My understanding was that the issue was controlling the reaction and being able to harness the energy released. Not so much that it's a trouble to get started. Consensus is that 'some more time' is more time than we have before things get ugly... energetically speaking at least.Roland said:
The Long Emergency
- Thread starter Agrippa
- Start date
Let's play energy mad-libs:
Noooo, there's nothing to gain by deluding ourselves... it is in everybody's best interest to pretend that a solution will be found when in reality we are only displacing the problem.
Assuming we've already found all the mineable oil deposits worldwide? Oil isn't scarce. You might even have some in your backyard. But in order to mine it, oil must be found in large concentrations. And only a small number of these concentrated deposits have been discovered worldwide. The keywords here being "have been discovered". Currently, there are many oil refineries and cars in operation worldwide. This number will have multiplied over the years. I doubt very much that plans for the construction of all these new refineries and cars would have been drawn up if experts thought that we would run out of oil in 100 years. Production however will have a hard time keeping up with demand and it wouldn't be surprising to see oil prices increase to unprecedented levels. Which is why of course, especially since the last correction the Saudis made brought most barrel estimates close to the same level as last year despite the fact that they extracted a billion barrels over the course of the year, it's not a bad idea to invest in oil stocks, especially as a long term investment. See, I'm investing in dirty energy and making more money than I can imagine.
Noooo, there's nothing to gain by deluding ourselves... it is in everybody's best interest to pretend that a solution will be found when in reality we are only displacing the problem.
1 and 3 are practically self-evident, but I can't say I follow 2 and 4; can you please elaborate?Ziggy Montana said:
Ultimately though, I think we've listened to economists enough already.
Gregory Bateson via Stewart Brand
Every time I’ve retold this story since I first heard it from Gregory in the 1970s, someone always asks, "What about for the next time? Has a new grove of oaks been planted an protected?" I forwarded the question to the authorities at New College—the College Archivist and the Clerk of Works. They had no idea.
New College, Oxford, is of rather late foundation, hence the name. It was founded around the late 14th century. It has, like other colleges, a great dining hall with big oak beams across the top, yes? These might be two feet square, forty-five feet long.
A century ago, so I am told, some busy entomologist went up into the roof of the dining hall with a penknife and poked at the beams and found that they were full of beetles. This was reported to the College Council, who met in some dismay, because where would they get beams of that caliber nowadays?
One of the Junior Fellows stuck his neck out and suggested that there might be on College lands some oak. These colleges are endowed with pieces of land scattered across the country. So they called in the College Forester, who of course had not been near the college itself for some years and asked him about oaks.
And he pulled his forelock and said, "Well sirs, we was wonderin’ when you’d be askin’."
Upon further inquiry it was discovered that when the College was founded, a grove of oaks had been planted to replace the beams in the dining hall when they became beetly, because oak beams always become beetly in the end. This plan had been passed down from one Forester to the next for five hundred years. "You don’t cut them oaks. Them’s for the College Hall."
A nice story. That’s the way to run a culture.
A century ago, so I am told, some busy entomologist went up into the roof of the dining hall with a penknife and poked at the beams and found that they were full of beetles. This was reported to the College Council, who met in some dismay, because where would they get beams of that caliber nowadays?
One of the Junior Fellows stuck his neck out and suggested that there might be on College lands some oak. These colleges are endowed with pieces of land scattered across the country. So they called in the College Forester, who of course had not been near the college itself for some years and asked him about oaks.
And he pulled his forelock and said, "Well sirs, we was wonderin’ when you’d be askin’."
Upon further inquiry it was discovered that when the College was founded, a grove of oaks had been planted to replace the beams in the dining hall when they became beetly, because oak beams always become beetly in the end. This plan had been passed down from one Forester to the next for five hundred years. "You don’t cut them oaks. Them’s for the College Hall."
A nice story. That’s the way to run a culture.
Every time I’ve retold this story since I first heard it from Gregory in the 1970s, someone always asks, "What about for the next time? Has a new grove of oaks been planted an protected?" I forwarded the question to the authorities at New College—the College Archivist and the Clerk of Works. They had no idea.
Agrippa said:
It also seems to be in your best interest to make false statements, and avoid the topic and start ranting when you have been corrected. Furthermore, despite our history of wars, disease, catastrophes and other general unpleasantness, humankind has always proven to be extremely resilient, inventive and have a great capacity for inovation when solutions to complex problems were required. So, it would seem to me that history does not support your pessimistic "...pretend that a solution will be found" statement.
And for the record, I have absolutely nothing against developing alternative forms of energy. Does this mean we should all stop using our cars today?
I assume you will soon annouce that you are quitting this "hobby" because you have chosen to invest the money you blow on SP's on plans to build a condom recycling plant in Montreal.
Last edited:
Maybe there is some hope
And just when I thought there was no hope for the future I discover that all of the collective wisdom of humankind resides safely and securely here at MERB!
The fault needs to be found in first causes. Capitalism, pollution, energy depletion are all secondary to the first evil, namely religion. We can easily trace all of these these human problems back to the initially silly but eventually devastating idea that there is a god - and all of its manifestations.
Until we are willing to address that one, we are doomed. The United States is a good case in point. The apparent pillars of that society - greed, violence and ignorance emerge out of a firm belief in a diety who sanctions all actions that inform those qualities.
Religion is the downfall of humans. The rest is chickenshit.
And just when I thought there was no hope for the future I discover that all of the collective wisdom of humankind resides safely and securely here at MERB!
The fault needs to be found in first causes. Capitalism, pollution, energy depletion are all secondary to the first evil, namely religion. We can easily trace all of these these human problems back to the initially silly but eventually devastating idea that there is a god - and all of its manifestations.
Until we are willing to address that one, we are doomed. The United States is a good case in point. The apparent pillars of that society - greed, violence and ignorance emerge out of a firm belief in a diety who sanctions all actions that inform those qualities.
Religion is the downfall of humans. The rest is chickenshit.
JustBob said:
Not sure where I made a false statement, please specifically point it out to me and I will elaborate or retract. Not sure where I ranted either. I copied your paragraph about nuclear energy and tried to show the irony... we've been throught this before. A few times. I feel sorry for you that I had to explain that to you.
I do not doubt humans ability to innovate one bit. The issue is that they do it at the expense of future generations. According to William James: "The most significant characteristic of modern civilization is the sacrifice of the future for the present, and all the power of science has been prostituted to this purpose."
Where did the passenger pigeons go? Where did all the large fish go? Where did 50% of all the bees go? They either went or are going extinct. What will farms look like when we no longer have oil to fertilize them? Empty. Pessimistic? Nope. I think something more like 'in touch with reality' is a better description. It would seem to me that history does support my point of view.
I don't follow your logical leap. We will stop using cars when we have to not because someone said so. This 'when we have to' will come, and is probably already here, but this will only be clear in hindsight, with peak oil.JustBob said:
I agree with you figtree. When people base their lives on a book that objectifies almost everything (other men not of the same creed, all women, all non-human life) and decrees to go forth and multiply, you know you are going to be facing trouble.figtree said:
Last edited:
Excellent documentaries that everyone must see.
Pick one and brace yourself.
Pick one and brace yourself.
Ok, just an observation to start with. If you're going to use a book as your main "source" (title, quotes (William James...) and/or content), I suggest you make that known from the get go.
The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century, by James Howard Kunstler
Soooo......
Not a bad book by the way, but an extremely one-sided vision from a writer with an holier-than-thou attitude and a complete intolerance for any views other than his own which borders on religious fervor. Not to mention that economics and geo-politics are obviously not his strong suit... And Mr. Kunstler is so sure of his "facts" that hey didn't bother to include a bloody index... A perfect example of what I previously called "Doomalism". And people got all upset when I said that Global Warming had become a religion where the zealot followers had nothing but condescension and disdain for opposing views... Considering your apparent disdain for religion, I'll let you figure out the irony. And for the record, I'm an atheist.
Here's a pretty good review of said book:
http://greentheoryandpraxis.ecopedagogy.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/13/14
Now here's a couple more books:The Party's Over (Richard Heinberg) and The End of Oil (Paul Roberts. You'll get the basic facts (on peak oil) and suggestions/alternatives, without the insulting, self-righteous tone.
The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century, by James Howard Kunstler
Soooo......
Not a bad book by the way, but an extremely one-sided vision from a writer with an holier-than-thou attitude and a complete intolerance for any views other than his own which borders on religious fervor. Not to mention that economics and geo-politics are obviously not his strong suit... And Mr. Kunstler is so sure of his "facts" that hey didn't bother to include a bloody index... A perfect example of what I previously called "Doomalism". And people got all upset when I said that Global Warming had become a religion where the zealot followers had nothing but condescension and disdain for opposing views... Considering your apparent disdain for religion, I'll let you figure out the irony. And for the record, I'm an atheist.
Here's a pretty good review of said book:
http://greentheoryandpraxis.ecopedagogy.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/13/14
Now here's a couple more books:The Party's Over (Richard Heinberg) and The End of Oil (Paul Roberts. You'll get the basic facts (on peak oil) and suggestions/alternatives, without the insulting, self-righteous tone.
Last edited:
I am well aware of scholarly practices. Since this isn't a university paper, but more of a conversation I've eschewed these conventions. Who footnotes their conversations? I figured naming the thread by the title of the book was enough of a hint.JustBob said:Ok, just an observation to start with. If you're going to use a book as your main "source" (title, quotes (William James...) and/or content), I suggest you make that known from the get go.
I read Robert's book a while ago, and keep coming across Heinberg's name regularly in various media. I like to think I am well versed in what I am discussing from a variety of sources.JustBob said:
Please let's not turn this into another waste of time 'Global Warming: Man or Nature' discussion. Let's agree to disagree on what has caused global warming, but I think we can all agree that the climate is changing and that it will have serious consequences for human and non-human life.
I see no irony. Religious behaviour is based on faith, not facts. Whereas peak oil, global warming, ecocide, is supported by facts. Dawkins makes the difference between faith and facts a few times in The God Delusion, which I'm sure you have read. How can you be an atheist and not have disdain for religion? I find your reasoning in general to be weak JustBob... what exactly are you contesting ? The tone of the arguments or the contents?
Voici un lien qui résume mieux que je ne le ferais, l'approche d'Attali.Agrippa said:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernomade
Constatant la tournure trop bien connue que prend ce fil de discussion, ce sujet ne ferait figure que de parenthèse, pour peu qu'on s'y attarde.
Hopefully that means not sending over 30 billion to Africa for aids, billions to Israel for god knows what, and millions to the UN, the real evil empire.Ziggy Montana said:
Curtailing the spread of AIDS is in everybody's best interest. In the Long Emergency, people may not have much to eat or they may not have shelter, but they will always have sex. Is the money spent effectively? I can't anwser.beautydigger said:
As for the billions to Israel... come on, you know it's for weapons.
The Malaise of Modernity
For a look at a something a little more homespun a series of lectures given by Dr. Charles Taylor at McGill in the early nineties has been condensed into a little book called The Malaise of Modernity. Well worth the read for the point of view of a sociologist/philosopher on the engine which drives the thought of many left wing types today. In fact some of you may have sat through these lectures and are more conversant than I.
The above are some issues covered (My apologies to Dr. Taylor if my paraphrasing leaves something to be desired)
Our charter of rights and freedoms that wonderful little gift to all Canadians courtesy of our illustrious P.E.T. is a prime example of what can happen when individual rights are not adequately balanced with collective rights. A problem which doesn't seem to be an issue for those whose religion or personal beliefs involving some form of moral dimension governs most aspects of their lives. Granted some may argue that morality is simply a construct which may or may not be useful. That is covered in his book. A full discussion of his approach is outside the scope of this forum but IMHO he does present a very convincing argument.
Perhaps social rot will claim us long before the oil runs out.
For a look at a something a little more homespun a series of lectures given by Dr. Charles Taylor at McGill in the early nineties has been condensed into a little book called The Malaise of Modernity. Well worth the read for the point of view of a sociologist/philosopher on the engine which drives the thought of many left wing types today. In fact some of you may have sat through these lectures and are more conversant than I.
- Doing your own thing is the only path to the authentic self
- The self absorption of the permissive me-generation
- the rise of moral relativism
- the rise of instrumental reason - "maximum efficiency, the best cost/output ratio is the measure of success."
- individualism and instrumentalism have become the new morality but in their amoral dimension they leave a gaping hole.
The above are some issues covered (My apologies to Dr. Taylor if my paraphrasing leaves something to be desired)
Our charter of rights and freedoms that wonderful little gift to all Canadians courtesy of our illustrious P.E.T. is a prime example of what can happen when individual rights are not adequately balanced with collective rights. A problem which doesn't seem to be an issue for those whose religion or personal beliefs involving some form of moral dimension governs most aspects of their lives. Granted some may argue that morality is simply a construct which may or may not be useful. That is covered in his book. A full discussion of his approach is outside the scope of this forum but IMHO he does present a very convincing argument.
Perhaps social rot will claim us long before the oil runs out.
We're all right! ALL right! allright?
Your cousin, my cousin, Charles Manson, Pinnochio and the King of Siam. How does that go again, "I'm all right Jack!"Dee said:
Good recommendation; thanks Regular Guy!Regular Guy said:
I think I'll wait for Attali's Une Breve Histoire de l'Avenir to come out in English in 2009. I don't think I can handle it in French...
