Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Is peak oil the tip of the iceberg?

Yes, it is a symptom of a greater disease.
194
No votes
No, it is just a stepping stone in energy history.
37
No votes
 
Total votes : 231

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Wildwell » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:35:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'L')ess touched mean less development and less machines and possibly less progress..


In your world view of "progress."

Which is precisely the point; it is an unsustainable world view.


I'm not the one with the sports car and pick-up truck..my lifestyle is sustainable in my view. So what's YOUR world view? Last chance...What level of development and progress do you see as appropriate.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:37:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')hat does the MQ world look like and how to you propose to get there...which is the bottom line I'm interested in.



A Culture of Quantity to a Culture of Quality
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:39:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I')t's irrelevant to the peak oil argument, whatever MQ likes to say.. PO is about going up a technological cul-de-sac, and whether the result of this will create a collapse. The answer is possibly and possibly, but unlikely in some places.


Seems 85% of the board members disagree.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Wildwell » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:45:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')hat does the MQ world look like and how to you propose to get there...which is the bottom line I'm interested in.



A Culture of Quantity to a Culture of Quality


Well then I agree with you to extent, it's just some the other ideas you have, merely how you are applying arguments. The biggest problem in America (although in other western countries too) is cultural inertia, which is the thing that will kill us most...I wait with interest to see how things will turn out.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:46:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')So what's YOUR world view?


Ecological Paradigm

Did you read the link on alternative paradigms?

Bet ya didn't. 8)
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby EnergySpin » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:49:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I')t's irrelevant to the peak oil argument, whatever MQ likes to say.. PO is about going up a technological cul-de-sac, and whether the result of this will create a collapse. The answer is possibly and possibly, but unlikely in some places.


Seems 85% of the board members disagree.

Offering an equal mix of entertainment and frustration to the rest of us (who think that we the Depression will last for 10-20 years but in the end everything will be ok) .
But to be fair ... there are many icebergs out there. Always have been and always will be.

Edit
-----
MQ did you write this?
http://peakoil.com/post18074.html#18074
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Prepare for austerity. We will all be paupers for a while.

Business as usual after the pauper phase?
Darn it , you are a cornocupian :roll:
Last edited by EnergySpin on Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:51:29, edited 1 time in total.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:50:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')ell then I agree with you to extent, it's just some the other ideas you have, merely how you are applying arguments.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'I')deologically, we need an ecological worldview; a paradigm shift in our thinking about the world about us. Which brings us to a conundrum: it is difficult, if almost impossible (even in scientific discussions) for people of one paradigm to communicate with those who perceive and reason in terms dictated by another different paradigm. We all need to be on the same page and we are not.


Which is why I have so much patience. :-D

An the reason for this thread. We are all not on the same page.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Wildwell » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 22:03:32

I don't read everything you (or anyone else) writes, I just don't subscribe to overnight die-off, all technology is bad, some of the ways you apply science, the world was once wonderful and we wrecked it [It's never been wonderful for everyone]. These are not your aguments BTW, but that's the way this forum reads in general.

Will PO be a problem? Of course, cultural inertia. Can it be solved? Yes, through a combination of education, more education, self-responsibility, and a certain amount of technology. Which way will it go? That's the $64,000 question isn't it!

As ES says, there are a series of converging catastrophes heading this way, as there always have been, and I listed most of them above. BUT we must stay optimistic and cooperative and do our bits, anything less will reduce all our chances.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 22:27:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')MQ did you write this?
http://peakoil.com/post18074.html#18074
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Prepare for austerity. We will all be paupers for a while.

Business as usual after the pauper phase?
Darn it , you are a cornocupian :roll:


Yes, but it in no way infers "business as usual."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 22:32:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I') don't read everything you (or anyone else) writes,


In a thread I am actively debating in, I read every post and link.

No wonder you are behind the curve. 8)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ill PO be a problem? Of course, cultural inertia. Can it be solved? Yes, through a combination of education, more education, self-responsibility, and a certain amount of technology.


Yes, you only see the "tip" of the iceberg.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Ingenuity_Gap » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 00:44:05

You really got me, EnergySpin. I’m actually a pathetic crypto-luddite paranoid bigot, like every other peak-oiler on this forum. But you see, we are not very different. You say you are agnostic, but in fact you are no less religious then I am. The only difference is the name of our gods. Judging by the way you express yourself it’s safe to say that your god’s name starts with “Techno”.

You think we should continue our business as usual, improving our technology, fixing up some minors mistakes like MacMansions and antibiotic abuse, Wal Marts and globalization, and working hard will have a brighter future.

I think we’re on the wrong track and we need to fundamentally change our way of life until it’s too late. Sure, science and technology should go on finding solutions to our vastly increasing problems, but it’s not going to be enough. We need something else, more humility, more respect, more selflessness, a completely different way of viewing things.

You’re right, technology in itself is not good or bad, it’s the way we USE it. Well, until now, we chose wrong too many times because of our inherent human nature, because of our indifference, greed and selfness. And the more tools we have, the more mistakes we seem to make. We have to somehow change our society. And that’s not an easy task. It’s going to take a totally different approach.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Technology is NOT a person ... saying that technology will "fail us" is like saying the "Sun will fail us". We are (?not) going to fail ourselves especially since the technology to sustain civilization is here. I don't think the McMansion can be sustained .... maybe in 50-100 years, who knows but the original decision to build them was a dumb one :)


Don’t fool yourself. Technology IS a person. It’s the personal Jesus of our times. It’s everywhere: in our air, in our food, in our houses and in our cars. It’s almighty. We were raised to believe that it can fix everything. People really believe that. I hear this all the time when I try to discuss Peak Oil with others. You are joking, they say, certainly there is still a lot of the black gold in the ground. Or, they'll certainly come up with something else, like fusion.

Well, technology certainly can fix a lot of things, but it can create a lot of problems too. And still you say it’s all good (with a few minor glitches like nuclear bombs, killer germs and toxic gas I should add)

To come back to this thread’s main theme: this is our problem, our iceberg. It’s the way we USE our technology that makes the difference. In our rush to become masters of the universe we thought that oil and gas and coal are an inexhaustible resource, and we were wrong. For understandable reasons, we chose to rapidly exhaust our fossil fuel heritage and in the process destroy our environment, and we’ll soon face the consequences.

Now, we can go on and do what we know best: build countless windmills to capture the estimated 80 TW of wind energy, or thousands of nuclear plants to tap in the remaining uranium we have in our mines or even employ closed cycle nuclear fuels. What will that accomplish? We’ll probably melt the tip of the iceberg. In the short-term everybody will be happy, except probably the doomers, the stupid, pathetic peak-oil environmentalists, who will see their beloved predictions ridiculed again. And after years or decades of triumph we’ll find out that our windmills and nuclear plants multiplied our problems, like killing half of the world birds and generating so much radioactive waste that nobody will know what to do about it. Not counting the enormous resources needed to build those mills/plants in the first place (and the job places created that eventually will generate more abundance and more consumerism). I’m not saying we shouldn’t build them, we’ll probably have to try every conceivable method of getting energy if we want to survive at our present level of population and consumption.

But the iceberg will be growing instead of shrinking. This is exactly what happened during our entire history. We are more numerous, powerful and technologically advanced now than anytime in the past, and still we are the most vulnerable. What makes you think that our USE of technology will suddenly become only benign?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Misunderstanding ... I do not care about the Borgs. It is one thing to watch Star Trek and another one to think it is true.


You should care. Maybe we are still far from Star Trek fantasy, but we are slowly but surely going to that direction. To quote you:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')... the amount of knowledge generated by machines AND humans is amazing.


Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe in progress, technology, and machines. But your childish enthusiasm scares me. Our development comes too much, too fast and with too many unwanted side-effects, and your answer to this is more of the same stuff? Maybe we should do something wiser and sit back and relax a while, contemplate our options. Of course we can't do that, or else somebody will get hurt (maybe a few billions). Too many souls on this planet that depend on advanced technology for their survival.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')I'm an agnostic so I tend to leave God out of it. Do you honestly believe that "complexity" is the big bad wolf or the bad guy from Hollywood movies?


Complexity is not the bad or good guy from Hollywood movies, but is an important factor to consider when taking into account our options for the future. Will we be up to the challenge with all our fancy machines to help us or will we fail? A fair number of advanced civilizations failed before, simply because they chose the path we seem to be choosing now, the path of more complexity, endless growth and environmental destruction. We admire their accomplishments and read about them in our history books. Our advantage is that we know about their mistakes. One of our great weaknesses is that we are the first global society. If we choose the wrong path again, nobody will be there in the future to read about us or to admire our accomplishments.

The future looks bleak when the only answer from an agnostic (i.e. religious person who believes only in himself and technology) like you is to throw more gas on the fire to stop it.
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Doly » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 10:43:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe in progress, technology, and machines. But your childish enthusiasm scares me. Our development comes too much, too fast and with too many unwanted side-effects, and your answer to this is more of the same stuff? Maybe we should do something wiser and sit back and relax a while, contemplate our options. Of course we can't do that, or else somebody will get hurt (maybe a few billions). Too many souls on this planet that depend on advanced technology for their survival.


Like you say yourself, we can't really sit back and relax at this point. We have to do something. Personally, I'm a big believer in the concept that in times of crisis, you do absolutely everything you can think of that might help solve the problem. The method has worked in my personal bad times. I don't see why it can't be applicable in general.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby CARVER » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 11:10:23

Maybe this paradigm shift (value-shift wave) is happening faster than we think. It just has been going on unnoticed. We seem to think we are the only ones that view things this way, but surveys done by Paul Ray seem to indicate that about 25% of Americans (and the entire Western world) have this view.

From Cultural Creatives by Paul Ray:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Cultural Creatives care deeply about ecology and saving the planet, about relationships, peace, and social justice, about self-actualization, spirituality, and self-expression. Surprisingly, they are both inner-directed and socially concerned; they're activists, volunteers, and contributors to good causes more often than other Americans. But because they've been so invisible, they are astonished to find out how many others share both their values and their way of life. Once they realize their numbers, their impact on America promises to be enormous, shaping a new agenda for the twenty-first century.

