Oh yeah, I've spent some time on greek islands with just enough electricity to power lights, it was definitely refreshing. Well, basically, I'd say I could probably deal with darkness during winter, but I'd have to move at around 35° latitude. Most civilization above 40° latitude would have some trouble with survival.Originally Posted by Neotropic
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
of all the things that will phase out as the price of oil rises, plastics, medicine and food are very, very far down the list of which are to disappear first. we will mostly just start conserving by quitting to burn the stuff gratuitously in one man driven cars.
another thing: everything will still be available. the price will just be higher. and that price determines what people do and don't phase out based on how much they want to pay for the thing in question. people will pay a higher price for necessities such as food than for luxuries.
I hate camping... I've tried it, and it drove me insane. I never want to do it again. I can't stand nature.
I've been spoiled, and I will never be happy with nature now that I've experienced an alternative.
Well, that's not exactly a good thing... if the price of food and medicine goes up, that means that people won't be able to afford other things. We'll all be focused purely on survival, with few options for any other pleasures.
I just can't see anything good coming out of these situations... all I'm seeing is a world of pain and scarcity that I don't want to live in.
I don't think that the power will go out for good anytime soon. One possible scenario is a prolongued economic downturn where economic output sinks to about 50% of current and people hold off on having children because of economic insecurity (if we take the USSR as a guide). 20 years have passed since then and many parts of the former USSR have never recovered, but there's still electricity and basic services almost everywhere. Across much of the former USSR the infrastructure itself is decaying and no one has the funds to replace it, but there are far more small-scale consumer goods than there ever were before. Our society currently produces an enormous surplus of wealth. If we lose half of our wealth we will still be wealthy. We just might not be building as many monumentous infrastructure projects. The economy will also change dramatically. I would expect the bubble industries — real estate, finances, stock markets, etc. — to be hit the hardest, but I can't predict what type of economy will emerge.
My criterion for a collapse waiting to happen is if a society no longer has the resources to rebuild its national infrastructure if much of it happened to be destroyed (by war, natural disaster, etc.). I think it's safe to say the U.S. crossed this line 10 or 20 years ago. Take Katrina as an example. We will see how Japan fares in its current situation, but my intuition is that it will not recover its former strength. That doesn't mean the Japanese will all just switch off their electricity and move to the woods, of course.
What is uncertain to me is how ballooning national debt in a slowly contracting economy will play out. From what I can make of things, first the economy declines slowly, then the country defaults or goes through some kind of financial collapse, which causes the gdp to drop more abruptly anywhere from 22% (Argentina, 2002) to 50% (Ukraine, 90s).
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
FDG, I bet you'd find this information interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/op...irch.html?_r=3
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
What would you do differently if peak oil did not exist? What are you doing now because of peak oil?
If Peak Oil did not exist there would still be a superabundance of cheap energy with which to do whatever we pleased. Economies would be booming in general, globalization would continue with no holds barred. Car ownership and air travel would continue to rise indefinitely, and the U.S. (and other developed countries) would be more or less up to speed on its infrastructure maintenance projects, which it is currently incapable of doing. There would be no pressing need to pursue alternative energy sources other than collective guilt in the face of global warming effects, which I believe is a weaker motivator than Peak Oil. Population pressure would also be lessened, and people would be free to have as many children as they want for quite a long, since cheap energy means that all kinds of resources could be easily moved around as necessary. This means that skyscraper-like multi-level farms could be built, capable of producing as much food as the world needs using abundant energy inputs. (Without cheap energy, it appears impossible for food towers to be effective because the energy inputs are far greater than the outputs.)
If Peak Oil did not exist, i.e. if there were an unlimited supply of oil (an absurd proposition), we would rapidly moving towards a sci-fi future where people fly around in cars like in "Back to the Future." All of us would be participating in this progress, and the job growth in all related industries would be robust. World oil consumption would be 50% or more higher than it currently is, with little motivation to strive for greater efficiency.
Because of Peak Oil, expectations for economic growth among nearly all of us in the developed world have become more modest, often pessimistic. This is affecting our life decisions in many ways. The prevailing mentality is shifting from "growth" to "stagnation." Whether or not one is aware of Peak Oil or has an opinion on the matter, it is affecting our decisions and worldview.
That's how I would answer your question.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
ughh making me wanna drop out of school
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
Let's not get too hasty in thinking we are all doomed.
