Having been reading at Oil Drum for a while, I note that most of the participants are technical people: engineers, and the like. Less technically oriented participants are generally grudgingly tolerated at best, but the predominant interest of preserving the economy that we all participate in, by trying to find a way to transition to either increasing access to other than oil and gas petroleum based energy sources, or such large scale infrastructured sources as nuclear fission or fusion, would seem to represent a too narrow view considering the problems ahead. The possibility of run-away global warming, or climate change if you prefer, is too real to be smug in dismissing those who appear to be alarmist in their viewpoint on the consequences of peaking oil. Time for a transition, if not too late already,is very short. I posted a condensed version of this article, just appearing at energybulletin.net. at the Kunstler thread earlier. Perhaps this might be of interest for a start.
Do engineers and technial types tend to be more optimistic about the prospects of their chosen profession being able to solve a wide range of problems? Absolutely. Nothing is worse than an engineer who thinks his profession is worthless at solving problems. But, a good engineer also knows that "hair of the dog that bit yah" types of solutions aren't usually the best solutions.
As for the "grudgingly accepted" comment, I wholeheartedly disagree. Engineers and technical types are definitely going to understand the underlying material better than non-technical types simply because the underlying material IS techical. Maybe I'm only speaking for myself, but I feel very strongly that it's my duty to do as much as I can to educate non-technical types on these issues as accurately as I am able. If I see a technical type slagging a non-technical type, I'll step in and let them know that's unacceptable.
And yes, there are other problems here besides finding ways to extract more energy per time. Our energy sources, the amount of energy we convert per time and the effects those two have on our environment should always be considered as part of the same fundamental system.
The Peak Oil problem transcends any speciality, be it chemical engineering, or geology or thermodynamics or social sciences.
Say you are a doctor and think PO has little to do with the health care business. Well where do you think the raw materials come from to make all your inexpensive plastic syringes, tubings, etc. etc. And as we saw in New Orleans, when the power goes out at those hospitals, all the fancy high tech medical equipment becomes just so much dead weight. The elevators stop working. You can't transport nonambulatory patients from floor to floor. The whole hospital system comes crashing down. What emergency preparations are being made in the medical field for meeting the energy crisis? How is the emergency medi-vac helicopter going to fly emergency patients in and out without airplane fuel?
The biggest problem IMHO is our societal organizations. They are incapable of detecting let alone dealing with emerging problems like Peak Oil, Global Warming, Rapid Climate Change (not the same as GW), inter-species virus transfer (H5N1 bird flu), etc.
We need to bring it to the attention of everyone in our society that some fundamental assumptions about our "advanced society" of the 21st Century are all wrong. We are a runaway train heading full steam towards the washed away bridge and we (the larger "we") still don't know it. They keep grazing happily in the fields as the herd marches relentlessly towards lemming's ledge.
Well, I would argue that I'm using a fairly broad definition of "engineering" that basically boils down to "undertaking problem solving in a logical and straightforward matter." And, from my experience, a lot of people don't really know how to do that. Even relatively simple problems like what happens to modern hospitals when the power gets shut off are immensely technical, as you really really need to know something about how those hospitals operate on a moment to moment basis if you want to have a chance at "fixing" the problem.
I think a lot of people have gotten into the habit of "solving" problem by buying something new or complaining to someone who truly solves the problem for them. But maybe I'm just being elitist.
What you describe is an outcome of the Adam Smith proposal that we should all "specialize" in one esoteric craft or another. After a while, we come to expect that "the markets" will always provide an approproate solution on a just-in-time basis.
Did the blue screen of death just pop up on your computer? OK. No problem. Pick up the phone and call the office computer geek. He'll fix it. Always has.
Not feeling well? Go to your doctor. He'll give you just the right pill. You'll be good as new in a day or so. It will work next time for sure. Always has.
Your gas station is out of gas? Forever? No problem. Pick up the Yellow Pages. Look up Energy Specialists. They will deliver a just-in-time soultion. The science geeks always have, always will. The markets have always provided. They are sure to do so with each next crisis. It is the power and the miracle of the Invisible Hand. It always delivers. I have deep faith-based confidence in it. Don't you?
No need for us to alarm the sheeple. Everything will be fine. Doom and gloomers have come and gone. The Earth is still here. See?
The problem is, in an absolutely perfect capitalist society (read, not us), the problem actually would be fixed. But, I think perfect capitalism requires perfect understanding of the market situations, which we just don't have.
We COULD correct PO, if we took the right steps. But, ultimately, the people who hold the pursestrings have to know that there's a problem that needs a solution NOW. Ultimately, this is where the process has failed.
What do you mean by "correct peak oil"? Find fossil fuel where there is none?
What a capitalist system will do is push the price up high enough that we never run out, making sure that there's always some oil production available for the boutique plastics industry and other specialty niches.
Already, and more so as prices go higher, there's money in finding substitutes, which will work great for the non-energy uses for oil. But when it comes to oil's role as a source of cheap energy, I don't think capitalism is going to help. Capitalism will work fine for finding other sources of expensive energy which will be somewhat cheaper than the really expensive oil of the future, but hardly what I call "fixing" the problem.
The problem is, in an absolutely perfect capitalist society (read, not us), the problem actually would be fixed. But, I think perfect capitalism requires perfect understanding of the market situations, which we just don't have.
You have a lot more faith in capitalism than I do. The fact is that there is a lack of social consciousness in capitalism. The disparity between the have's and havenot's is just one example of what's wrong with capitalism.
We COULD correct PO, if we took the right steps. But, ultimately, the people who hold the pursestrings have to know that there's a problem that needs a solution NOW. Ultimately, this is where the process has failed.
The problem is that all of the solutions I know of require asking people to make great sacrifices. My contention is that people will fight change at all costs. How many times have we heard that honesty with the American public would be political suicide? Jimmy Carter was honest and look where that got him. So the politicians who are aware of the situation aren't going to make the same mistake. There are just too many other immediate problems to deal with. So they will continue to pass the buck until the buck can't be passed. We may be seeing some initial signs of that now.
Anyhow, my basic point is that "correcting PO" equates to causing social upheaval. If the situation gets bad enough, change will be forced on us. It may not be a very pretty scenario. Sometimes the universe has to give us a little spanking to set us on the right course. Historically speaking progress comes in cycles not unlike economic cycles. Even if things were to get pretty nasty, we will end up being stronger, smarter, and better prepared for future challenges.
What you describe is an outcome of the Adam Smith proposal that we should all "specialize" in one esoteric craft or another. After a while, we come to expect that "the markets" will always provide an approproate solution on a just-in-time basis.
Specialization is inevitable to some extent. Nobody can be all things to all people. Though I think it's good to be well rounded and have extensive knowledge in a few areas.
I, too, think we're on a dangerous path. I don't blindly believe in capitalist dogma. Unfortunately we've dug ourselves into this hole and we'll have to figure out how to get out on our own.
The Pilgrims and progenitors of modern America had to work their asses off to build this country. People still work hard every day, but I would argue that most really aren't doing anything valuable. I don't think service sector jobs are going to launch us into the next era. There is a certain laziness to America now, a sense of entitlement, a sense that everything should come easy just because we exist.
What we should've been doing for the past 50 years is making sure that everybody had a GOOD education. For all of our wealth we should have an absolutely fantastic educational system. Kids should be expected to achieve academic excellence. I have to laugh when I hear about "no child left behind". Many of our crime, welfare, health, and other problems are related to poor education. Education is the single best investment you can make in a child's future.
I'm reminded of that saying about people perishing for a lack of knowledge. If Peak Oil turns out to be a nasty period in the annals of human history, then it will have a lot to do with the feudalization of America. There is no nice way to put it, but that's what happens when 90% of the wealth exists in an increasingly small percentage of families.
The L-shaped, wealth distribution curve (where 1% of the population accumulates for itself 99% of the capital) is an inherent property of free market capitalism.
In almost every commercial transaction, one party has at least a slight advantage over the other. The one party with the trade advantage learns how to repeat that behavior. Over time, they win again and again, shifting more and more capital gain into their corner. They justify it by claiming they are superior human beings. God wanted them to be wealthy. They deserve it. In the end, you have an L-shaped distribution curve. The winners are happy with the system as is. The losers have almost no power to change it.
But as long as each trade transaction is voluntary and made between two intelligent persons who has a reasonable idea about what is in their self intrest you get a deal that benefits both even if one is better of then the other.
The problem is dumb consumers and thick people who dont think when they trade.
It is a falsity to assert that people are "rational" and/or "intelligent" when they conduct a transaction.
What objective evidence do you have to back up this pure assumption?
On the other hand, if you need proof that people are irrationally exuberant and unintelligent, then the evidence for this is bountiful. Let's start with the 2001 stock market. Even now you see people buying up SUV's and homes in outer suburbia. There is no win-win situation here. Too many unwitting people are getting suckered in to a lose and lose-big situation.
Yes, I know your economics teacher pounded the dogma into your head about the hypothetical two intelligent persons hammering out a fair deal in a "free market". But the whole fairy tale is just that. How much "free" information do you think McDonalds gives out to the hoards who line up behind its counters thinking they are buying hamburger "meat" when in fact they are being sold redigested soylent green? Madison Avenue is all about brainwashing not about intelligent transactions with win-win outcomes. Get real.
Hey ! I got an unfair deal with that "skinny" box --so I'm reposting. Just goes to show you how unfair the system can be when resources are stretched thin. :-)
COPY:
It is a falsity to assert that people are "rational" and/or "intelligent" when they conduct a transaction.
What objective evidence do you have to back up this pure assumption?
On the other hand, if you need proof that people are irrationally exuberant and unintelligent, then the evidence for this is bountiful. Let's start with the 2001 stock market. Even now you see people buying up SUV's and homes in outer suburbia. There is no win-win situation here. Too many unwitting people are getting suckered in to a lose and lose-big situation.
Yes, I know your economics teacher pounded the dogma into your head about the hypothetical two intelligent persons hammering out a fair deal in a "free market". But the whole fairy tale is just that. How much "free" information do you think McDonalds gives out to the hoards who line up behind its counters thinking they are buying hamburger "meat" when in fact they are being sold redigested soylent green? Madison Avenue is all about brainwashing not about intelligent transactions with win-win outcomes. Get real.
We would be very poor if they did not exist, we are not poor.
We might become poor if too few think before they act or if they have to shortsighted goals.
I have both read this in textbooks and observed it in ordinary day to day life. It is obviously important in every scale of economical activity.
Regarding hamburgers there is written material about the nutritient value of the hamburgers in the McD i bicycle past daily. The factory for making most of the meat patties(?) for Sweden is situated in my town. I have not visited it, only the butchery next door too it. And I know how most of the farms selling the beef used are being run. Most of them are like my fathers farm were but the trend is to bigger more automated units with better facilities but less human oversight. This is also fairly well documented for people who care to look. But still, I choose to most often buy less well documented hamburgers in small hamburger bars since they often are spiced better. Rational or irrational of me? I do at least get my meal and reward those who spice well.
I think we have similar thoughts on the subject...
The Peak Oil problem transcends any speciality, be it chemical engineering, or geology or thermodynamics or social sciences.
The way I tend to look at things, most of our problems are social rather than technological. We have plenty of technical ability worldwide, but our social, political, and religious systems border on the archaic.
The biggest problem IMHO is our societal organizations. They are incapable of detecting let alone dealing with emerging problems like Peak Oil, Global Warming, Rapid Climate Change (not the same as GW), inter-species virus transfer (H5N1 bird flu), etc.
Man's biggest enemy is often man himself. Greed, lust, prejudice, ignorance, and similar things are responsible for a lot of what ills us. I'm far more worried about mankind killing himself off than I am about foreseeable natural threats killing us off.
There may be natural threats which we won't be able to fight off because of the herd mentality. Peak oil is just one of the more pressing problems on the horizon. There have always been these things which force us to adapt in one way or another. Perhaps Peak Oil is an example of evolution and survival of the fittest in action.
I think we're up to the challenge. All we can really be sure about is that there will be many challeges and surprises in store for us. I don't believe science is the only path to enlightenment or suvival, but science and technology will be part of the solution.
IMHO most of the history of "Civilization" is driven by the fact that a small group of "manipulative" humans realized they can get the manipulation-blind masses to do most of the work for benefit of the manipulative few.
Engineers, for the most part, are manipulation-blind. They do not understand that the Enron gang (the "smartest" guys in the room) are playing them with manipulative tactics. Dilbert may be smart in the sciences, but when it comes to social manipulation techniques, he is a retard. That is why Catbird earns $200K/year doing HR bullshit work and Dilbert earns $20K/year doing "real" engineering work (OK, a bit of an exageration to drive home the point).
The biggest "manipulators" in the USA are the elite in the Bush Administration. Think about it. They have manipulated 300 million "patriotic" into believing Sadaam Huessien blew up WC7 on Sept. 11, 2001. Well OK, this is an exageration also. Actually they merely needed to fool 51% of the people and only on one day, as tallied by the Diebold machines.
None of this manipulation is a big problem.
The BIG problem is that the manipulative few (the power elite) are Morons in Science. They did not graduate Harvard and Yale because they were smart. They graduated cause their "Daddies" were powerful, were part of the manipulative few.
The manipulative few (Cheney & company) know that Peak Oil is upon us. (Congressman Bartlett had a secret talk with GW about it for heaven's sake.) Their Harvard and Yale degrees don't help them to figure out what to do next. Instead, they get togetehr into a prayer circle, hold hands with one another and with the Saudi's, and make "wish upon a star" noises in hopes that the problem will just "go away". The "free markets" will provide a solution. They are sure about it. And if not, there is always that deep bunker in Cheyenne Mountain to hide in while the masses do a "Dawn of the Dead" routine on each other. Then, when it's over, the elite will emerge back into the sunlight to reap the rewards of those dumb masses that made the "ultimate sacrifices" so that the "noble cause" can continue to live in the life style they were born to enjoy. The end.
See. Fairy tales always end happily. (For those who were born to be prince charmings and sleeping beauties, and and let's not foget brown nose Brownies.)
Actually, I'm slogging my way through one of the Enron books, Conspiracy of Fools. It is a long chronology about how a bunch of highly manipulative people (i.e., Enron President Skilling, Enron CFO Fasting) use greed and other emotional puppet strings to urge everyone around them into committing white collar crimes, into breaking all the accounting rules, and into acting like a bunch of drunken fools. They indeed were the "smartest guys in the room" in that sense.
What one has to wonder is how many other places in our society is the same thing happening? I recently left a company that was a mini-Enron. The controller kept multiple books and was constantly cooking them. The head man was a smooth talking BS'er just like Kenny Boy of Enron. I'm wondering how pervasive this is. How many other mini and macro Enrons are there are in our society? Are the oil companies cooking the books on how much oil is recoverable? Is the stock market pulling another irrational exuberance round? Is Peak Oil a ruse? I see one thing as being fairly clear: the insurgents of Iraq are not in their "last throes". Halliburton does not participate in "free markets" with open competition. Competition is for the "little people", to drive those honest but dumb, common folk into that downward graveyard spiral. And they are the ones who fly the flag "patriotically". They are the ones who fall for all the manipulative language: economics; free markets; love life; last throes.
When is someone in government (other than silenced Hirsch) going to come out and let the little people know we are in the "last throes of our cheap energy party"?
I've heard Leslie Fish sing the eerie "We're still here" filk (science fiction folk song), about the survivors surrounding the bunker and waiting for the leaders to come up when they run out of food and water and air.
"Come up, come out, and die"
if the avg engineer who understands the peak oil stuff, petro-collapse, etc, is optimistic then, he is just like every other optimistic schmo out there who thinks technology will bail us out. i am an engineer and have a pretty good grasp of what we're up against. dude, the situation is grave indeed and i'm not optimistic about it.
i am an engineer and have a pretty good grasp of what we're up against.
Be careful, none of us really has a full picture of what we're up against. There were plenty of people who thought they knew what was coming with Y2K and they turned out to be wrong.
Now, Peak Oil may turn out to be a major course correction for humanity and it may be a nasty one at that. There are a lot of variables and a lot of people who are profitting off this by selling books, supplies, or advice. I think we have a responsibility to be critical of anybody who makes dire claims. That doesn't mean their claims are wrong, but drastic claims require drastic proof.
We don't yet know what the offshore situation is in a lot of areas, even within the United States. I'm not saying we have enough oil to replace Saudi Arabia's production, but we probably have a bit of a fallback position. Geopolitical uncertainties notwithstanding, I think we have a good chance of prolonging the onset of decline enough to prepare a bit better.
I never thought I'd end up sounding like an optimist. Anybody who knows me well can tell you that I'm a diehard pessimist. I have a critical mindset though -- and I know what a poor track record humans have for predicting the future -- so extraordinary claims require more proof.
That doesn't mean we don't prepare, but few people are going to accept information that conflicts with their view of reality anyhow. From what I've seen engineers and other professionals are almost all ignorant of PO. Myself, I'm just an average schmoe who is well read and has a little background in the industry. I'm the exception, as are most of the people here.
Y2K was not a problem after we spent 200 billion dollars fixing it, one line of code at a time. The corporate executives knew that it was coming because they could set the computer clocks ahead and watch the paychecks stop printing, so they fixed it.
They did a better job of ignoring peak oil.
It would be nice if some of the engineers who worked on the legacy COBOL code and fixed the Y2K problem before it happened come out of the woodworks and testify. That would put an end to the myth out there that Y2K was a phony problem. It was not. It was real. Luckily, the solution was brought into action on a just-in-time basis. That will not, and cannot happen with Peak Oil. Energy is not "programmable". It is a hardware problem, not a software issue.
I've read that, at NY Stock Exchange for example, the 'solution was to insert hardware that translated data between the old, vulnerable, code and the rest of the world. While this, of course works, it means that this code is still out there.
I try not to draw too many parallels between Y2K and Peak Oil, but there is a certain tendency to go OVERBOARD in predicting dire things. Y2K was a very massive problem; peak oil may be more massive.
I just think it's way too early to say that we're facing a CRASH. The possibility exists, just like the possibility of nuclear war, bird flu pandemic, and an ancient supernova ripping away our atmosphere tomorrow.
If something is inevitable we might as well all give up right now. That's the problem with this attitude that "things can't be fixed". Just because an easy solution isn't in front of us, that doesn't mean that there is no solution. Or do you think giving up is an option? In theory, if the most negative of scenarios plays out, it doesn't mean that life on earth ends. We will adjust and be stronger in the end.
Yes - I've had the sinking feeling for a while that all the climate surprises seem to be negative - it seems to all be going faster and worse than the climatologists have tended to project.
Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on engineers especially. It appears to me the problem is more that all the fields of technology become so specialized, the large picture becomes harder to grasp. My field is in medicine, which puts me rather out of the loop here in the physical sciences sector, but being old and retired gives me the leisure to step back from my own narrow focus and use a wider lens so to speak. I know someone who works for the U. N. in water resource problems. His work brings him into contact with many climatologists. According to him, in his private conversations these scientists and researchers are much more pessimistic about the likelihood of passing the point of no return in climate change, than they feel free to disclose for public consumption, and because of the economic and political ramifications of their work they must be very careful and conservative in their conclusions. Take it for whatever you think it's worth, but I'm not expecting any break through in technology to bail us out. And I think I'll just not introduce the issue of the massive species die-off we're in the middle of yet. Oops, did I just say that?
Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on engineers especially. It appears to me the problem is more that all the fields of technology become so specialized, the large picture becomes harder to grasp.
See, I've never thought of it that way. From my perspective, the larger picture never really changes much the more you focus in on the details. I suppose if you fixated on the details and just sorta forgot there was a larger picture out there, you might have a problem. And yeah, there are a lot of technical types that do that. The way modern life works tends to encourage that narrow focus. Attempting to "educate" those who are less knowledgeable about a particular field often really helps you to maintain a sense of that "larger picture" because you have to explain things with respect to it.
My field is in medicine, which puts me rather out of the loop here in the physical sciences sector, but being old and retired gives me the leisure to step back from my own narrow focus and use a wider lens so to speak.
Definitely. I think that's why older people are often commonly understood to be wiser than younger people. It's having a lifetime of experience that allows you to sort of slice through all the bullshit and meaningless details, and the fact that you just don't have enough ooomph to get all worked up in day to day details.
According to him, in his private conversations these scientists and researchers are much more pessimistic about the likelihood of passing the point of no return in climate change
Do you know what they mean by this?
And I think I'll just not introduce the issue of the massive species die-off we're in the middle of yet. Oops, did I just say that?
Scientists and engineers are optimists at heart, they expect there to be a technical solution for every problem and they want every project to go ahead. The fact that a large proportion of projects actually fail is always brushed away by the thought that, "this time it will be different".
Of course they are often also very intelligent realists who also know that some problems are insoluble, and who know that Peak Oil is quite probably one of them - still they are not trained to admit failure and it comes through when they post.
There is a story I was told years ago of an engineer and a mathematician were shut in a room with a naked woman (it was years ago and so I will suggest the women's lib substitute something else). They were told that thy could approach the woman but each step would only be half the remaining distance. The mathematician cried, "I'll never get there," and left the room. The engineer started off with a grin, "I'll get close enough for all practical purposes."
Errrr. So what's your point? That engineers tend to believe that technology can solve all problems, but also know that it can't?
I think it's more likely that engineers tend to think that an ordered approach based on a solid application of first principles and reasonable assumptions is the best way to go about trying to solve a problem, but also know that sometimes a problem simply cannot be solved.
I think that in general, scientists and engineers are focused on "solving the problem", and probably can, in most cases, come up with the "right" recommendations, provided they have enough data and get input from all the different fields and areas involved.
The problem, of course, is that political and financial considerations usually overrule any of these recommendations, or the polical climate can even chill things sufficiently so the right recommendations aren't even fully articulated. Different types of propaganda can make this even more difficult.
I find that most techinical types, while not always right, just want to find the right solution and do the right thing. In most cases, they don't care about politics or money, and are probably less likely to accept bribes, etc.
Unfortunately there is so much greed, vested interests and attempts to gain and maintain power in our global society (and especially in the US) that it's almost impossible to just focus on finding the right practical solutions to problems.
Frankly, I don't see how this can change without some way to get society to turn away from seeing profit as the primary and only consideration.
Just look at what has been happening within government scientific circles in the past several years. It's sad to see the brain drain, falsification of reports, and other things that are going on.
Protecting corporate profit at all costs is the only thing that seems to matter.
The real "bottom line" is 6 feet under, for all of us. Those who claim to be superior human critters because they have amassed "profit" are just in a short term denial phase --sure to end in about 100 years.
My point is that scientists and engineers are very good at accepting the status quo and working out a process to improve things. They are very good at processes and procedures and not so good at producing massive paradigm shifts.
This is what we see on The Oil Drum, very good documentation of shut ins and lost rigs, not much on what to do when TSHTF. As was commented earlier in this thread, The Oil Drum has attracted that kind of person, and what is posted is rather what I would have expected. While some problems cannot be solved, and Peak Oil may well be one of them, scientists and engineers will try every possible option first, even if they do not really expect to succeed.
My feeling is that we don't yet understand the problem well enough to say whether it is likely that it can or cannot be solved. We need to get a clearer understanding of the likely date of peak, and the likely decline rate afterwards. If I knew those things, I would feel a lot more confident projecting whether society was likely to acclimate successfully or not.
http://energybulletin.net/9510.html
As for the "grudgingly accepted" comment, I wholeheartedly disagree. Engineers and technical types are definitely going to understand the underlying material better than non-technical types simply because the underlying material IS techical. Maybe I'm only speaking for myself, but I feel very strongly that it's my duty to do as much as I can to educate non-technical types on these issues as accurately as I am able. If I see a technical type slagging a non-technical type, I'll step in and let them know that's unacceptable.
And yes, there are other problems here besides finding ways to extract more energy per time. Our energy sources, the amount of energy we convert per time and the effects those two have on our environment should always be considered as part of the same fundamental system.
Say you are a doctor and think PO has little to do with the health care business. Well where do you think the raw materials come from to make all your inexpensive plastic syringes, tubings, etc. etc. And as we saw in New Orleans, when the power goes out at those hospitals, all the fancy high tech medical equipment becomes just so much dead weight. The elevators stop working. You can't transport nonambulatory patients from floor to floor. The whole hospital system comes crashing down. What emergency preparations are being made in the medical field for meeting the energy crisis? How is the emergency medi-vac helicopter going to fly emergency patients in and out without airplane fuel?
The biggest problem IMHO is our societal organizations. They are incapable of detecting let alone dealing with emerging problems like Peak Oil, Global Warming, Rapid Climate Change (not the same as GW), inter-species virus transfer (H5N1 bird flu), etc.
We need to bring it to the attention of everyone in our society that some fundamental assumptions about our "advanced society" of the 21st Century are all wrong. We are a runaway train heading full steam towards the washed away bridge and we (the larger "we") still don't know it. They keep grazing happily in the fields as the herd marches relentlessly towards lemming's ledge.
I think a lot of people have gotten into the habit of "solving" problem by buying something new or complaining to someone who truly solves the problem for them. But maybe I'm just being elitist.
What you describe is an outcome of the Adam Smith proposal that we should all "specialize" in one esoteric craft or another. After a while, we come to expect that "the markets" will always provide an approproate solution on a just-in-time basis.
Did the blue screen of death just pop up on your computer? OK. No problem. Pick up the phone and call the office computer geek. He'll fix it. Always has.
Not feeling well? Go to your doctor. He'll give you just the right pill. You'll be good as new in a day or so. It will work next time for sure. Always has.
Your gas station is out of gas? Forever? No problem. Pick up the Yellow Pages. Look up Energy Specialists. They will deliver a just-in-time soultion. The science geeks always have, always will. The markets have always provided. They are sure to do so with each next crisis. It is the power and the miracle of the Invisible Hand. It always delivers. I have deep faith-based confidence in it. Don't you?
No need for us to alarm the sheeple. Everything will be fine. Doom and gloomers have come and gone. The Earth is still here. See?
We COULD correct PO, if we took the right steps. But, ultimately, the people who hold the pursestrings have to know that there's a problem that needs a solution NOW. Ultimately, this is where the process has failed.
What a capitalist system will do is push the price up high enough that we never run out, making sure that there's always some oil production available for the boutique plastics industry and other specialty niches.
Already, and more so as prices go higher, there's money in finding substitutes, which will work great for the non-energy uses for oil. But when it comes to oil's role as a source of cheap energy, I don't think capitalism is going to help. Capitalism will work fine for finding other sources of expensive energy which will be somewhat cheaper than the really expensive oil of the future, but hardly what I call "fixing" the problem.
You have a lot more faith in capitalism than I do. The fact is that there is a lack of social consciousness in capitalism. The disparity between the have's and havenot's is just one example of what's wrong with capitalism.
The problem is that all of the solutions I know of require asking people to make great sacrifices. My contention is that people will fight change at all costs. How many times have we heard that honesty with the American public would be political suicide? Jimmy Carter was honest and look where that got him. So the politicians who are aware of the situation aren't going to make the same mistake. There are just too many other immediate problems to deal with. So they will continue to pass the buck until the buck can't be passed. We may be seeing some initial signs of that now.
Anyhow, my basic point is that "correcting PO" equates to causing social upheaval. If the situation gets bad enough, change will be forced on us. It may not be a very pretty scenario. Sometimes the universe has to give us a little spanking to set us on the right course. Historically speaking progress comes in cycles not unlike economic cycles. Even if things were to get pretty nasty, we will end up being stronger, smarter, and better prepared for future challenges.
Specialization is inevitable to some extent. Nobody can be all things to all people. Though I think it's good to be well rounded and have extensive knowledge in a few areas.
I, too, think we're on a dangerous path. I don't blindly believe in capitalist dogma. Unfortunately we've dug ourselves into this hole and we'll have to figure out how to get out on our own.
The Pilgrims and progenitors of modern America had to work their asses off to build this country. People still work hard every day, but I would argue that most really aren't doing anything valuable. I don't think service sector jobs are going to launch us into the next era. There is a certain laziness to America now, a sense of entitlement, a sense that everything should come easy just because we exist.
What we should've been doing for the past 50 years is making sure that everybody had a GOOD education. For all of our wealth we should have an absolutely fantastic educational system. Kids should be expected to achieve academic excellence. I have to laugh when I hear about "no child left behind". Many of our crime, welfare, health, and other problems are related to poor education. Education is the single best investment you can make in a child's future.
I'm reminded of that saying about people perishing for a lack of knowledge. If Peak Oil turns out to be a nasty period in the annals of human history, then it will have a lot to do with the feudalization of America. There is no nice way to put it, but that's what happens when 90% of the wealth exists in an increasingly small percentage of families.
Not to mention the slaves and immigrants. =/
In almost every commercial transaction, one party has at least a slight advantage over the other. The one party with the trade advantage learns how to repeat that behavior. Over time, they win again and again, shifting more and more capital gain into their corner. They justify it by claiming they are superior human beings. God wanted them to be wealthy. They deserve it. In the end, you have an L-shaped distribution curve. The winners are happy with the system as is. The losers have almost no power to change it.
The problem is dumb consumers and thick people who dont think when they trade.
What objective evidence do you have to back up this pure assumption?
On the other hand, if you need proof that people are irrationally exuberant and unintelligent, then the evidence for this is bountiful. Let's start with the 2001 stock market. Even now you see people buying up SUV's and homes in outer suburbia. There is no win-win situation here. Too many unwitting people are getting suckered in to a lose and lose-big situation.
Yes, I know your economics teacher pounded the dogma into your head about the hypothetical two intelligent persons hammering out a fair deal in a "free market". But the whole fairy tale is just that. How much "free" information do you think McDonalds gives out to the hoards who line up behind its counters thinking they are buying hamburger "meat" when in fact they are being sold redigested soylent green? Madison Avenue is all about brainwashing not about intelligent transactions with win-win outcomes. Get real.
COPY:
It is a falsity to assert that people are "rational" and/or "intelligent" when they conduct a transaction.
What objective evidence do you have to back up this pure assumption?
On the other hand, if you need proof that people are irrationally exuberant and unintelligent, then the evidence for this is bountiful. Let's start with the 2001 stock market. Even now you see people buying up SUV's and homes in outer suburbia. There is no win-win situation here. Too many unwitting people are getting suckered in to a lose and lose-big situation.
Yes, I know your economics teacher pounded the dogma into your head about the hypothetical two intelligent persons hammering out a fair deal in a "free market". But the whole fairy tale is just that. How much "free" information do you think McDonalds gives out to the hoards who line up behind its counters thinking they are buying hamburger "meat" when in fact they are being sold redigested soylent green? Madison Avenue is all about brainwashing not about intelligent transactions with win-win outcomes. Get real.
We would be very poor if they did not exist, we are not poor.
We might become poor if too few think before they act or if they have to shortsighted goals.
I have both read this in textbooks and observed it in ordinary day to day life. It is obviously important in every scale of economical activity.
Regarding hamburgers there is written material about the nutritient value of the hamburgers in the McD i bicycle past daily. The factory for making most of the meat patties(?) for Sweden is situated in my town. I have not visited it, only the butchery next door too it. And I know how most of the farms selling the beef used are being run. Most of them are like my fathers farm were but the trend is to bigger more automated units with better facilities but less human oversight. This is also fairly well documented for people who care to look. But still, I choose to most often buy less well documented hamburgers in small hamburger bars since they often are spiced better. Rational or irrational of me? I do at least get my meal and reward those who spice well.
The way I tend to look at things, most of our problems are social rather than technological. We have plenty of technical ability worldwide, but our social, political, and religious systems border on the archaic.
Man's biggest enemy is often man himself. Greed, lust, prejudice, ignorance, and similar things are responsible for a lot of what ills us. I'm far more worried about mankind killing himself off than I am about foreseeable natural threats killing us off.
There may be natural threats which we won't be able to fight off because of the herd mentality. Peak oil is just one of the more pressing problems on the horizon. There have always been these things which force us to adapt in one way or another. Perhaps Peak Oil is an example of evolution and survival of the fittest in action.
I think we're up to the challenge. All we can really be sure about is that there will be many challeges and surprises in store for us. I don't believe science is the only path to enlightenment or suvival, but science and technology will be part of the solution.
Engineers, for the most part, are manipulation-blind. They do not understand that the Enron gang (the "smartest" guys in the room) are playing them with manipulative tactics. Dilbert may be smart in the sciences, but when it comes to social manipulation techniques, he is a retard. That is why Catbird earns $200K/year doing HR bullshit work and Dilbert earns $20K/year doing "real" engineering work (OK, a bit of an exageration to drive home the point).
The biggest "manipulators" in the USA are the elite in the Bush Administration. Think about it. They have manipulated 300 million "patriotic" into believing Sadaam Huessien blew up WC7 on Sept. 11, 2001. Well OK, this is an exageration also. Actually they merely needed to fool 51% of the people and only on one day, as tallied by the Diebold machines.
None of this manipulation is a big problem.
The BIG problem is that the manipulative few (the power elite) are Morons in Science. They did not graduate Harvard and Yale because they were smart. They graduated cause their "Daddies" were powerful, were part of the manipulative few.
The manipulative few (Cheney & company) know that Peak Oil is upon us. (Congressman Bartlett had a secret talk with GW about it for heaven's sake.) Their Harvard and Yale degrees don't help them to figure out what to do next. Instead, they get togetehr into a prayer circle, hold hands with one another and with the Saudi's, and make "wish upon a star" noises in hopes that the problem will just "go away". The "free markets" will provide a solution. They are sure about it. And if not, there is always that deep bunker in Cheyenne Mountain to hide in while the masses do a "Dawn of the Dead" routine on each other. Then, when it's over, the elite will emerge back into the sunlight to reap the rewards of those dumb masses that made the "ultimate sacrifices" so that the "noble cause" can continue to live in the life style they were born to enjoy. The end.
See. Fairy tales always end happily. (For those who were born to be prince charmings and sleeping beauties, and and let's not foget brown nose Brownies.)
Actually, I'm slogging my way through one of the Enron books, Conspiracy of Fools. It is a long chronology about how a bunch of highly manipulative people (i.e., Enron President Skilling, Enron CFO Fasting) use greed and other emotional puppet strings to urge everyone around them into committing white collar crimes, into breaking all the accounting rules, and into acting like a bunch of drunken fools. They indeed were the "smartest guys in the room" in that sense.
What one has to wonder is how many other places in our society is the same thing happening? I recently left a company that was a mini-Enron. The controller kept multiple books and was constantly cooking them. The head man was a smooth talking BS'er just like Kenny Boy of Enron. I'm wondering how pervasive this is. How many other mini and macro Enrons are there are in our society? Are the oil companies cooking the books on how much oil is recoverable? Is the stock market pulling another irrational exuberance round? Is Peak Oil a ruse? I see one thing as being fairly clear: the insurgents of Iraq are not in their "last throes". Halliburton does not participate in "free markets" with open competition. Competition is for the "little people", to drive those honest but dumb, common folk into that downward graveyard spiral. And they are the ones who fly the flag "patriotically". They are the ones who fall for all the manipulative language: economics; free markets; love life; last throes.
When is someone in government (other than silenced Hirsch) going to come out and let the little people know we are in the "last throes of our cheap energy party"?
"Come up, come out, and die"
Hey, I could help fix this! (or at least make it less bad)
Be careful, none of us really has a full picture of what we're up against. There were plenty of people who thought they knew what was coming with Y2K and they turned out to be wrong.
Now, Peak Oil may turn out to be a major course correction for humanity and it may be a nasty one at that. There are a lot of variables and a lot of people who are profitting off this by selling books, supplies, or advice. I think we have a responsibility to be critical of anybody who makes dire claims. That doesn't mean their claims are wrong, but drastic claims require drastic proof.
We don't yet know what the offshore situation is in a lot of areas, even within the United States. I'm not saying we have enough oil to replace Saudi Arabia's production, but we probably have a bit of a fallback position. Geopolitical uncertainties notwithstanding, I think we have a good chance of prolonging the onset of decline enough to prepare a bit better.
I never thought I'd end up sounding like an optimist. Anybody who knows me well can tell you that I'm a diehard pessimist. I have a critical mindset though -- and I know what a poor track record humans have for predicting the future -- so extraordinary claims require more proof.
That doesn't mean we don't prepare, but few people are going to accept information that conflicts with their view of reality anyhow. From what I've seen engineers and other professionals are almost all ignorant of PO. Myself, I'm just an average schmoe who is well read and has a little background in the industry. I'm the exception, as are most of the people here.
They did a better job of ignoring peak oil.
I just think it's way too early to say that we're facing a CRASH. The possibility exists, just like the possibility of nuclear war, bird flu pandemic, and an ancient supernova ripping away our atmosphere tomorrow.
If something is inevitable we might as well all give up right now. That's the problem with this attitude that "things can't be fixed". Just because an easy solution isn't in front of us, that doesn't mean that there is no solution. Or do you think giving up is an option? In theory, if the most negative of scenarios plays out, it doesn't mean that life on earth ends. We will adjust and be stronger in the end.
See, I've never thought of it that way. From my perspective, the larger picture never really changes much the more you focus in on the details. I suppose if you fixated on the details and just sorta forgot there was a larger picture out there, you might have a problem. And yeah, there are a lot of technical types that do that. The way modern life works tends to encourage that narrow focus. Attempting to "educate" those who are less knowledgeable about a particular field often really helps you to maintain a sense of that "larger picture" because you have to explain things with respect to it.
Definitely. I think that's why older people are often commonly understood to be wiser than younger people. It's having a lifetime of experience that allows you to sort of slice through all the bullshit and meaningless details, and the fact that you just don't have enough ooomph to get all worked up in day to day details.
Do you know what they mean by this?
Heh heh. Yeah, you did. It's a huge problem.
Of course they are often also very intelligent realists who also know that some problems are insoluble, and who know that Peak Oil is quite probably one of them - still they are not trained to admit failure and it comes through when they post.
There is a story I was told years ago of an engineer and a mathematician were shut in a room with a naked woman (it was years ago and so I will suggest the women's lib substitute something else). They were told that thy could approach the woman but each step would only be half the remaining distance. The mathematician cried, "I'll never get there," and left the room. The engineer started off with a grin, "I'll get close enough for all practical purposes."
I think it's more likely that engineers tend to think that an ordered approach based on a solid application of first principles and reasonable assumptions is the best way to go about trying to solve a problem, but also know that sometimes a problem simply cannot be solved.
I think that in general, scientists and engineers are focused on "solving the problem", and probably can, in most cases, come up with the "right" recommendations, provided they have enough data and get input from all the different fields and areas involved.
The problem, of course, is that political and financial considerations usually overrule any of these recommendations, or the polical climate can even chill things sufficiently so the right recommendations aren't even fully articulated. Different types of propaganda can make this even more difficult.
I find that most techinical types, while not always right, just want to find the right solution and do the right thing. In most cases, they don't care about politics or money, and are probably less likely to accept bribes, etc.
Unfortunately there is so much greed, vested interests and attempts to gain and maintain power in our global society (and especially in the US) that it's almost impossible to just focus on finding the right practical solutions to problems.
Frankly, I don't see how this can change without some way to get society to turn away from seeing profit as the primary and only consideration.
Chris
Protecting corporate profit at all costs is the only thing that seems to matter.
The real "bottom line" is 6 feet under, for all of us. Those who claim to be superior human critters because they have amassed "profit" are just in a short term denial phase --sure to end in about 100 years.
Peace.
This is what we see on The Oil Drum, very good documentation of shut ins and lost rigs, not much on what to do when TSHTF. As was commented earlier in this thread, The Oil Drum has attracted that kind of person, and what is posted is rather what I would have expected. While some problems cannot be solved, and Peak Oil may well be one of them, scientists and engineers will try every possible option first, even if they do not really expect to succeed.