[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'H')owever, my philosophy is it is prudent to be cautious.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')Finally, I think Monte has said on the record that a nuclear techno-fix would be bad, as it delays the inevitable and creates a bigger crash, and anyway we are going to collapse due to the housing bubble, or soemthing else, so I don't really understand why Monte is persuing this topic.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'P')ast the point of no return?.....hmm since when has biological or cultural evolution ever returned to some past point?

There is some implication that we were somehow sustainable before this point of no return.... You cant return anywhere, life on an individual or on an ecosystem level is a constant unfolding....there is no going back.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', '
')
And do what, pray tell? Buy arable land, hoard food, etc? All of that will be taken from you in a trice, come any real crisis.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ancien_Opus', ' ') I don't know when we passed that point of no return but it was likely a very, very long time ago.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'G')ood points that are too easily forgotten; especially since the various laws to implement such actions are already in place.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')"Beyond the point of no return" was meant to imply that we are past the point of being able to mitigate peak oil.

Too late to return to renewables from whence we came.

A day late and a dollar short.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'D')ifferent countries will have different laws, problems, solutions, governments, neighbours, cultures and popular reactions etc.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')f oil and non renewable fossil fuels will remain a critical part of the equation for decades to come in ever rapidly diminshing qty's and assuming that we will be forced to mitigate our behaviour as a result, what relevancy is there to state we are past the point of no return? We are entering a transition that will have profound consequences for sure, but stating we are past the point of no return seems to imply that we can't fix it, that it's too late.

[azreal60]

I do think Roger and Jack are talking about a very interesting turn of this topic. I don't debate that we are probably past the point of major societal change being an inevitability. Mostly because i can't think of a convincing arguement to advance that position. What I am thinking is that the amount of change is going to be hugely different depending on where you are. What is seen in Africa is going to be different than what is seen in Europe which will be different than Asia which will be different than North America......and on and on.

The point is, if people really believe in a die off or a crash, what should we be doing to ensure that a level of tech high enough to provide for the humans afterwards survives? I see this as a definate thing that could be debated in another post.

Oh, and a Comment on the whole moderator bias thing. I've seen alot of people get really pissy about it, and go up against the moderators to try and show them as tyranical. Guys, it's a losing senario.
One, these people are busting their buts to try to provide a site that is free of the kind of things that get's peak oil such a bad wrap. Now, if your goal was to make sure peak oil was never heard about, then I suppose annoying the moderators enough they wanted to quit might be a worthy goal. Pretty underhanded and annoying, but still, worthy from that viewpoint.
Two, unless the moderator is Grossly in the wrong, or heck, maybe even a little in the wrong, your not going to win. If you beat Monte in debate, i'll be the first to applaud. Heck, MONTE would probably be the first to applaud. But your going to have to learn a bit about debate first. The tricks that work on other sites will not work here. We are quite simply tired of having them played. You wanna win a debate, then win it. Don't think for a second we are going to get tired of responding to personal attacks and go away. It's a thing I've seen time and time again on other sites, and it's debate stifling moderator annoying effects are not going to be tolerated here. End of story.
Oh, and finally, I realize some of you just don't care. Those that are trolls, well, we aren't afraid to kick your butts out. This site is too important and it's members are too good to let people try to wreck it for their personal amusement. ( I am not aiming that in anyway at anyone in paticular) So realize that any amusement you get from bugging us isn't going to last long. Leave and save us some time

And after that heavy handed statement, i'm going to depart and say something completely different. I'm going to Advocate we use nuclear power. I'm going to say this would be a viable way to help push peak back just a bit. Is it going to stop it? Nope. Will it even delay it that much? Honestly, it won't probably delay it at all. What it will do is allow us perhaps a softer landing. While i do agree we need a paradime change in how our societys operate, I don't think a violent die off is such a good way to get it. I would far prefer to try the education route. If it fails, well, then it fails, and the die off happens anyway. But if it succeeds, then we don't have to have billions die off, they simply die normally and less people are born to replace them.

The reason i advocate nuclear power is despite the many bad points about it, it's a tech that Does have alot of good points. I would consider it superior to mining every last mine for the last vein of coal, that's for sure. And electric does appear to be the way we will have to go if we wish any kind of a mobile society after peak. Now, you can debate what kind of society we should have all you want. The simple fact is, the US spent 50 some years making this country into a country that Relies on mobility. Just to live. So if that is the case, unless you want a violent die off, you have to advocate Something to keep at least a little of that mobility going. It doesn't have to be the situation we have now, but you have to reconize that your not going to transition into a sustainable society overnight or even in a few decades. It's going to take many many decades to alter the whole of the US and indeed around the world to something that can be sustained. I would argue that boosting our electric production will help assure us of a softer landing, and as I'm currently holding my daughter in my arms, that seems like a good idea to me. =)

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')f oil and non renewable fossil fuels will remain a critical part of the equation for decades to come in ever rapidly diminshing qty's and assuming that we will be forced to mitigate our behaviour as a result, what relevancy is there to state we are past the point of no return? We are entering a transition that will have profound consequences for sure, but stating we are past the point of no return seems to imply that we can't fix it, that it's too late.

[Ibon]

Azreal60,

That was an awesome post with alot of heart.

Thank You

Ibon

[Ludi]

Azreal, I really have to disagree with you on the nukes. I'm not anti-nuke, nor am I a nuke booster. I'm a powerdown booster. In the First World, we have plenty of energy already for a powerdown. Building more nuke plants for which we will not have the infrastructure to care for in the future will not help anything. If you can very clearly explain to me how these new plants will be serviced and decommissioned in a low-energy future, I'd appreciate it.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ')I'm harping a little on this because the statement beyond the point of no return implies a fatalism on one hand and a suggestion of an unattainable return to some golden point in the past.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ')I'm harping a little on this because the statement beyond the point of no return implies a fatalism on one hand and a suggestion of an unattainable return to some golden point in the past.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')zreal, I really have to disagree with you on the nukes. I'm not anti-nuke, nor am I a nuke booster. I'm a powerdown booster. In the First World, we have plenty of energy already for a powerdown. Building more nuke plants for which we will not have the infrastructure to care for in the future will not help anything. If you can very clearly explain to me how these new plants will be serviced and decommissioned in a low-energy future, I'd appreciate it.

[Ludi]

Personally, I'm not interested in "keeping intact our way of life." Our way of life is a losing game, and everything we do to hold onto it just makes its eventual demise more painful.

Please explain to me how these new nuke plants will be serviced and decommissioned in a low-energy future.

[azreal60]

Servicing? Just because we start to have low energy doesn't mean we have low intelligence. It will still be just as easy to teach skills in the future. So servicing isn't as big an issue. And the fact that we Don't reproccess fuel in the US means there is alot of room for improvement.

Decommissioning? The same way they are decommissioned today. Keep in mind, i'm not talking hundreds of new nuke plants like alot of the nuke people are. I'm not someone who jumps into any one solution with two feet begging it to save me. I know our way of life isn't saveable, but what is saveable is our lives themselves. I just don't really want my daughter to have to die with the predominant culture. And if food isn't moveable, which is a very likely bad thing that could happen, then she might have to face that.

Don't get me wrong, I still think that there are alot of issues surrounding nuclear plants that are unanswered. But the nuc crowd has hit the nail on the head in two areas in my opinion.
One is the fact that if we don't go nuc, we go coal. There isn't enough electricity in the world otherwise to support anything close to what we have today. And i would far rather have the chance of a nuclear problem than an assured problem if we burn that much coal. It's simply the lesser of the two evils.
Two, nuclear tends to generate more power than a compareable sized coal plant. It's less infrastructure. And despite what is said, If you stop bringing uranium, a nuc plant stops producing. Which means decommissioning wise, as long as your reprocessing, it shouldn't be That difficult to do. Is it difficult? Sure is. Is it impossible? No.

I dont' have nice facts and links to go along with this, but the simple fact of the matter is both the nuc and anti nuke crowd can come up with a billion studies to support his or her side. I'm trying to take the middle of the road, and point out one possible road to mitigating the worst effects of peak oil. Again, not to stop it, to simply make it less painful.

[Ludi]

Well, that was sure a non-answer, azreal.

Decommissioning is very very expensive, probably for some reason, like, maybe, it is a lengthy and difficult and resource intensive process. Will these resources be available in a low-energy future?

Please don't go on and on and on about how we need nukes, this that and the other thing. Pardon me, but I'm so tired of this crap I could cry. That was not my question. You really didn't answer my question at all.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'P')ersonally, I'm not interested in "keeping intact our way of life." Our way of life is a losing game, and everything we do to hold onto it just makes its eventual demise more painful.

Please explain to me how these new nuke plants will be serviced and decommissioned in a low-energy future.