[bart]

Maybe it would be a good idea to get away from the personal attacks?

I'd like to suggest some solutions:

1. As individuals or as a site, undertake productive projects. Get connected with people who are doing productive projects.

2. Don't be afraid of gatekeepers or structure. The free-for-all atmosphere becomes boring after awhile, and one wants some quality and direction. Try other formats than loosely moderated forums.

3. Don't restrict yourself to reading peakoil.com. There are other PO sites, other places to engage in discussions. Even if you love peakoil.com, you need to broaden your horizons. And if you really want to become knowledgeable, read books, go to classes, write articles for publication. Use peakoil.com as a springboard -- not a closed room.

4. Don't be satisfied with superficial cynicism or doomerism. Delve deeply into history and other subjects.

5. Give the situation (e.g., peakoil.com ) a reasonable chance. If it shows no sign of improving, then go elsewhere. Build something positive somewhere else, if it is impossible to do it here.

[EnviroEngr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ') EE's writing style is definitely an acquired taste. The question I have is if anyone has acquired it. (if you parse it carefully, the intent does emerge sometimes)

[EnviroEngr]

bart,

Kudos for cutting through the fog. You have the end in sight and you know we need to get there.

You also know that expecting a different result when you always do things the same way you did before.... well... you know what that's called.

[erl]

Folks, this whole thread belongs somewhere else.

You know (hall of flames).

It really has sort of devolved to that.

Shhhh.

[EnviroEngr]

I would go further and suggest it started out that way.

You know (inflammatory).

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnviroEngr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ') EE's writing style is definitely an acquired taste. The question I have is if anyone has acquired it. (if you parse it carefully, the intent does emerge sometimes)

[EnviroEngr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnviroEngr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ') EE's writing style is definitely an acquired taste. The question I have is if anyone has acquired it. (if you parse it carefully, the intent does emerge sometimes)

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnviroEngr', 'I') owe you a review of the other thread you mentioned.

Are you sure about quintessential? [Of, relating to, or having the nature of a quintessence; being the most typical.]

[bart]

Thanks EE (you're a man of subtle and cryptic thoughts!).

One project that might be worth doing would be to analyze & criticize the doomer position. I've been thinking about this for some time. Here's an outline.

A CRITIQUE OF DOOMERISM

INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

Sacred text:
dieoff.org website

Ecology:
Garrett Hardin: "Tragedy of the Commons" & other writings
Liebig's principle of Least Abundant Resource (can't remember exact term)
Population ecology (the Petri dish metaphor)

Economics:
Jevons Paradox (more properly known as the Rebound Effect)

Physical sciences:
Entropy
Peak oil

Politics:
Cynical and suspicious of politics
Alienated from organized right (Bush) and organized left
Some racist, nationalist rhetoric (but not deeply held beliefs)
Exaggerated positions from the population control movement, tending towards low-key racism.

Images:
science fiction movies of a dystopic future (Mad Max, Road Warrior)
sf novels of a dystopic future, esp. involving race wars (e.g the Pournelle and Niven novel)

DEMOGRAPHICS

Mostly white, middle class US, working in technical positions, especially computers. Typically male from 17 to 35, a few older. A sprinkling of women and other nationalities. Bright, good at technical fields, but often without much cultural background.

In the past, might have been part of science fiction fandom or a minority political party (Technocracy, fascism, or some of the odder leftist sects). Not religious, although may drift into religion later in life. Some are into outdoors activities.

As grow older, will probably settle down and take up a hobby like ham radio, model trains, writing letters to the editor (assuming civilization has not ended).

DOOMER ARGUMENT:

1. Resources are growing short (Peak Oil, but also the usual Limits of Growth argument).

2. Over-population is to blame.

3. There is no solution, nothing worth doing.

4. Much of the world's population will (should) die off, especially non-white races in other countries. "We" will survive because we are clever, ruthless and disciplined. The liberal Doomers profess sadness at the die-off, the right-wing Doomers are gleeful.

5. In the meantime, the US should strictly limit immigration and curtail humanitarian foreign aid. Right-wing doomers might support warfare for resources, liberal doomers not. (Ironically, all Doomers seem to be highly suspicious of the government.)

6. On a personal level, the Doomer may be survivalist: guns, stored goods, a hideout for one's family. The green Doomers (are there many?), would tend towards an eco-village. Probably more Doomers talk about survivalism than actually do it.

REBUTTAL TO DOOMERISM

1. The scientific and historic basis for Doomerism is worthless. The concepts are either misunderstood or distorted so as to support a pre-conceived position. Arguing with most Doomers is pointless, since they do not arrive at their position intellectually. They ignore contradictory evidence or repeat their arguments even louder.

(Granted that this is normal human behavior, it does appear strange, because Doomers profess reverence for science and realism, and they are usually bright.)

