Ok, here's my response. I addressed all of your main points. You said that you're not going to continue this discussion and I understand. I'm not interested in a debate either. But if you wish, you can write a short recap or something of that nature.

Let me guess, "we're at peak oil now, and new technologies will replace it". That it?

Simply put, yes. But there's a lot more to it. I think we're currently at the edge of a very large paradigm shift. This means that we're at the 'peak' of a lot of thinks. The peak of petroleum/diesel car production, the peak of the internal combustion engine, the peak of human labor and a lot more. The end of large scale petroleum use is just a small example of things to come.

Well, it is argued that we are at peak oil now, and we may very well be - however there are still conservatively 40 years left of oil.

Yes, that's true. There might be enough oil left to last us (assuming current usage rates) for centuries. But I don't see how that's relevant at all. When the cost of alternative energy sources (photovoltaics/concentrated solar thermal) becomes cheaper than that of oil and other fossil fuels, the demand for the latter will plummet. We'll eventually reach a point where the cost of using alternative energy sources will be even cheaper than using free oil. Furthermore, there are huge political and ecological reasons for steering away from fossil fuels.

That is not to mention the unconventional reserves such as Oil sands, CSG, Oil shale, Heavy oil, etc.

Using stuff like that is even more expensive than conventional oil. And I think it's interesting that you mentioned oil shale, because my country is the largest oil shale producer in the world. But that's not a source of wealth or prosperity by any means. It's more like a last-ditch effort. It's getting more expensive by the day, it's comparatively unmarketable and atop of all, it's an environmental hazard. Parts of Ida-Viru County look like a dystopian wasteland because of the oil shale industry.

do you genuinely think that the value of a degree which would make me the senior professional in tapping the final reserves would become redundant? Really?

I don't agree with your premise. There will be no demand to tap the final reserves. Any and all oil extraction post-2030 will be done in the current crude oil fields. It will also be fully automated.

Tell me, what qualifications do you have? You sound to me like an office worker who is bitter and resentful towards people with higher education.

Are you suggesting that office work and higher education are likely to be mutually exclusive? From what I've seen, it's the other way around. Anyway, I don't work at an office and I think that 'qualifications' are almost meaningless. And in this day and age, are less and less of an indicator of real knowledge. 'Higher education' is another frivolous honorific. I've personally seen physics teachers who can't tell the difference between a proton and a positron. I've talked to physicians who think that chickenpox and herpes zoster are caused by two different viruses. And I don't even have to rely on personal experience. For example, take a look at the majority of judges. They're supposed to be the masters of critical thinking, reasoning and decision-making. The best of the best. And what do we see? I see a lot of idiots who are maliciously incompetent when it comes to human rights.

So, no. I have zero interest in claiming any 'qualification' and I view higher education as nothing more than a vague indicator of being familiar with a certain field.

Yes, by 2030 your academic degree won't be worth a third of its current value.

You're right about one thing, it won't be worth a third. 300% sounds more accurate.

The number of people with academic degrees in geophysics is rising, especially in developing countries. Yet at the same time, there's no explicit rise in demand for geophysicists. Therefore the value of your degree is deflating.

I will address the part of my comment that you conveniently left out to serve your purpose. That of plying my trade in the climate change mitigation industry. An industry that will literally be around for the rest of human history. Hmm. Good logic.

First of all, I don't think that it will be an 'industry' in the future. And it will also be less about climate change mitigation and more about general climate control and planetary engineering. Lastly, humans will play little to no part in this process. Now, you might be wondering as to that will happen. Don't worry, I'll soon explain.

oil and gas will be used for as long as they are available. Conveniently enough for me, they will be used for my entire working career, I can guarantee that.

I already addressed this. But I'll also like to add this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Swansons-law.png

Taking a look at charts like that, I don't see how anyone can guarantee that the fossil fuel industry will be around for much longer.

Since you know so much, please enlighten me as to how a computer will perform a seismic survey to determine bedrock for a new dam. While you're at it, please explain how a gravity survey will be performed in the forest to look for a sink hole? How will an EM survey be deployed to search for an ore body? We use computers to aid in processing data, so what?

The knowledge (information) of how to perform those tasks exists independent of humanity. The tools you use are also obviously non-human. And as you admit, computers already aid you in data processing. Can you spot the 'replaceable' component in all of this? As I said before, I'll soon explain.

Do you think MS Word will replace authors too?

No, but another 'program' or a 'set of programs' might take over significant portion of the art of literature.

There are 3 parts of geophysics: acquisition, processing, interpretation. Acquisition is impossible to be automated, processing is partly automated now because it's pointless any other way, interp requires knowledge and experience and cannot be automated.

Are you aware of the deep implications of those statements? That's a outright rejection of true artificial intelligence (strong AI/artificial general intelligence). But that's nonsensical, since there's no set of physical laws that would prohibit the existence of such a thing. As far as logic and computational power goes, the human brain is not even close to what's feasible with ordinary matter.

Well, one might claim that true AI is a long way off. But that's not the case at all. According to current trends, computers can and will overpower the average human brain by the mid 2020s. That's only a decade away. Furthermore, there are currently two multi-billon dollar projects for reverse engineering the human brain. One in the United States, other one in Europe. This means that we'll not only have the hardware, but also the software to create something that's on the same level as human. Once this is possible, an AI could perform almost all the jobs that a human (even a highly educated one) can. And do it faster, will operate 24/7 and demand nothing in return. So that's the crux of my argument.

http://www.singularity.com/images/charts/ExponentialGrowthofComputing.jpg

Yep, definitely confirms to me that you are a worker in a dead end job - bitter of those who are more fortunate in their careers. Especially academics.

I already addressed this too. But I'll also like to add a few things. First of all, it think that ALL jobs are dead end jobs. Relics of the past that need to go. Second, I don't understand what you mean by 'fortunate in their careers', if you're referring to income, I'm not interested in that. I can't wait for the fall of the current monetary system.

You must have a dull life if you think that people pursuing their interests is a problem.

Well, I never said that.

Tell me, what is your job? You seem to have an awful lot of insight into the world of science (albeit incorrect and made up insight). Humour me.

I doesn't matter what my job is. But I'll say this, I'm quite familiar with science. I read science related articles, blogs and books almost every day. And even saying stuff like that seems excessive to me.

The piece of paper doesn't mean shit. The education that I undertook to get the piece of paper most certainly makes me more qualified, and the only correct person in this conversation. You see, here's the thing. I am right. I also know I'm right. This is not because of ignorance, it is because of the antithesis actually, it is because of education.

That's not only an appeal to authority, but also an appeal to false authority. As explained before, going through the educational process doesn't necessarily mean that someone is very knowledgeable in the given field. Now, I'm not saying that you're ignorant about geophysics or science in general. However, you can't simply point towards your 'education level' and claim that you're right.

Arguments is either true or false, regardless of high or low one's 'education level', 'qualifications' or 'expertise' are.