Peak Oil News and Message Boards

The existence of a marketplace for oil pretty much ensures that collapse will not occur here. Recall that the poorer parts of the world are in collapse now. As oil gets more expensive, the poorer countries suffer first, expensive oil means not enough food. But in places like Europe or the USA, where people spend less than 10% of their incomes on food, nobody is starving and they won't be for a long time.

There is also a technological solution for just about any resource in short supply, as long as energy is relatively cheap.

Collapse is just NOT HAPPENING, for a long, long time.

Onlooker, KaiserJeep has at least one time assured us that collapse wont happen in HIS lifetime. He was 66 years old back then if I remember correctly.

Lots of interesting points to note.

(Regards Uber - Evil's post- nobody drives for rideshare long term, or almost nobody, it's shit money & relies on naïve first business owner driver wannabes & part timers who are mostly students. 90% don't last 2 years.)

The one trick pony of globalization has a ways to run yet. Wages are flat after inflation all over the developed world for around 20 years. Over the previous 20 years they doubled or tripled. Wages in the developing world have on average quadrupled in the last 20 years, having barely doubled in the previous 20. Still about half the world's population have no effective economic opportunity, sans migration.

Meanwhile, as Yonnipun so refreshingly elaborates, there is a developing fertility problem pretty much all over the developed world, & even the emerging super power China- mostly failing at restoring above replacement birth rate after decades of the one child policy. (I totally concur on the primary impact of economic freedom for women in much of the developed world. I am one of many here including Ibon, who went to the Philippines, where there is virtually no social security, where traditional family structures still form the basis of survival for most people- to find the mothers of our children.)

What I'm seeing is as I've thought for decades, a gradual levelling of the baseline economic conditions. The only source of economic growth left is moving people out of utter poverty towards whatever the baseline turns out to be at the theoretical point of equilibrium (of course will never be reached- like off the page perspective points for architectural design drawing.)

Psychology plays a huge part in how the masses swallow their slop. Apparently by playing people's minds with numbers, convincing them they will be wealthy if they invest a few decades of work to pay off a place to live, convenient to their work stations- subdues serious dissent. Bread, circus & real estate speculation.

Climate change is the elephant in the room. When the major ice shelfs on the Antarctic coast suddenly float away & sea levels rise many meters, the impact of this alone will be enough to cause global mayhem.

Wondering when KJ went from needing a space doughnut to hunkering down on poor old planet earth with the family?

It's like the diehard smoker who keeps puffing away through a tracheostomy while spitting up blood and loosing weight. "I don't have cancer yet, so why live in fear with the anticipation that I might die from it?" It would help if they just stopped smoking but they can't:

Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, manmade greenhouse gases have risen inexorably. If it has not dawned on you by now, our economic and political systems are ill-equipped to deal with this existential threat. Existing international agreements are toothless because they have no verification or enforcement and do not require anything remotely close to what is needed to avoid catastrophe. The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Ice loss from Antarctica has sextupled since the 1970s and Greenland’s pace of ice loss has increased fourfold since 2003. The Arctic ocean has lost 95% of its old ice and total volume of ice in September, the lowest ice month of the year, has declined by 78% between 1979 and 2012. With grim implications for the future, Earth’s air conditioner —the cryosphere— is melting away...

https://collapseofindustrialcivilizatio ... -collapse/

Doomer stuff!!! We miss the fast crash doomers, they all died, or claimed stupid things that never happened. Ruppert was a favorite...hey...wasn't XRay Mike one of his sycophants or something? So this might be the GOOD stupid doom stuff then!

AdamB wrote:Doomer stuff!!! We miss the fast crash doomers, they all died, or claimed stupid things that never happened. Ruppert was a favorite...hey...wasn't XRay Mike one of his sycophants or something? So this might be the GOOD stupid doom stuff then!

Actually reading it and posting a halfway intelligent response would be helpful. I did not understand a word you said.

Newfie wrote:So what do you propose? What is one to do?

That's a trick question. Nobody's going to implement my ideas, so it serves little purpose to share.

