EnergySkeptic | When it comes to scientific topics like peak oil and climate change, are people’s opinions based on optimism, or ignorance? Does optimism prevent people from even obtaining the information that would make them less optimistic?
I think that it’s okay people don’t understand the situation we’re in because there’s nothing that can be done, we’ve so way, way, way overshot carrying capacity locally, regionally, and globally. If people did realize the real situation, the financial system would have already collapsed when Science announced peak oil happened sometime in 2005 and the IEA said peak happened in 2006. That means our economy can’t grow endlessly and the entire credit/debts-payed-off system no longer works. As long as people think other kinds of energy will seamlessly replace oil and don’t know how much their lives depend on oil, civilization continues, and when it crashes, will crash that much harder and faster, perhaps our only hope of preventing our extinction (and millions of other species).
I think that it’s okay people don’t understand the situation we’re in because there’s nothing that can be done, we’ve so way, way, way overshot carrying capacity locally, regionally, and globally. If people did realize the real situation, the financial system would have already collapsed when Science announced peak oil happened sometime in 2005 and the IEA said sometime in 2006. That means our economy can’t grow endlessly and the entire credit/debts-payed-off system no longer works. As long as people think other kinds of energy will seamlessly replace oil and don’t know how much their lives depend on oil, civilization continues, and when it crashes, will crash that much harder and faster, perhaps our only hope of preventing our extinction (and millions of other species).
5 comments:
No objection on peak oil, or on boneheaded over-optimism on 'alternative' energy sources.
But I am disappointed that he sets oil vs wind & solar and seems to ignore coal.
Regarding optimism and skepticism, as with most other human behavior, the roots are *genetic*...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914101746.htm
BD only said the *ROOTS* were genetic. You can train a pit bull to be gentle with your toddlers. But some of them may suddenly revert to their genetic rootsand attack. A problem like that is far less likely with cocker spaniels. The difference is,of course, in the DNA...no guarantees, just statistical tendencies. We haven't heard from Mahndisa lately, always wondered if her bulldog ate that cute lil guy...
So you're urging CNu to get his'ns away from us'ns pronto, before we revert? May be good advice; fracked if I know.
lol,
still on about the dogs, once again, (always) forgetting that the lack of reflective, subjective self-awareness (language based on generative grammar) makes the non-talking and thus non-subjectively self-aware species far more bound to instinct and less capable of behavioral modification. you really should read Jaynes and get a better handle on what separates you from the non-talking species.
Post a Comment