[[email protected]]

On Sep 2, 6:30 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Who should be first to die off in the "energy crisis"?

First the dumbo Dersu Uzala referred us to:http://dieoff.org/

and provided two quotations. The first is from David Price:

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and
it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have
helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of
their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective,
the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to
redress the planet's energy balance. David Price

David Price is rather obviously not too bright, in the Californian
manner of those who confuse moral relativity with Einsteinian
relativity. Let's follow the steps in a manner even David Price will
understand, though I doubt his acolyte the dumbo Dersu Uzala
ever will:

1. "Entropy" has several meanings. Technically in physics it is the
thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's
thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. For those
incapable of grasping the math, it is often interpreted as the degree
of disorder or randomness in the system. Ironically the word is also
in information theory to name the logarithmic measure of the rate of
transfer of information in a particular message or language.

2. David Price has incompetently grasped the middle meaning of
disorder or randomness in the system, and then tripped even more
incompetently over the third meaning of inefficient communication. For
instance, he no fewer than three times in a single short paragraph
imputes volition to a law of physics (e.g. "evolved in the service of
entropy"); laws of physics are distinguished from sentient beings by
having no volition. And even then he gets it arse about end: human
beings didn't "evolve" (another technical word of which Price doesn't
understand the meaning) in the service of this randomness which Price
confuses with entropy in energy, human beings were evolved *by* the
randomness of the Darwinian process.

3. In true California guru style, Price then goes into an ecstacy of
inconsequentiality: "the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a
transient episode that acts to redress the planet's energy balance".
Say what? Surely, Price's case, and the case of all the other
doomsayers, is that humans *created* an energy imbalance? Now we hear
at the same time that humans are the solution to the earth's
imbalance.

4. And note the volitional implication of the full sentence from which
I took the above piece of crap. Let's savour it: "Human beings like to
believe they are in control of their destiny, but when the history of
life on Earth is seen in perspective, the evolution of Homo sapiens
is merely a transient episode that acts to redress the planet's
energy balance." Gaia willed it, did she then? Oh, Earth Mother,
forgive us our sins! Let's see if I have this right: Gaia suffered an
excess of energy, like a boil. Therefore she used entropy to bring up
homo sapiens to use as a lance. Right, Mr Price? Hmm. All that energy
was dormant anyway. On the Price analysis, California guru style, it
seems Gaia is even more wasteful than humans. Perhaps we should spank
her with a few underground nuclear explosions.

5. There is so much wrong with Price's short paragraph that I could go
on several reams more about the silly linkages, but why raise the
profile of a clown who convinces only the most stupid of the already
committed? The most important conclusion is that Price is too thick
and too humourless to see that if we agree to his case that "Homo
sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to redress the
planet's energy balance" the logical conclusion is that it is the
moral thing (if you think the Earth is more important than the humans
on it, as Price implicitly does) is to drive a 22ft car with a 8.5
liter engine and monstrous tailfins, to keep your heating *and* you
air condition running full speed ahead 24/7, and to burn, burn, burn.

The other quotation, even dumber, provided by the dumbo Dersu Uzala
is from one Joseph Tainter:

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
The past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path is
cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about
through the "crash" that many fear -- a genuine collapse over a period of one
or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population.
The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for - a voluntary
change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and
less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial
nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology. Joseph A. Tainter

Tainter is more subtle and insidious, but no less dumb and
inconsequential. He is however a lot more vicious, to the point of
being murderous:

1. He axiomatically assumes an energy shortage. That gets him tidily
around the truth that here is no such thing as an energy shortage. The
market adjusts to demand, price rises, demand falls to match it, as we
have seen recently. There is now more oil in the known reserves than
there was at any time in a century of energy scares. Anyone who thinks
that in another century we will still burn oil underrates human
ingenuity.

2. Tainter has as poor a grasp of history as Price. Is he really
claiming in "energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity"
that there were no family or larger groups before humanoids mastered
fire? That is obvious bull****. One of the depressing things about
these clowns is their unfamiliarity with history. For instance, can
Tainter really be unaware that the Neanderthals, who died out in the
Darwinian process, were magnificent environmental managers whereas our
own ancestors, who clearly survived, drove species to extinction over
cliffs, and so on? (Any of you guys have red hair? That's a
Neanderthal trait that has survived, from when the Cro-Magnon took
pity on contemporary greens and impregnated one of their women.
Gentlemen preferred blondes even then...).

3. Anyone with a map can see that the basis of the cultural complexity
of our world is distance; it was thus before travel and it was thus in
the era of the sailing ships (The Age of Renewable Power, surely!).
Ours is the age of communication, whether by travel or by ether, and
that has reduced rather than increased cultural diversity. Tainter is
full of crap.

4. Next, having made the unfounded assumption that we are in trouble,
Tainter jumps to the conclusion that we must do something about. He
tells us with lipsmacking relish of "much violence, starvation, and
loss of population". Malthus lives! Actually, things are better in
Africa and the Middle East now than they ever were. Millions fewer
infants are dying every year than as recently as 1950. The WHO, a
branch of the UN, publishes the numbers. Tainter should visit a
library occasionally. We *are* doing something about it, dickhead. If
you want us to do it faster, go help rather than sitting in an ivory
tower whining.

5. Tainter really gives the game away in his proscription for a
solution towards "a utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will
come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial nations
makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology". Yup, Good old Uncle Joe Stalin,
sorry, I mean good old Uncle Joe Tainter wants us to remove the engine
of the good life -- and what pays for the salvation of all those
hungry Africans -- which is market capitalism. The only way that
"economic growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of
ideology" is by appointing a dictator. Without knowing another thing
about Tainter except his short paragraph quoted above, one can see
that he is a leftover Marxist who, his creed having self-destructed,
is now latching onto ecology to satisfy his consuming urge to control
his fellow humans, whom he sees not as individuals but en masse. A few
million necessary murders, eh, Mr Tainter? "Proscription" in the first
line of this paragraph is not an error -- it is a deliberate pun; it
says much for the low level of intelligence and education of the
people carrying on this sort of discussion on the net that I have to
explain such an obvious pun.

One flipper offered as his opinion on the
quotations by Price and Tainter the succinct one-word summary:

Crap

This, predictably, sent the original poster, the dumbo Dersu Uzala
, into a mouthfoaming rage:

I say, not crap! Does that mean I'm correct?

I bow to your superior rhetorical skills. Such a level of persuasive logic,
especially supported by the facts you present, can only leave myself in awe,
quiverting under the shadow of your most excellent denial, you fool. If you
were to jump off the Empire State building, I'm sure you'd say "everthing
fine, so far!" as you passed the mid-point of you descent. Did you read
anything at the website? Is there any claim there that you contest? What part
of 'finite resources' do you not understand?

But, Dumbo, before we can believe anything athttp://dieoff.org/, you
first have to prove the underlying assumption of 'finite resources'.
You've done no such thing. Even petroleum isn't proven to be finite:
every year there are more reserves at the contemporary price: the
market is working brilliantly, despite the worst efforts of that
despicable cartel, OPEC. For practical purposes, for the century we
will still use petroleum before we perfect refining hydrogen from
tapwater, resources are sufficient. And, of course, nuclear power is
truly infinite. But this ...

read more »


Dear dumbass,

When Tainter speaks of 'cultural complexity' he is not talking about
'family groups.'