Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Main Doomer Fallacy

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby davep » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 06:40:58

I think a bit of civility wouldn't go amiss here.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Carlhole » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 06:54:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I') think a bit of civility wouldn't go amiss here.


It's gone amiss plenty of times before when my threads have been trashed and I've been called all kinds of names, accused of posting nonsense and all that horsecrap. Nobody ran to MY rescue.

If some idiot is going to be a disruptive liar in all my threads, then I'm going to show anyone reading them that she IS totally full of it.
Carlhole
 

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby davep » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 08:14:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I') think a bit of civility wouldn't go amiss here.


It's gone amiss plenty of times before when my threads have been trashed and I've been called all kinds of names, accused of posting nonsense and all that horsecrap. Nobody ran to MY rescue.

If some idiot is going to be a disruptive liar in all my threads, then I'm going to show anyone reading them that she IS totally full of it.


But the message would get across better without the ad-homs, IMO. And maybe people would actually engage in constructive debate rather than pointless name-calling. That would obviously also apply to people who bad-mouth you...

It just seems a monumental waste of effort.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 08:22:24

I just heard a report on NPR where they said "Not to worry, we have plenty of untapped energy right under our feet. Enough for all of us."

They then went on to talk about how in California the main source of clean energy is geothermal and it is available everywhere. Just drill down 10,000 feet and there you are.

So simple, no worries. Well, it causes earthquakes, but weeeeeee little ones.

Somehow I am not convinced but I don't know the arguments. Me thinks if it were that simple then we would have done it long ago.

So why NOT geothermal as the ultimate alternative energy?
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Pops » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 08:35:29

Boys and girls I'm going to lock this thread and start with the formal warnings if you don't behave and that is a big waste of my time - be civil or go somewhere else.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'O')ne more time,

At what price point will increasing energy cost limit R&D?


No one is stepping up to the plate except for me, Pops. My answer: Never.

Science is not an artifact of culture as doomers mistakenly assert.

Thanks carl.

Here's an article in Science on topic, they certainly aren't doomers as far as when peak will occur.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Carlhole » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 08:41:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'S')o why NOT geothermal as the ultimate alternative energy?


Well, it belongs in another thread, but go here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he geothermal story gets much more interesting when we look at geothermal heat contained between 3 and 10 kilometer depth, which EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) taps into. The total energy in this layer is staggering. Just producing 1% of this energy would supply 1400 times the total energy that the USA needs per year! So, how can we tap into this resource? The idea is simple: we drill down to a depth at which the rocks are sufficiently hot (say 150-250 degrees centigrade). It is not a simple task to drill through hard granite to a depth of 20,000 feet, say, but in the oil industry we do this on a regular basis and so the technology exists. Then, we fracture the rock over a reasonable large area. We drill another well a bit removed from the first. This second well will serve as our production well. The first is used to pump water, or another liquid, into the rocks under high pressure. It will start moving through the fractures to the producing well under a pressure gradient. As it moves, it picks up heat from the surrounding rock. We then pump it back to the surface, extract the heat, and reinject the new cool liquid again. Sounds easy enough, and it certainly sounds like a great idea to tap into that huge heat reservoir down below.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby diemos » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:28:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'S')o why NOT geothermal as the ultimate alternative energy?


Global energy production and consumption is 1.5x10^13 W. Total internal heat production in the earth is 3.0x10^13W. With standard 30% conversion efficiency it's not enough to power us even if you could get at it. Rock doesn't conduct heat very well. You would deplete the surface rocks in short order.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:38:38

You are about to earn a vacation EU, any more ad homs in this thread and you're out.

The same goes for everyone else.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby diemos » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:02:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'D')oes anyone here actually understand the scientific method?


Yes.

Science is a way of thinking in which beliefs are tested against external reality in order to create an internal mental model that matches reality as closely as possible. Probably less than 5% of the general population knows what science is much less practices it. Science is typically confused with it's child, technology.

The standard human way of thinking is to chose a set of beliefs that make one happy and then filter external reality against those beliefs ignoring anything that contradicts them and embracing without critical thought anything that seems to support them. This way of thinking underlies all religion.

Science: I'll believe it when I see it.
Religion: I'll see it when I believe it.
User avatar
diemos
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 13:55:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Science is not an artifact of culture as doomers mistakenly assert.



"sci·ence
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency."

So a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts systematically arranged and gained through observation and experimentation is not "an artifact of culture."? Then what is it? A Platonic Form? Did science exist before there was anyone to practice it?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Nano » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 16:12:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', '[')...]
Science: I'll believe it when I see it.
Religion: I'll see it when I believe it.


Nice, but not on the mark IMHO. Science is modelling how reality *tends* to present itself and this can be done with great - but never absolute - precision. The fundamental cause of any particular presentation of reality can't be determined completely, even in theory. Therefore, the probability that - say - jesus might walk on water is always greater than zero, because matter could behave to present such a scene and do so without violating any known physical laws, and in a way that would be undetectable to any observer. When faced with such a scene, we much *choose* either to believe that it was an incredibly unlikely fluke, or an illusion of our senses, *or* that it was the work of 'god', whether we are a scientist or not. Sorry, but there's no having it any other way, ever. :)
User avatar
Nano
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 16 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Carlhole » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 19:29:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Science is not an artifact of culture as doomers mistakenly assert.
...
So a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts systematically arranged and gained through observation and experimentation is not "an artifact of culture."? Then what is it? A Platonic Form? Did science exist before there was anyone to practice it?


I didn't say that very well , did I. I meant to say that Science was not dependent upon Consumerism - that Science would continue in a culture where consumerism was not the dominant economic paradigm, etc.

Science is part and parcel of the human animal as is Culture.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Ludi » Thu 19 Aug 2010, 19:47:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Science is part and parcel of the human animal as is Culture.



Whew, thank you! You had me puzzling there for a bit!

I would say Science has been a part of human culture since it was invented, and is likely to stick around for a long time.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Nano » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 12:08:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') meant to say that Science was not dependent upon Consumerism - that Science would continue in a culture where consumerism was not the dominant economic paradigm, etc.

Science is part and parcel of the human animal as is Culture.


So how do you explain the destruction of science and scientific knowledge throughout the dark ages? And why shouldn't there be another dark age in which science is again destroyed, perhaps totally? I don't follow your conjecture.
User avatar
Nano
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 16 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby efarmer » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 12:30:22

duplicate
Last edited by efarmer on Fri 20 Aug 2010, 12:35:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby efarmer » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 12:34:21

Islamic and Asian folks were pushing ahead when Europe was in the dark ages. It was a regional issue, we just think of it as being the whole world because we are mostly descended from Europeans.

The Roman Empire fizzled out and croaked and then morphed into a religion enterprise based in Rome and left the former colonies under the wet blanket of theocracy with money flowing to what used to be the technology driven Roman Empire, before they got in the religion business as an end of life kicker.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 14:19:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nano', 'S')o how do you explain the destruction of science and scientific knowledge throughout the dark ages? And why shouldn't there be another dark age in which science is again destroyed, perhaps totally? I don't follow your conjecture.

Some peoples will argue that our records of knowledge are currently stored in many locations unlike in the past when they were stored in Alexandria Library which got burned.

However I still believe that when we are no longer in position to practice science, say due to resource constrain, our scientific knowledge will gradually turn into a sort of faith based system and get forgotten at the end due to lack of practical use.

Do we really need top quark for anything?
Any use for dark energy?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby Nano » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 17:13:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'H')owever I still believe that when we are no longer in position to practice science, say due to resource constrain, our scientific knowledge will gradually turn into a sort of faith based system and get forgotten at the end due to lack of practical use.

Do we really need top quark for anything?
Any use for dark energy?


The thing the Singularity theorists don't seem to all understand is that it requires enduring societal prosperity to even produce the educated humans that may advance pure science and the R&D of esoteric technology. In addition, there is the issue of diminishing returns on science. Financiers (both public and private) of science enjoy the tantalising prospect of Breakthroughs that make good the investment of years or decades as they have done in the history of the current era. But these Breakthrough will certainly be increasingly few and far between, as well as more expensive, as so-called Singularity is approached. When the size and power of the political and economic groups that support or condone the continued advancement (and funding) of science shrinks due to socioeconomic strife, that would be as far as we could approach the Singularity.
User avatar
Nano
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 16 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 19:20:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oakley', 'I') think of technology as being knowledge applied to resources. For a considerable part of human history there were large quantities of resources, but there was not knowledge of how to exploit them, hence we did not have technology. If you have knowledge but inadequate resources upon which to apply this knowledge, you don't have technology; you just have knowledge, and even that knowledge will disappear from disuse.

So it is a fantasy to think that technology is some magic that will bail us out. It does not exist absent resources. Technology has been a function of energy.

We do have a considerable amount of knowledge of energy that leads to a reasonable estimate that we will be forced to live in the future on progressively smaller and smaller quantities of energy; unless there is some dramatic new discovery of energy, I think these estimates should materialize and economic contraction is more likely than a continuation of economic expansion.
This argument is flawed. You assume that just because fossil fuel resources run out, there are no other resources that can be exploited on the same scale. This is a faulty assumption. There are other energy sources out there than can be exploited on the same or even greater scale as fossil fuels, especially if mixed together. Solar, lunar, fission, fusion, geothermal, etc. Once this faulty assumption is quashed, so does your argument that technology = magic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '&')quot;Knowledge is doom". You know, there is just so much wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin.
You can begin with naming a technology that didnt cause mass-murders of people, animals or plants. I'm all ears.
"Knowledge is a double edged sword" would be a more accurate statement. You listed several examples of the harsh edge of this sword. But to try and pretend that nothing good ever came out of knowledge and proclaim statements like "Knowledge is doom", that is simply rubbish.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ornhole. Shut up why don't ya'
Nice to see you again pstarr. I see you haven't changed since last I posted :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'W')hat makes you think that humans are not an evolutionary dead-end when there have been plenty of evolutionary dead-ends?

I would say humans can't help but screw up nearly every time they apply technology. And I think the spread of consumerism is just an aspect of self-destructive behavior that will make humans prove to be an evolutionary dead-end.

Humans are arrogant and think science trumps nature.Not all human cultures feel this way. There are many examples of humans living more or less in harmony with nature, even with technological advances. It's just that the culture where these despoiler attitudes were prevalent won the wars for dominance. Fortunately human cultural attitudes can change. Hopefully it will change before the despoilers turn half the planet into Easter Isle. But I don't buy this argument that humans are hard-wired to destroy nature.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'S')mall scale nuclear power of whatever type could IMO be a game changer, but I am not optimistic about the chances of it's likelihood. I therefore remain a doomer and continue to plan for a bleak future, but Carhole's posts are still welcomed for a glimmer of hope.

I did post previously on this thread about peak science which I was sure was previously discussed here. No-one responded, but I'd quite like to revisit the data if anyone can point me in the right direction.Why not large-scale nuclear? And why are you not optimistic about it? IMO, if humanity switched to non-fossil fuel energy sources, we could maintain a much higher level of energy use, and yet still cause a much smaller despoilage of the environment. As for your science question, Carlhole posted about this near the top of page 6.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')6564 Posts since last visitOuch, lots of catching up to do :)
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Main Doomer Fallacy

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 20 Aug 2010, 19:25:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'O')ne obvious reason for the acceleration of technological progress is that there are simply more people nowadays.
Most of those surplus people don't even know how to read. And most of those that do only know how to read the koran.
The level of education of present day humans is higher than during past eras of humans. And even uneducated humans can contribute to human technological progress.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', 't')hem cost an enormous amount of money and use an enourmous high tech ifrstructure to be built and maintained. As far as I can see any advancement in sci/tech will only lead to more consumption of resources and eventually more destruction of earth. The roman empire was also technologicaly advanced. But still they went bust.
And yet here we are, sitting at a technological level far higher than the Romans possessed. Empires rise and fall all the time, yet the march of human technological progress has continued.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', 'M')y gradfather travelled in an ox-cart, my father owned a car. I still own a car as opposed to a flying saucer.
My grandfather cooled beer with ice cut from some cave, my father had a refrigerator, I own a refrigerator (as opposed to a self-cooling beer).
My grandfather listened to radio, my father watched TV, I watch TV (as opposed to totally immersive vritual 3D world)
My grandfather wrote letters, my father used the phone, I use the phone.
How about:
Grandpa used ox power. Papa used dino-goo power. I use nuclear power.
Grandpa had radio. Papa had 200 pound black n white tv. I have 2" HD plasma and the internet.
Grandpa had slide ruler. Papa had adding machine. I have 4Ghz Intel computer.
Grandpa used pen. Papa used landline. I use wireless.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', 'I')'m playing computer games since the dawn of times. And as of yet I still have to encounter this new great game which makes significant improvement on the AI. Graphics are great, sound is great, AI is still on the level of the pacman ghosts. Where's this exponential progress?So you admit there has been significant progress in sound, graphics, etc. But unless you encounter an AI that can out-think you, you decree that no significant progress is being made? That is a weak position to take. The human mind took millions of years to create. We may never be able to out-do the job nature has done. But even if we do, you insist it must be done in your lifetime when nature herself took millions of years?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron