[quote=Arthur Robey]One of the aspects that needs to be taken into consideration is our very fragile fecundity. It is strongly argued that we are a hybrid, and as a hybrid we have difficulty breeding.
[/quote]
A recent conversation with a good friend turned to a discussion of the hybrid. "What on earth would make you think that an ape might find a pig…well, you know?!?.."
My answer.
My favorite video clip from the Sandy Hoax.
Watch Ms. Clipboard walk through a planter right around 2:19 (slow it down, or stop it, a few times). And it would appear that the Moonwalk is still in vogue (2:19 through 2:29, dude in the black jacket on the right).
Getting sloppy. 9/11 was much better (an opinion).
Perhaps for your next assignment, might I suggest the Boston MaraCon?
quality. Sex, a biological imperative, lost its consequence with birth control, its static quality with the post-victorians. The dynamic quality asserted itself with Pat Boone and Elvis Presley. Now look at what we've done.
a try at levity,robie
Yes! But believe it or not, the more material, energy, and time savings IT achieves, the more resources must be consumed! It's true, because of Jevon's Paradox. IT has thrown a lot of peope out of work. In order to keep unemployment low, which economists feel is important, the only other option to provide jobs is to grow the economy even faster. So when someone loses their job in the switchboard at the telephone company due to computers replacing them, what's generally happened is that they have gone to work in other sectors like construction and design engineering, or in retail etc. – sectors growing the economy larger. Basically, over time, a lower and lower percentage of the workforce has been required to maintain society humming along in steady state, due to automation and robots taking over so many of the previous manual jobs. The reason economists feel it necessary to keep unemployment low is because there is currently no way, other than food stamps and welfare, to share wealth with people who are not working. And economists want it this way, because working people are supposedly "creating" wealth to grow the bankers' empires even larger.
And also don't forget that it requires a lot of resources to manufacture iPhones and run the internet, as other posters above have indicated. Just because things now appear virtual doesn't mean that virtual reality is somehow divorced from the natural world needed to support it.
So while it COULD technically be feasible to use Alberta's FF reserves to transition to a renewable future over the next half century, it's not going to happen, for political and economic reasons. We could have done it 50 years ago; we had all the technology – electric cars, batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, nuke plants. You know, a hundred years ago someone was saying the exact same thing as you are now – the electric car was invented and we had hydro dams producing electricity. Wow, we were then free of dependence on fossil fuels!!! But we didn't transition, and we didn't do it 40 years ago, 20, and we're still not doing it today. Instead, FF use is still rising faster than any renewables. Because, as I and others have pointed out above, that simply isn't how the system works. For the system to change we would need a revolution, and due to brainwashing of the public by the bankers, we aren't going to get that kind of mass reshaping of perceptions until it's too late and the whole thing crashes.
That's why it's nice to see your 300 mpge car prototype (interested to see what the EPA would rate it in real life use, since the best hybrids out there can approach 100 mpge, and the Tesla Model S is 90 mpge…), show me an example of where this kind of technology is being implemented ANYWHERE, and is resulting in an economy-scale reduction in resource use, rather than just being used as an excuse to grow the economy even larger. Would you bring up Germany's solar panel revolution as an example? Well let's look at Germany's total resource use due to growth in its manufacturing sector that's happening at the same time as all its solar panels are built out… It's like in Vancouver, I get a kick out of all these fancy new buildings going up and they're touted as eco-friendly because they use new energy and water saving technologies. Yet they STILL need concrete and resources to build! They STILL need energy to run! It STILL requires the same amount of energy to fry an egg in one of these buildings. MORE resources are required to keep the city humming along with these "green" buildings than before we had them. Until the solar panels on their roofs (with they don't have) can feed back enough energy into the grid to offset the resources needed to build them, and I predict that that's NEVER going to happen, since there simply isn't enough roof space available, then all this technology is doing is contributing to MORE GROWTH in resource demand. As I keep pointing out, 97% of global energy supply comes from burning dead biomass; that hasn't changed and it isn't changing.
As everyone here well knows, humans fight when resources are limited. And when one group cannot control an essential resource, sometimes preventing a rival from controlling it --by destroying it --kind of makes sense (in a very limited way). Something like the scorched Earth policy of the retreating Russian army burning its own countryside and slaughtering its own farm animals as it retreated before Hitler's invading army.
The availability of oil must not be thought of in just geological terms, but in geopolitical ones, especially in the light of todays bombing of an oil tanker.
This weekend saw another "mysterious" bombing raid, but as AP reports, this time it was not on Libya directly but on a Greek-owned tanker ship at the eastern Libyan port of Darna (killing 2 sailors).From 4 months ago:
"Unidentified fighter jets ... from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates "have secretly teamed up to launch airstrikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli in Libya."And this idea was floated in the western press in 2004: An attack on key Saudi oil terminal could destabilize west
When Fadel Gheit first warned of his "nightmare scenario" that Saudi Arabia's main oil export terminal at Ras Tanura could be wiped out by terrorists, he was dismissed as an alarmist. "I cannot think of any more logical target for terrorists. It [Ras Tanura] is the nerve centre for the Saudi oil trade but also for global exports. If you can blow up the Pentagon in broad daylight, then it cannot be impossible to fly a plane into Ras Tanura.
Not only is Ras Tanura, or the refining centre of Abqaiq, dangerously exposed to being knocked out of action by militants, but Mr Gheit also believes regime change in Saudi to a more hostile Islamic government is as inevitable as it was in Iran a quarter of a century ago. "It's only a matter of time."
Warfare aimed at the oil refining and distribution network is one mechanism by which the "stability" of an unstable world culture dependent on oil could be toppled quite abruptly.
The geological reports of oil reserves don't capture this aspect of the question "How much longer do we have to become independent of oil." The potential for a very abrupt change through warfare exists.
And in a world where adequate food production is almost completely dependent on oil, the ramifications of a sudden drop in oil availability are almost too immense to consider.
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,Charles very articulately (and with knowledge of the financial system), explains multiple ways the oil-price weapon could be used. I found this fascinating.We are entering a new phase of asymmetric war being waged not over oil but the price of oil. Many observers see a parallel in Saudi Arabia's stated intent to force other exporters to cut their production (if they want to maintain the price of their oil) to the mid-1980s, when a similar oil-pricing war drove prices to lows that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union.
[We are seeing, a] new chapter in asymmetric warfare that may see a variety of oil-related weapons being deployed.
Summary list [I have quoted CHS directly and paraphrased some]:
-
Supply "proxy irregulars" [ha ha–love that term] with explosives to plant along the oil distribution pipelines, refineries and terminals. Defending every portion of a supply line is nearly impossible.
-
Disruption of supply facilities via Stuxnet-type computer worms.
-
Nations that can print their own credit and currency–for example, the U.S. Federal Reserve–can quietly underwrite domestic production by buying shale-oil related junk bonds via proxies, effectively burying the debt.
-
Selectively extending credit to oil producing nations that agree to support one's production goals and not extending credit to those that don't. (Oil fields must be maintained and borrowing money is needed to upgrade infrastructure.)
-
A key central bank (for example, the Fed) can cease issuing money/credit and thereby trigger a global slowdown that constricts demand. If oil production remains high, price plummets as the erosion in demand takes hold.
-
A central bank might decide to support the price of oil … by buying up vast quantities of futures contracts. Such buying would eventually trigger a short-covering rally that would push the price of oil significantly higher, at least in the short-term, regardless of physical supply-demand.
Just wondering, does it worry anybody that nearly all comments on this article, and in most blogs of this nature, appear to be males. (I'm one too?) Glance through the names. Sometimes the commentary is 100 percent gender distorted.
Just concerned that's it's not sensible to receive input on such an important subject primarily from only one gender.
This is a genuine query, I'm not being critical of anybody., just observing.
Female - Nurturer/Provider
Male - Provider/Protector/Defender
Perhaps males are "wired" to discern threats (in general) earlier in our species.
Fred,
Pure and simple unmitigated BS
I'm an automotive engineer and currently work in powertrain development.
Two really big factors here. One, there is not an equivalent measure of electrical energy. The car battery has to be charged with something, we haven't overcome the physical restriction to electrical osmosis 
They are taking credit for "free" battery capacity. Second and equally huge factor, American drivers have so far been unwilling to accept an electric car or even an electric hybrid. It's barely into early adopters, and that's only because of govt rebates of $7,500 each. Even Tesla has said their success (very limited) is due to rebates and govt funding.
WRT cost being a little over $100k, NFW, and I really mean that with capital letters too. Prototype mainline production vehicles, and an OEM can build as many as 250, but prototypes will cost every bit of $1,000,000 each. One couldn't build a production car for at those volumes for the price they are asking.
There is no magic bullet. The anticipated new EPA requirements are literally into the unobtanium region of pie in the sky. There are a lot of minutia plans being worked out at every OEM, but so far that has not been an indication that anybody has solved the big problems.
We happen to drive a plug in hybrid, and I can tell you it takes a monumental paradigm shift in driving expectations. An co-worker is rabidly obsessive with pursuit of battery only driving, and he does very well… and was in the 300 mpg range… right up until he had to visit his ailing dad out of state. Now he's sitting at 100 mpg or so. Remember, this is NOT counting electricity to charge the battery.
This could well be true, but a problem arises (pointed out famously by Albert Einstein) that if what caused the problem in the first place then tries to fix it, then the problem is likely to be exacerbated.Put into a popular social context, if our traditional patriarchal social matrix has resulted in near collapse of our civilization then one of our primary concerns is that we don't just reinforce feedback loops.
I see this problem especially in spirited efforts to resolve the human condition primarily by the enthusiastic application of more technology, whereas our core problem needs to be recognised as cultural, not technological.
Rather than view this in a prejudicial light, I see the need in any emergency to have all hands on deck and also to remove any behavoural patterns that tend to lock in the status quo.
All the brilliant minds focusing on carbon based energy. People are very smart; down to the atomic minutia of what happens with all the drilling, mining, burning and consumption. How is it that no one is talking about the complete game changer Thorium? The only suggestions I see relate to the refinement of dirty energy (addiction), or going green with wind, solar and any other fairy tale solutions to actual human needs such as waiting until we figure out cold-fusion (fools gold). We sit upon millions of years of clean, cheap, global energy (and safe w/ no waste) and the methods are figured out (molten salt reactors) and no one talks about it. Thorium. What am I missing? Thorium. I have had conversations with people in the nuclear industry and none of them have heard of Thorium. I had multiple conversations with an individual who is the FA for the national nuclear waste fund and he too had never heard of Thorium. I do have to admit that I am not a paying subscriber so maybe Mr. M has information in the subscriber only section. I feel this information is far too important and we all need to talk about it. Thorium people. Thorium.
Correct Thorium has been discussed at least twice on PP podcasts
As a female, I too have made this observation - but have not thought to be concerned by it.I think it depends on the topic being discussed. Where the articles and blogs are more male orientated in topic (think engineering, mechanics, laws of thermodynamics, graphs and mathematical explanations) they sound like blah, blah, blah to me (and probably a lot of other women too) and seem to be mainly commented on by men.
Where the topic is of a more nurturing nature, think gardening, food preservation, first aid, personal health matters and homemaking activities there are always plenty of women involved.
In thinking about it now - there could be a number of other reasons why women may not be as active in discussion, but to put these forward could open up big discussion on gender issues!!
BTW - I think this is my first post, but always so much to read here.
In our household I'm the researcher and one continually striving for further education and truth. Hubby is happy to go to work, and build this or that as requested, as long as it does not sound too whacko.
Thank you for posting. Please post again.I want to remind you that in many if not most of the best Universities, women students outnumber men in Chemistry. Some of the best chemists I know are women. Another observation is that the main factor between people who "get" the science of climate change vs those who dont is usually Chemistry. I observe that anyone who took chemistry as a subject and "got" it (enjoyed it, understood it etc) are on board with the climate change "science." I reviewed the main science PhD climate deniers and found that they were mathematicians or other "scientists" who (in my opinion) just dont understand basic chemistry, or dont want to believe basic chemistry. Women are now or will be the predominant in Chemistry and have a lot to offer.
Margaret Thatcher (a chemical engineer) is a good example. She was very strong against the theory of halogens and ozone depletion and resisted as the prime minister of GB and the whole ozone hole "theory" until one day she sat down and went through the chemical equations herself and from that day on was a fervent promoter of ozone depletion science and the need to remove chlorofloro carbons. Women have a lot to contribute and have a mind to understand the science.
[quote=Mots]Margaret Thatcher (a chemical engineer) is a good example. She was very strong against the theory of halogens and ozone depletion and resisted as the prime minister of GB and the whole ozone hole "theory" until one day she sat down and went through the chemical equations herself and from that day on was a fervent promoter of ozone depletion science and the need to remove chlorofloro carbons. Women have a lot to contribute and have a mind to understand the science.
[/quote]
Reminded me of a post on The Oil Drum that always stuck with me. Apparently Thatcher didn't really get Peak Oil unfortunately. Many conservatives hold up her legacy as an example of what her more hard line economic policies can achieve. However, it seems it was more of being in the right place at the right time (rising oil production makes politicians shine because then everyone gets richer and there's jobs for all the otherwise unemployed bums… until the fated 1988 disaster occurred – after which she left office). I think this principle would apply to a lot of other economic doctrine as well, in that there are often larger forces at play.
I see this Thatcher era dogma playing out again now in Canada. You can go to any government website and you see propaganda from the Conservatives as being "an island of stability in an unstable world" – they're really playing up Canada's relative prosperity, and unfortunately it's largely working. Of course that has everything to do with the up-until-recently increasing oil price, and the fact that Canada still has a lot of the world's remaining oil supplies. As to the question of what Canada will do when the oil runs out, well that 's never discussed because it will never run out! Or at least not in our lifetimes, or our politicians' corrupt crony profit and re-election cycle. Interestingly, we are getting a taste of that now with the price crashes as Alberta is big news since they are talking about increasing personal taxes to offset the losses in oil revenue. Alberta has been running massive deficits, proof that economic growth and oil revenues do not help pay down debt – they actually increase it since that is how a debt based monetary system works. Yet the governments keep pandering to this phony narrative of "balancing the budget", which of course is mathematically impossible, but it appeals to the conservative voter.