[grabby]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')
(In my area alone, the Maxxam Corp. had not yet evern purchased Pacific Lumber Corp. which proceeded to log the rest of the Redwood giants.) The earth's population was 3 billion.
:

[DavidFolks]

Shannymara, we're not so far apart in ideology as you might think. It seemed from your earlier post that you believed that when the oil resource was gone, we won't have the resources to do what needs to be done. Permaculture is a very good philosophy to subscribe to. The more people who try to tread lightly on the planet, and educated societies controlling their reproduction to live within carrying capacity, the better off we'll be.

Pstarr, I hope I'm not as clueless as you believe me to be. I won't argue with factual data. I can see the trends as well as anyone, I just interpret the data differently. I don't believe I'm so optimistic as to think there won't be a crash. My only optimism, and I will admit it does make me seem a little naive, is in the ability of people to change when they need to.

Make no mistake people, I don't think we'll be enjoying the same standard of living we have now for long. I think we're long overdue for a massive re-adjustment in population and the way we use resources.

I assert once again, that while we have the resources to develop new ways of living, we should. It will be easier to transition, and less catastrophic to educate, power down, reduce the birth rate, and so on through choice rather than disaster.

[SevenTen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', 'I') simply posit that oil and oil based technology is not the only way to do things. I also believe that if we make an effort to find the ways to the ends without relying on oil, the crash will be easier to bear.

[grabby]

My great grandparents used to burn cowpies in the stove to cook with, if we raised more cows, they could live off the range and provide some fuel.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', 'T')he other people here haven't given up. YOU have.

"Wahh! They're all doomers!"

[Grifter]

You can also NOT believe in catastrophic societal decline, and also claim to be a doomer. If you believe the future is not going to be as prosperous as the past, then IMO you are a doomer, regardless of how everything pans out.

[Ludi]

David, I think you might be missing a point which many people miss about doomers. Many doomers, such as Shannymara, believe there is plenty we can do and they, themselves, are actually in the process of doing it. The point which is missed, and what it is that makes them doomers, is that VERY FEW people are actually doing these things, and that it seems VERY UNLIKELY that significant numbers of people will do them fast enough to make a significant difference. I hope you notice the distinction between believing that "nothing CAN be done" and "nothing (much) IS being done." Those who are doing things, taking appropriate action, are very very very few in our society. This is mainly because taking significant action requires changing our way of life profoundly, in a way which to many people looks like "doing with less." Treading lightly on the planet means not living the modern industrial style life. Living the permaculture way of life is not congruent with "the American dream," which has become the world's dream. It is difficult to promote a way of life which is so very different from our current way of life, and which, to many (most?) people, would look rather like privation. The time it would take to turn our culture in a different direction - that might take decades, possibly even generations. In the meantime, without the new system in place, many people will likely suffer horribly, compounded by global warming, resource wars, pandemics, etc which we face.

[Ludi]

David, I'm curious to know more about how you see people "changing when they need to" after the crash (which you say won't be avoided).


If by "changing" you mean "starving and dying of disease" then I agree with you.


Otherwise, please explain the changing process and how it will avoid widespread suffering.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', 'M')ake no mistake people, I don't think we'll be enjoying the same standard of living we have now for long. I think we're long overdue for a massive re-adjustment in population and the way we use resources.

[DavidFolks]

Ludi, I belive the "crash" will be more prolonged than instant. If tomorrow morning everyone woke up and there was no oil and no alternative, then we would be in serious trouble.

If, however, we have a somewhat prolonged period of change, I think massive die-off and conflict can be avoided.

As a for instance, if there was an alternative method of point to point personal transportation that was produced from recycled and recycleable products, some might use it as an alternative to a car. Yes, a bike is a very good example. The more expensive fuel gets, the more attractive the bicycle gets. The more people use bicycles, the more society has to make provision for cyclists, and the more the infrastructure changes. The more the infrastructure changes, the more attractive the bicycle gets.

This has been happening for years, I have seen it in my own community. More bike paths, more stores, more clubs. Strong cycling advocacy groups.

It's a small change over a long time, but it does hold promise.

A sudden catastrophic decline would certainly result in widespread suffering.

A gradual, or even fairly rapid increase in liquid fuel prices without any other option but petroleum sucking cars for transport would result in widespread suffering.

But an increase in real costs for liquid fuel, with the availability of alternative transport, would cause less suffering.

I am hoping for a more gradual than immediate crash, and hope that as energy becomes more expensive, the real costs of raising families will encourage moderation in reproduction, consumption, etcettera.

The higher the price for gas, with no corresponding increases in income, will demonstrate to people the need to change.

[DavidFolks]

Shannymara, I remember well the northeast power failure of 2003. It was a wake-up call that some have indeed listened to.

Cascading failure is a good argument for local, small scale power generation and integrated systems. There are even people making strides in that direction. As the national grid infrastructure becomes less reliable, and more expensive to maintain, I am hoping that more and more communities will embrace the idea.

With enough support and demand, it would be a reality rather than a dream.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', 'A') gradual, or even fairly rapid increase in liquid fuel prices without any other option but petroleum sucking cars for transport would result in widespread suffering....I am hoping for a more gradual than immediate crash, and hope that as energy becomes more expensive, the real costs of raising families will encourage moderation in reproduction, consumption, etcettera.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', 'Y')es, a bike is a very good example. The more expensive fuel gets, the more attractive the bicycle gets. The more people use bicycles, the more society has to make provision for cyclists, and the more the infrastructure changes. The more the infrastructure changes, the more attractive the bicycle gets.

[grabby]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')nd you know what? I was wrong. The fools never followed my example much less listened to my harangues and lectures. So know I am building my doomer fortress behind the redwood curtain from logs I cut and mill myself. I am prepared and will abide.

Folks will not change until beaten over the head by the facts of the decline and then it will be (and is) too late (again, see Hirsch).

[Twilight]

The reason we can't stop a crash:

We deny one is possible.

You simply can't mitigate a problem when you deny its existence, and that is our position today. The fundamentals, the drivers, are what they are, but as far as we (humanity in general) is concerned, there is no problem out of the ordinary. The usual problems exist, but nothing new is coming. So why would anyone bother to gradually introduce alternatives? Conventional wisdom says there is no need. The most respected authorities in the world say fossil fuels will dominate energy production for decades to come, and will be sufficient.

So, please repeat after me, there will be no crash, or even a decline, so there is no need to waste any effort on adaptation.

The reason we won't rebuild:

Once the dust settled in Iraq, oil and utility workers were nowhere to be found. Western contractors would ask, what does this valve do, and the reply would be, the man who took care of it is not here. In the west, the reconstruction people will be digging up their garden. I don't plan on tiling people's houses with PV after the country has collapsed. Someone else can support it. You will find that when the need comes, the people won't be there.