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 -
First time poster so i'm not very well versed in the formalities here just to let you guys know.
Will try to be as direct as possible.
Main statement, Im of the coviction that modern civilization is doomed to collapse. Because of energy constaints, namely the energy return on investment (EROI) of: peak oil and renewable energies. Further more the energy density of oil alternatives is not dense enough to accomodate the modern standard of living.
Here a couple pieces of information that support my viewpoint: Number 1: "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society (2014)" research paper by Charles A.S Hall and others. Number 2: The article "renewables-ko-by-eroi" on the website energytransition.org. Number 3: "Energy, EROI and quality of life (2014)" by Jessica G. Lambert and others.
A couple of assumtions i made are that high EROI is needed for modern living. In case of big EROI losses there will be a massive increase in civil unrest. There is enough coal in the ground to supply our energy needs. However this is not very applicable in cars nor is it good for the envirmoment, which in turn will cause civilisation collape in the longhaul.
Some previous discussion points:
Nuclear, Nuclear is very good on the small scale. However there is not enough uranium to support longterm global reliance on nuclear energy. If the entire world would switch to nuclear energy today, the known uranium supply will be depleted within 5 years. See the article: "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy need" on phys.org.
New Oil, while we are still finding new oil deposits, the discovery rate of the new oil depositst follows a downward trend. (the line has the same figure like a normal-distribution) Some pieces that support this statement, See 1: The USGS forecast. See 2: "Ecology in Times of Scarcity" by John W Day and others. See 3: the article "The Growing gap" on planetforlive.com. Also the new discoveries are very often in locations that are diffuclt to access. Think of very deep sea or antartica, et cetera. This ensures the Energy cost getting this oil will be high, so it is coupled with a high EROI.
It would be very nice to hear some counter viewpoints! Because looking at the future and seeking a bleak one is not nice.
If i forgot anything please let me know!
All the best,
William
Has peak oil come about yet? Its like 20 years overdue at this point. There is only so many times you can claim a doomsday scenario is approaching before people start to doubt it.
I have a very loose loose understanding of all this stuff, because experts on "peak oil" have consistently been able to talk circles around me for two decades, and yet have also been consistently wrong. This makes me unwilling to wade into their scientific papers.
These are my loose understandings:
We don't really need to discover new oil fields. There are large known reserves of marginal and harder to harvest fields of oil. Same situation as fracking two decades ago. Until the price of oil goes up enough, no technology will be developed to harvest these fields. As long as no technology is developed to harvest these fields they will appear to have a negative EROI.
Solar, Tidal, and Hydro could cover a huge chunk of energy needs. But they are expensive relative to oil, so why bother? Especially if the price will get undercut as soon as new oil extraction tech comes along. Governments and massive corporations can afford to invest in these energy options as a hedge against the price of oil.
We have a moonshot option in the form of fusion energy. Its moving along at a snails pace, but decent chance of getting it before 2050.
Thorium reactors are also a mostly underutilized form of nuclear energy. Also doesn't really have the same fuel limitations as other nuclear options. Same problem as everything else though, why bother when oil is so cheap?
Most of the hate directed towards oil is due to climate concerns. Scientists that work in this field either don't care about these concerns and go make bank in the private oil sector, and never write many papers or communicate with the public. The scientists that do care about climate a bunch stay in academia and think tanks and write all the papers. Fundamental imbalance in the field. Same thing happens in other academic fields, Economics is littered with unemployable Marxist cranks, while the pro-free-market types can go make bank on wall street.
Energy density of hydrocarbons means they will still be used for a long time. Especially in things like jet fuel. But hydrocarbons can be synthesized. It is expensive to synthesize at current energy prices. If price of oil goes up that changes.
Prices have adjusted in the past, new technologies have come about as oil prices increased. The shift will be gradual if it ever needs to actually happen. There will be no collapse of civilization from a lack of oil.
The scientists/activists that hate oil for climate change reasons would LOVE for the economy to collapse from oil related problems. And they strive to make it happen by making oil as expensive as possible to extract, and trying to tax and regulate us back into the stone age.
TL;DR: Oil is still too cheap for any meaningful change to happen in the energy sector. Certainly not change on the level of 'civilization collapse'.
Yes, in 2019.
This is only a half tongue-in-cheek response. I haven't been able to find exact numbers for 2022. Though I did find this, suggesting the 2019 peak is still unsurpassed.
Thats peak demand not peak (potential) extraction. 2019 was pre covid. In fact we might well have hit peak oil demand - with renewables taking over more and more.
Edit: the IEA says we hit peak gasoline demand in 2019, not all oil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link