[azreal60]

But that's incorrect. The idea that we are different from bacteria and can ignore natural laws is the entire reason we are in this mess in the first place. We thought technology would allow us to ignore natural laws, and so we stopped obeying them. The ouch when we get that smack on the behind is going to be loud and long.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', '
')3) The brain thing wasn't there as a soultion for peak. It was just meant to say that the pardigm of what is human can, and probably will change in the future. From research done so far on the human brain, it just seems to be a bunch of electrical signals shooting around, not some separation of mind and body as the religious might make you believe. If this is true, then there's nothing inconcievable about transferring your memory(conciousness) to a computer, which then of course would be able to move across all electrical conduits wireless or not.

[Gorm]

TEOTWAWKI was the ony thing I thougt was a sure bet in this.

For better or worse, things gonna change a lot. But who can tell how?

[orz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut that's incorrect. The idea that we are different from bacteria and can ignore natural laws is the entire reason we are in this mess in the first place. We thought technology would allow us to ignore natural laws, and so we stopped obeying them. The ouch when we get that smack on the behind is going to be loud and long.

[Flow]

I have to agree with JD about what he says about Matt Savinar and his website LATOC.net. The example he illustrated is but one of hundreds (if not thousands) of statements made on that website that lack a source or are completely biased and unfounded. For example:

a) The first two pages of LATOC.net contains about 155 links to external websites as a way to "prove the point being discussed." Of these links, 56% are linked to websites whose main purpose is to make people aware of the ramifications of Peak Oil (i.e. From the Wilderness, Energy Bulletin, etc). The other 44% of the links consist of either (a) cherry picked articles from across the web used to prove a point (without any kind of rebuttal posted in the article) or articles that have nothing to do with Peak Oil but Matt uses to relate to a Peak Oil point he is trying to make.

b) Many of the quotes taken from "politicians" are taken completely out of context. For example, there is a quote from Dick Cheney, when he was CEO of Halliburton, in a speech to some people in energy from London, where he is making a statement about meeting future demand of oil and makes a prediction about how much oil we will need in 2010. Matt interprets this as Cheney’s acknowledgement that he not only knows about Peak Oil but he is pointing out how screwed we are. There is a link that references this statement; however it is not the entire speech. I would think that as the CEO of a major energy company in the USA talking to a group of energy people in London the theme of his speak was not “we are running out of the cheapest energy source on the planet, here is how much we will need and there is no way possible we can meet that demand.” Despite this fact, this is such a powerful statement by Cheney; Matt quotes it twice on his website. This is just an example of the many statements taken out of context not only from politicians, but from bankers and businessmen alike.

c) Matt goes into many detailed explanations about why certain alternative will not work, quoting EROEI as the main reason why several will not work. He even provides a link to EROEI.com to show were he got those EROEI numbers from and by briefly browsing over the site, it looks convincing enough. Then you take a closer look at it and realize those EROEI figures are from 1984 – that’s right, they are over 20 years old. It is not secret that technology can improve EROEI and I have to believe that technology has improved just a tad bit since 1984.

I could keep going on and on forever if I had the time but I do have a point. When most people first hear about Peak Oil their natural reaction is to go to the web and search for websites about Peak Oil to learn more. When you do a Google search for Peak Oil, the first link that comes up is LATOC.net. Most people don’t have time to spend hours each day researching it so they read that website, think the world is going to end, 4 billion people are going to die and it is going to happen within the next 5 years. When I first read that website that was my first reaction until I did a bit of research of my own and figured out Matt is just trying to sell books. What some people fail to realize is the website if full of data that is either taken completely out of context, cherry picked to show one side of the argument completely, or just pulled out of thin air without a reference at all.

JD’s website is a very comprehensive and well thought out site that offers an opposing view to LATOC.net. It’s just too bad that JD’s website isn’t second on the Google list right after LATOC.net so people don’t have to freak out quite so badly. JD says several times that he does believe that Peak Oil is going to happen, but not as soon as many Doomers say and chances are we are not going to die off like many Doomers are always preaching.

The best part is when Doomers are trying to discredit JD, they are quick to point out articles about Space/Teleportation and new solar cells but are not inclined to talk about many of the past Peak Oil predictions that have been made by “experts” that have failed to come true so they are pushed back time and time again or about unconventional oils, coal to oil, etc extending Peak Oil for many years. Maybe if somebody could explain the errors in this type of article, you would have a bit more of a leg to stand on than go for the obvious stuff to pick on. The argument of “this one stupid statement/article discredits everything said/written” just doesn’t hold water. It’s just a nice, easy way to not have to do a lot of research to disprove the things said on that website that make a lot of sense and are based on fact rather than fantasy. It’s almost like saying “you raise some great points about ethanol and they are hard to refute but you spelled it “ethanal” so why should I listen to you” – now that is a great argument and goes a long way to disprove us optimists!

[SarahC1975]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'J')ohnDenver got kicked off these forums because he is haughty and angry. He thinks he knows more than anyone and refuses to hear opinions that do not parrot his own. He goes off easily into rages and belittles his opponents. He has attacked people unrelentingly. He has got to be the angriest vegetarian bike rider I have even at the displeasure of meeting. Actually I don't think he is a vegetarian or a bikerider, rather I believe he likes to parade these attributes to win arguments. I understand that he really drives a Hummer. Bye JD

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJoy', '
')I've said it before, and I'll say it again: he's a complacency-monger.

[Falconoffury]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have to agree with JD about what he says about Matt Savinar and his website LATOC.net. The example he illustrated is but one of hundreds (if not thousands) of statements made on that website that lack a source or are completely biased and unfounded.

[Leanan]

I used to believe that technology would save us. If the Green Revolution could avert Malthus' Doom, surely human ingenuity could solve the oil depletion problem, and all of mankind's other problems, too.

The problem, of course, is that it takes a lot of energy to support ever more complicated technology. Example: today's cars may be more fuel-efficent than anything they made in the '50s, but it's also made them a lot more complex. Teenagers can no longer lift the hood and start tinkering. Everything's run by microprocessor. You have to plug into the manufacturer's computer system to read the codes. Automechanics specialize in certain makes, attending special schools. At first blush, it may look like a modern car "saves energy." But if you have to consider everything - manufacturing the microprocessors, making the special materials, training all the people it takes to make and maintain all this stuff - you gotta wonder how much energy is really saved.

Complexity has an energy cost. It also requires specialization. One person can't know enough to build a car. It's cheap energy that has allowed us this kind of specialization. This is why I don't think our more complex technologies will long survive peak oil. "The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." Low-tech, that one person can understand and build and use, is going to be the trend of the future.

[Wildwell]

Funny, I thought the alternative the driving cars over short distances (most car journeys are less than 5 miles) was walking - that's scalable.

Similar things were said of course about replacing the pre-war coal based infrastructure with oil based one and it happened.

Let's go over what oil is used for again:

In the main: A small portion of home heating and electricty, transportation, plastics and lubricants.

Well lubricants can come from other sources, plastics replaced more traditional materials and can be substituted, there's huge waste in transport (both vehicles and use) - hardly any doomers seem to know anything about it - the home heating and electricty generation part is so small it's fairly insignificant.

Of course, that's not to say that none of this stuff is a 'non issue' but doomers rely on traditional models, when history shows that the world is in a constant state of evolution. For example, computer technology may mean in future less need to travel and so on.

IMHO the teleportation and sci-fi stuff is a bit silly because of the way we are wired up (read fear, paranoia, greed) but then people are entitled to their views. For example the internet is a wonderful tool in some people's hands; in others it's downright dangerous. We are after all a very immature race. That said, so is the notion that people will all join eco villages is plain daft as well because people will always try to improve their lot and the agricultural lifestyle was no nirvana. Fists won over knowledge.

I do agree with doomers about technology although I'm not a luddite. I just happen to think 'keep it simple stupid' is a good message to bare in mind with technology. Complexity may appear clever, but that compexity can make simple things even more complex, which requires more people/energy to support it. We seem to want to re-invent the wheel all the time and you have to ask why? And the simple answer a lot of the time is because its just another way to make money.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

"Any fool can sit back and go on and on about how we will build new nuclear plants and get by on coal liquification and biodesiel, but you have to get into the details before you start to see the challenges involved."


Agree 100% with that, great post falcon.

It's this complete lack of understanding that will lead people to taking the wrong path, or doing just plain nothing (which is probably worse IMO). Unfortunatley Denver is far from alone, and even worse, he's a lot better than most (with his anti-car views).

[Dukat_Reloaded]

looks likes JD has just put up another one of his "Back From The Future" posts.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust as the First Industrial Revolution got 200 times more productivity out of each worker, the Second Industrial Revolution will get 200 times more efficiency out of its raw materials. It will view waste as a profit-leaching evil, and appreciate the true value of Natural Capital and the free services that nature provides, reconciling the interests of environmentalism and business.

[wilburke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'A')ctually, there are not ANY noted Peak Oil authors who would claim that fertilizers are made from oil, nor are there any who would claim that electricity mostly comes from oil.

[Leanan]

I am concerned about food. Even without peak oil, there's serious doubt about how much longer we can continue to feed the world's population...or even just the U.S. population. The population is growing. Farmland is exhausted, if not paved over. Weather is growing more extreme and unpredictable (and it really doesn't matter if it's a natural cycle or global warming/deforestation, it still sucks for the farmers). Water tables are dropping at alarming rates. If the trendlines continue, by 2020, the U.S. and Canada, the last major food exporters, instead of being the bread basket of the world, will be consuming all they produce domestically. And our populations will still be growing rapidly.

Peak oil will only add to the problem. It really doesn't matter whether they're using crude oil or diesel or coal or natural gas. As we've seen, all fossil fuel costs are linked, because they are interchangeable for many uses. Farmers are severely hurting these days, due to high fertilizer costs and high diesel costs.

Food is really the reason why I think peak oil is going to force major changes in the way we live. I think it's going to force us away from the agribusiness model. We are going to end up the way were a hundred years ago, with 97% of us working in farming. Which will leave a lot fewer of us to work in high-tech.

As it is, we're facing diminishing returns in science and technology. The collapse could be fairly sudden when we can no longer afford to keep throwing money and resources at R&D.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'A')ny discussion of the agricultural practices of this civilization includes many more levels than idiotic, reductionist nonsense such as "NG and coal won't be peaking for quite some time, so fertilizer is a non-issue, for at least the next 50 years."

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', '
')
c) Matt goes into many detailed explanations about why certain alternative will not work, quoting EROEI as the main reason why several will not work. He even provides a link to EROEI.com to show were he got those EROEI numbers from and by briefly browsing over the site, it looks convincing enough. Then you take a closer look at it and realize those EROEI figures are from 1984 – that’s right, they are over 20 years old. It is not secret that technology can improve EROEI and I have to believe that technology has improved just a tad bit since 1984.

[some_guy282]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'F')unny, I thought the alternative the driving cars over short distances (most car journeys are less than 5 miles) was walking - that's scalable.

[Leanan]

Just look at those e-mail chain letters asking people to boycott gas stations until they lower their prices. That's most people's idea of "doing something" about high energy prices.

It was like that during the '70s energy crisis, too. Rumors went around that there were trees in Brazil that had diesel for sap. That someone had invented a way to beam solar energy from satellites in space back to earth for a fraction of the cost of hydroelectric power. That someone had discovered Tesla's secret, and created a car engine that was cheap, silent, clean, and generated energy from nothing.

All of these wondrous discoveries were bought up by Big Oil, of course, then buried, in order to keep energy prices high.

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'J')D, who the hell is Richard Manning? This is not a noted Peak Oil author, sorry.....you need to read more carefully.