Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Middle ground between believers & deniers

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

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby ThereWillBeMoreBlood » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 04:49:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'o')h...I'm sorry, I thought you wanted a serious debate. But I realize this is just a crazy (do you golf?), cat and mouse game. Cheers.


Serious debate? Your previous posts in this thread look like they were written by an eight year old girl. If you aren't going to bother responding to dave's question (or more likely, you are unable to), I don't see how you can delude yourself into thinking you're ahead in this argument.
User avatar
ThereWillBeMoreBlood
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 09:26:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattS', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')
I'm not saying that things will necessarily go well. I'm just arguing against the "we're in overshoot" mantra as a supposed scientific fact.


This is a completely reasonable statement. I've been going back through some of the threads Monte recommended to me earlier, and I would agree that he does harp on Liebigs Law ( or at least his interpretation of it ) and carrying capacity being much less than current population levels.

As the saying goes though, "saying won't make it so".

It appears to me that there is much more substantial evidence that Monte is wrong in a major way. His references to population estimates suffer from extreme uncertainty, the range of those estimates easily includes the expected population in 2050, and the combination of fossil fuels ( let alone actual energy ) available through that time period is both substantial and shows no sign of being insufficient based on all current estimates of their size when matched with current, and expected future, consumption.

Fossil fuels just doesn't make the cut as the limiting factor on population, and the instant you bring in the concept of usng less fossil fuels and more renewables, nukes and solar, you remove fossil fuels as the entire "limiting" factor, at least for this century.


I agree about the carrying capacity study. However, I'm deliberately staying on the use of overshoot to justify everything, because Monte will eventually fall back on that argument.

The main reason why the phantom carrying capacity / liebig's law argument falls down is that Liebig's law deals with elements necessary for survival. Oil in itself isn't one of those elements. It is the products of the use of oil that have enabled our explosion in population. The question then becomes "Can we produce a given quantity of food without recourse to as much energy as we do now?" and the answer is obviously yes. So Liebig's Law is incorrectly appropriated in his argument. It's not as simple as saying that we used a phantom energy source and therefore we are in overshoot.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby HEADER_RACK » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 11:42:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')iebig's law deals with elements necessary for survival.


In today's modern world would you consider grocery stores to be elements necessary for survival?
Nothing is more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose but has everything left to gain.
User avatar
HEADER_RACK
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu 15 Feb 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 12:24:04

I'm afraid I agree with pstarr. Though I am wholeheartedly in favor of permaculture, biointensive, and Natural Farming, there are so very very few examples of these systems currently in place, we can not, I feel, with any confidence claim they can provide all our food. The fact is, right now in the real actual physical world, they can not, are not able to do so. In some future ideal situation they might be able to, but the current evidence does not support that position. :( I sure as heck wish it did, but it doesn't.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Narz » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:04:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'T')he question then becomes "Can we produce a given quantity of food without recourse to as much energy as we do now?" and the answer is obviously yes. So Liebig's Law is incorrectly appropriated in his argument. It's not as simple as saying that we used a phantom energy source and therefore we are in overshoot.
It is certainly not obvious we can produce our food without petroleum. On the contrary it is virtually impossible to do so. I challenge you to name one agriculture system in the world today that is not utterly dependent on fossil fuels, primarily diesel. I will not consider exceptions such as permaculture gardens, bio-intensive communes, or science fiction hydroponic gadgets. These exist only as experiments or isolated prototypes.

It is up to you to describe a agroeconomic example, model, or theory that will feed a modern industrial society, living beyond a neolithic or paleolithic state (in a condition known as civilized) without petroleum.

Now in the absence of such example it becomes true then that Liebig's Law is in fact "correctly appropriated," that we do use "a phantom energy source," and "therefore we are in overshoot."

by your reasoning DaveP

furthermore you ask for mathematic proof of overshoot. That is simple. The exponential growth function applied to the biologic imperative to leave more offspring then oneself.

I don't see any proof that "it's impossible to produce our food without petroleum". If we can make electric buses, we can make electric farm equipment. Organics are a huge market probably doubling every few years.

Permaculture & home gardening is small scale now because food is so incredibly cheap (why grow your own potatoes when you buy a 20 pound sack for $5.50?).

Our SUVing, road tripping, flying to Paris lifestyle will have to change, and soon. But aside from a Matt Savinar wet dream of complete collapse and anarchy, we'll have enough oil to keep our farms running and most people eating (in the 1st world anyway) for a long time.

And again, fossil fuels are not the only way to run farm machinery. And again it makes sense that backyard food production is still so rare. We're still rich as fuck relatively speaking. Maybe when people can no longer get $1 cheeseburgers & all-you-can-eat Chinese buffets for $8 & hunger is a bigger issue than obesity they'll start looking into alternatives. Shouldn't have to be that way of course but for most people it is.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:09:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'O')rganics are a huge market probably doubling every few years.


The organic agriculture whose market is growing is hugely dependent on oil every single step of the way.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Homesteader » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:13:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'T')he question then becomes "Can we produce a given quantity of food without recourse to as much energy as we do now?" and the answer is obviously yes. So Liebig's Law is incorrectly appropriated in his argument. It's not as simple as saying that we used a phantom energy source and therefore we are in overshoot.
It is certainly not obvious we can produce our food without petroleum. On the contrary it is virtually impossible to do so. I challenge you to name one agriculture system in the world today that is not utterly dependent on fossil fuels, primarily diesel. I will not consider exceptions such as permaculture gardens, bio-intensive communes, or science fiction hydroponic gadgets. These exist only as experiments or isolated prototypes.

It is up to you to describe a agroeconomic example, model, or theory that will feed a modern industrial society, living beyond a neolithic or paleolithic state (in a condition known as civilized) without petroleum.

Now in the absence of such example it becomes true then that Liebig's Law is in fact "correctly appropriated," that we do use "a phantom energy source," and "therefore we are in overshoot."

by your reasoning DaveP

furthermore you ask for mathematic proof of overshoot. That is simple. The exponential growth function applied to the biologic imperative to leave more offspring then oneself.

I don't see any proof that "it's impossible to produce our food without petroleum". If we can make electric buses, we can make electric farm equipment. Organics are a huge market probably doubling every few years.

Permaculture & home gardening is small scale now because food is so incredibly cheap (why grow your own potatoes when you buy a 20 pound sack for $5.50?).

Our SUVing, road tripping, flying to Paris lifestyle will have to change, and soon. But aside from a Matt Savinar wet dream of complete collapse and anarchy, we'll have enough oil to keep our farms running and most people eating (in the 1st world anyway) for a long time.

And again, fossil fuels are not the only way to run farm machinery. And again it makes sense that backyard food production is still so rare. We're still rich as Fark relatively speaking. Maybe when people can no longer get $1 cheeseburgers & all-you-can-eat Chinese buffets for $8 & hunger is a bigger issue than obesity they'll start looking into alternatives. Shouldn't have to be that way of course but for most people it is.


C'mon Narz, don't just throw out some horseshit statements about electricity being a replacement to keep the global agribusiness running at the same capacity as it does now. Give us a linky mate.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Narz » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:29:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'O')rganics are a huge market probably doubling every few years.


The organic agriculture whose market is growing is hugely dependent on oil every single step of the way.

Now maybe but it doesn't have to be that way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', 'C')'mon Narz, don't just throw out some horseshit statements about electricity being a replacement to keep the global agribusiness running at the same capacity as it does now. Give us a linky mate.

I don't have a linky. Because it's not something that could be flipped around and implemented tomorrow.

But I do believe it could (and will) be done (probably noat all electric bu a combination of different fuels, including fossil fuel subsidized by governments). More of a concern for me is solving the transportation crisis that will (is already) effect the truckers who actually deliver the food.

Obviously food is going to get ALOT more expensive. But we could scale down by 50% and still not be starving. Have you looked at the average American lately? Think it's be a bad thing for them to eat less?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Narz » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:33:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'N')arz, you need to know that you don't know what you are talking about. [smilie=5dunce.gif]

Time will tell won't it. :)

What are you doing in this thread anyway? Funny how some folks just can't resists telling others they're wrong.

If things are gonna be so fucking bad, wouldn't it make sense for the doomers to keep quiet and prepare on their own? Unless we're to believe they're some sort of noble altruists.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:38:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Now maybe but it doesn't have to be that way.


I would be more persuaded with evidence.

But we've gone way off topic here, this should all be in a separate "farming in an alternate reality" thread or something.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Homesteader » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:41:46

Narz,

I've got an experiment you can do. If you aren't working full time it will be even better since you will be able to devote plenty of time and energy to the experiment. It will be good real world experience for you.

Start a lawn care business that is powered by electricity. Whatever combination of solar, plug-in etc. . . that you think is best. Think of the great marketing. I'm sure some of the larger corporations will sign up, maybe you will even get a few of those big ball fields to mow. Be sure to tell them that fertilizing isn't an option.

Extrapolate your results to Kansas for starters, the rest of the world can extrapolate later.
Last edited by Homesteader on Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:44:03, edited 1 time in total.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Homesteader » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 13:43:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '
')Now maybe but it doesn't have to be that way.


I would be more persuaded with evidence.

But we've gone way off topic here, this should all be in a separate "farming in an alternate reality" thread or something.


:lol:
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 14:04:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')The devil is in the details and implementation of alternative systems can not happen in time. :cry:


The argument you have made time and again is the distribution of land and human labor for farming and food gardening. That has been, for me I think, the most compelling argument that transition can not happen in time to avoid the worst effects of post-peak-oil. People are not on the land where they need to be, even if there were enough land to provide food, shelter, fuel, and waste sinks, biodiversity, etc( which we in fact do not know) - how will the people be moved to the land where they must be if they are to farm without fossil fuels?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 14:05:44

Here we go again with the petroleum-dependent agriculture. Look upthread at my numbers. Look at the tiny fraction of oil used by agriculture. Look at the relatively small fraction of oil used by support sectors like construction and trucking.

Electric agriculture equipment? Sounds like an good situation for electrification given the relatively short distances, low speeds and fixed point the equipment returns to each night. Companies are already selling kits that give small trucks up to 100 mpg, and the calcuations I saw suggested they're a small net loss over the battery lifetime given $4 gas. 2-3 years of development, $6 gas? That picture flips.

Nitrogen fertilizer? About 1% of use, as best I can figure (open to correction on this point). Can be produced, albeit more expensively, using non-fossil-fuel sources.

Trucking the food? We can cut a lot of fat out of this sector. Rail is currently ~20% of land-baesd shipping and is ~3x more efficient, and rail companies are already projecting 2x growth through 2030. I'm sure it could be somewhat faster with appropriate government intervention and strong price signals. Engineers are working on ways to double the current pitiful ~4 mpg of trucks. Moderate food relocalization and less shipping of frivolous entertainment products will cut use too.

Construction, asphault, water freight... all miniscule fractions of the oil supply.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 14:07:29

How will people pay for the food when their petroleum-dependent jobs are gone? You just got rid of all the "frivolous" jobs.

Oh, like mine!
8O
Ludi
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron