http://inteldaily.com/2010/10/chicken-little-peak-oil-and-y2k/

Y'all are angry when I post no links, but when i do no one reads them. Do you see my frustration?

Sic - and I'm stepping back and trying to put this as neutrally as I can:

When people ask for citations, they would prefer more than just random web links. I see four links, but I'm unclear what thesis they are supposed to support. What *specific* argument are the four links supposed to support, and how do you draw that conclusion?

It's not a matter of "your ideas don't have merit", because it's challenging to see what your ideas *are* at times.

If you say "I believe in X", then that's spiffy keen - you can believe whatever you want, and more power to you.

If you say "I believe that X is true, and here is my logic, and here are the sources that back up that thesis", then the sources have to be able to both a) back up the claim and b) be correct themselves.

Let's take the "OPEC will never run out of oil" link. The argument appears to be, basically, that OPEC is cooking the books. Highly possible, and impossible to verify, but definitely a point in favor of the argument that resources are being depleted.

But no one is *arguing* that resources aren't being depleted, what I *thought* your main thesis was revolved around "resources are being depleted, and we're all FUCKED".

Thesis A: Resource Depletion - is one issue
Thesis B: We're all FUCKED - is a separate one.

The *consequence* for resource depletion depend on a lot of variables, but rising prices and increased scarcity do not necessarily equal FUCKED. It's an argument that can be *made*, don't get me wrong - but just saying that resources are being depleted is... insufficient.

In other words, you appear to have an unstated assumption that resource depletion = FUCKED, and you have not given a good analysis of why that is. Instead, you appear to be just railing away at people who can't see that we're fucked.

So why not lay out what you think will happen, and how you are reaching those conclusions?

In the next ten years all critical infastructure and every facet of our lives will be weaned of oil even though there is no viable alternative in place? Sure theres nuclear and wind etc. but is all that going to be in place the next 5-10 years? I dont see anyone rushing to build geothermal plants.
And its not solely resourse depletion. It's social unrest and environmental damage and economic collapse. It's like the perfect storm.

"In the next ten years all critical infastructure and every facet of our lives will be weaned of oil even though there is no viable alternative in place? "

Your assumption is that we have, roughly, ten years of recoverable oil left. Not that prices will rise, but that at ten years and one month, oil will either be gone or so expensive it will be unfeasible to utilize, correct? Your source for the ten year number is, what?

"Sure theres nuclear and wind etc. but is all that going to be in place the next 5-10 years? I dont see anyone rushing to build geothermal plants. "

You're ignoring natural gas and coal - both also depleatable resources, but not resources that will be depleated in ten years. Of course, as demand increases prices will rise - which will make nuclear / wind / geothermal more economically attractive.

"And its not solely resourse depletion. It's social unrest and environmental damage and economic collapse. It's like the perfect storm."

Where are you getting your evidence for "social unrest" and "environmental damage" and "economic collapse"? Those are all separate issues. I have not seen any - credible or not - sources that says we're going to be faced with significant environmental damage within a decade. Within a decade the trend towards damage may well be *irreversible* to a degree, but that doesn't mean NYC is going to be under ten feet of water in 2020.

alright I'll pull it together for you when I get back tonight. the social unrest is from the IMF and UN.

Fair notice: I won't get a chance to look at it until monday.

Also, I'm not saying the points you raise are without merit; but screaming that the world is going to end in a decade is less likely to make people want to care, as they'll assume because you're exaggerating, there is nothing to worry about.

Exactly.

Nobody is arguing with point A. We know resources are finite. That goes almost without saying.

The issue is proving that because of A, Point B is true (we're fucked in the immediate short term because of A). If the peak oil is true, (and I happen to think that it is, more or less) it doesn't mean that oil is going to run out.... it means that we're going to have to adapt to oil being much less plentiful. I would agree that if tomorrow, every oil well on the planet ran dry would mean mass chaos.

But they won't run dry. Prices will rise, we'll have to stop using oil for certain applications, but we're not going to run out anytime soon. My personal belief is that an oil crisis such as that might finally get people to get over the whole nuclear fear thing they have in the US. No reason we can't supply our baseline electrical grid costs with nuclear, which would actually make hydrogen fuel or electric cars useful. (What is the point of electric or hydrogen when you burn hydrocarbons to make the electricity or the hydrogen?)

I just remain to be convinced that this crisis means the effective collapse of the industrial state, and even if it would turn out that way, I'm also very skeptical that a return to a semi-technological state is the answer.

Jack +1

"The cycle cannot continue forever. fact." [Referring to cycle of growth and innovation]
-- Sicarius, October 27

"I'm not saying its impossible to continue the cycle of innvation"
-- Sicarius, October 28

I'm not saying it's a contradiction, but it's a contradiction.

I guess what I don't understand is what you want, sic. The complete annihilation of industrial society? Civilization? A return to a hunter-gatherer form of subsistence living? New forms of energy? It seems you are trying to argue against all of these options, no?