does. It is a real indictment of the society we have built, to reach such a precipitous state concerning energy.

What I think is that the average person is not interested about peak oil because there is very little to be done about it on the individual level; especially when the timing of it is uncertain and there is such conflicting information. When oil and gas prices start to climb higher and higher, then more people will be convinced.

I am personally not seeing that I can take action until there is more certainty that it is really upon us. Even then, I have relationship considerations, my partner would need to be convinced etc. Luckily I do not commmute far and don't have a huge amount of debt. Probably the best I can do is to keep my 1994 Honda Civic VX running.

Real leadership would mean that the issue of over-dependence on oil as our energy source would have been addressed many years ago instead of having confidence in the magic of free markets.

Supposing peak oil is not upon us now but is in 30 or 40 years? Then what is the psychology of those who are believing it is happening now? It seems to me that there is a bit of a righteous presumption in this article.

If you think this is presumptious wait until my next post!
Seriously though - Im not trying to argue(here) when Peak Oil is, though I've written extensively about it as have others here. The point here is given the magnitude of the problem, adherence to the precautionary principle, and acting soon, makes the most sense. If it turns out that peak is a decade in the future, we will have changed the consumption paradigm that much sooner and saved alot of non-energy resources.

And there is MUCH that can be done on an individual basis:
1)be happier with less by training
2)lead by example
3)enlist community, local, regional etc. change

these things wont be easy - but we've had it pretty easy for a long time. We need to collectively change HOW we use energy before we can effectively discuss what is best use for remaining high quality fossil fuels.

But for one week into it you seem to have a decent grasp - I've been reading 4 hours a day for over 3 years and still puzzling it through...

"remaining high quality fossil fuels."

I don't know. FF's may be convenient, but with all of their pollution, they don't seem so high quality to me.

For instance, PHEV/EV's and rail are better in every way: quiet, non-polluting, better performance...

but Nick, unless we change the demand paradigm, we will use all those PHEV/EV's to transport us around and consume all the other non-energy stuff there is. PHEVs are just stop gap - and where is all the nickel etc. going to come from? There was a VERY scary presentation in ASPO Houston on what Chinese demand is doing to minerals, etc.

Don't get me wrong - we need to change the energy mix - but it needs to be accompanied by the keys out of our social traps.

Advanced lead batteries, lithium batteries and other types as well work.
The Lead batteries are good enough for the 60 million scooters and bikes for china. There is no resource or technical issue for getting to 2 billion electric vehicles by 2020 able to go at 55+mph and with over 100+ mile range. There is a question about scaling up to a lot of very heavy electric vehicles in a timely fashion.

There is a funded wealthy entrepreneur who is working on charging stations
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jGWDKTUTP8ZvJ5-VOU7GWW_cQ5kA

Nate, why no feedback on the transition plan that I proposed ?

===========
http://advancednano.blogspot.com

There is no resource or technical issue for getting to 2 billion electric vehicles by 2020 able to go at 55+mph and with over 100+ mile range.

Yes there is. The technical issue is getting people to think about how undervalued $0.10 a cup gasoline was

Then there is the technical issue of getting expensive cars into the hands of the poor who used to 'get by' with the 'older discounted' cars. (Aka the Cars 695 and up lot)

The poor who do not have a car now may not (probably will not) have a car in the future.

China has people who are comparatively poor switching from unpowered bicycles to electric scooters and bikes.

China and India are the main countries who are rising fast and will have big impact.
500 million electric scooters and bikes in China by 2015 and a similar number in India by 2020 would be huge amount of avoided usage of oil.

Those vehicles in the $100-300 range would also be exported to Europe and North America when there was a peak oil crunch. However, if this is delayed or if bigger electric cars get made (like the Tesla, Flybo, Zip, Chery etc...) then that may not be as necessary.

Higher oil prices force the transition.
Those who can afford not to transition would not have to.

=========
http://advancednano.blogspot.com

"but Nick, unless we change the demand paradigm"

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't see why we can't have a better life and economic growth, while reducing our ecological footprint. I certainly think that it would be a good idea to change some of the things for which we have "demand", but I don't see anything wrong with PHEV's.

" we will use all those PHEV/EV's to transport us around and consume all the other non-energy stuff there is."

I'm much more concerned about climate change, and disappearing habitat, than I am about mineral depletion. I haven't seen any credible indications that mineral depletion is going to be a critical problem. Phosphorus looks like a real problem, but not critical. Copper is limited, but there are many good substitutes.

AFAIK, most of the mineral/commodity price peaks and shortages caused by Chinese demand are more a classic case of capex lag, than actual limits.

"PHEVs are just stop gap"

I'm not sure what you mean. They certainly eliminate direct oil useage by 75-100%, depending on your usage pattern. As battery size grows, that will change to 90-100%. I'm not convinced that rail can substitute for more than about 25% of travel needs, without a massive and hugely expensive building program.

" - and where is all the nickel etc. going to come from?"

As noted by advancednano, NIMH won't be the platform for PHEV/EV's.

There is another logical step missing from Nick's list of

(paraphrased)
1. Oil is running out
2. economy is based on oil
3. economy is running out

And that is; if you voluntarily reduce the economy, you can reduce the rate at which the oil is running out AND our dependency and insecurity. The law of reciprocity in math applied here. (If you want to stop the war in Iraq, stop buying gasoline and plastics.)

Ergo,
"If you want Change, keep it in your pocket."
This means that when you are wondering what you can do to help, just take a walk outside. Don't turn on the TV, don't go anywhere, don't turn on the computer to rant (like I'm doing). Just stop. Use less, buy less, buy local, grow a garden, etc. If you want to know other reasons why, then read "The Greening of America" by Charles Reich

Just bear in mind the consequences to the economy doing that. People's jobs depend on the status quo. Just look at the big 3 automakers. Laying off thousands because fewer people are buying their cars. Now expland that to the "green revolution" where you cut down just about everything in an effort to go "green". You actually produce the thing you are trying to avoid. Economic collapse.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

"Luckily I do not commmute far and don't have a huge amount of debt."

And there you have it. Do a quick math exercise: Calculate which will save you more money at various gasoline (or in my case, Diesel) consumption for your commute distance. Now calculate what you are paying in interest for any debt outstanding. Question: Which will pay you more in actual money, reducing (or best, doing away with) you debt load, or changing your commute distance. In most cases in these United States, doing away with debt pays much more in dividends than changing commute time or vehicle to reduce fuel consumption.

So, for now, is it peak oil or peak money? People will do whatthey think rewards them.

Remember, the "financial services" community (what a misnomer that one is!), makes more combined profit than the oil and gas companies.

RC

VERY NICE! Well done.

For the record.

-- if the Pope says it, it must be wrong. How's that for a belief LOL. Basically QUESTION and CHALLENGE authority. Just because so-and-so says something does NOT mean it is true or will become reality (take note Gore and Lovelock worshippers).

-- I don't believe anything. I let the evidence tell me the direction I should accept as reality. Subject to change due to changing evidence. The old adage "I change my opinions when new evidence comes to light, what do you do?" (people hate change)

-- The glass only contained half of it's capacity. If you do not know how that state came to be, you cannot say it is half full (as in half filled) or half empty (as in half removed).

-- Is anyone really ahead of their time? Or is it the belief system of the majority of people prevents them from seeing what new items are presented to them? It's the latter, hence my motto below.

-- and lastly. The more complex society becomes, the more fantasy the public will invoke to explain it.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

The more complex society becomes, the more fantasy the public will invoke to explain it.

Damn, I think I sense a future Disney movie.

NNate,

It is a nice article but your attempt to import cognitive findings to help make your points is misplaced in a couple of respects. I think you can strengthen your points by correcting these issues. First, cognitive load experiments such as in your example explore people’s ability to do two tasks simultaneously. For the higher level cognition that is relevant for us here, the overwhelming evidence is that people simply can’t do two tasks at once. It may seem like we multi-task by thinking about two things genuinely in parallel, but the evidence indicates that we are in fact interleaving our attention to one task and then the next. But that is hard to do, so usually we don’t even do that. In the real world, therefore, when people hear about peak oil, they are not attempting to do something else simultaneously. All their attention is focused on the peak oil argument, or none is. The fact that people do not head warnings such as peak oil warnings even after they attend to them is therefore not explained by cognitive load research, as I assume was your intended point. What may be true, and is in the same vein as your point, is that most people are just too busy to have much time for the news. It is better just to say that than to attempt to make weak connections to cognitive load experiments. While it is true that, as predicted by cognitive load theory, we cannot think about peak oil and do our taxes at the same time, that fact does not shed any real light on the behavior that you seek to explain.

Second, the recency effect in short-term memory experiments lasts for only a few seconds, as does short-term (or working) memory (though in pop media it is often not represented that way). The intervals between our encounterings of arguments about peak oil are usually on the order of minutes, hours, or days, well outside the range of short-term memory. The recency effects you describe regarding peal oil learning are real, but they have little or nothing to do with short-term memory or the recency effects in short-term memory. Instead, they are, in part, long-term memory updating phenomena. When a person takes a stand on something, their argument is of course primarily devoted to the evidence supporting their case. The consequence is an updating of your long-term memory on the topic in a one-sided way. The first few times you hear an argument about peak oil (for example) there is not much information in your long-term memory about the topic, so there is substantial updating and a potentially large change in opinion. Thus, early in learning we may find ourselves being jerked back and forth in our views when hearing differing opinions. This can be compounded if we have a strong predisposition to believe in the argument that is false (e.g., not wanting to accept peak oil). As our database in long-term memory grows, however, each new argument we hear contains less new information and so there is less updating and our views are jerked around less and less. Short-term memory recency effects, in addition to being on the wrong time scale, cannot explain that fact. There is also gradual forgetting in long-term memory, so that more recently encountered evidence may be better remembered, and that can be thought of as a recency effect, but its not a short-term memory effect in this context.

Ffindrob

Thanks for your thoughts.
First:

First, cognitive load experiments such as in your example explore people’s ability to do two tasks simultaneously.

What I meant here was more that people are too busy to even read pieces like this - once they DO read it, then your argument is correct.

Second, I think the recency effect is just sociology/psychology rendition of the economic concept of steep discount rates -but going backwards instead of forwards.

I agree with most of what you said - the fact is that these are real phenomenon, however you label them, that distort/make difficult the task of changing things before a crisis precipitates - whether its Peak Oil, or war, or anything else.

Nate,
I would also say it is an interesting and well written article.
For me there are differences with beliefs that are based on feelings and those that take what are facts (or almost facts) into account. For example there can be the feeling that "they are taking care of us and making sure we have oil, so it isn't peaking soon". Or just a feeling that things don't seem to change much, they mostly stay the same. Or, we are the best, and "God bless America". The feeling that we will solve any and all problems, we are so great. A lot of feelings and beliefs, in my opinion, come from childhood and life experiences.

There are a whole lot of facts to consider; the price of oil has gone up. There must have had some good reason to attack Iraq. There are all these graphs, charts, and statistics of all kinds projecting the peak. It is very hard to weed out what is a fact and what isn't. The media certainly isn't doing a good job of this for us for us.
A lot of people seem to base their views on the general consensus. When a consensus builds that the peak is really coming, a lot of people will be changing their beliefs quickly.

I think that the underlying problem is population growth and limited resources of all kinds.

Great website. I'm sure I will be visiting here often.

It is very hard to weed out what is a fact and what isn't

Yup. Thats what we try and do here - though we're not perfect. I come replete with my own biases and opinions. But they have been shaped and changed by what I've learned here over the years. To discuss ideas and hone in on what really is the 'truth' is one of the main objectives at theoildrum. Truth needs to survive the fire of skepticism and critique, otherwise it is nothing. We have built a community around that norm, and if THAT carries beyond this website, then irrespective of what happens with Peak Oil, we will have made an important difference.

Sidebar:

Or, we are the best, and "God bless America"

This always irks me. Irrespective of ones religious views, why would God bless america while not blessing other countries?? If I were president, (God or whoever else forbid), I would likely drop it altogether, but at a minimum, for inspiration, say 'May God bless America and all the nations of the world. And all the creatures that don't have a say wrt Peak Oil', etc. But this sentiment alone would preclude me from getting elected....;)

Or, we are the best, and "God bless America"

This always irks me. Irrespective of ones religious views, why would God bless america while not blessing other countries?? If I were president, (God or whoever else forbid), I would likely drop it altogether, but at a minimum, for inspiration, say 'May God bless America and all the nations of the world. And all the creatures that don't have a say wrt Peak Oil', etc. But this sentiment alone would preclude me from getting elected....;)

Halleluiah!! Just kidding LOL, but you are absolutely right.

BTW, how does your friend feel about $40 a barrel oil now?

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

This always irks me. Irrespective of ones religious views, why would God bless america while not blessing other countries?? If I were president, (God or whoever else forbid), I would likely drop it altogether, but at a minimum, for inspiration, say 'May God bless America and all the nations of the world. And all the creatures that don't have a say wrt Peak Oil', etc. But this sentiment alone would preclude me from getting elected....;)

Probably be more interesting (and maybe more succint)to say 'God bless everything except for..."

What would be in that list ?

Excellent article, BTW. Cognitive psychology is always an interesting topic.

If you've read this far you're either unemployed, retired, a psychologist, a blood relative, my girlfriend or someone on the edge of a paradigm shift. Thank you in any case.

Yeah, you got me. You stinker!!;-)

I hope you can forgive me for such a long comment.
I enjoyed Nate's article. It's good to get philosophical even on a primarily technical discussion list. After all, we’re talking about the need for change, which is fundamentally philosophical, psychological and potentially spiritual I supppose. Besides, we’re all philosphers, whether we admit it or not, because everyone acts according to how he or she THINKS the world is organized. Of course, not everyone cares to pay attention to this level of engagement. But numbers 5) and 6) on Nate’s “bottom line” list can’t possibly happen without paying direct attention. So even though this certainly isn’t a psychology discussion group, I’d like to suggest something along the lines developed by the late physicist David Bohm (http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/bohm_dialogue.htm).
And also, on a more “tournament specific” level you might say, I’d like to butt in with my own two cents (sorry, I didn't have change so it came out rather long) regarding the significance of error, which I think is key for changing.
I’m going to question GalacticSurfer’s contention that a transition to a new belief system requires effort. Of course, we’re probably defining the terms differently. Most discussions start disintegrating when participants flail at each other with completely different definitions. Most good dialogue is the result of hammering out a common tongue, which doesn’t happen without mutual respect. So yes, he's right, this DOES in fact take effort.
But on the other hand, we’re not exactly transitioning successfully by these efforts. Efforts like this tend to lead to division. If we respond to this division with mutual respect, then it’s not a problem. But effort alone is a naturally divisive movement. We struggle against an opposition camp or point of view. There is a subtle or not so subtle us against them mentality. And the interesting thing about this deeply imbedded warrior philosophy is that we can’t stop it. (Which is not the same as saying it’s inevitable, only that we can’t forcefully stop it, can’t use effort to stop effort). The effort to “think peacefully” or act like Gandhi (and I love him, don’t get me wrong) is that it’s still a subtle form of coercion, of us against them, of warrior philosophy.
That is, we apply warrior philosphies in the pursuit of peace. This is significant because it indicates the depths to which we tend to be ignorant of our own minds. And anything used in ignorance is dangerous. Hence we end up in dangerous predicaments like this. So appreciate Nate starting a little philosophical roll. There's where the source of danger lies.
Notice that it doesn’t require effort to discover that my peaceful strivings are not in fact peaceful at heart. I don't have to try to see this fact. We don’t have to TRY to see the sun, and we don’t have to try to see our own responses for what they are. They are there in full view, and it’s only through an unconscious, habitual effort of resistance and denial that we manage to avoid these perceptions and cling to our old beliefs.
Yes, we apply effort in trying to convince others, and that’s somewhat necessary and not always problematic. But I'd guess that there's no one alive who has transitioned successfully to a new mentality. And so, the issue is less one of changing others, but changing ourselvs. And this is where the deeper significance and problem with effort comes into play.
When we try to change our OWN belief systems, we end up with this rather tormented (if mine is any judge) and divided mind (society’s acceptable schizophrenia, me and my shadow). We take this internal division for granted, but it’s really rather insane, isn't it? The self is a figment of imagination to which we hold our dearest allegiance. This is where all outward wars really start, or as the stupidly dismissed Krishnamurti once said “war is the spectacular and bloody projection of our daily lives.”
I mean, hear me complain about my gaffs with the sternness of an English school-master, condemning what I've done from a morally superior third person's perch (disguised under first person pronouns): "I'll never forgive myself for what I've done!" Or listen as I express the frustrations of an injured party -- "there I go again, spilling milk all over myself!" -- in this way sidling over to gaze at my wrong-doing as the victim instead of the perpetrator).
We employ our voice or image almost as if we're enacting a convenient internal division between my righteous or victimized voice and the errant self it wants to divorce itself from. Or it may be more inadvertent than that. Sometimes it seems I'm trying to be honest but self-knowledge's very structure -- its pointing rod design -- precludes it from pointing in the right direction.
What I mean is, rational thought is perfect for solving technical problems because it can project the problem to the appropriate place. When I try to figure out a puzzle I imagine different solutions and then apply them to the puzzle. It works very well because thought is a pointing rod basically. But when turned inwardly, thought also treats itself, or the self, inappropriately as a technical problem, as an object, that needs to be handled like any old piece of external hardware. It's inevitably misleading because the pointing rod will always point away from itself. The end result is that thinking becomes implicitly and sometimes explicitly accusatory even when it's turned inwardly, and incapable of finding the source of its own error.
I’m saying we cannot “neutralize these agents” as Nate suggested, without becoming aware of this basic “fault” in thought itself. This isn't the same as saying we're limited by human nature. Seeing is a third option – a simple enough movement that transcends both rational thinking and belief, although both serve their own purposes. Seeing (or learning) is precisely the absence of resistance or effort. It’s the capacity to change in response to immoveable fact. We need LESS effort in that sense, not more.
I think the reason utter failure can seem so educational at times is due to the nature of the problem. Unlike a technical problem, which requires a projected solution, a psychological problem usually contains its own resolution. It's like a Chinese puzzle, where the more I pull the more trapped I become. If violence is the problem, then I can't force my self to adopt non-violence (except in appearance) because force is the root of violence. If selfishness is the problem, I can't merely try to be unselfish, because the motivation alone is egocentric. If division is the problem then I can't try to attain wholeness because effort itself is the dividing impulse.
It's like that moment when we first played those chinese torture puzzles as kids. The more we struggled to extricate our finger, the tighter we were held. At some point, the little kid makes the startling little discovery that it's his own effort that's making him stuck. By letting go his own efforts (by seeing the problem without resistance), he frees himself. Seeing, not effort, is real action.