What makes the appearance of the Cultural Creatives especially timely is that our civilization is in the midst of an epochal change, caught between globalization, accelerating technologies, and a deteriorating planetary ecology. A creative minority can have enormous leverage to carry us into a new renaissance instead of a disastrous fall.
www.culturalcreatives.org

From The New Political Compass by Paul Ray:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost polls tell us voters want politicians to get on with dealing with the big, difficult, emerging issues of our time, such as global warming, globalization, health care, education, biotechnology, giant corporations out of control, violence around the world, and the future of their children. But our political system is not supplying what people want. Voting remains at an all time low, reflecting widespread disgust with both the absence of good ideas and the dominance of big money. Survey upon survey shows over 70 percent of voters unhappy with politics and politicians. We are looking at the political equivalent of market failure: the breakdown of supply and demand.

What is it that voters want? The answer at least in part can be found in the wave of change that is going through western culture. A new constituency is emerging that is at home in neither the Democratic or Republican parties. As this constituency grows, we are seeing the decline of both Left and Right, and of both political parties.

I call the new constituency the New Progressives because they reflect the concerns of the social movements and consciousness movements that have emerged over the last 40 years. ...

This group is nearly invisible in the mainstream press. But the New Progressives are the biggest of the four constituencies at 36 percent of population and 45 percent of likely voters. If the New Progressives were mobilized under a single political tent, they could replace one of the political parties and dominate American politics for the next generation or more.


From The Future of Money by Bernard Lietaer:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he size of the numbers of Cultural Creatives which have appeared out of the woodwork in less than one generation may be surprising to many. It certainly surprised me. Even people who are part of this subculture consider themselves to be isolated exceptions.
Two reasons converge to create that impression of isolation:
- there is no organization that identifies them;
- there is no media mirror.

No organization
One of the main reasons for its relative invisibility is that this subculture has not spawned a mass political party, a mass religious movement, or even a separately identifiable publication market. Cultural Creatives are by definition eclectics who pick and chosse as their interests lead them, from mainstream to marginal publications, national as well as foreign. So there is no place or group where they actually meet and be counted.

No mirror
Even more important, the mass media and the political debate, our mirrors in society, are still completely immersed in the Modernist subculture, and almost exclusively reflect that viewpoint. Whenever they refer to the subculture of the Cultural Creatives, they tend to present as typical a caricature of the whole group: the marginal fringe of 'New Agers', who present less than 2% of the population (four million addults). So even when this is reflected, the majority of the 44 million Cultural Creatives do not recognize themselves in this image either.
This invisibility - even to the members themselves - may be the most unusual feature of this new subculture.
...
So whenever the socio-political reality of these trends finally sinks in, we can expect a much swifter shift than when Modernism was born.
User avatar
CARVER
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Holland
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby EnergySpin » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 11:42:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', 'Y')ou really got me, EnergySpin. I’m actually a pathetic crypto-luddite paranoid bigot, like every other peak-oiler on this forum. But you see, we are not very different. You say you are agnostic, but in fact you are no less religious then I am. The only difference is the name of our gods. Judging by the way you express yourself it’s safe to say that your god’s name starts with “Techno”.

I have no Gods IG ..... I do listen to Techno (and Rock and Tango) but there are no gods. Technology is not and will never be a God.
Just because the luddites and a few enviros who smoked way too much pot in the 70s think that Gaia is a goddess does not make the rest of us followers of different religions. My "God" is measurable and controllable provided the society tries to control it as I have repeatedly reminded people around here. How about your God(-dess)?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')You think we should continue our business as usual, improving our technology, fixing up some minors mistakes like MacMansions and antibiotic abuse, Wal Marts and globalization, and working hard will have a brighter future.

Actually not ... spend a little time to familiarize with what I have written previously. I have never said:
a) business as usual
b) antibiotics was a mistake only if you are a luddite or someone who shares Dave Foreman's viewpoints. Do you? From where I stand ABs was and still is a pretty good invention. I assure you that Flemming was not one of the Bildebergers :roll:
Since people have raised the issue of antibiotics before, I will urge them to go back to the library. The majority of the antibiotics we have today are modifications of "agents of biological warfare" that various micro-organisms and fungi launch launch each other. Antibiotics ARE NOT un-natural but they have to be used only under the supervision of a physician. We add one or two chains to make sure the kidneys don't spill them out too soon

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')I think we’re on the wrong track and we need to fundamentally change our way of life until it’s too late. Sure, science and technology should go on finding solutions to our vastly increasing problems, but it’s not going to be enough. We need something else, more humility, more respect, more selflessness, a completely different way of viewing things.

Any decent engineer knows that the best way to design things is the "anthropocentric" way; design them taking into account the human user. And any system we have consists of people, machines and processes. Therefore even though a different viewpoint does help, it usually takes a combination of all three to tackle a given problem. Dismissing technology is as big a mistake as dismissing cultural and human factors that affect the parameters of the problem. Since you work in IT, you can probably relate to the practises of GUI design.
We agree on the wrong track part .. we disagree on the solutions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')You’re right, technology in itself is not good or bad, it’s the way we USE it. Well, until now, we chose wrong too many times because of our inherent human nature, because of our indifference, greed and selfness. And the more tools we have, the more mistakes we seem to make. We have to somehow change our society. And that’s not an easy task. It’s going to take a totally different approach.

Let's start by raising the education standards in this country and across the world. Or is this a techno-fix too?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Don’t fool yourself. Technology IS a person. It’s the personal Jesus of our times.

