[Expatriot]

I find these occasional off-topic free-range discussions to be the best part of this place lately.

Read your post. Didn't understand it.
It's really rather simple.
Are you a creationist? If so, then we can end the discussion and have a beer. My treat.
If you're not, then you understand that evolution is driven by natural selection, and, more importantly, by the selfish gene.
We are nothing but fancy DNA wrappers. That's it.
DNA that does not selfishly reproduce gets weeded out.
That's why people are liars. That's why people will burn all available resources. That's why CC is irrelevant - because you'd have to change people's fundamental selfish nature to stop CC, and you're not going to change 4 billion years of evolution in a few decades.

You seemed to hint at some thought that selfishness is a cultural trait. Perhaps degree of selfishness is, but if it comes down to our culture (huttu, serb, german, native american, indigenous, chinese, white south african) versus your culture (tutsi, croat, jew, english, white australian, japanese, black south africans) all cultures are selfish.

Why? Because those that weren't got wiped out by those that were.

Frankly, if your world view is, seriously, that people are not innately self-serving, then we can also end the conversation there and have that beer, and send me a letter when you find or establish that selfless culture.

In the meantime, have fun screaming at the beach to change the culture there.

[Expatriot]

You won't change people.
You can't change people.

There's a multi billion dollar advertising industry that disagrees with you there.

In fact, that industry relies heavily on the truth of my words.
People are inherently self centered and self serving.
They are also, like most animals, inclined to act on immediate impulses to the detriment of their own future self.
Mice only live a few years.
Do you know why?
Because predation is so high that genes that would impart longevity are virtually worthless, so genes that impart immediate returns are strongly selected, and, in the process, genes that are really bad for longevity can and do persist.
People are fat because the positive feedback of eating is stronger than the long term benefit of being lean.
People have rotten teeth because the short term gain of going to bed is stronger than the long term benefit of brushing.
And so on.

Advertisers simply target basic human failings.

[Expatriot]

Lore is right, as peak oil, climate change (including environmental damage), and the debt crisis are connected to each other. What is illogical is to isolate one problem from the others or to ignore them.

Nah. Lore is a dreamer. Wonderful dream. I hope I dream it tonight. But I know I can't live it. Because it's a dream to think you're going to get people to limit FF use in any meaningful way.

By the way, I haven't suggested that we "isolate" the problems from each other. By all means, discuss away in one conversation:

We're running out of fossil fuels, because we're burning a lot of them, which is causing CC, and, with the price of remaining energy increasing, the debt crisis is being compounded.

Happy?

What I said was this:

You can't stop climate change (to whatever extent it is occurring), because in order to do so you'd have to change basic human nature. You'd have to get 1 billion Chinese and 300 million Americans to willingly use substantially less FF energy. My conclusion is just this simple - you won't. You can't. Americans would lynch any politician that attempted in any meaningful way to reduce our carbon use. China wants to join the modern world. There is zero way that a country like China, that tears furs off of live animals in open air markets, that puts toxins in baby formula, that has people teeming over each other in a battle to live daily life, is going to curtail FF use when such curtailment will mean giving up economic ground to the rest of the world.

Simply put, if you don't understand that, review history. People have always used every available resource. Always. Never has any group of people showed any substantial restraint when it comes to using natural resources that can enrich people. That "easter island" effect is based on biology (not culture, yuk yuk!).

It's a pipe dream to believe that you can get people to stop burning carbon sources. Many seem to suffer from the belief that they only need to "educate" the knuckle draggers and mouth breathers. Naah. You tell most Americans that the choices are 1. 20 dollar gas and only 5 gallons a week, or 2. Storms and higher temps, and Sprawlmart will sell out of panchos and air conditioners before you can finish your sentence.

It's a nice dream though. Very nice. The thought that you can teach a person something that they don't want to know, that will immediately cause them a loss of standard of living, and that is for some future, world wide benefit, and they will embrace it. Very nice.

Peak oil is the same thing. You can't "prevent it," and you won't convince people to mitigate it, because they're going to use it up as fast as they can get their hands on it.

So, for those two, why waste energy and time trying to "educate" people? There's no point to other other than "being right" in a few years, and by then, people will just dislike you for having been right. They won't respect you more. Hell, they'll probably find some way to blame you.

For the economic issues, meh - bring it on. I welcome the economic collapse. The sooner we get this charade over with the better. One of the few things left on this s----hole of a world that I'd like to see is what comes after this obese, disgusting, modern life that we're living in the heart of the oil age ends.

[ralfy]

Nah. Lore is a dreamer. Wonderful dream. I hope I dream it tonight. But I know I can't live it. Because it's a dream to think you're going to get people to limit FF use in any meaningful way.

By the way, I haven't suggested that we "isolate" the problems from each other. By all means, discuss away in one conversation:

We're running out of fossil fuels, because we're burning a lot of them, which is causing CC, and, with the price of remaining energy increasing, the debt crisis is being compounded.

Happy?

What I said was this:

You can't stop climate change (to whatever extent it is occurring), because in order to do so you'd have to change basic human nature. You'd have to get 1 billion Chinese and 300 million Americans to willingly use substantially less FF energy. My conclusion is just this simple - you won't. You can't. Americans would lynch any politician that attempted in any meaningful way to reduce our carbon use. China wants to join the modern world. There is zero way that a country like China, that tears furs off of live animals in open air markets, that puts toxins in baby formula, that has people teeming over each other in a battle to live daily life, is going to curtail FF use when such curtailment will mean giving up economic ground to the rest of the world.

Simply put, if you don't understand that, review history. People have always used every available resource. Always. Never has any group of people showed any substantial restraint when it comes to using natural resources that can enrich people. That "easter island" effect is based on biology (not culture, yuk yuk!).

It's a pipe dream to believe that you can get people to stop burning carbon sources. Many seem to suffer from the belief that they only need to "educate" the knuckle draggers and mouth breathers. Naah. You tell most Americans that the choices are 1. 20 dollar gas and only 5 gallons a week, or 2. Storms and higher temps, and Sprawlmart will sell out of panchos and air conditioners before you can finish your sentence.

It's a nice dream though. Very nice. The thought that you can teach a person something that they don't want to know, that will immediately cause them a loss of standard of living, and that is for some future, world wide benefit, and they will embrace it. Very nice.

Peak oil is the same thing. You can't "prevent it," and you won't convince people to mitigate it, because they're going to use it up as fast as they can get their hands on it.

So, for those two, why waste energy and time trying to "educate" people? There's no point to other other than "being right" in a few years, and by then, people will just dislike you for having been right. They won't respect you more. Hell, they'll probably find some way to blame you.

For the economic issues, meh - bring it on. I welcome the economic collapse. The sooner we get this charade over with the better. One of the few things left on this s----hole of a world that I'd like to see is what comes after this obese, disgusting, modern life that we're living in the heart of the oil age ends.

For me, ignoring a problem means claiming that it's not taking place. This is not the same as claiming that the problem is a predicament.

That's why, like Martenson, I now tend to refer to these three issues--the debt crisis, peak oil, and climate change--as predicaments. And since they are connected to each other, then it is illogical to deny that any of them is a problem or a predicament.

[ralfy]

I'd also like to add that claiming that a predicament is irrelevant is illogical. Just because there is no solution to an issue doesn't mean that one should ignore it, especially if one who is denial can do the same thing.

[Expatriot]

No. I am not a Creationist.

Your position on human behavior is much more akin to what a Creationist would say than an evolutionary biologist. Maybe you're a closet Creationist at heart, and you believe that people are capable of something more than evolution permits because people have "souls" or something.

I have no issue with that - it's like the gay thing - I have no issue with it, it's just not for me, and I don't want to have it shoved in my face.

But if you believe that God made people capable of group behavior that is detrimental to self or self genes, then God bless you.

[vision-master]

Both are incorrect.....

Creationist

Evolutionary biologist.

[Expatriot]

For me, ignoring a problem means claiming that it's not taking place. This is not the same as claiming that the problem is a predicament.

That's why, like Martenson, I now tend to refer to these three issues--the debt crisis, peak oil, and climate change--as predicaments. And since they are connected to each other, then it is illogical to deny that any of them is a problem or a predicament.

I'm not sure how this ties in to my main point, which is that CC/AGW is not curable, so why spend time arguing about it? Prepare for it, sure, like the dickens, but why spend time and energy convincing others.

What you seem to be saying is that you are angry that others don't agree that AGW is happening. So what? Who cares? Like I wrote, even if you put all the evidence in front of them and got them to understand, they wouldn't want to change their behavior. So are you looking for an academic victory?

Have fun on the beach.

[Expatriot]

I'd also like to add that claiming that a predicament is irrelevant is illogical. Just because there is no solution to an issue doesn't mean that one should ignore it, especially if one who is denial can do the same thing.

This is not a rational thought. Logic is not your forte. You know and I know it.

And, for the record, I never said CC/AGW was irrelevant. It's very relevant. But so what? So is the fact that winter is coming. I can't change that either. I just prepare for it.

And I never suggested that PO or CC should be ignored. Quite on the contrary. I strongly suggest preparing for it, if you want to live relatively well in the coming decades.

What I suggested, which nobody has yet seemed to take issue with, really, is that people will not change, no matter how much evidence is put in front of them. Unless there is a dramatic, immediate effect upon folks caused by CC, then they are simply not going to stop burning FFs. Nobody cares. It's as simple as that. We had a mild winter here. If that was caused by CC, then most folks around here would be pro CC. I'm sure the folks in Canada are hoping global temps go up a few degrees.

It's as simply as this - why spend time and effort on something that can't be changed.

Unless, of course, you think it can't be changed, in which case my response is that you are hoping for a miracle, because in several million years of human evolution, humans have never - not once - preserved a valuable resource for future generations at their own expense.

[FUTILITIST1]

I was recently booted off of TOD after several years of posting, with never so much as a single reprimand in all those years. Leanan, the Drumbeat moderator, is about as unfair and arbitrary as I have ever seen in my life. She acts much more as a censor than a moderator. TOD itself is a DIS-information website, presenting mountains of useless technical detail and bland, sanitised for your protection discussions. They are extremely conscious of their public image and see themselves as some sort of quasi-official, go to site for all things energy related. But many legitimate energy related topics are barely tolerated or are even practically unspeakable!

I recently started my own blog to fight back directly against the censorship so rampant at TOD. I was bannished from TOD for daring to try to make an well reasoned argument against John Michael Greer's "Theory of Catabolic Collapse". I document the entire incident for the historical record to let people make up their own minds. I am a free speech advocate.

Here are the links to my blog posts on this matter. Be forewarned: this is not for the feignt hearted. I tell it like it really is!

http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/08/ ... tchen.html

http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/09/ ... eal_1.html

http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/09/memory-hole.html

If this fires anyone else up out there, be sure to pass on the links. We all have to spread the word about the sham that TOD really is.

*****Also a message to dohboi: Get in touch with Tribe of Pangaea First Member. Your absence has been noticed.******

[kublikhan]

I'm not sure if this will get through to you as you seem really hyped up over this issue but here goes:
I don't think you were banned from TOD for "daring to make a well reasoned argument". I think you were banned for adhom attacks. I read your posts and if I was the target of your rants I would find them offensive. I have to agree that you dropped a turd then expected someone to politely debate you. Even after that, it was mentioned a critique of the theory would be welcomed. Instead you publish a long blog post about how he is a snake oil selling charlatan. I don't know about you, but if anyone treated me that way I would no longer be interested in engaging them.

If I were you I would take down that post, write an apology, and write our a "well reasoned critique" and post it to the Energy Bulletin as was originally suggested. You are much more likely to get well reasoned rebuttals(or support) for your theory instead of constantly having to defend your adhom comments. I think you would be happier with the result.

[dissident]

I'm not sure if this will get through to you as you seem really hyped up over this issue but here goes:
I don't think you were banned from TOD for "daring to make a well reasoned argument". I think you were banned for adhom attacks. I read your posts and if I was the target of your rants I would find them offensive. I have to agree that you dropped a turd then expected someone to politely debate you. Even after that, it was mentioned a critique of the theory would be welcomed. Instead you publish a long blog post about how he is a snake oil selling charlatan. I don't know about you, but if anyone treated me that way I would no longer be interested in engaging them.

If I were you I would take down that post, write an apology, and write our a "well reasoned critique" and post it to the Energy Bulletin as was originally suggested. You are much more likely to get well reasoned rebuttals(or support) for your theory instead of constantly having to defend your adhom comments. I think you would be happier with the result.

So Greer is beyond criticism? Greer is obviously being treated as some sort of guru and his acolytes get very defensive of any challenge to their "master".

http://peakoil.com/generalideas/john-mi ... egitimacy/

The comments at the bottom pretty much put this drivel in its place. The most obvious thing that Greer missed in his non sequitur rant was that governments and the establishment do not have enough brains to deal with real crises. So the issue is not that capitalist money can be replaced with command economics tokens, it is that the process of transition is a collapse in itself. The other problem is that modern civilization is not something that can be unwound back to its early stages in a gradual fashion. The mentality of the people is not there. Maybe the peasants in third world countries can adapt, but not urbanites in the 1st world. Pretending that we will go back to the farm is nonsense. There is no farmland to go back to, hobby farms of wannabe survivalists notwithstanding. Finally, looking at the oil production tail and counting the hypothetical decades of gradual decline is inane. The 1st world economy cannot function on 50% of the oil it currently consumes. I don't see the transition to electric transport and alternative energy that is required to prevent collapse. This transition has to start twenty years ago and not a couple of years before total systemic breakdown, which brings us back to the main problem, the severely lacking IQ of the deciders.

[Pops]

So you're here at PO.com complaining about TOD.com who 86ed you because you were attacking JMG there because he wouldn't argue a belief system with you in his comments section?

[Plantagenet]

in several million years of human evolution, humans have never - not once - preserved a valuable resource for future generations at their own expense.

You've never heard of the US National Park system? Its entire purpose is "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."[5]

[AdTheNad]

I hear JMG lures children into his gingerbread house.

Seriously you may have some legitimate points against greer, but no one will ever know because you just look like a mad man.

Stay focused, stick to the facts and don't just post a copy of every comment from TOD that mentions you or JMG.

I'll look forward to your critique of Greer's theory of catabolic collapse if you cut the crazy.

[SeaGypsy]

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com. ... lapse.html

Probably the easiest read on collapse I've ever read. Greer's projection of re-emergence of agrarian society on the ruins of the modern Rome (USA/ EU 1st world Asia) is a metaphor for the end of 'things as we know them'. The cycle of temporary fixes in a world running out of resources is both suicidal and stupid; I am not sure where the inference that 'government will fix it' comes from. He talks about the third worldisation of America as an inevitability. Anyone who knows and has experienced living under 3rd world government should know what this means.

[FUTILITIST1]

To kublikhan,
Ad hominem attacks are just a lame excuse. I used a what is called a valid ad hominem; it is not considered to be fallacious (please reread my post more carefully). I did not publish my indictment of JMG for being a charlatan as a substitute for writing a serious paper; it is in addition to. The Energy Bulletin is not going to publish anything I write. I will not take down my indictment of Greer as it is all completely true and fair. And of course I will never apologise to the charlatan John Michael Greer!

To Pops,
Sort of. More like: I'm here on PO.com complaining about TOD who 86ed me because I was trying to get JMG to debate catabolic collapse theory on TOD.
I don't care what he does with his comments section. That was someone else.

To AdTheNad,
I heard that rumour too, but I don't like to spread unfounded accusations. Let's wait until all of the evidence is in. I'll try to stay focused and "cut the crazy" as you say.

To SeaGypsy,
Metaphors make bad science.

TO EVERYONE,
If anyone wants to object to what I write on my blog, please post those comments in the comments section of my blog. I promise to answer any and all comments seriously and with all due respect.

Text deleted Linkbaiting prohibited.

[ralfy]

I'm not sure how this ties in to my main point, which is that CC/AGW is not curable, so why spend time arguing about it? Prepare for it, sure, like the dickens, but why spend time and energy convincing others.

You can't prepare for something that you think won't happen or that is easily "curable". And if you are referring only to yourself and that no one else needs to be told, then you are free to do so. Why force others to follow you?

What you seem to be saying is that you are angry that others don't agree that AGW is happening. So what? Who cares? Like I wrote, even if you put all the evidence in front of them and got them to understand, they wouldn't want to change their behavior. So are you looking for an academic victory?

Nothing in my post states that I'm angry, but what's wrong with challenging someone regarding AGW? Following your argument, I'd be wrong if I agreed with him as well.

Given that, I don't think I'm looking for an "academic victory," but I don't see the relevance of your suggestion, that I shouldn't say anything.

Have fun on the beach.

Useless advice, as one who is ignorant of these predicaments can easily do the same.