First a nitpick. That’s not generally what the term projection fallacy means although your meaning is clear.
How not? I’m stating that he’s assuming that the people of tomorrow/yesterday shared his same beliefs as to what “easily accessible” or “hard to reach” meant in the arena of oil production. In other words; he was saying that “hard to access” is a fixed point rather than simply being his current belief.
But there’s a fundamental problem with this: even as the technology does get more expensive, the total amount of oil does go down,
No, that’s not a fundamental problem. I wasn’t pretending that my statement somehow abrogated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. When people talk about “Peak Oil” what they’re talking about is a catastrophic scenario where the production of oil-related energy reaches a crescendo and declines at exactly or analogously similar rate to which it ramped up. THAT, and nothing else, is “Peak Oil”.
Similarly, inflation adjusted price of oil has gone up over time.
Certainly, but that’s just not a criticism of my position.
Coal does have its own problems.
Certainly. But those aren’t problems, mainly, related to existential risks to civilization related to energy supply, so much as they are to moral quandaries related to specific choices of energy production.
Moreover, coal prices have also been going up faster than inflation.
I’m sure. Coal has stayed extremely cheap comparatively speaking. But it’s also in a similar—if far longer-term—situation as oil; there’s a fixed amount of it and we’re getting better at harvesting it, so the supply will inevitably dwindle. That’s why, furthermore, I mentioned torrefied lignocellulosics. With just a bit of tweaking and expertise, switchgrass can be grown at (potentially) as little as $15/ton. That, after torrefaction, makes it ball-parkish to coal.
Another viable criticism, by the way, of the F-T process is its environmental impact due to CO2 offgassing. (F-T has a large CO2 footprint).
I’m stating that he’s assuming that the people of tomorrow/yesterday shared his same beliefs as to what “easily accessible” or “hard to reach” meant in the arena of oil production. In other words; he was saying that “hard to access” is a fixed point rather than simply being his current belief.
Oh. I see I misinterpreted what you meant since I interpreted what he was saying differently. It seemed like you were talking about projection growth and difficulty into the future, and it seemed to me that he was talking about the difficulty of obtaining oil comparatively (that is some oil is more difficult to extract than other oil and even with research that will still be true, it is just then less difficult.)
When people talk about “Peak Oil” what they’re talking about is a catastrophic scenario where the production of oil-related energy reaches a crescendo and declines at exactly or analogously similar rate to which it ramped up. THAT, and nothing else, is “Peak Oil”.
Arguing over definitions is not useful. Maybe distinguish between two distinct notions of Peak Oil, Peak Oil(1), in which there will be a peak and then a rapid decline and Peak Oil(2) which makes no strong claim about the decline rate? Note that from an economic growth standpoint definition 2 might still be a cause for worry even if one doesn’t think that there will be a definition 1 type of issue
But those aren’t problems, mainly, related to existential risks to civilization related to energy supply, so much as they are to moral quandaries related to specific choices of energy production.
I would see them more as economic rather than moral concerns but I agree that they don’t substantially impact existential risk.
Another viable criticism, by the way, of the F-T process is its environmental impact due to CO2 offgassing. (F-T has a large CO2 footprint)
Yes, but my impression is that it should allow for comparatively easy carbon sequestration although not much direct research has been done on this matter. So I’m not sure that this is too much of a concern.
Arguing over definitions is foundationally necessary to discourse. If we cannot agree on what terms mean, communication is impossible.
Maybe distinguish between two distinct notions of Peak Oil,
When you capitalize Peak Oil you are invoking the body of rhetoric, lore, and history associated with the term. That term has a specific meaning, which invokes a catastrophic economic failure scenario derived from discussions of Hubbard’s Peak.
Note that from an economic growth standpoint definition 2 might still be a cause for worry even if one doesn’t think that there will be a definition 1 type of issue
Hardly. Economic growth under sufficiently stable conditions is inevitable. Furthermore; that oil production will decline over time is inevitable. The only question is whether it will do so sharply and in a vacuum of other solutions, or if it will do so as a part of a pattern of transition to other avenues of energy production once it ceases to be the most viable source of energy production (which, honestly, it isn’t even that; coal is. Which is why we burn coal for electricity and not oil, but I digress.) The answer to that question is unequivocably that there won’t be a catastrophe.
So “Peak Oil” is nonsense. That oil will peak and production will fall is insufficient to proclaiming “Peak Oil”.
No definition is intrinsically correct. When in doubt (either from vagueness of a definition, connotation v. denotation issues, or others) it is helpful to use either multiple numbered definitions or to simply taboo the term wholesale. Arguing over definitions is not helpful.
… those items you’re talking about ARE the process of arguing over definitions. Or, at least, one variation of the process. It’s not even the most productive. You cannot get out of the point that arguing over definitions is foundationally necessary to discourse simply by proclaiming “arguing over definitions is not helpful”—no matter how many times you iterate it, it just isn’t truthful.
Especially since definitions themselves do not progress over time without such argumentation.
How not? I’m stating that he’s assuming that the people of tomorrow/yesterday shared his same beliefs as to what “easily accessible” or “hard to reach” meant in the arena of oil production. In other words; he was saying that “hard to access” is a fixed point rather than simply being his current belief.
No, that’s not a fundamental problem. I wasn’t pretending that my statement somehow abrogated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. When people talk about “Peak Oil” what they’re talking about is a catastrophic scenario where the production of oil-related energy reaches a crescendo and declines at exactly or analogously similar rate to which it ramped up. THAT, and nothing else, is “Peak Oil”.
Certainly, but that’s just not a criticism of my position.
Certainly. But those aren’t problems, mainly, related to existential risks to civilization related to energy supply, so much as they are to moral quandaries related to specific choices of energy production.
I’m sure. Coal has stayed extremely cheap comparatively speaking. But it’s also in a similar—if far longer-term—situation as oil; there’s a fixed amount of it and we’re getting better at harvesting it, so the supply will inevitably dwindle. That’s why, furthermore, I mentioned torrefied lignocellulosics. With just a bit of tweaking and expertise, switchgrass can be grown at (potentially) as little as $15/ton. That, after torrefaction, makes it ball-parkish to coal.
Another viable criticism, by the way, of the F-T process is its environmental impact due to CO2 offgassing. (F-T has a large CO2 footprint).
Oh. I see I misinterpreted what you meant since I interpreted what he was saying differently. It seemed like you were talking about projection growth and difficulty into the future, and it seemed to me that he was talking about the difficulty of obtaining oil comparatively (that is some oil is more difficult to extract than other oil and even with research that will still be true, it is just then less difficult.)
Arguing over definitions is not useful. Maybe distinguish between two distinct notions of Peak Oil, Peak Oil(1), in which there will be a peak and then a rapid decline and Peak Oil(2) which makes no strong claim about the decline rate? Note that from an economic growth standpoint definition 2 might still be a cause for worry even if one doesn’t think that there will be a definition 1 type of issue
I would see them more as economic rather than moral concerns but I agree that they don’t substantially impact existential risk.
Yes, but my impression is that it should allow for comparatively easy carbon sequestration although not much direct research has been done on this matter. So I’m not sure that this is too much of a concern.
Arguing over definitions is foundationally necessary to discourse. If we cannot agree on what terms mean, communication is impossible.
When you capitalize Peak Oil you are invoking the body of rhetoric, lore, and history associated with the term. That term has a specific meaning, which invokes a catastrophic economic failure scenario derived from discussions of Hubbard’s Peak.
Hardly. Economic growth under sufficiently stable conditions is inevitable. Furthermore; that oil production will decline over time is inevitable. The only question is whether it will do so sharply and in a vacuum of other solutions, or if it will do so as a part of a pattern of transition to other avenues of energy production once it ceases to be the most viable source of energy production (which, honestly, it isn’t even that; coal is. Which is why we burn coal for electricity and not oil, but I digress.) The answer to that question is unequivocably that there won’t be a catastrophe.
So “Peak Oil” is nonsense. That oil will peak and production will fall is insufficient to proclaiming “Peak Oil”.
Agreeing on definitions is foundationally necessary. Arguing over them is almost always avoidable.
It is impossible to reach agreement on definitions without first arguing on them.
No definition is intrinsically correct. When in doubt (either from vagueness of a definition, connotation v. denotation issues, or others) it is helpful to use either multiple numbered definitions or to simply taboo the term wholesale. Arguing over definitions is not helpful.
… those items you’re talking about ARE the process of arguing over definitions. Or, at least, one variation of the process. It’s not even the most productive. You cannot get out of the point that arguing over definitions is foundationally necessary to discourse simply by proclaiming “arguing over definitions is not helpful”—no matter how many times you iterate it, it just isn’t truthful.
Especially since definitions themselves do not progress over time without such argumentation.
It seems that this is an argument about the definition of “argument”, and hence it is unnecessary ;).
It saddens me that it took someone other than JoshuaZ to point out what I was doing.