by DesuMaiden » Fri 06 Feb 2015, 20:48:43
I believe doomerism is a much more valid position to take than Cornucopism. First of all, the evidence for the collapse of industrial civilization is overwhelming. Denying the collapse of industrial civilization, after all of the evidence is presented to you, is akin to denying the world is round. I don't want to go into the specifics of why industrial civilization is going to collapse, but the evidence for the collapse is just overwhelming.
When you look at alternative energies, they simply cannot fully substitute fossil fuels, unless you are unrealistically optimistic. Doomers like Michael Ruppert OBVIOUSLY considered the alternatives to fossil fuels, such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear and etc with much optimism at first. They were obviously optimistic at first when evaluating the peak oil situation, but they eventually realized, through vigorous analysis, that the alternatives to oil cannot fully replace oil. That's why they believe the end of oil means the end of industrial civilization; there is simply nothing to replace the edifice left by oil.
Someone on Youtube once mentioned that Richard Heinberg was being pessimistic about our energy crisis, but then someone else replied by saying "are you joking? Richard Heinberg is one of the most optimistic peak oilers. If you want negative, look at Collapse by Michael Ruppert". He is right. Richard Heinberg is one of the most optimistic peak oilers, and his optimism is in many ways unfounded because he thinks the transition to a post-fossil fuel world will be more peaceful than it will probably be. Michael Ruppert is obviously one of the more negative peak oilers, and he is a textbook example of a doomer. However, even Michael Ruppert said he has some faith in humanity, and he believes we can survive the collapse of industrial civilization if we do the right things. Of course, according to Michael Ruppert, most people will die as a result of the collapse of industrial civilization because they are ill-prepared to survive the collapse.
Overall, I think Michael Ruppert is the most realistic peak oiler. He may be negative at times, but his negative outlook is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence. Michael Ruppert is not 100% right all of the time (for example, he said that ethanol takes more energy to make than you get from burning it, when in fact, you get a small net energy gain from burning ethanol compared to producing it), but he is overall correct. The collapse of industrial civilization is eminent and inevitable.
Basically, the bottom line is the cornucopians have no good evidence to support their claims of infinite human progress. Nothing progresses forever. There is no way technology can progress forever. What the cornucopians forget is that technology is dependent on natural resources. You cannot have any technology without any natural resources to build the technology with. For example, as amazing as computer technology is, the number of computers we can manufacture is limited by the amount of rare earth metals we have because computers are made of rare earth metals (REMs). But rare earth metals are finite and nonrenewable, and we are already running out of them. So it is entirely possible that in the future we cannot make anymore computers and other electronic devices because of running out of REMs. Cornucopians obviously haven't studied history, because if you look at history, there have been other societies that have collapsed because of resource shortages (i.e. the islanders on Easter Island running out of trees, and therefore couldn't make anymore canoes to catch fish and porpoises with).
All economic collapses are not caused by problems with the money, but are actually caused by resource shortages. Money DOES NOT run the world because our economy is not founded upon money. Money is just a medium for the exchange of natural resources. What the economy is dependent on is natural resources and energy.
Cornuopians believe that mankind can overturn the laws of nature with technology and ingenuity. That's the most silly and fallacious belief possible because NO AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY AND INGENUITY can possibly overturn the laws of nature. The laws that govern this planet. Those laws are immutable and real. And science has never been able to do that. The greatest arrogance of mankind is his belief that he can use technology and ingenuity to overturn the laws of nature. That can't happen. For example, if you run out of rare earth metals, you can't make computers. There is nothing you can do about that.
And I find it laughable that some people propose that we could go onto the Moon and asteroids in space to mine for rare metals. Have you considered how much resources it will require to send people to those places and back? It is already overwhelmingly difficult to send a handful of people to the Moon, so what makes you think it is possible to send people to places that are even further from the Moon and in much larger numbers? Think of this. It required an unimaginable amount of resources to send a handful of people to the Moon. Imagine how difficult (more like impossible) it would be to send people to places further than the Moon in much larger quantities. Leaving the Earth to colonize other planets in this solar system or even other solar systems is just an unrealistic fantasy cornucopians have for solving our resource problems on Earth. Cornucopians need to realize that the Earth is the only planet we have, and if we mess up the Earth so badly that nobody can live on it, we are doomed as a species.
Anyways, without getting too side-tracked, doomerism is correct, and cornucopian beliefs are false. That's all I'm getting at. That's all I have to say. Good night.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.