Think the Earth is finite? Think again

[americandream]

In the meantime, your denial is probably healthy for your sanity as I don't think that you are capable of handling the truth.

That's bullshit. I read all kinds of stuff on peak oil. I have for years. I used to take the whole Hubbertian analysis seriously until I started digging in to the details.

That right there is the problem with you. I talk about comprehensive RESOURCE alchemy, you talk about peak oil. Do you think that a relentlessly growing global production line of cornucopia depends on oil alone for the creation of the annually obsolescent junkheap that ends up in our landfills, water tables, rivers and oceans?

You need to, in a few sentences, convince those of us who BELIEVE otherwise, that capitalism is capable of:

1 Comprehensive resource alchemy which is a closed loop in terms of primary inputs, OR;

2 Viable space technology that not only overcomes the problems of proliferating space junk, but provides us with the means to economically mine and ferry commodities off planet. As it is, not only is NASA canning its shuttle carrier, it will be falling back on '60's Soyuz technology. There is a great deal of hope being placed on the private sector taking up the reigns as well but no one has yet fully answered the question, what do we do when space junk proliferates to the point that entering outwith orbital space proves to be more costly than the benefits that will arise, AND;

3 Effective and economic filtering technology to deeply filter the oceans of the deeply ingrained pollution that is now at the point of overwhelming marine systems at more complex levels. Anyone who believes that we can continue to run the consumer ponzi scheme which revolves around vast volumes of repeated waste to generate necessarily growing profits, WITHOUT addressing the rising menace of massive environmental decay, is beyond blind for failing to give their cornucopianism sufficient thought, and is in fact a menace in terms of the nuances of this debate.

[Xenophobe]

We are past the peak of production, and there are not alternatives, Where is the energy and resources to keep BAU?

Not so fast on that peaking thing. We may have yet another in the works! Go Stuart! Go team! Bring on some more peaks!

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/12/p ... crude.html

This is a great thing for peakers, man, we can start up all the Hubbert curve talk again, start pretending that the next peak in the future will cause all sorts of dieoff, gold guns and ammo, MRE's, where to buy land, the real meat and potatoes of peak sites. When the peak was years in the past it was all so darn depressing, what with no one noticing and all.

[Xenophobe]

There is no significant evidence that bell-shaped curves accurately describe extraction rates.

Yes there is. It is VERY VERY likely going to be a bell-shaped curve.

Perhaps you didn't read the part about statititical significance? Review the appropriate science please, Carlhole is right and it was shown 6 years ago now why.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q363778431537157/

Come on people! There are more peaks coming...its time to up our game!

I recommend you take a few engineering courses (you're liberal art background just doesn't cut it).
In the end it doesn't matter how the depletion curve looks like. It matters that it eventually will go to zero. That says it all.

Insult Cavallo why don't you. He agree's with Carlholes analysis, and no one except those assembling strawmen use the old "it goes to zero!" trick anymore, that one is so OBVIOUS.

[rangerone314]

What's peak oil?

My Jetson's flying car is now 10 years old, time to get a new one. Yup, ain't the future great, unlimited energy.

If only they could harness the energy of fools.

[Xenophobe]

What's peak oil?

Apparently something which has been either happening intermittently, or is always being claimed to be happening in the near future, for like a CENTURY now. The more of them we have, the more confusing it all becomes.

Yup, ain't the future great, unlimited energy.

Well, unlimited in the human context anyway. Unless someone wants to pretend that yet another peak oil is going to shut down the sun?

If only they could harness the energy of fools.

True. What do you think, how hard would it be to get all those peak oilers on a single treadmill, get some of electrical output out of them?

[Cog]

Come on people! There are more peaks coming...its time to up our game!

Ever notice how those "peaks" are getting smaller over time? If there is an unlimited amount of production capability, it seems unlikely we would ever have any sort of a peak production at any time.

By the way, are you suggesting that we will produce more conventional oil down the road? I'm not talking about C&C but what we know as conventional oil production.

[SeaGypsy]

..capitalism is (not) capable of:

1 Comprehensive resource alchemy which is a closed loop in terms of primary inputs, OR;

2 Viable space technology...

3 Effective and economic filtering technology to deeply filter the oceans of the deeply ingrained pollution that is now at the point of overwhelming marine systems at more complex levels....

Is communism more likely to achieve: 1 or 3? (I take 2 as a write off regardless).

1/ Under the premise that hard left (communist) goverment is about state control of markets while liberalist (capitalist) government is about greasing the wheels of economic growth; I would have to agree you have a point.

The problem I have with your solution is that States in themselves are vastly inferior under a closed loop 'resource alchemy' (a phrase I like), to resource based deliniations. Borders were drawn over the folly of men; not with ecology in mind. It takes a lot of energy to keep a country together, regardless of system of government. It is only in the oil age that borders have become much more than legal fictions; with governments able to facilitate policing of them.
Post oil will be also post borders. You have described the future as ruthless and borderless yourself; I have wondered if you see the contradiction?

Another reality with your argument is that any attempt to implement it on a global scale with military force will definitely trigger nuclear war; which kind of undoes the ecological good that might come of it's impossible success.

leading to:

2/ An overarching global communist government (post nuclear winter, of course) would be so busy chasing/ fending off it's enemies; you really think it's going to find the time or energy for cleaning up the oceans?

[rangerone314]

Seems to me we are on a bumpy plateau, which is what I predicted to my wife years ago, nice bell curves notwithstanding.

I just wonder when the bumpy plateau ends or how high prices will go. The alternatives are expensive and don't scale up or transport as well as gasoline.

The reason gasoline was chosen was because it was the ideal energy source for transportation in many ways, not because they ran out of wood or coal. When oil eventually starts its inevitable decline, it won't be ditched in favor of a more densely-packed, portable energy source. It will be ditched in favor of lesser energy. We got lucky with oil, like a bunch of kids digging up the backyard and finding a chest full of candy.

It would be like running out of steel and thinking we will find a stronger metal than steel simply because we need it, and what we need the universe and technology will provide. What, like in Star Trek? Dicoronium or something?

[SeaGypsy]

For as long as TPTB can kick the BAU can down the road, less energy means less for most, but not all.

A turning point will come when it is acceptable that millions starve to death while food is turned into biofuels for the elite; within the USA.

[americandream]

..capitalism is (not) capable of:

1 Comprehensive resource alchemy which is a closed loop in terms of primary inputs, OR;

2 Viable space technology...

3 Effective and economic filtering technology to deeply filter the oceans of the deeply ingrained pollution that is now at the point of overwhelming marine systems at more complex levels....

Is communism more likely to achieve: 1 or 3? (I take 2 as a write off regardless).

1/ Under the premise that hard left (communist) goverment is about state control of markets while liberalist (capitalist) government is about greasing the wheels of economic growth; I would have to agree you have a point.

The problem I have with your solution is that States in themselves are vastly inferior under a closed loop 'resource alchemy' (a phrase I like), to resource based deliniations. Borders were drawn over the folly of men; not with ecology in mind. It takes a lot of energy to keep a country together, regardless of system of government. It is only in the oil age that borders have become much more than legal fictions; with governments able to facilitate policing of them.
Post oil will be also post borders. You have described the future as ruthless and borderless yourself; I have wondered if you see the contradiction?

Another reality with your argument is that any attempt to implement it on a global scale with military force will definitely trigger nuclear war; which kind of undoes the ecological good that might come of it's impossible success.

leading to:

2/ An overarching global communist government (post nuclear winter, of course) would be so busy chasing/ fending off it's enemies; you really think it's going to find the time or energy for cleaning up the oceans?

The challenge is less about the managers (government) and more about the logic of communist economy. At the moment, our every waking hour is devoted to working in order to consume. The economic order revolves around entities that exist to contrive wants in order to derive profits. The profits in turn are the basis by which a small group derive vast profits to sustain fabulous lives. And so on and so forth turns this hamster wheel, relentlessly pushing us and this planet closer to a confrontation with history.

The attacks levelled at communism, whilst ostensibly at the managers of the system, also serve to quell it's underlying economic understanding. And so to the extent that we demonise the managers yet ignore the underlying rationale, we discard a very useful means for reigning in the madness that is capitalism.

In fact to attack communisms management record to the exclusion of capitalism equally lamentable record is to further disguise the venom latent in capital economy and to grant it a standing it does not warrant and would not attract were it examined in the light of cold logic.

So to that extent, a discussion of communism should first examine it's potential for sustainable civil society. The absence of the logic for profit is clearly a good start. The rise of revisionism is ever present (China) but communism is first and foremost, devoid of the profit ethos and the focus should remain there so as to avoid the confusions wrought by revisionists.

The next debate would be the nuts and bolts for its effecrtive application and management.

[Xenophobe]

Come on people! There are more peaks coming...its time to up our game!

Ever notice how those "peaks" are getting smaller over time?

Nope. Can't ever say I saw a Hubbert paper or video where he decided the value of a peak was based on its size over prior peaks. Could be he did though.

If there is an unlimited amount of production capability, it seems unlikely we would ever have any sort of a peak production at any time.

Very few things can ever be described as "unlimited".

By the way, are you suggesting that we will produce more conventional oil down the road? I'm not talking about C&C but what we know as conventional oil production.

Hey, no one ever said that peakers know what oil actually IS, so don't ask me what silly definitions they make up as they go to hide one bad prediction after another. Lets not forget, these are the same people who don't even count certain types of oil because its density is different than other types. Its like not breathing air because its humid outside. But thats peakers....

[Cloud9]

There are two goads that push and pull at a man, fear and self interest. Nothing else will drive him into to the cold forcing him to produce the sustenance that is needed by all of us. Altruism is the stated goad of communism but through out history only fear has sufficed to hold it together, it is only fear that forced the cooperation necessary to produce the means of survival for the body politic. The day the fear of the Nazis died is the day the revolution died.

Communism is a failed religion, just like Nazism. Those of you who would produce the perfect state strive for hell on earth. It is a failed dream. Man is what he is. Look to yourself and to your family. All else is illusion.

[SeaGypsy]

Capitalism is not about logic; it's about human nature and along with democracy is designed to undo the tendency of dictatorial systems to cyclicly revolt.
Inevitably it is human nature to blame the government for all manner of deprivations; democracy allows bloodless revenge. In this way democracy is state controlled psuedo-revolution.

The state remains controlled by the bankers regardless; that is capitalism. The hand in the glove. While banksters are in charge of the world; why would they permit, encourage or associate with agencies sponsoring their demise? They effectively own governments, the propoganda machine and almost all subsidiery business; what chance has any serious opposition got?

More than a failed religion; i would say communism is a failed business model.

[Pretorian]

There are two goads that push and pull at a man, fear and self interest. Nothing else will drive him into to the cold forcing him to produce the sustenance that is needed by all of us.

Isnt fear a form of self-interest to begin with? Altruism is also a form of self-interest. People do things for others because it makes them feel good about themselves(if the charity is anonymous), not because someone needs something. Have you ever seen an anonymous coal miner or a dishwasher?People do things publicly for obvious reasons, which is again nothing but self-interest. So thats that--there is self-interest. There is nothing else. Nothing.

[americandream]

Capitalism is not about logic; it's about human nature and along with democracy is designed to undo the tendency of dictatorial systems to cyclicly revolt.
Inevitably it is human nature to blame the government for all manner of deprivations; democracy allows bloodless revenge. In this way democracy is state controlled psuedo-revolution.

The state remains controlled by the bankers regardless; that is capitalism. The hand in the glove. While banksters are in charge of the world; why would they permit, encourage or associate with agencies sponsoring their demise? They effectively own governments, the propoganda machine and almost all subsidiery business; what chance has any serious opposition got?

More than a failed religion; i would say communism is a failed business model.

Communism does not contemplate business (mercantilism or capitalism) so I am not quite sure where it has failed. In fact, communism's ongoing demonisation is testimony to the fear it generates in our masters. An ignorance of its logic, an ignorance of what capitalism really is, gives rise to such nonsense as capitalism being human nature.

That exchange is an essential aspect of existence is a given. In exchange for our labour, we derive the means to survive and where a sufficient surplus is created, enjoy leisurely moments. However, to argue that the application of passive private wealth to the generation of accumulated capital is human nature stands the notion of capital, intangibalisation, capitalisation and accumulation on its head.

Capitalism saw its genesis in the rise of the corporation, more particularly banks (the East Indian companies, the Hudson Bay company and Lloyds bank to name a few), along with the advent of non-real wealth and non-Jewish usury. Whereas in the past, feudalism was largely limited to real wealth with strict proscriptions for the management of usury, the rise of large scale banking along with these intangible asset vehicles as well as the gentilisation of usury saw the rise of capital, hot on the heels of the Reformation incidentally.

The logic of dialectical social economy is that with the increased globalisastion of this model will rise an increasing competition for the consumer dollar and stressed bottom lines, a global culture that defies the parochialism of the barbarian, increasing pauperisation of the global worker as deregulation is increasingly resorted to in a bid to prop up profits, the chasing of markets by capital in a bid to generate increasing annual profits and the rise of full scale commodification as everything is reduced to a use value with the increasing commodification of intellectual property and increasing resort to capitalisation of what was previously the socialised (bailouts as well as Quantitative easing).

This is a natural process, the inevitable confluence of events that started with the onset of rudimentary mercantilism in early history. No amount of hand wringing could possibly have halted these events. Nor will any fancy notion of ethical mercantilism halt capitalism's inevitable collapse. It will eat itself from within in a desperate quest for decreasing surplus.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Colin Cambell will just stop wanting his beer and then the glass will just sit there.

Like the Irish stopped wanting potatoes?

[dsula]

except those assembling strawmen use the old "it goes to zero!" trick anymore, that one is so OBVIOUS.

If it obviously going to 0 then it's got to be a sum of bell shaped curves and with enough filtering, it's going to be one smooth bell shaped curve. (low pass filter).

[SeaGypsy]

Capitalism is not about logic; it's about human nature and along with democracy is designed to undo the tendency of dictatorial systems to cyclicly revolt.
Inevitably it is human nature to blame the government for all manner of deprivations; democracy allows bloodless revenge. In this way democracy is state controlled psuedo-revolution.

The state remains controlled by the bankers regardless; that is capitalism. The hand in the glove. While banksters are in charge of the world; why would they permit, encourage or associate with agencies sponsoring their demise? They effectively own governments, the propoganda machine and almost all subsidiery business; what chance has any serious opposition got?

More than a failed religion; i would say communism is a failed business model.

Communism does not contemplate business (mercantilism or capitalism) so I am not quite sure where it has failed. In fact, communism's ongoing demonisation is testimony to the fear it generates in our masters. An ignorance of its logic, an ignorance of what capitalism really is, gives rise to such nonsense as capitalism being human nature.

That exchange is an essential aspect of existence is a given. In exchange for our labour, we derive the means to survive and where a sufficient surplus is created, enjoy leisurely moments. However, to argue that the application of passive private wealth to the generation of accumulated capital is human nature stands the notion of capital, intangibalisation, capitalisation and accumulation on its head.

Capitalism saw its genesis in the rise of the corporation, more particularly banks (the East Indian companies, the Hudson Bay company and Lloyds bank to name a few), along with the advent of non-real wealth and non-Jewish usury. Whereas in the past, feudalism was largely limited to real wealth with strict proscriptions for the management of usury, the rise of large scale banking along with these intangible asset vehicles as well as the gentilisation of usury saw the rise of capital, hot on the heels of the Reformation incidentally.

The logic of dialectical social economy is that with the increased globalisastion of this model will rise an increasing competition for the consumer dollar and stressed bottom lines, a global culture that defies the parochialism of the barbarian, increasing pauperisation of the global worker as deregulation is increasingly resorted to in a bid to prop up profits, the chasing of markets by capital in a bid to generate increasing annual profits and the rise of full scale commodification as everything is reduced to a use value with the increasing commodification of intellectual property and increasing resort to capitalisation of what was previously the socialised (bailouts as well as Quantitative easing).

This is a natural process, the inevitable confluence of events that started with the onset of rudimentary mercantilism in early history. No amount of hand wringing could possibly have halted these events. Nor will any fancy notion of ethical mercantilism halt capitalism's inevitable collapse. It will eat itself from within in a desperate quest for decreasing surplus.

Beautifully said.

I did not say capitalism is human nature, but about, as in: aimed at.

An unfortunate fact is the unconcious mass,
Striving, conniving without any class,
Some say we need to reintroduce the draft,
But to be usefull in the army you need to have a craft,

"We Do!" they cry, "on X box."

[Xenophobe]

except those assembling strawmen use the old "it goes to zero!" trick anymore, that one is so OBVIOUS.

If it obviously going to 0 then it's got to be a sum of bell shaped curves and with enough filtering, it's going to be one smooth bell shaped curve. (low pass filter).

Seeing as how Hubbert himself is the only guy with any real credibility on this topic, could you please refer me to any reference of his where he said he needed "enough filtering" to force a particular production profile to at least fake being bell shaped? While I am sure there are some mathematic gyrations and transformations which can be used to make any shape or profile look like any other shape or profile, I don't recall Hubbert being intellectually dishonest in this particular fashion, which is why I would like a reference, please. Certainly the nonsense put out by pseudo science peakers over the past few decades hasn't been worth the paper its printed on, so if you have a reference to the man himself saying this sort of thing, I'll think about buying in. Otherwise, forget about it.