[SugarSeam]

I'm in a back-and-forth with the worst kind of arrogant "finance creates energy" forum troll who absolutely dismisses peak oil on the grounds that technology and efficiency gains make the situation moot. You know, standard denial.

Anyhow, despite explaining to him countless times that technology gains will never offset decline rates enough to maintain needed production growth, he responds with both "yes it will" AND "who said we must have production growth?"

I recently reminded him that while it is true we have made efficiency gains in most every process we use oil for, we're still consuming more oil every year, as a species. I introduced him to Jevons Paradox, whereby he suggested I don't understand the term. His words:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'y')ou can't seem to understand the simple fact that we can get more efficient in how we use oil AND we can use more at the same time. But those both don't have to happen together. You keep missing this point.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SugarSeam', '
')But what do you say to someone like this who remains fixated on what COULD happen - apparently in a world of gumdrops and unicorns - as opposed to the reality of what IS happening? How do you get this kind of "Econ 101 bro" to overcome his mental blockage and grasp depletion, or basic physics, or just simply that efficiency gains only tend to increase demand (that is, until they can't any longer)?

[SugarSeam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'A')n equally relevant question to ask is actually about you. Why are you so upset at this troll? Or your friend or father who might think the same. They probably do actually. This is the majority position where there is no external evidence yet that merits a change of position. Why are you invested in making or forcing or convincing anyone to believe something that he or she doesn't want to believe? You cannot change this fixed narrative without an important catalyst.

[SeaGypsy]

I'm not unhappy everyone hasn't woken to the reality, it is better this doesn't happen suddenly, because if it did, TSHTF like never before. The assumption that global awakening would be a good thing runs in the same vein as the assumption that if everyone went high tech green everything would be hunky dory & the belief this is gradually underway. It is this set of beliefs propping up the entire mainstream economy, without this rationale already collapse would be here now. If you are ready fine, I'm not.

[GHung]

I'm pretty much on board with Ibon and SG. Whether or not it's important to change someone's world view, you may as well try to convince fundamentalists that the world wasn't created in 6 days. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful adversary, and this person's current income likely depends on 'normal' people not knowing. Either way, most will blame anything/anyone else when TSHTF. Couldn't be something as simple as limits to growth. Must be those LTG assholes who crashed the system; stampeded the herd.

[SugarSeam]

I tell ya... The cynicism on this site is its own paradox.

If it's just not worth it to bother engaging with the econ cultists, and it's also not worth it to check them merely for the uninitiated looking on who don't know any better, what is the purpose of even coming to the forums for you all? What do you get out of it?

All I was hoping for was a bit of feedback regarding that specific quote in the OP from the best and the brightest on this topic. Instead, I'm told "don't bother." Curious.

Help me understand what he's trying to finesse in that quote, even if it's misguided.

[GHung]

"....what is the purpose of even coming to the forums for you all? What do you get out of it?"....

Not sure., and I don't worry about it much. Reaching acceptance does that sometimes.

"All I was hoping for was a bit of feedback regarding that specific quote in the OP from the best and the brightest on this topic. Instead, I'm told "don't bother." Curious.

Help me understand what he's trying to finesse in that quote, even if it's misguided.

You mean this quote?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..you can't seem to understand the simple fact that we can get more efficient in how we use oil AND we can use more at the same time. But those both don't have to happen together. You keep missing this point.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SugarSeam', '
')I thought it was pretty clear, but the reality I'm speaking of is that efficiency gains and technology are not changing the fact that we consume more oil every year... His argument is that we don't have to consume more because of increased efficiency. I'm saying to him that it sounds nice. But we absolutely are using more., so it flies in the face of his logic.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SugarSeam', 'I')'m in a back-and-forth with the worst kind of arrogant "finance creates energy" forum troll who absolutely dismisses peak oil on the grounds that technology and efficiency gains make the situation moot. You know, standard denial.

[GHung]

"That's certainly been the general pattern for the past 50ish years.

The path for the last 50 years has been a massive run-up in debt; fiat capital. It won't be oil (or a lack of it) that wrecks the oil economy. It will be an inability to finance it, and a complex mess of other factors.

[ralfy]

The argument is that there has been greater efficiency. The reality is the opposite: diminishing returns have taken place, and we are now resorting to shale, etc.

We should also be seeing financial stability, but what we've been seeing the past ten years is the opposite. There are many threads in this forum that prove that.

Finally, various military organizations, multinational banks, and insurers have been publishing reports warning of the effects of peak oil, global warming, and increasing debt.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SugarSeam', 'H')is argument is that we don't have to consume more because of increased efficiency.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'T')he argument is that there has been greater efficiency.

[GHung]

"Resorting to? I was in Fredonia New York last week, looking for the marker for the first gas well in the US. Found it. The formation the gas came from? Shale. So we STARTED with shale, and if there is one thing I will bet a paycheck on, it is that a modern shale well is far better than that one."

I hope so. No one was reliant upon natural gas for a big chunk of their energy needs when that first well began to produce. It's a dumb point since our society has become utterly reliant on near current (massive) levels of production. Fossil fuels aren't infinite, nor is your efficiency scheme. Not sure where you think this is all headed, but the all-inclusive math just doesn't jive with your world view for much longer.

And why the hell would someone go poking around New York looking for the first gas well? Some kind of pilgrimage?

[Whatever]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SugarSeam', 'I') tell ya... The cynicism on this site is its own paradox.

[SeaGypsy]

Put some quotes out there clown, by more than 2 posters. Take your meds too.

[onlooker]

Sugar, you ask what we get out of it to be here. Well, it is a bit different but most here enjoy to flesh out the details of the gamut of events happening in the planet. Also, as you can see from just this thread we have a healthy diversity of opinion about some matters. If you wish to debate with someone do so and be confident in what you know but also be ready to learn and have an open mind, that is in the best spirit of debating. As for the specifics here, those who deny the peak oil dynamic are delusional. The depletion of oil is grounded in empirical fact and its synergy with the economy is logical and convincing considering how important our main energy source fossil fuels are to economic activity. Another thing I think many of us here really like to learn and study these forces that are shaping the trajectory of the human species. So we are here because we are curious as well and can learn from each other. The argument made by the troll you referred is simply wrong. Jevons Paradox is very much in play now as society looks to increase efficiency even while more consumers from countries like India and China are taking up the slack of less consumption from rich country consumers. Again the J paradox is sound theory and grounded in logic. The shale/tar are undoubtedly higher fruit on the tree ie. more difficult and expensive to produce as more energy is needed to produce these shale plays and tar sands. Nothing overly mysterious or complicated here, simply the EROEI is becoming less favorable. As GHung said economic stagnation and turmoil now stand to limit oil output especially the debt situation. Anyway, hope you stick around Sugar, you will find the discourse here is quite captivating.

[Whatever]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'P')ut some quotes out there clown, by more than 2 posters. Take your meds too.

[radon1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SugarSeam', 't')echnology gains will never offset decline rates enough to maintain needed production growth,

[StarvingLion]

Its fruitless conversing with the financial cretins because they gave up on the real world when they dumped relationship banking in favor of transaction volume. The bankers just want to originate bad loans all day long and never suffer the consequences.

I certainly don't accept that the majority of public who has heard of Peak Oil really gets its tragic implications.

My gripe with the supposed Peak Oil believers is that their analysis of the situation is so superficial that it is entirely worthless. They seem to be enamored with econ (eg. debt) and politics and poor natural resource allocation as the primary problems to overcome.

I don't even care for the moniker 'Peak Oil'. It suggests closely keeping track of "# of barrels of oil" is extremely useful while I deride it as nonsensical. At least the crummy EROEI calculation gives a vague intuitive clue as to why counting barrels is naive at best.

But what really gets me frustrated is the wrong notion that Peak Oil is fundamentally a transportation problem. The academic system is a propaganda system that convinces people that their entire income is NOT dependent on a never ending input flow of oil. The brilliant brain surgeon gets his income from the fact he is a brilliant brain surgeon and so on...yeah sure he can go back and practice medicine in some more limited form as in previous times but the point is that a certain percentage of this monstrosity of an economy cannot even be maintained. Removal of even a small percentage of oil input destroys the foundation.