[yesplease]

Hey, have you thought about the subject of this thread?

Apparently. Hey, I even asked you about it, and you failed to respond.

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?

I'll take that as a no, then.

So me asking you about the topic doesn't count as thinking about it? I mean, what else can I do? If asking about the subject doesn't qualify as me having thought about it, and if I point out logical fallacies and/or incorrect "facts" I'm "missing the point", what else is there? Do we all agree to agree wiith everything everyone says? It looks like their isn't much room for anything but Groupthink, especially when the group can use all the "facts" they want, regardless of whether or not they're correct.

[TonyPrep]

Hey, have you thought about the subject of this thread?

Apparently. Hey, I even asked you about it, and you failed to respond.

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?

I'll take that as a no, then.

So me asking you about the topic doesn't count as thinking about it? I mean, what else can I do? If asking about the subject doesn't qualify as me having thought about it, and if I point out logical fallacies and/or incorrect "facts" I'm "missing the point", what else is there? Do we all agree to agree wiith everything everyone says? It looks like their isn't much room for anything but Groupthink, especially when the group can use all the "facts" they want, regardless of whether or not they're correct.

I just wondered if you had anything of substance to say on the subject. It seems not.

[VMarcHart]

Then I came to this thread and read all of Monte's posts for a second time...all 47 pages. What a nice relief. So well explained. Such effort in each of his posts. Always well referenced. As objective as objective can be. Always a pleasure to read. Thank you Monte. It's always appreciated. Keep up the good fight.

You and Monte need to get a room! Monte is not fighting, and if he were, it wouldn't be for you. Monte is on his own, absorbed by the selected books he reads, an incredible memory to recite those books, and an unique gift to explain in lame's terms. If you've read all 47 pages, you must have read Monte stating 1,000 times die-off is inevitable and there's nothing you can do; you're doomed. LOL!

[MonteQuest]

You and Monte need to get a room! Monte is not fighting, and if he were, it wouldn't be for you. Monte is on his own, absorbed by the selected books he reads, an incredible memory to recite those books, and an unique gift to explain in lame's terms. If you've read all 47 pages, you must have read Monte stating 1,000 times die-off is inevitable and there's nothing you can do; you're doomed. LOL!

Much easier to attack me than refute the facts, isn't it?

[MonteQuest]

If you've read all 47 pages, you must have read Monte stating 1,000 times die-off is inevitable and there's nothing you can do; you're doomed. LOL!

Nothing you can do?

To avoid a die-off, no.

Who would want to?

You have no desire to be in balance with your ecosystem?

Why try to avoid nature's rebalancing?

All it does it is make the correction even worse down the line.

Or do you believe us above nature and not subject to limits?

And doomed?

Why does nature's correction = doom?

What we can do is reduce our footprint and lower the population so that the correction isn't so harsh and the decimation of the carrying capacity doesn't threaten our very existance.

I am reminded of the story of a South American Indian tribe that devised an ingenious monkey trap. The Indians cut off the small end of a coconut and stuffed it with sweetmeats and rice. They tethered the other end to a stake and placed it in a clearing. Soon, a monkey smelled the treats inside and came to see what it is. It could just barely get its hand into the coconut but, stuffed with booty, it could not pull the hand back out. The Indians easily walked up to the monkey and captured it. Even as the Indians approached, the monkey screamed in horror, not only in fear of its captors, but equally as much, one imagines, in recognition of the tragedy of its own lethal but still unalterable greed. The monkey cannot properly evaluate the relative worth of a handful of food compared to its life. It chooses wrongly, catastrophically so, dooming itself by its own short-term fixation on a relatively paltry pleasure.

[mos6507]

Nothing you can do?

To avoid a die-off, no.

Who would want to?

Most well adjusted people want to avoid a cruel nature-induced die off. We want to somehow step back from the precipice humanely on our own terms.

Of course what we want and what we get are two different things.

You have no desire to be in balance with your ecosystem?

Why try to avoid nature's rebalancing?

We have every desire to survive and if it means being in balance with the ecosystem, that's what we'll do. We don't have a desire to take a lottery ticket in an unrestrained full-speed-ahead die-off on the odd chance we'll make it through the bottleneck.

Or do you believe us above nature and not subject to limits?

Humans are capable of placing limits on themselves.

Why does nature's correction = doom?

Because you define doom at the species level and we define doom at the personal level. It provides no solace to us for humanity to survive 100 years down the road if we're going to be hit up with a 1 in 10 or worse chance of making it through the impending bottleneck.

The monkey cannot properly evaluate the relative worth of a handful of food compared to its life. It chooses wrongly, catastrophically so, dooming itself by its own short-term fixation on a relatively paltry pleasure.

I understand full well the tragedy of short-term thinking. I just think trying to smooth over doomsday on the basis of "we deserved it" is misanthropic.

