by mididoctors » Sat 11 Sep 2004, 16:24:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'm')ididoctors, your post appears to be a rant and is difficult for me to follow. Do you have any questions for the group? How do you recommend people survive what is to come? --snip-- Right wingers, left wingers, everyone in between & criminals, will survive by different methods and a lot of luck.
the parameters for the scenario you vaguely outline are so vast in scope specific contingencies are almost meaningless... the trick is to realise that the solution lies in two broad areas..
1. transfer of energy production to new sources ok no
Expletive deleted. sherlock! i hear you say.....
2. changing patterns of consumption people in the west consume too much and the developing world needs to attain a comparable standard of living lest it causes instability at a global level... wars etc.. you can apply those principles to water and food but it amounts to the same thing more or less
not
3 . dig in every man for himself firstly this simply is not a solution and secondly the ability to forage on the carcass of the old world will not be an individualistic behavior but the activity of gangs...
criticized US policy in the ME could be seen as this behavior NOW!.. (but there counter arguments to that)
maneuvering for the control of the levers of global power which include the production of petroleum etc...
survivalism is a microscopic implosion of this behavior if you like
the ME is an arena of US interest and former influence.. the war is the result of a perceived threat or loss of influence IE a war to protect status quo or hanging onto what you already have... (euro vs dollar etc etc etc)
"those damm martians ain't going to get the TV."
the end of the world is not guaranteed. simply creating the headroom for the acceptance of changes in consumption as quality issues over standard of living could allow leaders to say and do things that uptill now are vote losers.