Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years

[Game_Over]

Try living on 1800kcal a day

So are you saying that people in India are less healthy than people in the US, the majority of whom are obese due to over eating?

So far no one has even attempted to address, let alone refute the assertions I have been making about oil production and population growth.

If you look at statistics on land mass and population, North America, South America, Canada and Australia could clearly support much greater populations because their original inhabitants were hunter gatherers

Countries like India, China and Japan have much higher population densities because they are very old civilisations, had the Chinese discovered North America 2000 years ago, its population would probably have been over 500 million by 1800 without any energy input from oil and over 1 billion by now.

[Rare Bear]

If the economies GDP is growing at 3 percent, if the population is growing at 4 percent then a country is in a state of perpetual recession. If your pushed for time or attention span, please just watch part 2.

If the economies GDP is growing at 3 percent, if house prices are growing at 4 percent then a country is screwed?

[Rare Bear]

Only after "testing" them to make sure they were a witch you understand. One of the favoured methods was the ducking stool. This basically involved submerging the unfortunate individual under water. If they drowned they were innocent. If they survived, this was obviously on the back of their demonic powers. Thus, they were burned as witches.

That could be a usefull method of checking on whether or not politicians were corrupt.

[SMAC67]

Again, all you display is your ignorance. What you write is not even worthy of being called parody. It is out and out lies. If you want to debate the nature of God with one who knows Him, you might at least take the trouble to properly inform yourself concerning his revealed nature.

Since you have not, I decline from any further debate with you on this subject. It would be pointless.

Having been brought up a Christian, and attended church since I was a nipper I think I can discuss religion and God thanks. My best mate when I was a young adult was a trainee priest, and so theology has always been of interest. In order to have a half decent discussion you really need to speak to someone who has been in a seminary or something similar.

And there's the rub, people will always take from religion/theology what they want and ignore the rest. So your God is different from everyone else's God, in fact I would say there are as many God's on earth as there are believers. Everyone has a different belief set, and everyone without fail believes that they are the only one to truly understand God.

Now Game Over thinks that Steve Cook has terrifying thoughts, but I disagree, what scares me more than anything is the level of delusion combined with absolute belief. Organised religion has always been about power and control, and as GO states, has nothing to do with God, but then God is whatever you want God to be.

Personally I'm with Isaac Newton, the universe is a pretty cool place, let's just appreciate it and try not cause too much mayhem. But then, we would need infinite resources before that happened, and even then I have my doubts.

[Rare Bear]

Just read "Call of the wild", a scotman's account of living in Alaska for a year. He doesn't encounter polar bears but he does encounter black bears and grizzly bears and they are very dangerous creatures. Yes, one man faced off against a bear with a very large hunting rifle (or assault rifle as some of the native Indians carry around with them) will protect you. But these are only recent inventions. A handgun is no good. You use that to kill yourself instead. Most shot guns won't stop the bear either.

If you can find a copy of 'Sixguns by Keith', a collectors item now 40 years since I've read it, you will see that Elmer Keith and Doug wesson were shooting grizzly bears with a .357 handgun at several houndred yards at the time that Wesson was developing the cartridge. I suspect that a 12 guage shotgun loaded with a rifled slug might be usefull. I think that the rifled slug is sometimes known as a bear slug.

[Rare Bear]

I never said it wouldn't be a struggle, traditional farming is a hard life, but it could be done

It solve the unemployment problem too. The people who wern't slaveing on the land would be employed to carry the guns and whips to keep the slaveing.

[Guest Steve Cook]

FFS Steve, you have a truly terrifying personality.

ALL the tyrannies of the 20th century were secular and your views are exactly what led to genocide in that century....

All of the tyrannies since the dawn of civilisation (the very existence of civilisation being the key here) have been instigated by the few against the many. The majority of humans tend to not give too much of a sh*t about anything save getting by and making a few babies. This makes them especially vulnerable, though, to those amongst humanity who would obtain power at any cost. In other words, the majority are easy to manipulate.

Always it is via some bullsh*t ideology or another that deems to have cornered the market on the prescription of the morality of human action (or even thought). Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it is philosophical/political ideology (e.g communism). Today it's capitalism. It matters little in the end since the outcome is the same. Ideologies, be they religious or otherwise are only and ever the tools of the elites with which to f*ck the rest of humanity over with.

Methinkshe subscribes to her own ideology, you subscribe to yours. Hers has been the cause of the most monstrous suffering of untold multitudes of humanity ever since some f*cking loony alighted on the idea of a monotheistic creation story in the middle of the desert a few thousand years ago.

As for your free-market capitalist ideology, it's looking ever more likely this will end up being the biggest killer of all.

I say all of the above in the certain knowledge that ideologically imprisoned numpties such as yourself and methinkshe will never be amenable to rational discourse.

I post in the hope that others are.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

Having been brought up a Christian, and attended church since I was a nipper I think I can discuss religion and God thanks. My best mate when I was a young adult was a trainee priest, and so theology has always been of interest. In order to have a half decent discussion you really need to speak to someone who has been in a seminary or something similar.

And there's the rub, people will always take from religion/theology what they want and ignore the rest. So your God is different from everyone else's God, in fact I would say there are as many God's on earth as there are believers. Everyone has a different belief set, and everyone without fail believes that they are the only one to truly understand God.

Now Game Over thinks that Steve Cook has terrifying thoughts, but I disagree, what scares me more than anything is the level of delusion combined with absolute belief. Organised religion has always been about power and control, and as GO states, has nothing to do with God, but then God is whatever you want God to be.

Personally I'm with Isaac Newton, the universe is a pretty cool place, let's just appreciate it and try not cause too much mayhem. But then, we would need infinite resources before that happened, and even then I have my doubts.

yes

[Leroast]

I have been reading up about pandemics and viruses recently though. It seems to be that the more over crowded we become the more susceptible we are to massive culls. Compare this to when human used to live in small tribes and never moved away from their family and only had contact with a few other tribes at most.

You'll like this one Skinty; an alternative explanation of the growth of the human population over the last 250 years.

A fall in death rates is the first step on the road to population explosion. This is often attributed to advances in medicine, hygiene and farming. But there had been few if any such advances in Europe and China in 1750, when population growth there soared from 0.2 per cent each year to as much as 1.5 per cent. By 1850, this trend had spread to Japan, India and the Middle East. By 1950, it was universal. What explains the growth?

William McNeill, a historian at the University of Chicago, says it is not because of better medicine, but because most of us are now so frequently in contact that we have become immune to each other's infections.

Formerly, different diseases arose in different regions of the world, depending on the local environment. Some, such as measles or smallpox, induced immunity in survivors. Without new susceptible people to infect, these diseases would have died out; but in cities, where population density was great enough, they thrived. Over time such infections ceased to be catastrophic. They reached most people in early childhood, resulting in a constant, low level of child mortality, and a population of immune adults.

Let these adults contact people from outside the 'disease pool', however, and such diseases caused murderous plagues among the non-immune. Millions in the Roman Empire died of mysterious new diseases shortly after the opening of the Silk Road to China. A third of Europe died after bubonic plague arrived from Asia, and as many as 90 per cent of native Americans died after contact with Europeans.

But once travel and contact became frequent enough, everyone encountered and became immune to each other's infections. 'It seems plausible to connect the modern surge of population growth with this changed incidence of exposure to lethal infections,' says McNeill. In 1750, the communication networks were most extensive within Europe and China, so the surge started there. By 1850, says McNeill, 'further improvements of transport affected all the inhabited Earth, allowing the modern growth of population to become genuinely global'. By this theory, population explosion was the inevitable result of human migration and contact.

Link

[Guest Steve Cook]

You'll like this one Skinty; an alternative explanation of the growth of the human population over the last 250 years.

I can see the logic behind the argument that increased exposure between member of our species via global travel might well have increased immunity overall to existing diseases.

However, it also means that, should a deadly pandemic arrive on the scene, we are also uniquely vulnerable to that pandemic going global very quickly

[Guest Steve Cook]

Err.....

If God exsists then there is only one and God's nature would obviously be entirely independent of what people believed this nature to be.

Organised religion is just certain people's interpretations of the nature of God, but many believe that individuals need to find their own path to God and that a persons relationship with God is a very personal experience.

Unfortunately people who genuinely believe that death is the end have a habit of murdering millions of people because they have no conscience to answer to, or any fear of having to account for their actions to some 'higher' authority.

Anyway, the question as to whether or not God exists is, I believe, 'off topic'

Organised (monotheistic) religion is why you automatically make the non-falsifiable assumption (along with any other damned aspect of religion) that there should necessarily be only one God and that such a God would exist independently of people's beliefs.

It is just as easy to make a non-falsifiable statement to the contrary

Your view of the relationship between humans and God being a personal one is, again, a function of the wishy/washy organised, secularised Christianity of 21st century Western Europe.

As for your comment on killing being a function of people of no faith. I wouldn't even know where to start you historically illiterate idiot save to state the rather obvious that:

In a world without religion/ideology good men do good things and bad men do bad things.

However, it takes religion/ideology to make good men do bad things.

As for whether not god exists is actually of no consequence since it appears to have no impact on material reality. However, what does have a material impact is when ideologies or religions, via their acolytes, impose their f*cked up visions of utopia on the rest of us (as they must in order to continue existing)

Edited June 2, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Guest anorthosite]

However, it also means that, should a deadly pandemic arrive on the scene, we are also uniquely vulnerable to that pandemic going global very quickly

Especially as so many will just dismiss it as media hype when it does

[Game_Over]

Organised (monotheistic) religion is why you automatically make the non-falsifiable assumption (along with any other damned aspect of religion) that there should necessarily be only one God and that such a God would exist independently of people's beliefs.

It is just as easy to make a non-falsifiable statement to the contrary

Your view of the relationship between humans and God being a personal one is, again, a function of the wishy/washy organised, secularised Christianity of 21st century Western Europe.

As for your comment on killing being a function of people of no faith. I wouldn't even know where to start you historically illiterate idiot save to state the rather obvious that:

In a world without religion/ideology good men do good things and bad men do bad things.

However, it takes religion/ideology to make good men do bad things.

There has NEVER been a world without religion/ideology so your assertion is meaningless.

If you don't have religion, something else takes its place

And that something else has always proved to be worse

but if you understood the lessons of history, then you would already know this.

[Guest Steve Cook]

There has NEVER been a world without religion/ideology so your assertion is meaningless.

If you don't have religion, something else takes its place

And that something else has always proved to be worse

but if you understood the lessons of history, then you would already know this.

So, presumably, you would prefer radical Islam over capitalism.

Oh wait...I forgot....

Capitalism isn't an ideology is it. Of course not, capitalism is the "truth"....

ffs....

[Guest Skinty]

Unfortunately people who genuinely believe that death is the end have a habit of murdering millions of people because they have no conscience to answer to, or any fear of having to account for their actions to some 'higher' authority.

I do worry about christians when they say this. I worry that they are only christian because they are the kind of people who would otherwise live their lives without guilt were they to lose their faith.

The rest of us realise that we still do have a conscience. We don't have to answer to a god, we have to answer to ourselves and our friends and family. I am perfectly at ease with the concept that I have social pack instincts that provide me with a conscience and which influences my actions.

[Game_Over]

Having been brought up a Christian, and attended church since I was a nipper I think I can discuss religion and God thanks. My best mate when I was a young adult was a trainee priest, and so theology has always been of interest. In order to have a half decent discussion you really need to speak to someone who has been in a seminary or something similar.

And there's the rub, people will always take from religion/theology what they want and ignore the rest. So your God is different from everyone else's God, in fact I would say there are as many God's on earth as there are believers. Everyone has a different belief set, and everyone without fail believes that they are the only one to truly understand God.

Now Game Over thinks that Steve Cook has terrifying thoughts, but I disagree, what scares me more than anything is the level of delusion combined with absolute belief. Organised religion has always been about power and control, and as GO states, has nothing to do with God, but then God is whatever you want God to be.

Personally I'm with Isaac Newton, the universe is a pretty cool place, let's just appreciate it and try not cause too much mayhem. But then, we would need infinite resources before that happened, and even then I have my doubts.

Err.....

If God exsists then there is only one and God's nature would obviously be entirely independent of what people believed this nature to be.

Organised religion is just certain people's interpretations of the nature of God, but many believe that individuals need to find their own path to God and that a persons relationship with God is a very personal experience.

Unfortunately people who genuinely believe that death is the end have a habit of murdering millions of people because they have no conscience to answer to, or any fear of having to account for their actions to some 'higher' authority.

Anyway, the question as to whether or not God exists is, I believe, 'off topic'

[Game_Over]

All of the tyrannies since the dawn of civilisation (the very existence of civilisation being the key here) have been instigated by the few against the many. The majority of humans tend to not give too much of a sh*t about anything save getting by and making a few babies. This makes them especially vulnerable, though, to those amongst humanity who would obtain power at any cost. In other words, the majority are easy to manipulate.

Always it is via some bullsh*t ideology or another that deems to have cornered the market on the prescription of the morality of human action (or even thought). Sometimes it's religion, sometimes it is philosophical/political ideology (e.g communism). Today it's capitalism. It matters little in the end since the outcome is the same. Ideologies, be they religious or otherwise are only and ever the tools of the elites with which to f*ck the rest of humanity over with.

Methinkshe subscribes to her own ideology, you subscribe to yours. Hers has been the cause of the most monstrous suffering of untold multitudes of humanity ever since some f*cking loony alighted on the idea of a monotheistic creation story in the middle of the desert a few thousand years ago.

As for your free-market capitalist ideology, it's looking ever more likely this will end up being the biggest killer of all.

I say all of the above in the certain knowledge that ideologically imprisoned numpties such as yourself and methinkshe will never be amenable to rational discourse.

I post in the hope that others are.

I'm afraid that, as usual, this is utter twaddle

In general monotheistic religions have replaced earlier religions that were far more oppressive, many practicing human sacrifice for example.

And as I tried to explain, there is a big difference between belief and religion.

Many people who believe in God are just as unhappy as you are about things done in the name of religion

but as I also explained, religion is often used as a political tool to achieve political goals by people who cynically exploit its power.

This is an entirely seperate issue from individual belief.

And I am entirely open to rational discourse, but all you do is rage against the World

Humans are social creatures, someone is always going to be in charge and we are always going to be governed by some system or another

If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be human.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Game_Over

[Guest Skinty]

Nevertheless, if bears and not humans were at the top of an animal/human hierarchy, bears would be dictating the terms of human existence. As it is, we have "save the polar bear" campaigns because it is within the remit of humans to dictate the ongoing existence of bears and prevent any threatened extinction according to the value they put on the continuing existence of polar bears.

The problem here is that you are assuming that there is a single hierarchy, which is after all nothing more than a mental concept that allows us to reason about the world. What I and others are trying to point out to you is that animals should be understood within the environment that they have evolved for. The example of the polar bear, or the penguin, is an attempt to demonstrate animals do well in some envuronments and not so well in others. There is no single hierarchy that can be imposed regardless of the environment.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Humans are social creatures, someone is always going to be in charge and we are always going to be governed by some system or another

If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be human.

Agreed

So I take it you concede that that your belief in "capitalism" and "free-markets" is no more or less a false-consciousness socialised into you by your ruling elites (that's the one's in charge) than for any other ideology/religion (delete as applicable)

Oh no...wait...I forgot again...

your ideology marks the end of history doesn't it.......obviously

Edited June 2, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Soul Reaver]

Surely liquid coal is the answer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sec...7222384113.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2263710.htm

Perhaps we should move across to liquid coal if ever there's a problem with oil supply (perhaps in a couple of hundred years or so).

There's enough coal, oil and gas to last 500 years anyhow, according to this green:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...s.climatechange

Mark Jaccard likes coal.

For decades Jaccard was a leading expert in sustainable energy, darling of the environmental movement and bane of Big Oil.

But now he proclaims that the world can continue to rely on fossil fuels. And his reasoning, while consistent with his beliefs, comes as a huge surprise. The professor says he has not stopped caring about the environment; it's just that he now believes fossil fuels offer the most sustainable future for the planet.

...'The more I explored it, the more I got caught up on two big myths: one is that we're running out of oil; number two is that fossil fuels are dirty,' he says. 'I believed that for 20 years.'

No longer. Jaccard's book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels, argues that coal, oil and gas are plentiful, and do not need to be polluting. It's not that Jaccard prefers fossil fuels per se; but he believes accepting and cleaning up oil, gas and coal power is a better way than trying, and failing, to quickly shift the energy-hungry world to still-doubtful and expensive renewable technologies such as wind, tidal, solar or nuclear power.

'If your goal is a clean energy system that endures, it's really hard to argue that you should stop using fossil fuels right away,' he says.

The first 'myth' Jaccard claims to puncture is that fossil fuels are running out. Most quoted information relates to easily extracted 'conventional' oil, gas and coal. Adding more controversial figures (though from the respectable UN and World Energy Council) for 'unconventional' supplies, that have traditionally been too difficult and/or expensive to use, Jaccard favours the view that there are enough hydrocarbons for humans to use for up to 2,000 years - or, more importantly, at least 500.

That's handy because ive been looking at a supercharger for my Aston

[Cptkernow]

The only reason it is not extracted is because oil can be pumped out of the ground in the Middle East for 1 to 2.5 dollars a barrel wheras the oil in tar sands would cost 15 dollars a barrel to extract.

This basically means that oil will be cheap and plentiful until it is superceeded by hydrogen as a fuel, extracted using power generated by fusion reactors.

Sorry guys, 'The end is NOT nigh'

TOTAL FAIL DUCY?

[Guest Skinty]

I see you have edited this post which appears in its original form in my reply at post #525.

But to answer your edited response:

My original post concerned the nature of God and not a "version of religion" as you put it.

God is spirit and can only be known in spirit. We can learn about God but He can only be known experientially, and on an individual spirit to spirit basis.

If you refuse on principle even to try to know God the way He has determined that He will be known, how can you possibly claim that there is no such experience, especially when not just I, but millions and millions across the globe and throughout history testify to the experience?

I know that won't fit your materialistic philosophy but that's just the way it is.

How do you know that you know God?

[Game_Over]

So, presumably, you would prefer radical Islam over capitalism.

Oh wait...I forgot....

Capitalism isn't an ideology is it. Of course not, capitalism is the "truth"....

ffs....

I note you said 'radical' Islam

Many Muslims would argue that radical Islamists have hijacked their faith and are using it to achieve political ends

And capitalism is an ideology but one preferable to communism or socialism IMO because capitalist societies tolerate people's religious beliefs wheras socialist and communist societies do not.

On the whole, Christianity seems to be one of the most tolerant religions and as christianity and capitalism complement each other well, I believe a society based on these two ideologies is the best model we have developed so far.

Most people in the World would much rather live in Christian, capitalist America than in communist China or Russia IMO

As would you I believe.

No system is perfect and people who believe that a perfect world is achievable are at best naive, at worst dangerous, which is illustrated by your belief that a perfect world can be achieved by 'culling' most of its population.

[Guest Skinty]

You'll like this one Skinty; an alternative explanation of the growth of the human population over the last 250 years.

You're right. I do like that theory. It also suggests that the global population is now more unstable as it is effectively a single population. In other words, we'll alternate between periods of being able to cope with the current crop of diseases, but which are interrupted by massive pandemics from each newly mutated virus.

But then I suppose that's the same with any aspect of a global population, for example global boom and busts.

[laurejon]

Back on topic, and a reminder of the title.

" Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years"

You had better tell the Saudi's of this good news, they intend to use up their oil themselves by becoming the worlds largest manufacturing nation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

The country’s population has more than tripled to 25 million people from 7.3 million in 1975 -- and 57 percent of all Saudis are under the age of 25. As the population grows, the kingdom’s riches must be spread among more people: In 2008, per- capita gross domestic product was less than $19,000, versus $47,000 in the U.S. and $103,000 in Qatar.

To create jobs for its growing citizenry, the government wants to build cities and diversify into new industries. “The impetus to change has grown as the population has grown,†says Howard Handy, chief economist at Samba Financial Group, a Riyadh-based bank. “They’re very focused on how to find work for all these young people.â€

The proposed economic city -- 720 kilometers (450 miles) north of the capital of Riyadh -- is one of four new metropolises that Saudi Arabia is planning in the hope of creating more than a million new jobs by 2020. “Their dream is to become a major industrial power beyond oil,†says Jean- Francois Seznec, who teaches at the center for contemporary Arab studies at Georgetown University in Washington. The Saudis are mainly looking at energy-hungry industries such as plastics, petrochemicals, aluminum and steel.