Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Board Optimists

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Wed 20 Jul 2005, 17:03:19

I'm also an optimist. As I've posted in other places, based on an assessment of the numbers I believe we have another 5-10 years before peak, that alternate oil generation technologies will buffer the downslope, that (plug-in)/hybrid technologies will limit the effects of the downslope, and that other technologies which are visibly under development right now will be capable of substituting when cost effective. I believe that market forces will drive development and implementation of these technologies, although government spending will help.

I expect that there is going to be turbulence, and I think that there's a high probability of recession, perhaps even a substantial, decade-long recession. Heck, I expect a recession or near-zero growth in the US without peak oil when the housing bubble pops. I wouldn't be surprised at some death in the less developed parts of the world, albeit not at massively higher rates than what we see now.

In 2050, I think we'll have a population around 8-8.5 billion, many living near current western standards of living. We'll have relatively pollution-free transport and power generation, and climate change will be noticeable but not catastrophic. Gross growth will have slowed as population growth slows, but will still be driven by continually better ways of doing things.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Wed 20 Jul 2005, 18:41:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', 'O')h by the way Tyler that was a very short break.

You are PO.com addict ! :lol:

PB


I made a good choice. Heroine or peak oil? And I'm afraid of needles so I guess I was forced back here.

My name is Tyler ______ and I have a problem.

That's the first step, right? Is it also the last?
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Unread postby nero » Wed 20 Jul 2005, 19:30:37

Put me in the optimist camp.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Unread postby Omnitir » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 02:36:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')in 2100, we will have more than 5 billion people on the planet?

So a doomer is someone that believes that a population die off will occur at some point?

In that case, looking at the macroscopic level, I’m definitely a doomer. I don’t see how there cannot be a large die off over time.

But like almost everyone, in regards to my little corner of society, I’m a reasonably strong optimist.


However, is dieoff the only criteria for being a doomer? Because I believe that while business as usual is impossible, advanced civilization will still manage to be advanced.

There is a grey area here. Some people are unreasonable optimists believing that things will always be the way they are, while others are extreme pessimists believing it’s all going to end. There is a massive range in-between the doomer and optimist camp, and it’s difficult to slot these perspectives into two categories.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 03:13:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')MonteQuest is the poster child for a pessimist. Ludi might also work, but I think MQ is a bit smarter (no offense).


I've been told my vision of the future is a "flower-loving utopia" - how can I be a pessimist?8O

I agree that Monte is smarter than I am. :)


Thanks, Ludi! [smilie=eusa_dance.gif] I have great respect for your posts.

Me, a pessimist? Think what you want, but I bet few here have been on this wagon for over 30 years. Why haven't I given up?

I am an idealist who believes we will go from a Culture of Quanity to A Culture of Quality via a die-off and economic collapse of an unknown rate and magnitude.

My views are based upon years of observation and research and a broad understanding of many concepts. Look at the range of my posts.

I predicted nuclear power would be stillborn...and it was.

I predict I will be mostly right about peakoil. I am optimistic! :-D
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 03:21:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', ' ')So a doomer is someone that believes that a population die off will occur at some point?


No, an ecologist is someone who knows that a die-off will occur at some point. A die-off isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Undisputed biological fact: The cumulative biotic potential of any given species always exceeds the carrying capacity of it's environment, no matter how big you make it.

A "doomer" is someone who grasps this factual concept in it's entirety.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby Jaymax » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 06:31:15

With due respect...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'U')ndisputed biological fact: The cumulative biotic potential of any given species always exceeds the carrying capacity of it's environment, no matter how big you make it.


Really? Most species expand to fill their niche's carrying capacity to the full. Sometimes a species will discover a new niche and expand rapidly until again reaching the capacity limit, but there's no subsequent dieoff (possibly a slight overshoot).

Often, some external, transitory source of food/energy, like an algal bloom feeding jellyfish (people from Auckland my age will know this one), or possibly humanities discovery of buried dino-blood, will cause a massive population explosion, followed by a massive dieoff.

Species do not naturally just explode over their carrying capacity, then dieoff again.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') "doomer" is someone who grasps this factual concept in it's entirety.


Again, with due respect: And a realist is normally someone who confuses beliefs with facts.

I'd feel the same if anyone said they were certain that the future was going to unfold exactly the way I believe it is most likely to go.

Predicting the probable future is worthwhile, knowing the future is a fools game.

--J
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England
Top

Unread postby Mango » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 06:52:10

Look, I'm new here, but call me an optimist.

If there's one thing we don't need is people telling the rest of us why we're all screwed. This isn't 2030, and we still have time to act. But we MUST act now. It's called do or die, and I don't plan on dying of any Peak Oil related catastrophies.

I'm with the majority here when I say that I realize the seriousness of Peak Oil. I don't believe the world will fall apart tomorrow nor do I believe the free market will magically put everything back together (while allowing us to live in our current glutton filled existences without a care in the world).

If you are currently still breathing and you believe in the implications of Peak Oil, then what are you doing sitting here crying about it to us? You don't need to preach to the choir, you need to get out there and DO something about it.

I plan on doing my part.

How?

Well, the first thing I did is take an account of my strongest skills and looked at how that applied to the problem. I'm not a scientist and I'm not involved in any sort of new-energy research project. What I do have is a degree in Computer Science and the will to act.

What can I do?

I can create more web-sites dedicated to the problem. I can rally those around my in my community and circles to do the same. I can educate those around me who are unaware of the seriousness of Peak Oil. I can do the previously mentioned in a way that brings credibility to my cause and doesn't give people the impression that I'm a reactionist nutjob. I can contact my congressmen and members of parliament to voice my concerns. I can volunteer my time with organizations that have gotten a head start on these intiatives. I can do the best I can to further educate myself on the issue so that I speak from a position of strength rather than spitting out statistics that I just read off of some blog. I can admit that I'm a part of problem and that I can lead others by example in reducing the waste in my life.

These are real solutions to a real problem.

No, this isn't THE solution to THE problem. I'm one person. I'm a cog in the machine. Enough cogs make a difference. If you don't believe that then you're already a Peak Oil casualty (unless of course it's all a myth and we're not on the edge of collapse. In that case, go back to your SUV and drive around with the air conditioning blasting... surely you're not a part of the probelm.)

The reality is we need momentum now. I urge everyone reading this to contribute to this momentum. Don't get complacent. Don't let the apathy of others rub off on you. Don't let others make you feel like your efforts are wasted. Remember that those who don't act will be the same ones crying into their drinks when the collapse begins, saying "there was nothing we could do!".

If you want to call me an optimist, I gladly accept it.

If you're of the opposite persuasion and have no intention of contributing to a part of the solution then stop hindering the effort and remove yourself from this forum.

Good luck to us all.
User avatar
Mango
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 21 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Madpaddy » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 08:07:08

Tyler_JC wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am pessimistic about the continued existence of this civilization. I believe that when I am 70 (2050's), I will be sitting around a fire with a few of the village children explaining what an electric toothbrush was.

Others may think that eletric toothbrushes will still be produced in the 2050's, I consider that an illogical point of view based on what we know now.


Electric toothbrushes. How yesterday. We have sonic toothbrushes already which blast sound waves at the enamel. :-D

Seriously though, I reckon I'm like most of the other people here. Personally optimistic in that I expect me and mine to survive better than most but at a very basic level of existence. I see myself sitting around a similar fire to JC teaching kids how to floss with very thin strips of tree sinew. I see no reason to believe that the G8 countries and wannabees will voluntarily reduce their levels of consumption, waste and greed. I believe in any event that the opportunity has passed for the global economy to do anything meaningfull to avert the train crash it is headed for. For 18 months now I have educated my friends and family about PO, overpopulation and the need to prepare even in some small way for an inevitable downturn in our fortunes (with or without PO the gold rush economic boom we are seeing in our country can only go on so long - that's just the nature of any economic cycle). With the exception of my sister who lived a pretty eco-friendly lifestyle anyway, the general reaction has been to go on ever more foreign holidays, get bigger mortgages and buy new cars. My mother in law wouldn't even consider buying a diesel car (because they are too noisy and smelly - she was amazed recently when she sat into my diesel car and plumes of black smoke didn't erupt from the hood). Anyway I digress, my point is that even when an opportunity arose while making an unnecessary consumer purchase to do something beneficial she didn't do it. They can all see for themselves at the pumps that my predictions are coming true but they are mentally incapable of helping themselves. My sister in law won't speak to me anymore because I almost made her cry when I explained my vision of the future. My parents believe me but are too old to care. My parents in law are too busy borrowing money to jetset around the world to listen. My friends are too busy investing in property to even stop to listen. My wife loves me and I think she really gets it. My kids are too young to understand (bless them). One of my good friends is buying guns and looking forward to the chaos. My co-workers think I'm genuinely insane. The only winners out of the whole scenario is the guy who runs my nearest liquor store and the shop which sells seeds.

