So what is peak oil like to the "outsider"?

[hillwalker]

I was a Network Admin / QA for 6 years. EVERYONE I worked with was a techie and figured that all technology would save us. I thought the opposite as I figured it trapped us, because we became more and more dependant on it.

Ha,
Very well said:

+4

[metaforge]

I was a Network Admin / QA for 6 years. EVERYONE I worked with was a techie and figured that all technology would save us.

Hmm.. so if they thought tech would save us, they must have at least been aware there were some doom-ish problems out there?   I don't even see that in my circle, except of course for global warming which has been the one doomy problem that average joe seems to at least have heard of.  But in regards to that, all seem to think buying a prius will solve that.   

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Something I learned about all this that is a bit troubling, I didn't finish the entire thread but from what I saw... I don't think the vast majority of those involved realized just how disturbing and possibly near the consequences of this could be.  The most prevailing idea was that the price of oil would go up and this would "naturally" cause the U.S. to shift to alternative methods and that it would be a smooth transition.

People - like those who populate sites such as Slashdot - usually work with things like computer code. Computer code can be manipulated with little regard to massive energy inputs/outputs. Think of what Kunstler remarked about the guys at Google. They've made millions from moving pixels around on a screen. So they've become wired to think that solving most other problems - including massive ones like PO, GW -  etc can be solved with similar ease. "Just take out the oil powered cars and replace them with something else, presto chango, . . . what's all the worry over?", their thinking goes.

[Phildo]

Something I learned about all this that is a bit troubling, I didn't finish the entire thread but from what I saw... I don't think the vast majority of those involved realized just how disturbing and possibly near the consequences of this could be.  The most prevailing idea was that the price of oil would go up and this would "naturally" cause the U.S. to shift to alternative methods and that it would be a smooth transition.

People - like those who populate sites such as Slashdot - usually work with things like computer code. Computer code can be manipulated with little regard to massive energy inputs/outputs. Think of what Kunstler remarked about the guys at Google. They've made millions from moving pixels around on a screen. So they've become wired to think that solving most other problems - including massive ones like PO, GW -  etc can be solved with similar ease. "Just take out the oil powered cars and replace them with something else, presto chango, . . . what's all the worry over?", their thinking goes.

Such is the nature of Solution Focused thinking.

Not really a sized based thing -- whether Massive or Tiny.

The presumption is that after a clear Problem Statement is formed, the next step is working on Solution(s).

[rbrgs]

Phildo

The earth has too many people.  How's that for a clear problem statement?  And your solution is?

[Chip Haynes]

"Die off" has been such a commonly offered answer that it has it's own web site. Me, I tend to focus on the birth rate, with the idea that we might be able to lower the population without wearing out our shovels. (Ever the optimist, that's me.)

In truth, I suspect we'll see a combination of the two.

 

[Phildo]

Phildo

The earth has too many people.  How's that for a clear problem statement?  And your solution is?

That is a good point.  A lot of folks on the front end do not start with a clear problem statement.

Not giving you a hard time, but that would probably not be accepted as a valid problem statement.

[kenjamkov]

I was a Network Admin / QA for 6 years. EVERYONE I worked with was a techie and figured that all technology would save us.

Hmm.. so if they thought tech would save us, they must have at least been aware there were some doom-ish problems out there?   I don't even see that in my circle, except of course for global warming which has been the one doomy problem that average joe seems to at least have heard of.  But in regards to that, all seem to think buying a prius will solve that.   

The only reason the average joe has heard about global warming is the PTB want to tax the hell out of the average joe and they want them to be complacent about it.

Phildo

The earth has too many people.  How's that for a clear problem statement?  And your solution is?

That is a good point.  A lot of folks on the front end do not start with a clear problem statement.

Not giving you a hard time, but that would probably not be accepted as a valid problem statement.

Too many people in the World don't want anyone to die.  They need to face up to reality because it's a choice that will have to be made.  We have all been conditioned since birth to believe it is wrong for people to die in war and famine and that we need to prevent it.  This has to change because there is not enough stuff on this planet for endless growth of the World population.

I agree with Ches, stop having babies.  How are you going to stop anyone from having a baby in this day and age?  Babies are good, war and famine are bad... try to reverse that and get elected.  I don't think it will be a popular campaign slogan anytime soon.

[Katie]

Something I learned about all this that is a bit troubling, I didn't finish the entire thread but from what I saw... I don't think the vast majority of those involved realized just how disturbing and possibly near the consequences of this could be.  The most prevailing idea was that the price of oil would go up and this would "naturally" cause the U.S. to shift to alternative methods and that it would be a smooth transition.

People - like those who populate sites such as Slashdot - usually work with things like computer code. Computer code can be manipulated with little regard to massive energy inputs/outputs. Think of what Kunstler remarked about the guys at Google. They've made millions from moving pixels around on a screen. So they've become wired to think that solving most other problems - including massive ones like PO, GW -  etc can be solved with similar ease. "Just take out the oil powered cars and replace them with something else, presto chango, . . . what's all the worry over?", their thinking goes.

Such is the nature of Solution Focused thinking.

Not really a sized based thing -- whether Massive or Tiny.

The presumption is that after a clear Problem Statement is formed, the next step is working on Solution(s).

Then there is systems thinking  Here's a wikipedia on it, though there are better sources, I don't have much time to find them.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking  There are more options than mentioned there, I think, but that's the general drift.

From that angle, one could say of the slashdot types that they are reductionist thinkers and that's the reason for the inability to see the problem.  Some things are not visible from within a reductionist framework.  As long as they stay within the reductionist framework, allowing only certain kinds of problems, the kinds they excel at solving, only those problems are both visible and solvable.  To move outside the framework and see something like peak oil would make certain problems visible, but not solvable, or at least not solvable in a reductionist manner.

I think LATOC'ers are mostly not natural born reductionists, even if we have good and thorough training in that framework and have even excelled at it.  At heart, we are something else.  For one thing, on the Meyers-Briggs thread, it looks like many of us are INFP types or INTP types or ENFP or ENTP types (NP types).  The SJ types are more the natural reductionists.  I'm guessing many of the slashdot types are brilliant, but brilliant SJ types in many cases.   

[EWHM]

I'm going to venture the opinion that it's not so much the visibility or the solvability (in the engineering sense) of the Peak oil problem that prevents most geeky types from seeing it.  The problem is plenty visible, oil sales & consumption numbers generally don't lie (although 'proven reserves' most certainly do, the incentives are to inflate that number) and several 'peaks' are already in the rear view mirror, including, IMO the global total liquids one as of a few years ago.  The problem also has a number of clear solutions in the engineering sense.  The problem is, none of them are what anyone is likely to consider 'nice', and even successfully 'solving' the problem will result in the deaths of billions of people.  The subconscious realization of just how ugly this will almost certainly get deters most folks from even looking in that direction, except in the form of artistic representations that have another problem proxying for the elephant in the room (e.g., Dies the Fire with 'the Change').  The proxy is either ridiculous (The change) or readily preventable (One Second After), and thus doesn't trigger a feeling of existential despair.
But that is as close as most are willing to come to analyzing this issue until it is too close to ignore, even with the most strenuous effort.

[metaforge]

They (we) are also trained to look for ever increasing tech innovations to solve new problems.  Until someone finds a dilithium crystal, or makes a quantum leap in fusion tech, that's out.  I suppose a cursory analysis leads to the "oh fuck" moment, and the paralysis hits the slashdotters like it hits everyone else:

10 insert head into sand
20 pretend everything is ok
30 goto 20

[Chip Haynes]

To those that say, "Technology will save us!" I point out that it was technology that got us into this mess in the first place.

All technology can do is make it worse, quicker.

[jd]

To those that say, "Technology will save us!" I point out that it was technology that got us into this mess in the first place.

All technology can do is make it worse, quicker.

Indeed.

The "technology will save us!" crowd are largely such because they see the world around them as normal.  It  isn't normal and it hasn't been for the last century or so.  I think technology could have saved us, but we were too busy inventing disposable razors, $12 coffee makers, and reality tv.

As I wrote in my blog the other day, we're at the point in human development where gravity has taken hold and we are starting the arc back down to Earth.

[MEA]

You stop people from having babies by 1) making it impossible to raise them cheaply (think of the crap people think they have to have in order to have a kid) and 2) making them think they will have more fun of they don't have one.

Worked in most of Europe and parts of the US in the last decade.

[metaforge]

Sadly that won't work in the 3rd world where all the breeding is taking place.  Babies are the retirement plan, and people are too poor to have much fun with or without kids I imagine.