AdamB wrote:My take on the peak oil perspective.
As a peak oiler I must first BELIEVE. Not in peak oil necessarily, but some combination of misanthropy, malthusian doom, pessimism towards the current system (anyone noticed that most doomers/peak oilers are older?). Once upon a time it could be said that I could believe in the science of peak oil, when Hubbert was offering up global estimates of peak oil at 12 billion barrels a year back in the 90's, when Colin was declaring peak oil in the late 80's, when Jimmy Carters best and brightest convinced him we would run out by the end of the 80's, back then I could logically look at these experts and buy it based on only their expertise.
But once it was revealed they didn't have a clue, as any study of this topic reveals, then all I have left is the emotional, visceral side of me that needs a trigger to satisfy my hatred of people, the current system, or whatever else I am not happy with in this world. Peak oil works because it causes the downfall, in short order, of the things I despise.
Also, this isn't what peak oilers will admit, they won't say any of this. They will mostly point at others who are recycling the same ideas from the last time, because it seems more real if it can be referred back to "science", or geology or something immutable, immutable is good because this MUST be a trigger event in order to give me as a doomer what I want...the end.
Cog wrote:I award MD ten grammar points for the proper use of "an" before a vowel sound.
onlooker wrote:I think I must respond here to what Adam has said. It bears repeating as I think it hints at what the purpose of Tanada was in giving us this challenge. It was to discover who of us is truly open minded and not emotionally invested in their argument. I think Adam is in fact by ascribing certain emotional traits to Doomers, revealing his own emotional proclivities in his arguments.
onlooker wrote: For the record, I can say that I reject the characterization of Adam about doomers with respect to my person.
MD wrote:AdamB wrote:My take on the peak oil perspective.
As a peak oiler I must first BELIEVE. Not in peak oil necessarily, but some combination of misanthropy, malthusian doom, pessimism towards the current system (anyone noticed that most doomers/peak oilers are older?). Once upon a time it could be said that I could believe in the science of peak oil, when Hubbert was offering up global estimates of peak oil at 12 billion barrels a year back in the 90's, when Colin was declaring peak oil in the late 80's, when Jimmy Carters best and brightest convinced him we would run out by the end of the 80's, back then I could logically look at these experts and buy it based on only their expertise.
But once it was revealed they didn't have a clue, as any study of this topic reveals, then all I have left is the emotional, visceral side of me that needs a trigger to satisfy my hatred of people, the current system, or whatever else I am not happy with in this world. Peak oil works because it causes the downfall, in short order, of the things I despise.
Also, this isn't what peak oilers will admit, they won't say any of this. They will mostly point at others who are recycling the same ideas from the last time, because it seems more real if it can be referred back to "science", or geology or something immutable, immutable is good because this MUST be a trigger event in order to give me as a doomer what I want...the end.
You didn't even try to logically defend the other viewpoint. I will apply the same amount of logic in my response that you applied in your post. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.
evilgenius wrote:Copper could run out because of so much of it going into wiring for a more electric world, and not enough recycling.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:evilgenius wrote:Copper could run out because of so much of it going into wiring for a more electric world, and not enough recycling.
Do people think such statements through, or look up any meaningful data on them at all, or just spew them on this site because it is fun?
I happen to know a bit about copper because I've invested in it for the longer term as an inflation hedge. (And yeah, we will likely use a LOT to build out the global smart grid, to put LOTS of motors in more fuel efficient cars, to build out the expanding global middle class's lifestyle wants/needs in coming decades).
OK, so just like peak oil has a physical basis (eventually), we could eventually "run out" of copper to mine.
However, how likely is that to be in a meaningful timeframe to anyone posting on this site? I say not very.
There is a LOT of copper. Since the big commidity price surge in 2008, copper (like many commodities) has performed poorly because there is an oversupply/production of it. Copper miners are often struggling economically, kind of like oil producers these days, with cheap oil.
There are substitutes, should it get expensive. Although imperfect, some are abundant. A common example is aluminum. I think enough said there.
If copper gets expensive enough to be annoying or concerning to most people, then we can be sure there will be LOTS of copper recycling. If there is a dearth of that relative to what is used, it's because it's so abundant people don't bother to recycle "enough". (I think this is one of the failures of the hard crash doomer class re their short term predictions -- to see how much useful change in behavior a big shift in economic incentives (for any reason) can spur in people/businesses).
Tanada wrote: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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests