[Aaron]

Sure oil production will peak... so what?

by Aaron Dunlap

There are two basic reasons why peak oil is quite irrelevant... & here they are:

I'm a big fan of deductive reasoning... For those of you who don't know about deductive reasoning, it's that "scientific method" stuff you missed while flirting with <insert name here> during science class in school.

Here's how it works...

All pregnancies end.
You are pregnant.
Therefore: Your pregnancy will end.

I don't need to know about your specific pregnancy, to know yours will end.

One of my favorite examples of this comes from William of Occam, many years ago.

Willy said:

"All things being equal, the simplest explanation, tends to be the right one."

Sounds reasonable...

So...

Reason #1 - The GrandPa Factor

My grandfather was born in 1902 in Indian Territory, Oklahoma. He taught me many things during our time together... how to fish the lake with a cane pole... how to bet the inside straight... & how to live a fulfilling life.

But he taught me something even more important than the tiny treasures of a 6 year old boy... without even knowing he did it.

Through listening to his stories, & seeing his long life in a complete arch, one thing seems obvious...

That for all our faults... people can be clever little buggers.

Imagine watching your world go from horse, to steam, to cars... to the moon!

Who could have predicted, back in ole '02, that men would play golf on the moon one day... the very idea would get you laughed right out the door back then. And yet that is exactly what happened...

In fact, if I look back on our collective human history, I can see the same pattern... over & over again. What seemed fantasy at the time, eventually came to pass.

So let's go back & see what our friend Willy might say about this.

What seems more reasonable?

1) Humanity will hit a brick wall called peak oil, and suffer terrible, if not permanent destruction, because there isn't any viable energy alternative?

or

2) Humanity will repeat the same pattern it has for countless generations. Innovating in the face of crisis beyond the imagination of current thinking.

My own grandfather's life demonstrates this concept nicely.

While I can't tell you specifically what will replace oil... logic says I don't need to.

I only need to understand that if humanity fails to innovate our way out from under oil depletion, it would be the first such human failure in our history!

It's more reasonable to project that unforeseen developments, spurred by the pressure of rising energy prices, will meet our energy challenge in unpredictable ways... solved!

#2 - The M. Lynch Equation

The more complex any issue has become, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome.

It's because the initial conditions are all but impossible to quantify accurately, and these specifics vastly affect the outcome.

A tiny difference in beginning conditions, will radically alter the equation and how things play out.

This makes efforts at predicting peak oil, an exercise in futility.

Given the vastly complex nature of the energy issue, efforts in prediction are of little use... the crystal ball has a crack in it.

So you can live in peak oil fantasy-land as long as you like, but given my two observations, you will be waiting a very long time indeed. In fact you may need to pass on your myopic belief to your descendants to carry on the charade.

The facts speak for themselves.

Peak Oil simply cannot be predicted with any accuracy. So you might as well predict it will rain beer tomorrow.

And my grandfather's wisdom shows that all things being equal... we will innovate and prosper...

Always have...

[Doly]

Let's move away from the peak oil theme and let's see if such reasonings apply to other kinds of disasters. For example, would they apply to somebody living in San Francisco and worrying about an earthquake, or somebody living in New Orleans and worrying about the possible drowning of the city, or somebody living in New York and worrying about a possible major terrorist attack?

The arguments would go like this:

1) An earquake/hurricane/terrorist attack is nothing to worry about because we'll think up some technology that will protect us from the consequences. Do you agree with that?

2) Earthquakes/hurricanes/terrorist attacks are impossible to predict with any accuracy. Frankly, does that make you feel any better?

[dhfenton]

I quite agree. There will certainly be losers, and there will be winners; but the end of civilization is not a very likely outcome. I used to give the doomers some creedance; but, the more rationally you look at this, the more it becomes evident that Peak Oil is not an insurmountable obstacle. My way of thinking is:

Increased price brings conservation (real conservation, not lipservice)

Conservation buys time

Time allows innovation, and creative solutions

Innovation brings a paradigm shift in energy production, and usage

Life goes on

All this is contingent on the ability to avoid a major resource war, and that is where I'm not very optomistic.

[Z]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'I') only need to understand that if humanity fails to innovate our way out from under oil depletion, it would be the first such human failure in our history!

[Ludi]

It all comes down to the idea "Nothing really bad can happen to ME!"

Inability or unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own circumstances.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')2) Humanity will repeat the same pattern it has for countless generations. Innovating in the face of crisis beyond the imagination of current thinking.

[Ludi]

But Jack, even from a totally selfish point of view (which I have no problem with, it's pragmatic if used properly), very few humans have been able to survive as an individual unit, unless they are some especially hardy mountain man type (and they usually traded with others also). Humans depend on other humans. This has absolutely nothing to do with altruism.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'I') only need to understand that if humanity fails to innovate our way out from under oil depletion, it would be the first such human failure in our history!

[mididoctors]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', ' ') Quite possibly, the stresses involved will enhance genetic development; but again, this does nothing for individuals presently alive.

[mididoctors]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'S')ure oil production will peak... so what?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot quite so. All previous human civilizations collapsed at one point or another. Our inability to perceive that humans/civilizations failed to innovate comes from the fact that those humans/civilization disappeared. We are still stuck with the idea that we are different, that there always will be solutions to our problems, because the civilization didn't collapse ... yet.

[gt1370a]

So what's your point? 90% of us might die but we shouldn't worry about it because future generations will repopulate the earth?

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'B')ut Jack, even from a totally selfish point of view (which I have no problem with, it's pragmatic if used properly), very few humans have been able to survive as an individual unit, unless they are some especially hardy mountain man type (and they usually traded with others also). Humans depend on other humans. This has absolutely nothing to do with altruism.

[gnm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')What seems more reasonable?

1) Humanity will hit a brick wall called peak oil, and suffer terrible, if not permanent destruction, because there isn't any viable energy alternative?

or

2) Humanity will repeat the same pattern it has for countless generations. Innovating in the face of crisis beyond the imagination of current thinking.

My own grandfather's life demonstrates this concept nicely.

[OilBurner]

Going back to basics here.

Using Occam's Razor:

a) Humanity will continue to grow, innovating out of difficulties for ever more

OR

b) The same cycle of growth, stability and destruction that applies to everything we know, also applies to mankind

I choose the latter as the simplest case.

The eternal question is, of course, when. There I agree with Mr Lynch, there is no simple deduction or trick of logic that will reveal the answer.

Let's try it:

a) we are in the cycle of destruction right now, or about to enter it

OR

b) we are in the cycle of growth or stability

There is no answer using Occam. Both are equally likely, if all else is equal.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'B')ut Jack, even from a totally selfish point of view (which I have no problem with, it's pragmatic if used properly), very few humans have been able to survive as an individual unit, unless they are some especially hardy mountain man type (and they usually traded with others also). Humans depend on other humans. This has absolutely nothing to do with altruism.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')The more complex any issue has become, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome.

It's because the initial conditions are all but impossible to quantify accurately, and these specifics vastly affect the outcome.

A tiny difference in beginning conditions, will radically alter the equation and how things play out.

This makes efforts at predicting peak oil, an exercise in futility.

[dhfenton]

I constantly hear the statement, both here, and in the press, that demand is exceeding supply. This is essentially a mis-statement. The correct terminology is that demand exceeds supply at the current price point. That demand will exceed supply regardless of price is a totaly different issue. In the US, the price point has risen; but, demand has not subsided significantly. This indicates that we have not yet reached the price point where demand will truly respond, and conservation will really take off. It is easy to imagine many conservation steps that could cut our nations energy usage drasticly, without affecting the economy at all. Carpooling being the most obvious example.

Also, as the price point rises, previously unviable alternatives will be competative. I think this is the whole point. We try to imagine what solutions might exist; but we don't extrapolate that to the price point for energy that will be the driving force for innovation. I think there are many existing technologies that will work at a higher price point. This in combination with conservation; either government enacted, or market based, will provide avenues to continue our civilization. Those who profess a rapid decline to 18th century life styles simply don't make any sense in my book.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')And my grandfather's wisdom shows that all things being equal... we will innovate and prosper...

Always have...

[gnm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')Being lost in the details and unable to see how they work together as a system is the problem of not being able to see the forest for the trees. We can cut down one tree, and the forest remains. And cut down another, and another, and another. The forest is still there. How long can we keep that up in the forest of global non-renewable resources before things get interesting, before things get hard, before we screw ourselves?

We're about to find out.