Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

[trex]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

[quote=blazespinnaker;59166]It's called Google..

Anyways, scientists and engineers are only slightly smarter than the rest of the human race.

The only difference between scientists and engineers and the rest of us is that their ignorance is better organized.

[Guest]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

You can call it whatever you like. Go ahead. Heap ridicule on the idea. I'm not changing my viewpoint on this. I deeply distrust the commingling of "scientific rationalism" with "social organization". Call me biased.

My turn to laugh. Perhaps you both should remind yourselves that the last engineer to hold the office of President of the United States of America is the only one who managed to keep that splendid country OUT of war. The current incumbent is probably as far from a scientist or engineer as one can be. Did you enjoy the ride?

[Chris]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

You can call it whatever you like. Go ahead. Heap ridicule on the idea. I'm not changing my viewpoint on this. I deeply distrust the commingling of "scientific rationalism" with "social organization". Call me biased.

Agreed, Lukester.

[*T*]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

A scientist's basic axiom:

Everything we know is wrong; so proceed through observation and empirical evidence.

Seems like a good place to start to me. Better than ideology, fanaticism etc.

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

----nm----

[Guest]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

For those wishing to pursue the concept of Propaganda in our educational system and how it shapes the belief systems some are exhibiting in this thread, may I suggest ...

Population overshoot, global water crisis, Peak Cheap Oil, desertification, broad spectrum deterioration of mining yields, massive globalized, wholesale species decimation - such concerns are all products of "belief systems" inculcated at tender ages by "socialist propaganda" (achieved via spontaneously abdicated critical faculties in the student body all of whom arrive at their graduate studies with minds like putty presumably) - along with the wholesale abdication of reason presently ongoing at MIT, Cal-Tech, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Colorado School of Mines, Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Japan, Institute of Environmental Sciences Universität Zürich, and all the host of their illustrious academic colleague institutes worldwide in broad agreement - as to the UNREALITY of all the above trends. ). [ Pssst! It's all about "Shaped belief systems" and the "dumbing down" of our graduate students in the environmental sciences - none of it is real!"? ] :eek: :confused: :eek:

:p :p :p

( P.S. - That is one tough helmet you are wearing there, "Politicalfootballfan". )

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

----nm----

[Chameleon]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

It's called Google..

Anyways, scientists and engineers are only slightly smarter than the rest of the human race.

Are you kidding?

Do you realize that 49% of the world is below average (mean) intelligence? ;)

[Guest]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

For those wishing to pursue the concept of Propaganda in our educational system and how it shapes the belief systems some are exhibiting in this thread, may I suggest starting with the following: THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA. ... Here's a clip from an interview with the Charlotte where she talks about how the US education system has been deliberately "manipulated."

The FIRE economy is not an appropriate analogy, as you are comparing scarcity in a man-made system with scarcity in systems of Nature. Man controls the former, but does not control the latter. Your statement that "A 90% reduction in population is inevitable" is quite bold, and I would expect one to be able to demonstrate tangible scientific evidence in Nature to support such a conclusion.

Here you go - [personal insult deleted by moderator] MYOPIC CRANIUM GUN TURRET.JPG a table of years to depletion that was posted to these pages months ago - reposted to give your intellectual curiosity a "nudge" (although anything short of a bludgeon may not be enough to roust it from it's apparent lethargy). This table describes a critical situation, where some of the most strategic metals are literally a decade or decade and a half away from depletion in commercially minable quantities. You'll doubtless be scoffing" "What limp minded product of our left wing academic shaped belief systems prodced this misinformative crap?"

Try: Researchers at the Universities of Augsburg, Germany, and Yale University.

The insight here Politicalfootballfan, is that geology, depletion issues, runaway global ecosystem stress, limits to growth, deforestation, water crisis, desertification, etc., have nothing whastoever to do with "political views", which is a notion that you seem rather mired in. The extent of any given resource in the ground relative the daily and forward requirements of our proliferating (human rodent) population, which is busily chewing away at what's left, could not care in the slightest, of what "political persuasion" we are, nor whether our "political beliefs" were ever shaped by some fiendishly clever school board or cabal teachers acting as covert of subverters of freedom. Thus those of us who are still laboring under the assumption that the above depletion issues are merely symptoms of a "political / educational problem" [and to clarify - that means you], are actually the ones who are wandering around in a notable fog.

If you wish to deposit vastly condescending remarks about people here having been unwittingly moulded into such fantastic viewpoints concerning depletion issues by fiendishly clever elementary school teachers (and presumably later by their college professors), be prepared for one or another of us hapless brainwashed prducts to eventually light a firecracker under your complacent, sleepy-armchair derriere, just for the privilege of observing your startled look.

Reposted here from Chris Martenson's blogspace.

DEPLETION TABLE - ALL METALS - DETAIL.jpg

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newsc...200&print=true

http://www.science.org.au/nova/newsc..._005image2.jpg

QUOTE FROM THE NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE

From issue 2605 of New Scientist magazine, 23 May 2007, page 34-41
For the latest from New Scientiist visit www.newscientist.com

QUOTE # 01 -

These may sound like drastic solutions, but as Graedel points out in a paper published last year (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 1209), "Virgin stocks of several metals appear inadequate to sustain the modern 'developed world' quality of life for all of Earth's people under contemporary technology." And when resources run short, conflict is often not far behind. It is widely acknowledged that one of the key motives for civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1998 and 2002 was the riches to be had from the country's mineral resources, including tantalum mines - the biggest in Africa. The war coincided with a surge in the price of the metal caused by the increasing popularity of mobile phones (New Scientist, 7 April 2001, p 46).


QUOTE # 02 -

Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany, and his colleagues are among the few groups who have been investigating the problem. He estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium. Its impending scarcity could already be reflected in its price: in January 2003 the metal sold for around $60 per kilogram; by August 2006 the price had shot up to over $1000 per kilogram.

Uncertainties like this pose far-reaching questions. In particular, they call into doubt dreams that the planet might one day provide all its citizens with the sort of lifestyle now enjoyed in the west. A handful of geologists around the world have calculated the costs of new technologies in terms of the materials they use and the implications of their spreading to the developing world. All agree that the planet's booming population and rising standards of living are set to put unprecedented demands on the materials that only Earth itself can provide. Limitations on how much of these materials is available could even mean that some technologies are not worth pursuing long term.

Take the metal gallium, which along with indium is used to make indium gallium arsenide. This is the semiconducting material at the heart of a new generation of solar cells that promise to be up to twice as efficient as conventional designs. Reserves of both metals are disputed, but in a recent report René Kleijn, a chemist at Leiden University in the Netherlands, concludes that current reserves "would not allow a substantial contribution of these cells" to the future supply of solar electricity. He estimates gallium and indium will probably contribute to less than 1 per cent of all future solar cells - a limitation imposed purely by a lack of raw material.

To get a feel for the scale of the problem, we have turned to data from the US Geological Survey's annual reports and UN statistics on global population. This has allowed us to estimate the effect that increases in living standards will have on the time it will take for key minerals to run out (see Graphs). How many years, for instance, would these minerals last if every human on the planet were to consume them at just half the rate of an average US resident today?

The calculations are crude - they don't take into account any increase in demand due to new technologies, and also assume that current production equals consumption. Yet even based on these assumptions, they point to some alarming conclusions.

Without more recycling, antimony, which is used to make flame retardant materials, will run out in 15 years, silver in 10 and indium in under five. In a more sophisticated analysis, Reller has included the effects of new technologies, and projects how many years we have left for some key metals. He estimates that zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips - could be gone by 2017, and terbium - used to make the green phosphors in fluorescent light bulbs - could run out before 2012. It all puts our present rate of consumption into frightening perspective.

(see Diagram).

DEPLETION TABLE - ALL METALS - DETAIL 03.jpg

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

----nm----

[metalman]

Re: Peak Oil: Interview with Jay Hanson (Nov. 3, 2008)

First, I was under the impression that this was an Adult forum, where one could post their views without childish retribution or personal attacks and mockery. Have the moderators simply missed this thread, or is this simply the act of a rogue poster, or was I mistaken about the nature of this forum? Simply ignoring this behavior is a sign that it is condoned, so I'll be watching carefully.

luke, like the rest of us, goes off the deep end sometimes. we prefer to self-police. that's what a community does, right? you serve an apology. luke?

just looked and it appears the offending comment was edited out by fred.

Second, some incredibly strong arguments are being made by Hanson and those that appear to support his contentions in this thread, namely that:

(1) desertification, population overshoot, global water crisis, peak cheap oil, broad spectrum deterioration of mining yields, wholesale species decimation, runaway global ecosystem stress, limits to growth, deforestation, water crisis, etc. are all crisis issues confirmed through scientific study.

after the past few months, our doomer meters need re-calibration. it's not only the market optimists getting crushed, even the pessimists are raving polyanna. global depression will put a wee dent in oil demand, so peak cheap oil will go underground for years until it is forgotten. pollution issues will get thrown under the bus because we'll need to use the cheapest oil and that's not sweet light. we'll burn coal. shit, we'll burn furniture... whatever is readily available.

(2) the population of man is increasing globally and it is this population increase that is directly responsible for the crisis issues referred to in above item (1).

it's not increasing in japan or europe, as usual mostly in poor countries. depression should take care of that problem.

(3) the only manner to address and remedy the issues raised in above item (1) is to:

(a) drastically lower human population, with figures of 90% being circulated;
(b) put so-called experts in charge of managing the planet for the masses, as the masses are no longer capable of managing themselves or their own surroundings.

If this assessment is accurate, then this is perhaps the most bold leap of logic and faith that man has ever been asked to accept. Hence, this is not something that one is going to convince a thinking reader of in a single forum post or thread.

it's malthusian socialist nonsense made up by a guy who probably doesn't know how to set the clock on a coffee maker.

But given what I have read from think tanks, such as the Club of Rome as cited in an earlier post in this thread, I would contend that much of what is reported in mainstream sources referred to in above item (1) is propaganda in an effort to support the dialectical response postulated in above item (3)

club of rome was wrong the first time because we lacked the technology to find new oil supplies. recently we stopped finding new oil. a more practical line of discussion is how do we use less oil? that's not hard to do... we sure as hell waste a lot.

Further, one does not have to search far to see similar prognostications about population in history. As a starting point, I refer readers to the following:

• Charles Galton Darwin's (grandson of Charles Darwin) The Next Million Years, which demonstrates concern about over-population of inferior breeds of humans, while promoting superior breeds like himself and his lineage. You may also visit this blog, which has summarized the work.
• Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (pdf)

Interested readers will find quite an extensive library of pre-1950 writings that shed an entirely different light on these current calls to cull population and introduce 'expert' management of a previously self-directed population.

the usa just elected a black pres. the internet, movies, tv, jammed us all together and we're all more familiar to each other now. these ideas only work for groups in isolation. but... when things get tough, factions develop to fight for 'theirs'. populist pols rise to the occasion. that's the danger we face now, isn't it?