Space Post - Why is the rate of progress so slow!

[EvilNed]

I believe it to be the height of foolishness to disregard the human ingenuity that has kept us going for centuries. Just my .02 Very good point. And let me remind you (as you well know) that human ingenuity has served us well in the past. Human ingenuity has built up empires that have lasted centuries. Humanity has "peaked" many times before, throughout time. And each time, it's up to human ingenuity to pick up the pieces once that peak declines into a crumbling civilization. The Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Arab, Turkish, British Empires have all seen their hey-day, and now the World is dominated by what we might call a "Western" Empire. You give human ingenuity too much credit. Yes, it will keep us from dying out as a race, but I've never, ever disputed that. But if you look at history, this is not the first time that a specific part of humanity have considered themselves "better" and "invulnerable". If you think this bliss is going to last (for that is what we live in, a bliss compared to everything else both in the past and the present), then you're mistaken. The miraculous switch from oil to renewable resources is going nowhere fast. Sure, we've invented ways to keep us going. But oil is still too valuable to give up. If you remember, just a few years ago a war was instigated, with oil being a not too subtle casus belli.

[Wyldwraith]

Very good point. And let me remind you (as you well know) that human ingenuity has served us well in the past. Human ingenuity has built up empires that have lasted centuries. Humanity has "peaked" many times before, throughout time. And each time, it's up to human ingenuity to pick up the pieces once that peak declines into a crumbling civilization. The Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Arab, Turkish, British Empires have all seen their hey-day, and now the World is dominated by what we might call a "Western" Empire. You give human ingenuity too much credit. Yes, it will keep us from dying out as a race, but I've never, ever disputed that. But if you look at history, this is not the first time that a specific part of humanity have considered themselves "better" and "invulnerable". If you think this bliss is going to last (for that is what we live in, a bliss compared to everything else both in the past and the present), then you're mistaken. The miraculous switch from oil to renewable resources is going nowhere fast. Sure, we've invented ways to keep us going. But oil is still too valuable to give up. If you remember, just a few years ago a war was instigated, with oil being a not too subtle casus belli. Replying to your main point first, Even if I accept the rise and fall of the current dominant civilization to be part of an inevitable cycle, I would still point out that for once the favorite insult of Europe towards North America works in our favor. Namely, that we've only been around for about 230+ years. ALL of the Empires you named lasted something like 700-1000 years, and many of them had a major rival empire to deal with, whereas our "Rival Empire" has decided to see things our way and embrace our cultural values instead of continuing hostilities. I won't deny that the transition/weaning off of Oil is going to be a problem-creating pain in the ass. Long entrenched special interests (Hello, Big Oil!) have proven they can seriously delay alternative energy projects (like the proposed and planned Government Leased-Land Solar Panel Farms in the SW of the U.S. However, based on recent terribly bad press on a global level for Big Oil and its destructive consequences when the "Drill, baby, drill" philosophy is allowed free reign, and especially because there are TWO major oil-disasters going on SIMULTANEOUSLY, I think Big Oil is about at the end (at least temporarily) of its proverbial rope and political capital. BP has been forced to make some really hard choices and sell off a LOT of their hard assets to Apache. Their stock offering has taken a huge hit, and they're buried in a shitstorm of liability and desperate damage control. It says a lot when all they could hold onto of their American oil sources is their Prudhoe Bay operation. Plus, Big Oil is facing some massive increases in overhead as the aging Alaskan Pipeline becomes more and more of a patch-job money pit with every passing day. They won't get away with foisting the majority of that expense off on the consumers this time, wait and see. All of this, important as it is, has sidetracked the main dialog. I believe that while weaning ourselves off of Oil-as-predominant-mobile energy will be painful and troublesome, it CAN AND WILL be done. After that, this economic/industrial Sword of Damocles will no longer hang over the head of Western Civilization. Just a thought.

[Publius]

No, how many? And when? I've never heard it before. I can imagine the people of Rome predicted it back in the day - and when it turned out to be correct. Well, Robert Malthus predicted widespread famine and a collapse to a subsistence-level standard of living in 1798. He was disproved by advancements in agriculture (like the invention of the McCormick reaper in 1831). In 1865, W. Stanley Jevons predicted that Britain would run out of coal, destroying the British economy. He was disproved by advancements in coal extraction. In the late 1800s there were predictions about how major cities were about to be overwhelmed by the task of clearing horse dung from the streets. They were disproved by the invention of the automobile. The end of U.S. oil production has been declared imminent in various reports dating to about 1914. Similar claims were made over the past several decaddes about world oil production. William Vogt published Road to Survival in 1948 and Paul Erlich published Population Bomb in 1968, each predicting an imminent food supply crash due to overpopulation that didn't happen.

[Legion2213]

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone The iron age didn't end because we ran out of iron The oil age won't end because we run out of oil I don't think that "peak oil" will be the civilisation ending event some crack it up to be to be honest.

[EvilNed]

I think you guys fail to realize just how dependant we, as a society, are of oil. Our entire society is built upon logistics, from the very start to the very end. How does food get around? Oil. How do people travel? Oil. How does information travel? Oil. Everything you look at around you, oil had a hand in how it got there. What will you do when oil runs out? It won't come suddenly, to be sure, but it has already begun. And what are people doing to transfer over from oil? Nothing, nada, zip. People are too stupid, too slow and too unwilling to give up their comfortable lifestyles to change. Also, Wyldwraith? The Persian empire lasted some 200 years. The same for the Hellenistic. The British Empire are not far behind. So no 700-1000 year reign in sight here.

[Neil]

I think you guys fail to realize just how dependant we, as a society, are of oil. Our entire society is built upon logistics, from the very start to the very end. How does food get around? Oil. How do people travel? Oil. How does information travel? Oil. Everything you look at around you, oil had a hand in how it got there. What will you do when oil runs out? It won't come suddenly, to be sure, but it has already begun. And what are people doing to transfer over from oil? Nothing, nada, zip. People are too stupid, too slow and too unwilling to give up their comfortable lifestyles to change. Also, Wyldwraith? The Persian empire lasted some 200 years. The same for the Hellenistic. The British Empire are not far behind. So no 700-1000 year reign in sight here. I sort of agree. I don't understand where there is a 'man on the moon' or 'manhattan project' type approach to finding alternative power sources. At the moment it seems bizarre that the most valuable commodity to our civilization is left in the hands of private industries whose prime goal is simply to may $$$$. It seems incredibly naive to fritter such a valuable resource away, but that's what we're doing... That said though, I suspect market forces will come to the rescue. Oil will get more and more expensive, and other technologies/sources will therefore become more attractive. However, the concern is, if oil production drops drastically during transition! It could be a hell of a domino effect!

[Tricky]

And its not just the transport aspect, everything around you made of plastic has also come from oil, from your biro to your lunchbox to your car interior to the housing of the monitor your looking at now, and the keyboard your typing on! Its not just about energy, its about everything our lives revolve around. Once the oil goes will we go back to firing clay to make our food storage boxes, or will everything have to be made from expensive metals?

[Neil]

And its not just the transport aspect, everything around you made of plastic has also come from oil, from your biro to your lunchbox to your car interior to the housing of the monitor your looking at now, and the keyboard your typing on! Its not just about energy, its about everything our lives revolve around. Once the oil goes will we go back to firing clay to make our food storage boxes, or will everything have to be made from expensive metals? http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/20...ells-that.html

[Publius]

I think you guys fail to realize just how dependant we, as a society, are of oil. Our entire society is built upon logistics, from the very start to the very end. How does food get around? Oil. How do people travel? Oil. How does information travel? Oil. Everything you look at around you, oil had a hand in how it got there. What will you do when oil runs out? It won't come suddenly, to be sure, but it has already begun. And what are people doing to transfer over from oil? Nothing, nada, zip. I realize how dependent we are on oil, now. But there are two points missing from your analysis: 1. Today's degree of dependence on oil is not a reliable predictor of tomorrow's degree of dependence on oil, any more than 1890's degree of dependence on horses was a reliable predictor of 1930's degree of dependence on horses. 2. Oil will very likely last longer than is predicted, as it always has (see predictions referenced above). This is partly because such predictions are usually based on known reserves and economically viable extraction methods. But additional reserves are discovered, and as the price of oil rises extraction methods become economically viable that were not previously considered so. Another unstated assumption in your analysis is that oil equals that fossil fuel pumped from underground. That is mostly true now, but will rapidly become less and less true as alternative sources of oil such as algae (especially salt-tolerant strains) are further developed. I don't believe biofuel is a permanent solution to the oil problem, but it will definitely ease the transition to another technology base, and will probably start doing so on an economically-viable basis a lot sooner than you think.

[Neil]

I realize how dependent we are on oil, now. But there are two points missing from your analysis: 1. Today's degree of dependence on oil is not a reliable predictor of tomorrow's degree of dependence on oil, any more than 1890's degree of dependence on horses was a reliable predictor of 1930's degree of dependence on horses. 2. Oil will very likely last longer than is predicted, as it always has (see predictions referenced above). This is partly because such predictions are usually based on known reserves and economically viable extraction methods. But additional reserves are discovered, and as the price of oil rises extraction methods become economically viable that were not previously considered so. Another unstated assumption in your analysis is that oil equals that fossil fuel pumped from underground. That is mostly true now, but will rapidly become less and less true as alternative sources of oil such as algae (especially salt-tolerant strains) are further developed. I don't believe biofuel is a permanent solution to the oil problem, but it will definitely ease the transition to another technology base, and will probably start doing so on an economically-viable basis a lot sooner than you think. If only we'd got our act togethor and started seriously looking into fusion 20-30 years earlier!

[Legion2213]

My friend "Horse Cents" says peak oil is a myth. "oil on Jesus! Pourin' on down"

[EvilNed]

I realize how dependent we are on oil, now. But there are two points missing from your analysis: 1. Today's degree of dependence on oil is not a reliable predictor of tomorrow's degree of dependence on oil, any more than 1890's degree of dependence on horses was a reliable predictor of 1930's degree of dependence on horses. You're talking of a timeframe of 50 years, and even in 1930, society would still have been dependant on horses - especially in agriculture. I'm talking about a timeframe of less than 50 years. Maybe as little as 10. As for all this easing transition period - where is it? It's nowhere. It's not as if we can start that transition period a few months before the oil runs out, we have to start it now (or preferably yesterday). Society doesn't change overnight. It's not the end of the world, and it's not eternal doom. But it's a fucking annoying thorn that's going to hit each and everyone of us once it hits and it's going to affect all logistics. All.

[SymphonicX]

That said though, I suspect market forces will come to the rescue. Oil will get more and more expensive, and other technologies/sources will therefore become more attractive. However, the concern is, if oil production drops drastically during transition! It could be a hell of a domino effect! This is the truth. i'm not worried about oil running out, but I am slightly worried that there is going to be a bigger transitional period than we have all hoped for. When there is a gap in a market, that gap is always filled eventually - oil is such a massive, massive commodity that the gap will indeed by filled by an alternative source - there are already viable alternatives out there but unfortunately the infrastructure will never grow properly until oil has depleted to a greater degree - there's still way too much money in it.

[Wyldwraith]

Problem I have with EvilNed's position, @EvilNed: You act like there are no viable alternatives to oil-as-fuel, but by your own argument as Oil runs out, the price of oil will dramatically rise. At X.XX$/gallon, it will become cheaper to use something else. Even if that "something else" is CURRENTLY less economically viable than oil is. It's deceitful to frame the debate as if Western Civilization doesn't have the foggiest clue about what they'd do without oil. Hell, your argument about Oil's role in providing power-grid fuel has even more holes in it. Coal is VASTLY more popular for power plant usage than Oil. Just to name ONE alternative. So we're pretty much talking about vehicular transportation here, because life without Plastic IS conceivable. Heck, if nothing else, we may end up putting the money we used to spend on oil into rebuilding our power grid, and just move over to electric vehicles. Not as versatile, but some sacrifices may have to be made. My overarching point remains the same, however. There ARE options beyond Oil...we just have to be willing to end Big Oil's grip on the energy debate via lobbyists and tremendous campaign contributions to ensure nothing changes.

[Tricky]

Then there is the inevitable wars that will break out over the last of the oil, a lot of people seem to think rightly or wrongly that the Iraq war was about oil, but that will pale in comparison to the future wars when the stuff really does get scarce. Unless of course these alternatives come into play before that time comes of course...