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.
Joined: Jan 16, 2005 Posts: 321 Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject:
PO_TimeCr0ss wrote:
Although I feel that the effects of PO will begin to take hold in my lifetime (I'm 24), it is the thought of what my future children will have to endure in the post-peak world that amplifies my fears.
I'm 29, and I feel the same way. I'm going to witness this, whether I like it or not, and my future children ... well if I do nothing they don't stand a chance, and without children I don't either. There's still time left, maybe 5-10 years of relative stability. You'll think of something. Key points IMHO: 1. Community and friendship is everything. 2. Be trusted, but trust noone/nothing.
Joined: Apr 11, 2005 Posts: 72 Location: Sin City, NV
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:38 pm Post subject:
RiverRat: I agree with your post.
I believe the economical effects of PO will start slowly and exponentially increase as time goes on. There was a great graph and explination on a particular site (that I fail to remember right now) that noted three phases of the post-peak economic failure: slide, slope, and cliff. This model makes the most sense to me.
If the government fails to invest serious capital in a solution (alternatives) before the slope phase, it may very well be to little to late.
Matt's "Life After The Oil Crash" is a bit extreme. types.
Perhaps to your delicate sensibilities, but according to the most conservative member of the US House of Representatives, the scenario painted on my site is "realistic."
Joined: Apr 11, 2005 Posts: 72 Location: Sin City, NV
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject:
MattSavinar wrote:
PhilBiker wrote:
Welcome aboard.
Matt's "Life After The Oil Crash" is a bit extreme. types.
Perhaps to your delicate sensibilities, but according to the most conservative member of the US House of Representatives, the scenario painted on my site is "realistic."
Matt, what I believe he meant was that the wording or path of explination was extreme. The events that could occur that you mention are very realistic. It was your site the instilled the fear of God in me and caused me to become rather "obsessive" into my research on PO. So for that, I thank you.
Matt's "Life After The Oil Crash" is a bit extreme. I recommend reading - start with Kenneth Defeyes who is not so much doom and gloom as many of the other Peakniks.
And keep the Matrix reference to yourself, though loosely appropriate it doesn't do much for our credibility.
I agree. Its actually the first time I've used the comparison. I apologize for sounding extreme. Also, Matt's site is a bit extreme. I must say that it forced me into heavier research because I didn't believe the "doom'n gloom" he pointed out. .
It's not your fault.
I mean with the war in Iraq going so well, peace breaking out all over the Middle East and Africa, international cooperation at an all time high, the US economy on stable footing, freedom spreading throughout China and Russia, competent leadership at the healm of the world's superpower, who would have thought that something really bad was brewing in the background?
Welcome to the boards. It is good to hear some more moderate voices here.
Nano is partially right. Oil is tied into so many aspects of our civilization that peakoil is going to trigger a lot of adverse events. However that doesn't necessarily mean that everything will go wrong at the same time. Nor does it mean that we cannot find (partial) solutions to some of the approaching problems.
You also should not loose sight of the timescale involved. The decline of the oil production is a slow process, crawling along at 3% per year. That means that barring some catastrophic events we will always have enough oil to keep our society running during our lifetime. Although we will most certainly get to see some pretty bad things, the real problems are for the generations after us.
3% decline per year is disastorous for a monetary system that needs a 3% increase each year.
What happens if, at the end of this year, you only have enough money to pay back the bank 97% of the money you owe? Maybe they let you ride till next year in hopes that things will pick up for you.
But what happens when next year, you only have 93% of what you need? Maybe they let you ride one more year.
But year, after year after year? It won't take long before you lose your business, your home, etc. . .
And the 3% decline number assumes no major drop offs due to war or terrorism. That's a huge assumption as most of what's left is located in highly unstable parts of the globe.
Joined: Apr 11, 2005 Posts: 72 Location: Sin City, NV
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject:
MattSavinar wrote:
I mean with the war in Iraq going so well, peace breaking out all over the Middle East and Africa, international cooperation at an all time high, the US economy on stable footing, freedom spreading throughout China and Russia, competent leadership at the healm of the world's superpower, who would have thought that something really bad was brewing in the background?
Ignore the psychoanalysts, astrologers and new agers on this site. _________________ "By the time individuals discover that remaining resources will not be adequate for the next generation, the next generation has already been born. " David Price
And the 3% decline number assumes no major drop offs due to war or terrorism. That's a huge assumption as most of what's left is located in highly unstable parts of the globe.
I know Matt's already aware, but many consider the risk that some of the world's giant superfields will enter terminal decline at a rapid rate because of MRE the biggest depletion risk.
Would make 3% look anemic in comparison. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
3% decline per year is disastorous for a monetary system that needs a 3% increase each year.
I don't think that our leaders will have problems inflating our money supply. As long that there is enough oil to run the printing presses the money supply will increase exponentially.
Quote:
What happens if, at the end of this year, you only have enough money to pay back the bank 97% of the money you owe? Maybe they let you ride till next year in hopes that things will pick up for you.
But what happens when next year, you only have 93% of what you need? Maybe they let you ride one more year.
But year, after year after year?
I personally don't owe the bank a single dime, but what happens is when too many people default on their loans is that the bank goes bankrupt and the financial system will collapse. I agree that that is a real possibility. I personally have little doubt that I will ever see any of the money back that I put in my pension fund every month.
A collapse of the financial system is a nasty thing it can lead to riots (Argentina) civil war (French revolution) or even full scale war (Weimar, WWII). I have to admit that I fear this more than peakoil itself.
Quote:
And the 3% decline number assumes no major drop offs due to war or terrorism. That's a huge assumption as most of what's left is located in highly unstable parts of the globe.
3% percent is an average. On a year to year basis it can be more than less. Even without a war the natural fluctuation will be between 1 and 5%.
But my point is this. We use a lot of oil. But only a fraction of this oil is necessary the rest is luxury. With necessary I mean the oil that is used for the production and transport of food, to heat our homes, to cook our food etc.
That means that we can hack it for a very long time. It won't be pleasant, but we can. It is the generation after us which will be confronted with the tremendous problem to produce these basic needs without oil
PO_TimeCr0ss, I've been interested in Peak Oil since December and it has affected me in the same way. Although I'm not sure who to trust for the exact date, from what I've read, it seems inevitable that is going to happen. Interestingly, I stumbled upon Peak Oil when I was looking to see what I should invest my money in. I'm a very curious person and once I start reading about one topic, I can easily jump to other similar topics.
I remember hearing about the idea a few years ago late one night while riding a Greyhound bus across BC. I didn't catch the full interview with the fellow describing it, but it sounded very scary, but I forgot about it until late last year. The scary thing is that it definitely affects how you look at everything. You look at wasteful activities in a new light. Also, I've been paying attention to oil prices and the world economy more closely.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:04 pm Post subject:
Playing around with Excel:
_________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
I know Matt's already aware, but many consider the risk that some of the world's giant superfields will enter terminal decline at a rapid rate because of MRE the biggest depletion risk.
Would make 3% look anemic in comparison.
Sorry if I'm behind the curve on this one, but could someone please explain what MRE is?
I mean with the war in Iraq going so well, peace breaking out all over the Middle East and Africa, international cooperation at an all time high, the US economy on stable footing, freedom spreading throughout China and Russia, competent leadership at the healm of the world's superpower, who would have thought that something really bad was brewing in the background?
But my point is this. We use a lot of oil. But only a fraction of this oil is necessary the rest is luxury. With necessary I mean the oil that is used for the production and transport of food, to heat our homes, to cook our food etc.
That means that we can hack it for a very long time. It won't be pleasant, but we can. It is the generation after us which will be confronted with the tremendous problem to produce these basic needs without oil
We *can* maybe, but *will* we? My concern is that many people are so thoroughly wedded to the status quo that they will refuse to give up their SUV's, summer vacations, air conditioners, etc. even at the risk of causing further deterioration. Certainly that's how they're behaving now, when the boat is only being rocked a little. Maybe a real shock would snap people out of it, or maybe not. There are many examples of civilizations and settlements that collapsed because the (formerly) comfortable people refused to adapt when circumstances changed. I think mentally preparing people to accept that the lifestyle they're used to is over and won't be coming back is one of the more important things we can do.
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
