Collapse

[CptnChan]

http://www.collapsemovie.com/

I watched this "documentary" the other day, and despite not showing any credentials for the guy talking, it was at the very least, thought provoking.

Most of the movie is just this guy rambling on, but man is he interesting.

Has anybody seen it?

Basically he lays out (rather logically IMO) how oil is going to run out, and since our entire civilization is reliant on oil in so many different ways, that there is going to be an inevitable collapse, followed by a huge population drop.

He also points out that the alternative energy options that are often discussed require too much energy to invest in and also require oil-created energy at some point, and thus are not feasable.

I don't recall him throwing out any specific time limit for when this is to happen, but some parts of the movie did give me chills.

I'd love to hear some objective opinions on what he talks about. The movie is currently in the instant streaming list on Netflix.

[Element]

So yeah this is the peak oil thing right?

My answer to this is that as oil gets more and more expensive people will become less and less dependent on it and find other solutions. Even if we can't find an alternative all that means is that we have to live in a weird steam punk world. Anyways the only real problems is governments messing with this process. In which case I would have to agree that we are probably doomed.

[brian0918]

Some relevant reading: The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894

[CptnChan]

Some relevant reading: The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894

That was somewhat encouraging, but it doesn't really apply to what the guy in Collapse is saying. He doesn't say that the only answer to the impending abscence is to place restrictions on liberty. He says there is no answer.

I would really like to hear from someone who has seen this documentary. Even the trailer is somewhat misleading, you need to watch the actual thing. I am fully aware of the philosophical and economical reasons for suporting our petroleum based societies. I'm not asking "should oil be banned?" or something like that.

I just wondering if anyone has actually listened to what this guy is saying and what they think about it.

And Element, you mentioned finding alternatives or living in science fiction, but that's the whole point of the movie. The guy is saying neither is possible without pretty much losing most of the population on Earth.

Our population has increased to the point it is at because of oil. When that is not as readily available, population will necessarily drop. At least that's what he propounds.

[brian0918]

The answer is to remove the restrictions that manipulate the price mechanism (e.g. the ban against drilling in most of the US and along the shores). If that cannot be accomplished, then yes, it is certainly possible that we will run out. The more free the society, the less harsh the transition from oil will be. A totally free society would never run out of oil - oil would simply become too expensive in comparison to alternative fuels, and stop being used altogether.

[2046]

The whole thing is a giant non sequitur. First, we are not running out of oil, and secondly, even if we do eventually “run out of oil,” or “run out of X, Y, or Z” (and the question is always “Whose resources?”) does not mean an end to civilization is necessary. It's not a political problem, it's one for applied science and entrepreneurship.

As far as the population increasing or decreasing: who cares? The population has an “optimum point” that it naturally tends to given the capital structure of the given society.

[dream_weaver]

Some relevant reading: The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894

Nice analogy.

<snip> He says there is no answer.

That is the author's prescription. We're doomed. Accept it, there is nothing that can be done about it.

I would really like to hear from someone who has seen this documentary. <snip>

If it makes it to the local flea market DVD reseller, watching it may then be an option.

I just wondering if anyone has actually listened to what this guy is saying and what they think about it.

Just the trailer you linked to. It sets up an 'imagine, what if', and then proceeds to concretize it according to the film producers metaphysical-epistemological value judgments.

And Element, you mentioned finding alternatives or living in science fiction, but that's the whole point of the movie. The guy is saying neither is possible without pretty much losing most of the population on Earth.

A restatement of the author's prescription again. "There is no escape. We're doomed. Accept it." A defeatist mentality, writ large on the silver screen with the advantage of being able to bypass the viewers cognitive processes.

Our population has increased to the point it is at because of oil. When that is not as readily available, population will necessarily drop. At least that's what he propounds.

Our population has increased to the point it is because of the application of reason to the problem of survival. While oil plays a remarkable role in all of that, it is only one of a myriad of variables in the mix.

You might also find this article by George Reisman interesting as well. Mining for the Next Million Years

[CptnChan]

You might also find this article by George Reisman interesting as well. Mining for the Next Million Years

I'll check it out. Thanks for your responses to my remarks I found them pretty satisfying.Still, probably not as satisfying as from someone who actually watched the movie and was responding to the comments by the man himself and not my less-educated re-telling of them.

The one issue I think that stuck was that ultimately, whether it's now or in 100 years, oil will run out. And we are increasing our usage constantly. And there are no alternatives that are realistic yet. It seemed to me that the best scenario would be a new technology or resource to be discovered/created by someones mind, which obviously needs to be free.

[brian0918]

The one issue I think that stuck was that ultimately, whether it's now or in 100 years, oil will run out.

You haven't yet shown this is going to happen, let alone that if it does, it should be a concern.

[softwareNerd]

The one issue I think that stuck was that ultimately, whether it's now or in 100 years, oil will run out. And we are increasing our usage constantly. And there are no alternatives that are realistic yet. It seemed to me that the best scenario would be a new technology or resource to be discovered/created by someones mind, which obviously needs to be free.

Oil will never literally run out. As demand increases relative to supply, prices go up, more hard-to-get sources of supply become available. Some estimates of U.S. shale-oil reserves put them at 5 times total Saudi oil-reserves. If oil stays consistently at today's prices of $100 a barrel, the only barrier to getting more oil will be political resistance fueled by environmentalism.

Even if the environmentalists succeed in curbing the exploitation of reserves, there are alternative technologies that can take over. Electricity can be generated by nuclear power plants. Today, oil is preferred over electricity because it is cheaper in many uses. If the price appears to be staying permanently higher, substitution will start in earnest.

Finally, 100 years is a long, long time. Think about how much oil we used 100 years ago. Human being don't stand still. The only real constraint is the power of governmental force to throw obstacles in the way of new technologies and the exploitation of the world's resources.

[mmmcannibalism]

Just to mention it, you can recycle plastic into oil; so the price of oil going up will lead to that becoming profitable at some point.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

You might also find this article by George Reisman interesting as well. Mining for the Next Million Years

What a load of crap. The article goes through a long involved computation of the volume of stuff we extract from the earth and points out it's an infinitesimal part of the whole.

Big deal.

Only _parts_ of the earth are worth mining in the first place. Most of the earth (down to a depth of 1000 miles at least) is completely unglamorous stuff like quartz, calcite, feldspar, etc. Those parts may be common or quite scarce depending on what the resource is. Only a vanishingly small percentage of the earth is oil, gold, or what-have you (admittedly aluminum is much more common but apparently bauxite, the preferred ore, isn't nearly as common as aluminum in all its forms).

I am not worried about iron, long term, or any metal, because we will either go after the earth's core or asteroids, but organic compounds could get dicey, and there is not one stat in that article discussing how much petroleum, natural gas, etc. actually exists--it doesn't fricking matter how big the earth is compared to what we've pulled out already, what matters is how much petroleum, natural gas and coal there is, compared to how much we've pulled out. But the quantity of these organics is a very small percentage of the mass of the earth. I don't believe we are anywhere near peak oil under free market conditions but given the asshat environmentalists out there placing stuff off limits we could hit it in 20 years.

[2046]

What a load of crap. The article goes through a long involved computation of the volume of stuff we extract from the earth and points out it's an infinitesimal part of the whole.

Big deal.

Only _parts_ of the earth are worth mining in the first place. Most of the earth (down to a depth of 1000 miles at least) is completely unglamorous stuff like quartz, calcite, feldspar, etc. Those parts may be common or quite scarce depending on what the resource is. Only a vanishingly small percentage of the earth is oil, gold, or what-have you (admittedly aluminum is much more common but apparently bauxite, the preferred ore, isn't nearly as common as aluminum in all its forms).

I am not worried about iron, long term, or any metal, because we will either go after the earth's core or asteroids, but organic compounds could get dicey, and there is not one stat in that article discussing how much petroleum, natural gas, etc. actually exists--it doesn't fricking matter how big the earth is compared to what we've pulled out already, what matters is how much petroleum, natural gas and coal there is, compared to how much we've pulled out. But the quantity of these organics is a very small percentage of the mass of the earth. I don't believe we are anywhere near peak oil under free market conditions but given the asshat environmentalists out there placing stuff off limits we could hit it in 20 years.

Your point that the quantity of these resources is a small percentage of the mass of earth is taken, but the idea that the only things worth mining are those resources that we currently know of uses for is false. Uses for all resources including all the ones you named were discovered where prior none had been conceived of. Such applications and discoveries are continual.

Reisman's point in saying “There is not one cubic centimeter anywhere in the earth's mass that is not some chemical element or other, or some combination of chemical elements. This, I've said, is nature's contribution to the supply of natural resources” was simply that we have plenty to work with, not that every inch of the earth can be used at the moment. “How much of this immense quantity of matter and energy can be transformed into the narrower category of natural resources that are economically useable by and accessible to man depends on the state of science, technology, and supply of capital equipment. In other words, it depends on the extent of man's knowledge of nature and the degree of his physical power over it. As man enlarges this knowledge and power, he increases the fraction of nature that constitutes economically useable, accessible natural resources.”

[agrippa1]

"Nucular"

- George W. Bush

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Your point that the quantity of these resources is a small percentage of the mass of earth is taken, but the idea that the only things worth mining are those resources that we currently know of uses for is false. Uses for all resources including all the ones you named were discovered where prior none had been conceived of. Such applications and discoveries are continual.

Ah, but the subject was oil. Silicon, magnesium, calcium, iron, aluminum and oxygen are not oil, nor are they part of any of the molecules we'd get from oil. And most of the earth's crust is made out of those elements. (In fact 46 percent of the earth's crust, by weight, is oxygen. 92% by volume!)

Reisman is trying to claim we aren't going to run out of resources, but he's going about it in a particularly simplistic way. Unless he is positing nuclear transmutation, the entire earth is not ever likely going to be useful as a resource. And if we have nuclear transmutation, we don't have any danger of an energy crisis anyway (since we'd be using gobs of energy to do the transmutation and that would imply the energy is available)--and we'd actually be better off simply making our petroleum out of carbon dioxide and water, if we need any. Leaving aside transmutation, long before we reach the point where we start stripmining the earth down to the core (and throwing all those common minerals down as tailing/fill, since I doubt we could use all that magnesium and calcium and silicon), we will be working on asteroids.

(Someone will undoubtedly point out that silicon is very useful for microchips, and that is true--but we actually have far more silicon on earth than we could ever need for that purpose; the surplus is basically useless except as part of rocks.

[CptnChan]

You haven't yet shown this is going to happen, let alone that if it does, it should be a concern.

It's a finite resource. True, nobody knows when it will run out, but it will one day. Possibly by that time a better technology will have been created, but from the way things look now, almost everything we use is either made or fueled by oil. Population is increasing, and so is the need for more oil, to make more things made by petroleum that run off oil.

It's just a little bit frightening when you think about how extensive our everyday dependence on this resource is.

Great, now I'm sounding like a nut.

[CptnChan]

The whole thing is a giant non sequitur. First, we are not running out of oil, and secondly, even if we do eventually “run out of oil,” or “run out of X, Y, or Z” (and the question is always “Whose resources?”) does not mean an end to civilization is necessary. It's not a political problem, it's one for applied science and entrepreneurship.

As far as the population increasing or decreasing: who cares? The population has an “optimum point” that it naturally tends to given the capital structure of the given society.

That was a very informative video, thanks!

[brian0918]

It's a finite resource.

You seem to have skipped over all of the replies (at least 4), which repeatedly explain why the fact that something is a finite resource does not mean it will run out. If you have an actual argument beyond "it is a finite resource", please present it. In fact, in our replies, we have even provided you with arguments you could have used to support your claim.

Edited March 4, 2011 by brian0918

[CptnChan]

You seem to have skipped over all of the replies (at least 4), which repeatedly explain why the fact that something is a finite resource does not mean it will run out. If you have an actual argument beyond "it is a finite resource", please present it. In fact, in our replies, we have even provided you with arguments you could have used to support your claim.

I'm not quite understanding how something being finite doesn't mean it will run out. Maybe you can explain that. Does this mean oil is renewable in some way I'm unaware of?

I don't really have any arguments, I'm not sold on either side yet. I'm trying to bring out the points that the guy in the movie made, a few a which were much more convincing than I've heard so far on here.

I think the main problem is, nobody here has actually seen it, and I'm doing a terrible job recalling the points in detail.

I must say, based on the responses I've read I'm leaning more towards "It's a conspiracy theory".

Still, the issue in the movie was not specifically about peak oil, or individual research and growth VS government intervention.

The primary concept was (And seriously, I can't word it as efficiently) that all current ideas for "alternative energies" cannot be implemented in any efficient way at this time or in the "necessary" future.

So I guess, if there truly is no threat of oil running out, it doesn't matter, because likely as time progresses, those alternatives will become mor efficient to implement.

But if it IS in a decline, then our society faces a standstill.

I totally recognize that this theory is completely reliant on this single "what if" and therefore is not, by itself, a reason to run around screaming.

But the movie provided a few reasons why it is very possible that oil, or at least the retrieval of it is on the decline. I suppose it is those points I would like to discuss.

Maybe I'll skip through it again to find those points and return with something more solid than the general concepts I'm bringing to the table.

I realize that I'm just talking theory here, and not really backing it up with any stats. I think my primary goal in OP was to see if anyone actually watched the movie.

Edited March 4, 2011 by CptnChan

[brian0918]

I'm not quite understanding how something being finite doesn't mean it will run out. Maybe you can explain that. Does this mean oil is renewable in some way I'm unaware of?

No, oil is not (easily) renewable. But that doesn't matter. For the explanation you are requesting, simply scroll up to softwareNerd's post, which lays it out pretty clearly. Decreasing oil supply --> increasing oil price --> decreasing oil demand --> increasing demand and funding for alternatives.

I'm trying to bring out the points that the guy in the movie made, a few a which were much more convincing than I've heard so far on here.

So far, the "points" that you have presented are merely assertions - not arguments. Assertions cannot be convincing by themselves, without evidence or argument to back them up. If the movie has presented convincing arguments, feel free to restate them in this thread.

But the movie provided a few reasons why it is very possible that oil, or at least the retrieval of it is on the decline. I suppose it is those points I would like to discuss.

Maybe I'll skip through it again to find those points and return with something more solid than the general concepts I'm bringing to the table.

Thanks, that is what we are looking for.

Edited March 4, 2011 by brian0918

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I suppose I should clarify what I think on this matter given my post above--I am not hostile to the Objectivist position by any means, but I insist that it be argued for intelligently.

Although it's clear (to me at least) that oil usage will drop as scarcity drives the price up, and that thus we won't use the very last drop, that actually drives us towards a very "peak oil"-like conclusion. We will eventually see a time when production of oil starts to drop (short of finding it on other planets), and that is in large part because of its finite supply. We may be lucky and it turns out someone discovers/invents something better, or we may be unlucky and have to contend with rising prices (in a free market) until something else becomes more economical by default. Either way, we _will_ see a peak in oil production someday, as we did with whale oil.

But it's simply idiotic to argue, regarding "peak oil" that 1) no it's not finite and/or 2) look at how big the earth is so it will never happen [this is actually similar to Rush Limbaugh's argument on global warming where he claims we are simply too puny to affect the earth]--which I have seen Objectivists do here and elsewhere.

The correct arguments to make are:

1) it is wrong for government to do things to actually exacerbate the situation by placing some oil resources off limits arbitrarily. The United States has the Bakken reserves (estimated up to 500 billion barrels) of easily recoverable crude, gobs of offshore resources (not even explored yet), and something like 2 trillion barrels of shale oil that's not economical to recover yet--these are all effectively off limits. Were we allowed to extract them, we would postpone significant price hikes for as long as the Bakken lasts, and more than likely postpone any true shortage for longer than that--shale oil, once it comes online, would be more expensive but plentiful at that price. This would push peak oil out into the distant future, past our lifetimes (unless significant life extension starts happening)--and that assumes we don't bring about peak oil earlier by finding something better.

2) Peak oil, _when_ (not if) it occurs in a free market, won't be a "problem". It will mark the transition to whatever source(s) of energy we will be using next, and no government-entangled crisis need arise. If that transition happens because we find something better early on, it'll be a positively good thing--yay! we are no longer burning that oldfangled oil stuff because our new fasartas are so much better. If it's only because oil went up to 1000 bucks a barrel due to scarcity and that finally made something else more economical, well it won't be good, but it will be what it is, and it will have happened gradually. Peak Oil could only be a problem if exacerbated by government, and that can happen by either the government restricting the supply (as I just covered) or worse, governments could do their best to keep the price of oil down to avoid economic disruptions (mind you that's the opposite of current policy, but it needs to be pointed out that it is also a bad idea). Government should also not try to artificially force down the price of alternatives (e.g., windmills) nor restrict the alternatives (nuclear power).

I find it aggravating in the extreme that the environmentalists who are prating about energy independence and the need for alternatives to oil Right Fucking Now (but only as long as it's not nuclear power) are the ones who caused the crisis in the first place. No doubt some of them are somewhat well intentioned but brainwashed (or just don't look around enough to see the information that would show them the absurdity of their position) and too stupid to realize this; others, I am quite certain, know exactly what they are doing and if I don't get off this subject soon I'll have to take a trip to the shooting range to work off the stress.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Steve D'Ippolito

[2046]

But it's simply idiotic to argue, regarding "peak oil" that 1) no it's not finite and/or 2) look at how big the earth is so it will never happen [this is actually similar to Rush Limbaugh's argument on global warming where he claims we are simply too puny to affect the earth]--which I have seen Objectivists do here and elsewhere.

Yeah, but nobody argued any of that (in this thread anyway.)

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The article pointed to (by Reisman) that I denounced in my first post made precisely argument #2, and worse it conflated just any old cubic kilometer of rocks with valuable resources.

[2046]

The article pointed to (by Reisman) that I denounced in my first post made precisely argument #2, and worse it conflated just any old cubic kilometer of rocks with valuable resources.

No, it doesn't say that, as pointed out in post #13. Although, I don't see what that article particularly has to do with the OP's comments, but your characterization of "look at how big the earth is so it [peak oil] will never happen" is a straw man of the article.

[CptnChan]

Just for closure to this thread, I didn't watch the movie again, but I talked to the friend who recommended it to me.

I imagine the lack of convincing arguments he gave to me is kind of what I sounded like, so I'm not going to watch it again. I don't think there's really any solid evidence to get out of it.

Still, the subject interests me, so I'll continue to keep my eyes open for more information on it.