This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't know how long your time horizon is, but I think it's just categorically wrong. In fact, it's one of the reasons why I moved out of California to a better area, primarily as a way to hedge against climate risk. Take it from Charlie Hall who pioneered the concept of EROEI. Also recommend the work of the world's leading heterodox economist, Steve Keen and his work on energy. In particular, listen to the episode "Economics and thermodynamics."
The world trends on energy, resource usage and ecological degradation I think tend to support the conclusion.
I think The EROEI crowd are peak oilers who couldn't accept that they lost and cooked up some new doomer nonsense.
You mean trends like this:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maize-production?country=~OWID_WRL
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricultural-output-dollars
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production
Are your beliefs falsifiable?
I mean I don't see any issues with the ROI concept itself. It's a bit of a tautology, but at least it gives us something quantitative that could be updated with new or better data.
In the case of agricultural production, the counterargument to your figures would be that recent increases in crop yields and the green revolution are dependent on artificial fertilizer produced by the Haber-Bosch process, which in turn is dependent on fossil fuel energy that has a decreasing ROI over time. This belief could be falsified by evidence that new sources of oil and natural gas (e.g. shale, tar sands, etc.) do not in fact have a lower ROI than older ones, that nuclear or renewable energy technologies are scalable to the same extent with similar or better returns, or that there are cheaper alternative sources of fertilizer.
The supposedly degradating EROEI has been going on for at least two centuries, and it has failed to affect the continuous growth of world pop and gdp/cap . An englishman in the 19th century may have had access to close-by and better-quality coal (anthracite) and oil , but if he put it in his car, babbage's computer or lamp, he would get far less out of it than we do. In other words, once mined, the return on his energy was terrible, hence why he was so much poorer than we are. As time advances, the mining eroei decrease (getting the energy) is more than compensated by the non-mining efficiency increase (spending the energy). So total EROEI (covering the entire process) is actually increasing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll have to examine your links further, I'm not confident to make a comment about them without looking at it in greater detail. Yes, my beliefs are falsifiable; I'm committed to them quite firmly however, because I've never seen them addressed.
When you linked to the IPCC above for instance, that's something Keen explicitly takes to task, as he knows many of the people behind the data (and in his view, notoriously 'bad' data) and shows how wildly off the mark it is. For additional information on that, I'd recommend you listen to "The mineral supply crisis that's rarely talked about," and "Nordaus Climate Model Debunked," in the MEGA link above. Nate Hagens also has some good data that I think runs contrary to your notion.
Until I see some solid replies to the contrary that don't sideline or ignore the above, I think I'm fairly secure and on firm ground where I stand. The only problem is, a lot of the people on the forefront of the data tend to ignore it; so it never directly gets addressed.
Can you give me something shorter than a book?
My links are just the straight line of constantly increasing food production through time. This is concrete, things you hold in your hand and put in your mouth. Not models and speculation. You say there's erosion, ecological degradation, but it has not seriously affected us . Every year people warn of peak oil and limited resources, and every year the line creeps upwards as always.
Am I understanding you right, you think the IPCC is too optimistic? Because I think it's too pessimistic.
I'll listen to one podcast/youtube vid. Which do you pick?
Eh, were you able to open the podcast link I posted earlier? I was edging you more toward that than the book (which I was just sourcing, more than anything else):
https://mega.nz/folder/MYlFwYpC#ZHmrbskzPgKHq9BGuWjvFg
Let me know if you have any issues opening the folder. It's directly to my cloud account. Some people have said they have issues (like if they're at work), most have no problems.
I know what you're essentially pointing to, and the long-term trends as it relates to those points are something Keen addresses. I can't pick out the various points via transcript and haven't written them down myself in concrete detail. Podcast wise, the three episodes I recommend are:
The mineral supply crisis that's rarely talked about
Economics and thermodynamics
Nordaus Climate Model Debunked
Pick whichever one seems more to your liking. But that's what I'd recommend at a first pass/superficial level. You'll forgive me, but I want to look into your links in further detail. Until then, I have nothing else to add on that side of things.
I went with "1: The mineral supply crisis that's rarely talked about ."
So as I thought, it’s the old malthusians, peak oil, peak copper, Paul ehrlich crowd. I’m sure my grandchildren will be having the same argument against those people, like my grandparents before me, and their grandparents before them.
The old argument from infinity at the heart of the doomer mindset. It goes: Limited resources, unlimited growth. The sleight of hand here is that you can’t go from an argument to infitinty to a prediction of the near future. Limited resources, unlimited growth was valid 2000 years ago, 200 years ago, 20 years ago. Does it mean our ancestors were running out of resources and should have embraced de-growth?
Reserves grow faster than production. In 1980, we had 30 years of oil reserve left. In 2020, so ten years after we were supposed to have nothing left, plus all the increase in consumption, it’s 54 years.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left?time=earliest..2021&facet=none
The man who predicted that in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people would starve to death, and all major marine wildlife would be extinguished? Those people will never update.
Ah good, they almost admit they were wrong. Their solution for the constant humiliations they suffer is to make the theory less falsifiable.
Seemed like you had your own set of targets and expectations from the second you went into it. You said you'd listen to one podcast and didn't want book-form resources. You got what you wanted at a first and quick pass. If you were expecting scholarly footnotes in a thirty minute dialogue, I'd suggest calibrating your expectations better in the future. I am left a bit curious though. You seemed to roll right past the point that Simon Michaux brought up about oil reserves. How that didn't land for you is bizarre to me. 'He's produced data on it'. At any rate, be well. ✌️.
This is a pointless comment. Why don't you make the point yourself and cite the data you refer to, and I'll answer that in detail.
I gave you the basic introductory thesis and summarized part of it in my first comment. Last I checked, Library Genesis was a thing.
I can provide you resources and evidence. I can't provide you evidence you won't read. Incidentally, I read the links 'you' provided and found them interesting. So it seems we've got evidence on both sides to some degree. The evidence I would find 'most' compelling, would 'directly' address the work of the scholars I point to. Thus far, 'I haven't seen any'. If Richard Tol, or William Nordhaus directly addressed and could quantitatively refute the work of Keen and Michaux for example, I'd regard that as test that would falsify my views.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link