Still my favorite post of all time.

Even with the peak oil info left out of it, this is basic stuff that all humans should be required to read and think about before being allowed to wander loose in the world.

Deserves its own dedicated website. (ass-from-elbow.com probably available.)

Yes its extremely good, thank you Nate. I never found the time to read the May version, but its a cloudy Saturday morning here and I have spent a very rewarding hour viewing the essay and many of its useful links.

One question though Nate - have you resisted the temptation to taunt your broker friend with information that his companies short position on oil held in May has been nothing short of dreadful? Surely the present oil price must be causing him to at least question his views somewhat?

Finally, I must say how interesting it was to read how you periodically feel the need to re-test your belief in Peakoil, against data and information as it emerges. I find this a very useful process (maybe my scientific training kicks in here), and have taken to sitting down with my wife and reviewing where we stand, every few months or so. I tend to now dovetail these periodic assessments with a more general review of where we stand as a couple in relation to our PO planning (with inputs such as recent financial position, acquisition of useful information/training (ie gardening skills), advancement of social networking etc). I find this sort of thing a very useful exercise, and very empowering in the face of what seems such a momentous threat.

Thanks for a great article, Nate!

TOD does have a tendency towards bean counting, and your posts are always a breath of fresh air to us "mathematically challenged" :)

I can't wait for your next, presumptuous post! May I ask what it will be about?

It started as a 'why I write for theoildrum' piece but has changed into summarizing the dots I've connected here at TOD in the past couple years; my expected 'distribution' of possible future societal scenarios; and what really needs to happen if we are to right this ship, or at least steer it in a better direction. It will be full of 'beliefs' (my own), likely too doomerish for some and too hopeful for others. So I expect to catch some flack, which is why I wanted to rerun this piece first...;)

Thanks for the compliment.

Thanks Nate, I enjoyed this and your previous posts.

I wanted to follow up on Jussi's comment about "mathematically challenged".

There is a wide spectrum of natural ability out there. Mathematics, Logic and the application of the rules of Science and Evidence are critical to making the best possible decisions for our planet. Unfortunately entrenched interests are good at bending these rules to trick even the wisest of us into making choices that are counter to our interest. That is why it is critical to renew the emphasis on math and science in our schools. Only when there are enough of us able to spot the deceits and point them out to others will we be able to make the convincing case for action. Unfortunately, time to play the education card is running out. Right now the average Joe doesn't have the tools to know who is telling the truth. Joe's eyes glaze over and he fetches another beer.

Our challenge is to put things in the simplest clearest words and pictures so Joe can understand. Joe might really need the beer then, but just maybe, Joe would be willing to vote in politicians willing to make the kinds of change we must have.

That is why it is critical to renew the emphasis on math and science in our schools.

Hear hear!

But how do we do this Kevin?

I wish I knew Nate!

Being Geeky and Concerned got me to TOD in the first place. I regularly try to simplify and explain these complex issues to those less geeky than myself. I get a wide variety of reactions:

  • My religion, church or political party rejects any such ideas, therefore I should not even listen.
  • I'd rather not know.
  • I'm trying but it's too hard to understand.

    And more often these days, but not often enough:

  • I'm concerned and would like to know more.

TOD is certainly a wonderful step in the right direction. By arming folks like You and I with the latest knowledge and debate, we are gradually making a difference. I just wish we could speed up the progress.

I have a new metric I want to call. Peak Cars. More specifically I will be interested to see whether it coincides with Peak Oil, or actually occurs after Peak Oil, because it illustrates our collective cognitive dissonance very precisely. If it does occur after Peak Oil, how many years after?

We do not have monthly collated data for global cars sales like the illusionary monthly "data" we think we do for oil. Nevertheless annual figures rounded to the nearest million will do. 2006 was a record year (70m units) and 2007 is tracking well to post even higher numbers. In addition, many of those vehicles have only had a bicycle traded in against them, so if peak oil was 2006, where is the extra gasoline coming from to run them? If Peak Oil was July 2006, then stocks must be down 50-100m barrels. I suppose this could easily be the case and explains the sudden run up in prices now, at the wrong time of year.

So a further twist on Nates excellent article is the psychology illustrated by the concept of Peak Cars. My final question is this: will they all still be in use at the end of their finance periods (accidents and write-offs aside)?

The Pope photo and caption (which BTW could never happen! Even the geocentric model was never dogmatically defined to be true, though you might certainly have had a hard time for denying it.) led me to search the Vatican site to see if there were any mentions of the energy issue.

From the Pope himself, there is an interesting paragraph in his message for the 2007 World Day of Peace (Jan 1st)

The close connection between these two ecologies can be understood from the increasingly serious problem of energy supplies. In recent years, new nations have entered enthusiastically into industrial production, thereby increasing their energy needs. This has led to an unprecedented race for available resources. Meanwhile, some parts of the planet remain backward and development is effectively blocked, partly because of the rise in energy prices. What will happen to those peoples? What kind of development or non-development will be imposed on them by the scarcity of energy supplies? What injustices and conflicts will be provoked by the race for energy sources? And what will be the reaction of those who are excluded from this race?

Then, from the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, there are a few in the last 3 years.

This statement at the 2nd Comittee of the General Assembly of the UN on Sustainable Development seems to show they are pragmatic and open-minded, as should be.

if fossil fuels are going to be with us for "the foreseeable future" and if states are going to rely on "hybrid options in energy mix", as the Secretary-General suggests, then serious public investment in clean technology must accompany this pragmatism (emphasis added)

And his address at the 15th session of the Commision on Sustainable Development of the UN Economic and Social Council is particularly interesting:

Mr Chairman, the question of energy is rapidly becoming one of the key questions of the entire international agenda, as all of us struggle to assemble a common, global, long-term energy strategy, capable of satisfying legitimate short- and medium-term energy requirements, ensuring energy security, protecting human health and the environment, and establishing precise commitments to address the question of climate change.

The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well.

...

Thus, in order to address the double challenge of climate change and the need for ever greater energy resources, we will have to change our present model from one of the heedless pursuit of economic growth in the name of development, towards a model which heeds the consequences of its actions and is more respectful towards the Creation we hold in common, coupled with an integral human development for present and future generations.

...

Not so long ago, the Security Council had a meeting to discuss the relationship between energy, security and climate. While not everyone agrees upon the discussion of such material in the Security Council, the sobering fact is that we are already witnessing struggles for the control of strategic resources such as oil and fresh water, both of which are becoming ever scarcer. If we refuse to build sustainable economies now, we will continue to drift towards more tensions and conflicts over resources, to say nothing of threatening the very existence of coastal peoples and small island states.

Recently, we have heard of economies that have managed to grow while actually reducing their consumption of energy. Surely this success holds out hope that our current economic model does not always oblige us to use more and more energy in order to grow. Economic growth does not have to mean greater consumption.

Economic growth does not have to mean greater consumption.

The oxymoronic notion of sustainable growth. As long as that lie is continued to be pumped into the thoughts of the general public, the more we are in for a nasty crash.

Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.

Thus, in order to address the double challenge of climate change and the need for ever greater energy resources, we will have to change our present model from one of the heedless pursuit of economic growth in the name of development, towards a model which heeds the consequences of its actions and is more respectful towards the Creation we hold in common, coupled with an integral human development for present and future generations.

There are a lot of interests in the world with a lot of “truths”. I agree with the above quote from a religious type. The global markets types would disagree. So first the energy, espionage, medical, military and bureaucrat groups will have to be convinced that it is in their interests, because they collectively define what is a “fact” for most humans.

The term ‘Homo Sapiens’ leads to a misunderstanding of this species.

‘Homo semi-Sapiens’ would be a more accurate description.

It is an exceptional treat to have a consideration of how the 'semi' aspect affects the dynamics of this. Many thanks.

Nate I read the first 2387 words - which brought me roughly to the section on Authority Figures - leaving roughly 4975 words unread. I have to choose who I believe - you or The Pope.

This is truly great stuff. The interview with Thomas is sublime - and I'd love to hear his views now. The fact of the matter is the majority of "economics" types and arts students just plain don't understand that energy cannot be magiced up out of nothing. The effort required to work out PO and to think through the consequences is quite large - and since this leads to unpleasant conclusions I imagine many people will just choose to remain ignorant, continue to live a life in denial up to the last minute.

The comments on cognitive load theory are very pertinent. I have a number of pressing urgent issues to deal with - buy a wood burning stove and chain saw, try to get a position at a local university, deal with some tax issues for my Mum who is 90, do the definitive research into UK gas supply forecasts - but am not able to get around to doing any of this cos other issues keep arising that deserve / need attention - many emails, writing comments such as this and pursuing other initiatives - right now there is a huge amount of screaching in the background.

The point about Authority Figures is very important - and ties straight back to the comments made by Thomas. One thing to remember always is that Mr Yergin wrote an amazing book and has earned his right to authority and Dr Jackson is a highly respected geologist, formerly of Enteprise Oil. So why should people believe what we say as opposed to them - and I'd point out they currently earn loads of cash doing what they do - and we don't - are they much smarter than we are? Well maybe they were all short on oil and we weren't:-))

You told me to make contact with Richard Nehring in Houston - he is a typical authority figure. He speaks very well and has huge experience. He attended the the talks given by Stuart and I - made some comments and we spoke afterwards. He also spoke and placed himself firmly in "The Peak Later" camp - 2020 or beyond - still plenty time to party! In the Q&A session I asked him where Chris Skreboski was wrong in his analysis (Chris has a peak past / now / very soon position) and Richard N struggled to answer. I think we need to engage the Authority Figures in a positive way - and become authority figures oursleves.

Was it Dr Schlesinger who said in Cork that the peakests had won - and that we needed to be magnanimous. I'm not sure if this is true yet. But at some point those who have worked tirelessly on this problem for many years for the benefit of humanity must surely be richly rewarded - I'm thinking Campbell, Duncan, Youngqvist, Laherrère, Defyes et al - they must be held up by the world community and recognised for their work - and then they can become magnanimous Authority Figures.

Actually, come to think of it, the article is more problematic than I originally thought. Let's assume that Nate is right about our individual behaviours. So?

There's no reason to think that, for instance, in the aggregate, these characteristics aren't exactly the characteristics that will get us *out* of Peak Oil Doom. To go any further with this analysis would make the same mistake that economists often make, which is extrapolating from individual behaviours to the aggregate. We don't know. Or maybe we do: what do we know about human aggregate behaviour in the past, given the social structures we have now?

I'm willing to bet, nothing sufficiently systematic to make any interesting statement.

Hi, Nate.

Thanks for pulling all this together. I too have had conversations like yours with Thomas.

There is another very useful model one can use to understand human behavior, which is that you could look at humans as a network of conversations.

Some conversations are very old (war will solve this problem, men are better than women, women or more nurturing than men) and others are very young (peak oil, what Brittney Spears did last night). Some of the oldest conversations have been with us since humans developed language (spirits, gods, etc.). All conversations are valid as conversations. That's not the same as saying they are true, btw.

In this model, human action is highly determined by the conversations in which they participate. That's why there is the saying, "Choose your friends carefully." Another way of saying that is, "Choose the conversations you participate in carefully."

Peak oil is a relatively young conversation. To have humans repeat this conversation means that other conversations will need to be displaced. But many conversations have a sort of immune system that keeps them around, and is based on much of what your essay talks about. Survival, immediate gratification, comfort over discomfort, authority, etc. all perpetuate conversations.

The field I am discussing generally is called the study of "discourses." It doesn't take human initiative out of the equation, but it does have fascinating predictive power.

--------

Andre' Angelantoni
Preparing for a Carbon-Constrained World, No Charge Online Briefing
www.InspiringGreenLeadership.com/preparing-carbon-constrained-world

I like the fact that you are looking at psychology to understand why people have blank stares or automatically discount evidence of peak oil when it is presented. Cognitive load is probably not the strongest explanation. I look much more at cognitive dissonance theory which came out of social psychology (Leon Festinger). It is the tendency to discount or dismiss that data which contradicts the ideas one has about one's investments. If I am invested in a system which has provided my needs and continues to provide my needs, what data will persuade me to make massive changes to my life? to my beliefs about the system? I am standing on the tracks, I see no train coming, why should I get off the tracks?

I do think optimism and pessimism have a great deal to do with responses to peak oil information. Pessimists are more likely to believe bad things can and will happen. Typically, optimists are more resilient than pessimists, but sometimes pessimists get it right.

Why are young students passive? Most likely deer in the headlights. Many students today have no experience with achieving goals through collective action. If a social movement is not perceived as a viable option, most young people have only themselves as resources to address huge problems: overwhelming. Brain shuts down.

I think the data needs to be broadcast and spoken of to all who will hear. When changes become strongly evident, collective action is more likely. Will it be timely? Doesn't look like it so far.

Rob Berger, MA
Licensed Psychologist

Thank you
Actually, I had completely forgotten about cognitive dissonance! Shows that this is a blog and not a real journal (yet...;)

The cognitive dissonance example that is very relevant and useful was the one Jared Diamond used in Collapse. There was a dam (I forget the details) that was in danger of rupturing - if it broke all the houses downstream would be flooded or even washed away. 3 miles downstream people were moderately concerned. 1 mile downstream people were very concerned. 1/2 mile away people were freaked out. But the people living really close to the dam weren't worried at all (according to the social surveys). The thought of the dam breaking was just to overwhelming for them to accept -at least concsiously -they probably had subconscious escape-valve actions occurring, like going to the bathroom on their computer instead of the toilet, and pouring orange juice on their cereal, etc.

Thanks for your comments. Licensed psycholgists (and perhaps unlicensed) might soon be in demand...

I've previously used the example of space alien cultists and cognitive dissonance. When the aliens failed to show up on a certain date, as predicted, the cultists tended to work even harder at trying to convince others that the space aliens really existed.

As I have previously said, some might consider Peak Oilers to be cultists, but the irony is that we are the ones who believe that a finite world has finite limits. As I noted up the thread, Peter Huber has literally stated that our energy consumption will increase forever. So who are the true cultists?

I have used the example of Saudi Arabia and their 2005 to 2006 rate of increase in consumption (+5.7%/year, EIA Total Liquids). At this rate, even if their liquids stayed constant at 11 mbpd, their long term net export decline rate would be -10%/year, going to zero net exports in 2036, on their way to a consumption level of 108 mbpd in 2075 (the Economist Magazine claimed that Saudi Arabia could produce at their 2005 rate for 70 years without finding another drop of oil).

Hi, westexas.

Well, I suppose peakists with a bit of a stretch could be called cultists if one is referring to the latin "cultus" or "worship." In that vein, most religions are in fact cults but I don't think most people think of cults that way.

Typically a cult as most people think of them requires a single charismatic leader, significant isolation from society at large and a few other factors if memory serves.

That's why the theory of discourses is very useful. Everything becomes a conversation that has just a few members speaking it or many members speaking it.

To spread an idea then becomes the very mechanical process of adding membership to the conversation. I often tell people that the peak oil conversation is now where the climate change conversation was five or ten years ago but that external forces (i.e. gas prices) will expand the conversation more quickly than climate change.

I also happen to think that peak oil will become the dominant conversation soon. This has not made me popular among my climate change colleagues but bit by bit they are seeing what I am saying.

---------------
Andre' Angelantoni
Preparing for a Carbon-Constrained World, No Charge Online Briefing
www.InspiringGreenLeadership.com/preparing-carbon-constrained-world

Why are young students passive? Most likely deer in the headlights. Many students today have no experience with achieving goals through collective action. If a social movement is not perceived as a viable option, most young people have only themselves as resources to address huge problems: overwhelming. Brain shuts down.

Rob,

Nice theory, but I don't think a group kumbaya will help. What is needed is repeated training in the hard hard areas of physics, chemistry; the so-called hard sciences.

Without training in the hard sciences we have blind men circling the elephant. All the group hugs in the world won't unblind the blind.

Our modern, complexasized civilization suffers from over specialization. Everyone is an emperor in his/her own nano-kingdom, none is a master of any sizable domain.

Case in point:

A couple of months ago I'm watching two young college grads (family members) struggling as a collective group to get a bulky heavy item into a small car, into its back seat. The trunk is already full. So that's not an option.

They're both muscular weight lifters and with advanced college degrees to boot. One is a computer science major who can code in circles around me till I'm dizzy. The other is a communications major.

I knew there was no point in talking to them. I'm an old geezer. They are young, energetic, and way smarter/stronger than me, at least in their own minds. So I just stand back, watch and wait.

Finally they are at wits ends and screaming at each other. They have tried every cooperative, group muscling approach they could think of. Problem is, the car's doorway is too small and as a "collective group" they will never fit into its tiny door space. They keep getting in each other's way; blocking each other out.

Finally I step outside with a wood plank in my hands. They are huffing and puffing and too out of breath to argue.

"Boys," I say, "this here is a complex physics machine. Some ancients called it a ramp. Others called it a lever. Surely you have heard of these terms?" (They shake their heads no. They don't teach this low level stuff in advanced CS major school.) I plant the plank like a ramp at the bottom of their car's door well and instruct them to place the heavy object on the bottom of the ramp. Then I single handidly slide the object up the ramp, grab the bottom end of the ramp and lift, turning the plank into a lever for leveraging their heavy item along the last phase of its journey, through the tight doorway of the car and triumphantly onto its back seat; an area that two people (a group) simply cannot fit within.

They stand there huffing and puffing, still out of breath from all their previous efforts and in total disbelief.

Did they learn anything?
I doubt it.
They don't teach this stuff in advanced CS courses.
And a lesson to the overly-wise will not suffice.

They drive off in their petro-filled machine; still confident that I'm a Peak Oil fruit cake. (Oh yeah, they know about my old geezer's belief system. But hey, who needs to mind an old geezer when the world is full of new, advancing techno-gadgets and energy breakthroughs? The world is their oyster.)

“This post is a first stab at examining our cognitive belief biases.”

“We have evolved to have instant access to our emotional minds in times of stress or danger - a million years ago too much rational thought would have essentially been suicidal.”

“From the moment of birth we depend on others to instruct us about the world. While young, we are given a specific language, a specific religion, a smattering of science and history and all the while we implicitly assume we are learning facts about the world. But we are not. We are simply being told what to believe. Though this is of course practical, it has resulted in 6.5 billion different (but overlapping) belief systems, somewhat modifiable as we grow up but increasingly less malleable as we get older.”

“The answers to the large-scale human problems cannot be solved by facts and science of the outside world alone - we need to incorporate facts about who we are into the equation.”

In keeping with the above quotes, I offer the following:

In order to understand why the world is the way it is, one must understand how it got to be this way.

The point list below contains some basic “givens”. It’s a list, that if clearly understood (it’s linkages and synergies), can lead to a process of exposing manufactured compliance in belief systems (illusions) that are leading individuals/societies away from cooperative, egalitarian life styles toward ever-increasing hostility and conflict.

Accelerating resource scarcity (such as we are witnessing with global oil supplies) is just one of many realities that can only serve to further entrench societal illusions and accelerate the process of manufacturing compliance.

I believe the points listed below apply universally; and that they exist irrespective of literacy levels, economic status (impoverished or well-off), political and religious beliefs, and ethnicity. I also believe they provide a framework for understanding why no individual, society, country, state or regime (past, present and future) is immune to the social, economic, political and environmental “problems” we have witnessed and are presently witnessing. They form the basis for why we are where we are today, and why we are continuing to move further away from understanding societal illusions.

1. Anger is an emotion and is part of a pain-driven natural survival response (NSR).
2. The alternative to the NSR is extinction.
3. The NRS is as follows: Pain leads to fear (emotion), leads to anger (emotion), leads to resentment (emotion) which leads to a need to react or retaliate (emotion) which leads to hostility, a behavioural response (acting out self-protective destructiveness), which ultimately leads to change.
4. Classical conditioning takes place when pain is linked with a secondary cue (judgment), and eventually the cue alone reactivates and reinforces painful memories that produce anger (much like Pavlov’s dogs were tricked into drooling). Anger is a natural, helpful response.
5. When anger* is the response to the secondary cue (bad, dirty, etc.), you are being tricked or fooled into responding to a judgment.
6. As a child you have no choice in the conditioning process, which links secondary cues (bad, wrong, dirty, etc. etc) with pain.
7. People aren’t born with an innate knowledge and understanding of secondary cues: judgments like right, wrong, good, bad or any other human construct.
8. The belief in, and conditioning to these constructs is a product of (predominantly parental childhood) training (nurture). The “nature” part of childhood training simply relates to the capacity to respond to training.
9. Unless someone is biting, kicking or punching you, or posses a direct/immediate/realistic threat to your welfare, the pain you are experiencing is a result of the way you are thinking. If the way you are thinking is a response to a cue, or the memories the cue elicits, it can be referred to as distortional thinking.
10. Cues (which may be memories stirring body feedback pain as well as judgments) can stir memories that express themselves through the limbic system (the autonomic nervous system).
11. This is the crucial point where the scope of NRS thinking diverges from classical conditioning. The NRS incorporates the fact that the response is not simply “drooling”. The response involves all of the body feedback generated by the limbic system when the memory was first stored as well as the message from the immediate cue. (A brick held over the foot causes a much more involved response than a neuromuscular flinch of the leg. Just as the body feedback one experiences when one is criticized/labeled is not just the result of the judgmental label used at that time, it’s the sum total of feedback from all previous experiences with criticism.)
12. As a result (because the limbic system is involved) there are two outcomes: a. As you think and stir memories, so you will feel, and b. As you feel and stir memories, so you will tend to think.

Understanding these linkages is a prerequisite to exposing the illusions that persist despite the existence of facts (scientific method) and the principles of logic. Since imagined pain (pain that is the result of being tricked or fooled through distortional thinking) is the result of stirring pain related memories, the only hope humanity has for a less painful, continued existence on this planet, in the face of dwindling resources, is to understand the difference, in causation, between real and imagined pain.

* It is also true that pleasure can be a response to a cue. This is termed the “positive” hoax response. The positive hoax is equally as problematic as the negative hoax.

Did you see this article? - similar to your toughts, but not on Peak Oil.

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks.
http://www.singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf

A lot of smart money has already figured out we need to develop substitutes for fossil fuels. Look at the huge increase in venture capital funding of energy ventures.

The price of oil is going to change lots of minds. The masses are about to get persuaded by the price signs as gasoline stations.

What we can not know: How fast will innovators develop ways to adjust to the post-peak world? That's an even more important unknown than the date when world oil production starts declining.

this debate has to become more neutral because it is becoming fundamentalism.

Can you please explain which debate and what you mean by fundamentalism?

The conclusions of this post are my own, but the phenomenon discussed are real, measured and scientific, though like anything else are being refined as fast as time and technology allows.

And I fear there is a) no such thing as true neutrality, even in science and b)science will move to slow to keep up with Peak Oil.

I liked Nate’s post, and all the compliments are well deserved. I may have posted on it before (?)

Nevertheless, although everything is linked (human memory, perception, behavior, etc. etc.) when addressing paradigm shifts, or even just public awareness, or even a lowly question like fashion, the cognitive characteristics of humans are a minor topic.

What is at stake (from psychology) is the behavior of groups - e.g. cultural stereotypes and stigmatization vs. cognitive dissonance (although Festinger was a social psychologist at heart), ingrained cultural habits vs. the recency effect (how ppl process information, or their short term memory, does not affect their religious beliefs), group risk taking rather than ‘relative’ personal aversion for it -- according to social psych. groups are far less risk-aversive, through a process they call ‘polarisation’ - extremes attract and win out, duh, though one may question such conclusions as ‘it all depends on the circumstances’ and generalizations are hard to come by even if social scientists feel obligated to tout them, etc.

The belief in, adherence to, adulation of, etc. authority figures *is* a group process, as it permits groups to function and act. But it is by no means constant (if evident throughout history) in its nature, type, scope, degree, so not describable in general terms. Egalitarian societies distribute power and don’t accord much of it to specific individuals; Societies in stress worship strong leaders and kill scapegoats as well as their neighbors; cults of personality are manipulated all the time; etc. etc.

Individual psychology (eg face recognition, short term memory, visual perception, etc.) concentrates on what might even be called biological characteristics. Fine, and it is fascinatin’. Put one of those humans in front of a TV and the propaganda it spouts - and a whole other picture (sic) calls for attention.

(I skimmed some of the posts above so sorry if some is a bit of a repeat.)

Noizette

Certainly group psychology is the other piece of the puzzle, but even that is grounded in our history as a species - the vast majority (99.5%+) as hominids we were in small (50-200) tribal units that lived pretty close to the max of local carrying capacity. We now have a giant tribe of 6 billion (with myriad sub-tribes and sub-sub-tribes underneath).

The post, and others like it, was trying to point out why some people have certain 'reactions' to Peak Oil, while others have different ones. It is a far cry unfortunately, from providing answers to the energy problem, other than pointing out that we have to do alot more thinking about who we are than just tabulating BTU scoresheets.

Please write a guest post on social/group processes - it would be very welcomed.

Nate, thanks for the great keypost. Let's see, who should I believe, the geezer with the funny hat or Nate? Hmmm ....

The problem will solve itself.
But not in a nice way.

if you are the owner of a yellow gas-guzzler, you might as well convince yourself that the sensible blue car you passed up was an ugly bore.

From NYTimes article on cognitive dissonance and how it happens