[ExI] Ignorant fear mongering (was Re: Doomsday Oil Price: (was RIP: Peak Oil))
brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Feb 25 13:10:48 UTC 2012
Hi faithless fear mongers,
It'd be really interesting to find out how many experts agree with this
kind of fear mongering, and if there are any better arguments for this
that any experts think are more valid.
These arguments still just seem silly, to me. Many people once claimed
we had reached peak oil, at last in the US. But even that is no longer
true right? Many people are now arguing we may be on track to start
approaching complete oil independence. I missed the original "RIP: Peak
Oil' article - was it about this? If so, to bad it, or the response
wasn't canonized, so it wouldn't be lost and repeated endlessly.
Obviously, I'm not an expert on this particular issue, but it seems to
me that electricity for use in cars and everything is exploding. And
nuclear energy, despite Fukushima, is continuing towards a big and safe
Renascence. (Their about to build a big new one here in Utah, already)
You mentioned that it would have been great to get started back in the
70s!!?? Do you know how many people launched in this dirrection back
then with billions of $$, only to lose their shirts, and everything,
because they were so successful at crashing the price of even oil for
such a long time? You, We, and Obama, seem to be failing to learn from
all that, and grossly repeating these mistakes, putting large money into
already completely failing institutions, just like last time.
It takes energy to get energy, pfffff... Yea, maybe for fossil fuels
and other similar primitive and dirty stuff. The FV output per cost
continues to rise exponentially, no additional energy required, right?
I'd bet the bang per energy research cost or work (as measured in non
automated human hours) is exponentially growing also, even for fossil
and other similar fuels.
Am I the only one that thinks it'd be valuable to survey to see just how
many experts there are in both sides of this issue, and what the experts
agree are the best reasons, and the morality of current society or the
general population, as compared to the experts, including trending, on
this? If you guys think this is such an important moral issue,
shouldn't you start some kind of petition, or something, somewhere, or
at least do something? Or are you just a lot of mistaken, noisy, non
expert, hot air, just wasting everyone's time and slowing things down
with such posts?
Who and how many, here, are on either side of this issue? Or does
nobody but me care what everyone else thinks, and why, and am I the only
one that tires of all these continuously repeated popular noisy mistakes
on either side?
For decades, before a few years ago, the same kinds of silly mistaken
noisy arguments were repeated in these groups, add infinitem, even more
than peak oil, about consciousness and qualia. Has anyone noticed that
nobody waists their time on any of that any more here? The same for the
importance of Friendly AI, even though there is much less expert
consensus emerging on that issue (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/16
) There is a clear expert consensus emerging on some critically
important moral issues on consciousness that were once lost in the
popular ignorant noise (i.e. the popular wisdom is being significantly
amplified, or at least finally catching up with the expert's at a faster
rate). It appears the emerging expert consensus is we're on the verge
of the greatest scientific discovery of all time in that field: The
effing discovery of the relationship or mapping between subjective
experience or quale and the underlying neural correlates. It's so fun
to be able to say things like that, without fear of starting yet another
many month infinitely repetitive, conversation war, with the noisy
clueless masses, as it once would surely have done, before we even got
to that level. (If you don't know why this is, see the clear emerging
state of the moral art expert consensus camp:
On 2/25/2012 4:40 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:01:22PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>> I see the point, and wonder whether in fact we are not already in such a
>> OTOH, rather than going for a replacement with lower-EROI alternatives
>> which is becoming increasingly unlikely for the reasons explained therein,
>> perhaps we should make use of whatever resources we can still put on the
>> table for breakthrough-oriented research programmes.
> We pretty much know where to sink the bulk of the money and resources
> we still have (which are going, going, gone) -- it's increasing electrification wherever
> possible, energy conservation in nonessential areas, synfuels, thin-film
> PV and so on -- I could give a long list but nobody will read it, so I won't.
> There's sure some low hanging fruit in R&D still but we no longer can
> afford throwing around rapidly evaporating funds for high-risk high-payoff stuff.
> That's because we've waited to long, the right time would have been
> early 1970s (some early projects were started then but were cut in
> early 1980s because people are poor in foresight).
> Now we're out of time and money, need to focus on boring, sure winner areas.
> Deploying rather than developing. Germany does some of that, but also
> too little, too late.
> I'm sure many people will fail to see the lesson nevermind to learn from it,
> and will fail to assign blame where blame belongs.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat