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.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13191 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
I can't do anything to increase my chances of survival as I don't have $1 million for the property I need in Ludi's solution other than what I'm doing. Remember I don't have any land.
Ok enough with this BS, Wildwell. YOU don't need land! I'm sick and tired of this crap from you and I'm very angry you are misrepresenting my solutions. You clearly have not read the websites or the books, which talk about people, families, neighborhoods and communities WORKING TOGETHER to implement these solutions. YOU do not need $1 million. NO ONE needs that!
Read the **^&$# websites and books and stop being such a moron. I'm sick of it.
Putting you on "ignore" now Wildwell, for my blood pressure's sake. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Ludi wrote:
Wildwell wrote:
I can't do anything to increase my chances of survival as I don't have $1 million for the property I need in Ludi's solution other than what I'm doing. Remember I don't have any land.
Ok enough with this BS, Wildwell. YOU don't need land! I'm sick and tired of this crap from you and I'm very angry you are misrepresenting my solutions. You clearly have not read the websites or the books, which talk about people, families, neighborhoods and communities WORKING TOGETHER to implement these solutions. YOU do not need $1 million. NO ONE needs that!
Read the %$#* websites and books and stop being such a moron. I'm sick of it.
Putting you on "ignore" now Wildwell, for my blood pressure's sake.
Thanks for the persuasive argument, as soon as I put up a few ‘problems’ to some of these solutions you start calling people names and hit ignore. Well done.
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
TonyPrep wrote:
It's no good harking back to the 1950s, saying we did OK then, because we have a very different society now, much more global, much bigger and with aspirations that are almost expected, rather than hoped for. The 1950s wasn't fossil fuel free but that is what we have to aim for, for sustainability. Of course, sustainability may not be desireable for some people.
Tony
Well you certainly wouldn't have a global society with permaculture, so what's the problem? I don't think permaculture is sustainable, for a start a poor harvest would (and certainly did in the past) mean widespread famine, looting, die off and even regional war. The name is an oxymoron.
I don't actually think some people know what 'sustainable' means, it doesn't mean 'forever'. An awful lot of things can be ‘sustainable’; you don't need to return to a arts, crafts, fruit and veg culture.
If community solutions work for some people, that’s just fine, but they won't work for the majority who do rely on modern conveniences, ability to service their debt, not having to grow their own food and the organisation and law enforcement in a modern, sophisticated society. I also strongly disagree that we have to rely on Government; the individual can do a lot just through purchasing habits. Business can provide an awful lot of solutions, but I suspect that may be distasteful to some of the left leaning people here who always since the chartists did have a luddite mentality. I mean there’s defiantly this desire for some here to return to the middle ages, because it sounds like jolly good fun. It won’t happen, people will seek solutions to the problems as they’ve always done and they won’t be living on homesteads and growing a bit of veg on the sly, at least for the majority. But if works for you, go for it.
Talks about 1/5th of an acre. Well, a home with that sort of land near me costs about $1 million, especially with all the solar panels etc. It's not a solution because it's not true self-sufficiency. They still have cars, solar panels, and fridges, flushing loos, light bulbs - all industrial products. The so-called self-sufficient skills include Website and Graphic Design, Self Publishing for Books and Materials, Photography. I mean come on . This all assumes you also own your home outright, which few people do. In the real world most of us have to train to be bus drivers, computer programmers, sales managers and plumbers to get a roof over our heads and pay for things. If I thought i could get by growing a bit of veg and doing a few handycrafts and paying the mortgage I would.
An admirable effort I'm sure, but did anyone bother telling them they could reduce oil consumption considerably just be getting rid of the car, they didn't have to give up everything else. Oh look, it's an SUV, now there's a surpirse.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Gridlock wrote:
If world oil production does follow an approximate bell curve, then we’ll still be producing as much oil in 20 years as we were in the 70s/80s
But with a lot more people, of course, and much grander lifestyles, with aspirations that we seem to expect as a right. We passed peak on individual energy consumption (per person) quite some time ago (I think it was at least 10 years ago, but I may be wrong). This indicates that we are already more efficient than we were, since the economy has grown, but it will get harder and harder to keep economies growing and affluence increasing, as energy decreases.
Don't hold your breath for fusion. If it's not ready soon, we may not have the energy to develop it to a stage where it is ready. And the test station is not due for another decade.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
[Well you certainly wouldn't have a global society with permaculture, so what's the problem?
The problem is that we'll be forced back into a more localised society. You seem to think that the end result of the change we'll go through implies that there will be no significant pain in getting there. Thre may be nothing wrong with localisation, but there is a problem in getting there from here. In the 1950s, we were closer to that.
Quote:
I don't actually think some people know what 'sustainable' means, it doesn't mean 'forever'.
Actually, it does, unless you qualify it by a time period. Sustainable over the next few years is useless if it can't be sustained thereafter. If we can sustain our society for another hundred years or so, there might be a case for not worrying about after that, but when our society looks like being unsustainable within our lifetimes, then unsustainable is a very big deal.
Quote:
If community solutions work for some people, that’s just fine, but they won't work for the majority who do rely on modern conveniences, ability to service their debt, not having to grow their own food and the organisation and law enforcement in a modern, sophisticated society.
As you imply, many people will not be able to cope with the changes being forced on them.
Quote:
I mean there’s defiantly this desire for some here to return to the middle ages, because it sounds like jolly good fun.
I haven't seen much of that here. Perhaps you have misundertood what those people are aiming for.
Quote:
It won’t happen, people will seek solutions to the problems as they’ve always done.
And you are assuming that there are solutions that give those people who would be unable to cope a continuation of business as usual. That's a big assumption, but you're entitled to believe in it.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
Talks about 1/5th of an acre. Well, a home with that sort of land near me costs about $1 million
Why does it have to be near to where you live now? I get the impression (from this and the rest of your post), that the only reason you rail aginst these possible approaches is that you desperately want your current lifestyle to continue and desperately want to believe that your can constantly increase your standard of living. Just because you and others can't envision a world that doesn't meet your specification doesn't mean that there must be a solution that will meet your criteria. You seem to believe passionately that there is.
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
TonyPrep wrote:
I get the impression (from this and the rest of your post), that the only reason you rail aginst these possible approaches is that you desperately want your current lifestyle to continue and desperately want to believe that your can constantly increase your standard of living. Just because you and others can't envision a world that doesn't meet your specification doesn't mean that there must be a solution that will meet your criteria. You seem to believe passionately that there is.
Tony
Oh boy...Tony, you have hit the nail on the head. This is the crux of the matter. Because a powerdown doesn't meet many people's specifications, it is not acceptable. I get this response at lectures I give couched in the form of, "but that's unreasonable."
There is going to be serious wake up call. _________________ 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 Jun 30, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Quote:
But with a lot more people, of course, and much grander lifestyles, with aspirations that we seem to expect as a right. We passed peak on individual energy consumption (per person) quite some time ago (I think it was at least 10 years ago, but I may be wrong). This indicates that we are already more efficient than we were, since the economy has grown, but it will get harder and harder to keep economies growing and affluence increasing, as energy decreases.
Carbon trading / rationing will restrict demand, but I agree, it can only go on for so long.
Quote:
Don't hold your breath for fusion. If it's not ready soon, we may not have the energy to develop it to a stage where it is ready. And the test station is not due for another decade.
I’m not. If it can be done perhaps we’ll see a return of the personal automobile. If not, the car will die-off.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
TonyPrep wrote:
Don't hold your breath for fusion. If it's not ready soon, we may not have the energy to develop it to a stage where it is ready. And the test station is not due for another decade.
I'm not holding my breath. But I don't doubt that the energy to develop it will be made available by hopeful governments, even if it means blackouts in the area. The stakes are too high to neglect that possibility.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Doly wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Don't hold your breath for fusion. If it's not ready soon, we may not have the energy to develop it to a stage where it is ready. And the test station is not due for another decade.
I'm not holding my breath. But I don't doubt that the energy to develop it will be made available by hopeful governments, even if it means blackouts in the area. The stakes are too high to neglect that possibility.
The stakes may be high but it could be a complete waste of energy. There is no guarantee that it will work and even the optimists are talking in terms of 40 years away. If energy starts declining now, even Iter will be ditched, in my opinion.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:52 am Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
MonteQuest wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
I get the impression (from this and the rest of your post), that the only reason you rail aginst these possible approaches is that you desperately want your current lifestyle to continue and desperately want to believe that your can constantly increase your standard of living. Just because you and others can't envision a world that doesn't meet your specification doesn't mean that there must be a solution that will meet your criteria. You seem to believe passionately that there is.
Oh boy...Tony, you have hit the nail on the head. This is the crux of the matter. Because a powerdown doesn't meet many people's specifications, it is not acceptable. I get this response at lectures I give couched in the form of, "but that's unreasonable."
There is going to be serious wake up call.
Problem is, it's you that will get that wake up call.
There is no point in trying to tell people things they will not hear. Even if liquid petrolum fuels start to decline, most people will act irrationally and violently before they consider the ideas inherent in 'powerdown'. It's like the local by the farm gate, telling the tourist you can't get there from here. He's not being obstructionist, he's realistically assessing that there is no route the tourist could/would take that would get them there.
'Powerdown' is inherently based around a simplistic reaction to a single event that postulates a solution which involves regressing to an earlier stage of development. It also implicitly states that life expectancies fall and there is little to look forward to for the average man or woman. Its no wonder its a dead duck in the real world.
Luckily the very simplicity of this 'solution' points up how other, more workable approaches exist. Dig a little below the surface and you can note that population growth isn't uniform, petrolum liquid fuels aren't the only energy source and with stready enlightenment in the efficient use of energy the decline rate IS tractable, at least in the first world.
None of which means as a global society we will necessarily take the right path - politics will intrude. However its positive that such a route does exist; we can get through it if we don't overreact and if we don't listen to the siren calls of our worse nature.
What we need at the moment is focus, and the will to tackle the complex problems with flexible and emergent solutions. And not to give up. _________________ Arcane Domain
I did not read it in much detail but I think it is what is actually happening in the real world so it is relevant. _________________ "The horror, the horror"
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
TonyPrep wrote:
Wildwell wrote:
Talks about 1/5th of an acre. Well, a home with that sort of land near me costs about $1 million
Why does it have to be near to where you live now? I get the impression (from this and the rest of your post), that the only reason you rail aginst these possible approaches is that you desperately want your current lifestyle to continue and desperately want to believe that your can constantly increase your standard of living. Just because you and others can't envision a world that doesn't meet your specification doesn't mean that there must be a solution that will meet your criteria. You seem to believe passionately that there is.
Tony
Well, if it helps, I'm one of the few people on to get a 1:1 world/footprint ratio on one of those ecology tests. So my lifestyle is already pretty much 'in range'. I just don't see the need to turn the clock back too much, because of the pain it would create. In any case, governments will try and keep control at any cost and probably inflict petrol rationing and other things before you can say powerdown.
Lets just remind ourselves what people’s scores are:
Wildwell: IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 1.5
Well bully for me I guess. Ludi is nowhere near, and admitted in another post they had 5 cars. So all this nonsense about ‘doing things for yourself’ is just that, total spin. Meanwhile some of us have already adjusted. I don’t need to be lectured by a Texan with 5 cars what I need to be doing, I’m doing it.
Realistically I don't believe in this manure powered utopia. It's not necessary, it's not achievable, it's not actually very nice in stark reality, and people, most people, just won't put up with it. That's not to say it won't work for some and we should give up, but top down is going to be the way it's going to go for better or worse.
If some of this self-sufficiency was done in this area, the kids would probably go and smash the place up for a laugh, the old ladies would write to the local paper, conversation would turn towards blaming the government (as people do) over a pint. And, if you did have a nice crop of radishes for your nearest and dearest, you can bet your bottom dollar they would be extracted when your back was turned by some opportunist. I just think my plan is more realistic and number of countries is moving that way, all pretty much bar the US.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
I’m going to believe solutions will come via the following until I get marched quietly into a death/prison camp, or get gunned down scrumping apples:
1. The power of community
2. The power of Government
3. The power of the free-market
I don’t see that you have to pick one. But I’d say the biggest changes will come from 2, who no doubt have some measures to pull off-the-shelf.
To get people on board make it a Patriotic cause, have Vera Lynn singing ‘there’ll be wind turbines over, the white cliffs of Dover’, people love that sort of stuff and will be clamouring over themselves to do their bit.
Think about the Manhattan project in WW2. Or the NHS (now around the fifth largest employer in the world) over here, which began in the messy aftermath of WW2. Huge undertakings that only one body has the power to initiate. We need that with renewables, recycling and conservation programmes.
Meat farming is too energy intensive and would need to be scaled down, so the atkins diet and 80-stone man go tubby bye-bye. This frees up land for bio-fuels. We’ve got food mountains at the moment, I’ve seen the ‘snack’ portions that are served up in the US and the waistlines that go with it. I’ve read that in Hong Kong, 45% of local vegetable needs were being met through the use of just 6% per cent of the land back in 1996. We grow a lot here (a third of all UK veg at one time?) on dwindling numbers of small allotments often run by people who are retired. So I believe there is quite a lot of slack in the system, and we could ramp up production if required.
Some beer mat calculations & airy-fairy thoughts: The US defense budget is something like $400 bn. Let’s say a third of that is lopped off to go towards other causes over a period of 5 years. $667 bn to party with. I don’t know how many homes there are in the US, but let’s say 180 million. I make that $3700 per home to fit wind turbines/solar panels/insulation/broadband rather than Rummy’s star wars fantasy. The NSA could even fit a listening device in if they wanted javascript:emoticon('') Would give the Mrs someone to talk to when there’s a decent match on, and as they’re a lot smarter than us blokes (http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/SociologyNewspage/education1.htm ) they’ll be able to pass on useful tips on how to run the world javascript:emoticon(''). Energy companies aren’t going to like it, fine, make them state-owned if necessary.
In the UK I’d like to see the lords scrapped and replaced with some sort of long-term planning assembly, elected by the population from a list drawn-up by the Privvy council. They’d have the power to veto legislation from the commons (up to a point) and draft up their own legislation to submit to the commons. Proportional representation would ensure a more balanced house and a wider set of issues debated.
Make every company develop an energy saving policy as they do with H&S etc… The list goes on.
Some countries will fair better than others (I’m thinking Sweden, France, Germany Ireland). But even in China they’re building a new city on ecological principles, a drop in the ocean I know.
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
') Would give the Mrs someone to talk to when there’s a decent match on, and as they’re a lot smarter than us blokes (http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/SociologyNewspage/education1.htm ) they’ll be able to pass on useful tips on how to run the world javascript:emoticon('
'). Energy companies aren’t going to like it, fine, make them state-owned if necessary.
