I was a member of this forum in 2003/2004

[spot5050]

Fusion could potentially keep human civilization going till long after the sun has stopped burning.

Put a "potential" in your tank.

lol

[meemoe_uk]

Read "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared Diamond or "Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter and get back to me about how unlikely it is for civilization to suddenly hit a tipping point and go off the edge into collapse.

The thing to keep in mind, is that to most people, everything seems fine, until suddenly it is not.

I read both those books when I was a peaker from 2006 to 2008. Diamond's book is a cooked up load of falsehoods ( the demise of Easter island was due to Westerner raids, not some self induced collapse ), Tainter's book is an extremely boring, over technical yarn over 1 little fanciful graph of diminishing returns.
They are both next to useless, 'cept are good fodder for doomers.
So here I am getting back to you.
- It's 0% chance that modern civilization will hit some self induced tipping point from over explotation of resources. Any percieved crisis will be planned and self imposed, like the rwandan civil war and genocide - which was artifically setup to happen.
These mass murder events are forever present. We'll definately continue to have them. World population can't rise indefinately, which is one of the reasons TPTB decide to cull parts of the population from time to time long before any real resource limit is reached, and they are sometimes dressed up as overpopulation hitting the bounds sustainability.

[pstarr]

I read both those books when I was a peaker from 2006 to 2008. Diamond's book is a cooked up load of falsehoods ( the demise of Easter island was due to Westerner raids, not some self induced collapse )

got evidence for that ridiculous assertion?

- It's 0% chance that modern civilization will hit some self induced tipping point from over explotation of resources.

what will replace agricultural phosphorus?

[meemoe_uk]

>got evidence for that ridiculous assertion?
Sure, just dare to step outside of doomer fantasy land and google 'easter island myth' , there's plenty of academics who dispute Jared's doom story. It's just you've ignored them for years, so you've forgotten they are there.

>what will replace agricultural phosphorus?
Why do we need to replace that? I don't want to replace it.

[pstarr]

>got evidence for that ridiculous assertion?
Sure, just dare to step outside of doomer fantasy land and google 'easter island myth' , there's plenty of academics who dispute Jared's doom story. It's just you've ignored them for years, so you've forgotten they are there.

Do said 'academics' actually publish, or are they merely Fox commentators?

>what will replace agricultural phosphorus?
Why do we need to replace that? I don't want to replace it.

That's because you don't have the faintest idea what I am talking about. Ask me nicely and I will tell you to go FOAD

[AirlinePilot]

- It's 0% chance that modern civilization will hit some self induced tipping point from over explotation of resources. Any percieved crisis will be planned and self imposed, like the rwandan civil war and genocide - which was artifically setup to happen.

We are not going to hit a 'tipping" point. On that I'd agree. For me..this has always been about the slow grind down as we near and pass the peak. I think we have a bit more time in the BAU scenario and then we get to the point of acknowledgment that oil will not grow and we grasp the decline. I think that is when things get very interesting. I'd say its going to be a long term level down every few years followed by short periods of hopeful but unsustainable economic growth. With each move down things get a bit worse, countries and economies devolve into longer term social and political problems. Humans dont deal well with this and it will be the spark for war and revolution.

These mass murder events are forever present. We'll definately continue to have them. World population can't rise indefinately, which is one of the reasons TPTB decide to cull parts of the population from time to time long before any real resource limit is reached, and they are sometimes dressed up as overpopulation hitting the bounds sustainability.

Really? "They" better get on the ball soon. Not doing a good enough job IMHO, despite the 100's of millions we've killed in modern times...guess what? Global population continues to grow. Time to get this party started! Myself, I dont buy into that premise. Mankind is stupid enough that we dont need help killing each other. As to the numbers needed to make things better, its just going to get worse the longer we move into the future. Its not happening fast enough.

[Ibon]

Time to get this party started! Myself, I dont buy into that premise. Mankind is stupid enough that we dont need help killing each other.

The party is long overdue. And unfortunately we DO need help in ...........

[meemoe_uk]

Ask me nicely and I will tell you to go FOAD "

A new attitude at peakoil.com
Hmm, that didn't last too long did it? I was immediately skeptical because I knew enforcing this ideal would cost peakoil.com half of its members thru bans.
Just 1 month after the 'new attitude', it's business as usual, a forum ad homien, compounded in that special PO.com way; by 2 subsequent moderator posts that have ignored it.

[SeaGypsy]

Any more of that Fantabulous Orific Aromatic Deliciousness spare Pstarr?

Memoe, if your genocidal mania view was correct, why only a few thousand dead in each of the Arab Spring uprisings? Why did the tanks etc. not just blast the crowds to bits?

[meemoe_uk]

>Memoe, if your genocidal mania view was correct, why only a few thousand dead in each of the Arab Spring uprisings?
Not every destablization is designed to incorparate genocide.
TPTB induce genocides for specific reasons.

Here's one reason...
As people on these doom forums like to say, over population causes poverty, an over supply in people vs under supply in jobs and resources. Poverty is useful to TBTB so they like to keep societies in poverty. Since impoverished societies tend also to have high population growth rates*, the overpopulation problem escalates; positive feedback.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ic_paradox
At a certain point this growth has to be stopped, either by mass starvation or a civil war.

Most of the Arab countries involved in the spring unrisings don't have high enough populations to invoke the above reason.
The amount of genocide in Iraq is high though, well over 1 million killed since the 2003 US led invasion.

[Revi]

I was a member back in 2003, and I think we are seeing a lot of the problems associated with peak oil now. We're right on schedule. From here on in it gets interesting.

[gnm]

What He said... Sure its taking a long time and not subscribing to some sort of doomer collapse fantasy but the grind down has definitely begun...

-G

[Lore]

Most of the fast crash crowd has left here. This is not a video game. Serious prognosticators understand that de-evolution takes a long time relative to the individual human experience.

[AirlinePilot]

meemoe,

Did he actually tell you to FOAD? I dont recall you asking him nicely. I did see that though..its right up to the line we are trying to hold.

[AgentR11]

I think we are seeing a lot of the problems associated with peak oil now. We're right on schedule. From here on in it gets interesting.

ditto. I can recall the fast crasher's reaction to the notion that price and demand destruction were the answers to PO, not the problem when I first started posting here.

It's not pretty of course, the economy grinding down a hill, periodically smashing the breaks a bit hard, shedding jobs, shedding demand. Those in charge of the macro factors of the economy managing to keep the current dollar valuation of the economy slightly positive, thus preventing an economic apocalypse that would make Lehman look like cheese fries.

As long as no one crazy gets in charge of the numbers, we'll grind our way down to sustainability. A cruel, ugly, brutal path to sustainability; but it seems to be the one we've chosen; after all, it'd be a terrible thing if the politicians, financiers, engineers, and technocrats had to join the rabble for porridge rations... Can't have that!

[FatherOfTwo]

Well Hello everyone, it's been 3 years since I've been on this site, (I joined in 04) and it's interesting seeing so many of the same players still here, Frank, spot5050, pstarr, Dezakin (the man who set me straight on nuclear energy) all the moderators of course. The threads have not changed much either, which is honestly a little surprising. I was hoping the site would have moderated a bit more than it has; true it isn't as tilted as it used to be, but it still seems to be attracting a heavy dose of fast-crash doomers who excel at "why we can't" and those who seem to crave a collapse of civilization. That said, the site is still an excellent treasure trove of discussion to read through and educate yourself.

I've been a member for quite a few years also (late-2004) and although I've been following "energy" trends for 30 years I always think of Devil's position (remember him?). This was that although Peak Oil is captivating, the substantive issue in front of us is global warming/climate change. Mankind is rapidly and irreversibly changing the planet we live on. This is the real issue, not whether or not a few more years of liquid hydrocarbon production will extend the ride or not.

In the context of history, 10 or 20 years or a few generations is NOTHING!

Frank, I too remember Devil and I agree completely that this is the issue - mankind's voracious appetite for the earth's resources. Capitalism has clearly brought many good things to us, and clearly its been the best way to motivate people, but not having it incorporate the true costs of what nature gives us will be the most glaring mistake of the model. PeakOil is a side issue, although a large economic one at that. It's a multi-year or even decade long undulating plateau - look how oil and gas production are currently way up in the US significantly... alas, my poor, poor NG stocks!

It's now obvious (to me at least) that there are other energy sources that would be available enough in ample supply that they can significantly help the downward slide down the slope of oil. Yes, yes, scale out and all that - I'm familiar with the re-torts. Clearly we'll be scaling out during a time of economic upheaval etc. It's going to be painful.

The thing is, after all these years, after that initial freak out, my opinion remains the same - the best thing you can do is try to reduce your footprint, put yourself in the best economic position you can, and work for positive change towards a wholesale cultural change. My 2 girls are older now, we talk about the environment and I try to give them as even handed an explanation as I can. It is encouraging going to their school assemblies and seeing the heavy focus on the environment as it is setting a very good foundation for them - fortunately they are still young enough that they aren't yet aware of the scope of the problems that confront us. But these are the cards we've all been dealt in these lifetimes of ours, the question remains how are we going to play the game out. I for one hope that the positive approach is the one we most adopt.

[KingM]

I went through many of the same things. I was never a hard core doomer, but I thought we were in for some very wrenching changes. Maybe we are, but I'm pretty sure we'll muddle through. In any event, the best evidence that Peak Oil has failed to materialize as a major issue is that this site remains moribund. If PO were upon us, this place would be flooded with hundreds of posters. It isn't.

Instead, there are some religious fanatics (PO being the religion), some PO atheists, and several of us who kick around because we come here to read about energy stuff and occasionally get sucked into discussions.

[KingM]

It's not pretty of course, the economy grinding down a hill, periodically smashing the breaks a bit hard, shedding jobs, shedding demand. Those in charge of the macro factors of the economy managing to keep the current dollar valuation of the economy slightly positive, thus preventing an economic apocalypse that would make Lehman look like cheese fries.

No it isn't. The global economy is over 70 trillion dollars now, almost double in real terms what it was in the year 2000. This has been one of the fastest growth periods in human history. The US and some other advanced economies have been more stagnant, but that's one (shrinking) part of the story.

[ralfy]

I went through many of the same things. I was never a hard core doomer, but I thought we were in for some very wrenching changes. Maybe we are, but I'm pretty sure we'll muddle through. In any event, the best evidence that Peak Oil has failed to materialize as a major issue is that this site remains moribund. If PO were upon us, this place would be flooded with hundreds of posters. It isn't.

Instead, there are some religious fanatics (PO being the religion), some PO atheists, and several of us who kick around because we come here to read about energy stuff and occasionally get sucked into discussions.

Peak oil materialized many times, with the U.S. in 1970 and around two-thirds of oil-producing countries today. Perhaps you are referring to a drop in global oil production. But BP and others are already showing signs leading to that. See http://ralfyman.blogspot.com for links to dozens of reports from various organizations, none of them "flooding" this forum.

Also, with a drop in oil production, rather than seeing this place "flooded with hundreds of posters," expect the opposite. The same thing goes with many of the reports referred to hardly mentioned in mainstream media.

Finally, fanaticism works both ways.

[ralfy]

No it isn't. The global economy is over 70 trillion dollars now, almost double in real terms what it was in the year 2000. This has been one of the fastest growth periods in human history. The US and some other advanced economies have been more stagnant, but that's one (shrinking) part of the story.

But much of that amount is based on spending and debt. In fact, what backs that economy is more than a quadrillion dollars in total money supply, much of it consisting of unregulated derivatives, with most money consisting of numbers in accounts or contracts and hardly backed by physical assets.

Even G10 debt is roughly equivalent to that, and that debt is supposed to be used to cover more debt at ten times the amount:

"The real problem is that the $70 trillion in G10 debt is the collateral for $700 trillion in derivatives"

http://maxkeiser.com/2012/06/01/the-rea ... rivatives/

Fallout from 2008 started with only around a trillion of that, leading to something like 30 trillion dollars vaporized, and governments scrambling to bail out banks and investors. Behind that is conventional oil production barely rising, with increasing demand met with non-conventional sources, as reported by BP.