Is our civilization coming to an end?

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

Think about it. Oil hit $138.00/barrel on Friday and they are saying $150.00 by July 4. How long before things start to seriuosly unravel? Will we be able to afford to feed ourselves? Will there be any air travel? Is this just a 'blip' and somehow/someway things will return to normal? I hope so. Things look really grim now and I am becoming a little bit afraid.

[Higgs Boson]

It's going to be a long, painful slide, ending with a painful death, and you can't avoid it. Better end it yourself now.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

guess I asked for it....my question though gloomy is serious....are we at least living at a major 'tipping' point in our society?

[Kaptain K]

Can't happen! Why? It's already happened! The world ended October 29, 1929! :eek:

[Romanus]

The "end"? I doubt it. However, as you suggest I do think that we're experiencing a major wake-up call, one that will become increasingly acute over the next decade or so.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

true....we did make it through that, but the world was a less complicated place back then

[Kaptain K]

true....we did make it through that, but the world was a less complicated place back then

No, it wasn't! It was just complicated in different ways!

[Cougar]

...they are saying $150.00 by July 4....

And that will make a lot of other costs go up besides gas. So tighten your belt. Americans can stand to lose some weight.

[Doodler]

End of civilization? BWAHAHAHAAA!! I'm looking forward to using it as an excuse to telecommute.

;)


To be honest, you need to narrow your question. Its not the end of human civilization, but if the West, particularly the US, can learn to adapt to higher prices, it will be the end of several up and coming nations that can't handle the competition.

The US and Europe are very developed economies, there's a lot of distributed wealth, relative to anywhere else in the world. Not so elsewhere. Economic crashes certainly hurt, but we're not so close to the bottom that we can't stand to lose altitude once in a great while. Now, developing nations, they're just on their way up from nothing. Squeeze them with high energy costs, and its a real short trip back to crapola, which eases pressure off the developed nations as a competitor for energy dies agonizingly.

Its time to realize that not every nation will succeed, and that there really aren't enough resources for all of us, and we need to start ruthlessly removing some competition for what's available.

If its the end of any civilization, its the end for the khumbaya singers who thought, for some stupid reason, that we could all win at life.

[peteshimmon]

Perhaps the thing to worry about now is
increased fuel theivery. A defence might be
lapel cameras beaming pictures back home.
How are your nails btw bbp?

[Stuart van Onselen]

Doodler, you're a Republican, aren't you?

[Sam5]

Think about it. Oil hit $138.00/barrel on Friday and they are saying $150.00 by July 4. How long before things start to seriuosly unravel? Will we be able to afford to feed ourselves? Will there be any air travel? Is this just a 'blip' and somehow/someway things will return to normal? I hope so. Things look really grim now and I am becoming a little bit afraid.


When I was a little bitty kid, Hitler and the Nazis had taken over most of Western Europe, Japan controlled most of the Orient, and the US and England seemed like very small countries that could be invaded at any time.

When I was an older kid I was taught how to “duck and cover” in school if I saw any bright flash of light, because that meant I was about to be blown up with a Russian A-bomb. Ever since then I’ve been jumpy whenever I’ve been out in public at night with a lot of cameras with their flashes going off.

All during the 1950s I was trained by Hollywood to fear invasions by monsters from outer space, and the end-of-the-world was talked about by some of the preachers who said the earth would eventually be destroyed by some giant fireball from space.

Now I’m being taught on the History Channel and the National Geographic Channel every night that a fireball hit is possible and could destroy all life on earth, but before that the Yellowstone Caldera might blow up and kill me anyway.

So, this current “crisis” seems more like a gnat buzzing around me.

[Doodler]

Doodler, you're a Republican, aren't you?

The Force is strong in this one. ;)

[Drunk Vegan]

When I was a little bitty kid, Hitler and the Nazis had taken over most of Western Europe, Japan controlled most of the Orient, and the US and England seemed like very small countries that could be invaded at any time.

Thank God that Hitler was not only totally insane but stupid as well and decided to fight the Russians at the same time England and the US were pounding at him from the west.

As for the end of the world...

"I've seen the end of the universe. It happens to be in the United States. And oddly enough, it's in Houston, Texas. I know, I was shocked too.

Imagine my surprise when I left the comedy club one day, and walked to the end of the block. And there on one corner was a Starbucks. And across the street from that Starbucks, in the exact same building as that Starbucks... there was a Starbucks. I looked back and forth thinking the sun was playing tricks with my eyes. That there was a Starbucks across from a Starbucks. And that, my friends, is the end of the universe.

People say how do you know? Go there! Stand between those two Starbucks and look at your watch! Time stands still! And if you look this way and look at only the one Starbucks, and think when I turn around there can't possibly be another Starbucks behind me. Nobody could be that stupid. And if there was a just and loving God, he wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen! So you turn slowly, thinking that you'll see a Denny's or a Gap.. or a Mobile station. And there's a STARBUCK'S!

People have asked, are there too many Starbucks? Now we know. When you build a Starbucks across from a Starbucks, that's it. Game Over!

What group of people would need the service of a Starbucks, across from a Starbucks? I've thought about this long and hard, and there's only one group of people, and they're the only group of people that make this joke of mine work.

And that's people with Alzheimers.

It has to be a group of people, who can drink coffee all day in a Starbucks and than walk across the floor and open the door. "Gentleman? Do my eyes deceive me? I believe that's a Starbucks. I think it's time we have a cup of joe."

[Kaptain K]

The BA blogged about seeing the same thing in Toronto!

[novaderrik]

Doodler, you're a Republican, aren't you?
you seem to be insinuating its a bad thing in and of itself..
as long as he's a "true" Republican, then he's cool.. but if he's one of those "RINOs" that seem to be so prevalent these days, then i don't know what to say...


and, no, i'm not a Republican.. or Democrat.. or Libertarian..or whatever else..
I'm just an American, and i just want to be left alone to succeed or fail on my own merits.
and that's as political as i will get here..

[ravens_cry]

All civilisations end. The real question is when it happens ( I don't think it will be now) will it be a psssing of the torch, like the United Kingdom and America, or will it be be the Fall of Rome or worse. I don't think this is it, for the wealthy contries at least, but it will be painful for many who don't have as far to drop before they hit the bottom.

[Disinfo Agent]

The U.K. did not end; it just retired.

[ravens_cry]

The U.K. did not end; it just retired.

It was no longer the world girdling superpower with the empire on whom 'the sun never set'. It ended.

[Disinfo Agent]

It's still an economic powerhouse. Isn't that what matters the most? Territorial domination is so 19th century.

[ravens_cry]

In many ways yes, I have described the United Stated of America as an 'empire of merchants'. It is still a first rate power, it even has nuclear weapons and submarines, but it isn't the top dog on the totem pole anymore. As far as I know, there isn't a British product that has the world wide recognition that Coca Cola has.

[Van Rijn]

No, our civilization is not coming to an end. This sort of thinking reminds me a lot of some of the thinking in the '70s. There isn't a simple tank of oil in the ground, and it is not, never was, and never will be the only energy source possible, so again: No.

I'm more interested in questions like: Will there be enough of a price increase long enough to seriously shift energy use? Or will we just use a bit more heavy oil? With respect to the U.S., will we be politically willing to loosen up a bit on strict NIMBY? That could have dramatic impact on the U.S. economy in the following decades.


Things look really grim now and I am becoming a little bit afraid.

But that's nothing new, is it? You've been talking like this for some time.

[novaderrik]

I'm more interested in questions like: Will there be enough of a price increase long enough to seriously shift energy use? Or will we just use a bit more heavy oil? With respect to the U.S., will we be politically willing to loosen up a bit on strict NIMBY? That could have dramatic impact on the U.S. economy in the following decades.

i'm pretty sure that NIMBY will start to slowly go away as things get more expensive and people want the cheap goods and jobs that come with things that NIMBY is usually applied to.
this means more nuclear power, wind farms, and oil wells and refineries.
in South Dakota, a referendum just passed that puts the USA one step closer to having the first brand new oil refinery in over 30 years. this works out well for everyone except the environMENTALists that think we still build and operate refineries like we did 100 years ago- South Dakota gets jobs, and the people that aren't stuck out here in flyover country get to still have relatively cheap energy

[aquitaine]

The US and Europe are very developed economies, there's a lot of distributed wealth, relative to anywhere else in the world. Not so elsewhere. Economic crashes certainly hurt, but we're not so close to the bottom that we can't stand to lose altitude once in a great while. Now, developing nations, they're just on their way up from nothing. Squeeze them with high energy costs, and its a real short trip back to crapola, which eases pressure off the developed nations as a competitor for energy dies agonizingly

OK, where to begin? The US is actually in very serious trouble over this because its economy and its whole way of life are based on cheap oil. Suburbia would not be possible if it wasn't for cheap oil. Unfortunately, suburbanites are heavily dependent on their cars to go anywhere. Where I used to live, the shopping mall was several miles away, the supermarket was 10 miles away or so, and my parents work was 30 miles away (more or less), and this is AVERAGE. This was a typical suburban lifestyle, and most americans live in the suburbs. This wasteful way of life has been promoted as the new american dream ever since the end of world war 2, and with so many generations buying into this vision, many have come to believe it is their birthright, and will fight to hold onto it as long as possible. Also, given how precarious the financial position of most of the middle class is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A), I have reason to believe that high energy prices will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Now, compare this with the third world. In much of the thirdworld, there are few, if any suburbs. You either live in a village, the countryside, or a city. Looking at your typical middle class city dwellar, they often live in apartments that are not far away from their places of employment (or not that far from a bus which can take them there). They do use refrigerators to keep their food cool, but beyond that they always minimize their energy use to save some extra money, for example by washing clothes by hand. If energy prices go up, they would complain and if necessary, cutback to almost nothing, but it wouldn't cause any profound changes.

So, I would say the US middle class is actually in a much worse position to deal with this.

[Veeger]

Is our civilization coming to an end?

Not as long as we have WalMart and McDonalds.
;)

[Delvo]

The US is actually in very serious trouble over this because its economy and its whole way of life are based on cheap oil. Suburbia would not be possible if it wasn't for cheap oil... This wasteful way of life has been promoted as the new american dream ever since the end of world war 2, and with so many generations buying into this vision, many have come to believe it is their birthright, and will fight to hold onto it as long as possible... In much of the thirdworld, there are few, if any suburbs. You either live in a village, the countryside, or a city. Looking at your typical middle class city dwellar, they often live in apartments that are not far away from their places of employmentBusiness can relocate to where the homes are, and people can live where the businesses are. The tendency not to do it that way is not fixed for eternity, and has changed before.

[blueshift]

The computer revolution was the greatest impact on the world economy, including the United States. All this traveling through traffic is one big waste. Mass transit and online work is right at our grasp. There is no need for ANY white collar pencil pushers (or should I say "keyboard clickers"?) to be "traveling" to their jobs. Many union members have been pressing their unions to dump all national conventions since all such convening can take place in cyber space. Many businesses as well have been wasting money sending executives all over the world to "meet". For what? (To party and get drunk)

Oil is overated. The price has actually been way too low over the years and so has the price of air fares. Americans are a fickle group and we all get bored in a hurry. Drastic changes is something we crave, as long as we're prepared. Five or six bucks a gallon is about right. A loaf of the most expensive bread was 30 cents in the early 1970s. The price per gallon was about the same. Today I spent six dollars on the tapioca bread I need due to my wheat/gluten intolerance. I am a retired postal worker and I won't get burned at all.

Many rich Americans live without the use of an auto altogether. In the inner city in Chicago there is a whole lifestyle where richies live in and near Marina Towers on the lake shore and do not own vehicles at all because they are an economic waste (gas, insurance, payments). Mass transit is all around them and if they ever need a car they just rent one. Some of them claim that only happens about twice a year.

[ravens_cry]

Well I ain't no 'richie' But I walk, bike, or bus everywhere. Why? Simple reason, I don't have a drivers licence, and I don't intend on getting one until MAYBE after grade twelve. A car is too expensive for my budget, and I don't need one for grocery shopping, or getting around town. I own two computers, and I bought, used, both for under 200 dollars, total. I lugged the second home by hand, carrying it about 4 blocks. My arms were sore, but I survived. When I go grocery shopping, I pack my back pack, and loop two bags over the handlebars, balancing each other out. I think I live fairly well, all things considered.

[aquitaine]

Business can relocate to where the homes are, and people can live where the businesses are. The tendency not to do it that way is not fixed for eternity, and has changed before.


Many people wont have the financial flexibility to move like that. Even if the businesses somehow move out the the suburbs, many people would still need to drive long distances because of a fundemental flaw in the suburban living arrangement itself: It's low density. Even then you would still need to travel relatively long distances just for such basic items as food.

What you're suggesting is that we gut our cities even more than we already have and hang onto the suburban lifestyle with even more of a death grip. So much of America's wealth is locked up in the suburbs, even finally letting go of it would hurt.

Oil is overated.

Hardly, oil is the foundation of our economy and its even in much of our technology. Plastics, pesticides, even the asphalt we use to pave our roads with is all based on oil. There are many other examples too.......

[Acolyte]

To be honest, you need to narrow your question. Its not the end of human civilization, but if the West, particularly the US, can learn to adapt to higher prices, it will be the end of several up and coming nations that can't handle the competition.

The US and Europe are very developed economies, there's a lot of distributed wealth, relative to anywhere else in the world. Not so elsewhere. Economic crashes certainly hurt, but we're not so close to the bottom that we can't stand to lose altitude once in a great while. Now, developing nations, they're just on their way up from nothing. Squeeze them with high energy costs, and its a real short trip back to crapola, which eases pressure off the developed nations as a competitor for energy dies agonizingly.

Its time to realize that not every nation will succeed, and that there really aren't enough resources for all of us, and we need to start ruthlessly removing some competition for what's available.

If its the end of any civilization, its the end for the khumbaya singers who thought, for some stupid reason, that we could all win at life.Out of all the comments in this thread, the bold bit is the scariest thing I've heard. Straight from the handbook of how to precipitate global war - let's not work together & find a life for all, let's just nuke the competition!

I was hoping it was sick humour but reading back I realise it came after the 'to be honest' part. And there's no smiley!

[Doodler]

I was hoping it was sick humour but reading back I realise it came after the 'to be honest' part. And there's no smiley!

I mean every syllable of it. The successful nations of the world prop up a lot of dead weight because of a spineless fear of seeing any nation that exists now fall by the wayside of history and into extinction. Status quo maintained to the point of stagnation.

[Romanus]

<<Hardly, oil is the foundation of our economy and its even in much of our technology. Plastics, pesticides, even the asphalt we use to pave our roads with is all based on oil. There are many other examples too.......>>

Such as: heating costs, food costs (both from energy to process and fuel to transport), and plane fares (probably applicable to postage rates as well).

Then again, I don't see nearly as much of a stink raised about this from European sources, who've dealt with gas prices far higher than our own for decades; perhaps we'll come through all right. In any event, I'd be interested in knowing if any Europeans on this board are dealing with similar cost increases.

[Acolyte]

I mean every syllable of it. The successful nations of the world prop up a lot of dead weight because of a spineless fear of seeing any nation that exists now fall by the wayside of history and into extinction. Status quo maintained to the point of stagnation.Or perhaps an alternate PoV - the successful nations prop up an unsustainable rampant consumerism by continuing to exploit the same undeveloped countries they pillaged in the first place to get where they did?

That would be those countries where none of the advances that have led to massive production of poisons, reduced variability (& thus viability) of genetic stocks, enormous pollution problems, and ginormous consumption of the world's resources, have been seen? Where developed nations have repeatedly interfered with the progress and internal development to ensure an ongoing supply of consumables?

So now the West's ongoing love of the latest, the most flashy and the trashiest bits of uselessness has led to problems with the planet & you'd like to go bomb those who didn't do it?

have you ANY idea how self-centered that view is? How it looks to those who, in spite of never having partaken of the 'wonders' of modern society see you condemn them for the errors we have made? For the greed we have shown with total disregard for any consequences?

And we wonder why there are terrorists...

[korjik]

Thank God that Hitler was not only totally insane but stupid as well and decided to fight the Russians at the same time England and the US were pounding at him from the west.

As for the end of the world...

"I've seen the end of the universe. It happens to be in the United States. And oddly enough, it's in Houston, Texas. I know, I was shocked too.

Imagine my surprise when I left the comedy club one day, and walked to the end of the block. And there on one corner was a Starbucks. And across the street from that Starbucks, in the exact same building as that Starbucks... there was a Starbucks. I looked back and forth thinking the sun was playing tricks with my eyes. That there was a Starbucks across from a Starbucks. And that, my friends, is the end of the universe.

People say how do you know? Go there! Stand between those two Starbucks and look at your watch! Time stands still! And if you look this way and look at only the one Starbucks, and think when I turn around there can't possibly be another Starbucks behind me. Nobody could be that stupid. And if there was a just and loving God, he wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen! So you turn slowly, thinking that you'll see a Denny's or a Gap.. or a Mobile station. And there's a STARBUCK'S!

People have asked, are there too many Starbucks? Now we know. When you build a Starbucks across from a Starbucks, that's it. Game Over!

What group of people would need the service of a Starbucks, across from a Starbucks? I've thought about this long and hard, and there's only one group of people, and they're the only group of people that make this joke of mine work.

And that's people with Alzheimers.

It has to be a group of people, who can drink coffee all day in a Starbucks and than walk across the floor and open the door. "Gentleman? Do my eyes deceive me? I believe that's a Starbucks. I think it's time we have a cup of joe."

By the way, the two starbucks are at Shepard and Grey. Dont stand between the two starbucks please, you will get run over. Time dosent actually stop, it just seems like it cause the light is badly timed :)

To make it even worse, I think there is another starbucks there now.

[Drunk Vegan]

Then again, I don't see nearly as much of a stink raised about this from European sources, who've dealt with gas prices far higher than our own for decades; perhaps we'll come through all right. In any event, I'd be interested in knowing if any Europeans on this board are dealing with similar cost increases.

The difference is that Europe is very densely populated; you can't throw a stone without hitting a marketplace. And the distances that goods have to travel is much smaller.

Here in the U.S. something from another state can travel as much as 2500 miles by truck before it reaches your grocery store. Even a slight increase in the cost of gas drives up the cost of everything else.

I'd say our civilization has peaked, but considering that it took us over 200 years to get here it shouldn't be a problem as long as it's a gradual decline.

[Maksutov]

I was going to say it would happen when I saw a banquo's_bumble_puppy thread that wasn't a question and/or seemed to dwell on something negative, but that already happened in the past, so I guess our civilization ended some time ago. We seem not to have missed it.

:lol:

Fun while it lasted, though...

[parallaxicality]

I've been wondering recently if we're not headed for a new dark age. The free flow of ideas is becoming increasingly restricted; tolerance of others is lessening; interest in knowledge is declining; the pace of scientific and technological innovation seems to be slowing; religious fundamentalism and mysticism are as powerful as ever. The old world order is fading with no clear idea of what will replace it, and we have global warming staring at us like some massive distant wall we're about to hit. I don't believe in the end of the world; the apocalypse has a surprisingly consistent habit of not occurring. But I do think that one day in a few generations we may look back on what we have now as a lost golden age, our hope for the future gone.

[Lianachan]

Deja vu, here. A minor aside - Hitler was not at was with England, he was at war with the UK. All talk about "England" in WW2 is a gross offence to those from the other countries who died for the UK, most certainly not for England.

As for a new dark age - I would love a new iron age. I have my disaster plan for that eventuality almost as well worked out as my Zombie Escape Plan.

[Doodler]

Or perhaps an alternate PoV - the successful nations prop up an unsustainable rampant consumerism by continuing to exploit the same undeveloped countries they pillaged in the first place to get where they did?

That would be those countries where none of the advances that have led to massive production of poisons, reduced variability (& thus viability) of genetic stocks, enormous pollution problems, and ginormous consumption of the world's resources, have been seen? Where developed nations have repeatedly interfered with the progress and internal development to ensure an ongoing supply of consumables?

So now the West's ongoing love of the latest, the most flashy and the trashiest bits of uselessness has led to problems with the planet & you'd like to go bomb those who didn't do it?

have you ANY idea how self-centered that view is? How it looks to those who, in spite of never having partaken of the 'wonders' of modern society see you condemn them for the errors we have made? For the greed we have shown with total disregard for any consequences?

And we wonder why there are terrorists...

Humans are self centered. You're 100% delusional to think that we're remotely ready to exist in an altruistic world.

Consider that terrorists exist because its the only effective method at their disposal of imposing their world view on a civilization that would otherwise care less about their barbaric social mores.

Why do you think the most deeply penetrated technological wonder to ever become an everyday item in the Third World is the AK-47?

[parallaxicality]

As for a new dark age - I would love a new iron age. I have my disaster plan for that eventuality almost as well worked out as my Zombie Escape Plan.

I don't think we'll lose that much. Much like dark ages past (400-1000 AD, 14th century), our standard of living will fall a few notches, we might lose some long-established social order, but eventually we'll pick up the pieces and start again. Or maybe we won't. After all, the Islamic world never really recovered from Genghis Khan and the crusades. If they had then they might well have conquered the world instead of Europe.

[Ronald Brak]

Did world war II cause the end of civilization in the US? No? Well I don't think you have to worry about high petrol prices. Unless you've all become really stupid in the last 60 years or something.

[Doodler]

Did world war II cause the end of civilization in the US? No? Well I don't think you have to worry about high petrol prices. Unless you've all become really stupid in the last 60 years or something.

While technologically adept, the US has developed one monster case of cultural ADHD. At that scale, things tend to stay in the public mind about six months before being completely forgotten. 60 years might as well be 6 million years for all the relevance the people of the Information Overload Age gives it...

Hell, these are the same people who think the tanking of housing prices is the end of the frakking line, when wasn't it just 1987 when we had this little problem with speculative real estate overbuilding? :doh:

[Delvo]

Many people wont have the financial flexibility to move like that.If there is a great need, the society will adapt in a way that makes it easier to do. The fact that there are other advanced industrialized countries where people already do live closer to their jobs shows that it is possible, which means that the obstacles to it in our current configuration are not written in stone.

What you're suggesting is that we gut our cities even more than we already have and hang onto the suburban lifestyle with even more of a death grip.Exactly the opposite. If you're going to insist on pretending that others have said stuff other than what they've said, you're just going to prove yourself not worth the bother of talking to at all.

[Abbadon_2008]

Civilization is overrated. Skyrocketing oil prices, water shortages, and many other 'crises' are due to shortsighted mismanagement by the Powers That Be.

This downward spiral will eventually level off. But we in the industrialized world will have to slough off the 'Our leaders can fix everything, and they will save us' mindset, and return to our pioneer roots.

Rugged individualism is the way! Start growing your own food, stop throwing away things that can be reused or recycled, switch to solar and wind power, etc..

Or you could wait till everything blows up, and become my faithful subject after I seize power as the local warlord.