Suffice to say, like Hubbert, I believe in a technocracy. And like Heinlein I think voting should be a privilege, not a right, one earned not so much by military service but by demonstrating a minimum of intelligence and civic-mindedness. If we were to successfuly "cull" the deadwood out of the voting public then we might get somewhere. Not that IQ leads to some singular ideology (although the intelligentsia skews left) but at least we'd reach a point where people are successfully processing humanity's existential threat, as the data is inescapable to anyone with a functioning brain, and differences could be worked out more through debate rather than bullying. Of course, nobody's going to rightfully give up their voting rights.

Yonnipun wrote:You my friend are so bluepilled...

Look, I can tell where you've been hanging out lately as I have too, and let me just say this to those who think your issues are in some way unrelated to what this forum is about...

The current inversion of gender dynamics is a byproduct of peace and prosperity. It's almost a darwinian immune-response to prolonged surplus. Sure, there was a baby-boom after WWII, but we're seeing what happens AFTER that initial spike. Once life gets easy enough, where physical labor and war is few and far between, then men lose their purpose. Women enter the workforce, society feminizes. Social mores and stigmas go away. Loyalty no longer matters as nobody really needs anyone anymore because life is so easy. The family unit dissolves. Fatherhood becomes "optional". Birthrates plummet. The birthrate aspect is a positive but just about everything else about this time in history isn't. Beyond those men who assimilate into hipster drones, as men feel increasingly betrayed by the social contract, they either tune out of society or start stewing in their rage.

All of the discourse surrounding peak oil had to do with society crumbling back to a neo-feudal or barbarian-like quality when where we really are is more like Brave New World than Mad Max.

Of course, nobody's going to rightfully give up their voting rights.

I think it is a simple money question. If somebody says to me that : "you are too stupid , do not vote", then I simply get angry even if I know it is true. Nobody likes bulling. But on the other hand if somebody offers me 1000 dollars for not voting then I would gladly take the money. Simple as that.

The same could be said to reproducing. People should get rewarded for not reproducing. Simply asking :" please do not reproduce, you are too stupid" is not going to work. On the other hand if you give them basic income for not reproducing (voluntary vasectomy) then everything is cool. I would take the money in a heartbeat.

asg70 wrote:

Newfie wrote:So what do you propose? What is one to do?

That's a trick question. Nobody's going to implement my ideas, so it serves little purpose to share.

Suffice to say, like Hubbert, I believe in a technocracy. And like Heinlein I think voting should be a privilege, not a right, one earned not so much by military service but by demonstrating a minimum of intelligence and civic-mindedness. If we were to successfuly "cull" the deadwood out of the voting public then we might get somewhere. Not that IQ leads to some singular ideology (although the intelligentsia skews left) but at least we'd reach a point where people are successfully processing humanity's existential threat, as the data is inescapable to anyone with a functioning brain, and differences could be worked out more through debate rather than bullying. Of course, nobody's going to rightfully give up their voting rights.

It’s aTRICKY question, not trick.

The point is to force your attention to action, which infers a plan, which means you need to consider the future and the possible.

I also struggle with this on a somewhat daily basis. I find working on solutions clears the mind and lifts the spirits, and you may accomplish something positive in the meantime.

So far you’ve made a list of problems, and road blocks. I would suggest taking some time to write down what you see as the five biggest problems. It will help you understand the issues and may help you to cope with them. I understand they are all inter-related, can’t help that. In the end all this may do you no good, but it will help organize your adaption.

xraymike79 wrote:It's like the diehard smoker who keeps puffing away through a tracheostomy while spitting up blood and loosing weight. "I don't have cancer yet, so why live in fear with the anticipation that I might die from it?" It would help if they just stopped smoking but they can't:

This is one of the better analogies I have read regarding our species dilemma. No culture, race, system of government or religious affiliation has resisted the rise of consumption and the lure of shiny objects. The total discounting and externalization of the impacts of this consumption on the natural world and on our biosphere. A sweeping failure across the landscape of humanity as we move toward one homogenized global culture of consumerism.

The only addition I would make to your analogy is that the dying smoker, emaciated and breathing through a tracheostomy, is adorned in the finest attire, wearing a heavy golden chain around his neck.

asg70 wrote:
That's a trick question. Nobody's going to implement my ideas, so it serves little purpose to share.

Suffice to say, like Hubbert, I believe in a technocracy. And like Heinlein I think voting should be a privilege, not a right, one earned not so much by military service but by demonstrating a minimum of intelligence and civic-mindedness. If we were to successfuly "cull" the deadwood out of the voting public then we might get somewhere. Not that IQ leads to some singular ideology (although the intelligentsia skews left) but at least we'd reach a point where people are successfully processing humanity's existential threat, as the data is inescapable to anyone with a functioning brain, and differences could be worked out more through debate rather than bullying. Of course, nobody's going to rightfully give up their voting rights.

Intelligence without civic-mindedness is worse than just being deadwood since all that cunningness is used to game the system for personal gain as we see today. The cunningness is used to manipulate the deadwood. I do not have an answer as to how we create a social structure that codifies through laws or religious dogma the imperative of civic-mindedness and environmental mindedness.

Our religious institutions are pretty much discredited in todays secular world. Anyway, all of the dominant religious dogmas existing around the world today lack environmental commandments. Our governments are largely viewed as incompetent and self serving. Government and religion have always been two of the cornerstones of how any civilization is lead. Both are viewed as deeply flawed. The remaining cornerstone is our economic system which is profit oriented and we cannot look there for balance in curtailing consumption. It is just the opposite, encouraging growth and consumption.

There is no other cornerstone, no other foundation in our global civilization, that can be an actor in this question of regulating societies consumption and breeding except for the three that we have; Religions, governments and economic systems. Or am I missing something?

All three of these pillars lack the codification of protecting our natural world. Can this ever change?

Will eating the humble pie of dire consequence ever have the power to codify in these three pillars of civilization laws and regulations protecting our natural world? It really does get down to this very fundamental question.

And in truth, humanity is now wed to FF. It needs them to continue to sustain our huge population. We have built out the critical infrastructure of this planet with almost total reliance on the continued exploitation of these concentrated energy sources. That is why US appears ready now to prosecute another war in Venezuela. The analogy of the original post may have missed this. It is not only a desire but a need to keep puffing away.

Twaddle. The USA is NOT ready to "prosecute another war in Venezuela". We are attempting to deliver humanitarian aid - meaning food, water, and medical supplies - and the Marxists are burning those trucks. Even as Venezuelans starve and perish from lack of medicines, they are burning the very things needed to live.

You have to admire such stubborn revelutionary zeal, if not the intelligence of those destroying such food and medicine.

Venezuela is more fortunate than most countries with it's oil reserves. Marxism has failed again, give them time to understand.

I don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but remember this:

1) On average, the citizens of the USA spend 6% of their incomes on food. That includes everybody, from the poor who spend a lot more to the uber rich, but there are relatively few poor in this country, which drags the average down.

2) Oil and the other FF's are traded freely in a world marketplace. As such fuels escalate in cost, the poor starve and the First World is inconvenienced, because oil gets turned into food the world over.

3) In the coming decades, the escalating cost of liquid fuels will cause our food to double/triple/quadruple in cost. But still, decades are likely to pass before cheap foods costing 6% become expensive foods taking a 25% bite. Mechanized agriculture and food transport has time to adapt away from liquid petroleum fuels.

4) Unfortunately, the Third World is overpopulated already due to cheap food, and this is a deadly problem - for them, not for us.

5) There will be a Wall. There will be border enforcement. Eventually, we'll resort to unmanned drones dropping napalm into the border zones, with cheap missiles to take out trucks and busses full of refugees. You and I both wish this was not so, but it will happen none-the-less.

KaiserJeep wrote:Twaddle. The USA is NOT ready to "prosecute another war in Venezuela". We are attempting to deliver humanitarian aid - meaning food, water, and medical supplies - and the Marxists are burning those trucks. Even as Venezuelans starve and perish from lack of medicines, they are burning the very things needed to live.

You have to admire such stubborn revelutionary zeal, if not the intelligence of those destroying such food and medicine.

Venezuela is more fortunate than most countries with it's oil reserves. Marxism has failed again, give them time to understand.

Blah, blah, blah. https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/02/23 ... ing-moron/

Ibon wrote:Can this ever change?

A big problem as far as values go is that the US notion of rights was formed on the basis of manifest destiny back when the US was one big unexploited pie. That's where "pursuit of happiness" comes from. That's where the worship of free market capitalism and rags to riches stories comes from. You would need to update the constitution to bake in constraints on consumption in acknowledgment of tragedy of the commons. So sure, there is still a notion of a "commons" in US government, but it is largely reactive, like imposing water-restrictions when things get close to the brink, or designating national parks here and there. There is no line being drawn at an individual level on how much common natural resources they should or shouldn't consume.

A technocracy might at least allow us to crunch some numbers, as inconvenient as they may be. Human footprint numbers. Environmental impact numbers, etc... This has been done to some extent but it falls upon deaf ears. Even Plant lives with cognitive dissonance between whining about AGW on the one hand and feeling entitled to fly around the world on the other. Plus he keeps bagging on Obama's environmental record while running defense for Trump, who has the most corrupt and damaging environmental cabinet in history. (I keep pointing this out not so much to attack him personally but because for someone who has been here all these years, he should know better. If he can't escape his own cognitive dissonance and petty conservative tribal loyalties, how can we expect anyone else to do so?)

So it's not even a US problem as much as its a problem of human cognition. It requires a concerted effort to transcend that human flaw, as it were.

I mean even here on this forum you simultaneously have people who seem to grasp limits to growth and at the same time believe in various quack conspiracy theories. It seems somehow impossible for humans to really clear away the bullshit and see the world as it is. We fall prey to all sorts of falsehoods. It's that vulnerability that leads people to believe AGW is just a lefty scam or a bunch of a greedy scientists looking for funding, etc...

I just can't stop circling back and pointing the finger at human nature. I don't think it's due to any sort of top down elite propaganda thing, because smart people aren't swayed by propaganda in the first place. The problem is we're just too dumb and selfish. And I don't buy into noble savage fantasies ala Ishmael. I think this is who we all are and always have been. Just been waiting for the right conditions to manifest, the sugar dropped in the petri dish.

And really, these articles that pop up now and then (more in european MSM than US these days) warning about catastrophic AGW consequences come and go without moving the needle. The arctic ice cap is melting away. Greenland and Antarctica are following suit and nobody gives a flying fuck. Hicks in the bible belt roll coal and block Supercharer stalls and wear MAGA hats. Even problems like mass shootings are going on unaddressed with no resolution between those for and against gun control. If we can't even fix that we can't fix anything more macro-level.

There is simply no light at the end of the tunnel in any of this. The only positive development (and it's a modest one at that) is the rise of EVs and even that is experiencing speed bumps due to Elon Musk's mismanagement of Tesla.

So I really don't see any sort of proactive moves being possible at all. I see things being serendipitously helped by shifts in buying habits (like EVs) and the rest is going to be reactive. Sea-walls and border walls with shoot-on-sight orders ala Earth 2100.

ASG,

By and large that was a post that sums up many of my beliefs; it’s who we are.

My cognitive side says we are toast, my more emotional side requires me to have some hope and to keep trying. Right there is my personal cognitive dissonance.

So then what is left? Well we are still alive and not much to be gained by changing that so one might as well live as happy anlife as possible. Of course that actuality requires some internal awareness of who we are and what constitutes true happiness, or at least a quest in that direction. And none of it matters if you can’t figure out how to stay alive.

Every once in a while it is nice to have a concise summary and ASG did a good job. Nothing I can disagree with in his post. Shifting solutions off to the catalyst of upcoming consequences has been my only real hopeful scenario which I still entertain as plausible.

I mentioned in the past that I had quite a lightbulb insightful moment at a peak oil conference in Yellow Springs Ohio about 10 years ago when Richard Heinberg was a speaker and he made a comment that I cant remember word for word but paraphrase went like this; " Real revolutions can happen when the physical infrastructure that holds up a civilization become undermined". Something like that.

The cognitive dissonance ASG outlined so well will not be broken without the physical underpinning that support this dissonance becoming undermined..... so to speak.

In the meantime Newfie is right, enjoy life, feel blessed every day and try not to let the collective ignorance burden your soul.

Look, I appreciate and respect the varying set of beliefs , opinions and expertise/wisdom in this site. Most of us are older folks and I do believe experience and age does endow one with wisdom and understanding.
Regarding the doom we simply have different perspectives and opinions. In the extremes we have Shorty espousing near term PO doom and Cid Yama near term Climate Change doom. On the other side, we have Kaiser saying things will progressively get worse but slowly and steadily. And a few who do not see PO doom or see it happening only at a more distant time frame. Nobody seems to be budging much from their positions. Only time will tell who has been more prescient