[stu]

I was doing my daily browsing through this site and noticed a picture of someone posing with a gun.

Further investigation tells me that Nevada Ghosts has decided to post his image.

My initial feeling was there goes a bit more credibility of the website. People coming here will look at member photos and just think this is a forum for people who look forward to TEOTWAWKI.

I know that some people are doomers and think we are in for a hard landing but I just get the impression that newbies could be put off by it.

No offence intended Nevada.

DON'T SHOOT ME

[Cash]

Can't argue with that, but FWIW it seems to be the fate of almost every Peak Oil site at one time or another. Even the Energy Resources Yahoo group, which I think has the most scholarly tone of any PO site outside ASPO, let itself get bogged down in a debate about post-PO cannibalism not long ago -- right after I had recommended the site to my state energy-policy czar!

Americans have always had this apocalyptic streak in their psyche. In the past it usually manifested itself through religion. The Book of Revelations has always been good at fostering that. But ever since the late 1960s I've noticed a strong thread running through American society of people who not only fear an apocalyptic future but even look forward to it for secular reasons -- economic disaster (Howard Ruff, anyone?) or nuclear war (remember Ronnie Raygun?). We saw it in the editor's column of Mother Earth News during the mid-1970s and in the resugence of the survivalist movement and fallout shelters in the 1980s. The religious whackos and the Christian Identity movement had their moments of glory in the 1990s before y2k really brought it out in the pre-Rollover years.

Back in late 1999 I predicted in one forum that Peak Oil would be the y2k of the 2000s, and it happened almost immediately after 1/1/2000. Timebomb 2000, for example, made the shift in the first month of 2000, and a lot of other places followed suit.

So I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see it happening here. Certainly the worst-case scenario for Peak Oil encourages that thinking.

Cash

[Kingcoal]

Unfortunately, in America "Survivalists" have hyjacked the Peak Oil argument and dragged it's credibility down to the same level as UFOs and such. I seem to remember one member commenting that the posts have degenerated into "mutual mastribation" sesions, where doomers share their post peak fantasies. It would seem that living a Survivalist lifestyle requires a lot of moral support.

Every once in a while a ray of light pokes through however. A good thought provoking post emerges to make coming here worthwhile.

[trespam]

I agree. I visit this site periodically to look for some interesting information, news, etc. But the surivavlist, nationalistic, and in a few cases racist types that it attracted in the past--detracts, or distracts--from the truth.

In my opinion, people lose context. They somehow are unable to remember that Germans were stuffing jews into ovens fifty-odd years ago. That unemployment was 25% seventy-odd years ago. That the US was tearing itself apart in civil war 150-odd years ago.

Peak oil is a big problem. Debt, in particular US debt is a big problem. But don't give up your day job just yet.

[killJOY]

Forums are like lifeboats: the more that clamber aboard, the more likely they are to sink.

[seahorse2]

I'm not sure its fair to say that PO will be akin to anything that has happened in the past. The world has lived in tough times, high rates of unemployment, high death rates, slavery, war, even toilet paper is a fairly new concept historically, and your right, humanity made it through it. The problem is, it was easier for people in history to deal with those conditions, bc they weren't that unusual. They weren't used to toilet paper, running water, SUVs, air conditioning, play stations, 100 channels on the t.v., remote controls for everything. So, it will be unlike anything in history for 250 million spoiled American brats, me included, to deal with anything else (its not just Americans either, there are lots of other people in this world that love their Airconditioning, hot showers, cars, etc, including lots of Chinese these days). People will not willingly give this up, it will be very difficult at best, unlike any other time period in history. Even historically, there was much butchering in times of economic upheavel, why will this be anything different? People haven't changed. In fact, it will probably only be worse with more of the world's population now living in urban areas that on fairly self sufficent farms. It will be ugly (I mean violent), certainly has that potential. So, I think it may be too idealistic for people who are aware of PO to try and sugar coat it. In fact, new comers may need a dose of reality to get them to seriously consider the potential consequences.

[Ludi]

People come here promoting the idea of violence as though it is an acceptable response to problems. If this is the way people expect to behave, gods help us.

After the Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles, when there was widespread poweroutage and lack of water, there was relatively little crime, because people were too scared to react with violence. During the riots, violence was acceptable behavior, and many people went out to seek it.

If people continually promote violence as acceptable, as they do here on PO, then we can expect violence.

I don't find violence acceptable and I refuse to support the idea of it. It is not inevitable.

[linlithgowoil]

survivalism just wont work. how long can you stay alive cut off from the outside world with no new resources coming into your hideout? a few weeks, months maybe? what then?

i agree its a good idea to have a small stockpile of long life foods, first aid kits, fuel, etc. - but if you think that this will see you through a collapse that will take years, forget it.

the only way through this will be by cooperation, which is crap because i hate people. oh well.

[Olaf]

I fail to see how weighing various scenarios and how you would deal with them brings down the legitimacy of peak oil.

If you anticipate some major collapse due to peak oil, does it not make sense to figure out how to survive that? A survivor then, by default, becomes a survivalist. Crops, hunting, gathering, water, energy, social structure, clothing, shelter, and yes, security are all things that immediately rush into my mind.

If you anticipate having to grow and hunt for at least portions of your own food, do firearms to an extent then not become an issue? Now, as someone willing to grow and hunt for your food, is it then not logical to think there are people without the skills or morals that would think it easier to simply take yours? Now firearms with regard to personal safety and security can become an issue.

I do not claim to know exactly how this will all play out, but I am fairly certain it will not be pleasant. To come to a place such as this site to discuss it and think about it seems logical to me as well. I do not support people that would plan to form bands of raiders and such, nor do I support violence against others. However, to completely rule out the possibility that there will be elements of society that will do this I think is foolish. If these elements of society exist, you need to be able to avoid them, join them, reason with them, or stand up to them.

You have to consider the various possibilities, and from there make your own plans accordingly. I have a shotgun that I use for hunting. When, or IF (if you prefer) peak oil occurs, I at least see the potential that I MAY have to rely on this firearm more, both for food procurement and possibly for protection. How exactly does that make one crazy? It sounds like covering all the bases to me. I'm sure Custer never thought all those Indians would stand up to him. He didn't weigh all his options. Here, on this site, we should at least be able to weigh our options.

I will be all to happy to keep that shotgun in the closet and never need it, but I would rather have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Olaf

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stu', 'I') was doing my daily browsing through this site and noticed a picture of someone posing with a gun.

Further investigation tells me that Nevada Ghosts has decided to post his image.

[oowolf]

Credo; I hope for cooperation but am prepared for violence. Reversion to the mean is traumatic-get real folks. Try reading Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire": 4000 pages of misery.
I know I could stand to lighten-up a bit, but I'm here for serious info on how to anticipate the wreck AND return to a sustainable way of living-catastrophic dieoff or not.
I am determined not to live my life as a parasitic detritovore pathologically addicted to petroleum and mindless consumerism.

[bart]

Survivalism is a strange American phenomenon.

I think it's the result of the hyper-individualism of US culture: the idea that you can't trust other people; that group effort is pointless; that government action is stupid and wasteful.

This philosophy is relentlessly beat into us from the media. People who are disconnected from social groups are very vulnerable to this message.

(Of course, this dog-eat-dog philosophy is only for the masses. Those in power know how important it is to work together -- they value organization and networking. They know how participation in government can advance your interests. )

As we become aware of the implications of Peak Oil, it becomes evident that the hyper-individualism of the past few decades cannot work. Since the survivalists are locked into an individualist worldview, they cannot see that any other approach is possible. Therefore, according to them, we are doomed.

However, for those hyper-individualists who are handy with tools, there is a ray of hope. They can become skilled at the technology of survival -- finding places in the country, storing food and acquiring firearms. By focusing on these technical tasks, they feel they have attained mastery over an otherwise frightening situation.

In science fiction, this approach is personified by Robert Heinlein.

I grew up with a lot of survivalist types, and have been friends with some of them. Plus, I've got some survivalism/individualism in my personality.

I'm afraid, though, that survivalism tends to be an obsession, a fixation with multiple blind spots. Anything that puts the survivalist approach into question is threatening. (You may have noticed that survivalists are not very good listeners!)

In real survival situations, people need to be flexible. Working together is the key to survival, as is shown by the literature on survival after shipwrecks, plane crashes, etc.

[Tuike]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stu', 'I') was doing my daily browsing through this site and noticed a picture of someone posing with a gun.

Further investigation tells me that Nevada Ghosts has decided to post his image.

[TWilliam]

I see few if any people here advocating violence as a solution to anything. What I do see tho' is a goodly number with the common sense to know that there is a significant portion of the public at large that very likely will see violence as not only acceptable, but as their only option.

I'd hardly consider someone with the foresight to prepare for dealing with such people a "survivalist gun-nut"; I'd consider them intelligent...

[Ludi]

There are people advocating violence, not many of them, but they are here. But they present it as though it is just "common sense" and "realistic."

[seahorse2]

Ludi, there are some examples of natural disasters without violence, there are others where there is violence (black outs in NY City for example). However, for some natural disasters, people know that in a few days, hopefully, food/water/services will be restored. However, what happens if people lose this belief that order and the system will be returned to normal? I think its very likely that if people lose belief in the system, from that, chaos, violence is likely to insue. I'm not advocating it, I just think that's very possible in many areas. In fact, the many people intereviewed on The End of Suburbia all seem to agree that violence is possible in American suburbia. These men like Kunstler, Campbell etc are not violent and not advocating violence, they are simply stating what appears to be a very likely scenario when people suddenly come to realize that life as they know it will permanently change. How we as individuals prepare for that change is for each of us to decide. I know that I personally draw the line, now or then, at my front door. I have a wife and three kids. Does that make me violent? No. Will or would I allow my family to be robbed, raped, whatever, no, not if I could help it. The Atlantic Monthly printed a great article in 1994 which at that time said it was a view of things to come in the world, and not just for Africa. That article pointed out that the population of poor is growing everywhere in the world, not just in Africa, but Africa is a good example of things to happen throughout the world, which is horrible crime and genocide by improverished masses of people with corrupt governments which cannot provide services. There have been numerous writers over the years that say the saving grace for American democracy, which has protected itself from the violence of the poor, has been our welfare system, which isn't much, but which is just enough to act as the opiut of the masses. I agree that those predicting possible violence, like The End of Suburbia, The Atlanthic Monthly, and writers about the effect of our own welfare system correctly surmize that violence in America, is a strong possibility. The only question is, what can be done about it.

[Ludi]

What can be done about it?

Stop promoting the idea that violence is acceptable. Just stop it.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hat can be done about it?

Stop promoting the idea that violence is acceptable. Just stop it.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hat can be done about it?

Stop promoting the idea that violence is acceptable. Just stop it.

[seahorse2]

This idea of "survivalist" is a new suburban concept. In fact, the word "survivalist" only shows how suburban we've become, how accustomed we've become to all the things that suburban life provides, the primary one being emergency services. The fact that people talk about "survivalist" is as new as the refrigerator and the advent of uniformed police officers that answer a 911 call. In colonial America, there were no organized police forces, just neighbors, or militias, to provide protection. So, this concept of a "survivalist" is a new suburban concept, based on the fact that now we live in a time period where there is 911, active police and ambulance services, etc. If PO theory is correct, society may slowly or quickly crumble and become like Africa, massive crime, no police protection, genocide. People may once again be forced to organize and provide for their own protection. And survivalist will not have a bad connotation then.