[jrob8503]

I take comfort in the fact that although there might be thousands of starving mobs, I will have my gun. Oil will peak and run out, but bullets are unlimited. Even if I do lose my food supply, I can always use my gun to threaten a family that has food, but no guns.

What do I look for to in a post peak world? The opportunity to shoot and kill anyone I deem dangerous without suffering any legal reprecussions.

God Bless America.

[Critter]

We have all observed things breaking suddenly eventhough it may have taken a long time to construct these things. The opposite is less likely, i.e, things being constructed instantly and then breaking down slowly.

Clearly the current population level has been in the making a long time and it has followed an exponential growth curve. These curves are not sustainable indefinitely. It certainly would not be surprising to see a sudden break. Would the population have reached 6 billion if it had not been for stored energy? Can that population be maintained without this relatively free infusion of energy? I think the answer is that human population will come under severe stress without cheap hydrocarbons.

It is almost an axiom that human population must return to sustainable levels and while a precise calculation of a sustainable level is not possible, indications are that 6 billion is ridiculous and that 1 billion is much more reasonable. The movement from 6 billion to 1 billion probably over a 50 year time frame could not possibly be a smooth transistion.

I know that if I personally were in a situation of die or become a criminal to survive, I would choose a life of crime, especially considering that those I love would likely perish if I did nothing. I think that more people would choose to take what they could instead of perish, hence the likelihood that many will commit acts of aggression including looting and murder. Look at the people in Haiti and how they reacted to the temporary lack of food and water resulting from hurricane damage.

Since the USA has a history of guns, it is natural to look to this tool to defend against widespread aggression. It should also be obvious that being in closer proximity to sources of food and fuel (wood) would give one some survival advantage.

Dependence on a collapsing system is a dangerous dependence, one which I choose to avoid as much as possible by making myself as independent of the system as possible.

[Licho]

Well idea of defending self with gun is very old, but can it really work, if you stand to bands with more guns? For example remains of US army with some tanks, acces to oil reserves and hungry stomach?

Kochevnik
Idea that Jews would be still alive if they had guns and tried to make some organized opposition (how? They were spread across whole Europe.. ) would make any difference seems to be naive. Most likely they would be slaughtered even faster by SS troops and gestapo.

In my post, I was refering to civilization. That doesn't equals to goverment, or current goverment. It just means organized way of living, complex society. Humans are social species, and all achievements were done with the help of complex civilizations. Small groups of hunters or natives didnt progress, and just barely survived, while civilizations with complex societies, specialization and some kind of goverment always thrived and expanded.
I don't believe, that long term survival in developed countries is possible without such kind of complex, cooperating society. On the other hand, with it, it's pretty easy. Population here was same in 1918 as is now.. difference is, that back then up to 30% of people were working in agriculture and forestry. So complex society could (at least here) lead to sustainable population even without fossil fuels, at the cost of extra human labor. It seems to be far more likely development than roaming bandits, and people shooting on each others untill they run of ammo. Simply because changes will be slow, and society will adapt to them slowly.

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell idea of defending self with gun is very old, but can it really work, if you stand to bands with more guns? For example remains of US army with some tanks, acces to oil reserves and hungry stomach?

[Licho]

By telling that the idea is very old, I mean, that in USA, it comes from constitution, which was constructed centuries ago. At that time, armed civilians had high chance to overthrow goverment, or defend themselfs from army.
But nowadays, it's pretty different. No armed revolution succeeded in country with more advanced army since perhaps Cuban revolution.
All regime changes since then were either peacefull, militery overthrows or palace coups. Unless army stands by or goes with you, you have no chance against goverment, no matter how many automatic rifles people have. Or are you allowed to own tanks and fighters too?

So thats what I mean by saying, that the idea is old, it cannot work well right now. Yes, you can defend yourself from some criminals if you wish, but it won't help much to defend democracy.

Regarding "fast" crash - imho, there really is no reason to expect it, unless something unexpecting happens (like war). Yes, it can cause inflation, turn economy into depression, there could be physical lack of oil in some areas, but total crash and collapse of society? Once people really realize, goverments in every country will do max to ensure that there is enough food and basic utilities and services like police/army are well supplied/switched to alternatives asap. Once this happens, people have no real reason for mass exodus to woods etc, even if some of them make almost no money, and receive some emergency food aid.

[nigel]

Are all Americans, Americans!


http://www.liquidgeneration.com/quiz/ho ... n_quiz.asp

[backstop]

Licho - You asked:

"Why are so many Americans concerned with looters, angry mobs etc.. why do Americans want to have guns at homes?

I don't see similar attitude from others..
Is this caused by different style of living? "

I think there are at least two reasons for this difference not yet mentioned in the thread.

1/. The US is founded on (an unacknowledged) genocide of the native peoples; to advance the unifying national myth of "the American Dream; land of the brave, home of the free, etc," beside indoctrinating school children to honour the flag, it was essential to glorify the genocide and the guns used, which Hollywood and various ham actors achieved very profitably.

(Just think, why didn't they churn out similar tat about the noble northern freedom fighters putting down the evil southern slave owners ?)

Those 'Western' movies glorified the gun into a symbol of self esteem, and successive generations have been raised on such propaganda.

2/. There's a rather more tenuous possibility, that the American culture has become as shallow, stupefied and frightened/aggressive as it is because it has been poisoned for much longer than other cultures by the psychotropic effect of the volatile hydrocarbons (fossil oil vapours) in the air its people breathe.

Particularly in Texas . . . . . . . . .


regards,

Backstop

[Aaron]

Gosh Licho...

And I was gonna loot something nice for you.

[backstop]

Hawk - its heartening that you can joke about the follies of empire, since when the British began joke about theirs, it promptly fell apart.

I trust you're also joking about children aged 3 having to pay their respects to the flag each day ?

regards,

Backstop

[backstop]

Hawkcreek - no I'm not a fuggin idiot and your typing isn't wasted.

I was concerned when I wrote that post - to another European, as a dispassionate observation of a couple of factors underlying cultural problems in America - that it might seem offensive to American minds.

Well, I can say straight I've no interest in badmouthing America; I've a strong interest in constructive criticism - that is in seeking solutions to identifiable problems.

With regard to nation's relative culpability, I guess I need only mention the evidence of Thatcher sending SAS to train Kmer Rouge units in AP-minelaying against the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchia. I hope my saying this makes the point that petty nationalism seems to me just a propaganda to try to keep liked-minded people from coming together.

So, please, never take any fences that ain't labelled for you !

regards,

Backstop

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')egarding "fast" crash - imho, there really is no reason to expect it, [/b]unless something unexpecting happens[/b] (like war).

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nce people really realize, goverments in every country will do max to ensure that there is enough food and basic utilities and services like police/army are well supplied/switched to alternatives asap.

[Licho]

You don't need money to change things. You need only power. No goverment will try to solve problem by direct investments (like paying for your oil with taxes to get it cheaper for you or paying for all those new biodiesel production plants), but rather by laws, incentives, regulations and when neccesary or rationing (even food rationing) in case of real crisis. None of these needs big money.

[jato]

???????? Not to sure what you were trying to say.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'l')aws, incentives, regulations, rationing

[Licho]

Simple measures:

- rising consumers tax on gasoline (to increase it's price even further -> consumption falls down)
- at same time, do not apply taxes on fuel for farmers - so farmer's are able to buy fuels at 1/2 or even lower costs

This ensures, that farmers have the fuels they need at reasonable price and lowers demand.

And why would food rationing not work for longer time? All European countries had rationing during WW2, and many even for decades after war! Rationing was effective for more than 15 years in my country (not for all food products, but for some "rare" like meat).

[Permanently_Baffled]

Licho is right, tax on gasoline in the UK is 80% but not on diesal that is used on agricultural machinery where it is zero or 3%(dependant on use).

If the US could phase this in over say 5 years consumption would plummet. It maybe political suicide but then somebody is going to have to break the bad news, expensive gasoline is far better than no gasoline!!

PB

[Permanently_Baffled]

Here is a question:

Average Income in the US is $35,000, in the Uk, France and Germany it is roughly $20,000 - $25,000, why can't americans afford $7 for a gallon of gas? I know you have sub urban sprawl but then Europe has its long distance commuters as well...?

PB

[Aaron]

I know people in NY City who spend 5 hrs + per day to commute to work.

Here in Houston it's not uncommon to have people commute 80+ miles per day to work & back...

Apples and Oranges

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'I') know people in NY City who spend 5 hrs + per day to commute to work.

Here in Houston it's not uncommon to have people commute 80+ miles per day to work & back...

Apples and Oranges

[Licho]

I admit it, title of thread was designed to provoke a bit. I got mad after reading new posts one day, and all of them were about how to defend your farm/property from looters - all written exlusively by Americans
I was thinking what is causing this different mind set and my original idea was, that it has something to do with society at general. Simple facts, that Americans seem to be more "individualists" and more detracted and even more physically isolated (suburbs) from community of surrounding people could be causing it. More people then see other people as potential looters and enemies, and tend to think, that they can handle everything alone.

I don't really think that that americans are that more violent than others - just about 5-10 times more, if you count murder statistics per population than europeans .. and we are just spineless pacisfists