by mos6507 » Fri 12 Mar 2010, 21:15:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')I didn't write this stuff. You did
And what's wrong with what I wrote? I don't see predicting a die-off by mid-century as anything other than mainstream peakism as far as I'm concerned, or do you think Paul Ehrlich, Catton, Bartlett, Lovelock, etc... are all suffering from Roccman-style pathology?
Whether we're planting seeds with a femur bone next year, as Colbert yuks it up, or 50 years from now, there will come a point of maximum human suffering. Nobody knows exactly what form it's gonna take, but the math involved pretty much insures that it will be nightmarish, and not something to be so casually dismissed under the rubric of "hey, we'll get used to it." Well yeah, maybe I could get used to eating bugs and long pork if I never knew any better. Is that the attitude we should use going into this?
At this point I'm expecting Thuja to burst in and castigate me for daring to write along vaguely Monte malthusian terms. That's the problem with this site reverting down to a small number of posters. Now certain people feel like they are the standard bearers for the
one-true ideology of peak-dom when I've recognized from the very start (if you somehow find my old thread about doomer archetypes) that peakers/doomers is a very broad term.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')The slight differences between us is that I understand geologic time-frame, in-your-face implications and I see reality, peak oil, and the long plateau.
Limits to Growth doesn't draw a graph along a geologic timeframe. Neither does Lovelock.
')Sometimes I think you just want to use peak oil to beat people over the head, but when it becomes apparent that it is now, real, happening, and is/will affect you now immediately/next year, you shy away from the debate and name call.