Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[TFian]

If your proposed non-scientific inquiry method can't even match what science can already do, why bother with it?

What you don't seem to understand is I'm not proposing anything.

If your method isn't super-scientific, then I'll stick to science, thanks.)

Why is it all or nothing? Why isn't it "Science can explain some things, but not others"?

 

[TFian]

I've never seen a picnic that consisted of an empty mayonnaise jar in a green robe before.

What is that supposed to mean? They simply look like ceremonial robes to me.

 

[drkitten]

Why is it all or nothing? Why isn't it "Science can explain some things, but not others"?

Because the things that science can't explain, nothing can explain.

... unless you want to take a stand and propose something with capacities greater than science in that regard. Otherwise, the reason it's all or nothing is because the only players in the game with any explanatory capacity at all are either science, or subsets of science.

 

[drkitten]

What is that supposed to mean? They simply look like ceremonial robes to me.

Look more closely.

It's not a picture of ceremonial robes.

It's a picture of ceremonial robes wrapped around an empty mayonnaise jar.

 

[TFian]

Because the things that science can't explain, nothing can explain.

... unless you want to take a stand and propose something with capacities greater than science in that regard. Otherwise, the reason it's all or nothing is because the only players in the game with any explanatory capacity at all are either science, or subsets of science.

True, though I'd hope you'd keep an open mind.

 

[TFian]

Look more closely.

It's not a picture of ceremonial robes.

It's a picture of ceremonial robes wrapped around an empty mayonnaise jar.

I didn't know humans were empty mayonnaise jars.

 

[drkitten]

I didn't know humans were empty mayonnaise jars.

Most of them aren't. The ArchFruitBat is a notable exception.

 

[TFian]

Most of them aren't. The ArchFruitBat is a notable exception.

Must be a good thing then.

 

[drkitten]

True, though I'd hope you'd keep an open mind.

I have been keeping an open mind. As soon as you actually take a stand and suggest a method of inquiry that you think is more powerful than science, I will be happy to consider it and to identify any flaws I find in it.

There's a difference, though, between "keeping an open mind" and "doing your homework for you." The reason I claimed that there's nothing better than science is the same reason I claim there are no mermaids in my house. I've looked, and I've not seen any. I've looked, and seen a lot of reasons that there can't be any -- many of which PixyMisa has already shared with you.

So i'm not going to pretend to believe in mermaids just to keep you from feeling picked on and patronized.

 

[TFian]

So i'm not going to pretend to believe in mermaids just to keep you from feeling picked on and patronized.

 

[TFian]

Come on TFian, don't tell me this guy isn't a few sandwiches short of a picnic...

[qimg]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9531/john20michael20greer20f.jpg[/qimg]

The "Grand Archdruid" in all his creepy glory.

What is your problem with the Grand Archdruid?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

What is your problem with the Grand Archdruid?

Where do I begin? First off, he's an text book new age fruitcake. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, yet feels he can talk about these subjects with some authority because he's "read books written for intelligent layman" (Yeah, he really did say that). He has an completely unfounded arrogance and smug attitude when approaching subjects, and other people. His "Green Wizard" project is simply an idiotic response to perceived problems of peak oil, and isn't even original (it's just a rip off of the 1970s appropriate technology movement mixed with silly new age mysticism). He's also a complete Luddite who pretty obviously wants to see industrial civilization collapse (like a lot of other peak oilers), and just gussies it up with condescending metaphors.

Does that cover it?

Oh yeah, and he's a dumbass who believes in werewolves or something of that nature.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I have been keeping an open mind. As soon as you actually take a stand and suggest a method of inquiry that you think is more powerful than science, I will be happy to consider it and to identify any flaws I find in it.

There's a difference, though, between "keeping an open mind" and "doing your homework for you." The reason I claimed that there's nothing better than science is the same reason I claim there are no mermaids in my house. I've looked, and I've not seen any. I've looked, and seen a lot of reasons that there can't be any -- many of which PixyMisa has already shared with you.

So i'm not going to pretend to believe in mermaids just to keep you from feeling picked on and patronized.

That's the clincher TFian. Sure, the scientific method may not be as "fool proof" as you put it as we currently think in the future. In fact, I'll be the first to say I'd be very surprised if a superior method isn't constructed in the far future, but in the meantime it's the best we've got, and the only discoverable method that's actually provided any tangible results.

Think of it in terms of medicine. Is Chemotherapy a perfect treatment of cancer? Of course not, but for many types of cancer, it's the best we have for the moment. Just because it may have flaws doesn't mean you throw it out in favor of voodoo dances or whatever silly "alternative medicine" treatment.

 

[PixyMisa]

It wouldn't. Internally, it could go through any process it liked. If you have an omniscient penguin in your back yard that can tap-dance answers to questions in Morse code, that's about as unscientific a method as you can get.

And anyway, how would you know that Mr Pengy got the right answer?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

[qimg]http://www.cksinfo.com/clipart/traffic/bicycles/bicycle-yellow.png[/qimg]

Or this

Remember TFian, many laptops can be powered with a handcrank alone.

 

[TFian]

There's a difference, though, between "keeping an open mind" and "doing your homework for you." The reason I claimed that there's nothing better than science is the same reason I claim there are no mermaids in my house. I've looked, and I've not seen any. I've looked, and seen a lot of reasons that there can't be any -- many of which PixyMisa has already shared with you.

Uhm, no. I never proposed any alternative, I was simply questioning the mindset behind scientism. Since you don't agree with that idea, we are in agreement on this issue.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

And anyway, how would you know that Mr Pengy got the right answer?

Because it's a penguin, they are never wrong!

 

[drkitten]

And anyway, how would you know that Mr Pengy got the right answer?

Easy. Since I don't know Morse code, I could read any answer into his dancing that I liked. So I'd simply make sure that whatever answer I read was correct.

 

[excaza]

Easy. Since I don't know Morse code, I could read any answer into his dancing that I liked. So I'd simply make sure that whatever answer I read was correct.

That sounds familiar.

 

[TFian]

Yes. If we were starting from nothing, and the fossil-fuel tap got turned off overnight, I would maybe worry a little tiny bit about EROEI. As it is, I don't.

Why aren't you worried about EROEI?

If you want to start a thread about "Would everyone be able to move to Switzerland and live off the hydro in the post-oil age", go ahead. If you want to know whether the world has enough existing renewables capacity to want to keep the Internet running, the answer is yes.

You misunderstand me. I'm asking how are those countries indications we can produce without petroleum resources. They power their nations without much fossil fuels, but they import almost everything.

So the internet will survive energy contraction; you, like most users, are willing to pay the higher prices that it, like everything else, will demand in the post-fossil-fuel future.

Sure, but if it becomes priced outside of most people's income range, then bye bye to the "information super highway". If it costs me a million dollars a month to have an ISP in my home, I, and most others will have to do without.

1) From all of the other renewable sources I was just talking about---the ones that exist now, the ones that will be built cheaply before oil runs out, the ones that will be built expensively after oil runs out, etc. Connected by a grid, either the grid we have now, or the grid we'll build "cheaply" before oil runs out, or the grid we'll build expensively after oil runs out.

Yeah, but "expensively" building new infrastructure isn't just a difference of digits, it's a difference of entire lifestyles. We're addicted to cheap, easy to find energy. A million barrels of oil used to extract a million barrels of oil is pointless That's EROEI for you.

2) Alternatively, if we're literally talking about rooftop solar, from the bank of lead-acid batteries that you presumably bought for $10-per-100mW at the same time you bought your $10-per-100mW solar panels.

What about rooftop solar and lead-acid batteries? Both are pretty minuscule in terms of energy power anyway.