[theluckycountry]

Exercise is an on and off thing; too little to too much. Health care has been less of an issue, my Wife takes some BP medicine, I have no prescriptions. My biggest complaint is gout...

Leaving the city, bot having to deal with public sector contracts and private sector contracts has likely out years on my life. It has for sure increased my happiness.

Gout, too much wine? Haha, ahhhh the joys of age, if I knew it was going to be like this I'd have taken better care of myself when I was younger, maybe... I have the back issues, a dicky shoulder now too but I keep at the cycling, 30km rides on the flat twice a week, I don't push it like I used to though as you get the same benefit nearly by going at a moderate pace. I try and exercise the shoulder daily too, it's not that bad but get my arm in the wrong position and it's like someone sticking a hot knife into the joint.

I try to tell people who are in their forties and fifties, and talking of setting up a homestead to be self sufficient, that it might not be workable unless they have a lot of kids to do the hard work in the decades ahead. I hope my plans work out but no one knows the future do they.

[Newfie]

There is a book called the 15 minute rotator cuff solution or something. Lots of reps at low weights, really low, for a long time. It helps a lot but is very tedious. Most people opt for the knife.

Gout is more beer and genes. I have shifted to GIn and Tonic, health food you know old chap. Botanist Gin and Fever Tree tonic for the snobs.

My future is experiencing degrowth daily.

But I shan't complain too much. I seem to be in better health than most of my peers. Could be worse.

Back to the WEF Global Risk Report, I was thinking of that in context of the Limits to Growth BAU Graph. Simply put I imagine the WEF report could be summed up as an caption arrow on the LTG graph, just at or past the top of the curves. The caption says "WE ARE HERE",

[theluckycountry]

Back to the WEF Global Risk Report, I was thinking of that in context of the Limits to Growth BAU Graph. Simply put I imagine the WEF report could be summed up as an caption arrow on the LTG graph, just at or past the top of the curves. The caption says "WE ARE HERE",

Yes, well, even from the summary it's clear the WEF report completely ignores the seriousness of oil depletion, resource depletion, and all the other Limits pointed out so clearly in the 1970's MIT work. It seem obvious to me that they are just a bunch of politicians trying to obfuscate the realities of the over-exploitation of the Planet by casting the blame for our problems on interest rate cycles, CO2 emissions, the war between Russia and, "the forces of goodness", and on the magic virus.

All these excuses are nonsensical when you look at recent history since WWII. There have been many nasty interest rate cycles and massive proxy wars, but it didn't stop economies booming ever onward and upward fueled by cheap oil. The WEF has been very clear in it's agenda for us, "You will own nothing but be happy". I didn't read the full report, a long winded document drafted for a political agenda, and to honest I haven't read the limits to growth for years either. That document was not written for me but for politicians and leaders of industry, in the hope they would change the path we were on.

Denis and Denise must have been very young idealists when they printed that book. Hoping it might make a change, that somehow 5000 years of human nature would suddenly change because of the level of the threat. Unfortunately those people in power back then, and now, care nothing for future generations, they care only for their short term profits, their own temporal luxuries. And from reading the posts here I think most of us here would identify with those motivations. Yes we need to save the world, but keep your hands off my energy sink house, my luxury boat, my finances and my motorcycles.

[Newfie]

Lucky,

Back when the was written 5he team focused upon the material trends and used those trends to make assumptions about how the future would develop. What the did NOT do was to make predictions about how that new world would disintegrate, just that it would. They were looking 50+ years into the future, quite remarkable and ballsy.

The WEF is doing something very different, they are looking on far shorter time frames (2 to 5 years) and reporting on how the world is changing. And, yes, they have a bias to continue the existing world order. So of course their metrics and methods are going ot be different. How could it be otherwise.

IIRC LTG declined to view past the peak into the downward trend. I recall the rational as along the lines of the following "Once any of the major indicators start to break negative then the whole system becomes chaotic and could go down in many different directions." I hope I got that about right.

So both groups are peering into the future from different vantage points using vastly different modules.

Where they coalesce is in seeing the world as an intricately interlaced system of international connections that require smooth operation and mutual trust. The WEF does not say "we are running our of grain" it is saying the grain harvest and disruption wl cause famine, which will cause civil unrest and forced migration.

It does not say consumer goods have maxed out but that the political and security climate has been disrupted so that production will shift to less efficient regional centers.

LTG was Mom saying "You will think differently in 8 months", WEF is reporting the first unpleasant pangs of contraction as they occur.

Thus "You are here."


Besides, can you imagine the uproar should the WEF make an official statement declaring LTG was correct? I would pay money for that show.

[AdamB]

Besides, can you imagine the uproar should the WEF make an official statement declaring LTG was correct? I would pay money for that show.

From the technical perspective, the LTG model has been wrong for awhile now. By the mid-90's it should have been obvious to anyone willing to look at its underpinnings. Doly educated me on a fundamentally poor assumption it made, normalizing all resources into a generic starting point, and presto, it just ignored the reality of resource development and sizes. Can't let that get in the way of a good story, right?

So GIGO means that there is no ability of LTG to be correct. All it can do is the calculations and deliver an answer. Like the answer, don't like the answer, run scenarios, like scenarios, don't like scenarions, doesn't matter. It just does the calculation and delivers an answer.

[Newfie]

Do you deny we are at or past peak human development, peak globalization?

Do you feel the future is rosy or looking dim?

[theluckycountry]

Lucky,

Back when the was written 5he team focused upon the material trends and used those trends to make assumptions about how the future would develop. What the did NOT do was to make predictions about how that new world would disintegrate, just that it would. They were looking 50+ years into the future, quite remarkable and ballsy....

The WEF does not say "we are running our of grain" it is saying the grain harvest and disruption wl cause famine, which will cause civil unrest and forced migration.

It does not say consumer goods have maxed out but that the political and security climate has been disrupted so that production will shift to less efficient regional centers

Besides, can you imagine the uproar should the WEF make an official statement declaring LTG was correct? I would pay money for that show.

Oh all quite true, the thing is they are basically stating the obvious, in a fancy way, which as far as the average person goes is of no value other than confirming what they see in daily life. I think everyone on the Planet knows we are facing these issues, everyone knows food is getting expensive, consumer goods are not as abundant. They are printing yesterday's news.

The Limits to growth study was of real value for anyone who read it and chose to apply it. If someone went and bought farmland say, got out of debt say, saved for the future responsibly and perhaps built a super efficient home they would be in a much better position today wouldn't they. The threats to Happy Living were spelled out clearly in LTG, it was obvious what was required, of planetary governments or the average person. Yes, taking heed to LTG would have you sitting pretty today and these threats the WEF points to would not effect you.

Of what value is the WEF paper then? In it's essence it says we are in for a rough patch, the average person could easily surmise that the best way forward would be to take on a half million in debt to weather these upsets and pay it back when the good times return. What is the WEF? It's a corporate sponsored mouthpiece. It's videos show things like consumer goods being delivered to you your door by a drone. But only small consumer goods like iPads lol, not the things that make life easy like refrigerators, washing machines, and Air conditioners.

The WEF is, in my opinion, as useless as tits on a Bull. And The Limits to growth? It was basically the book of Revelations in the Bible of resource management.

[AdamB]

Do you deny we are at or past peak human development, peak globalization?

Who might that be aimed at? Me, I would need a definition of what you consider "human development", social, financial, psychological, etc etc, and peak globalization. Is that measured in international trade, functioning international trading blocks, level of cooperation in assembling/manufacturing products for each others markets, etc etc.

You can't just ask the top level question without providing a hint as to how YOU might even measure such a thing. Those who have fallen for pretending they understand far less important peaks, like in straight up metrics like oil production, should be quite careful going after more complicated measures like the ones you've mentioned. And while I am quite an expert in the easy oil or gas one, the ones you mention are both amorphous and vague. How many past peaks in these things have there been? Of the many sub-categories within each, do they all have to peak at the same time, are they correlated, are they relative in nature and which ones might be more relevant than others?

Do you feel the future is rosy or looking dim?

To a Doomer, the future is ALWAYS looking dim. I learned that from Doomers, and from this webite before discovering it was a certainty in the Doom-o-sphere blogs and forums. Who do you think hangs out here, and places like this? Happy optimists? Old farts with one foot in the grave to BEGIN with...and you think the "future is rosy" is ever the choice they would make?

As to the future...I consider myself....ambivalent.

[AdamB]

The WEF is, in my opinion, as useless as tits on a Bull. And The Limits to growth? It was basically the book of Revelations in the Bible of resource management.

Amateur. The LTG model said we had XX barrels of oil in the planetary totality that went into being developed as part of their overall resources. And based on that number, contained in Table 1 I believe, we ran out of oil in the mid-1990's.

So the Bible says we ran out of oil a decade or so before this website was born to discuss a peak oil in the century AFTER LTG said we had already run out.

"The Bible". Bleeding ignorant amateurs.

[ralfy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

The ecological footprint per capita of the world population exceeds biocapacity.

The world population wants that footprint to keep rising in order to meet basic needs, if not wants, while biocapacity is being affected by pollution and the effects of clinate change.

At the same time, because of biocapacity, the energy and resources needed for that footprint are affected by diminishing returns, with peak oil being one example (another is peak mining).

[AdamB]

At the same time, because of biocapacity, the energy and resources needed for that footprint are affected by diminishing returns, with peak oil being one example (another is peak mining).

Which peak oil? The one you and the groupies of LATOC and Matt Savinar fell for hook, line and sinker, or other ones?

