Latest peak oil news

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Ricechex]energy/oil is running out. If it was so abundant, then why would we be discussing it so much?[/quote]

The reason we are talking about it is – if nobody does anything, it’ll be a problem.

To me, it is kind of like the Y2K problem. Had nobody done anything, it would have been a disaster. However, pretty much everybody took time to upgrade their systems to use a 4-digit year and the effect of the issue was limited.

Certainly, we will run out of oil, but I don’t see it as a problem that will sneak up on us and cause global anihilation. We will have adequate time to let ecomomics and technology do what is necessary.

Since there is profit to be had for those who can find solutions, I have faith that solutions will emerge.

Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.

Lots of investors and entrepreneurs will kiss alot of frogs before finding a prince, but I susprect princes will emerge to avoid major lifestyle changes.

[sdduuuude]

Now that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.

As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.

N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.

It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.

Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.

Very interesting stuff.

search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3

[sdduuuude]

Now that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.

As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.

N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.

It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.

Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.

Very interesting stuff.

search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3

[sdduuuude]

Now that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.

As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.

N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.

It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.

Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.

Very interesting stuff.

search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3

[sdduuuude]

Now that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.

As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.

N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.

It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.

Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.

Very interesting stuff.

search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3

[sdduuuude]

Now that I just said we will avoid major lifestyle changes, I remembered the work of Jay Forrester.

As he pointed out in the early ’70s, the earth has a limit of how many people it can support. If I recall correctly, his world models typically produced a disturbing result – the population grows to N people, then scales back to N-M people before finding a steady-state sustainable population.

N and M vary in magnitude based on the modelled effects of technology, disease, and economics, but the shape of the curve always showed an overshoot in this century, then a population reduction to a sustainable level.

It’s a disturbing finding as it suggests the dark ages may be upon us before the end of the century.

Possible that this population reduction could occur after oil runs out and all replacement solutions are in place, but the replacement solutions don’t quite suffice.

Very interesting stuff.

search tips:
Jay Forrester
World Model
World Dynamics
Urban Dynamics
WORLD1 WORLD3

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.

[/quote]

The buggy mfgs did not invent the car. If anything big oil as been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product for obvious reasons. This assertion is silly. Business in general does not look too far ahead of the next quarter. That’s just in it’s nature.

No amount of alternatives can replace oil just due to thermodynamics(which is a science, unlike economics). Oil is solar energy that nature cooked for 500 million years in a subterranean crock pot. Energy is not “created” and technology is not energy. Technology transfers energy from one form to another, which takes….energy. Oil or energy, for that matter, are not the problem. Our expectations on how to run a civilization are, as well as, our social organization. There is abundant energy, just not to support the current infrastructure or to continue to “grow” in the sense we are expecting. Future innovation will be social to adjust to the predicament combined with technical. Economics needs to be updated to the 21st century and not stuck in the 18th century like it is. A Dark ages could happen because they have before. In middle ages europe they burned scientists at the stake. Today they call them doom and gloomers or pessimists for going against the dominant orthodoxies.

Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought. It won’t be fixed that way. In fact, I submit that it makes it worse. you mention sneaking up on us, well, BOO!, it’s here. It was hidden and ignored for economic reasons.

If we are at peak, we collectively put ourselves in the worst position we could possibly be in and we made the stupidest decisions in the run up. it also means the global economy is done growing by definition. No increased energy, no increased work. Follow that logic to it’s conclusion given the nature economics and global debt load.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.

[/quote]

The buggy mfgs did not invent the car. If anything big oil as been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product for obvious reasons. This assertion is silly. Business in general does not look too far ahead of the next quarter. That’s just in it’s nature.

No amount of alternatives can replace oil just due to thermodynamics(which is a science, unlike economics). Oil is solar energy that nature cooked for 500 million years in a subterranean crock pot. Energy is not “created” and technology is not energy. Technology transfers energy from one form to another, which takes….energy. Oil or energy, for that matter, are not the problem. Our expectations on how to run a civilization are, as well as, our social organization. There is abundant energy, just not to support the current infrastructure or to continue to “grow” in the sense we are expecting. Future innovation will be social to adjust to the predicament combined with technical. Economics needs to be updated to the 21st century and not stuck in the 18th century like it is. A Dark ages could happen because they have before. In middle ages europe they burned scientists at the stake. Today they call them doom and gloomers or pessimists for going against the dominant orthodoxies.

Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought. It won’t be fixed that way. In fact, I submit that it makes it worse. you mention sneaking up on us, well, BOO!, it’s here. It was hidden and ignored for economic reasons.

If we are at peak, we collectively put ourselves in the worst position we could possibly be in and we made the stupidest decisions in the run up. it also means the global economy is done growing by definition. No increased energy, no increased work. Follow that logic to it’s conclusion given the nature economics and global debt load.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.

[/quote]

The buggy mfgs did not invent the car. If anything big oil as been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product for obvious reasons. This assertion is silly. Business in general does not look too far ahead of the next quarter. That’s just in it’s nature.

No amount of alternatives can replace oil just due to thermodynamics(which is a science, unlike economics). Oil is solar energy that nature cooked for 500 million years in a subterranean crock pot. Energy is not “created” and technology is not energy. Technology transfers energy from one form to another, which takes….energy. Oil or energy, for that matter, are not the problem. Our expectations on how to run a civilization are, as well as, our social organization. There is abundant energy, just not to support the current infrastructure or to continue to “grow” in the sense we are expecting. Future innovation will be social to adjust to the predicament combined with technical. Economics needs to be updated to the 21st century and not stuck in the 18th century like it is. A Dark ages could happen because they have before. In middle ages europe they burned scientists at the stake. Today they call them doom and gloomers or pessimists for going against the dominant orthodoxies.

Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought. It won’t be fixed that way. In fact, I submit that it makes it worse. you mention sneaking up on us, well, BOO!, it’s here. It was hidden and ignored for economic reasons.

If we are at peak, we collectively put ourselves in the worst position we could possibly be in and we made the stupidest decisions in the run up. it also means the global economy is done growing by definition. No increased energy, no increased work. Follow that logic to it’s conclusion given the nature economics and global debt load.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.

[/quote]

The buggy mfgs did not invent the car. If anything big oil as been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product for obvious reasons. This assertion is silly. Business in general does not look too far ahead of the next quarter. That’s just in it’s nature.

No amount of alternatives can replace oil just due to thermodynamics(which is a science, unlike economics). Oil is solar energy that nature cooked for 500 million years in a subterranean crock pot. Energy is not “created” and technology is not energy. Technology transfers energy from one form to another, which takes….energy. Oil or energy, for that matter, are not the problem. Our expectations on how to run a civilization are, as well as, our social organization. There is abundant energy, just not to support the current infrastructure or to continue to “grow” in the sense we are expecting. Future innovation will be social to adjust to the predicament combined with technical. Economics needs to be updated to the 21st century and not stuck in the 18th century like it is. A Dark ages could happen because they have before. In middle ages europe they burned scientists at the stake. Today they call them doom and gloomers or pessimists for going against the dominant orthodoxies.

Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought. It won’t be fixed that way. In fact, I submit that it makes it worse. you mention sneaking up on us, well, BOO!, it’s here. It was hidden and ignored for economic reasons.

If we are at peak, we collectively put ourselves in the worst position we could possibly be in and we made the stupidest decisions in the run up. it also means the global economy is done growing by definition. No increased energy, no increased work. Follow that logic to it’s conclusion given the nature economics and global debt load.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Certainly guys like the CEO mentioned above aren’t going to sit and watch their revenue stream disappear. They will continue to stay in the energy/natural resource business by providing solutions.

[/quote]

The buggy mfgs did not invent the car. If anything big oil as been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product for obvious reasons. This assertion is silly. Business in general does not look too far ahead of the next quarter. That’s just in it’s nature.

No amount of alternatives can replace oil just due to thermodynamics(which is a science, unlike economics). Oil is solar energy that nature cooked for 500 million years in a subterranean crock pot. Energy is not “created” and technology is not energy. Technology transfers energy from one form to another, which takes….energy. Oil or energy, for that matter, are not the problem. Our expectations on how to run a civilization are, as well as, our social organization. There is abundant energy, just not to support the current infrastructure or to continue to “grow” in the sense we are expecting. Future innovation will be social to adjust to the predicament combined with technical. Economics needs to be updated to the 21st century and not stuck in the 18th century like it is. A Dark ages could happen because they have before. In middle ages europe they burned scientists at the stake. Today they call them doom and gloomers or pessimists for going against the dominant orthodoxies.

Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought. It won’t be fixed that way. In fact, I submit that it makes it worse. you mention sneaking up on us, well, BOO!, it’s here. It was hidden and ignored for economic reasons.

If we are at peak, we collectively put ourselves in the worst position we could possibly be in and we made the stupidest decisions in the run up. it also means the global economy is done growing by definition. No increased energy, no increased work. Follow that logic to it’s conclusion given the nature economics and global debt load.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

While I agree it seems as if things are about to get a lot uglier possibly in the short term, ultimately I see us pulling out of this funk and being in a much much better place economically, energy and transportation wise.

I don’t see population being a real issue for at least a few hundred more years.

I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.

Call me the foolhardy optimist.

The one thing that really somewhat bothers me is something no one I believe has brought up on this board, and that is the singularity (this will either be very good or very bad).

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

While I agree it seems as if things are about to get a lot uglier possibly in the short term, ultimately I see us pulling out of this funk and being in a much much better place economically, energy and transportation wise.

I don’t see population being a real issue for at least a few hundred more years.

I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.

Call me the foolhardy optimist.

The one thing that really somewhat bothers me is something no one I believe has brought up on this board, and that is the singularity (this will either be very good or very bad).

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

While I agree it seems as if things are about to get a lot uglier possibly in the short term, ultimately I see us pulling out of this funk and being in a much much better place economically, energy and transportation wise.

I don’t see population being a real issue for at least a few hundred more years.

I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.

Call me the foolhardy optimist.

The one thing that really somewhat bothers me is something no one I believe has brought up on this board, and that is the singularity (this will either be very good or very bad).

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

While I agree it seems as if things are about to get a lot uglier possibly in the short term, ultimately I see us pulling out of this funk and being in a much much better place economically, energy and transportation wise.

I don’t see population being a real issue for at least a few hundred more years.

I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.

Call me the foolhardy optimist.

The one thing that really somewhat bothers me is something no one I believe has brought up on this board, and that is the singularity (this will either be very good or very bad).

[Author]

Posts