I am not aware of any mainstream ethical theories that give technological artefacts the status of a human being. Transhumanists have been trying to say something like that but well .. you know they are not so mainstream.
The problem is that the average Westerner needs less religion of any kind. Which will lead him to adopt the scientific method of the Enlightment philosophers and maybe, just maybe a Kantian system of ethics.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')It’s everywhere: in our air, in our food, in our houses and in our cars. It’s almighty. We were raised to believe that it can fix everything. People really believe that. I hear this all the time when I try to discuss Peak Oil with others. You are joking, they say, certainly there is still a lot of the black gold in the ground. Or, they'll certainly come up with something else, like fusion.

Yes I am aware of the failure of the educational systems around the world from the kindergarden all the way to the university level. It is not because of technology that people are dumb ..... or that they fail to ask for a refund after life demonstrates that the college/university they attended was full of BS. Plenty of examples around here (and I am no exception)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Well, technology certainly can fix a lot of things, but it can create a lot of problems too. And still you say it’s all good (with a few minor glitches like nuclear bombs, killer germs and toxic gas I should add)

Just because E. Teller was a little bit "deranged" (to put it mildly) does not mean that nuclear energy is bad. There is difference between nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors. The first results in a demolished house in a radioactive prairie, the second in a radioactive room in a nice house in a prairie. Big difference IMHO.
Saying that technology is all good is like saying technology is all evil. I have never made that mistake in reasoning. If one wants to discuss ethical issues regarding technology then it becomes a question of "harm" . In this case one has to integrate over all alternatives and see if the net balance was positive. We do seem to differ in our assessment of the balance here ... but I have to point out that the majority of the ill effects ascribed to technology are due to society's failure to control it and apply it properly not because technology is here. To argue that the answer to this conundrum is to abolish technology is like my 10 year old nephew saying that improper fractions should be taken away from the books because he cannot do them. His argument is also similar: improper fractions will hurt his report card and therefore the only way to avoid this side effect is for the school system to remove them from text books.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')To come back to this thread’s main theme: this is our problem, our iceberg. It’s the way we USE our technology that makes the difference. In our rush to become masters of the universe we thought that oil and gas and coal are an inexhaustible resource, and we were wrong. For understandable reasons, we chose to rapidly exhaust our fossil fuel heritage and in the process destroy our environment, and we’ll soon face the consequences.

Yes it is the way we use technology . Remember my 10 year old nephew?
No one thought that oil was an inexhaustible resource. Maybe former reborn McMansionites did ... but the majority of sane people did not. They are fucking clueless though ... which brings me back to my point about education. Alas it is the same people who will turn to CTL "solutions" :(

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Now, we can go on and do what we know best: build countless windmills to capture the estimated 80 TW of wind energy, or thousands of nuclear plants to tap in the remaining uranium we have in our mines or even employ closed cycle nuclear fuels. What will that accomplish?

Halt global warming , ensure people have at least the minimum , halt unsustainable energy practises in both the first and the third world, contain GW/CC. You know the "powerdown" is like a teddy bear you hug when you go to sleep... feels warm and fuzzy and makes you feels good but it is better to have a real person to talk to when you feel lonely. In a powerdown scenario people will burn everything they can find. It takes 100 days for someone to starve to death ... the tropical forests will be gone in one week in a powerdown scenario. And I see no problem with nuclear and especially renewables. Best way to desalinate water , heat homes and cook food in the third world.
Step down from your powerdown horse, park your SUV and look at the big picture especially in Africa and Asia. You might find some pretty interesting details about the potential environmental benefits of providing these people with electricity. Cell phones which are abused by stuffed up teens around here have literally transformed Africa. The PDAs that people are discarding every 6 months and tele com satellites have also enabled the delivery of up to date health care down there. Just because you cannot see it , does not mean it does not exist . I see all those things and then I take a good look at the spoiled Westerners .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')We’ll probably melt the tip of the iceberg. In the short-term everybody will be happy, except probably the doomers, the stupid, pathetic peak-oil environmentalists, who will see their beloved predictions ridiculed again.

Which predictions ... the majority of sane people predict a peak in the next decade. And the saner of us try to remind people that the peak is irrelevant. GW/CC mandates we phase out ALL HCs yesterday.
Any decent environmentalist should take a closer look at nuclear AND wind, otherwise they will never make a rational decision.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')And after years or decades of triumph we’ll find out that our windmills and nuclear plants multiplied our problems, like killing half of the world birds

Sorry this is stupid ... and has been discussed ad infinitum around here. Killing 1/2 of the birds? Where did you come with that number.
I will be polite and restrain myself but this is at the very least a strawman

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')and generating so much radioactive waste that nobody will know what to do about it.

Closed fuel cycles, reprocessing, MOX? Any of these terms whicha have been available since the 60s reduce the amount of waste. The nuclear industry generates 1/1000 the waste of other energy industries (with the exception of Wind Power).
Waste management problems exist in the US just because Carter made the stupid decision NOT to reprocess. Give me the waste and I will make a shitload of money selling it to the French ....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Not counting the enormous resources needed to build those mills/plants in the first place (and the job places created that eventually will generate more abundance and more consumerism). I’m not saying we shouldn’t build them, we’ll probably have to try every conceivable method of getting energy if we want to survive at our present level of population and consumption.

At last some sense .... but World population will peak till 2050. And based on the track record of their models they will have to revise the peak population down again.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')But the iceberg will be growing instead of shrinking. This is exactly what happened during our entire history. We are more numerous, powerful and technologically advanced now than anytime in the past, and still we are the most vulnerable. What makes you think that our USE of technology will suddenly become only benign?

My 10 year old nephew will eventually grow out his problem with fractions. If he does he will end up an engineer .... otherwise he will end up in a stupid college in California listening to weed smoking professors who have no idea how the world works, trying to tell other people about the noble savage. Hopefully he will not end up a lawyer ... :roll:


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe in progress, technology, and machines.

No you don't you only think/say you do. Or you have a pretty malaligned understanding of S&T. Can you even make the distinction between these two totally different objects?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')But your childish enthusiasm scares me. Our development comes too much, too fast and with too many unwanted side-effects, and your answer to this is more of the same stuff?

No what really scares you and many others is the fact that some people have a pretty good grasp about these things and you do not. It is not my fault that [b]you
decided to end up in the IT business fixing networks and web sites instead of going down the numerical mathematics route and programming computers for simulations. The majority of doomers around here are just that .... they sense their lack of control on technology and try to exorcise the demon by ascribing all bad things to it. This is a pretty primitive defense mechanism, the same one that Hittler used: "Jews are the source of Germany's plight".
I will repeat it again:
It is not Science's fault or Technology's fault that people decided NOT to exercise their political powers and set mechanisms of control in place
Look closely at the mirror, you are the problem and not the superconducting magnets inside MRI scanners.
It is my nephew's fault (or his teacher's fault) that he cannot do his fractions . He and you should outgrow this problem ...
Capisci ?

Maybe we should do something wiser and sit back and relax a while, contemplate our options. Of course we can't do that, or else somebody will get hurt (maybe a few billions). Too many souls on this planet that depend on advanced technology for their survival.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')I'm an agnostic so I tend to leave God out of it. Do you honestly believe that "complexity" is the big bad wolf or the bad guy from Hollywood movies?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Complexity is not the bad or good guy from Hollywood movies, but is an important factor to consider when taking into account our options for the future. Will we be up to the challenge with all our fancy machines to help us or will we fail?

My 10 year old nephew is facing the same question ... is he up to the challenge?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')A fair number of advanced civilizations failed before, simply because they chose the path we seem to be choosing now, the path of more complexity, endless growth and environmental destruction.

I should have guessed ... the "Collapse" vibes again. Did the Greeks failed due to environmental collapse? They have been living in their part of the world for thousands of years .. they had a pretty big empire in place. If the theory that all collapse is due to environmental degradation then how come they are one of the biggest (per capita) agricultural producers in the EU?
How about the Italians? The British?
Each and every one failed for different reasons .....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')We admire their accomplishments and read about them in our history books. Our advantage is that we know about their mistakes. One of our great weaknesses is that we are the first global society. If we choose the wrong path again, nobody will be there in the future to read about us or to admire our accomplishments.

Apparently you have not really read about them. Oh BTW pre-European NA cultures did not really have a civilization not according to my book. Show me a culture that produced an Aristotle or a Plato or a Kant and I will concede. Yes, we seem to agree that a manure powered utopia will have no history books. :-D

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')The future looks bleak when the only answer from an agnostic (i.e. religious person who believes only in himself and technology) like you is to throw more gas on the fire to stop it.
On the contrary ... this agnostic has served in quality improvement programs in hospitals and has seen how the combo of Human+Machine+Processes can be optimized. Please do not assume that I share the Star Trek fantasies ... you seem unable to comprehend that there might exist people who do not share your myopic binary vision of the world.
And just to be fair ... homeopathic lunatics (who are admired around here) do exactly that :D, they throw gas to the fire.
But no where did I say to throw gas on the fire to stop it ..... a nuclear power (except the ones with a graphite core) reactor and offshore wind farms are not flammable :)


Tip of the iceberg for me also includes:
1) Lack of understanding of ethical concepts
2) Lack of participation in the political process
3) Stupidification of the population due to the failure of education and the media
4) Complacency and the general “culture of contentment”
5) Failure to understand that we have to give back something to something in return for what we are provided
6) The rise of religious fundamentalism. Examples include fanatic
Christians, fanatic Muslims, rabid enviros.
7) Lack of understanding of how the world works ….
And many others … this is what the tip of the iceberg means for me …. In addition to GW/CC ….

And In case I was not clear ...
When one is faced with a systemic problem one deals with all parameters that affect the solution meaning machines, humans and processes. Simultaneously applying techno-fixes/person-fixes/process-fixes ....

By the way …
What level of technology is acceptable to you as a way to deal with the incoming iceberg?
Specific examples not generalities please …
Last edited by EnergySpin on Tue 29 Nov 2005, 12:37:48, edited 1 time in total.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Ingenuity_Gap » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 12:18:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe in progress, technology, and machines. But your childish enthusiasm scares me. Our development comes too much, too fast and with too many unwanted side-effects, and your answer to this is more of the same stuff? Maybe we should do something wiser and sit back and relax a while, contemplate our options. Of course we can't do that, or else somebody will get hurt (maybe a few billions). Too many souls on this planet that depend on advanced technology for their survival.


