> My point is the same as the original article. Calculations like this, of single routes, are pointless and mislead rather than inform. But it's an intellectual

> My point is the same as the original article. Calculations like this, of single routes, are pointless and mislead rather than inform. But it's an intellectual honeypot, because it seems interesting. He doesn't calculate single narrow routes. In fact that's almost entirely opposite the purpose of his articles, which is to take a step back and look at things from a very broad perspective: what's the scale of our energy use, what's the scale needed to replace it with something else, and what are some back-of-the-envelope calculations we can do to get an intuitive grasp of the problem? It's essentially applying fermi estimation to the problem, which I think most people would agree is far from what you're accusing. > We didn't run out of food. This was never claimed? > Technology changes, and we become far more efficient and productive. This is addressed, particularly in the second article linked, which itself is a highly-summarized form of his entire position. > And pretending that there's a physical limit somewhere without bothering to peak around is a classic way that we trick ourselves about the future. There's no pretending. There are real physical and thermodynamic limits that physicists currently know no way to circumvent, and that we have increasingly convincing reasons to believe are fundamental. Pretending these don't exist is a classic way that we trick ourselves about the future.