Might help you decide what you want to give up so we can all sit in the same slum, cooking on our faeces fueled fire, all over the globe, together as one in dire misery. Though how you are going to manage the world into a contolled descent into an equivalence of poverty is beyond me. Do we have that many bullets?
Wow, over ten million people living in poverty on your own door step. Better start the redistribution at home immediately.
Remember the poor houses? Remember the filth running through the streets? The outbreaks of plague and famine that were such an essential part of British life all those years ago? Things which sent British sons and daughters out to the remotest corners of the world never to return?
What happens when more labour is needed than service? No need for all that education. Child labour, ahh, ain't that sweet. Gotta make a copper or two...
Wow, over ten million people living in poverty on your own door step. Better start the redistribution at home immediately.
you make on the surface a reasonable point..
however poverty in the Uk is not destabelising it is contained by social welfare etc...
the equivalency you need is not exactitude but min standards to avoid anarchy..
you need to have min standards in comparative terms. there is latitude globally and with-in any particular society.. success or containment is a threshold state not a universal condition
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6571 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:38 am Post subject:
In fact the premise of this forum is not “run for the hills and stock up on ammo”. If you have read the Assessments and Plans thread you will see there are quite a few different approaches to riding out the decline, with attempting to become less dependant on existing infrastructure being only one of many. The variety of thread topics also indicates differing attitudes; increase awareness, farming in town, conversion of suburbs, etc.
One of the effects of increased oil prices almost universally agreed on (on this board at least) is increased cost of transportation and the probability that more trade will happen on a local level. Putting oneself in a locale where the population is already fairly independent and can produce sufficient food to maintain the local population seems prudent if fuel for transportation becomes scarce. And IMO storing sufficient supplies to ride out a short-term emergency – caused by whatever reason, seems even more prudent no matter what the future holds.
On the other hand, trying to hide out far from any community in a bunker filled with TP can only be a short-term solution.
At any rate, as many people as there are in the world, there will be that many solutions. If your plan is to conserve our way out of trouble, by all means post it on the plans thread here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic321-0-asc-45.html _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Boris, I've been to London twice. That city can't sustain itself. I don't even think the UK can. I hired a car and drove all over Scotland and England, too many people and not enough land IMO. A postage stamp. I'd leave.
>>>Things which sent British sons and daughters out to the remotest corners of the world never to return?
Yep, I live in Australia. I already live semi-rural as it is, farms are around me. So what Boris is talking about doesn't make sense to me. I see a load of land where I am. There's nothing that odd about having chooks, sheep (they're good lawn mowers) and riding a horse. There's organic farms not far from me either and for years I've grown my own veggies. I guess all this survivalist thing is city talk. But rural life has gone on since day dot and still goes on. The alien thing to me is cities. Noisy and conjested, yuck.
I have to laugh about all this bandit culture talk. There's no way they'll make it if they can't afford fuel, it's too far and by the time the drama sets in, the govt would have commandeered all fuel. If you're rural, you'd get a diesel allowance. And as for govts siezing the land, well what use is the land to the govt, unless the folks running the land are left to work it. Land will not magically produce, you need the people with skills to do that. The landowners are the best for the job and the govt knows it. You won't get kicked off your land, though you'll get taxed on your produce, sh*t what's new? Honestly, the worst that would happen is you're forced to billet city people. Plenty of lonely farmers would LOVE a few city gals to liven up their day.
Joined: Aug 12, 2004 Posts: 1180 Location: England
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:03 am Post subject:
Anonymous wrote:
Boris, I've been to London twice. That city can't sustain itself. I don't even think the UK can. I hired a car and drove all over Scotland and England, too many people and not enough land IMO. A postage stamp. I'd leave.
>>>Things which sent British sons and daughters out to the remotest corners of the world never to return?
Yep, I live in Australia. I already live semi-rural as it is, farms are around me. So what Boris is talking about doesn't make sense to me. I see a load of land where I am. There's nothing that odd about having chooks, sheep (they're good lawn mowers) and riding a horse. There's organic farms not far from me either and for years I've grown my own veggies. I guess all this survivalist thing is city talk. But rural life has gone on since day dot and still goes on. The alien thing to me is cities. Noisy and conjested, yuck.
I have to laugh about all this bandit culture talk. There's no way they'll make it if they can't afford fuel, it's too far and by the time the drama sets in, the govt would have commandeered all fuel. If you're rural, you'd get a diesel allowance. And as for govts siezing the land, well what use is the land to the govt, unless the folks running the land are left to work it. Land will not magically produce, you need the people with skills to do that. The landowners are the best for the job and the govt knows it. You won't get kicked off your land, though you'll get taxed on your produce, sh*t what's new? Honestly, the worst that would happen is you're forced to billet city people. Plenty of lonely farmers would LOVE a few city gals to liven up their day.
Mr guest you are incorrect , the UK can sustain itself in food. It is just cheaper at the moment to import from poorer parts of the world or EEC. If you go to the DEFRA website you will see that the UK is 70%(was as high as 75% in early 90's) self sufficient food already and it only uses 4.5m hectares out of 18.5 hectares for crops. Aprroximately 5m are used for grazing animals the rest is set aside and unused grassland. Couple this with the fact that the average UK Consumer eats 40% too many calories and you could easily feed the population, although I concede the choice would be poorer and some meat production would have to be sacrificed. Also there will still be international trade Post peak , there will for example still be 20 billion barrels per year being produced in 2030 so assuming food production and distribution get priority, there is no need for anybody to starve to death in the UK for the foreseeable future.
In addition to this North Sea oil according to C.Campbell will supply at least half the UK's consumption levels of oil even in 2020 so need to fear starving to death just yet.
In fact the premise of this forum is not “run for the hills and stock up on ammo”. If you have read the Assessments and Plans thread you will see there are quite a few different approaches to riding out the decline, with attempting to become less dependant on existing infrastructure being only one of many. The variety of thread topics also indicates differing attitudes; increase awareness, farming in town, conversion of suburbs, etc.
I did read those and while it is fair to say the spirit or intention of the group topic is not 'how to lay claymore trip wires across your patch", I would contend that is what is is becoming (bad eng.)....
Moreover I do have issue even with the transition ride out ethos you outline in general as non-dependance on society/interactions is not likely to occur anyway..
EG..the black death took out 30-50% of the population and while there was MASSIVE social transformation and economic dislocation life went on taxes were collected hierachies operated etc etc...
Quote:
One of the effects of increased oil prices almost universally agreed on (on this board at least) is increased cost of transportation and the probability that more trade will happen on a local level.
yes I am not going to break with that consensus...
Quote:
Putting oneself in a locale where the population is already fairly independent and can produce sufficient food to maintain the local population seems prudent if fuel for transportation becomes scarce. And IMO storing sufficient supplies to ride out a short-term emergency – caused by whatever reason, seems even more prudent no matter what the future holds.
well perhaps... but the rationing of fuel into vital transport needs ie movement of food may occur as personnel transportation with the ICE becomes a luxury
Quote:
On the other hand, trying to hide out far from any community in a bunker filled with TP can only be a short-term solution.
At any rate, as many people as there are in the world, there will be that many solutions. If your plan is to conserve our way out of trouble, by all means post it on the plans thread here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic321-0-asc-45.html
however poverty in the Uk is not destabelising it is contained by social welfare etc...
the equivalency you need is not exactitude but min standards to avoid anarchy..
you need to have min standards in comparative terms. there is latitude globally and with-in any particular society.. success or containment is a threshold state not a universal condition
Boris
london
Well, you just answered yourself then didn't you.
mididoctors wrote:
the trick is to realise that the solution lies in two broad areas..
1. transfer of energy production to new sources
ok no crap sherlock! i hear you say.....
2. changing patterns of consumption
people in the west consume too much and the developing world needs to attain a comparable standard of living lest it causes instability at a global level... wars etc.. you can apply those principles to water and food but it amounts to the same thing more or less
Anarchy is not going to arrive regardless. What do I care if a billion Chinese starve? "needs to attain a comparable standard of living lest it causes instability at a global level... wars etc.." Ha! That is always going to happen, it is happening now and shall always. When has this never been the case? And what is going to happen to those people living in poverty in your country when you start giving up stuff? They will still get their daily bowl of barley will they? How nice. Might make a bit on the side prostituting their daughters like in the old days. Can see it now, "How to sell your daughter's virginity over 20 times", bestseller written all over it.
So sherlock, what I take you to be is a cold-blooded thief, willing to steal off your own people to try and cowardly buy off other nations. To think that Britain now raises people like you. What can you do, scum who don't care for the welfare of their own appear to be a present day reality everywhere. Try and Fark with my families welfare however, to try and cowardly buy off others and you better bring a gun (not that I think it would help you).
1984, Wigan Pier, Down and out in Paris and London, Fark this. There is life and then there is Life. Not that I think you would no the difference. And yes I hate you because you are inhuman.
Much theorizing has announced the erosion of individuality's last
remnants; but if this were so, if society now consists of the thoroughly
homogenized and domesticated, how can there remain the enduring tension which must account for such levels of pain and loss? More and more people I have known have cracked up. It's going on to a staggering
degree, in a context of generalized, severe emotional disease-ease.
Marx predicted, erroneously, that a deepening material immiseration
would lead to revolt and to capital's downfall. Might it not be that an
increasing psychic suffering is itself leading to the reopening of
revolt-indeed, that this may even be the last hope of resistance?
And yet it is obvious that "mere" suffering is no guarantee of anything.
"Desire does not 'want' revolution, it is revolutionary in its own
right," as Deleuze and Guattari pointed out, while further on in
Anti-Oedipus, remembering fascism, noting that people have desired
against their own interests, and that tolerance of humiliation and
enslavement remains widespread...
...Gail Sheehy's Passages (1977), for example, considers life developments without reference to any social or historical context, thereby vitiating her concern for the "free and autonomous self." Arlie Russell Hochschild's Managed Heart (1983) focuses on the "commercialization of human feelings" in an increasingly service-sector economy, and manages to avoid any questioning of the totality by remaining ignorant of the fact of class society and the unhappiness it produces. When Society Becomes an Addict (1987) is Anne Wilson Schaef's completely incoherent attempt to deny, despite the title, the existence of society, by dealing strictly with the interpersonal. And these books are among the least escapist of the avalanche of "how-to" therapy books inundating the bookstores and supermarkets.
It is clear that psychology is part of the absence of community or
solidarity, and of the accelerating social disintegration. The emphasis
is on changing one's personality, and avoiding at all costs the facts of
bureaucratic consumer capitalism and its meaning to our lives and
consciousness. Consider Samuel Klarreich's Stress Solution (1988): "...1
believe that we can largely determine what will be stressful. and how
much it will interfere with our lives, by the views we uphold
irrespective of what goes on in the workplace." Under the sign of
productivity, the citizen is now trained as a lifelong inmate of an
industrial world, a condition, as Ivan Illich noted, not unrelated to
the fact that everyone tends toward the condition of therapy's patient,
or at least tends to accept its world-view...
...If alienation is the essence of all psychiatric conditions, Psychology
is the study of the alienated, but lacks the awareness that this is so.
The effect of the total society, in which the individual can no longer
recognize himself or herself, by the canons of Freud and the
Psychological Society, is seen as irrelevant to diagnosis and treatment.
Thus psychiatry appropriates disabling pain and frustration, redefines
them as illnesses and, in some cases, is able to suppress the symptoms.
Meanwhile, a morbid world continues its estranging technological
rationality that excludes any continuously spontaneous, affective life:
the person is subjected to a discipline designed, at the expense of the
sensuous, to make him or her an instrument of production.
Mental illness is primarily an unconscious escape from this design, a
form of passive resistance. R.D. Laing spoke of schizophrenia as a
psychic numbing which feigns a kind of death to preserve something of
one's inner aliveness. The representative schizophrenic is around 20, at
the point of culmination of the long period of socialization which has
prepared him to take up his role in the workplace. He is not "adequate"
to this destiny. Historically, it is noteworthy that schizophrenia is
very closely related to industrialism, as Torrey shows convincingly in
his Schizophrenia and Civilization (1980).
Most "survivors" know that they don't stand a powders chance in H#ll if they go it alone long term.
That is why most "survivalists" would be better termed "ruralists".
Most wish to live in a rural isolated community that still has a modicum of respect for one annother, and in a crisis would WORK TOGETHER.
Most of us realize that we cannot change the USA's economics. Period. Not overnight, and not in a year... It will take some kind of opposing force much greater than the minority of selfless people in the country.
Oh brother. According to mididoctors, we shouldn't prepare for a survival situtation if the need calls. It is the unprepared who will die first. The prepared will have a much better chance of survival if things go bad. Mididoctors thinks so-called 'survivalists' are just a bunch of paraniod, delusional nuts that couldn't survive no matter what happens. This is bs. Not all of us live in huge population centers, you know. I suppose most Europeans don't have a chance anyways in a society breakdown situation. Where would they go and how could they defend themselves without guns? Too many people and not enough land in Europe.
Conservation and new energy technologies is NOT the answer. If the petroleum experts are correct, it's too late for that. There is no answer to peak oil. The only realistic solution is to prepare now. I would rather prepare and know how to survive in the wilderness than to just accept whatever comes and lay over and die when things get bad.
What is it with many Europeans anyways? Why do they have the 'it would never happen, so why prepare anyways' attitude? I would rather be prepared and be wrong than be unprepared and be right.[/i]
One other thing. If you are not happy with this topic group, who the hell cares? I don't really care if you like it or not. If you don't want to prepare for a possible worst case scenario, who cares? That's your problem. You will be one of the first to take a dirt nap if and when things go bad. If you don't like what we talk about in this group, go elsewhere.
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:27 am Post subject: Re: not happy about premise of this topic group.. flame suit
kochevnik wrote:
I find the polyanna, big city, lets all hold hands and change the world mentality to the issue of peak oil slightly disturbing on two broad points ...
1. it is self-delusional and completely unrealistic.
2. it is a completely emotional response to what is, in essence, a highly inter-connected web of real, factual problems.
it is a consistent fantasy to believe one could escape a global catastrophe by relying on the same people and techniques that got us into this problem in the first place. it is a preemptive escape from responsibility as a member your immediate family IMO ..
there is an idyll of independence from facing the true consequences of reality by engaging in mental and emotional masturbatory ego fantasies about your own ability to shape world-wide events.
if the worse came to worst, the idea one could separate from personal responsibility by relying on the same forces that caused the problem(s) you are seeking solutions to, and have a degree of freedom, may be an illusion..
society will undoubtedly WILL survive one way or another, but whether or not YOU (or your gene pool) will personally survive becomes further and further in doubt the longer you refuse to take responsibility as an individual for your own contribution to the problem at hand and you refusal to anticipate anything other than arosy outcome.
Planning for future is taking basic, concrete, PRACTICAL steps to do my best to ensure that my family has the resources necessary to weather a wide variety of potential future scenarios ... that's why this forum group has the name it does, and it provides an INVALUABLE service to the individuals who gather here.
It isn't about futile posturing in a useless attempt to change the world ...
Much like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ... one man's wacko survivalism is another man's prudent preparations.
Good luck Mr. Grasshopper.
kochevnik
"The State is made for man, not man for the State."
Albert Einstein
spreading a doctrine of inevitable catastrophe and speclative action is a world changing attitude.. the effectivness of your unintentional propaganda is more effective than mine a it appeals to security
that is your contribution.. there is a false dicotomy of city vs country or whatever where seperation is created in the mind and blame apportioned... the world is round the last time I looked
the rush on oil or the collapse of the world economy occurs in the markets when people percieve it will perhaps long before some actual "thing' happens.
you are still part of that mechanism of destruction..
btw I don't think there will be a rosy outcome in best of scenarios
however poverty in the Uk is not destabelising it is contained by social welfare etc...
the equivalency you need is not exactitude but min standards to avoid anarchy..
you need to have min standards in comparative terms. there is latitude globally and with-in any particular society.. success or containment is a threshold state not a universal condition
Boris
london
Well, you just answered yourself then didn't you.
mididoctors wrote:
the trick is to realise that the solution lies in two broad areas..
1. transfer of energy production to new sources
ok no crap sherlock! i hear you say.....
2. changing patterns of consumption
people in the west consume too much and the developing world needs to attain a comparable standard of living lest it causes instability at a global level... wars etc.. you can apply those principles to water and food but it amounts to the same thing more or less
Anarchy is not going to arrive regardless. What do I care if a billion Chinese starve? "needs to attain a comparable standard of living lest it causes instability at a global level... wars etc.." Ha! That is always going to happen, it is happening now and shall always. When has this never been the case? And what is going to happen to those people living in poverty in your country when you start giving up stuff? They will still get their daily bowl of barley will they? How nice. Might make a bit on the side prostituting their daughters like in the old days. Can see it now, "How to sell your daughter's virginity over 20 times", bestseller written all over it.
So sherlock, what I take you to be is a cold-blooded thief, willing to steal off your own people to try and cowardly buy off other nations. To think that Britain now raises people like you. What can you do, scum who don't care for the welfare of their own appear to be a present day reality everywhere. Try and Fark with my families welfare however, to try and cowardly buy off others and you better bring a gun (not that I think it would help you).
1984, Wigan Pier, Down and out in Paris and London, Fark this. There is life and then there is Life. Not that I think you would no the difference. And yes I hate you because you are inhuman.
the introduction of nationalism is not helpful..
I am accused of not caring for my own... define the boundry condition for that statement?
does it end with family.. step family? my ethnic group? country?.. world.. what?
is peak oil is a framework to stick a host of bias positions into?
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
