$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'P')eople, I did include two other options in the poll that mysteriously disappeared.
The first other option read: "the USA for supplying Russia"
The second: "All those forces combined deserve credit, asking who should get most is not very interesting"
Should I repost the poll?
I'm far from anti-American. I'm anti-Anglosaxon. Which is something totally different.
PeakOil is You
by seahorse » Thu 12 May 2005, 18:54:30
lorenzo, my old friend, I was just scanning this site and some of the messages you have posted. You're back refighting WWII again I see? You tell these others that you want "historical accuracy"? It almost made me laugh to read you write those words. Have you told them, what you used to tell me, that no Americans ever fought and died in Europe? You probably didn't tell them that, only a few months ago, you believed no Americans fought and died in Europe during WWII. If you told everyone that you still believed that only a few months ago, you would lose credibility. In case you've forgotten you said that, you can find those statements back in "The Basics," you started a thread titled "evil americans," and in that thread you stated, for a fact, that no Americans fought and died in Europe during WWII. Remember that Lorenzo? Of course you do. We had long debates on your lack of honesty regarding historical facts. Of course, you never said that again, bc its simply not true.
But, I'm glad to see you've changed and admit, now, some American participation in WWII, particularly on the European continent. I would agree with you that the Russians did much, certainly sacrificed more than any, to win the war. But that doesn't really matter to me. As you know, I don't dwell in the past, doing so will make you unhappy. Its okay to understand the past, honestly, but you have to get over it if you want to be happy, build a future, don't refight the past, its a fight that can't be won.
Anyway, you're change is slow, but there is change, and you are at least a bit more honest these days with the historical facts, but you still have work - Stalin killed millions, do some more reading.
I'm also glad to see now that you also say you don't hate Americans, even though you used to say they were "evil" and wished for their downfall. I don't hate you either.
I'm proud of you. You've obviously been doing some reading, some thinking, some soul searching - I can tell that from your posts and from your new Avatar, which is also a change for the better. Your new avatar personifies your change, that you have been doing a lot of thinking, the bald head clasped by the hand in deep painful soul searching, and that is good.
Keep it up, as draining and slow as it is, you are on the path of enlightenment; the truth is not always easy to accept, but one day, it will liberate you from all that hatred burning inside you fueld by false beliefs. One day, you will see the truth, accept it, and all that unhappiness will go away; you will quit rubbing your head bald, and grow some hair, and the girls will run their fingers through it, and you will fall in love, and the world will be a much different place for you, and WWII will not matter anymore, America will not matter, the past will not matter, only the future with someone you love. And you will post yet a new avatar, I can't wait to see it.
But, I'm glad to see you've changed and admit, now, some American participation in WWII, particularly on the European continent. I would agree with you that the Russians did much, certainly sacrificed more than any, to win the war. But that doesn't really matter to me. As you know, I don't dwell in the past, doing so will make you unhappy. Its okay to understand the past, honestly, but you have to get over it if you want to be happy, build a future, don't refight the past, its a fight that can't be won.
Anyway, you're change is slow, but there is change, and you are at least a bit more honest these days with the historical facts, but you still have work - Stalin killed millions, do some more reading.
I'm also glad to see now that you also say you don't hate Americans, even though you used to say they were "evil" and wished for their downfall. I don't hate you either.
I'm proud of you. You've obviously been doing some reading, some thinking, some soul searching - I can tell that from your posts and from your new Avatar, which is also a change for the better. Your new avatar personifies your change, that you have been doing a lot of thinking, the bald head clasped by the hand in deep painful soul searching, and that is good.
Keep it up, as draining and slow as it is, you are on the path of enlightenment; the truth is not always easy to accept, but one day, it will liberate you from all that hatred burning inside you fueld by false beliefs. One day, you will see the truth, accept it, and all that unhappiness will go away; you will quit rubbing your head bald, and grow some hair, and the girls will run their fingers through it, and you will fall in love, and the world will be a much different place for you, and WWII will not matter anymore, America will not matter, the past will not matter, only the future with someone you love. And you will post yet a new avatar, I can't wait to see it.
Last edited by seahorse on Thu 12 May 2005, 21:30:06, edited 1 time in total.
-
seahorse - Expert
- Posts: 2275
- Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Arkansas
by PenultimateManStanding » Thu 12 May 2005, 19:36:01
Way to go seahorse, that's just about the wisest post I've read. It even makes me think for a moment you may be right about lorenzo - then again, nah, no way! 
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
by lorenzo » Fri 13 May 2005, 09:59:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'n')ew avatar personifies your change, that you have been doing a lot of thinking, the bald head clasped by the hand in deep painful soul searching
It is a hand holding an ostrich egg. The head that belongs to the hand holding the egg, is buried in the sand. Hihi.
The Beginning is Near!
-
lorenzo - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2184
- Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
WWII and related pseudo topics
by ashurbanipal » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 14:54:09
There's an image I would like to paint that I think sums up the difference between most pessimist and optimist arguments about oil that I see floating around.
Imagine that there are two guys--one a pessimist, the other an optimist--looking at a formula scrawled on a chalkboard. The optimist looks it over and declares that because human beings have been able to solve forumlae in the past, we should be able to solve this one if we so desire. The pessimist, being pessimistic, decides that this isn't a good enough response and goes to work trying to solve the equation. When he can't do so, he reasons about why, and then comes to the conclusion that it has no solution.
The equation is x+8=x-3 (or some such unsolvable formula).
Now, imagine that their lives each depend upon knowing whether the equation is solvable or not. I suspect at this point, optimists and pessimists will be drawing their own conclusions about who followed the correct method. I side with the pessimists; I will use another analogy at the end of the post to explain why.
I'd like to offer counterpoints to three "pseudo-arguments" made by optimists that I see floating around the web from time to time, all of which have related underlying assumptions.
The first argument is an argument from history, and it goes that people have surmounted terrible odds before. This is usually couched in language that is vaguely nationalistic. The optimist will point to such happenings as the Allied victory in World War II, and proclaim that if we can rise up and defeat the Axis powers in World War II in spite of the depression, we can surmount the obstacles of Peak Oil. The implication is that human ingenuity, spirit, chutzpah, or determination will carry the day, in spite of the odds.
This argument may be the best bet we have for making fertilizer in a post-peak world. Remember that just as much as we were trying to win, so the Axis powers were also trying to win. Only one side could win. The people in the Axis countries all believed in their ingenuity, spirit, chutzpah (the Germans probably called it something else at the time), and determination. Ultimately, they lost. The causes for why are several, but chief among them is that the Allies had greater access to cheap, abundant supplies of oil. Hitler went to war with Russia to secure the Baku oil fields. Japan attacked us because we cut off their oil. Axis troops suffered from lack of supplies and mobility, because they lacked oil. We ultimately won WWII because we had the oil, and because we planned relentlessly and accurately. The Axis powers did not plan well. They lost because their attitudes were too cavalier amidst a paucity of oil.
Seen in this light, whose side does WWII really argue for?
The next argument is one that I see alot, but that doesn't ever seem to get the response it deserves. That argument, offered by the optimist after a long and losing battle with the pessimist, goes simply that the pessimist doesn't want there to be a solution, and so is refusing to look at the positive aspects of the optimist's proposals.
In spite of my own pessimism, I believe that this argument may have some merit. Pessimists do have a tendency to be overly, erm, pessimistic. I have seen other pessimists, myself included, ignore the positive aspects of genuinely good points made by optimists. But I would point out two things.
First, we know that eventually, we will see huge shortfalls of production in the face of demand for oil. Given our current situation, this can only spell disaster. We may be able to change before things get very bad. We may be able to mitigate the effects of Peak. But given that we're not currently doing anything in this direction, and given the relative immanence of peak, it seems reasonable to be pessimistic regarding the outcome of a continued and endemic reduction in oil supply.
Second, at least based on my own experience, pessimists simply have a stronger case than the optimists do. Optimists often do nothing more than restate the pessimist's case claiming that everything will be alright (I read somewhere that a guy was optimistic that "only" 3 billion people would starve). Either that, or they make arguments that the pessimist has already roundly refuted. Offering a solution to the equation that simply does not work will draw exactly that critique, no matter how many wrong answers are submitted. This ought to surprise no one.
The last argument to be considered often goes that pessimists seem to think that people will just throw their hands up and declare that there is no solution, that nothing can be done, and they will all lay down and die. The underlying implication is that the very thought of this happening is absurd--people will adapt and find ways to cope. While this is a mischaracterization of most pessimistic arguments, it's actually not so far from the truth. There is a point at which human ingenuity fails. People starve every day. When there is no food to be had, laying down and dying is exactly what they do. It is a mathematical certainty that Peak Oil will come to that.
I happen to believe in the human spirit. I believe in human ingenuity. I believe that people can triumph in the face of what seems like certain defeat. My study of fencing has taught me one thing about the human spirit, though, that I believe is an immutable truth. There is an old swordsman's saying: In Ferro Veritas. I have this tatooed on my sword arm so that I can never forget it.
Anyone who's ever taken a martial art knows that most unarmed combat styles rely on a strategy of being able to take a few hits, or to get into a potentially awkward grappling position in order to frame an eventual victory. Most often, you can be hit a few times without suffering serious injury. But this is not the case with swordplay. With swordplay, the objective must be to hit and not be hit; get hit with a sword and the injury is serious, usually permanent, and often fatal. One's study must be precise, and one's discipline as hard as the steel one hopes to wield. When the fight actually comes, the only thing that remains is truth. One cannot claim to have practiced and be as good as someone who has actually done so. Great sword fighters throughout history (indeed, people who were great at anything) summoned amazing spirit, superhuman determination, and awe-inspiring heroics to overcome the incredible odds arrayed against them. The secret that they never make plain is that they had been building that ability, inch by inch, all their lives. They didn't just face their opponent willy-nilly. They endured years of training on how to face an opponent. They improvised, sure--not because of human nature per se, but because they had learned how to improvise. Those who stuck with it had a better chance of success. Those who did not generally failed.
Human beings, as a whole and individually, are faced now with a similar test. In the coming swordfight that Oil Peak is bringing, we will see the truth. Those who have thought rigorously about the problem, who have disciplined themselves to find and implement a solution, and who comport themselves with honor and dignity in the face of the challenge will prevail. All those who were sloppy in their thinking, who did not discipline themselves to change, and who rely on dishonorable practices post-peak will not last long.
Imagine that there are two guys--one a pessimist, the other an optimist--looking at a formula scrawled on a chalkboard. The optimist looks it over and declares that because human beings have been able to solve forumlae in the past, we should be able to solve this one if we so desire. The pessimist, being pessimistic, decides that this isn't a good enough response and goes to work trying to solve the equation. When he can't do so, he reasons about why, and then comes to the conclusion that it has no solution.
The equation is x+8=x-3 (or some such unsolvable formula).
Now, imagine that their lives each depend upon knowing whether the equation is solvable or not. I suspect at this point, optimists and pessimists will be drawing their own conclusions about who followed the correct method. I side with the pessimists; I will use another analogy at the end of the post to explain why.
I'd like to offer counterpoints to three "pseudo-arguments" made by optimists that I see floating around the web from time to time, all of which have related underlying assumptions.
The first argument is an argument from history, and it goes that people have surmounted terrible odds before. This is usually couched in language that is vaguely nationalistic. The optimist will point to such happenings as the Allied victory in World War II, and proclaim that if we can rise up and defeat the Axis powers in World War II in spite of the depression, we can surmount the obstacles of Peak Oil. The implication is that human ingenuity, spirit, chutzpah, or determination will carry the day, in spite of the odds.
This argument may be the best bet we have for making fertilizer in a post-peak world. Remember that just as much as we were trying to win, so the Axis powers were also trying to win. Only one side could win. The people in the Axis countries all believed in their ingenuity, spirit, chutzpah (the Germans probably called it something else at the time), and determination. Ultimately, they lost. The causes for why are several, but chief among them is that the Allies had greater access to cheap, abundant supplies of oil. Hitler went to war with Russia to secure the Baku oil fields. Japan attacked us because we cut off their oil. Axis troops suffered from lack of supplies and mobility, because they lacked oil. We ultimately won WWII because we had the oil, and because we planned relentlessly and accurately. The Axis powers did not plan well. They lost because their attitudes were too cavalier amidst a paucity of oil.
Seen in this light, whose side does WWII really argue for?
The next argument is one that I see alot, but that doesn't ever seem to get the response it deserves. That argument, offered by the optimist after a long and losing battle with the pessimist, goes simply that the pessimist doesn't want there to be a solution, and so is refusing to look at the positive aspects of the optimist's proposals.
In spite of my own pessimism, I believe that this argument may have some merit. Pessimists do have a tendency to be overly, erm, pessimistic. I have seen other pessimists, myself included, ignore the positive aspects of genuinely good points made by optimists. But I would point out two things.
First, we know that eventually, we will see huge shortfalls of production in the face of demand for oil. Given our current situation, this can only spell disaster. We may be able to change before things get very bad. We may be able to mitigate the effects of Peak. But given that we're not currently doing anything in this direction, and given the relative immanence of peak, it seems reasonable to be pessimistic regarding the outcome of a continued and endemic reduction in oil supply.
Second, at least based on my own experience, pessimists simply have a stronger case than the optimists do. Optimists often do nothing more than restate the pessimist's case claiming that everything will be alright (I read somewhere that a guy was optimistic that "only" 3 billion people would starve). Either that, or they make arguments that the pessimist has already roundly refuted. Offering a solution to the equation that simply does not work will draw exactly that critique, no matter how many wrong answers are submitted. This ought to surprise no one.
The last argument to be considered often goes that pessimists seem to think that people will just throw their hands up and declare that there is no solution, that nothing can be done, and they will all lay down and die. The underlying implication is that the very thought of this happening is absurd--people will adapt and find ways to cope. While this is a mischaracterization of most pessimistic arguments, it's actually not so far from the truth. There is a point at which human ingenuity fails. People starve every day. When there is no food to be had, laying down and dying is exactly what they do. It is a mathematical certainty that Peak Oil will come to that.
I happen to believe in the human spirit. I believe in human ingenuity. I believe that people can triumph in the face of what seems like certain defeat. My study of fencing has taught me one thing about the human spirit, though, that I believe is an immutable truth. There is an old swordsman's saying: In Ferro Veritas. I have this tatooed on my sword arm so that I can never forget it.
Anyone who's ever taken a martial art knows that most unarmed combat styles rely on a strategy of being able to take a few hits, or to get into a potentially awkward grappling position in order to frame an eventual victory. Most often, you can be hit a few times without suffering serious injury. But this is not the case with swordplay. With swordplay, the objective must be to hit and not be hit; get hit with a sword and the injury is serious, usually permanent, and often fatal. One's study must be precise, and one's discipline as hard as the steel one hopes to wield. When the fight actually comes, the only thing that remains is truth. One cannot claim to have practiced and be as good as someone who has actually done so. Great sword fighters throughout history (indeed, people who were great at anything) summoned amazing spirit, superhuman determination, and awe-inspiring heroics to overcome the incredible odds arrayed against them. The secret that they never make plain is that they had been building that ability, inch by inch, all their lives. They didn't just face their opponent willy-nilly. They endured years of training on how to face an opponent. They improvised, sure--not because of human nature per se, but because they had learned how to improvise. Those who stuck with it had a better chance of success. Those who did not generally failed.
Human beings, as a whole and individually, are faced now with a similar test. In the coming swordfight that Oil Peak is bringing, we will see the truth. Those who have thought rigorously about the problem, who have disciplined themselves to find and implement a solution, and who comport themselves with honor and dignity in the face of the challenge will prevail. All those who were sloppy in their thinking, who did not discipline themselves to change, and who rely on dishonorable practices post-peak will not last long.
-
ashurbanipal - Lignite
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: A land called Honalee
Re: WWII and related pseudo topics
by EnergySpin » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 15:09:22
Anyone wants to spot the leaps of logic in this rant?
Anyone?
Ok ...
Lets start with one statement:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')This argument may be the best bet we have for making fertilizer in a post-peak world
Anyone?
Ok ...
Lets start with one statement:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')This argument may be the best bet we have for making fertilizer in a post-peak world
Google for the Nobel lecture of Haber in 1919 ....
When I see the fertilizer argument I hit the ignore button ....
By the way "on my own experience" does not mix well with "unsolvable formulas".
Unsolvable formulas (the term you probably wanted to use is undecidable statements, statements whose truth value cannot be determined, but this is a minor point) is an example of deductive reasoning, "my own experience" is an example of inductive reasoning. You are offering opinion and then proclaim that "Offering a solution to the equation that simply does not work will draw exactly that critique, no matter how many wrong answers are submitted."
But "When the fight actually comes, the only thing that remains is truth" this is true . However it contradicts the "guns germs and steel mentality" implicit in the following statement: "Those who have thought rigorously about the problem, who have disciplined themselves to find and implement a solution, and who comport themselves with honor and dignity in the face of the challenge will prevail. "
Long live the ignore button!
PS: The statement "dishonorable practises" is not well defined. I guess I will never find out .... the almighty Ignore Button is too powerful even for the amount of BS that bombarded us.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
-
EnergySpin - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
- Ludi
Re: WWII and related pseudo topics
by ashurbanipal » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 16:14:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')e: This argument may be the best bet we have for making fertilizer in a post-peak world
ES: Google for the Nobel lecture of Haber in 1919 ....
When I see the fertilizer argument I hit the ignore button ....
ES: Google for the Nobel lecture of Haber in 1919 ....
When I see the fertilizer argument I hit the ignore button ....
Maybe wit and sarcasm are lost here, so let me rephrase what I meant: The WWII argument is horsepuckey (i.e. fertilizer). Was the sentence above really beyond your ability to decipher the meaning of English?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y the way "on my own experience" does not mix well with "unsolvable formulas".
First, I didn't mix them; at least not like that. Second, why not?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nsolvable formulas (the term you probably wanted to use is undecidable statements, statements whose truth value cannot be determined, but this is a minor point)
Actually, it isn't. Principia Mathematica aside, math and logic are different enough at least that terms differ. I dare you to assign a truth value for x in the equation x+3=x-7 by any existing and generally acknowledged system of logic. At best, this is going to be taken as as logical atom and the whole thing assigned a truth value (in this case, it will always be FALSE).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')Unsolvable formulas) is an example of deductive reasoning,
Huh? It's been a few years since my last logic class, but I don't think I'm that rusty; I at least try to keep up with developments in the field. Do you believe that "reasoning" is somehow prior to logic? It seems to me it would be just the opposite; we wouldn't get to a piece of reasoning until we had a number of such formulae in collusion. The point isn't illustrated by the formula, it's illustrated by the hypothetical pair of people's reaction to it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')my own experience" is an example of inductive reasoning. You are offering opinion and then proclaim that "Offering a solution to the equation that simply does not work will draw exactly that critique, no matter how many wrong answers are submitted."
