[yesplease]

What does GDP driving Oil mean?

I suppose it's analagous to strongly influencing.

[TonyPrep]

I never stated, and or meant, that no oil at all would impact GDP to the extent that can't be made up by other stuff. It may be the case, or it may not, I dunno precisely.

Then you can't say that it follows that no oil does not mean no economic growth. Thanks.

So, again, what par precisely is illogical?

The bit that you just agreed was illogical. "It may be the case or it may not"

No convincing needed. You seem to know that in the future the human race can't outlast the solar system.

Thanks for your faith in me but I don't know that at all. However, it seems a reasonable position to take, at the moment, don't you think?

Now that we've sorted all that out, yesplease, do you think technology will solve peak oil in the end? If so, why and how?

[yesplease]

I never stated, and or meant, that no oil at all would impact GDP to the extent that can't be made up by other stuff. It may be the case, or it may not, I dunno precisely.

Then you can't say that it follows that no oil does not mean no economic growth. Thanks.

You are misrepresenting what I stated. I never said no oil does not mean no economic growth, I said that no oil does not mean no GDP, or quantifiable economic activity if you will. I imagine that depending on conditions, after a certain drop in oil production the economy could contract, but contraction isn't the same as no GDP, unless of course we have no economic activity whatsoever, but in that case discussion of human affairs is purely academic and left to others because the situation is moot for us.

So, again, what par precisely is illogical?

The bit that you just agreed was illogical. "It may be the case or it may not"

How is that part illogical? I cover all posibilities given my assumptions. Your precision is lacking to say the least.

No convincing needed. You seem to know that in the future the human race can't outlast the solar system.

Thanks for your faith in me but I don't know that at all. However, it seems a reasonable position to take, at the moment, don't you think?

Huh. You claimed to in the past...

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Is your crystal ball on the fritz? I don't think any claims about the future outside of the trivial ones are reasonable btw.

Now that we've sorted all that out, yesplease, do you think technology will solve peak oil in the end? If so, why and how?

Depends what ya mean by solve. Could ya clarify that?

[TonyPrep]

You are misrepresenting what I stated. I never said no oil does not mean no economic growth, I said that no oil does not mean no GDP

My apologies. In that case, it was a pretty pointless exchange and completely meaningless.

Thanks for your faith in me but I don't know that at all. However, it seems a reasonable position to take, at the moment, don't you think?

Huh. You claimed to in the past...

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

Thanks for clarifying what I stated as a reasonable position, not a cast iron forecast.

Now that we've sorted all that out, yesplease, do you think technology will solve peak oil in the end? If so, why and how?

Depends what ya mean by solve. Could ya clarify that?

It's what this thread was about. I assume you jumped in for some purpose. Maybe I was wrong.

The positive thing is that you do seem to laugh a lot at your own posts.

[MrBean]

Would be interesting to see if Monte was - once in a while - able to change his opinion and admit that also he could be wrong sometimes, instead of the usual condescending retort in order to protect his ego.

As for me (to quote:): Thank God, I have my ego under my total control.

It won't happen. Monty is someone who takes two to three decade old papers as gospel but can't even seem to grasp the information they present correctly... Not to mention they have a crude, perhaps elementary, grasp of thermodynamics, even though they bandy it about quite a bit, and use anything they feel validates their position, regardless of whether or not it's logical or consistent.

The best we can expect is that they'll stop posting the erroneous info in the thread in question. But don't worry, they'll probably spread their own special brand of misinformation in another thread at some later time.

Then let's get back to the topic, why technology will not solve PO and why also scientism a la Monte is a dead end:

"Rejection of science

Primitivists reject modern science as a method of understanding the world with a view to changing it. Science is not considered to be neutral by primitivists. It is seen as loaded with the motives and assumptions that come out of, and reinforce, civilization.

Modern scientific thought, according to primitivists, attempts to see the world as a collection of separate objects to be observed and understood. In order to accomplish this task, primitivists believe that scientists must distance themselves emotionally and physically, to have a one-way channel of information moving from the observed thing to the observer's self, which is defined as not a part of that thing.

Primitivists argue that this mechanistic worldview is tantamount to being the dominant religion of our time. Believing that science seeks to deal only with the quantitative, primitivists suggest that it does not admit subjective values or emotions. While primitivists perceive science as claiming that only those things that are reproducible, predictable, and the same for all observers are real and important, primitivists believe that reality itself is not reproducible, predictable, or the same for all observers.

Science is seen by primitivists as only partially considering reality, and is therefore guilty of putative reductionism. Observability, objectifiability, quantifiability, predictability, controllability, and uniformity are said to be the objects and means of science. This, say primitivists, leads to the world view that everything should be objectified, quantified, controlled, and in uniformity with everything and everyone else. Primitivists also see science as promoting the idea that anomalous experience, anomalous ideas, and anomalous people should be cast off or destroyed like imperfectly shaped machine components."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pr ... of_science

In short, scientism is a "supernatural" belief system that puts man ("subject") over the nature ("object"). It's egotistic hubris.

Egotistic hubris is revealed allready in the belief that a person uses language, not realizing that pershonhood is a linguistic category used in and or by a language and product of socio-linguistic conditioning, in this case English language with extraordinary strong "scientific" subject-object division and atomistic person system and no way of speaking free from supernatural subject-object dualism ingrained allready in English syntax and semantics. However, English and the idea of nature that it convays is not the only language/nature relation in the world and multitude of worlds. The wikipedia article goes only halfway claiming that reality is not same for all observers, when the deeper truth is that reality is different in and for every differing natural language participating in nature in a dynamic and holistic relationship.

Now, back to the concept of "overshoot" and it's "objective" scientific definition. If "anomaly" of a different reality of a non-indoeuropean language or a "4th world language" with "poorly developed" or "primitive" personhood and person system is allowed to participate in discussion about common problems - however poorly translated and translatable into English - and may be allowed to be heard, it has this to say: by sticking to the subject-object division the scientific concept of "overshoot" is nothing but an attempt to become a self-fullfilling prophecy, which attempt is likely to succeed given that scientific version of reality is inherently of self-destructive nature: analysis is litterally a destructive action or "repeatedly dividing (an undivisible whole of which analyser was also an irreducible part) into small and smaller pieces".

[yesplease]

You are misrepresenting what I stated. I never said no oil does not mean no economic growth, I said that no oil does not mean no GDP

My apologies. In that case, it was a pretty pointless exchange and completely meaningless.

I wouldn't say pointless, since it does illustrate a huge problem I have w/ communication. Being it not getting what I mean across w/o lotsa tries or evidently pissing a lot of people off, to the point of death threats/fanatasies in rare cases.

Thanks for clarifying what I stated as a reasonable position, not a cast iron forecast.

It was? In that case I should probably be apologizing.

It's what this thread was about. I assume you jumped in for some purpose. Maybe I was wrong.

It's a fair question, but as always it depends on the context. One person's solution might be another's catastrophe.

The positive thing is that you do seem to laugh a lot at your own posts.

Definitely. No use being negative for it's own sake.

[Ludi]

to the point of death threats/fanatasies in rare cases.

Please report them to the moderators, such threats are a violation of the COC and terms of use.

[NugBlazer]

Same thing.

Your quote tags are all screwed up. What's the same thing?

You and a troll.

OMFG, that is soooooo sig worthy.

yesplease, you're outta your element, and in way, way over your head. Go learn the facts, then come back.

[kublikhan]

Same thing.

Your quote tags are all screwed up. What's the same thing?

You and a troll.

OMFG, that is soooooo sig worthy.

yesplease, you're outta your element, and in way, way over your head. Go learn the facts, then come back.

Love that avatar NugBlazer

[yesplease]

yesplease, you're outta your element, and in way, way over your head. Go learn the facts, then come back.

What's the point of using facts w/ someone who makes 'em up as they go along and can say what they didn't say whenever they feel like? It's the perfect doomcopian argument! Just say that ya meant whatever will validate your position, regardless of what ya posted. Infinite facts if you will...

[nobodypanic]

can you grow w/declining energy? yes, of course, so long as you become more efficient at using energy at a rate that outpaces the energy decline sufficient to give you enough surplus to grow.

obviously, however, you can only become so efficient, so i don't expect that you could have infinite growth in the face of of perpetual decline.

can you grow w/no energy? not a chance.

can you grow w/declining oil energy? in principle, yes. in practice...?

[NugBlazer]

yesplease, you're outta your element, and in way, way over your head. Go learn the facts, then come back.

What's the point of using facts w/ someone who makes 'em up as they go along and can say what they didn't say whenever they feel like? It's the perfect doomcopian argument!

Now, c'mon yesplease, you know darn well that Monte isn't "making up" his facts. As he often states, he is just the messenger. Furthermore he backs his facts up with links, sources and references, almost ad nauseum. To say he just conjures it all up is silly and nonsensical.

I do appreciate your good humor about all this, yesplease, but honestly, you're outta your element.

[pedalling_faster]

what's seems paradoxical is the continuing advance of some technologies, to the point where people are just (for lack of a better term) seriously psyched !

there's an ongoing saga in the computer world where AMD stole the performance crown from Intel in about 2004, with their Athlon 64 series processors (misnamed because, even in 2008, almost everybody is still using 32 bit programs).

anyway, this performance edge continued in 2005, when AMD introduced dual core versions of their products, making for some seriously fast workstations that almost anyone in the Western world could afford. of course, in 2005 we have one peak as part of an undulating plateau.

then 2006 comes along, and Intel beats the cRap out of AMD with their Core2Duo (with the various bubbles beginning to pop in the background.)

finally, in 2008, AMD has finally fought back and released the 4850 and 4870 chipsets, stealing the performance crown back from nVidia . for people that are into computers, this is very amazing times.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341
(article about those 2 chipsets)

so now a person can buy a QuadCore intel, the natural extension of the dual core technology they released in 2006, and an ATI 4*** series card, to get an enormous amount of technology in a small space (14" x 8" x 9").

and you know how 2008 has gone, in terms of the economy & Peak Oil. it's almost as if the computer industry is experiencing reverse entropy, becoming more highly ordered, while the rest of society disintegrates (and the computer hoopla continues at SigGraph 2008 in Los Angeles in August).

if the inverse correlation between computer technology and Peak Oil continues, it will be interesting to see how things proceed. if, in 2010, liquid fuel shortages stymie the evacuation of South Florida in the face of a Cat 6 hurricane, it won't be much of a comfort to buy an 8-core computer for $999. but, you'll be able to - if UPS still delivers in your community.

i like these computer gadgets but i'm getting more & more respect for the Amish style of doing things (except for the restrictions they place on women).

[yesplease]

Now, c'mon yesplease, you know darn well that Monte isn't "making up" his facts. As he often states, he is just the messenger. Furthermore he backs his facts up with links, sources and references, almost ad nauseum. To say he just conjures it all up is silly and nonsensical.

It's been shown that he either doesn't understand some of the material he links, or is making up stuff for some other reason. I mean in that example, even the authors go to the point of explicitly stating that appropriation is what we destroy/block from growth, but MQ turned that into consume. If we burn down a patch of the Amazon, we aren't consuming the energy of the trees as they burn, we're destroying them, or according to Pimentel and Co, appropriating their NPP. There are plenty of other examples where they make claims w/o providing anything in the way of proof, even in this thread, and when they do provide some form of proof, it can be via statistics altered to the point where they're fiction compared to what the author of what they linked wrote. If that's fine w/ you, no worries, but I'm sorry to say that I will point stuff like that out. Regardless of whether or not it's proper Groupthink etiquette.

[VMarcHart]

...you know darn well Monte isn't "making up" his facts. As he often states, he is just the messenger. Furthermore he backs his facts up with links, sources and references, almost ad nauseum.

Monte suffers of selective fact-backing. Monte is 100% correct on facts that suit his views. Good luck presenting to him another possibility.

[TonyPrep]

I think that's a fairly irrelevant distinction, between destroy and consume. It's still gone, either way. Destruction may even make it worse than consumption.

[yesplease]

I think that's a fairly irrelevant distinction, between destroy and consume. It's still gone, either way. Destruction may even make it worse than consumption.

If we consume 40% of world NPP, or whatever it was he stated, then it lends credence to his whole die-off position, since we're so close to consuming all of what the Earth has and whatnot. Otoh, if we consume, as Pimentel stated, a few percent of world NPP, and destroy another 15% or so of, it, our problem isn't population, it's current business practices so to speak. And in that case, if we do end up screwing ourselves, it isn't because of some horrible population boom that we can't stop, it's because we're wasteful and lazy, which we can stop. Hell, regardless of how small population gets, within reason, we can probably still screw up the Earth.

So yeah, two little fudges, failing to account for the difference between appropriation and consumption, as well as terrestrial equivalent and the total world NPP, provide a perfect "fact" base for d00mcopianism.

[TonyPrep]

What we're doing is unsustainable, for a whole load of reasons. To get hung up on a particular use of words is missing the point. We don't appear to be able to stop what we're doing (including growing the population).

If people can't get it through their heads that some significant changes will have to be made, in order to attempt to avoid calamity, then calamity is what we'll get. It seems pretty irrelevant to start examining the minutiae of language, when that essential point is missed.

[VMarcHart]

If [s]people[/s] we can't get it through [s]their[/s] our heads that some significant changes will have to be made in order to attempt to avoid calamity, then calamity is what we'll get. It seems pretty irrelevant to start examining the minutiae of language, when [s]that[/s] the essential point is missed.

I like it better this way.