tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post8141390727812353161..comments2024-01-21T05:21:53.264-10:00Comments on The Cautionary Revelation of The Apocalypse: On our way down the abyssThe Cautionary Revelation of The Apocalypsehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15821985631020193972noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-17487779332240139792010-02-22T04:58:09.516-10:002010-02-22T04:58:09.516-10:00I've already told you. The findings we know of...I've already told you. The findings we know of now has been said to last several decades. During those decades we will find more oil and coal and so on and so on. If we were 100 billion people on this planet and increased our usage it might not last forever, but it would last long enough for us to replace it with something else. And so we will never run out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-79142594109728686322010-02-22T04:07:10.130-10:002010-02-22T04:07:10.130-10:00I respectfully disagree to all these points but ti...I respectfully disagree to all these points but time doesn't allow further discussion. Just wonder why you are so sure that oil and coal will last, what are your sources (no pun intended)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-13543489571782147182010-02-22T03:03:29.180-10:002010-02-22T03:03:29.180-10:00Well, I can promise you that oil will never run ou...Well, I can promise you that oil will never run out, or it never would in a capitalist world at least. We’ve heard doomsday idiots argue that oil and coal will run out for 150 years now; it never has and never will. Just after the turn of the last century they had several big science meetings to address the “problem” with oil and coal. They said that those resources would be gone by the 1920’s; similar things have been said and argued throughout. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. I can stake my life on it. <br /><br />So no, we cannot agree on that. We can increase our consumption of oil a hundred fold and it will still not run out for thousands of years. And during that time oil will have become replaced. <br /><br />Capitalism is the fastest moving and most dynamic system we know. Sadly socialism dominates the world and has almost always done so in one form or the other. If we had been living within a capitalist world we would already be colonizing space, have access to cold fusion (hardly any oil needed) and there would hardly be any starving on this planet. This is also something I can promise with absolute certainty. <br /><br />And ZM is not very remote from libertarianism. All the movies made and all the arguments that hold come direct from libertarians that have said pretty much the same thing for 300 years now. In a capitalist world there would be no such things as central banking, war in Iraq or corrupt regimes that oppress us all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-36978325473128254862010-02-22T02:24:40.714-10:002010-02-22T02:24:40.714-10:00Yes, it was clear. But it doesn't make any dif...Yes, it was clear. But it doesn't make any difference. Energy is only useful if its net energy profit is positive. There's no point in "drilling" for oil (or any other energy source) if the drilling wastes more energy than the oil that is retrieved can produce.<br /><br />Even if there was an energy profit, it's still wouldn't be possible to consume oil forever at an exponentially growing speed. Can we agree on that at least?<br /><br />Here's a calculus example: There's 100 gallons of oil in the ground, it grows linearly at 1 gallon a year (by new findings and technology). The rate it is consumed is 1 gallon a year and growing by 10% yearly. Now plot these too functions and compare the curves.<br /><br />Alternatives might emerge (and they do). Problem with capitalism is that it's such a slow and blunt system. Sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions are held back by hydrocarbon consortiums and patent holders. Why not bypass that altogether?<br /><br />Reading the posts again, I think you and I agree about the core problems but our view of solutions might be different.<br /><br />ZM today is very remote from libertarianism and any political affiliation. I didn't like the first movie as I said. The second and third probably is more in line with your own thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-16564618455340947092010-02-22T01:27:14.801-10:002010-02-22T01:27:14.801-10:00No, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Resources are onl...No, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Resources are only limited by the level of technology and the cost for extracting it. We have oil etc. on this planet that will last for thousands of years with much higher output than today. The problem is we don’t have the means to get to it or the cost is too high. <br /><br />And even IF some resource were to become very scarce two things would happen. First the cost would be very high, which limits the market. Secondly alternatives would arise. So in this sense any resource is endless even if there’s only a certain amount in the ground.<br /> <br />Economic growth isn’t a problem, not in any way. Exponential or otherwise. What’s not sustainable is when you measure it in GDP and with our current banking system. We’ve reached the end of the line for that one already because it is fictitious. It is not growth, it is a scam. And real growth has nothing to do with consumption. Consumerism comes from us producing wealth we can use for buying stuff, not the other way around as cornflake economists argue. Consumerism may increase GDP, but as said, that is a scam. <br /><br />I dismissed the Zeitgeist movies/movement a long time ago for reasons already mentioned. To be honest I haven’t kept myself up to date, something might have changed, but as I remember it all of arguments was based on already stated facts by libertarians but twisted around to suit a more leftie point of view. But since there are very few sources quoted and if memory serves me correctly, even some facts were wrong. I seem to recall a couple of dates from the first movie that was incorrect. <br /><br />When someone hijack statements, arguments and actual facts the real truthsayers have been arguing for centuries and make a “movement” out of it at the same time as some facts are wrong, I dismiss it as a cult more than anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-18301786568252558912010-02-22T00:46:22.359-10:002010-02-22T00:46:22.359-10:00@apocalypse: The earth's resources are finite,...@apocalypse: The earth's resources are finite, period. New technologies and findings can improve upon existing conditions but it doesn't change fact. Our current economy is based on oil which is produced at an infinitely lower rate than is being consumed.<br /><br />Economical growth is a problem IF it is exponential, that is the AMOUNT of growth increases every year. Albert Bartlett said: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."<br /><br />Whatever measure is used, consumption cannot increase exponentially when the basis for the economy lies still or increases linearly at best.<br /><br />Are you talking about the Zeitgeist movies? While I agree that the first movie was too much conspiracy, that's peripheral within the movement. There's no left and right. Only better or worse solutions to problems. What points do you think has been missed if you don't mind me asking?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-68994291561273576502010-02-21T07:57:55.399-10:002010-02-21T07:57:55.399-10:00@Stefolof:
No, not really. Resources are finite on...@Stefolof:<br />No, not really. Resources are finite only in relation to technology and findings, not in actual fact. This earth has no problem feeding 100 billion people at a much higher living standard than today. And economic growth isn’t the problem, the problem is fictive economic growth measured by GDP. That is not sustainable, that is correct, but that isn’t really growth, that is a scam. <br /><br />Zeitgeist has some merits, but has missed certain points and has tad too much leftie ground to stand on for my taste. Basically too much conspiracism (much of which is stolen from other, real researches and actual economists) and too little of substance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-39173921534892383512010-02-21T07:52:28.889-10:002010-02-21T07:52:28.889-10:00@Anonymous
I don’t do chemicals if not absolutely ...@Anonymous<br />I don’t do chemicals if not absolutely necessary or for recreation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-8033316261529147102010-02-21T07:19:23.015-10:002010-02-21T07:19:23.015-10:00It's true (and quite depressing). It should be...It's true (and quite depressing). It should be obvious to anyone that exponential growth (the basis for our current economical system) can never be maintained within a finite system. Any working economy must take into consideration that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. One such alternative economy is presented by the Venus Project: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6213093208529982391.post-52197854511538679812010-02-21T07:15:35.849-10:002010-02-21T07:15:35.849-10:00Please, take your meds.Please, take your meds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com