Strictly speaking, no one can be certain that either cornucopians or doomers are right or wrong until, as lawyers say, a "Relevant Event" occurs. This relevant event can be a Malthusian Catastrophe, or successful surviving through the estimated peak of population, depending on how you define it.
Peakism is not a scientific category. You cannot replicate Malthusian Catastrophes on a multiple basis, whereas the replication validity is crucial for a hypothesis to be scientifically sound. It is more a system of beliefs. I am sitting on Monbiot's blog now, and here is a quote from his recent article:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou think you’re discussing technologies, you quickly discover that you’re discussing belief systems. The battle among environmentalists over how or whether our future energy is supplied is a cipher for something much bigger: who we are, who we want to be, how we want society to evolve. Beside these concerns, technical matters – parts per million, costs per megawatt hour, cancers per sievert – carry little weight. We choose our technology – or absence of technology – according to a set of deep beliefs; beliefs which in some cases remain unexamined.
PeakOil is You
What happens when a Corny realizes he's wrong?
Re: What happens when a Corny realizes he's wrong?
by radon » Thu 05 May 2011, 18:12:21
Would you care that much whether you are a peakist or cornucopian, if you had been born some time between 1800 or 1900? Most likely, no. Because the problems posited by peakism would hardly transpire during your lifetime. In this sense peakism and cornucopianism are more human psychological coping mechanisms rather than scientific theories or something else alike.
Often, devoted doomers and devoted cornies have far more in common that it appears on the surface. They both normally defer to the "expert groups" like scientists or politicians in matters concerning the resolution of the corni-peakist dilemma. Often, this deferral is a consequence of incompetence or weak understanding of these matters, or unwillingness to deal with them.
The difference between such doomers and cornies is superficial: cornucopians are "optimists", believing that the "expert groups" are more likely than not settle the matters in favorable ways, while doomers are pessimists believing the opposite. Your specific place in the corni-doomer universe depends on a number of factors, including your grasp of the matters, your background, your historic experience in dealing with the "experts", your place in the society, your personal prospects and expectations, and so on. As these factors change, you may evolve in this universe from cornie to doomer, and the other way round.
Arguably, the vector of this evolution points to a certain specific direction for the most of us these days - deeper to the depths of doom. At least on this website. So we need to look at our specific position in the world to identify why this is the case.
In fact, the cornie-peakist dilemma presents two problems. First - is the well-known problem of the universal die-off, in the longer term. Second - is the problem of the re-adjustment of lifestyles and expectations in accordance with the diminishing availability of the natural resources, in the shorter term. We normally fail to separate these problems and view them as equivalent, although they are clearly distinct, even as they do have a common root.
The second problem is particularly pronounced in the developed countries, and specifically in the US, because of the country's size and the unparalleled resource demands. This problem has an expressed political dimension, and the sheer size of the internal US political discussion on this board is a clear testimony to this fact. The problem invites not only for techno-fixes, but also political ones, and the latter are being actively explored here. As far as this second problem is concerned, the cornie-to-doomer evolution of the views is a mechanism to cope with the scaling back of the lifestyle expectations emanating from the perceived adverse consequences of the shorter term resource scarcity.
Take another extreme - suppose that you are living at the level of subsistence with your tribe in an island in the middle of the Pacific and know nothing about the outside world. Whatever happens, you are not concerned. A nuclear Armageddon is probably your only possible "Relevant Event", and this is unlikely to occur anyway. In this case this does not make difference whether you are a cornie or a doomer, the dilemma is simply non-existent.
The rest of the world is somewhere in-between these two extremes.
So lets think whether the logical/objective categories "true" or "false" are applicable to the arguably psychological/subjective categories "peakist" or "cornucopian".
- radon
Re: What happens when a Corny realizes he's wrong?
by meemoe_uk » Thu 05 May 2011, 19:03:01
thanks rocdoc, this off topic info is more useful than the thread. I wonder what dude was on about. If he ever comes back and and tries to tell me what I said wrong, I hope you'll be around to arbitrate.
-
meemoe_uk - Tar Sands
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00
Re: What happens when a Corny realizes he's wrong?
by radon » Thu 05 May 2011, 20:21:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon', '.').. a "Relevant Event" occurs. This relevant event can be a Malthusian Catastrophe
Sorry. But in my world, numerous 'relevant' events have already transpired (too numerous and technical to list. besides I've long ago lost my patience). Do you have a particular 'relevant' event in mind? How will you know the right "relevant" event when it happens? Who do you expect to define it for you?In any event, if the relevant events have already happened - then no need to bother. Cornucopians do not exist and the OP's subject does not exist. Only doomers and ignorant do (no sarcasm). Case closed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon', 'P')eakism is not a scientific category. You cannot replicate Malthusian Catastrophes on a multiple basis, whereas the replication validity is crucial for a hypothesis to be scientifically sound. It is more a system of beliefs.
AGW is actually a good example, because it is verifiable, has objective definitions, and has replication validity.
Apply the absolute black body theory to Earth, estimate infrared radiation to be reflected back by CO2, estimate CO2 emissions, calculate average monthly temperature increase, measure the temperature across a number of locations sufficient to provide statistical validity over the course of a few years, benchmark the trend against the calculated numbers, confirm the trend. Extrapolate the trend, measure the next year's temperature, compare it to the extrapolation, confirm the validity of extrapolation - you got the replication validity.
- radon