That's why democracy is such a silly idea. But when it comes to technical innovation, it's not the masses but the individual mind that counts, and exceptional individuals show up routinely.
1) By definition, exceptional individuals are not to be counted on routinely. They do show up, of course. But to bet your future on the appearance of one who will solve the coming energy crisis seems cavalier.
2) If you think democracy is a silly idea, and you also think totalitarianism is a bad idea, which political system do you support (if any)?
You're either not capable of grasping what I said or deliberately denying it. Which is it?
False dillema. If I haven't grasped your point, that says nothing of my ultimate ability to do so. Perhaps I haven't grasped it, but could do so if you stated it differently. Or perhaps you don't understand, or are intentionally ignoring, my counter point.
In any case, you seem to be saying that our abilities are vastly superior to those of animals. I agree. But the subject came up because of our biological and ecological limits. It's an undeniable fact, for instance, that people die of thirst after a few days without water. Technology may at best extend that limit for a few more days. In an environment without water, human beings can survive by so manipulating their environment as to make water available where it was not before. But if something happens to interrupt our ability to get water to a certain area, then the people who live there will either have to leave or die. If they can't leave, they will die. The only question is whether something will interrupt that ability, and what the effects of that happening will be.
Were those bacterial "germs" or virus "germs"?...you're cherry picking because you can't dodge the spear of my intent.
1) I have no intention to cherry pick.
2) That said, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Viruses were discovered with optical microscopes as well, and the smallpox vaccine was invented in the late 18th century, whereas electron microscopes weren't invented until 1931.
You mean they could have made a million gallons of the stuff using 1550 technology? What would they use for thermometers and other quality control instruments?
1) Probably not in 1550. But it certainly could have been done in 1750, and certainly by the 1930's regardless of whether we were using oil or not. It's possible to mix up a gallon of the stuff in your kitchen, so long as you can find a specimen of the mold and know a little about how to cultivate it. It's a simple process.
2) Presumably, they'd have used thermometers as a fine substitute for, erm, thermometers. Thermometers have been available for a long time, and also don't require oil.
Ridiculous.
Because they've been proven to work? That's usually a good clue. It's not like there hasn't been a million fruit-cakes trying to make their own Dean Engine, you know. And the levitators and teleporters and the karmic transporters. Engineering works. We know that. The other stuff doesn't. We know that, too.
You're engaging in false dillema. The choice isn't between the knowledge we have now and a bunch of fruitcake wacko theories. There's plenty that we don't know.
Ah, the Luddite Strain finally emerges, and now we know your motivation. You wish we'd always stayed in the caves because someday maybe we have to go back to them.
1) Caves? No. Nor do I think we're headed back there.
2) I am not a Luddite--at least not in the sense that I automatically hate technology. In fact, I'm rather fond of technology, less fond of how some people use it.
Airplanes were an indispensible part of the twentieth century, they for an indispensible part of the future.
You mean, you think there wouldn't have been a 20th century without them? You think there won't be a future without them? Again, how is this arguing your side of the case at all?
Or do you just mean that history would have been different? If so, I agree.
No. People once wore untanned deer skins and hunted with pointed sticks. Now we use sticks to point with and make our fabrics articificially. Oil has been a stepping stone and eventually it will be part of history. A few geniuses will see to that.
Well, when they show up, let me know.
But I don't disagree, I just say that the particulars of that process are going to be very different than you say.
Your chicken-little harping on 5 years is simply wrong.
Of course, we can't know the future. However, I think the evidence points to a near-term oil peak. Past peak the opportunity to engage in this kind of project (buidling lots of nuclear reactors and retro-fitting our infrastructure) will diminish rapidly. For forecasts of a near-term peak, see:
www.peakoil.net Colin Campbell, PhD Oxford, former geologist for the Shell and BP oil companies.
http://www.sfu.ca/~asamsamb/sb.htm Samsam Bakhtiari, PhD Swiss Academy of Sciences, Senior advisor to the Iranian National Oil Company
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/ Kenneth Deffeyes, professor Emeritus at Princeton, PhD in Geology
http://www.energybulletin.net/9498.html Sadad Al-Husseini, former head of exploration and development for Saudi Aramco (the Saudi National Oil Company)
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ Links to quite a few well-qualified people, and almost all of them claim a near-term peak.
Or you could try any of those links I posted earlier in this thread for Demosthenes. Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Pemex, and BP all appear to forecast near-term peaks.
The range on all of these predictions is between 2005 to 2015. 2010 falls in the middle, and is now less than 5 years away.
It's as if I'm supposed to believe your five year figure. I don't.
Why don't you? I've shown plenty of evidence for it, you've shown none for any counter-claim.
Oh, so my assumption that you were blowing brown smoke out your nether orifice was correct, and my decision that it would be a waste of time to bother with it was correct.
Hardly. Do you have an actual response?
Ignore them. When they starve, when they die of pandemics, when 80% of their children die before the age of two, recognize they've made a choice and ignore them completely. Since they won't be making demands on the world's energy supplies, they don't matter, do they?
1) You think that a person's worth is dependent on their energy usage? Odd, that...
2) Prior to European Colonization, indigenous populations had no worse a time than Europeans themselves, and in many instances a much better time in terms of disease, famine, etc.
3) Indigenous people in some areas of the world (exactly those places where they endure it at all) now endure such conditions precisely because of the effects of colonization and industrialization. Again, read the book for supporting material. Also, Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
Yeah, if you consider the typical lifespan was somewhere around thirty years, they were doing just fine.
1) That was the lifespan reported annecdotally by European Settlers of the Americas and south Asia after smallpox and mumps that the Europeans had brought with them began to devastate the populations there. Because native populations typically saw no need to record actuarial statistics, data is difficult to come by.
2) Typical indigenous adult lifespans for people living a primitive lifestyle today are in the 50-60 years range, infanticide extracted. Still shorter than our average lifespan, but not too bad, either.
3) But interestingly, it's widely reported that indigenous populations living in industrialized areas have a much shorter lifespan than the overall populace in that area.
I don't recall being asked if I thought European expansion was a good idea when I was acting as a consultant on Columbus's proposed short-cut, but you know how fickle memory can be.
Huh? You're claiming to have consulted with Columbus? As in, Christopher Columbus, circa The Year of Our Lord 1492 A.D.? If not, I don't know what you mean.
The judgement is perfectly arbitrary and perfectly correct. Arbirtariness doesn't exclude correctness.
I doubt that's a tenable idea as applied in this case. But I'd be interested in any arguments you have for it.
Because wages are defined by markets, not politicians.
Even Adam Smith would not have thought so given our current economy. He was against the idea of a large corporation because it concentrated capital in a few hands who were not concerned about any given locale. The head of a large corporation, who in effect defines wages for her company, is a de facto politician in this sense. When a bunch of them get together, they mutually define the wages that will be paid, and generally do so towards the low side, with no regard for fairness in exchange for work done.
Because I'm discussing his ideas with a convert. You've made it clear he's a socialist ideologue with a luddite agenda.
1) Actually he's a libertarian with an agenda that's got nothing to do with Luddism, but you wouldn't know that unless you read the book. He believes that people in charge of large transnational corporations represent exactly the same kind of authority that politicians do, and are as subject to graft and corruption. It took him 20 years of trying your way before he began to realize this. His solution is not to stop industrialization, but rather to make it fair to the people involved.