Sample misunderstandings:
- the Petri dish metaphor for populations is wildly over-simplified.
- the Jevons Paradox is not proven, not a law. It is currently studied as the Rebound Effect, and does NOT completely undo the effect of conservation.
- Human history abounds with examples of collective behavior successfully coping with challenges.
- Over-population is only one part of the problem. Over-consumption and wars are arguably more important.

2. Almost every system of religion or morals would disdain the Doomer position of allowing billions of people to die without lifting a finger.

3. Because Doomers are cynical about politics, they will never gain political power. As loners, they will find it hard to cooperate for very long on any joint project (except for technical projects). The danger is that a persuasive sociopath will be influenced by Doomerism, and use selected Doomer arguments to ascend to power.

4. Because Doomers find it hard to be objective about science, history or politics, they typically achieve little success in those fields. Discussion forums and letters to the editor may be the limits of their influence. There are exceptions however. A number of gifted scientists and engineers seemed to have Doomer personalities (Teller for example).

5. Doomerism is bad for one's social life. It does not impart that free and easy manner that attracts women, nor is ranting about immigration going to win you repeat invitations to dinner parties.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', '
')Human history abounds with examples of collective behavior successfully coping with challenges.

Almost every system of religion or morals would disdain the Doomer position of allowing billions of people to die without lifting a finger.

Doomerism is bad for one's social life..

[Aaron]

This is a recurring theme around here.

Landers on one side & doomers on the other, with the moderates in between trying to keep the peace.

First, if you think PO is about fluffy unicorns prancing around your bio fuels station after a mild road bump in hydrocarbon production... then why the hell are you here?

Voyeurism?

Boredom?

Ego-centrism?

It's as if you think mankind will just coast into the hydrogen filling station when your gas runs out.

I'll share with you my core reason for being a so called "doomer".

It's because of all you Landers.

Your insane belief in the continued growth of human systems has brought us to this juncture, and threatens to plunge us into resource wars going forward.

The market will solve right?

Solve what?

Oh yes, the problem is "How can we sustain our mad experiment in growth and continue trashing our planet on a geologic scale?"

Smash up corn & turkeys? Extract exotic methane from the seafloor? Liquefy coal? Cooking oil?

Anything to keep the machine growing yes?

Your "Emperors New Clothes" attitudes hold the seeds of our doom, and promises an unpleasant future for our descendants.

To be fair, I don't hold with the conspiracy crapola myself, so Ruppert & company do detract from the actual debate.

It's not raving hoards of Illuminati warriors I fear, or 911 cover-up black ops, or alien sphincter probes. I fear you Lander's complacency in the face of reality...

scarcity = conflict

So while you choose the most outrageous doomer prescriptions for the future to rebut, the reality of depletion continues.

The Landers would have mankind continue dumping carbon into the environment without pause. While the largest ice sheet in the world sprints across Greenland at 100 feet per day, melting a hundred times faster than only 5 years ago.

One thing is certain... finding even more carbon to release is NOT a solution to our carbon dilemma.

So unless you plan to panel China, & India with wall to wall solar panels, the collapse of the hydrocarbon economy is inevitable. And with that collapse comes war. Thanks... for nothing.

Forget the Skull & Bones nonsense... Ignore the NWO nonsense.

You can even ignore the geologic aspects of peak oil itself.

Pay attention to how your neighbors react to our hydrocarbon dilemma...

It's kinda like a first date... pay attention to how your date treats your server at the restaurant. Because that's how they will be treating you in 6 weeks.

Most of you have never experienced real hardship. Your naive Pollyanna attitudes tell the tale. Your holier than thou attitudes make it clear you have never actually suffered with hunger or homelessness. Think you are better than those poor skeletons in New Orleans? News Flash... you aren't.

Landers demonstrate the validity of the observation that the only thing we learn from history, is that we learn little from history.

As my favorite NWO, illuminati, Masonic, 911 causing, nutcase says:

Doom

[Jack]

Aaron, that is one of the most cogent, powerful passages I have ever read. Please accept my compliments.

[Macsporan]

A world-class rant, and quite cosy little mutual admiration society we've got going here.

You must have been a hell-fire and brimstone preacher in your last life.

I have said all that I need to say, with all the eloquence at my command.

We shall see soon enough who is right and who will come to the rescue of whom.

Good Luck.

One way or another we will need it, that's for sure.

But unless you have a plan that people can be part of a little more sophisticated than "get twelve tons of baked beans, fortify a self-sufficient hilltop and shoot anyone who comes anywhere near you" you're not going to be much use during PO.

Doomers and survivalists IMHO are cowards and deserters. But we will forgive you and welcome you back when we have coped and worked out what to do and against all the odds saved the sum of things and built a new sustainable society.