I reread my above post and - overall a definite pessimist here
User avatar
Madpaddy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri 25 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Doly » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 08:53:25

Well, I expect to have something fairly similar to my current toothbrush in 50 years time, if I'm still alive by then. Nothing that needs batteries, but looking like a proper toothbrush. And my toothpaste may look different and be in a different sort of recipient (and I may be doing it myself as part of my herbalist business), but I expect it to be satisfactory as toothpaste.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Aaron » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 08:58:06

"When times are hard, table manors change."

What sounds more reasonable to you?

1) Humanity will band together like never before in history, and confront
our collective energy challenges for the benefit of all mankind.

Or

2) People & nations will compete with one another just as they have
throughout history, up to and including going to war against each other over resources.

Be aware of peak oil

Beware of how your neighbors will react to it.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 12:30:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'W')ith due respect...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'U')ndisputed biological fact: The cumulative biotic potential of any given species always exceeds the carrying capacity of it's environment, no matter how big you make it.


Really? Most species expand to fill their niche's carrying capacity to the full. Sometimes a species will discover a new niche and expand rapidly until again reaching the capacity limit, but there's no subsequent dieoff (possibly a slight overshoot).

Often, some external, transitory source of food/energy, like an algal bloom feeding jellyfish (people from Auckland my age will know this one), or possibly humanities discovery of buried dino-blood, will cause a massive population explosion, followed by a massive dieoff.

Species do not naturally just explode over their carrying capacity, then dieoff again.


And with due respect:

I didn't say they did. I said they always will exceed it.

And if they do it by way of "dino-blood," they will crash and not reach a stable climax community, agreed?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby Jaymax » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 13:44:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'W')ith due respect...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'U')ndisputed biological fact: The cumulative biotic potential of any given species always exceeds the carrying capacity of it's environment, no matter how big you make it.


Really? Most species expand to fill their niche's carrying capacity to the full. Sometimes a species will discover a new niche and expand rapidly until again reaching the capacity limit, but there's no subsequent dieoff (possibly a slight overshoot).

Often, some external, transitory source of food/energy, like an algal bloom feeding jellyfish (people from Auckland my age will know this one), or possibly humanities discovery of buried dino-blood, will cause a massive population explosion, followed by a massive dieoff.

Species do not naturally just explode over their carrying capacity, then dieoff again.


And with due respect:

I didn't say they did. I said they always will exceed it.

And if they do it by way of "dino-blood," they will crash and not reach a stable climax community, agreed?


That depends on whether the injection of readily deployable energy provided by the dino-blood is transitory or not. Clearly, the oil itself is transitory, and were that the end of the story, I'd buy your version as much more probable.

But the energy injection itself might or might not be transitory. This is where the comparison with other species potentially breaks down.

No other species learnt how to harness fire, just 'cos they wanted more cheap energy.

No other species would be innovative enough do drill miles under the surface and suck up the long dead deposits of an earlier time, just 'cos they wanted more cheap energy.

None of the other species would try (and then succeed) in splitting atoms, just 'cos they wanted more cheap energy.

None of the other species would blast a few of it's kind to the moon in ten years flat, just for the hell of it (okay, energy = power = apollo 11. More about the speed of human innovation when power is put at risk - just political power in this case)

Human innovativeness is unique on this planet, we have nothing against which to compare it, except our own history.

I think it is more probable that humanity will continue to discover and harness different forms of cheap energy, 'cos we've got a proven track record at being pretty good at it. We've certainly shown a qualitative difference to other species, even our nearest, in this regard.

btw: I'm a Dawkinist, for want of a better word - I'm not suggesting that humanity is in any way biologically or spiritually special, just that our brains have produced unique emergent properties, which have proven highly capable of finding and developing novel energy sources

--J
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England
Top

Unread postby holmes » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:12:00

Sorry Monte you have to go through these circle jerk conversations. I fully understand this is one of the characteristics of a death culture civilization. More programs (they havent solved shit, only made things MORE COMPLEX), More growth. sure that will solve it in time down the road. Yeah right. Round and round while folks testicles are burning off and colons are rotting from cancer. LOL. Yeah make more cancer cure programs. Keep using up life for more shit. And folks if you argue with monte about ecology please do your hw and read hardcore ecology like E. Odum and H. Odum. They observed and analyzed hands on for decades. Ecology IS our advancement and modern brain. Its what has and will allow us to evolve.
http://www.ecotopia.org/ehof/odum/
http://www.gactr.uga.edu/gcq/gcqspr97/odum.html
http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/truecost ... /odum.html
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:13:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', ' ')I think it is more probable that humanity will continue to discover and harness different forms of cheap energy, 'cos we've got a proven track record at being pretty good at it. We've certainly shown a qualitative difference to other species, even our nearest, in this regard.

btw: I'm a Dawkinist, for want of a better word - I'm not suggesting that humanity is in any way biologically or spiritually special, just that our brains have produced unique emergent properties, which have proven highly capable of finding and developing novel energy sources

--J


Then it comes down to whether or not we have overshot the carrying capacity, doesn't it? The sequel to overshoot is always a crash unless there is a new food/energy supply that can readily accessed.

Animals can't do this as no species has yet survived a bloom due to an heretofore unaccessible energy source that they exploited that allowed them to dominate their environment. None.

We will just find a way to expand our carrying capacity once again?

At what cost? How long will that solution last? The environmental sinks already say, enough!

In the last 100 years, nuclear power is the only new primary energy science we have developed.

So, you are betting that we will beat the odds where all others have failed?

That we will develop and implement a new primary energy science shortly?

That "proven track record" took 40 years to develop nuclear.

You honestly think we will find and develop a cheap easy replacement for sticking a straw in the ground and letting the oil gush out tomorrow? :lol:

Because in planning terms, it is tomorrow.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby holmes » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:14:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', 'W')ith due respect...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'U')ndisputed biological fact: The cumulative biotic potential of any given species always exceeds the carrying capacity of it's environment, no matter how big you make it.


Really? Most species expand to fill their niche's carrying capacity to the full. Sometimes a species will discover a new niche and expand rapidly until again reaching the capacity limit, but there's no subsequent dieoff (possibly a slight overshoot).

Often, some external, transitory source of food/energy, like an algal bloom feeding jellyfish (people from Auckland my age will know this one), or possibly humanities discovery of buried dino-blood, will cause a massive population explosion, followed by a massive dieoff.

Species do not naturally just explode over their carrying capacity, then dieoff again.


And with due respect:

I didn't say they did. I said they always will exceed it.

And if they do it by way of "dino-blood," they will crash and not reach a stable climax community, agreed?


That depends on whether the injection of readily deployable energy provided by the dino-blood is transitory or not. Clearly, the oil itself is transitory, and were that the end of the story, I'd buy your version as much more probable.

But the energy injection itself might or might not be transitory. This is where the comparison with other species potentially breaks down.

No other species learnt how to harness fire, just 'cos they wanted more cheap energy.

No other species would be innovative enough do drill miles under the surface and suck up the long dead deposits of an earlier time, just 'cos they wanted more cheap energy.

None of the other species would try (and then succeed) in splitting atoms, just 'cos they wanted more cheap energy.

None of the other species would blast a few of it's kind to the moon in ten years flat, just for the hell of it (okay, energy = power = apollo 11. More about the speed of human innovation when power is put at risk - just political power in this case)

Human innovativeness is unique on this planet, we have nothing against which to compare it, except our own history.

I think it is more probable that humanity will continue to discover and harness different forms of cheap energy, 'cos we've got a proven track record at being pretty good at it. We've certainly shown a qualitative difference to other species, even our nearest, in this regard.

btw: I'm a Dawkinist, for want of a better word - I'm not suggesting that humanity is in any way biologically or spiritually special, just that our brains have produced unique emergent properties, which have proven highly capable of finding and developing novel energy sources


our forests are the next "novel" energy source. shes gonna be a hot one.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby holmes » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:16:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jaymax', ' ')I think it is more probable that humanity will continue to discover and harness different forms of cheap energy, 'cos we've got a proven track record at being pretty good at it. We've certainly shown a qualitative difference to other species, even our nearest, in this regard.

btw: I'm a Dawkinist, for want of a better word - I'm not suggesting that humanity is in any way biologically or spiritually special, just that our brains have produced unique emergent properties, which have proven highly capable of finding and developing novel energy sources

--J


Then it comes down to whether or not we have overshot the carrying capacity, doesn't it? The sequel to overshoot is always a crash unless there is a new food/energy supply that can readily accessed.

Animals can't do this as no species has yet survived a bloom due to an heretofore unaccessible energy source that they exploited that allowed them to dominate their environment. None.

We will just find a way to expand our carrying capacity once again?

At what cost? How long will that solution last? The environmental sinks already say, enough!

In the last 100 years, nuclear power is the only new primary energy science we have developed.

So, you are betting that we will beat the odds where all others have failed?

That we will develop and implement a new primary energy science shortly?

That "proven track record" took 40 years to develop nuclear.

You honestly think we will find and develop a cheap easy replacement for sticking a straw in the ground and letting the oil gush out tomorrow? :lol:

Because in planning terms, it is tomorrow.


The Planning statement is 100% truth, Monte. 8)
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:37:51

I tried to keep my initial comments brief, but it expanded, sorry.

There are other threads to debate this.

Let's let this thread get back on topic.

The Board Optimists.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby PlanComplete » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:40:18

I am a optimist, er pessimist er how about a new word hopimist.

First off I believe a flu varient will succeed in knocking off a nice % of the worlds population. Within the next year or so.

But barring that from happening I see oil prices getting out of reach for the typical normal person with-in 2 years tops. Doesn't even have to be related to PO just a series of events that cause the price to skyrocket.
Which in turn causes the economy to collapse, most in the "civilized" world would be at risk, as will countries that depend on aid.
The safest counties to be in would be the ones more self dependant, who will emerge relativily unscathed.
And since the "decline" of American's morals and ethics we would not handle it nearly as well as our depression era counterparts did. Think LA riots times every major city times pissed off technoaddicts.
The government would do everything in there power to keep the city centers content, up to and including trying to take from the rural to give to the city, forced relocation maybe?
But that wouldn't last long at all, as the revolt would be unstoppable, and as a certain song goes "country folk can survive"
Leading to a more loose government one I believe our founding fathers where trying to do. United, yet not over controlled.
Now on to my optimistic side, the advances in science, tech, ect are not ever going away, increasing skills will prevail we will become a more advanced society. Nothing short of a all out nuke war will cause us to go backwards in time.
We will always live better then our middle age/pre oil counterparts just because of the skills/science we have learned since then.

But I am a hopimist because I hope it happens, all of it short of the nuke war, because thats the only way we can get back to community living as it should be away from consumerism, away from this hell on Earth we currently are forced to reside in.
User avatar
PlanComplete
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby holmes » Thu 21 Jul 2005, 15:47:06

I say most are optimists on the board. Just keeping civilization going without a paradigm shift makes it hard to stay that way though.Ill be optimistic all the time when i see a move out of this culture towrds something more ecologically benign. I wont be optimistic if we overthrow this civilization and just replace the lords with other bodies. It has to be nonhierarchical tribal civilization. It needs to really be a paradigm change. back on topic.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron