another doomsday thread - Nine meals from anarchy?

[JerichoHill]

Huh, so they're always wrong because people save the world by acting on their advice? Wouldn't that make them right?

That seems to be a rather consistent trend in the do nothing camp. There won't be a real shock, because someone else will start listening to these people, but not me. So much for personal responsibility.

Wow. Way to not get at all the deeper point. I wasn't even claiming what you attributed.

By sounding alarms about potential problems, the doomsdays tend to be ahead of the curve. However, said sounding of the alarm tends to push the world into action before its too late. But, the doomsdayers still sound alarms well past the point the fire is put out.

Further, being a chronic doomdayer seems to require an inherently pessimistic viewpoint on mankind, one that isn't supported by our history. I find it hiliarous that to you, "do-nothing" and "optimism" are one and the same.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@aelf
And I suppose you have said physical facts right now?
I am pretty sure there are alot of alternative energies out there for us yes. Did you know that British companies recently cracked the nut in wave-power technology? (ensuring that their stations can float in very large waves, basically, bad weather was the issue). That's good news! We've also gotten wind power to be alot more efficient. Further, it even appears that it would be relatively simple to build a microwave power plant (a plant featured in SimCity 2 of all things, many years before its time).

I would answer every objection, but you are so completely stuck in your ways of thinking that Peak Oil = disaster, I just gave up.

 

[aelf]

I am pretty sure there are alot of alternative energies out there for us yes. Did you know that British companies recently cracked the nut in wave-power technology? (ensuring that their stations can float in very large waves, basically, bad weather was the issue). That's good news! We've also gotten wind power to be alot more efficient. Further, it even appears that it would be relatively simple to build a microwave power plant (a plant featured in SimCity 2 of all things, many years before its time.

I would answer every objection, but you are so completely stuck in your ways of thinking that Peak Oil = disaster, I just gave up.

And you are so completely stuck in your ways of thinking economic factors = everything good, I just gave up trying to explain that the developments might be too slow and (the bigger issue) that people just might not be adopting alternative technologies fast enough because, like you, they think peak oil is a myth or they simply don't give a damn.

 

[Narz]

I guess the physical facts weren't in out favor in every single doomsday prophecy that hasnt come true so far.

So excuse me if I dont pay any mind to the doomsdayers. Theyve been wrong constantly for thousands of years. And part of the reason why they are always wrong is that by the very act of them sounding the bell of alarm, things change (except they continue to sound the alarm...)

Sigh. Not this again from you Jericho. I know you're smarter than this.

#1 : Define "doomsday".
#2 : Do you think no one predicted the fall of the Roman Empire (up to 99% drops in population is some areas IIRC) or the fall of the Vikings or Mayans or... pretty much EVERY SINGLE OTHER EMPIRE THAT'S EVEN RISEN. Have you considered that not only do you have it wrong but what you're beliving is the opposite of the truth. Rise-fall-collapse isn't something that never happens, it's something that is guaranteed to happen sooner or later. Both in natural & human history.
#3 : Usually the alarm "they" sound falls on largely deaf ears. For example when Jimmy Carter started advising the US try to practice conversation, become more energy independent, be future-wise in general, everyone poo-poohed him. His exact energy predictions turned out to be a bit off & the Regans & the Bushes getting in bed with the Saudis, etc. helped smooth things out for a prosperous 80's & 90's but if we'd listened to him certainly we'd be in a better situation today. We'd certainly have bought an extra decade or so to develop alternative technology. Who knows, we might even have some serious alternatives available today.

Waiting until the last possible minute until Superma... I mean "the market" "automatically" swoops in with the best possible solution isn't always the most prudent policy. "The market" (alternatively lulled & hyperstimulated by advertisers) is a short-term beast that has rolled over 25% of all the Earth's mammals in my lifetime (last thirty years).

The free market can get my anything? How about a live dodo bird. I'll give you a trillion dollars.

Creating a category ("doomsdayers") & then claiming "they" are "always wrong" thus "they will always be wrong" is pretty poor debating technique.

 

[JerichoHill]

And you are so completely stuck in your ways of thinking economic factors = everything good, I just gave up trying to explain that the developments might be too slow and (the bigger issue) that people just might not be adopting alternative technologies fast enough because, like you, they think peak oil is a myth or they simply don't give a damn.

I am not just talking about economic factors. I am not going to base all my thoughts just on economic indicators. You're wondering if we're too slow. Well, that's speculation. There are not any facts that truely support that position, just as there are no facts that truely support the opposing position. It's ALL guesses.

Further, I've already stated, repeatedly, that the concept of peak oil is NOT a myth. The part that is a myth are the discussed consequences, much of which peak oilers view as catastrophic, which simply isn't on the drawing board (at least in terms of waking up tomorrow without 1 drop of oil, or it all being gone by Christmas). It is obvious to me that you have a position and you're just not reading what I'm writing.

I'm watching the oil price rise dramatically change consumption habits on America's eastern seaboard. Sales of BIG SUV's and Hummers are precipitously dropping. Gardens are becoming popular. It's cool to be green. It was because oil was so cheap that our economy consumed so much of it, because that's what prices do! They guide consumption. That's why I hope that oil stays expensive so we get the benefits of leading the green tech revolution, just as we lead with industry, computing, the web, and medical technology (not care, the tech).

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Narz
#1 : Define "doomsday".
Worldwide Catastrophe
#2 : Do you think no one predicted the fall of the Roman Empire (up to 99% drops in population is some areas IIRC) or the fall of the Vikings or Mayans or... pretty much EVERY SINGLE OTHER EMPIRE THAT'S EVEN RISEN.
I am not concerned about the fates of particular empires or countries, but the survival of the human race without regards to a major loss of advancement. Strawman.

Have you considered that not only do you have it wrong but what you're beliving is the opposite of the truth. Rise-fall-collapse isn't something that never happens, it's something that is guaranteed to happen sooner or later. Both in natural & human history.
Sure, for particular places and peoples at particular times. Which allow other place and peoples to develop further.

#3 : Usually the alarm "they" sound falls on largely deaf ears. For example when Jimmy Carter started advising the US try to practice conversation, become more energy independent, be future-wise in general, everyone poo-poohed him.
Actually, we did get more energy efficient. They passed MPG standards and cleaner engines. Know your legislation.

His exact energy predictions turned out to be a bit off & the Regans & the Bushes getting in bed with the Saudis, etc.
A bit off? Actually, it was after effects of Nixon coupled with Carter's very poor management style that led to Volcker taking drastic measures.

helped smooth things out for a prosperous 80's & 90's but if we'd listened to him certainly we'd be in a better situation today.
Speculation with no facts.

We'd certainly have bought an extra decade or so to develop alternative technology. Who knows, we might even have some serious alternatives available today.
I grant you the world would be different, but neither you or I know if it would be better or worse.

I mean "the market" "automatically" swoops in with the best possible solution isn't always the most prudent policy.
You're using the market boogeyman which isn't even part of my argument anyways.

The free market can get my anything?
Dont blame the free market for extinction events. Prehistoric Native Americans hunted down all the megafauna. The problem here isn't with any "market" Its with human nature. And you can't blame that solely on economics. You have to put some of it on our dark hearts.

 

[Narz]

Worldwide Catastrophe

Happened before. Albeit not for a long time.

I am not concerned about the fates of particular empires or countries, but the survival of the human race without regards to a major loss of advancement. Strawman.

Fair enough but never before have we had nearly 7 billion people on the planet before, such large population growth combined with a mass extinction event combined with only a 15-30 remaining year half-life (optimistic estimate) of the gooey stuff that allowed our population bloom. You have to admit, it's a pretty unique time to be alive in a myriad of different ways. To compare it any other time in history doesn't really work.

Sure, for particular places and peoples at particular times. Which allow other place and peoples to develop further.

We're in agreement there. I don't believe the human race is going to go extinct any time soon.

A bit off? Actually, it was after effects of Nixon coupled with Carter's very poor management style that led to Volcker taking drastic measures.

Ok, off by multiple decades. Who's Volcker?

Speculation with no facts.

All alternative-history speculation is non-factual.

I grant you the world would be different, but neither you or I know if it would be better or worse.

Well I'm sure scientists can estimate how much less CO2 would be in the air if everyone and their grandmother hadn't bought minivans.

You're using the market boogeyman which isn't even part of my argument anyways.

Ok, fair enough. Sorry.

Dont blame the free market for extinction events. Prehistoric Native Americans hunted down all the megafauna. The problem here isn't with any "market" Its with human nature. And you can't blame that solely on economics. You have to put some of it on our dark hearts.

Modern man probably wipes out as many species every month as "pre-historic" man did every thousand years. But I don't blame only the "powers that be". The common man can be lazy, short-sighted and greedy but he doesn't have to be. I don't really buy into any definition of "human nature". One thing I hope we can agree on is that human nature is infinitely adaptable & mailable. Given the right environment, right focus & mental/emotional "food" humans can become pretty damn noble. Even with far less than ideal upbringing this is possible. But it is harder these days for one man (or woman) to make a difference. For every act of conservation I might enact there are twenty-six Chinese & Indians who will be canceling it out.

 

[Theige]

#2 : Do you think no one predicted the fall of the Roman Empire (up to 99% drops in population is some areas IIRC) or the fall of the Vikings or Mayans or... pretty much EVERY SINGLE OTHER EMPIRE THAT'S EVEN RISEN. Have you considered that not only do you have it wrong but what you're beliving is the opposite of the truth. Rise-fall-collapse isn't something that never happens, it's something that is guaranteed to happen sooner or later. Both in natural & human history.

Waiting until the last possible minute until Superma... I mean "the market" "automatically" swoops in with the best possible solution isn't always the most prudent policy. "The market" (alternatively lulled & hyperstimulated by advertisers) is a short-term beast that has rolled over 25% of all the Earth's mammals in my lifetime (last thirty years).

Its a good thing there aren't any empires in the modern world then

Do you have a source for the 25% of mammals line? I did a quick google search but could not find any mention of it. I did find an article stating the Chinese river dolphin was the first extinct mammal in 50 years. I'm not saying you're wrong I just am having difficulty finding good sources with these kinds of numbers.

 

[Theige]

Happened before. Albeit not for a long time.

Fair enough but never before have we had nearly 7 billion people on the planet before, such large population growth combined with a mass extinction event combined with only a 15-30 remaining year half-life (optimistic estimate) of the gooey stuff that allowed our population bloom. You have to admit, it's a pretty unique time to be alive in a myriad of different ways. To compare it any other time in history doesn't really work.

Ok, off by multiple decades. Who's Volcker?(

If you cannot compare it to any other time, why do you continue to do so? Just because the Roman Empire collapsed, doesn't mean a thing about today's world.

Volcker was the Fed chariman who ended stagflation. The trade-off between inflation and unemployment was thought to be absolute, and some had predicted to stop inflation (this is late 70's) we would need a 25% reduction in economic output. That theory was proved to be false, as this relationship was proved wrong.

Before this, the Fed had been trying to lower inflation but had caved into public pressure and lowered rates whenever unemployment jumped. This cycle perpetuated the high inflation rates that were so damaging during the 70's.

 

[Narz]

Its a good thing there aren't any empires in the modern world then

Depends on your definition. One could say the global economy is one-large-integrated economy in & of itself. Which means that there will be no more localized catastrophes or collapses. When this empire collapses, the whole world will have to restructure.

Do you have a source for the 25% of mammals line? I did a quick google search but could not find any mention of it. I did find an article stating the Chinese river dolphin was the first extinct mammal in 50 years. I'm not saying you're wrong I just am having difficulty finding good sources with these kinds of numbers.

I posted about it awhile back, it's from the world wildlife foundation (WWF).

Edit : Here it is

 

[Narz]

If you cannot compare it to any other time, why do you continue to do so? Just because the Roman Empire collapsed, doesn't mean a thing about today's world.

I mentioned this because Jer brought up the "never happened before" argument.

Volcker was the Fed chariman who ended stagflation. The trade-off between inflation and unemployment was thought to be absolute, and some had predicted to stop inflation (this is late 70's) we would need a 25% reduction in economic output. That theory was proved to be false, as this relationship was proved wrong.

Before this, the Fed had been trying to lower inflation but had caved into public pressure and lowered rates whenever unemployment jumped. This cycle perpetuated the high inflation rates that were so damaging during the 70's.

Ok, thanks.

 

[aelf]

I am not just talking about economic factors. I am not going to base all my thoughts just on economic indicators. You're wondering if we're too slow. Well, that's speculation. There are not any facts that truely support that position, just as there are no facts that truely support the opposing position. It's ALL guesses.

Well, now we're being more reasonable. That's a good concession. It means you finally agree that at least I'm not simply talking nonsense. In fact, the most credible sources (geologists and scientists) are indicating that things might not be so good. Why do they do that? Because they like to pronounce doom on mankind? No, because it's their job. Just as you would want your physicians to be wary and careful, so you would want your experts. If they don't find any evidence to be optimistic, they wouldn't be.

Further, I've already stated, repeatedly, that the concept of peak oil is NOT a myth. The part that is a myth are the discussed consequences, much of which peak oilers view as catastrophic, which simply isn't on the drawing board (at least in terms of waking up tomorrow without 1 drop of oil, or it all being gone by Christmas). It is obvious to me that you have a position and you're just not reading what I'm writing.

That's funny, because that's what you're doing yourself. In my defense, the derision you directed towards peak oil seemed to be a good indication that you don't think much of it. As for you, answer this: When have I pronounced doom on mankind? I merely stated that I'm not so positive that things will be good and that people would have to start taking greater measures. Did I talk about chaos and anarchy?

I do think that lots of people might suffer and even die in the poorer parts of the world if not enough is done in time, but that does not warrant a total breakdown of order. In the other thread, my furthest-reaching speculation was only that countries might have to gradually distance themselves more and more from the free-rein capitalism that is still woshipped today and increasingly adopt socialist/statist policies. I don't see what is so extreme about that.

I'm watching the oil price rise dramatically change consumption habits on America's eastern seaboard. Sales of BIG SUV's and Hummers are precipitously dropping. Gardens are becoming popular. It's cool to be green. It was because oil was so cheap that our economy consumed so much of it, because that's what prices do! They guide consumption. That's why I hope that oil stays expensive so we get the benefits of leading the green tech revolution, just as we lead with industry, computing, the web, and medical technology (not care, the tech).

The problem is people's attitudes, things that economics cannot fully account for. Yes, indeed rising prices would lower demand. However, some people, instead of adapting, would demand other more superficial measures. And some people just feel that they cannot help it. Developing countries are more concerned with economic growth. As for developed countries, look at the truckers striking in Europe, for example. They want a ceiling on gas prices. Now, you might want to blame socialist policies for this, but a very capitalist economy can also seek manipulate prices through less direct means, and that's what people would demand. Expensive oil? Why aren't we taking all that oil from Iraq?! Alternative technologies? They don't understand that. Economies and societies, like all complex systems are slow to adapt. And if people are told that things are going to be just fine, that would certainly not help. In this case, it would be better to have doom-sayers than optimists.

 

[GoodGame]

That as a strike breaker would lead to quite a major shift in economic patterns. The day that the USA tries to circumvent a Teamsters-type union would pretty much spell the end of the right of labor to unionize. It'd also seriously upset any concept of 'free market'. I'd warrant that FEMA would be stepping in that day, and it'd be a signal of the end of the free market system.

Personally I doubt the Fed would EVER militarize the trucking industry short of a true national crisis like an invasion, or a total shift to socialism. Forced cantonment, facism, or wide-spread libertarianism would happen before that.

I suppose that the instance of a truck strike in the USA would warrant a Federal Crisis and prompt the president to send in the military to man the trucks until the truckers get back into line.

 

[Tycoon101]

That as a strike breaker would lead to quite a major shift in economic patterns. The day that the USA tries to circumvent a Teamsters-type union would pretty much spell the end of the right of labor to unionize.

Not at all. If anything, it would hurt the business and teach it to respect the unions.

It'd also seriously upset any concept of 'free market'. I'd warrant that FEMA would be stepping in that day, and it'd be a signal of the end of the free market system.

We haven't had a relatively free market since FDR stepped in.

Personally I doubt the Fed would EVER militarize the trucking industry short of a true national crisis like an invasion, or a total shift to socialism. Forced cantonment, facism, or wide-spread libertarianism would happen before that.

Trucking is, as far as I can tell, imperative to food delivery for Americans. If all trucking unions decided to march and left the food in the warehouses and not in the refrigerators of the people, the government would be obligated to act so innocent citizens don't die of starvation.