|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Peak Oil goes mainstream on CNN
In article 45edd.278024$D%.158369@attbi_s51,
Jack Dingler wrote: Matthew Russotto wrote: I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may be unsolvable is best ignored. This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've already experienced one just like it. Heard of something called "The Y2K Bug"? While people certainly do behave as you describe quite often, it's not universal. Of course, usually when disaster is averted without some spectacular event precipitating the precautions, it's neither newsworthy nor memorable; the Y2K bug is an exception. The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional ignorance. Work to head it off? You've said it's unsolvable. If that's so, I can't head it off. For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to avoid the worst case I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system programming that one should never test for an error condition that you don't know how to handle. That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That behavior guarantees disaster. OK... so once you've detected the error condition you don't know how to handle, what do you do about it? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article 45edd.278024$D%.158369@attbi_s51, Jack Dingler wrote: Matthew Russotto wrote: I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may be unsolvable is best ignored. This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've already experienced one just like it. Heard of something called "The Y2K Bug"? While people certainly do behave as you describe quite often, it's not universal. Of course, usually when disaster is averted without some spectacular event precipitating the precautions, it's neither newsworthy nor memorable; the Y2K bug is an exception. Actually, that was provable and repeatable. Engineers proved their was a problem by setting the clocks ahead on the computers. They were able to repeat the experiment and make the results past tense. You can't do that with civilizations. The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional ignorance. Work to head it off? You've said it's unsolvable. If that's so, I can't head it off. Exactly, you wouldn't bother if you could. Neither will billions of other people. There's no heading it off, but setting up circumstances to deal with it. And we're probably a couple of decades late in making any serious changes. Enjoy the show. For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to avoid the worst case I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system programming that one should never test for an error condition that you don't know how to handle. That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That behavior guarantees disaster. OK... so once you've detected the error condition you don't know how to handle, what do you do about it? You learn how to handle it and you fix it. But your solution, the lazy and expensive one, is one that I've been paid to repair many times. And it's the solution preferred when running civilizations. Jack Dingler |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Big Bill wrote: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:04 GMT, Jack Dingler wrote: And that's really the crux of the matter. We are addicted to petroleum and there is no other reality that the population at large can accept, so we whistle and dream that someone out there, maybe God, will change the rules, so that we don't have to change ourselves. This completely ignores the research being done into alternative energy sources. You've heard of them, haven't you? Solar? Wind? Tides? Fusion? to name a few. If not, you *really* need to educate yourself if you're going to make yourself heard in such a discussion. If you have heard of them, why do you ignore them, and instead make up such fantastic scenarios? At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote: At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die. The only alternatives would come from an acceptance of what e have to deal with. It's the faith in the mythology of oil that is in fact the single biggest impediment to planning a course to mitigate the worst effects. And it's the myths that I'm arguing against here. You Matthew have admitted that you really don't know anything about the energy crisis. You don't know the numbers, you don't know what anyone's projections are. You have instead a faith that you view is the correct one. And you share this mythos when billions of other people. It comes from stories repeated back and forth, without question. Stories and tales told by friends, relatives, folks at the gas station, on the news media, in the movies and reiterated by politicians that believe the same myths. Not one of you from what I can tell has the capacity to actually research and understand any of the public data available to prove or disprove my assertions. I've posted links pointing to some real world events that bolster my points and they go ignored. Until you folks cultivate the capability educate youselves on this issue, your left doing nothing but arguing a religious belief system that has oil at it's center. And it will remain a faith issue, likely well into the downturn, as you can always blame Satan for not letting the US have the infinite oil supplies in Saudi Arabia. What's sad is that the biggest crisis of modern times is making it's presence felt now, and all you folks can do is play ostrich. The short term solution of killing people and stealing their oil will keep SUVs running for a while, but as it continues, unemployment must keep rising, as oil can only support so many jobs. If you want to keep it a religious and faith based argument, then watch for the signs. An economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the Mid-East... Keep the faith, maybe God will refill the Saudi Arabian oil fields and give the US a mandate to kill Arabs and take the fields. It might happen! Jack Dingler |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article 3Vfdd.211841$wV.180456@attbi_s54, Jack Dingler wrote:
then watch for the signs. An economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the Mid-East... Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote:
In article 3Vfdd.211841$wV.180456@attbi_s54, Jack Dingler wrote: then watch for the signs. An economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the Mid-East... Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not. What's pushing the job flight? For manufacturing, the increasing costs of natural gas appear to be the number one reason. Mathew Simmons, and advisor to the White House is going around giving lectures, advising businesses to move before it runs out of the US. Do you think there's a different reason? Jack Dingler |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I hope you guys are right. I can't find any evidence you are, and you
haven't made a case for your beliefs. All the evidence I've researched over the last five years, just keeps looking more and more pessimistic. So let's just hope you are. I think the next ten years will tell. Good luck. Jack Dingler |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article HKgdd.286918$3l3.42606@attbi_s03, Jack Dingler wrote:
Brent P wrote: In article 3Vfdd.211841$wV.180456@attbi_s54, Jack Dingler wrote: then watch for the signs. An economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the Mid-East... Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not. What's pushing the job flight? Those that fund democrats and republicans. For manufacturing, the increasing costs of natural gas appear to be the number one reason. Labor rates. Mathew Simmons, and advisor to the White House is going around giving lectures, advising businesses to move before it runs out of the US. Do you think there's a different reason? Labor rates. Let's see pay an engineer 70K+ before benefits in the USA or $300 a month in China with no benefits? It's even worse for people on the factory floor without an education. Labor rates are the big savings. Natural gas savings is only applicable to some industries. For others it just doesn't matter much if at all and those are going to china et al too. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article kuhdd.499250$8_6.475274@attbi_s04, Jack Dingler wrote:
I hope you guys are right. I can't find any evidence you are, and you haven't made a case for your beliefs. All the evidence I've researched over the last five years, just keeps looking more and more pessimistic. So let's just hope you are. I think the next ten years will tell. Is this an appendix to your reply to me? I didn't say one thing or the other, only that you picked two things that are likely to happen regardless of how much oil there is and stated that if they happen it proves you're right about oil supply. But since both events could happen regardless of the remaining oil supply, it's hardly proof. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article 3Vfdd.211841$wV.180456@attbi_s54,
Jack Dingler wrote: Matthew Russotto wrote: At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die. The only alternatives would come from an acceptance of what e have to deal with. Which is what? We're soon going to run out of fossil energy and have to make do with what we can get from wind, water, and animal power? It's the faith in the mythology of oil that is in fact the single biggest impediment to planning a course to mitigate the worst effects. Such an occurence would be an unmitigatable disaster. And it's the myths that I'm arguing against here. You Matthew have admitted that you really don't know anything about the energy crisis. You seem more interested in attacking me than demonstrating your case. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
First unicycle descent of Gray's Peak (14,270ft) | TonyMelton | Unicycling | 16 | June 25th 04 04:02 AM |
New mountain biking guide for The Peak District and Derbyshire. | The Cyclist | UK | 3 | June 5th 04 03:30 PM |
Another Addition to My "Required Reading for the Entire Planet": Deffeyes, Kenneth S., Hubbert's Peak -- The Impending World Oil Shortage | djarvinen | Mountain Biking | 30 | April 17th 04 02:43 AM |
Another Addition to My "Required Reading for the Entire Planet": Deffeyes, Kenneth S., Hubbert's Peak -- The Impending World Oil Shortage | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 0 | April 11th 04 02:37 AM |