[Newfie]

Adam wrote:

As to the future...I consider myself....ambivalent.

So you don’t care if you live or die?

I think you meant to imply “I don’t have a clue.”

[Newfie]

u

At the same time, because of biocapacity, the energy and resources needed for that footprint are affected by diminishing returns, with peak oil being one example (another is peak mining).

Which peak oil? The one you and the groupies of LATOC and Matt Savinar fell for hook, line and sinker, or other ones?

This is really just trying to turn the conversation away from Ralph’s points. Rhetorical trickery. Deflection.

Ralph made solid points,

[mousepad]

:badgrin: u

At the same time, because of biocapacity, the energy and resources needed for that footprint are affected by diminishing returns, with peak oil being one example (another is peak mining).

Which peak oil? The one you and the groupies of LATOC and Matt Savinar fell for hook, line and sinker, or other ones?

This is really just trying to turn the conversation away from Ralph’s points. Rhetorical trickery. Deflection.

Ralph made solid points,

LOL . Getting an opinion out of Adam is harder than squeezing water from a stone. He's very afraid of being wrong. The best we have so far from him is by 2030 it's gonna get rough.

[Peak_Yeast]

Amateur. The LTG model said we had XX barrels of oil in the planetary totality that went into being developed as part of their overall resources. And based on that number, contained in Table 1 I believe, we ran out of oil in the mid-1990's.

So the Bible says we ran out of oil a decade or so before this website was born to discuss a peak oil in the century AFTER LTG said we had already run out.

Sounds like you never actually bothered to read LTG or perhaps you chose to ignore what they wrote?

Why do you think there are scenarios with double the resources, with endless resources? You talk about LTG like it is ONE scenario with one idea on the resources.

It is stated pretty clearly that they use the resource reserves known at that time in table 4. And it is pretty clearly stated that those number can change, but even a doubling or more wont shift the outcome significantly.

With a misrepresentation of LTG like this - I wonder how many other things you choose to be dishonest about.

[AdamB]

Adam wrote:

As to the future...I consider myself....ambivalent.

So you don’t care if you live or die?

Your philosophy of life is fundmenatally different than mine I'm betting. All humans are biologically predisposed to want to live, fight or flight, etc etc, it is built into us.

But you, and I, and all our family and friends and relatives, everyone we've ever known, are dead bipeds walking Newfie. An acceptance of the natural order of things instills in some people a certain type of...calm. I am a very calm person. Some family have found it very disconcerting when it causes me to react in ways that are....unexpected....in circumstances of stress. I do quite well when landowners point firearms at me for example.

So of course I would prefer to live. And that preference is meaningless in the greater scheme of things.

I think you meant to imply “I don’t have a clue.”

Nope. I really meant ambivalent. I meant it in terms of understanding what future life might look like as we age, our health and mental capabilities, and whether or not it is reasonable to substitute more quality of life for quantity, which has been my philosophy for quite some time. What good is living to 100 if the last 20 years your mind is gone and you sit in a wheelchair all drooling on yourself? My mother thinks I am her husband or her brother, alternatively. I get to see this up close and personal, and it is not an academic question.

So, if I was to sum up, THIS strikes me as my overall philosophy towards life in the general sense, but not necessarily its length.

[AdamB]

:badgrin: u

At the same time, because of biocapacity, the energy and resources needed for that footprint are affected by diminishing returns, with peak oil being one example (another is peak mining).

Which peak oil? The one you and the groupies of LATOC and Matt Savinar fell for hook, line and sinker, or other ones?

This is really just trying to turn the conversation away from Ralph’s points. Rhetorical trickery. Deflection.

Ralph made solid points,

ralphy has been weaving his tale of interlocked conspiracies, cabals, informed individuals that he references and agree with him, using insight into the geopolitics of TPTB as the basis for his posting for as long as I've known him. Surely you remember his LATOC days, you know, when Matt himself was describing his followers, one of the more fanatical being Ralphy?

His posting style is still the same, but he has switched topics, and one thing he WON'T do is discuss how he got it all so wrong before and why we should believe his phantasmagorical tales now. He should just throw out some Illuminati links and be done with it, seems to me.

[AdamB]

LOL . Getting an opinion out of Adam is harder than squeezing water from a stone. He's very afraid of being wrong.

I believe you are quite incorrect. In the totality of my work anyway. This is hobby land, jawboning with acquiantances, cocktail party conversation without the cocktail. Scientists are allowed to have opinions. But I'd rather publish results and let them speak for themselves.

Afraid of being wrong? Not how you might imagine. To me being wrong is guidance. How are you expected to learn if you are afraid of being wrong? I revel in being wrong, I specialize in it, being wrong has led to some of my best scientific ideas and career advancement. How? Because once proven wrong, I have a bad habit of wanting to know why. And in the learning of the why, you learn. You apply the new learning, and presto, new solutions present themselves, and you take a step forward.

[AdamB]

Amateur. The LTG model said we had XX barrels of oil in the planetary totality that went into being developed as part of their overall resources. And based on that number, contained in Table 1 I believe, we ran out of oil in the mid-1990's.

So the Bible says we ran out of oil a decade or so before this website was born to discuss a peak oil in the century AFTER LTG said we had already run out.

Sounds like you never actually bothered to read LTG or perhaps you chose to ignore what they wrote?

Sounds like you should be careful saying that to folks who make such statements based on research? A demonstration perhaps, for the obviously uninformed on LTG?

LTG copy here

You can read, right? Page 58, Petroleum is about half way down. 459X10^9 barrels. Do you need a math course in the notation? Fine...I'll do it for you... 459 X 1000000000 = 459 billion barrels. A billion being 1,000,000,000 which is the 10^9 thingy. As usual, mousepad can correct any errors I make. EIA international production of all sorts of stuff history. Click on "Petroleum and Other Liquids". Do I need to explain what "click" means? Click on "Annual Petroleum Liquids and Other Production". About 5 lines down you'll see 'Crude Oil Including Lease Condensate". That is the data series you want. Not that pesky all liquids nonsense that Art has recently pretended is oil production so he can tilt at windmills. Under "DownLoad Options" I choose "Export CSV". You can choose anything you'd like of course. In my file, Line 7 is the Crude Oil and Lease Condensate line. Conveniently, it starts in 1973, the year after the publication of the LTG copy I sent you too. Now...and this is the hard part....begin adding up all the numbers from 1973 to the point where they are greater than 459 billion barrels. Difficult, I know, there being all those zeros, and needing to convert mmbbl/d to billion bbl/ year, you might not even know how many days are in the year for all I know, so shoddy was your comment pretending I hadn't already done this!

459 billion barrels were gone somewhere between 1994 and 1995. Can you BELIEVE this? LTG managed to keep the world from collapsing without any oil after 1995? HOW COULD THIS BE!!!

Can't say I know, or care, but I do know, and care, that I apparently knew this very interesting, and LTG wrecking detail, and halfwits pretending I didn't demonstrated why they are halfwits.

Oh..and a hint...go check out bauxite, natural gas, and a few other goodies if you really want to amaze others like yourself that think LTG is doing a bang-up job of telling its avid readers anything other than MAN are we humans clever, running the world without oil and natural gas and aluminum and stuff.

Why do you think there are scenarios with double the resources, with endless resources? You talk about LTG like it is ONE scenario with one idea on the resources.

Double the resources? And for oil that would be like 918 billion barrels. We ran out of that oil in 2018. And OF COURSE there are endless resources...maybe these folks knew that they couldn't talk about oil amounts any better than peak oilers could?

In either case, LTG is a model. It has balanced equations against each other that obviously don't even need oil to keep the wheels on the bus (forget about natural gas and aluminum and such, right?) and then people who don't know any of this pretend that a scenario that says the stupidest thing in the world (ENDLESS RESOURCES FOREVER!!!) proves that its equations are just a race to...DOOOOOOOOOM!!!

Sort of like peak oil, except the math and estimates and everything are concealed from folks like you who didn't even apparently know that A) the world didn't run out of oil in 1995, and B) it didn't run out of oil in 2013 either and C) endless resources are a fairy tale and don't save bad models and D) that some folks already knew this and E) GIGO is a thing.

With a misrepresentation of LTG like this - I wonder how many other things you choose to be dishonest about.

Let me know when that infinite oil is found (or natural gas or bauxite and all the other items you apparently aren't aware of either), and in the meantime pretend I didn't already know all of this when I did, and you didn't even know the most basic issue, that LTG claims in its base case that after the world ran out of crude oil in 1995....THE MODEL KEPT CHUGGING RIGHT ALONG HAPPY AS A PIG IN FECAL MATTER! At what point do you think the model SHOULD have noticed? When it ran out of oil and natural gas? And those and then...aluminum? Coal? Steel? Does LTG ever mention how when all this happened all these years ago we managed not to become Amish? It being a resource bible and all...not your claim but some other dim bulb who obviously doesn't know any of this either, does this sound like a Bible of resources to you? Not that you would know, as apparently you fell for ENDLESS RESOURCES as an excuse to drool over GIGO results without even knowing that is what had happened.

[ralfy]

The LTG model is explained here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

Birth rates, etc., are affected by levels of poverty, which in turn are affected by availability of energy and material resources.

Availability of energy and material resources, including oil and minerals, is affected by diminishing returns, i.e., increasing amounts of energy needed to get decreasing amounts of resources which have lower quality. It's seen in peak oil and in peak mining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

The cause of that is a limited biosphere and gravity.

Since the global economy is dependent on energy and material resources, then degrowth is inevitable.