But don't expect not to be laughed at.

Mac.

We will get out of this together or not at all.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut unless you have a plan that people can be part of a little more sophisticated than "get twelve tons of baked beans, fortify a self-sufficient hilltop and shoot anyone who comes anywhere near you" you're not going to be much use during PO.

[Barbara]

Totally agree with Aaron.

My city (Rome) had 1 MILLION inhabitants in the Empire age.
In the Middle Age it dropped to 20 thousands inhabitants.

Guess what happened?

[rostov]

To the landers :

I just want to know one thing. Has there been, historically, a civilization that have got things worked out successfully with limited resources? Be it surviving today, still, or dead for some other reason?

How did they do it?

China and India, both heavily populated over all these centuries even thousands of years before 0BC, are sitll around, culture still intact, etc. I go through Jim Diamond's stuff (all the civs inside) and Tainter's materials, but I don't see these two mentioned that much. They went through all sorts of ages, but...

How did they do (work things out) it?

[trespam]

Ok, let’s see what’s transpired.

EnviroEngr has written some something that is similar to what I used to do in college to make friends laugh. Construct sentences that sound like I’m saying something when in fact the actual information is fairly low.

Jack has congratulated another moderator, Aaron, on his great writing and thinking skills. Mutual back patting.

Macsporan tells me that that Moderators are honorable men. That includes Jack, who postures as a genocidal and thinks it funny. That is not honorable. This site is an open forum. And I thank them for that. But the fact that they’ve donated anything has no bearing on critiquing them or the fairly hardened positions from which they argue. Though I believe in peak oil, I agree that this particular site—and much of the nonsense out there on peak oil—is a church or cult and these moderators are more like priests. But I would like to know where I was gratuitous. Please point it out. Jack does think genocide is funny. Aaron really doesn’t believe in morality. And montequest is a conspiracy theorist. Those are facts easily determined from watching this site for a long time. Are those the gratuitous attacks? I’m simply trying to ensure that people have the necessary information when they approach this site. I believe in informed choice wherever possible. So I’ll ensure people understand some of the things I’m pointing out. Is it gratuitous or an attack to not slavish praise on the writings of these guys? It’s an open forum, and I have a right to critique them. I said they were third tier, and I think it is a valid observation. I was shocked when I discovered that a guy like Jack who proposes genocide was made into a moderator. I was shocked when I discovered that a whole slew of doomers were made into moderators. But it does make sense. The doomers are the only ones who have the time to sit around doing something like this. I thank them for providing the site and the time and energy, but that doesn’t give them a technique to be beyond observation. They will still be doing this in 2010. And 2015.

Bart: very good points. That was the intent of one of my original posts. Providing people with other options. And your critique of doomerism is spot-on.

Aaron in his post has simply reiterated what I said before. He hates the human race, knows that we’ll kill each other off fairly soon, that neighbor will be fighting with neighbor, etc. He’s unhappy with human treatment of the environment—funny, if an asteroid strikes the earth, destroying almost all life on it, will he hate the asteroids as well. Will that make him a mis-asteroid-anthropic? Humans are screwing with the environment, and it bugs the hell out of me, but other than that, he’s really just given me the black and white view of the world. If you aren’t a doomer, you believe in the hydrogen economy. There is a lack of middle here folks. Aaron says the moderators are in the middle. Which ones? I’m sure there are a few, but I think anyone in the middle, such as myself, would finally get bored and tired of this place and it will be left largely to the doomers. And the doomers, including the moderators, are supportive of the doomers and therefore it is self-reinforcing, because people like me who come in and rock the boat are upsetting to them. We’re flamers.

Barbara tells me about the huge drop in population in Rome. Yes, that’s right. Over hundreds of years. But what are we to draw from that? That tomorrow it will happen? The next day?

Problem is: There is a middle ground on this issue. Aaron is a doomer. Montequest is a doomer. Jack is a doomer who would like to kill people and take their resources.

Is this a flame? People spend inordinate amounts of time critiquing economists, the Michael Lynch’s, the cornucopians. They also critique Kunstler and Ruppert. And I simply choose right now to critique this site. Call it a flame if you want. But no system will evolve in a stable way if it doesn’t have feedback. The doomers are on this board, unfortunately, personally ignore the feedback that does not meet their view of the world; similar to the way cornucopian economists do. I’m not saying they censor. But there positions are clear. I’ll use Aaron’s example: he’s obsessed with focusing on the negative side of life, e.g. the sharp comment made to the waitress, rather than the other table in which the waitress receives a large tip and a nice word. It could be that the doomers only see the negatives of the world because that’s exactly what they are: negative. Not realists. Depressed and negative. Perhaps they are the ones with the shpar word to the waitress? I’m not sure. But I’m simply trying to make people understand they will be having this conversation in 2010. And in 2015.

[Ludi]

I've been reading peakoil.com for a while now, and I havn't come to all the same conclusions as you, trespam.

Re: Aaron. From what he reveals when not pretending to be a "reaper," Aaron actually cares about people and wants to help them. Otherwise, why would he have a site dedicated to educating people about peak oil?

Re: Jack. An open misanthropist. Ok, so that's what he is. I find his beliefs repulsive, but so what, he might find my beliefs repulsive.

Re: Monte. I haven't run across any conspiracy stuff in his posts, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


Not saying you're "wrong" trespam, just saying I'm not sure how you've arrived at your conclusions re Monte and Aaron. Jack's an easy one, he's right out there in the open. So what.

[trespam]

Ludi:

I said in a previous post that I think Montequest and I have opinions that are similar in many respects. But I believe it is true that Montequest believes there is a conspiracy of international financial folks, a secret society, that is planning to control the world. It's all in his book. It's all in there. A conspiracy to control the world. A thread running through all the wars and events we've seen in the last century. And here's a concern I have, perhaps unwarranted, but still a concern all the same. Almost all of these conspiracy theories of the financial type put Jews in the drivers seat. The old Jews are manipulating the world financial system. It's been used against them for a long time. I could very well be wrong on that point, but still, I think Montequest does believe in the conspiracy. And these conspiracy theorists are a frightening lot. Ruppert is a good example. Montequest also has a tendency to write in the style of Ruppert. Good stuff, but on-and-on-and-on-and-on. Same thing. The Larouch Murdoch types do that. On and on and on. Now I realize that some will say I'm doing the same thing. But I'll take a break for another six months. On average, my output will be much less.

If I'm wrong about Montequest and his conspiracy theories, I will apologize. And I am not saying he's anti-semitic. I'm saying the financial conspiracy theories of the sort he seems to believe attract the anti-semites like flies to--well, you know what.

Jack is a self-important jerk. And repulsive. He thinks its funny. I think he should be hounded off the site. Community is about throwing some people out. Not by banning them. Not by censorship (please read that Aaron, the world is not black and white, I'm not proposing censorship, never have, never will). When I come across people like Jack, I just want others to have the information and I'll always make it clear that I think he's repulsive. It's my right.

Aaron no doubt is probably caring and does help to maintain this site--though there is someone else behind it if I'm not mistaken because he got his hand slapped by someone when he set up a form of censorship a year or so ago. But he's also exceedingly misanthropic and it colors his basic approach to peak oil. By that I mean he views humans as basically disgusting animals soiling the nest. So does Montequest. That's why I pointed people towards Ophuls and John Gray. They've worked this topic through in depth. Overshoot is also a good read. I've always been a fairly misanthropic person--Huxley's Island, which I read as a kid, is a book I've always held up as an example of what the modern world is like--an Island Utopia invaded and destroyed in the search for oil, the industrial world meets a sustainable community. Read it if you haven't--though I read over 25 years ago--my opinion might be different.

Here's my point. These guys are so firmly entrenched in their views of the world, they lack objectivity. That's all. The've already reached the conclusions. They know how it will play out. The don't know. And I continue--and will continue--to point it out.

[Ludi]

Trespam, I think you should continue to share your opinions, as all should.

But again, I'm not seeing the same in these people as you. I'm not seeing misanthropism in observing that the people of our culture are making a mess of their living space. Pointing out the misbehavior of our culture isn't misanthropism, in my opinion. It's observation. Yes, we're "soiling our nest." This doesn't mean it's human nature to soil our nest, but it certainly seems to be our current culture's tendency. You see this observation as "misanthropic." But I don't. So, we arrive at different conclusions.


One of the reasons, I think, that Monte repeats himself, is that people insist on not understanding what he's saying. Not just not agreeing with him, but actually not understanding him. For instance, people repeatedly claiming he's calling for "killing people" when he suggests it would be in our best interests to limit our population in some way. People continually not understanding that he's trying to point out our culture's misbehavior and then claiming he "isn't offering any solutions." He offers solutions, but they tend to be buried in the other information.

I'd like to see peakoil.com discuss more about societal solutions (not "techno-fixes"), but those topics seem to be very unpopular. People don't like to see our culture being criticized, and unless you can criticize something (see its flaws) you probably can't begin to devise ways to improve it. So we get stuck in the mode of pointing out flaws, or trying to get other people to see the flaws. Hence the tendency toward "negativity" here on the board. To criticize is seen as negative. It's the "doomers" pointing out the flaws and the "landers" saying there aren't any flaws. How can we move beyond this point? Is it possible to make po.com more "positive" in a meaningful way?