I've already got the bunless leather chaps, FYI. I might forego the hockey mask, though, and run with facial tats.:whistle:

[Romanus]

^
"I'm Humungus, and I approve of this message."

[parallaxicality]

And so do the two guys tied to the ends of my battering ram

[Scarlet]

Yes, it is coming to an end at a half past two.

[blueshift]

Many people wont have the financial flexibility to move like that. Even if the businesses somehow move out the the suburbs, many people would still need to drive long distances because of a fundemental flaw in the suburban living arrangement itself: It's low density. What suburb do you live in? Chicago suburbs are not far behind the inner city at all. The density of autos is dead equal.Even then you would still need to travel relatively long distances just for such basic items as food.I can walk to many grocery stores from here. Buses and trains exist for those who are challenged by exercise. Motorized bicylcles, hybrid or electric or muscled can easily be mass produced. China's roads are packed with bicycles and America could stand a little exercise.

The railroads right now are reacting to the oil prices and are on a hiring binge. Bullet trains can be placed right over the existing rail lines.

Hardly, oil is the foundation of our economy and its even in much of our technology. Plastics, pesticides, even the asphalt we use to pave our roads with is all based on oil. There are many other examples too.......Foundation? In 1776 the foundation was laid and oil was hardly mentioned. Energy is a foundation and energy sources have changed many times over the years from horses and plows to stage coaches and wagon trains to our present industrial base that has been giving way to the electronic revolution. Ion power and other futuristic energy sources will replace this stone age environment we live in. The computer screen you are looking at is already a relic. So is water and labor power. So profits will drop for some industries and others will pick up. Some firm going out of business is not something new to Americans. Ask people in the rust belt.

Let's stick to something here that is a simple comparison. The price of a gallon of gas is not high. It should be close to $6 per gallon since the best loaf of bread costs that much. Air line tickets are way too low. It should cost at least $1500 for a round trip from LA to Chicago.

[Van Rijn]

Hell, these are the same people who think the tanking of housing prices is the end of the frakking line, when wasn't it just 1987 when we had this little problem with speculative real estate overbuilding? :doh:

The issue is that there are a good number of people that are too young to remember it. And the '70s (when there were people talking just like the doom 'n gloomers here) might as well be ancient history.

[Disinfo Agent]

I mean every syllable of it. The successful nations of the world prop up a lot of dead weight because of a spineless fear of seeing any nation that exists now fall by the wayside of history and into extinction. Status quo maintained to the point of stagnation.Don't you worry. I'm sure China and India are already thinking of how they're going to ruthlessly remove American and European competition from the map. And I hear the idea is popular in the Middle East, too.

[Maksutov]

This kind of sums up this thread and a few others. Warning: YouTube link.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTqjnrRcpo&feature=related)
Would be remiss without a tip of the hat to bmpbmp.

:)

[Paul Leeks]

In the year 2525,if man is still alive.......

or Planet of the Apes...when Taylor(?) is on the beach with the statue of liberty.."what have you done"!

I think things could be heading this way..better go and say your prayers!!I hope someone is listening....!!

[Van Rijn]

This kind of sums up this thread and a few others. Warning: YouTube link.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTqjnrRcpo&feature=related)
Would be remiss without a tip of the hat to bmpbmp.

:)

Well, that's it. If cats are terrified, we're doomed.

[Paul Leeks]

don't worry about global warming,nuclear war, asteroids

so what your going to die anyway, go and help someone today!!

Paul

[Ronald Brak]

Don't you worry. I'm sure China and India are already thinking of how they're going to ruthlessly remove American and European competition from the map. And I hear the idea is popular in the Middle East, too.

No we're not. We're worried about the United States damaging its economy through mismanagement. The US is still the engine of the world economy. People don't seem to understand competition. Companies in the same business compete with each other, countries don't. (Well, there is this thing called war, but we're talking economics here. War is reverse economics.) The reconstruction of Europe after World War II did not put the US out of business, nor did the growth of Japan's economy, and neither has China. Economic growth in Europe, Japan and China has all been to the US's benefit so far. It's not likely to change. But running up trillion dollar debt, that's a self inflicted wound. We're not going to buy unlimited amouns of treasury bills from the US forever.

[Acolyte]

Humans are self centered. You're 100% delusional to think that we're remotely ready to exist in an altruistic world.Actually the majority of people are well meaning. People willing to trample everyone around them have psychological terms named for them. People willing to do it physically get arrested.

Delusion is a field I will leave to those who, rather than accept responsibility for the disaster they have brought on themselves, think they can make things better by killing those who haven't done anything except try to exist.
Consider that terrorists exist because its the only effective method at their disposal of imposing their world view on a civilization that would otherwise care less about their barbaric social mores.Or perhaps because certain imperialistic nations moved in & prevented them & their families from having a decent life & after 3 or more generations children are now born into hate & squalor. And more recently they now have TV's & Hollywood to show them what their poverty has provided for others.
If someone did that to me & mine I'd go looking for redress as well.
Why do you think the most deeply penetrated technological wonder to ever become an everyday item in the Third World is the AK-47?See above. But also, we haven't allowed them either the money or the opportunity to partake in the 'wonders' of a civilisation like ours.

But seeing your reaction I think Gandhi was right. He was asked what he thought of Western civilisation & he replied 'I think it would be a very good idea.'

Part of being an adult is to be able to view one's mistakes & accept responsibility for them. Wanting to go kill everyone else just so one can continue to make one's mistakes is not only true evil, it's stupid. By continuing the mistakes all that happens is eventually one runs out of victims AND resources & one dies alone.

By seeing one's errors & working to make things better, everybody wins. Indulgence of pure greed has led us to this point where we are suddenly worried that our lifestyle is about to vanish. Well, get used to it. As blind as anyone wishes to be, things have reached crisis point across a whole range of fields - oil is simply the most obvious.

And it is ONLY greed that has caused it. If oil corporations had invested a small fraction of the multi-billions they have been raking in into alternative technologies we wouldn't be in this position.

In the terms of the old Chinese curse, we have 'interesting times' ahead. Who survives will not be easily settled - the rich have the weapons & resources, but the people on the street have the numbers. Against that, if you trace back the various bloodlines of our leaders, the rich seem to have experience in surviving society catastrophe.

So Doodler, you may want to take your focus off killing everyone around you - after all, where do you stop? Once the Ay-rabs is all dayd, is y'all gonna kill the Ay-sians?
And when everyone else is wiped from the planet & the oil is still in short supply, do you then start on your neighbours?

And keep in mind, once you wipe out all those 3rd world lesser beings with their barbaric social morés, who is going to work your oil platforms?

It might be worthwhile to spend some time looking at the definitions of 'barbaric' & compare it to someone who wants to kill the victims because greed has finally brought a price, then compare it to someone who resorts to violence because all other avenues to seek redress at unfairness & exploitation have failed.

[Van Rijn]

Well, this thread sure is going political. Or ridiculous. One or the other or both.

[Acolyte]

Well, this thread sure is going political. Or ridiculous. One or the other or both.*shrugs* I read back in case there's something I missed but I don't see it. It's a thread about whether the oil crisis is bad or not. Hard to talk at all about it if you can't mention the world's largest consumer, nor talk about why the crunch is coming (or here) & what effects might be. Besides so far nobody has talked sides of politics nor policies of parties.
I think you're over-reacting; maybe there's a part you don't like?

[Delvo]

*shrugs* I read back in case there's something I missed but I don't see it... so far nobody has talked sides of politics...Clearly you haven't read the last few posts by someone called "Acolyte". Maybe it's because, if his/her behavior in this thread lately is typical, you've already seen these rants before and put him/her on "Ignore"...

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

No, our civilization is not coming to an end. This sort of thinking reminds me a lot of some of the thinking in the '70s. There isn't a simple tank of oil in the ground, and it is not, never was, and never will be the only energy source possible, so again: No.

I'm more interested in questions like: Will there be enough of a price increase long enough to seriously shift energy use? Or will we just use a bit more heavy oil? With respect to the U.S., will we be politically willing to loosen up a bit on strict NIMBY? That could have dramatic impact on the U.S. economy in the following decades.




But that's nothing new, is it? You've been talking like this for some time.

" The lonely traveller by night
Who, like dismal ravens crying,
Beat the windows of the dying"....


um, yeah .... I need to lighten up

[Bolasanibk]

But seeing your reaction I think Ghandi was right. He was asked what he thought of Western civilisation & he replied 'I think it would be a very good idea.'


Its spelled Gandhi. Ghandi sounds a lot like a couple of swear words in Hindi, so you might want to be more careful.

[Spock Jenkins]

Doodler has been letting it go, probably because he is amused by Acolyte's over-the-top view on what he said, but I feel compelled to clarify.

I don't see where Doodler advocated proactively exterminating the third world by dropping bombs. He has clearly stated that the strong will survive and the weak should be left to their own fate. That doesn't mean the strong must go squash the weak. The weak will die on their own if the strong simply stops helping.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just offering my understaning of what was said.

As far as politics in the thread, the only post I was surprised didn't at least draw a warning was when one individual stated the assumed political party affiliation of another.

[Spock Jenkins]

Think about it. Oil hit $138.00/barrel on Friday and they are saying $150.00 by July 4. How long before things start to seriuosly unravel? Will we be able to afford to feed ourselves? Will there be any air travel? Is this just a 'blip' and somehow/someway things will return to normal? I hope so. Things look really grim now and I am becoming a little bit afraid.

http://www.paradise-engineering.com/quotation/itstheendoftheworldasweknowit.html

First place I found the lyrics.

[Michael Noonan]

There should be some sort of dire warning before it all ends. That is how it is done in the movies. Let's see:-

Current situation production is now bought before it is produced by those with the money to invest in futures markets. Nett result all products cost more for the consumer as the profits must first go to those who neither needed nor could use all the food and oil they invested in for profit.

Now we are entering carbon trading and soon futures trading in that will become a commodity I would suppose. Nett result we now pay for the air we breathe and it will get increasingly expensive. The futures market speculators argument is if they didn't do it someone else would and that they are actually philanthropists because they give to charity a minute portion of the wealth that is hoarded.

Charity seems to clash too often with harvest times in the countries it is delivered to which then reduces the price the local farmer could have received for the crop. So food and resources and now air taxed and more expensive because a capital system using little green pieces of paper allows people to commit the sort of atrocity that in any direct sense would equate to conditions preceding genocide and food aid used as a weapon of economic instability.

Dire warning, perhaps this one here is appropriate:- Cree prophesy (http://tiki.oneworld.net/sustain/sustain6.html).

In a word yes. The world people are filth. Filthy rich or just plain filthy. Now that we are descending to the depths of depravity, soon soon it is time.

[Ilya]

I've been wondering recently if we're not headed for a new dark age. The free flow of ideas is becoming increasingly restricted;

Saying this on an Internet BBS is extremely ironic.
tolerance of others is lessening;

What gave you that idea? Even counting Iraq, fewer people are killed worldwide (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html) than at any time in 20th Century, and there is more cultural exchange throughout the world then ever. I would say both are indicators of increasing tolerance.

interest in knowledge is declining;

it may seem that way judging from the amount of pseudo-scientific garbage on TV and Internet, but the number of science Ph.D.'s award throughout the world every year keeps increasing.
the pace of scientific and technological innovation seems to be slowing;
Again, where did you get THAT idea (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-21-voa64.cfm?CFID=245762194&CFTOKEN=13828605)?
religious fundamentalism and mysticism are as powerful as ever.
Did you clear this post with your local bishop? Don't be absurd; religious fundamentalism is "as powerful as ever" only in Middle East -- and not all of it at that, -- while mysticism may well be "as powerful as ever", but that's not very powerful at all. Crystal skull worshippers do not run countries.

