Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Actually science very much does require growth. It is not coincidence that science, as we know it today, tended to grow in parallel with modern economics and the boom in fossil fuels. Modern day science is a very energy intensive endeavor that requires huge supply lines, vast amounts of energy and resources. We're able to do so much science today specifically because of cheap energy and cheap resources made possible by fossil fuels and the aforementioned fractional reserve banking system.
I didn't say that science would advance anywhere close to the speed it has in the last 200 years. Many experiments require vast amounts of various resources. These experiments would still be possible, they would just take much longer to gather the required materials. My point is, if we have 100 million years left on this planet, that's an awful long time for scientific advancement leading up to the point where we may have to move elsewhere.
Quote:
Most science is funded, after all, either by private capital or by the government--both of these require growth.
I don't think it's possible to compare funding in this money system compared to the one I envision. All I can say is that advancements will be slower, but they will still happen.
Quote:
Against a red giant? Not even remotely possible.
Did I say against a red giant? No. A star's transition to a red giant is still a very gradual process. We might be able to compensate over the span of millions of years to the increase in radiation by altering the Earth's atmosphere. All we can do is use our imagination for a time this far into the future.
Quote:
Slightly more probable, but still unlikely.
Well, if you know what will happen millions of years into the future, then this statement might have merit.
Quote:
Fusion still doesn't look likely and it is even more doubtful there is an energy source we haven't conceived of yet. It would be totally outside of the realm of physics as we understand it.
Oh yeah, because humans know everything there is to know. We don't even understand how cold fusion works even though we can demonstrate it reliably. I happen to think that there is still a lot to learn about how the universe.
Quote:
All of the above totally requires a growth system. In order to build a shield capable of deflecting a red giant's radiation, the world would have to have an incredible amount of extra capital lying around. In a non-growth economic system you are not going to generate the necessary extra capital to build a world wide shielding system AND keep everything else running.
Capital? The world I envision won't be running on fiat currency, it will be running on resources. It will be a matter of allocating a certain amount of resources to these projects. You're manner of thinking seems to be well within our capitalist box. Now, without economic growth, these advancements will sacrifice speed, but they will be more stable in the long term.
Quote:
Asteroid and comet defenses, which are generally just glorified missile defense, require growth economies (and the US has not even gotten remotely close to missile defense and has spent billions on it).
I never said anything about missles. I don't presume to know what technology would be used to protect our planet from these objects, but I think it will be important to accomplish. The United States has only been around for a few hundred years. With enough time, such defenses could be in place within a million years from now. I don't feel like these predictions are so unrealistic given the time frames I'm using.
Quote:
How do you lose everything? We have the knowledge we got via growth and cheap energy--we can't do as much with it, but we don't lose everything by any stretch of the imagination.
Knowledge is lost when a civilization crashes. Maybe not everything, but we stand to lose virtually everything we know after peak oil depending on how the die-off turns out. In the worst case, we will be in the stone age again, and almost all our knowledge will be lost.
Quote:
Yes, but people don't think in the long term. They think of short term interests.
That's something that has to change.
Quote:
In any event, specifically because we have gained all this knowledge we can actually use it to live in a more responsible, efficient manner.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. _________________ "If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"George W. Bush loves poor people. He keeps making more of them." -unkn
Leanan, peak oil is not going to be the end of cheap energy.
Yes, it is. We are already experiencing diminishing returns on coal. The highest quality, most accessible coal is used up. The reason coal is as "cheap" as it is is due to cheap oil. We use petroleum-derived explosives to remove entire hillsides. We use diesel-powered vehicles that dwarf 18-wheelers to uncover and transport the coal. We've destroyed acres and acres of productive farmland to do this.
Once TSHTF, it will become much more expensive to make and power the heavy equipment necessary to mine coal. And we may need farmland a lot more than we need strip mines.
I think this is what people who point to coal or wind or nuclear or solar as the answers do not understand. All the "alternatives" are massively subsidized by cheap oil right now. It takes a lot of oil to mine and transport coal or uranium. It takes a lot of petroleum to make aluminum turbines or solar panels, or grow biomass fuels (yes, even algae and switchgrass). This is why cost analyses are useless. The cost of the oil for transportation and manufacturing isn't even included in most analyses. It's invisible to us.
That's why I say we are fish, trying to imagine the desert. We are so used to cheap energy that we cannot fully imagine life without it.
We are already experiencing diminishing returns on coal.
Prove it, Leanan. Where's the evidence to back up that statement? Have you ever taken even one look at the statistics on the coal industry?
Quote:
The reason coal is as "cheap" as it is is due to cheap oil.
I'll help you with this one. The total value of the surface mined bituminous coal and lignite mined in the U.S. in 1997 was $13,689,516,000, and the total spent on fuel by that same industry was $393,113,000. So fuel accounts for roughly 3% of the cost of coal.
Now, expensive U.S. coal currently costs about $3.00 per million btu, while crude oil costs about $10.00 per million btu.
If we suppose that the price of oil doubles to $20.00 (i.e. to $120/barrel), and those costs are all passed through, the price of coal will increase by $0.09 to $3.09. That would just make coal even cheaper relative to oil.
In fact, the price of oil would have to increase by a factor of about 77 (i.e. to about $4620/barrel) to bring the price of coal up to $10.00, where oil is now.
Quote:
It takes a lot of oil to mine and transport coal or uranium.
How much is "a lot"? Where are the numbers?
Quote:
It takes a lot of petroleum to make aluminum turbines
Where do you need oil, and how much do you need? I'm sick of this "a lot" garbage. It's just a fig leaf for ignorance.
Quote:
or solar panels,
Do you have any knowledge whatsoever about where exactly oil is used in manufacturing solar panels? Oil plays a very small role in U.S. manufacturing today. That is a fact I can back that up with exact stats from the EIA. So where is the oil used, Leanan? What exact process?
Joined: Aug 13, 2004 Posts: 1182 Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:20 am Post subject:
Leanan wrote:
Yes, it is.
i agree, not because i assume to know the status of coal production, but because of what i realized today.
I think that as soon as oil peaks (or when we realize later that we did peak), people will look around and say, well how much coal do we have left, and how much of this or that do we have left, and what will running out of cheap energy mean. We are talking major sea change and priority shift.
We'll get through it. We are stupid not because we don't know how to save our skins when the time comes, but because we don't have the balls to take a REAL stand before the time comes. We are apathetic and blind.
If we suppose that the price of oil doubles to $20.00 (i.e. to $120/barrel), and those costs are all passed through, the price of coal will increase by $0.09 to $3.09. That would just make coal even cheaper relative to oil.
The price of oil and coal don't have to move in the same proportion. Coal is great for chemicals and electricity, but not for transportation. Our trains run on diesel these days. The machines for mining and transporting coal rely on oil.
Quote:
Do you have any knowledge whatsoever about where exactly oil is used in manufacturing solar panels? Oil plays a very small role in U.S. manufacturing today. That is a fact I can back that up with exact stats from the EIA. So where is the oil used, Leanan? What exact process?
I remember reading a long time ago that half the oil that the United States consumes goes towards fuel for transportation. The other half is used in manufacturing things like chemicals and polymers. I can't find the link because it was a year ago.
Even if items are manufactured without any fossil fuels, and entirely by electricity, they likely require oil for transporting them. _________________ "If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"George W. Bush loves poor people. He keeps making more of them." -unkn
I'll help you with this one. The total value of the surface mined bituminous coal and lignite mined in the U.S. in 1997 was $13,689,516,000, and the total spent on fuel by that same industry was $393,113,000. So fuel accounts for roughly 3% of the cost of coal.
Twist: There are hidden energy costs also, not just direct costs. Building the machinery for example. Starting with mining the steel, refining it and forming it to machines. I would make a case that ALL costs of mining coal are ultimately energy costs -direct or indirect- and take the balance sheet from there. Havent done the actual excercise yet, just warming up.
As I've understood capitalism, it could persist ad infinitum, peak oil or no peak oil. As I've understood it, capitalism is an economic system in which people without a means of producing life's necessities sell themselves in increments to a minority which DOES control the means of producing life's necessities ("the means of production"). Capitalism has existed for a long time, and may continue existing for a long time unless people on a wide scale seek to change it.
Ancient times:
Means of production - slave labor, land
Owners of means of production - slave owners, land owners (an authoritarian minority)
Middle Ages:
Means of production - serf labor, land
Owners of means of production - aristocracy (an authoritarian minority)
Modern industrialized "democracies":
Means of production - employee labor, land, manchines, "capital"
Owners of means of production - Capitalists, business owners, financiers (an authoritarian minority)
Soviet Union:
Means of production - labor, land, machines, natural resources, etc.
Owners of means of production - The Government (an authoritarian minority) - Not the workers (duh!)
So, we can see that all of these societies were Capitalistic in the sense of the word as used above. Notice that Capitalism does not at all mean a "free market". The type of market mechanism only affects distribution; Capitalism's essence is confined to the production realm. It is possible to have a society with democratic, non-statist, non-capitalist production and free market distribution. It is also possible for a society to have collectivist distribution combined with Capitalist production (the Soviet Union).
It's very likely that society will still be capitalistic after peak oil unless people actively work to change that. (Will people still work for others after peak oil? Will there still be bosses who tell employees/serfs/slaves what to do? Will the majority of the population still have little choice but to sell their lives away to others in order to survive? Maybe, maybe not. It's possible that, when companies go under due to high oil prices and such, employees will try to take over their workplaces instead of being laid off. But as long as perpetual growth is maintained, employees can be placated by increased earnings and their possible rebellion can be dissuaded. Maybe that's why capitalism needs perpetual growth...)
However, will the perpetual growth, planetrape, fractional banking, etc. go under with peak oil? Most certainly. That question is easy. But that won't automatically mean the end of Capitalism.
Twist: There are hidden energy costs also, not just direct costs. Building the machinery for example. Starting with mining the steel, refining it and forming it to machines. I would make a case that ALL costs of mining coal are ultimately energy costs -direct or indirect-
Right. But be careful. You're sliding into the ol' switcheroo we see so often on these forums. Energy dependence is not the same thing as oil dependence. Only oil dependence is threatening.
Also, most of the costs of any energy product are not attributable to energy. Most of the cost is tax and profit. For example, consider the cost of a barrel of Saudi crude selling for $60. We can break that down into 3 components:
i) Non-oil costs of Aramco (equipment, labor etc.)
ii) The cost of the oil to Aramco
iii) Aramco's profit
The Saudis tell us that i) is about $2 to $3 per barrel. ii) is zero. The Saudis pay nothing for input energy because they already own it. iii) is profit (i.e. Aramco's revenue - Aramco's cost).
So, at the present time, $57 out of each $60 barrel is the cost of profit.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:30 am Post subject: Re: Breaking the back of capitalism
FatherOfTwo wrote:
What is it going to take to break the back of capitalism?
capitalism will destroy itself in due course.
it's a system based on constant accumulation and the exploitation of low-entropy areas.
but the biosphere is finite and eventually cascading entopy and the instability of complex systems will topple the whole edifice.
how our social systems adapt to this physical reality is the key question.
will we try to keep the thing going as long as we can through war and resource exploitation or will we actively work to come up with a less destructive alternative?
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:39 am Post subject:
Remember that Marx, Lenin, etc thought that capitalism would indeed destroy itself. Then in the 1930s, Stalin put Kondratieff to work to figure out why capitalism hadn't destroyed itself, and Kondratieff did some very fundamental work in economics, and told Stalin the sad news, that capitalism would not destroy itself, instead it would go through boom and bust cycles, as credit loosens and tightens, dept builds up and then is blown off recessions/depressions. Look up Kondratieff's cycle theory, it's interesting stuff. Unfortunately, Kondratieff died in the Gulag, put there for telling Stalin what he didn't want to hear.
What we're looking at here is the collapse of the oil-based industrial system, and perhaps of the earth's homeostatis. And the extra humans and machines "blown off" of the back of the Earth's system.
What we're looking at here is the collapse of the oil-based industrial system, and perhaps of the earth's homeostatis. And the extra humans and machines "blown off" of the back of the Earth's system.
so, you're talking about nuclear war, or just continuous conventional war until the military-industrial complex grinds to a halt?
(Will people still work for others after peak oil? Will there still be bosses who tell employees/serfs/slaves what to do? Will the majority of the population still have little choice but to sell their lives away to others in order to survive? Maybe, maybe not.
I'd like to see people living in self-sufficient communities where everyone works together as a group and maybe barter takes place but most things (work/food) are shared equally. Unfortunately human greed and the examples of history show that it is more likely unequality will continue through coercion of slaves/the lower classes working for the more ruthless classes. Pity. _________________ Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4392 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:17 am Post subject:
As long as people are allowed to own land, we will have Feudalism. It's not a bad way of life (well, compared to outright slavery). You get to live longer than the average tribal warrior and you generally eat better. There is less free time but more security. Those who fail at sustainable individualism will seek out a Lord Protector (Feudal Lord).
The reason life was so damn hard in the Middle Ages in Europe was Church oppression. If The Church had allowed scientific progress, farm yields would have increased substantially, allowing each person to live a better quality of life. Also, today we have advanced medical knowledge that isn't going to disappear. I know that baths are good. I'm not going to suddenly lose this information. And I'm certainly going to pass this to the next generation (assuming I don't die in a resource war). I know that blood letting is not a useful medical practice, I know that crop rotation maintains the quality of the soil...If people would re-learn farming, Neo-Feudalism might be doable on a large scale. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
If The Church had allowed scientific progress, farm yields would have increased substantially, allowing each person to live a better quality of life.
Which would have quickly have fallen again as people had more children that survived. _________________ Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4392 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:35 am Post subject:
Raxozanne wrote:
Tyler_JC wrote:
If The Church had allowed scientific progress, farm yields would have increased substantially, allowing each person to live a better quality of life.
Which would have quickly have fallen again as people had more children that survived.
...damn, you're right about that one ...
Maybe if there had been an agreement to limit family size, that wouldn't happen. But somehow I don't think that would work out with the whole, "reproduce and be fruitfull" thing. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
...
