Peak Oil

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:46 am

poto wrote:...
The IPCC's bias is well known. There is not a uniform consensus even on climate, and as the ClimateGate evidence documents, there were attempts to hijack the peer review process to stifle dissenting views. That IMHO is very unscientific. The single largest source of expert advice is of no use if the experts are biased and the advice they offer is tainted by politics.

The head of the IPCC is as corrupt as they come:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

Interfering with the peer review process:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... iracy.html

Why do you blindly accept everything offered by the IPCC as gospel?
...

I'm sorry, poto, but with this post you have moved, in my mind, from 'willing to learn' to 'only wanting to confirm your existing views'.
You have shown convincingly that you have chosen to believe Monckton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/20/climate-change-denial-monckton) and the few but very noisy AGW denialists he stands for (e.g. Booker http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/03/climate-change-daily-telegraph-christopher-booker), rather than the IPCC and the (truly) overwhelming majority of climate scientists, or such easily-fooled people as Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1785926.htm#) and Nicholas Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Stern,_Baron_Stern_of_Brentford). Why?

I have read, and commented on, links you have posted and arguments you have put forward. If you have read any that I have posted, you have not responded to them: all I see from you is more junk science, much of which you seem not to understand particularly well.

I would really like you to show me that I am wrong about your unwillingness to learn.

metta,

Kim

User avatar
poto
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:58 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
poto wrote:...
The IPCC's bias is well known. There is not a uniform consensus even on climate, and as the ClimateGate evidence documents, there were attempts to hijack the peer review process to stifle dissenting views. That IMHO is very unscientific. The single largest source of expert advice is of no use if the experts are biased and the advice they offer is tainted by politics.

The head of the IPCC is as corrupt as they come:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

Interfering with the peer review process:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... iracy.html

Why do you blindly accept everything offered by the IPCC as gospel?
...

I'm sorry, poto, but with this post you have moved, in my mind, from 'willing to learn' to 'only wanting to confirm your existing views'.
You have shown convincingly that you have chosen to believe Monckton (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/20/climate-change-denial-monckton) and the few but very noisy AGW denialists he stands for (e.g. Booker http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/03/climate-change-daily-telegraph-christopher-booker), rather than the IPCC and the (truly) overwhelming majority of climate scientists, or such easily-fooled people as Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1785926.htm#) and Nicholas Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Stern,_Baron_Stern_of_Brentford). Why?

I have read, and commented on, links you have posted and arguments you have put forward. If you have read any that I have posted, you have not responded to them: all I see from you is more junk science, much of which you seem not to understand particularly well.

I would really like you to show me that I am wrong about your unwillingness to learn.

metta,

Kim


You know, we have whole other threads here for debating AGW. It might be more appropriate to move this to one of those. Also, denialist is an insulting and derogatory term. Do you think anyone would choose to call themselves a denialist? I would prefer the term skeptic, if it's not too much trouble for you.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:45 pm

poto wrote:You know, we have whole other threads here for debating AGW. It might be more appropriate to move this to one of those.

AGW and Peak Oil are closely linked issues, and by attacking the IPCC and relying on Monckton in this thread you effectively merged the two discussions. I'm just going along with that.
Also, denialist is an insulting and derogatory term. Do you think anyone would choose to call themselves a denialist? I would prefer the term skeptic, if it's not too much trouble for you.

It's not too much trouble but it is intellectually dishonest, for you and for me. 'Skeptic' implies reasonable grounds for doubt, and here there is none. 'Denialist' doesn't cast that false glow of plausibility, so it's more accurate.

Once again you have not responded to my post in any meaningful way. This time you haven't brought in any different junk science but still avoided responding.
If you answer some of my questions we might be able to move ahead.
As I said before, I would really like you to show me that I am wrong about your unwillingness to learn.

metta,
Kim

User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Contact:

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:25 pm

I think the entire debate about peak oil (and several other crisis-level issues) is drawn way to narrow. The focus is always on either :

1. Doom!

...or

2. Saved! Some technology/other resource that will replace oil at the same level of consumption.

This narrow framing of the issue distracts from what I believe are the two most crucial sources of all modern material crisis:

- population
- privilege

Its quite amazing that peak oil, climate change, water shortage, and environmental degradation/species die-off are all framed with a notable absence of discussion regarding human population management. For some odd reason, this huge elephant in the room goes virtually unnoticed, and there is an unspoken taboo against any critical analysis of the breeding habits of the human animal which will result in 9.5 billion people on the planet within the next 45 years - 3 billion more than there is today.

There's another lens through which we can look at peak oil, climate change, water shortage, environmental degradation/species die-off: these issues are not the core problem...they are just symptoms of population excess and an overblown sense of privilege and expectation. Rather than identify and treat the core pathology which is a pathological level of population and resource use, we focus on select symptoms that carefully avoid self-reflection and reproductive restraint. We're desperate to replace oil with another form of energy that will allow us to continue to breed mindlessly and still live in the bloated style that we've become accustomed/addicted to and dependent on. [We approach disease and health care in the same way in modern culture]

Also, there's a typical addict's perspective of denial widespread in modern culture...the "enemy", "identified patient", or "problem" is always something "out there" somewhere, never our own thought patterns and actions. For example: the "shortage" of oil is identified as the problem, rather than there are too many people dependent on a finite resource - same with water...and climate change is something that needs fixing or reversing, rather than looking spang in the eye the fact that the human population has bred itself too large to accommodate themselves to the normal patterns of the natural world. The most obvious is studiously ignored...we've bred ourselves beyond sustainability at current levels of population, and more importantly, expectation. Those that have high consumption lifestyles regard it as a privilege, and those that don't have high consumption patterns aspire to it. The human animal is ignorant of the boundaries of the natural world and somehow really does believe that the natural world should be forced to accommodate its delusion and madness, and its unrestrained reproduction, rather than humans restraining themselves within the boundaries and limits of the natural world.

The idea of significantly reducing our population footprint on the planet is taboo to even consider. Unlimited breeding goes unchallenged because the two most powerful conditioners of human mind and action on the planet, corporatism and religion, both profit immensely by unrestrained reproduction and so naturally encourage it. Both are nihilistic in this...corporatism is solely profit driven and will eat until it dies - and religion has a variety of "after life" destinations and "saviors" so they don't really care about the fate of the world either.

Hopefully the human animal will find a way to see clear of both of these entrenched, self-obsessed forces and learn to manage themselves in balance with the natural world before its too late.
Attachments
World Population and Oil 1900.JPG
World Population and Oil 1900.JPG (56.88 KiB) Viewed 467 times
population_growth4.gif
population_growth4.gif (7.5 KiB) Viewed 467 times
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.

saltspring
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:37 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby saltspring » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:46 pm

Pink Trike;
So are you in favor of a Maoist one child policy? Population control by the government is a non starter for me.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 3224
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:52 pm

Great post, pink_trike, except that you're a bit unfair to those of us who do take population, privilege and consumerism into account when looking at the issues.
You're right about denial of responsibility, though, and right to draw connections with religion. I have said elsewhere (can't remember where - may not have been on Dhamma Wheel) that the theory of evolution and the theory of climate change have aroused more opposition, antagonism and denial than, e.g., the germ theory of disease or plate tectonics, because they both demand fundamental re-assessment of our place in the world and demand that we take responsibility for our actions.
Climate change, in particular, demands that we consciously manage our whole societies in ways that have never been needed before: population, environmental footprint, whole-of-lifecycle costs of good and resources, etc.

Kim

User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Contact:

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:06 am

saltspring wrote:Pink Trike;
So are you in favor of a Maoist one child policy? Population control by the government is a non starter for me.

This is a fairly typical response to any suggestion that humans restrain their breeding but there is nothing in what I wrote that suggests this.

The Dharma teaches us to see clearly, restrain ourselves, contemplate in the mental space cleared by our restraint until our heart begins to speak, and to modify our behavior informed by the wisdom that arises from this heart-inspired spaciousness.

This same process can be applied as such: If we see clearly the destructive effects of unrestrained breeding, restrain our fearful/hungry reactivity that results in pathological levels of breeding and consumption, and live our lives in the service of all living beings instead of our own narrow self-obsessed lives - we wouldn't create these monumental crisis-level problems. We'd live within the boundaries of the natural world and in relation to all living beings rather than in competition with them. Either our unconscious reactivity or our conscious intention creates reality...its our choice.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.

User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Contact:

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:13 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:Great post, pink_trike, except that you're a bit unfair to those of us who do take population, privilege and consumerism into account when looking at the issues.

Thanks, Kim. I'm speaking generally. Those that do take these things into consideration are a tiny unrecognized unheard minority in the crisis debates as they are nearly consensually framed.
Last edited by pink_trike on Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.

User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Contact:

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:24 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:Climate change, in particular, demands that we consciously manage our whole societies in ways that have never been needed before: population, environmental footprint, whole-of-lifecycle costs of good and resources, etc.


I have to disagree with this - these have always been needed...and when we analyze our premodern ancestor's relationship to the natural world it quickly becomes apparent that these considerations were central to their view of the world and their place in it. For example: many First People tribes in the Americas before making a decision about how to use a piece of land would carefully and minutely observe it for 7-10 years before doing anything. They would also "consult" with the "spirits" of the area (which can be thought of as observing the micro-climate and soil/wind/water/inhabitant patterns of the ecosystem) before making a decision. A good case could be made that The Dharma (known by many different names around the globe...The Law, The Way, The Path, etc...) was exactly these considerations that included an ecology of human thought and action within the ecology of the Whole. This is what "holiness" was...finding and maintaining an integral place in the natural/phenomenal world that minimized destruction and promoted harmony.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.

User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:47 am

Lobha, dosa, moha.

Could it end any other way?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta


Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alobha and 8 guests