[aquitaine]

it may seem that way judging from the amount of pseudo-scientific garbage on TV and Internet, but the number of science Ph.D.'s award throughout the world every year keeps increasing.


True, but maybe he does have a point about many people in the US. Yes, they will learn absolutly what they have to, but no more. Studying isn't "cool". Thankfully the rest of the world (particularly in the fast developing countries) is where most of this growth is occuring.

Did you clear this post with your local bishop? Don't be absurd; religious fundamentalism is "as powerful as ever" only in Middle East -- and not all of it at that, -- while mysticism may well be "as powerful as ever", but that's not very powerful at all. Crystal skull worshippers do not run countries

Religious fundementalism is a large and until recently an increasingly powerful minority in the United States. This may have something to do with American people's peculiar tendency to buy into doomsday prophecies. It happened in y2k, and now it is happening again with 2012.

[Michael Noonan]

Well it probably wont matter too much because there appears to be a move to control the flow of information.

This website by Ipower (http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality2) claims to have the inside running that will shut down all but the commercially approved forums for the flow of information.

I hope BAUT stays open but the readership might suffer if there is an extra charge if it can't be packaged as a block of approved forums.

[Spock Jenkins]

I think a lot of people mistake the vast increase in coverage of particular events with the the event itself actually occuring more often. That's not typically the case. I'm reminded of, "The Year of the Shark" (aka - nothing else to report). The reports made you feel like the only option was to stay away from the beaches. But statistically, the odds of your getting attacked by a shark weren't any different than any other year.

As far as education diminishing - not true. Drop out rates are lower or as low as ever. More individuals than ever are going on to some form of post secondary education. As recently as the 1930's it wasn't all that uncommon to finish 8th grade and call it good in the U.S. I had at least one grandparent that considered 8th grade acceptable, got a steady job in a local factory, worked there for years and retired quite comfortably after raising five children. Not many employers outside of minimum wage would hire somebody with that little education in this day and age.

The only thing bad that is seeing truly exponential growth in the past 30 years is media hype.

[Delvo]

The education problem isn't that people spend less time at it (and as far as I'm concerned finishing younger would be better); it's that they're getting less actual education for the time spent.

[closetgeek]

I think it is going to get worse before it gets better but eventually something is going to give. Can't cars run on pure alocohol? Is that safe?

[Spock Jenkins]

The education problem isn't that people spend less time at it (and as far as I'm concerned finishing younger would be better); it's that they're getting less actual education for the time spent.

It's a whole different conversation, but I think part of that is due to the fact that a century ago, kids weren't obligated to go to school. Only the children who's parents would encourage foster education or children who really wanted to learn were in school. If we as a society are forcing the lowest common denominator to stay in school, they will not only bring the averages down but they will also take valuable teaching time away from children that want to learn. Teachers are stuck in high school still dealing with elementary behavior that had long been weeded out in years past.

Other kids would work on the family farm or go to work in a factory at 12 years old.

That, and beating kids was an acceptable way to get their attention. :think:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a return to child labor or abuse. I'm just saying the averages are never as pretty when you have to include the bad with the good. I think lower averages is a small price to pay to insure at least a chance at universal literacy and other benefits.

[Ilya]

I think it is going to get worse before it gets better but eventually something is going to give. Can't cars run on pure alocohol? Is that safe?

They can, although gasoline-designed engines will wear out more quickly on alcohol, especially rings and seals. Likewise, you can not pump alcohol through existing oil distribution pipes because it will dissolve the seals. But these are solvable :) problems; AFAIK, all new cars build in Brazil are designed to handle gasoline and alcohol equally well.

[parallaxicality]

Saying this on an Internet BBS is extremely ironic.

Would that by saying this on an internet forum I had the power to influence events. Certainly all the internet buzz on the planet couldn't stop the war in Iraq, and the fact that by 2007, one third of Americans still believed Saddam was behind 9/11 (http://www.prwatch.org/node/6427) tells me that the free flow of facts has been severely curtailed in recent years.

What gave you that idea? Even counting Iraq, fewer people are killed worldwide (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html) than at any time in 20th Century, and there is more cultural exchange throughout the world then ever. I would say both are indicators of increasing tolerance.

And yet more and more often, from America to Europe to India, I am finding nationalist parties coming to power to try and stop this trend from happening.

it may seem that way judging from the amount of pseudo-scientific garbage on TV and Internet, but the number of science Ph.D.'s award throughout the world every year keeps increasing.

But science needs funding, and where is it going to get that funding? Either from the private sector, which is only interested in a small number of highly specific scientific pursuits, or from taxpayers, most of whom don't give a toss about science, and may believe it conflicts with their views. The more people come to believe this, the less funding science will get.

Again, where did you get THAT idea (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-21-voa64.cfm?CFID=245762194&CFTOKEN=13828605)?

Between 1890 and 1970, we went from horse-drawn carrages to men on the Moon. Apart from the personal computer, I can't think of anything that has fundamentally altered the world in the last 30 years on the scale of the car, the airplane, or electric lighting.

Did you clear this post with your local bishop? Don't be absurd; religious fundamentalism is "as powerful as ever" only in Middle East -- and not all of it at that, -- while mysticism may well be "as powerful as ever", but that's not very powerful at all. Crystal skull worshippers do not run countries.

Well, they did when the BJP ran India...

[Argos]

Well, I for one, am living a pretty good life. Economy is growing, the country is thriving, oil is being found all across the continental shelf [not that we need it anyway, mind you; we´re self sufficient]... Ahhh, the awakening of a Nation. Interesting times to live.

[Argos]

They can, although gasoline-designed engines will wear out more quickly on alcohol, especially rings and seals.

They won´t if you engineer them accordingly. We´ve got a 35-year expertise in this field. Cars engines down here are called flex-fuel [but they used to run on pure alcohol back in the 70´s].

[Ilya]

Apart from the personal computer, I can't think of anything that has fundamentally altered the world in the last 30 years on the scale of the car, the airplane, or electric lighting.

Yes, "apart from personal computer, nothing has changed." Kind of like: "Except for that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?"

To put it simply -- more than half of my waking time is spent doing activities which did not exist 30 years ago. I would say this is a fundamental alteration of the world.

[peteshimmon]

Interesting feature lunchtime on Bristol Docks
having two wind turbines installed and getting
more power than expected. Helps power cranes,
refridgerated warehouses etc. They want two
more thank you very much. Sort of thing that
makes you think things are going alright
after all.

[Drunk Vegan]

It's a whole different conversation, but I think part of that is due to the fact that a century ago, kids weren't obligated to go to school. Only the children who's parents would encourage foster education or children who really wanted to learn were in school. If we as a society are forcing the lowest common denominator to stay in school, they will not only bring the averages down but they will also take valuable teaching time away from children that want to learn. Teachers are stuck in high school still dealing with elementary behavior that had long been weeded out in years past.

Having high school + college being a mandatory requirement for success in our society doesn't just bring test scores down, it brings curriculum down to the level of the worst common denominator. Teachers and administrators can no longer afford to introduce material that can't be understood by everyone, particularly with the No Child Left Intelligent act which penalizes schools which don't score well on standarized testing. There's absolutely no incentive any more to strive for excellence in education.

I remember back in elementary school the teachers divided classes into "A, B, and C" groups. The A being the brightest kids and the hardest curriculum, B being average, and C being remedial. Some teaching was standard to all three groups, but some of the time you split into your groups and got tailored instruction. Worked incredibly well.

Of course then the political correctness movement came along and the study groups disappeared because it's more important to encourage someone's "self-esteem" than it is to teach them anything.

[Ilya]

Having high school + college being a mandatory requirement for success in our society doesn't just bring test scores down, it brings curriculum down to the level of the worst common denominator.

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/college) -- travails of an adjunct English professor. (For those who don't know, adjunct professors get stuck with students who should never have been in college to begin with.)

[aquitaine]

Having high school + college being a mandatory requirement for success in our society doesn't just bring test scores down, it brings curriculum down to the level of the worst common denominator. Teachers and administrators can no longer afford to introduce material that can't be understood by everyone, particularly with the No Child Left Intelligent act which penalizes schools which don't score well on standarized testing. There's absolutely no incentive any more to strive for excellence in education.

The trend was already there, but the No Child Left Behind Act reinforced it. I graduated high school 5 years ago, and for the most part I coasted through it. Teaching was always to the lowest common denominator in all the required courses, and there was seldom any responsibility given to the student, which brings me to my next point.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, if a student fails the exam it is automatically the teachers fault, and the teacher is penalized for it. Now, there are bad teachers out there and yes, we should do something about them, but what about the students? There will always be students who are either too lazy or too stupid (or both) to pass, and the No Child Left Behind Act basically takes away whatever responsibility the student had for his/her learning.

Americans often re-assure themselves that our education system is better than other countries' because it "emphasizes critical thinking". It does emphasize critical thinking to an extant, but that isn't the whole story. In reality it doesn't push students to think or learn much at all. Combining this with the media messages that "smart is bad" and "only nerds study" seriously weakens our primary and secondary education system, and it also does our children a major disservice.

And then there was also the fear. Towards the end of my 7th grade year there was the Thurston school shooting, which was only a 2 hour drive away from where I was. Then a year later there was Columbine, and a week after that the school principal at lunch time talked with all of us about it, and said the school was getting (i forget the exact number) at least 20 bomb threats a day (and many of us students were wondering "Are we next?"). Then when I was in high school there were two times in the 4 years I was there that the school was evacuated because of a credible bomb threat, so they had to bring in the police with their bomb sniffing dogs. Didn't find anything, but still. Then of course there was the fights. I heard from one of the security guys (in high school) there was usually 3 or so "near fights" a day. Our school had, in addition to the security guards (who were quite formidable) an armed police officer from the county sheriff's office who was based at our school who had a gun, handcuffs, mace, and IIRC a baton (he was still a nice guy, thankfully). Every year we had several students killed because of automobile accidents.

Yeah, a long list, and this was a fairly well to do suburban school district, the inner city schools were even worse. If I ever have children, I wouldn't want them growing up in an environment like this.

[mike alexander]

Well. I finished high school 40 years ago this spring (confetti! summer of love! assassinations to go!). It was great.

[Kaptain K]

Hmmmmmm That makes me a year older than you. Class of '67!

[Maksutov]

Hmmmmmm That makes me a year older than you. Class of '67!Mustang class of '65. Ride, Sally, ride!

[mike alexander]

Shall we three get together, brush up our DA's and sing a little do-wop?

[Maksutov]

Let's go for it. In school groups I was always Mr. Bass Man (http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/565550.html).

Or was that Mr. Space Man?

Madras jackets (black leather optional), white or light blue dress shirts (white t-shirt only: optional), and light brown chinos (tight blue jeans optional)? This is true.

The sound should be slicker than a duck's rump.

[mike alexander]

Bluuuuuuue Moooooooooonnnnnnnn...

Nah.

But I could try a Drifter's falsetto:

"Under the boardwalk... down by the sea..."

[Kaptain K]

Up on the roof

I learned decades ago that I can't carry a tune in a bucket, but I'm a damn good soundman! You sing it, I'll mix it.

[Delvo]

But I could try a Drifter's falsetto:Speaking of falsetto: why in the world was "Walk Like a Man, Talk Like a Man" done in it? :eh::doh:

[weatherc]

Speaking of falsetto: why in the world was "Walk Like a Man, Talk Like a Man" done in it? :eh::doh:I always sang that as, "Walk like a man, sing like a girl..."

[HenrikOlsen]

Well, I for one, am living a pretty good life. Economy is growing, the country is thriving, oil is being found all across the continental shelf [not that we need it anyway, mind you; we´re self sufficient]... Ahhh, the awakening of a Nation. Interesting times to live.
You wouldn't happen to have room down there for an IT guy specialized in tcp/ip networks and *nix systems adminstration and an interest in building a self-sufficient lifestyle that doesn't conflict with high-tech work, do you?
I'd prefer something like 1 acre or arable land with a 2+ Mbps internet connection. :)

[Maksutov]

You wouldn't happen to have room down there for an IT guy specialized in tcp/ip networks and *nix systems adminstration and an interest in building a self-sufficient lifestyle that doesn't conflict with high-tech work, do you?...Now, who would that IT guy be? :think: Lots of IT guys and gals out there though...

[Argos]

You wouldn't happen to have room down there for an IT guy specialized in tcp/ip networks and *nix systems adminstration and an interest in building a self-sufficient lifestyle that doesn't conflict with high-tech work, do you?
I'd prefer something like 1 acre or arable land with a 2+ Mbps internet connection. :)

Well, it could be arranged. ;)

[Maksutov]

How's your Portuguese, Henrik? ;)

[parallaxicality]

Should I unsubscribe to this? It doesn't seem to be following its original brief at the moment...

[Maksutov]

Should I unsubscribe to this? It doesn't seem to be following its original brief at the moment...Give it time. It will get back to TEOCAWKI eventually.

[SharkByte]

Our civilization is not ending. It's just changing. Go rent the movie Idiocracy and you'll see exacly where we are heading...

[mugaliens]

Shall we three get together, brush up our DA's and sing a little do-wop?

Anyone up for barbershop quartet? That way, when our civilization gcomes to an end, we could go out with a baritone...

[Delvo]

According to "Nature" on PBS, civilization will collapse in a few years due to loss of pollenators (not just honey bees; apparently "pollenators" in general!).

[ravens_cry]

Hmm, that would (among others) include, bats, butterflies, moths and wind. How the <insert expletitive of choice> do we lose the wind?!

[Delvo]

By building too many wind turbines and sucking away of that kinetic energy. :D

Seriously, though, they didn't necessarily say ALL pollenators; they just didn't specify how many or which ones... and then spent the whole show talking about issues that are specific to the bees...

[ravens_cry]

By building too many wind turbines and sucking away of that kinetic energy. :D

Seriously, though, they didn't necessarily say ALL pollenators; they just didn't specify how many or which ones... and then spent the whole show talking about issues that are specific to the bees...
we would have to build a LOT of wind turbines. IIRC, there is as much energy in a small hurricane as a small nuclear bomb.
As far as other pollinators, I agree that bees are extremely important to both our food economy, but if the show only discusses bees, it isn't exactly been completely truthful. Lies by omission and all that.

[mugaliens]

By building too many wind turbines and sucking away of that kinetic energy. :D

I went to the movies last night (Hulk) and one of the commercials involved "environmentally safe" power sources. They had grandiose music, sweeping videography of various nature scenes, but when they got to the offshore wind farms, I went "Guh! That's so Ugly!"

Now, you have to understand that lots of people were talking in the theater, as they always do over the commercials. But when I said that, the Germans (mostly tree-huggers) all turned around and looked at me with frowns on their faces.

On a more serious not, Delvo, you're absolutely right - if we put enough wind turbines out there we'll have just as much of an impact on both local and global climate as all our greenhouse gases we're churning out, the pollution we dump into our oceans, etc.

People just don't get it. TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. No matter what we do, it's going to have an effect on our world:

Nuclear - adds heat from the cooling phase of the steam cycle
Geothermal - changes thermal temps in deep areas, changes subterranian volcanic activity; may reduce groundwater supplies.
Wind - robs winds of their energy, causing shifts in wind currents and localized climat change
Tidal - robs waves of their ability to both deposit material to the beaches as well as their ability to remove material from the beaches. Upsets local sea animal and plant life which depend on wave action to stir up the waters, providing both oxygen and nutrients from lower levels.
Solar - saps sun's heat turning it into electricity (the good thing is that when you run that A/C or fridge, you get that heat back)

And on and on. Perhaps the power source with the least environmental impact would be to replace shingles with solar cells, as you get back much of what you took.

Seriously, though, they didn't necessarily say ALL pollenators; they just didn't specify how many or which ones... and then spent the whole show talking about issues that are specific to the bees...

One of my best friends is a beekeeper. He says that while the two mites affecting his hives have caused problems, the fact is that all bees have mites, and the ones that didn't die when his hives were mostly decimated a few years back are hardier and resistant to the effects of the mites.

Evolution at work.

He also mentioned that efforts were under way to cross-bread domestic bees with mite-resistant varieties from other countries that have similar characteristics (honey production, lack of agressiveness, tolerance to cold, etc.) as our domestic bees.

Just giving evolution a nudge... Hopefully, we'll thoroughly test any new varieties before releasing them into the environment.

[Disinfo Agent]

I went to the movies last night (Hulk) and one of the commercials involved "environmentally safe" power sources. They had grandiose music, sweeping videography of various nature scenes, but when they got to the offshore wind farms, I went "Guh! That's so Ugly!"And oil drills aren't?

[ravens_cry]

Actualy, I find oil well pumps rather beautiful, but in motion mind you.

[Drunk Vegan]

Actualy, I find oil well pumps rather beautiful, but in motion mind you.

*cough*phallic symbol*cough*

[ravens_cry]

*cough*phallic symbol*cough*
These (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rrvalleyoil8zf1.jpg) oil well puumps were what I was refering to. It is how it converts a rotery motion into a reciprical one in a repetitive sweep. It is poetry in motion, to use a cliche. If you find that phallic, fine.

[Maksutov]

*cough*phallic symbol*cough*You're thinking of an oil well drilling rig:

8180

Here is an oil well pumping unit:

8181

Hope that cough goes away.

[Acolyte]

You're thinking of an oil well drilling rig:

8180

Here is an oil well pumping unit:

8181

Hope that cough goes away.I think the point stands though - the wind farms are actually aesthetically pleasing particularly when compared to the ugliness of oil or the cooling towers & smoke stacks of power stations.

Personally I find the sight of the turbines to be not only pleasing but majestic & restful & have no understanding of those who say they are ugly. And strangely, those I know who so find them all live in the city & seem to have no problems with the vanquishing of nature due to huge square blocks of concrete, millions of kms of overhead wires & glaring signs everywhere.

Roll on wind farms I reckon.

[Maksutov]

I think the point stands though - the wind farms are actually aesthetically pleasing particularly when compared to the ugliness of oil or the cooling towers & smoke stacks of power stations....The relevant points made by mugaliens, Disinfo Agent, and ravens_cry were the opposite of what you've written.

I was replying to Drunk Vegan, whose "point" was, shall we say, quite different from the rest.

[Acolyte]

The relevant points made by mugaliens, Disinfo Agent, and ravens_cry were the opposite of what you've written.

I was replying to Drunk Vegan, whose "point" was, shall we say, quite different from the rest.And the point I was responding to was
I went to the movies last night (Hulk) and one of the commercials involved "environmentally safe" power sources. They had grandiose music, sweeping videography of various nature scenes, but when they got to the offshore wind farms, I went "Guh! That's so Ugly!"
And oil drills aren't? The simple & elegant lines of the turbines fail to excite my 'that's ugly!' button.

[Disinfo Agent]

That was my point as well.

[ravens_cry]

And the point I was responding to was The simple & elegant lines of the turbines fail to excite my 'that's ugly!' button. I agree. The point is that oil pumps, cooling towers, and yes, wind turbines don't have to be astheticly pleasing. They are part of industrial infristructure, they are made to work. Asthetics takes a rather distant second place.

[Acolyte]

If it's this...
http://english.people.com.cn/200701/30/images/xin_420104291556643755629.jpg

or this...
http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/19941/wm/pd1162708.jpg

I guess I'll go for wind power. Impact-wise there seems no contest.

[Van Rijn]

From an aesthetic point of view, I'd go with a nuclear power plant over both of them. For an equivalent energy output, they cover far less ground area.

On the other hand, I'm not going to knock oil production or wind turbines, as long as they're economic and there is reasonable environmental care.

[Ronald Brak]

For an equivalent energy output, they cover far less ground area.

Well, if you want to get picky, you could say that the shaft of a wind turbine only covers a few square meters, which means wind pumps out far more energy on average per square meter than a nuclear plant.

[Van Rijn]

A wind farm takes up quite a bit more land area for equivalent output than a nuclear power plant.

[ravens_cry]

Yeah, but the energy for a wind farm comes from an outside source, one that will not be likely to be used up within the lifespan of the human spieces. And if it is, hopefully we will have the technology to relocate by then.

[Ronald Brak]

A wind farm takes up quite a bit more land area for equivalent output than a nuclear power plant.

I freely admit to being kind of silly here, but the shaft of a 1.5 megawatt windturbine might only take up about 10 square meters of actual dirt at ground level. With a 38% capacity factor only 17,540 square meters of ground would be required to provide the average energy produced by a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant which might cover perhaps two square kilometers or 2,000,000 square meters which means wind provides over 100 times the energy of nuclear per square meter.

Of course this only makes sense if you can use the area under the wind turbines productively, and in farmland you can. Wind turbines cut some insolation, but this can be an advantage in sunny locations and they have the benefit of reducing wind speed. Just what sort of access roads are required in addition to existing roads will affect the figures of course. In areas where the need for additional roads are minimal, it won't drag wind's advantage down too much.

To be fair, I should mention that cooling ponds can be used for aquaculture.

[Maksutov]

Yeah, but the energy for a wind farm comes from an outside source, one that will not be likely to be used up within the lifespan of the human spieces. And if it is, hopefully we will have the technology to relocate by then.I agree with you re the length of wind availability (any wind farms planned to surround Washington DC?).

But don't sell nuclear short re longevity. There's enough uranium ore available for at least 250 years of power generation at current levels. Advanced reactors and recycling extend this to about 10,000 years.

[Delvo]

I've seen windmills surrounded by forest land as well as farms. You can also put them on rocky ridgetops or in deserts, where the land would be useless for anything else anyway.

But don't sell nuclear short re longevity. There's enough uranium ore available for at least 250 years of power generation at current levels. Advanced reactors and recycling extend this to about 10,000 years.Well, this is getting weird. I read elsewhere that it's more like a hundred thousand or a million on the short side and hundreds of millions on the long side. What makes the difference? The longer estimates were including other fuels such as 235 instead of just 238?

[ravens_cry]

I agree with you re the length of wind availability (any wind farms planned to surround Washington DC?).

But don't sell nuclear short re longevity. There's enough uranium ore available for at least 250 years of power generation at current levels. Advanced reactors and recycling extend this to about 10,000 years.
At CURRENT levels. But lets say we start using more nuclear instead of oil gas and coal fueled generators, and lets say we have major increase in plug in cars, whether hybrid or otherwise, and lets say we start cracking hydrogen on an industrial scale for fual cells( not the way I would do it, but I don't run things), and lets say we even develop real nucular rocketry. All this adds up. Are these assumptions? Sure. But in an industrial civilisation, never assume that things will remain at current levels for long. I like nuclear, it's a good system, especially if we recycle spent fuel. But just like fossil fuels, it is a nonrenewible source.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Well, this is getting weird. I read elsewhere that it's more like a hundred thousand or a million on the short side and hundreds of millions on the long side. What makes the difference? The longer estimates were including other fuels such as 235 instead of just 238?The estimates are from a American Nuclear Society (former member here) report (http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/brochures/docs/power.pdf). The millions of years figures comes from use of breeder reactors using U238.

[Ilya]

At CURRENT levels. But lets say we start using more nuclear instead of oil gas and coal fueled generators, and lets say we have major increase in plug in cars, whether hybrid or otherwise, and lets say we start cracking hydrogen on an industrial scale for fual cells( not the way I would do it, but I don't run things), and lets say we even develop real nucular rocketry. All this adds up.

At that point, assuming we do not move to fusion, it will be time to start using those nuclear rockets to look for uranium in asteroids. Or to build SPS.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

here's a cheerful thought....oil @ $300.00-$400.00 a barrel....provided that a certain country (not the US) bombs another certain country....

[Maksutov]

here's a cheerful thought....oil @ $300.00-$400.00 a barrel....provided that a certain country (not the US) bombs another certain country....One thing for sure, I know where to go for cheerful posts.

Anybody got a dry blanket around here?

[Maksutov]

"Is our civilization coming to an end?"

There can no longer be any doubt it's true.

George Carlin is dead.

The end is near...

[LotusExcelle]

A fossil fuel is expensive so it translates to the end of civilization? Adjust your budget and driving habits - problem solved. Slowly more efficient cars will become the mainstream, ala 70's, 80's fuel crunch. And life goes on as before.

Life didn't end back then - it won't now. Also other countries have been payong more than this for years and years and years. Their solution? More efficient cars, good public transportation.

[folkhemmet]

I think civilization may undergo a drastic change from what it is like now to some thing else in the not too distant future rather than end completely. Of course, it is within the realm of possibility that the whole thing ends, but it will take a rather extreme event to rid the planet of all or even most of the ~6.5 billion of us.

Some important questions need to be addressed? Who speaks for Earth? How do you define civilization? Right now the dominant "civilization" is the one whose central ethos is consumption and entropy production--that is, the endlessly spouted mantra of economic growth which essentially is fancy talk for the ever increasing rate at which the earth's natural endowment is being consumed and turned into trash! As we speak the US and other industrialized nations are sending ships when the Arctic is ice-free to look for more oil there! What would an advanced civilization from deep space think of this irony? Global warming causes the ice to melt and yet we are going to look for more of a resource that when used results in further climate change.

[sarongsong]

...it will take a rather extreme event to rid the planet of all or even most of the ~6.5 billion of us...Like a pole reversal?...Our prophecies predict a period of 40 years of pollution of the land, air and water that is so severe only a few will survive. We call this the Day of Purification...and the cycle has already started---four decades of destruction, natural disasters, and a general breakdown in society. Only a few places will be safe, and it will be the end of modern society as we know it...The earth is a living body just like we are...Mother Earth has a way of cleansing herself when she's been violated too much. She turns over just like an animal turns over in the sand to cleanse itself of parasites. There are too many parasites on the earth, and they take and take and never give...White men got this land for nothing but the taking, so they don't respect the land. The earth will turn over like it did eons ago, The proof of her turning over is in Alaska, where there are mastodons and dinosaurs with tropical food in their mouths perfectly preserved in ice...It is said that the sun will reverse its course, rising in the west and setting in the east...We do not contradict the scientists; the scientists are getting closer and closer to being accurate according to what ancient people have known for ten thousand years...
Rolling Thunder Speaks: A Message for Turtle Island (http://www.amazon.com/Rolling-Thunder-Speaks-Message-Turtle/dp/1574160265) © 1999, Chapter 3: Things To Come...Who speaks for Earth?......The only people who know the law of this land are certain Indians. You have to know which Indians to ask; many of our people have wandered away and some have assimilated, and they do not have this knowledge. The Indians job is to know the law of the land, and how to take care of the land and nature...
- ibid

[Maha Vailo]

sarongsong, you do know that Rolling Thunder is (was?) a New Age woowoo, don't you? He isn't even Native American, as is mentioned in passing in this thread (http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=127.0) from a forum that debunks New Age-types that try to pose as Native.

- Maha Vailo

[sarongsong]

sarongsong, you do know that Rolling Thunder is (was?) a New Age woowoo, don't you?No. (It's was, by the way---he passed over to the spirit world at age 80 on January 23, 1997. (That date ring a bell with anyone?)He isn't even Native AmericanOh, really? :)
The Paint Clan of the Cherokee Nation might have something to say about that....as is mentioned in passing in this thread (http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=127.0) from a forum that debunks New Age-types that try to pose as Native.Horsepucky. I notice no names are used under Who We Are (http://www.newagefraud.org/about.html)New Age Frauds & Plastic Shamans or NAFPS is an activist group of Native people and our supporters...---so exactly who is your source "EducatedIndian"?
RT's connection with 'New Agers' was in stepping forward, in accordance with prophecy ["...when the children of the white man wear their hair long and beads..."] to share some withheld-up-til-then knowledge with the New Agers' precursors; the hippies.

[Maksutov]

...dinosaurs with tropical food in their mouths perfectly preserved in ice...Now that would be quite a find.

Unfortunately for "Rolling", such a find hasn't happened yet.

Although there are sketchy reports of paleontologists discovering dimetrodon fossils that contain large amounts of colloidal silver.


Re January 23, 1997, that was the date for yet another astrologically significant (and therefore meaningless) event.

[Damburger]

Most certainly yes, our civilisation is coming to an end, but another one will replace is. Humanity has plenty of life left in it.

The problem with our civilisation is people are programmed to believe in its perfection. Any time you try and talk to people about a different way to live than 9-5 grinds and mortgages, they come out with, pretty much word for word, the exact same apologetics. I am truly sick of hearing the same recycled rubbish about 'human nature' that has no basis in fact and that the speaker can never seem to justify his belief in, its just one of those things that 'everybody knows' in the same way that 'everybody knew' the Sun revolved around the Earth centuries ago.

We've so much cultural inertia we simply can't adapt. Our system is built on the perception of its perfection, and if something is perfect, any change must therefore make things worse. Such a stale, intellectually stifling environment crushes and ideas which might salvage our society, leaving them to the next society to contemplate instead.

[sarongsong]

Now that would be quite a find.
Unfortunately for "Rolling", such a find hasn't happened yet..."Half a loaf is better than none..." :)Paleontologists the world over know that something catastrophic happened to the large mammals roaming the world during the Pleistocene Epoch; woolley mammoths, mastodons, toxodons, sabre-toothed tigers, woolley rhinos, giant ground sloths, and many other large Pleistocene animals disappeared almost overnight...The mammoths died suddenly, in intense cold, and in great numbers. Death came so quickly that the swallowed vegetation is yet undigested . . . Grasses, bluebells, buttercups, tender sedges, and wild beans have been found, yet identifiable and undeteriorated, in their mouths and stomachs (Sanderson, 1960)...
atlantisquest.com (http://www.atlantisquest.com/Paleontology.html)...Re January 23, 1997, that was the date for yet another astrologically significant (and therefore meaningless) event.Sure got a lot of media attention at the time. :)

[Maksutov]

Now that would be quite a find.
Unfortunately for "Rolling", such a find hasn't happened yet...
"Half a loaf is better than none..." :)Hey, 50/50 prophecy! I can do that!

I prophesy that the world will end in 2012. Or it won't.

I predict that there will be wombats in Weehawken in 2010. Or there won't.
Paleontologists the world over know that something catastrophic happened to the large mammals roaming the world during the Pleistocene Epoch; woolley mammoths, mastodons, toxodons, sabre-toothed tigers, woolley rhinos, giant ground sloths, and many other large Pleistocene animals disappeared almost overnight...The mammoths died suddenly, in intense cold, and in great numbers. Death came so quickly that the swallowed vegetation is yet undigested . . . Grasses, bluebells, buttercups, tender sedges, and wild beans have been found, yet identifiable and undeteriorated, in their mouths and stomachs (Sanderson, 1960)...
atlantisquest.com (http://www.atlantisquest.com/Paleontology.html)Still not many dinosaurs around during the Pleistocene. Sorry.

BTW, Sanderson had a gift for exaggeration and this "extraordinary" event has since been evaluated and scientifically explained. Here're some examples. (http://www.karencarr.com/News/sloth/mammoth_kill.html) ...Re January 23, 1997, that was the date for yet another astrologically significant (and therefore meaningless) event.Sure got a lot of media attention at the time. :)So did Paris Hilton a few times more recently. Both just as meaningless.

:)

[RalofTyr]

Yes. Our civilization is coming to an end. All things come to an end.

[ravens_cry]

Most certainly yes, our civilisation is coming to an end, but another one will replace is. Humanity has plenty of life left in it.

The problem with our civilisation is people are programmed to believe in its perfection.
Well, we aren't perfict, but we have a) created under the law the equality of of men and woman, rich and poor, and (in soem parts of the world) homesexuual and heterosexual b)freedom of speech, freedom of the press freedom to congrigate in peaceful protest c) trial by jury, habious corpus, innoncent until proven guilty, taxation with represenatation d)abolishment of slavery e)cures for many diseases, effective treatments for others and the desimation of smallpox, the cause of many many deaths and scarred lives world wide. f)split the atom, discovered much about the nature of the universe, and travled to the moon g)have a network that allows us to know our positions withen a few meters anywhere in the world, and a system to communicate with nearly any two places in the world,and commnicate in a meaning ful manner with hundres of people from all over the world h)increased food production immensly
No, it ain't perfact, and someday it will end. It all ends. I don't think we are perfact, but we ARE pretty neato, IMNHO.

[Damburger]

Well, we aren't perfict, but we have a) created under the law the equality of of men and woman, rich and poor, and (in soem parts of the world) homesexuual and heterosexual b)freedom of speech, freedom of the press freedom to congrigate in peaceful protest c) trial by jury, habious corpus, guilty until proven innoncent, taxation with represenatation d)abolishment of slavery e)cures for many diseases, effective treatments for others and the desimation of smallpox, the cause of many many deaths and scarred lives world wide. f)split the atom, discovered much about the nature of the universe, and travled to the moon g)have a network that allows us to know our positions withen a few meters anywhere in the world, and a system to communicate with nearly any two places in the world,and commnicate in a meaning ful manner with hundres of people from all over the world h)increased food production immensly
No, it ain't perfact, and someday it will end. It all ends. I don't think we are perfact, but we ARE pretty neato, IMNHO.

a, b, c are not really true, d is definitely not true, e, f, g are irrelevant because they are technological advances that would probably have happened anyway and h is irrelevant because despite producing enough food for the world people still starve by the millions.

[Maha Vailo]

I thought the mammoths and other animals that died with food still in their mouths died from mudslides, drowning in lakes, falling into melting permafrost, etc. and not to any alleged "pole shift".

Occam's razor at work.

- Maha Vailo

[clint]

Think about it. Oil hit $138.00/barrel on Friday and they are saying $150.00 by July 4. How long before things start to seriuosly unravel? Will we be able to afford to feed ourselves? Will there be any air travel? Is this just a 'blip' and somehow/someway things will return to normal? I hope so. Things look really grim now and I am becoming a little bit afraid.

We might be seeing the beginning of the end of the oil age.
In the long term, however, that's a lot more worrying for the big oil exporters than for the importers.

[ravens_cry]

a, b, c are not really true, d is definitely not true, e, f, g are irrelevant because they are technological advances that would probably have happened anyway and h is irrelevant because despite producing enough food for the world people still starve by the millions.
a,b,c, they may not be 'really true, but they are more true then in most cultures.
d) well, our civilzation did, the rest of the world can make its own choices. As for technological advances been 'invetible' I don't believe that. Batttery powered buses were developed in the 1890's, and were quite sucessful for a while. Unfortunatly the company that financed them was a scam. Similer technologies were reinvented recently in some American cities. A mobile type printing press was invented by the Chinese, yet never had the same impact as when reinvented by the Europeons. Similer things can be said for gunpowder. FOr some cultures it scares of demons, in others it makes stone castles obsolete.
Technology is not inevetible.
People may starve by the millions, but billions would starve if Western civilisation had to revert to Substinace farming.
Westerm Civilization is not perfect, but to deny the achivements is also wrong.

[Drunk Vegan]

I think habeas corpeus is dead in the U.S. anyway... a casulty of the war on terror.

My prediction:

An immortal man who is secretly in control of the world's government will come forward and announce that science is a fraud. He actually created the industrial revolution using powerful magicks and was able to allow others to create "scientific" inventions that employed these magicks by making up a convolted explanation for a physical basis to reality.

As more and more people come to accept magic in place of science, the physical laws of the universe will begin to break down.

Philip K. Dick will appear in Times Square and shout at a crowd:

"The empire never ended!"

Shortly later the entire wave function of the universe will be disrupted by a lack of faith, and will promptly cease to exist.

[ravens_cry]

I wouldn't say dead, but it is dying.
If such a man existed, and he came forward, I would try to ask him "If you could do this, why didn't you do it sooner? Start the Industrial Revolution that is."

[Drunk Vegan]

I tihnk the best "apocalypse" story I ever read was by Chuck Palahniuk.

Astronauts mount a manned mission to Venus, and once beneath the clouds they discover that it was all an illusion, Venus isn't an uninhabitable hellhole, it's actually the original Paradise.

They communicate with the inhabitants and discover that they are actually people who've died on Earth, and their bodies were reconstructed in a paradise where there is no aging, no death, no disease, eternal joy, and even the regular carnal pleasures of eating, drinking, fornicating, etc.

The population is surprisingly low, and they find that it is because souls are required to be "processed" on Earth by going through countless reincarnations before finally being allowed into Paradise.

The astronauts intentionally crash their ship to strand themselves there. Everyone back on Earth becomes envious and they decide to break the cycle of reincarnation and go to Paradise en masse by assuring that no humans will ever be born again.

Every nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon in the world is launched. All remaining citizens are issued guns and encouraged to shoot each other, and emergency response teams roam around spraying poison into the air.

Only time I've ever seen an entire race committing intentional, blissful suicide.

[Maksutov]

ravens_cry, did you read the PM I sent you?

[ravens_cry]

ravens_cry, did you read the PM I sent you?

er. . .no, I will go do that then.
*checks* Yep, you were right, that WAS what I meant. guilty until proven innnocent is a BAD thing. Bad, bad, baddy bad.
Thank you.
Drunk Vegan
That was one of the most horrifying things I have ever read. That literly left a foul taste in my mouth, it's like my tongue curdled and my stomach curled itself into a ball and went and cried in the corner.

[Drunk Vegan]

Drunk Vegan
That was one of the most horrifying things I have ever read. That literly left a foul taste in my mouth, it's like my tongue curdled and my stomach curled itself into a ball and went and cried in the corner.

Yep, that's Chuck for ya. Ever read Haunted? People routinely fainted when he recited passages at book signings.

I read the short story about the apocalypse after reading most of Palahniuk's other works, so I was fairly insulted against the shock factor by then. I actually quite enjoyed the story up until the twist ending which I didn't mention above (damn teenagers!).

[Maha Vailo]

Chuck Palahniuk is one screwed-up author - but it's a good kind of screwed-up. The kind that makes you think.

- Maha Vailo

[Ilya]

Why people may be genetically programmed to worry (http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001769.html) Warning: the title (New Racism) does not make much sense to me.

Excerpt:

I wrote recently about longstanding debate (http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001762.html) between Paul Ehrlich, who is lauded for his consistently wrong predictions of catastrophe, and Julian Simon, who was essentially ignored in the face of his fact-based assessments of human progress and correct predictions of more of the same. Whether we're talking about Paul Ehrlich or Bill Joy or Al Gore, a doomsayer is a person with a serious point of view, someone who is to be respected. And whether we're talking about Julian Simon, Robin Hanson, or Ray Kurzweil, a doomslayer is a crackpot who needs to be taken down a peg.

I like the comments, especially this one:


There's something vaguely quasi-religious about the simultaneous adoration and de facto dismissal of the doomsayers. I just got back from the BIO conference in San Diego and saw that, in the midst of what is surely the most optimistic, super-hyped celebration of our glorious bio-future, everybody feels obligated to do pay approximately 3% of their attention to people telling us how awful everything is and will continue to be if we don't radically change our ways. Its almost like tithing or penance. It feels like there is a whole industry - stretching across academia, culture and politics - based around Ehrlichism (or anti-Simonism) but its not about anything other than the feelings and self-perceptions of all concerned. Ehrlich will continue to be wrong, and continue to be celebrated, while Simon will continue to be correct, and ignored. The fact of the matter is that our highly dynamic economy and society solves problems about as rapidly as they arise. People are scared of people like Kurzweil not because they think he is wrong and they are worried about the future, but precisely the opposite: because they think he might be absolutely right, and they are worried about how much penance and tithing they will need to do to alleviate the guilt and make it 'acceptable' to live a very happy and healthy 200+ years.

[Abbadon_2008]

The end of civilization does not need to be a catastrophe. Rather, it's an opportunity for rebirth. A do-over.

You emerge from the rubble, brush yourself off, and look around to see if you where those bunless leather chaps. Then you hop into your suped-up muscle-car, pick out the appropriate psychedelic rock soundtrack, and head for the great unknown.

[ravens_cry]

Until you run out of gas, and are attacked by bandits, who kill you for your car battery and cigarette lighter.
The only way it will be a 'do-over' for you is if reincarnation is true.

[parallaxicality]

Why people may be genetically programmed to worry (http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001769.html) Warning: the title (New Racism) does not make much sense to me.

Excerpt:

I like the comments, especially this one:

Well, I don't think you can argue that Kurzweil isn't just a LITTLE crackpottish...

[Ronald Brak]

Well, I don't think you can argue that Kurzweil isn't just a LITTLE crackpottish...

SHHHH! Or he'll kill you with a power chord from his K250 synthesizer.

Or worse, in the nerd rapture, replace your Angelia Jolie AI interface with Margaret Thatcher!

[Ilya]

Well, I don't think you can argue that Kurzweil isn't just a LITTLE crackpottish...

He may well be. However, with Paul Ehrlich's crackpottishness is far better established -- he made many specific predictions, and has 100% wrong record. Yet he still sells books, makes money off speaking tours, and is lauded as a serious and important figure. Which, to me, indicates something very wrong with his audience's minds -- a need for "prophets of doom".

Also, unlike Ehrlich, most of Kurzweil's shorter-term predictions actually came true. Such as his 1990 predictions that before year 2000 computers will be able to recognize human speech, beat world chess champion, and use satellite signals to digitally target weapons.

[Maha Vailo]

You emerge from the rubble, brush yourself off, and look around to see if you where those bunless leather chaps. Then you hop into your suped-up muscle-car, pick out the appropriate psychedelic rock soundtrack, and head for the great unknown.

More likely than not, you settle down and farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan). Bunless leather chaps are against their religion down there, though. Daggers and sheepskin caps are pretty darn cool accessories, however. :lol:

- Maha Vailo

[Ronald Brak]

Also, unlike Ehrlich, most of Kurzweil's shorter-term predictions actually came true. Such as his 1990 predictions that before year 2000 computers will be able to recognize human speech, beat world chess champion, and use satellite signals to digitally target weapons.

I am much less optimistic than Kurzweil. However, pumping in the figures for much less optimistic only delays the nerd rapture by a few years. Damn accelerating growth function! I gotta move to Oslo and become really pessimisstic or something.

[clint]

I tihnk the best "apocalypse" story I ever read was by Chuck Palahniuk.

Astronauts mount a manned mission to Venus, and once beneath the clouds they discover that it was all an illusion, Venus isn't an uninhabitable hellhole, it's actually the original Paradise.

They communicate with the inhabitants and discover that they are actually people who've died on Earth, and their bodies were reconstructed in a paradise where there is no aging, no death, no disease, eternal joy, and even the regular carnal pleasures of eating, drinking, fornicating, etc.

Sounds a lot like the Elois in H.G.Wells' Time Machine...

[clint]

I am much less optimistic than Kurzweil. However, pumping in the figures for much less optimistic only delays the nerd rapture by a few years. Damn accelerating growth function! I gotta move to Oslo and become really pessimisstic or something.

That's the funny thing, isn't it?
At first sight, one often goes 'no way, this guy must be out of his mind!'

But then you think again and it's like
'hell, maybe he's overly optimistic for the short term,
but give it a few years (decades, centuries, millennia...) more and we might actually get there'

[Ilya]

That's the funny thing, isn't it?
At first sight, one often goes 'no way, this guy must be out of his mind!'

But then you think again and it's like
'hell, maybe he's overly optimistic for the short term,
but give it a few years (decades, centuries, millennia...) more and we might actually get there'

Which is how I feel about Kurzweil, more or less.

[Damburger]

If you want to talk about civilisation coming to an end, check out this weeks New Scientist. The lead article is a discussion about what is going to happen when we run out of oil, or even short of it. Scary stuff.

[Ronald Brak]

Currently, per captita consumer spending on energy is equal to what it was 40 years ago and is lower than during the oil shocks of the 70s, and civilization didn't end in the 70s so high energy prices now don't make me think civilization is going to come to an end.

[BigDon]

Currently, per captita consumer spending on energy is equal to what it was 40 years ago and is lower than during the oil shocks of the 70s, and civilization didn't end in the 70s so high energy prices now don't make me think civilization is going to come to an end.

Aw! The 70's gas lines! That's what's missing from this crisis! Seems we have plenty of it, it's just expensive.

Thank you Ron!

You made me remember being a kid again and my father coming back from buying gas, laughing, because of this:

A two block long line for gas and my father is in line and the people are being courtious in that they are leaving the driveway of the person living next to the gas station open so that he can get his car in and out. My father is behind the man that is on the side of the driveway farthest from the station.

A woman in a subcompact passes by everybody in line and swoops into the spot left open by the polite people.

Now my father, who was annoyed like everybody else, starts to pay closer attention when the guy in front of him gets out of his car. Dear ol' Dad was a policeman for 12 years or so by this time and wasn't going to let anything too untoward happen.

But the guy just walked up to her window and tried a legitamate appeal to decency.

Her only reply was to look straight forward, hit the door locks and roll up her window.

Mr. Reasonable sighed, went over to his car, took his locking gas cap off and placed it on her fuel intake. He then walked around in front of her car, jingled the keys between thumb and forefinger and then dropped them down a storm grating. She had no choice but to pull away. Everybody was honking and laughing when she did so.

[aquitaine]

Currently, per captita consumer spending on energy is equal to what it was 40 years ago and is lower than during the oil shocks of the 70s, and civilization didn't end in the 70s so high energy prices now don't make me think civilization is going to come to an end.

Have you guys ever heard of the "Olduvai Gorge" theory? Basically it states that per capita energy production is at it's peak now and will start declining,, eventually leading to permenant blackouts in the next 10 years or so.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45518

Personally I think it is BS. Several of it's premises are wrong, and in fact world energy production per capita has been increasing.

[Ronald Brak]

Personally I think it is BS. Several of it's premises are wrong, and in fact world energy production per capita has been increasing.

Yes, it's a load of nonsense. And honestly, apart from Iran and a few oil rich nations, who generates electricity from oil these days? No one.

The state I'm living in has large gas supplies, the world's largest uranium supply, the world's largest known geothermal hot rock area, decent wind power sites and almost a million square kilometers of sun baked desert, so we'd have to try really hard to run out of energy here.

[Maha Vailo]

Have you guys ever heard of the "Olduvai Gorge" theory? Basically it states that per capita energy production is at it's peak now and will start declining,, eventually leading to permenant blackouts in the next 10 years or so.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45518

Personally I think it is BS. Several of it's premises are wrong, and in fact world energy production per capita has been increasing.

It is bullpoop, aquitaine. Here's an article (from a blog that regularly debunks "peak oil" doomerism) debunking it:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/31-whatever-happened-to-richard.html

The founder of this theory, Richard Duncan, has apparently associated himself with racists (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/255-olduvai-duncan-resurfaces-in.html). That alone should raise some red flags.

The reasons why peak energy production per capita have plateaued/increased are twofold: 1) Population growth (especially in the developed world) has slowed down, and 2) technology has enabled us to become more energy-frugal. Both of these help increase the amount of energy available to each person.

- Maha "toss this one down the gorge" Vailo

[aquitaine]

It is bullpoop, aquitaine.

Didn't I just say that?

from a blog that regularly debunks "peak oil" doomerism

I do believe that peak oil could potentially cause problems in 20-30 years if nothing is done to get our transportation systems off of oil (cars in particular), but I dont think it will be the end of the civilized world by any means. Frankly we should start getting off of oil now in any case, if for no other reason than to give our lungs some breathing space and make our cities cleaner, healthier, better places to live.

[Damburger]

I don't understand people with scientific backgrounds being sceptical of the concept of peak oil. It's like being sceptical of thermodynamics. We can't just consume a finite resources at an exponential rate and expect it to carry on forever. Its a tribute to the ingenuity of the worlds oil hunters that we have been able to keep it up for a century.

My concern is that people with a vested interest in the status quo will resist any necessary changes until the last possible minute, at which point it will be too late. Switching our infrastructure from oil to other sources of energy and chemicals will itself require a huge amount of chemicals and energy. If civilisation simply sucks up all the easily accessible energy it can before it dies, then there may not be enough energy available to the ragged remains of humanity to restart industry.

[parallaxicality]

Well, the Economist, not a bastion of Marxist propaganda, basically says that in the last few years geologists and economists have gone from "peak oil is decades away" to "peak oil is pretty close". As far as this train rider is concerned, it can't come fast enough.

[HenrikOlsen]

The founder of this theory, Richard Duncan, has apparently associated himself with racists (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/255-olduvai-duncan-resurfaces-in.html). That alone should raise some red flags.
It does, as that's a pretty clear example of the classical ad-hominem fallacy.

Resorting to that gives the impression you don't have any actual arguments against the theory.

[peteshimmon]

There has been a few items in television
current affairs shows recently about amug
individuals using used cooking oil in their
diesels. Then last night the inevitable, a
presenter walking into a grocery store and
returning with a brand new bottle of cooking
oil (rapeseed he said) and pouring it straight
into the tank! An open invitation.

So all the energy expended getting that food
product into the shop was gone. And it is
inevitable that this will happen more and more!

Baked potatoes anyone?

[LotusExcelle]

Diesels can burn a wide range of oils. Cooking oil is one. Diesel were first designed to run on peanut oil, in fact. That said you can't just pour stuff in your tank or you *will* ruin your injectors. Particularly modern injectors.

Waste-oil diesels must switch to real diesel prior to shut-down or there are a myriad of other complications but anyway it isn't just pour-and-go.

[Ronald Brak]

My concern is that people with a vested interest in the status quo will resist any necessary changes until the last possible minute, at which point it will be too late. Switching our infrastructure from oil to other sources of energy and chemicals will itself require a huge amount of chemicals and energy. If civilisation simply sucks up all the easily accessible energy it can before it dies, then there may not be enough energy available to the ragged remains of humanity to restart industry.

Fortunately high prices signal people to economize and substitute before oil can run out. (Not that it is easy to run out because it can be made from oil shale and coal if the price is high enough.) Current oil prices have resulted in people driving less miles and increased the average fuel efficiency of new cars purchased. If instead of letting the market set oil prices a government set a low price and rationed oil, then even in that situation the inconvenience of rationing should also encourage economy and substitution, although it is easy to argue that the transition would be less efficient and smooth in that situation.

As something like 96% of oil is used for transport and heating, it is these areas that will be hardest hit. Rising oil prices can certainly be hard on the economy, but since we aren't about to suddenly lose more than 96% of oil production, the functioning of industry isn't really at threat.

[clint]

As something like 96% of oil is used for transport and heating, it is these areas that will be hardest hit. Rising oil prices can certainly be hard on the economy, but since we aren't about to suddenly lose more than 96% of oil production, the functioning of industry isn't really at threat.

On the other hand, without transport many industries would grind to a standstill very fast.
Where I live, we just had a major strike of the transport unions (because of high oil prices), and it caused huge disruptions.

[Ronald Brak]

On the other hand, without transport many industries would grind to a standstill very fast.
Where I live, we just had a major strike of the transport unions (because of high oil prices), and it caused huge disruptions.

How will we lose so much transport that industry is threatened? (Note, not production levels, but industry itself. The post I was responding to was quite pessimisstic.)

[sarongsong]

...something like 96% of oil is used for transport and heating...I don't think it's that high; fertilizers and plastics surely exceed 4%.

[Ronald Brak]

Natural gas is often used for nitrate production. Of course, if you want to lump natural gas in with oil go ahead.

[sarongsong]

I'm not; I'd like to see where that 96% figure comes from.

[Ronald Brak]

Well according to this:

http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/graphs/sector.html

86% of the oil the US uses is for transport and heating.

And according to this:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

About 64% of world liquids is used for heating and transport. Liquids would include LPG but not natural gas.

So it looks like I was quite wrong when I said, "something like 96% of oil is used for transport and heating."

[Damburger]

Fortunately high prices signal people to economize and substitute before oil can run out. (Not that it is easy to run out because it can be made from oil shale and coal if the price is high enough.) Current oil prices have resulted in people driving less miles and increased the average fuel efficiency of new cars purchased. If instead of letting the market set oil prices a government set a low price and rationed oil, then even in that situation the inconvenience of rationing should also encourage economy and substitution, although it is easy to argue that the transition would be less efficient and smooth in that situation.

Why the blind faith in market forces? By what mechanism would they predict the forthcoming oil shock far enough in advance to prevent catastrophe? Current oil prices do not by any stretch reflect the severity of the situation we are in right now - unless you've seen fleets of electric cars driving around somewhere - so why should they in the future?

Markets are not intelligent. They are not perfect, they are not even that efficient contrary to what their loud proponents say. The market will not somehow magically save us.

As something like 96% of oil is used for transport and heating, it is these areas that will be hardest hit. Rising oil prices can certainly be hard on the economy, but since we aren't about to suddenly lose more than 96% of oil production, the functioning of industry isn't really at threat.

If transport is hard hit, everyone is hard hit. Western economies, chasing the holy grail of efficiency, have eliminated nearly all redundancy in the system (which shows up as just wasted money when everything is going peachy). When one vital part of the system (transport infrastructure) is severely compromised, the whole thing will come crashing down.

[Ronald Brak]

Why the blind faith in market forces? By what mechanism would they predict the forthcoming oil shock far enough in advance to prevent catastrophe? Current oil prices do not by any stretch reflect the severity of the situation we are in right now - unless you've seen fleets of electric cars driving around somewhere - so why should they in the future?

Markets are not intelligent. They are not perfect, they are not even that efficient contrary to what their loud proponents say. The market will not somehow magically save us.

Not sure what you are getting at, but current high oil prices have resulted in a reduction in miles driven in the US and a reduction in SUV sales. US oil consumption is down over five percent from a year ago.

Western economies, chasing the holy grail of efficiency, have eliminated nearly all redundancy in the system

I've been to the US and the majority of cars I saw on the streets only had one person in them.

[Damburger]

Not sure what you are getting at, but current high oil prices have resulted in a reduction in miles driven in the US and a reduction in SUV sales. US oil consumption is down over five percent from a year ago.

I'm getting that a 5% drop in consumption doesn't adequately reflect that the spectre of energy-shortage-induced famine is already creeping across the developing world.


I've been to the US and the majority of cars I saw on the streets only had one person in them.

Cars are irrelevant. If people have to find alternative arrangements to get to work, they will without too many problems. Productivity will take a hit but not a terrible one.

The issue is trucks, freight trains, cargo planes and ships. The cost of everything you buy factors in the cost of bringing it to you. Most important of course is food. There is no way to get food into cities in quantities sufficient to feed their populations when oil becomes too scarce.

There are no fleets of electric powered trucks ready to spring into action, nor are there vast urban farms or giant freezer warehouses storing significant amounts of food - all these redundancies to the system of food delivery would be costly and therefore in times of plentiful food and oil show up as waste - and thus are eliminated by market forces.

Previous oil shocks have been softened by deploying stockpiles and reserve production. As the substance has become harder to find and extract the market has done what it does with these redundant mechanism - it has begun to eliminate them. Once they are gone, our hungry populations are at the mercy of every spike.

[Ronald Brak]

Damburger, you seem to be talking as if oil is going to suddenly disapear. This isn't going to happen. World oil reserves, that is extractable oil already discovered in the ground, are over a trillion barrels. Now just because there is a lot of oil still in the ground doesn't mean oil production can't peak soon, but it does mean that there is enough oil to run essential services for a long time to come. So no need to be overly concerned.

However, oil could still get very expensive, so no need to get complacent when it comes to economy and substitution.

[Damburger]

Damburger, you seem to be talking as if oil is going to suddenly disapear. This isn't going to happen. World oil reserves, that is extractable oil already discovered in the ground, are over a trillion barrels. Now just because there is a lot of oil still in the ground doesn't mean oil production can't peak soon, but it does mean that there is enough oil to run essential services for a long time to come. So no need to be overly concerned.

However, oil could still get very expensive, so no need to get complacent when it comes to economy and substitution.

Oil is quite capable of disappearing suddenly. One of the major bottlenecks for oil transport gets blocked, a significant oil exporter becomes politically unstable, or any other random events will drive the price of oil up exponentially. It was in that New Scientist article I mentioned - the reaction to a drop in oil supply will be worse than the drop itself.

[Ronald Brak]

Oil is quite capable of disappearing suddenly. One of the major bottlenecks for oil transport gets blocked, a significant oil exporter becomes politically unstable, or any other random events will drive the price of oil up exponentially. It was in that New Scientist article I mentioned - the reaction to a drop in oil supply will be worse than the drop itself.

Okay, I thought you were talking about the world running out of oil rather than supply disruptions. But if Middle-eastern production was stopped that would still be less than half of world oil production. Quite a blow to the world economy, but not enough to prevent food being transported to cities.

[Damburger]

Okay, I thought you were talking about the world running out of oil rather than supply disruptions. But if Middle-eastern production was stopped that would still be less than half of world oil production. Quite a blow to the world economy, but not enough to prevent food being transported to cities.

Prices shooting up, panic buying and all the other hallmarks of an economic crisis might though

[Ronald Brak]

Prices shooting up, panic buying and all the other hallmarks of an economic crisis might though

Perhaps. But off hand I can't think of any economic crisises in the first world that have stopped food moving into cities and caused hunger.