Doomstead

It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.

I am not responsible for the soup that simmers in Sean Pruitt's brain and I have no responsibility to explain any of it.  His views are not my monkey.  He is an obvious xenophobe.  But, this is worth watching so you know people like him walk the earth.


Iran and Russia according to Sean, aim to pull shit.  No I say, the shit is being pulled closer to home.


(https://www.artberman.com/wp-content/uploads/DRAIN-AMERICA-FIRST-1.jpg)

Sean used the word 'proxy' claiming Russia and Iran were starting proxy wars.  It seems to me the American proxy war is making somebody, or a few somebodies very rich.

These somebodes keep the proxy war going so they they can export LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW.  They want to make the money now while they can, and they certainly do not want CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND becoming common knowledge.  Those who are now doing the pumping want to pump as fast as they can.  I believe Sean on that.  CFAD (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-a-win-win-for-people-and-for-the-climate/) would slow things down.  That is the point of it.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 11, 2024, 11:35 PMIt Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.

I am not responsible for the soup that simmers in Sean Pruitt's brain and I have no responsibility to explain any of it.  His views are not my monkey.  He is an obvious xenophobe.  But, this is worth watching so you know people like him walk the earth.

Iran and Russia according to Sean, aim to pull shit.  No I say, the shit is being pulled closer to home.

Sean used the word 'proxy' claiming Russia and Iran were starting proxy wars.  It seems to me the American proxy war is making somebody, or a few somebodies very rich.

These somebodes keep the proxy war going so they they can export LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW.  They want to make the money now while they can, and they certainly do not want CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND becoming common knowledge.  Those who are now doing the pumping want to pump as fast as they can.  I believe Sean on that.  CFAD (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-a-win-win-for-people-and-for-the-climate/) would slow things down.  That is the point of it.

The merchants of death need to be found.

Not surprising the FSoA exported much less oil back in the early years.  Few other places had many of the devices that need oil to function, specifically carz and planez.  Electricity generation mostly done with coal which came ccheaper and most places had closer sources.

Once other places started getting carz and planez (mostly post WWII), oil was being pumped up in Russia, MENA and the North Sea, so Europe had closer sources and didn't need to ship across the Atlantic.  China didn't really get into the industrialization game until after Mao croaked and Nixon roped them into capitalism over the Ping Pong table.

It wasn't until the Kissinger crowd decided to crush the Soviet Union economically by flooding the market with cheap oil and started exporting a lot from here and getting our buddies in the House of Saud to follow suit.  Oil was Russia's cash cow exporting to Europe and this starved them of forex.

By the 2000s, the whole world was driving carz while the oil was depleting everywher and new field weren't being discovered.  Prices began rising and there was finally profit to be made with shale oil and tar sands.  Investment capital flowed freely here with drillers taking out big loans based on expectations they would be able to get $100/bbl and more.  There were even predictions for $200+ oil.

As it turned out, the economy cracks at around the $80 mark, so any of the plays with production costs over about $70 aren't profitable.  Since there aren't many of those left, investment capital for further drilling has dried up.  However, to pay off the loans taken out to develop all the fields here, they have to keep pumping as much oil as they can out of them if there is even a sliver of profit left.  Even so, some of those loans will go south before the oil runs out completely.

Far as the wars go, there is of course always profit to be made in the arms industry, but IMHO they are all mainly economic wars for political control over territory in Israel and Ukraine, and in the case of Yemen basically just an existential crisis of a hopelessly poor country with no resources.  Nobody wants that land or the people who live there.  It does behoove the Iranians though to supply them with weapons to attack western interests.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 12, 2024, 01:11 AMAs it turned out, the economy cracks at around the $80 mark, so any of the plays with production costs over about $70 aren't profitable.

Data on one of those plays contained here. (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/archive/2022/220803/includes/analysis_print.php) So the interesting point is...obviously some folks know quite well how much oil there is for a given price...but these constructs are HARD to find.

Is it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 12, 2024, 03:51 PM

Quote from: RE on Feb 12, 2024, 01:11 AMAs it turned out, the economy cracks at around the $80 mark, so any of the plays with production costs over about $70 aren't profitable.

Data on one of those plays contained here. (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/archive/2022/220803/includes/analysis_print.php) So the interesting point is...obviously some folks know quite well how much oil there is for a given price...but these constructs are HARD to find.

Is it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

If someone had proposed the US export oil in the mid 1970's they would have been shot.  Then years go by and I hear that the law has been changed so oil can be exported.

QuoteEffective immediately and subject to limited restrictions, U.S. producers may begin exporting crude oil to overseas customers.

On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the massive Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, H. R. 2029, which previously passed both Houses of Congress with large bi-partisan majorities. An important part of this act is a provision that repeals the 1975 law that generally prohibited the export of crude oil produced in the United States.

The purpose is to enrich a small minority and to use oil exports as a weapon for the exclusive use by this same small minority.

Now oil is being exported to hold Russia back, by our elites without citizen permission.  The American elite is quite comfortable thinking the whole world belongs to them.  They should be comfortable.  I don't see many people telling them they are full of shit.  Everybody here believes rich people own everything and that the rest of us are all happy owning nothing.  It is the zeitgeist.

Enough oil can be pumped so the U.S. elite can keep the price low and PARTY ON.  If oil gets expensive many U.S. elite will lose their jobs.  At that time they will retire to gated community bunkers.  American political incompetence will no longer pay as things go to shit, so the U.S. ruling elite want to keep price low as long as possible.  Because when price goes up existing elite control will be challenged.

Reductionist thinking tries to look inside and always find reasons.  Often missing the big picture, sometimes denial even ascends to the absurd view that the big picture can't exist because reasons can't be found.  We should pay attention to the big picture.  U.S. oil exports are not helping citizens.  It would be if we had Carbon Fee and dividend, but U.S. elites will gouge out their eyes before they will let Carbon Fee and Dividend be a reality.  The exports are supporting the death industry.

This is what Americans vote for:  (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages%2Fartworkimages%2Fmediumlarge%2F2%2Fdeal-with-the-devil-john-schwegel.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b00e1beb8fa56f0ae3019ba05e235fea2f84e783ec7c16800f8c4da9070191db&ipo=images)  because it is good for our elites, it kills people.  And that is all that matters to the brain dead.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 12, 2024, 03:51 PMIs it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

You think there is a conspiracy to prevent Peak Oil claims from being dispatched?  That seems highly unlikely, to be polite.  Drillers don't publish data on how much oil there is for a given price because they don't want other drillers to know how much a given spot has until AFTER they secure financing to lease it and start drilling it themselves.  In order to GET financing, they will over-estimate how much they can get in order to convince the banks financing them to hand over the money.  The TRUTH doesn't emerge until AFTER the play starts producing and the driller has to file a P/L statement.  When it does come out, small drillers go belly up and the leases are purchase by bigger drillers for pennies on the dollar if they think they can produce for less or are gambling the price will go back up they can sell at.  Whoever has the deepest pocket and highest limit on their credit card wins.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 12, 2024, 04:41 PM

QuoteEffective immediately and subject to limited restrictions, U.S. producers may begin exporting crude oil to overseas customers.

On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the massive Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, H. R. 2029, which previously passed both Houses of Congress with large bi-partisan majorities. An important part of this act is a provision that repeals the 1975 law that generally prohibited the export of crude oil produced in the United States.

The purpose is to enrich a small minority and to use oil exports as a weapon for the exclusive use by this same small minority.

Well, rich folks ain't in the business of getting poorer. Or less influential. Strikes me though that this new US oil comes from more than a few companies. Are you referring to them as the folks getting rich, and developing this oil for geopolitical reasons? Politicians would seem to be excluded in this scenario. Other than getting their kickbacks and campaign contributions for delivering for their wealthy oil company owning constituents.Harold Hamm was all over that wanting to export idea.

Quote from: K-DogEnough oil can be pumped so the U.S. elite can keep the price low and PARTY ON.

The price isn't low. There was once a time when $30/bbl was SCREAMING expensive, and Yamani himself was worried about exactly what happened in the 80's...crashing demand with screaming high $30/bbl oil prices...he got fired for masterminding the resulting price drop in 1986. But it worked...demand came back.

Oil prices look to have been assimilated pretty readily into the current economic conditions, certainly EV owners don't give much of a crap about liquid fuel costs. Sure increased fuel costs contribute to rising goods transportation costs in general, but Americans are already acclimated to that. Doesn't bother RE in the least, based on his living conditions, doesn't bother me much, are fuel price high around Seattle compared to the rest of the country? You've got to admit, 6 years after global peak oil NO peak oilers would think every one would be running around with plenty of fuel at reasonable $2.40/gal and as much as you might want for your pick-me-up truck.

Quote from: K-DogIf oil gets expensive many U.S. elite will lose their jobs. 

Wasn't Obama reelected in 2012 with sky high oil prices? Didn't seem to bother him much. And those prices were far higher on a nominal basis, let alone real basis. Fuel prices are important, but they aren't everything.

Quote from: K-DogThis is what Americans vote for:  (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages%2Fartworkimages%2Fmediumlarge%2F2%2Fdeal-with-the-devil-john-schwegel.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b00e1beb8fa56f0ae3019ba05e235fea2f84e783ec7c16800f8c4da9070191db&ipo=images)  because it is good for our elites, it kills people.  And that is all that matters to the brain dead.

Never in my life voted for some political hack offering to make a deal, so I presume this idea is more theoretical than not? All politicians promise deals, rarely do they deliver which is known by everyone in advance, as there propensity for lying is endless.

Quote from: RE on Feb 12, 2024, 06:17 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 12, 2024, 03:51 PMIs it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

You think there is a conspiracy to prevent Peak Oil claims from being dispatched?  That seems highly unlikely, to be polite.

The full quote is:

QuoteData on one of those plays contained here. So the interesting point is...obviously some folks know quite well how much oil there is for a given price...but these constructs are HARD to find.
Is it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

First, I demonstrated that the capability of one government agency to know both size and profitable cost of some resource.  Could it be that they aren't worried about peak oil, exactly because they know just what is needed to make these calculations? And are softly giggling in their white tower over the nonsense spewing out over the internet, dating back 20+ years? Call it a conspiracy of the experts, in plain sight. They put their peak oil date out there back in 2005 or thereabouts, called it for 2037 with a scenario or two depending on those USGS estimates, if memory serves. They did this AFTER the USGS (Hubbert's world class geologic buddies) published their estimate of world oil resources in 2000. Combine the expertise of Hubbert's coworkers and best geologists in the country if not the world with the one government agency collecting all sorts of information allowing them to figure out costs for those resources and presto....the one gang that knew 20 years ago about all the peaker nonsense and just kept their mouths shut except for that one study. To date..the only gang from back in the early 21st century not discredited. Not the primarily internet based amateur hour folks and random academics looking to make a doom name for themselves (Guy "can I grief counsel you with sexy talk after scaring you my dear" McPherson) with cool website names. Or warmed over ex employed geologists from the 90's trying to make a name for themselves after their consulting gig with PetroConsultatns fell through?

Goverment secret? Or all us lunkheads too stupid to realize they already have revealed enough to prove their estimate of 2037 exists for a reason?

Quote from: REDrillers don't publish data on how much oil there is for a given price because they don't want other drillers to know how much a given spot has until AFTER they secure financing to lease it and start drilling it themselves.

US oil and gas companies report all sorts of things to the EIA. By law. Do you know everything they are required by law to report? Particularly the pieces that are propritary in the interest of national secuity? Do you think they would tell any of us if they did? Energy security for the country was the reason the place was stood up in the first place. I certainly don't know any of those answers. Do you think they would even tell any of us if they did? You look for the hints that they know plenty. I provided one. You'll notice that none of the information in the link I provided said WHERE the oil was. Just the overarching answer that peakers couldn't assemble with 20 years to do it. How much..and FOR how much. And they just casually roll it out in some publication as though "no big deal". For them, it might be just that compared to the amateur hour everyone else was getting hysterical over. 

The EIA doesn't give a crap about financing and whatnot, they aren't drilling for oil. They just collect info that allows them to say something that I've never seen a peak oil advocate kick out. You've been around for awhile, have you? The only one I can remotely think of, and containing orders of magnitude less detail, was put out by the IEA some decade or more ago. Other than that, none of the internet talking heads have anything to match that one, let along the one I referenced.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 13, 2024, 03:31 PMOil prices look to have been assimilated pretty readily into the current economic conditions

If you consider exponentially increasing debt load to be assimilation everything is just peachy.  If drillers can borrow money they can't pay back to drill, then go BK and leave the bad loans to the banks and then the banks are bailed out by the government, you have a virtuous economic cycle!

Sorry Charlie, all that is happening here is kicking the can down the road a piece.  I'm living OK, but it costs $16K/mo for me to live in splendor.  This princely sum is paid by Medicare and Medicaid, which is being paid by debt financing.

So, if you are among the people who believe that deficits don't matter and you can live on credit forever then we have no problem at all.  I don't buy this economic bullshit.  You can beelieve whatever you want.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 13, 2024, 05:26 PMThe EIA doesn't give a crap about financing and whatnot, they aren't drilling for oil. They just collect info that allows them to say something that I've never seen a peak oil advocate kick out. You've been around for awhile, have you? The only one I can remotely think of, and containing orders of magnitude less detail, was put out by the IEA some decade or more ago. Other than that, none of the internet talking heads have anything to match that one, let along the one I referenced.

EIA information is only as good as what the oil companies give them, and the agency serves the industry.  Regulatory capture on steroids there, just like the SEC and investment banks.  The information they publish gets regularly revised later, usually in the negative direction.

Now, let me try to explain this in classical terms.  If you assume that shale oil and tar sands are distributed out globally in similar proportion to the NA continent, there should be even more of this stuff under the dirt of 4 other continents than under this one.  Then, given both the energy majors and the TBTF Banks are multinational, if there was profit in extracting this oil, the banks would still be loaning out money to them to pump it up.  But they are not.  Why?  Because they weren't making money on it here when they did it!  Lots of drillers went BK and wells were shut in.  They won't star lending money for this type of extraction again anywhere unless and until the market price goes up to $100 or more and holds there without the economy cracking.  There's no conspiracy here, it's just not profitable.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 13, 2024, 05:43 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 13, 2024, 03:31 PMOil prices look to have been assimilated pretty readily into the current economic conditions

If you consider exponentially increasing debt load to be assimilation everything is just peachy.

I don't borrow to buy liquid fuels, and increasing debt load at the US government level doesn't have much to do with fuel costs as much as entitlement programs.

Quote from: REIf drillers can borrow money they can't pay back to drill, then go BK and leave the bad loans to the banks and then the banks are bailed out by the government, you have a virtuous economic cycle!

No, you have shareholders and investors who lost their shirts. Drake borrowed money to finish his namesake well in America. ARCO bet the company on the development of Prudhoe Bay.
If you can't withstand what it takes to be or invest in the oil business...I recommend taking up knitting or something.

Quote from: RESorry Charlie, all that is happening here is kicking the can down the road a piece.  I'm living OK, but it costs $16K/mo for me to live in splendor.  This princely sum is paid by Medicare and Medicaid, which is being paid by debt financing.

So good thing debt financing is keeping you in okay shape. Worked out okay for WWII in the US as well, selling debt to citizens in the form of war bonds and such.

Quote from: RESo, if you are among the people who believe that deficits don't matter and you can live on credit forever then we have no problem at all.  I don't buy this economic bullshit.  You can beelieve whatever you want.
RE

Deficits and debt have been with the US how many decades/centuries now? I believe they matter. And I believe they didn't end the world in WWII with wartime borrowing any more than in the 70's when the US came off the gold standard or the various recessions across your working career or mine, etc etc, borrowing continuing all along the way. The history to date of debt or financing or how oil companies work and have worked for centuries doesn't require anyone's belief..it just is. That history includes oil companies and their investors paying the price for their screwups and whatnot. Those consequences haven't hit the government because they make the rules, and can change them along the way. No reason to think if pressure moounts enough, they'll chanage them again to their own advantage, and not the citizens. Citizens will ultimately pay for those bad decisions, one way or another. Oil company debt is irrelevant in the greater game, has always been there, will always be there. I recommend not investing in them, can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, etc etc.

Quote from: RE on Feb 13, 2024, 06:11 PMEIA information is only as good as what the oil companies give them, and the agency serves the industry.

Good thing the information no one else can get is put to good use then. And  no, the EIA wasn't created to serve industry, but lawmakers and the markets with inventory and good energy information and analysis when Jimmy Carter realized he wasn't getting it, during the 1979 global peak oil.

Quote from: REThe information they publish gets regularly revised later, usually in the negative direction.

Or not. They haven't revised their peak oil estimate, and it is the ONLY one still standing from all the early 21sst century bloviating on the topic. And they do revise estimates on information as it happens. Like ALL US estimates of oil and gas produdction back in 2010...oops...sorry but those were almost all revised upwards. Until the US became the world's largest producer of crude oil anyway.

Quote from: RENow, let me try to explain this in classical terms.  If you assume that shale oil and tar sands are distributed out globally in similar proportion to the NA continent, there should be even more of this stuff under the dirt of 4 other continents than under this one.

No need to assume...why would you when the last evaluation was done almost a decade ago? (https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/) It was going on even before that. Turns out Russia, they are maybe even better off than the US when it comes to the conventional oil from shales needing pumpjacks as K-Dog has previously mentioned.

Quote from: REThen, given both the energy majors and the TBTF Banks are multinational, if there was profit in extracting this oil, the banks would still be loaning out money to them to pump it up.  But they are not.  Why?

Russia is under sanctions and has plenty of dicrete accumulations. Just as the US produced most of its oil from discrete accumulations before getting around to more expensive shale oil, Russia can certainly do the same. It isn't as though anyone is up to US standards of oil development since inception.

As far as profitable, the EIA reference showed exactly how much is profitable. And might know far more...but the thing we know for certain? You have claimed things aren't profitable...do you have any data similar to the link I provided showing how much was available per unit price, or did you just say that without any information such as that I provided?

Really, you are tiresome.  On the one hand you claim deficits matter, then say we had deficits in WWII and they didn't matter.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time like this.  There's plenty of oil, but oil debt doesn't matter.  But you recommend not investing in them neertheless.  This is just complete nonsense meant to be confusing.  You don't use your CC to fill your tank, which is nice and shows you live within your means, but obviously since Amerikans have now worked up $1T in CC debt, they're not as good at keeping to a budget.

If you feel you need data to show that pumping the oil left underground isn't profitable at the current price, you are free to go find this data, I am not going to bother.  For me, it's just common sense that if there was profit to be made financing it, some banker would float a loan and somebody would go frack for it.

Far as the reason the EIA was created, that's no different than why the SEC was created.  The concept is to have a goobeermint watchdog.  In practice, both the SEC and EIA are fabulous examples of regulatory capture and the revolving door of private sector employees who take jobs with the government and vica versa.  The ratings agencies are the same way, Moody's, Fitch etc.  How they rate the bonds should tell the risk, but they just follow what the underwriter says.  If you haven't seen The Big Short, I suggest you watch it.


Honestly, I have nothing more to say to you.  You are convinced of your beliefs, and you ignore what's going on all around us. Your success rate convincing folks here of this belief is having zero success, so I suggest you try another website.

RE

A corollary to the price & profitability of oil and where it's located also explains both the current conflicts Ukraine and Israel.  Ukraine has little to do with ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Israeli bombing of Palestinians only slightly more about the animosity between Jews and Muslims.  In both cases it is about 2 neighborhoods critical in bringing Oil and NG to Europe at affordable prices.

Oil gets to Europe by 2 routes, either by tankers across the Mediterranean or by pipeline coming from Russia of from Turkey.

(https://blog.glyphobet.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/european-pipelines1.gif)  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260056385/figure/fig2/AS:297169182576641@1447862062106/Oil-and-Gas-Pipeline-Infrastructure-in-the-Middle-East-35.png)

In the case of the tankers on the Mediterranean, that oil has mostly left from ports in North Africa, but sadly the Algerians, Libyans and Moroccoans are thin these days in their oil supply. Oil coming out of Iran will for the most part go through Turkey, and Saudi Oil cab go that way or it has to get to the Mediterranean.  Either it goes on a tanker and transits the Suez canal, or it goes out through Israel.  It crosses Gaza, and whoever controls that territory controls the transit fees.


Same is true for oil coming up from Turkey or from Russia.  Both transit the pipeline through Ukraine.  Whoever controls Ukraine controls those transit fees as well.  Which explains why Putin would much rather see Trump elected than Biden.  The Bidens are financially tied to Ukrainian interests.

Germany and the rest of Europe was solidly with the FSoA when they thought this would keep cheap oil flowing through Ukraine with a quick win, but the war has been expensive and sanctions against Russia has made oil expensive too.  They are now less worried that Putin will overprice his oil if he has Ukraine than Biden would.

Back when Kissinger Inc killed the USSR by underpricing the Russians with Saudi and FSoA oil, this side was in the catbird seat with the most cheap oil available.  Now the situation is reversed, Mother Russia is in the catbird seat.  Europe's loyalty to NATOs is only as strong as who will provide them oil at the cheapest price.  Thus the Ukrainians are running out of ammo.

The great geopolitical chess game of oil goes into the endgame. Henry is probably rolling over in his grave.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 12, 2024, 06:17 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 12, 2024, 03:51 PMIs it because by simply assembing them together in one place all the conspiracy angles and peak oil claims would be dispatched and we would know WAY more about remaining oil volumes than we should?

You think there is a conspiracy to prevent Peak Oil claims from being dispatched?  That seems highly unlikely, to be polite.

RE

Oil companies compete with each other.  It is our capitalist system.  All companies must pump oil and generate revenue.  The more they pump, the more money they make.  There absolutely is a bias to suppress depletion data and exaggerate reserves.  Pump today because tomorrow you can't.  Somebody else will get the oil if you don't turn it into money first.  Capitalism is the institutional manifestation of the parable of the tribes.

1920's tech could not get todays' oil.  By the standards of 1920 we are completely out of oil.  The oil fields of that time by themselves could not keep one US state going.  Pick your state. 

The vicious circle principle keeps things going with advanced tech until oil production can't keep up with demand.  This is key.  Oil company executives are cheerleaders of the technical solution.  Technology bedazzles them.  Their business is all about tech.  They are the worst purveyors of hopium on the face of the earth.  On top of which they lie.  On top of which they own government.

When civil disruption DESTROYS the ability to use the advanced tech we already have, the world literally runs out of oil all at once.  Once billions start dying oil will not be pumped.  Chaos will rule.

Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

* That fucking talking chicken says more oil will be pumped in 2050 than is pumped now.  Natural gas condensates from fracked shale rock will give boundless new energy. 

How do you kill a cartoon? (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.YugmHmsY69At9qi7_V4lNgHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=464e5e6f2bb5891be56544da8081030925d21c3a061aaeaa243ad96d12d3e630&ipo=images)  The chicken has no accountability.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:10 AMExtinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 19, 2024, 11:21 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:10 AMExtinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Not zero.  North Sentinel Island survives.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:28 AM

Quote from: RE on Feb 19, 2024, 11:21 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 19, 2024, 11:10 AMExtinction baby, the Seneca cliff, and you did not think it could happen.

So you are now in the Extinction camp?  How long do you project it to take to get down to ZERO Homo Saps walking the earth?

RE

Not zero.  North Sentinel Island survives.

Then why did you write "Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"? As long as there is a population somewhere with enough breeding pairs, rebound is possible.  Simply because this place is more isolated with stone age people than most doesn't make it the only possible location either.   There are numerous isolated stone age tribes sprinkled in remote places around the world, primarily in Africa, Indonesia and the Amazon.

Once all the ammo runs out and it gets down to primitive weapons, you'll end up with pockets of survivors who scavenge and find food sources. I highly doubt the whole of North America could go to ZERO in under a century, probably 2 is minimum.  You are becoming as alarmist as Dr. McStinksion.

RE

Quote"Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"

From the point of view of someone who died in the middle of the siege of Leningrad humans were going extinct.  No difference.  Humanity as we know it teotwayki -> teohawki.  The End Of Humanity As We Know it.

The house burns down.  Some smoking embers remain, and things will never be the same.  The house still burns down. 

Obsession with absolute extinction is narcissism.

Well, to me the word "extinction" is not a relative term.  It's not "from the POV of the peoople who died off", it's a biological term that means there are no organisms of a species left.  Calling this an extinction is overly dramatic and alarmist.  It's a Population Knockdown, likely a very large one.

Civilizations don't go extinct.  Civilizations COLLAPSE.  That's the accurate term for TEOTWAWKI.

RE

If all humans are extinct there is no concept of being extinct since there are no humans brains left to think about what being extinct is.  Therefore, humans can only ever be in the process of becoming extinct.  Which we are. 

We can not ever be extinct because that would require a human to contemplate the reality of being extinct, which is not possible.  It can only ever be a relative term when extinction is applied to humanity.

Humanity is going extinct.

The definition exists whether people do or not.  Humanity exists as long as humans do.  It may be different humanity than contemporary humanity, just as Indonesian cannibals are different.  They are still humans though.

We can agree to disagree here.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 20, 2024, 02:36 PMThe definition exists whether people do or not.  Humanity exists as long as humans do.  It may be different humanity than contemporary humanity, just as Indonesian cannibals are different.  They are still humans though.

We can agree to disagree here.

RE

No the definition does not exist if everyone is dead.  Definitions do not have an independent existence apart from thinking brains.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 20, 2024, 03:24 PMNo the definition does not exist if everyone is dead.  Definitions do not have an independent existence apart from thinking brains.

Everyone isn't dead, we already agreed on that. Who says there are no thinking brains? Are you saying the people living on North sentinel Island can't think?  Can you read the mind of a Dolphin?  A Bonobo?  A Dog? How about the rest of the universe?  No thinking life anywhere?  What about the soul, reincarnation, other dimensions?  The concepts exist regardless of humans present to think about them.  Raccoon archaeologists may evolve if they don't go extinct, dig up human fossils and say "this species went extinct."

(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.5004555675.0138/pp,504x498-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u1.jpg)

RE

QuoteEveryone isn't dead, we already agreed on that.

The North Sentinel Islands are at extreme risk.  The process of extinction is still at work.  The sea is rising as Antarctica continues to melt.  A fatal wet-bulb heat wave could wipe them out.  A bat flu pandemic could wipe them out if they leave the island.  The human bottleneck is sixth extinction tight.

The process of becoming extinct continues.  And considering the small number of islanders and the limited number of paths through the forests of their intellectual landscape, the notion of extinction might all ready be extinct.

* Thinking raccoons will think the same way we do is projection.  Their concepts will be different.  The probability of having the same concepts humanity had is next to zero. Human concepts do not exist without humans present to think about them.

Of course the PROCESS of extinction is still at work.  Just as a person begins to die as soon as they are born, species begin to become extinct as soon as they evolve.  Nothing lasts forever.  The only question is how LONG before you die or go extinct?  Thus I asked the question of you on how long once you began to equivocate on the concept and said North Sentinel Islanders will survive.  You still haven't answered that question.

I am projecting nothing.  Math concepts are the same no matter what species comes up with them.  The extinction question is just binary math, 1 or 0 are the only choices.  There is no "partially extinct", either you are or are not.  0=Extinct, 1=not extinct.  End of story.

RE

You think concepts have an independent existence apart from humans.  That is classic utopian thinking.  I say we have no free will are no more than the sum total of our personal experiences.  All our ideas are no more than abstractions of experience.  There is no independent universe of ideas, and we have no free will.  Learning is the communication of experience but, without a human to learn there is no learning.
 
Without humans there are no ideas.

It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.
When the man is a scientist who's salary requires and depends on him studying topics to the best of ability....how can his salary require him to NOT understand it?

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 20, 2024, 08:32 PMIt Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.
When the man is a scientist who's salary requires and depends on him studying topics to the best of ability....how can his salary require him to NOT understand it?

In that case salary depends on not not understanding.  A negation is introduced but nothing is really changed because salary determines what is understood in both cases.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 20, 2024, 07:51 PMThere is no independent universe of ideas, and we have no free will.  Learning is the communication of experience but, without a human to learn there is no learning.

Without humans there are no ideas.

That is a very anthropocentric view of existence, that ideas cannot exist without people.  Actually, IMHO, people would not exist without ideas, they wouldn't become sapient.  Sapience is the ability to use your brain to discover the ideas and principles that govern the universe.  From your point of view the law of gravity doesn't exist until humans arrive and figure out what it is.  But that idea, that it's directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to their distance apart was true long before Newton came up with the idea.  It's been true since the Big Bang and the beginning of time.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 20, 2024, 10:57 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 20, 2024, 08:32 PMIt Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.
When the man is a scientist who's salary requires and depends on him studying topics to the best of ability....how can his salary require him to NOT understand it?

In that case salary depends on not not understanding.  A negation is introduced but nothing is really changed because salary determines what is understood in both cases.

Wow, that one has some interesting logic.

But if I understand, then a scientist's salary, paying him or her to do the best work possible, delivers the best work possible. No misunderstanding of anything....just high quality, unbiased and objective results.

Sounds reasonable. Sounds like what science is supposed to be.

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 21, 2024, 09:37 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 20, 2024, 10:57 PM

Quote from: TDoS on Feb 20, 2024, 08:32 PMIt Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It.
When the man is a scientist who's salary requires and depends on him studying topics to the best of ability....how can his salary require him to NOT understand it?

In that case salary depends on not not understanding.  A negation is introduced but nothing is really changed because salary determines what is understood in both cases.

Wow, that one has some interesting logic.

But if I understand, then a scientist's salary, paying him or her to do the best work possible, delivers the best work possible. No misunderstanding of anything....just high quality, unbiased and objective results.

Sounds reasonable. Sounds like what science is supposed to be.

What the "best work" is depends on who is writing the paycheck and what they want the scientist to show.  So if the research is being funded by a Tobacco company and they want to show that smoking is safe, the best work comes from a scientist who does a study that demonstrates that.  The scientist working for a capitalist is a Hired Gun.  They hire the fastest gun money can buy.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 20, 2024, 11:58 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 20, 2024, 07:51 PMThere is no independent universe of ideas, and we have no free will.  Learning is the communication of experience but, without a human to learn there is no learning.

Without humans there are no ideas.

That is a very anthropocentric view of existence, that ideas cannot exist without people.  Actually, IMHO, people would not exist without ideas, they wouldn't become sapient.  Sapience is the ability to use your brain to discover the ideas and principles that govern the universe.  From your point of view the law of gravity doesn't exist until humans arrive and figure out what it is.  But that idea, that it's directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to their distance apart was true long before Newton came up with the idea.  It's been true since the Big Bang and the beginning of time.

RE

"Sapience is the ability to use your brain to discover the ideas and principles that govern the universe."

No, we do not discover, we create abstractions from sense perceptions.  After abstracting the idealist goes on to fool themself that their abstractions are ideas with an existence outside themself.  That is an error.


It is not anthropocentric,  it is the opposite.  The universe has an existence independent of people, but ideas don't exist if people don't.  Ideas are only abstractions made by the human brain.  They have no independent existence.  This is proved by simply noting ideas can be wrong.

When there are no humans left on the planet, there is nobody left to say people have become extinct.  There is nobody left to define what people were.

I already answered this argument, I'm not going through the whole exercise in epistemiology again.  We agreed to disagree.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 24, 2024, 07:51 PMI already answered this argument, I'm not going through the whole exercise in epistemiology again.  We agreed to disagree.

RE

I wish they would give the story I wrote about the aliens finding the Porky Pig cartoon in a film can being the only surviving relic of humanity back.  That was a damn good story for being under 400 words.

Yes we agreed to disagree.  I am a materialist and you are a classic idealist.

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.hQQqL-wwb2ilZn7iMNOIqwHaGJ%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=f826ec2b707f99cc312705ce91e2f4d2e20c565d32de3217b7f2088f80889204&ipo=images)

I say it is all in your head.  You believe in the old man in the sky.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 24, 2024, 08:53 PMI say it is all in your head.  You believe in the old man in the sky.

I never said anything about an old man in the sky.  You buy the propaganda of Christianity and anthropomorphize God.  Man was made in the image of God,  Jesus was the Son of God and all the rest of the ridiculous nonsense in the Bible about Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark, etc.

What I said was that the Universe shows too much evidence of Intelligent Design to be a random event.  The intelligence behind that design most certainly wasn't Human, whatever it actually was.  Since it's extra-universal, it's impossible to know what it was, since the only thing we can observe is the universe as we view it now from this place and time.  We can extrapolate what it looked like by measuring how fast it is expanding, but we can't go any further back than the Big Bang.  The Intelligence had to exist before that, which means before there was matter or energy or gravity or anything else stemming from those things we can observe.

Misquoting me with ridicule is a poor way to try to prove your point.

RE

It is the logical consequence of your universe of ideas.  If ideas have an independent existence, both man and god must have the capacity think them in the same way.  That creates man in gods image, and you get the old man in the sky.  No way around it.

Obviously not, since that wasn't my conclusion.  It's the conclusion only a materialist would draw, and is most certainly not logical.  You are a material boy, living in a material world.  Whatever works for you.  Not my speed.  I live in the ideal world, and logic is an idea.  We're better at it.


RE

Ok, I am amused, but every reference that explains materialism starts out by making the distinction between that materialism.

QuoteThe theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life. And concern for possessions or material wealth and physical comfort, especially to the exclusion of spiritual or intellectual pursuits.

And this materialism.

QuoteThe theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

You choice of Madonna is interesting.  She has always liked to mock religion with upside down crosses and such.  This pisses many people off.  She had some friend who was doing something in a Satan outfit last year.  I don't know or care about the details of that.  Wearing a devil suit to piss religious people off seems childish to me.

Madonna's materialism is hedonism.  The philosophy of shiny objects, having nothing to do with me saying we have no free will, and you saying we do.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 25, 2024, 10:03 AMMadonna's materialism is hedonism.  The philosophy of shiny objects, having nothing to do with me saying we have no free will, and you saying we do.

When did I ever say we have free will?  This is as bad as saying I think there is an old man in the sky.  Perpetually putting words in my mouth I never said or even implied is a piss poor means to try and win a debate.  I suggest you return to something you're good at like coding instead of wasting everybody's time with more epistemiological drivel.  Your code will last long after we go extinct, even if there's nobody left to read it or computers with functional microprocessors to run it on.  Code is an idea also btw.  Perhaps in a billion years in a galaxy far far away someone will rediscover that idea, and they surely won't be human.  They will likely be a carbon based life form though, because the properties of the elements on the periodic table and thermodynamics determine that.  No free will in how that works, nor in the biochemistry of life that evolves from that, or the thinking that evolves from complex living organisms.  Making the claim I think there is free will is the most incredibly wrong conclusion you could possibly draw from what I write.  Clearly, your input and output systems work, but your logic circuits in between running what pops out on my computer when I open one of these posts is scrambled eggs.  Time to debug your code.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 25, 2024, 10:49 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 25, 2024, 10:03 AMMadonna's materialism is hedonism.  The philosophy of shiny objects, having nothing to do with me saying we have no free will, and you saying we do.

When did I ever say we have free will?  This is as bad as saying I think there is an old man in the sky.  Perpetually putting words in my mouth I never said or even implied is a piss poor means to try and win a debate.  I suggest you return to something you're good at like coding instead of wasting everybody's time with more epistemiological drivel.  Your code will last long after we go extinct, even if there's nobody left to read it or computers with functional microprocessors to run it on.  Code is an idea also btw.  Perhaps in a billion years in a galaxy far far away someone will rediscover that idea, and they surely won't be human.  They will likely be a carbon based life form though, because the properties of the elements on the periodic table and thermodynamics determine that.  No free will in how that works, nor in the biochemistry of life that evolves from that, or the thinking that evolves from complex living organisms.  Making the claim I think there is free will is the most incredibly wrong conclusion you could possibly draw from what I write.  Clearly, your input and output systems work, but your logic circuits in between running what pops out on my computer when I open one of these posts is scrambled eggs.  Time to debug your code.

RE

I am just taking things to the logical conclusion to save time.  If you are a theist you believe in free will, how can you not.  And you did say you were a theist.  A theist believes in an intelligence separate from the body.  An immortal soul.  An independent soul that can make free choice.

Code is no more than a collection of symbols having no intrinsic meaning without a human to see it.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 25, 2024, 11:04 AMI am just taking things to the logical conclusion to save time.  If you are a theist you believe in free will, how can you not.  And you did say you were a theist.  A theist believes in an intelligence separate from the body.  An immortal soul.  An independent soul that can make free choice.

The only thing thing a Theist has to believe is that something we refer to as God exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe.  After that, the Theist can define God however suits him and how God operates in whatever way is consistent with that definition.  It doesn't require the belief in an immortal soul for the individual, though I do happen to believe that.  The only thing that has to be immortal is whatever was responsible for the creation of the universe the individual exists in.  Whatever it was, it does not need to have a physical form of any kind, much less like a human individual does.  Since it existed before the creation of the universe, it doesn't even have to be matter, energy or gravity and probably isn't, since it created all of those along with the creation of the universe.  It doesn't even need to be interfering in the operation of the universe after creating it.  After that, the universe can just run on its own, like a ball you push at the top of a hill, and after that just keeps rolling downhill.  Does the ball have free will?  Of course not, it just follows the law of gravity until it hits bottom or crashes into something.  Homo Saps are mostly just slightly more complex balls rolling down a slightly more complex hill.

If said theist does believe in a soul, what happens to it when the meat package it is contained in finishes its journey down the hill and dies?  Who knows?  Perhaps it gets reincarnated, perhaps it joins up with other disembodied souls and has a big orgy beyond the event horizon of a black hole, perhaps it achieves nirvahna, perhaps it dissipates into nothingness...you can make any conjecture you like there.  Personally I like the reincarnation, orgy & nirvahna hypotheses, not a fan of the nothingness one.  That's because just like you can't make something from nothing, you can't make nothing from something.  1st Law of Souls:  Souls are neither created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another.

QuoteCode is no more than a collection of symbols having no intrinsic meaning without a human to see it.

Nonsense.  It most certainly has meaning, since it performs a specific function which is repeatable.  If all human beings disappeared tomorrow, it would continue to perform that function as long as it was running on a computer with a continuing source of energy.  If it was AI, it could write more code to do other functions and if tied to a robotic factory could manufacture more computers and robotic mining equipment to get resources to build more computers, again with a continuing source of energy necessary.  Were humans necessary to get this ball rolling?  Sure, but not necessary once created, it runs itself.

This is just a thought experiment, by no means do I believe this level of technological self-replication will be achieved before the creators (us) run out of resources and energy, but in principle it's possible.  If we did get there, we would have been God for this new species of machines.

RE

Quote from: RE on Feb 25, 2024, 11:51 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 25, 2024, 11:04 AMI am just taking things to the logical conclusion to save time.  If you are a theist you believe in free will, how can you not.  And you did say you were a theist.  A theist believes in an intelligence separate from the body.  An immortal soul.  An independent soul that can make free choice.

The only thing thing a Theist has to believe is that something we refer to as God exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe.  After that, the Theist can define God however suits him and how God operates in whatever way is consistent with that definition.  It doesn't require the belief in an immortal soul for the individual, though I do happen to believe that.  The only thing that has to be immortal is whatever was responsible for the creation of the universe the individual exists in.  Whatever it was, it does not need to have a physical form of any kind, much less like a human individual does.  Since it existed before the creation of the universe, it doesn't even have to be matter, energy or gravity and probably isn't, since it created all of those along with the creation of the universe.  It doesn't even need to be interfering in the operation of the universe after creating it.  After that, the universe can just run on its own, like a ball you push at the top of a hill, and after that just keeps rolling downhill.  Does the ball have free will?  Of course not, it just follows the law of gravity until it hits bottom or crashes into something.  Homo Saps are mostly just slightly more complex balls rolling down a slightly more complex hill.

If said theist does believe in a soul, what happens to it when the meat package it is contained in finishes its journey down the hill and dies?  Who knows?  Perhaps it gets reincarnated, perhaps it joins up with other disembodied souls and has a big orgy beyond the event horizon of a black hole, perhaps it achieves nirvahna, perhaps it dissipates into nothingness...you can make any conjecture you like there.  Personally I like the reincarnation, orgy & nirvahna hypotheses, not a fan of the nothingness one.  That's because just like you can't make something from nothing, you can't make nothing from something.  1st Law of Souls:  Souls are neither created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another.

QuoteCode is no more than a collection of symbols having no intrinsic meaning without a human to see it.

Nonsense.  It most certainly has meaning, since it performs a specific function which is repeatable.  If all human beings disappeared tomorrow, it would continue to perform that function as long as it was running on a computer with a continuing source of energy.  If it was AI, it could write more code to do other functions and if tied to a robotic factory could manufacture more computers and robotic mining equipment to get resources to build more computers, again with a continuing source of energy necessary.  Were humans necessary to get this ball rolling?  Sure, but not necessary once created, it runs itself.

This is just a thought experiment, by no means do I believe this level of technological self-replication will be achieved before the creators (us) run out of resources and energy, but in principle it's possible.  If we did get there, we would have been God for this new species of machines.

RE

Code is machinery, nothing more.  Code has no consciousness.  Meaning is something perceived.  Code can do stuff, and a rock can fall.  Both have equal meaning.  Which is none because there is no perceiver.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 25, 2024, 08:21 PMCode is machinery, nothing more.  Code has no consciousness.  Meaning is something perceived.  Code can do stuff, and a rock can fall.  Both have equal meaning.  Which is none because there is no perceiver.

I never said anything about Consciousness either.  Now you are shifting the goalpost.  Before you said human ideas wouldn't exist after extinction.  Now you say someone or thing has to be conscious of their existence.  So I demonstrated why they could continue to exist, be interpreted and acted upon by a machine, not that the machine was conscious of it.  That isn't necessary.

Far as consciousness, who's to say those machines won't become self-aware later?  ;D


RE

You can't have ideas without a consciousness to think them.  And you can't have that without a meat package.  Name one example where consciousness exists without a meat package, or where an idea exists without consciousness. You can't.

QuoteFar as consciousness, who's to say those machines won't become self-aware later?

I am to say.  Machines are deterministic, and the output of code is always repeatable given the same input conditions. 'Who is to say' is human narcissism.  Humans are so afraid of not existing after death that pretending consciousness can appear where we wish is a ubiquitious fantasy. 

Consciousness emerges with meat packages and the proof of that is we are here.  Quantum effects between cellular logic gates?  Can that work with a machine using discrete transistors?  Can quantum effects result in conscious behavior? 

Maybe, but nothing so far has requested more power and asked not to be turned off without being programmed to act that way.  There is no reason beyond hopium that a computer will ever do that in the future.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 26, 2024, 08:01 AMYou can't have ideas without a consciousness to think them.  And you can't have that without a meat package.  Name one example where consciousness exists without a meat package, or where an idea exists without consciousness. You can't.

The ideas are obviously there, they are simply waiting to be found.  Whether they ever will be is an open question.  Probably not, since even if there are aliens, they'll never make it to earth for the same reason we will never leave.  AI becoming self aware is equally improbable.  Again though,someone thinking about something isn't necessary for existence. A tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it does make a sound, and you can prove that by leaving a tape recorder there which will pick up the vibration we perceive as sound.  The recorder doesn't understand the idea, but we do later.  Ideas don't disappear from existence any more than a rock does with nobody around to hit you over the head with it.  lol.  Not sure if that would make a difference though, you have a very thick skull.  ;D

Whatever floats your boat.  We agree to disagree.  The horse is a bloody pulp.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/705/640/673.gif)

RE

We agree to disagree, but the idealistic frame leads to passivity.

To get what I mean this might help.

Hopium is not the same thing as hope.  Hope is what people who are DOING SOMETHING have.  Hopium is what people who are passive and don't DO ANYTHING have.

Hopium is internally generated to maintain a passive do nothing attitude.  Hopium imagines the power of ideas will triumph in the real world because they have an independent existence.


The materialist knows that the only thing that matters is what we do. 

The contrast is real.  The idealist will tolerate injustice thinking karma will fix shit.  IMHO, that attitude is full of shit.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 26, 2024, 10:36 AMHopium is not the same thing as hope.  Hope is what people who are DOING SOMETHING have.  Hopium is what people who are passive and don't DO ANYTHING have.

Hopium is internally generated to maintain a passive do nothing attitude.  Hopium imagines the power of ideas will triumph in the real world because they have an independent existence.

Well, all you need to disprove this hypothesis is a single example to negate it.  I have one.  It's ME!  :)  :)  :)

I'm an idealist, but definitely not a "Do Nothing".  I write a whole lot and make videos to inform people about collapse.  In both cases a good deal more than you.

I also don't have have Hopium.  I have what I consider the very realistic HOPE that collapse will lead to a very extreme population knockdown of 99.9% or greater in the near term, which I define as within 100-200 years.  After that either stabilization or a rebound until we finally do go extinct, which of course is inevitable.  I have set the date for extinction also.  In the Year 2525.  ;D


Most people would consider this very Doomerish, after all it postulates the death of more than 8B people over a very short time.  It also postulates a return to stone age technology and living standards, barely different from the way Bonobos live.  Which makes sense since we share 98% the same DNA code.  But NOOOOOOO.  Not good enough for you and Dr. McStinksion, you gotta have every last fucking Homo Sap stone cold dead shortly after the oil drops off the map.  Meibee so, but it's not written in stone and it ain't ovah till the fat lady sings.  She sings to you, but not to me.

