I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:20 pm Post subject: USA- Most likely future scenario?
Let’s hear your future scenario of what you think will happen in the United States within the next 30 years.
Will the US Government invade other countries?
Will other countries or groups of countries attack United States interests?
Will the US Government admit to Peak Oil and start switching to alternative forms of energy for its people?
Will there be a die-off or population reduction (in any form) in the United States? The World?
Will the citizens of the United States follow it’s government? Or will the US Government radically change to maintain internal power?
Include any other thoughts as well. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Yes, I believe the US will invade Iran next and perhaps closely followed by N. Korea. In a report, titled, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, written by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century spelled out the genuine rationale for a war on Iraq and Iran. The report advocated “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Libya has appeared to have already capitulated as far as WMD’s, so they may be off the list for a while. As to China, that is one big elephant. But the posturing off the coast by our Navy seems bent on stirring up something. I have been diligently studying this geo-political strategy for years, and I still can't make any rational sense of a sane game plan.
On his visit to South Korea on June 1, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz announced Washington's intention to “reposition” some of its military forces stationed in South Korea . . . The redeployment would entail moving those forces farther south . .” (Stars and Stripes, June 3, 2003)
Why is the Bush administration proposing to abandon the long-standing tripwire function of U.S. forces in South Korea? There is one unsettling possibility: The administration is considering a preemptive military attack on North Korea's nuclear installations and wants to move American troops out of harm's way. Here’s North Korea’s response to the redeployment announcement:
Quote:
SEOUL (Reuters) – “A U.S.-South Korean plan to transfer American troops away from the border with North Korea is designed to set the stage for a pre-emptive strike on the communist state, Pyongyang's ruling party daily said Friday . . . North Korea's Rodong Sinmun, the official mouthpiece of the ruling party, said the long-term redeployment plan was “a very dangerous military move which should not be overlooked.” “The U.S. imperialists are applying a war method based on high-tech with main emphasis put on missile strikes and air raids rather than land attack in carrying out their war of overseas aggression,” it said.
Writing for The Washington Times, on May 25, 2004, Bill Gertz reported,
Quote:
“The Pentagon and State Department are planning to set up a 75,000-member international peacekeeping force for Africa, senior Bush administration officials told Congress yesterday.” “The program is called the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI).”
The report also quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as saying,
Quote:
“In most cases, the U.S.-funded peacekeeping force would operate under a U.N. mandate…an international force that could be used for peacekeeping operations would reduce 'the stresses' on U.S. forces.” President Bush's plan to create a standing UN army at U.S. expense is a chilling revelation, and a clear omen of things to come.
Quote:
Will other countries or groups of countries attack United States interests?
The Chinese government still classifies the United States as, what it calls, “Number One Enemy.” In 1999, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army published a document entitled Unrestricted Warfare. The main theme of that study was how to defeat the United States. It said that a new type of unrestricted war against America could be launched by “an intrusion of [Internet] hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden.” That was two years before 9/11.
Beijing Television produced a documentary entitled Attack America. As the video shows jets crashing into the Twin Towers, the narrator says: “This is the America the whole world has wanted to see.”
Quote:
Will the US Government admit to Peak Oil and start switching to alternative forms of energy for its people?
I think they will blame the coming oil crisis on “other factors”and other countries. After the OPEC fiasco in the 1970’s, most Americans will easily bite into that sandwich.
Quote:
Will there be a die-off or population reduction (in any form) in the United States? The World?
In thirty years, PO or not, the world’s population will exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. The rate and magnitude I shudder to consider. From studies that have been done, we know it is projected that the earth can only sustain 2 billion people indefinitely.
Quote:
Will the citizens of the United States follow it’s government? Or will the US Government radically change to maintain internal power?
There are the same thing aren't they? The Patriot Act is a case study in that most dependable of all instances, war, to alter the attitude of people who “would be willing to give up things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security against a deadly enemy.” The bill came to Congress on Sept 19, only eight days after the attacks. The Senate passed its version by a vote of 96 to 1 on October 11, one month to the day following the attacks. The House followed the next day.
The 4th Amendment, for all intents and purposes, is now repudiated: there is no longer any reasonable security of persons and their effects. King George’s notorious and resented Bills of Attainder gave no more powers than those now assumed by every highway patrolman and airport guard. Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of this development is the lack of public discussion. The U.S. has traditionally prided itself on its Constitution and Bill of Rights, and one would think that the final passing of a sacrosanct right would at least be noted in the press. But “public discussion” is limited to whatever the “media” chooses to feature. Look at how much media attention this “Swift Boat” controversy has sparked. Are we having properly served? I think not.
Citizens should look out for Patriot II, a broader and more invasive sequel or a stealth version broken up and camouflaged in other legislation to avoid being a target for criticism. You can see it here:
As more and more people are made aware of the implications of this orchestrated move towards consolidation of power within the Executive Branch, you will see more demonstrations and more violations of civil liberties. Our Constitutional right to free speech and free assembly are going to be seriously eroded and denied—all in the name of the War on Terrorism.
And in the cold hard light of the facts, even the government’s “war on terror” seems disingenuous. There is a total collapse of trust in American intentions abroad and it's only gotten worse over the past year, especially in light of the systematic and illegal abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, not to mention, the continuance of people being detained without charges—indefinitely—at Guantanamo Bay.
This policy has put out that bright beacon of light that the people of the world used to look up to as a vision of hope. Now there are more terrorists than ever. We seem to soon forget the consequences of our actions. What better people we would be if we could put Abu Ghraib in our pocket, and be reminded of it at least once a day, whenever we have our wallets out. Because, trust me, the Muslim world will not soon forget those pictures. George Bush said he was exporting democracy to Iraq, but he seems to have exported a much uglier aspect of American public policy—some of the most sadistic practices employed in the U.S. prison system.
When people hate, resent, and fear the United States far more than they dislike bin Laden, how can you possibly succeed in winning a war on terror?
Quote:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-westerners never do.” —Samuel P. Huntington, Historian.
_________________ 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.
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: USA- Most likely future scenario?
kochevnik wrote:
Yes, but not a direct offensive attack ... most likely either in defense of their own interests or indirectly. Much more turmoil caused by non-nation affiliated groups like Al Quedavich ... damage will be more psychological (911) than catastrophic. Even nuking a few cities wouldn't make any significant dent in a country as large and diversified as the USA.
Yes, I agree entirely. The Roman Empire did not fall to one superior enemy. Rather the Empire died the death of a thousand cuts, suffering repeated attacks against her frontiers and invasions by increasingly larger and better organized enemies.
As I have mentioned earlier, I used to be an NPS ranger and worked all along the Colorado River. I still have friends there. They tell me there is great concern of a terrorist attack on the upriver earthen dams or a direct aircraft hit/bomb attack on the Glen Canyon Dam. This could start a domino collapse taking everything out all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. This would shut down the entire western economy for years. _________________ 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: Jul 07, 2004 Posts: 434 Location: Berkeley CA
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: USA- Most likely future scenario?
jato wrote:
Let’s hear your future scenario of what you think will happen in the United States within the next 30 years.
Will the US Government invade other countries?
Will other countries or groups of countries attack United States interests?
Will the US Government admit to Peak Oil and start switching to alternative forms of energy for its people?
Will there be a die-off or population reduction (in any form) in the United States? The World?
Will the citizens of the United States follow it’s government? Or will the US Government radically change to maintain internal power?
Include any other thoughts as well.
U.S will attack other countries, most likely Iran. Sure Iran has alot of oil, and has the second largest reserve of natural gas. Today we label them as "axis of evil." We're saying they're building WMD, and harboring terrorism. here's some article
http://www.communitycurrency.org/Tarpley.html
As far as other countries, I highly doubt an attack, or major offensive because we are shielded by two vast oceans, however Osama has inspired more terrorism, and I beliveve there will be more terrorism/groups against us. A U.S war with China isn't possable, because we are interdependent on eachother, globalization is at work here. However I think China will provide weapons for the countries that U.S are planning to invade.
The government will not tell it's people, because psychologically most people of the general public can't handle such issues like this. It will cost an astronomical amount to build an alternative energy infurstructure.
Worldwide there will be a die-off, as we pass earth's carrying capacity. However in the U.S we are the bread basket of the world. I do not think die-off is possable in the U.S. 70% of out food is fed to livestock, and we eat the meat. As the result if agriculture is weakened, we will be forced to eat more grains, and less meat.
U.S are unwilling to change it's lifestyle. I believe this lifestyle is an addiction, people will not give up. At first I think the American as a whole will start blaming others, just because it's more easy to use scrapegoats. _________________ my page:
www.myspace.com/peakoil
Worldwide there will be a die-off, as we pass earth's carrying capacity. However in the U.S we are the bread basket of the world. I do not think die-off is possable in the U.S. 70% of out food is fed to livestock, and we eat the meat. As the result if agriculture is weakened, we will be forced to eat more grains, and less meat.
That article is spot on. I agree with most of your points, but if less than 5% of the world's population has most of the world's food, do you not think there will be an effort to get some of it by starving people of other nations? No food war? How do you see that playing out here? How could we possibly be immune to a world food and energy crisis? Just a nice easy, curious question, ok? _________________ 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.
I believe that the agressive US foreign policy is unsustainable in this day and age. The US economy is a house of cards and the military is expensive.
But there definately is the possibility of invasion by other countries. But consider this. I do not support American aggression. But if someone invaded our borders, that would be a different story. America is a heavily armed nation.
I believe that the agressive US foreign policy is unsustainable in this day and age. The US economy is a house of cards and the military is expensive.
While not an isolationist, I do not believe in this imperialistic aggression either. Myself, I am at a loss as to why the US feels the utter driving need to export such short-sighted policies. What are they considering they we do not?
Maybe it can best be stated in the words of our president:
Quote:
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” —George W. Bush
And one of our founding fathers:
Quote:
John Quincy Adams admonished that America ought not “go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
_________________ 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.
Yes. We can't help ourselves, it makes for good television.
Quote:
Will other countries or groups of countries attack United States interests?
Yes.(and if not, we'll just have to pretend now won't we.)
Quote:
Will the US Government admit to Peak Oil and start switching to alternative forms of energy for its people?
No, and yes. As our government has said, our standard of living is non-negotiable, and it never will be.
Quote:
Will there be a die-off or population reduction (in any form) in the United States? The World?
Probably not in the US. In the world? Well, it depends on where you're talking about. In some places it is already happening. Where there is food, there will be more people. Where there is too little food, there will be less people.
Quote:
Will the citizens of the United States follow it’s government? Or will the US Government radically change to maintain internal power?
Yes. Most people (American or otherwise) will do anything as long as you keep the food flowing and don't take reality TV of the air. The US government will not need to change anything. Most of its(and most other governments') power is derived from a little known source called apathy.
2004-2010: Peak oil hits. World reserves begin to decline. US invades Iran and Sudan for oil. Recession strikes. Massive unemployment. Gas prices climb to $6 per gallon. US military starts to draft large amounts of young people to fight the oil wars.
2010-2015: Society starts to break down as oil world oil supplies become more and more scarce. Full depression in US. Riots and looting become common. Police system breaks down. US has used up most of it's Strategic reserves to fight oil wars. Very little oil left for police forces and emergeny services. Food shortages begin to hit hard. Stock market has completely crashed. Martial law is enforced.
2015-2020: Government has collapsed. Anarchy takes over. Capitalism is dead. No electricity or water system. Massive starvation begins, as the oil is almost gone. The cities are a very dangerous place to be. Canabalism in cities is common. Groups of people form to try and survive in the wilderness, and in the less populated areas. Small farming communites start to pop up. By 2020, the population of US has fallen to 50 million people.
2020-2025: A new era has begun. Small farming communities pop up everywhere. Life resembling medieval living is everywhere. All modern technology is useless now. Simple living is the only way to live now. The earth is once again a beautiful place.
Perhaps many of you missed jato's premise for his questions. He asked over the next thirty years. While I find projecting many of his questions 30 years into the future difficult to do, there is one we have data on.
In that amount of time 2004 to 2034, if the population continues to grow at the present rate of 1.3% we will reach a world population of about 8.5 billion people, an increase equal to the amount that it is estimated the earth can support long-term....2 billion. Because of the way population demograhics work, even if we just started replacing ourselves, it would take 50 years to reach zero population growth. Why is this? Because at any given time you have a large number of people in the child-bearing age such as the 80 million baby boomers. Consider this, 45% of the world's population is 15 years of age and younger. In the next few years they will move into prime reproductive age and the population will once again swell like it did in the sixties. Here is a chart from one of my earlier posts. You may want to reconsider your forecast. Let historical facts and the current data guide you.
Quote:
If we had 145 million people in the United States today, which is the largest number anybody has ever given a semi-sane reason for having alive at one time in the United States, we would be using less than half our petroleum. The world's population is expected to grow from 6.4 billion to 8.9 billion by 2050 if we continue to slow our rate of reproduction. If fertility remains at present levels, the population could reach 12.8 billion by 2050. The highest world population growth rate was 2.04 percent in the late 1960's. This year, it is about 1.31 percent. If fertility remained at current levels, the population would reach the absurd figure of 296 billion in just 150 years. Even if it dropped to 2.5 children per woman and then stopped falling, the population would still reach 28 billion.
• World population reached:
1 billion in 1804,
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 (33 years)
4 billion in 1974 (13 years)
5 billion in 1987 (12 years)
6 billion in 1999 (12 years)
7 billion in 2013 (14 years - projected)
8 billion in 2028 (15 years - projected)
12.8(high) or 8.9 (low) billion projected for 2050
http://www.population-awareness.net/
_________________ 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.
2010-2015: Society starts to break down as oil world oil supplies become more and more scarce. Full depression in US. Riots and looting become common. Police system breaks down. US has used up most of it's Strategic reserves to fight oil wars. Very little oil left for police forces and emergeny services. Food shortages begin to hit hard. Stock market has completely crashed. Martial law is enforced.
2015-2020: Government has collapsed. Anarchy takes over. Capitalism is dead. No electricity or water system. Massive starvation begins, as the oil is almost gone. The cities are a very dangerous place to be. Canabalism in cities is common. Groups of people form to try and survive in the wilderness, and in the less populated areas. Small farming communites start to pop up. By 2020, the population of US has fallen to 50 million people.
Sure sounds like fun, but unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen that way.
1. Oil, Nat Gas, Nuclear, and others will keep us in motion for a VERY long time.
2. To maintain order, all you have to do is set off a nuke in one city, and tell people that it will happen again if they don't chill. Rifles and shotguns are not even close to being an annoyance to real military hardware.
If we really want the above scenario to take place, I think we're going to have to invent a virus that turns people into zombies. Now, where have I seen that before??? ( Sorry, just saw RE2)
Joined: Jul 07, 2004 Posts: 434 Location: Berkeley CA
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:34 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
Quote:
Worldwide there will be a die-off, as we pass earth's carrying capacity. However in the U.S we are the bread basket of the world. I do not think die-off is possable in the U.S. 70% of out food is fed to livestock, and we eat the meat. As the result if agriculture is weakened, we will be forced to eat more grains, and less meat.
That article is spot on. I agree with most of your points, but if less than 5% of the world's population has most of the world's food, do you not think there will be an effort to get some of it by starving people of other nations? No food war? How do you see that playing out here? How could we possibly be immune to a world food and energy crisis? Just a nice easy, curious question, ok?
It is unlikely that U.S will be invaded, we're protected by two great oceans, in addition we have the worlds largest, and most advanced navy. They would have to cross a great ocean, and think about how long the supply lines will be. If oil supplies drop off, most of whats left will be used by the military. North Korea has little oil, yet they use that very little to run it's military.
On a land based note, Canada is our friend, it's also a massive grain producer. It is unlikely Mexico will attack us, because I don't see why they would. We have friendly neighbors. _________________ my page:
www.myspace.com/peakoil
I think we'll be seeing a long series of invasions or some form of intervention over the next five years. At some point during these invasions, it will probably be the beginning of a third world war. Of course, I don't think industrialized countries will actually attack each other in a way that most people are familiar with; rather, they'll be more likely to end up squabbling over divided territory over resource-rich nations x, y, and z.
I think that the reasoning of the Iraq war would be a textbook example of how politicians will drag their subjects into war. There was some mild, ineffective resistance to the Iraq war from the beginning, but most of America was scared enough to believe the bullshit, even when they had a high standard of living. If people have a shitty standard of living, and will be at a point that they'll vote for anyone who will promise them to bring back their standard of living in exchange for bending over a little further, they will accept most of these wars without clearly thinking. People in the US generally want people to do crap for them, so don't expect people to recognize the problem and suddenly become logical, humane, and responsible. Some people may be decent on a personal level, but when they get into groups, they'll just look for someone to gangbang.
Sure, the US can attack Iran, but I think there will be a bit more action going in West Africa, simply because of the lower transportation costs involved, along with the shorter distance. The US has already been funding friendly domestic militaries in certain West African countries, so unless those guys get blown away by some enemy, there will only be those craft advisors that we send all over the farking place.
If there is some kind of subtle war with other superpowers, mainly Russia, the EU, and China -- all of whom seem to have very good relations -- the US will get stomped on. Having two oceans may be a great way to prevent a sustained invasion, but this doesn't help us for transporting increasing amounts of imported fossil fuels. If any potential enemies really want to shut us down, they can easily do it. It doesn't take much to blow up important pipelines and shut down entire oil infrastructures. The dudes in the desert have no real difficulty doing it right now, and it'll take even less effort for an organized, well-equipped military to do the same.
If the US does indeed attack Iran, I reckon that will be the start of World War three right there. Japan, China, and the EU -- countries that have a good amount of influence -- all have a big portion of their petrol coming from this country. These countries will not be very happy, and I don't mean they'll be saying, "Yeah, well, that was pretty a pretty dumb thing to do, but we can always go somewhere else" like they did with Iraq. "You Fark. Your days of fun in the sand are over," would be a more realistic response. When things get ugly in places like Japan -- a country who would probably enjoy a revival of the militaristic society that the've had since the beginning of their existence until 1945 -- they'll be doing some pretty crazy things, and certainly won't be very happy with us.
Still, in a period of five years, I think living in the US will be far more terrifying than any war being waged. The media will only get more restrictive, so most people will not know very much about foreign war. However, I think that the end result of a war which invloves powerful countries competing for cheap energy that must be obtained beyond their borders will result in the most brutal war that has ever been waged in human history, and will make all wars of the twentieth century look like mere fistfights. It may happen sooner than I think, but I doubt US residents will know about it. Television, and maybe even the Internet, will have much more obvious propagandist qualities; you'd have to be a person of considerable status to be able to get accurate information.
Alternative energy at this point is a huge scam, I think. It truly is a beautiful thing on a small, local scale, but trying to retrofit an entire economy with these things will be unrealistic -- there is a little debt problem that we're having right now that would make the endeavor unaffordable. I realize that a combination of alternatives can be used, but it seems to me that the more things you want to build and implement, the more money and resources it will cost.
People will starve before production can get to such low levels, either from climate change, soil depletion, or some other flavor that I'm not thinking of. Fresh water will be the thing to worry about. I think that water will be completely privatized by corporate/government powers that they would be able to control every person relying on irrigation. If people behave themselves, they'll be provided with just enough water to drink without getting a fever before death resulting in dehydration. If the citizens get out of line, the valve gets shut off. I've seen and heard about some pretty Fark up things in my life, but a powerful few controlling all large quantities of drinkable water is probably one of the creepiest things I can think of.
I suppose things'll be bad enough to the point of where just about ninety percent of the people you see on a daily basis will either be dead, dying, homeless, or on the verge of physical and mental breakdown within the next twenty years. You should always keep this in mind if some random Fark up pisses you off.
It is unlikely that U.S will be invaded, we're protected by two great oceans, in addition we have the worlds largest, and most advanced navy. They would have to cross a great ocean, and think about how long the supply lines will be. If oil supplies drop off, most of whats left will be used by the military. North Korea has little oil, yet they use that very little to run it's military.
On a land based note, Canada is our friend, it's also a massive grain producer. It is unlikely Mexico will attack us, because I don't see why they would. We have friendly neighbors.
Terran, I'm not talking about invasion...I'm talking about hungry masses of people! Canada has about 25 million people and very little military and a huge open border to the US. people know we have lots of food. They will come. Wouldn't you? I worked border patrol for the NPS near the Mexican border and watched husbands pissing in their wive's and children's mouths to keep them alive long enough to get into the US in 1996! Thousands are dying in the deserts trying to get here now.
Terran, may I ask how old you are? _________________ 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.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Sorry, just saw RE2)
