 | Potential Impact of Cantarell's Decline on Mexico's Oil Production | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: July 15, 2006 |  |
The Course of Our Lives WILL Be Determined by the First Derivative of a Function
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 15, 2006 - 1:07am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: albert bartlett, doubling time, first derivative, oil, oil sands, peak oil, youtube [list all tags]
It seems to me that one of the keys to the puzzle of why people don't understand the problems that peak oil and other sustainability issues present is innumeracy and/or a lack of understanding spatial/change functions--namely the meaning and implications of constant growth.
I found a lecture that can help (linked over at GPM here) by Dr. Albert Bartlett. Dr. Bartlett professes physics at the University of Colorado. He knows what he's talking about--that much I can vouch for.
If you need me to sell it to you so you'll watch it, that's under the fold, as well as links to the other two videos you should watch from youtube, one on the Canadian oil sands, the other a 90 second short on peak oil.
And then here's the 90 second short I spoke of above the fold. Rather dramatic, but on point.
Now, for my sell of the Bartlett lecture.
The tagline of the Bartlett lecture? "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function (as related to peak oil and sustainability)." Bingo.
Now, I know/use calculus and differential equations and teach econometrics pretty frequently, so this stuff is already in my head. But, because I use it so much, for some reason, I forget some days that most folks do not have exposure to these ideas or the ability to use them in their daily lives.
It can be intimidating stuff. But we've used versions of calculus statements around here all the time by saying phrases like "8% depletion" or "we aren't actually running out of oil and that we're at half of supply."
But what does 8% depletion really mean?
The problem is that people, journalists, even some experts do not know what the functions behind these ideas mean, or more importantly their implications for the future. The numbers hide the meaning. Bartlett's lecture can help you give these numbers the meaning they deserve.
I don't mean to say that these people who don't get this or have never gotten are not intelligent. It's that they haven't connected those wires in their head, that's all. Bartlett is wonderful at making those connections, and that's why I am bringing this to you today.
So, if you're a wannabe geek and you have an hour, I would suggest that everyone in the world watch this lecture by Dr. Bartlett. Please. It's an easy piece to understand. In fact, it's damned near enjoyable for an arithmetic lecture.
One of the main points of Dr. Bartlett's lecture is that "we cannot let other people do our thinking for us." So, so true. But to do that, you have to have the toolbox to actually think for yourself!
Which reminds me, there's another book that I suggest for my students: Joel Best's Damned Lies and Statistics. It's a wonderful primer on how experts, politicians, and the press screw statistics up on a daily basis. This is another important book I would suggest that everyone reads to pick up the daily fallacies that try to enter our cerebra.
< rant >
I swear, every single person on this earth should have to take a research methods course (understanding measurement, science, modeling, etc., etc.) and a calculus or statistics (understanding what to do with those measurements) course, damn it.
< /rant >
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/wanda.html
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.
Why did the folks on Easter Island continue to chop down trees when it was apparent that the cut rate wasn't sustainable?
Beyond that, my problem with your argument is that intellectually, we all recognize that there is only so much oil in the ground, yet price signals have sent the message of 'cheap oil' for decades and decades. We are only now getting the relatively weak signal that oil may be more scarce than we thought but, realistically, the same situation of exponential growth and a limited resource base existed well before the price-signal 'alarm' went off.
Why didn't the alarm go off before this when the same situation and logic applied? Oil was just as scarce, in the long-run, as it is today, yet the alarm didn't sound. In fact, it sent the signal 'all is well, continue as normal!' If you really buy into the Walrasian rational-market myth then this is a real anamoly that needs explanation. Why didn't the market forsee the eventual long-term scarcity of oil and price it accordingly in the decades before this?
The only explanation is that the way we discount the future in economic decision-making means we grossly underprice non-renewable resources used today. Markets are too incomplete and information too imperfect for prices to adequately convey information beyond a few years. Ideally, if markets were perfect and information complete, the price you pay at the pump for a gallon of gas today would reflect the fact that oil will be incredibly scarce in 2050. The price would even take into account the probability of alternatives being developed through some sort of futures marekt.
Ah. Clearly you have not read Jared Diamond's Collapse.
Let me give you a sneak preview.
No tree is an island onto itself.
Every tree is an integral part of a constantly maturing ecosystem.
Its roots extend into the ground to hold topsoil during rainy seasons.
Its leaves block sun from potentially competing weeds.
Its nuts feed the squirrels.
Its maple syrup makes the pancakes taste better.
Its branches are perches for migrating birds.
People eat bird meat.
OK. I admit it. I made up that bull about the squirrels and the maple syrup.
But Jared Diamond postulated that migratory birds were part of the Easter Islander's food source. They were killing off much more than they understood each time they chopped down another part of their "private property".
Because, in the short run, those with power and trying to gain it (for access to females) did better than their peers by getting one more damn tree.
People are biologically programmed to look at threats and competition with other people---and wild beasts---not abstract forces of nature.
Look at the hysteria from 9/11. Compare to the 15,000 people killed by hot weather in Europe, with the knowledge that this, unlike 9/11 is guaranteed to increase in severity for "as far as the eye can see".
It took enormous suffering before people understood the problem of infectious disease and adopted correct assumptions.
People want to find the perpetrator, not the derivative.
Consider the viewership of "real crime" stories which infest all the news channels to the time devoted to physical and biological issues in the world.
No question there's a genetic predisposition at work here to look out for predators, but the main thing making people watch crime stories instead of science is that the crime stories are much more entertaining. People are stressed out, and they want relief (escape, encouraging stories, and entertainment), not boredom from bad science documentaries.
When science is covered in a way that's interesting, inspiring and encouraging, people will watch. If it's boring, or depressing, they won't.
Why was Schindler's List a success? It was educational. It didn't whitewash the holocaust. But people watched anyway. Why? because it was entertaining, and inspiring.
I think we should have more respect for the intelligence of most people. For instance, the public in the US is way ahead of the Bush administration on energy and the environment. Think where they'd be if the media and government didn't work so hard to misinform them....
I think the real answer is because a critical mass of people started seeing it and everyone else wanted to be part of the mainstream stampeding of the herd.
(Why do you care what MSM says if not for recognition that being part of the "mainstream" herd is important? Why do you think Hollywood cares so much about the opening weekend proceeds if not for the stampede effect?)
I don't think there is that much rhyme or reason for why a movie does well or not. Part of it is just the whims of the fickle herd on a given weekend.
Look at this weekend's Box Office chart
11 An Inconvenient Truth $1,112,000 $16,980,000
12 The Fast and the Furious $1,037,000 $59,724,000
In the number 11 slot we have Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. It is educational. ... it is entertaining (well kind of), and inspiring. But total gross is just under $17M
By contrast, the number 12 slot is occupied by a juvenile car racing (and gas guzzling) movie with a gross so far of just under $60M. It leaves Al Gore in the dust.
And who is in the number one slot position?
1 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest this weekend=$62,186,000 total=$258,205,000
Argghh maties. The pirates just blow away the competition. Well at least they use wind power rather than petro power to win the race.
Oddly, I am 59 and yet my discount rate is rather low. That's the real puzzler.
Solution. Increase longevity, but cut the birth rate way back. If we had to live with the consequences of our lack of concern for the future, then perhaps we could lower that discount rate.
Iceland plants over 1 million Siberian larches every year. Time to harvest - 90 to 110 years (extrapolated from 1903 trial plantings). Swiss stone pine takes 40 to 60 years before bearing pine nuts, yet almost 100,000 are plated each year, many around summer cabins.
The same is true in many areas of the world.
inflation rate 4.2% (whole inflation, not the bogus core CPI)
10-year treasuries at 5.1%
>>>> real interest rate is 0.9 %.
Recommendation: plant American Walnut trees, start harvesting nuts after 10 years, your children will start harvesting wood after 40 years...
Conclusion: there must be something else in play psychologically, not only interest rates. Maybe 40 years is equal to "infinite" in our minds.
The current real interest rate is probably still negative:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs
Interesting conclusion. I think you are right psychologically but I don't think the 40 year infinity is the real problem. I'd say it is selfishness: most people are happy to have what they want even if others (elsewhere or future) suffer more than they benefit.
Would it be apparent to me, if I were born on Easter Island? Let's say the island was at 1/2 the original tree density (or 1/10). If that's what I was born into, wouldn't I think that was natural? I might even think (or hope, or justify) that cutting a few more was sustainable.
We face the same problem today, but we can fight it with books and histories. This book, for instance, makes a strong case a how far we have fished down the oceans from their natural state. We should have a better chance than the Easter Islanders at getting the word out.
... I certainly hope that our ocean treaties and fishing limits are better than their forest treaties and tree limits (???) ever were.
cfm
"Order Of Magnitude" training would be a good start ...
I don't see the point in trying to teach "every single person on this earth" about research methods. Stats would be useful, since we're immersed in them, and calculus I'd also pass on. (I've had more than my fill of higher math; graduate-level microeconomics is essentially topology.) Why? It's not needed to get the point across to them about peak oil.
All you have to do is hit them with the simple, brutal statistics, like 85 million barrels of non-renewable oil every single day. Most mainstreamers have no idea whatsoever how much oil we consume, but when you tell them, they're horrified. (It also doesn't hurt to convert the numbers to other things they can sorta-kinda-almost visualize, like one day of oil consumption filling a 6-inch pipe from the earth to the moon. (I'm quoting my own calculations from memory on that one, so I apologize if this is wildly off.))
My point is that it's far less efficient to try to change the people of the world to make them more teachable than it is to find a way to get the critical details across to them in terms they can understand. I have yet to see An Inconvenient Truth, but I strongly suspect that for all its effectiveness it has zero calculus and a minimum of stats. It can be done. It's up to us to figure out how.
It seems that when I am at odds with the public at large, my disagreement can often be traced back to research methods. This isn't just about about peak oil.
Sometimes I think that if we could just put everyone through research methods 1A, even democracy would be functional...
I tend to agree, Lou. The math is useful to understand this issue in depth from a scientific standpoint, and many or most of the readers of TOD are probably capable of understanding it. But you lose the average person. You lose the media and the politicians. These are the people we need to come to grips with Peak Oil. We have to do it by explaining the issue to them in simple terms.
So, academic discussions on TOD are good, but you have to speak a different language when you discuss the issue with your friends and family. Think "Peak Oil for Dummies". We should probably think about writing that, for real. We could also write "Peak Oil for Academics", but it isn't going to sell nearly as well.
Cheers,
RR
The problem has to do with the average person having no appreciation of the passage of TIME.
Recall back when you were a kid and you first grasped the concept of 'something for nothing' or what is popularly called Christmas. That one or two weeks, from when the Xmas tree went up, to when you could finally open your presents was an ETERNITY.
The next big hurdle was anticipating one's birthday to again get 'something for nothing'. Once a child understands the concept of his/her birthday occuring ONCE A YEAR--it seemingly takes FOREVER for your birthday to finally roll up on the calendar.
The next 'something for nothing' reward is when you finally age enough to get your Learner's Permit & Driver's License. I recall nearly going crazy counting down the days until I qualified to become a card-carrying member of the Easy-motoring, Drive-thru Masses in 1971.
Unfortunately [fortunately for me?], my parents could not afford to buy me any wheels, as it was the time period of the Arab Oil Shocks, a big recession, and the Lower 48 Peakdate--gas prices went up faster than my ability to save money to buy gas, much less save for a vehicle. So I had to keep pedaling and saving money from work until I was nineteen for my first vehicle and all related expenses. Then I could finally enjoy the automobile-freedom as a full-fledged member of the Asphalt Wonderland. Anybody remember buying practically treadbare used tires and/or retreads because you couldn't afford new tires?
Those of you that got wheels of your own at your sixteenth birthday--think back on just how long 3 years is in your teenage years--an eternity.
The point I am trying to make is that appreciation for just how fast Life passes us by is IMPOSSIBLE to convey to a younger person. So even if they can do the exponential math, they cannot visualize the timeframe at the required mental intensity.
They cannot mentally grasp a fifty year time period--because they have no emotional and personally historical reference points for comparision. I am 51 now, and my father [who died last year at 96], said that the last years seemed only like mere weeks to him. I still have a hard time grasping this concept in my own mind.
Kids today see the Vietnam war as ANCIENT History...You might as well be talking to them about the Pelloponesian Wars, yet it was a defining period in my lifetime with the Draft, the riots, Kent State shootings, Watergate, etc.
The closet Bartlett comes to achieving a true breakthrough is the minute-by-minute growth in the Petri dish. But I would suggest the average mental impact inversely decays exponentially based upon the age of the listener.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
As for my two children, I think they pretty much get the fact that the future could be very, very ugly. And yet, they also think it is hopeless and pointless to think about it or do something about it. They pretty much live in the present.
Which is ideal, right?
Frankly, I don't even get why my one of my children has a child.
Man is one of the few creatures with a brain sufficiently self introspective to understand the concept of one's own demise at an early age.
We quickly develop defensive mechanisms to deal with this inconveneint truth:
- total denial
- belief in an "alternative" after life
- belief that it is in the far off future
- belief that "science" will find a cure
- what's your coping mechanism?
Gee. These sound almost like the defensive postures taken by most against the concept of Peak Oil, huh?BTW, I use what I call my "tupac shakur test" to gauge people's ages. Never heard of tupac? Probably over 60. Heard of him but never bought an album and don't know anybody who bought an album? over 40. Bought an album or downloaded a song? probably 35 or under. don't remember where you were when he got shot? probably under 20.
Personally, I'm listening to "Simon and Garfunkel" on my best sound system and "Trainspotting" in my car.
Age is freaking irrelevant.
Young guys can have limp dicks.
And vice versa;-)
28 is the new 18.
65 is the new 45.
It's all good ... it's all good.
... think of life as a roll of toliet paper
... it seems to run out fastest near the end
That's what I do, Lou, in every post I write and most comments I make (unless, of cours