AuthorTopic: Obsolescence of the Obsolete  (Read 14161 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« on: August 11, 2012, 02:45:15 AM »
Obsolescence of the Obsolete now UP on the Diner Blog.

This is a major OPUS off the keyboard of RE I have been working on for a few days, it tops 4000 Words.  Weekend grist for the Diner Mill over breakfast.

RE
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 03:53:48 AM by RE »
Save As Many As You Can

Offline EndIsNigh

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2012, 03:49:21 AM »
Hey mate just a heads up that the link here doesn't work.  Got it from the blog page though.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2012, 03:55:23 AM »
Thanks EiN.  Link now Fixed.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2012, 06:01:39 AM »
Quotes RE "
"Then more recently is Nobody, a regular on Reverse Engineering and one of the few Females who would drop in with the Testosterone Crowd who made a couple of Brief Appearances here on the Diner after we got it going, but who now is somewhere Out There in Lurkerville doing who KNOWS What?

Ross also has disappeared, Karpatok has disappeared and Jb makes only Brief Cameo Appearances here on the Diner these days. Ashvin aka Watson who for a couple of months was ALL OVER the pages of the Diner as well as his Home The Automatic Earth is also MIA here. Ashvin actually exceeded my own hours logged on to DD, but he no longer surfs this way anymore, at least not signed in anyhow."

"Finally, most troubling for me  personally is my Co-Founder of the Doomstead Diner, Peter. I have known Peter for a long time on the Net, since we first met up on Market Ticker in around 2009 I think it was.  Peter and I spent many hours at the keyboard on Reverse Engineering discussing Conspiracy Theories, Hydroponics and Philosophy of Life in general"


I was not an original Diner member on the old board but also have become saddened and dismayed by the silence of these most informative and impassioned members.

Just yesterday I had posted a message to them asking that they drop in to say hello if they were busy to let us know all was well with them.

Peter is also a special case for me. He is my favorite Diner poster and was my reason for becoming a member. Peter and his writings are brilliant, constructive, lacking in ego, totally original and masterfully written. How I hope he will return soon and embellish the Diner blog with more of his works.

 RE, I would like to make a special request if you have any of Peter's older unpublished on the Diner works; that you find the time to make them available under a special topic of Peter's works. There is no doubt in my mind they would be welcome reading to most Diners and are well worth archiving.  Thanks, GO         

Offline EndIsNigh

  • Contrarian
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2012, 06:28:59 AM »
Some interesting themes going on in this article, from the social aspects of the internet, to the nature of intellectual debate.  In the real world as on the internet, people drift in and out of our lives, observing the rule that nothing is static.  While there is some healthy exchange of thoughts and information here as in other venues, as you pointed out humans tend to talk AT each other, instead of talking together.  How can any significant understanding come from a process of "I defy you, you defy me?"  I see this is in part caused by not listening, or in this case not reading.  We're always evaluating everything against our preconceived notions.  Meanwhile, there is no absolute reality and so contradicts our desire to have all the answers.  I watch myself doing it from time to time and anyone who is true to themself must too. 

So why don't we listen or read?   It's because almost all activity we humans engage in tends to involve building and supporting the ego.  We create and defend our own version of the truth to lend support to the identity of self.  It is the source of all conflict.  I think you realise this going by your observation that the world's biggest ego drives everyone away, though I wouldn't be too hard on yourself because we're all doing it in our own way.  The first step in taming the ego is in being aware of it's activity from the third person perspective.  By watching this way you increase your conciousness, if we define it by upgrading an unconcious process to a concious process.  You say it's who "I AM" and while that's true, the ego part of who you are is only one of the programs running, not the whole matrix.  Being more mindful of this helps to improve the value of information exchange, assuming all parties are on the same page.

As you said there are bigger themes that the blogosphere and commentariat tend to agree upon despite their specific Brand of DoomTM.  I would hazard a guess that the core themes are aligned with cultural myths as outlined in the works of Joseph Campbell.  It's the universal myths that we find our common ground despite the dividing nature of the separate self.  If we focus on the universal myths we might overcome the limitations of the infinite personal myths.  It's like saying, lets agree to disagree on all the idiosyncratic aspects of the multitudinous Brands of DoomTM and instead agree to discuss the myths and stories that underly them.  It could lead to a healthier sense of community instead of a sea of 'me.'

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2012, 07:58:36 AM »
RE, I would like to make a special request if you have any of Peter's older unpublished on the Diner works; that you find the time to make them available under a special topic of Peter's works. There is no doubt in my mind they would be welcome reading to most Diners and are well worth archiving.  Thanks, GO         

There is nothing of Peter's in the Diner left unpublished.  I do have REAMS of stuff from him in the archives of Reverse Engineering, but I won't publish that stuff without his express permission.

I'll work on getting him back in here.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2012, 08:17:31 AM »
It's like saying, lets agree to disagree on all the idiosyncratic aspects of the multitudinous Brands of DoomTM and instead agree to discuss the myths and stories that underly them.  It could lead to a healthier sense of community instead of a sea of 'me.'

Since you have BoDs Trademarked, does that mean I have to pay you a Royalty for using it?  LOL.

"Agreeing to Disagree" has never been one of my Strong Points either. I will however endeavor not to jump all over everything people write here all the time.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Wyoming

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2012, 11:41:27 AM »
Ok RE, I'll bite.  I definitely fit your occasional commenter general lurker description.

Since I am interpreting your article as sort of a mea culpa and a request for content at the same time I will hop in for a bit.

As in anything where folks like yourself control the medium you are going to get a commenter mind set that tends to mirror your own as most folks are only confrontational to a point (which is commonly reached when they get hammered from all sides, insulted, banned, fail to adhere to the requisite ideology, get tired of reading comments that are unnecessarily long, etc) and then they fade into lurking or just flat do not drop in any more.  I am sure you do chase a lot of folks away with your extremely intense verbiage and volume of comment (it is pretty hard to take the time to read really long comments when one starts to choke in the first paragraph or two).

As an example I read a post of yours a day or two ago on why you don't believe in AGW and you posit an alternate physical process as the cause of Global warming.  IMHO your post is almost certainly tin-foil-hat nonsense.  I have studied the subject of AGW for a number of years am tired of comments like that one as comments written that way always turn out to be nonsense.  If you really are a scientist (and I accept that you were trained as one) then you know the proper method to examine such a hypothesis as yours and thus determine if it has substance.  When you make an extraordinary claim you have to have extraordinary evidence or you are talking nonsense.  When you dismiss scientific conclusions, arrived at by a couple of thousand PhD experts, which are based upon a vast pile of data and hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that are in almost total agreement, without providing data and peer reviewed research to back up your dismissal you are not working from a valid position.  As you know I think.  So, if you have an interesting idea (or at least think you do) then present it in a fashion that opens up a discussion rather than the opposite.  I would also avoid claiming that you are a member of the 1 or 2% of scientists that are in opposition to the AGW consensus.  If you were familiar with that study you would know that it was based upon the group of a couple of thousand PhD's who are fully immersed in the studies of Global Warming on a full time basis.  You are not one of those people.  And you should also be aware that the folks who do make up the 1-2% are considered to be largely completely discredited in scientific terms as their research has been shown to be inaccurate, not-supported by the data, proven full of miscalculations, full of bad applications of physical principles, fails peer review, etc.  They consist of such names as Christy (his religious convictions do not allow him to reach conclusions that his data indicate he should), Lindzen (a history of being paid to support non-scientific conclusions - tobacco does not hurt you - burning fossil fuels does not warm the climate), Plieke (who knows except that he can't seem to get the physics down correctly) and some others like them who are less famous.  Not a group one wants to claim membership in if you are trying to get folks to take you seriously.

Now that I have poked a big stick in your eye let me address your article a bit.

I like it.  I find your article description of the doomer blogosphere pretty accurate from my perspective. 

Most extreme positions are unsupportable if one introduces facts or science into the discussion.  Those and a vociferous failure to adhere to the blogs meme makes for an uncomfortable existence there or banning.  I have experienced both.  I generally walk away when I realize that, as smart as the blog owner might be, the place is being run by a bunch of insane, ignorant, ideological wack jobs.  Genius people are often insane and frequently have outsize egos that lead them astray ( I am not saying you fit this bill but some of the folks you mentioned likely do).  There is no sense in participating at that point.  The only blog I ever found that provided a good platform for discussing the problems we have and potential solutions was The Oil Drum in its first incarnation (not anywhere near as good any more).  I would like to find another and am always searching.

There are lots of bad versions of doomerism out there.  Guy McPherson does write some interesting stuff but his extreme positions are not scientifically defensible and if you believe what he says you SHOULD party as long as you can, as there is no point in worrying about the future any longer.  He does more harm than good IMHO.  I used to read TAE but never go there any more (A is a wack job).  Zero-Hedge occasionally.  Tyler?  Denninger?  Off their rockers half the time.  The trouble is that they all have fatal flaws that detract so much from the value they have. Religious fervor at the expense of rational thought, "free market capitalism" as a religion (what better way to destroy the earth?), Glod bugs, racists, survivalists (who clearly know next to nothing about anything but weapons). 

I break the categories down a little differently.  There is the BAU camp which is divided up into the right and left wing cornucopian's.  Right says to stay the course everything will work out and God will save us if technology doesn't.  Left says technology will save us if we convert to non-fossil energy forms and all share together cum-bayh-yah.  But both seem to believe that we can have a nice version of BAU if we follow their path.  Complete nonsense of course (we can have a big discussion of why if you want - maybe).

Then you have the far left versions of going back to hunter-gatherer, wilding, permaculture (think cult here), raw food, no meat, no guns, am I forgetting a few.  .

And then you have the far right versions of free markets, glod, survival of the fittest, Feudal society structures, Fascism, etc.

A few make a little more sense such as Geer (I think he has serious flaws also though).

What will we get.  All of the above of course.  At least they will be attempted at some point. Such is certain as we have all of those opinions and everyone will try their favorite.  But, as they say; "Mother Nature does not negotiate."   One can make a rational argument that collapse is unavoidable no matter who's ideas are followed.  Some just lead to collapse sooner than others.  But we get there one way or the other.  Peak Oil, AGW. Financial collapse.  The End of Days (this actually already happened it just turned out that no one was chosen).  I tend to think the sooner the better as it leaves the survivors more resources to rebuild/recover.  But pick your poison.  The real question is what kind of collapse do we actually get.  That is an interesting discussion. 

Almost no one will discuss the core of the dilemma we are in.  The absolute core issue to deal with is over population.  There is no possible solution (barring the arrival of the aliens to save or eat us) to our situation that does not put population first.  And who can bring us to working on that?  Romney, Obama, you, me, who?  Bio-warfare anyone?   Nobody's solution works with 7-9 billion people and almost everyone's works with 1 billion people.   What fun.  No, what we are going to do is drift into chaos.

Well there is lots more to say but I have already violated my self-imposed limit on verbiage.  So I will just stop.

Wyo

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2012, 12:48:33 PM »
Quote
So at the moment it appears to me that besides being DOOMED by everything surrounding me, I am DOOMING MYSELF at the same time, driving off the people I care about because I am just such a big fucking ASSHOLE!  A sad situation indeed, because I just AM this way, I can’t help but confront people all the time and I can’t help but keep writing about what I see as a very UGLY outcome for the Collapse of Industrial Civilization.

You may be an ASSHOLE, and you do have an ego BIGGER than the known universe, but you have a big heart too, bigger than most, even with and despite some of your EXTREME POV's. Something like a blogging savant, which few of us, even the most prolific of us, can maintain, or care to aspire to. I'm certainly thankful for the Diner, and it has become something like my go-to place for relevant info, not just what you present, but a half-dozen regular contributors here, who on the whole make this one of the truly most truly insightful websites on the internet. Thanks to you and thanks to all. 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 01:51:32 PM by WHD »

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2012, 01:28:12 PM »
Wyoming,
That was a fascinating and thoughtful comment. Thank you. I like to think I am not tied to any mindset but that of the one that explains physical reality and the direction that set of events is heading us towards. I resist the idea that I am in a "camp" because that tends to lock one in an endowment bias type of defense for a version of reality that may no longer fit actual reality. I am attracted to the DD general mindset, not because I want everything to go to hell or even survive the collapse. I simply believe I have weighed the events in the past, observed the events taking place in the present and extrapolated to the most probable future. As to the cause of global warming, I quoted the PetaWatts of solar energy slamming the earth every day and postulated that the fact that we are now insulating the earth's atmosphere is the main cause. It's not so much that the atmosphere is heating; it's that the solar radiation can't get out to the degree it used to. RE interprets this as "atmospheric heating". I see that as a side effect of solar radiation heating both the atmosphere and the oceanic heat sink. However, I admit that the possibility exists that undersea volcanoes and/or rift activity could increase the heatload. My bone of contention with RE's theory is that earthquake vibrations, regardless of their massive amount of energy content, do not convert to thermal energy but are mostly reabsorbed by the lithosphere. RE won't hear of it and that's fine with me. I am willing to admit both solar and core heat effects play a role (Murder on the Orient express model) as RE himself agrees might be the case. WHD and myself have made the point repeatedly that the oil pigs would love to embrace RE's theory so they could be left off the hook while RE counters that carbon credits are being made hay of by the man-caused global warming proponents. I don't agree because the carbon credits are not a serious attempt to go renewable; it's just corporate bullshit. A great example is Warren Buffett buying carbon credits so his Netjets executive jet fleet is "green". WTF!!?  And let's not forget how INTERESTED Gail was in RE's theory. She eat's that stuff up! This lady still believes nuclear power is renewable energy and "renewable energy" is a "marketing tool"! It's CLEAR what camp she is in. That is what WHD and myself are hollering about when we say RE's theory is considered a Christmas present by the fossil fuel pigs.
So, we go back and forth on this but we talk about it. I think we should because, regardless of how "locked in" any of us appear to be in a mindset, dialogue is better than everyone retreating to their corner. You saw how I was willing to take on RE, who has far more math background than I do, on the basic premise of his theory. I don't think RE wants an echo chamber here.

We should all argue a point because we think we are right, not because we think we can win the argument. As long as opinion is never defended as fact and vice versa, genuine communication can take place. However, as you pointed out, if a "debate" devolves into a contest of wills and the use of unethical debating tactics that dance around facts selectively to undermine the other party's position, then, SURE, I agree with you that there is no point whatsoever in engaging in that exercise in futility. At that point, humor, ridicule or an ad hominem or three  :icon_mrgreen: are all part of the fun! It's all part of being human. My experience with RE is that he wants to win but he doesn't resort to unethical debating tactics to do so. He can be strident but judging from the way he has handled subjects I have brought up that he totally disagrees with, he is willing to rationally discuss opposing views without resorting to dirty pool. That Josey Wales stuff just livens things up a bit. :icon_mrgreen:
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 01:38:10 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2012, 02:24:19 PM »
Quote
When you make an extraordinary claim you have to have extraordinary evidence or you are talking nonsense.  When you dismiss scientific conclusions, arrived at by a couple of thousand PhD experts, which are based upon a vast pile of data and hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that are in almost total agreement, without providing data and peer reviewed research to back up your dismissal you are not working from a valid position.

Wyoming,

I recall RE did offer come data about increased volcanic activity. That is very suggestive, at least. There is also such a thing as orthodoxy. It is very hard to offer an alternative viewpoint no matter your evidence, once everyone is agreed it is X and there is no possibility of Y or Z, or A through W. I'm not saying RE is right, or that the global warming folk are wrong, I'm just saying I'm deeply suspicious of orthodoxy of any kind, scientific or otherwise.

Quote
Guy McPherson does write some interesting stuff but his extreme positions are not scientifically defensible and if you believe what he says you SHOULD party as long as you can, as there is no point in worrying about the future any longer.  He does more harm than good IMHO.

McPherson doesn't strike me as a scientist as much as a compiler of other people's science. So in effect, you seem to be saying that those scientists are not defensible, though they be many of the 98%.

Quote
A few make a little more sense such as Greer (I think he has serious flaws also though).

What flaws? I tend to think he is overly reliant on the historical record, and outright dismissive of the unprecedented complexity of the modern age, as reason for the possibility of epic industrial collapse unlike anything reported in the human condition.

Quote
Almost no one will discuss the core of the dilemma we are in.  The absolute core issue to deal with is over population.  There is no possible solution (barring the arrival of the aliens to save or eat us) to our situation that does not put population first.  And who can bring us to working on that?  Romney, Obama, you, me, who?  Bio-warfare anyone?   Nobody's solution works with 7-9 billion people and almost everyone's works with 1 billion people.   What fun.  No, what we are going to do is drift into chaos.

I wouldn't discount the earth taking care of that, with minimal need for help from humans, though in the coming chaos I have no doubt some among us will do their damnedest  :evil4: to help out in that regard, drifting into chaos as you are right, we are likely to do.





Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2012, 03:45:45 PM »
RE,
Great article! I got a great laugh from this:
Quote
Tao Zen Masters who are sure the problem is related to the fact nobody grasps the Meaning of Koans and are just too SLOW to Snatch the Pebble from the Grasshopper’s Hand

This is the kind of grasshopper I like to be around. :icon_mrgreen:
Kung Fu - grasshopper dialog


After reading it, I have to add that, metaphysical POVs that cannot be proved or disproved empirically aside for a moment, in THIS PART of the multiverse there is only ONE reality, not several. IF facts can always be discerned from opinion and vice versa, humans could achieve a consensus on

A) Agreement on whether we have a biosphere problem or not.

B) Defining the problem.

C) Outlining the best course of action to solve the problem including a "conflict of interest prejudice" jaundiced eye on all the parties engaged in researching the data and proposing the solutions.

The main stumbling block in solving problems in human affairs now  is not that we HAVE difficult problems due to our big brains, obsessive tool making and industrialization; it's game theory in argumentation and defense of sacred cows which embrace every unethical piece of verbal dancing born of slick lawyer sophistry to score a "win" regardless of whether that "win" has anything whatsover to do with reality or truth. This relativistic BULLSHIT is eating us alive. And that's just the way TPTB want it because, as Dr. Phil says, they are "getting something out of it". Myself and many Doomstead Diners I think they are suicidally stupid so we try to get the simple message across hat, "Hey, this ain't workin'! Stop that shit for Homo sapiens' sake.". I reject the idea that I came to this mindset because of my personality type or general mindset. Myself and many DD members came to these views through empirical observation. I also reject the opinion that a POV isn't "valid" unless it is peer reviewed. Pasteur and Lister were told they were full of shit by their peers. Now, with piggy corporations being the main funders of scientists and their research, you have to throw critical thinking to the wind to seriously believe they aren't slanting a lot of the data (as bad as even they admit it is) to make the mountain look like a molehill. Modern science certainly provides a lot of good data but peer review is no guarantee of accuracy when a lot of corporate profits are at stake. That is why I take seriously your geotectonic theory even though I don't agree with it. You are seeking the TRUTH as we all should be. If I learned you were funded by the Exxon oil pig, I would reject it outright. Come clean, RE! Full disclosure or it's twenty lashes with a wet noodle for you! :icon_mrgreen:

There will never be a consensus, even if the world is obviously going to hell in a hand basket, until TRUTH is IN and GAME THEORY SOPHISTRY is OUT. Nature does not DO "I'm okay, you're okay".
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2012, 04:06:38 PM »
Ok RE, I'll bite.

And a nice BIG bite it was there WY!

To get things rolling, you Hammer on BOTH Guy and me.  One of your critiques of me is that I haven't done "rigorous" enough research, yet you don't present anything at all to counter either my theory or Guy's theory.

Do you dispute DLindquist's graphs showing the marked increase in frequency and magnitude of earthquakes over the last 20 years?  If you don't dispute those graphs, where do you think the energy went?  Do you postulate like AB does that it is "reabsorbed" into the lithosphere?  I doubt this, when energy is released from mechanical stress, it comes out as Heat.  For instance, if an Asteroid crashed into the earth, the kinetic energy of impact would be converted to heat.

I agree with AB that the changing gas mix in the atmosphere can prevent Heat from escaping and that could and probably does contribute to the atmospheric warming.  It does not explain how the atmosphere which has both a much lower mass and lower heat capacity than the Oceans manages to raise their Heat content by an order of magnitude, especially when average atmospheric temperature has only increased by 1-2 degrees.

Insofar as Guy's Uber Doom prediction, you dismiss that one as Looney Tunes without really providing any contrary evidence either.  The pH of the Oceans IS on a very steady downward track, which if you extrapolate out just 30 or so years into the future would make it impossible for the calcification of shells to take place.  Destruction of the Coral Reefs would take out the breeding grounds of many if not most salt water fish.  This in addition to the loss of land based food supply due to drought and soil depletion would knock down 99.99% of the human population for sure.  However, it is not clear that the phytoplankton would collapse at that pH, they don't depend on shell calcification and being tiny organisms present in quantities in the trillions if not quadrillions, they probably can adapt quickly to increased acidity...to a point.   The question is how long this acidification will go on here, and I don;t think anyone can really answer that question definitively.


Now, onto the article at hand, which you mostly do agree with. :)

Quote
Most extreme positions are unsupportable if one introduces facts or science into the discussion.

Here is another statement you make with no support at all.  The Extreme Position that the Ocean Acidification will lead to a collapse of the Phytoplankton annd an extinction level event IS supportable by facts, I just did that.  To rebut this, you now have to show why that conclusion isn't supportable by facts.  Feel free to jump in with your facts at any time.

Quote
The only blog I ever found that provided a good platform for discussing the problems we have and potential solutions was The Oil Drum in its first incarnation (not anywhere near as good any more).  I would like to find another and am always searching.

Peak Oil was pretty good for a while also, but the Bannings and the Power Plays of the Mods pretty much killed it.  I'm trying to avoid that Pitfall with the No Censorship, No Ban policy.  The Commentariat here is full of pretty bright folks so far, so Quality wise I think we are doing well.  However, on the grand scale we are still very small potatoes and need more folks with a greater breadth of expertiese in here participating.  Hopefully things go that way over time.

Quote
There are lots of bad versions of doomerism out there.  Guy McPherson does write some interesting stuff but his extreme positions are not scientifically defensible and if you believe what he says you SHOULD party as long as you can, as there is no point in worrying about the future any longer.  He does more harm than good IMHO.

So far Guy hasn't jumped into the Diner Pool to defend his material, perhaps he will with this one, dunno.

I do agree though if it is completely HOPELESS conservation and all the rest are a complete waste of time.  Until the phytoplankton actually DO collapse and we all start having trouble breathing and the Illuminati are Partying in the Hamptons with Bottled Oxygen tanks on their backs, I'll Keep the Hopium Alive.


 
Quote
I used to read TAE but never go there any more (A is a wack job).  Zero-Hedge occasionally.  Tyler?  Denninger?  Off their rockers half the time.  The trouble is that they all have fatal flaws that detract so much from the value they have. Religious fervor at the expense of rational thought, "free market capitalism" as a religion (what better way to destroy the earth?), Glod bugs, racists, survivalists (who clearly know next to nothing about anything but weapons).

I pretty much have stopped following those same websites much, though not for the same reasons.  Mainly, I find so much of what they write now to be repetitive.  Zero Hedge still breaks a lot of Market based stories first though so I do scan the Headlines there every day.

Quote
What will we get.  All of the above of course.  At least they will be attempted at some point.

I don't think we will get all of them, since some of them are mutually exclusive outcomes.  For instance, if the neo-Amish 18th Century Ag model actually WORKS, you won't see H-Gs staging a real comeback.  We could of course go through a period or trial and failure on various of these methodolgies though, gradually Reverse Engineering back down the ladder.  For most people though, even the idea we will be living without electric lights, Carz and Cell Phones is too hefty a Doom message.

Quote
Such is certain as we have all of those opinions and everyone will try their favorite.  But, as they say; "Mother Nature does not negotiate."   One can make a rational argument that collapse is unavoidable no matter who's ideas are followed.  Some just lead to collapse sooner than others.  But we get there one way or the other.  Peak Oil, AGW. Financial collapse.  The End of Days (this actually already happened it just turned out that no one was chosen).  I tend to think the sooner the better as it leaves the survivors more resources to rebuild/recover.  But pick your poison.  The real question is what kind of collapse do we actually get.  That is an interesting discussion. 

The End of Days has happenned for some so far, not for others yet.  In the places where it is furthest along, the type of collapse in the first stage is pretty clear, it is War.  This is likely to expand greatly over time here.

The Famine problem looks to be the next Horseman riding in here at the moment, and this will make conditions in the 3rd world even tougher as they are priced out of the food market and the food aid stops flowing in.  It's easily conceivable if the harvest problems continue and are global through the northern hemisphere this season that 3rd world Famine will be DIRE in the following year as the silos are emptied.

Quote
Almost no one will discuss the core of the dilemma we are in.  The absolute core issue to deal with is over population.  There is no possible solution (barring the arrival of the aliens to save or eat us) to our situation that does not put population first.  And who can bring us to working on that?  Romney, Obama, you, me, who?  Bio-warfare anyone?   Nobody's solution works with 7-9 billion people and almost everyone's works with 1 billion people.   What fun.  No, what we are going to do is drift into chaos.

We discuss this Core Dilemma all the time on the Diner!  In the end here, it appears the traditional Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will Ride Herd over Humanity, as they have done so many times before.  Though this time it appears they will have to take a good deal more than a 1/4 part of the Herd with them to the Great Beyond.  Main question in my mind remains exactly how long this will take to play itself out, and when will the various systems like the power grid begin to crash in earnest?


Can the Earth support even 1B people once these systems collapse?  That seems unlikely.  Max population before Industrialization was around 500-600M before regular Plagues and Famines knocked down the population.  This was before much of the Earth surface was polluted and paved over, and before Climate Change was ongoing in earnest.  I think best case scenario maybe the Earth will support 100M people in its current sickly condition, and that is being generous.

Time will tell.  Until the Fat Lady Sings, all we can do is figure out the best means to make it through the Zero Point, wherever we are or wherever we can get to when TSHTF in the Bugout Machine.  That is what we are here on the Diner trying to hash out.  Glad to have you aboard with us WY.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2012, 04:26:03 PM »

You may be an ASSHOLE, and you do have an ego BIGGER than the known universe, but you have a big heart too, bigger than most, even with and despite some of your EXTREME POV's. Something like a blogging savant, which few of us, even the most prolific of us, can maintain, or care to aspire to. I'm certainly thankful for the Diner, and it has become something like my go-to place for relevant info, not just what you present, but a half-dozen regular contributors here, who on the whole make this one of the truly most truly insightful websites on the internet. Thanks to you and thanks to all.

Nice Testimonial WHD!  I'll have to make this a "Quote of the Month"  LOL.

To return the compliment, consider yourself one of the half dozen regular contributors who make the Diner...wait for it....

#1 for DOOM on the Net!
RE, "Blogger Savant"  :icon_mrgreen:
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 38846
    • View Profile
Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2012, 05:01:16 PM »
agelbert

Well you are a better man than me if you have managed to avoid being tied to a mind set.  I know that I am and am not sure that I have ever met anyone who isn't.  It does pay to learn what motivates and guides those one has to deal with when it is possible.

I am not aware of any scientists publishing research on AGW who are beholden to industry.  They exclusively work for academia or government entities as far as I know.  Excepting some of the 1-2% ers of course. 

Peer review is not perfect but it works well.  You'll notice that the 1-2% ers don't partake of it.  Kind of tells you something.  They do not survive the process because they misuse data, statistics, math and the laws of physics.  They get called out.  Best to avoid that situation.  Peer review works well because there are literally hundreds of young folks in PhD programs that would love to prove the big guys wrong and make a reputation for themselves.  Real science is a contact sport that takes no prisoners.  You better be right and able to back it up or you are going to be called stupid in no time.

WHD

A few points.

AGW is certainly not scientific orthodoxy.  It is more analogous to Special Relativity about 20 years after Einstein came up with it.  It is new in scientific terms and has proven to be extremely significant.  Acceptance of the science is civilization changing, lifestyle changing.  Such things are not easily accepted.  They entail too much pain or giving up a lifestyle that, however vested one may be in it, is no longer viable.

Guy McPherson is both interpreting and quoting other peoples works.  His recent We're Done article is a perfect example.  I went through all the links and ref's he provided.  None of his bold statements were justified and some were just wrong due to not actually reading what was written or deliberately misquoting.  The people who wrote the 'studies' (not peer reviewed) are certainly not part of the 98%.  They are interested amateurs perhaps or possibly motivated advocates of change.  It is not just Deniers who are active anymore. There are also folks distorting data and exaggerating in order to try and get people to change by scaring them.  This is quite possibly Guy's unspoken motivation.

On population I have no doubt that we will do it the hard way.  It is in our nature I think.  But, technically, we could actually draw population down quickly without resorting to the 4 horsemen if we chose to.  Technically not practically.  This is sort of the same type of technical possibility that will not happen if you refer to some of those solutions proposed by the left-wing cornucopian's (I am thinking of the Wedges approach here).   Possible but not going to happen because they require a global change in human nature.

Wyo

WY, I am going to move this post over to the Guy McPherson thread.  Crtiques of his stuff should go there.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
263 Views
Last post September 13, 2016, 11:14:51 PM
by RE
0 Replies
475 Views
Last post May 21, 2017, 02:03:50 AM
by RE
0 Replies
110 Views
Last post January 17, 2019, 01:31:58 PM
by azozeo