[Tanada]

There is a lot of overlap between the various modes of thought prevalent on Peak Oil dot Com.

The classic split is between the Doomers and the Cornucopians, but if you look a little deeper you discover that the Doomers fall into different groups and the Cornucopians do as well. Many Doomers are eco-doomers, they think Humanity is such a disaster for the ecosystem that we will manage to either wipe out all life or make ourselves extinct along with many other species. Other Doomers are financial/cultural Doomers, the end of Civilization is nigh and so on and so forth. Cornucopians fall into groups like the Technology will always save us crowd and the more or less opposite Permaculture will save us crowd.

Luddites are those who tend to believe that Technology, either a specific type like Artificial Intelligence, or in general like the invention of Agriculture, is the root of all evil and should be opposed axiomatically. This has been recently highlighted on the Space thread now in the Open forum. Technologists believe there are technological solutions that could or should be applied to the world. The extreme version of this are the believers in geoengineering to 'fix' Global Warming. Lesser versions are the belief that deploying Nuclear Fission would be the best solution for a steady state civilization instead of burning carbon compounds to produce energy. There are also believers that more advanced drilling will find all the oil we need, or that solar arrays can be built covering the entire Mojave to supply all of North America with power.

The differing sides often think the opposing point of view is not only wrong, but suffering from delusions because they believe something different. This is fine as long as you are polite about it. Saying someone is crazy is mildly insulting and should be avoided, by the same token using outright slurs or curse words should also be avoided.

This web site is dedicated to resource depletion and its effects. It has section devoted to contingent issues because everything else relates to resource extraction and use one way or another. No resources = no life. Abundant resources = explosive growth( population explosion). Limited resources = limited life(population quasi-stable).

[vision-master]

Deeper Truths

Are Met

With Many Swords

mi

-------------------------------------

Heard about this one the other day - true story.......

Blue collar town, almost everyone makes the same amount of money, the people were asked to select from two choices.........

I'll give you $60,000 and everyone else $40,000

OR

I'll give you $40,000 and everyone else $5,000


Guess which option most people selected?

[Pops]

Good post T.

I guess I'm emotionally a Ludite, I have a large collection of old-timey tools and know a lot about old-timey ways of doing things, heck, I live in an old-timey house on an old-timey farm. On the other hand I have a large number of modern tools and know-how, from stationary woodworking to diesel powered tractor and assorted PTO implements to early adoption of digital music, desktop publishing and most recently; a SodaStream, lol

Environmentally, I don't suffer from the angst or shame of humanity as a pox on nature, we're what we are, a dice throw of genetics and evolution; no more or less. At the same time I kind of hope we'll evolve a more benign outlook than "Dominion" before we selfdestruct, but I'm not sure what that might take.

So I guess I'm not a fatalistic doomer, we aren't somehow destined to crash but at the same time I'm distrustful of increasing complexity. It's only been a couple of hundred years since we've made steel in more than 5 pound batches or had access to fossil resources and no one knows what will happen when the power starts to flicker.
.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'G')ood post T.

I guess I'm emotionally a Ludite, I have a large collection of old-timey tools and know a lot about old-timey ways of doing things, heck, I live in an old-timey house on an old-timey farm. On the other hand I have a large number of modern tools and know-how, from stationary woodworking to diesel powered tractor and assorted PTO implements to early adoption of digital music, desktop publishing and most recently; a SodaStream, lol

Environmentally, I don't suffer from the angst or shame of humanity as a pox on nature, we're what we are, a dice throw of genetics and evolution; no more or less. At the same time I kind of hope we'll evolve a more benign outlook than "Dominion" before we selfdestruct, but I'm not sure what that might take.

So I guess I'm not a fatalistic doomer, we aren't somehow destined to crash but at the same time I'm distrustful of increasing complexity. It's only been a couple of hundred years since we've made steel in more than 5 pound batches or had access to fossil resources and no one knows what will happen when the power starts to flicker.
.

[Pops]

I don't get it, "A" means everyone gets more, not sure why anyone would choose differenty

but what does it have to do with Ludites vs technofarians?

