Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

URGENT: Everyone, QUIET!!

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

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 18:00:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he strong central government that you discuss would continue to attempt to ease human’s burden at the expense of the natural environment.


Well, that's certainly a risk. Frankly, I don't think much of our chances either way.

Was it Kunstler who said what we need is a strong, authoritarian government that will dissolve itself when the powerdown is complete? I don't think anyone's naive enough to believe that will happen. However, I do believe that it would dissolve eventually, because it will be impossible to maintain control over such a large nation, without cheap energy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')You haven’t said anything new at all and your “solution” to the problem caused the problem in the first place.


Yes, well, that is the trap of complex societies. Once you start down the road, you're pretty much stuck with it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')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.


I don't know what makes you say that. Unlike most people in the U.S., I've actually lived overseas in Third World countries. They were some of the best years of my life. I know our way is not the only way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')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.”


How are we going to "share the decline equally," without some central authority to distribute and enforce it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')verything 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.


You've got to be kidding. Most people complain that I'm a @#$% relativist, who only sees shades of gray, never black and white.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')uman nature dictates that we live in close contact with a group of people trying to make a living together by their own tradition.


True. And we mostly still do that, no matter how large our cities or how complex our society.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')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.


Ummm...where on earth did you get that idea from?

I don't think modern technology was a good idea. I don't think we have a great cause. And I don't think we have actually made people's lives any better. We ignore the environment to our peril. Indeed, protecting the environment is a major reason why I think the best-case scenario will involve some form of strong central authority.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')mall news flash… We have had “strong” central governments for 10,000 years and all it only brings us war, disease, famine, and environmental destruction.


That doesn't have to be true. Japan still has almost 80% of its forest intact...despite a long history of complexity, and one of the highest population densities in the world.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')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.

I most definitely do not believe in Utopia. There's no such thing, no matter which option we choose.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou, 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.

I honestly don't know what makes you say that. I daresay I know more about it than the average Joe.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Which religion do you mean? Because all the big ones keep telling their peoples to build, and build, and take, and kill.

Yes, well, they also tell people they can't have sex until they're married, and that they can only marry someone else of the same religion. It's clearly an attempt to outnumber the enemy.

I was thinking more of the foodways. The sacred cow, and all that. The temptation to kill and eat the cattle must be overwhelming, if your children are starving. But if you do that, you won't be able to plow in the spring. Hence the prohibition on harming cattle.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')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.

I honestly don't understand your hostility. Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else?

I don't think I suffer from cowardice. I think I'm facing reality with my eyes wide open...unpleasant as that reality is.

And the reality is that modern technology will not disappear overnight. We will retain, possibly for many generations, the ability to do immense damage to people far away from us. In the northeast, acid rain caused by factories in the midwest killed trees and ruined the paint on cars. The northeastern states themselves had long since implimented pollution controls. The midwestern states had little incentive to fix the problem, since they didn't suffer from the effects.

That is the kind of problem I'm concerned about, that cannot be solved on an individual or local level. Jared Diamond covers this, in chapter 9 of Collapse. The bottom-up approach works on small islands, the top-down approach works for larger areas, such as Japan. Why? Because the bottom-up approach requires that everyone know what is going on everywhere - and that they care.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')onga is much too large for any individual peasant farmer to be familiar with the whole archipelago or even just with any single one of its large islands. Some problem might be going on in a distant part of the archipelago that could ultimately prove fatal to the farmer's lifestyle, but of which he initially has no knowledge. Even if he did know about it, he might dismiss it with the standard ISEP excuse ("It's someone else's problem"), because he might think it made no difference to him or else its effects would just lie far off in the future. Conversely, a farmer might be inclined to gloss over problems in his own area (e.g., deforestation) because he assumes that there are plenty of trees somewhere else, but in fact he doesn't know.

Yet Tonga is still large enough for a centralized government under a paramount chief or king to have arisen. That king does have an overview of the whole archipelago, unlike local farmers. Also unlike the farmers, the king may be motivated to attend to the long-term interests of the whole archipelago, because the kind derives his wealth from the whole archipelago, he is the latest in a line of rulers that has been there for a long time, and he expects his descendants to rule Tonga forever. Thus, the king or central authority may practice top-down management of environmental resources, and may give all his subjects orders that are good for them in the long run but they don't know enough to have formulated themselves.

Interesting tidbit: Neither bottom-up or top-down works for medium-sized societies. The homeland is too large for any individual to have an overview of, or a stake in all of it, and too small for a central government to arise. So middle-sized societies go down in internecine fighting.
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, 19:22:25

As long as people think the only thing to do is sit around and wait for an elite, self-interested central authority to save them, simply because they feel that any other thing to do is pointless, then nothing is going to get done.

No central "authority" is willing or capable of dealing with these issues, nor will they ever be.

A Theory of Power -- Read this book, read about rhizome (chapter 9) and how it is stronger than hierarchy and less oppressive.
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Seeker » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 19:36:17

Well, this thread has certainly gotten off-topic.

My original points still stand, if anyone remembers what those were.

1. There is no exit. There is no door. There is no Plan B. All of the possibilities out there for another way of life for us, we are not living them. Possibilities are not reality, it is time to focus on creating those as a reality. Waiting longer might turn out to be suicide. It doesn't hurt to prepare.
2. At this point, for those who have come to the understanding that Peak Oil is real and that there is a strong likelihood of collapse, continued discussion becomes an impediment to the construction of an alternative.
3. It might be wise to consider keeping a low profile while constructing this alternative. People might be ignoring us now, but as gas prices continue to rise, anything could set off the economic panic. And that would undermine our efforts to build alternatives, if not devastate them altogether.

If anyone has any more comments on these things, I'll be happy to engage with them. If not, thanks for reading. Best wishes.

Peace,
Devin
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Novus » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:05:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Seeker', 'A')s long as people think the only thing to do is sit around and wait for an elite, self-interested central authority to save them, simply because they feel that any other thing to do is pointless, then nothing is going to get done.


What do you suggest people do? The Titanic has already hit the iceberg and there arn't enough lifeboats. If everyone stays calm a third of us may live. Start a major panic and many more will end up dead.
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Seeker » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:21:53

Become independent of the system! :) I think this also involves thinking for yourself and coming up with your own solution. I don't know what to do any more than anyone else. I suggest keeping up the Planning for the Future forum, and looking to construct various alternative social systems. There is a lot out there, just gotta find it.

Currently, I've only been able to explore the need for change in-depth. Building a solution is an entirely different process... it's not something you can sit down and learn about in one weekend. It will be a lifelong task for me, but luckily I've come to the perceived need pretty darn early. I just hope it's early enough...
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby turmoil » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:27:33

I suggest you go to an all-you-can-eat chinese buffet for dinner tonght, and eat as much beef as you can, and when you speak with people tell them to all buy SUVs and sports cars.

This way the crash will be quick and painless (3-5 years), and not long and drawn out (20-30 years)

I'm going there too, so maybe we can have a nice PO discussion. My treat!
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:31:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s long as people think the only thing to do is sit around and wait for an elite, self-interested central authority to save them, simply because they feel that any other thing to do is pointless, then nothing is going to get done.


I didn't hear anyone suggest that. The question was whether we should attempt to remain politically engaged, despite the odds against making real change, or not. No one was arguing that we should do nothing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o central "authority" is willing or capable of dealing with these issues, nor will they ever be.


I agree that the prospects aren't good, but neither is it impossible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') Theory of Power -- Read this book, read about rhizome (chapter 9) and how it is stronger than hierarchy and less oppressive.


I did. While I don't disagree with most of what it says, it wasn't complete. It touches on how to deal with aggression by neighbors...but not on how to deal with unintentional harm dealt by others. This is something that the ancient Romans never had to deal with. The groundwater, waterways, and even the rain can be poisoned by things people are doing far away, even on the other side of the world. Even if they don't know you are there, and don't care, radiation from their bombs or power plants and pollution from their coal-burning plants can rain down on you.

I suggest you read chapter 9 of Jared Diamond's Collapse. Actually, the whole book is well worth reading, but if you don't want to take the time, read chapter 9. In the coffee shop of Border's, if necessary.

Jared Diamond leans toward the optimist end of the spectrum when it comes to peak oil, but reading his book, you can see why. There are many societies that have succeeded, and continue to succeed. For three thousand years or more, they have lived sustainably. Both hierachical and "rhizome" can work, and he clearly spells out what will work where, and why. I think there are some places where your plan will work...but most are probably not on the mainland U.S.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Walk the walk

Unread postby drew » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:32:04

Devin, I agree whole heartedly.

As an aside, TPTB are not going to allow some new power structure to rise up in their stead, plain and simple. I don't care what kind of utopia, anarchy, commune, central authority is posited, it will not be allowed to replace the present system. My reasoning is simple-wealth equals power, controls it, and finances it. The wealthy will not give up their strangle hold without armed struggle.

For the rest of us we had better prepare for how to get food, water, heat (if necessary), and shelter, as well as some means of income in a PO post world. Income is necessary because the state will continue ergo taxes will continue, likely in some higher worse form.

I don't waste much time talking about PO aside from here.
My family, some freinds, that's it.
The average joe just cant get it-sorry about his luck. :(


Drew
User avatar
drew
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: canada
Top

Unread postby Novus » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:51:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Seeker', 'B')ecome independent of the system! :) I think this also involves thinking for yourself and coming up with your own solution. I don't know what to do any more than anyone else. I suggest keeping up the Planning for the Future forum, and looking to construct various alternative social systems. There is a lot out there, just gotta find it.


The Planning for the Future forum is the only forum I don't read because the advise presented there is complete nonsence. Those amature farmers will be the first to fail when things get ugly. They have the least experience, the worst land, and no protection from post peak lawlessness. The large authoritarian industrial and organic farms on the best land will last the longest. These are the lifeboats and the best way to survive is to get a seat on one. Living in an area where distribution is easy is the best bet. Second best bet is to get out of debt and save money for the rainy days we all know are comming.
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby holmes » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 20:55:29

The book Beyond Civilization I believe has the best explanation for a paradigm shift. read it, its good.. Tribalism has worked for a long time. a society based on tribalism. No communes. it happens right where you are at. You leave mentally not neccesarily physically. Then it all works off this shift.
The book is right on, IMHO.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 21:11:51

The problem with relying on a totalitarian government to see us through a powerdwon situation is that totalitarian governments tend to do what THEY want to do, not what YOU want them to do. They are as likely to do the wrong thing (like killing all the educated people or forcing them to do physical labor) as the right thing.

If you want totalitarian government, at least in the US, just sit back and let the current administration do their thing, they seem to be heading in that direction. Nevermind that they aren't interested in powerdown or sustainability, or mitigating global climate change, etc. But they are interested in control, and lots of it.
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby entropyfails » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 21:27:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'W')ell, that's certainly a risk. Frankly, I don't think much of our chances either way.

Was it Kunstler who said what we need is a strong, authoritarian government that will dissolve itself when the powerdown is complete? I don't think anyone's naive enough to believe that will happen. However, I do believe that it would dissolve eventually, because it will be impossible to maintain control over such a large nation, without cheap energy.

But we need to foster the chances we get. And we have a chance to do this without totalitarianism. Our chances do seem grim though and most likely totalitarian. But I won’t give up freedom because death seems preferable to slavery.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'Y')es, well, that is the trap of complex societies. Once you start down the road, you're pretty much stuck with it.

Only we choose to get stuck with it. We can slowly back away from it if we give up the notion of having total control of everything. You paint inevitabilities where none exist.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'I') don't know what makes you say that. Unlike most people in the U.S., I've actually lived overseas in Third World countries. They were some of the best years of my life. I know our way is not the only way.

Unless you went to study tribal peoples with few contacts with modern civilization, then those people live our way. One large culture exists in this world. All of what we call “culture” merely serves as variations on a theme.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'H')ow are we going to "share the decline equally," without some central authority to distribute and enforce it?

If food production returns to a local level, then no giant governmental authority would be needed. That falls in line with the lessening of food production argument. As far as international food trade goes, the current governments can find ways of managing that if people around the world wake up to the necessity. Lots of ifs… But I’ll take my chances with those ifs instead of accepting slavery in my life.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'Y')ou've got to be kidding. Most people complain that I'm a @#$% relativist, who only sees shades of gray, never black and white.
What most people think does not move me. I see you in constant conflict, trying to cover all the angles and “get it right.” I see a preponderance of binary logic in your writing style. I call that black and white thinking.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')rue. And we mostly still do that, no matter how large our cities or how complex our society.
Large civilization structures in fact do not allow small groups manage their affairs. For example, if you were to ask the families of that teacher and her student who had an affair and a kid how to best solve their baby crisis without using the police they probably would have arrived at a consensus on how to deal with the issue. However, “the law” stepped in and declared the teacher “bad”, sent the baby to a foster home, imprisioned the teacher, and caused the young man to have to go into the hospital due to mental stress. It didn’t help anyone involved but “the law was upheld.” Even though society as a whole will have to spend far more resources than it otherwise might have if it just left the people alone.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'I') don't think modern technology was a good idea. I don't think we have a great cause. And I don't think we have actually made people's lives any better. We ignore the environment to our peril. Indeed, protecting the environment is a major reason why I think the best-case scenario will involve some form of strong central authority.

I haven’t said anything about technology. But a strong government that wishes to preserve the food supply of humans does irreparable damage to the surrounding environment.

Your scenario best-case seem like more of the same to me.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')That doesn't have to be true. Japan still has almost 80% of its forest intact...despite a long history of complexity, and one of the highest population densities in the world.


From [url=http://atn-riae.agr.ca/asia/4006_e.htm] Agri-Food Sector Profile
Agricultural Commodities - Japan [/url]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Japan's mountainous landscape renders only 13% of its land suitable for agriculture. The limited arable land and a large population make Japan highly dependent on imported food crops and animal feed.


Japan exports their environmental destruction.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')I was thinking more of the foodways. The sacred cow, and all that. The temptation to kill and eat the cattle must be overwhelming, if your children are starving. But if you do that, you won't be able to plow in the spring. Hence the prohibition on harming cattle.


The preponderance of their rules move in the direction of population growth and environmental exploitation. However, as you point out, they have some cultural baggage that gives them a bit of wisdom too.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'I') honestly don't understand your hostility. Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else?

I don't think I suffer from cowardice. I think I'm facing reality with my eyes wide open...unpleasant as that reality is.


I have no hostility towards you. However what you advocate would amount to living death for millions. I will only advocate plans that give worthwhile lives to people. To do less because of “reality” sounds like cowardice to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')hat is the kind of problem I'm concerned about, that cannot be solved on an individual or local level. Jared Diamond covers this, in chapter 9 of Collapse. The bottom-up approach works on small islands, the top-down approach works for larger areas, such as Japan. Why? Because the bottom-up approach requires that everyone know what is going on everywhere - and that they care.

Collapse covers the collapse of civilizations. I speak about a living arrangement other than civilization that allowed us to live for hundreds of thousands of years without killing everything. It would require a large shift in human thought but in the end we would find a way working through both current power systems and their localized replacements.But I reject the alternative because it sits in opposition to freedom and life.
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, 22:00:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') won’t give up freedom because death seems preferable to slavery.


I can understand that. I simply don't agree.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')We can slowly back away from it if we give up the notion of having total control of everything. You paint inevitabilities where none exist.


Not inevitabilities, merely probabilities. Probabilities I would bet the farm on.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless you went to study tribal peoples with few contacts with modern civilization, then those people live our way. One large culture exists in this world. All of what we call “culture” merely serves as variations on a theme.


Perhaps, but I have lived without electricity and running water, and it's not as bad people fear. Of course, the difference is they're used to it - set up for it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If food production returns to a local level, then no giant governmental authority would be needed.


I don't see how that follows. Why should people share food with others when their own children are hungry?

There's a reason why people tend to be selfish. It pays off. So does altruism, mind, but when the going gets tough, it's the selfish that survive. The Donner Party is a good example. The family that survived unscathed was the family that was known for their extreme selfishness, even before the party got in trouble. They wouldn't lend a cup of flour or a single bean to anyone except their own. As a result, they lost not a single member of their family - not even the baby.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')What most people think does not move me. I see you in constant conflict, trying to cover all the angles and “get it right.” I see a preponderance of binary logic in your writing style. I call that black and white thinking.

I still think you must be mistaking me for someone else. The usual complaint I get is that I try to argue all sides. Actually, it's kind of cool to be told the opposite for once.

I admit I enjoy debate, but I don't see that as "constant conflict." On the contrary, I see debate as a means to understanding.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')But a strong government that wishes to preserve the food supply of humans does irreparable damage to the surrounding environment.

That has often been the case, but it doesn't have to be. As I mentioned earlier, there are societies that have lived sustainably for thousands of years. The government can also serve to protect the environment when individuals or small communities do not have the knowledge or incentive to do it themselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Japan's mountainous landscape renders only 13% of its land suitable for agriculture. The limited arable land and a large population make Japan highly dependent on imported food crops and animal feed.

That is true now, but it wasn't true 200 years ago, when Japan still had an extremely high population density - and forests protected by the shogun.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I have no hostility towards you. However what you advocate would amount to living death for millions. I will only advocate plans that give worthwhile lives to people. To do less because of “reality” sounds like cowardice to me.

I see it as a temporary evil. Like surgery. Cutting someone with a knife sounds terrible. But in the end, it can be healing - even life-saving.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ollapse covers the collapse of civilizations. I speak about a living arrangement other than civilization that allowed us to live for hundreds of thousands of years without killing everything.

If you want to do that, I don't think Diamond can be ignored. Collapse explains what makes sustainability possible - and what makes it impossible.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 22:20:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', ' ')The Planning for the Future forum is the only forum I don't read because the advise presented there is complete nonsence. Those amature farmers will be the first to fail when things get ugly. They have the least experience, the worst land, and no protection from post peak lawlessness. The large authoritarian industrial and organic farms on the best land will last the longest. These are the lifeboats and the best way to survive is to get a seat on one.


A dark view, but insightful. Farming is not easy, and the best land is now in the hands of agribusiness.

Diamond sort of covers this as well. There are things the New Guineans do that work, and modern agronomists still can't explain why. Their farming practices are extremely well-adapted to their land, through millennia of trial and error. It's permaculture times ten. The New Guineans themselves don't always know why they do things; it's just knowledge handed down for generations. So much so, that children who leave the island to get an education find that when they get back, they cannot garden. They missed out on a huge body of knowledge, and it's not easily made up.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ghog » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 22:35:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')arming is not easy, and the best land is now in the hands of agribusiness.


If you subscibe to the belief of Biointensive techniques (Grow Biointensive-Jeavons "How to grow more vegetables..."), then all land is good land that hasn't been properly prepared and maintained. Failure is more of an option to the uneducated.
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania
Top

Unread postby Seeker » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 23:24:42

This is an interesting debate, guys -- but I think we might be having this discussion in the wrong thread...
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Kez » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 12:21:30

I think the whole point of a future, more Authoritarian government being better, is valid. I don't see how a society that is crumbling can maintain both its immense liberties and freedoms and deal with such a massive crisis at the same time.

An authoritative body has to force all those uncooperative people to change their life in a big way. People are not going to change for the better with so many freedoms. By the time they do change, it will be because the economy has collapsed and by then I think it will be years too late.

Nobody wants some big authoritative government deciding everything, but if the alternative is roving, starving mobs with guns and plenty of ammunition, I know which system I prefer. We will have to surrender many of our freedoms if we choose to survive a massive collapse, if a collapse does indeed happen.
Kez
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: North Texas
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 12:33:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kez', 'I') think the whole point of a future, more Authoritarian government being better, is valid. I don't see how a society that is crumbling can maintain both its immense liberties and freedoms and deal with such a massive crisis at the same time.

An authoritative body has to force all those uncooperative people to change their life in a big way. People are not going to change for the better with so many freedoms. By the time they do change, it will be because the economy has collapsed and by then I think it will be years too late.

Nobody wants some big authoritative government deciding everything, but if the alternative is roving, starving mobs with guns and plenty of ammunition, I know which system I prefer. We will have to surrender many of our freedoms if we choose to survive a massive collapse, if a collapse does indeed happen.


I never thought I would see a Texan say such a thing. 8O

So much for the land of the free and the home of the brave and all that stuff our forebears fought so hard for.

Just curl up and die, Liberty.
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 13:32:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Seeker', 'B')ecome independent of the system! :)


I hope you aren’t another “run to the hills and become self sufficient types.” It’s so unrealistic. When is the last time you lived a truly self sustained life?
No car. No running to the store for anything. You can trade with neighbours, but that is about it (and they better not be running to store)

Even if you do manage to create a truly self sustained life, if the downturn is as bad as many claim it will be, good luck keeping it from the hordes of thieves and desperate.

No, sorry, the best chance is powerdown. If that’s what you mean, then ignore this post. 8)
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby Seeker » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 14:00:00

:-D Thanks for telling me how my own personal solution will be ineffective for me. How much do you know about me? Hm? Do you know how old I am, or what I do for a living (if anything?), or what resources I have access to, or how the crash is going to play out, or exactly when the crash is going to be? Because last time I checked, I didn't see any omniscient people running around. (And if you ARE omniscient, you pretty much suck at marketing your solutions to world crises. What's the use in knowing everything when no one listens?)

But I'll give you a listen, anyway. Please start a thread, if you would, letting us know how everything is going to play out, and how powerdown is going to happen, and what starving horde will be where at what time... that way we can start planning our lives around what you say. Thanks so much for your time, I know you omniscient types are really busy.
User avatar
Seeker
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron