another doomsday thread - Nine meals from anarchy?

[Theige]

You know, I don't revel in the fact that bad things might happen. I simply prefer to make some good adjustments just to be sure. Is that going to hurt your yearly bonus? Is that going to stop you from buying a new car? Yeah, I can so feel your pain If people are going to heed your advice and never give it a thought, chances are too little might have been done by the time we realise that something should be done. I just favour being prudent. The sort of attitude that leads to reckless lending by financial institutions just strikes me as really short-sighted.

I don't think his advice to people is to never give it a thought. It is a problem and everyone is conscious of it. I think his point is that things are being done, the problem is being recognized, and humanity is working to make its lifestyle more sustainable.

But panicking isn't going to help anyone. You underestimate just how bad things need to get for society to break down in the manner suggest by the OP of this thread. We have a long way to go before things get that desperate.

 

[aelf]

I don't think his advice to people is to never give it a thought. It is a problem and everyone is conscious of it. I think his point is that things are being done, the problem is being recognized, and humanity is working to make its lifestyle more sustainable.

But panicking isn't going to help anyone. You underestimate just how bad things need to get for society to break down in the manner suggest by the OP of this thread. We have a long way to go before things get that desperate.

You must either be omniscient or know me better than myself to come to the conclusion that I'm panicking.

And is the problem being recognised? I thought the whole argument is there isn't a problem?

Humanity is interested in making profit right now and not very much in solving long-term issues that might or might not threaten the people who are in a position to make the decision.

 

[Theige]

You must either be omniscient or know me better than myself to come to the conclusion that I'm panicking.

And is the problem being recognised? I thought the whole argument is there isn't a problem?

Humanity is interested in making profit right now and not very much in solving long-term issues that might or might not threaten the people who are in a position to make the decision.

It just seems to me that some posters are predicting the downfall of civilization if some massive undertaking to restructure the world isn't enacted in the next few years. The people in that camp are panicking.

The whole argument is that we are currently working on solutions to the problem en masse.

The government has helped to make renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, more profitable through incentives.

Will it be enough? Well, its not a simple answer. If things keep getting worse, we'll keep doing more, and more, and eventually we'll get it right. Things aren't looking good in many ways, but things have to get really . .. .. .. .in' bad for civilization to break down. We're not even close to that.

The worst case scenario for peak-oil is a slow decline in production, with a skyrocketing price (seems to be starting, how bad it will be, cannot be known, but preparing for the worst is a good idea, so i suggest living in a city ). Life will be hard for many people, but civilization will not break down and eventually we'll get things back on track.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@=aelf
I can ask a million ridiculous questions like that.
My question was pointed and very much on topic. We have had worse crisises involving oil. What came out of that really bad crisis were new fuel standards, increased alternatives, etc.

You know, I don't revel in the fact that bad things might happen. I simply prefer to make some good adjustments just to be sure. Is that going to hurt your yearly bonus? Is that going to stop you from buying a new car?
You're talking to a guy who gets around by mass transit, a bike, and a scooter. Yeah.

If things don't, then people like you would have shown yourselves as fools and charlatans.
Trolling much? Insulting other posters doesn't help make your argument.



. I wouldn't lose anything and, if something bad does happen, I'd probably be relatively unscathed. I've had enough of discussing this pointlessly.I love how you assume that you'd be superior. I think that right there speaks volumes.

 

[aelf]

My question was pointed and very much on topic. We have had worse crisises involving oil. What came out of that really bad crisis were new fuel standards, increased alternatives, etc.

The fact that your question was on topic doesn't make it any less nonsensical. On a conceptual level it is already patently false to assume that just because something happened one way before it would happen that way again, even if you're talking about things that happen everyday like the sun rising. For the sun, we have enough scientific evidence to safely conclude from induction that it will rise tomorrow. In this case, science isn't even often on your side.

If we look at facts, the 1979-80 oil crisis was a result of the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. My guess is you're trying to draw the link to today's situation in Iraq and Iran. However, today we also have the situation of a rapidly growing demand for oil in large developing countries. And you can't run away from the fact that in the meantime, the 'x' amount of oil that is available on earth, whether we know how much 'x' is or not, has decreased. Geologists say that the problem of peak oil is very real and might be setting in. Can you say that the demand would not finally outstrip the supply sooner than you think?

You're talking to a guy who gets around by mass transit, a bike, and a scooter. Yeah.

So why wouldn't you advocate that as many people as possible do so today?

Trolling much? Insulting other posters doesn't help make your argument.

Is that an insult now? I suggest you look at the recent thread on Singapore and the Sedition Act and reflect whether you are not being rather close to such absurdity.

I love how you assume that you'd be superior.

In a sense, certainly. Nobody really hates the guy who prudently warns of dangers and good things do in fact happen. However, people (especially professionals) who gave positive opinions before bad things happen would receive contempt.

That is all I have to say on the matter, a summary and conclusion. I can see no disagreement arising except normative ones, which I'm not disposed to debate on and on, especially when the same few points are concerned.

 

[Gooblah]

Actually eating meat is what gave our brains the protein needed to stop being cavemen Eco.

I really hope the key word there is gave, dude.

I'm a vegetarian and I sure haven't degraded in intelligence. If meat was all it took to end the caveman stuff....god, lions would be at our level by now. Plus, our brains were (IIRC) as developed back then as they are now. Remember, these guys made The Wheel, Fire, agriculture, etc etc, and laid down the foundations of our modern civilization. That's a lot better than the current generation can do for the most part.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm a vegetarian and I sure haven't degraded in intelligence. If meat was all it took to end the caveman stuff....god, lions would be at our level by now.

1) One cannot observe evolution individually, except in the case that vegetarianism represents a mental evolution. I would pick crocs, with a 70+ million year existance before lions, for my example.

2) Let's not ignore the negative side affects:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153387/?searchterm=Fun with Veal

 

[JerichoHill]

@@aelf

The fact that your question was on topic doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Your reply isn't even on topic. [/B

For the sun, we have enough scientific evidence to safely conclude from induction that it will rise tomorrow. In this case, science isn't even often on your side.
Really? Humanity seems to have a very long track record of surviving against doomsday prophecies.

However, today we also have the situation of a rapidly growing demand for oil in large developing countries.
My god we agree

And you can't run away from the fact that in the meantime, the 'x' amount of oil that is available on earth, whether we know how much 'x' is or not, has decreased.
And you cant run away from the fact that technology has evolved and that so far, each doomsday bet about us running out of resource has fallen victim to assuming technology doesn't allow us to change to new resources.


Geologists say that the problem of peak oil is very real and might be setting in. Can you say that the demand would not finally outstrip the supply sooner than you think?
Can you say that we won't innovate with renewable resources, as r&d funding rises exponentially into those?

So why wouldn't you advocate that as many people as possible do so today?
I don't think wanting chaos and anarchy and poverty and strife is an appropriate way to motivate folks.

Is that an insult now?
You called me a fool and a charlatan. I believe that qualifies as an insult.


In a sense, certainly. Nobody really hates the guy who prudently warns of dangers and good things do in fact happen. However, people (especially professionals) who gave positive opinions before bad things happen would receive contempt.
And folks who cry wolf when there is no wolf?

That is all I have to say on the matter, a summary and conclusion. I can see no disagreement arising except normative ones, which I'm not disposed to debate on and on, especially when the same few points are concerned
That you have no argument other than your rampant speculation based on assumptions that are largely pessimistic and contrary to historical record of humanity's continue existence

 

[aelf]

Your reply isn't even on topic.

You don't know what an argument from analogy is.

Really? Humanity seems to have a very long track record of surviving against doomsday prophecies.

Is that science?

And you cant run away from the fact that technology has evolved and that so far, each doomsday bet about us running out of resource has fallen victim to assuming technology doesn't allow us to change to new resources.

Nope. What I said was a fact that is necessarily true. What you are saying isn't necessarily true. Simple.

Can you say that we won't innovate with renewable resources, as r&d funding rises exponentially into those?

Can you say that we will? The burden of proof is on you, and there's no way you can prove the future, especially without some scientific evidence.

I don't think wanting chaos and anarchy and poverty and strife is an appropriate way to motivate folks.

And so I want chaos and anarchy? I simply at such a strawman.

You called me a fool and a charlatan. I believe that qualifies as an insult.

I've never heard of an insult that is contingent on a fact that is yet to be proven. If I say, "If you were born out of wedlock you are a bastard", is that an insult? Sorry, your emotive argument isn't going to work here.

If you're so insistent that you're right and you're proven wrong and the result is bad, you're most certainly a fool in this regard. And the vested interests that made you cling onto your false arguments would make you a charlatan. It's not beyond the confines of logic.

And folks who cry wolf when there is no wolf?

The old saying is reserved for people who do so out of malicious intent or selfish reasons, not for people who are prudent. You obviously aren't trained in actual rhetoric.

That you have no argument other than your rampant speculation based on assumptions that are largely pessimistic and contrary to historical record of humanity's continue existence

And your argument is not normative? I can say in response that your argument is unscientific, based on false optimism and slavish attachment to the status quo and highly characteristic of physicians who would never tell their patients anything is wrong just to please them. There, an equal dose of descriptives for you.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Question: In World War 1, the Germans invaded France through Belgium. How come they didn't in World War 2?

Oh no were screwed. Because they did attack through Belgium in WW2. (Well it was the low countries, which includes Belgium)

 

[JerichoHill]

Can you say that we will? The burden of proof is on you, and there's no way you can prove the future, especially without some scientific evidence.

No. The burden of proof is on you. If you are crying wolf, there had better be a wolf.

 

[El_Machinae]

I really hope the key word there is gave, dude.

I'm a vegetarian and I sure haven't degraded in intelligence. If meat was all it took to end the caveman stuff....god, lions would be at our level by now. Plus, our brains were (IIRC) as developed back then as they are now. Remember, these guys made The Wheel, Fire, agriculture, etc etc, and laid down the foundations of our modern civilization. That's a lot better than the current generation can do for the most part.

It was the increased access to superior nutrition which allowed an evolution to better brains. Previously, a mutation which resulted in a bigger brain might not have been a survivable mutation, because (say) early nutrition was vital.

You can easily get enough nutrition these days with a balanced diet, but diets weren't always so balanced.

And you cant run away from the fact that technology has evolved and that so far, each doomsday bet about us running out of resource has fallen victim to assuming technology doesn't allow us to change to new resources.

We've grabbed a lot of the low-hanging fruit, though. There's only so much efficiency that can be tweaked out of an engine, and we've done most of the tweaking. We need exponentially more R&D to get a previously-easy percentage increase.

What we need (more than anything) is to convince First Worlders to start a savings fund, specifically earmarked to purchase viable alternatives when they become available. When solar drops by a 66%, many people still won't be able to augment their roofs.

 

[classical_hero]

Try living ins a gas shortage, now that is scary. In WA a few weeks ago their was a gas explosion that caused about 1/3 of our gas supply to be stopped. This is having a major impact on businesses.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=78716

The findings of a report into the Varanus Island gas explosion will be made public, says Premier Alan Carpenter.

Mr Carpenter said today that there were serious ramifications to the cause and effects of the gas crisis at the Apache Energy owned plant and the public would be well informed once the report was finalised.

Mr Carpenter said he had no time frame as to when the report would be released.

Energy Minister Fran Logan said in Parliament yesterday that a report into the explosion was being prepared by commonwealth and State regulatory bodies, but its findings would be confidential.

Today Mr Carpenter was not prepared to speculate on how much of a financial impact the loss of 30 per cent of the State's domestic gas supplies had had on the WA economy.

But he did say it would be in the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

He also did not want to be drawn into any speculation on what went wrong.

“There is a thorough investigation into the cause of the explosion.

“It would be wise for everybody to wait until all the assessments have been made before we start making judgements.

“There are potentially very serious ramifications about the cause and effect of this incident and we have to address these matters responsibly."

Mr Carpenter will meet with Federal Government Energy Minister Martin Ferguson tomorrow about the crisis.

Opposition Leader Troy Buswell, who met South West businesses to discuss the gas crisis today, said that the impact of the gas shortage was growing.

Mr Buswell said it was even affecting wineries with some claiming they would be forced to close their bottling operations within days.

“This is a significant time of year for the wine industry and the gas shortage is having real impact on not only on business but their employees and their families," Mr Buswell said.

Meanwhile, Apache Energy Ltd said today that it was increasingly confident it could return its Varanus Island plant to partial production within a couple of months.

The plant provides one third of WA's domestic gas and its closure following a gas pipeline explosion on June 3 has thrown the state's businesses into chaos.

The ensuing gas shortage has forced many companies including miners and chemical manufacturers to scale back or shut down their operations.

Apache said in a statement today that it was gaining more confidence in its original forecast that there would be a return to partial production within a couple of months.

Up to 200 terrajoules of gas per day could be returned to the market if Apache is able to restart one of the two processing plants on the island, which produces about 370 terrajoules of gas per day at full capacity.

Apache said it had successfully sourced piping material needed for the repairs, mostly from within Australia, and valving from the United Kingdom.

The company said the materials would arrive soon.

 

[aelf]

Oh no were screwed. Because they did attack through Belgium in WW2. (Well it was the low countries, which includes Belgium)

Not in the sense that was assumed. The main attack came through the Ardennes. That's how the Allies got encircled, wasn't it?

It's funny how a subtle difference can bite people so hard. It doesn't take a very huge miscalculation.

No. The burden of proof is on you. If you are crying wolf, there had better be a wolf.

Wrong. Crying wolf is an imagery which I had rejected anyway, an objection which you have evidently tried to sidestep. You are the one who needs to evoke some concept to argue your case. The physical facts are not in your favour right now.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Not really to turn the debate into a one of history, but the principle was pretty much the same, go through low countries to get around tthe primary french defenses. The French could of very realisticaly stopped the germans had they either A wen't into the low countries, or B went abondened them and built the maginot Line along the border with Belgium.

 

[aelf]

Not really to turn the debate into a one of history, but the principle was pretty much the same, go through low countries to get around tthe primary french defenses. The French could of very realisticaly stopped the germans had they either A wen't into the low countries, or B went abondened them and built the maginot Line along the border with Belgium.

Short reply: The Allies anticipated the attack to come from Germany percisely because the Maginot Line does not extend there. And they did send the bulk of their forces into Belgium. The problem was they did not think that the main German attack could come through the Ardennes instead of the expected route. Once this code yellow phase of the German invasion was successful, the Maginot Line was a sitting duck that could be outflanked without much resistance. The 'principle' of the German invasion was not the same.

 

[JerichoHill]

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...)

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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...)

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.

 

[Gelion]

I'm so ready for total anarchy, I wish it would happen right now. And I don't even own a gun.

Might I ask what type of Vault you own?

 

[aelf]

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

And I suppose you have said physical facts right now?

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...)

You think this is purely some sort of attempt at sensationalising? Sorry, not everyone is entirely profit-motivated. Some people just think that prudence is a good thing, and as you said yourself, this has paid off.

At the beginning, I had expected you to come up with something solid to answer every objection, but it turns out that you are just relying on the same sound-bite argument and spinning in as many emotive ways as you can. It's really heartening to know that a professional knows as much as anyone who has bothered to read up and think about it a little. It's little more than mere guesswork, in which case prudence prevails by default.