Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 5:59 pm Post subject: What are we going to do?
Let me preface this by stating my position. I believe that PO will happen ...and in the very near future! I closely follow the writings of the Doyens of PO....Simmons, Heinberg, Dreyffus, Kunstler, Campbell. I am not a PO denyer or some nut-case!
What I would like to consider is what I would REALLY do given the chance to offer some REALISTIC options for the very near future. I mean, what will REALISTICALLY happen? Are we going to wait for the world to return to the medieval ages in a space of 5 years or sooner?.....die-off, wars, 1930's depression....I have read about it all!
Please correct me if I am way of the mark, but what is wrong with the following options:
Please, I don't have all the details, but I am simply offering some PRINCIPLES?
1. Clearly, cars have got to go! Consider 'more or less' banning and/or restricting private car use. Emergency services, essential services still need to function won't they? ok, ok...getting to work, etc, etc....I said I don't know all the details.
2. Clearly, farms, trucks still need to produce and transport food.....why not let them to use the oil?
3. Agriculture will still need pesticides, herbicides, fertiliser to produce food. Oil for these industries. I have heard that future food production will result in die-off, etc....but would it not be REALISTIC to allocate remaining oil resources to essential agriculture?
4. Clearly, power stations will need fuel....wouldn't this be an 'essential?'...heating, cooking......if people won't have their cars, they will stay at home. Like I said, I don't have all the details.
5. Aviation....anybody's guess. Some still will be needed. (Will the military take 'their share' (maybe simply hijack all of it?))
6. Kunstler's 3000-mile-caesar salad, Walmart, globalisation......no doubt a good thing to see the end of all these things.
6. Infrastucture, water treatment.....clearly a essential priority.
7. Plastics industry.....(i.e everything we use) ....like I said before .....I don't know all the details. Something will stay, alot junked.
The point of all this, I would hope, is that this may buy some time. 20 years perhaps? Again, I don't know what happens after this.
My question is: Is society going to collapse within a short time interval (1-10 years)?
After all, PO mid-point means that we still have SOME hydrocarbon reserves left.
Once it becomes clear (at some point, I am assuming it will become clear)....won't somebody (I don't know who or how) institute some form of regulation and control to slowdown the effects of PO?
Food if no job?......I said I don't know...why not food-stamps or rationing?
I didn't say it would be easy!
Agriculture and food would still get fuel/energy as a priority industry won't it?
Joined: May 15, 2004 Posts: 253 Location: Southeast USA
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject:
Personally, I don't suscribe to the Mad Max theory of the world ending. Yes, peak oil will lead to some bad things. However, I feel that conservation and efficiency, coupled with usage of alternative energies, and most important of all, some worldwide regulation of populations will prevent a total end of civilization. Besides, did not advanced civilizations exist before the 1800s? And of course, this theory hinges on the fact that we don't go for a last gasp at coal, and effectively kill ourselves off with global warming. _________________ In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high.-Thoreau
Peak Oil
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: What are we going to do?
andris wrote:
Once it becomes clear (at some point, I am assuming it will become clear)....won't somebody (I don't know who or how) institute some form of regulation and control to slowdown the effects of PO?
Most likely the governments that we currently have will mutate into military dictatorships of some sort to manage the unfolding chaos. Individual freedom good bye.
By the way public transportation will not save us, neither the Europeans...
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: What are we going to do?
andris wrote:
After all, PO mid-point means that we still have SOME hydrocarbon reserves left.
Once it becomes clear (at some point, I am assuming it will become clear)....won't somebody (I don't know who or how) institute some form of regulation and control to slowdown the effects of PO?
...Andy
When you base an economy and a money system upon infinite exponential growth, there is no way to slowdown the effects, postpone them, maybe, but that just makes the fall harder and farther. Without growth, the economy and the money system go down. SOME oil will not grow the economy, only more oil than we are currently using will.
There is no fix, only cope and adapt. _________________ 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: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 132 Location: BA PA USA
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject:
I don't subscribe to the total collapse in the blink of an eye either. I mean the world didn't end when the financial system collapsed in 1929. Yeah, it sucked for a lot of people, but there was still civilazation. We had make work programs and breadlines, but life went on. With some management the "die-off" could easily follow the resource depletion curve and we could all live moderately prosperous lives (at least compared to the 3 million years prior to the energy bonanza that began w/coal). What the likelihood of that happening is... I think low. We'll probably start with a depression and then either find a way out as conservation kicks in, new sources of energy are developed, and our financial system is reoriented to a stable state model instead of a growth model, or we'll hit a depression and muddle along until people give up on industrial society once and for all. Anyone who tells you what is going to happen "for sure" is full of it. Nobody can possibly know.
As far as planning goes... get good a gardening, get a bike, set up a cistern, buy some handtools, get out of debt, and be friendly with your neighbors. If you have money left over after that, buy something that might hold its value like oil company stock, precious metals, or a cow (I'm seroius!).
We'll probably start with a depression and then either find a way out as conservation kicks in, new sources of energy are developed, and our financial system is reoriented to a stable state model instead of a growth model, or we'll hit a depression and muddle along until people give up on industrial society once and for all.
And how will the $37 trillion dollars of US debt be paid off in a stable state model?
I suggest you read this thread.
Our Money System and Oil Depletion; Are they Compatible? http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic3761.html _________________ 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.
that was a really long thread, and i think i read most of it.
it occurs to me that most of the individuals and institutions to which debt is owed would probably not go hungry if the debts went unpaid.
since oil depletion cannot be fixed (i believe all options have been explored on this site numerous times) per se, perhaps it is time to look at the damned money system. why do we need a financial system that relies on infinite growth and creation of debt?
money supply could be regulated strictly for the purpose of tweaking the economy, instead of the way the fed changes interest rates now [we have to get rid of the fed, or change it].
the next thing that we do is we outlaw interest-based loans entirely.
today, a lot of transactions require participation of a buyer, a seller, and a lender. i say we restrict all transactions to buyer-seller only, and outlaw the lenders.
could we say that we then have a system that makes sense? a finite system for a finite world?
it occurs to me that most of the individuals and institutions to which debt is owed would probably not go hungry if the debts went unpaid.
That would be China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea who have lent us 80% of their savings. Hungry is not what they would be.
Quote:
The next thing that we do is we outlaw interest-based loans entirely.
today, a lot of transactions require participation of a buyer, a seller, and a lender. i say we restrict all transactions to buyer-seller only, and outlaw the lenders.
could we say that we then have a system that makes sense? a finite system for a finite world?
How would money get into existence then, if not lent? _________________ 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.
The approach of, "What are we going to do" is going to make matters worse and the collapse more devistating to more people. The question should be, "What am I going to do." There is no big parent in the government office building that is going to care for you; go watch "The Wizard of OZ."
The Soviet Union failed because government planning does not work. The US economy (indeed the world economy) has the same problems because of government intervention in free markets. I have posted before that the nature of government is plunder by force. The beneficiaries are the power elite behind the government and the government itself. The majority are the pawns deprived of their production. This is what government has always been whether the populus is perecptive enough to understand what is being done to them or not.
I think you alarm is justified. Systems often do collapse in rubble when they pass the point where the collapse can no longer be fended off. Since the world population is six times what can be supported without oil the obvious answer is right in front of us. The little details are up for grabs, but counting on anyone other than yourself and those close to you will lessen your chances of being among the survivors. The more dependent upon this collapsing system, the more likely you will go down with it. Those who could and did get out of the twin towers before they collapsed avoided the collapse; those who stayed went down. Same for the passengers on the Titanic.
Americans often seem to think that the depression of the 1930s was about as bad as anything can get. For Europeans, the difficulties of the depression dwarf beside the horrors of WWII. Still, even during the war life went on in Europe, for most people.
My point is that a powerdown forced by increasingly more expensive energy will still be more liveable than a full scale war with willful killing and destruction (like air bombing). Of course, if peak oil leads to a world war, then we all are in real trouble...
Is society going to collapse within a short time interval (
Almost certainly not.
But we are gonna fight.
And the fight we are gonna have will compare to WWII, as crack compares to Sanka. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
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
