by ubercynicmeister » Sun 04 Dec 2005, 21:00:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MicroHydro', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lowem', 'T')hey don't teach that stuff in school anyway.
Yikes, that explains a lot. I will turn 50 in December, and it is increasingly clear to me that the sort of university education I had may not even exist anymore.
Old school education in liberal arts was focused on how to reason. The classics were taught, often with Greek or Latin requirements. Belive it or not, even good public high schools in the US were still teaching Latin to university bound students in the 1960s. Skills were developed in reasoned debate - no logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, arguments from authority, or straw man arguments allowed by the judges.
Um, Microhydro....please tell me you have heard of Political Correctness' Dumbing Down of all education?
It seems astonishing to me that anyone could have gotten through with as much information as you have and not realised that Political Correctness' effect has been to make sure that bright people cannot discriminate against the idiots, because the bright ones are taught at the same rate as what the dumb ones will learn at. Lest anyone think that Polictical Correctness is a recent addition to the Sum Total Of Human Disgraces, it actually started in 1941 with the release of the Norwood Report into British Education (Titled:
Curriculum and Examinations In Secondary Schools: The Report of the Committee of the Secondary School Examinations Council Appointed by the President of the Board of Education in 1941).
Lately, of course, Political Correctness has gotten worse and worse, with TV on the one hand throttling off any ability to think about anything that is not presented as images immediately in front of you (other have posted on this topic, too), and the schools "not allowed" to teach (because that's discriminatory), and families being smashed to pieces (once again by Political Correctness), while the Economic Rationalists downsized every research facility there was ("Why must we subsidise intellectual curiosity?" asked Ronald Ray Gun in the early 1980's) plus the promotion of the "New Economy" that was less and less attentive to suppply of anything, while being more and more starry eyed over distractions like the Internet, especially the Dot Con boom.
My own "story"? I've posted here(at the forums) before about it, but I suppose others can handle it again:
I'm 36. I was aware from a fairly early age that there was some vast dis-jointing between what I was being told (ie: in every day in every way things just get better and better) and what I actually experienced: my father becoming unemployed, and staying that way for most of my schooling, then
me being unable to find work after leaving the most useless of pretend education. OK, I decided to do something practical: become a boilermaker.
Surely they'd always need
them, right?
WRONG. Although they are crying out for trained personell now, Boilermakers especially, they were sacking them as I tried to get an apprenticeship as one. Good move, but it gets better. After being unable to get work as a boilermaker, I retrained as a detail drafter (ie: technical drawing). Just as the Idiotic Economic Rationalists started sacking people in THAT field. Yep, I sure can pick 'em.
What would I liked to have done? Gone to Uni and gotten a Science and Engineering Degree, but that's forever beyond my capacity (economically) to achieve. If the job as the boilermaker had worked out (remember: I didn't even get an APPRENTICESHIP) I would have been more than able to pay-my-way through University.
OK, my interest in Peak -Oil -like ideas? Well, I had always been interested in steam locomotives, and discovered quite early that the lies about steam being replaced by diesel were just that: LIES. Steam could have easliy been made at least three times more efficient, and much less polluting, using technology developed in the 1890's, but no-one wanted to spend the money on that when Oil was less than $2 per barrel. Thus the almost indecently rapid transition to diesel and that at a time when Oil costs were rising, albeit not as spectacularly as they did later on.
The problem is that when everyone is persuaded to use just one source of energy for their transportation needs (ie: oil-based fuels) , then the price for that source of energy must naturally rise. That got me to thinking - if everyone starts using a resource (it doesn't matter what) then, surely not only does the price rise, the darn resource tends to deplete?
Thus at some future indeterminate time, we'd be facing an Oil shortage. OK, what to do about it? Well, I joined various volunteer organisations to try and develop technology (mainly steam) to a point where we'd have a non-oil energy source for transportation. I came quickly to the conclusion that the organisations were not serious, but I stuck it out (this was in the very early 1990's), partly becuase I just liked some of the people, partly because I liked the idea of steam locomotives, and partly because I thought there was a job in it (I have been unemployed for 14 years).
I'm a practical kinda guy, so I built various bits for the steam-powered machines, but the whole effort died thanks to Insurance Costs rising. The organisations stopped all formal work in the mid-to-late 1990's and then became defunct, partly a victim of the East Asian Economic Collapse in 1996-97, when the price of Oil went down to $5.60 per barrel, briefly. After the effort went to a more informal setting, I did (out of my own resources) a study into steam, but it was flawed, simply by not taking into account the Price of Oil and it's impact.
It took me two weeks to type out the 65 pages, re-doing and editing and finally publishing,
just as Australian Industry lost all interest in the proposal. Good one, again. (and people wonder why I;m a cynic!)
So where do I fit in? Well, in spite of having almost no resources, I seem to have been active in trying to avert, then ameliorate the effects of Peak Oil for over 15 years. I won't say it's been a flop - it's just an idea that's too early, and the Clueless Executive Officers haven't been hammered sufficiently to realise what they are/were being offered.
LOL, mebbe I should ask for donations to "re-start" the effort from the members here? Ahh, I suppose that I'll get told off for that.
In any case, I formally was told about Peak Oil in 2002-03, and have been an active contributor ever since, to various Peak Oil forums. Up till that point, I hadn't heard of Peak Oil, but when i did, it made perfect sense to me. The typical poster here comes along and bemoans how they "were really depressed" about learning about Peak Oil. To me it was more of a relief, more of a "Gee, that makes sense...finally some intelligence about the internet!" moment than anything else.
What I want to know is: why is it that, given the signs of Oil troubles since the 1970's, why more people haven't been trying to "do something" (even if it's only inform others) since then?
My guess is that Political Correctness and Economic Rationalism/ Freemarket Fundamentalism have so dominated people's minds that the razzle-dazzle of Positive Thinking (In Every Day, In every Way, I Am Getting Better And Better) - also known as Cluelessness - had an unbreakable hold. After all, when things ARE going up, it takes a lot of mental grit and determination to be contrarian and remind oneself to think about the "up times" of the past, and remember they rapidly have turned into down times, almost effortlessly; whereas the up-times are the result of lots of hard work. And cheap energy.
[ramble mode off]
I dunno where I am to be placed then. I had not heard about Peak Oil formally until 2002-03, yet, I was doing things before the 1980's had ended to tackle the issue, even though I didn't know what it was called.
I know, I know, self-praise is no praise, but still, I was asked.