Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

URGENT: Everyone, QUIET!!

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Unread postby julianj » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 19:17:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut i can promise you they wont want to work either. They'll just want to sit on their asses & watch me to all the life sustaining work for them.


Will they really, Ron? If the SHF the average Insurance Broker or PR Person (my pet hate) won't want to change their lifestyle, but I suspect they will not have a choice, especially as you and me will have grabbed the good rationing-supervisor desk-jobs, so they will have to be farm labourers. :roll:

I can recall quite a number of intellectuals in historic periods past, who were also farmers..and had to write in the evening after they had done their subsistence agriculture bit.
julianj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: On one of the blades of the fan

Unread postby Seeker » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 21:00:31

Pops: I think you're right on, here. We're not disagreeing at all, I think what you are doing here is a good example of what I was trying to encourage. 8)

bruss01: Thanks for the post, I think you hit it right on the head with what I was trying to say. I have very little to add to what you say. I'd like to emphasize that endless discussion without action is counter-productive... but I don't mean that we should just stop discussing the issues altogether. :)

RonMN -- The "safety net" you mention is not much of a safety net. I was thinking something more long-lasting and widespread... a sustainable safety net, if you will. An entire alternative social organization that also provides for these needs, one to fall back on when civilization starts crumbling. I mentioned Rhizome, that's more along the lines of what I'm thinking.

I think you're right: a lot of people wouldn't want to live without having a social system in place. Each person fending for themselves isn't very appealing, particularly in a post-crash world. But julianj makes an important point: when people start dying, I think they'll suddenly realize that alternative ways of life don't look so unappealing, after all.
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Free » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 22:53:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruss01', ' ')
He who yells "fire!" in a crowded theatre may find he has difficulty getting out himself.

Revealing Peak Oil to people who are disinclined or unprepared to be responsible for themselves and their dependents will only generate a frantic fear that will manifest in unpredictable ways. It may even precipitate swift and autocratic actions on the part of the government to head off a widespread panic. Martial law, anti-hoarding decrees and a ban on firearms ownership would be very inconvenient to those of us who are trying to make sure we can survive the coming crisis by preparing now.


I am in no way pretending I am an altruistic person who will look after other people before I look after myself, hell no, I am an egoistic prick like everybody else.
And maybe I even would sneak out of a burning theatre instead of yelling "fire", even if I wish I wouldn't. Because I think it would be my moral duty as a human being to yell "fire".

Yes there might be dumb and brutal people who will be panicking and trample others to death - but all in all the chance of survival increases for all the people with an early warning. Because imagine if nobody else noticed it early enough, and all others except you are trapped in the theatre and burn.

There you are standing now, outside the burning theatre - you have survived, because you acted cleverly. Are you happy? Wouldn't you be happier if you risked your life, got burnt, injured, while working with the fire brigade to save as many people as possible?

The only real solutions to those huge problems we are facing will come from politics, local, national and international. Yeah I know "Politicians are all useless liars, corrupt blah blah" - but we, the people are politics! If it doesn't work its our own fault! Every people gets the government it deserves.

So what if swift and autocratic actions are the only way to secure the survival of as many people as possible? What if restrictions of gun ownership would mean that there was less anarchy, chaos, chrime and murder?

There you are standing, outside the burning theatre, with all the people burning in there because you didn't call the fire brigade. And you might not even notice that the city starts burning as well, and that you are trapped in it.
Last edited by Free on Sat 23 Jul 2005, 00:20:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Free
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Europe

Unread postby PlanComplete » Fri 22 Jul 2005, 22:59:24

Excellent analogy, but I disagree with the some of the things you said/implied.
If you knew you would die by trampling if you yelled fire, would you still?
Because if the government does autocratic to "help more survive" takes are guns nationalize our farms, our food producing lands. The die off will still happen it will just get postponed, and when the postpone ends, the die off will be much more severe. (All IMHO of course)
User avatar
PlanComplete
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

seeker

Unread postby Easy_Goin » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 00:15:46

I agree with you as well.

I don't talk unless somebody asks questions and I want to help them. I have begun keeping quiet about this. The arrogant greedy ones especially. Let them buy another big SUV. Show off their money.

I will quitly move myself, my friends and my family in the proper direction.
1. Close family and close friends.
2. the rest

I want my children to survive. Formost

The longer it takes for others to figure it out. The better, terrible to look at it like that but I have finally come to realise that this is how most others look at the world. "What about me?" So I ask, "What about my family and close friends?"

Even now I discuss very little about what I see coming. I can't place a date but rather see a series of 'events' occurring that lead into a downward spiral. These could be anything from price spikes, to terrorists to just plan old nature causing a decline.

I simply want to be prepared for my children.
User avatar
Easy_Goin
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 07 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby MrPC » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 00:24:36

My own preferred logic is that people with intelligence would have picked up on peak oil by now. Those who have not will probably perish in the die off. Many of those who understand will join them not long thereafter, likely including myself.

Remember that everybody dies. The only real questions are how and when. And since the world has a limited carrying capacity, better the highly limited number of survivors be those who became energy literate well before the crash.
User avatar
MrPC
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun 23 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Unread postby Free » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 00:30:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PlanComplete', ' ')
If you knew you would die by trampling if you yelled fire, would you still?
Because if the government does autocratic to "help more survive" takes are guns nationalize our farms, our food producing lands. The die off will still happen it will just get postponed, and when the postpone ends, the die off will be much more severe. (All IMHO of course)


Indeed a tricky question. I was in fact about to write, that if you die in the burning theatre, you do so in the conscience that you probably saved many people or at least tried to. Only I can see that this is a weak consolence for such a high price to pay, especially if your family is concerned as well.

Indeed my point of view probably stems from the environment I live in: crowded Europe, where we probably will either manage to survive together, or suffer great pain together, because there is nowhere to retreat.
If I was in America, where there is still some possibility to to retreat to some remote area and stay below the radar of the flying shit, well, I probably would do so as well. But I would also try to yell "fire", I think, I hope, I wish...
User avatar
Free
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Europe

Unread postby Leanan » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 19:41:05

I suspect Free is right. If you want your children to survive, your best bet is probably a strong, autocratic government, a la China. No matter what you do, no matter what you build, it can all be taken from you. No matter how many guns you have.

I don't have a lot of faith in politics, but political action is our best chance.

OTOH, the political action you choose may not be directly peak-oil related. Support alternative energy or local farmers for environmental reasons, without mentioning peak oil, if you want. Support higher mileage standards, car pooling, and lower oil imports as a stand against terrorism. ("If you drive alone, you drive with Bin Laden.") Demand that the borders be secured, and let people think it's because you're worried about homeland security or American jobs. Don't tell them you want to reduce the population before TSHTF.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Seeker » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 20:32:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'I') suspect Free is right. If you want your children to survive, your best bet is probably a strong, autocratic government, a la China. No matter what you do, no matter what you build, it can all be taken from you. No matter how many guns you have.

I don't have a lot of faith in politics, but political action is our best chance.


Um. Why would you ever put your children in the hands of a distant, heartless autocratic government, when you can easily walk away from this scheme?

"No matter what you do, no matter what you build, it can all be taken from you." Even moreso in an autocratic system, where if you question it, you die. I don't know what kind of children you want, exactly, but I would like for my children to grow up with a sense of curiosity, self-determination, community, and safety. Last time I looked at China, I didn't see much of this. I saw hundreds of millions of people in abject poverty, constantly rioting because they don't even have the freedom to decide how many children they want.

And so the solution you offer is a political solution, even though we've seen how absolutely little TPTB even care about the majority of the population. Even though we've seen how they are predominantly concerned with perpetuating the hierarchical (and thus oppressive) scheme they "benefit" from. Even though we've seen how little possibility and motivation they have to "save" us.

In my mind, increased dependency on a corrupt system is not a solution at all.

p.s. Interesting choice of a screen name, Free. If it all works out for TPTB, you may never be again.
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Seeker » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 20:46:02

I don't see how yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre does anything when you don't have a door.

We do not have a solution for Peak Oil. There is no "solution" that allows the status quo to continue indefinitely as it is through Peak Oil. We certainly do not have a "solution" for the problems that FOLLOW Peak Oil, ones that not so many people here seem to be aware of. Peak Oil is only one of many upcoming catastrophes for the status quo... and perhaps one of the easiest, all things considered.

And there is certainly not a "solution" that is going to enable people to walk away from civilization when TSHTF. As it is, when that price shock hits (the first devastating symptom of Peak Oil to come) people won't have any place to go. There is no Plan B. The construction of this alternative takes time, time we don't have.

My thinking is this: if YOU, personally, are not capable of surviving a crash, then you'd better be working on it, and fast. We have seen ample evidence that there is at least a good possibility of an imminent crash, seen even stronger evidence that there is one likely in the next 50 years. Better start now -- change isn't easy. Especially not when we have to become completely self-sufficient whereas before we were completely dependent.

"FIRE!"
...
"... but where is the exit??!!"
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Cyrus » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 21:20:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')FIRE!"
...
"... but where is the exit??!!"


Beautiful analogy.
User avatar
Cyrus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 25 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Badger » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 21:40:58

its about getting your mind in gear when you see reality is going to be different than what you first thought about your future

everybody has a different mindset and has a different perception to a common theme its resonably healthy to get others views and thoughts on all topics to get the mind in gear travelling forwards not in reverse or neutral for some it takes a little longer than others

at the end of the day we are all individuals different hopes and dreams many peoples dreams have been shattered mine have so its back to the drawing board and this type of forum is a one of many good places to get some ideas for survival

after all thats the name of the game survival all ways has been its just that we have forgotten that basic fact in the past 50 years

you dont need the corporation but they need you thats a big problem for transition :)
Freedom is a elusive concept.
User avatar
Badger
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue 19 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 00:14:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')m. Why would you ever put your children in the hands of a distant, heartless autocratic government, when you can easily walk away from this scheme?


Because you can't walk away. If you think you can, you are fooling yourself. As someone else said, there's no door.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven moreso in an autocratic system, where if you question it, you die.


Oh, definitely. But if what you value is life, which what an earlier poster said, then your best chance is with a strong central government. As societies like Rome and the Maya collapsed, people clustered closer to the cities. Because it was easier to get food in the cities, and because it was too dangerous to be in a small village or isolated farm.

Governments may kill their people, but it's generally not for no reason. They may take your farm, but they'll keep you around to work it. While a starving mob will just kill you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't know what kind of children you want, exactly, but I would like for my children to grow up with a sense of curiosity, self-determination, community, and safety.


Me, too. That is why I am not having any children.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')In my mind, increased dependency on a corrupt system is not a solution at all.


I see it as probably the best solution we can hope for, at least if we want any sort of orderly transition.

Take Iraq as an example. Saddam was brutal and oppressive, no one would deny it. But he also enforced religious freedom and women's rights. People knew that if they spoke out against him, they'd likely be imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed. But they also knew that if they kept their mouths shut, they'd be in no danger, and they'd get their monthly ration of food.

I suspect a lot of Iraqis remember the days under Saddam with fondness now.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Seeker » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 01:52:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')m. Why would you ever put your children in the hands of a distant, heartless autocratic government, when you can easily walk away from this scheme?


Because you can't walk away. If you think you can, you are fooling yourself. As someone else said, there's no door.


Well, let me clarify, as I was the one that said there was no door. I do not think that I have an exit as yet, which is why I am discouraging people from yelling "FIRE!" It screws me up, in my attempt to try and build that door. The economic crash that could be brought on by such a panic would preclude my ability to BUILD that door.

I think a number of people have walked away, or are in the process of doing so. The thousands of intentional communites around the world are a good example of this incremental attempt at breaking away from the hierarchical scheme of civilization. And then you have those few remaining cultures that have been able to continue to exist despite the destructive homogenizing attempts of civilization -- the ones that weren't in the room to start with.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut if what you value is life, which what an earlier poster said, then your best chance is with a strong central government. As societies like Rome and the Maya collapsed, people clustered closer to the cities. Because it was easier to get food in the cities, and because it was too dangerous to be in a small village or isolated farm.


I strongly, strongly disagree with this. The best chance for life is certainly not in the city, where all of the starving hordes will be going. The best chance for life is to be independent, to be outside of the scheme. That way you're not caught in the trap. People clustered in cities because they were dependent on their systems...
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jdmartin » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 02:49:08

You make some good arguments but I'm not particulary worried about it.

Most anyone I mention Peak Oil to looks at me as if I've just stepped off the mothership. You could buy billboard space in Times Square and people would continue on their same old path. I don't particularly believe that there's going to be a panic, because everyone will believe that someone or something (George Bush, Science, God, whatever) is going to swoop in and save the day right up to the point where it's too late to do anything else about it anyway.

Look at the biblical story of Noah. He walked around telling everyone that it was going to flood 40 days and 40 nights. Everyone laughed at him while he stood around building his Ark. Then he got the whole thing built and they all got in. Everyone was still laughing. They were laughing even when it was raining, right up to the point where there was massive flooding and nothing dry to stand on anymore. By that point, there was no changing the situation anyway so it didn't matter. Still, people came beating on the door trying to get in, to no avail.

I think your idea of door-construction is going to be a lot like ol' Noah. I don't think anyone will bother you as you construct your door. Of course, when the bombs start going off no one is going to care that you built the door - they'll all be trying to trample you to get out anyway. If you're already in the next room they'll be running over you along the way. Which is why you might want to learn the fine art of marksmanship in between your carpentry classes :razz:
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
User avatar
jdmartin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Merry Ol' USA

Unread postby Ardalla » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 03:56:07

Ok, here's an idea for people who are interested in exploring a possible doorway.

Sandhill Farm

From what I remember of these people, they are very friendly and would welcome some help with the harvest this year. It would give you some practical experience in alternative culture. There are usually lots of people there in the fall for the sorghum harvest and you could speak with them about your ideas.
User avatar
Ardalla
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun 23 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 09:15:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he best chance for life is certainly not in the city, where all of the starving hordes will be going. The best chance for life is to be independent, to be outside of the scheme. That way you're not caught in the trap. People clustered in cities because they were dependent on their systems...


In the case of the Maya, people clustered in the cities because small villages and isolated farms were constantly raided. How are you going to prevent this from happening to you? Do really think you'll sit there, fat and happy on your farm, while millions of people around you are starving?

Jared Diamond's Collapse touches on this topic. He talks about the last days of the Norse who settled Greenland. While it's understandable how some of the smaller, poorer farms died out, how could the largest, wealthiest farms, with huge barns and hundreds of cattle, have failed?

Diamond points to "overcrowded lifeboat syndrome." People respect authority only if those in power can provide for them and protect them in bad times. Once that broke down, there would have been nothing to keep people from overrunning the wealthier farms and looting them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tarving people would have poured into Gardar [the largest farm], and the outnumbered chiefs and church officials could no longer prevent them from slaughtering the last cattle and sheep. Gardar's supplies, which might have sufficed to keep Gardar's own inhabitants alive if all their neighbors could have been kept out, would have been used up in the last winter when everyone tried to climb into the overcrowded lifeboat, eating the dogs and newborn lifestock and the cows' hoofs as they had at the end of the Western settlement.


Diamond then draws an explicit parallel with unrest in the U.S., and our inability to secure our borders against illegal immigration:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') picture the scene at Gardar as like that in my home city of Los Angeles in 1992 at the time of the so-called Rodney King riots, when the acquittal of policement on trial for brutally beating a poor person provoked thousands of outraged people from poor neighborhoods to spread out to loot businesses and rich neighborhoods. The greatly outnumbered police could do nothing more than put up pieces of yellow plastic warning tape across roads entering rich neighborhoods, in a futile gesture aimed at keeping the looters out. We are increasingly seeing a similar phenomenon on a global scale today, as illegal immigrants from poor countries pour into the overcrowded lifeboats represented by rich countries, and as our border controls prove no more able to stop that influx than were Gardar's chiefs and Los Angeles's yellow tape. That parallel gives us another reason not to dismiss the fate of the Greenland Norse as just a problem of a small peripheral society in a fragile environment, irrelevant to our own larger society. Eastern Settlement was also larger than Western Settlement, but the outcome was the same; it merely took longer.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby entropyfails » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 11:47:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'O')h, definitely. But if what you value is life, which what an earlier poster said, then your best chance is with a strong central government. As societies like Rome and the Maya collapsed, people clustered closer to the cities. Because it was easier to get food in the cities, and because it was too dangerous to be in a small village or isolated farm.

Governments may kill their people, but it's generally not for no reason. They may take your farm, but they'll keep you around to work it. While a starving mob will just kill you.

I suspect a lot of Iraqis remember the days under Saddam with fondness now.


So the only answer to the end of civilization is.... wait for it..... wait for it.... MORE CIVILIZATION!!!

Oh man. Where do you people get this stuff?!?! *laugh*

The "strong" as you call it governments of the past did horrible things to a good percentage of the population. That some lived through it with stresses that did not cause death doesn't mean they had lives worth living. That they felt to much fear to stand up against oppression doesn't mean that we need to follow the same path.

Civilization's problems, while complex, stem from simple roots. We train our children to behave in the most selfish way imaginable. We indoctrinate them with a culture that demands more and more every year, that allows no dissent, and requires constant war to achieve its ends. Remove that selfishness from humans, and we'd restore balance in about 10 minutes.

How to get there? I don't know. At some point, I think our species will simply awaken from the dream world where they get endless selfish pleasures. We will collectively recognize our death as a species as we loose environmental supports due to over consumption. And we will start getting on with the process of living, which has absolutely nothing to do with trying to figure out the "safest and most perfectly uniform society." If we do not do this, then we will all die, big government or no.

Does talking about it matter? I think so. I believe that ignorance causes this selfishness and by exposing ourselves to other ways of thinking, we can learn to face our inner demons. But you obviously have not interest in that. You simply want a controlled, orderly, pleasure filled life for you no matter how many people, plants, animals, and other life forms have to die so you get it.

I personally feel disgusted with such cringing, sycophantic logic. I hope, one day, you can look back on yourself and feel the same thing.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 13:04:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') believe that ignorance causes this selfishness and by exposing ourselves to other ways of thinking, we can learn to face our inner demons. But you obviously have not interest in that.


Sorry, but I think it's the exact opposite. It's ignorance and selfishness that leads to people thinking they can "lifeboat" themselves and their families, simply ignoring the rest of humanity. Look at history, and you'll see that doesn't work.

It would be great if we could switch to an egalitarian, low-energy, hunter-gatherer existence. But it's simply not possible with the current population of the world, even the current population of the U.S. What are you going to do with the "extra" people? Contrary to what many seem to believe, they will not sit in the cities and starve to death for your convenience.

Our best hope is some kind of powerdown, and that will require some kind of central authority. That's the only way we can solve the huge problems we will face.

People will not voluntarily stop having children. They will not give up burning coal, even if it creates rain so acidic that it kills desperately needed crops. (Already happening in China.) They won't voluntarily refrain from polluting our waterways, even if it kills fish we need for food and poisons people living downstream. People are not going to change. Call it selfish if you will, but when people's children are starving to death, they do desperate things. Human nature doesn't change (at least, not that fast), and it's unrealistic to expect it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou simply want a controlled, orderly, pleasure filled life for you no matter how many people, plants, animals, and other life forms have to die so you get it.


Again, I think it's the exact opposite. Some kind of strong central authority is our best bet for saving other people, plants, and animals. Otherwise, the environment will be completely trashed, and people will eat everything from bald eagles to pond scum. I think anyone who really did expose themselves to other ways of thinking would realize this.

It doesn't have to be government. It could be religion (as it has been, for most of history). Trying to prevent the "tragedy of the commons" is the reason behind many religious "rules."

I am not looking forward to this. I'm an atheist, and a libertarian by natural inclination. The idea of the U.S. run by a Saddam-like authoritarian government, or as a Taliban-like theocracy is not a pleasant thought for me at all. But the alternative is likely to be even worse.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby entropyfails » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 15:03:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'I')t would be great if we could switch to an egalitarian, low-energy, hunter-gatherer existence.

Nice straw man. I never said we needed to go to hunter-gatherer. I personally don’t think it would "be great" as you suggest.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'O')ur best hope is some kind of powerdown, and that will require some kind of central authority. That's the only way we can solve the huge problems we will face.

The only way eh? Hmm.. Why should it not surprise anyone that you feel the "ONLY WAY" involves strong, authoritarian government. Your statement, in fact, has no basis in reality.

Civilization has always posited that it held "the only way" to live. The strong central government that you discuss would continue to attempt to ease human’s burden at the expense of the natural environment. You haven’t said anything new at all and your “solution” to the problem caused the problem in the first place. You have been conditioned to believe that you have found "the only way", but life proves that it can live in many different forms and your idea goes directly against that life by trying to control and manage who lives and dies. It makes you a bean counter of death.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'P')eople will not voluntarily stop having children.

They do not have to. We could reduce the production of food and that would naturally reduce human population. If we shared the decline in food equally that would mean much less suffering, hate, and fear than your supposed “only way.”

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'H')uman nature doesn't change (at least, not that fast), and it's unrealistic to expect it.


Everything paints itself into a black and white box in your world. One wonders if you have the ability to see color at all. Or even shades of grey.

Human nature dictates that we live in close contact with a group of people trying to make a living together by their own tradition. You and your kind pervert this nature into making ever larger colonies of people, killing countless beings along the way, all proclaiming the greatness of your cause and your desire to "make people’s lives better." Only you mean people who think like you and you certainly don’t include the environment in this idea.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou simply want a controlled, orderly, pleasure filled life for you no matter how many people, plants, animals, and other life forms have to die so you get it.

Again, I think it's the exact opposite. Some kind of strong central authority is our best bet for saving other people, plants, and animals. Otherwise, the environment will be completely trashed, and people will eat everything from bald eagles to pond scum. I think anyone who really did expose themselves to other ways of thinking would realize this.


Small news flash… We have had “strong” central governments for 10,000 years and all it only brings us war, disease, famine, and environmental destruction. Now YOUR “strong” central government will do better, apparently because you believe in Utopia. I have exposed myself to your way of thinking for many years, and have rejected it as baseless cowardess.

You, on the other hand, have not even begun to research the underlying foundation of your culture or pondered the consequence of such behaviour. So cast not the first stone.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')It doesn't have to be government. It could be religion (as it has been, for most of history). Trying to prevent the "tragedy of the commons" is the reason behind many religious "rules."

Like “Be fruitful and multiply?”
Or “God gave dominion over the plants and animals to man?”
Or “Kill all the polytheists?”

Which religion do you mean? Because all the big ones keep telling their peoples to build, and build, and take, and kill.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')I am not looking forward to this. I'm an atheist, and a libertarian by natural inclination. The idea of the U.S. run by a Saddam-like authoritarian government, or as a Taliban-like theocracy is not a pleasant thought for me at all. But the alternative is likely to be even worse.
Perhaps we can use this moment to coin the phrase “There are no secular humanists in foxholes.”

If you can so willingly abandon liberty for temporary security, then you get what you deserve. I don’t consider you anymore a libertarian than George Bush. You probably shouldn’t either. Perhaps thinking about that can invoke some cognitive dissonance.

All living creatures struggle for life and fear their death. But that does not give you license to descend into cowardice. You owe yourself better.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron