“The US Military, the German Military, and the UK Department of Energy have all done detailed studies of the situation and come to the same conclusions. Social chaos, economic confusion, trade barriers, conflict, food shortages, riots, and war are in our future.”
If indeed we are headed for this, would only an absolute tyranny with constant surveillance of us be what is needed to have any sort of society at all? Would such a society be worth living in?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Iz a total and rradical userban ze anser?![/quote]
Why should you be banned? I don’t understand.
If the collapse in oil production is going to lead to increasing chaos and dissolution, is a society similar to Orwell’s 1984-vision the only viable society?
Anarchy or absolute despotism seem like the two choices.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Iz a total and rradical userban ze anser?![/quote]
Why should you be banned? I don’t understand.
If the collapse in oil production is going to lead to increasing chaos and dissolution, is a society similar to Orwell’s 1984-vision the only viable society?
Anarchy or absolute despotism seem like the two choices.
[/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is a overall pic of the oil situation.
“The US Military, the German Military, and the UK Department of Energy have all done detailed studies of the situation and come to the same conclusions. Social chaos, economic confusion, trade barriers, conflict, food shortages, riots, and war are in our future.”
If indeed we are headed for this, would only an absolute tyranny with constant surveillance of us be what is needed to have any sort of society at all? Would such a society be worth living in?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
HH what drugs are you taking or have you taken? [/quote]
LOL!
My point is that we’ll either have a command economy or a barter economy. Which is better? I suspect that a command economy is better than a war of all against all.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
HH what drugs are you taking or have you taken? [/quote]
LOL!
My point is that we’ll either have a command economy or a barter economy. Which is better? I suspect that a command economy is better than a war of all against all.
What do you all think?
[/quote]
I think you need to read more and post less. Wait, that wouldn’t be entertaining, forget it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
HH what drugs are you taking or have you taken? [/quote]
LOL!
My point is that we’ll either have a command economy or a barter economy. Which is better? I suspect that a command economy is better than a war of all against all.
What do you all think?
[/quote]
I think you need to read more and post less. Wait, that wouldn’t be entertaining, forget it.[/quote]
Perhaps you need to read…y’know…like clicking the link.
That $200 or $250/barrel oil problem will never impact those other stocks you buy…no never!! And gold? Which was $35 per ounce when I was in high school? Why…that’s going to turn around and go right back to $35 an ounce and the stock market’s going to 100,000!!
I guess history (which you like to ignore) will judge.
One problem with your idea is it is based upon a big lie. That lie being that oil is a “fossil fuel”. Oil is not produced from rotting swamp vegetation that ended up underground which makes it a limited resource.
Oil is produced from methane that is produced by living organisms that are deep underground. Over time as it pushes up to the surface it gets converted to oil and gets trapped in reservoirs. That is why empty oil wells that have been capped and left alone have been known to refill. It is also why we have been able to find oil at depths in the ocean where the land never could have seen the light of day for the oil to have been produced by fossils.
Three quarters of the earths surface is underwater and unexplored there could be vast reserves out there just waiting for us to find them.
I can’t for the life of me figure out what their motivation to come up with this solution was, but the Israelis have developed an energy cycle that uses sunlight, zinc and biomass to economically produce hydrogen fuel. Five years ago they were saying this technology is ready to go into mass production it just needs the investment. http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?id=51
The limiting factor is technology. Your premise assumes that our technology for recovering energy is not going to improve much in the next forty years. It also assumes that in that time we are not going to figure out how to mass produce synthetic fuels economically or come up with other solutions. Which is ridiculous.
The same mentality is applied when looking at population projections in Europe. They say the population is growing older with less young people so they need mass immigration to keep a pool of working age to support the increasingly old and decrepit population. It assumes that medical technology will not be able to improve the quality of life for older people substantially enough that they would be able to continue living productive lives. Even though joint replacements, bionics and stem cells are already being used therapeutically they are saying there will not be much if any improvement in the next 20 - 30 years.
Our knowledge is growing at an exponential rate. As new knowledge is acquired it is accelerating the rate at which we acquire even more. That is why we had such drastic change in the 20th century and it hasn’t slowed down in the 21st. Just look at the miniaturization of gadgets in the last twenty years. ie An Apple iphone is smaller than a Motorola brick, a walkman, 8mm camcorder, my first computer and can do more than all of them combined.
We do not need totalitarian government as a solution to problems that are not going to exist. Also asymmetrical mass immigration is going to render the concept of nationalism in first world countries unworkable. Japan and China will still have a common national identity to organize around. But in places like Europe the people are not going to have any common identity until the muslims take it over.
Sifu,
I respect your opinions greatly. Did you click the link though? The point being made is that no one who could make a long-term plan is doing anything to avoid a disaster. Our military estimates that we need a 20 year lead time to make a smooth transition away from oil/ng.
Is anyone doing this? No. There no additional power in it for them.
This is one reason I think we’ll eventually stop having people run things who think short-term, concerned only with the next election. We eventually will have (in Orwell’s words) the ‘rule of the Party is forever’.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
HH what drugs are you taking or have you taken? [/quote]
LOL!
My point is that we’ll either have a command economy or a barter economy. Which is better? I suspect that a command economy is better than a war of all against all.
What do you all think?
[/quote]
I think you need to read more and post less. Wait, that wouldn’t be entertaining, forget it.[/quote]
Perhaps you need to read…y’know…like clicking the link.
That $200 or $250/barrel oil problem will never impact those other stocks you buy…no never!! And gold? Which was $35 per ounce when I was in high school? Why…that’s going to turn around and go right back to $35 an ounce and the stock market’s going to 100,000!!
I guess history (which you like to ignore) will judge.
[/quote]
And you ignore economic cycles and that’s why you’ll never make any money. Go hide in your bunker and count your gold coins LOL.
