[SugarSeam]

I'm in a back-and-forth with the worst kind of arrogant "finance creates energy" forum troll who absolutely dismisses peak oil on the grounds that technology and efficiency gains make the situation moot. You know, standard denial.

Anyhow, despite explaining to him countless times that technology gains will never offset decline rates enough to maintain needed production growth, he responds with both "yes it will" AND "who said we must have production growth?"

I recently reminded him that while it is true we have made efficiency gains in most every process we use oil for, we're still consuming more oil every year, as a species. I introduced him to Jevons Paradox, whereby he suggested I don't understand the term. His words:

you can't seem to understand the simple fact that we can get more efficient in how we use oil AND we can use more at the same time. But those both don't have to happen together. You keep missing this point.

This, btw, is someone who outright handwaves away the notion that energy consumption is what drives growth.

But what do you say to someone like this who remains fixated on what COULD happen - apparently in a world of gumdrops and unicorns - as opposed to the reality of what IS happening? How do you get this kind of "Econ 101 bro" to overcome his mental blockage and grasp depletion, or basic physics, or just simply that efficiency gains only tend to increase demand (that is, until they can't any longer)?

[Ibon]

But what do you say to someone like this who remains fixated on what COULD happen - apparently in a world of gumdrops and unicorns - as opposed to the reality of what IS happening? How do you get this kind of "Econ 101 bro" to overcome his mental blockage and grasp depletion, or basic physics, or just simply that efficiency gains only tend to increase demand (that is, until they can't any longer)?

The troll has a fixed narrative that is impenetrable to logically constructed explanations about the finite nature of fossil fuels and the limits of efficiency and technological innovations to mitigate the increased decline rates. He is not the first and certainly not the last. There are hundreds of millions who share his position. For good reason. Reality has not yet demonstrated substantially any real major shift to the status quo. Until that happens denial continues to not only remain resilient but also is probably adaptive. After all, consider that:

1) The trend is your friend. Innovation and efficiency gains have defied human overshoot and energy constraints for about 200 years. Why all of a sudden should an inflection point happen now? The troll is in finance and measures his investments based on probabilities right?

2) Not a single consequence is immanent on the short term horizon that would shake this troll's conviction.

3) This troll's whole world view would be shattered by events that would disrupt his and his progeny's goals and aspirations. Why should he entertain this kind of chaos?

The catalyst of consequences are what is missing. In the meantime debates are only frustrating.

An equally relevant question to ask is actually about you. Why are you so upset at this troll? Or your friend or father who might think the same. They probably do actually. This is the majority position where there is no external evidence yet that merits a change of position. Why are you invested in making or forcing or convincing anyone to believe something that he or she doesn't want to believe? You cannot change this fixed narrative without an important catalyst. You mentioned the reality that IS happening. Which reality is that? What specifically is actually already happening that is powerful enough to penetrate this narrative of denial? I don't see it.

We, who understand the finite nature of limits, have to adapt to living in a world of ignorance. And accept that the vast majority of humans are heading toward consequences with their blinders intact. At some point when this really and truly sinks in deeply you abandon the arguments of trying to convince someone in denial and then start quietly focusing on your own resilience to upcoming events.

Otherwise you will bang your head frustrating yourself that produces zero benefit either for you or the troll or or friends or family or anyone reading the forum.

Unfortunately this is the nature of reality at the doorstep of great changes.

We had threads 10 years ago here on exactly the theme you post here. And here we are 10 years later still stuck at basically the exact same place

Why? Because we are collectively still resilient as all hell and not a single event has yet occurred to disrupt the dominant narrative of denial.

What about July 11, 2026? Will we still be responding to posters banging their head against the wall?

[SugarSeam]

An equally relevant question to ask is actually about you. Why are you so upset at this troll? Or your friend or father who might think the same. They probably do actually. This is the majority position where there is no external evidence yet that merits a change of position. Why are you invested in making or forcing or convincing anyone to believe something that he or she doesn't want to believe? You cannot change this fixed narrative without an important catalyst.

Well, for one, because I'm not upset, I enjoy countering the baseless assertions of finance-first trolls. But the bigger reason is that while people like him are obviously a lost cause, there are still others looking on who may be on the fence.

You mentioned the reality that IS happening. Which reality is that? What specifically is actually already happening that is powerful enough to penetrate this narrative of denial? I don't see it.

I thought it was pretty clear, but the reality I'm speaking of is that efficiency gains and technology are not changing the fact that we consume more oil every year... His argument is that we don't have to consume more because of increased efficiency. I'm saying to him that it sounds nice. But we absolutely are using more., so it flies in the face of his logic.

[SeaGypsy]

I'm not unhappy everyone hasn't woken to the reality, it is better this doesn't happen suddenly, because if it did, TSHTF like never before. The assumption that global awakening would be a good thing runs in the same vein as the assumption that if everyone went high tech green everything would be hunky dory & the belief this is gradually underway. It is this set of beliefs propping up the entire mainstream economy, without this rationale already collapse would be here now. If you are ready fine, I'm not.

[GHung]

I'm pretty much on board with Ibon and SG. Whether or not it's important to change someone's world view, you may as well try to convince fundamentalists that the world wasn't created in 6 days. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful adversary, and this person's current income likely depends on 'normal' people not knowing. Either way, most will blame anything/anyone else when TSHTF. Couldn't be something as simple as limits to growth. Must be those LTG assholes who crashed the system; stampeded the herd.

[SugarSeam]

I tell ya... The cynicism on this site is its own paradox.

If it's just not worth it to bother engaging with the econ cultists, and it's also not worth it to check them merely for the uninitiated looking on who don't know any better, what is the purpose of even coming to the forums for you all? What do you get out of it?

All I was hoping for was a bit of feedback regarding that specific quote in the OP from the best and the brightest on this topic. Instead, I'm told "don't bother." Curious.

Help me understand what he's trying to finesse in that quote, even if it's misguided.

[GHung]

"....what is the purpose of even coming to the forums for you all? What do you get out of it?"....

Not sure., and I don't worry about it much. Reaching acceptance does that sometimes.

"All I was hoping for was a bit of feedback regarding that specific quote in the OP from the best and the brightest on this topic. Instead, I'm told "don't bother." Curious.

Help me understand what he's trying to finesse in that quote, even if it's misguided.

You mean this quote?

...you can't seem to understand the simple fact that we can get more efficient in how we use oil AND we can use more at the same time. But those both don't have to happen together. You keep missing this point.

May as well ask the guy preaching on the corner what he's trying to finesse when he quotes the Bible. Believe me, these guys can go on forever while you try to fix them, and, generally, they find your message just as annoying and dangerous. If you want to go on debating this fool, you may change a mind or two, but not his.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I thought it was pretty clear, but the reality I'm speaking of is that efficiency gains and technology are not changing the fact that we consume more oil every year... His argument is that we don't have to consume more because of increased efficiency. I'm saying to him that it sounds nice. But we absolutely are using more., so it flies in the face of his logic.

One argument I keep seeing made in response to the fact that we are globally using more oil every year is that "green energy will save us real soon now" (I paraphrase).

And depending on how quickly wind and solar actually ramp up in the next couple/few decades, it could tip the balance on whether we globally continue to require more oil each and every year -- especially if prices return to $100(ish) a barrel or more, shifting demand toward green alternatives sooner.

These things are hard to forecast, since there are many moving parts. This is why I am a moderate -- I see us likely to keep stumbling along, stupidly consuming all we can, for quite a while yet -- neither cornie nirvana nor doomer hell. That's certainly been the general pattern for the past 50ish years.

[AdamB]

I'm in a back-and-forth with the worst kind of arrogant "finance creates energy" forum troll who absolutely dismisses peak oil on the grounds that technology and efficiency gains make the situation moot. You know, standard denial.

Mike Lynch was giving a talk today, and he mentioned some of these points, and pointed out the obvious in terms of what became of peak oil...and his qualifications on knowing something about this topic go far beyond most anyone here, and better yet, turns out he was ultimately right.

So would that make him a standard denial forum troll in your opinion, or is that just what you call people who know more about the topic than us average folk?

Anyhow, despite explaining to him countless times that technology gains will never offset decline rates enough to maintain needed production growth, he responds with both "yes it will" AND "who said we must have production growth?"

Sounds like a pragmatist to me. Perhaps you telling him the wrong information countless times (technology gains most certainly have offset decline rates) just isn't working, try learning as much as you can on this topic and then you won't be forced to keep telling him the wrong information?

I recently reminded him that while it is true we have made efficiency gains in most every process we use oil for, we're still consuming more oil every year, as a species. I introduced him to Jevons Paradox, whereby he suggested I don't understand the term. His words:

you can't seem to understand the simple fact that we can get more efficient in how we use oil AND we can use more at the same time. But those both don't have to happen together. You keep missing this point.

This, btw, is someone who outright handwaves away the notion that energy consumption is what drives growth.

Sounds like you shouldn't throw outmoded ideas at him, Jevon's Paradox has been replaced by the Rebound Effect, and his objection might be more related to your explanation of it, or an improper notion of what drives growth. Growth existed before anything resembling modern energy consumption came along, energy doesn't DRIVE things, an economy can grow while using less energy per capita quite easily, I believe the entire world has been doing this for decades now.

Just part of why Jevon's Paradox is only the part of a good idea, and must be considered in context with the other things that matter, efficiency being just one. Substitution and conservation being two others.

But what do you say to someone like this who remains fixated on what COULD happen - apparently in a world of gumdrops and unicorns - as opposed to the reality of what IS happening?

What are you talking about? Peak oil has been rewritten as higher production and low prices, which is what DID happen. So it isn't a COULD, and it is why I thought he might be a pragmatist, having such a better grasp of the reality of the situation compared to really any of the peak oilers of the past decade.

You do know what all those numbers down at the convenience store where you or your friends or relatives buy gasoline mean, right? And how peak oil caused them to be so low for the past few years, right?

How do you get this kind of "Econ 101 bro" to overcome his mental blockage and grasp depletion, or basic physics, or just simply that efficiency gains only tend to increase demand (that is, until they can't any longer)?

Doesn't sound like his mental bloackage. Or your misunderstanding of what depletion is, or what physics is, or even what peak oil has become (up Up UP and AWAY!!!...and lower prices).

[GHung]

"That's certainly been the general pattern for the past 50ish years.

The path for the last 50 years has been a massive run-up in debt; fiat capital. It won't be oil (or a lack of it) that wrecks the oil economy. It will be an inability to finance it, and a complex mess of other factors.

[ralfy]

The argument is that there has been greater efficiency. The reality is the opposite: diminishing returns have taken place, and we are now resorting to shale, etc.

We should also be seeing financial stability, but what we've been seeing the past ten years is the opposite. There are many threads in this forum that prove that.

Finally, various military organizations, multinational banks, and insurers have been publishing reports warning of the effects of peak oil, global warming, and increasing debt.

[kublikhan]

His argument is that we don't have to consume more because of increased efficiency.

The problem with his argument is that we are also raising the standard of living of the world, particularly in developing countries. And this requires more oil consumption. Europe, US, etc actually did reduce their consumption somewhat these last few years thanks to efficiency gains, high prices forcing behavioral changes, etc. However this was not enough to offset the increased oil consumption in the developing world. For every barrel of oil saved in the developed world, 2 more were consumed in the developing world. In the last 10 years(2005 to 2014), OECD oil consumption dropped by nearly 5 MMbpd. Yeah efficiency! Unfortunately, Non-OECD oil consumption rose by nearly 11 MMbpd. Efficiency gains/structural changes are all well and good. But other forces are also at play that overwhelmed this tendency 2 times over. And the developing world still consumes only a fraction of oil per capita of the developed world. So this trend is not going to change anytime soon.

[AdamB]

The argument is that there has been greater efficiency.

Not an argument. This is just a fact.

The reality is the opposite: diminishing returns have taken place, and we are now resorting to shale, etc.

Resorting to? I was in Fredonia New York last week, looking for the marker for the first gas well in the US. Found it. The formation the gas came from? Shale. So we STARTED with shale, and if there is one thing I will bet a paycheck on, it is that a modern shale well is far better than that one.

We should also be seeing financial stability, but what we've been seeing the past ten years is the opposite. There are many threads in this forum that prove that.

Discussing something isn't proving it. And about 8 years ago people were predicting the same thing they are now, except without having peak oil to back them up.

Finally, various military organizations, multinational banks, and insurers have been publishing reports warning of the effects of peak oil, global warming, and increasing debt.

And the ones who claimed peak oil, like the military, the banks, and any insurers involved, were all wrong.

So they certainly can be AGAIN. As though that last fear mongering episode was the only time they were wrong...

[GHung]

"Resorting to? I was in Fredonia New York last week, looking for the marker for the first gas well in the US. Found it. The formation the gas came from? Shale. So we STARTED with shale, and if there is one thing I will bet a paycheck on, it is that a modern shale well is far better than that one."

I hope so. No one was reliant upon natural gas for a big chunk of their energy needs when that first well began to produce. It's a dumb point since our society has become utterly reliant on near current (massive) levels of production. Fossil fuels aren't infinite, nor is your efficiency scheme. Not sure where you think this is all headed, but the all-inclusive math just doesn't jive with your world view for much longer.

And why the hell would someone go poking around New York looking for the first gas well? Some kind of pilgrimage?

[Whatever]

I tell ya... The cynicism on this site is its own paradox.

Hello SugarSeam. The cynicism on this site is not a paradox. It is evidence of a deception. This is supposed to be a peak oil forum but everyone here seems to be a peak oil denier, including the management. This place is a hall of mirrors. Run!

If it's just not worth it to bother engaging with the econ cultists, and it's also not worth it to check them merely for the uninitiated looking on who don't know any better, what is the purpose of even coming to the forums for you all? What do you get out of it?

They get a paycheck.

All I was hoping for was a bit of feedback regarding that specific quote in the OP from the best and the brightest on this topic. Instead, I'm told "don't bother." Curious.

You noticed the weirdness right away. Good instinct. They don't realize how obvious they are.

It is somewhat ironic that you came here looking for the best and the brightest to help you deal with a troll. This forum IS a troll.



---Futilitist

[SeaGypsy]

Put some quotes out there clown, by more than 2 posters. Take your meds too.

[onlooker]

Sugar, you ask what we get out of it to be here. Well, it is a bit different but most here enjoy to flesh out the details of the gamut of events happening in the planet. Also, as you can see from just this thread we have a healthy diversity of opinion about some matters. If you wish to debate with someone do so and be confident in what you know but also be ready to learn and have an open mind, that is in the best spirit of debating. As for the specifics here, those who deny the peak oil dynamic are delusional. The depletion of oil is grounded in empirical fact and its synergy with the economy is logical and convincing considering how important our main energy source fossil fuels are to economic activity. Another thing I think many of us here really like to learn and study these forces that are shaping the trajectory of the human species. So we are here because we are curious as well and can learn from each other. The argument made by the troll you referred is simply wrong. Jevons Paradox is very much in play now as society looks to increase efficiency even while more consumers from countries like India and China are taking up the slack of less consumption from rich country consumers. Again the J paradox is sound theory and grounded in logic. The shale/tar are undoubtedly higher fruit on the tree ie. more difficult and expensive to produce as more energy is needed to produce these shale plays and tar sands. Nothing overly mysterious or complicated here, simply the EROEI is becoming less favorable. As GHung said economic stagnation and turmoil now stand to limit oil output especially the debt situation. Anyway, hope you stick around Sugar, you will find the discourse here is quite captivating.

[Whatever]

Put some quotes out there clown, by more than 2 posters. Take your meds too.

What is your problem? I don't deserve the ad hom attack. I am entitled to my opinion. This is our first ever interaction on this site. You seem upset about something. Feel like sharing?



---Futilitist

[radon1]

technology gains will never offset decline rates enough to maintain needed production growth,

This is a very broad statement. What is "needed production growth"? Specifically, how much is "needed" and why it is so much? Why will they "never offset decline rates", and specifically - why "never"? Historically, they seem to have done so, on a number of occasions. By keeping the argument so non-specific, you are opening it to criticism, whether of trollish nature or else.

This, btw, is someone who outright handwaves away the notion that energy consumption is what drives growth.

It's the other way round, no?

As to Jevon's paradox: efficiency gains do not motivate the technological upgrades by themselves. By themselves, efficiency gains motivate only environmental activists. But in general, what is perceived as "efficiency gains", is actually a cost saving, or output gain, or consumer feature improvement - in other words, something that allows you to get more stuff for less money. This is achieved via advancing the division of labour in the economy - this is what "technological upgrade" is, after all. "Efficiency gain" is almost accidental in this case. You know, more people making more specific tasks, greater productivity per hour on a broad basis, and as a result - greater prosperity for all or some, as those people get the same or more stuff for less time worked or less money spent. Naturally, this may lead to greater energy consumption on a broader basis.

[StarvingLion]

Its fruitless conversing with the financial cretins because they gave up on the real world when they dumped relationship banking in favor of transaction volume. The bankers just want to originate bad loans all day long and never suffer the consequences.

I certainly don't accept that the majority of public who has heard of Peak Oil really gets its tragic implications.

My gripe with the supposed Peak Oil believers is that their analysis of the situation is so superficial that it is entirely worthless. They seem to be enamored with econ (eg. debt) and politics and poor natural resource allocation as the primary problems to overcome.

I don't even care for the moniker 'Peak Oil'. It suggests closely keeping track of "# of barrels of oil" is extremely useful while I deride it as nonsensical. At least the crummy EROEI calculation gives a vague intuitive clue as to why counting barrels is naive at best.

But what really gets me frustrated is the wrong notion that Peak Oil is fundamentally a transportation problem. The academic system is a propaganda system that convinces people that their entire income is NOT dependent on a never ending input flow of oil. The brilliant brain surgeon gets his income from the fact he is a brilliant brain surgeon and so on...yeah sure he can go back and practice medicine in some more limited form as in previous times but the point is that a certain percentage of this monstrosity of an economy cannot even be maintained. Removal of even a small percentage of oil input destroys the foundation.