Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Noam Chomsky Thread (merged)

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

THE Noam Chomsky Thread (merged)

Unread postby BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 16:36:52

Noam Chomsky on peak oil link
Last edited by Ferretlover on Thu 12 Mar 2009, 09:30:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merge thread.
User avatar
BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Barbara » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 17:19:00

Well, let's drop a line to Noam to tell him some secrets... :lol:
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Barbara
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Zoorope

Unread postby cthulhu » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 18:29:15

Well that was "pretty meaningless" and vapid.

The date can be pushed back much farther if more costly (or maybe some to-be-discovered improved) technology is used.


Lol @ Noam Chomsky. It take energy to get energy Mr. Chumpsky, and I don't mean to print them ole dollar bills.
User avatar
cthulhu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12 Apr 2004, 03:00:00

impression

Unread postby Such » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 18:36:53

I get the impression he is thinking about more extreme oil... how far can the tar sands really go in the face of high conventional prices? How much can increased efficiency on the demand side make a difference?

These things will make a difference for a period of time.
Such
 

Unread postby cthulhu » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 18:58:38

No, I think it is just that he is unconversant with the facts and pushing an ideological agenda that is a pure fantasy formed by the petrol vapours suffusing his mind.

Talk about "shrinking our economies" is pretty meaningless.


Is it going to be pretty meaningless to those who have to live in a shrinking economy? The guy is a shyster.

how far can the tar sands really go in the face of high conventional prices?


And if that is the case he should do more research on tar sands.
http://www.longwaves.net/2002/msg02719.html

He should stick to talking about things he knows about, what ever they are.
User avatar
cthulhu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12 Apr 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 22:48:21

cthulhu wrote:He should stick to talking about things he knows about, what ever they are.


What? Like the linguistical foundations of computer science?

If you read his other writings on oil interests, we discover that to understand the current situation, think in terms of access and control. The USA can easily get access to oil, but like everything else, control has been the goal.

so, it's really very simple. Chomsky has the ability to transfer knowledge to people willing to listen. However, that will not get him on the mass media, because 50% of the population by definition is not willing to listen to new ideas.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Chomsky Related

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Sun 26 Sep 2004, 23:36:21

-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Unread postby cthulhu » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 00:29:36

WebHubbleTelescope wrote:
cthulhu wrote:He should stick to talking about things he knows about, what ever they are.


What? Like the linguistical foundations of computer science?


So that is what he does for a quid is it? Hope he's good at it.

WebHubbleTelescope wrote:If you read his other writings on oil interests, we discover that to understand the current situation, think in terms of access and control. The USA can easily get access to oil, but like everything else, control has been the goal.

so, it's really very simple. Chomsky has the ability to transfer knowledge to people willing to listen. However, that will not get him on the mass media, because 50% of the population by definition is not willing to listen to new ideas.


Mmmm :/ Control of what? Access to oil? Why if it is so easy for the USA to access it do they need to do that? Or do you mean control by a hugh cartel of business interests who don't recognise that the future of the oil empire is nil, the future of globalism is nil, that what ever they do economics as they know it is damned. Or a group of polititians intent on preserving the last of the oil for their own people so others people don't use it as a weapon against them.

So is it that the USA has the ability to control its own future? Or so it can control the future of other nations? Or is it just those nasty business people who blindly are leading themselves into a pit? People want to know. Oh, I can think of a million more questions. Maybe it is a jumbled mix up of all these things together. Maybe the guys in charge are pagan eco-freaks trying to end this oil maddness as quickly as possible and save the planet? But I think a person who knows about the linguistical foundations of computer science is just the kind of person who can lead us into the light. So play on Mr. Chumpsky, play on. Ha!

They want to maintain access, access mean control. Control = Access but Access doesn't necessarily mean Control. To ensure Access they need Control. So their main aim in control is what - Access.
So again what has been the goal everybody, let me hear it loud and strong!!!

lol Chumpsky...
User avatar
cthulhu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12 Apr 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby cthulhu » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 00:48:18

CONTROL!!! no ACCESS!!! no CONTROL somebody get me out of this higgle-de-piggledy. They want FREEDOM to CONTROL their own DESTINY. FREEDOM necessitates the POWER to defend it. POWER comes from ENERGY. So to be FREE and INDEPENDENT you need MORE ACCESS to ENERGY than those who might CONTROL YOU!!!

Mmmm :/ this isn't getting any simpler. Do they want access or control? Just answer the question. You can't be assured of the one without the other. Okay just answer this then; Is it better for you to have control over access or someone else of a scarce material vital to you national security?

Better for me.

So you are after control.

No, no, no. I don't want to control nebody, just don't want anyone controlling me.

I don't trust you.

That's cause you want control.

NO I WANT ACCESS. GIVE IT TO ME, PLEASE I BEGGING YOU I"M A DOWN ON MY KNEES!!!

No, not until you marry me.
User avatar
cthulhu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12 Apr 2004, 03:00:00

Chomsky/Monbiot

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 01:57:04

cthulhu wrote:CONTROL!!! no ACCESS!!!


It appears I have touched a nerve concerning the great Chomsky.

Bet a quid you are British. If that is the case, let me mention another name.

George Monbiot.

I will stand back and watch the fireworks.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby cthulhu » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:21:22

(No not until you marry me.)
(Then your with the terrorist. You hate my freedom.)

"Chomsky has the ability to transfer knowledge to people willing to listen."

Yes, he seems to inspire a cult like following which can't be good for dispassionate reasoning.

But how can I take his little scribbling seriously?

The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost.


I mean that really shows such a paucity of reflection on what peak oil really means. What does it mean? Wow, what a question! Pity the Great Chompsky and his Amazing Flying Monkeys pisses on one of the serious implications of what it does mean with a "pretty meaningless."

Take your eye of the Flying Monkeys Hubble; they shit without a warning!!!!
User avatar
cthulhu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12 Apr 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby entropyfails » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 14:51:23

cthulhu wrote:
The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost.


I mean that really shows such a paucity of reflection on what peak oil really means. What does it mean? Wow, what a question! Pity the Great Chompsky and his Amazing Flying Monkeys pisses on one of the serious implications of what it does mean with a "pretty meaningless."

Take your eye of the Flying Monkeys Hubble; they shit without a warning!!!!


What do you think he meant there? I think that you may have misunderstood him. He means that peak oil will come and the date it happens has to with how we structure things economically and socially. I don't think any of us disagree on that. It doesn't work like a meteor impact. We can do a few things here or there, how much depends on your opinion.

So, your claim that he "doesn't understand peak oil" doesn't mesh with what he says.

Then he says we can dump money into it. Plan Saudi. It works but it brings a harder crash after it.

Then he says that the "crash" would have less destruction to the environment than the burning of all the fossil fuels. Perhaps, he may be underestimating the desperation of a starving human, but I can see an argument being made in macro terms.

Then he comes to the point that we don't have to worry about "shrinking our economies." That would happen if we stopped being reckless assholes anyway. If we all became sustainable, then we would have a much better life though we would have significantly smaller "economy." Energy we don't waste in wars can go to growing food to alleviate the worst of the starvation.

Does he really go off to la la land in your world cthulhu? Do you really disagree with all of that? I think he may have talked over your head. And given that we are on the internet, I doubt that you'd admit to this.

Anyway, fundamentally we don't know what will happen anytime in the future so all the crystal ball gazing may have some use to us, but will ultimately widely diverge from what actually happens.

---
EntropyFails
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby cthulhu » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 15:04:07

Listen I don't have time to converse with idiots, wide eyed and goggly beautiful. What he means isn't up for debate. It is there in black and white, and it ain't much. I pointed out earlier the cult like following he attracts, I suspected I would get some followers who would project what ever they wanted to see on this miserable piece of crap.

The guy is spinning a line. Sure I swallowed the bait, but then I spat the hook into his eye. He is a dickhead. Okay-a-mundo?
User avatar
cthulhu
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon 12 Apr 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby entropyfails » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 16:51:17

cthulhu wrote:Listen I don't have time to converse with idiots, wide eyed and goggly beautiful. What he means isn't up for debate. It is there in black and white, and it ain't much. I pointed out earlier the cult like following he attracts, I suspected I would get some followers who would project what ever they wanted to see on this miserable piece of crap.

The guy is spinning a line. Sure I swallowed the bait, but then I spat the hook into his eye. He is a dickhead. Okay-a-mundo?


Everyone spins a line. You don't understand any deeper meaning because the big words confuse you. As I mentioned before, you wouldn't have the ability to understand that and would attack because of it.

Face it, nothing "is there in back and white". Those values only have meaning in the map, not the territory. You have trapped yourself. You, for some reason, don't want to look at another way of looking at the same statement than your own view. I don't have a problem with that. You can view it however you like!

I just point out to others that you have no idea of what you talk about. Chomsky doesn't either. Nor does anybody else, myself included.

---
EntropyFails
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Matrim » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 18:33:38

Ummm did I read the same chomsky blog as everyone else?

It didn't seem sooo outrageous to me. Calling him Chumpsky hardly seems merited, lets review:

The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost. ...



which is exactly the point of this site.......to discuss the timing of peak oil(because we all know it will happen) and the cost of peak oil, and of course to help plan for peak oil. Perhaps you were confused as to the meaning of incontrovertible? Moving on:

As for the estimates of cost, by reasonable standards one could argue that oil is far under-priced.

And I believe Matt Simmons has time and again......nothing new here.

low-priced oil leads to heavier use and less effort to create sustainable alternatives.


Hmmmm..... could that be why we have seen no decrease in demand (to my understanding the rate of increase hasn't even slowed)? It seems to me that Chomsky and Simmons seem to be about on the same page. Finally:

That I think is a far more serious problem than production peaking. In fact, one could argue that the earlier production peaks, the better off the human species (and a lot more) is, because of the effects of unconstrained use of hydrocarbons on the environment.



I couldn't count the number of times I have heard that argued. A good number of times by members of this board.

In conclusion I would say Chomsky's views on this seem to coincide with a great deal of the "peakers" I've seen. I would say he is informed of the issues as it seems clear that he's familiar with Matt Simmons (can't think of to many other people arguing for $180/bbl).

He probably just doesn't want to be the first mainstream commentator to point out the die-off thing to the masses. :lol: He's afraid we'd "kill the messenger"
User avatar
Matrim
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

About Chomsky

Unread postby EnviroEngr » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 18:45:32

Noam and I have corresponded a bit. He's very much a specialist and understands himself as such. Admittedly, it's a bit peculiar to see him commenting on Peak Oil at all save that he's ultimately in the same boat as the rest of us. He does have an interest in the fate of human society and has seemingly become more publically active in that regard since we started writing to each other.

I would expect Howard Zinn to produce a much more accessible body of work in this regard knowing his writings of American History. Howard has definite opinions about war-igarchy and its dubious benefactors. Not necessarily inclined to resource depletion thinking, he's more in that bailiwick than Noam.
-------------------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
-------------------------------------------
(---------< Temet Nosce >---------)
__________________________
User avatar
EnviroEngr
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin

Cult?

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 23:18:34

Chomsky attracts a cult?

Odd that, I am trying to think of a single scientist with a political view that even remotely achieved a "cult-like" following. Maybe Richard Feynman?

In actuality, this is a typical inoculation used by the wingnuts. They project their own fears, that is, of being ensnarled by a cult, onto intellectuals who raise interesting issues and ask timely questions. Accusing them of being cultists, provides an immunizing measure amongst the wingnut faithful. Repeat after me: We're not a cult, we behave nothing like them!

Cthulhu, here's another name to cause you to start spinning out of orbit.
Robert Fisk
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

chomsky

Unread postby WebHubbleTelescope » Mon 27 Sep 2004, 23:52:32

Lately Chomsky has also spent a lot of time writing and lecturing on mass media and political organization's effects on swaying public opinion. Interestingly, one of Chomsky's main academic rivals in linguistics, George Lakoff, has also recently been raising interesting ideas around our political discourse. Look into Lakoff's ideas on framing and the maternalistic/paternalistic cultures.

My point is that, as others have raised here, both Chomsky and Lakoff are listened to because they have studied linguistics their whole life. They know the buzzwords, hot buttons, flashpoints, etc that cause people to think in certain ways. Which is what linguistics is all about: the transfer of words to thought.

So, I would say that I read Chomsky and Lakoff because I would rather know when I am being suckered, and use these linguistical tools in practicing healty skepticism.
User avatar
WebHubbleTelescope
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu 08 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Suggestion: Add Noam Chomsky to the Experts section

Unread postby Ayoob_Reloaded » Thu 16 Dec 2004, 04:38:41

He's got some thoughts on Peak Oil. And, he answers his email regularly. You may have to wait a week or two for him to get back, but he will answer any specific question to the best of his ability with a short reply.
I've corresponded with him a number of times and he always gets back to me.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Thu 12 Mar 2009, 09:32:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Noam Chomsky Thread.
User avatar
Ayoob_Reloaded
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby stu » Thu 16 Dec 2004, 09:35:28

Great idea Ayoob.

If he responds to e-mail requests and knows about PO then we should definately try to get him.
User avatar
stu
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ye Olde Englande

Next

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests