How would you present Peak Oil to the public constructively?

[Darth Wong]

I didn't have faith in your ability to pull it off, but you managed to prove me wrong again. An appeal to emotion ("Won't somebody please think about Africa!") and not one, but two strawmen of my post (bolded).

What the fuck are you smoking? He's not allowed to mention the current ongoing population die-off in Africa without being accused of an appeal to emotion? How the fuck is it an Appeal to Emotion fallacy to point out that people are in fact currently dying off in Africa? Certain facts are now considered to be emotions?

[Big Phil]

I didn't have faith in your ability to pull it off, but you managed to prove me wrong again. An appeal to emotion ("Won't somebody please think about Africa!") and not one, but two strawmen of my post (bolded).

What the fuck are you smoking? He's not allowed to mention the current ongoing population die-off in Africa without being accused of an appeal to emotion? How the fuck is it an Appeal to Emotion fallacy to point out that people are in fact currently dying off in Africa? Certain facts are now considered to be emotions?

Since A) I never even mentioned Africa in a post, never mind said I don't count Africa as civilization, and B) specifically said peak oil will result in a recession or depression, I'm not sure exactly what his point is. He's accusing me of not caring about black people and saying nothing will happen to the economy, which is pure strawman.

[Darth Wong]

Since A) I never even mentioned Africa in a post, never mind said I don't count Africa as civilization, and B) specifically said peak oil will result in a recession or depression, I'm not sure exactly what his point is.

His point was that you can't snort and say there will be no significant human civilization die-off as a result of a major global economic crisis.

He's accusing me of not caring about black people and saying nothing will happen to the economy, which is pure strawman.

Funny ... a minute ago you were saying that it was an Appeal to Emotion, and now (because you didn't put your point in quite the same words he did) you're calling it a Strawman. I wonder which fallacy name you'll pick out of a hat next.

[Big Phil]

Since A) I never even mentioned Africa in a post, never mind said I don't count Africa as civilization, and B) specifically said peak oil will result in a recession or depression, I'm not sure exactly what his point is.

His point was that you can't snort and say there will be no significant human civilization die-off as a result of a major global economic crisis.

That would have been a lovely point if I'd argued that people wouldn't die. I never did that; I merely stated that THE END OF CIVILIZATION isn't likely.

He's accusing me of not caring about black people and saying nothing will happen to the economy, which is pure strawman.

Funny ... a minute ago you were saying that it was an Appeal to Emotion, and now (because you didn't put your point in quite the same words he did) you're calling it a Strawman. I wonder which fallacy name you'll pick out of a hat next.

And what exactly are you smoking? Did you fail to read my initial response, or are you purposely nitpicking?

[Darth Wong]

That would have been a lovely point if I'd argued that people wouldn't die. I never did that; I merely stated that THE END OF CIVILIZATION isn't likely.

Ah, so your only point was that the "doom and gloom scenarios" about the end of all human civilization are wrong. And you were complaining about strawman fallacies?

And what exactly are you smoking? Did you fail to read my initial response, or are you purposely nitpicking?

How is it a nitpick to show that you have utterly failed to demonstrate that it's an Appeal to Emotion fallacy, fucktard?

[Zixinus]

Maybe we'll develop high-yield, cheap fusion, and peak deuterium (to say nothing of peak protium),

"Peak boron" or "peak lithium" might be more accurate. I don't know about lithium, but boron is enough for millions of years. I don't know about deuterium reserves, but deuterium may not be as important if you can do advanced fuels, p-b11 reaction in particular. Boron is definatly enough for a several centuries, and most likely millenas, assuming borax alone (remember that a power plant needs only a few kilograms of the stuff a day). Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, so "peak protium" is simply ridicolous. Then there is outer space, with large resouces if you are willing to invest in them, and with low-mass fusion machines, you will get to space, even if low-mass fusion machines are not ready or on the drawing board.

Also what does the word "cornicopianism" mean? No entry in dictionary.com, wikipedia nor Merriam-Webster's.

I should have put this in the previous post, but what I'm getting at is folks who scream PEAK OIL and predict the end of Western civilization as a result get written off as lunatics. Environmentalism is in much the same boat; folks who scream about Force 5 hurricanes every other week, massive flooding in West Virginia, and massive die offs of humanity as the climate changes are viewed as lunatics.

If you want folks to take you at all serious you should probably talk about peak oil in the same terms as you would if you want people to take you seriously about environmentalism - how can you conserve, how can you reduce your impact on the environment, what's the economic benefit of carpooling, riding the bus/train, or bicycle, etc.?

That's why my suggestion to approach the problem of Peak Oil from the problem of oil itself. Statistics, predictions, reserves is distant to most people, and fearmongering is even worse approach. The idea of lower dependcy of importing and cheaper gas due to lower demand is not.

Peak Oil should be "a very good reason" among others, a reassurance that breaking away from oil, at the very least from power generating standpoint, is a good idea. People, including myself, is sick of fearmongering. I do not dismiss Peak Oil or CO2-induced, ,man-made Global Warming as mere fearmongering, but if you approach these issues from that standpoint, you will have a difficult time to convince me, hence why I was sceptical of both for a time. But if you approach me with serious, calm science and good reasoning, I'll have a much more open ears.

[Big Phil]

That would have been a lovely point if I'd argued that people wouldn't die. I never did that; I merely stated that THE END OF CIVILIZATION isn't likely.

Ah, so your only point was that the "doom and gloom scenarios" about the end of all human civilization are wrong. And you were complaining about strawman fallacies?

If the end of civilization is his claim, he's going to have to back it up. The Peak Oil theory in and of itself does not support an end of civilization scenario.

And what exactly are you smoking? Did you fail to read my initial response, or are you purposely nitpicking?

How is it a nitpick to show that you have utterly failed to demonstrate that it's an Appeal to Emotion fallacy, fucktard?

You're right; I used the wrong fallacy. He actually committed an ad hominem fallacy rather than an Appeal to Emotion.

[Guardsman Bass]

One slight quibble: why are people assuming that housing as a means of fueling economic growth is going to collapse? I would have thought it would have the opposite effect; once transportation costs, in the form of significantly higher fuel prices and productivity losses if you get shortages, start kicking in and becoming a major factor in whether subdivisions are sellable, wouldn't that simply mean that more traditional, pedestrian- and transit - friendly forms of housing (look up "New Urbanism" on wikipedia to get an idea, or read Suburban Nation) would begin springing up like mad? Speculation on those kinds of things would then become rife.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because the primary asset your average middle class person has is their suburban home - the market for which will completely implode. By the time there is a correction in housing, you'll probably see most former suburbanites in tenements.

[Zixinus]

Helium is the second most common element in the universe, so helium shortages are simply ridiculous.

And I never mentioned Helium as a fuel source, and most likely, it will never, ever will be, even if we have the fusion machines that could use them.

[tim31]

I've been waiting for a thread like this, but I still don't know how to convince my father, or at least get him thinking more about it; he agrees that the oil will run out, but believes that the powers-that-be will not allow the civilization that supports the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to fall on its arse. And this is the man that pays his taxes at the end of the financial year so the Government doesn't get an interest free loan out of him.

[Darth Wong]

If the end of civilization is his claim, he's going to have to back it up. The Peak Oil theory in and of itself does not support an end of civilization scenario.

So have you confirmed that he believes that human civilization will in fact end?

You're right; I used the wrong fallacy. He actually committed an ad hominem fallacy rather than an Appeal to Emotion.

Perhaps you could clarify exactly how it was an ad-hominem fallacy, since you've now basically admitted that you were throwing random fallacy names at him. Remember that an ad-hominem fallacy is "your argument is wrong because you are a bad or unreliable person".

I've been waiting for a thread like this, but I still don't know how to convince my father, or at least get him thinking more about it; he agrees that the oil will run out, but believes that the powers-that-be will not allow the civilization that supports the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to fall on its arse. And this is the man that pays his taxes at the end of the financial year so the Government doesn't get an interest free loan out of him.

He's obviously not a student of history. It's a fair statement to say that civilization will find a way to survive, but that doesn't mean there won't be plenty of individual people suffering and/or dying during this process. He may be rightly confident that civilization will go on, but where his confidence is misplaced is his assumption that he and his family will be protected. How does he know he'll end up in the winning camp, and not the losing one? I'm sure plenty of people who courted starvation during the Great Depression thought things were going pretty well for them before it started.

[Illuminatus Primus]

"Peak deuterium" and "peak protium" were intentionally fatuous to demonstrate the obscene and probably technically unreachable limits to the exploitation of theoretical fusion energy resources.

[tim31]

I've been waiting for a thread like this, but I still don't know how to convince my father, or at least get him thinking more about it; he agrees that the oil will run out, but believes that the powers-that-be will not allow the civilization that supports the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to fall on its arse. And this is the man that pays his taxes at the end of the financial year so the Government doesn't get an interest free loan out of him.

He's obviously not a student of history. It's a fair statement to say that civilization will find a way to survive, but that doesn't mean there won't be plenty of individual people suffering and/or dying during this process. He may be rightly confident that civilization will go on, but where his confidence is misplaced is his assumption that he and his family will be protected. How does he know he'll end up in the winning camp, and not the losing one? I'm sure plenty of people who courted starvation during the Great Depression thought things were going pretty well for them before it started.

The trick is, he is well versed in history, although perhaps through his middle years he has become ignorant of the details. He may well feel confident because he has a useful skill, even if the full benefits of it are somewhat dependent on a viable healthcare infrastructure. Trying to discuss the peak oil situation with him give me uneasy feelings mostly because as my father, he is supposed to be reassuring me, but conversely, I want him to give due consideration to being prepared. Will it get to the point where I'm supposed to be the one reassuring him?