 | Grading My 2007 Energy Resolutions | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil Update - December 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers |  |
180 comments on DrumBeat: December 29, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
180 comments on DrumBeat: December 29, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
—Antonio Gramsci
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
very true. American civilization is an extensive meditation on the varieties and permutations of the hydrocarbon bond.
That may not be the best the Earth can come up with, and in the fullness of time, it is bound to be transient.
My question for 2008 -- can human intelligence come up with something better?
"My question for 2008 -- can human intelligence come up with something better?"
We function best in small groups and "something better" will need to incorporate that part of our psyche. If we do succeed in establishing something better, the trick would be to keep it from devolving back to globalism and corporatism.
Francois
I suspect lack of cheap, abundant energy will take care of that.
Complex societies have a lot of overhead. It's fossil fuels that have allowed our current complexity. I think we'll be hard-pressed to maintain globalism in the face of declining net energy.
The Romans did, after a fashion, for many centuries. However, they did it on the back of their forests, which in the lifetime of a human being is more or less fossil fuel.
A global elite will still be able to function well after "peak oil" and "peak forest" and the rest -- and they may continue to have the power to enslave the rest of us, though that is the stuff of science fiction.
But will anyone survive "peak air?"
I've no doubt other empires will arise. Temporarily, at least. But the kind of globalism we have now...I really doubt it.
any ideas?
There are plenty of ideas, but as long as the energy companies are making huge profits off of the status quo, there will be little money available to implement those new ideas.
Speaking of Plenty of Ideas, it seems many of the contributors to this blog represent a vast cross section of industries. It seems that every energy intensive industry, or ones that manufacture energy comsuming products, are in fact focusing a great deal of ingenuity on efficiency and cutting demand. Many fronts are advancing simultaneously, and perhaps a thread, or a string of posts can touch on some of these in order to shed some hope on softening the blow from demand outstripping supply.
I have some examples I've come across in my line of work I can share if there is an interest.
GW
I heard there's this weird kind of element which makes a whole bunch of energy if you hit it really hard.
"We function best in small groups"
Probably, maybe.....depending on what level of complexity the groups agree to live.
We arrived at where we are now because "small groups", became provinces, countries and empires.
That we will probably devolve into small groups again to my mind is quite frightening, given the current populations and limited resources.
The lines along which the small groups decide to form themselves, will establish the battle lines in conflicts over everything that has been thus far suppressed by enforcible laws, higher education, high employment and free trade among others.
That small groups will form along lines of ethnicity, religion and other beliefs and that they will be perceived by other groups as being "a threat", due to what they control with resources and their practices, can only lead to conflicts on a scale we have read about in history books.
The bigger the small group you have and the bigger the amount of resources you control and can protect, will be the safest survival strategy.
I know there are utopian views of how the world will look and behave as populations decline due to the affects of peak oil, I don't mind hearing them, I just find them hard to believe considering human nature.
Uh-huh
Thinking of existing groups in the U.S. as models for future survival bands, cults and 'organizations' which might form.
Bikers
Ex Military
Cops
Militias
Apocryphal religious groups
Ethnic and non ethnic Gangs
Yeah I'm not too Utopian either.
The first two have a huge overlap, and the first four would surely find a way to work together.
Yes we seem to go to a lot of trouble to be sure that nearly everyone in U.S. society has an opportunity to familiarize themselves with weapons and become skilled in their use. The video game thing too.
And we musn't forget WT's FWOs (formerly well offs)suburbanites who generally have hunting (or paintball) skills.
Yes, the first two have a huge overlap. Maybe the first four would work together somewhere...Not around here. Bikers around here dont hold cops in general in high regard. Some individual cops are well thought of...because they are seen as fair and they are as contemptous of some stupid laws as most bikers. The militias are wannabe cops attempting to gain control of their individual little fiefdoms via anarchy. The bikers would eradicate them.
Human intelligence has already come up with many things that if implemented would give us 'something better.' Intelligence is not the limiting factor. What does limit us are political institutions and deeply embedded economic systems that give free reign to out natural instincts toward greed, selfishness, domination and the lust for power. Basically, our very natue is working against us.
I've heard it said that it remains to be seen whether man's superior intelligence over the long run will turn out to be a successful survival trait. If we destroy all civilization in a nuclear holocaust or wreck the earth's life support structure, then the answer would be NO.
Roaches, rats, and sharks have over millions of years already proven their success as species. Humans have been at the survival game for only a small fraction of that time and appear to be exhibiting some increasingly self-destructive tendencies. The prognosis is not encouraging.
Maybe a massive die-off and collapse of human civilization will be nature's way of 'resetting the timers', so to speak. However, responsible men and women of good will have no choice but to keep bailing even though the ship appears to be sinking. One thing that is NOT in human nature is to give up.
part of the concept of "intelligence" has got to be the creation of political and economic systems.
The individual intelligence which is so strikingly apparent in small groups and among isolated geniuses has to be extended to a wider sphere. Evidence for that is regrettably hard to find "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- but I guess as you say, we have to keep looking. Human beings are mostly not quitters, but sometimes I wonder if tenacity and intelligence are somehow inversely proportional in the human psyche. It sometimes seems like the most perceptive among us are the first to become depressed and withdraw from the fray.
joule, evolutionary psychologists suggest that psychological depression evolved as a way of getting animals to conserve energy when confronted with an unwinnable situation.
My point: maybe Americans need to 'give up'. IMO Americans are 'human doings', not 'human beings'. They need to do a lot less mindless activity, which would cut fossil fuel consumption deeply and quickly.
I'll also suggest the invention and widespread use of antij-depressants is one part of the machine that has enslaved most Americans. If they weren't medicated up the wazoo, they would experience depression appropriate to the situation we find ourselves in. If we do get a fast crash, one of the positive feedbacks that will turn it runaway will be unavailability/inability to afford psychoactive meds.
Just an idea...
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
edit: Maybe investing in booze and cigarettes would be a good crash stategy.
I tend to agree with much of what you've said.
Being bummed out is a perfectly sane reaction to a hopeless situation. On the other hand, being cheerful and smiley when you have absolutely no reason to is a sign that you either don't understand the situation or are psychotic.
Most people don't take radical action until they've become so pissed off and/or desperate that they no longer care about the consequences. There is often greater value in negative thinking than in 'positive thinking', as the positive thinker often deludes himself that things will work out when he has absolutely no rational reason for believing so. For example, in Germany during the mid-1930s it was the Jews who were negative thinkers that fled Germany and thus escaped the Holocaust, whereas the positive thinkers figured that Hitler wouldn't last and thus perished.
Having people tranquilized 24/7 helps them tolerate situations they should not have to tolerate and thus prevents radical action. I find the current US practice of heavily medicating school-age children for totally normal childhood behavioral 'problems' to be a very evil thing indeed and an indication of how bankrupt the US public education system is and how grotesque modern American society has become. The thing I find surprising is not that there have been a number Columbine High incidents but that there are not a lot more of them.
''...The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed''...
- Adolf Hitler
This was certainly true in Germany in the 30's. For all, but first of all, for the Jews.
The Polish branch of my Wife's family had this choice in the 30's.
Stay or leave.
Two young, enterprising Poles left. One , a lecturer in metallurgy, the other a concert grade pianist.
The first was happy to clerk in the Sheffield steel industry. The second was happy to carve a living as a jobbing piano tutor.
Both ultimately carved a serious business for themselves.
My wife's Grandmother entertained General Sikorsky and his staff on an illegally reared and roasted pig in 1943
The others (100+) that remained in Poland 'disappeared'...
Some by Germans, Some by Russians.
No matter...'Scratched by a cat or bitten by a dog - the pain is the same'...
My daughter did a recital of Chopin after Christmas Lunch this year.
At least as good as her Grandmother or even perhaps her
Great - Grandmother
Success is (always) the best revenge.
Dont ever take it lying down.
Vote if you can, shoot if you cant, run if you can do neither.
By 1939 there were very few Jews left in Germany whether positive thinker or negative thinker. The main impediment to Jewish emmigration in the 30's was finding a country that would let them in.
I think USSR was open for them (most of USSR political elite at that time was Jewish I believe). My wife's grand-grand father came to USSR from Poland back them.
USSR political elite was not Jewish. I haven't studied their immigration policy. I suppose people fled Poland in any direction they could.
USSR was a pretty anti-semitic place but so was Poland, and Germany, and Romania, and etc.
They were not Jews.
They were middle class Poles.
They were targets by both sides.
Joule
I'd normalcy pass over this kind $%/#. But I've allwas thought you to be one of our better posters. So.
"There is often greater value in negative thinking than in 'positive thinking', as the positive thinker often deludes himself that things will work out when he has absolutely no rational reason for believing so'."
Don't confuse 'positive thinking' with stupidity. I hate stupid people and get depressed when I think about them. much ancient thought revolves around positive thought. Hell, Buddha sat for seven years in a cave and found the ultimate positive thought. Hows that for a carbon foot print.
I don't think Hitler was a positive thinker but think MLK Jr. was.
If you want to be bummed out go ahead, what ever makes you happy.
I've found the key to being happy is just being happy.
Nelson Mandela used this in one of his speeches.
I'd like yo end my sermon with this
Out of positive thought comes positive action and we desperately need that. I don't think the Black Water solution is a positive one.
earl,
In his book "Authentic Happiness", Dr Martin E P Seligman writes of research indicating that while pessimists tend to be less happy than optimists, the pessimists have a more accurate perception of reality. In other words, as a generality positive thinkers do indeed delude themselves.
Also, as I understand it, Buddha's big insights were:
1 Life is suffering
2 The cause of suffering is attachment to things, people, and outcomes
Quite the happy-face, that Mr Buddha!
The pessimists of a society have their purpose; our time is now.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
I think the big insights were:
1. there is suffering
2. the causes of suffering are attachment
3. there can be an end to suffering
4. the steps one takes to end suffering
Great response
I'm not optimistic about our societies future at all. The whole thing is real messed up. ( that's as politely as I can put it)
This is a tricky subject, bordering on the theological. I personally think we can be pessimistic and still try to do the right thing. Are you familiar with the stories of people coming across villages wiped out by famine but upon entering houses they found the stores of seed grain intact? That's the situation I think we are facing. I'd like to work toward something better after all this bleep goes down and I think that will take positive thought/action.
As far as Dr. Seligman goes. Well, is this book worth reading? Because I think I have happiness figured out, if you want to be happy then be happy
what is man's superior intelligence? is that the inventiveness in tool and gadget making? or the long range thinking and the ability to act against man's own instinct and desire? only if people could understand these few letters that have around for 2500 years: 绝学无忧
Nh3, your four words did not come through so I have no idea what they are. But it seems that you do not understand the term "man's superior intelligence".
Here is how it works. Every species have survival techniques, or something that gives them an advantage. The eagle has flight and telescopic vision. The vulture has flight and a superior sense of smell. The tiger has speed, fangs, strength and so on.
Homo sapiens have one main survival mechanism, their wits. Homo sapiens cannot run very fast, little strength and being the only primate without an opposing big toe, cannot even climb very well. Homo sapiens are the only non-arboreal ape. We have only our wits to aid us in survival.
As a species we compete with every other species on earth for territory and resources. And we are winning….big time! We are the most successful species ever to evolve. We are taking territory and resources from every other species on earth.
But our wits gear us only for individual or tribal survival. Of course, as all species do, we must compete with those of our own species. Now that our resources are about to go into decline, that battle will likely become very bloody. We will no longer be matching wits with other species, but matching wits with our own species in our battle for survival. It will be nasty, very nasty.
Ron Patterson
I quite agree.
Having given up hope for meaningful societal cooperation on the "triumvarate of collapse", I visit this site for information that might give me a comparative advantage. The matching of wits you describe has already started, and I intend to use my intelligence for the purpose it evolved.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
The problem with that argument, is that humans have always fought over resources, in the form of territory. According to your theory, now that most areas of the world are occupied, and there is maximum pressure for space, we should be in the midst of very bloody global warfare, but we are not.
One significant feature of humans, perhaps brought by having intelligence, is the remarkable ability to cooperate and live in dense populations with non-kin neighbours. In most species this would be a recipe for intense conflict, but not in humans. Only in some cases do ethnic rivalries flare up into conflict, for the most part people see the benefit of cooperating instead of fighting.
In addition, war requires resources. Studies have shown that guerilla warfare occurs where a resource is available to fund it, eg. diamonds. Without resources, countries simply cannot afford to fight. Any major wars that are likely to occur (i.e. with the US involved) are likely to be quick and one sided.
I would argue the exact opposite is equally likely, i.e. that we could see unprecedented global cooperation. In practice, I expect a similar level of warfare and cooperation that we have now.
HI Bob,
This is really interesting.
re: "I would argue the exact opposite is equally likely, i.e. that we could see unprecedented global cooperation."
It would take some time to dig up references on relative levels of violence throughout history, and I'm not familiar with them (just know they exist).
It's a great idea to turn the assumptions around - to look at the high levels of cooperation that do exist, and, as something I think about - the number of non-profits in the US, for eg.
We saw the unprecedented demonstrations worldwide prior to the US invasion of Iraq, as an example of people wishing to cooperate and avoid bloodshed.
Interesting.