Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 33Vortex on July 15, 2008, 04:24:31 PM
-
A purely factual series of films concerning mathematic science, growth rates and the world's natural resources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related
And yes, it's worth watching all 8 parts of it, or what you post won't we worth the pixels it takes up.
-
*bump*
-
Im on part 5, its very interesting. I doubt you will get many here who will watch it though.
-
Yeah, I know. Ignorance is bliss eh?
I like this quote: "Ignoring facts does not make them go away."
Certainly the case with most people, including the majority of this community.
-
You sure do think highly of yourself...
-
Yeah, I know. Ignorance is bliss eh?
I like this quote: "Ignoring facts does not make them go away."
Certainly the case with most people, including the majority of this community.
With an average time length of 9 1/2 minutes per video I'd say
No. Its more like people dont feel like sitting through over an hours with of videos.
I may watch it later. when I have time to pay attention to something that long.
but with wife ack. kid ack. and life ack. That hour+ worth of videos will easily take several hours to watch
-
With an average time length of 9 1/2 minutes per video I'd say
No. Its more like people dont feel like sitting through over an hours with of videos.
I may watch it later. when I have time to pay attention to something that long.
but with wife ack. kid ack. and life ack. That hour+ worth of videos will easily take several hours to watch
It really is a shame that it is so, because it is indeed worth your time, but I totally understand your reasons.
-
A purely factual series of films concerning mathematic science, growth rates and the world's natural resources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related
And yes, it's worth watching all 8 parts of it, or what you post won't we worth the pixels it takes up.
I'm not able to listen to it right now, but I automatically distrust anything that is presented to me right away as "Purely Factual."
Life experiences have taught me that "Purely Factual" presentations, rarely are.
-
I'm not able to listen to it right now, but I automatically distrust anything that is presented to me right away as "Purely Factual."
Life experiences have taught me that "Purely Factual" presentations, rarely are.
This is a university lecture by a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ. of Colorado-Boulder, and you're saying it's not factual? (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_hm.gif)
Allow me to question your judgement, and perception.
-
This is a university lecture by a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ. of Colorado-Boulder, and you're saying it's not factual? (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_hm.gif)
Allow me to question your judgement, and perception.
If you think that being a professor of something automatically makes them an expert and MOST IMPORTANTLY correct about what they are speaking, then you are foolish beyond hope.
-
I dare you to watch the film. Are you scared of what it might tell you? I find it amusing that you spend so much time on the boards posting about it that you could have watched the film instead and maybe learned something new. :)
-
I'm not able to listen to it right now, but I automatically distrust anything that is presented to me right away as "Purely Factual."
Life experiences have taught me that "Purely Factual" presentations, rarely are.
Lazer,
When did a Phd in Physics transmute into a Phd in Natural resources ????? Did I miss something at Maryland in the physics department? Don't tell me this will turn into another: "because Al Gore said it it's true", or "we have to worship at the feet of Phd's because they are smarter than all of us combined". Sounds like somebody hasent been through a first mortgage or tryed to put 2 kids through Stanford kinda young and impressionable.
-
This is a university lecture by a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ. of Colorado-Boulder, and you're saying it's not factual?
That about does it for me then. Not waisting time on another pay to sayer.
We have an overrun and overstock of them as it is.
-
That about does it for me then. Not waisting time on another pay to sayer.
We have an overrun and overstock of them as it is.
That's just priceless!
-
I dare you to watch the film. Are you scared of what it might tell you? I find it amusing that you spend so much time on the boards posting about it that you could have watched the film instead and maybe learned something new. :)
I will watch the film. I'm just telling you that you're a bad salesman.
"A political film with Pure Facts? GASP! I've never seen that before! Nor have I ever seen an ivory tower elite speaking about something outside of his area of expertise to blatantly malleable communistic youth! This will enlighten me!"
-
That's just priceless!
They are actually coming at a very high price. :)
-
33 didn't sell this very well.
So far it isn't political. Its about exponential growth and what numbers like 7% growth a year really mean if you look at the numbers.
It looks at some very interesting subjects and the math behind them. Some is shocking at times.
I would say its worth the time, if you don't mind listening to a fairly dry old guy, but he is funny at times.
-
I will watch the film. I'm just telling you that you're a bad salesman.
"A political film with Pure Facts? GASP! I've never seen that before! Nor have I ever seen an ivory tower elite speaking about something outside of his area of expertise to blatantly malleable communistic youth! This will enlighten me!"
The way you are talking, I'm sure it will, but only if you allow it. The ball is yours, now what to do with it is up to you.
-
33 didn't sell this very well.
I'm not into sales ok. Salesmen are just like politicians, can't stand them. :D
-
LOl..it is a pretty funny vid.. I commented on it in the climate thread.. exponentialism is what gave us "the population bomb" that was gonna have us shoulder to shoulder by the year 2000...
It gave us the movie soylent green and.. if you do the math.. the planet would be covered 3 feet deep in ants by now.
by his logic.. 50 years from now.. my house will use more electricity than all the electricity produced by man so far.
We would have already run out of everything by now according to him if you would simply pick one point in history and go all exponential on some product.
If you took the growth of the buggy whip industry for instance at 10% a year from the year 1250 till now.. there would not be a cow or leather bearing animal alive today.
Things change NOTHING in the world is exponential for very long.
It is junk science at it's worst.
He should be ashamed... but he isn't because to him.. the end justifies the means. sooo he is packing these little mush headed kids full of his BS.
lazs
-
Laz your a funny guy, "junk science". "If you took the growth of the buggy whip industry for instance at 10% a year from the year 1250 till now.. there would not be a cow or leather bearing animal alive today." Thats great stuff, but not at all relevant to what he is saying. He's saying if something continues growing at a predictable rate, then we can predict the outcome. "Things change NOTHING in the world is exponential for very long." He never said all things grow the same, you just added that in for your own benefit. It's pretty straight forward math.
-
Are y'all sure the dude's "PhD" isn't hanging in the Garage, ie...Post Hole Digger. :D
-
That's just priceless!
And very typical of the O Club..
-
Yeah there are a lot of no-brainers around here. The horde mentality clearly shine through.
lazs2:
Your logic is flawed, and you take his arguments out of context, making them something they are not. It's hipocracy, as what you are saying that he is saying, is not what he actually is saying. So, either you do not understand what he is saying, or you do not want to. Like Mojava said, it's pretty straight forward math.
-
i like to use the word exponential , it makes people think i are smart.
also. quantum is a good word to use.
-
It is junk science at it's worst.
:rofl
Just some 8th grade math, Lazs, and in any case, every single sentence in that video makes more sense than all of your radioactive posts here combined.
-
Lazs has guns, you better agree with him. :D
-
Lazs has guns, you better agree with him. :D
LOL and probably unlimited supply of ammo
-
Again, ignorance does not make facts disappear. :lol
As an example, lazs may shoot us all, but that won't make his **** any bigger.
Did I go too far? It's all in good humor, nothing personal, I'm sure lazs is a great guy. :)
-
all I can say is...........bwahahahahahahah ahahahahaha what a tool!
-
For those who do not have the patience to sit through a hour of propaganda video you can read the transcript here (http://globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645) in about 10 minutes or so.
-
I make my own ammo.. it is exponential with no end in sight.. I will have to clear ammo away just to be able to shoot you at some point.
I am not taking things out of context.. the guy is a loon... My example of the buggy whip industry was exactly.... spot frigging on... no one in 1250 thought that the buggy whip industry was ever gonna do anything but grow exponentially..
Just as this empty headed buffoon doesn't see anything changing on the supply or demand side or the tech side or the nature side.
He can't tell us what we will have next year or what the global temp will be.. HE CAN NOT yet.. you sit and listen to his mental masturbation like he was some nostrodamus or something..
He may be great at math but he is no seer. Math can't predict when it leaves out the variables.
lazs
-
You guys really are labeling yourselves with your own statements.
You gain what, by calling a honest, intelligent, hard working fellow american a tool? A better self confidence? It's pathetic.
-
he is a great mathamatician.. math is important.
He went way past what he knows tho so yes.. he is a fool. It is the same as if he proved by math that I needed to go to the same barber as him.
lazs
-
He went way past what he knows tho so yes.. he is a fool.
Is there a possibility here, that you are going way past of what you know?
-
He explains what steady growth will do to many things in life.
He also explains positive growth can not exist forever with finite resources available.
This man is no fool. Fishing is a common sport in these parts, which makes it more difficult to see what people truely believe in what they post.
-
I make my own ammo.. it is exponential with no end in sight.. I will have to clear ammo away just to be able to shoot you at some point.
I am not taking things out of context.. the guy is a loon... My example of the buggy whip industry was exactly.... spot frigging on... no one in 1250 thought that the buggy whip industry was ever gonna do anything but grow exponentially..
Just as this empty headed buffoon doesn't see anything changing on the supply or demand side or the tech side or the nature side.
He can't tell us what we will have next year or what the global temp will be.. HE CAN NOT yet.. you sit and listen to his mental masturbation like he was some nostrodamus or something..
He may be great at math but he is no seer. Math can't predict when it leaves out the variables.
lazs
:rofl
OK Lazs, lets leave that "junk science" alone and lets do some real science, err simple math and/or reasoning.
Do you know that every time you post, the number of illegal immigrants increases by 140? It means you are directly responsible for about 3,392,060 illegals.
If you stop posting here, you'll save our country and you'll be a patriot, a hero, maybe even congressional medal of honor in the lineup. If you continue, illegals will keep coming and I'll have to assume that you're one of those illegal immigrants harboring liberal socialist metrosexual communists.
So, which one you'll be?
-
he explains how things would go on some planet that is based on pure math and does not exist.
lazs
-
2bighorn... you must have listened in on one of the good professors lectures.
I imagine that you will be able to predict the future too once you go to enough lectures.
lazs
-
2bighorn... you must have listened in on one of the good professors lectures.
I imagine that you will be able to predict the future too once you go to enough lectures.
lazs
Well, since you don't trust the junk science, there's only one way to disapprove my claim. Have a year break and then we'll count the buggers.
-
If Jesse James would have had a PHD everything would have been cool.
I applaud Jesse for at least having the common courtesy of using a gun.
-
I got 2.5 videos in before it stopped loading.
What the guy said can be described pretty easily. diddly-all. He said absolutely nothing earth shattering, mind blowing, or possibly feet numbing. He put large numbers on the screen in an effort to make them seem large, without putting context up next to them. A 45k house to a 2.5 million dollar house seems outrageous, til you remember that a 45k salary will become 2.5 million dollars in the same amount of time.
Not to mention HIS situation which degrades his point. He's a professor of physics, teaching mathematics, in an economics form.
To someone who has never been to college, that doesn't mean much. But in reality it means that he's not competent enough to teach anything else. This guy who wears those gay little ties can't even teach in his own field.
-
Not to mention HIS situation which degrades his point. He's a professor of physics, teaching mathematics, in an economics form.
So if I turn that statement around I shouldn't listen to any economists who comes up with numbers?
I mean, the economists calculate and measure production, distribution, and consumption with numbers, i.e. math? Or I'm off a bit?
But in reality it means that he's not competent enough to teach anything else. This guy who wears those gay little ties can't even teach in his own field.
In reality, If same measure applies to you, you're not qualified to assess his competency about anything but gay ties.
-
He is repeating Thomas Malthus via a math lecture without saying point blank that some of us lesser peons haven't been deing on schedual because of the benifits of modern technology. We don't have world wars, epidemics or world famins anymore so we breed like bunnies. And the majority of us bunnies are not Phd material so we are just taking up space.
I hear this from Ivory Tower Liberals and the young idealists who carry their water every few years. You notice after identifying the problem he is neither volintering to commit suicide nor suggest a solution. Mostly the veild condensention towords how stupid most of us are.
Malthus also saw that societies through history had experienced at one time or another epidemics, famines, or wars: events that masked the fundamental problem of populations overstretching their resource limitations:
"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
-
He is repeating Thomas Malthus via a math lecture without saying point blank that some of us lesser peons haven't been deing on schedual because of the benifits of modern technology. We don't have world wars, epidemics or world famins anymore so we breed like bunnies. And the majority of us bunnies are not Phd material so we are just taking up space.
Apart from moral standpoint, if you look at the world, do you see different picture?
-
When he hangs himself in the town square with a sign saying:
"I have the moral strength to do my part!"
I might consider listening to him except his presentation shows his self admiration and contempt for the unwashed masses who is anyone that cannot dialouge in mathmatics at the base level he would pass you in his class. He presents himslef as being more worthy to survive by virtue that he is giving the lecture.
Based on his criterea, I will venture only those with the brains to vote for obama the messiah are worthy to live in his ideology.
-
Here it is in simple math :aok
World Oil Reserves = 1,317.447 billion barrels / information from the US DOE
WOR = 1,317,447 million barrels
World Oil Production = 80+- million barrels per day / from the US CIA :noid
Time left to end of production (keeping use constant and no more huge discoveies)(China has seen huge increase of oil use in the last 5 years likewise so has India)
(1,317,447/80)/365= 45.118 years
At the rate of use today we will be out of oil in 45+- years. This may not happen but 20 - 25 years from now there could be great shortages
-
I might consider listening to him except his presentation shows his self admiration and contempt for the unwashed masses who is anyone that cannot dialouge in mathmatics at the base level he would pass you in his class. He presents himslef as being more worthy to survive by virtue that he is giving the lecture.
I didn't see it that way. Looks more like some of your issues are skewing your perception. He is just putting some numbers, which many are throwing around, into perspective.
Chinese had to put brakes on population growth and they succeeded without mass killings (for the most part). If we as a nation are superior, as many here would claim, we can tackle that problem easily.
-
except that those are estimated reserves. in fact no one knows what the reserves really are, they guess at stuff like that. what really boggles my mind is how arrogant some of us truly are. if we take the common opinion that the earth is three billion years old ( I don't believe it but I'll play along) and that man has been here 200,000 years we are talking about a fairly insignificant period of time. consider also that every person who has ever lived plus all of us currently living can comfortably stand in duval county florida results in the fact that we aren't really taking up so much space. if the industrial revolution is not quite 200 years in progress I think it is pretty arrogant of us to think our species is doing any real long term harm to the planet. I think the planet has seen far worse than what man has done or will ever do. silly chicken littles. but please by all means keep posting these gems they are worth much in the way of comedy.
-
in fact no one knows what the reserves really are, they guess at stuff like that.
Smarty, tell me, of what use are oil reserves which we don't know about?
-
I read the transcript. He is not ready to die. His tone is condencention that the rest of the world is blind to what is simple to him.
China controled population by putting people in jail for hiding extra children and forcing abortions on women. China now has an imbalance of males to females which is more of the reason their population has slowed it's growth. Chinese families want male children fro economic success. Most of china is rural and agrarian. Agrarian cultures breed like rabbits to cover deaths, have hands to work the feilds and as old age support policies.
As china follows western trends in modernising, it's educated women will stop making babies and embrace feminism. India is begining to see a similare trend in educated women. Education + feminism = population decline.
As Laz pointed out pure math don't cover things like the impact of educating women and birth rate declines as a response.
-
I am at work so I can not read the entirety of this professor's dialogue, but:
Does his exponential math take into account mass starvation due to current energy costs, global plagues, or a third global war? My bet is one of the above I have mentioned will happen long before we run out of resources.
Lastly, what would our world population be right now had the black death not swept through the old world in the 1100's.
-
except that those are estimated reserves. in fact no one knows what the reserves really are, they guess at stuff like that. what really boggles my mind is how arrogant some of us truly are. if we take the common opinion that the earth is three billion years old ( I don't believe it but I'll play along) and that man has been here 200,000 years we are talking about a fairly insignificant period of time. consider also that every person who has ever lived plus all of us currently living can comfortably stand in duval county florida results in the fact that we aren't really taking up so much space. if the industrial revolution is not quite 200 years in progress I think it is pretty arrogant of us to think our species is doing any real long term harm to the planet. I think the planet has seen far worse than what man has done or will ever do. silly chicken littles. but please by all means keep posting these gems they are worth much in the way of comedy.
We are not doing any harm to the planet whatsoever. We are only hurting ourselves, the planet can continue to live without us, it's in no way dependant on us or our well-being. However, we are totally dependant on this planet.
We will never run out of oil, that's a fact. Oil can be produced in many ways. Another fact is that oil will become very expensive. Perhaps much sooner than we think, nobody really knows when but it will happen. When that happens (difficult or impossible to determine exactly at which point) people like you and I will not afford a car. It could potentially crash the entire economic system, causing mass unemployment and loss in production. Lack of food, famine, disease, you name it.
The only way we have currently at hand, to limit or perhaps even nullify the effects of these facts, is to transfer to a sustainable way of life. Not for the well being of the planet, but for our own well being. The planet doesn't give a **** about us. :)
-
We are not doing any harm to the planet whatsoever. We are only hurting ourselves, the planet can continue to live without us, it's in no way dependant on us or our well-being. However, we are totally dependant on this planet.
We will never run out of oil, that's a fact. Oil can be produced in many ways. Another fact is that oil will become very expensive. Perhaps much sooner than we think, nobody really knows when but it will happen. When that happens (difficult or impossible to determine exactly at which point) people like you and I will not afford a car. It could potentially crash the entire economic system, causing mass unemployment and loss in production. Lack of food, famine, disease, you name it.
The only way we have currently at hand, to limit or perhaps even nullify the effects of these facts, is to transfer to a sustainable way of life. Not for the well being of the planet, but for our own well being. The planet doesn't give a **** about us. :)
deja vu
-
I read the transcript. He is not ready to die. His tone is condencention that the rest of the world is blind to what is simple to him.
Just watch the videos, you're missing a lot with the transcript.
China controled population by putting people in jail for hiding extra children and forcing abortions on women. China now has an imbalance of males to females which is more of the reason their population has slowed it's growth. Chinese families want male children fro economic success. Most of china is rural and agrarian. Agrarian cultures breed like rabbits to cover deaths, have hands to work the feilds and as old age support policies.
Chinese population control is indeed controversial, but nobody can deny it hasn't been successful. Depends which study you look at, the policy reduces net growth anywhere from 50 to 300 million people per year. Policy has been in place since 1979. If we take the lowest number, that's still whooping 1.4 billion people.
Do you think that China's resources could successfully support such population increase without disastrous effect to their economy and environment?
As china follows western trends in modernising, it's educated women will stop making babies and embrace feminism. India is begining to see a similare trend in educated women. Education + feminism = population decline.
In terms of resources, that's just shifting from one end to another. Modernization means consumption increase = higher energy demand per capita.
As Laz pointed out pure math don't cover things like the impact of educating women and birth rate declines as a response.
How does it not?
-
Does his exponential math take into account mass starvation due to current energy costs, global plagues, or a third global war? My bet is one of the above I have mentioned will happen long before we run out of resources.
Bodhi, all the man does is showing how the math is often misused and misunderstood, when applied inside other science fields, media and politics and possible resulting errors in predicting and planning the future.
The only opinion or advice he gave to the students is to think about those numbers and what they mean at the times.
-
All praise BigHorn because he will save us by unlocking the secret of the cashmere effect and unlimited energy from quantum foam and ZPE. Untill then BH the malthusian answer you and that math Phd seem unable to blurt out is start steralising 7% of babies world wide every 7 months for the next 70 years.........or substitute uthinise for steralise. Margret Sanger has bigger balls, she wrote a whole essay on the subject. It got lotsa play in europe in the 20's and 30's.
I don't see you or the Math Phd volinteering though......I'm holding out for the cashmere effect. It will get us off the planet if the feminists dont make men with backbones extinct by then.
Well then does anyone on this board wanna sign up to do the right thing in the town square? I'll supply the rope......guess we all see ourselves in the Math phd's position of being too important. But then by Margret Sangers standards our ability to dialoge this conversation makes us worthy to live and breed......
Soooo...BigHorn who do we throw out the door to lighten mothership earth then?
-
Bustr BH is just pointing out that (from what it sounds like to me, I can't be arsed to look at the transcript) the professor is making a math/statistics point without implying anything by it.
Here:He is repeating Thomas Malthus via a math lecture without saying point blank that some of us lesser peons haven't been deing on schedual because of the benifits of modern technology. We don't have world wars, epidemics or world famins anymore so we breed like bunnies. And the majority of us bunnies are not Phd material so we are just taking up space.
I hear this from Ivory Tower Liberals and the young idealists who carry their water every few years. You notice after identifying the problem he is neither volintering to commit suicide nor suggest a solution. Mostly the veild condensention towords how stupid most of us are.
I agree with TMalthus, if that's what he said. I don't see how it HAS to lead to the rest of what you describe in your post. I completely agree that the world population growth is outpacing its contribution to tech/sci/art (the latter to a lesser degree imo) progress. It's like so many brains born and dead while consuming so much, without giving human progress their contributive little push.
If they did, we probably wouldn't have to worry as much about resources consumption (incl overcrowding).
-
All praise BigHorn because he will save us by unlocking the secret of the cashmere effect and unlimited energy from quantum foam and ZPE. Untill then BH the malthusian answer you and that math Phd seem unable to blurt out is start steralising 7% of babies world wide every 7 months for the next 70 years.........or substitute uthinise for steralise. Margret Sanger has bigger balls, she wrote a whole essay on the subject. It got lotsa play in europe in the 20's and 30's.
I don't see you or the Math Phd volinteering though......I'm holding out for the cashmere effect. It will get us off the planet if the feminists dont make men with backbones extinct by then.
Well then does anyone on this board wanna sign up to do the right thing in the town square? I'll supply the rope......guess we all see ourselves in the Math phd's position of being too important. But then by Margret Sangers standards our ability to dialoge this conversation makes us worthy to live and breed......
Soooo...BigHorn who do we throw out the door to lighten mothership earth then?
Ah come on, now you're being melodramatic.
When couple decides not to have more children, because their economic situation wouldn't allow proper care, it is matter of common sense and not eugenics.
When gas prices skyrocket due to oil supply and demand issues, it is common sense to have more efficient cars no matter how big (or small) oil reserves are.
When some professor gives a lecture on how math is (mis)used, he is not predicting end of the world nor he's making suggestion to kill off half the world population. It's just something for the students to think about.
On the other side, when fast breeding bunnies have no sense whatsoever, probably somebody else will have to decide what's good for them...
-
Smarty, tell me, of what use are oil reserves which we don't know about?
think things through lad, by anyone's figures there is enough oil readily available for between the coming 50-150 years.
now are we sitting idly by waiting for impending doom as we consume our way to the planet's core? most likely not. that is to say that there are cadre of people working on solving these potential problems.
let's not bother discussing the massive coal reserves which by any measure far outweigh petroleum reserves and that coal could be utilized as a viable liquid fuel.
lord forbid that we generate all electicity globally from nuclear fission and continue solving nuclear fusion as an energy source. lastly by anyone's reckoning we are due for another viral pandemic. as I'm sure a well read person like yourself knows the last one killed more people globally in 1918 than four years of european war did. the combination of the two claiming some 200,000,000 fellow planetary inhabitants.
as I have stated often enough the planet is well able to shrug off the effects of humainty we ain't all that and a bag of chips.
-
We are not doing any harm to the planet whatsoever. We are only hurting ourselves, the planet can continue to live without us, it's in no way dependant on us or our well-being. However, we are totally dependant on this planet.
We will never run out of oil, that's a fact. Oil can be produced in many ways. Another fact is that oil will become very expensive. Perhaps much sooner than we think, nobody really knows when but it will happen. When that happens (difficult or impossible to determine exactly at which point) people like you and I will not afford a car. It could potentially crash the entire economic system, causing mass unemployment and loss in production. Lack of food, famine, disease, you name it.
The only way we have currently at hand, to limit or perhaps even nullify the effects of these facts, is to transfer to a sustainable way of life. Not for the well being of the planet, but for our own well being. The planet doesn't give a **** about us. :)
we are one good pandemic from being a former occupant. barring massive skuzzification in industrial quantities we have more to worry about in the form of virus than any other potential threat facing humankind.
-
think things through lad, by anyone's figures there is enough oil readily available for between the coming 50-150 years.
now are we sitting idly by waiting for impending doom as we consume our way to the planet's core? most likely not. that is to say that there are cadre of people working on solving these potential problems.
let's not bother discussing the massive coal reserves which by any measure far outweigh petroleum reserves and that coal could be utilized as a viable liquid fuel.
lord forbid that we generate all electicity globally from nuclear fission and continue solving nuclear fusion as an energy source. lastly by anyone's reckoning we are due for another viral pandemic. as I'm sure a well read person like yourself knows the last one killed more people globally in 1918 than four years of european war did. the combination of the two claiming some 200,000,000 fellow planetary inhabitants.
as I have stated often enough the planet is well able to shrug off the effects of humainty we ain't all that and a bag of chips.
Storch, you're businessman, you well know that if you have to switch to another product, a little planning ahead of time can mean difference between very painful and a little less painful transition. Perhaps and preferably, one with no pain at all.
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #2
-
Here it is in simple math :aok
World Oil Reserves = 1,317.447 billion barrels / information from the US DOE
WOR = 1,317,447 million barrels
World Oil Production = 80+- million barrels per day / from the US CIA :noid
Time left to end of production (keeping use constant and no more huge discoveies)(China has seen huge increase of oil use in the last 5 years likewise so has India)
(1,317,447/80)/365= 45.118 years
At the rate of use today we will be out of oil in 45+- years. This may not happen but 20 - 25 years from now there could be great shortages
Smarty, tell me, of what use are oil reserves which we don't know about?
Sample link here (http://en.rian.ru/business/20080403/102918423.html) of why the math of oil depletion is completely useless. For those too lazy to click, it says Russia's proven oil reserves grew by 8% last year.
Here (http://www.topix.com/world/2008/05/venezuelas-oil-reserves-swell-to-130-bln-barrels) is one that describes a 30 billion increase in Venezuela's proven oil reserves.
Basically and simply stated, when we actually look for oil, we find it.
Said another way, the same people who are telling you today that we will run out of oil in 40 years were saying the exact same thing about 40 years ago.
-
See Rule #2
-
Sample link here (http://en.rian.ru/business/20080403/102918423.html) of why the math of oil depletion is completely useless. For those too lazy to click, it says Russia's proven oil reserves grew by 8% last year.
Here (http://www.topix.com/world/2008/05/venezuelas-oil-reserves-swell-to-130-bln-barrels) is one that describes a 30 billion increase in Venezuela's proven oil reserves.
Basically and simply stated, when we actually look for oil, we find it.
Said another way, the same people who are telling you today that we will run out of oil in 40 years were saying the exact same thing about 40 years ago.
there you go confusing the youngsters with fact again. where's MP3 when you really need him?
-
Sample link here (http://en.rian.ru/business/20080403/102918423.html) of why the math of oil depletion is completely useless. For those too lazy to click, it says Russia's proven oil reserves grew by 8% last year.
Here (http://www.topix.com/world/2008/05/venezuelas-oil-reserves-swell-to-130-bln-barrels) is one that describes a 30 billion increase in Venezuela's proven oil reserves.
Basically and simply stated, when we actually look for oil, we find it.
Said another way, the same people who are telling you today that we will run out of oil in 40 years were saying the exact same thing about 40 years ago.
How does that help us and our dependency on foreign oil? Besides Venezuela is OPEC country. They artificially increase reserves time to time in order to rise their quotas (which all OPEC members are guilty of).
Russian reserves aren't so big, so increase of 8% doesn't mean much. Maybe 5 billion barrels or so.
The US oil shale deposits contain about 2,500 gigabarrels of recoverable oil and they already are pilot projects in place. Even so, we have to reach production levels of about 10-12 million barrels per day, that's a little over half our daily needs. the rest must be conventional oil needed for gasoline production and some hydrocarbons not found in oil shale. At first we can cover gasoline needs with domestic oil and about 25% imported oil, until we find the way of producing synthetic gasoline from hydrocarbons found in oil shale.
But we need to start moving now. There has to be political will as willingness of oil industry to reinvest big profits into something which won't necessarily be profitable for the first few years.
That would cover our needs for the time needed (say 80-100 years) to slowly transition to other energy sources.
-
there you go confusing the youngsters with fact again.
Facts? US consumes 30 billion barrels in a little more than 4 years. Russian 8% increase is less then what we burn in a single year (5 vs 7 billion).
-
Interesting series of lecture videos. Professors can sound cool to impressionable young people. Most good professors are entertaining in one way or another, and they always have a story to tell or idea to espouse. Sometimes they can be pretty kooky, but that's better than being overly authoritarian. I've heard some good stories and theories from professors in my time. I view the opinions as interesting, and something to question and get others' opinions about.
The real situation is complex beyond simple math. He pretty much bases his premises on personal opinion though, when he stated industry always seeks to grow regardless of the consequences. This is his opinion and not necessarily a fact. He did make some good points that we do need to think about these things.
The first scientific order of business, when someone presents a doom and gloom proposition, is to become very skeptical and ask questions. If it's serious business, the scientist will write an article to be published in scientific journals. If that is published there must be some credibility attached to it. Even then it is open to scrutiny.
To me it looked like the prof was exaggerating things to make a point. He's saying the simple math tells the whole story and that's all there is to it.
He could be right and he could be wrong. The math is correct, but the premise is based on continued growth at a certain percentage. A hypothetical scenario.
What about politics? Before anything would have a chance to be done, the government would have to underwrite it. Would take some hefty evidence and convincing arguments to get something going in the pipeline. Sorry but the lectures alone seem to be more philosophical than factual. It is a darn good example of what exponential increase is though.
I had the impression he was over simplifying matters. I'm fairly certain any question and answer session after the lecture would have yielded some skepticism from any older, non traditional students present. Probably the first thing we need to be sure about is are we really up crap creek to start with? How would we know, and what decisions could be made based on numerous ever changing variables? Taking action would be costly and could be in the wrong direction.
Les
-
I didnt watch it. But Im secure in my belief that milloins of years from now, WE will be the oil deposit.
-
Sample link here (http://en.rian.ru/business/20080403/102918423.html) of why the math of oil depletion is completely useless. For those too lazy to click, it says Russia's proven oil reserves grew by 8% last year.
Here (http://www.topix.com/world/2008/05/venezuelas-oil-reserves-swell-to-130-bln-barrels) is one that describes a 30 billion increase in Venezuela's proven oil reserves.
Basically and simply stated, when we actually look for oil, we find it.
Said another way, the same people who are telling you today that we will run out of oil in 40 years were saying the exact same thing about 40 years ago.
Hey you are very good... but do the math... :aok
For Russia
I used the new numbers but again 60,000,000,000 bbls as reserve
60,000,000,000 x 8% = 4,800,000,000 new barrels / 80,000,000 barrels used per day in the world = 60 days use
Venezuela = 80,000,000,000 barrels (in 2007) as reserve inceased to 120,000,000,000
30,000,000,000 / 80,000,000 = 375 days of world use.
Doing the math is the scary part. Realizing if we don't reduce our need for oil it is going to become VERY expensive.
Times are different than the 70's when we found huge deposits but now the world is burning so much a large deposit just doesn't make a difference in the end. :aok
-
It's obvious many dramatic people here didn't see all the videos or didn't actually comprehend the transcript since many arguments they bring up have been covered and explained by the professor.
He explains the dangers of steady growth and also that steady growth won't stay steady forever with finite resources.
Go beyond oneselfs ego and just listen to the guy.
-
He explains the dangers of steady growth and also that steady growth won't stay steady forever with finite resources.
Steady growth won't be steady because there is chaos in the growth rate too.
The problem with math is that it is a perfect tool trying to predict a chaotic system with imperfect knowledge of the starting points.
It is the best tool we have, but by neccesity we use it imperfectly and get varied results.
-
Yeah, I know. Ignorance is bliss eh?
I like this quote: "Ignoring facts does not make them go away."
Certainly the case with most people, including the majority of this community.
Interesting video, I got through about half the first one. I'm so tired right now, I cant do too much, I'll finish it tomorrow. :aok
-
It's obvious many dramatic people here didn't see all the videos or didn't actually comprehend the transcript since many arguments they bring up have been covered and explained by the professor.
He explains the dangers of steady growth and also that steady growth won't stay steady forever with finite resources.
Go beyond oneselfs ego and just listen to the guy.
To that end, study recently came out that said demand will increase 85% over next 20 years (3rd world countries becoming 2nd world countries) hopefully, by that time our transportation needs will be figured out
-
"... hopefully, by that time our transportation needs will be figured out."
You can't be serious? Twenty years? :D
An awful lot of people have been saying for an awful long time that the type of price rise you're seeing now would be along soon. This is not some temporary interruption in supply like all the other oil price hiccups since the early 1970s. Each 'oil shock' before had transient supply underpinnings. This is the real deal - the start of the long term increases in price that reflect the true supply challenges.
The saber rattling against Iran, the monetary policies of Greenspan and the fed and the failure in Iraq are adding to it, but the reduction in excess capacity are real. Excess capacity is now only 2%, down from 6% a few years ago. Watch the prices when it reaches parity and then flips.
This is not fantasy or politics, and not junk science as some would like to call it. The CEOs of the worlds largest oil companies are on record that we're at or near the peak of oil production and demand will soon exceed supply. The head of the petroleum industry trade group has said the same thing. Research it yourself.
I live in a place that changed its energy culture after the first oil shock in the 1970s. The Japanese said they would never be left in the same position again and stuck with it.
- Today, almost one half of all the solar power generated in the world is generated in Japan.
- While the GDP has doubled since the first oil shock, Japan has about the same energy consumption as it did in the 1970s. That is an amazing statistic. Japanese factories use one half of the energy of US or European factories to produce the same monetary unit of productivity.
I suspect that many companies will be looking to learn from Japan again in the future, as they did in years past.
It's Groundhog Day all over again.
-
I'm not able to listen to it right now, but I automatically distrust anything that is presented to me right away as "Purely Factual."
Life experiences have taught me that "Purely Factual" presentations, rarely are.
i'll watch some of it on my lunch break, but i do have a question first?
whose facta are they? are they "his" facts, "her" facts, or "the true facts"?
-
I have sweaters older than lasersailor, so his "life experiences" may not impress me too much. ;)
His main point is arithmetic. He digresses at times to localized it for his audience.
-
leslie.. you said it perfectly.. I have no problem with the guys math.. it is simple enough.. even I am that good at math.. the problem is that it does not apply to any reality or planet that I know of.. no system is that simple.
e25 said.....
"Sample link here of why the math of oil depletion is completely useless. For those too lazy to click, it says Russia's proven oil reserves grew by 8% last year.
Here is one that describes a 30 billion increase in Venezuela's proven oil reserves.
Basically and simply stated, when we actually look for oil, we find it.
Said another way, the same people who are telling you today that we will run out of oil in 40 years were saying the exact same thing about 40 years ago.
But wait!!! if we do the exponential math... if russia has an 8% increase per year and we have a 10% (low figures from offshore and ANWAR... my gawd! we will be swimming in oil by the year 2090.. we will all drown!!
I am afraid that you liberal socialists here and hand wringers are using the good (and badly groomed) professors simple math to further your agenda of liberal socialism and personal panic mongering. You are doing it so that no real solution (exploration and nuclear) can be done.
Sure.. we need to develop solar and nuclear and wind and tide power and whatever comes down the pike but we need to explore for and drill for oil right now.
When oil gets expensive enough I will have a solar powered home... I will build an electric hot rod.. it is all good.. I will use the then quaint and fairly expensive gasoline to power my antique toys and I will be living as well as ever and... more important.. having just as much fun and.. even more importantly.. I won't have spoiled the whole time with hand wringing and womanly worry.
lazs
-
Excess capacity is now only 2%, down from 6% a few years ago. Watch the prices when it reaches parity and then flips.
That right there is the scary part. It is a problem of such magnitude it will change the world as we know it forever.
Didn't know that Japan was so far advanced, if your figures are correct they'll have a serious head start in the post-oil economy. WTG Japan :aok
demand will increase 85% over next 20 years ... hopefully, by that time our transportation needs will be figured out
That's just outrageous, to assume that all problems will be solved in 20 years time. :lol
-
rolex.. I was there for the first energy crises.. I believe that things will change much more rapidly this time. the tech wasn't there. Does japan produce a drop of oil? how much do they import? solar alone will not run japan and the tech they have developed (admirable and sensible) will be transfered very quickly.. we see advances here in energy consumption on electronics every day.. not all of them come from japan either. did japan invent and produce those funny lightbulbs?
We have solar systems here that will run whole homes.. they cost too much. not way too much but.. too much.. they will get installed.. or something better will.. if electricity becomes too expensive.
electric cars exist.. even fun ones and ones that are fast and practical.. they are expensive but not that expensive. Not if gas gets to be $20 a gallon say and you can't make cars get 80 mpg or more.
It just all depends. We are not without options and we are not unprepared....
I would challenge any of you "the end is nigh" guys to simply call one of the solar panel contractors and become completely energy independent.. the cost will be not much more than your current electric bill on payments with rebates. If you really believe the drivel you spout then you will be in the catbird seat in a few years. Paying a tenth or less of what everyone else pays... with inflation.. even less. show us your faith in saint algore and the good professor... do something besides pointing fingers.
Hell.. speaking of that.. I bet I use less energy overall than most of you liberal aholes and I know I use less than that proff and algore.
lazs
-
I have sweaters older than lasersailor, so his "life experiences" may not impress me too much. ;)
His main point is arithmetic. He digresses at times to localized it for his audience.
I have sweaters older than me too. What's your point?
-
My point is that your life experience is short. It just made me chuckle to read someone still in university talking about their life experience. You have only been aware of two presidents in your lifetime. I'm not saying anything bad about you so you don't have to be defensive. One thing you have to keep in mind is that everything you figure out about people and life is something some many of us figured out 30 years ago also... when we were your age. You'll remember this conversation when you're older. ;)
--------
Japan has very little oil or gas at all, lazs. It imports virtually all of it. About 40% of electricity is nuclear generated and it has a token coal industry and some hydro. It has spread out its energy acquisition across the globe to eliminate a single source problem as much as it can.
I'm not sure if you're talking about the fluorescent bulbs with the incandescent glow and threads? Those have been here for at least 20 years and incandescent bulbs are not too common now. I use old fashioned bulbs because my old gaijin eyes can barely handle the glare from the Aces High sun.
Oh, I was in the gas lines too in the 1970s. I think the youngsters today are going to have a tougher time than we did because of oil, energy in general and a society where it seems like half of all households have a member who works for the government, is contracted to the government, sells or produces something for the government, or is in some way beholden to the government for some service or money.
I wonder how many that really is? That is an interesting theory and I'm going to try to find some data to see what it is. If it is more than half, would that make the US a socialist economy? Hmmm...
-
rolex.. .I am not in disagreement with you but I do feel that we are far more global now than in the 70's.. the tech transfer happens at light speed.. the iphone is in homes in pakistan in a week kinda thing.
This is a world problem.. japan will barely hold it's own with current tech and a good solar program.. they need the oil worse than we do is all I am saying..
Any new breakthrough in battery or solar tech is transfered at light speed compared to what it could have been in the 70's
I guess by the standards of this board I am an optimist of the highest order.. I personally see it as most of the others being distrought hand wringing womenly men.
If you could by a hummer.. a first gen one with every option in good shape.. you could maybe get it cheap because of the handwringers....
Don't touch it.. put it in storage and in 30 years (for you younger guys) it will sell at the auction for enough money to retire on and.. there will be plenty of diesel to fill up the tank at not much more per gallon then as it is in todays dollars..
Wish I had had enough money to buy every GTO and hemi that I seen sell for $500 or less during the last "crises" of the 70's...
lazs
-
When the oil is there and we know it.
We don`t drill and use it.
Not what I would consider a shortage. A self imposed shortage maybe.
Thanks Al.
Just watched the buffoon on the news stating that wind power development would cost us trillions and trillions of dollars over the next few years. He then went on to ask the question "Why use this energy?" His answer .."Because it`s free."
I`ll send you a nickel free. FREE! Right now! It`s FREE!
Please include $22.95 shipping and handling charges.
-
"... hopefully, by that time our transportation needs will be figured out."
You can't be serious? Twenty years? :D
An awful lot of people have been saying for an awful long time that the type of price rise you're seeing now would be along soon. This is not some temporary interruption in supply like all the other oil price hiccups since the early 1970s. Each 'oil shock' before had transient supply underpinnings. This is the real deal - the start of the long term increases in price that reflect the true supply challenges.
The saber rattling against Iran, the monetary policies of Greenspan and the fed and the failure in Iraq are adding to it, but the reduction in excess capacity are real. Excess capacity is now only 2%, down from 6% a few years ago. Watch the prices when it reaches parity and then flips.
This is not fantasy or politics, and not junk science as some would like to call it. The CEOs of the worlds largest oil companies are on record that we're at or near the peak of oil production and demand will soon exceed supply. The head of the petroleum industry trade group has said the same thing. Research it yourself.
I live in a place that changed its energy culture after the first oil shock in the 1970s. The Japanese said they would never be left in the same position again and stuck with it.
- Today, almost one half of all the solar power generated in the world is generated in Japan.
- While the GDP has doubled since the first oil shock, Japan has about the same energy consumption as it did in the 1970s. That is an amazing statistic. Japanese factories use one half of the energy of US or European factories to produce the same monetary unit of productivity.
I suspect that many companies will be looking to learn from Japan again in the future, as they did in years past.
It's Groundhog Day all over again.
Think of where technology was 20 years ago--(WHAT was your computer capable of in 1988?) Also, where it would be now if our backs were against the wall... In 1960, we could barely make a rocket leave the atmosphere...1969, we were walking on the moon...1971, we were DRIVING on the moon! ....libs are soooooooooo depressing :cry
-
This is a university lecture by a professor emeritus of Physics at Univ. of Colorado-Boulder, and you're saying it's not factual? (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_hm.gif)
Allow me to question your judgement, and perception.
Those that can,, DO!! Those that can't,, TEACH!! :aok
-
gee vortex.. I guess this isn't going the way you wanted eh?
No one is questioning his math or his credentials.. they are both impressive.. they also have nothing to do with this complex and ever changing planet and its people.
lazs
-
I wanted open discussion, not controlled discussion. I've not posted in here for a while due to lack of time but have followed the debate closely. Keep it going it's very interesting.
I for one believe these problems he adressed are of tremendous importance to us if we are to continue to live and prosper on this planet. It's like, there's no other way to go than to deal with it. We'll have to one way or another. Like he pointed out, we can act now and choose from the list which one(s) would be the better alternative(s), or nature will decide for us.
The way it's going right now, ignorance and greed is prevailing thus nature will have it's course.
-
vortex.. you are deliberately missing the point.
If we used his math in the year 1250 to figure out leather use with a 2% gain in the buggy whip industry a year... there would not be a leather bearing animal left and every man woman and child would own 1,000 or more buggy whips...
The point being.. it is a great exercise in mental math masturbation but not much else. It is also great to feed the agony of the hand wringers who are never happy unless the sky is falling some time in the future..
lazs
-
which describes perfectly the type of people who look up these types of topics in the first place.
-
Well, my point of view is that... of course things change! They are bound to, or else what he describes would happen. And if it happens, well there's the change for you again. Nothing remains constant in a ever-changing world. But it's not a reason to disregard his mathematical model, as it is precisely what has to be avoided, it has to be taken into consideration when looking at what options there are if we are to be in control of events rather than victims of them.
Did that make sense? Sometimes my english is hampering my ability to express myself.
-
your english is very good. I am not sure I can say the same for your logical abilities. If the sun increases it's radiance a tenth of a percent a year we would all burn up.. if it only does it for a couple of years we will be fine.
If the bear hadn't stopped in the woods to take a crap he woulda caught the rabbit... if if if if...
math is a straight line and useful for a lot of things.. not so much for this kind of thing tho.
lazs
-
I'm not sure that you understand my standpoint. The bell-curve math model applies to the volume of oil we can pull from a well. What affects how much we can pull from it is the size of the source, and the state of the source (full, half-full, near-empty etc). As we approach the half-full, or less-than-half-full state of the overall world oil sources, maximum possible volume of oil per time inevitably decreases. Something we can do absolutely nothing about, without spending more and more energy towards aquiring energy, like the oil sand in N-America. This will show in production capacity. What this means is that as oil demand continues to increase, our supply continuously decrease, inevitably.
The only question really, is when excatly this half-full state (ore less than half full) of our oil sources will occur. Some say we're already there, while others claim it to be years off still. I say that we don't know exactly, but can only guess. His estimation is as good as anyone's and likely very accurate. The rest of his lecture is all math and doesn't really apply to the world we live in other as an example of how numbers can be mis-used, and how bad things can go if we don't pay attention to what's going on.
-
you are correct in one thing.. we don't know how much oil is on the planet. they discover fields (when allowed to) all the time. We don't even know how it is made. What makes oil?
We have no idea what demand will be.. we only know what it is now and was in the past.
What bothers me about the guy is that he is all doom and gloom.. he is all sensational and no substance. He doesn't say.. "hey.. things will probly change" They will no matter what.. if oil goes to $500 a barrel.. how much do you think demand will drop?
Will some of these poor countries continue virtualy to give it away to their citizens and companies (subsidies) when it gets that high or will they reach a breaking point? maybe do the math on that one!
lazs
-
recent evidence is indicating that petroluem may be a by product of bacterial digestion. yes a certain bacteria poops petroleum. I think wrag posted a linky to the site some weeks back.
-
Ahhh yes, oil is actually a renewable sorce... now what are you liberal hand wringers going to yap about next?
-
See Rule #5
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
Amazing what you can find in a minute using google search engine, if you take a minute of your time that is. :P
If it's true, that's very interesting! It remains to see however, how much oil can be produced this way. This alternative method of "growing" oil changes nothing concerning the continually increasing demand for oil however. We can not let the demand increase continue forever because there are limits to what this planet we're living on can sustain.
-
The one big thing that nutty professor fails to tale into account is that the demand for oil will eventually decrease. It is actually decreasing next year.
Fairly exponential I suspect.
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
Amazing what you can find in a minute using google search engine, if you take a minute of your time that is. :P
If it's true, that's very interesting! It remains to see however, how much oil can be produced this way. This alternative method of "growing" oil changes nothing concerning the continually increasing demand for oil however. We can not let the demand increase continue forever because there are limits to what this planet we're living on can sustain.
:aok :aok
I believe we can't drill our way out of this situation (has nothing to do with politics) but like the above acticle says we can THINK our way out of it. :aok
-
aside from the article you posted there is mounting evidence that that wells that were pumped dry are refilling magically.
there are two schools of thought with this phenomena
1. conspiracy!!!! evil america has been secretly pumping petroleum purchase from the poor starving third world and is storing in mac's back yard for safe keeping
2. bacteria deep in the earth are pooping and the oil is seeping back to the same wells.
I'm not wholly convinced on the possibility but there you have it.
-
As soon as you realize that what you were taught in school as young children (that dinosaurs died to give you gas) is a lie then you may have the ability to realize that petroleum is a renewable resource of the earth and not something that gets used and is gone forever. This man knows his math and knows he is duping people the same way the mass-media knows they are lying everyday in order to push their agendas.
-
2. bacteria deep in the earth are pooping and the oil is seeping back to the same wells.
I'm sure bacteria will cooperate and toejam some more to cover our needs.
-
I'm sure bacteria will cooperate and poop some more to cover our needs.
Well I sure hope they start pooping faster than they have been.
shamus
-
gas use in the US dropped 1% this year, now that means exponentially it should drop 2% next year and 4% the year after which mean exponentially the US should use 0 gas in about 7 years.
yes i went to college , and i are smart.
-
I knew some day reading that Mark Twain novel would help me in "real life." :rofl
I remembered a passage from "Life on the Mississippi" where Mark Twain took issue with the kind of math discussed in this thread. Quick Google search of "Mark Twain Length of Mississippi" yields this fabulous link:
http://math.smith.edu/Local/cicchap1/node12.html
The Lower Mississippi River meanders over its flat valley, forming broad loops called ox-bows. In a flood, the river can jump its banks and cut off one of these loops, getting shorter in the process. In his book Life on the Mississippi (1884), Mark Twain suggests, with tongue in cheek, that some day the river might even vanish! Here is a passage that shows us some of the pitfalls in using rates to predict the future and the past.
In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Bold mine for emphasis. :D
-
Yeah, I know. Ignorance is bliss eh?
I like this quote: "Ignoring facts does not make them go away."
Certainly the case with most people, including the majority of this community.
this attitude is exactly why they will ignore it.
it doesn't help your case.
know that.
it's important.
-
oil is a renewable resource.. we are using it faster than the fields we have discovered can produce.. there are lots of fields that we have not discovered.
we need to both reduce demand and find new fields.
How is that for simple math?
lazs
-
we need to both reduce demand
This is the first step, finding alternative fuels would be the next. :aok
I still have a hard time believing that crude is constantly being created. I think it is more like the crude is slowly moving underground(much like water) from small pockets to larger ones. :aok
-
ooooook... then make "reduce demand" number one and "find alternatives" number two and "find and drill for new oil " number three...
But then do all three at once and with equal vigor.. and keep government out of all of em.
lazs
-
1. We would need countries like China and India to reduce there consumption as well. It's not just us causing the price to skyrocket.
2. We definitely need to find alternatives.
3. Private companies drill for oil, which would be sold on the world market. How are we going to see a price break again if you believe in a free market?
-
Problem there is the large oil companies of the world are owned by politicians or their close friends. :O
-
oil is a renewable resource.. we are using it faster than the fields we have discovered can produce.. there are lots of fields that we have not discovered.
we need to both reduce demand and find new fields.
How is that for simple math?
lazs
If it's that simple, there would be no energy crisis, nor any reason to the laws of the marke to raise the prize....
-
angus.. the easy oil is getting more scarce.. it will cost more per barrel as time goes on unless some new way to drill is found or some way to convert some other products like shale oil and coal.
The price will rise but we won't run out.
lazs