by Nonsense » Tue 29 May 2007, 09:53:28
Dammit... Outted myself on my first try... crap. (damn autofill!)
This won't be nearly as much fun now...
Well here was my reply:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat do YOU anticipate mankind will use as a substitute for oil?
I don't know. Neither do you. That was my point.
How can we make predictions based on our collective ignorance? What about the stuff we don't know, we don't know? This was my point about thermodynamics. Works fine predicting chemical reactions, but not very well predicting society & human behaviour.
Too many factors to be more than a wild guess.
Just like trying to predict global oil peak. Peak might very well be right this moment, but you can't hope to prove that until many years in the future. So what's the point?
Successful prophets of doom always pick a date far into the future, to ensure their franchise a long, prosperous life.
It seems to me that peak oil depends on about 1/2 dozen assumptions to be an imminent threat. If OPEC is lying. If new technology does not provide surprising advances. If a gentle depletion plateau doesn't soften the blow.
With little financial incentive to explore in recent decades, perhaps the renewed interest in energy will spur new exploration & yield tons of new finds previously considered impossible? This has happened before.
My point is that their are simply too many factors which may greatly affect the reality here, that predictions like "peak oil" are little more than armchair speculation, & carry about the same gravity.