Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
ParticipantI agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.
I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.
I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.
Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.
There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.
ParticipantI agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.
I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.
I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.
Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.
There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.
ParticipantI agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.
I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.
I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.
Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.
There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.
Participant[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]
Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?
Necessity, of course.
Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.
While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.
Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.
I think we agree that someday, it will be.
Participant[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]
Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?
Necessity, of course.
Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.
While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.
Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.
I think we agree that someday, it will be.
Participant[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]
Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?
Necessity, of course.
Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.
While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.
Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.
I think we agree that someday, it will be.
Participant[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]
Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?
Necessity, of course.
Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.
While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.
Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.
I think we agree that someday, it will be.
Participant[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]
Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?
Necessity, of course.
Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.
While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.
Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.
I think we agree that someday, it will be.
ParticipantP.S. I realize none of my comments are much supported with data. All pulled out by intuition (i.e. my ass) while typing. Interesting discussion.
ParticipantP.S. I realize none of my comments are much supported with data. All pulled out by intuition (i.e. my ass) while typing. Interesting discussion.
ParticipantP.S. I realize none of my comments are much supported with data. All pulled out by intuition (i.e. my ass) while typing. Interesting discussion.
ParticipantP.S. I realize none of my comments are much supported with data. All pulled out by intuition (i.e. my ass) while typing. Interesting discussion.
ParticipantP.S. I realize none of my comments are much supported with data. All pulled out by intuition (i.e. my ass) while typing. Interesting discussion.
Participant[quote=Arraya]BOO!, it’s here.[/quote]
Whew. You scared me there for a minute. I ran out to see if I could still get gas for $3 a gallon and I can. Guess it isn’t here yet. Production may be near peak, but like I said earlier, price dynamics, replacements, and demand-side changes could have a major impact on availability.
In my last post, I mention Jay Forrester. He has been looking at this problem since 1969. Not really going to sneak up on him. World governments know it is going to happen and have for years. I’m loath to put my faith in them over entrepreneurs.
That big oil has “been the biggest impediment to replacing it’s number one product” is a clear sign that we aren’t “there” yet. When they realize their number one product is in jeopardy, they’ll do something about it, or a competitor will. (I just hope the ones who miss the opporunity go bankrupt and aren’t bailed out !).
[quote=Arraya]Looking at the predicament through an economic-monetary lens limits your scope of thought[/quote]
You said that to the wrong person. I speak both thermodynamics and economics – with a BS in Elec. Eng and MS in Engineering Economic Systems, not many people in the world are better suited to understand the relationship between science, technology, economics and business.
It is virutally impossible for me to separate technological solutions and economic solutions. They are one and the same. ‘Cept it is economics that drives solutions into existence, and those economics are not yet upon us. Peak Oil may or may not be here, but the economic drivers are not. We’ll still be having this same discussion in 2020 and possibly 2030.
I think replacements and demand reduction will carry us longer than most expect, though if you notice my comments about Forrester’s models, you’ll see I think there has to be a dark age where population is reduced. I’m 42. I don’t think I’ll see it.
The thing is, no matter how economists view the world, people make economics happen no matter what. People collectively make millions of decisions made every day. Even now, thousands of crackpots are trying to invent solutions to the problem. I have faith in them.
[quote=Arraya]No amount of alternatives[/quote]
Certainly we are dealing with a finite amount of oil, so some amount of alternatives would suffice. But, the energy density of oil is impossible to match. -
AuthorPosts
