JuanP wrote:Desu, I gave up trying to talk about things like overpopulation and Peak Oil with normal people a very long time ago. For almost two decades I kept these things mostly to myself and dumped them on my poor wife. Now, I come here to PO and dump my doomerism regarding these kind of issues here.
Talking to normal people about these things is a waste of time and energy, IMHO, but I don't discourage others that do so from doing it, to each their own. I am only responsible for my words and my actions, what other people do is their responsibility, as far as I am concerned. You can only save yourself and a few close ones, if you are lucky. You can't save all mankind, because they don't want to be saved, and, IMO, most of them are not woth saving.
Logic wrote:Actually, I believe people deny peak oil because they continually hear extreme predictions, which don't come about, and they go on with heir lives.
Desu, you are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf.
The fact that we are running out of oil is self evident. The radical prediction of dark ages are what turn people away from your entire message.
dolanbaker wrote:Desu, it is important to remember that the world isn't Black & white as you are implying by saying doomer or cornie. There is in reality (at least) 50 shades of grey and the vast majority of people are "grey", peak oil means that the way most of the population lives will change as they have to work around a diminishing fuel supply. For many, this will mean that they'll have to move to a city from the suburbs, just like millions have already done so in developing countries (sometimes with disastrous results like the impending unfolding water crisis in Sao Paulo). A badly managed post peak oil landscape could be a very dangerous place to be, but most places should be able to transition with relatively little trouble apart from the feeling that many people will feel as they take a "drop in living standard".
Most people are unable to accept the fact that peak oil will led to the collapse of this civilization.
Add to the fact that a significant portion (or the majority of) humanity will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil.
"We can always invent something to replace oil" (Even though all evidence shows to the contrary).
peak oil will cause the collapse of THE global economy and result in food shortages around the world
But most people will even deny it even if you present to them overwhelming evidence. This evidence can be overwhelming
When oil production begins to decline, our monetary system will collapse because it is based on infinite growth.
Peak oil is happening right now. The peaking of oil production worldwide is eminent if not happening right now.
It takes an enormous amount of oil and other natural resources to build alternatives to oil.
They got no good arguments against peak oil and its consequences, so the best they can do is throw childish ad hominem attacks
But you can't argue with stupid people. Don't argue with stupid people. Just let these people perish when the collapse happens.
tom_s2 wrote:The "end of the oil age" is at least 120 years away if we assume a symmetric Hubbert curve of all oil extraction.
tom_s2 wrote:How did civilizations such as the Byzantine empire last for millenia while loaning money at interest?
tom_s2 wrote:Hi Desu,
How do you know they're in denial? Maybe they know something you don't. Maybe you're wrong, or not convincing.
The "end of the oil age" is at least 120 years away if we assume a symmetric Hubbert curve of all oil extraction. In the mean time, how do you know people won't invent some alternative, like artificial photosynthesis? Or build windmills to generate anhydrous ammonia which is a liquid and a suitable fuel for internal combustion engines? Or learn to extract methane hydrates? Or switch to electrified transport?
You have evidence that something won't be invented in the next 120 years? What kind of evidence?
Why would peak oil cause food shortages? Wouldn't people sacrifice food last? Won't they divert the remaining oil to food production, first and foremost?
Which evidence have you ever presented? Every time I post an objection to what you say, you offer no evidence or response whatsoever. The others (Davy and such) just post their weird pop psychoanalysis, over and over again, without even addressing the objection. How is that evidence?
Our monetary system is based on infinite growth? Did you read that in an actual textbook about our monetary system, or did you get it from Richard Heinberg? How did civilizations such as the Byzantine empire last for millenia while loaning money at interest? Why didn't the USA collapse during the Great Depression when there was contraction for a decade straight?
How do you know peak oil is happening right now? Hubbert curves have been just totally wrong in predicting oil production for the last ten years. Hubbert curves haven't even successfully predicted regular, conventional oil which was supposed to have declined 2-4% per YEAR for the last 10 years.
If those techniques didn't work before, why would they work now? Do you have some other reason to believe oil declines are imminent? I'm not saying you're wrong (I have no idea when oil will peak) but I'm wondering if you have any reason other than these techniques which have already failed.
Why don't we divert some of the oil we use for discretionary travel, and use it to build alternatives instead?
Who's the one using ad hominem attacks here? Isn't your main argument an ad hominem attack ("these people are stupid and in denial")?
Why does every single expert in the relevant fields just dismiss this stuff? Are you really smarter and more knowledgeable than them?
-Tom S
And what is that "something"
The problem isn't the end of oil but production not meeting demand
And you have evidence that there will (be inventions in the next 120 years)?
They should (sacrifice discrentionary travel for food), but that's not what we are seeing.
Oil decline is imminent because oil is a finite resource.
Hubbert's model uses math formulas and will thus not be able to map actual production.
Also, oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.
Previous empires lasted for thousands of years because the type of technologies employed did not allow for the level of production and consumption that we see today. Not even close.
Because the global economy involves markets that use price mechanisms. That explains why preparations for peak oil have not taken place.
Lots of evidence has been presented in various threads in the forum.
Check my signature for a list of reports from multiple sources, from energy agencies to oil companies to banks to insurance companies to military forces, etc.
tom_s2 wrote:
It could be anything. What I'm saying here is there could be multiple reasons for disagreement other than just denial. Perhaps people think that the failures of prediction, over and over again, calls this stuff into question. Maybe they wonder why it's such a fringe thing if the laws of physics so plainly imply it. That's not denial; that's doubt.
That's not what Desu said. He said "a significant portion ... will perish at the end of the oil age because an extra 5 billion plus people exist only because of oil."
If the problem is only supply not meeting demand, then why don't people just take fewer discretionary road trips?
You're answering a question with a question. Desu was the one making claims here. He claimed that "all evidence" indicated that no inventions can be made. I am wondering what that evidence is.
If there is no evidence, one way or another, about what will be invented in the next 120 years, then there's just no way of knowing what the consequences of peak oil will be. The best we can say is "we don't know what will happen because of peak oil. Maybe it will be a problem, maybe not."
If other unconventional sources of oil come on line (like shale did) then there could be a lot more time until methane hydrates etc can be extracted. Who knows. That's what's happened so far; tight oil was brought online just when it was needed to keep increasing supply.
Personally, I would guess there will be significant inventions over the next 120 years. There have been significant inventions over the last 120 years. I don't see any reason why invention would suddenly and totally stop, especially if transportation becomes such a pressing issue. But who knows.
Really? We are seeing widespread starvation in industrial countries because people couldn't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food? Where are we seeing that?
The USA saw its oil supplies drop absolutely for 20 years, starting in 1979. How many people starved because of that? Why did the population increase?
That just doesn't follow at all. Even if oil is finite, declines could start 200 years from now. 200 years is still finite. For that matter, oil was finite 100 years ago, but it did not imply an imminent peak.
Then what reason do you have to think that oil declines are imminent? If Hubbert's formulas can't predict declines, then what other formulas are you relying upon?
That seems to pose a severe problem for your point of view. If food is dependent on oil, and people can't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel for food, then why didn't calories per capita decrease along with oil per capita? Why has world population continued increasing?
Fine, but that's just beside the point. Desu was making the claim often found in peak oil circles that our monetary system requires infinite growth or it will collapse, because of debt. However, other civilizations had massive debt, high interest rates, and no growth for millennia before collapsing. How?
But the price mechanism implies the opposite of what you are saying. The price mechanism assures that money and resources are devoted to the most important uses, not the least, according to people who are experts on it (economists).
Also, have there really been no preparations for peak oil? Almost every major car manufacturer started designing electric cars many years before any actual declines began. Fuel economy has been increasing every year as prices increased, until recently. Ships built today are twice as fuel efficient as those of 20 years ago. The entire trans siberian railway has now been electrified, and many other railways too. Some delivery services are switching to natural gas for their trucks. Perhaps these things could even be accelerated once oil starts declining.
What reason do you have to believe that preparations thus far have been inadequate or that adjustments will be insufficient to offset declines?
I was saying that whenever anyone posts any objection, Desu and other simply don't respond to it or post pop psychoanalysis. We'll see what happens this time.
Most of your sources are from the IEA, the EIA, Exxon-Mobil, Citigroup, etc. Those sources do not support what you are saying. Not one of those sources which I've read predicts a near-term collapse of civilization. Most of them do not even predict a near-term peak of oil, much less collapse. That is what I mean by "no experts support this".
I haven't read all your sources. Perhaps you can be specific and point out something.
-Tom S
I think his argument is based on the premise that the population boomed during the twentieth century because of oil (energy and petrochemicals) used extensively for manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, both of which provided components and infrastructure needed for sanitation systems,
But those inventions from the past led to more problems (such as the use of oil which led to a global population increase, environmental damage, and global warming).
If the problem is only supply not meeting demand, then why don't people just take fewer discretionary road trips?
That's because the global economy in which they thrive is based on markets driven by price mechanisms and profit, which explains why resource and energy use overall have been rising for decades.
We are seeing widespread starvation in industrial countries because people couldn't figure out to sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food? Where are we seeing that?
Most human beings earn only a few dollars a day and lack access to one or more basic needs. Only a fraction of the world's population has been responsible for the bulk of personal consumption.
It requires up to a quarter of world oil production to provide for the middle class conveniences of less than 5 pct of the world's population.
Electric cars, ships, etc., require oil for manufacturing, shipping, etc.
Actually, it doesn't. It assumes that resources and money are used to what provides maximum profits.
Finally, the issue involves more than just transportation.
Objections have been addressed in various threads in this forum.
The papers were written by combinations of experts. Obviously, they will not talk about a "near-term collapse of civilization" as they only refer to peak oil.
tom_s2 wrote:Hi ralfy,
That's just repeating his claim without answering the objection. I was asking why people do not sacrifice discretionary travel and switch to alternatives. You've not answered the question.
You're changing the topic again, and not addressing the objection. Even if some new invention leads to more problems (like further pollution), that's not relevant to the energy-collapse and die-off scenario which Desu was postulating.
What? That's just changing the topic. I was asking WHY people don't just take fewer discretionary road trips. You changed the topic entirely and started talking about something else without answering the objection.
That's just totally changing the topic. That not even addressing the question which was asked. I was asking why people in industrial societies won't sacrifice discretionary travel rather than food. You claimed they would not, and I asked why. You are not answering the question.
So? That's just not related to the question being asked. I was asking how it was possible that absolute declines in oil consumption in the USA could correspond with increasing food production there. You've not answered the question.
The USA saw its oil supplies drop absolutely for 20 years, starting in 1979. How many people starved because of that? Why did the population increase?
That does not answer the objection. You and he were claiming that no preparations had been made. Although a ship which gets twice the fuel economy still requires oil for its manufacture, it obviously uses far less oil during its lifetime. That is a reduction in oil usage (although not to zero).
I was asking you why you think such a preparation is insufficient. It's no answer to say "oil is required for its construction". You would need answer why the reductions being made are not enough to avert collapse.
Yes, it really does. Here is a basic slideshow about the price mechanism:
http://www.slideshare.net/onlineassignm ... -mechanism
From the first paragraph: "[He] described how the invisible hand of the market operated...to allocate resources in society's best interest".
Profits are obtained by providing something which is scarce. Food would be the most profitable thing of all, if there weren't enough of it. In that case profits and consumer need are aligned.
That argument is even weaker. I picked transportation because it was strongest for your case. Electricity generation already has widely deployed alternatives to fossil fuels.
No, objections have not been addressed in other threads in this forum. Every time an objection is posed, there is either: 1) incessant pop psychoanalysis of the author; 2) total silence; 3) rapid topic-changing. None of those are answers to any objections. I almost never see any objections answered in this forum.
You would need to show where those papers support what you are saying, which is what I asked for.
If you just bring up the Hirsch report and the Limits to Growth paper again, then that is just cherry-picking the two fringe papers which are always used here. That supports my claim that virtually no experts believe this stuff.
-Tom S
tom_s2 wrote:Ralfy,
I just don't see any legitimate responses to any of the questions I asked. Desu has just not responded at all, to any objections, despite claiming these things are science. You are just using the well-worn tactic of rapid topic-changing to avoid all objections.
You also claim repeatedly that scientific papers support your position, but when I asked for references, you provided none. You also claimed repeatedly that these objections were answered elsewhere on this forum, but you have provided no links, no references, and no quotations.
It is simply not legitimate to provide vague pseudo-references such as "my point is supported in some paper or comment somewhere" without being more specific than that. That is not valid. You are responsible for providing references for your own point.
These are basic questions I'm asking. These are basic objections. There has never been any answer to these questions on this forum.
-Tom S
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests