I agree that a data-driven discussion on Peak Oil from a rationalist perspective would be a very good thing, although I don’t think the data supports your concerns (see here and here).
I actually don’t know what the data say. I’ve encountered gobs of blatantly contradictory information about this topic, much of which claims to be objective data. Most of the debate about whether Peak Oil is really a problem seems to come down to name-calling. I’ve personally found truth to be insanely opaque when a debate reaches that point.
That said, I would love it if the concerns I mentioned turned out to be balderdash! But that makes me inclined to be a little extra-careful of evidence that just happens to make my wishes seem more true.
If I did a lot more research and spoke to some people I know in the energy forecasting business, would an article about peak oil as existential risk be something people would want on LessWrong?
I actually don’t know what the data say. I’ve encountered gobs of blatantly contradictory information about this topic, much of which claims to be objective data. Most of the debate about whether Peak Oil is really a problem seems to come down to name-calling. I’ve personally found truth to be insanely opaque when a debate reaches that point.
That said, I would love it if the concerns I mentioned turned out to be balderdash! But that makes me inclined to be a little extra-careful of evidence that just happens to make my wishes seem more true.
Yes! I would love that. Please!