What if peak oil causes a BOOM not BUST?

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

tubaplayer
Posts: 20
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 07:09
Location: Halogy, Hungary

Re: What if peak oil causes a BOOM not BUST?

Post by tubaplayer »

mobbsey wrote:
fifthcolumn wrote:Are the doomers still of the opinion that in such a scenario we will inevitably hit some other limit and crash anyway?
That's not being doomerish, that's just the hard reality of arithmetic:
# population is growing faster than food production
# energy is being used faster than new resources are developed
# fossil water resources are being tapped to keep people alive

That's the problem with the cornucopian view of the world -- it won't wake up to the inevitability of mathematics even when the global underclass starts (euphemistically) "mugging it for food".

I think Bill Hicks summed up the problem in the best way; "stop your internal dialogue, you're wrong".
What an excellent reply mobbsey!

The last time I posted on one of these threads two certain people ( who certainly know who they are) replied with sarcasm about my user name and obloquy about my state of knowledge ("educating newbies").

Ha!

I refrained from replying at the time. It would probably have got me barred.

Well, to the one I would say that I certainly can play the tuba better than you obviously understand the exponential function, and to the other I would say "Newbie?" I was educated to this stuff at school in the mid 1960s. NEWBIE???

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY Prof. Al Bartlett on the exponential function. Taking his view about bacteria in a pint bottle I reckon that it is about two, maybe three, minutes to twelve!
madibe
Posts: 1595
Joined: 23 Jun 2009, 13:00

Post by madibe »

SunnyJim wrote:
Yes, I'll remember that when global desire to live like Americans has spread globally, and the population hits 9 billion in 2030....

RGR replied:
It will never happen.
What RGR? The global desire to live like Americans or the population hitting 9 billion...or both? Explanation?
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

China consumes over half of the entire worlds concrete, 30% of the worlds coal output and 36% of the worlds steel output.

China builds nearly 100,000km of roads per year.

China is predicted to build 2 new coal-fired powerstations per week, and (as of 2008) 97 new regional airports by 2020.

Doesn't this sound like a country that wants to live like Americans ?
User avatar
JohnB
Posts: 6456
Joined: 22 May 2006, 17:42
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

Post by JohnB »

I don't want to live like an American. Does that help? :lol:
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
fifthcolumn
Posts: 2525
Joined: 22 Nov 2007, 14:07

Post by fifthcolumn »

UndercoverElephant wrote: So there's no limits in the supply of fresh water or fish in the sea?
Fresh water is so cheap currently that people won't pay a high enough price for it to bring a solution to market.
You *could* get enough water by e.g. buying only bottled water.
You'd need to figure out a way to keep clean with less water of course and figure out how to get rid of your piss and turds without flushing.

Personally I think the flushing toilet is probably the worst invention ever and is the direct cause of much ocean pollution. But that's besides the point.

As for fish in the sea: pay enough money and ponds will be built where fish are reared in aquaculture. Oh wait... it's ALREADY HAPPENING.

The point is mate, that all you non capitalist pigs don't get that it is the mindset inherent in capitalism that solves most of the resource problems.

Consider this: Militaristic (natural) thinking vs Capitalistic thinking.

Militarist: Oh shit, we are about to run out of oil, better invade x country, they are weaker than us.

Capitalist: Hmmm. They're about to run out of oil. What are the applications for oil? How can we meet the customers needs WITHOUT OIL and still make a profit.

I suspect most of the doomers are non profit seeking in their mindsets and only see resource grabs and not substitution as solutions.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="maudibe"]
Last edited by RGR on 07 Aug 2011, 21:23, edited 1 time in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="Catweazle"]
Last edited by RGR on 07 Aug 2011, 21:23, edited 1 time in total.
syberberg
Posts: 1089
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09

Post by syberberg »

RGR wrote:
Catweazle wrote: Doesn't this sound like a country that wants to live like Americans ?
WANTING to live like Americans, and accomplishing it, are two entirely different things.
Out of curiosity what, in your opinion, is going to prevent them from getting there?
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="syberberg"]
Last edited by RGR on 07 Aug 2011, 21:23, edited 1 time in total.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

fifthcolumn wrote:Fresh water is so cheap currently that people won't pay a high enough price for it to bring a solution to market.
???

Just Google "US water shortage" and you'll find that, from Georgia to California, the US is running short of water. There's no absolute shortage yet, except in Atlanta, but water in reservoirs is being used faster than it is being replenished.

Canada may have plenty of water, so you'll be OK fifth, but that is not a lot of good for the US because water is very heavy and therefore expensive to pump. Yes, they can put the price up, but what about the poor people? Those who already can't afford health insurance, are struggling to pay for fuel to get to work and are in danger of reneging on their mortgage payments or rent will have no option but to riot or steal their drinking water. The great unwashed springs to mind. People may do without health care but they'll usually fight for water to drink before dying of thirst. And pumping will use up a lot of that spare gas you keep telling us about.
You *could* get enough water by e.g. buying only bottled water.
You'd need to figure out a way to keep clean with less water of course and figure out how to get rid of your piss and turds without flushing.

Personally I think the flushing toilet is probably the worst invention ever and is the direct cause of much ocean pollution. But that's besides the point.
True, but short of taking it away in a hand cart as the Untouchables do in India there's no more sustainable way of doing it.
As for fish in the sea: pay enough money and ponds will be built where fish are reared in aquaculture. Oh wait... it's ALREADY HAPPENING.
The trouble with that is that in order to feed the farmed fish you have to catch three or four times the weight of the farmed fish to feed those fish on. In order to feed the salmon/cod/etc we are catching three times that weight of sardines/ pilchards/whitebait to feed to the farmed fish. Stupid!! Why don't we just eat the sardines/ pilchards/whitebait.

Meanwhile, fisheries worldwide have already declined by 80%. Africans are leaving their fishing villages in the boats that no longer catch any fish because EU boats have hoovered their local oceans and sailing to Spain or the Canary Islands to find a living in the EU.
The point is mate, that all you non capitalist pigs don't get that it is the mindset inherent in capitalism that solves most of the resource problems.
That mindset has caused our present resource problems as well. By not taking into account the environmental costs of waste disposal we have polluted the planet. Because we have assumed that the earth's resources are infinite we have discarded most of the resources we have so far plundered. Capitalists, in the US especially, have been very reluctant to pick up the tab for their environmental costs.
Consider this: Militaristic (natural) thinking vs Capitalistic thinking.

Militarist: Oh shit, we are about to run out of oil, better invade x country, they are weaker than us.

Capitalist: Hmmm. They're about to run out of oil. What are the applications for oil? How can we meet the customers needs WITHOUT OIL and still make a profit.
The trouble with that argument is that the biggest capitalist country in the world reverts to militarist thinking as soon as it is confronted with a resource shortage.
I suspect most of the doomers are non profit seeking in their mindsets and only see resource grabs and not substitution as solutions.
On the contrary, most of the doomers on this website, me included, are capitalists according to your definition above. We are actively installing solar HW, PV and wind turbines or building ecovillages or growing our own veg.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

RGR wrote:
syberberg wrote:
RGR wrote: WANTING to live like Americans, and accomplishing it, are two entirely different things.
Out of curiosity what, in your opinion, is going to prevent them from getting there?
The overwhelming power of the lognormal distribution of course. ( Hey, if Albert can have his exponential, surely I can claim a density function :D ).

Let me demonstrate.

Take the list in Wiki of GDNP per capita. Fit a lognormal probability density function to the data ( 2 others fit better, a chi-square test says that a lognormal is nearly as good as a beta general fit, but I like lognormals ).

The parameters for this distribution are a mean USD/Person of 12.9. The standard deviation is 15.0, the median is 7.0.

The basics of this tells us that this standard of living measure is a reasonably skewed distribution, the particulars of which tell us that there is only a 2.7% chance that a country will have a better GDNP/Person measure than the US.

The strawman is that it is statistically unreasonable to say that everyone will achieve a standard of living attainable by only those 2.7% from the top. Its analogous to saying that Americans will only be happy if they can have Warren Buffets net worth. As I said earlier, it will never happen.

While semantic strawmen like "what happens when everyone has a standard of living like Americans" works fine on gullible newbies, rarely does such silliness survive even a cursory examination by someone of even my meager statistical talents.
I think it's worth asking where all that wealth comes, or at least came, from.

What made the US so wealthy in a way that another superpower cannot imitate ? Do you think it was a one time only event ?

(It couldn't have been the availability of cheap oil could it ?)
User avatar
mobbsey
Posts: 2243
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Banbury
Contact:

Post by mobbsey »

fifthcolumn wrote:Consider this: Militaristic (natural) thinking vs Capitalistic thinking.

Militarist: Oh shit, we are about to run out of oil, better invade x country, they are weaker than us.

Capitalist: Hmmm. They're about to run out of oil. What are the applications for oil? How can we meet the customers needs WITHOUT OIL and still make a profit.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but militarism and capitalism are two sides of the same political economy; they are inextricably entwined.

If I might refer you once again to the word of the great sage, Bill Hicks:
I’m so sick of arming the world and then sending troops over to destroy the f***ing arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries then we go and blow the shit out of em.
There's a ten minute video exposition of his philosophy by the man himself at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkZQ2Fx1j9E
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6978
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/16 ... gainst_uk/

The great thing about the internet is that no one knows you are a dog.
madibe
Posts: 1595
Joined: 23 Jun 2009, 13:00

Post by madibe »

RGR wrote:
syberberg wrote:
RGR wrote:
Catweazle wrote:

Doesn't this sound like a country that wants to live like Americans ?


WANTING to live like Americans, and accomplishing it, are two entirely different things.


Out of curiosity what, in your opinion, is going to prevent them from getting there?


The overwhelming power of the lognormal distribution of course. ( Hey, if Albert can have his exponential, surely I can claim a density function ).

Let me demonstrate.

Take the list in Wiki of GDNP per capita. Fit a lognormal probability density function to the data ( 2 others fit better, a chi-square test says that a lognormal is nearly as good as a beta general fit, but I like lognormals ).

The parameters for this distribution are a mean USD/Person of 12.9. The standard deviation is 15.0, the median is 7.0.

The basics of this tells us that this standard of living measure is a reasonably skewed distribution, the particulars of which tell us that there is only a 2.7% chance that a country will have a better GDNP/Person measure than the US.

The strawman is that it is statistically unreasonable to say that everyone will achieve a standard of living attainable by only those 2.7% from the top. Its analogous to saying that Americans will only be happy if they can have Warren Buffets net worth. As I said earlier, it will never happen.

While semantic strawmen like "what happens when everyone has a standard of living like Americans" works fine on gullible newbies, rarely does such silliness survive even a cursory examination by someone of even my meager statistical talents.
Wow, to be in the company of gods. I am honoured. :wink:
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

RalphW wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/16 ... gainst_uk/

The great thing about the internet is that no one knows you are a dog.
So that's who RGR works for. Why didn't Vortex tell us? :lol: :lol:
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Post Reply