Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Slow decline or die-off?
Well, lurking on this site for a while, it's obvious that almost everyone on here thinks we're headed for the end of modern civilization, whether it be through a long, slow decline, or a quick, sudden die-off. My question is: which would you rather see and why?
In my opinion, a die-off would be better. Since billions of people are going to have to die anyways, it may as well happen all at once. Also, if a long, slow decline is what happened, then people would eventually see that their way of life cannot be sustained. In my opinion, this would likely lead to a scenario like post WWI Germany, where someone promises the general masses better living conditions, and then that someone turns out to be a dictator, like Hitler. A long, slow decline would also likely lead to war with oil-producing countries as we try to keep our way of life going for as long as possible by controlling their oil.
On the other hand, if the die-off scenario is what happened, in my opinion, the people who would be left would realize that they will have to adjust their way of life to a world that will never be the same. I think that as people realized that they will now need to work to get their own food and water, this would lead to a way of life similar to feudalism in Medieval Europe; people with land to farm on would hire people to work for them, in exchange, these people would get food and shelter. _________________ ...and somewhere, right now, Jimmy Carter is laughing.
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
What I prefer is not going to happen. But I will talk about what I think will happen.
I lean to a slow decline, but it could be a mix of both.
At first a long slow decline then if things get really bad or resource wars erupt into a nuclear holocaust, then a quicker die off.
Yes, tons of IF's, AND's and BUT's that could happen. We just don't know.
But as futurists we try to anticipate future events and the direction the world is headed in and as survivalists we try to prepare for those circumstances.
I see many names at our forum that do not post in the 'Planning for the Future' section?
You still have some valuable time left to prepare for what awaits you down the road. We are in the 'Indian Summer'of a post carbon world. Don't wait until the winter sets in to start work on your preparedness efforts.
Last edited by allenwrench on Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
Thunderbolt wrote:
Well, lurking on this site for a while, it's obvious that almost everyone on here thinks we're headed for the end of modern civilization, whether it be through a long, slow decline, or a quick, sudden die-off. My question is: which would you rather see and why?
In my opinion, a die-off would be better. Since billions of people are going to have to die anyways, it may as well happen all at once. Also, if a long, slow decline is what happened, then people would eventually see that their way of life cannot be sustained. In my opinion, this would likely lead to a scenario like post WWI Germany, where someone promises the general masses better living conditions, and then that someone turns out to be a dictator, like Hitler. A long, slow decline would also likely lead to war with oil-producing countries as we try to keep our way of life going for as long as possible by controlling their oil.
On the other hand, if the die-off scenario is what happened, in my opinion, the people who would be left would realize that they will have to adjust their way of life to a world that will never be the same. I think that as people realized that they will now need to work to get their own food and water, this would lead to a way of life similar to feudalism in Medieval Europe; people with land to farm on would hire people to work for them, in exchange, these people would get food and shelter.
You sound like Scrooge..."If they (poor) are going to die, then they had better do so and decrease the surplus population."
But you also sound right. We must accept that we have built our world on unsustainable means - a means built artificially on fossil fuel.
And when we live out of balance with natures intended means there is a price to pay to come back in balance with nature. And the price usually extracts pain from us in the adjustment process.
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:58 am Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
allenwrench wrote:
You sound like Scrooge..."If they (poor) are going to die, then they had better do so and decrease the surplus population."
But you also sound right. We must accept that we have built our world on unsustainable means - a means built artificially on fossil fuel.
And when we live out of balance with natures intended means there is a price to pay to come back in balance with nature. And the price usually extracts pain from us in the adjustment process.
I do not mean to sound like an elitist. I'm sorry if I came across that way. I do not believe that if a die-off happens, then the remaining population will be able to sustain their current way of life. I think that may be what you thought I was trying to say, but it was not. I'm simply trying to say, if modern civilization is going to go down in smoke and flames, I'd rather have it happen quickly than slowly. The slower it is, the more pain there is. Like right now, I know my lifestyle (and maybe my life) is going to end soon, but waiting for it to happen is really agonizing. I'm doing some basic planning, but am really limited in what I can do to prepare because I'm a teenager with parents whom I cannot convince that peak oil is imminent. So basically, I know I'm gonna get hit hard by this like almost everyone else in the developed world, but I'd rather have it happen quickly than slowly. _________________ ...and somewhere, right now, Jimmy Carter is laughing.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1850 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
From what I read in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, failing societies have a tendency to do both in succession. First the slow decline, as decreasing returns are reached - this can go on for some time - followed by a hard crash as the number of supports taken away grows too large to be accomodated. Diamond's reasoning and historical knowledge have convinced me that this is likely the model we will follow as well. Who knows how long the slide will last before the crash overtakes us? Years? Decades? I think it really depends on how fast the various catastrophes of energy, water, soil, food, climate, oceans and biodiversity converge upon each other.
btw, you also might check out this thread by Pops in the Planning forum. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
I too see both happening as Diamond describes but, I don't think the slow decline will be so slow. Perhaps in more primitive societies this is true but in our instant-communication, fast-paced world I think everything gets compressed. I believe things will accelerate quickly to collapse when realization (that things will never get back to "normal") hits.
The popular mind is just now beginning to be aware that energy is a problem. The immediate reaction is one best illustrated by one peak oil aware billionaire, T. Boone Pickens. who just a few days ago illustrated on CNBC how we could keep Kunstler's happy motoring public still motoring. That will be the focus for a while, "how do we keep living the american dream." The difference between the public and those of us here is that they will not have the luxury of time to digest the meaning of peak oil. Absent time and a stress-free environment "they" (whoever "they" may be) will not even begin to understand the true meaning of peak. This is why I remain a doomer; no one will make the right decisions when confronted with the stress of ever more expensive energy and no "solution" appearing on the horizon. Crime will increase, prices will increase, unemployment will increase and anger will explode when nothing seems to work anymore. Then the extreme event or events happen pushing us off the edge. That's when civilization as we know it ends. If you don't find a group of like minded people soon, all the money in the world won't help. _________________ Who is John Galt?
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1496 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
coyote wrote:
From what I read in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, failing societies have a tendency to do both in succession. First the slow decline, as decreasing returns are reached - this can go on for some time - followed by a hard crash as the number of supports taken away grows too large to be accomodated.
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2330 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
Die off is inevitable. There are too many people to feed and not enough oil to feed them with. The problem is acute in developing nations such as China and India with less than 1/10 an acre of productive land per person. That situation is the reason why the Chinese eat primarily a vegetarian diet today. Add to that the mass unemployment when they find that the world has lost it's appetite for their cheap products and you have nothing short of catastrophe. Many of these people would be happy to sell themselves into slavery in a post industrial nation such as the US, but that won't happen because the US will close it's borders and turn inward while the world economy falls to pieces due to sky high oil prices and the related fallout. It will be an "every country for itself" world. World population growth almost perfectly matches the graph of global economic activity starting with the "green revolution" after WW2. In time, even Americans will have to settle with a primarily vegetarian diet as our meat based system will become unsustainable, leaving Americans happy to eat the grain we currently feed to livestock. Learn how to cook with pasta, beans, rice, etc! I don't know what the figures on productive land are for the EU, so I can't comment there.
The point is that die off with not be uniform. Countries with ample productive land have a huge advantage. The US currently has over 1.5 acres per person. As oil becomes scarce, natural gas used to make fertilizer will remain prioritized IMO. Americans will be out of work, poor and crime will increase with years of recession, but there will be enough food to feed the citizens. Stalin was quoted as saying that grain is the best and original currency and he's right. Grain will become like gold on the international market.
The one thing I am certain about with Peak Oil is that their will be population reduction, though it will mainly be limited to third world and developing nations where most of the worlds population is now and where most of the population growth has been coming from. Hell, half the world's population is starving already by western standards. Charity goes down when times are tough and times will be tough. Americans will be in no mood to worry about the starving and dying millions worldwide, although America might have a lot of leverage with it's grain surpluses. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
Joined: Jun 05, 2006 Posts: 247 Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
I don’t think we get to choose whether it’s a slow or quick die off, or some combination. Since the agro business and food distribution networks are so dependent on fossil fuels and derivatives, any disruption in oil supply would spell disruption in the food chain. The dependence upon technology to maintain just-in-time deliveries and all the other components of a complex distribution management system – designed to maximize profit and minimize costs – make the ‘advanced’ western societies extremely vulnerable. Your next meal is on a truck or airplane somewhere, set for delivery tomorrow. If that does not arrive, you go hungry. If it does not arrive the next day, you start to worry. A few more days and you begin to starve.
It’s just a matter of whether the disruptions in the oil supply are caused by a singular, world scale event, or whether the oil supplies are managed down in an orderly market. The former would lead to massive fast die off via starvation and war. If the latter (unlikely) occurs, the die off could be a lot slower, but eventually, it will happen.
I do think the technologically dependent countries are much more at risk of population depletion than the more basic agro economies, which, paradoxically tend to be the more primitive.
No idea of time scales, but for some unsupportable reason, I could see 2015 as being a critical time. Obviously, as the oil reserves deplete, the risk factors for a singular event increase. Either way, I think the end result will see widely dispersed pockets of human habitation, centered around sustainable locations.
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
Thunderbolt wrote:
Well, lurking on this site for a while, it's obvious that almost everyone on here thinks we're headed for the end of modern civilization, whether it be through a long, slow decline, or a quick, sudden die-off. My question is: which would you rather see and why?
Biologically speaking, the sudden crash is best. A slow drawn out affair could decimate the carrying capacity to untold heights. Do you not think we will burn all combustibles and kill and eat everything that moves?
And while people still seem to think that die-off is about starvation; it isn't. At least it's not what kills the most. That is the province of disease, brought on by malnutrition due to lack of adequate food.
We, in the USA, could have full bellies and still be ravaged by a pandemic that sweeps the country overwhelming our decrepid immune system that was denied implementation by the overuse of anti-biotics. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 Posts: 1458 Location: Oklahoma City, USA
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
MonteQuest wrote:
And while people still seem to think that die-off is about starvation; it isn't. At least it's not what kills the most. That is the province of disease, brought on by malnutrition due to lack of adequate food.
We, in the USA, could have full bellies and still be ravaged by a pandemic that sweeps the country overwhelming our decrepid immune system that was denied implementation by the overuse of anti-biotics.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1850 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
MonteQuest wrote:
Biologically speaking, the sudden crash is best. A slow drawn out affair could decimate the carrying capacity to untold heights.
Monte, is it not true that implementing some of the broad global mitigations you've advocated might have the adverse effect of slowing down the crash, and therefore decimating carrying capacity the worse? This is something that's occurred to me from time to time, and it's one of the points on which I'm still confused about your position. If that's true, then might a quick crash dictated by Mother Nature actually be best? It seems to me that any drawing out of the crash phase for any reason however noble might simply ensure that folks will have the time to get to every last tree and fish.
In short: wouldn't those mitigation policies simply extend the amount of time we spend in overshoot? _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
Having also read collapse I think the Rwandan situation will emerge in more places. Ethiopian style famines will also be more frequent with no source of aid as shipping and shortages will negate any source - the die off is already happening.
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 3320 Location: Resiliency Farm
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Slow decline or die-off?
I will not answer the poll because what I would "rather" see is irrelevant. And if we do want to talk about "rather sees," mine is not listed.
To the issue at hand. The more time I spend on the issue I cannot help but think that we have already sprinted pass so many ecological limits through our many uses of hydrocarbons that their (relatively) quick depletion (esp if S.A. goes the way of Cantrell) cannot help but lead to a (relatively) quick reduction in the human population.
Fields are propped up by petro-chemicals.
Populations across the globe are propped up by international transportation of necessary goods.
First world populations have lost many of the skills necessary to survive in a world without plentiful hydro carbons and would need years of transition time to learn those skills.
Millions are kept alive through the ready availability of life saving drugs.
So a combination of fast depletion rates in Super-Giant and Giant Fields, in addition to an awakening of resource nationalism (keep our for us) could lead to a rapid decline in global human population.
Those nations which import the largest percentage of their hydrocarbons are facing the worse prospects.
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
