Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
onlooker wrote:Okay, here goes my rendition of the Optimist point of view on both Economy and Environment going forth. With relation to the Economy, I have heard various arguments. First that we will be able to transition to a Alternative/Renewable infrastructure. That still plenty of Coal and Nat. Gas exists to assist this transition. By we, it is meant mostly rich countries. That the resources and time still exist to do so. That hardships will manifest but the worse will be in poor countries who are too overpopulated and resource scarce. So after a certain die off, civilization can and will endure albeit with a smaller population and with less materialistic expectations.
Now as for the AGW optimists well my interpretation of their argument is that well Pstarr claims in fact global warming will be a boom for plant growth because of the extra carbon that will stimulate growth. Tanada, I think believes that while certain areas will be uninhabitable, certain other areas in the colder regions can transition to a climate more appropriate for growing crops and that people are very resourceful and tend to adapt well to moving around as that comprises much of our history. So, we will move to where it is worthwhile to move too. In time, I think optimists are saying that we will adapt to whatever climate regime finally reigns as we will be able to maintain a certain level of technology and knowledge that will allow us to continue to take advantage of knowledge gained over many many centuries. I do not claim these scenarios are not possible only that I see the doomer perspective as more probable.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
ROCKMAN wrote:KJ - "...the real trigger event is the worldwide human panic that will ensue when everyone everywhere realizes what this oil shortage means.". I'll use your statement but there were many others to pick on. Billions of folks today "realize" what an oil shortage means...they are dealing with such a shortage today. Yes: there are billions who have little to no access to a significant volume of oil. They are the folks who can't afford much oil at $50/bbl. OTOH there are a great many who can pay that price as witnessed by the near record volume of il being purchased today.
Obviously I'm taking about the constant use of generalities by doomers, moderates and cornies. There is no "global economy"; there is no "affordable price of oil'; nor is there an "unaffordable price of oil". I could go on but I think folks get the point. It seems many debates boil down to efforts to switch from generalities to specifics. But each generality is composed of different specific components that naturally don't hold true to the generality.
Take your generalization: so you mean everyone will "panic" when X happens? First, I'm sure you agree that "panic" can mean whatever a person decides it means: riots in the streets around the world or just mass depression? But skip that specific: what would X be to bring about either? oil prices shoot wy up and hold at that level indefinitely? I know a lot of folks who would not panic but actually celebrate such a development. that events would have a great positive effect on the global economy, right? Well, at least one portion of the global economy, right?
IOW many of the arguments result from relativism; the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. IOW there is no such thing as a high or low price of oil in absolute terms. Nor is there a glut of oil nor a shortage of oil in absolute terms. As such isn't arguing about whether there's an oil glut or not just a waste of space here?
Tanada wrote:So here is your challenge, if you think the world is about to end then you must state why it will not end soon and defend that position logically.
If you think the world is going to be smooth sailing for as far as the eye can see then you must state what the immediate threat to civilization is, and why we will be destroyed by it.
Are you up to the challenge?
pstarr wrote:The doom argument in a nutshell:
(1) World oil production will peak, therefore
(2) Oil consumption in the US and other countries will peak, therefore
(3) The economies of the US and other countries will go down the toilet.
Perhaps his simplistic assumptions explain his demise?
Tanada wrote:Also while you attempted to state the positions of the optimists you did not offer anything to support why those positions might be more correct compared to other views.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests