User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Your view is very similar to the "flat earthers" who opposed/feared Columbus' voyage. If you were living in that time, you would have been one of those saying: "Let's not delude ourselves with cornucopian nonsense about other continents."
The difference between what I am writing and religion is that religion requires "faith". I do not take peak oil as gospel. In fact I am completely willing to be convinced with scienific logic and facts that our current lifestyle is sustainable, but so far everything that I read negates that thesis. My interest in peak oil began when I realized that all the data floated around about oil reserves and output was not confirmed on a well by well basis. I simply don't trust data that is based on faith that the Saudis and Iranians, et al are telling us the truth. For more on this read the end of this post
Also, don't put words in my mouth - I believe that new innovative technology will help us get to a more sustainable lifestyle. Technological development is not the problem, it's how we as a society decide use it that matters. I'm not advocating a return to anything, but rather a more sustainable future.
es·cha·tol·o·gy
n.
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind.
2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment.
Please point out where he said that.
I also notice that you don't answer the question.
You are a true crank.
No one here buys your false dichotomy:
"I have true faith in science, whereas the rest of you are delusional."
Peak oil is the outcome of science.
Haying with horses and a loader are just as technologically challenging as doing it with tractors and a baler. The difference is you don't have to rely on mechanics when the equipment breaks down.
You seem to be reading a lot more into what peak guy said than what he appears to have said.
So it's just an elementary deduction: If you are opposed to unsustainable practices, then you're opposed to the electric power grid. That sounds pretty medieval to me.
and...
Therefore,
you are, by your own reasoning, either "medieval" or FOR "unsustainable practices."
Which is it?
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of senseless, wasteful consumption and growth. It also doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the limits imposed by the planet. I means that I think the best chance for long-term survival of the human race lies in modern, technical, industrial culture. If we let the lights go out, it's 100% sure we will perish like the dinosaurs. Our minds are our only chance.
Furthermore, there is a built-in presumption that high-intelligence is a survival trait that will ensure the perpetuation of our species. This may not necessarily be so, for our superior intelligence has gotten us into lots of trouble. If we destroy ourselves in a nuclear war over access to oil, then from a classical Darwinian point of view, one might conclude that high-intelligence does not ensure survivial of the species.
It may be slightly too much to say that it is certain that Homo sapiens will become extinct in a time comparable to time that that species has existed but it is not, in my opinion, unscientific to say that the evidence is such that the odds are so strongly if favour of this happening that it should be accepted as a working hypothesis.
When this happens, bacteria, the real success story of evolution, as well as many other species will carry on as normal.
From a planetary perspective man's passing will not be of fundamental importance and from a cosmic perspective, and these religions tend to imply that their teachings have cosmic application, man's passing will be of utter insignificance.
Peakguy is entirely correct that the mind set that so readily accepts all manner of improbable propositions in order to avoid acceptance of the oblivion facing him in a few decades is pre-conditioned to accept comforting stories that dismiss or minimise the problems threatening him and to do so in the face of all evidence to the contrary
Crocodile:
It's a religious belief because you are predicting the future with too much certainty, i.e. with a certainty requiring faith. The fact that the dinosaurs became extinct due to a cosmic catastrophe does not prove that we are doomed to the same fate. We may be different from the dinosaurs. Only time will tell. The scientific position is agnostic: maybe we'll go extinct, maybe we won't. "Doomed" is a religious concept.
I would challenge you to point to a single animal species alive 100 million years ago that still exists in the same form today.
Alligators, army ants, cockroaches, the coelacanth, cycads, the dragonfly,the gingko, the horshoe crab, the nautilus, salamanders, the sturgeon.
Also, change and extinction are different things. If the human race survives by gradually morphing into something more mechanical (a la Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec), I wouldn't say the human race became extinct. There's a big difference between a lineage changing and perishing.
Criticism is a useful tool, we can all benefit from having our positions tested, but when there's nothing more behind it but more criticism, it gets truly tiresome.
By the way most Peak Oilers are not claiming that this will be the end of our species. The claim is that the implications will range from huge to disastrous depending on which path we take now.
I readily admit that my view is religious. It's a religion called "Faith in Science". The opposing view ("No faith in science") is also a religion, for exactly the same reasons.
The difference lies in political affinities. Believers in science are the natural heirs of the enlightenment and technological culture. Non-believers in science and technology clearly aren't the "scientists" in the debate. They are the natural allies of religious people, who have long been skeptical of science.
The downfall of human society due to technological hubris is one the oldest religious stories there is. See the Tower of Babel, Genesis 11.
The opposing view is not "No faith in science" it is "Science has limits". To know yourself, what you can do and the limits of what you can do is not a religious belief - it is one of the prerequisites of the critical thinking hence science. I know wishful thinking helps but it also has limits - cross the limits and you are in the delusional area.
Personally I prefer to doubt myself and the others than just place my beliefs and hold my thumbs. I've seen too much of evidence that this world is run by idiots to trust in it.
I strongly object betting our childrens lives on some possible techno-fix - it is irresponsible at the least. If you ask me we can fix PO even with current technologies... But there is a great chance we will simply not do it and even greater chance that the fix would turn worse than the problem itself (CTL or biofuels). And after PO surely will come peak natural gas, coal, drinking water, topsoil even biosphere... it's quite possible that PO will be the easiest to deal with.
I understand your feelings. There are a lot of oblivious SUV-driving cornucopians out there with too much faith in technology. I find them irritating too. But that doesn't mean we should declare open-season on technology and the human mind. It's too extreme and hopeless to say: "We're just animals, and technology isn't going to save us."
If you ask me we can fix PO even with current technologies...
I agree with you. But then why bash technology? Even really simple technologies like city planning and blankets and bicycles could make a huge difference. So why is there this undertone that science/technology is not going to save is?
It would be nice if everybody just admitted that technology isn't the problem. Then we could talk about the merits of specific replacement technologies, like nuclear power. (Of course, then you'll get the same two sides shaking out again: the people who think sustainability is the top priority, and people who think it's not.)
I'm not really interested in how the future is going to turn out. I'm an agnostic. Maybe we'll colonize the moon, or maybe we'll revert to the stone age and then go extinct. Both alternatives are possible.
I'm mostly interested in the future I want to work for. I want to work toward a future where we have electric power and colonize the moon. I can't give you iron-clad proof that it's going to happen, but I'm working toward it anyway.
I think you got it all wrong. Nobody bashes technology here, except for a few who think that support the mazohistic idea of going back to the caves. It is the way we use technology that matters; there are number of ways we can shoot ourselves with it in a way the caves option would be thousand times preferable. A lot of things point out that we are headed this way and not because technology by itself is bad but because we seem to be incredibly stupid using it. Hence the doomsday scenarios... Again as someone else said PO is a societal problem, not geological or technical, it is our short-term focused goals that lead us to a major crisis. I'm sure it will change a lot of things and lead us to a better society - the easy way or the hard way. And this society will also have its technologies (sustainable or at least with marginal effects to environment like nuclear). Our grandchildren will not climb back the trees. Unless we really screw things up in the years to come of course.