Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
No, he does have a well worked out powerdown (use the search function to find it). I think he just knows that people have to spend a lot of time struggling to acknowledge the enormity of the pit we're in before they can start thinking seriously about the adjustments in attitude necessary to swallow some of his bitter pills.
It's certainly true that he is not presenting the situation according to the dominant formulas we are used to. In our huckster culture every problem (like the pool hall in Music Man) has a neat and easy solution if you will just but this or that product (whether it's a boys band, coast-to-coast nukes, or drilling everywhere there is any chance of oil, on land, sea or snow...). His message doesn't fit that narrative mold. It's like he's telling a joke without the punch line or a fairy tale without a happy ever after. We don't know how to hear it at first.
But I'll shut up now and let him speak for himself.
Joined: Jan 01, 2007 Posts: 208 Location: Pacific Northwest
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Thanks Monte,
I see you are referring to Richard Heinberg’s Power Down.
I don’t see his version of Power Down happening, and I am not so sure I would want it to play out that way. It reeks of a world government or “New World Order.” I have a basic distrust of any government larger than a local community. In any case, I seriously doubt every individual country is going to give up their sovereignty and sit around the campfire singing Kum Ba Ya together. For nations, we are probably stuck with the last man standing scenario.
On the other hand, I do think there is some hope with the Building Lifeboats approach. Most of us in the Planning for the Future forum are trying in our own way to improve our odds of survival by becoming more sustainable. A lot of us are studying permaculture and other methods that actually improve the environment while at the same time improving our ability to survive the upcoming collapse.
Personally, I feel permaculture does not conflict with either the Power Down or building Lifeboats approach. The big difference is that Power Down is a top down approach directed by the government, and building lifeboats is a bottoms up approach starting with the individual. To my way of thinking I have a lot more influence over the individual (me) than I do over the government.
Bottom line, the die off is coming, and I have a better chance of surviving if I try and adjust my actions rather than wasting energy trying to change government from the top down.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
MrBean wrote:
I don't know if I do posit any such thing, but I do have a strong suspicion that photosyntesis is much more efficient EROEI wise in "diverting energy from sun" than any man made technology using secondary products from photosynthesis - no matter how fast that fossile residue is used up. Photosyntesis is the primary, fossile is secondary, and if you know the physics and can do the calculations, the amount of energy that a forest at maximum state of growth captures from sun is a lot.
Then why have we bothered with fossil fuels at all?
Stupidity? Greed?
Quote:
Seriously, I am going to be kind here. You do not have enough grasp of the concepts here to even have an opinion, much less debate the topic.
Do some homework.
Thank you for your special kind of kindness. As far basic consepts go, what is significant about photosynthesis is that EROEI does not apply - there is no energy invested, it's all 100% free. What can beat that?
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:18 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Photosynthesis does have it's costs. The price of land is a big one. We have a woodlot where we get half our heat and our maple syrup. There is a serious investment needed to get the sap to flow, and to harvest the wood off of the lot.
The EROEI is similar to buying oil now, but it may change very soon as the price of heating oil and maple syrup go up.
It makes sense to have a little farm of some kind, but during the middle of the oil age it was a sucker's game. Why do you think they subsidized farmers so heavily?
The economics are changing, though. It makes sense again to have some of your energy come from the sun. _________________ Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Revi wrote:
Photosynthesis does have it's costs. The price of land is a big one. We have a woodlot where we get half our heat and our maple syrup. There is a serious investment needed to get the sap to flow, and to harvest the wood off of the lot.
The EROEI is similar to buying oil now, but it may change very soon as the price of heating oil and maple syrup go up.
It makes sense to have a little farm of some kind, but during the middle of the oil age it was a sucker's game. Why do you think they subsidized farmers so heavily?
The economics are changing, though. It makes sense again to have some of your energy come from the sun.
Costs only when nature is viewed through economics of a "civilized" social reality. Got to thinking, seems that the big problem is metal - early civilizations burned their forests mainly for metalwork, not so much for household heating. As Tolkien very well understands describing actions of Saruman - the ancient shaman gone bad. Metal for making war, investing energy to conquer new land to burn their forests to make more war. That's how you get trapped in the EROEI business and Jevon's paradox, with no way out in sight.
Maple syrup is yammy and I understand seriously investing for that sap.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
mos6507 wrote:
What do you intend to do with this knowledge other than depressing other people?
Oh, so life isn't the infinite growth you have grown to love and it depresses you to learn there are limits?
Tough.
Mother Nature bats last.
Friend, this is what I mean by counterproductive. I know how it feels to schock and awe by crushing vain hopes, been there done that nough allready and gonna still keep doing it no doubt. It just that dishing it out this way seems to come from the hope that it would make it little easier for one's self to bear. But spreading the pain does not make the pain go away, does it?
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MonteQuest wrote:
Too many people have the hubris to think the laws that govern the balanceof all other living things, just doesn't apply to us.
Even though I think it will happen, I don't see die off after overshoot is a law. For most species, we are really talking about food, shelter, reproduction and maybe lack of predators that are smarter. Overshoot could lead to some of these things becoming scarce, leading to die-off. If we could go back to living simply and becoming knowledgeable about, and working with, nature (again, I don't think it remotely likely, on a scale of 6.7 - 10 billion) then what was overshoot could be replaced by sustainability.
We may be in overshoot because of the way we obtain food and because of our wasteful, consumptive ways. But that doesn't mean that 7-10 billion people will be pared back to 2-3 billion due to some "law" of nature. However, I'm fairly sure that there will be a lot of paring back, because we will not be able to change our ways quickly enough.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
careinke wrote:
Thanks Monte,
I see you are referring to Richard Heinberg’s Power Down.
I don’t see his version of Power Down happening, and I am not so sure I would want it to play out that way. It reeks of a world government or “New World Order.” I have a basic distrust of any government larger than a local community. In any case, I seriously doubt every individual country is going to give up their sovereignty and sit around the campfire singing Kum Ba Ya together. For nations, we are probably stuck with the last man standing scenario.
On the other hand, I do think there is some hope with the Building Lifeboats approach. Most of us in the Planning for the Future forum are trying in our own way to improve our odds of survival by becoming more sustainable. A lot of us are studying permaculture and other methods that actually improve the environment while at the same time improving our ability to survive the upcoming collapse.
Personally, I feel permaculture does not conflict with either the Power Down or building Lifeboats approach. The big difference is that Power Down is a top down approach directed by the government, and building lifeboats is a bottoms up approach starting with the individual. To my way of thinking I have a lot more influence over the individual (me) than I do over the government.
Bottom line, the die off is coming, and I have a better chance of surviving if I try and adjust my actions rather than wasting energy trying to change government from the top down.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
I used to have some hopes for a top to bottom ecofascist/ecosocialist world governement to attempt soft landing, mainly to buy time for the bottom to up permaculture communities to materialize and strengthen. They are today mainly few scarce seeds here and the with some budding, still long way to flowering and spreading. All of them may be easily crush under the boot of some Mad Max or Fascism scenario.
My most "realistic" scenario under a very tight schedule was Al Gore becoming president of US and a "planetarch" nominating a council of experts to draft a global survival plan (soft landing). The draft would have been put to glogal referendum, or as wide as possible, in 2012 at the end Al's first term and then executed. Well didn't go that way and I doubt anything alike happening. Shame, really, at least a soft lander world governement would have been a worthy opponent for the bottom to up grassroot movements.
Why? Because the dream of less hard landing is hard to abandon, however futile it is - even MQ is still dreaming about his version.
Other than that, I have a habit of thinking dialectically instead of terms of either-or. Strong top to bottom current strengthening the bottom to top current like thesis and antithesis, creating a new synthesis.
Joined: May 26, 2008 Posts: 508 Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Boy, doesn't it summarize this thread?
MonteQuest wrote:
There is no point in arguing with Dezakin.
True.
mos6507 wrote:
You are pretty stubborn about your opinions also.
True.
MonteQuest wrote:
Overshoot and die-off aren't opinions, it's biology.
I'm sure it is, Monte, but has it ever been tested on human beings? You're going to ask (again) if humans are the only species immune to the laws of biology and cite Liebig's Law of Overshoot, and I'll say (again) humans are a different species. We'll have to wait and see if the empiric laws of biology apply to humans. In the meantime, live happily!
Snik wrote:
Mos, that's an understatement. I haven't read all of Monte's posts (not sure I could in this lifetime)...
Show me a person who will, and I'll show a person who needs a life.
hiperhiper wrote:
one personal question, how old are you? What made you so bitter?
I don't care for the former, but the latter would be interesting to know. Relax, brother. The end is near and you ought to enjoy your last days.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11880 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
MrBean wrote:
Other than that, I have a habit of thinking dialectically instead of terms of either-or. Strong top to bottom current strengthening the bottom to top current like thesis and antithesis, creating a new synthesis.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. It looked like you thought there was a requirement for top down programs of an authoritarian nature in order to avoid a hard landing.
I have to say, a lot of the time I can't tell what you are actually trying to say. I guess because of your dialectical style of not quite making any sense. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
Nicholai wrote:
MonteQuest, I'm getting drunk more often and tonight is an example to that but I'm just curious, is moving to Norway a bad idea? I'm talking south west Norway...good idea..bad idea? I don't think Norway is to experience any massive die-off. Possibly around Oslo...but I'm thinking of an area called Karmoy. I'll also be looking at Finland but Norway is under consideration at the same time. Just curious what you think, I'm trying to avoid areas of food riots and zombie hoards....you know, little stuff. Give me your thoughts, cuz you aren't giving me replies to my personal messages. I still respect you though. Merci bien Monte...
Where you are is not as important as who has your back. Surround yourself with MacGyver types.
No area on earth is immune to a pandemic disease brought about through malnutrition as result of declining resources.
Disease is what will bring down the human population.
Quote:
The 1918 flu pandemic (commonly referred to as the Spanish flu) was an influenza pandemic that was first found in the United States, appeared in Sierra Leone and France, and then spread to nearly every part of the world. It was caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1. Many of its victims were healthy young adults, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or otherwise weakened patients. The Spanish flu lasted from March 1918 to June 1920,[1] spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. It is estimated that anywhere from 20 to 100 million people were killed worldwide, or the approximate equivalent of one third of the population of Europe,[2][3][4] more than double the number killed in World War I.[5] This extraordinary toll resulted from the extremely high infection rate of up to 50% and the extreme severity of the symptoms, suspected to be caused by cytokine storms.
Sorry about forgetting about your pm.
MQ _________________ 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: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: Re: 6,000,000,000 die-off
careinke wrote:
On the other hand, I do think there is some hope with the Building Lifeboats approach. Most of us in the Planning for the Future forum are trying in our own way to improve our odds of survival by becoming more sustainable. A lot of us are studying permaculture and other methods that actually improve the environment while at the same time improving our ability to survive the upcoming collapse.
You cannnot protect yourself from pandemic disease with lifeboats. Also, all these efforts and skills make you a target for those who have not the skills or made preparations.
Scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict.
We will fight.
Quote:
Bottom line, the die off is coming, and I have a better chance of surviving if I try and adjust my actions rather than wasting energy trying to change government from the top down.
Only those with the random genetic genes that give them immunity to whatever form of pandemic disease comes will survive the die-off correction. Or those so removed from civilization as to avoid contagious disease and human strife.
Few will beat nature at her own game. _________________ 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.
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
