Recommendation: The single best one-page Peak Oil resource I've ever seen

[GliderGuider]

Dr. Michael Mills is a professor of psychology (of all things) at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. His fields of interest include Evolutionary Psychology and Ecological Psychology (which he describes as "Psychological strategies humans might implement to avoid ecological overshoot and population collapse."

Along the way he has amassed an encyclopedic knowledge of Peak Oil and the issues around sustainability, overshoot the the potential for collapse. So, although this is one single page on Peak Oil, it's a BIG page. If something has been written about PO, Mills seems to have read it.

http://drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

Highest recommendation. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[pscot]

1. Are humans smarter than yeast?

We'll see.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Yes, humans are smarter then yeast

The question is, are we smart enough?

[GliderGuider]

5. It's not a question of being smart enough.

Human group behaviour doesn't seem to be modified by our IQ. A large mob of PhDs still behaves a lot like yeast.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. If PhD’s still behave like yeast, then they’re not smart enough (education ^= intelligence)

I know a number of PhD’s. Most of them are smart enough to do the math, and to sort through evidence to come to a valid conclusion. They’re not the ones I worry about.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/the-tragedy-of-the-risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change

The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: the individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

[GliderGuider]

9. The point is one about herding behaviour, aka groupthink

Individual scientists tend to be very smart. The larger a group they are part of, however, the less their smarts matter to the group behaviour. When you get to the level of national debates where the action emerges from a consensus of many people (either directly or indirectly through voting for decision-makers) the group response rules.

Groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. While this often causes groupthink to be portrayed in a negative light, because it can suppress independent thought, groupthink under certain contexts can also help expedite decisions and improve efficiency. As a social science model, groupthink has an enormous reach and influences literature in the fields of communications, political science, social psychology, management, organizational theory, and information technology.

Absent from the Wikipedia description however, is the role of the limbic system as described here:

Evolution and Neurobiology

To understand why dysfunctional behavior (such as hasty imprudent reactions based on superficial information) is often difficult to suppress, we need only look at the evolution and structure of the human brain, which, for all its wonder and brilliance, still contains vestiges of our primitive selves making it enormously challenging for us to act the way that our more rational selves would prefer that we behave.

The cerebral cortex is the 2-millimeter-thick outer layer of the brain, composed of over 1 trillion brain cells. More than 100 billion neurons serve as the "network communicators" inside the brain. As they connect to one another, they form a vast array of neural circuits operating throughout the brain. The brain has left and right hemispheres (frequently referred to as the left and right brains).

Resting just beneath the cerebral cortex are the subcortical structures including the limbic system, which projects massive numbers of connections to the cerebral cortex, many of which are reciprocal. These linkages allow hatred, aggression, and violence (when they arise) to merge with "judgment and meaning" in the frontal lobe, although they often take precedence over the generally more logical frontal- lobe functioning. This is why merely "knowing better" than to engage in a particular behavior isn't necessarily enough to change one's thinking or prevent that behavior. In a moment of anger or anxiety, rational cortical processing can become immediately and almost hopelessly overridden by the more primitive impulses orchestrated by the limbic system.

Between social and anatomical influences, the expression of intelligent ideas that are outside the group's existing desires meets with enormous resistance. The behavioural drivers of groups are not much governed by intelligence, or even reason.

Groupthink is a description of Yeast Behaviour. "A person might" be smarter than yeast, "people" are not.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Which is where intelligence comes in

To my way of thinking, a hallmark of intelligence is the ability to willfully override instinctual behavior. Herding behavior is instinctual.

Intelligent individuals should be able to overcome their instinct to “follow the crowd.”

[GliderGuider]

11. Individuals can definitely overcome that instinct.

But it takes an enormous effort. The emotional reactions that come from the limbic system are really overwhelming. Dealing with those impulses isn't so much a question of intelligence, it's a question of self-awareness. You have to be very, very aware of your internal psychological landscape to catch these impulses before you are caught by them. Recognizing such impulses is a large component of self-awareness training. How much explicit self-awareness training do smart people get? Would they recognize limbic reactivity in time to intervene? Most people don't have a clue about this kind of stuff.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Well, as I say, for me, it is a hallmark of intelligence

We recognize this intuitively, “I’m sorry; I wasn’t thinking; it was just a reflex.”


The yeast cell (to the best of our knowledge) follows its programming without questioning.

Intelligent individuals are able to “transcend” their programming—to overcome the limitations of their programming. This ability enables a genius like Einstein to think about reality in an entirely new way.

[GliderGuider]

14. Remember that a full half of the world is of below-average intelligence.

And they all seem to be involved in politics...

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Close, but not quite a full half…

Consider, if the population were only 3 people. In that case, we might say that 1 was of average intelligence, 1 was above and 1 was below average intelligence. (So, ⅓ are below average intelligence.)

If we were dealing with a larger sample, by definition, the average IQ would be 100. So, we have 3 groups. Those with IQ’s above 100, those with IQ’s below 100 and those with IQ’s of exactly 100.

In theory, the number of people with above average intelligence is the same as the number of people with below average intelligence. So, the number of people of below average intelligence is:

Total Population - (# of individuals with an IQ of 100)
2

Or… slightly less than half of the population. ;-)

[GliderGuider]

28. They're still all in politics.

In groups it's not the smartest ones who lead. It's the ones who like power and know how to wield it. The smart ones end up being advisers - whose advice is typically ignored if it proves to be inconvenient to those wielding power.

ETA: Whether it's a "full half" or not depends on whether there are an even or an odd number of people in the world, doesn't it?

[Bigmack]

3. Thanks for this post

While not exactly "news" this page puts information together WELL. Should be universally required reading for The Great Unwashed. Ms Bigmack

[GliderGuider]

4. Yeah, I can imagine his students' reactions on opening that page as their first intro to the topic.

I like his warning note:

If this is your first introduction to peak oil, you may wish to bookmark this page. It is a bit much to take in all at once. ... And, psychologically, it takes some time for much of the information that is presented here to really sink in. All of us living in developed countries have always had cheap gasoline readily available. It is difficult to even imagine otherwise.

It's one thing to spend several years assembling the picture piece by piece on your own, but to have it dumped in your lap that way is another story altogether.

[phantom power]

6. Stone Heads - what's not to love?

[Yooperman]

7. Thanks for posting ...

Probably the single most important article the world needs to see.

I have often said "Man is an animal and if he can't rise above the awareness of an animal, he is beholden to the law of an animal that being "Survival of the fittest"."

We need to rise to an awareness that realizes that we can't GROW forever. We need to agree on a sustainable population and maintain that population.

Of course anyone with a brain realizes that this won't happen... not in my lifetime... a catastrophe of mega proportions is going to happen first. Then those that are left will hopefully be able to implement the policies that lead to a stable, sustainable population.

So maybe in my next lifetime our world will have evolved to such a place.

Peace

YM

[kristopher]

13. The fundamental premise as stated in the second paragraph is false.

"As of now, we have no renewable energy source nor combination of sources
that can replace the amount of energy we have been able to get from oil. That is,
renewable energy cannot produce even a small fraction of the energy that
is needed to power industrial / technological civilization."

That is false.

Petroleum is a minor energy resource in comparison to renewables. We can see in the 3rd "take home message" an example of the sophomoric nature of this so called "analysis":

"3. Even if we had renewable energy sources to provide the equivalent
energy of oil at the same cost, our entire economic infrastructure
is oil, not electron or hydrogen, based. The economy might not
be able to work as well on non-oil based energy. For example, could
airplanes, or large mining trucks, be run on batteries?"

No, but the personal transportation fleet of light duty vehicles - which consumes most of the petroleum - can run on batteries; with heavy equipment and heavy transport being powered by a combination of biofuels/hydrogen with technologies such as fuel cells to dramatically enhance efficiency.

With effort and cooperation, the energy problem is solvable.

[GliderGuider]

15. The "as of now" makes it true.

Unfortunately the utility of the "minor energy resource" of oil is sort of key to the operation of our globalized civilization in its current form.

[kristopher]

19. No it doesn't.

"As of now" renewable energy sources dwarf world fossil resources - of which petroleum is only one type. These renewable resource "can" replace oil now.

The topic is the future and the question of replacements for petroleum as supply relative to demand decreases. The resources ARE there and they CAN cost effectively replace petroleum.

The utility of electricity is far greater than that of petroleum.

The term "in its current form" is a way to weasel out of having your assertions shown to be false - a modern sustainable society can prosper on renewable energy sources.

[GliderGuider]

23. As you say,

"a modern sustainable society can prosper on renewable energy sources"

Thee problem is that our society (the one we're actually living in right now) is not sustainable, and in its present form can't prosper on renewable energy sources.

[kristopher]

24. More weasel words?

Replacing our current energy system is what will largely make our current society sustainable.

[GliderGuider]

26. "Replacing our current energy system"...

Really? We're going to do that? How do you know?

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. No, petroleum is a major energy resource

and renewables can't compete because none of the renewables has the same energy return on energy input, because renewables aren't portable, because they require large amounts of arable land (which are needed for food crops) and for a hundred other reasons. And how are you going to manufacture the batteries? Or for that matter provide the electricity (most electrical generation still comes from coal).

[kristopher]

20. No it isn't; not relative to renewables.

Renewables (other than biofuels) currently deliver greater EROI than petroleum - and the net energy return for petroleum is decreasing while for renewables it is increasing.


The rest of your points are similarly false or reflect a poor grasp of the issue. I'll be happy to discuss them if you want to spend a few minutes forming your thoughts more clearly.

[GliderGuider]

17. Let's look at one of your casual assumptions

"the personal transportation fleet of light duty vehicles - which consumes most of the petroleum - can run on batteries"

There are currently about 50 million new cars being produced each year world-wide, and the number is likely to increase over time. In order for the entire global car fleet to be converted to battery power in one replacement cycle of 15 years, we need to be producing nothing but electric cars at the beginning of that cycle. That means in order to have the world car fleet running on batteries by 2026 we would need to be producing 50 million battery cars a year starting today. In order to have the fleet running on battery power by 2040 we need to be producing nothing but battery powered cars in 15 years.

The car bodies we can do. It's the number of batteries and electric motors required (mostly lithium and neodymium supplies) that just might give us a problem reaching that volume, especially since we're running at close to zero production right now. Add to that the infrastructure issues for generation - especially in regions that currently don't have good electrical infrastructure but do use a lot of cars (parts of China, the rest of Southern and Southeast Asia, as well as Africa) and you have a Peak Oil problem that's pretty hard to wave a magic electric wand over.

The time line of 2040 is chosen deliberately, because that looks like a probable date for the international oil market to go dry.

Of course, a global economic crash - a long-term series of recessions or a deepening depression - throws all these calculations out the window. Car demand would dry up, Vehicle Miles Traveled would plummet, and the capital available for new energy infrastructure would be squeezed hard. Economic contraction is one of the things that's killing nuclear power now, and it could choke off other high-cost additions as we go forward. It could even make the maintenance of existing infrastructure problematic - especially if fuel prices keep rising in relative terms.

The "nothing to see here, move along" response is utterly inappropriate here. The world is at the beginning of a major long-term crisis centered around oil. The less we admit to that, the deeper a problem it's going to become. As Robert Hirsch said, if we wait until PO hits before we do anything, we will have 20 to 30 years of very hard times as a result. Well, PO is here now, and we still haven't done squat.

[kristopher]

22. You've put forth a groundless prerequisite

"In order for the entire global car fleet to be converted to battery power in one replacement cycle of 15 years".

Why would we need to do that? The answer is that inspite of your claim the world will run out of oil by 2040, we don't - a fact that renders your point meaningless. As oil supply decreases relative to demand, the price goes up and the alternative technologies are rolled out. It is basis economics.

Similarly your allusion to "regions that currently don't have good electrical infrastructure but do use a lot of cars" has no substance as a component of the problem. In fact, those areas are in a better position to adapt to new technologies than we are since they do not have a lot invested in obsolete technologies.

[GliderGuider]

25. The reason some regions don't have good electrical infrastructure

is because they don't have the money for it. if they didn't have the money for traditional electricity, they're unlikely to have the money for shiny new wind turbines either. When oil goes through $250/bbl (at least in relative, if not absolute dollar terms) they're going to be fucked.

Your touching faith in the invisible hand (the one that's currently slapping the entire world upside the head) is duly noted. In fact, your entire position seems to be little more than a protestation of faith, maintained in the face of a reality that pretty much everyone but you can see.

[kristopher]

27. My position has nothing to do with either your attempt at character assassination or

with faith.

You claim a set of economic dynamics in developing countries that you are making up as you go along. Deeper analysis shows that renewables are set to deliver great benefit to poorer nations.

As for your personal attack, having an understanding of basic economics is not the same thing as having an ideological commitment to free-market economics. Your attempt at slander, however is noted as an act of desperation by someone with nothing more substantial to offer.

[GliderGuider]

29. European and American financial systems are falling to pieces.

The USA is experiencing a resurgence of anti-intellectualism that may be unprecedented in its history.
No national governments of any size are talking about a wholesale shift in their energy sources.
Food and oil prices are climbing precipitously, in both relative and absolute terms.
Resource wars (Libya and Iraq) are being fought.
Mercantilism in the energy markets is on the rise (China and Russia).
Crude oil production hasn't risen in seven years.
America is fracking up its landscape and water tables.
The world is entering the second stage of a recession that could easily be be deeper and longer than the first.

These are the realities.

[Terry in Austin]

18. It's only false if your fundamental premise is true

You put a great deal of reliance on "can," "could," "with effort and cooperation."

That's more of a hypothesis than an analysis, isn't it?