http://www.kunstler.com/ _________________ 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.
We're doing it to protect OUR society- Western society as a whole, not just America.
You mean our gluttony, don't you?
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.
The assumption that "the fittest" = "the strongest" is the flaw in your whole post. The "fittest" are the subsistence farmers living in third world countries who aren't dependant on hydrocarbon energy in the first place.
Says who? Why? We have an enormous agricultural capacity, especially if you factor a symbiotic relationship with Canada. It's quite feasible to believe that North America at least could produce enough food to sustain it's population even with a breakdown in agricultural technology. I would think that in times of crises, when petroleum is rare, there would be a forced reallocation by the goverment to the sectors that are required to sutain life, namely the military, the transport industry and the agricultural industry. Oil won't just stop- It'll become harder to obtain, and you'd better believe once the US is forced into real steps, there's going to be a swift, knee-jerk reaction to get some systems up and running under alternative means. Farming will be one of the first.
Darwinism makes sense on more than just a individual level- It applies to societies. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest and strongest.
The assumption that "the fittest" = "the strongest" is the flaw in your whole post. The "fittest" are the subsistence farmers living in third world countries who aren't dependant on hydrocarbon energy in the first place.
Nobody is laughing at the Amish now are they?
Using hydrocarbon energy wasn't the problem. It was a lack of foresight. Imagine being given a cake. You can slice off a bit of that cake every time you sat down to eat to enhance your meal and caloric intake. Or you can greedily choke down the entire cake in one sitting and be happy for a few hours.
With the discovery of oil it was eat it all now and forget about tomorrow. In my opinion, with what he have left we can still ration it and maybe only have to see a society backpedal to the 1960's.
OR, we can greedily continue to cram it all down our gullets until there are nothing but crumbs left to eat for the winter. Personally, knowing what I know of human nature, I don't expect a very hearty diet for the coming winter.
Transitioning a society the size of America to cleaner, renewable energy sources while simultaneously using cheap oil to power industry and still remain a winner in the end had a window of opportunity. But I fear that window may have closed as much as 30 years ago. I fear that it may have been shut permanently and painted over as little as 10 years ago.
We'll see, won't we? If nothing else, it's been an interesting time to be alive.
I would think that in times of crises, when petroleum is rare, there would be a forced reallocation by the goverment to the sectors that are required to sutain life, namely the military, the transport industry and the agricultural industry.
Wonder no longer.
Executive Orders during a National Emergency
Executive Order #10995: Seizure of all communications media in the United States.
Executive Order #10997: Seizure of all electric power fuels and minerals, public and private.
Executive Order #10999: Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control of highways, seaports and waterways.
Executive Order #11000: Seizure of all American people for work forces under federal supervision including the splitting of families if the government finds it necessary.
Executive Order #11001: Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, public and private.
Executive Order #11002: Empowered the postmaster general to register all men, women and children in the U.S.
Executive Order #11003: Seizure of all airports and aircraft.
Executive Order #11004: Seizure of all housing and finance authorities to establish Forced Relocation Designated areas to be abandoned as "unsafe."
Executive Order #11005: Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.
Executive Order #12919: Signs June 3, 1994, by President Clinton. Encompasses all the above executive orders.
“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.
Exactamundo. That's to the crux of my original post. I agree completely. We're not necessarily more advanced or moraly superior- But we can be a lot meaner, and we've got more muscle than the rest of them. Why not try our hand at it again if that's what won the first time around?
I would think that in times of crises, when petroleum is rare, there would be a forced reallocation by the goverment to the sectors that are required to sutain life, namely the military, the transport industry and the agricultural industry.
Wonder no longer.
Executive Orders during a National Emergency
I wonder no longer, and given the circumstances that would have arisen to force such an action, it makes sense. Reallocation it is, unless I entirely misinterpreted that.
It was my understanding that President Reagen declared a National Emergency when he began the "war on drugs", and that technically it never ended. Though I don't know the particulars or legal precedents surrounding that.
Reallocation is an understatement, in my opinion. Reading those Executive Orders it seems to me that, as the saying goes, nothing is sacred. Not even people.
Reallocation may be too neutral of a word admittedly. The function is still the same- Materials needed to sustain the country can and will be used to do so at all costs. The prevention of mass starvation or death of any means likely falls under the umbrella of sustaining the country. We might be in for a circus and cake spectacle for a while until the infrastructure has been jerry-rigged(sp) enough to accomodate what drastic changes need to be made, but it'll soften whatever hard crash. I highly doubt that the contigency plan begins at seizing everything needed and ends with the goverment sticking its thumb up its ass until we run out of the goods needed to accomodate the populace's basic needs. Draconian measures? Most definitely. A requirement to maintain stability? Again most definitely. The worst thing that could happen is Washington flipping the bird, high-tailing it out of town and allowing the US to devolve into a complete dog eat dog society and everyone knows it. That would only happen in the most nightmarish of circumstances.
Transitioning a society the size of America to cleaner, renewable energy sources while simultaneously using cheap oil to power industry and still remain a winner in the end had a window of opportunity. But I fear that window may have closed as much as 30 years ago. I fear that it may have been shut permanently and painted over as little as 10 years ago.
We'll see, won't we? If nothing else, it's been an interesting time to be alive.
FWIW
~Grond
I do agree with that last part, and I think I failed to expound on its secondary purpose in my original post. The point of the forced seizure of strategic petrolium abroad and at home will not be simply to hang on as long as possible until we're screwed. It will be to hang on as long as possible while drastic countermeasures are attempted to put in place. Could we buy enough time? Who knows? I think it's worth finding out though if push comes to shove. Again, I'm all for being prepared if it becomes apparent each and every one of us is going to have to high-tail it to rural areas and look out for #1, but I think that would be the last phase of a collapse. There's several other options worth exploring and exhausting before we fall back to that.
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject: Will Bush Spring a Surprise to Sway the Voters?
Quote:
John Zogby of the well-respected Zogby polling group was heard to say that, right at this moment, “Bush was leading by a sliver, but it could still go either way.” And one astute Republican insider, who is usually in the know, said that they had heard that immediately after George Bush’s re-election, he would pull out of Iraq! Bush; pull out of Iraq that quickly? That’s what they said.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:01 am Post subject:
Pull out? No way. Or rather, if they did, that would be the absolute height of military incompetence, since it would leave the place a festering hellhole where terrorists bred faster than mice.
I think they'll have to call up a draft. McCain, Lugar, et. al., have been saying we need about another 70,000 combat soldiers, and that is not even counting the logistics & support troops. There are three ways to raise that kind of force rapidly. One, allow gay people to serve without having to lie about their nature. Two, more stop-loss and Guard/Reserve call-up. Three, a general military draft.
Meanwhile, another American construction worker gets his head sawn off slowly by Zarqawi, with no end in sight, because a bunch of people who never saw combat decided they could cook up a war based on ideology plus bad intel and a dose of abstract theory.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1286 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:02 pm Post subject:
DevilHouse wrote:
I'm not sure any of this will result in preserving American society to an extent that would be acceptable to the plebian masses, the war in Iraq, our general presence in other countries that don't appreciate it, etc., but I'd much rather have us in control of assets that are going to become more and more precious than an entity that would have our worst intentions at heart, let alone simply be looking out for themselves. At this point, I can see where it's worth fighting for. We're doing it for oil? Right. We all know we're fighting for oil and a military presence near to sect of people that would wish us harm. So what?
These people don't know or care much about the US or its way of life. They do know about your oil oriented foreign policy (thinly disguised armed robbery) because they have been on the receiving end of it for decades. You've been able to get their oil cheap through an elaborate system of puppet regimes, protectorates and client states but this house of cards is now collapsing, leaving you the only choice of outright theft.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
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