What about the fact that we have reached a stage in our evolution that we have finally answered the question poets and artists have asked since poets and artists emerged. What is the deal with love? We now know what the deal is, two souls seeking balance. This knowledge will spread all over the world like wild fire with the advent of the internet and we will not care a jot about oil or what some shithead politician will do because we will all be too busy perfecting ourselves with the help of our duals. The inventors will be more productive, the peacemakers more at peace and the bankers wont be nearly as greedy. It will all work out. Though the discontent people are feeling now is real, that is a good thing. Discontent is the first step on the ladder to change. And change we will.
Brilliant, BionicgoatSometimes a picture (video) is worth a million words.
The accent is close, but not quite the way they talked back in the 40s and 50s
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
That may be a good idea, but only if you have a good plan to replace your current one with. Dropping out with no plan could be as bad or worse than graduating with lots of debt and false hopes.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Rofl BG! That was hilarious.
We're saving money for our girls' college expenses but I do worry about that. It's so expensive now and there are no guarantees of the education paying off.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
well it's art school, a 4 yr program to earn a BFA. which makes me feel like its not worth spending money on, but i did get a reeeallly good scholarship that only leaves me to pay like 3 grand a year... after 4 yrs, would you consider that a lot to be in debt? or worth it? just wondering....
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
It's not a lot, keep going if it's not totally painful.
Why is there a topic about Peak Oil even though Peak Oil is a myth? It doesn't make sense to me.
http://mises.org/daily/1717
Bravo, DiscoJoe. Excellent sources once again! Once more we find that complex scientific issues can be neatly brushed aside with a few easy rhetorical questions.
I like how the interviewer uses phrases like, "all the experts say it's gonna be gone by now" when actually no experts say this. It's like saying, "all the socionics experts say that having a flat backside of the skull means you're a rational type."
Maybe you should have listened more carefully to your own video. Nowhere did your expert sources say that Peak Oil was a myth. In fact, they confirmed it:
"People think we're running out of oil because we're running out of cheap oil."
"But now that oil's expensive and likely to stay that way..."
"The world contains huge amounts of hydrocarbons. The question is, can you get them out and at what price."
"[Hydrocarbons] are a finite resource."
"The Alberta tar sands will produce oil for another 100 years, but then what?"
DJ, I wonder if you can even define "Peak Oil" correctly? Which of these three definitions is correct?
a) the fear that the world is running out of oil right now
b) the moment when global oil extraction reaches its peak and begins a permanent decline
c) the belief that complex civilizations will collapse when oil runs out
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Ditto, although even $12k can be a large amount if it is hard to find work. Here are some tips:
- work during school to reduce the debt, and keep expenses to a minimum (esp. cell phone, car, housing, do book sharing, etc.)
- have a close relative with money pay off the debts for you, and then pay them back at a lower interest rate
- read books that stimulate entrepreneurial thinking, particular in the context of a stagnating economy and rising fuel prices
- choose extremely carefully the place you will live after graduation. Maximize your earnings and minimize expenditures (like, really minimize them) until the debt is paid. If the numbers just don't look good anywhere you can think of, move abroad to a place with more opportunities and a better income-to-expense ratio.
- aim to have your college debt paid off within one year of graduation
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The existence of complexity does not make the issue complex. Do you know why oil is becoming expensive? I bet you have a needlessly convoluted explanation that overlooks the obvious answer: inflation.
The increasing scarcity of oil that we're going to be experiencing soon has nothing to do with cheap oil running out absolutely, but relatively. More specifically, it's a matter of an inflationary depressed economy not being able to afford it. That's a subtle but important distinction, because a battered economy can't adjust to scarcity the way a healthy one can. In a healthy economy, an increasing scarcity of easily extracted oil would be met with the same robust ingenuity that history has shown, whereas your argument rests on a premise that arbitrarily renders dynamic variables static.
I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make here. I see poor logic but nothing else. (Tip: This is my way of putting you on the defensive. You either have to respond to the implied question, which is what I want, or make your own blanket statement, which puts us "on the same level," as it were, and is an acceptable alternative that I will settle for. You could just ignore it too, which is probably a good idea now that you know what my tactic is.)"People think we're running out of oil because we're running out of cheap oil."
"But now that oil's expensive and likely to stay that way..."