Like you say yourself, we can't really sit back and relax at this point. We have to do something. Personally, I'm a big believer in the concept that in times of crisis, you do absolutely everything you can think of that might help solve the problem. The method has worked in my personal bad times. I don't see why it can't be applicable in general.


My point was that I think we are in a trap, a vicious circle of increasing technology advance, development, growth, and ultimately complexity. Actually it looks more like a diverging spiral, increasing it's radius with each turn, getting us further and further from our origins. Many people think this is good; I’m starting to realize that it isn’t.

Of course we have to do something, but what I think we should do is the unthinkable: slow down, sit back and relax, re-assess our position in time and space, and maybe realize we are at crossroads. We cannot seem to be able to do that first because of our culture of profit and greed (more is better) and second because we think that slowing the pace will have catastrophic effects, and for good reasons. That’s why the problem is so complicated.

In times of crisis, if you try to do absolutely everything you can think of that might help solve the problem, you maybe lucky in some relatively simple cases, like personal bad times. But what I tried to argue is that our current predicament is enormously complex (the iceberg is really big, with lots of sharp edges, most of them underwater and hence invisible to us), and doing everything we can think of will most likely worsen the situation.

Complex systems tend to be hard to control. They are systems that contain many components that interact in an interesting way; they are heterogeneous, dynamic, involve feedback and feature emergent properties, not easily abstracted from their constituent parts. Trying to control them with the sledgehammer when the needed tool is a tiny watch screwdriver might work in the short term, but in the long run will certainly have catastrophic consequences.

We need to find the right tools to fix the problem, and for that we need time, something we are starting to run out of.
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Ludi » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 12:34:05

I don't think it's useful to talk about a "level" of technology, but it may be useful to talk about specific technologies and whether they are helpful or harmful in their application. I'm sure we'll disagree on this to a large extent. Many of us, probably most, will say nuclear technology applied to bombs is "harmful;" many of us, not all, will say nuclear technology applied to energy is "helpful."

But just saying "an Atomic Age level of technology is desireable" isn't useful in my opinion.

Some say only a Stone Age level of technology is truly sustainable in the long term (10,000 + years).
Ludi
 

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Ingenuity_Gap » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 13:43:09

Since I don't have MQ's patience, and probably never will, I'll stop quarrelling with you, ES. Maybe because I’m too scared that you have a pretty good grasp about these things and I don’t. Maybe because I realize that you are on another page than me, and trying to bring together our divergent paradigms is pointless. You’re always trying to emphasize the good examples, and minimize the bad ones. I’m not so sure anymore it’s the right way to see our world.

And if it was only that.

One thing is clear; humbleness is not one of your strong points. You’re so full of yourself, that you don’t even realize what you’ve become. I used to be like you until 4-5 years ago, when I met my limits, and I learned my lesson. I decided then to change my approach and be a little less enthusiastic about our technological wisdom.

No, I didn’t encounter a bright light and I didn’t hear a voice telling me that the Lord was upon me. It wasn’t a religious experience at all, like you would try to suggest. You are millions of light-years away from knowing me.

I agree with most of what you’re saying when you pertinently describe how to Simultaneously apply techno-fixes/person-fixes/process-fixes. I was so full of this shit a few years ago, it’s unbelievable. But you’re still missing the point. You don’t even begin to understand the gravity of our situation.
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby Ibon » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 13:52:31

I review all the above posts and I am left somewhat perplexed by the fine disection of world views that gets debated here. From Energyspin to Montequest there are so many well thought out worldviews that are very well articulated.

Probably everyone agrees on a major point that we have a problem of scale . We have to accept that a huge percentage of humanity is still driven by their decisions within the framework of one spiritual belief system or another. We seem to get caught up in finely dissecting our different world views and forget that the scale of the problem requires that the solutions be packaged in away that can move the masses toward changes that support an ecological paradigm.

I'll speak for myself a moment. From my ecological background I reject religeon. Like Energyspin my world view is free of any religeous doctrine. But my worldview is irrelevant in effecting change if the vast majority of my fellow humans are drivin in their cultural evolution within a frameword where religeon and spirituality is a driving force.

As a collective global world community we will not transform to a more ecological paradigm by trying to convert all our fellow species into a godless worldview like what Energyspin preaches. We have to face this head on and realize that for the vast majority of humanity a transformation toward a sustainable paradigm will only come about in the context of a spiritual, religeous moral framework.

And I say this coming from a more agnostic or atheistic belief. I don't believe in Buddha, Christ or this god or that as some real tangible phenomena. But I recognize in these religeous frameworks wisdom and truths that move billions of people on this planet. And we think we can discuss the issue of Peak Oil and cultural transformation ignoring this?
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9572
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby EnergySpin » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 16:52:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', 'M')aybe because I’m too scared that you have a pretty good grasp about these things and I don’t. Maybe because I realize that you are on another page than me, and trying to bring together our divergent paradigms is pointless. You’re always trying to emphasize the good examples, and minimize the bad ones. I’m not so sure anymore it’s the right way to see our world.

Not really IG ... I try to point out that one has to do the balance before one renders an opinion. You seem to think that the overall balance is negative, I think that it is positive. Ethical systems will get in the way when one does the calculation.
I do have a pretty coherent ethical system (or so I think) which is based on Kantian philosophy. Humans as a goal, not as a tool. It might shock some people but that system can imply the same things simultaneously:
a) preservation of the ecosphere for the benefit of human beings
b) destruction of some aspects of the ecosphere for the benefit of human beings.
B) is the least preferable solution and one that we do not need to follow anymore. Massive offshore wind farms+nuclear power reactors, a commitment to do it right , rediscovery of a sense of measure, a comprehensive educational establishment and a political system based on direct participatory democracy (possible with IT in our days) should suffice. These are practical doable solutions that stem from my ethical system. Do you want to share your ethical system with us or at least the admissible solutions within this ethical system? You seem to be avoiding the question, why? (this is a question you have to answer to yourself not to me - I'm just a stranger from the internet)

But going back to the caves or doign away with antibiotics just because of the benefits of an ill-defined concept (natural way of life) is against my system. My ethical choices are pretty clear to me ... I hope you have the same deep satisfaction with your ethical system than I do with mine.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')One thing is clear; humbleness is not one of your strong points. You’re so full of yourself, that you don’t even realize what you’ve become. I used to be like you until 4-5 years ago, when I met my limits, and I learned my lesson. I decided then to change my approach and be a little less enthusiastic about our technological wisdom.

I'm so full of myself? Strange I have gained a few pounds lately but my clothes still fit in. I think you got it wrong ... you are mistaking humbleness with blindness, luddism or intelectual complacency. They used to call it the "noble savage" and Rousseau should be blamed at least partly for this myth.

I think that the concept of humbleness as far as science is concerned does elude and I'm sorry for you, I really am. A scientist is by definition (or should be) humble ; he or she studies systems that can be extremely difficult to understand and he or she cannot do it alone. It hits you the moment you experience the joy of having added one piece to a puzzle Then you realize you are part of something bigger than you, in a line that extends back for millenia. That line started when one unnamed humanoid looked the world in a different eye and processed a single seemingly naive question: "What if?
And yes these moments one learns humbleness ... for one could not have done it if it had not been for that first ape, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Latins, Newton, Boltzmann, Einstein, Claude Bernardt, Schroedinger, Feynman and many others. And then you think about that pain, the suffering, that others endured so that we could be here typing away stupid shit on a computer. And then it becomes an ethical question whether one has the right to "powerdown" to something that they tried to get away from. If sacrifices have to be made they will be made ... I will start with the McMansion (which should not have been there to begin with).
So if it comes to a choice between a few hundred raptors and electiricty to power a ventilator for a "crack baby" I will take the crack baby . I am humble towards other human beings ... this is my system of ethics. My humbleness is your hubris but this goes back to the different ethical systems we have. Remember that in my ethical system, the humans are the supreme goal .... nature is a secondary one.

Your humbleness in my ethical system is equivalent to laziness and complacency. How many of your IT friends work developing simulation codes for the NSF and how many of your IT friends set up porno servers or web sites selling stupid shit from China? The latter cannot accuse me of humbleness ... they are not contributing anything to the line extending from the ape to Einstein. I am not conceited enough to think I'm making a big contribution but I'm trying. Are you?

You seem to think that I am over-ethusiastic about "our educational wisdom" yet you fail to make a distinction between science ( a personal quest to attain knowledge and realize sapience) and technology (a practical application). All the links I provided are concrete results of the quest of different unrelated individuals for knowledge/sapience which were implemented by other human beings. In the process they made the world richer. Yes both you and me see a flower but you stay at the image and cells . I "see" billions of cells, quantillions of interactions, force fields in space, electrons that tunnel through molecules as light powers matter.
It was in one of those moments when one watches Monte Carlo codes spit out numbers that reflect the concert of energy and matter that I learned humbleness and I developed a respect for humans. But it was in that precise moment that I understood that beauty of the description is due to the line of humans and the line of tools (from fire to transistor) and I realized that if I had to choose I would choose the human ... one can generate (nowadays) the object from the description .. but if the human is gone so is the description. Have you ever thought about that?
Have you ever wondered why the people in the Third World would die many times over to ensure their children read in the light of a bulb rather than stay in the dark? That a few Kwhrs of electricity could make the difference between life and death (the first level) and between sapience and "apeness" (the second level) ? Negreponte and Bill Gates realize that, Pimentel and Heinberg do not or cannot. It is my ethical duty to ensure that these humans have the same set of choices I do and that they make the right ones. I owe it to the "powereddown" ape that a few hundred thousands of year ago asked: "What if?"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')No, I didn’t encounter a bright light and I didn’t hear a voice telling me that the Lord was upon me. It wasn’t a religious experience at all, like you would try to suggest. You are millions of light-years away from knowing me.

And I will refrain from doing so, if you stop putting words in my mouth and trying to present me as a transhumanist. But religions are predicated on a belief system that is off limits and is not under discussion. You come out as one who is willing to stop asking questions hence you are about to develop your own personal religion. Note a key difference/similarity with science: science does have axioms or basic principles but always tries to go down one more level ... increasing the level of detail of the descriptions, the level of understanding . Complexity is not a price that has to be payed but the end goal. Then we pass the complexity to our logicians and mathematicians .... and in the process they discover abstract spaces where answers are clear and complexity disappear. But it does require that one goes to extra mile :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')I agree with most of what you’re saying when you pertinently describe how to Simultaneously apply techno-fixes/person-fixes/process-fixes. I was so full of this shit a few years ago, it’s unbelievable. But you’re still missing the point. You don’t even begin to understand the gravity of our situation.

Good ... you are referring to the itemized list I presume. I did not put direct participatory democracy there .... but hopefully you do not disagree about it, do you?
On the contrary my friend .. I do not miss the point, I never have and I never will. I made my choice of system of ethics, system of reasoning and political belief system 16 years when I was a geeky teenager. Required a lot of reading from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes and from Thornstein Veblen to Von Misses peppered with the classics and a healthy dose of math. The path is pretty clear for me ... and the gravity of the situation does not elude me. And contrary to the luddites/civilization drop-outs around here I can see the big picture. And that picture tells me that we need the things I mentioned and the necessary infrastructure to support it (TGVs, nuclear power stations, massive offshore wind farms, massive grids and computers). My world allows for people to powerdown if they want to ... but your vision of the world does not allow me and others to live up to the anonymous ape vision.
Do you want to reflect about the last point for a second?


Ibon:
You are correct we have to acjnowledge that others do not share our agnostic viewpoint. I still think that the ROI of religion has been negative ... but I will not prevent others from pursuing it. Since religion does influence many people it goes without saying that a little bit of help from organized religions will help. I am not familiar with Eastern religions (and hence I cannot comment on them) but I have done some reading on the Western monotheistic apocalyptic religions. They are extremely human oriented inspite of their differences. If one wants religion to pitch in then one has to ensure that the effort is presented within the cultural framework implied by the specific religion. No religious leader will put nature over humans (nor would I) but everyone would be willing to help if the proper justification is given i.e. a more measured way of life is neeeded to ensure the well-being of humans. Idiots like Dave Foreman and other reps of the Deep Ecology movement will not do the trick.
If you are hoping for a "powerdown" to a pre-FF era of technology forget it. Why would they do that? Especially with energy generation technologies that are essentially neutral when it comes to their environmental impact.
They will (and should) attack the current monetary system .... remember that one of the justifications given for "growth" is to ensure access to basic goods and services for the lower socioeconomic classes. A more equitable distribution system would ensure that people stopped wanting stupid shit from China or forcing people to work in sweat shops.
The economy and politics need fixing .... not S or T. The latter has to be controlled though ..... but control should take the form of EPA and not the form of : "lets forget about it - we cannot do it". This is the same argument my 10 y/o nephew is using. In many other areas of our lives we exercise restraint ... we should find the happy medium here as well.


Final Points
-------------
1) Oh and BTW the WEC has talked about the 4-2-1 energy policy as something that we have to achieve this century. Others have called it Convergence and Contracture .... basically it means doing more with less and raising the standards of living for the many poor bastards of this planet while reducing wasteful consumption by us.

And do not try to raise the infamous Jevons Paradox .... someone who is not facilitating the transition because his or hers energy savings will be blown away is making an unethical decision. The economy and the laws can ensure that our savings are not blown away by free riders .... but someone has to lead by example.

2) Correct IG about the description of complex systems ... but still you are missing the issue. Complex systems can be controlled in pretty spectacular ways if one knows the complex system (specifically the behaviour in the phase plane). Then you ensure that it stays within the desired basin of attraction and do only a little bit of tweaking. But trying to dial in the settings of a complex non-linear system is a self-defeating end. But complexity is really a minor problem once you realize that you cannot do the control the way we do it with linear systems. In fact complexity can be helpful (i.e. nervous or immune systems)

Cheers
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Postby EnergySpin » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 17:01:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') don't think it's useful to talk about a "level" of technology, but it may be useful to talk about specific technologies and whether they are helpful or harmful in their application. I'm sure we'll disagree on this to a large extent. Many of us, probably most, will say nuclear technology applied to bombs is "harmful;" many of us, not all, will say nuclear technology applied to energy is "helpful."

But just saying "an Atomic Age level of technology is desireable" isn't useful in my opinion.

Some say only a Stone Age level of technology is truly sustainable in the long term (10,000 + years).

Judging on the basis of harm , yes this is what I have been saying.
Technology is not a goal in itself (or at least it should not be) unless it is a someone's favourite past time.
Those "some say" delude themselves ... with EROIEs in the 30-50s for wind and 60-100 for nuclear power stations civilization can be sustained. We do not have to wait for nano-tech to do the flex sols. Even though they seem to be getting there at warp speed.
But dear Ludi , maybe you are not a luddite but many others are ... and will view any technology as evil or unstainable. I just want to establish a first eye-to-eye contact , in order to know whehter I am arguing with people who can see the truth. Even if it means they have to reprocess Uranium and breed Thorium.
Judgement calls of "unstainability"/"complexity" etc are irrelevant for an atheist. There is nothing special in the workings of nature ... they can be understood and can be imitated/substituted. The only question is why should we do that and not stick with the original version ...
I see no reason for doing it (destroying it) , just to prove we can do it. If there is an ulterior goal that satisfies something like that, then we can discuss it. But it is stupid to think that we cannot use a tiny fraction of the wind+solar potential. And with the exception of a few bacterial species nothing else in this planet chews uranium or actinides.
Last edited by EnergySpin on Mon 28 Nov 2005, 19:02:35, edited 1 time in total.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron