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: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wow, Wildwell's lack of imagination is still getting to me even though I am supposedly ignoring him.
Most towns and villages have some vacant land round and about. Most apartment buildings have little patches of land around them currently devoted to lawn or shrubs. Folks can get together to agree to plant these little patches to improve their diets and get much-needed exercise. Apartment dwellers can work with apartment owners to install greywater systems, composting toilet systems and passive solar heating/cooling. Folks can share vehicles, tools, skills, etc etc so enabling everyone to need to earn less. Etc etc.
Working together is the key. Now, if Wildwell doesn't have any friends or neighbors or is unable to speak to other people for some reason, I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions.
But seriously, all I can see is someone so desperately intent on not allowing these solutions to be possible that he'd rather just be ignorant of them.
And I don't understand it. What is so horrible about the idea of people working together to improve their local situation? Why is that SO much less acceptable than the government "doing something"? _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
garyp wrote:
Problem is, it's you that will get that wake up call.
The wake up call being that reality will be far worse than what people are calling unreasonable? I got that call in 1972 after reading The Limits to Growth.
Quote:
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'.
Just because people don' t wish to hear the truth doesn't mean you stop telling it.
Quote:
'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.
No, "Powerdown" is a broad, well-reasoned response to an unsustainable civilization that is living beyonds it's means. Peak oil is not a single event; it is a symptom of a greater disease.
It does not have to entail regressing to a lessor stage of development. In fact, it could well improve our development as we learn to live within the global balances.
Without the phantom carrying capacity of fossil fuels, it would be impossible to maintain the longevity and health care we have grown accustomed to, at least at this level of population.
Quote:
Luckily the very simplicity of this 'solution' points up how other, more workable approaches exist. 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.
Who is giving up? Let's hear the numbers to your "solutions."
You make a lot of spurious claims with little meat. _________________ 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 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Ludi wrote:
Wow, Wildwell's lack of imagination is still getting to me even though I am supposedly ignoring him.
Most towns and villages have some vacant land round and about. Most apartment buildings have little patches of land around them currently devoted to lawn or shrubs. Folks can get together to agree to plant these little patches to improve their diets and get much-needed exercise. Apartment dwellers can work with apartment owners to install greywater systems, composting toilet systems and passive solar heating/cooling. Folks can share vehicles, tools, skills, etc etc so enabling everyone to need to earn less. Etc etc.
Working together is the key. Now, if Wildwell doesn't have any friends or neighbors or is unable to speak to other people for some reason, I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions.
But seriously, all I can see is someone so desperately intent on not allowing these solutions to be possible that he'd rather just be ignorant of them.
And I don't understand it. What is so horrible about the idea of people working together to improve their local situation? Why is that SO much less acceptable than the government "doing something"?
*sigh* You've obviously never been outside Texas, so I'm not going to waste my breath. There's no vacant land or little patches to grow food. The government doesn't do everything anyway.
I hate gardening, I do not wish to grow food, anyone I tell about PO doesn't care (They'll think of something), I don't have or need a car, I can get about anyway. And there was food in the shops long before oil. I'm sure if people want it, someone will sell it. Meanwhile there's the mortgage to pay and other things to do.
I'm just imagining knocking on the neighbours door now 'Oh, Fancy growing some spuds we're going to run low on oil and the supermarkets (which make billions) won't be able to think of a way to get produce to market. Would you like to buy one of my home made garden knomes?'. I think they'd call the police.
Last edited by Wildwell on Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
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.
I just don't see the need to turn the clock back too much, because of the pain it would create.
You reinforce my point superbly, Wildwell. Because you see it as painful (which it might well be) then you can't even consider it. You want a future without pain (don't we all?) and so simply can't accept any course that doesn't fit in with that expectation. This is understandable but it doesn't mean that you won't feel pain.
Wildwell wrote:
I just think my plan is more realistic
What exactly is that plan? Are you saying that it doesn't involve a power down, or zero economic growth?
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
It's like a religion to you people this stuff isn't it?
'Why can't you accept that this is the truth. You know this is the way. Don't fear my freind, you know you have to believe'.
Listen, most people know as much about economics on here as I know about carp fishing - I'm not expert, but trust me, 90% of this forum is fiction. If you care to go back a few pages, a few suggestions were made, a lot is being done by business and government, perhaps not enough. But then, I can't control the world or what happens. Trust me, it's not an option for me to spend my time tending to my turnips 24/7, nor do I think it's necessary. When Ludi uses her imagination and gets rid of her 5 cars, especially as I read the US produces half of all car exhaust pollution ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1808151,00.html ) I might take some of the stuff she says seriously as agriculture uses about 5% of world oil supply, cars over 50%.
Last edited by Wildwell on Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13191 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
But what is this "turning back the clock" nonsense? Our culture has never adequately lived within the limits of its resources, or we wouldn't be in the predicament we find ourselves. Our culture will be greatly PROGRESSING, not regressing, if we learn to live within the limits of the Earth's life systems. In the past, people of our culture didn't even understand the idea of ecosystems, limits to growth, etc. To a conquering people such as ourselves, such ideas were (are?) foreign, ludicrous, even heretical. If you use up your stuff, you simply go over the hill and get the other guy's stuff. But here we are with no "guy over the hill" to get stuff from.
I see absolutely no regression in the solution I'm putting forth, quite the opposite, it will entail a great maturation of our relationship with our planet. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Quote:
Without the phantom carrying capacity of fossil fuels, it would be impossible to maintain the longevity and health care we have grown accustomed to, at least at this level of population.
Quote:
Who is giving up? Let's hear the numbers to your "solutions."
To be honest Monte, I’m not so sure we saw your numbers.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
anyone I tell about PO doesn't care (They'll think of something)
So you've been convinced by the response you've been getting? It certainly seems as though this is now your position (someone will think of something). You keep talking about how we managed at some point in the past, but fail to see what it would take to get us to that point in the past (with less people, less affluence), or that even at that point in the past, we'd still be using fossil fuels (and, thus, depleting them).
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
It's like a religion to you people this stuff isn't it?
'Why can't you accept that this is the truth. You know this is the way. Don't fear my freind, you know you have to believe'.
Wildwell,
It's not rocket science. With each transition to a new energy source, we've discovered a more concentrated form, which has enabled a huge expansion of human societies. Unless we come up with yet another energy dense source (including EROEI) then we will simply have to make do with less energy inputs, as oil starts to decline. I don't see what is so controversial about that. But, as has repeatedly been pointed out, not only will energy decrease but there are issues in many parts of the world with topsoil and fresh water, not to meantion climate change and biodiversity. We need to solve all these problems with a declining energy input.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Well if you want my honest answer, I don't really especially care. Since oil prices have tripled in the last couple of years, hardly anything has changed for me. The supermarkets have billions more resources than me, so getting food to market is a lot easier for them than it is me. Food prices are hardly affected by oil prices in any case. 70% of oil use is transport, mostly cars. I don't own one, ok? So I've done my bit. Oh my local transport for is electric rail. And even if all the railways in this country were electrified it would be about the same as one large power station, very doable.
Last edited by Wildwell on Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Gridlock wrote:
To be honest Monte, I’m not so sure we saw your numbers.
Then I guess you haven't read my posts. Try the Best of Montequest for starters. _________________ 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: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Wildwell wrote:
Food prices are hardly affected by oil prices in any case.
Oil (and natural gas) is used in preparing the land, fertilizing the soil, sowing the seed, tending the crop, killing the pests, harvesting the crops, processing the crops and transporting them to distribution points, supermarkets and your home. It is also a factor in the living costs of the people who work in that whole chain. Why do you think that food prices will not be much affected by rising oil prices and, later, by scarcity of that resource?
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
Quote:
Then I guess you haven't read my posts. Try the Best of Montequest for starters.
I've read it. I think you understand the problem better than any of us. I just don't swallow your solutions (I could have worded that better). I've asked many times about your death rate, and rightly or wrongly all I'm left with thinking is your powerdown solution is some sort of variation on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLXcNqi5mCc&search=down+the+well involving the weak, infirm and elderly.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o
TonyPrep wrote:
Wildwell wrote:
Food prices are hardly affected by oil prices in any case.
Oil (and natural gas) is used in preparing the land, fertilizing the soil, sowing the seed, tending the crop, killing the pests, harvesting the crops, processing the crops and transporting them to distribution points, supermarkets and your home. It is also a factor in the living costs of the people who work in that whole chain. Why do you think that food prices will not be much affected by rising oil prices and, later, by scarcity of that resource?
Tony
In not my view, it's the view of economists that study this subject. I can provide references if you wish. I've addressed all these points and am well aware of the issues in previous posts. If you feel they are wrong you should provide factual information, with sources. The fact remains most oil use is car transport and air travel, which from a sustainability point of view should be dealt with first.
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
