The global depression complicates the picture.
|June 11 2010, 10:58 AM |
BP just released its Statistical Review of World Energy for 2010:
The document has confusing pagination, but scroll down to where it says:
Global oil consumption declined by 1.2 million barrels per day (b/d), or 1.7%, the largest decline since 1982. OECD consumption fell by 4.8% (2 million b/d), a fourth consecutive decline. Outside the OECD, consumption growth slowed to 860,000b/d, or 2.1%, the weakest percentage growth since 2001. China, India and Middle Eastern countries accounted for all of the non-OECD growth.
Global oil production dropped even more rapidly than consumption, falling by 2 million b/d, or 2.6%, the largest drop, again, since 1982. OPEC production cuts implemented late in 2008 were maintained throughout 2009, resulting in a decline of 2.5 million b/d, or 7.3%. Every OPEC member participating in the production-cutting agreement reduced output in 2009. OPECs Middle Eastern members accounted for nearly 75% of the overall reductions.
Oil production outside OPEC grew by 0.9% or 450,000b/d. US production increased by 460,000b/d, or 7%, the largest increase in the world last year and largest US percentage increase in our data set. Elsewhere, production growth in Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan was offset by declines in China and mature OECD provinces of Mexico, Norway and the UK. Overall OECD production declined for a seventh consecutive year.
Technically speaking, world oil production has passed a peak. But it remains unclear whether we've passed The Peak because of reduced demand from interconnected bad economies.
BTW, I wonder how many cryonicists believe in Austrian economics doomsday cultism (I know a few), yet dismiss Peak Oil as Chicken Little stuff. They want the Capital-A Apocalypse (a hyperinflationary collapse of the American economy) to support their beliefs, dammit! not those other guys' crazy notions.
The US government should soon own BP anyway, so ..
|June 11 2010, 12:02 PM |
... I wonder why it hasn't occurred to the geniuses in Washington that the government should invest in that out of control well. The resources under that ocean floor are obviously enormous. If Obama can afford trillions for stimulus, it would not take but a small part of that to get the equipment and boats needed to suck up all that crude, build its own refineries if necessary (or lease from private companies), and provide low cost gasoline to all Americans. Obama could become the new Hugo Chavez.
Tongue mostly in cheek,
Speaking of BP
|June 11 2010, 11:20 AM |
I've noticed that everyone assumes that technological solutions to the Deepwater Horizon mess must exist
, and they demand that someone
finds one of these solutions and implements it to put a cap or valve on BP's well under the Gulf. Nobody I know of has dismissed these efforts as "techno-utopian speculation
," "denial," "pseudoscience," "cargo cult science" and similar terms often applied to, say, cryonics.
In other words, when a sufficiently dire emergency backs us up to the wall, people believe in the inevitability of technological progress to deal with it all of a sudden. I'd like to know how to activate that sort of social energy towards conquering aging and making cryonics work.
|This message has been edited by advancedatheist on Jun 11, 2010 11:22 AM|
We seem to be programmed to die
|June 11 2010, 12:04 PM |
Why don't people consider it an emergency that demands a technological solution from somewhere, when a person is choking on his last breaths in a hospice care facility? We seem to be programmed that death from ageing and disease is inevitable and to be accepted, yet consider it an emergency to be acted on and resolved if someone, say, is dying from an automobile accident.
That is really not much different from the way all animal life acts, by programmed instinct.
Maybe the solution is to find a way to change our programming. Perhaps it is simply a matter of turning a few switches on or off in our DNA.
The trouble with that of course is that those with the knowledge on how to do that kind of thing are not interested, since they are programmed to die.
So it goes,
A better model for aging.
|June 11 2010, 8:32 PM |
Aging apparently doesn't happen because of a program, but rather because our redundant biological components, many of them defective from birth, work for awhile and then fail:
Reliability theory of aging and longevity
|June 12 2010, 5:33 PM |
Obviously we are programmed to age, since aging is species-specific.
Re: Programmed aging
|June 20 2010, 11:03 AM |
What about Aubrey's favorite model where it is accumulation of damage that causes aging?
Of course salmon have programmed aging, but they have a clear evolutionary benefit from dying at a certain time. Creatures without such a benefit could simply be dying because of a lack of selective pressure towards longer lives (and hence damage repair mechanisms).
From what I've been reading,
|June 11 2010, 12:55 PM |
BP had no plan or equipment in place to deal with a situation like this, nor were they required to by our government. They contract everything out, cutting corners and minimizing safety to maximize profits. Paying after the fact is cheaper in the long run than protecting anyone in the first place.