[Ludi]

It provides no solace to us for humanity to survive 100 years down the road if we're going to be hit up with a 1 in 10 or worse chance of making it through the impending bottleneck.

I find a great deal of solace in the idea that humanity will survive though I will die.

But that's just me, I guess.....I never expected to be immortal.

[MonteQuest]

Most well adjusted people want to avoid a cruel nature-induced die off. We want to somehow step back from the precipice humanely on our own terms.

That's dreaming and pure hubris. Mother Nature bats last.

We don't have a desire to take a lottery ticket in an unrestrained full-speed-ahead die-off on the odd chance we'll make it through the bottleneck.

Who does? But frankly, we have little say in the matter.

Humans are capable of placing limits on themselves.

Too late for that.

Because you define doom at the species level and we define doom at the personal level. It provides no solace to us for humanity to survive 100 years down the road if we're going to be hit up with a 1 in 10 or worse chance of making it through the impending bottleneck.

Sorry. Reality sucks. Get used to it.

I just think trying to smooth over doomsday on the basis of "we deserved it" is misanthropic.

We chose to ignore reality, didn't we? Didn't we make the bed we must now sleep in?

[BigTex]

Monte's feeling awfully chipper this evening.

[VMarcHart]

Peak Oil, Global Warming, Soil Depletion, Aquifer drawdown, death of the oceans, loss of biodiversity and many other problems that are all symptoms of over population. Each of these, left unchecked will cause die-off. A billion plus people rely on the oceans for their primary source of protein. Pollution, over fishing and acidification are going to kill the oceans within decades. Those people who rely on the oceans are going to go hungry. If ya don't eat, ya don't sh!t, if ya don't sh!t ya die. Each of these problem will be very difficult if not impossible to solve.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

Combined we've got no hope.

Here we diverge.

Die-off is inevitable.

I say most probable, instead of inevitable.

[mos6507]

I find a great deal of solace in the idea that humanity will survive though I will die.

I would too if I had no choice but to face such a future. But what we're talking about is how much of a struggle humanity should put forward to prevent die off. Monte seems to be advocating that we collectively yank the plug on the life support, and let the chips fall. He doesn't see it that way, but I view that as tantamount to personal suicide by virtue of the weak survival odds.

[mos6507]

That's dreaming and pure hubris. Mother Nature bats last.

You want to trade cliche's? Here's one. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

Too late for that.

Time will tell.

We chose to ignore reality, didn't we? Didn't we make the bed we must now sleep in?

Speak for yourself with the collective "we". As soon as I first heard about peak oil in 2004, I believed it. US oil peak occured right around the time I was born. The bed was made for me before I had a chance to even do anything about it.

[VMarcHart]

I am reminded of the story of a South American Indian tribe that devised an ingenious monkey trap...

That's a cute story, and most likely based on facts. I grew up listening to it. Thanks for the memories.

But we're not monkeys, Monte. We evolved from that. But so be it that 3 billion will die because we're too stupid and arrogant and too smart for own good. So what?

You were with the Coast Guard in rescue operations. Did you dismiss all SOS calls because the dumasses should've known the seas take lives daily? I doubt.

Now you're a contractor. People ask you to build homes to protect their doomed families. Do you tell them to forget about it? I doubt.
There is a tomorrow worth living for, and you know it. That's a fact. I don't know how to explain it. Sorry.

[TonyPrep]

As soon as I first heard about peak oil in 2004, I believed it. US oil peak occured right around the time I was born. The bed was made for me before I had a chance to even do anything about it.

Fair point. Since you were able to do something about it (late 80s, I'm guessing) did you do anything about it?

[yesplease]

I just wondered if you had anything of substance to say on the subject. It seems not.

Well, if all I get in the thread in response to my questions are ad hominem arguments, and/or nothing, what do you expect? Getting a straight answer out of some on this board is like pulling teath... Speaking of which TonyPrep, what do you mean by technology?

[MonteQuest]

Die-off is inevitable.

I say most probable, instead of inevitable.

Please cite a source to show any species in overshoot ever avoiding a die-off.

You have the hubris to suggest we are above nature?

[MonteQuest]

But what we're talking about is how much of a struggle humanity should put forward to prevent die off.

Knowing up front that you cannot prevent die-off, means any effort to prevent it only makes the inevitable die-off that much worse.

Monte seems to be advocating that we collectively yank the plug on the life support, and let the chips fall. He doesn't see it that way, but I view that as tantamount to personal suicide by virtue of the weak survival odds.

This isn't about morals, ethics or sanctity of life; it is about what works.

Mother Nature isn't going to consider those aspects, so we can't either.

We have to chose from the same list as nature.

Such is our dilemma.

[MonteQuest]

Time will tell.

It already has. Using birth control to reduce the population takes 50 to 75 years due to demographics.

By then, we will have added billions more before we ever see a net decline.

[MonteQuest]

But we're not monkeys, Monte.

Guess you missed the message.