Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 01:25:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')OK, so let's go back to using wood to heat our homes, drive 1930's cars, reduce crop yields to 1900's levels, and so on. It will save the planet, and forestall our imminent demise!


Actually, no.

Reduction of crop yields to early 1900s levels likely means a return to the kinds of famines that were common in the early 1900s.

Precisely my point!

I should have put a :roll: after my statement there, in case my sarcasm wasn't obvious.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 01:33:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')OK, so let's go back to using wood to heat our homes, drive 1930's cars, reduce crop yields to 1900's levels, and so on. It will save the planet, and forestall our imminent demise!


Actually, no.

Reduction of crop yields to early 1900s levels likely means a return to the kinds of famines that were common in the early 1900s.

Precisely my point!

I should have put a :roll: after my statement there, in case my sarcasm wasn't obvious.


I didn't quite catch the sarcastic tone in your voice, its true.

So we are in agreement that a collapse in global energy supply would be a bad thing :-D
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 04:07:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'A')ll I did was to prove him wrong with charts and data.
And, as I pointed out, two of the charts show 2007 production was less that 2006 and 2005 production. In one case, production was less than 2005. The chart for corn was inflated by ethanol. So you didn't prove him wrong.

Yes I did. He said grain production wasn't rising - nothing more. He was wrong, and I proved it. Your efforts to paint him as saying he was only talking about the past few years, and that corn-ethanol production doesn't count, has failed miserably, because he said absolutely nothing about those things in his post. Zero, zilch, nada.
Not true. He implied recent times, by his grammar. Some of your charts showed declining production in recent times, so you'd need to show total grains versus the demand mentioned by MonteQuest in order to prove your case. On the figures in your post, it has not been proven. Of course, you believe you have proven your case but belief is not proof.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I') clearly said in my first post, "My thesis is that resources, while finite, are abundant in most cases." Now you are telling me I, "must think infinite growth is possible." You are contorting my claim of "abundant" into a misrepresentation as "infinite."
So what was the point of your "thesis"? Are there no vital resources that are scarce or close to becoming scarce (relative to demand)? If you don't think so, do you think there is any need to be concerned about the finite nature of our planet? If not, how is this different to a belief in infinite resources?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby s0cks » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 04:23:39

Can someone name me a resource that we have actually run out of before?

Have we ever actually had to "replace" a resource because it ran out? Or could this be the first time we do it?
User avatar
s0cks
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 17 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Location: New of Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 05:38:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')hat's what they've been saying for 200 years!!
A non-argument. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I')t's impossible to plan for that far ahead, because it's impossible for us to know what things will be like that far ahead.
This must be one of the craziest arguments that cornucopians use. You are effectively saying that because we don't know whether future generations could cope with fewer resources (including those that we consider vital), we should completely ignore the possibility that they won't. If this is what you really think, then why not come right out and say it, because then we would be quite clear that you have no care for the effect your actions might have beyond your own lifetime (and probably even less than that).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 09:10:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'Q')uestion 1: Does continued economic and population growth require non-renewable resources we extract from the earth?

Not always.


When does it not in our current world?

When we rely on renewable - as opposed to non-renewable - resources such as agriculture, trees, solar, wind, etc.


The way we use those today, they are not renewable (non-renewable inputs).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '"')Phantom carrying capacity" = a term invented by environmentalists to try to explain why their predictions have failed after 200 years.

Tell that to the people on Easter Island and all those poor dead bacteria in the petri dish.
Oh, so you're one of those, eh? Comparing Easter Island and a petri dish to the planet earth. Inconveniently for you, the story about the Easter Island ecocide is a myth.

What about bacteria in a petri dish? Is that a myth too?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '[')b]But what about our technology?

Technology aggravates overshoot in most cases, because enhancements in technology are only necessary when a population is bumping into the limits of its sustainable carrying capacity. Technology at the bottom of the development curve may enhance sustainable carrying capacity, but when the technology exists mostly to extract more efficiency from non-renewable resources, then the technology takes the population farther and farther into overshoot.
This says that the more efficient the technology is, the "worse" it is. This is such utter nonsense I can't believe it. If I use 20 units of a resource to accomplish X, but then increase my efficiency to 10 units of that resource to accomplish X, this is telling me I am closer to my eventual doom than when I had used 20 units! What if I increase that efficiency to only 1 unit? At this point I am hardly using any of that resource at all . . . and yet this theory is telling me I'm right at the brink of my own demise!

It's not that simple. Jevon's Paradox. In a non-renewable resource setting, efficiency is not the answer.
OK, so let's go back to using wood to heat our homes, drive 1930's cars, reduce crop yields to 1900's levels, and so on. It will save the planet, and forestall our imminent demise! :roll:

Whatever we do, it will have to demonstrably sustainable. I'm not sure 1930s cars are sustainable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')But what about Malthus?

Malthus was not wrong, he just didn't appreciate the effect that phantom carrying capacity has on the point at which the effects of overshoot are felt. To Malthus, the point at which sustainable carrying capacity was exceeded SHOULD have been the point at which the effects of overshoot began to be felt. However, like living off of a credit card creates the illusion of adequate income, so too did the discovery of non-renewable resources that could be used to create phantom carrying capacity.
Another environmentalist attempt to explain away why their beloved theory has been wrong for 200 years.

The phantom carrying capacity revision to Malthus's theory hasn't been tested yet.
That much is obvious. And it seems likely to me it will never be testable.

Yes, it will be testable as soon as we run out of the least abundant necessity. We're getting there as fast as we can.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '[')b]But we're people. Doesn't overshoot just happen to dumb reindeer?

My opinion is that the smarter the species, the worse the overshoot problem will be. Here's why: There are several ways to aggravate overshoot. We talk here about fossil fuels and what their scarcity will do to the supportability of our species, but we also create phantom carrying capacity by the "takeover" method where we displace another species and use their resources for ourselves. We can also take renewable resources that are part of our underlying sustainable carrying capacity and convert them to phantom carrying capacity. Overfishing, deforestation, and soil depletion are examples. Additionally, there are cascading ecological failures that start with a "black swan" event like the bee die-off we are seeing that impact us directly, though the cause may be hard to trace.
1. Fossil fuels are not as "scarce" as environmentalists would like to believe.
2. See above replies about "phantom carrying capacity."

1. If they are scarce at all, then we have a problem. They need to be increasing, which obviously they are not, since they are a finite resource.
2. See above reply to your reply about "phantom carrying capacity."
1. What is "scarce?" People like you like to throw around the words "scarce" and "finite" as a way of making it sound like the quantities of these resources are small. But what if they aren't "small?" I refer you to my last post above: Let's consider water. On earth, the amount of water is "finite," but that does not mean it is "scarce." The amount of salt on earth is "finite," but that does not mean it is "scarce." You automatically assume that any resource on earth must, almost by default, be "scarce" simply because the earth is "finite." This is utter nonsense. Do we ever need to worry about running out of water? No. Do we ever need to worry about running out of salt? No. Why not? Because, while they are "finite," they are not remotely "scarce." Now, I claim that other resources are like that, to varying degrees. Technically speaking, they may be "finite" in amount, but the quantities of them which exist on the earth are so large, we do not realistically need to worry about "running out" of them.
2. See reply above.

All you need is one least abundant necessity problem to shut it all down. It might be something like honey bees die-off. Or wheat rust. That's the problem with stressing an ecosystem--you just don't know what you're going to get.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'O')il-Finder, you need to pow-wow with the other cornies and get your story straight. Is the world living within an infinite growth paradigm in a finite world or not? The response above sounds a lot like infinite growth paradigm to me.

Note, too, that in the example above, you chose to use your million dollars to find other accounts to drain. Using that approach, do you see the problems that you will run into when the number of accounts is finally depleted? Whether it is next week or in a thousand years, you are creating, BY DESIGN, a state of overshoot with that approach.

A lot of this stuff sounds like the fantastic rationalizations that a stone age hunter/gatherer might come up with if you gave him a credit card to a butcher shop.
Here we go again, the "infinite" straw man. Even the universe itself may not be infinite, and yet you insist on putting words into my mouth claiming that it is.

I'll repeat from my first post:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '[')b]My thesis is that resources, while finite, are abundant in most cases.

Our economic system is based upon a premise of exponential growth for its continued health. Exponential growth consumes everything, given enough time (and not as much time as you would think). Call it a strawman if you like.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 10:24:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')"Abundant" is meaningless when you are talking about an economic system that is premised upon exponential growth, as ours is. If you are doubling the numbers several times every generation,

Doubling what numbers??


In economic terms, GNP, GDP, barrels of oil per day, etc. In ecological terms, CO2 emissions, deforestation, disposal of waste, etc.

Industrial civilization is premised upon exponential growth in virtually every number that is consumption-related. That's what profit is--it's a return on your investment, PLUS something extra. It's that something extra that leads to exponential growth, and it's the exponential growth that has the same effect on the finite world as a swarm of locusts on a crop, except it happens a little more slowly the way we do it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'a')nything that is "abundant" today will be scarce in, at most, a few generations.

That's what they've been saying for 200 years!!


No, not 200 years. Not quite that long. Remember, too, that renewable resources will never run out, so long as the rate of consumption doesn't outpace the rate of renewal; it's non-renewable resources that will become ever more scarce, since they were finite to begin with and we are extracting them as quickly as possible.

The failure to distinguish between renewable resources (on which the evolution and survival of our species are based), and non-renewable resources (which we rely upon for survival at our peril) is the central problem with industrial civilization.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'W')hy deliberately drain non-renewable natural resource accounts if you KNOW they are non-renewable? Even if it's 1,000 years from now, do you see that by supporting this system today, you are screwing your descendants?
Because it's impossible to plan for 1,000 years ahead. We have no inkling whatsover that the people 1,000 years from now will even need or use iron ore, oil, coal, etc. at all! We have no idea whatsoever what the human population will be at that time, or if humans will even exist at all. Imagine the cave men of Europe 8,000 years ago pondering, "Oh, we must not eat too many root grubs, because we need to save some for future generations 8,000 years from now." Uhhh . . . yeah right. It's impossible to plan for that far ahead, because it's impossible for us to know what things will be like that far ahead.

No, it's quite easy to plan for 1,000 years from now. Assume the following:

Humans will continue to get hungry several times a day
Humans will get thirsty even more frequently
Humans will need to breathe oxygen

As for resource usage, long term it is ONLY renewable resources that will contribute to mankind's survival. It is an ecological balance that allowed us to evolve in the first place, and it is only an ecological balance that will permit us to continue to survive.

As for the cavemen being forward-thinking, it wasn't necessary because phantom carrying capacity was only minimally possible in a low-tech primitive population. It's technology that permits overshoot.

I agree with you that we have no idea if humans will even exist at all in the future.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'D')o you see how industrial civilization is all about fiscal child abuse, except rather than abusing your children, you are abusing your children and their children and their children.......

Think about how many of our institutions are based upon a presumption of screwing posterity:

Social Security
Medicare
Government Debt
The Banking System
Fiat Currency
Property Taxes
Human Habitat Destruction

All of this passing the shit into the future started in the 20th century. Before that, for better or worse civilization was pretty much pay as you go, or--GASP--one generation would pass something useful on to the next generation.
Oh please, spare me with the financial doomsday nonsense. This was supposed to be a thread about natural resources anyway.

That's funny. You don't see that it is the entire economic system, and its relentless expansion that is needlessly depleting the non-renewable natural resources in the first place? Take away the endless leveraging for current consumption and development and you significantly reduce the stress on non-renewable resources.

"Financial doomsday nonsense." Such hubris.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 13:07:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')e have truly trained a generation of idiot savants who only see the world as a source of cash to leverage more self-gratification, more toys, more diversions.

The only difference between the 'Rainman' (the Dustin Hoffman character in the movie of the same name) and Oil-Looser (and to be fair, most everybody else out there in Consumer-Land) is that the Rainman doesn't bother with the self-justification and endless self-serving patter.

Oil-Looser do you really believe the shit you are pimping here? Or is it just a pathetic attempt to drive off personal demons? no wisdom no maturity no future


Easy pstarr. Just treat it like batting practice. [smilie=qshatter.gif]
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 13:23:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('s0cks', 'C')an someone name me a resource that we have actually run out of before?

Have we ever actually had to "replace" a resource because it ran out?


Sure.

We replaced whale oil with petroleum.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 13:40:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('s0cks', 'C')an someone name me a resource that we have actually run out of before?

Have we ever actually had to "replace" a resource because it ran out?


Sure.

We replaced whale oil with petroleum.


Ask any of the ancient civilizations that aren't around anymore. Every one of them ran out of something.

Ask a person who starves to death about least abundant necessity.

Ask a person who drowns about least abundant necessity.

Forests are a common resource that communities have run out of through history. This has probably been one of the prime motivations for migration.

Every species that has become extinct as a result of industrialization could be characterized as something we ran out of.

Remember, though, that overshoot is only exposed when you BOTH run out of one critical resource AND can't replace it with something else. This is why "drawdown" is so destructive--rather than recognizing a problem when one thing runs low, it's off to the races to find something else to draw down.

Also, when you consider the EROEI issue, you may never actually run out of a critical resource, though it will be the same as if you had once the EROEI reaches zero.

Think about whether technology that presupposes the availability of a non-renewable resource is really more impressive than simpler technology that requires very minimal non-renewable resource inputs.

Is a chainsaw really more impressive than a good ax and saw? Think about how many qualifiers you need to really say that the chainsaw is superior, and think about how few qualifiers are necessary to say that the ax and saw are superior.

Think about how much more impressive it would be if a person figured out how to function without a chainsaw, ax or saw. That's the kind of technology that would impress me.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 14:40:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'Q')uestion 1: Does continued economic and population growth require non-renewable resources we extract from the earth?

Not always.


When does it not in our current world?

When we rely on renewable - as opposed to non-renewable - resources such as agriculture, trees, solar, wind, etc.
This is not correct. If we use any resource beyond its renewal rate, we are using it unsustainably. Only for truly vast resources and an almost negligible use, can we probably grow that use for a very long time. Using renewable resources to fuel economic growth will fail eventually. Economic growth is not sustainable. Growth in anything on a finite planet is not sustainable. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 14:44:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('s0cks', 'C')an someone name me a resource that we have actually run out of before?

Have we ever actually had to "replace" a resource because it ran out?


Sure.

We replaced whale oil with petroleum.
Bird shit (guano), too, for fertilizer.

Usually, we manage to go to something that is better. What we are using now, for most uses or activities, are probably the best substance for that use. When anything starts to get scarce now, I doubt that there will be many better materials to move to.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby BigTex » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 16:34:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'G')rowth in anything on a finite planet is not sustainable. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.


TonyPrep you are right, if we are talking about rational human beings.

But if you are talking about delusional man-gods who are in the middle of a multi-generational cornucopian conniption of consumption, it's a little harder.

Think about it like this: we lament the destruction of native culture that western influence seems to trigger, even though a lot of this "culture" is just interesting mythology with a local flavor that provides the natives with "wholeness" to their world. When a culture lose that "wholeness", a cascading failure of meaning in everything often results.

What we are suggesting is cracking the wholeness of the cornucopian worldview. The cornucopians are accustomed to being the crackORS (note I did not say "crack whores"), instead of the crackEES.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 19:41:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I')n economic terms, GNP, GDP, barrels of oil per day, etc. In ecological terms, CO2 emissions, deforestation, disposal of waste, etc.

Industrial civilization is premised upon exponential growth in virtually every number that is consumption-related. That's what profit is--it's a return on your investment, PLUS something extra. It's that something extra that leads to exponential growth, and it's the exponential growth that has the same effect on the finite world as a swarm of locusts on a crop, except it happens a little more slowly the way we do it.

OK, so industrial civilization has been around for 150+ in the West. Yet, paraphrasing your list below, I, and everyone else in the industrial Western world, have . . .

Plenty of food to eat
Plenty of clean water to drink
Plenty of clean air to breathe

So, please tell me where these negative effects of "exponential growth" are upon the part of the world which has been experiencing the "exponential growth" for the longest?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'N')o, not 200 years. Not quite that long. Remember, too, that renewable resources will never run out, so long as the rate of consumption doesn't outpace the rate of renewal; it's non-renewable resources that will become ever more scarce, since they were finite to begin with and we are extracting them as quickly as possible.

The failure to distinguish between renewable resources (on which the evolution and survival of our species are based), and non-renewable resources (which we rely upon for survival at our peril) is the central problem with industrial civilization.

Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. That's more than 200 years ago.

I have already distinguished between renewable and non-renewable resources. Please read my first post in this thread.

In that first post in this thread, I have already shown that renewal/production 3 of 4 very important renewable resources - types of grains - have outpaced population growth (which is a surrogate for consumption) for the past 25 years. I could do the same for others, too.

As for the non-renewable ones, I have already addressed that, too. I believe they exist in larger quantities than you believe, and in the case of oil, I have spent a considerable amount of time on this forum (trying to) tell you and everyone else here where new sources of this particular non-renewable resource are coming from. Yet it seems that every time I show this, half the forum goes into denial. In other words, you keep trying to tell me these non-renewable resources are "scarce," and I keep trying to tell you they aren't scarce. If someone found a trillion barrels of high quality oil beneath the sands of Algeria, you and others here would still be telling me that oil is "scarce."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'N')o, it's quite easy to plan for 1,000 years from now. Assume the following:

Humans will continue to get hungry several times a day
Humans will get thirsty even more frequently
Humans will need to breathe oxygen

But you can't assume that because in 1,000 years . . .

You don't know how many humans will be in existence to be hungry
You don't know how many humans will be in existence to get thirsty
You don't know how many humans will be in existence to breathe oxygen

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'A')s for resource usage, long term it is ONLY renewable resources that will contribute to mankind's survival. It is an ecological balance that allowed us to evolve in the first place, and it is only an ecological balance that will permit us to continue to survive.

As for the cavemen being forward-thinking, it wasn't necessary because phantom carrying capacity was only minimally possible in a low-tech primitive population. It's technology that permits overshoot.

Ah yes, that "phantom carrying capacity" thing again, which you admit "hasn't been tested yet."

Technology permits us to increase the world's "carrying capacity," not make it "overshoot." I know you'll object to that notion, so let's do a little "thought experiment" . . .

Let's say the nation of Mauritania (NE Africa, mostly Saharan desert) decided to undertake a vast irrigation project and irrigate an area the size of, say, West Virginia. They decided to get the water from the Atlantic Ocean, and built some massive desalinization plants. To power the desalinization plants, they built a combination of solar, wind, and nuclear power plants. We'll assume they came into the money to build all this . . . maybe they discovered huge quantities of oil there, or something like that. OK now . . . an area the size of West Virginia has now been transformed from a low-carrying-capacity desert to a highly productive agricultural area. The biomass of this area was vastly increased, and the nation of Mauritania, which previously was not able to support a very big population, can now do so. All this was accomplished with technology. As for the specific resources used here . . . the water from the Atlantic Ocean is technically "finite," but it is so large the Mauritians do not ever have to worry about running out of it. The solar and wind power which is powering the power plants used to run the desalinization plants is also technically "finite," but they too, are so large in quantity they do not ever need to worry about running out of it. The 3rd power source - uranium for the nuclear power plants - is also technically finite, but if you read this you'll learn that uranium, too, is actually a resource which can be made to last thousands of years. So realistically, no worry about that, either. Of course the crops themselves are renewable, so no need to worry about that.

The other objection you are bound to raise to this scheme is, to paraphrase pstarr's sig, you still need oil to run all this stuff. Even if that were true, I have spent half my time on this forum trying to explain why oil is not as scarce as many of you believe. And even if you were right and I am mistaken about the quantities of oil left, the main use for oil in this scheme - to transport the crops, to transport the materials needed to build the power plants and irrigation infrastructure - is not strictly necessary. Transportation does not need to run on oil. In fact, as an energy source, you don't need oil for anything!

So tell me, how is this particular application of technology going to lead to "overshoot?" All the inputs into the system - water, solar, wind, uranium, seeds for the crops - are either immensely large in quantity or, in the case of seeds for the crops, are actually renewable. A scheme like this could last for centuries, if needed. Are you going to tell me that we can go into "phantom overshoot" for centuries or thousands of years? Or, as I surmise, the term "phantom overshoot" is just so much garbage invented by environmentalists to try to explain why their predictions have yet to occur even some 200 years after Malthus.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I') agree with you that we have no idea if humans will even exist at all in the future.
So, you just admitted you have no idea of humans will exist in the future, and yet you want us to plan for 1,000 years in the future as if they will exist.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'T')hat's funny. You don't see that it is the entire economic system, and its relentless expansion that is needlessly depleting the non-renewable natural resources in the first place? Take away the endless leveraging for current consumption and development and you significantly reduce the stress on non-renewable resources.

"Financial doomsday nonsense." Such hubris.
The hubris is coming from those who keep predicting financial doomsday, which never comes. We've had one "financial doomsday" - the Great Depression - and yet civilization didn't come crashing to a halt, and we got over it.
Last edited by Oil-Finder on Tue 11 Mar 2008, 20:41:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 19:55:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')The way we use those today, they are not renewable (non-renewable inputs).

Yes, non-renewable inputs which are nonetheless abundant.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')What about bacteria in a petri dish? Is that a myth too?

A petri dish is a closed system. Earth is not.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')Whatever we do, it will have to demonstrably sustainable. I'm not sure 1930s cars are sustainable.

Agreed. But it was a lower technology than current technology, and thus it satisfied your Jevon's Paradox citation. Obviously my statement was intended to mock your citation of Jevon's Paradox: If we went to a lower level of technology right now, we would induce an overshoot, not avoid one.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')Yes, it will be testable as soon as we run out of the least abundant necessity. We're getting there as fast as we can.

OK, I'm waiting for doomsday to occur. *taps foot, looks at watch*

Oh but wait, doomsday has been just around the corner for . . . 200 years! Hmmm . . .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')All you need is one least abundant necessity problem to shut it all down. It might be something like honey bees die-off. Or wheat rust. That's the problem with stressing an ecosystem--you just don't know what you're going to get.
Both the problems you mentioned can actually be solved with - gasp! - technology. But I know you don't like to hear that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')Our economic system is based upon a premise of exponential growth for its continued health. Exponential growth consumes everything, given enough time (and not as much time as you would think). Call it a strawman if you like.
Ah yes, we will someday consume the entire planet - all the way down to the earth's crust! Maybe it will look like Coruscant on Star Wars. :roll:

You ignored how I pointed out your strawman of the "infinite" claim, and you repeated it anyway. In case you hadn't noticed, the human population is not going to continue to grow "infinitely." Neither is any other human endeavor. And yet, you insist on repeating the claim because it satisfies your desire to paint the human economic system as some sort of monster.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 20:15:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'N')ot true. He implied recent times, by his grammar.

No he didn't, he said absolutely nothing about a time frame. Zero. Zilch. Nada. There was no reference or inference to a time period whatsoever, not in his grammar, not in the context of his discussion, nowhere. You keep repeating that there was, but there is no indication whatsoever of it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonPrep', 'S')o what was the point of your "thesis"? Are there no vital resources that are scarce or close to becoming scarce (relative to demand)? If you don't think so, do you think there is any need to be concerned about the finite nature of our planet? If not, how is this different to a belief in infinite resources?

There might be some resources which are becoming scarce relative to demand. I dunno, maybe . . . palladium, or something like that. But as I said in my first post, in many, if not most, of those cases, those can be substituted for something else, and that "something else" is usually more abundant than the thing which it is being substituted for. For example, if palladium were really becoming scarce, there is almost certainly something else we can use instead of palladium, and chances are, that other thing would be more abundant than palladium (otherwise it would not be worth it switching over to this other thing).

But this is still not the same as believing in an "infinite" planet with "infinite" resources. Perhaps we can switch from palladium to something else which is so abundant that it will last hundreds or thousands of years - which makes it technically "finite." But since we have no inkling whatsoever whether this palladium-substitute will even be needed in hundreds or thousands of years, there is no point in trying to act as if it is "scarce." Even it it were "scarce," our descendants - just as we did - will almost certainly be as adaptable as we were, and find a substitute for it if they need to.

Furthermore, many of these "non-renewable" resources can actually be recycled, and many already are. This is particularly true of metals. Half the steel manufactured in the US, for example, is made from recycled scrap. This is also true to varying degrees in other countries, and also for other metals. And not only does it recycle the metal, thus reducing the need to extract more iron ore and coking coal, it's cheaper for steel companies to make steel this way. Same deal with paper, and some other things. Increasing amounts of the economic growth that many here attack is actually coming from the recycled detrius of previous economic growth. This is something the "finite earth" crowd seems to forget, or is unaware of.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:02:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')There might be some resources which are becoming scarce relative to demand. I dunno, maybe . . . palladium, or something like that.



How about oil?
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Tue 11 Mar 2008, 21:17:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')hat's what they've been saying for 200 years!!
A non-argument. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

The same could be said of peaker arguments, too. For example, just because the rate of oil discoveries has slowed down in the past couple decades, does not mean it will continue to do so. Just because large amounts of oil from oil shale have not, to date, been produced, does not mean this will forever be the case. And so on for a hundred other peaker claims.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I')t's impossible to plan for that far ahead, because it's impossible for us to know what things will be like that far ahead.
This must be one of the craziest arguments that cornucopians use. You are effectively saying that because we don't know whether future generations could cope with fewer resources (including those that we consider vital), we should completely ignore the possibility that they won't. If this is what you really think, then why not come right out and say it, because then we would be quite clear that you have no care for the effect your actions might have beyond your own lifetime (and probably even less than that).

I'm going to reply to this with 2 examples . . .

1) First, the Romans used iron. What if, 2000 years ago, they had decided to take an "enlightened" approach and said to themselves, "We need to conserve iron ore for future generations 1,000 and 2,000 years henceforeth, so let's reduce our consumption." Even though this is an example where their descendants did, in fact, use the same resource they did, their sentiment would have been absurd because they had no idea how abundant this resource was: In fact iron comprises 5% of the earth's crust, and is one of the most abundant elements on earth. So, while it is "finite," it is extremely abundant, and no one needs to worry about running out of it. Not the Romans, not us. The fact that it can also be recycled makes the need to "conserve" iron ore even more pointless.

2) Now let's go to the other extreme: In this case I will actually use oil. I was talking about why it's ridiculous to try to plan for something 1,000 years from now. Now, even a relative Cornucopian like myself does not believe there will be any reasonable amount of oil left to extract in the ground 1,000 years from now, no matter how much we try to conserve it now. And even if there were still a lot of extractable oil in the ground then, I find it extremely unlikely that mankind, if he is even still around 1,000 years from now, will consume any of it. So, either we have a situation where there is no oil left in the ground no matter what we do now, or humanity will not need or want to consume it anyway. And you're trying to tell me we need to plan ahead for future generations 1,000 years from now?

All that conservation of a non-renewable (and relatively scarce) resource does is delay the inevitable. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if we "run out" of oil 100 years from now, or 300 years from now? No. Even if we didn't conserve it and it soon started to "run out," the people 100 years from now can adjust, just like the people 300 years from now could adjust if it started to "run out" then.
Last edited by Oil-Finder on Wed 12 Mar 2008, 00:29:31, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron