No time for lullabies

[tyr_13]

What's the difference in what was pointed out in the article? The fed printing money to pay off debt is what I'd call hyperinflation.

And you have your own special definition of the words 'hyper' and 'inflation'. I'll stick with the commonly accepted ones in English.

What's not plausible? Cutting back on our empire? They're are already talks on both isles now of cutting back on military spending, and the minute we do that, our living standard will begin to plummet. It's only achievable by having a vast expansive empire. Without it, you become a third world country.

What a baseless assertion. Thus, not plausible. There is plenty to cut back on military and still retain high standards of living.

Well because simply, they use no fossil fuels. But ok, what newer technologies and techniques do you like over 1970s appropriate technology?

Electric cars, high speed rail, new generation nuclear power, sea water extraction of phosphorous, new insulation and glass designs, smart grid technology, GE plants, advanced city design, etc. I could go on, but you deny those things as useful, so it's just beating a dead horse. (For the spectator, I'm well aware that most of those technologies have roots far back including the 70s.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here?

Why would we want to use a standard that is less than optimal and environmentally friendly? How is it more useful than the methods it bans?

Inefficient at what?

Water use, land use, and power use. Also of pesticide use. In fact depending on the plant and the location, it is vastly more efficient to grow it where it likes to go and transporting rather than growing it in you back yard.

Well we're not thinking about scaling up for cities. We're trying to promote things that will save the individual and their family, most people are already doomed and we can't save them.

Says you.

Since population will be reduced from failing public health and starvation, we don't have to look at ways of sustaining our unsustainable bloated population.

Says you.

Examples?

Already stated above.

Examples please?

We have to remember there are no easy solutions -- in fact, there are no solutions at all, not at this point. There's just a lot of hard work to save what can be saved in the limited time we've got.

Remember The Grand Archdruid's life lesson "there's no brighter future". The myth of progress is just that, a myth.

See here is the fundamental problem with discussing any of this with you, or the 'Archdruid'; you deny reality. You don't like the solutions, or they seem difficult, so you say they don't exist. The solutions you want to use, back to nature with most of those evil humans dead, are the only ones you champion. It has nothing to do with science and math, as those you cite are shown to be bullocks and bother, but with your own ideologically driven dream world. Nothing I, nor anyone else, can say with change your mind. It's your religion.

The mere fact that you cite someone who calls himself an 'Archdruid' is evidence of this. Don't bother explaining to me what a great man he is, I'm fully aware of his 'credentials.' I have it on good authority from the Grand Cosmic Wizard that hydrogen powered farm equipment is thirty years away and that people like your Archdruid have been saying the same thing for more than forty years now.

See, I've actually read your thread on internet energy contraction, so I know it's useless to try to change your mind. The only reason I address your argument at all is for the benefit of others. Your writing style isn't blatantly wacky like most doomsayers, so some people might be confused. If anyone is not convinced by my assertion, see that other thread. Yes, this is an ad-hom, but only because the rest is so completely trashed as an argument.

 

[TFian]

Yes, this is an ad-hom, but only because the rest is so completely trashed as an argument.

Well, at least you admit your fallacy. It's more than I can say for others.

 

[TFian]

And you have your own special definition of the words 'hyper' and 'inflation'. I'll stick with the commonly accepted ones in English.

As will I.

What a baseless assertion. Thus, not plausible. There is plenty to cut back on military and still retain high standards of living.

I'm sorry, but that's just a complete denial of reality. To consume 25% of the earth's resources for one nation (The US), requires a pretty ruthless powerful military to extract those resources.

Electric cars,

Ah of course, the "techno fix" that is coming to our rescue!

high speed rail,

Of course, all rail advocates shy away from the fact that rail is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, or IE, coal. Not such a good strategy now that you look at it.

new insulation and glass designs,

Insulation is part of the Green Wizard strategy, so we agree there.

advanced city design,

What's "advanced city design". That's extremely vague, and not much one can go from there.

but you deny those things as useful, so it's just beating a dead horse.

Not all. I agree with insulation. I'm just skeptical of the "technofix" often offered as a solution to all of our problems.

Why would we want to use a standard that is less than optimal and environmentally friendly? How is it more useful than the methods it bans?

And what standard is this?

Says you.

And many others. I'm in good company

See here is the fundamental problem with discussing any of this with you, or the 'Archdruid'; you deny reality.

Have you read the Hirsch report?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Again, there are other ways to do more traditional large scale agriculture with little to no fossil fuels so that we don't have to revert to horticulture.

I swear, the more I read about Greer the more I realize there's more practical information on how to deal with peak oil in bongwater than the 'ArchDruid'.

TFian, I'm going to again recommend you read a fellow by the name of Stuart Staniford (and again I'll point out, he has an actual background in science, as a Ph.D in physics, where Greer has none, whatsoever)

I know you ignored my last links that directly addressed Greer, but here's another, particularly on agriculture.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3481

In particular, here's a excerpt I think you need to read.

So I think the argument of the relocalization advocates essentially is that, since we were using a lot less energy before we were industrialized, and our population was primarily agricultural then, and peak oil implies we will have less energy in the future, or at least less liquid fuel, then it must be the case that the agricultural population will grow again. In other words, having coming come down the curve in the graphs above from the top left to the lower right, our society will now start to retrace its steps back up the curve.

This implies that the process of industrialization and development is a reversible process. We in the developed world have evolved from low-energy high-agriculture societies into a high-energy low-agriculture society. So the thinking goes that we can/should/will reverse that process and go back to something like what we were 200 years ago (at least on these large macro-economic variables).

Now, coming from a background as a scientist, there are many reversible processes familiar in science (and indeed in everyday life), but there are also a lot of irreversible processes. Some examples of reversible processes - if you lift up a weight, you can set it back down again into the same position it was in before. If you blow up a balloon, then, up to a certain point, you can let the air out and get back more or less the uninflated balloon you had before you started. If you pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir, you can let it down again, and the lower reservoir will be in little different condition than if you hadn't bothered. If you freeze a liquid by cooling it, you can warm it up again and have the same liquid.

Here are some examples of irreversible processes. If you let grape juice ferment into wine, there's no way to get grape juice back. If you bake a cake in the oven, there's no way to turn it back into cake dough. If you ice and decorate the cake, but then accidentally drop it on the floor, there's no way to pick it up and have anything approaching the same cake as if you hadn't dropped it.

So when you industrialize a society, is that a reversible process? Can you take it on a backward path to a deindustrialized society that looks in the important ways like the society you had before the industrialization? As far as I can see, the "second wave" peak oil writers treat it as fairly obvious that this is both possible and desirable. It appears to me that it is neither possible or desirable, but at a minimum, someone arguing for it should seriously address the question. And it is this failure that I am calling the Fallacy of Reversibility. It is most pronounced in Kunstler, who in addition to believing we need a much higher level of involvement in agriculture also wants railways, canals, and sailing ships back, and is a strong proponent of nineteenth century urban forms.

It goes on from there. Please, actually consider reading the article (hey, it's on the Vatican of the Peak Oil religion's site itself...), you might realize Greer is wrong, about a lot of things..

 

[tyr_13]

It pains me to address someone who has no intent to engage in learning or challenging their religion, but some things must be addressed.

As will I.

No, this is simply straight out wrong. 'Hyperinflation' is not, in the English language or any common use, is not a synonym for 'inflation'. They differ in degree by 'hyper'. The current inflation couldn't even rightly be described as 'modest', let alone 'hyper'.

I'm sorry, but that's just a complete denial of reality. To consume 25% of the earth's resources for one nation (The US), requires a pretty ruthless powerful military to extract those resources.

No it does not. It requires vast amounts of wealth and the aid of hugely powerful trade agreements and corporations. Your view that military strength equates to economic power is archaic.

Ah of course, the "techno fix" that is coming to our rescue!

Technology is bad to you I know. Fortunately reality has shown technological progress to be infinitely more powerful than regress.

Of course, all rail advocates shy away from the fact that rail is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, or IE, coal. Not such a good strategy now that you look at it.

Guess you don't like electric rail either.

Insulation is part of the Green Wizard strategy, so we agree there.

No we don't because I'm advocating both natural and artificial new insulators.

What's "advanced city design". That's extremely vague, and not much one can go from there.

Because it's just an off hand example that includes things like communication lines, and transit overhauls. It's an entire category of study that you deny as useful on the hope assumption that large masses of people must die.

Not all. I agree with insulation. I'm just skeptical of the "technofix" often offered as a solution to all of our problems.

You offer a 'technofix', just using older technologies. Even your weasel word 'technofix' applies equally well to your 'hippyfix'.

And what standard is this?

Organic.

And many others. I'm in good company

If you believe people calling themselves 'Grand Archdruid' is good company, I'm in better with the 'Cosmic Wizard'.

Have you read the Hirsch report?

Skimmed it last time you linked to it in the other thread.

 

[Skeptic]

Isaac Asimov talked about folks who yearn for return to a "simpler, agricultural", pastoral heaven -- and saying the gods (or, in their current manifestation, "the environment") will FORCE us to do so for our sins is simply the latest example of this -- in a famous essay, "best foot backwards".

He notes that the folks in delight in it never seem to remember that in the good ol' days 95% of the population were peasants, serfs, servants, etc., and it is nothing but technology that made it possible for anybody except the upper crust to have anything like a decent life.

These folks never see THEMSELVES as illiterate peasants who die in their 30s from overwork, let alone the real energy source of such a society -- to wit, slavery. They see themselves in this pastoral society to be as leaders, philosophers, visionaries, gentlemen-farmers, ANYTHING but slaves and serfs.

Their real sign should be "Up with Slavery!", or, more precisely, "Up with Slavery for Other People!", says Asimov.

His best retort to one of those folks in a cocktail party was this:

- I wished we lived 100 years ago, when it was easy to get servants.
- It would have been horrible.
- (Uncomprehendingly): Why?
- Because WE would have been the servants!

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Excellent point Skeptic. Luddites and the like always seem to think they'll be the ones on top, rather than the slaves behind the whip.

 

[Lensman]

I particularly like the way some people denigrate technology while using the very same technology the perform said denigration.

If they're so set on the technological world giving up the technology & going back to the "simple" agrarian life, why don't they give it a try first, without using any products derived from the technology they abhor - no steel ploughs, no sources of raw iron except what they dig up & smelt for themselves, no modern medicines, no iron nails bought from a hardware store, no sewing machines, no steel needles, no cotton thread on reels, no cloth except what they weave, no mass produced leather for shoes/boots?

Let a group of them form a village with nothing from the modern world, start off buck naked with no tools but what they make from whatever materials are at hand - I wouldn't be miserly, they can have whatever empty piece of land with whatever natural resources they require, there'd be a source of metal ore nearby, coal, wood, water & the land would have good, fertile soil, there'd be animals to hunt & eventually domesticate if they wanted them.

 

[Skeptic]

They can start by not using the (boo, hiss) soul-destroying, intimacy-eroding, coproprate-used "internet" thingy.

 

[TFian]

It pains me to address someone who has no intent to engage in learning or challenging their religion, but some things must be addressed.

It pains me to respond to someone using such a blatant ad hominem , but I must defend myself as well. En Guard!

No, this is simply straight out wrong. 'Hyperinflation' is not, in the English language or any common use, is not a synonym for 'inflation'. They differ in degree by 'hyper'. The current inflation couldn't even rightly be described as 'modest', let alone 'hyper'.

Yes, it can very much be considered hyper, especially since it's simply printing money to pay off debts, which always leads to printing more, and more, and more. It's the Weimar republic all over again. You should listen to what Dr. Ron Paul congressman says on the subject.

No it does not. It requires vast amounts of wealth and the aid of hugely powerful trade agreements and corporations.

And a vast military apparatus to enforce such "trade agreements". Remember the true definition of civilization, the process of which the better off steal the wealth of the less off.

Technology is bad to you I know. Fortunately reality has shown technological progress to be infinitely more powerful than regress.

Not all technology, just "high" technology. I'm a big fan of 1970s appropriate technology.

Guess you don't like electric rail either.

I prefer older forms of rail myself.

No we don't because I'm advocating both natural and artificial new insulators.

As do we.

Because it's just an off hand example that includes things like communication lines, and transit overhauls. It's an entire category of study that you deny as useful on the hope assumption that large masses of people must die.

How much energy is needed to produce such communities? Eco technic communities require a lot less I'd imagine.

You offer a 'technofix', just using older technologies. Even your weasel word 'technofix' applies equally well to your 'hippyfix'.

No we don't. A technofix is when you simply apply a new technology so you can keep "business as usual" going. We most certainly don't advocate that. We think things are going to change, very rapidly.

If you believe people calling themselves 'Grand Archdruid' is good company, I'm in better with the 'Cosmic Wizard'.

Well given he's award winning and an expert in his field (history), I do find him good company.

Skimmed it last time you linked to it in the other thread.

And according to it, to do what needed to be done, had to be done 20 years ago A report authored by only scientists, I might add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

 

[TFian]

I particularly like the way some people denigrate technology while using the very same technology the perform said denigration.

I don't denigrate technology, I just believe computers and cars won't be around after the oil peak hits us.

If they're so set on the technological world giving up the technology & going back to the "simple" agrarian life,

We're not "set" to it, we just think that will be our only option. However....

Let a group of them form a village with nothing from the modern world, start off buck naked with no tools but what they make from whatever materials are at hand - I wouldn't be miserly, they can have whatever empty piece of land with whatever natural resources they require, there'd be a source of metal ore nearby, coal, wood, water & the land would have good, fertile soil, there'd be animals to hunt & eventually domesticate if they wanted them.

If you could offer such an option, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

 

[tyr_13]

It pains me to respond to someone using such a blatant ad hominem , but I must defend myself as well. En Guard!

It wasn't an ad hom. You're wrong and won't listen. I never said you're wrong because you won't listen.

Yes, it can very much be considered hyper, especially since it's simply printing money to pay off debts, which always leads to printing more, and more, and more. It's the Weimar republic all over again. You should listen to what Dr. Ron Paul congressman says on the subject.

Appeal to authority.

And a vast military apparatus to enforce such "trade agreements". Remember the true definition of civilization, the process of which the better off steal the wealth of the less off.

Blatant falsehood.

Not all technology, just "high" technology. I'm a big fan of 1970s appropriate technology.

As long as most people die.

I prefer older forms of rail myself.

Steam is vastly more polluting.

As do we.

I doubt that.

How much energy is needed to produce such communities? Eco technic communities require a lot less I'd imagine.

Less than it takes to keep things as is or revert.

No we don't. A technofix is when you simply apply a new technology so you can keep "business as usual" going. We most certainly don't advocate that. We think things are going to change, very rapidly.

New technology is 'business as usual'? You have your own special version of English.

Well given he's award winning and an expert in his field (history), I do find him good company.

Appeal to authority.

And according to it, to do what needed to be done, had to be done 20 years ago A report authored by only scientists, I might add. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

Appeal to authority.

 

[TFian]

It wasn't an ad hom. You're wrong and won't listen. I never said you're wrong because you won't listen.

No no, it's an ad hom. Your appeal to the audiences natural skepticism to religion, and tying me towards a (fictional) abstraction of religion, is certainly an logical fallacy of some sort, or at the very least, dirty debating.

Appeal to authority.

And here comes the most widely misused term next to "hero". Are you seriously suggesting one can't appeal to authorities that are established authorities in their field of expertise? You really are a fool if you believe the FED are practicing fiscal responsibility.

Blatant falsehood.

Blatant truth.

As long as most people die.

Yes and no. It's not that most people dying is a requirement for an eco technic future, it's just that most people are going to die anyway, but without Green Wizardy, almost everyone would die. It's a matter of saving some lives, versus saving no lives. You can't save everybody, but just because you can't doesn't mean you let everybody die.

Steam is vastly more polluting.

True, but we can use it longer than electric. But eventually we won't be able to use steam rail either.

I doubt that.

Well it's true we do. Surprisingly enough, we agree on something!

Less than it takes to keep things as is or revert.

I doubt that.

New technology is 'business as usual'? You have your own special version of English.

It is if you think you can continue the wasteful industrial civilization as it is

Appeal to authority.

If established petroleum geologists and engineers are "appeals to authority", I'm very happy to appeal to such authority, since it probably means they're right.

 

[tyr_13]

No no, it's an ad hom. Your appeal to the audiences natural skepticism to religion, and tying me towards a (fictional) abstraction of religion, is certainly an logical fallacy of some sort, or at the very least, dirty debating.

You're taking issue with my use of the word 'religion'?

And here comes the most widely misused term next to "hero". Are you seriously suggesting one can't appeal to authorities that are established authorities in their field of expertise? You really are a fool if you believe the FED are practicing fiscal responsibility.

I never claimed the FED was practicing fiscal responsibility. I was pointing out that claiming something is true, specifically that we're going through hyperinflation which is demonstrably false, because 'DR. Ron Paul, CONGRESSMAN believes it is.

Blatant truth.

You are making up definition for words. Your personal definition of 'civilization' is neither useful to the discussion, nor attached to reality.

Yes and no. It's not that most people dying is a requirement for an eco technic future, it's just that most people are going to die anyway, but without Green Wizardy, almost everyone would die. It's a matter of saving some lives, versus saving no lives. You can't save everybody, but just because you can't doesn't mean you let everybody die.

This has been addressed elsewhere better.

True, but we can use it longer than electric. But eventually we won't be able to use steam rail either.

Asserts you and your deities. Wait, I'm not using 'deities' in a literal way. That must be 'dirty debating'.

Well it's true we do. Surprisingly enough, we agree on something!

I don't think we agree on the use of advanced insulating technologies like active glass. So no.

I doubt that.

Oh right, if most people die, it's less energy hungry to revert. This also assumes that we don't have and can't make the energy to move forward.

It is if you think you can continue the wasteful industrial civilization as it is

Do you really not understand that new technology changes things and can make things less wasteful? New tech does not equal 'wasteful'. You're attributing 'bad, wasteful, evil' with 'industrial, civilization, technology'. Your religious ideological motivations are leading you astray from reality.

If established petroleum geologists and engineers are "appeals to authority", I'm very happy to appeal to such authority, since it probably means they're right.

No, this is the heart of the appeal to authority fallacy. They aren't right because they are authorities, but they should be authorities because they're right. Besides, we're talking about your spin on their findings regardless of the fact that other authorities disagree.

Of course if you're citing Ron Paul, just forget it, you don't have an audience here for me to protect. This is me tagging out if anyone else feels the need to respond to this.

 

[TFian]

You're taking issue with my use of the word 'religion'?

Yes, yes I am. You're ascribing my position as akin to "religion", which is simply meant to automatically discredit me via a weasel abstraction. Dirty debating 101. However, two can play that game good sir!

I never claimed the FED was practicing fiscal responsibility. I was pointing out that claiming something is true, specifically that we're going through hyperinflation which is demonstrably false, because 'DR. Ron Paul, CONGRESSMAN believes it is.

Ok sure, but I never said "Because Dr. Ron Paul" believes it's so, means it's true". I simply stated I'm not the only one who believes so, and citing a credible source I didn't think was a problem. He believes it's true because it is, it's not true because he thinks it is.

You are making up definition for words. Your personal definition of 'civilization' is neither useful to the discussion, nor attached to reality.

You're right, it was my own personal definition, I did not actually mean to say it was the objective definition. It is a major aspect of civilization that is easily observable though.

This has been addressed elsewhere better.

Like where?

Asserts you and your deities. Wait, I'm not using 'deities' in a literal way. That must be 'dirty debating'.

I'm sorry, but what 'deities'?

I don't think we agree on the use of advanced insulating technologies like active glass. So no.

Actually we do.

Oh right, if most people die, it's less energy hungry to revert. This also assumes that we don't have and can't make the energy to move forward.

Not with the impending loss of fossil fuels.

Do you really not understand that new technology changes things and can make things less wasteful? New tech does not equal 'wasteful'. You're attributing 'bad, wasteful, evil' with 'industrial, civilization, technology'. Your religious ideological motivations are leading you astray from reality.

I agree technology can change things and make things less wasteful, we disagree on which technology however.

No, this is the heart of the appeal to authority fallacy. They aren't right because they are authorities, but they should be authorities because they're right.

Wrong, I never made such a claim. The Hirsch report is well regarded throughout the scientific community.

Besides, we're talking about your spin on their findings regardless of the fact that other authorities disagree.

What authorities are these?

Of course if you're citing Ron Paul, just forget it, you don't have an audience here for me to protect.

And what the hell does that mean?

This is me tagging out if anyone else feels the need to respond to this.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[TFian]

US taking the steps towards hyperinflation

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/liberty_one/2010/aug/13/us-taking-steps-towards-h/

Scary stuff that's happening here!

 

[TFian]

There are three steps that lead to a hyperinflation--

1.During a recession when price deflation is occurring the central bank creates vast amounts of new money (Hey, prices aren't going up so this is consequence free, right?). Price deflation occurs because the income-velocity of money is low, aka people aren't spending as much but instead hold onto their cash. We see this happening right now with businesses holding onto massive reserves unlike any period in US history. The demand for money increases as the public thinks prices will continue to fall, thus leading to more price deflation. The government thinks this is great and that it can print money with impunity. Massive government spending on debt borrowed from the Federal Reserve leads to huge increases in the supply of money.

2.Eventually the demand for money peaks and begins to fall. The income-velocity of money returns to normal levels and prices begin to rise in response.

3.In phase three, prices go up faster than the money supply because they were pushed low by the deflationary pressure. This creates a shortage of money, causing the government to print even more. Prices and the money supply spiral upwards as the demand for money falls. Since the public perceives the price inflation they spend their money as soon as they get it, otherwise it's losing purchasing power while they contemplate it. Hyperinflation kicks in and we get one hundred trillion dollar bills.

More on the link above on why we're entering hyperinflation.

Hold onto your seat belts folks, it's going to be rough rough ride on the path towards deindustrialization.

 

[TFian]

The FED printing 600 BILLION new bank notes, someone tell me that's not hyperinflation!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_50/b4207000020527.htm

 

[Lyrandar]

The FED printing 600 BILLION new bank notes, someone tell me that's not hyperinflation!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_50/b4207000020527.htm

That seems to me that you're simply relying on incredulity backed up by large numbers to make your point. I know little about economics, but I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than "if the government puts more than x amount of new money in the system, hyperinflation will assuredly result".

 

[TFian]

That seems to me that you're simply relying on incredulity backed up by large numbers to make your point. I know little about economics, but I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than "if the government puts more than x amount of new money in the system, hyperinflation will assuredly result".

Read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6666919&postcount=76