Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:45 am Post subject:
Keith_McClary wrote:
JayHMorrison wrote:
Assuming we can grow and physically distribute enough food in North America, do you have an income distribution plan so people will be able to afford it?
Income distribution? That sounds like communism. That has to be the least efficient system ever invented. Why would someone EVER want an "income distribution" plan?
The capitalist system is the most efficient system for using up natural resources as fast as possible. Why would someone EVER want otherwise.[/quote]
Adding to this: I'm quite aware that communist dictatorships in the last century (and this one, e.g. Korea) have the worst environmental records of any civilization on the planet. But unregulated capitalism would be just as bad--consider the children working in mines during the intial stages of the industrial revolution. The quality of life of the average guy decreased significantly with capitalism until governments and unions and other collectivists gathered together to constrain the greed of the capitalists.
I am someone who appreciates capitalism and have thrived with capitalism. Too much power centered in government, e.g. as we've seen in the Soviet Union, is very dangerous. But too much power in the hands of the owners of capital is also dangerous. Collectivism does not mean give aways. Collectivism means people deciding as a group to invest money in a certain way.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1281 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:32 am Post subject:
trespam wrote:
I don't think mindless optimism is any more useful that mindless pessimism. The mindless optimists think there is nothing to do: it will take care of itself.
The mindless pessimists think there is nothing to do: all is futile.
Aaargh. Read the rest of your post.
Quote:
Both wrong in my mind.
Regarding possible mass starvation in the poorer regions of the world: there are no doubt sustainable regions of the developing world, but there are also large numbers of people--hundreds of millions--are are barely staying alive in the world's slums that surround many major cities. If these people are starving now, when energy is cheap, I think they will be dead when energy is more expensive.
There is no technological panacea around the bend. Fusion of either type is not a source of energy. A miracle may happen deux ex machine, but why expect it? Other societies have run into mass population decreases in the past, why not again? What makes us so special. We may not be bateria, but we are little more than tricky apes who learned to play with fire and manipulate symbols that have some correspondence with the world around us, whether spoke language, mathematics, or the binary language of computers.
This tricky ape may not be as tricky as we think.
So I say right now there is no solution. Heinberg believes we need to be pursuing a strong path of shutting down the waistful aspects of our civilization, but that isn't happening yet.
The whole energy per GNP argument is bogus if you ask me. Touted by economists who do not consider the relationship between energy and economics. One reason I think the energy we use per unit of GNP is lower: outsourcing. All the energy intensive stuff has been pushed off to other countries: manufacturing, chemicals, mining, etc.
Another reason it is lower: energy is cheaper, or has been, for twenty years. Kind of figures that cheaper energy, like lots of crack cocaine, would make the economy buzz.
Now we're closing in the time when the part is over and the hangover starts. Right now Bush and his cohorts are out looking for additional bottles of Champagne. Party hardy is there motto--figures, from a drinking party animal like Bush.
Most estimates I've seen indicate that 2 billion might be a sustainable number humanity without cheap energy. Perhaps we will transition to the lower numbers through natural means in a few generations, but we don't have a few generations. We have 40 years plus some slop for non-standard energy sources.
Just keep in mind: you are possibly on the titanic and there isn't anyone steering the damn thing. The ones who seem to have the most control, e.g. Bush and company, are saying "full speed ahead." All is ok. Others are saying that we should be slowing down. But others are saying that we've already got far too many people on the ship anyway.
I'm betting on the latter. I don't think the sludge and filth of 6 billion people is sustainable. And I'll bet developing countries are more dependent on cheap energy than we think. Once the cheap energy is gone, I think many of them will starve. In the last 100 years, I'll bet 50 million people have starved, and 10s of millions have been killed in warfare. What makes us, in this "modern" world, so much better than the generations that were involved with those murders?
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:42 am Post subject:
Personally, I long for the day when the pressures of the modern world no longer are relevant to everyday life. I am getting sick of the corporate rat race, and I am also sick of the constant deluge of commercials. As a matter of fact, I have decided to completely eliminate TV, except for PBS and I now listen to S/W radio more than I ever have listened to radio prior to realizing that all humans are just a disposable tool of the corporate world.
Yes, returning to a 19th century standard of living may be difficult, and many people will not survive the transition. However, the modern corporatist consumerist economy that, in my opinion, has outlived its usefulness to the populous, will no longer present the pressures on us to constantly buy, consume, waste, and replace goods which are unnecessary. It seems that most conventional media such as cable/sat TV, and regular AM/FM radio is only advertisement. I am getting so sick of this, and I am seeking any method at my disposal to limit my exposure to the overdose of corporatism.
I will miss the modern conveniences such as speed of transportation, lightened work load, increased food production, electrical power, massive information at my disposal, safe running water, refrigeration, competent medical care, etc. I will not miss one bit advertisement, traffic, stupid people, parking tickets, conformity, overpopulation, a nationwide obesity problem, the costs incurred with personal vehicles, promoted self indulgence, the debt based economy, false medical products such as Enzyte and Aavacor, sports, and politics. While some people may consider these negative aspects of industrial civilization that I have just mentioned just minor inconveniences, I consider them the very bane of modern society. I absolutely, 100%, despise all of these negative aspects that I have just named, and I cannot wait until the death of them. As a matter of fact, I want them to die by whatever means necessary. Even if that means the very sacrifice of our ease of life, at least I would no longer have to put up with a constant deluge of male bovine fecal matter.
If it would be possible to eliminate the negative, yet retain the positive, I would move there in a heartbeat. Yet, this would be impossible to obtain without sacrificing modern industrial society its self. Therefore I wish a fond farewell to industrial society, and I hope that all of the commercial creators burn in the hell that they helped create. May the death of corporatism be swift, and painless as possible.
I am not a communist, or a socialist. I am in favor of capitalism with common sense, and some restraint. I support entrepreneurial ventures, but I greatly despise corporate owned, outsourced, advertisement driven, lying, deceitful practices that have become the common practice in today's world. I hope it dies a fast and brutal death that is painless to the population of the nations of the world.
I am done with this particular rant now, I am just getting tired of putting up with the crap spewing from the airwaves. This amount of advertisement is enough to drive a man to drink, which I have started doing heavily at 6 beers a day. Good riddance to bad rubbish, corporatism. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Man, if people want to redistribute, and you don't like it, go move somewhere else. You're on the losing end of the game. Seriously.
I live in America. I am not the one who needs to move.
If you want to redistribute based on Canuck's concept of bribing the poor into not revolting and taxing the heck out of productive people, then you need to move to France.
Also he didn't anticipate the Oil Revolution or the Coal Revolution or the Nuclear Revolution.
Sorry, that's all part of the Green Revolutinon. Well, maybe not the nuclear part. Was there a nuclear revolution? Other than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I mean.
Quote:
Have faith, the Algae Revolution is just around the corner!
I'll try, but I think we'd have to genetically engineer the algae. We started working on algae biomass after the oil shocks of the '70s, and so far, no dice.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:19 am Post subject:
JayHMorrison wrote:
trespam wrote:
Man, if people want to redistribute, and you don't like it, go move somewhere else. You're on the losing end of the game. Seriously.
I live in America. I am not the one who needs to move.
If you want to redistribute based on Canuck's concept of bribing the poor into not revolting and taxing the heck out of productive people, then you need to move to France.
Enough said. It's all a difference of agendas at this point. "Bribing," "taxing the heck out of", etc. is not the point: my objective is to ensure we have appropriate communal and collective approaches to problem solving, not just free market survival of the fittest.
So right now, it's a all a political issue. I'm voting for those who support continuity of the inheritance tax, taxing capital gains, etc. These taxes probably affect me more than you, but I know at this time theyare the right thing to do.
But continue debate is pointless. It's a political issue in terms of influencing the direction of our government.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:27 am Post subject:
k_semler wrote:
Personally, I long for the day when the pressures of the modern world no longer are relevant to everyday life. I am getting sick of the corporate rat race, and I am also sick of the constant deluge of commercials. As a matter of fact, I have decided to completely eliminate TV, except for PBS and I now listen to S/W radio more than I ever have listened to radio prior to realizing that all humans are just a disposable tool of the corporate world.
In a lot of ways, it's a very strange system that we've ended up with in America. Mindless consumption and a race to increase productivity to ensure we can keep growing that mindless consumption. And because the system is so efficient and destructive towards those that can't compete, other societies are forced into the race as well.
I live in an area in which all people seem to think about is shopping, remodeling the house, buying the vacation place in Hawaii, vacationing, "the club", etc. The high school parking lot is full of BMWs, Porsches, etc. Some people might call this success. It is. But also just a little bit absurd.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:37 am Post subject:
Keith_McClary wrote:
trespam wrote:
I don't think mindless optimism is any more useful that mindless pessimism. The mindless optimists think there is nothing to do: it will take care of itself.
The mindless pessimists think there is nothing to do: all is futile.
Aaargh. Read the rest of your post.
OK, so I paint a pretty negative picture. I was equating mindless pessimism with those who think it is the end of all organized society and that we should all run to the hills, start gardens, etc. Even in a less complex society, division of labor makes sense. Not everyone needs to be a gardener.
Once you strip away al lot of the unnecessary production of crap that passes for increased standard of living (shipping plastic toys across the world to stuff into a McMeal), I think there will be a massive reduction in the amount of energy we are using. That will help us through the transition to a lower energy society, and will hopefully reduce the amount of suffering. But I think, given that 10s of millions died in a world of cheap energy, we can expect 10s of millions and probably 100s of millions to die in a world of expensive energy.
So to me:
optimism = no problem, technology will solve it, there is plenty of oil, etc
pessimism = buy weapons, learn to farm, get out while the gettings good, billions of deaths
realism = significantly reduced standard of living, less complexity, 100s of million of deaths
You state yourself that capitalism is more efficient. In a resource constrained world, what makes you think that will push people towards a less efficient model?
Because blind efficiency has led us off a cliff. Capitalism and greed will be ultimately be blamed when we hit the wall. It will be unfair to heap blame solely on free enterprise and the proponents of free enterprise, but there you go. There will be lots of unfair blame heaped about. I sure wouldn't try saying "Greed is good" in a resource constrained world unless you really do want to end up like Marie Antoinette.
Also because in a resource constrained world, lots of people are going to get very hungry. Whenever that happens, demand for more equity rises. Leaders will not ignore those demands.
Quote:
You seem to be hoping for your political viewpoint (Socialism/Communism) rather than being able to make a rational argument for why that political viewpoint will prevail.
I think the above is a rational explanation for why that political viewpoint will prevail, but I don't particularly care one way or the other. What is going to happen will happen and there is nothing I can do about it except adapt as best I can. Socialism has no answers to the problem of resource depletion. One of my worst case scenarios - we descend into Orwell's 1984 - is a socialist solution.
There is no political solution but, in my opinion, your political ideology and your value system will be a very early casualty of Peak Oil. It is small consolation given the big picture, but I'll enjoy seeing the end of the Gordon Gecko era.
You are very selective in your analysis. Many companies are preparing for carbon taxes voluntarily. International CAPITALIST companies are facing the reality that global warming might affect financial results and are responding accordingly. Those insurance companies don't want to get stuck with the bill.
Did you even read the article? Here's the real money paragraph:
The Bush Administration flatly rejects Kyoto and mandatory curbs, arguing that such steps will cripple the economy. Better to develop new low-carbon technologies to solve problems if and when they appear, says Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. And a small group of scientists still argues there is no danger. "We know how much the planet is going to warm," says the Cato Institute's Patrick J. Michaels. "It is a small amount, and we can't do anything about it."
