PeakOil is You
Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder
Re: Monte Quest vs Oil-Finder
by Oil-Finder » Wed 12 Mar 2008, 17:21:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t must be very difficult communicating with you, since you clearly regard the present tense to be the same as the past tense. As I've said, Monte used the present tense and so it is highly likely that he was talking about the present or very recent past. So it doesn't matter how many words you find for "none", the fact is, Monte was almost certainly not talking about the last 25 years.
Spare me, please, you are desperate.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')he demand for meat is going up and being met...but no more grain is being produced.
Did he say the demand for meat was going up today? This week? A year ago Monday? The past 2 years? No. Did he say no more grain is being produced today? This week? A year ago Monday? The past 2 years? No. He believes that no more grain is being produced, which is false. Furthermore, even if you added up the totals for all the grains I listed on the first page "for just the past few years," you would see a rise anyway. So you are still wrong anyway.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hy do you think, after 200 years of industrialisation and increasing knowledge of materials and their properties, we use the stuff we do? In most cases it will be because they are the best materials to use for the particular job they do, or the most abundant (or most easily produced or highest quality) substance of several possibilities. I don't think there is much likelihood of us coming across better more abundant substances for each of the resources that becomes scarce, though that may happen in some cases.
I disagree. Humans are an adaptable, inventive species. If we ever ran out of palladium, we could find a substitute for that. And if we ever ran out of oil, we could find a substitute for that, too.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')his is a belief in an infinite planet. You believe that our descendents (no timeframe so, I assume you mean indefinitely, with no time limit) will be able to always adapt or substitute for scarce resources. You don't know that, at all. It is a belief, and a dangerous belief, because it is the type of belief that causes us to pay no heed to earth's limits, thereby guaranteeing that we will crash into them and make it much harder for our descendants to survive.
I'm going to respond to this and your other response from your other post simultaneously, since they are similar:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')ell, if we assume it is finite and that the rate we produce it now will start to decline in the coming decades then shouldn't we use such an excellent source of energy more wisely? We should conserve it not to leave some for future generations but to allow us room to build sustainable societies, if at all possible. But you appear to be arguing that because some resource is finite anyway, what does it matter if we use it all up? You're right only if we don't care about our own future and for future generations.
You missed the point, and did not reply to it: What does it matter if we run out of a resource 100 years from now, or 300 years from now? If a non-renewable resource is scarce, either our decisions will screw somebody 100 years from now, or they will screw somebody 300 years from now. In either case it is impossible NOT to screw someone! It has absolutely nothing to do with caring about future generations, because we will have to screw some future generation, be it 100 years from now, or 300 years from now. And ironically, it is you who are inferring that the planet is "infinite," because you seem to believe the supply of oil or any other non-renewable resource can be spread out indefinitely, which is impossible for a non-renewable resource.
If that weren't enough, you're also telling me you want future generations to be able to use these resources. Perhaps some of them are understandable (such as iron), but what about oil? Please answer for me the following question: Do you want our descendants 1,000 years from now to be able to use oil? If so, why? And also if so, what is the basis of your belief that conservation today will ensure a supply of oil 1,000 years from now? You're simultaneously telling me that we're running out of good supplies of oil, but also telling me we can make it last 1,000 more years!! Who here is the real cornucopian?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Q')uite right, Oil-Finder. This is something we agree on. The difference is that you are utterly convinced that oil companies will find plenty of oil and be able to produce shale at many millions of barrels per day. The likelihood of finding some fantastic new oil province is diminishing. Oil companies are having very little success in places that are relatively easy to explore and are having to go after less easy and less likely prospects. Your oil discoveries thread has almost no information that enables one to demonstrate big new production capacity in the near future (or any time). And yet you chastise those you call doomers for being wrong in the past and expect us to believe your claims of the future.
OK, you have now just, in effect, told me it is extremely unlikely there will be oil left for our descendants 1,000 years from now. Probably not even 300 years from now, and maybe not even 100 years from now. So I ask you once again, If we are running out of oil no matter what we do, what is the point of trying to "save" it for future generations? Somebody down the line is going to get screwed, no matter what we do. Do you not understand this? All you are trying to do is to delay the inevitable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')his is not the argument you were making. You were saying that since we can't know what future generations will be able to do, we should assume that they will be able to cope with whatever world we leave them. In your example, you are assuming that the Romans would know how things would turn out and that the course they set us on was ultimately completely beneficial. The fact that one resource, iron, was and is abundant is irrelevant. You still have no idea what our descendants will be capable of and so are advocating that we don't consider them.
No, I did not assume that the Romans would know how things would turn out, I simply had them take the same stance you are: To conserve a resource for future generations. The only other assumption I make is that human beings are adaptable. You seem to think they aren't. I disagree.
