Thursday, February 24, 2005

More Peak Oil Evidence

This story on Al-Jazeera (so weigh it accordingly) quotes an analyst saying the Saudis have irreparably damaged their fields, meaning their capacity can't be realistically expanded from it's current level (a hair under 10 million barrels a day.)

Gee, maybe I should have put money against Morgan Stanley.

1 comment:

max said...

I think I can partially answer your question.

The 'dark ages' view is a leftover of 19th century historical thinking. Its wrong, and dismissed by modern scholarship.

First, let me define the medieval period from 800-1400CE, and the Renaissance as the long 16th century, late 1400s to mid 1600s.

Most of the things I know about the shift are related to the overseas expansion. As a facet of the renaissance, there are diverging scholastic views on why the overseas expansion occurred. It seems to me as though there is sufficient evidence to point to some of the factors which caused it were from the midieval era.

Most of the scholars generally agree there is some causal relationship between historical epochs. It would be difficult to imagine the medieval era not in some way shape what would be the future. There are several modern interpretations, but no single view has emerged as dominant. Read Braudel & Wallerstein (world systems theory), Webb & Jones (frontier american crap), Mann & Hall (for a rejection of Wallerstein and Braudel) for more. There's also a Marxist interpretation that has to do with feudalism.

I'll give you one concrete economic example of a linkage between the epochs. Italian banking which emerged in the 14th-15th centuries had its roots in medieval monetary systems.

Or, the reformation, a definative portion of the Renaissance, was the result of a multitude of issues facing Catholocism in the medieval period.