Economic peak oil explained....

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

How big is big enough? Is 500000 too small to have fun in? How about 1000000? How many 1000000 areas are needed to have lots and lots of fun?

What kind of "fun" can you possibly have in a city that you can't have in the country? Sure, there are some fun things, like spending an evening in bed with a compatible person of the opposite sexual persuasion, you can do anywhere, but I think even that is more fun if you've spent the afternoon hiking or skiing together.

[Frank Lee]

Yeah, I don't know, I could sure drive to any number of cities to seek "fun" but I don't because I hate 'em.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by slowmover

[B]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially-crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Who are you quoting? Or is this your own pseudo-analysis presented in an officious way?

The implication is that if any one enjoys either book for any reason, that they must have an "emotionally stunted, socially-crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world".

Wow. That's certainly "tarring with a broad brush"... ...but I'm not surprised by the tactic.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

What kind of "fun" can you possibly have in a city that you can't have in the country? Sure, there are some fun things, like spending an evening in bed with a compatible person of the opposite sexual persuasion, you can do anywhere, but I think even that is more fun if you've spent the afternoon hiking or skiing together.

Some like to go to Broadway shows or attend things like orchestral concerts or visit great art museums. Do you have those institutions in a rural community?

Obviously these activities are of little interest to many who live in rural areas. Yet NY is full of tourists who come here to see what is not available elsewhere. (BTW, hiking is done here too, but the scenery is rather different. )

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by slowmover

If the chart is vague, you should point out where.

The lack of any numbers is glaring; or not defining "prosperity"; and the missing part that shows how all other variables were controlled to show the corelation is due to the suggested causation.

No, it's testament to profit being a greater perceived good than human welfare, dignity and the rest.

Are we a society based on property, or on people? You should read more deeply into this. The poor society -- in all it's aspects -- is the one you describe. It misses the purpose of government altogether.

I'm with you on the profit comment. I spend a good deal of time trying to figure out how one can grow a vastly profitable business while remaining ethical and treating people as an end to themselves.

Unfortunately, most individuals are increadibly selfish. The only way a company can survive is to respond with its own self-interest. These competing self-interests bring about a ballance. Imagine for a moment, a business that is run entirely by democracy; the workers themselves voting for their own wages. Would such a company survive years down the road, or even just a day?

Do you set the rules to benefit a minority, or is your idea of a just society based on maximizing opportunity for all?

My philosophy is old-school and not popular amoung our progressive society. The justness of an action is intrinsic to the motivation behind the action, not the outcome. This idea is a bit abstract, but let me put it this way; robbing Peter to pay Paul does justice neither to Peter nor to Paul.

To answer your question, rules should be set such that reward is proportionate to the value of the labor and talent that one contributes. This is justice, and it has nothing to do with majorities or minorites.

Do not confuse opportunity with assets. Opportunity is not tangible. Maximizing opportunity for all - means having a universal set of laws that do not discriminate based on race, gender, or creed.

Native Americans are the most subsidized group in America, and the poorest. They are given more "opportunity" (assets) than other groups, but achieve the least with what they are given.

The Peak Oil connection to any of this is: At a time when the economy is in the toilet (in no small part due to speculators and the capture of government by giant private forces), Americans (among others) will have to make changes in their lives where -- for the first time in about 300-years -- there is not cheaply-acquired energy as a sop, a backstop to expensive changes. Individually or societally. Whether the economy stumbles along (reset, reset, reset) the costs will continue to rise (not just inflation). There will come a point where what people are able to pay for energy -- and what is available at a price they can afford -- will diverge.

Prosperity and consumption go hand in hand. If availability of consumables decreases, so must prosperity.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But we have already foregone art and music. Little if any has been created in the last century, and we can nowadays put most of what there is on a good hard drive.

As much as I appreciate form following function, it saddens me that we don't give more attention to asthetics. When we vacation and want to see magnificent works of art, often we flock to the old things; the Sistine Chapel, for instance.

My hometown has beautiful government buildings made of marble and gold, but if new facilities were constructed today, people would be outraged if it were made of anything other than steel and drywall.

[gone-ot]

"BEAUTY" is in the eyes (and minds) of the beholders. Some appreciate antiquity & history more than new & newer.

[jtbo]

There is report that reviews over 500 scientific studies about peak oil subject:
Global Oil Depletion | UK Energy Research Centre

All I know is that too many people that are in too big position in oil industry have expressed their concerns about consumption rate overtaking production level, so we would face crisis even we produce more oil than before.

But there is another part to it, that is if production level will still keep increasing or if it starts to decrease and that would truly make s*it hit the fan.

For me it looks like that average joe loses freedom of driving gas powered cars between 2030 and 2050, but there is chance for that to happen even earlier.

There will probably not be alternative before it happens so it will lead changes to societies, way we do things might change.

I have not seen enough good studies that could put this thing to rest.

Car makers are waking up and putting up low consumption vehicles already, but I doubt that there is enough time to make all vehicles turned over. However there is reason for car makers to start making low consumption production models, studies etc, they need time to perfect the product and without reason they would not do barely profitable car models, general public is not yet that eco from my understanding.

If things go to direction how it looks it would go based on all this information I have seen, I believe that goverments will try to keep airplanes filled and trains going, then buses, of course armies would be priority 1, but that is clear without mentioning, I just wonder how they plan to handle house market as people need to move closer to where they work, that will probably make huge mess, also local producing might become new trend.

However I think that time of issues might move forward a bit as consumption does not increase as steeply with prices high.

Overall I consider it being good thing, there might be such changes that make way of living much more sensible in future, this global competing and ever more growth might get bit of time out at that moment.

I still can't say that such event would be certain, it is just something that look plausible, but when we live we see. I have my field to grow food, lake to fish, if electricity becomes too expensive I can live without it, if food becomes expensive I can grow my own, it seems that I have already stopped driving car so I guess I'm prepared for worse already, with hard working I can live without leaving from my property, no money needed.