⇑
In the following paragraphs every line in italic is an actual quote from Mr. Nate Hagens derived from this video
All of the content put up in this post + all the rebuttal someone might bounce back because one or the other thinks the other one is wrong … be aware that humans are far from having a property called a computer database .
Be aware of your Rider on your Elephant and avoid the mistake of trying to beat your elephant. You can’t
- and we’re clever but we’re not being so wise because we’re drawing down this bank account and treating it as if it were interest
- and this is the kind of story of industrialization is we have substituted human physical labor and animal labor with machines. These machines run on fossil carbon, which is finite, and is incredibly powerful
- QUESTION: Nate Hagens says the following line
- if you add up coal, oil and natural gas and turn them into oil equivalents we use a hundred billion barrels
- we use this questionable number per what? Per day, per year, per decade?
- then Nate doubles down by stating ideas that are not defined where this factor 5 is derived from
- if each one is worth five years of my physical labor, we’re in effect pulling from the ground 500 billion worker equivalents and adding them to the global system where there is around 5 billion real human workers doing physical work. That is not unlimited. It is a bank account that we’re drawing down 10 million times faster that it was triple charged by the daily photosynthesis of ancient algae and phytoplankton in the oceans that died and went to the bottom and formed into oil. So it’s depleting
- when describing the faults of humans in his third pillar of Energy Blindness Nate Hagens states the following
- but energy has massively more impact in our economies, and we haven’t had to think that way because the last 120 years with the exception of recessions, we’ve had more energy available to the human system than we did the year before
- underpinning again the in-his-view the alleged depletion-and-scarcity problem by stating it AS FACT whereas Mr. Hagens doesn’t address the business decisions by oil companies to avoid pumping up too much otherwise their business model would be doling out dollars to the public by making fossil fuels cheap. No, Hagens of course would dismiss this point immediately
- you can print money but you can’t print energy. You can only extract the energy faster
- this is a revealing point where Hagens stands which is having no regard for what these fossil fuels HAVE DONE for people namely keep people as warm and building shelter AGAINST Mother Nature’s cruel oscillating temperatures
- and it’s like we happened upon this giant prize of fossil hydrocarbons. And we’ve been throwing a party for the last 150 years . And unfortunately most of it has been wasted
- this man is a misanthrope by all means!!!
- we have underpaid for the main input to our economy for the last century. If we paid the real price, which would be the cost of creation, not just the cost of extraction, or the costs of pollution and externalities, there would not be a single industry in the world that would be profitable today
What is displayed in the footage i.e. what does the story want to convey :
- a farm with cattle
- industry huge shafts billowing out smoke (which is actually water vapor) showing twice
- ill-speaking of humans being “casino junkets” we are showed Times Square in NYC with all of its neon lighting trying to buttress his dumb words to be true
- with disturbingly classical melodies playing in the background Schipol airport is shown while Hagens is talking about the ‘glut’ of civilization’
Some observations:
- until 5 min 20sec I observe a storyline drawing a nasty picture of humans as a whole, humans a like parasites depleting fossil resources much faster than nature allegedly according to Mr. Hagens can form new resources. Wouldn’t anybody up until now slowly start to hate humans?
- starting at 8 min 20sec Hagens addresses a system of subsidies and other tendrils to make renewables appealing in order to continue the increasing level of (energy) consumption.
Three pillars of Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future
1
2
3
Put energy input back as a whole on the spotlight because humanity has forgotten about it
⇓
Depletion of fossil fuels is inevitable
⇓
Dissection of fossil types of energy and renewables have different sorts of chemical, spatial, density and environmental properties and humans are ignorant to that
⇓
⇑
To who Hagens refers to? Citizens of the world probably, but should they be concerned about rules and regulations their governments made possible
⇑
Show the people of the world proof that oil and gas wells are supposedly depleted in a ratio that veers away from the idea that world wide wells can last more than one generation from today even in this rate
⇑
Yes of course Hagens has a valid point. But what is not addressed by The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future in this video is the positive and life-preserving effects these fossil fuels have had
Renewable energy is the right answer to the wrong question
Hagens is of the understanding that future net outcome of commissioning renewables has a much more worse outcome (as in emitting exceedingly more co² in the atmosphere) than as it is presented.
Hagens sums up renewable energy:
- it’s not renewable because the replacement of whole structures every 2-30 years
- it is intermittent (therefor is fluctuates in producing energy)
- this too much wind and/or solar production or too few
- therefore gas or coal needs to function as backup or store energy in batteries
- discarding fossil fuels in the trash bin would necessitate hundreds of times more renewables
- where would the scarce earthly minerals etc be derived from. There is supposedly by far not enough discovered until today
- renewables only produce according to Hagens around 20% of global energy demand. The rest is currently being produced by fossil fuels
- the costs of a renewable energy society will be much higher than using fossil fuels
- Hagens vehemently believes the current (western) civilization as we’ve devised it can’t be tethered to only renewables … because it uses up way too much energy
Summary
After watching the whole episode carefully what I saw is a man who would like to make the whole world more equitable; he foresees a barren future for the world that will collapse at a certain moment in time. No room for eventualities … it will happen!
I saw a man who -if he was bequeathed global power- would invoke powers to de-complex countries one by one. This proces of restriction of complexity would entail more local complexity and very little outside local circles.
More local complexity means less choices. To some that would come across as positive right?
Would Mr. Hagens be so wise to foresee what possible scenarios outside of his wheel house might occur? Referring to very possible mental states of the citizenry feeling more and more curtailed by localities. Mr. Hagens makes the impression to be in-the-know within the bounds of his work … but lacking properties to assess possible outcomes for a country, city, a neighborhood on a behavioral level. Psychology leaps out of Hagens’ profession. Every human lacks a variety of properties i.e. very few people have build a stack overseeing processes outside their business. This is not a shortfall of Mr. Hagens to not foresee things outside his sphere, but speaking in language where he omits to mention what he doesn’t know, reveals his oblivion ór his conceit to his ignorance relating to aspects of impacts he isn’t trained to see inflicting people’s lives.
Nate Hagens portals himself as not an intellectual. If he would be then he would intrinsically know his own shortages and mention them.
Therefore to sequester humans from the complexity array currently available and have the (unwitting) gall to be under the impression without doubts that to sequester would be the right answer, are words part of a story told by people who lack to see that making the world more equitable would be a path to depression, suicides and a society that might see the future as barren because of government policies year-over-year inadvertently removing freedoms people built upon over the last 75 years.
The following video is short enough to post here. In it Jordan Peterson speaks about what would happen if meritocracy would be usurped by socialistic equality fantasies.
Peterson describes what egalitarian societies might have to deal with … for better or worse