"The world contains huge amounts of hydrocarbons. The question is, can you get them out and at what price."
"[Hydrocarbons] are a finite resource."
"The Alberta tar sands will produce oil for another 100 years, but then what?"
Two things:DJ, I wonder if you can even define "Peak Oil" correctly? Which of these three definitions is correct?
a) the fear that the world is running out of oil right now
b) the moment when global oil extraction reaches its peak and begins a permanent decline
c) the belief that complex civilizations will collapse when oil runs out
If you think I can't answer that question, you're dramatically underestimating my intelligence, which puts me at an advantage.
It's cute when ethical types think they're being impressive by challenging someone to answer the kinds of questions that used to confound them.
This isn't the original text of the comment.
Last edited by Nico1e; 04-28-2011 at 01:22 PM. Reason: The 'taboo subjects thread' probably has something to do with this.
Will any of this significantly impact anyone's quality of life? I mean, I never had debt in my entire life so perhaps I don't understand, but I believe that say finding a job that you enjoy a bit might have a bigger impact on how much you like your daily "routine", compared to having your debt paid off. I'm not sure if I'm conveying the message in a sufficiently clear fashion, though.
Anyway, your article on light, melatonin, and sleeping cycles was really interesting
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If you consider that the effects of debt range from emotional and relationship stress to decreased purchasing power with respect to credit, I guess it's highly contigent on personality type and circumstance.
Personally, running a budget surplus is one of the best life decisions I've made as a young person.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Blah, blah, blah. I'm not deleting the post entirely.
Last edited by Nico1e; 04-28-2011 at 01:24 PM.
My answer is even simpler: demand has increased, supply has decreased. If the answer is "inflation," then why has inflation not affected the prices of all goods equally, and real wages too? A secondary question is, why is there inflation?
I find it remarkable that despite our different opinions on the cause of the situation, we actually see the future in a very similar way: oil scarcity, depressed economy, inability to extract more costly sources of oil that continue to lie in the ground.
The video heading was something like, "Is Peak Oil a Myth?" and your introduction to the video was, "Peak Oil is a myth." Then the speakers in the video go right on to confirm Peak Oil, stating (see quotes) that oil (hydrocarbons) are finite and that the cheap stuff is indeed running out, the implication being that hydrocarbon extraction might actually be reaching a plateau or even start going down soon.
This is a common tactic of politicized information sources -- swapping an accurate title for a misleading one. Most people don't read far into articles anyway, so they are left with the impression that "some authoritative sources say Peak Oil is a myth." A more truthful title for the video considering the actual information contained would have been, "Oil Is Still a Long Way from Running Out."
The second problem is the tactic of changing the definition of "Peak Oil" to mean "worries about Peak Oil." It's like saying, "Global Warming is a myth because actually the Earth will be better off with warmer temperatures."
The result of such tactics is that opposing sides in many politicized arguments appear to have far greater differences in views than they actually do.
If people could argue more carefully, they could stop being the tools of political forces which are primarily interested in power and money and arrive at more rational solutions for the actual problems that face us.
Last edited by Rick; 04-11-2011 at 11:07 AM.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Ditto on what Forcemyhand said: "Personally, running a budget surplus is one of the best life decisions I've made as a young person." This is absolutely true for me as well. I am free to try new things, experiment with professions and different activities, try living in different countries, etc. None of this would be possible with debt. Debt ties people down to whatever job they currently have, even if they hate it, and to their current place of residence. It ropes them into a years-long path of commitment to a very narrow set of options, some of which could easily be blown away in a continuing recession.
I can see that debt might not be too big of a problem if one's current debt is, say, <50% of assets, and one is satisfied in their current career path, lifestyle, and place of residence.
Systematic debt is just the modern form of slavery. Modern slaves live in nice houses with special pipes that wash away the poo, and get to dress up like important people when they go to work, but all it takes is an economic hiccup for them to remember that they aren't in control of their lives. Systematic debt has become an integral part of the American system in the past couple generations.
My personal impression is that the time available for paying off one's debts is running out. As financial problems play out on a national scale, it's not yet clear to me whether there will be inflation or deflation, but in any case people with debt will have a much harder time adapting flexibly to a rapidly changing economy. They will try to "go down with the sinking ship" because that's the only way to make their debt payments.
I'll bet you would also like Timothy Ferris' new book, "The 4-Hour Body," if you haven't read it already...Anyway, your article on light, melatonin, and sleeping cycles was really interesting
I prefer not to discuss my private life on a forum, or at least in this thread. It makes sense to have children when there is a long-term plan in place, reliable means to provide for them, and readiness on the part of both parents. Currently a few things are missing from the recipe.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Ah, I see, I never though about those problems, yeah. What happens when you have debt and you just move to a different nation? CIA will hunt you down? (I'm seriously asking)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Law firms start calling your parents and relatives asking where you are and threatening them with legal action. Many young people have parents co-signed on their debt, which means that they are liable to pay the debt if their children cannot.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Damn, that sucks. I didn't think it could be so bad. Now I understand better the whole ordeal.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I have seen some good videos about this showing pretty interesting statistics.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html
If you look at this video, it shows how the wealth and standard of living of many former developing countries have risen over time. Consequently, due to the increase in wealth, they are also increasing their energy usage.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ha...g_machine.html
At the end of this video, he talks about future energy use, conservation, green energy and other goals to alleviate ourselves of using only non-renewable resources.
I think we should be less depressed about this. I think much of the western world is largely unable to process the economic sacrifices that have to be made in their lifestyle in order for sustained stability. The problem is usually with the solutions being advocated but I think there is a solution. The biggest problem is the conflict of political ideology that is making reform difficult. Largely the conservative moment want a less progressive tax system, less taxes on the rich, etc etc, while they make a half-hearted attempt to cut Medicare and other entitlement programs. Subsequently, they hold sway over older voters for whom the consequences will be felt and are unlikely to really go thru with it.
I have no problem with cutting Medicare benefits or starting with a new program and many young people have no expectations on these entitlement programs or desire for them. However, they have serious reservations about cutting taxes to the rich and dismantling of discretionary programs while ignoring health programs for the working poor. They don't like the fact that education and opportunity programs are the ones that get cut first in the name of balancing the budget.
I see a lot of conservatives and liberals agree on one thing, Medicare cuts, but how to do it and who gets to take the flak seems to be the problem. Also, each group has other agendas to push, like abortion, gay marriage and social issues which is distorting the issue with ethical conflicts.
Medicare payments was supposed to drop this year, by a hefty amount, but that was postponed, it's set to drop even more in 2012 and I hope it goes thru because ultimately price control on medical costs is absolutely essential to the long term growth of the country. America is experiencing a problem that happens when a civilization prioritizes taking care of the old vs nurturing the new. If it can overcome this problem then there can be light at the end of the tunnel. Being depressed and emotional about it I don't think is going to help anyone.
I think it's going to be unlikely that Social security can be cut the same way as Medicare, unless you want a lot old people in the streets, or your parents to shack up with you.
Debt to income/asset ratio is probably more important than debt itself. A healthy amount of debt is good to have in order to hedge against inflation as well as to create a credit rating.
I like to have a car or something like that on debt just to keep a good record of payment as well as to space out expenditures over time.
I don't think you can compare systematic debt to slavery, it's many many degrees of separation. There are many things that keep us tied to a job or place and situation.
I think high college tuition(mostly in private colleges), high health-care costs and real estate speculation are a large part of the debt problem the US has. Consequently, these seem to be less of a problem in other countries that provides education, healthcare and do not place a emphasis on real estate ownership.
I might as well write something about peak oil itself, instead of just asking particular people the ways in which the belief in peak oil is affecting their life decisions. Everyone else is doing a fine job of arguing about it without me, although I didn't see anyone mention Julian Simon yet (maybe someone did - I'd have to go look back), and no, I don't agree with every single word Julian Simon ever wrote, but I agree with most of his main ideas.
But here is my opinion about peak oil. I see peak oil as an apocalypse fantasy. I see it as wishful thinking. If only some huge natural force would destroy all of society, we wouldn't have to worry about expending all the effort it takes to persuade people to do things differently. If only something destroyed the world and got rid of large numbers of people or drastically changed everything, then all of a sudden, the world would be a nice, clean, peaceful place again, where we could start our own societies from scratch without having to worry about all those people we used to have conflicts with, such as the various governments. And this would happen effortlessly, as it was caused by some huge natural force, such as the lack of any more oil in the ground.
Apocalypses 'clean up' the world as it is now, without our having to expend any effort to clean it up or negotiate with people who are in conflict with us. We don't have to persuade anybody, because some force will do the work for us. We don't have to dread a long, depressing future in which people endure stagnant conditions that don't really improve and don't really worsen that much either. We can hope that something will force us all to change whether we like it or not, because we feel that change as such is a good thing. Even if the changes cause pain at first, eventually we will recover from the changes and start our society over from a clean beginning.
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have lots of auto exhaust pollution anymore? I agree with that. I hate air pollution and I feel better when I live far away from any big roads.
Our whole society would be shaped differently if we couldn't easily get in our cars and drive long distances. Houses would be closer together, and houses would be close to places where people shop. We'd have to get rid of the zoning laws that forbid people to put their houses in the same areas where the businesses are. Those zoning laws force people to live far away from the places where they shop. People would be able to shop at small outdoor markets close to their houses. It sounds like a nice place to live.
People don't like the idea that society is able to be stagnant for a very, very, very long time, while people endure being nickel-and-dimed to death. People want something to force us to change.
So, one of the reasons why I don't believe in peak oil is because it's too tempting to believe in it. There are too many wishful thinking motives in it. It's a comforting, reassuring belief that people can hold on to during all those moments when they hate the world. It's similar to religious apocalypse scenarios where all the sinners will be destroyed, so that we don't have to be bothered by them anymore. If only peak oil would happen, then something would force people to change the way they do everything, so that we wouldn't just sit here in a stagnant society where nothing really gets better or worse.
Without peak oil, without that hope that some external force will change everything, we look at an unbearably long and dull future where people continue struggling in a stagnant world that doesn't change or improve very much. It just keeps going on and on and on that way. People are impatient to see changes. We feel helpless to change anything ourselves. Wouldn't it be nice if some big natural force would change everything? It doesn't matter if it's peak oil or some other natural event.
It's this kind of thing that made me so interested in intentional communities. I can't force the rest of the world to change what they're doing, no matter how much I hate it all. The thing I can do is start up one tiny group of people who will be creating the type of world I want to live in.
There is certainly something to what you are saying, but this is true of all (or most?) visions of the future. A future of "unending technological progress" is also a kind of easy way out. If one can believe there are no potentially disastrous environmental threats/limits facing us, then that's a whole set of anxiety-causing things that one can ignore. "Apocalypse fantasies" are probably created by pessimists who are comfortable thinking about negative outcomes, and "progress/success fantasies" are created by optimists who have difficulty thinking about unknown negatives. Just a hypothesis...
But either way, the future comes and is sometimes positive, sometimes negative. Some of these fantasies come true. If anyone was fantasizing about genocide in Europe, well, they certainly got their "wish" in the 20th century. The pessimist that I am, I think they'll see more of it in the 21st century, too.
The people I know who are "into" Peak Oil aren't into it because the are eager to see the Earth or society wiped clean. They are into it because of a naturally pessimistic view of technological progress. They derive satisfaction from learning about all the possible ways that things could get worse. This has a biological basis (better preparation for possible negative events compared to the overly optimistic). They don't necessarily think they personally will fare better than others in a post-Peak Oil world or that Peak Oil will allow them to "get back" at all the people who are doing things wrong (though there often is an element of this). Some are complete doomers and see no silver lining in the Peak Oil Doom. Many are actively trying to prepare themselves and their family and friends for shocks. I don't know of religious apocalypse scenarios where everyone gets killed, including you. Generally it's just the bad guys that have to suffer. I see the Peak Oil movement as a natural expression of the biological tendency to foresee possible negative consequences and prepare against them.
Again, I take issue with the way you talk about Peak Oil, as if it's something that can be believed in or disbelieved.
Imagine you have an unknown but finite amount of bread loaves in a bin and start removing them at a steadily increasing rate. Eventually the bread that was on top has all been removed and you have to start leaning in further to get the loaves. This slows your extraction speed a bit. You still see lots of loaves left in the bottom of the bin and so are not worried that the bread will run out anytime soon. It just might be a bit more difficult to reach. Meanwhile, an analyst is observing on the outside that the number of people surrounding the bread bin has increased along with the bread extraction rate. The analyst starts thinking deeply and concludes that the critical moment in the evolution of this system is not the point when the last loaves are taken out of the bin, but the point when the rate of extraction begins to drop. He starts thinking about the possible cascading effects of a diminishing extraction rate. Will the feeders start encouraging the person removing the bread to speed up the process? Perhaps they'll start sharing the remaining bread amongst themselves in an orderly way? Or maybe the stronger people will take the diminishing supply of bread for themselves, and the weaker will go hungry? Or maybe they'll just start looking around for another bread bin and leave the current one as the bread is depleted? But what if there isn't another bin, or the bread in it can't be extracted at the same rate as the first?
That's Peak Oil in a nutshell. You can't just dismiss it as a fantasy or myth. It is happening, and there will be an outcome. It might be different from what you or I happen to think.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
We can already do this without oil. Wind, solar, geothermal, wave power etc. can power the world dozens of times over. Just find a way to transfer the energy to a vertical farm and famine ends.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Because the effect of inflation on prices isn't some uniform process. Some industries keep the prices low and find other ways to be profitable, or they reduce the content of their product and keep the prices the same, like food manufacturers do with Oreos, etc. There are many many reasons why. If you want a list, I suppose I can scrounge one up (not bluffing, just don't feel like it).
It's being caused by central banks conjuring fiat currencies out of thin air. This is the cause for inflation. Saying otherwise is like watching a video of a man being crushed by a rock. Afterward, someone asks you what killed the man, you tell him the rock killed him, but then he scolds you and says it's more complicated than that. No it isn't.A secondary question is, why is there inflation?
If you want some more common sense proof, a 1963 silver quarter would get you a gallon of gas in 1970. Today, it would get you two gallons. The real money price of gasoline has actually gone down, yet it becomes less and less affordable because our dollars are constantly losing their purchasing power, and no one sees the blindingly obvious fact that it's central banks printing money that is causing the inflation.
Yes, it amounts to the same thing. You can look at the current trends right now and it's pretty obvious we're heading for the sarlacc pit. The big difference here is that only one of us sees the actual origins of this problem. When the shit hits the fan, people need to realize that it's government that got us here, otherwise we're going to end up in a hyper-regulated society with TVs that won't turn off.I find it remarkable that despite our different opinions on the cause of the situation, we actually see the future in a very similar way: oil scarcity, depressed economy, inability to extract more costly sources of oil that continue to lie in the ground.
Well I agree that the video was flawed, but I think what it didn't do was explain how technology tends to evolve to adapt to new economic circumstances so that the situation is far from hopeless. I'm not denying that peak oil is obviously going to happen at some point, I just think the scenario is another example of economically illiterate people (and I mean that in the least condescending way possible) over-complicating matters and placing blame in the wrong areas. These arguments that we need the government to begin overhauling society to prepare for this oncoming doomsday are extremely convoluted and don't paraphrase any Austrian economic arguments.The video heading was something like, "Is Peak Oil a Myth?" and your introduction to the video was, "Peak Oil is a myth." Then the speakers in the video go right on to confirm Peak Oil, stating (see quotes) that oil (hydrocarbons) are finite and that the cheap stuff is indeed running out, the implication being that hydrocarbon extraction might actually be reaching a plateau or even start going down soon.
This is a common tactic of politicized information sources -- swapping an accurate title for a misleading one. Most people don't read far into articles anyway, so they are left with the impression that "some authoritative sources say Peak Oil is a myth." A more truthful title for the video considering the actual information contained would have been, "Oil Is Still a Long Way from Running Out."
Playing word games is a common strategy in politics for letting people hear what they want to hear when listening to a politician speak. Do you want hope? Barack Obama will give you the word hope. It's a nasty, cynical game, but it won't go away.The second problem is the tactic of changing the definition of "Peak Oil" to mean "worries about Peak Oil." It's like saying, "Global Warming is a myth because actually the Earth will be better off with warmer temperatures."
The result of such tactics is that opposing sides in many politicized arguments appear to have far greater differences in views than they actually do.
If people could argue more carefully, they could stop being the tools of political forces which are primarily interested in power and money and arrive at more rational solutions for the actual problems that face us.
Last edited by discojoe; 04-12-2011 at 04:34 AM.
Just another big off-topic post.
Last edited by Nico1e; 04-28-2011 at 01:26 PM.
There is a solution. Don't use e-mail to build relationships... And don't let yourself get attached to people you have never met in person or will never meet. Virtual relationships do not provide the full set of neurotransmitters one needs to feel balanced (I can dig up research if it's not self-evident). They're basically a waste of time if you're trying to do anything more than gather information and get ideas. You can't make these relationships part of the inner circle of your social environment. Well, I suppose you can, but only with lots of negative side-effects. The most you can hope for out of a virtual relationship are some good ideas, a bit of comraderie, and useful new information and contacts. Expecting more is asking for trouble.
Another rule of thumb for any type of relationship is, don't let your level of self-disclosure exceed the other person's by, say, 10%. A noticeable disbalance will cause the relationship to fall apart. Even psychotherapists have to self-disclose to their patients to keep the relationship more or less balanced and healthy. If you disclose too much before the other person has followed suit, the other person distances themself. It's as simple as that.
I get lots of e-mail every week, even after removing the spam. I respond to about 20% of it promptly, 30% with a delay of up to several weeks, and 50% after months or simply never. If I made myself the slave of my e-mail, I would never get anything important done. Not answering e-mail is not "rejection." It's simply self-preservation.
As to your blog posts, I got them all (I assume), but was perplexed that they were not showing up on the socionist blog. I assumed that you were posting them then deleting because they felt too personal to you. I have not seen this happen with other posters. If you would like I can send these back to you and you can try posting them again.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
But why then isn't purchasing power rising in sync with inflation (or is it)?
As for silver coins buying more oil today than years ago, silver does not have an inherent fixed value, so you can't say "the real money price of gasoline has gone down." If the quantity of silver per capita were the same as then, then I agree that the price comparison would make sense.
If we were still on a metal standard and the rate of economic growth outstripped the rate of precious metal extraction, then we would have deflation. Each year metals can buy more than the previous year. What would the consequences of that be? (this isn't a rhetorical question)
I agree with you that technology evolves to economic circumstances. This goes without saying. Everything new will appear to be innovative, even if it is in large part a reversion to previous, more traditional practices with simply a modern veneer.
To be honest, I really don't think we'll see a hyper-regulated society. This would take too much energy, which happens to be in short supply. Put plainly, government won't have enough money to hyper-regulate things. It might try to do so briefly, only to hasten its own demise by making itself too complex for the current realities. That's my opinion, and I could be wrong.
I do hold the opinion that it is government that must initiate an overhaul of society (if the overhaul is to take place "in time"), but only because government sets the rules for everyone else. Government should be thinking, "what is the most efficient way of getting X done, and how can we nudge society in this direction?" Obviously that's not how most government tends to think. The American highway system, our automobile infrastructure, our city planning, our sewage system, our healthcare, care for the elderly, the prison system, and much else is inefficient and suboptimal. Maybe it appeared efficient in an age of abundant cheap energy and low government outlays, but it no longer is. Furthermore, it's often counterproductive because it promotes poor health. (Not to mention contributing to global warming, which is still a very secondary concern.)
There are probably multiple ways to get from point A (today's situation) to point B (a more efficient and rational use of limited resources) in theory. But I don't have enough knowledge of politics to know what is possible in practice.
I'm not sure yet that these energy sources can ever be cheap enough to power something as inherently inefficient and frivolous as a vertical farm. To create the farm, you've got to have a tall building with a metal structure that will decay over time and eventually require replacement. You've got to transfer outside lighting to the interior of the building, build a complex irrigation system and other mechanized systems, each of which is costly to make and will decay over time and require maintenance and replacement. Compare all these complications with the simplicity and energy efficiency of growing food on the ground using rainwater and sun.
Last edited by Rick; 04-12-2011 at 08:48 AM.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
This deleted post was only funny to someone who was in the middle of a manic phase. However, I still agree with the overall spirit of it.
Last edited by Nico1e; 04-28-2011 at 01:27 PM.
You've got to be kidding. How do any of those questions have to do with the appropriateness of my analogy?
"You need to check your facts and be a little more thorough next time. I'm sure ALL of this can easily be found on Google if you would just take a moment and look for it."
All of what? I don't know what you're talking about.
The "critical moment" of the system is its inflection point — the point when existing trends start to break down and new ones form. As the bread rate begins to slow, the behavior of those at the bread bin begins to change. Until then their behavior changed little if at all.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
[FDG]KITEGEN WILL SAVE THE WORLD[/FDG]
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote