by some_guy282 » Wed 25 May 2005, 03:03:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', 't')hen you are blind to the obvious.
they already are sacrificing, all be it for the wrong things.
American are perfectly able to sacrifice, just like everyone else. the problem though is they are doing it to continue driving to get those little extras in life rather then sacrificing those extras to survive.
you also do not seem to realize that the packaging of a argument means just as much if not more then the argument it's self, or have you been living under a rock since the beginning of 2k3?
one of the problems of this board is it takes a distorted image as fact.
the distorted image is of the dumb as dirt human stuck in his ways, while they exist they are a small minority. though as i pointed out in my last post, because these people get more media attention then the rest it appears that they are the majority.
I notice you conveniently avoid answering my question even though I have asked it twice. Let me put it in big bold text so you'll notice it this time.
Politician A's message is, "Our current lifestyle is unsustainable. You must sacrifice to ease a painful transition. Politician B's message is, "We may be having problems with energy now, but I can fix everything and restore things to the way they used to be" - who will the majority of voters vote for?
I think the voters will pick the politician who offers them the prettier view of the future every single time.
Of course Americans are able to sacrifice like anyone else. The question is are they
willing to make those sacrifices? If Americans were willing to make the necessary sacrifices they would have no problem accepting the cold hard facts of resource depletion that prove we will have an energy crisis. Instead they come up with a long list of excuses based on little or no evidence. Why?
Because they don't want to hear that their current lifestyle is going to end. They aren't willing to sacrifice their iPods and their SUV's. At least not yet. And they wont be until the price of gasoline is so high that they can't afford it, and they've lost their jobs. But then sacrifice isn't exactly sacrifice when it's forced on you, is it? The kind of sacrifice we need to really help matters has to be voluntary, and happen before a major crisis occurs.
If anyone is living under a rock - it's you. Have you tried to convince anyone of Peak Oil in person, or on another internet forum? I have. I'd like to know where these responsible intelligent Americans who are willing to sacrifice are. If they are half as abundent as you try to make them out to me, please, point them out to me. I'd like to have some success convincing people of Peak Oil to boost my ego. I suspect the masses of them are on vacation in the north pole with Santa Clause. They're supposedly sacrificing their time to help make toys for the poor. It's a hot tip I got from the Easter Bunny, but I don't trust that guy sometimes. I'd like confirmation from you before I begin my long trek across the ice.
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. – Nietzsche
Time makes more converts than reason. – Thomas Paine
History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte
-
some_guy282
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
-
by some_guy282 » Fri 27 May 2005, 01:56:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '
')they, the normal people, would vote for neither. one is too blunt(almost if not past the point of exaggeration) the other one overdoses them on sugar.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
Neither politicians message will be so blunt. All policies are dressed up in fancy rhetoric. The statements I made are merely the simplified bottom lines without the rhetoric.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '
')people like you, who for some reason or another like to spread the 'we are all doomed and nothing we can do will help' message would vote for the too blunt guy. though we need a reality check here, your a very small minority aka a fringe group. it's only another fringe group who believes the sugar coated message the other one gives that will vote for the other guy.
Wow, now I get painted with the doomer brush. Where in this thread did I say I thought we are all doomed? Where did I say I thought there was nothing we could do? No where.
For the record, I don't think we are all doomed. Peak Oil isn't the end of the world. It's just the end of the world as we know it. Before you start pointing fingers and calling me a member of a fringe group, keep in mind that everyone on this site is a member of a fringe group. How many people in the general population are aware of Peak Oil, take it seriously, and are planning for it in some way like the people on this site? We represent about .01% of the population. If that isn't a fringe group, I don't know what is.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '
')the death, destruction, etc you promote is nothing more then a prediction. one based on poor science in some cases and flawed logic in others.
Where in the hell did I promote death and destruction? Predicting, yes. Promote? No. Do you think that the planet will still be able to sustain a 6 billion+ population with declining oil production? If so, have you read
this article? Or
this one?If not, do you think that the decrease in population will come from people dying of old age and natural causes in their beds? Keep in mind that America and the rest of the western world is a relatively small percentage of the world's total population. The average age in many third world countries is in the 20's.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '
')let me also point out that you also suffer from one of the most wide spread problems here. the stark black and white mentality of you either think we are all doomed to a horrible death or that you are in some sort of lala land. due to the nature of reality, either color no matter how much you promote it never comes true.
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. – Nietzsche
Time makes more converts than reason. – Thomas Paine
History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte
by Doly » Fri 27 May 2005, 06:15:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('some_guy282', 'D')o you think that the planet will still be able to sustain a 6 billion+ population with declining oil production?
Answering for myself: yes, I do. Population may decline due to bad administration, which is likely. But if things were done right, I don't doubt that it could be done.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('some_guy282', '
')If so, have you read
this article? Or
this one?
I have. The major conclusion I get from these articles is that 90% of the oil used to bring food to our supermarkets is the oil used in transport. If there is a move to eat local food (and there will have to be, because imported food will become more and more expensive). When a country doesn't produce enough food, they will import shippings of dehydrated food (that's what Great Britain did in WWII, and the population was similar to these days, and nobody starved).
Besides, food is essential. Which means, people and goverments will give up many things before putting at risk their food supply. If there is limited oil, it will be used for agricultural uses before just about anything else.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('some_guy282', '
')If not, do you think that the decrease in population will come from people dying of old age and natural causes in their beds? Keep in mind that America and the rest of the western world is a relatively small percentage of the world's total population. The average age in many third world countries is in the 20's.
What I expect is different for developed countries and the third world.
There are different points to take into account:
If there is bad administration in some parts of the world, there could be food problems. Even in places where things are well done, one would expect that quality of life will lower. When quality of life lowers, it's the old, the children and the sick who suffer most. This is a fact.
The low life expectancy in third world countries is because many children die, not because most people get to their 20s or 30s and then drop like flies.
In countries with readily available contraception, in tough times (and it doesn't have to get anywhere near the point of starving) the birth rate drops.
My most likely scenario, taking all the above into account, is that population will drop slightly in developed countries due to lower birth rate and a certain possibility of worse health care, which will mean that the sick and old will die faster. Not a catastrophic dieoff, it will be something that most people won't even notice.
There may be some serious dieoffs in 3rd world countries. They already have starvation from time to time. On the other hand, they use less oil, so the impact of having less oil (or none) will be less. So I wouldn't expect to see major dieoffs across the board, but local disasters in small areas. Pretty similar to what we have now, but more frequent.
by TrueKaiser » Sat 28 May 2005, 00:32:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you can envision an optimistic scenario with a steep and sudden decline, please tell me so I can stop replying to you and ignore everything you say from now on
depends on what you think a good time frame in years? anything less then a decade would only be the result of a limited nuclear exchange or pandemic. anything less then a year would only be the result of a full out nuclear exchange or cosmic impact(asteroid, comet, etc).
as for prepareing my mom is still on step one, geting out of debt. i have avoided either giving her 'we are all doomed' info which includes matt's book sad to say. i avoided giving her information that is pointed out in monte's and arrons posts which say the same thing. if she wants the info she can look it up herself.
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.
'Napoleon Bonaparte'
-
TrueKaiser
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
-
by TrueKaiser » Sat 28 May 2005, 23:26:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('some_guy282', 'W')hen I think steep decline, I think 5 or more % per annum.
closer to the main stream then i thought you were but your still off by alot imho.
a decline of around 1.50%, give or take .25% is what is going to happen after peak. it took over 100 years from the discovery of oil in the late 19th century to the early 20th it's going to take at least that much as the civilization we built around it is very slowly starved of it.
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.
'Napoleon Bonaparte'
-
TrueKaiser
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
-
by TrueKaiser » Sun 29 May 2005, 23:34:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')o, TrueKaiser, you don't believe the idea of rapid decline due to depletion of large fields which use MRE? I find the arguments of rapid decline to be rather compelling. Is there a reason you don't, aside from your beliefs? What evidence do you have that the decline will be slow?
all you have showen is that if you use one way to treat a feild it will decline faster then normal. nothing more.
a sharp decline is only possible if somthing extrenal happens to radicly destroy supply and/or demand.
of course don't let reality interfear with your fantasys, you will be stuck in that desk job stareing at those cubical walls till your retirement.
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.
'Napoleon Bonaparte'
-
TrueKaiser
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
-
! Even 14 years after,things are still ugly in Russia 
..
