patrick.net

CaptainHorsePaste says

Whereas socialism excels in unpersoning and killing huge numbers

Reality says

People's selfishness is not the result of laissez-faire government policy or capitalism.

Guys, that wasn't an anti-Capitalism position, and certainly not a recommendation to switch to socialism instead. I love Capitalism the way Churchill loved Democracy. It's a flawed system that sucks in these particular ways, but it's still way better than all of the alternatives. Capitalism with an overlay of some "socialist" regulations and standards brought us cars producing low pollution and high fuel economy while still offering great performance. A win win for big industries, consumers, and conservationists. A famous comparison before the Berlin Wall fell, Soviet industries like steelmaking tended to use 5X the energy as Western industries did to convert raw materials to the same amount of finished product.

Automan Empire says

Capitalism with an overlay of some "socialist" regulations and standards brought us cars producing low pollution and high fuel economy while still offering great performance.

I don't mind some regulations. It's evolutionary, it just changes the environment.

My complaint is the environment is artificially changed not to improve society, but to enrich people. I think some regulations are excellent, but they are a rarity.

I used to be a naive Libertarian, but there is that tragedy of the commons problem... No pure ideologies work. Any ideology can be taken to an extreme where it's demonstrated it's insane. ANY ideology. Ideologies are models, but in science, every single model is flawed - they are very good guides, but they are only guides.

I'd like to find a model in which we can all work together, but I think in that model, you'd find murder, propaganda, and forced conformance. I don't think people would want to see a model of society that works very well, and is totally correct - it would have some ugliness and I don't think people would accept ANY ugliness.

Automan Empire says

Guys, that wasn't an anti-Capitalism position, and certainly not a recommendation to switch to socialism instead. I love Capitalism the way Churchill loved Democracy. It's a flawed system that sucks in these particular ways, but it's still way better than all of the alternatives. Capitalism with an overlay of some "socialist" regulations and standards brought us cars producing low pollution and high fuel economy while still offering great performance. A win win for big industries, consumers, and conservationists. A famous comparison before the Berlin Wall fell, Soviet industries like steelmaking tended to use 5X the energy as Western industries did to convert raw materials to the same amount of finished product.

Is it "Socialism" though, or Nationalism or ?

Roads and Bridges and Sewers have always been built with taxpayer funds, without Marx or Saint Just. The Annona or the great Ceramic Works in Roman "Catalonia" didn't require Proudhon or Kropotkin.

The danger is when the profits are private but the losses are socialized.

This includes Teacher's Retirements in California, where, after multiple massive amounts of fraud and offenses against Fiduciary duty, CALPERS gets bailed out. Or Wall Street Banks, for that matter. Or most Aerospace Companies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/business/dealbook/bailout-pensions-stimulus.html

Capitalist-Socialism, or Corporate Socialism, or whatever you wish to call it, is one of the worst systems.

B.A.C.A.H. says

use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.

I find that the moment anyone claims or stands on intellectual superiority, they have revealed their weakness. It is a form of blindness to pretend that there is even such a thing.

I agree with Richwicks, intelligence, or at least the ability to measure it, is a human construct. If intelligence is a quantifiable characteristic, the best way to define it would be that intelligence is the ability to learn. That is an important ability. But what is more important than the ability to learn would be the ability to apply what you have learned, that is wisdom. Intelligence without wisdom just makes one an educated fool.

But back to the OP.

Here is another article supporting the geologic and biological origins of petroleum, based on the extensive study of the Williston Basin.

https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/dow/dow.htm

You know, the unusual thing about earth is not the large amounts of petroleum, but the large amounts of oxygen we have to burn it with.

Oxygen is extremely reactive, and I don't think it's common for planets to have large amounts of oxygen in their atmospheres.

richwicks says

WRT to the abiotic origin for hydrocarbons, what we've found on Titan to me strongly suggests that hydrocarbons may very well have been part of the formation of the planets.

I consider it a given that hydrogen and probably methane were part of the true "primordial soup" that became whole planets, and that much hydrogen thus was common from their beginnings during the formation of our Sol system, and likely in planets elsewhere when hydrogen was plentiful at the relevant times in their formation.

After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum. From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.

Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"

Automan Empire says

After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum.

"Likely" or "Unlikely"? You and I have trillions of hydrogen atoms in our bodies, both in the form of water and in the form of organic molecules. In fact, hydrogen is by far the most numerous atoms in our bodies. There are probably far more hydrogen and carbon inside this planet than there are oxygen atoms to oxidize them all. The very unusual phenomenon of significant free oxygen on earth's surface (atmosphere) is almost entirely the result of biological action (photosynthesis) breaking up water molecules, so it' entirely a surface phenomenon (a byproduct of that surface process/phenomenon is turning simple hydrocarbon into biomass) . Assuming the earth's interior is very hot below the top few miles (out of nearly 4000 mile radius to the core center) due to the heat from uranium and thorium decay and tidal force from moon causing friction inside the earth, i.e. the interior of the earth is not inhabited by a different species of intelligent beings, then most hydrogen and carbon on earth are bound up in simple hydrocarbon, mostly liquid Methane under high pressure, just like on other planets and their satellites, untinged by biological process like on earth's surface. We get a proof of that from massive methane outgassing from volcanic eruptions.

Automan Empire says

From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.

You are reading the product/result of heavily gate-kept publishing industry, and with a significant time delay depending on when the book was published. By your description, your book was likely written around two decades ago. The author was engaging in what is called "rear-guard action," gradually retreating from an untenable position, grudgingly admitting the existence abiogenic hydrocarbon but falsely insisting that's minority. What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below. Even their most "reliable" evidence, the optic action, only took place for distillants 15-carbon equivalent or bigger/longer, whereas left-handed chirality should have been possible significantly before reaching 15-carbon. All biological organic molecules should be left-handed where chirality is possible. The "optic action" is simply saying there is some degree of imbalance between left-handedness vs. right-handedness but not nearly sufficient evidence for all being left-handed (where chirality is possible); i.e. pretending a sign for bio-contamination to mean biogenic origin.

Automan Empire says

Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"

There are good reasons for conservation as private action in daily life: just like conserving water, conserving electricity and conserving food; all three are regenerated every day but it costs resources and effort to regenerate and deliver them. Likewise, it costs resources and labor to bring hydrocarbon to your nearest gas station, so it is a good idea to conserve them. Beyond that, assessing special taxes on top of the delivery of fresh water, electricity, food or hydrocarbon, that would just be your overlords looking for excuses to exploit you. Just look at their own lives: what conservation action did they take when they burn more than tens of thousands of average homes' annual carbon footprint when private-jetting themselves into those "climate action" conventions plotting how to force you conserve? Their purpose for promoting the idea that you should conserve to a far more strict degree than what is comfortable to you is to tax you and even kill you and your family so that they can keep your bank deposits, take your assets and avoid paying you the pension they promised to you. Spending one's own time and effort echoing their agenda is a little like the hapless Stockholm-Syndrome peons living under communism and/or national socialism volunteering their own time echoing their governments' totalitarian propaganda. You know what's more: it's precisely those Stockholm-Syndrome peons eagerness to be cruel to each other that entice the banksters to promote Communism and National Socialism and other forms of totalitarianism in those countries: so government officials in those countries would be able to loot the local population and transfer the money to banks in "freer" countries, and then political upheavals kill them all and the banksters get to keep the money. That's how banksters divert money from the middle class in freer countries to their own pockets by promoting totalitarianism in countries that are full of Stockholm-Syndrome peons.

Reality says

What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below.

That's a frequent PR Science issue with Meteorites: "Amino Acids, the building block of RNA, found in this 100 MYA Meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica Frozen Lake"

Of course, 100 MYA Antarctica was temperate, and that lake was teeming with organic chemistry when the meteorite fell into it, and meteorites are pockmarked so it's a no brainer that a submerged rock would take organically filled water inside. Also, saying Amino Acids are the Building Block of RNA is like saying pumice are building blocks of massive ampitheaters, it misses 99% of the story of building ampitheaters or aqueducts.

https://covidsteria.substack.com/p/science-memes-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts