James Kunstler and Peak Oil

Kaligula said:
BTW, as coal lovers we are (Poland has big coal deposits, as well as a bit of gas and oil of our own), we decided to close a lot of mines and currently are importing about 70% of coal we use, from Russia. So short-sighted Poles are.

If you believed that coal was going to become massively more valuable in the future due to scarcity, wouldn't it be smart to close your mines and buy it from other countries while it was still cheap, and then reopen your mines in the future when it was worth its weight in gold?

Not that any of the stuff you're saying is going to happen, but like, hypothetically.
 

questor70

Ostrich
Surprised, frankly, to see this topic to come up here.

I WAS one of those last generation of peak oil doomers. I studied the problem for years. There's probably nobody hanging out here who knows more about the topic than I do. Back then the red/white pill paradigm was applied to peak oil, not female nature.

I mean this as no disrespect but the demographic here is one that skews conspiratorial. The party line here is that global warming is a scam and that the gynocracy will lead to crashing birth rates...and fewer people on the earth would be a bad thing.

Peak oil is a gateway drug towards understanding limits to growth. Limits to growth came out of the Club of Rome which has been effectively demonized by Alex Jones and his ilk as part of the cabal that wants to poison the water supply or God knows what else...

I know I'm opening myself up to a lot of drive-by criticism here, but I'm telling you as someone who has invested as many hours studying this issue as Roosh has studied game...this is a big deal and everyone will be dealing with it in some respect whether they recognize it or not.

This is NOT to say that suddenly we're going to have Mad Max conditions. That was the party line 10 years ago and it didn't work out that way. What I'm saying is that the 21st century is going to be defined in terms of creeping resource constraints, all of which tracing themselves back to the root cause of overpopulation, the elephant in the room nobody (including people here) wants to face.

What I learned since then is that the system as we know it is surprisingly resilient. We got ourselves in this mess but we're also problem-solvers by nature. The fracking boom "saved" the earth from peak oil doom 10 years ago. I put saved in quotes because it merely kicked the can down the road for an indeterminate period. But luckily we're also at the bottom of the technological S-curve of electric cars and robotaxi ride-sharing. If EVs take off the way so many other technologies (like smart-phones) do then expect that to put a dent on oil supplies.

However, with every improvement like that, population growth can merely soak it all up again. Also, since we're consuming ecological services so far above replacement, ecological drawdown becomes the biggest threat above resource constraints.

I could go several paragraphs now to talk about all of the biomarkers of ecological damage and link them up to our ability to function. Damage to topsoil, damage to fisheries, damage to snowpack which millions rely upon for freshwater, damage even to the lungs of the planet responsible for us having breathable air.

If you haven't studied these issues and you have bought into the GOP stance that it's all a liberal conspiracy then none of these datapoints will make an impact. You'll shrug it all off with an animated GIF. But I'm just throwing it out there because this is what I feel I know, not based on an ideological bias, but by immersing myself in the data over several years.

And one of the ways I processed that data has been to reject or be skeptical if it came from the mouths of people who ONLY spout doom, including Kunstler, Ugo Bardi, Zerohedge etc... If your brand is doom, then that's all they're going to talk about. I went through a period where I vetted all of this sort of information based on the source and they're all saying the same thing. We're killing the planet and the rate of collapse is on a steadily acceleration.

There's a lot of talk about how women suck at managing their finances. They live for the now. Well, humans in general are like that. In total, we discount the future and live for the now because life is short. Eat drink and be merry, as it were. And I am sure a LOT of people are like me, knowing the score, and yet opting to make the most of today and not powering down our consumption to any huge extent.

This is why I don't feel that raising awareness would even matter. It's tragedy of the commons. Humans live in the now, especially more than ever thanks to social media.

I've had to partially button my lip in raising my daughter without giving her nothing to live for, but she'll probably face the worst of it. I think normal modern life will probably hang on for the next decade or two before it enters more of a musical-chairs scramble-mode. In my case, I'd like to stay as happy as possible for as long as possible, and a steady supply of quality sex would make life easier. I've gone through the stages of grief so I can hold this information and not be in a continual state of panic the way some of hardcore doomer keyboard warriors are. At some point you have to just get on with life and not just be a deer caught in the headlights and I'm not going to just disappear in a bunker. Life is meant to be lived.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

the University of Melbourne research has not found proof of collapse as of 2010 (although growth has already stalled in some areas). But in Limits to Growth those effects only start to bite around 2015-2030.

We're at or close to the period in which these effects begin to hit. The numbers in the LTG chart are ominous. Since people are not going to suddenly stop having babies (even if the majority of men in the developed world go MGTOW), for the total population of the planet to even start to level off, the death rate would have to skyrocket. Like multiple WWIIs scale deaths to compensate. So it's not just a cold statistic. It would be TEOTWAWKI, and those charts have things start to go bad around now or at least within the next couple decades.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
Well, I accidentally learnt about the subject in 2009, and got so scared that the entire month was just reading about that. Got from a library Simmons' "Twilight in the desert".
Then I informed all my friends, and met with a wall. The only people who believed me said that there is nothing to be done, so we should just go on with living as previously (BAU). In a way, it is not such a big change - we are all going to die, right? We will die just a bit earlier.... But there is sense of being uneasy which stays.
I believe this is a kind of cognitive dissonance - you see a very serious problem on the horizon, you realize the society does not care, you lose faith in the society. Disengage. The problem is that you are still a part of this society. A kind of numbness follows, it is a bit harder to strive socially, professionally etc. Women also kind of lose their appeal, since they are so strongly rooted in this life of the past already (for you). I did not convince even one woman that peak oil is real (!)


The takeway is that intelligent people - people who can understand the problem- are very often simply not happy enough to really want to preserve their lifes and will not fight for them too strongly. This problem is compounded by the fact that the rest of people, who may do not understand the problem, is most of the time much more invested in the BAU status quo and thus they have strong incentives to preserve it. To sum up, the power of social inertia prevails. Even the captain of "Titanic" had denied his seamanship and did not slow down in the ice field, so strongly must he have believed in his unsinkable ship...



For all that, I was happy with shale oil. I also think that TheOilDrum (one of the best portals in the net I had chanced upon, with no women at all BTW) writers were legit, credible, and HONEST, since they suspended the portal after the shale revolution, and the lack of significant response from the public (in a way, like Roosh with ROK). As a result, at least you know that it was the real grassroots effort and not some disinformation operation of CIA or CFR.
But now shale seems to be not a final answer after all...


The psychology discussion on TOD:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2592
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4240
http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5402
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
SamuelBRoberts said:
Kaligula said:
BTW, as coal lovers we are (Poland has big coal deposits, as well as a bit of gas and oil of our own), we decided to close a lot of mines and currently are importing about 70% of coal we use, from Russia. So short-sighted Poles are.

If you believed that coal was going to become massively more valuable in the future due to scarcity, wouldn't it be smart to close your mines and buy it from other countries while it was still cheap, and then reopen your mines in the future when it was worth its weight in gold?

Not that any of the stuff you're saying is going to happen, but like, hypothetically.

I would like to think that Polish politicians are so foresighted, but I believe that it was mainly simply due to the draconian EU anticarbon measures. But well, if we preserve our reserves of ~200 years of coal, for Poland's last 200 years - all the better. Incidentally, besides Estonia, Czech Republic and Sweden, Poland is one of very few energetically self-sufficient countries of EU. Well, we even have our own (closed) uran mines... [in the past we exported uran to USSR during the build-up of its nuclear forces]
 

questor70

Ostrich
For those who are truly willing to become informed on these issues rather than just leaping to defensive conclusions, there are two documentaries that really spell it all out, not just peak oil or global warming, but the big picture.

The Incredible Journey of Oil (explains how peak oil and global warming are two sides of the same coin)


Earth 2100 (which, despite airing on ABC in 2009, most people forgot about by now, but things like the tension at the southern border, insect die-off, and water-rationing in southern California are already happening)


Plus Al Bartlett on the dead-simple math behind overpopulation.

https://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
The situation oddly reminds me Kavafis' poem, "Waiting for the barbarians", and its famous memento:

(...)
the barbarians have not come
(...)
They were (...) a kind of solution



Just put "shale oil/solar/windmills" instead of "barbarians". An attempt at lateral thinking, if you like..;)

However strange the analogy, it captures several things, all of them important but usually well hidden:

1) The sin of pride on the side of our civilization, now in the form of pride in technology, once - pride in rituals, and pride in wealth. A sense of arrogant superiority that goes with it.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.


2) A nagging sense of necessity, an urgent need to find a solution even if that means a subjugation of sort: we do not discuss a solution, we merely accept it. The citizens are not asked to fight barbarians, only to accept them. Likewise, we are not asked to develop a mass, grassroots movement to mitigate peak oil. We are actually commanded to accept shale oil and its environmental devastation, resources wars, immigration (barbarians, dazzled by our lifestyle, that will nonetheless somehow legislate towards a simpler life?!) etc.

Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating



3) The realization of the final emptiness of our life (BAU: Business as Usual) as well as of the fact that we have already been in a crisis before the "barbarian" crisis, the realization that descends upon us as an unexpected result of the disappearance of barbarians.
Nowadays, should the peak oil disappear, we would probably be left with a gnawing sense that some other disaster looms. It may be the reason why a civilization with too many contradictions/crises a kind of loses faith in itself. It is just like our life; being young we encounter things the first time and believe in them, later on, just a sigh of disappointment, "eh, again the same shit".

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.


And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.



http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1
 

redpillage

Ostrich
Gold Member
questor70 said:
For those who are truly willing to become informed on these issues rather than just leaping to defensive conclusions, there are two documentaries that really spell it all out, not just peak oil or global warming, but the big picture.

The Incredible Journey of Oil (explains how peak oil and global warming are two sides of the same coin)


Earth 2100 (which, despite airing on ABC in 2009, most people forgot about by now, but things like the tension at the southern border, insect die-off, and water-rationing in southern California are already happening)


Plus Al Bartlett on the dead-simple math behind overpopulation.

https://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

Excellent, another deluded disciple of the global warming club who I won't have to compete with for resources once the Solar Minimum kicks off in force post 2025. I suggest you move as far North as possible and enjoy your global warming over the coming decade ;-)
 

questor70

Ostrich
redpillage said:
Excellent, another deluded disciple of the global warming club

I just threw in my 2c because at least a few people here have some genuine intellectual curiosity on the topic but I knew damn well responses like yours would be the order of the day. You speak your truth and I'll speak mine but I know damn well the odds of anyone changing their minds is slim to none.

I do find it sad that the manosphere for all its leaning on the weight of science in evolutionary psychology strikes a decidedly anti-intellectual stance on the environment and energy policy. It's just that I guess it feels empowering to prove why it is women (supposedly the "fairer" sex) behave badly vs. disempowering to see how fragile civilization as a whole is.

But red/blue pill really should be about people identifying and confronting their own biases but manosphere seems to be very narrow in focus and self-serving when it comes to that.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
questor70 said:
What I'm saying is that the 21st century is going to be defined in terms of creeping resource constraints, all of which tracing themselves back to the root cause of overpopulation, the elephant in the room nobody (including people here) wants to face.

Ok, let's talk about overpopulation :

55d38ec0dd089595388b46c6-750-563.png


Do you believe it would be a problem without foreign aid and migration ?
Serious question.
 

CynicalContrarian

Owl
Gold Member
^
Surprised to see even an Asian downturn in that graph.
Although, if they've reached critical mass in terms of land mass, it does stand to reason.

Then again, there is the fact that the world turned just fine with 1 billion folk just prior to World War 1.
Now we worry at a population decline when it's at 8 billion +.

We may need to rethink our economy...
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
CynicalContrarian said:
*cough* Oil is abiotic. *cough*

No one really knows. Even if so, is all the oil, everywhere, the abiotic oil? All the different kinds and grades? Abiotic theory would suggest that yes, oil should be like oxygen, the same kind everywhere.

At the end, it does not change much since abiotic or not abiotic, somehow this oil is not being replenished anywhere. And this is the problem.
 

questor70

Ostrich
Oberrheiner said:
Do you believe it would be a problem without foreign aid and migration ?
Serious question.

The problem isn't just population growth. It's at what level of population (even static) can the planet sustain. In other words, long-term carrying capacity.

Yes, the planet can handle 8 billion...today, but it does so by eating through ecological resources. It's like burning through a saving's account. Eventually you will hit rock bottom. (You'd be surprised how fast this sort of thing can happen. Think about how quickly the bison and whales were hunted to the brink of extinction or how much of the US was deforested before the switch to fossil fuels and that was with a US population a small fraction of what it is today.)

That ecological drawdown is not immediately visible, but ask around in different industries like farming (topsoil), fishing, municipalities (water) and you'll start to see a pattern developing.

I don't have a safe ideal population number handy but it is way lower than 8 billion if the objective is to live a modern lifestyle of creature-comforts.

The future envisioned in Blade Runner 2049 is the most realistic scenario that I can think of, which is creeping dustbowl conditions, but even there that predicted the affluent leaving to off-colonies. That ain't gonna happen. When the planet's ability to feed us becomes compromised enough, people are gonna die one way or another. I don't know when or how fast, other than that it's pretty much baked into the cake unless a massive wave of opting out of having children happens, not just 1 child, but opting OUT. China just upgraded its 1 child to a 2 child policy. What needs to happen ain't gonna happen because the conventional wisdom is that a lopsided society that is topheavy in the elderly is economically unfeasible. If any of you watch the Al Bartlett videos you'll see this dilemma detailed very clearly.

The reason why Alex Jones' "depopulation agenda" narrative is so attractive is that at some deep seated level the public knows that overpopulation is a problem, but it's more fearful of the sorts of cruel solutions that the powers that be might try rather than manning up and acknowledging the underlying problem in the first place, which, left unaddressed, will cause just as much suffering at the hands of mother nature rather than some deep-state cabal. One way or another, the ecological balance will be regained. But no. People still feel entitled to consume and reproduce unchecked as a matter of inalienable human rights.

There is no painless solution. It's a dilemma meaning you have to pick your poison. The worse the situation gets the more the interventions start to seem just as bad as letting the house of cards fall naturally.

This is the aspect people struggle with the most. Humans are problem solvers. We don't like to accept the notion of catch-22s. It comes across as defeatist.

To get back to your point, though, when you suggest that pulling foreign aid would solve the problem, it would not solve it, but it might help. What you're describing is known as lifeboat ethics.

In some small way, Trump's call for strong borders IS lifeboat ethics in the sense that it comes from a worldview of scarcity. The idea is that with more immigration comes greater competition for jobs, therefore it would be best to keep the huddled masses out. It's a rather simplistic and naive notion, but he is more or less correct. 100 years ago when the US was still largely unpopulated we could absorb the huddled masses like the irish potato famine refugees and what not. That's no longer the case, but culturally, most of us still think that way. We think of America like it has infinite resources still, manifest destiny. But the more people we let in, the more strain put on america's native resources. Taken to its ultimate extreme, you have Soylent Green conditions where people might still be kept alive, but quality of life goes down and down. There's already all sorts of talk about dietary changes, shifting off of meat or learning to eat insects in order to be able to keep more and more people fed in the future. It's working the wrong end of the problem. The more people you add, the more resources become stretched and strained. Note that in Soylent Green the elites were still able to eat steak because there were so few. In the future expect ever more extreme class envy/warfare both within and betwen countries. This is the manifestation of the lifeboat, those within, and those swimming with the sharks struggling to get in.

The problem with the left is they act under the assumption of PLENTY, not SCARCITY. So they feel that if we just evenly spread the wealth around, nobody would unduly suffer. That's not true. It's been shown that if you did that then the average quality of life would be 3rd world level. So we are already enjoying our quality of the life by virtue of the rest of the world NOT (intentionally or by the invisible hand of the markets). If everyone were as rich as the average american then the crash I'm talking about would happen a hell of a lot faster.

I'm not trying to bash the american way of life here. I like it as much as anyone does, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. In the west we fashion ourselves to be just and enlightened but when times get tough people wind up fighting over resources, first country by country, then state by state, county by county, etc.... That's what happened when Rome broke down into warlordism and feudalism. When there isn't enough for all, you start drawing circles and classifying people as in or out of the lifeboat.

The narcissistic and hyper-individual entitlement mentality of millenials is the complete opposite of the sort of depression era frugality and communitarian mindset that will be most adaptable in the future if we want to avoid things sliding into zombie apocalypse territory. It's a perfect storm.

Again, I'm not saying the world is a shithole today the way a lot of doomers do when they over-exaggerate. It's still pretty much the calm before the storm still, but the stage is set and there's very little that can be done to avoid a lot of human suffering down the road in some shape or form, especially since there's been no widescale recognition that we are even in this jam in the first place, hence we're still moving as fast as we can towards the brick wall.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
questor70 said:
you suggest that pulling foreign aid would solve the problem

I don't suggest that, rather the opposite in fact :
I believe foreign aid created (and still creates) the conditions for demographical growth in africa.
Then migration makes this problem visible to people in europe.

Then the second orthogonal problem is that people are not willing to pay the true cost of things anymore, which leads to china, pollution, deforestation, child labor, etc.
So the first world adopting consumption habits of the third basically, cheap (which implies polluting to create) and disposable (which implies polluting to destroy) instead of what we had before, quality which lasts.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
A disturbing thought has just struck me:

Maybe the immigration as replacement workers trend, instead of having children at the replacement level, is due to the fact that Controllers of the World know that in the near future there will be not enough time to raise children anymore...?!

Imagine you know that there will be some kind of a big population catastrophe (war, disease) with limited mobility afterwards (no oil), but you still want to have some working-age population in the area...? So you import people before the event...

I know it is a bit sick, but we are in rather amoral zone now.
 

redpillage

Ostrich
Gold Member
Dr. Chim Ritchalds said:
Meh. Tell Africa and Asia to stop breeding like rabbits and 99% of our problems are solved. In the meantime I'll still be driving my 14mpg land cruiser.

You just earned your first positive rating ;-)
 

questor70

Ostrich
At some point you have to move beyond bargaining and anger. It doesn't accomplish jack shit really. It's not within our control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model

Humans are by nature just selfish short-term thinkers who lack impulse-control and the net result is we're going to become victims of our own success.

Not to be rude but I guarantee I've heard every talking point that could be inserted into this thread already. There is no solution. There are only a series of strategies to try to hold the line but they all involve shared sacrifice (which nobody wants to do) and/or mean picking winners and losers (which leads to conflict).
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
Paradoxically, masculization of women suits this trend too: in the future women primarily would not be needed in their essential roles as mothers and carers, but as a kind of more docile and obedient men, in order to make up for dearth of men, killed in war, for example. It is not true that women are always more important for society, taking this thing precisely, women are more important only for the future society; from the standpoint of the current society men are actually more important as they are the builders of civilization (and we will most probably try to keep the status quo, just in a smaller area). If the future dimension disappears, then the female value goes down, too.
 
Top