I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Its like the "debunkers" in collapsing Rome who would have said, "Rome is not going to collapse! No way, not ever - certainly not in our lifetime. Don't believe anything that guy is saying - after all, he believes the earth rotates around the sun! Cleary, he lacks credibility!"
It wasn't so much that Rome 'collapsed' in some cataclysmic event. Rather the structure of society changed from a Europe-wide Empire into a locally-based self-supporting system of small towns and villages. Huge cities such as Rome itself fell into ruin because they were too big to be supported without massive imports.
Much of the reason for this had to do with resource depletion, including gold, silver, wood and farmland. Destruction of woodlands on hills caused excessive runoff leading to erosion and stagnant pools in the lowlands which bred malaria and West Nile Virus. Debasement of the currency caused runaway inflation and taxes became so high that it was better for citizens to voluntarily become slaves or serfs of local strongmen than remain citizens.
I just registered today, but I've been reading about the Peak Oil and the possible outcomes since early this year. I found out about this forum recently.
I find this debate between Matt and Jay fascinating, because it gives me a chance to see both sides of the issue. I believe this kind of debates are going to reproduce on TV and radio in the future.
I think the true nature of the problem we're facing may lie somewhere in the middle of Matt's and Jay's view, I can only hope that it's closer to Jay's. I would like that the debate was more centered on key issues, rather than the credibility of the participants.
I have one question fot Matt: are you totally closed to the possibility of a scenario where the upcoming crisis may be resolved without a return to candles, horses, etc.? I have read your material in your website, and I share your fears, but don't you have any hope that the views presented by Jay (and many more) can have some validity? and Jay, you believe that will go through this crisis totally unharmed?
Trying to stay on topic: I'll wait for the evidence before concluding that the CIA is behind this kind of plots; and about the possibility of a terrorist attack before the USA elections, I don't know what would be the effect of that in the results. We can see the results here in Spain, but there are a lot of factors involved, and the situation in the USA is very different, I think...
and Jay, you believe that will go through this crisis totally unharmed?
I think we will likely have one of the longest depression/recessions in this century. It might even be worse than the 1930s. Once oil extraction starts declining there will be at least a 5 to 10 year period of time where it will really hurt.
I think the first couple of years it wont even be recognized as a permanent issue. We will have to continue reading stories about supply distruptions from terrorists, "risk premium", political unstability issues, etc. It will be portrayed as an issue of logistics, not shortage.
Once we are a few years post peak, then it will no longer be debatable. It will be clear and drastic changes will be required. I have no idea what those changes will be. We are all armchair quarterbacks here. Ours are completely uneducated/amateur guesses.
I do believe that within about 10 years post peak, there will be an equilibrium reached. We know for a fact that we are hugely wasteful of energy. Europe and Japan produce almost the same per capita GDP as the US on 1/2 of the energy. We can get by on much less oil, but it is going to be painful and take time.
Oil is about 40% of our total energy and it is the most convienent source to use for transportation. But there are sufficient technologies that will allow many uses of oil to be shifted to the electric or alternatives. But it will take a while to transition and it will be very painful. A lot of industries will likely go bankrupt (Airlines, etc), but the most nimble and creative will likely make vast fortunes in the new era post peak.
In no way at all do I believe it will be easy or that we will be "unharmed". I believe that many countries on this plant are going to face severe problems of starvation. Many are stressed enough with cheap oil. It will only be worse when the USA, Europe and Japan are not able to afford the aid programs that we expend now.
I just registered today, but I've been reading about the Peak Oil and the possible outcomes since early this year. I found out about this forum recently.
I find this debate between Matt and Jay fascinating, because it gives me a chance to see both sides of the issue. I believe this kind of debates are going to reproduce on TV and radio in the future.
I think the true nature of the problem we're facing may lie somewhere in the middle of Matt's and Jay's view, I can only hope that it's closer to Jay's. I would like that the debate was more centered on key issues, rather than the credibility of the participants.
I have one question fot Matt: are you totally closed to the possibility of a scenario where the upcoming crisis may be resolved without a return to candles, horses, etc.? I have read your material in your website, and I share your fears, but don't you have any hope that the views presented by Jay (and many more) can have some validity? and Jay, you believe that will go through this crisis totally unharmed?
Trying to stay on topic: I'll wait for the evidence before concluding that the CIA is behind this kind of plots; and about the possibility of a terrorist attack before the USA elections, I don't know what would be the effect of that in the results. We can see the results here in Spain, but there are a lot of factors involved, and the situation in the USA is very different, I think...
Regards,
Arraitz
Arraitz,
The problem with technological advancements as possible solutions or coping mechanism comes down to the fact they at best, shore up a fundamentally nonsustainable system.
Like I've said before (system that requires growth) plus (finite resources) = eventual collapse.
Also, its not just fossil fuels we've depleted. Pretty much any mineral, any resource you can think of has been depleted to such an extent that the only way to get what is left is through the use of heavy duty, fossil fuel powered machinery. Most importantly, this includes all the minerals and resources we need to implement the various technological solutions people have proposed.
Of course, if we made aggressive attempts to implement these solutions, we would deplete what little is left to an even greater extent.
Basically, we are in a major catch 22.
I'm always at a loss why people have such a hard time accepting we will be on horses and using candles.
Our current technology is incredibly rare. Only 50 percent of the world, for instance, has even made a phone call! Less than 1.5 percent have consistent access to the internet!
There will be some people - the ultra-rich - who will still have access to modern technology, but for the average American, access to things like gasoline, electiricty, etc. . . be as limited as they are for people in the third world.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in "alternatives." But we have to be honest with ourselves. In the best of circumstances, we can get enough alternative energy in place that our hospitals, schools, and police stations can stay powered. But beyond that, forget it.
Jay is correct in that "the nimble and creative will make fortunes." From his posts, it seems he is hoping/trying to be one of those people. That is certainly one survival strategy - in fact, it is the strategy advocated by Jay Hanson - but fortunes for the few do not equal survival for the billions, or the continued viability of industrial civilization for more than a very small, very select group of people. Most of whom, like Warren Buffet, have known about Peak Oil for years if not decades, and have been investing accoridng.
If you have learned about it in the last 5 years, you've already missed the boat. (This means pretty much all of us)
If somebody just learned about it and thinks they're going to acquire the type of wealth that will vault them into the most elite circles inside of the next 2-12 years, they may be in for a big dissappointment. Being upper middle class, or even regular "wealthy", as in 1-10 million a year, is not going to be enough.
There are rich people in even the most poverty stricken countries. What I have said all along, is American access to technology/energy will begin to resemble Third World access to technology/energy.
I.E., in the years to come, you will have to be in the top 1/10th of 1 percent of American population to afford to live the type of lifestyle we currently consider to be middle-class. Cars, electricity, etc. . . will only be availabe to the Rockefellers, Morgans etc. . . Just like in Africa, only the very top of the population lives what we would currently consider a middle class lifestyle.
A ride in a hybrid car in 2050 will be as common as ride on the Concord in 2000.
If Jay honestly thinks he can get into that 1/10th of 1 percent, more power to him. But it doesn't mean industrial civilization is going to make it.
Again, acquiring great wealth - as in Rockefeller type wealth - is one strategy. I think figuring out to be happy and fulfilled with a drastically reduced amount of energy/wealth avaiable is a much more pragmatic strategy. Certainly for society as a whole.
To illustrate my point further about the "nimble and creative."
Take a look at the former Soviet Union. Since the collapse there, the average life expectancy has dropped to 45 years old. The average person either steals or grows 50 percent of their daily food.
Now, some Russians have managed to make fortunes in the post-collapse era. The most recent number I looked at was that 25 percent of Russia's wealth is concentrated in the hands of something like 100 people.
The initial post-collapse years in the US will likely see a similiar distribution of wealth.
If somebody believes they are going to be one of the top 100, or 1000, or 10,000, or even 100,000 richest people in the US, good for them.
But the other 292.9 million of us need to deal with reality.
This may get put in the flame bin, but I want to ask anyways:
Jay,
Do you honestly think you are one of the quick and nimble who are going to profit from Peak Oil?
Objectively, if somebody asked for a definition of "quick and nimble" in regards to investing for the post-peak era, I would say that they had to have Peak Oil on their radar screen prior to 2000. This was 4 years prior to Peak Oil or "Hubbert's Peak" appearing in the mainstream financial press.
Using this definition, I would cite Jim Puplava of FinancialSense.com as an example of "quick and nimble." He was writing articles about investing with the energy crisis in mind back in 1999. (See "The Perfect Storm")
You, on the other hand, just learned about it in the last few months. Which is right around the time it was permeating into the mainstream press. Articles about Peak Oil began appearing in mainstream publications about a year ago. So you're at least a year behind the mainstream folks.
Somebody who doesnt' discover "the next big thing" until it has appeared in publications like Forbes, New York Times can't honestly call themselves "qucik and nimble," can they?
If anything they would be "slow and clumsy." Maybe "average" at best.
For the record, I don't consider myself to be "peak and nimble" so dont' bother pointing out I didn't discover peak oil until late last summer.
Matt, every single one of your theories is based on the concept of total collapse, and that is a possibility, but not all a certainty. As I have often pointed out, you are not flexible enough in your outlook to even consider anything except total crash. You have not even acknowledged any other possibility beyond candles and horses. You dismiss it all. That is why you are so easily dismissed yourself.
I literally feel out of my seat laughing when I read this post.
Matt, I know it is difficult to admit to these types of things. But you have some serious issues. Let's review some of the positions you have supported recently:
1) You crave revolt against the gov't. (By black people, restless voters, etc)
2) You are actively hoping that the military takes out domestic enemies (Bush?)
3) You are looking forward to a dieoff of billions of people
4) You want a million criminals released from jail
Forgetting about peak oil for a minute, can you acknowledge that these positions are a bit extreme? Are you really operating on the assumption that those are desirable things to happen?
I really want to know if you REALLY agree with those four items. You have supported those concepts in various threads on this website.
Bump. Maybe you missed this post from the other day Matt. I am still waiting on an answer. Thanks.
Matt, I think that Jay acknowledges that there will be hard times ahead, and that there are going to be major changes in society in the next years. Looks like you disagree about the outcome, because Jay believes that an equilibrium will be reached, and the modern technology could be sustainable, and you don't. Am I correct?
Oh, Matt, I have another question...
Quote:
Of course, if we made aggressive attempts to implement these solutions, we would deplete what little is left to an even greater extent.
I was thinking, what if, in order to implement the alternatives, the world decides to make extensive use of energy sources as coal, natural gas and nuclear, besides the already peaked oil? I think that these resources are not going to peak in the near future. Of course, there's the issue of these resources not being suitable for transportation, and the big environmental issue, hence the difficult times ahead. But couldn't we buy some time, in expense of the global environment, in order to implement the solutions and save the society as we know it? I know it doesn't sound good, but it's better than the alternative...
What do you think about it? I'm sure I'm missing something, though... _________________ Regards,
Arraitz
I was thinking, what if, in order to implement the alternatives, the world decides to make extensive use of energy sources as coal, natural gas and nuclear, besides the already peaked oil? I think that these resources are not going to peak in the near future. Of course, there's the issue of these resources not being suitable for transportation, and the big environmental issue, hence the difficult times ahead. But couldn't we buy some time, in expense of the global environment, in order to implement the solutions and save the society as we know it? I know it doesn't sound good, but it's better than the alternative...
It is unfortunate, but that is likely what will happen. In a race to preserve our way of life, we will likely shift dramatically towards coal for electricity and coal gasification techniques. I suspect environmental laws will be tossed out the window.
In a race to keep the population from panicing and the economy from a severe depression, we will start going nuts with coal. We have enough coal that it will work for a few decades, but at a terrible cost to the environment.
China is going thru that now. They have massive electric power shortages. Brownouts every day. They are building 600 coal power plants now. And not using much in the way of scrubbers or clean coal technology. They are desperate for electricity and taking the shortcut to get there.
Matt, I think that Jay acknowledges that there will be hard times ahead, and that there are going to be major changes in society in the next years. Looks like you disagree about the outcome, because Jay believes that an equilibrium will be reached, and the modern technology could be sustainable, and you don't. Am I correct?
Oh, Matt, I have another question...
Quote:
Of course, if we made aggressive attempts to implement these solutions, we would deplete what little is left to an even greater extent.
I was thinking, what if, in order to implement the alternatives, the world decides to make extensive use of energy sources as coal, natural gas and nuclear, besides the already peaked oil? I think that these resources are not going to peak in the near future. Of course, there's the issue of these resources not being suitable for transportation, and the big environmental issue, hence the difficult times ahead. But couldn't we buy some time, in expense of the global environment, in order to implement the solutions and save the society as we know it? I know it doesn't sound good, but it's better than the alternative...
What do you think about it? I'm sure I'm missing something, though...
Natural Gas is running out, and quite rapidly.
Coal - there is about a 250 year supply, but its energy profit ration is rapidly dropping. It will "peak" long within a 100 years. If we upscale our coal use to make up for declining oil production, the peak is moved to about 30-35 years. As David Goodstein has, if we upscale our use of coal enough to replace what is lost throught oil depletion, the global warming effects would be "end of story."
The problem with simply "replacing resources" is that we are talking about an absolutely mammonth, incredibly intricate, yet amazingly volatile and fragile energy system.
Even if we had viable replacement resources availble, you can't just take one out plug something else in. Its not a matter of being "difficult" or "rough." The system is so hugh, so interconnected, that it is like a runaway train.
The only option is a "managed collapse." Jay (and many other people) who believe we can escape a collapse would actually make things worse if their ideas were implemented. The longer we wait to institute a collapse on our own undertaking, the more disastorous, uncontrollable, and chaotic the forced collapse will be.
We know, for a fact, the US government has been basing its geopolitical decsions on Peak Oil since at least 1977.
Whatever "solutions" or "replacments" any of us think we have thought of, don't you think the smartest, most experienced, and highest paid people in the world have been consulted with by our government?
Don't you think there is a reason we have gone to war instead of implementing all these ideas that everybody and their grandmother seems to have?
Yes, there is a reason: there are no solutions! The only two (or three) possiblities are:
1. Total uncontrolled collapse.
2. Managed collapse - which should have been instituted 25 years ago.
3 Endless war to temporarily put off number one.
Our government, after having consulted with the smartest, most educated, most motivated scientists in the world has chosen option 1.
I literally feel out of my seat laughing when I read this post.
Matt, I know it is difficult to admit to these types of things. But you have some serious issues. Let's review some of the positions you have supported recently:
1) You crave revolt against the gov't. (By black people, restless voters, etc)
2) You are actively hoping that the military takes out domestic enemies (Bush?)
3) You are looking forward to a dieoff of billions of people
4) You want a million criminals released from jail
Forgetting about peak oil for a minute, can you acknowledge that these positions are a bit extreme? Are you really operating on the assumption that those are desirable things to happen?
I really want to know if you REALLY agree with those four items. You have supported those concepts in various threads on this website.
Bump. Maybe you missed this post from the other day Matt. I am still waiting on an answer. Thanks.
I no more "crave" revolt than Thomas Paine or his ilk "craved" revolt in 1776
I'm not even going to touch number two. YOu are a damned fool for even putting those words in the same sentence. Keep it up and you or the admin of this board are going to get knocks on the door.
As far as number three, you are acting stupid and you know it.
As far as number four - yes all persons incarcerated for low level drug transactions should be released. We waste massive resources incarcerating people for buying or selling 10-20 dollars of drugs.
40 percent of all arrests in the US are for possession of marijuana.
It takes $25,000/year to incarcerate somebody. We incarcerate 1 out of every 3 black men - a rate 400 percent that of South Africa.
Given our current situation, don't you think we could put all that money and energy towards much more productive ends?
Coal - there is about a 250 year supply, but its energy profit ration is rapidly dropping. It will "peak" long within a 100 years. If we upscale our coal use to make up for declining oil production, the peak is moved to about 30-35 years. As David Goodstein has, if we upscale our use of coal enough to replace what is lost throught oil depletion, the global warming effects would be "end of story."
The problem with simply "replacing resources" is that we are talking about an absolutely mammonth, incredibly intricate, yet amazingly volatile and fragile energy system.
Yes, I hear you, and I agree... but I was thinkling about upscaling the use of coal NOT to keep doing business as usual, but to implement the solutions, to provide the energy input to mass-produce the implementation of new technologies (all that, we should have done decades ago). And don't forget about nuclear power, however inecure and contaminating it may be. Don't you think we could stand a chance to make the change? of course, the depression years and massive economic changes would be inevitable.
Quote:
As David Goodstein has, if we upscale our use of coal enough to replace what is lost throught oil depletion, the global warming effects would be "end of story."
Well, according to you, the alternative is "end of story" for a LOT of people... I bet there's people willing to take that chance...
Quote:
Whatever "solutions" or "replacments" any of us think we have thought of, don't you think the smartest, most experienced, and highest paid people in the world have been consulted with by our government?
Don't you think there is a reason we have gone to war instead of implementing all these ideas that everybody and their grandmother seems to have?
Well, what if that was some kind of "plan B"? _________________ Regards,
Arraitz
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I bet there's people willing to take that chance...
