Another Sidebar Update: R-Squared
I'm still around and reading, so while this blog is largely dormant in terms of new content, I'm still maintaining the blogroll on the right. It's hardly a new blog, but Robert Rapier's R-Squared Energy Blog has some insightful contents, including yesterday's guest post about the unfortunate and serious problems with algal biodiesel being any sort of near-term cavalry to rescue us from our energy straits. We appear to agree on the side effects of peak oil: industrial civilization will not collapse, sorry James Kunstler. He also seems to have the same problem with primitivist trolls that I have had earler. (You'll have to scroll down, as his blogging template doesn't [yet] get page anchors right.)
On a related note, Rapier shows up in the comments of this Wall Street Journal Energy Roundup post relaying a fascinating and all-too-sadly-mundane report at The Oil Drum indicating that the Saudis may have inadvertently published data showing that their biggest field, Ghawar, has hit peak production and has been sliding downhill since 2004.
Labels: administrivia, oil
posted by Rob at 8:01 AM/permalink
13 Comments:
(You'll have to scroll down, as his blogging template doesn't [yet] get page anchors right.)
I just tracked this back from my Site Meter. Thanks for the mention.
Is that template problem with Blogger, or is that something in my settings? My settings do give me fits at times. Occasionally I only get half a page displayed.
Cheers, RR
Primitivist trolls and technology trolls will both have to wait until time itself resolves the question of civilization's fate.
No one can speak with any certainty about the future. Undoubtedly the optimists and pessimists of early 20th century Europe failed to anticipate the great wars which would tear the world apart beginning in 1914 and not ending until 1989.
Who would have guessed that civilized Europe would lead the world into global wars costing over 100 million lives during the scientific age?
Who would guess correctly today the sort of horrors which undoubtedly await in the 21st and 22nd century?
All I can say for certain: Prophecies of utopia have failed to materialize. Burning 85 million barrels of oil a day have failed to generate any sort of utopia on the Earth.
Maybe the world will become a better place when there are nine billion humans and only 68 million barrels available for burning every day ...
Honestly, though, the optimists never actually think about the entire world. More often than not, optimists have a very narrow focus on the health & well-being of their own community, "The rest of the world might go to hell, but everything will be ok here!"
You know ... there are billions of humans today who are presently impoverished, deprived, suffering, oppressed, and subjected to the worst sort of violence.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Yeah, that's something in your settings (your template, actually). You need to have some kind of <a name="..."> tag in there.
And by the way, anon, yes, of course, time will tell. But if you're calling me a "troll", better get ready to put up your dukes.
Well, yes, Rob, I am calling you a technology troll.
Why would that upset you?
It is altogether irrelevant. We are arguing sbout the future of humankind. Undoubtedly this subject is more important in either you or I engaging in a knock-out fight over pointless name-calling.
Rob, why are you confident about the future of humankind?
Where does your confidence arise?
Aren't you aware of the massive human suffering which presently afflicts billions of humans today?
Would you say that the United States of America is nearly-heaven?
I am well aware of the technology optimists. I was reading one today: Bjorn Lomborg in "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
Bjorn Lomborg (writing in 2000) quoted a contemporary magazine's ominous prediction of skyrocketing gasoline prices and gasoline shortages in 2007(!).
He dismissed these predictions using the standard economist arguments against catastrophe (he is an economist, not an environmentalist).
His argument was convincing. I was nearly convinced ...
But the deal-breaker came in the following prediction from Bjorn Lomborg: Between 2000 - 2027 the price of a oil will decline from $27 to $20 a barrel.
How long do we have to wait to conclude that the optimistic prediction failed?
We probably won't have to wait very long to determine that the pessimistic prediction was, in fact, correct?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
So, we're all going to live in mud huts and go back to hunting and gathering, is that it?
You apparently don't know what a troll is. A "troll" is someone who posts inflammatory comments for the purpose of stirring up comment. The notion that civilization won't collapse following a significant drop in worldwide oil production is hardly inflammatory. Seriously, what does "confident about the future of mankind" mean? Confident that there won't be difficulties ahead? If that were true, why would I have started this blog?
Lomborg may yet be right: motor fuel might be immaterial by 2027. If, as the Engineer-Poet has previously suggested, automobiles switch to electric power, the need for petroleum products of necessity evaporates in that sector.
> "So, we're all going to live in mud huts and go back to hunting and gathering, is that it?"
No, that sort of lifestyle is impossible now. Humans have destroyed the environment which allowed that lifestyle to succeed for thousands of years.
What -- I believe, I cannot claim to know -- is most likely is that Homo sapiens will go extinct and the Earth will spend the next several million years erasing the memory of humankind's existence from the surface of the Earth.
> "The notion that civilization won't collapse following a significant drop in worldwide oil production is hardly inflammatory."
When you say "civilization won't collapse" exactly what are you talking about?
There is plenty of evidence throughout the world that civilization is *already* collapsing.
Haiti, for example. Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Russia ... New Orleans, Detroit.
South Florida is in bad shape, too. Australia's in danger, too.
Civilization is in bad shape. Have you failed to notice?
> "Seriously, what does "confident about the future of mankind" mean? Confident that there won't be difficulties ahead?"
What I am speaking about the future of global technological civilization.
I say: Global technological civilization is dying. Thank God for civilization's end.
You are right to say that there are *difficulties* ahead. That's like saying that a person who has terminal cancer will suffer *a little* pain.
> "Lomborg may yet be right: motor fuel might be immaterial by 2027. If, as the Engineer-Poet has previously suggested, automobiles switch to electric power, the need for petroleum products of necessity evaporates in that sector."
Engineer-Poet is not merely wrong in suggesting that electric power will replace oil by 2027, he is quite literally insane.
I am just guessing here -- but aren't we all? -- but Homo sapiens will face much bigger problems in 2027 than merely solving the automobile propulsion problem.
9,000,000,000 humans ... not enough food, not enough water, too much war, too many nuclear weapons.
I don't imagine that humans will have the luxury to worry about cars in 2027 ...
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
I leave you to the links on the sidebar. Civilization is "in bad shape" in South Florida? Pshaw. Most of the countries you mention have dysfunctional political systems, which is why they're in the shape they are. But then, mankind is going to go extinct, right, so why bother?
Kill yourself now, Anonymous, and avoid the rush.
Hello Rob,
> "Kill yourself now, Anonymous, and avoid the rush."
This is a perfect example of the insanity of the techno-optimist. These technology trolls would prefer that their critics commit suicide rather than hear any sort of contrary message.
Rob, what sort of future do you see for humankind's global technological civilization?
I'll tell you what I see what I look at the Earth:
Homo sapiens -- the entire species -- is presently engaged in an act of suicide. Polluting the Earth, destroying nature, depleting the world's resources, accummulating thousands of nuclear bombs, spending $1 trillion a year on the world's militaries, overpopulating the planet to the tune of nine billion people ...
These are not the behaviors that I associate with a species which would like to survive and prosper on the Earth.
Okay, Rob, let's hear the case for optimism.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Rob,
> "Civilization is "in bad shape" in South Florida? Pshaw."
I cannot blame you for your own ignorance regarding what is happening outside your immediate neighborhood, Rob.
Yes, Rob, civilization is in terrible shape in South Florida. Humans have made a mess of the environment down there (and planetwide) and the people of South Florida are beginning to encounter the consequences.
There is some doubt regarding Miami's ability to survive for another century or two. If the oceans rise three feet Miami is dead. If the oceans rise twenty feet, Miami becomes Atlantis.
South Florida is in bad shape. The tragedy begins ...
> "Most of the countries you mention have dysfunctional political systems, which is why they're in the shape they are."
You are using a convenient argument in order to avoid an unpleasant encounter with reality, Rob.
The dysfunctional political system is a symptom, not the underlying problem. Sometimes people have headaches at random, sometimes those which headaches are actually suffering from terminal cancer.
Okay, Rob, how would you fix a country like Haiti? Nigeria? Zimbabwe? Iraq?
How would you fix New Orleans? How would you fix Detroit?
How would you fix the entire Earth? How would you repair all the damage that the technology age has inflicted upon the Earth?
> "But then, mankind is going to go extinct, right, so why bother?"
Yes, Rob, Homo sapiens are going to become extinct. That much is certain and inevitable by now. Look at what this primate have done to the Earth.
Do you think that this species merits immortality?
Do you believe that this world-polluting primate deserves to conquer space?
Do you imagine that the primate that walked on the moon can actually transform the Earth into some sort of techno-utopia?
If not, exactly what do you believe about the future of humankind?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Yes, I know, here's the part where you declare victory and tell everyone, oh, hooray, I haven't been convinced yet that we aren't all going to die.
I cannot blame you for your own ignorance regarding what is happening outside your immediate neighborhood, Rob.
But I can blame you for your disingenuousness. People will change, especially if they have to. Adaptability is key, and as usual, the doomers fail to comprehend it. Might Miami have to be abandoned? Maybe, but long before that happens, there'll be other measures taken to preserve the city. "We're all gonna die" isn't a political movement people can get behind, you know? Believe what you want.
Yes, Rob, Homo sapiens are going to become extinct. That much is certain and inevitable by now.
You first, chumply.
> "People will change, especially if they have to. Adaptability is key, and as usual, the doomers fail to comprehend it. Might Miami have to be abandoned? Maybe, but long before that happens, there'll be other measures taken to preserve the city."
Rob, do you have to explain elementary things to you?
How would you save a city as it is transformed from barely-above-sea-level to significantly-below-sea-level and happens to sit smack dab in the middle of category-5 hurricane territory?
Miami is a city which won't be saved.
Rising sea levels not only threatens to flood Miami, it also can rob Miami of its fresh water supply. A city -- even before it is flooded -- cannot survive for very long without fresh water.
Miami is in trouble, Miami cannot be saved, Miami will be lost, millions of people displaced ... where will they go?
Peak Oil is the #1 threat to the automobile but not the #1 threat to humanity.
The apocalypse is coming and it is human-generated.
Rob, do you have to explain elementary things to you?
No, generally I don't have conversations with myself.
The apocalypse is coming and it is human-generated.
Got it. You win, we're all doomed. Happy, now?
Kill yourself now, David, before a line starts of people wanting to do it for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home