Just some logical facts about growth economy:
1. We have an economy which must always grow, or crash.
2. It is impossible for our economy to keep growing forever, with constraints like finite space on earth, finite resources, etc.
3. From 1 and 2, our economy will one day crash.
4. The number of people that will die, the amount of suffering people will undergo, and the destruction people will cause to the earth in despiration will be proportional to how big our economy is when it crashes.
5. As our economy grows, our dependence on high technology rises and our ability to live without it decreases.
6. From 3, 4, and 5, if our economy must crash, the optimum time for it to crash to limit death, suffering, global destruction, and our inability to survive would be ASAP.
I say we conserve energy rather than selfishly and naiively fight for oil to keep things as they are, get ready to live more independantly and simply, and if the economy crashes, better now than later. Our growth-based capitalist economy has caused and is causing war, imperialism, genocide, slavery and brutal servitude of all sorts, and global destruction. In terms of how good (that is, not-as-bad) it would be for humans, in terms of how good it would be for the world in general, in terms of how good it would be for me personally, and in terms of how much better it would be for all our children and grandchildren, I think that the sooner our current system is destroyed and replaced, the better.
PeakOil is You
Crashing the Global Economy
91 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Just some logical facts
by arocoun » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 19:57:30
-
arocoun - Lignite
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Illinois, USA
by stepka » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:16:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')It's not that everybody will die, but our economy will not resemble anything like it does today. We will either fall back to a level of pre-industrialization if we are lucky or we will fall farther (stone age) if we aren't so lucky.
')It's not that everybody will die, but our economy will not resemble anything like it does today. We will either fall back to a level of pre-industrialization if we are lucky or we will fall farther (stone age) if we aren't so lucky.
You know, I had a bad thought while I was reading your all's posts. The only way we are going to go back to a pre-industrial age complete with civilization is with the reinstitution of slavery. I'm not trying to introduce a race issue here, so don't get excited Jenab, but if you study the ancient Romans, Greeks, Europeans, Hebrews, etc., they all had slavery as an institution. We in our industrial culture are by no means morally superior, we just have had machines to do the work that slaves used to do. So, if things get bad, I will be watching more than just my food supply. Though I probably wouldn't bring much in the market place.
-
stepka - Peat
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: missouri
by arocoun » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 04:11:42
You know that slaves weren't necessary for survival, don't you? People were capable of farming for and feeding themselves (and there were many smaller societies that did just that), and all slaves were were more mouths to feed. Slaves were a large underclass necessary to make it so that a tiny upper class could enjoy extravigant wealth and liesure at their expense. Although we still have as high a preportion of people living under slave-like conditions as we had before industry, if slavery comes back, it'll happen only against the resistance of millions/billions of people who never want to repeat those dark ages in history again.
The reason many of the larger societies used slaves were because they were imperialistic societies. The went to war to take over the lands of weaker/smaller societies, and used their prisoners of war as slaves (it didn't become a racial thing until after large-scale European slave trading in west Africa).
The reason many of the larger societies used slaves were because they were imperialistic societies. The went to war to take over the lands of weaker/smaller societies, and used their prisoners of war as slaves (it didn't become a racial thing until after large-scale European slave trading in west Africa).
-
arocoun - Lignite
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Illinois, USA
slaves again
by bart » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 05:20:28
When I was watching the remake of "Spartacus" (about a slave revolt that actually happened in the Roman Empire), I had the sick feeling... this could happen again:
1. Oil becomes much more expensive. The rich and powerful realize that it can be more cost-effective to have human servants (now true in many 3rd World Countries). And slaves can be the most cost-effective of all.
2. Large parts of the population are addicted to consumption and are unable to manage their finances. They go hopelessly into debt and are sell themselves or their children as slaves or prostitutes. (This was one way slaves were created in the ancient world ... it is also happening now, in SE Asia, for instance.)
3. Propaganda, ignorance and cynicism and make people reluctant to fight for democracy. They go along with imperial wars. (Sound familiar?)
4. Prisoners of war become slaves, as arocoun describes.
- bart
1. Oil becomes much more expensive. The rich and powerful realize that it can be more cost-effective to have human servants (now true in many 3rd World Countries). And slaves can be the most cost-effective of all.
2. Large parts of the population are addicted to consumption and are unable to manage their finances. They go hopelessly into debt and are sell themselves or their children as slaves or prostitutes. (This was one way slaves were created in the ancient world ... it is also happening now, in SE Asia, for instance.)
3. Propaganda, ignorance and cynicism and make people reluctant to fight for democracy. They go along with imperial wars. (Sound familiar?)
4. Prisoners of war become slaves, as arocoun describes.
- bart
-
bart - Tar Sands
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
by gg3 » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 05:31:13
Going back a ways...
Re. the often-heard item that conservation in one place just causes reduced demand -> reduced price -> increased consumption elsewhere: Maybe, and probably yes, but he who conserves becomes strong, and he who indulges becomes weak.
A culture that is addicted to SUVs, electric carving knives, and tropical indoor temperatures in the freezing winter, is simply not adaptively fit in the strict Darwinian sense. The same case obtains for individuals: the simple-lifers here will do far better than those whose lives are dependent on the economic status-quo.
Re. comparative misery: The choice isn't necessarily between die-off now and bigger die-off later. We have hardly begun to scratch the surface of what is possible.
Try this: Go to a WalMart (I despise WalMart but it's useful for this particular exercise) and walk every aisle from end to end. As you walk, make marks on a clipboard: every five paces, decide whether the stuff you've just passed is necessary, acceptable comfort/convenience, or pure waste. Have three columns on your clipboard accordingly. Make a mark in the appropriate column. After you're done (assuming you don't get chased out by store security), go back and total up the marks in each column. The "pure waste" column is the stuff we can simply do without.
Total up the marks in each column and do the arithmetic: what percentage is pure waste compared to the other categories? Strictly speaking this is not a technically accurate method of judging what percentage of the economy is useless waste, but it will tend to give you a rough sense of the potential.
What happens to those sectors of the economy that are producing wasteful drivel? Well, what happened to buggy-whip makers and the once-ubiquitous livery stables? What happened to the makers of Conestoga wagons, feedbags, and branding irons? What happened to companies that made carpet-beating rods, ice-boxes, and washtubs & washboards? What happened to telegraph operators? Did they riot in the streets? No, they went out of business and/or became individually unemployed, and individually sought new employment. Over time the economy shifted.
Did our entire society come unglued during the Great Depression when a quarter of the population was unemployed at one time? No; while there were demonstrations & even occasional riots, things held together long enough that distributive measures could be enacted to soften the impact. The came WW2 and the beginning of full employment.
A similar course will probably occur in the present crisis. Individual dislocations, and temporary collective dislocation until labor can be reallocated: notably to better paying jobs building energy infrastructure. During the transition, a need for increased social program spending to prevent people starving & rioting. After the transition, the temporary quasi-socialistic measures can be rescinded and life will go on.
What to tell the hypothetical poor working guy with a family to support: Get thee to a free public library every weekend, and start studying for any skilled trade that will be of use in coming times. Learn enough that you can qualify for appropriate formal training, whether it be technical colleges, community colleges, universities, or union training programs, or whatever. When the time comes, get the formal training even if it means you work daytimes and take courses in the evenings. Or if you can live with the obvious inherent risks, join the military reserves, and do your darn best to get in an MOS that will teach you what you need.
Re. slavery: Won't be tolerated. Though some might try sneaking it in through the backdoor, for example, expanded use of prison labor in the guise of "restitution-based punishment" or some similar euphemism.
I have to agree that slavery has been primarily the means by which lazy people with sufficient wealth and/or status have bought their way out of having to do a responsible share of actual work. That kind of laziness needs to be morally stigmatized to the point where it's 100% unacceptable.
Re the question of humans having an ape-instinct for increase ("more-ism"), OK, whoever posted the contrary point wins that one in part; a quick search of knowledge of anthropology shows that many cultures didn't fall prey to it. Though, those cultures usually fell prey to other cultures that did.
I am wondering if there's a genetic tweak in the system somewhere, i.e. these traits (more-ism vs. sufficiency) are so persistent that it's hard to imagine them being purely arbitrary artifacts of culture.
There might be another way to deal with this, and I'm not joking: Legalize the recreational use of marijuana (and regulate the potency to take the super-potent strains off the market). For most of the people most of the time, marijuana puts a mild short-circuit into the reward feedback loop. The result is a generalized feeling of satisfaction or passivity (not only while high, but for a period of days thereafter), that has gotten labeled as "amotivational syndrome." It is also known to be useful in treating the mixed-mood manic phase of bipolar disorder (negative mood, high energy, characterized by irritability and a tendency toward rage states), by simultaneously elevating mood and reducing overall energy level. In short, it makes people happy with what they have.
This might be just what the culture needs to reduce consumption demand for other more energy-intensive goods and services. Even if only a plurality of the population starts smoking the stuff (e.g. as a substitute for beer, with no calories:-), that could add up to a measurable difference in consumption levels.
Anyway, more later; speaking of work, it's 2:30am and I still have a couple of hours of PBX programming to do.
Re. the often-heard item that conservation in one place just causes reduced demand -> reduced price -> increased consumption elsewhere: Maybe, and probably yes, but he who conserves becomes strong, and he who indulges becomes weak.
A culture that is addicted to SUVs, electric carving knives, and tropical indoor temperatures in the freezing winter, is simply not adaptively fit in the strict Darwinian sense. The same case obtains for individuals: the simple-lifers here will do far better than those whose lives are dependent on the economic status-quo.
Re. comparative misery: The choice isn't necessarily between die-off now and bigger die-off later. We have hardly begun to scratch the surface of what is possible.
Try this: Go to a WalMart (I despise WalMart but it's useful for this particular exercise) and walk every aisle from end to end. As you walk, make marks on a clipboard: every five paces, decide whether the stuff you've just passed is necessary, acceptable comfort/convenience, or pure waste. Have three columns on your clipboard accordingly. Make a mark in the appropriate column. After you're done (assuming you don't get chased out by store security), go back and total up the marks in each column. The "pure waste" column is the stuff we can simply do without.
Total up the marks in each column and do the arithmetic: what percentage is pure waste compared to the other categories? Strictly speaking this is not a technically accurate method of judging what percentage of the economy is useless waste, but it will tend to give you a rough sense of the potential.
What happens to those sectors of the economy that are producing wasteful drivel? Well, what happened to buggy-whip makers and the once-ubiquitous livery stables? What happened to the makers of Conestoga wagons, feedbags, and branding irons? What happened to companies that made carpet-beating rods, ice-boxes, and washtubs & washboards? What happened to telegraph operators? Did they riot in the streets? No, they went out of business and/or became individually unemployed, and individually sought new employment. Over time the economy shifted.
Did our entire society come unglued during the Great Depression when a quarter of the population was unemployed at one time? No; while there were demonstrations & even occasional riots, things held together long enough that distributive measures could be enacted to soften the impact. The came WW2 and the beginning of full employment.
A similar course will probably occur in the present crisis. Individual dislocations, and temporary collective dislocation until labor can be reallocated: notably to better paying jobs building energy infrastructure. During the transition, a need for increased social program spending to prevent people starving & rioting. After the transition, the temporary quasi-socialistic measures can be rescinded and life will go on.
What to tell the hypothetical poor working guy with a family to support: Get thee to a free public library every weekend, and start studying for any skilled trade that will be of use in coming times. Learn enough that you can qualify for appropriate formal training, whether it be technical colleges, community colleges, universities, or union training programs, or whatever. When the time comes, get the formal training even if it means you work daytimes and take courses in the evenings. Or if you can live with the obvious inherent risks, join the military reserves, and do your darn best to get in an MOS that will teach you what you need.
Re. slavery: Won't be tolerated. Though some might try sneaking it in through the backdoor, for example, expanded use of prison labor in the guise of "restitution-based punishment" or some similar euphemism.
I have to agree that slavery has been primarily the means by which lazy people with sufficient wealth and/or status have bought their way out of having to do a responsible share of actual work. That kind of laziness needs to be morally stigmatized to the point where it's 100% unacceptable.
Re the question of humans having an ape-instinct for increase ("more-ism"), OK, whoever posted the contrary point wins that one in part; a quick search of knowledge of anthropology shows that many cultures didn't fall prey to it. Though, those cultures usually fell prey to other cultures that did.
I am wondering if there's a genetic tweak in the system somewhere, i.e. these traits (more-ism vs. sufficiency) are so persistent that it's hard to imagine them being purely arbitrary artifacts of culture.
There might be another way to deal with this, and I'm not joking: Legalize the recreational use of marijuana (and regulate the potency to take the super-potent strains off the market). For most of the people most of the time, marijuana puts a mild short-circuit into the reward feedback loop. The result is a generalized feeling of satisfaction or passivity (not only while high, but for a period of days thereafter), that has gotten labeled as "amotivational syndrome." It is also known to be useful in treating the mixed-mood manic phase of bipolar disorder (negative mood, high energy, characterized by irritability and a tendency toward rage states), by simultaneously elevating mood and reducing overall energy level. In short, it makes people happy with what they have.
This might be just what the culture needs to reduce consumption demand for other more energy-intensive goods and services. Even if only a plurality of the population starts smoking the stuff (e.g. as a substitute for beer, with no calories:-), that could add up to a measurable difference in consumption levels.
Anyway, more later; speaking of work, it's 2:30am and I still have a couple of hours of PBX programming to do.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
slaves again
by stepka » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 14:39:53
Right arocoun, slaves won't be an issue when the main issue is survival. But slaves were a product of greed and keeping up the status quo. So when some people get tired of working very hard just to eat, or they want to live more comfortably than other folks, then look out.
I personally don't believe that people will not stand for it. Look at many of the other things we put up with in this world that are morally wrong. If it makes us uncomfortable, we just look the other way. We already make use of slave labor as it is. I'm thinking of men who sign up to go on "sex tours" in countries like India and Thailand, where the women are chained to their cells. Or us buying WalMart products that are produced by Chinese laborers who often end up owing the factory money when their contract is up, and so end up staying on for more terms. But we don't have to actually see it, so we can tell ourselves that it's not really happening.
Here's another thing--Thomas Jefferson hated the institution of slavery. Did he let his slaves go? Absolutely not. He would have been throwing away the wealth that his ancestors had created, and thus considered highly irresponsible. In the same way we are chained to our machines. You could sell everything you own and move to the woods so that you won't be an oil consumer, because maybe you believe it's wrong to use oil and pollute the landscape, but essentially you know that it is a futile gesture, because everyone else will still be driving, and they'll think you're nuttier than a fruitcake.
So as soon as we begin to recreate a civilization out of the ashes of the old one, slavery will again be an issue.
I personally don't believe that people will not stand for it. Look at many of the other things we put up with in this world that are morally wrong. If it makes us uncomfortable, we just look the other way. We already make use of slave labor as it is. I'm thinking of men who sign up to go on "sex tours" in countries like India and Thailand, where the women are chained to their cells. Or us buying WalMart products that are produced by Chinese laborers who often end up owing the factory money when their contract is up, and so end up staying on for more terms. But we don't have to actually see it, so we can tell ourselves that it's not really happening.
Here's another thing--Thomas Jefferson hated the institution of slavery. Did he let his slaves go? Absolutely not. He would have been throwing away the wealth that his ancestors had created, and thus considered highly irresponsible. In the same way we are chained to our machines. You could sell everything you own and move to the woods so that you won't be an oil consumer, because maybe you believe it's wrong to use oil and pollute the landscape, but essentially you know that it is a futile gesture, because everyone else will still be driving, and they'll think you're nuttier than a fruitcake.
So as soon as we begin to recreate a civilization out of the ashes of the old one, slavery will again be an issue.
-
stepka - Peat
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: missouri
slaves after peak oil
by bart » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 16:45:38
I wish I could be as confident that gg3 that slavery won't be tolerated in a low energy future. It's true that the ideals of freedom will give courage and resolve to people fighting it. But slavery has existed as part of human civilization since Biblical times. When our technology changes and slavery starts to become profitable, I expect it will make a comeback.
Our best defense against slavery is a love of liberty. I never had a hard time resisting consumerism because I hated the idea of being someone's wage slave. I didn't consider saving money a hardship, because I thought of it as buying my freedom.
-bart
Our best defense against slavery is a love of liberty. I never had a hard time resisting consumerism because I hated the idea of being someone's wage slave. I didn't consider saving money a hardship, because I thought of it as buying my freedom.
-bart
-
bart - Tar Sands
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: SF Bay Area, Calif
by arocoun » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 17:42:04
I know that many people today suffer slave-like conditions, as I aknowledged before; and it is true that people tend to ignore atrocities like slavery and such, simply out of convenience and comfort. I already know about and try to deal with as many of my contributions to such bad things as slavery as I can for myself, but trying to get most other people to give a damn is futile. It seems like most people in this world are either sheep, accepting whatever society and culture accept; or little children, covering their eyes to make the bad things go away.
But I still think that, once globalization breaks down and the only way people in (previously) industrialized countries could benefit from slave labor is locally, in front of people's very eyes, it likely won't be accepted. If it is, then, as I said, it will happen only with great resistence.
Sometimes I gotta wonder how intelligent people who make good changes in the world and think for themselves can belong to the same species as the sheep and children.
But I still think that, once globalization breaks down and the only way people in (previously) industrialized countries could benefit from slave labor is locally, in front of people's very eyes, it likely won't be accepted. If it is, then, as I said, it will happen only with great resistence.
Sometimes I gotta wonder how intelligent people who make good changes in the world and think for themselves can belong to the same species as the sheep and children.
-
arocoun - Lignite
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Illinois, USA
by stepka » Mon 18 Oct 2004, 23:40:20
arocoun said:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ometimes I gotta wonder how intelligent people who make good changes in the world and think for themselves can belong to the same species as the sheep and children.
Yeah I wonder about that all the time. I appreciate your not misunderstanding on this subject, because it is a tetchy one, and I for sure don't want to see slavery make a come back. And I don't think it will be accepted at first. Just eventually. In different places and at different times. But I guess that saying that is like saying that the economy is getting ready to crash--someday--somewhere.
-
stepka - Peat
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: missouri
us economy will crash! But, stop worrying about it
by evilmonkeyspanker » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 06:32:55
Okay everyone I want you to listen up.
1. The US economy is [expletive]ed we know this.
2. There will be a mass die off from starvation war disease or something else
3. "The most important one" Forget about it for now... This won't happen for at least three years.
I want you all to get busy living and not busy dying. None of the precautions you are doing will make a damn bit of difference I promise you. Go out have fun GET OUT OF THE DAMN BUNKER
I know I havn't been on here in awhile, but I am starting to worry that some of you need to get some sunshine.
The world is doomed NOW GET OVER IT
(edited for profanity- KiddieKorral)
1. The US economy is [expletive]ed we know this.
2. There will be a mass die off from starvation war disease or something else
3. "The most important one" Forget about it for now... This won't happen for at least three years.
I want you all to get busy living and not busy dying. None of the precautions you are doing will make a damn bit of difference I promise you. Go out have fun GET OUT OF THE DAMN BUNKER
I know I havn't been on here in awhile, but I am starting to worry that some of you need to get some sunshine.
The world is doomed NOW GET OVER IT
(edited for profanity- KiddieKorral)
-
evilmonkeyspanker - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Missouri
Re: us economy will crash! But, stop worrying about it
by Specop_007 » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 08:06:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('auctionmonster', '
')None of the precautions you are doing will make a damn bit of difference I promise you.
')None of the precautions you are doing will make a damn bit of difference I promise you.
I'll beg to differ. History is absolutely littered with cases where those prepared survived and those who didnt prepare failed (Ie....died)
Its certainly not unreasonable to assume an individual could amass enough food to literalyl last them for years, and in that time learn to become quite successful at gardening and being self sufficient for when the balloon goes up.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
-
Specop_007 - Expert
- Posts: 5586
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: us economy will crash! But, stop worrying about it
by Chocky » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 08:56:05
I thought you were going to quit the internet, what happened to that?
-
Chocky - Coal
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: The Land of Do-As-You-Please
Re: us economy will crash! But, stop worrying about it
by Battle_Scarred_Galactico » Mon 14 Nov 2005, 10:21:58
I agree totally, it's the uneasy feeling that's always at the back of my mind that bothers me.
Also I am hopelessly underprepared.
Also I am hopelessly underprepared.
---
- Battle_Scarred_Galactico
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: us economy will crash! But, stop worrying about it
by AmericanEmpire » Tue 15 Nov 2005, 16:19:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso I am hopelessly underprepared.
Aren't we all. I don't know how you can be fully prepared for something of this magnitude. Especially with the short amount of time we have.
You do the best you can do and thats all. At least we know its coming and can be mentally ready.
It was a shock to learn about peak oil and the comming end to the American way of life. I was depressed for a long time. Still am from time to time. I can't imagine finding out about it when the crisis erupts though. Thank you, Matt Savinar. That'd be a bad time to have all those feelings you had when you first learned about it. At least we are over that stage the general public will have their panic attack when the crisis hits.
- AmericanEmpire
- Coal
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Thu 14 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
