by CARVER » Mon 08 May 2006, 21:40:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I') came to the conclusion that peak oil is a non-event, which has no significant impact on my daily life.
Following that reasoning, 9-11, Katrina, the tsunami, the earthquakes, war in Iraq, etc. are non-events to him as well, because those did not have a significant impact on
his daily life either (I presume).
Anyway, the discussions about what
is going to happen usually are tiresome, noone can know how everything will unfold and what the outcome will be. I think it would be better to come up with
possible scenarios and try to figure out how likely they are and how important they are, and then try to figure out how to prevent them, prepare for them, try to make it happen. A possible scenario that is unlikely can still be worth discussing when it has huge consequences. Saying a scenario is
possible does not mean it is
most likely to happen. Discussing those scenarios is a good way to find out if you might have overlooked something. But if you start talking about technology, you are stamped: cornucopian, and if you start talking about a crash, you are stamped: doomer. Also there are a lot of different situations in the world today, a 'doomer' could simply point to the third world and say: see, while the 'cornucopian' could point to the first world and say: see! There are lots of possibilities local and global. There remains a lot of uncertainty, we can't see what's around the corner, so who can proof that we (don't) need to slow down. Knowing what you don't know can also be used for decision making.
Just because something can happen doesn't mean it will. Just because we want something doesn't mean we will actually achieve it, even if it is possible. Ask everyone if he/she wants peace or war. I think almost all would want peace, that doesn't mean we will achieve it, even though it is possible in theory. That's because peace is not the only thing we want. Something that is not necessary in theory, might be likely to give better results in practise. With numbers (statistics) you can calculate what is possible in theory, but for it to be of any use you also need a way to put it in practise. You can say it can be done and point to the numbers that support that claim, but then you still need to go from being possible in theory to being likely in practise. The latter is usually open to debate. In my opinion a lot of the 'debunking' was more about putting up different possible scenarios (which might be preferred, but therefore not more important or likely), arguing that a possible scenario is unlikely (which does not necessarily mean that it is not important), and showing that something is not necessary in theory (which does not necessarily mean that it is not needed in practise to get the results). Both sides make assumptions to move the other towards the extreme end of the spectrum, and then argue endlessly, but when you look at their actions both are basically doing the same things.