[JohnDenver]

I view peak oil as a lifeboat situation. We've got the lifeboat (the earth), the people in the lifeboat (the nations), and the provisions (oil).

Now, assuming this is a valid analogy, does it make sense to conserve provisions on a lifeboat? Maybe, if you can get everybody to agree to conserve together, but can you actually do that (i.e. can you enforce cooperation)? For example, suppose it's just me and another guy in the lifeboat. I encourage him to conserve, and overtly conserve myself, but at night, I eat (or squirrel away) the portion that he conserved.

If we look at the peak oil endgame as a game in which your goal, as a country, is to secure and eventually consume, as much oil as possible, conserving is irrational. If, for example, the U.S. cuts down its consumption by conserving, who's to say the Chinese won't suck down the part the US just saved, and squirrel it in their reserve?

[Aaron]

Jevon

[clv101]

In a world of finite resources conserving can only ever be a good thing, even if you are the only person in the world doing it.

[Jack]

Ahh, but the lifeboat analogy needs some work.

Let's suppose we're in a lifeboat, surrounded by endless seas. We have limited amounts of food and water.

Given time, we can rig up devices to fish and other devices to distill sea water. Of course, these may not generate enough output to keep everyone on the lifeboat alive.....

But the sooner we consume all the resources, the less time we have to deploy the technology to produce food and water for our lifeboat.

Maybe we shouldn't engage in eating and drinking contests before our food and water production is online.

[rerere]

I view peak oil as a lifeboat situation.
Now, assuming this is a valid analogy

Oh, oh! Argument by Analogy! Can I play?

The Universe is the ocean. Humans can't survive in the nearly absolute Zero temprature and vacuum of space (The Universe).

Therefore man is stuck in the lifeboat for the foreseable future.

On the lifeboat there are people not 'pulling their weight' and instead are making a mess. Now, how do you stop them from making a mess? Take away their ability to make that mess.

The Mess is the result of US consumption. The way they get to make that mess is because of the Petro-Dollar. Change the Petro-Dollar to the Petro-Euro and Poof! No more mess.


See how argument via analogy is flawed?

[trespam]

Completely bogus argument. Analogy: I'm in a room with food supplies and water that will last one year if I conserve. If I pig out, drink too much water, eat too much food, the parts not absorbed into my fat cells go into the toilet and out of my controlled environment. Next year, I get another one-year supply.

If I conserve, I survive indefinitely.

If I pig out, I will likely die, particularly from lack of water. But also nutrition.

Simple as that. The analogy is bogus.

[JohnDenver]

Maybe we shouldn't engage in eating and drinking contests before our food and water production is online.

Who is "we"? You make it sound like there's a cooperative group on the lifeboat. In fact, some of the people on the boat are physically powerful and armed, and they distrust each other.

Clearly the consumption of oil provides a nation with great benefits in terms of military and economic power. So it seems to me that the object of the game, for each country, is to maximize the total amount of oil it will consume in the future. Using less is stupid because you are just giving your rival the opportunity to use more. It's a zero-sum game, and if you don't use it, your rivals will.

Suppose we get down to the last dregs of the oil, the portion we're going to need to build the replacement for oil (as in your "fishing and water" example). Why would anybody conserve then? Every barrel of oil that I don't use building up my replacement plant (i.e. installing windmills, building solar collectors in the desert etc.) is a barrel that my rival can use to build up his plant. At this point, it would be rational for everyone to consume to the very limits of their consumptive ability, because their energy generation capacity in the future will be dependent on how much they can consume in the process of building that capacity. "Conserving" when you are building capacity is a form of killing yourself by self-malnutrition.

[JohnDenver]

Completely bogus argument. Analogy: I'm in a room with food supplies and water that will last one year if I conserve.

You're missing the point. It's a multi-player game. You're in a room with me and we both can't eat the same food. Of course, since you are the conservation advocate, I will let you do the conserving, while I eat or hoard the part you conserved. It's a zero-sum game. If you don't eat it, I do.

[trespam]

Completely bogus argument. Analogy: I'm in a room with food supplies and water that will last one year if I conserve.

You're missing the point. It's a multi-player game. You're in a room with me and we both can't eat the same food. Of course, since you are the conservation advocate, I will let you do the conserving, while I eat or hoard the part you conserved. It's a zero-sum game. If you don't eat it, I do.

I put my food on my side of the room, you do whatever you want with yours. As you glutton yourself away, I'll seal off my side of the room. I'll laugh as I hear you cry and whine about not having any food, begging to slip some through the wall--not possible too strong.

You were so obsessed with eating your half of the spoils, you didn't even notice that I took everything onto my side of the wall before sealing it up. Except your beloved food and water.

Have fun glutton.

[Guest]

I want to do the analogy game!

Can I do a hostile takeover of other peoples supplies in the room or boat? That gives me the best of both worlds, excess with which to play with so I can be a glutton AND still enough to make it indefinately.

[JohnDenver]

I put my food on my side of the room, you do whatever you want with yours.

I think you're getting a little carried away with the metaphor. We're talking about oil. How is the US (or the UK etc.) going to put "its" oil on "its side" of the room, and "seal it off"? The fact is, the US doesn't have enough of "its" oil. It has to obtain that oil from someone else, and if the US conserves, and brings its consumption down, somebody else's consumption will go up. Are you incapable of understanding that? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

[JohnDenver]

I want to do the analogy game!

Can I do a hostile takeover of other peoples supplies in the room or boat? That gives me the best of both worlds, excess with which to play with so I can be a glutton AND still enough to make it indefinately.

Finally! A player!
Yes, hostile takeovers are legit. In fact, anything you can get away with is legit.
"Conserving" is obviously NOT the winning strategy.

[trespam]

Conserving and sharing (hostile takeovers) are orthogonal issues. Why are you confusing the two?

Whether I take over the world supplies, and conserve, or am a glutton is not relevant.

Therefore, while you are a glutton in the room, I build my wall and then "secure" all remaining supplies (you are asleep from all the gluttony) and, with all the supplies on my side, seal the wall, and conserve them.

I will once again enjoy hearing your screams of gluttonous depravity.

You brought up the analogy, now you are defining how the analogy is going to be used. Silly child.

[Aaron]

How about this?

You're at a dinner party.

There is a yummy pie so you grab a slice. And it's so yummy that you decide to take a smaller slice than you want, saving some for seconds...

You glance over from time to time as the pie is around half gone, to make sure you will have some left for yourself.

You come back for seconds, only to discover that some brat has munched the last slice.

Your efforts to "conserve" a slice for later have been wasted, and your restraint has only produced pie for others.

[trespam]

Basically this thread is just another stab at the tragedy of the commons. And there seem to be only two options: (1) grab as much as possible for oneself; (2) work with the community to preserve the commons for as long as possible in a sustainable way.

Gluttony is not serving the US interests. The path of gluttony has taken us to the current point: dependence on foreign oil. Trade deficits to purchase the oil. Trade deficits to feed our gluttony. Budget deficits and blood-for-oil to feed our oil need.

The US should secure energy sources. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the US should reduce its dependence. Gluttony means fat encrusted veins--a sick constitution. Which is a good analogy for the US. Sick. The US patient is having financial health problems but the proposal from Mr Denver is to crash another party and stuff our face further. It's just not sensible.

A more sensible option is for the world community to unite, with the US in the forefront, in a more sustainable path. The US could do it if it so desired. We have the strength to be the parent in the room who tells the kids: "take one fucking slice, a small one, and then come back later after everyone has had one or I will kick your ass."

I have been in a room with shared resources. And the individuals in the room have been able to share the resources quite well. I am glad I need not go to any parties with those on this board who seem to be pigs at heart. They will be hovering over the table stuffing their faces.

Disgusting.

[backstop]

Trespam.

some years ago I wrote a paper titled "The Slander of the Commoners" as a refutation of Hardin's perverse thesis that a common resource must be partitioned into private property if it is to be used sustainably. Since people are perfectly capable of sharing a common resource, and of developing alternatives to finite resources, it isn't a difficult thesis to refute.

I note that the majority of posts above has assumed that "they" will sieze more than their share of the finite resource, oil ; none has said "I" will do so. From this I infer that such behaviour is commonly seen as being unworthy of respect/wrong/unfair/childish, etc.

Given this common recognition as the basis of community action, I can wholly agree with your point that we can agree and enforce a code of sharing of the resource.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] has been working towards just such an agreement for the last 9 years. Its focus is to agree the allocation of annually declining greenhouse gas emissions-rights toward a sustainable level. In effect it is going to agree the sharing and steady phasing out of fossil fuel usage, while accelerating the development of sustainable energies.

Roll on the US participating constructively as you recommend !

regards,

Backstop.

[airstrip1]

Your efforts to "conserve" a slice for later have been wasted, and your restraint has only produced pie for others.

You greedily shove the whole first pie into your mouth. You realize you will be hungry later, so you grab your friends who have guns and go the the neighbors house (whom you have heard have a lot of pies), steal their pies under the guise of protecting the block from possible pie-stealing terrorists.

Yeah, we could do this all day.

What happens if you are deeply in debt to your neighbours and without their financial support you can not buy ammunition for your guns. Alternatively, your neighbours may regard their pie as a gift from Allah which they would rather destroy than let fall into your greedy infidel hands.

[Concerned]

I view peak oil as a lifeboat situation. We've got the lifeboat (the earth), the people in the lifeboat (the nations), and the provisions (oil).

Now, assuming this is a valid analogy, does it make sense to conserve provisions on a lifeboat? Maybe, if you can get everybody to agree to conserve together, but can you actually do that (i.e. can you enforce cooperation)? For example, suppose it's just me and another guy in the lifeboat. I encourage him to conserve, and overtly conserve myself, but at night, I eat (or squirrel away) the portion that he conserved.

There are many provisions on the lifeboat, but the people in the lifeboat believe only the economic high priest fundamentalists of increased growth and high consumption of oil (crack cocaine)

Even worse 25% of the people in the lifeboat are already using 80% - 90% of all provisions.

Magically the life boat somehow through the timbers and dirt accumulated over time regrows much of it's own provisions including its food and water. Indeed many primitive neanderthal societies have been studied and existed without the consumption of oil (crack cocaine).

The solution from the economic high priest fundamentalists is to change everyone in the life boat into consuming vast amounts of oil (crack cocaine) a.k.a globalisation.

Well everyone gets addicted but the oil (crack cocaine) is not getting renewed nearly as fast as it gets used, in their addicted state anyone and everyone are quite happy to sink their lifeboat for their next hit of oil (crack cocaine) leading to the death of everyone.

[Whitecrab]

If I conserve and need only 10% of the fuel I usually do, but other countries don't conserve and make us still peak anyway, what's the point? Why go through all that bother?

Answer: It's a lot easier to fill 10% current demand with biofuels/electric than it is 100%. You've made it easier to save yourself. And, you may show a few other countries along the way.