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 -
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.
What's with 'the' quotes? No argument requires an entire book, let alone a man's entire work. You should just summarize the points you find most compelling.
First you say "cite the data," then you say you want "an argument?" Fine, here's some data (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Let me know when you're done. I don't know where this prejudice against reading books comes from. It's what got me there in the first place. If you don't want to read it, that's on you. I read your links.
Fine, if you don't want to discuss it, then read this. I endorse his work generally.
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