[Rune]

Problem-solving is as fundamental to Human Nature as is sex. It's ridiculous to think you could stop sex and sexuality. Scientific and technological progression is as inevitable as worldwide copulation. You can uselessly bitch about it all you want. But its just useless bitching.

When you say you hate Science or Technology, you are really saying that you hate Humanity, something of which you are a part, something which was not "invented" by humanity itself. Humanity just evolved on Planet Earth like every other life-form did. It has been and continues to be phenomenally succcessful and shows every sign of continuing to evolve.

You cannot make accurate predictions about such events as peak oil or some sort of die-off due to resource limits because no one can predict how technoglical evolution will occur. You can make guesses based on present trends, sometimes reasonably accurate, but by far most of the time no, you can't.

You cannot even make accurate predictions as to how socio-political or financial evolution will occur.

In short, no one knows the future. You can only guess at it. The future does not really exist except as an artificial human mental construct - and that construct is constantly changing. For example, if enough minds were convinced that a large asteroid would hit Earth in 50 years and the accuracy of the judgement was nearly 100%, then much effort would be invested in diverting that particular future possibility.

If enough minds believed that fossil fuels would peak and decline, or that continued use would cause great ecological damage, then much effort would go into averting THAT future scenario.

The point is, human beings are capable of looking at present trends, making judgements about advantages, profitability or threats, and making present-day decisions or inventing things which effect perceived future outcomes. The "future" constantly changes, since it is all in the mind.

The phrase "technology will save us" assumes, unrealistically, that some future condition is a certainty and that that future condition can be averted. But there is no "real" future. Maybe technology will extinctuate us - not due to resource contraints or peak oil - maybe we will invent a machine intelligence that, in turn, follows evolutionary principles much faster than humanity does. Maybe that evolutionary progression will simply obsolete humanity just like modern humans obsoleted several other homind species a few millennia ago. Some people believe that is true. But those people do not know the future any better than you do.

Maybe some form of viral warfare will emerge that kills off large chunks of population. Maybe the virus will be a natural one. Maybe it is possible to have 15 billion of us living well in harmony with the rest of the planet's life and resources. You can never be certain about anything in the "future".

The world is what it is. You can't change fundamental human drives, or evolutionary principles. You can observe and try to comprehend but even THAT tries the best and brightest of us.

Reality is what it is. (How Buddhist of me to say such a thing).

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') don't get it, "A" means everyone gets more, not sure why anyone would choose differenty

but what does it have to do with Ludites vs technofarians?

[KaiserJeep]

In fact, there are no true Luddites here in this Forum IMHO. As a student of History, I can say with complete confidence that a Luddite would never touch a keyboard or a mouse, or even use electricity.

In fact the very term "Luddite" properly refers to one who smashes machinery, in particular the new fabricated metal loom machines that were replacing hand-operated wooden looms, in England during the Napoleonic wars.

In fact more English soldiers were fighting Luddites (whom we would call domestic terrorists today) than Napoleon. Which is pretty much why the USA was not stamped flat by the Great British Empire - we were one among many colonies experiencing unrest during the Luddite rebellion and the Napoleonic wars, and we were a distant third in priority.

Those that live in technological society without understanding it or appreciating it are Neo-Luddites at best, are without a doubt damned fools, and obviously: not too bright. The Luddite Heaven is a place like Amish country, where one endures hard physical labor from dawn to dusk, and never escapes the smell of manure.

I happen to like organic produce myself. I buy it at the supermarket, where it was transported with petroleum fuels. I fetch it home in an internal combustion vehicle, and I work over a computer, not a plow.

There are IMHO, only Technologists and Fools.

[Keith_McClary]

Technology will "advance" and "solve" current problems. This creates worse problems that were unanticipated or played down by the proponents.

What are the odds that techno-fixes will continue to pop up when needed and work every time?

[KaiserJeep]

Who says they will work every time?

For example, certain DOD contracts are awarded for weapons systems that never do work as designed, were not needed to begin with, and never get used. Nevertheless, if they generated jobs in the states of the legislators who rammed them through the procurement process, they are a "success".

Other products work great but are not present at the right time, or never get marketed and sold properly. The last company in the USA that made buggy whips made great ones, I am sure - people just did not buy them for the new automobiles.

Others never get funding. We could build the space colonies we need if funding and priorities were assigned by politicians in a fashion similar to the Manhattan Project or Kennedy's moonshot program. But the current entirely erroneous assumption is that we can "save the Planet" if we halt "Climate Change". As if 7.3B people would then silently vanish from the Earth and the current Mass Extinction would cease.

[SeaGypsy]

This guy hasn't been around long enough to remember Monte Quest.

If you really want to talk extreme solutions to overpopulation- without worrying about the ethics of leaving behind a dead earth- howabout considering the most extreme realistic solution? Tanada's last OP was on the topic of nuclear extermination of massive numbers (yet somehow she considers my posting about metaphorical pack rape of mother earth and the adolescent patriarchal fantasy of space development over the top. Whilst critical of someone calling me crazy- let it stand).

Even super mods can get mighty confused about ethics and fantastic solutions to overwhelming problems- resorting to polarized over-simplifications. The great burden of moderation in an open forum is to remain unbiased.

What about chemical weapons as a solution? Mass suicide? Mass sterilization? Full blown no holds barred Eugenics? How about a really big country declares war on everyone else, most of us die fighting? If someone wins, then they carry out a Eugenic solution on their own?

This is how mad it really gets isn't it? In order to save humanity, most of humanity has to perish. Whoever makes that decision is the least worthy of survival or the most worthy?

The escapists want to escape, that's obvious. Incapable of facing the hideous reality touched on above- which really has nothing to do with Luddites vs Technologists- just the partial acceptance of reality being faced with a magical answer. The real core problems have much more to do with Jeavons and Malthus paradoxes than the sideshow issues around technology.

The only ethical solution is the 'Hippie' solution. One world, one love, no more war, no more dogmas encouraging over-consumption and over breeding, scale down, powerdown, acceptance of our limitations and our responsibilities to take care of this precious and finite Earth.

The reality is that this appears at present highly less likely than we continue to dilly dally and nature ultimately takes it's course with us. A few folks watching from a tin can in space, bones turning to paste, choking on each others BO, brains and bodies being slowly riddled with cancerous cells- lucky them?

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I')n fact, there are no true Luddites here in this Forum IMHO. As a student of History, I can say with complete confidence that a Luddite would never touch a keyboard or a mouse, or even use electricity.

[Tanada]

A lot of people confuse Luddites, who don't want technology to change, with Saboteurs, who in the original meaning were Dutch workers that would throw their wooden shoes (Sabot) into the wooden gear train of the machinery in mills where they worked to break the machinery and prevent it from working at all.

The two are not the same thing. In some things I am a Luddite, I do not want Artificial Intelligence to be developed. That is a far cry from trying to stop all computers from working by Sabotaging them. Personally I believe we should take full advantage of the technology we already have and stop wasting resources on developing more and more advanced forms that require massive consumption to change systems that are fully functional and nowhere near their date of obsolescence. Example, people are constantly upgrading cell phones even though their existing phone is fully functional and capable of being used for several or even many more years. The only time I have ever changed my cell phone is when the industry stopped supplying replacement batteries for the first one that was 5 years old, and the second one that shorted out after 4 years of use. If the industry would have kept supporting the first cell phone I had and it was still functioning I would still be using that phone, it did everything I needed it to do. That makes me a Cell phone Luddite. Second example, the same thing goes for TV, I was perfectly content to keep using my analog TV set until the government mandated the digital change over and it stopped functioning. I ended up having to get cable and am still using two old analog TV's because the cable company signal still supports that type of receiver. I didn't do anything to prevent the technology from functioning, I just don't like the change. IMO it is horribly wasteful.

[SeaGypsy]

Lol! Tanada- classic- I'm exactly the same. 3 phones in 14 years, each for the same reason as yourself- inability to get a new battery. First flat TV this year after years of recycled analogues off the side of the road. My first laptop 5 years ago still serves my family in the Philippines perfectly well. My wife is a bit of a terror when it comes to breaking things when she gets moody- so between us we have been through a few notepads since then- but we always send the breakages to her family who recycle then and sell them on.

[dorlomin]

FWIW I am a "technologist" I strongly believe we need to keep advancing our knowledge and technology.

I do not discount 'die off' scenarios but I suspect they are overblown.

I do think the world is going to change pretty fundamentally. What those changes will be are hard to predict. Id never dis prepping as a precaution, but would frown on it as an expectation.

[KaiserJeep]

Try 1 cellphone in 15 years - an old Motorola analog flip-phone. Problem was my boss kept calling me to make all his decisions for him. So I reduced my communications to E-Mail, I don't carry around a phone, and believe that those who use them in public are rude. Those that sit in public texting are doubly rude. Instead I carry around a Nook E-Reader that is WiFi-enabled, and check mail once an hour or so, when I'm not sitting at my desk. I do have a disposable prepaid phone in my Jeep, still with unbroken packaging after 3 years, because I have not broken down. (I used to carry pre-paid phone cards, when there were still public telephones.)

If you want to ignore technological progress, feel free. But an old analog TV uses 3X the power of a new HDTV of the same screen size, and twice the power of the modestly larger flatscreens most people replace them with. Just as old PCs used to come with power supplies such as 500 watts to 750 watts for power users, but most use 250 watt supplies today with spare power available.

In fact each generation of phones, TVs, appliances, etc. uses less power and fewer materials than the last - because me and my fellow engineers are working to those ends constantly. Hang onto your stuff as long as you want - but having an old furnace or refrigerator or in fact any major appliance is not doing you or anybody else any favors - it is consuming more energy than required for the task and could have been recycled into more devices, while removing toxic substances from the world around us.

Hang onto those old analog TVs long enough, and you will face a toxic waste surcharge to dispose of them, because they have solder containing lead. Presently there is free recycling for these items, but California has a bill to make a $500 toxic surcharge. All too often, where California leads, the nation follows. Still using an old CRT monitor? Same $500 for anything lacking the "RoHS" seal.

You people can avoid thinking about our real problems if you wish, but I call you on intellectual dishonesty. If you want to wear long hair, dirty jeans, and love one another, you are not helping to "save the planet", you are ignoring our problems while making them worse. Just as leading a pious life while obeying the instructions of the Catholic Pope or the Dalai Lama or Ron Hubbard is not gonna help solve our very real problems.

I think anyone who is a Forum member here knows that we have real problems needing real solutions. Our planet is now midway through the sixth major die-off of plant and animal species. We are losing the biodiversity faster than any time since the "Dinosaur Killer" asteroid struck the Yucatan Peninsula 65 Million years ago. 7.3 Billion humans are the cause. SOME of the possible reactions would be:

1) Ignore the whole thing, have a dozen kids, hundreds of grand-kids. Don't think about the deadly legacy your generation leaves behind.
2) The genocide of at least 90% of the human race to "save the planet".
3) The colonization of space, before, during, or after the die-off of the Earth.

There must be others. But first, you have to admit that there is a problem.

[SeaGypsy]

If you weren't so obsessed with becoming an alien KJ, we could probably all get along much better. We all have our specialties and interest areas- mine is handcrafted timber sailboats and canoes (with Satnav and EPIRB and radio and solar and wind and desal- IF and for as long as it's available). I would rather be one of Orlov's Sea Squib eating Permaculture Sea Gypsys than of of your and Hawkins stinking tin can in space wanna be aliens. I don't however feel the need to bring up my friendship and affinity with Orlov in every thread I post in. I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I mention any of this in over 5000 posts.

[Newfie]

Perhaps the discussion is less about technology than our belief in our ability to use it.

I am not a Luddite, and I trust technology. Technology has not gotten us into trouble.

Relying on technology to get us OUT of trouble is a problem because technology did not get is INTO trouble.

Humanity got humanity into trouble. And only changing humanity will get us OUT of trouble.

Thinking otherwise is just blaming the car for running into the tree.

On that count I have little faith.