Lumifer comments on Lesswrong 2016 Survey - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Elo 30 March 2016 06:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (273)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 April 2016 05:29:37PM 2 points [-]

The arguments about peak oil mostly consist of running to and fro between the motte ("the amount of oil on earth is in fact finite") and the bailey. It's tiring and not very useful.

'm not sure what it means to say that "peak oil was wrong".

Peak oil has been promising permanent -- and accelerating -- reductions in absolute oil production, sky-high -- and climbing -- prices and widespread -- and worsening -- scarcity leading to a variety of unpleasant social consequences since the mid-1970s. That's 40 years of being wrong.

Comment author: gjm 05 April 2016 06:15:33PM 0 points [-]

running to and fro between the motte [...] and the bailey

Well, what happened in this actual case is that I said it might turn out that rebuilding technological society after a huge catastrophe might be dependent on cheaper oil than we'd actually have, and it was to that that you replied "can we now finally admit peak oil was wrong?".

What version of "peak oil was wrong" refutes what I said?

Comment author: Lumifer 05 April 2016 06:21:58PM 1 point [-]

That wasn't an argument against your position per se. It was more of a side lunge. Or a distraction or a pirouette or a slip-and-fall or a bête noire or a whimsy or a wibble -- you pick :-)