[MattSavinar]

"In that environment, panic and fear that will greatly increase the leverage of government. The neocons were able to pull off their long planned invasion of Iraq. Why? They got a mandate from 9/11. The space progam in the 60's was a result of fear of the Russians. Think about the things the US government accomplished during WW2, including the Marshall Plan afterwards. The New Deal is another example."

You proved my point for me with these examples.

If our response to Peak Oil is as rational and successfull as our repsonse to 9/11, how screwed do you think we are?

The US defeated Hitler/Japan because six billion of the seven billion barrels of oil the Allies used to wage the war were extracted from US soil. In contrast, Hitler and Japan ran out of energy.

The US was able to finance the Marshall plan because we were the world's number one oil producer and exporter at the time, AND production was going through the roof.

I'm waiting for some hopeful examples that have facts comparably applicable apply to our current situation.

Best,

Matt

[deconstructionist]

i posted something recently in the current events thread about China investing 180 billion to ramp up renewable energy soruces from 7% to 15% over the course of the next 15 years... if that alone doesn't illustrate the fact that changes to the energy infrastructure take a long time and are very expensive, i don't know what does. here's an example of "what is being done." it's going to take 15 years and 180 billion dollars to get from 7% to 15%. how long will it take and how much will it cost to get to 50%? 75%? when are we going to start? is it too little too late?

[Ayoob]

I've given this line of reasoning a lot of thought over the last year or two and have come to a conclusion for myself. I'm going to join the new Nazi party, whatever it is, polish up my jackboots, and kick some ass.

We're going to enter a time of competition for scarce, life-supporting resources. I believe the day will go to the vicious and the terrible. So be it. I've had enough of pretending I want my fellow man to thrive. I want my fellow man to be herded like the sheep he is, while I circle the fences and do as I please.

The bottom line is we need to end social entitlements so the old die earlier, add tons of victimless crimes to the list so we can get anybody we don't like put in jail (and working for 12 cents an hour), and generally dumb down the population with more religious inculcation.

The good news is I'm going to get involved with politics and pander to the religious right by taking a hard stance against abortion and gay rights, ramp up the drug war and any other pleasure I can whip the ignorant into a frenzy over, and do my best to imprison as many people as possible.

I believe people will trade security for freedom at this time. Let's get busy and lock 'em up! They will consume fewer resources that way.

I think that's pretty much all it will take to become powerful. Simply be a traitor to every good thing in the world. Jay Hanson has it right, kind of. He thinks money is going to take the day, and I think viciousness will.

I wonder when he'll run out of money.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'I')'ve given this line of reasoning a lot of thought over the last year or two and have come to a conclusion for myself. I'm going to join the new Nazi party, whatever it is, polish up my jackboots, and kick some ass.

[Ebyss]

Ayoob has a point though, that's a pretty solid representation of what most people will do when TSHTF. It's what America is built on; take what you can while you can, and to hell with any creature that stands in your way. Greed will win over altruism every time. The difference between him and the rest of the sheep, is that he knows why he's doing it. That will set him apart enough to make him top dog. I salute you, o dark overlord Ayoob... at least until your back is turned and I can slit your throat.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'I')'ve given this line of reasoning a lot of thought over the last year or two and have come to a conclusion for myself. I'm going to join the new Nazi party, whatever it is, polish up my jackboots, and kick some ass.

[Daryl]

Matt, your arguments are weak. I'm suprised. Your website is pretty well put together.

You still haven't addressed the electric car issue. It's actually less complex than I explained. There are a number of serious threads that discuss the issue of how much extra electricity needs to be generated to support an electric car fleet. It's not as much as you think because there is an enormous unused capacity within our current grid. Cars will be primarily charged at night, during off-peak hours.

If your collapse argument is based on your view that the US economy does not have the resources to turn over its car fleet, I think you are consigning yourself to wacko status. On your website, you claim we don't have enough water to turn over the car fleet (???). Montequest, you got anything? It looks like the best Matt can do is rant about storm troopers and bring up Rome.

(By the way, I minored in Roman history in college. I'm a little rusty, but I believe the Roman Republic effectively achieved dominance in the Mediterranean world with the defeat of Hannibal at Cannae in 216 BC. The Empire was established in 23 BC with the crowning of Augustus as Emperor. At that point that they had pretty much physically occupied most of the civilised world that was known to them. It has been argued that their decline didn't begin until the death of Marcus Arelius in 180AD. The official end wasn't until 476 AD. So, that's almost 400 years of global dominance, followed by 300 years of decline. You're not giving us even 10 years? Also, just in case you haven't read up on this, the Incas and Aztecs didn't run out of corn.)

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'M')att, your arguments are weak. I'm suprised. Your website is pretty well put together.

You still haven't addressed the electric car issue. It's actually less complex than I explained. There are a number of serious threads that discuss the issue of how much extra electricity needs to be generated to support an electric car fleet. It's not as much as you think because there is an enormous unused capacity within our current grid. Cars will be primarily charged at night, during off-peak hours.

Lets assumme you're right as I'm not here to win an argument "can electric cars bring down the demand for oil signifincantly."

The question is this: what is or is not happening in the real world. Like I said up top, if electric cars have proliferated to the point where they have replaced 1 MBD of oil demand by 2010, I will take my concerns down a wee bit.

I'm just asking you, since you seem to be pretty assurred they are capable of doing this, when?

When? Just give me an ETA and then show me evidence that we are moving towards this, not on the tabletop or in the demonstration room but in the real world.

For instance, here's what I'm looking for:

percentage of the US fleet comprised of electric cars where the electricity is from non fossil fuel sources:

2000: 0.5%
2001: 0.65%
2002: 1.0%
2003: 1.25%

If you can come up with some numbers like this, I will relax a bit.

Get it?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If your collapse argument is based on your view that the US economy does not have the resources to turn over its car fleet, I think you are consigning yourself to wacko status. On your website, you claim we don't have enough water to turn over the car fleet (???). Montequest, you got anything? It looks like the best Matt can do is rant about storm troopers and bring up Rome.

(By the way, I minored in Roman history in college. I'm a little rusty, but I believe the Roman Republic effectively achieved dominance in the Mediterranean world with the defeat of Hannibal at Cannae in 216 BC. The Empire was established in 23 BC with the crowning of Augustus as Emperor. At that point that they had pretty much physically occupied most of the civilised world that was known to them. It has been argued that their decline didn't begin until the death of Marcus Arelius in 180AD. The official end wasn't until 476 AD. So, that's almost 400 years of global dominance, followed by 300 years of decline. You're not giving us even 10 years? Also, just in case you haven't read up on this, the Incas and Aztecs didn't run out of corn.)

[MattSavinar]

[quote="Daryl"]Matt, your arguments are weak. I'm suprised. Your website is pretty well put together.

You still haven't addressed the electric car issue. It's actually less complex than I explained. There are a number of serious threads that discuss the issue of how much extra electricity needs to be generated to support an electric car fleet. It's not as much as you think because there is an enormous unused capacity within our current grid. Cars will be primarily charged at night, during off-peak hours.

When? 2005? 2010? 2015? 2020?

Let's assume a paltry 10% of the fleet will operate this way by 2015. In order for that to be the case, we would need to see the electric cars rolling off the assembly line in massive numbers this very moment

But that is not happening. Even hybrids are only projected to be 3% of new cars sold (not the whole fleet) by 2010.

So to have just 10% of the fleet be either "super-hybrids" or all-electric by 2015 means they better start rolling off that line by tomorrow at 6:00 am.

In the meantime, our demand continues to grow by a few percent per year with no REAL attempts being made to deal with this other than going to war.

Best,

Matt

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, that's almost 400 years of global dominance, followed by 300 years of decline. You're not giving us even 10 years?

[MattSavinar]

Daryl,

Here's an analogy to help you understand my point:

Matt: "Uncle Sam" needs to lose 200 pounds.

Daryl: Well, there are some really interesting diets and exercise routines out there. I'm sure Uncle Same could use some of those and accomplish the goal.

Matt: Let's assume those diets are valid. The first doctor said he needs to lose those 200 pounds within a month. The second doctor said two months. The third said three months.

Even if Uncle Sam starts today, and the optimistic doctor is correct, I seriously doubt he can lose 200 pounds in three months.

Daryl: you're just blabbering and you're a crackpot.

Matt: say what you will, but keep in mind that Uncle Sam should be well-aware at this point that he needs to lose weight, but he has shown no inclination towards any real form of exercise or diet.

Assumming these diets are valid, I ask you: when is Uncle Sam going to use them?

I see no sign his fat ass is going to change or that he even understands the problem, so I'm not banking my future on him losing the weight. If you want to put your faith in him, go for it but I'll be making alternative arrangements.

Best,

Matt

[Daryl]

I can accept the view that you are an alarmist. To get people's attention you need to exagerrate. In the same vein, many environmentalists are really not so concerned about the spotted owl, they want to protect the forest that the owls are in. They may be sceptical privately of global warming theories, but espouse them publicly in order to achieve cleaner air...and so on.

However, I doubt that people like us sounding alarms is going to help. The status quo is going to maintain itself until an energy shock comes that scares the public into submitting to government organized solutions. We're like a bunch of guys sitting in a planning room in Washington in 2000 saying, "You know, what if some guys hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings? To prevent this, let's invade Afghanistan, create a new cabinent level department, spend $100 billion on airport and port security, torture prisoners, undermine personal freedoms and start racial profiling at airports?"

"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"

[Ebyss]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '
')"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"

[GreyZone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') can accept the view that you are an alarmist. To get people's attention you need to exagerrate. In the same vein, many environmentalists are really not so concerned about the spotted owl, they want to protect the forest that the owls are in. They may be sceptical privately of global warming theories, but espouse them publicly in order to achieve cleaner air...and so on.

However, I doubt that people like us sounding alarms is going to help. The status quo is going to maintain itself until an energy shock comes that scares the public into submitting to government organized solutions. We're like a bunch of guys sitting in a planning room in Washington in 2000 saying, "You know, what if some guys hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings? To prevent this, let's invade Afghanistan, create a new cabinent level department, spend $100 billion on airport and port security, torture prisoners, undermine personal freedoms and start racial profiling at airports?"

"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyZone', ' ')They agree that it can be done but are pointing out that it is not occurring. A solution not used is worthless.

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') can accept the view that you are an alarmist. To get people's attention you need to exagerrate. In the same vein, many environmentalists are really not so concerned about the spotted owl, they want to protect the forest that the owls are in. They may be sceptical privately of global warming theories, but espouse them publicly in order to achieve cleaner air...and so on.

However, I doubt that people like us sounding alarms is going to help. The status quo is going to maintain itself until an energy shock comes that scares the public into submitting to government organized solutions. We're like a bunch of guys sitting in a planning room in Washington in 2000 saying, "You know, what if some guys hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings? To prevent this, let's invade Afghanistan, create a new cabinent level department, spend $100 billion on airport and port security, torture prisoners, undermine personal freedoms and start racial profiling at airports?"

"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyZone', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') can accept the view that you are an alarmist. To get people's attention you need to exagerrate. In the same vein, many environmentalists are really not so concerned about the spotted owl, they want to protect the forest that the owls are in. They may be sceptical privately of global warming theories, but espouse them publicly in order to achieve cleaner air...and so on.

However, I doubt that people like us sounding alarms is going to help. The status quo is going to maintain itself until an energy shock comes that scares the public into submitting to government organized solutions. We're like a bunch of guys sitting in a planning room in Washington in 2000 saying, "You know, what if some guys hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings? To prevent this, let's invade Afghanistan, create a new cabinent level department, spend $100 billion on airport and port security, torture prisoners, undermine personal freedoms and start racial profiling at airports?"

"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"

[holmes]

http://mayaruins.com/
http://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/maya/

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') can accept the view that you are an alarmist. To get people's attention you need to exagerrate. In the same vein, many environmentalists are really not so concerned about the spotted owl, they want to protect the forest that the owls are in. They may be sceptical privately of global warming theories, but espouse them publicly in order to achieve cleaner air...and so on.

However, I doubt that people like us sounding alarms is going to help. The status quo is going to maintain itself until an energy shock comes that scares the public into submitting to government organized solutions. We're like a bunch of guys sitting in a planning room in Washington in 2000 saying, "You know, what if some guys hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings? To prevent this, let's invade Afghanistan, create a new cabinent level department, spend $100 billion on airport and port security, torture prisoners, undermine personal freedoms and start racial profiling at airports?"

"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') can accept the view that you are an alarmist. To get people's attention you need to exagerrate. In the same vein, many environmentalists are really not so concerned about the spotted owl, they want to protect the forest that the owls are in. They may be sceptical privately of global warming theories, but espouse them publicly in order to achieve cleaner air...and so on.

However, I doubt that people like us sounding alarms is going to help. The status quo is going to maintain itself until an energy shock comes that scares the public into submitting to government organized solutions. We're like a bunch of guys sitting in a planning room in Washington in 2000 saying, "You know, what if some guys hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings? To prevent this, let's invade Afghanistan, create a new cabinent level department, spend $100 billion on airport and port security, torture prisoners, undermine personal freedoms and start racial profiling at airports?"

"Uh, yeah, right. Your're fired!"