7 ms·

Self-Defeating Prophecies

53 points by paulorlando 8y ago

jkingsbery 8y ago
The term "self-defeating prophecy" implies that the prophecy itself is the cause for it not being correct. A lot of the things mentioned in this article just seem like incorrect predictions (or predictions where the cause isn't obvious).
namuol 8y ago
This reminds me of my favorite Yogi Berra-ism: "People don't go there anymore; it's too crowded."
coldtea 8y ago
>The end of oil as a resource has been predicted many times over the past century, including 1909, 1937, 1945, 1966, 1972, 1980, and 2007. Each time, the end was paired with attempts to move industrial use to other fuel types. But with the exception of a few price shocks, the adjusted price of oil only slightly trends upward over the last 70 years. This, in spite of demand that definitely trends upward over the same period. Where is the end? Did the belief that oil use was going to end lead to new methods of exploration and production? Well, that and wars to get cheaper control of more oil resources (the cost of which wars is not factored in to the cost of oil, as they're fought with public money). Plus more effective extraction while piling externalities to the environment, e.g. by fracking (the costs of which externalities is also not factored in). In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource.
- acqq 8y ago
  > In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource. Exactly. And it's not the only finite resource we depend on. And the "steady growth", expected by effectively all of the economists and politicians, speeds up the exhaustion of the resources (the amount of the resources thus used is an "exponential function"). Worth considering this example: "Bacteria in bottles -- Professor Albert A Bartlett" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk Apparently, we've already past the point of using one half of all easily used oil reserves. But, aren't we lucky, we've found whole "3 new bottles": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves It's worth watching the whole talk: "Dr Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy" As he introduces it: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Exactly. And it's not the only finite resource we depend on. And the "steady growth", expected by effectively all of the economists and politicians, speeds up the exhaustion of the resources (the amount of the resources thus used is an "exponential function"). I'm also not sure our "renewable" sources will help us. Their production, transportation, installation, maintenance extraction of necessary materials, etc, for them and their supporting infrastructure, is largely dependent on oil energy as well. And with everything factored in, it's more than they currently give back.
    - acqq 8y ago
      Wherever you want to maintain “growth” you’ll eventually hit the limit of the finiteness of the resources. “Growth” is simply not sustainable. Like you write in another comment it’s basic math.
  - the-dude 8y ago
    Have you tried to replicate the bottle experiment?
    - teddyh 8y ago
      Replicate? It’s a thought experiment.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Even better, the result is based on pure math. It doesn't need experimental replication, it's provably so. (It doesn't even need any special proof, anymore than 10+34 = 44 needs a proof of its own. It's basic calculus).
        reacweb 8y ago
        In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica the conclusion that 1+1=2 appears only at page 379. It was a hard proof ;-)
- amelius 8y ago
  > In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource. That's what they said in the Paleozoic era after the first oil was created.
  - thx4allthestuff 8y ago
    Heh, touché. On a geological scale fossil fuels aren’t the finite resource, we are.
teddyh 8y ago
Scott Adams has something he calls the “The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters”; i.e. if we can see a problem coming from far ahead, we’ve always been able to fix it in time to avoid it. * http://blog.dilbert.com/2013/04/15/fact-checking-adams-law-of-slow-moving-disasters/ http://blog.dilbert.com/2013/04/15/fact-checking-adams-law-o...
- dmichulke 8y ago
  We should keep this between us, please don't let any politician read it.
- acqq 8y ago
  > we’ve always been able to fix it in time to avoid it ...only provided those who decide can profit from the fix. There’s also “it’s hard to be aware of the problem if you profit from your non-awareness.” Therefore: “saving the banks too big to fail” works. But saving the civilisation? In god we trust, he gave us the planet to just use it.
- sgt101 8y ago
  On the other hand Iain M. Banks had "out of context problems" which arrive in civilizations "like a full stop in a sentence." Also William Gibbson's idea of The Jackpot is pretty relevant. All the dice can roll to six and you get a situation which you can't walk out of - so radical climate change (or even not so radical), economic depression and a fairly throaty nuclear exchange or two. Fix that.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    1) Climate change takes many years. Let me remind you of a recent one called the end of Little Ice Age. Before that, there was Medieval Warm Period. The one currently happening is unprecedented but likely not impossible to adapt to, nor fix on century lengths. It will be more painful the longer we let it run though. 2) Big nuclear exchanges? Nuclear exchanges as projected are expected to be local, we don't even have enough nukes to raze all major cities. 3) Economic depression has happened multiple times so far. With various interesting results, from World War II to Computer Era. :) The closest thing I can think of is "Rock Falls, Everyone Dies". Generally a rock moving at km/s from out of Solar System. Last time this happened dinosaurs got extinct. The other one is a nearby gamma ray emitting supernova. This could sterilize most of the planet.

53 points by paulorlando 8y ago

The term "self-defeating prophecy" implies that the prophecy itself is the cause for it not being correct. A lot of the things mentioned in this article just seem like incorrect predictions (or predictions where the cause isn't obvious).

namuol 8y ago

This reminds me of my favorite Yogi Berra-ism: "People don't go there anymore; it's too crowded."

coldtea 8y ago

>The end of oil as a resource has been predicted many times over the past century, including 1909, 1937, 1945, 1966, 1972, 1980, and 2007. Each time, the end was paired with attempts to move industrial use to other fuel types. But with the exception of a few price shocks, the adjusted price of oil only slightly trends upward over the last 70 years. This, in spite of demand that definitely trends upward over the same period. Where is the end? Did the belief that oil use was going to end lead to new methods of exploration and production? Well, that and wars to get cheaper control of more oil resources (the cost of which wars is not factored in to the cost of oil, as they're fought with public money). Plus more effective extraction while piling externalities to the environment, e.g. by fracking (the costs of which externalities is also not factored in). In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource.

acqq 8y ago
> In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource. Exactly. And it's not the only finite resource we depend on. And the "steady growth", expected by effectively all of the economists and politicians, speeds up the exhaustion of the resources (the amount of the resources thus used is an "exponential function"). Worth considering this example: "Bacteria in bottles -- Professor Albert A Bartlett" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73xdpoQFLQk Apparently, we've already past the point of using one half of all easily used oil reserves. But, aren't we lucky, we've found whole "3 new bottles": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves It's worth watching the whole talk: "Dr Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy" As he introduces it: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Exactly. And it's not the only finite resource we depend on. And the "steady growth", expected by effectively all of the economists and politicians, speeds up the exhaustion of the resources (the amount of the resources thus used is an "exponential function"). I'm also not sure our "renewable" sources will help us. Their production, transportation, installation, maintenance extraction of necessary materials, etc, for them and their supporting infrastructure, is largely dependent on oil energy as well. And with everything factored in, it's more than they currently give back.
  - acqq 8y ago
    Wherever you want to maintain “growth” you’ll eventually hit the limit of the finiteness of the resources. “Growth” is simply not sustainable. Like you write in another comment it’s basic math.
- the-dude 8y ago
  Have you tried to replicate the bottle experiment?
  - teddyh 8y ago
    Replicate? It’s a thought experiment.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Even better, the result is based on pure math. It doesn't need experimental replication, it's provably so. (It doesn't even need any special proof, anymore than 10+34 = 44 needs a proof of its own. It's basic calculus).
      - reacweb 8y ago
        In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica the conclusion that 1+1=2 appears only at page 379. It was a hard proof ;-)
amelius 8y ago
> In the end, though, oil, is a finite resource. That's what they said in the Paleozoic era after the first oil was created.
- thx4allthestuff 8y ago
  Heh, touché. On a geological scale fossil fuels aren’t the finite resource, we are.

teddyh 8y ago

Scott Adams has something he calls the “The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters”; i.e. if we can see a problem coming from far ahead, we’ve always been able to fix it in time to avoid it. * http://blog.dilbert.com/2013/04/15/fact-checking-adams-law-of-slow-moving-disasters/ http://blog.dilbert.com/2013/04/15/fact-checking-adams-law-o...

dmichulke 8y ago
We should keep this between us, please don't let any politician read it.
acqq 8y ago
> we’ve always been able to fix it in time to avoid it ...only provided those who decide can profit from the fix. There’s also “it’s hard to be aware of the problem if you profit from your non-awareness.” Therefore: “saving the banks too big to fail” works. But saving the civilisation? In god we trust, he gave us the planet to just use it.
sgt101 8y ago
On the other hand Iain M. Banks had "out of context problems" which arrive in civilizations "like a full stop in a sentence." Also William Gibbson's idea of The Jackpot is pretty relevant. All the dice can roll to six and you get a situation which you can't walk out of - so radical climate change (or even not so radical), economic depression and a fairly throaty nuclear exchange or two. Fix that.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  1) Climate change takes many years. Let me remind you of a recent one called the end of Little Ice Age. Before that, there was Medieval Warm Period. The one currently happening is unprecedented but likely not impossible to adapt to, nor fix on century lengths. It will be more painful the longer we let it run though. 2) Big nuclear exchanges? Nuclear exchanges as projected are expected to be local, we don't even have enough nukes to raze all major cities. 3) Economic depression has happened multiple times so far. With various interesting results, from World War II to Computer Era. :) The closest thing I can think of is "Rock Falls, Everyone Dies". Generally a rock moving at km/s from out of Solar System. Last time this happened dinosaurs got extinct. The other one is a nearby gamma ray emitting supernova. This could sterilize most of the planet.