A carbon tax? Fine by me. If it is high enough to produce meaningful results, the oil sands project is out the window. Canada signed Kyoto but the idea was immediately rejected by the province of Alberta. Why? The oil industry can't make 1990 emmission standards. We can't separate oil from sand without releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Do you want the oil or not?
"Better to develop low carbon technologies to solve problems if and when they appear."
This from the Secretary of Energy! It's hilarious if you look at it the right way. Monty Python and the Flying Circus is in charge. And you can take it seriously?
I really hate theme parks. You go there, it's supposed to be fun, but it's so boring and pointless. Everyone looks gloom, and the people who are smiling are just crazy old people.
I hate city centers. Zombified consumers looking in windows trying to find something that will give their pathetic lives some meaning.
Everyone talks the same aswell, pretending they're clever people but really just brain dead!
Yes, everything will come to an end! Everything that has a beginning has an end, every effect is a result of a cause, all existence is placed in a process, each thing has a different purpose. EVERYTHING is an effect of a cause.
But I ask you, WHAT is the cause of existence? Even if the universe began with one tine segment of an atom, the process doesn't start with something FINITE, it starts with something thats infinite. Who knows what that is...but I believe the signs of that infinite entity is all around us, because weare a result of it.
Once you strip away al lot of the unnecessary production of crap that passes for increased standard of living (shipping plastic toys across the world to stuff into a McMeal), I think there will be a massive reduction in the amount of energy we are using.
I agree with that completely. The current issue of Fortune magazine has an article on how to kick the oil habit. They were quoting some sources that we could lower our energy use (oil and electric grid) by 25% with no loss in quality of life. (Aaron, please do not post Javon's Paradox :D again)
So to me:
optimism = no problem, technology will solve it, there is plenty of oil, etc
pessimism = buy weapons, learn to farm, get out while the gettings good, billions of deaths
The optimistic route is very possible, but I am planning for the pessimistic route. Hunting for my 100 acres now. In pre-industrial society, the landowners were the wealthy ones. Getting my plantation started now.
trespam wrote:
realism = significantly reduced standard of living, less complexity, 100s of million of deaths
That could happen under either scenario, even if there is a solar/wind/fusion/hydrogen breaktrhough.
Joined: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 1104 Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:43 pm Post subject:
JayHMorrison wrote:
I agree with that completely. The current issue of Fortune magazine has an article on how to kick the oil habit. They were quoting some sources that we could lower our energy use (oil and electric grid) by 25% with no loss in quality of life. (Aaron, please do not post Javon's Paradox :D again)
So to me:
optimism = no problem, technology will solve it, there is plenty of oil, etc
pessimism = buy weapons, learn to farm, get out while the gettings good, billions of deaths
The optimistic route is very possible, but I am planning for the pessimistic route. Hunting for my 100 acres now. In pre-industrial society, the landowners were the wealthy ones. Getting my plantation started now.
trespam wrote:
realism = significantly reduced standard of living, less complexity, 100s of million of deaths
That could happen under either scenario, even if there is a solar/wind/fusion/hydrogen breaktrhough.
Well, Jay and I are in agreement once again. Perhaps he won't be sending me to France after all.
By the way Jay, when you get the 100 acres and the self-sufficient homestead all setup, please post the address and directions on how to get there on this site. We all may want to visit sometime.
By the way Jay, when you get the 100 acres and the self-sufficient homestead all setup, please post the address and directions on how to get there on this site. We all may want to visit sometime.
I was actually thinking of building two homes on my plantation. I figure there will be some really desperate wealthy people looking to get out late after all the good land is taken. I might partition off 10 acres with a house that already has solar installed and sell it to the highest bidder.
Do I here any bids higher than 10,000 silver pieces?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