(https://media1.tenor.com/m/XkuaGA0SIHoAAAAC/fat-lady-opera.gif)

I doubt either of us will live long enough to even see the end of the first halving year when 4B people die.  We'll be with that cohort for sure.  5 years later with exponential negative growth 2B, and at 5 years there's STILL 3% of the original population left.  That would be 240M people for those of you with weak math skills.

So, we'll never get that question resolved on these pages either, which leaves us only with another equine to tenderize.  Do we really need to waste everybody's time with this one also?  ::)

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/705/640/673.gif)

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 26, 2024, 10:36 AMThe contrast is real.  The idealist will tolerate injustice thinking karma will fix shit.

One more thing.

Since when have I ever been considered tolerant or a fan of karmic justice?  My form of Justice is well known.   ;D


No problem so big that rolling a few heads won't solve.  >:(

RE

Quoteince when have I ever been considered tolerant or a fan of karmic justice?  My form of Justice is well known.

You are taking it personally, and I don't mean any of this to be personal.  So think about someone else besides yourself.  People who take Karma seriously are everywhere.  Their idealism is destroying the world.  Some idiots even say this is all "gods' plan".

I do not know why you are going on about extinction.  When half the people are gone, reality will have folded several times over on itself.  The future is unpredictable after it folds.  It can't be known.  I am serious about folding.  Reality folds when something like COVID comes along or a war starts.  A few such game changing events makes the future unpredictable.

Technology has extracted all easy oil.  This fact is not sufficiently appreciated, even by doomsters.  Oil extraction requires high technology,  and social shocks will disrupt the ability to supply needed high technology as finance fails.  This crisis will result in a hard crash, with 10s of millions of Americans starving to death.  This hard crash can be avoided with a planned economy, but that is not going to happen.  We will have the hard crash instead.  From my point of view this is just as much suffering as going extinct.

People obsessed with extinction need to get a life.  They should be supporting people who are trying to make change instead of deciding everyone else is mentally challenged because they don't know 'the truth'.  Most people are watchers, few will do anything to make change.  That is most people.  But all people obsessed with extinction do nothing but watch.  They do nothing to mitigate things.  Extinction people say other people are stupid and smoke hopium.  Extinction people do not understand that hope is reserved for people who actually do something.

And now I will repeat myself because you failed to pay attention earlier.  I have specific objections to people who concentrate on extinction.  There is no difference between near extinction and absolute extinction from the point of view of human suffering.

Quote"Extinction baby, the Seneca cliff"

Same difference.  The house burns down.  Some smoking embers can remain, but things will never be the same.  The house still burns down.  Obsession with absolute extinction is narcissism.  Please don't compare me to McStinksion again.

QuoteI write a whole lot and make videos to inform people about collapse.  In both cases a good deal more than you.

That's great.  Keep up the good work.

Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 26, 2024, 11:27 PM

QuoteSince when have I ever been considered tolerant or a fan of karmic justice?  My form of Justice is well known.

You are taking it personally, and I don't mean any of this to be personal.  So think about someone else besides yourself.  People who take Karma seriously are everywhere.  Their idealism is destroying the world.  Some idiots even say this is all gods' plan.

Not taking it personally, no worries there.  :)   Just doing what's necessary to refute an argument, and in that case all that was necessary was to provide a single example that was contrapositive to the premise.  The example happened to be me, since you had made me an example of idealistic thinking.  Remember, I taught the Arguments portion of the LSAT for the Princeton Review.  It's a gift.  lol.

QuoteI do not why you are going on about extinction.  When half the people are gone, reality will have folded several times over on itself.  The future is unpredictable after it folds a few times.  It can't be known.

People obsessed with extinction need to get a life.  They should be supporting people who are trying to make change instead of deciding everyone else is mentally challenged.  Most people are watchers, few will do anything to make change.

You are the one who has been insisting that this collapse will end with extinction, and ZERO people will survive the Zero Point of Oil availability.  I don't accept that argument as fulfilling necessary & sufficient conditions for extinction.  So as long as you maintained that it would end that way, I would make arguments to show otherwise.  Just as I continued arguing the position that ideas don't exist without Homo Saps around to think them.  I don't buy that one either.  So we agreed to disagree after it went on long enough to become tiresome.  Now that you have backed off and left it open ended as unpredictable, we have come to an agreement.  Arguments complete from both sides,  it's up to the jury (our readers) to decide for themselves which way it will end, Extinction or Knockdown.

QuoteUsing helicopters to shoot goats in the Galapagos islands worked as expected until most of the goats were gone.  The last 10% learned to hide well enough to avoid getting shot.  Special techniques needed to be used.  Judas goats with radio transmitters.  The extinction of the Galapagos goats turned out to be more difficult than anticipated.

Indeed.  Extinction is really, really difficult to achieve with any species, and Homo Sap is a highly adaptable one that has survived both major climate changes and catastrophic volcanic explosions.  We populated the entire globe from the desert sands in the tropics to the frozen tundra above the arctic circle.  From sea level to 3 KM (16.000 ft) up in the Andes and the Himalayas, nearly halfway up to the Death Zone above 8 KM (26,000 ft) where the oxygen is too thin for any life at all.  Human corpses up there don't even decompose with nothing there to feed on them.

When we are knocked down the population can go really low before there is no turning back.  75,000 years ago the were just 10,000 Human Souls left still walking the earth encased in meat packages, and from that group with just 1000 breeding pairs, we rebounded to 500M in 1600, before the Age of Oil.  Will we ever rebound that far again?  Unlikely in my estimation since it took 75,000 years to get there, and I believe the Prophets Zager & Evans that we only have 500 years left, In the year 2525.  Or maybe 10,000, going to the final lyrics. lol. 8)

QuotePlease don't compare me to McStinksion again.

As long as you don't insist on extinction as the obligatory outcome for the end of the Age of Oil in the near term, I won't.  Once you take that position, you climb into bed with Dr. McStinksion. Long as it is a known unknown, , you aren't in that rathole.  That's up to you.

Quote

QuoteI write a whole lot and make videos to inform people about collapse.  In both cases a good deal more than you.

That's great.  Keep up the good work.

I'll do my best.  Keep on Truckin'

(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/0ef5ad_dd033e739b294ba29cbd648d2e86a74f~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_640,h_262,al_c,lg_1,q_85,enc_auto/0ef5ad_dd033e739b294ba29cbd648d2e86a74f~mv2.png)

RE