[weirdo27]

i was thinking about doing a search but i didn't imagine this topic being talked about before. Maybe a mod should delete this thread than.

[galacticsurfer]

About the idea that things that are unnecessary get eliminated on the way down reminds me of an article I read that said the economists of the day in 1929 believed according to the standard wisdom of the day that a depression(as it was called then, recession was not a word) was necessary to clean out the economy of excess investment so that only that was left was what was necessary. So at the bottom of the trough then people would reinvest the excess and now cheap capital in other things which would be more useful. Obviously this idea din't work very well then and job programs did not work either, only total war mobilization worked.

However as the Great Depression was a bubble bursting economic event and not due to real shortages like Peak Oil induced depression the idea of reinvesting or of excess capital being redirected is not legitimate.

Essentially the depression was ended by just pumping oil and using other energy sources(coal,etc.) and minerals to employ people building weapons and ships to transport soldiers to Europe and Asia. They recognized a need externally and had the resources. The ending of the depression itself was a secondary consideration.

As people will have no resources left to wage a war in a PO depression regardless of enemy attack then there will only be "recovery" at a lower level of civilization and consumption. Sustainable life will mean less people and less consumption per person. Until it is stable it will not stop being reduced. Rome went from 1 million people to 40,000 in several hundred years.

Perhaps Arabs or Russians with more oil or USA using Coal to Liquid or using crop land for ethanol will be able to actually fight a war or continue such a lifestyle as today until like in the debt situation in the current US bubble economy it will just not be feasible anymore.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('galacticsurfer', '
')As people will have no resources left to wage a war in a PO depression regardless of enemy attack then there will only be "recovery" at a lower level of civilization and consumption. Sustainable life will mean less people and less consumption per person. Until it is stable it will not stop being reduced. Rome went from 1 million people to 40,000 in several hundred years.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'I') was reading some articles that the effects of declining oil production wont be devistating right away mostly due to the reason we have so much room to cut waste. This might cost jobs but atleast we will still have a lifestyle, and food and all that fun stuff. Than as we head farther down than things begin to get worse and worse.

[Fergus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'I') was reading some articles that the effects of declining oil production wont be devistating right away mostly due to the reason we have so much room to cut waste. This might cost jobs but atleast we will still have a lifestyle, and food and all that fun stuff. Than as we head farther down than things begin to get worse and worse.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'H')ow will you have food and a "lifestyle" and fun stuff without a job?

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'I') was reading some articles that the effects of declining oil production wont be devistating right away mostly due to the reason we have so much room to cut waste. This might cost jobs but atleast we will still have a lifestyle, and food and all that fun stuff. Than as we head farther down than things begin to get worse and worse.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'i') was thinking about doing a search but i didn't imagine this topic being talked about before. Maybe a mod should delete this thread than.

[weirdo27]

The goverment cant just starve the population with 50% of people cant buy food. They will have to do a emergency food act thing or something.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'T')he goverment cant just starve the population with 50% of people cant buy food. They will have to do a emergency food act thing or something.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'T')he goverment cant just starve the population with 50% of people cant buy food. They will have to do a emergency food act thing or something.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'T')he goverment cant just starve the population with 50% of people cant buy food. They will have to do a emergency food act thing or something.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('weirdo27', 'I') was reading some articles that the effects of declining oil production wont be devistating right away mostly due to the reason we have so much room to cut waste. This might cost jobs but atleast we will still have a lifestyle, and food and all that fun stuff. Than as we head farther down than things begin to get worse and worse.

[MonteQuest]

Reality for the newbies.

[MonteQuest]

For all those who say I never post about solutions.

[zeke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', 'B')ut I think all of this is irrelevant. There won't be a die-off. The planet has a carrying capacity of 8 Billion if we get off the atkins' diet and switch to nuclear energy. And if we wind up with the average family having 1.8 children, as in a lot of European countries, we'll probably head back on down to 2-5 Billion.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeke', '
')Unfortunately, nuclear energy is a net energy loser

[zeke]

probably, but instead I'll give you "author."

Heinberg, Richard


he cites energy required to build, maintain, fuel, and ultimately dismantle, clean up and decontaminate, which are rarely discussed as part of the true cost of nuclear power.

We tend not to like the "cleaning up" aspect of a lot of our technologies, and the world is bursting with examples of that..


zeke

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeke', 'W')e tend not to like the "cleaning up" aspect of a lot of our technologies, and the world is bursting with examples of that..

[kublikhan]

If you have a link showing nuclear to be a net energy loser I would like to see it. Sounds like BS to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'P')robably the most cited solution for solving our energy crisis is instilling a conservation ethic into society and the economic engine. Conservation, by its very nature, is a self-induced recession on the economy. Increasing conservation always results in reduced economic activity. Each of the previous three oil shocks in the United States was followed by recession. In every oil shock, the US economy was at or near its “stall speed” when the oil shock occurred. From the cringes of the financial analysts as of late, nothing has changed. Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.