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 davep » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 11:49:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')s Monte has pointed out a gazillion times, we need more than just food to survive. We don't in fact know if there is enough fresh water available to 6 billion people without the benefit of petroleum products. We don't know if there are sufficient biological waste sinks for 6 billion people. It's not just about feeding people!


I know that. However, the fact that we don't know whether we will have enough is not tantamount to a scientific proof purely because we used a phantom energy source (as Monte claims).
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 Ludi » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 11:54:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')However, the fact that we don't know whether we will have enough is not tantamount to a scientific proof purely because we used a phantom energy source (as Monte claims).


I agree. However, I personally feel the evidence indicates we are currently in overshoot in the actual, real, physical world of today. I don't know if some hypothetical situation is relevant. The reindeer on St Matthews Island might not have been in overshoot if they could have lived on rocks. Humans might not be in overshoot if 6+ billion of them could live without fossil fuels.

More and more I see this as a ridiculous, pointless argument. We have to deal with the real physical world we actually live in, not some ideal fantasy world that might could exist somehow.


Anyway, that's my opinion.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby davep » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 12:00:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') challenged you to name one agriculture system in the world today that is not utterly dependent on fossil fuels, primarily diesel. Until you do so then Liebig's law remains valid.


Liebig's Law is only valid for elements necessary for survival. It has been appropriated in a larger sense for oil, but this is incorrect, as it is not an element necessary for survival. It's an energy source. The question (as you say) is whether we can have a sustainable source of food globally without this energy. However, by admitting this, we are no longer talking about Monte's scientific proof that we're in overshoot (purely because we used a phantom energy source), we're discussing whether it is possible or not to maintain the world's population. This then enters the debate about carrying capacity, which is not cut and dried. Again, I'm not saying that we haven't exceeded carrying capacity (like everyone here, I don't know), I'm just saying that the fact we have used oil to get to where we are is not a reason in itself to say that we are in overshoot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e have commandeered a one-time planetary nutrient, petroleum that has allowed us to drawdown many other essential nutrients, and it remains simpleminded cargoism to suggest otherwise. Thus dieoff is real. period. end of discussion.


As I've said before, if we had discovered and utilised oil when there were one million people on earth, and used it up when there were 5 million people, we would not necessarily have exceeded carrying capacity, despite getting to the higher populate thanks to the oil. The same argument is applicable now. It is not a proof, although it may be seen in hindsight that we have exceeded our carrying capacity (with the added pressure of the progressive degradation of the environment).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll your weasel conditions:
"if we could scale non-petroleum blah blah blah," and
"these hypotheticals," and
"potential solutions" etc.

are mere rhetorical devices designed to convey doubt, and to reassure yourself and you assumed listeners of your comfort. But there is none. :twisted:


Err, no. I'm showing that having used oil to get to where we are is not a proof in itself of overshoot, that's all.
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 davep » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 12:05:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')However, the fact that we don't know whether we will have enough is not tantamount to a scientific proof purely because we used a phantom energy source (as Monte claims).


I agree. However, I personally feel the evidence indicates we are currently in overshoot in the actual, real, physical world of today. I don't know if some hypothetical situation is relevant. The reindeer on St Matthews Island might not have been in overshoot if they could have lived on rocks. Humans might not be in overshoot if 6+ billion of them could live without fossil fuels.

More and more I see this as a ridiculous, pointless argument. We have to deal with the real physical world we actually live in, not some ideal fantasy world that might could exist somehow.


Anyway, that's my opinion.


I'm not too enamoured about labouring this point either, but I have to do it, as it's Monte's ultimate "zinger" in his argumentation. Once we can get consensus that having used a phantom energy source to get where we are is not a proof in itself that we are in overshoot, we can get along to more productive debate.

I guess it's a bit unfair to be doing this without Monte around. But I'm sure he'll give us the benefit of his wisdom when he comes back.
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 Ludi » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 12:23:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Once we can get consensus that having used a phantom energy source to get where we are is not a proof in itself that we are in overshoot, we can get along to more productive debate.


I guarantee you will never get consensus on that, especially with Monte. If you want a more productive debate, you'll need to go ahead and start it and just ignore the overshoot posts, because otherwise you have reached a stalemate.

:cry:
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby davep » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 13:31:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') challenged you to name one agriculture system in the world today that is not utterly dependent on fossil fuels, primarily diesel. Until you do so then Liebig's law remains valid.


Liebig's Law is only valid for elements necessary for survival. It has been appropriated in a larger sense for oil, but this is incorrect, as it is not an element necessary for survival. It's an energy source.
Food is necessary for survival. Food for 6 billion can only be grown with oil, it can not be otherwise. Therefore oil is necessary for survival


The point is, we don't know whether food for six billion can be grown without oil. For example, 40% of the nitrate requirements for current agriculture can be provided by human wastes. We're not (generally) using it. But that whole debate is secondary to what I'm talking about. What I'm saying, and I guess I'll have to reiterate it, is that just because we used the phantom energy source of oil to get to current population levels, doesn't mean that automatically we are in overshoot.

You ask if there are any current agricultural practices that could sustain us without oil. Why would we currently use such practices globally, if it's more profitable to use cheap energy? So that again is no proof that we are in overshoot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'T')he question (as you say) is whether we can have a sustainable source of food globally without this energy. However, by admitting this, we are no longer talking about Monte's scientific proof that we're in overshoot (purely because we used a phantom energy source), we're discussing whether it is possible or not to maintain the world's population.
First of all, I did not say 'sustainable source of food.' I said we can not have any food without oil. Period.

What an apparently bizarre statement. Could you please enlighten me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')econdly, you need to explain how 'admitting this' (that we can not have food without oil) somehow denies overshoot. We can not have food without oil Therefore we die. Really very simple.

Again, this seems bizarre at face value. Please explain how we can not have any food without oil (given that we produced it without oil for millennia).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'T')his then enters the debate about carrying capacity, which is not cut and dried. Again, I'm not saying that we haven't exceeded carrying capacity (like everyone here, I don't know), I'm just saying that the fact we have used oil to get to where we are is not a reason in itself to say that we are in overshoot.Carrying capacity is a function of the law of minimum, that is if one essential resource is limited then population is limited by that resource. We grew on oil. We decline with it.

And as I've said, oil is not a necessity for survival per se, it is an energy source. If it is possible to produce the requirements for the world population without it, then it would be evidently false. Again, as I said, just because we used this energy source (highly wastefully in energy terms, but efficiently in terms of price) does not mean that a more energy efficient approach is not possible.

We don't know if it's possible on a global scale. This is not the same as what appears to be an oddly dogmatic stance on your part where you appear to be saying that we can't produce food at all without oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e have commandeered a one-time planetary nutrient, petroleum that has allowed us to drawdown many other essential nutrients, and it remains simpleminded cargoism to suggest otherwise. Thus dieoff is real. period. end of discussion.

As I've said before, if we had discovered and utilised oil when there were one million people on earth, and used it up when there were 5 million people, we would not necessarily have exceeded carrying capacity, despite getting to the higher populate thanks to the oil. The same argument is applicable now. It is not a proof, although it may be seen in hindsight that we have exceeded our carrying capacity (with the added pressure of the progressive degradation of the environment).This is a good but minor point that I have considered. However it falls apart when you consider that oil is only one of many essential nutrients and resources that are in decline, others being fisheries, phosphorous, forests and topsoil, potable water, etc. Too many correlates dependent on petroleum.

Nope. It is possible to rebuild soil through good practice, thereby improving global carrying capacity. Remember though that I'm currently just interested in whether the assertion that the use of oil to get to our current population levels means that according to Liebig's Law we are doomed. Your points above are not part of that argument (although they merit debate separately, of course). Liebig's Law in the sense that Monte uses it is purely about depletion of petroleum, our phantom energy source.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll your weasel conditions:
"if we could scale non-petroleum blah blah blah," and
"these hypotheticals," and
"potential solutions" etc.

are mere rhetorical devices designed to convey doubt, and to reassure yourself and you assumed listeners of your comfort. But there is none. :twisted:

Err, no. I'm showing that having used oil to get to where we are is not a proof in itself of overshoot, that's all.No you are not. You are suggesting that oil's decline is independent from other essential, simultaneous declines. You analyze oil in isolation when it 's abundance is directly related to that of other essentials. And that is wrong.

As I just said in the previous paragraph, Monte states that the fact that we used the phantom energy source in itself means that we are in overshoot and will therefore have a die-off. The other elements are of course important, but not to what I'm trying to refute. Do you understand my argument or should I try to put it another way?
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 timmac » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 17:35:54

As Monte has pointed out a gazillion times, we need more than just food to survive. We don't in fact know if there is enough fresh water available to 6 billion people without the benefit of petroleum products. We don't know if there are sufficient biological waste sinks for 6 billion people. It's not just about feeding people!



Why does every one keep saying there is 6 billion people when it's more like 6.8 billion and 7 billion by 2015,, the world population is growing extremely fast right now and should double every 50 years,, this is the real problem,, to damn many people...
User avatar
timmac
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Las Vegas
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby vilemerchant » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 18:00:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('timmac', '
')Why does every one keep saying there is 6 billion people when it's more like 6.8 billion and 7 billion by 2015,, the world population is growing extremely fast right now and should double every 50 years,, this is the real problem,, to damn many people...


Fortunately, most of that growth is in the 3rd world. They produce little and probably won't be missed, disgusting as that is.
User avatar
vilemerchant
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon 07 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Any middle grounders here?

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 26 Jul 2008, 19:03:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('timmac', '
')Why does every one keep saying there is 6 billion people when it's more like 6.8 billion


I have no idea. Why do you think they keep saying that?
:)
Ludi
 
Top

The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby deMolay » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 08:34:15

One thing the author fails to note is that Taxes in Canada consume more of the middle class budget than Food, Clothing, Housing and Transportation combined. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/04/the-vanishing-middle-ground/
"We Are All Travellers, From The Sweet Grass To The Packing House, From Birth To Death, We Wander Between The Two Eternities". An Old Cowboy.
User avatar
deMolay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby nobodypanic » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 09:04:49

damn all that in taxes on top of healthcare and higher education? oh wait, they don't pay for that, do they? :-D
User avatar
nobodypanic
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby Schmuto » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 09:14:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'O')ne thing the author fails to note is that Taxes in Canada consume more of the middle class budget than Food, Clothing, Housing and Transportation combined. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/04/the-vanishing-middle-ground/


Symptoms of the oil age include . . .

. . . the myth of the middle class. That a man was worth more than the pittance his daily labor was worth.

Why?

Because oil allowed him to extend his production beyond his body. Without that energy, he's just another 2 legged animal who can pick the cotton, drag the wood, move the rocks.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby patience » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 09:21:56

In the early 1980's, I worked as an engineer in an auto parts plant in Indiana, and visited a sister factory in Ontario, same company. My counterpart there could not afford to own both a car and a house, as a young married man. He owned a car, an older Camaro, and his parents owned a house where he and his wife lived. He was a sensible, frugal fellow, very careful with his money. He made about $20,000 Canadian at the time, and I made about $28,000 US then, with all medical insurance paid. With an exchange rate of 70 %, his wages were about $14,000 US--half what I made. He visited our plant, and read newspaper ads, went to stores here and saw that prices were the same or less in the US compared to what he was used to in Canada. Very tough times for him there. He moved to Vancouver and did a lot better soon after that, but the taxes still ate up about half his income, if I remember rightly.

I think things have gotten better for the Canadians since then, and truly hope so. Fine people that I respect a lot. But I do not wish to live under their system of taxation.
Local fix-it guy..
User avatar
patience
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 3180
Joined: Fri 04 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby deMolay » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 09:32:19

Canada has a population of 33M people of which about 16M are actual taxpayers. The rest are too rich, too poor, too young, disabled etc. The total Public debt is around 4 Trillion dollars. Probably the average family is worse off than the USA. Yes we have Universal Healthcare, Universal this and that. All of our social systems are broke and unfunded liabilities just like in the US. In the end there are no free lunches. We also have a criminal level of taxation to pay for it all.
"We Are All Travellers, From The Sweet Grass To The Packing House, From Birth To Death, We Wander Between The Two Eternities". An Old Cowboy.
User avatar
deMolay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby Blacksmith » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 11:29:11

Before you get all excited about univeral medicare note that the Canadian medical system is a very good maintanence system ( I would suggest the average Canadian has better health than the average American), but if you have to go in for surgery you will have to wait in a very long line, if your over eighty the line seems to get longer. There are few specialists and a very large nember of our medical school graduates head for the USA upon graduation.

Our medical system can be compared to the Cubian system where the doctors that treated Fidel were brought in from Spain.
Employed senior
Blacksmith
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun 13 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Athabasca, Alberta
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby Blacksmith » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 11:45:00

I would also like to post a warning for any of you that want to visit Canada this summer because of the low Canadian dollar. Goods and services are much higher than in the United States. Equivalent hotel romms are about $20US higher, food about the same but portions are smaller. Goods range from about 10 to 30 percent higher in US dollars and gasoline is about $2.65US to $2.75 per US gallon. Also you will have to pay sales tax, however if you submit you receipts and fill in several "simple" forms you can get most of it back.
Employed senior
Blacksmith
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Sun 13 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Athabasca, Alberta
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby Schmuto » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 22:54:46

Where's Nickel when you need a foaming at the mouth nationalist to jump in and defend a place?
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Vanishing Middle Ground

Unread postby deMolay » Sat 18 Apr 2009, 23:08:11

The fact is the Canadian Taxpayers are tapped out and our social safety net is unfunded.
"We Are All Travellers, From The Sweet Grass To The Packing House, From Birth To Death, We Wander Between The Two Eternities". An Old Cowboy.
User avatar
deMolay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests