Bob;
The anology to Shackleton is a powerful one. In other words, the crew he left behind was literally betting their lives that Shackleton would be able to complete a journey that no sane person would willingly undertake. The fact that they had no choice but to take those odds is quite chilling when compared to what our own society may be facing, much sooner than any of us think.
Oil is no longer a 'fungible commodity.' Fossil fuels should be considered a strategic asset, and treated as such. Saudi Arabia knows this. Russia knows this. Hugo Chavez knows this. Unfortunately, we have a political and business elite running out country that are so caught up in the ideology of the free market that to suggest the strict control and careful use of those finite resources is counter to all they hold dear.
The logical course of fossil fuel depletion is to cut down production, conserve and perhaps even ration that resource, with an eye to creating a society that can transition away to other, sustainable sources of energy. This of course includes conservation on a massive scale. You know it. I know it. And probably most of the folks who come to this site know it. It would appear the population of the first world, who have been the benefactors of cheap energy for the past century or so, do not. I suspect their education in this regard will be about as subtle as a baseball bat to the knees. With much the same effect.
I agree with Subkommander Dred that we will probably start to see some exporters begin to think about cutting back on their production. This is just one of the reasons that I believe we are going to see a massive decline in net oil exports.
The bidding war for declining net export capacity has only begun.
Venezuela buys Russian oil to avoid defaulting on deals
By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas
Published: April 28 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 28 2006 03:00
Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year.
Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts.
President Evo Morales nationalized Bolivia's natural gas industry and oil Monday, ordering foreign energy companies to send their supplies to a state company for sales and industrialization.
Speaking at the San Alberto gas and oil field in the south of the country, Morales warned that companies that reject the decree will have to leave Bolivia within six months.
Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year.
Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts.
This military action obviously shows the amputation of the free-market invisible hand, which leaves the remaining hand--will it be a militaristic fist, or will it seek the biosolar lifestyle of actual planting something worth the later harvesting? Will parents actually send their children to foreign war to gain those resources for futile wants? How many redneck racefans recognize the energetic link between NASCAR and NO CAR? Will the NASCAR owners spraypaint the racing asphalt with the names of US military dead-- as the cars hurtled around the track over the names of these Heroes would the crowd suddenly realize the sad 'reality' and beg and cry for the race to be stopped? Or would the cheers of denial be even louder as the Circus Maximus raced to it crashing Dieoff crescendo?
Absolutely correct. If the leaders of exporting countries are far-sighted, they would immediately curtail exports to the extent that the quantity retained is used to dramatically shift to building sustainable biosolar habitats. An exporting country that achieves 'first mover' status to biosolar sustainabilty will have an insurmountable advantage because they can slowly trickle out the oil to further enlarge these habitats.
Chavez, and the SA princes, among other exporters, are making a terrible mistake by not internally pricing their fossil fuels at world levels to encourage conservation and shifting to building a new paradigm.
Dred is right. The American paradigm of laissez faire capitalism will prevent us from making the nimble and forceful changes required in order to avoid great dislocation. The primary interest of the elites is the transfer of wealth to their pockets. If it is more profitable to let the country and the world go down the tubes, then the elites will abet it with a smile on their collective faces and a song in their hearts (as small and as black as they may be).
The idealogues will undoubtedly cry and whine asking, "What do you propose to substitute for capitalism? What could possibly be more efficient? Look at all the wonderful things that capitalism had wrought."
Indeed. Look at it. No national health care. A gutted environment. A nation of sterile ugly cities. Mass transit ignored. The list is seemingly endless. The irony is that all of these things would have added to the quality of life for everyone and would have been every bit as profitable as the screwed up alternatives that industry chose. This means that the elites are essentially evil thoughtless thugs who would rather see the world go up in flames than do what must be done to ease us through this physics problem.
it's a harder pattern to deflect because it is a world-wide trend toward post-socialist laissez faire capitalism.
i was reading a magazine in the dr.'s office and learned that Chinese workers have lost universal health care (that right?), and now need to find a "good job" that comes with health insurance
i personally feel the US had a pretty good compromise in the 80's between our gov and non-gov institutions, but i think the fall of communism left folks here with a warped idea of what exactly worked for the last half century.
it was (to borrow from another thread) the accodation between John Kenneth Galbraith and William F. BVuckley Jr. that worked, and not the polarization/demonization that some demanded even then.
"it's a harder pattern to deflect because it is a world-wide trend toward post-socialist laissez faire capitalism."
When you say 'trend' perhaps you mean that that is how financial institutions have been structured/organised with the encouragement of some very powerful organisations - eg IMF.
I saw that John Ralston-Saul has a new(ish) book out in which he argues that globalisation is over - it's just that most people don't realise it yet. He cites India and more especially China as examples of a more pragmatic approach to development - and whereas western commentators suggest that the adoption of 'western' practices has led to 'success' he argues that it is the non laisser faire policies (eg currency controls) that are responsible.
(Vale - JK Galbraith)
Also, when HO says "We currently have a small program going in biodiesel, but the plants that generate on any scale are still measuring in thousands of gallons a year, when we need millions of barrels a day." Isn't this 'need' more realistically a 'want'. Let's face it, biodiesel is not going to be able to replace current consumption - ever (or is that what you meant/mean?). It can replace some of our needs but not all of our wants and the approach should be to identify the needs that can (could/might?) be met thru biodiesel.
This is exactly the problem. The system we had worked because there was constant battle between conservatives and liberals with each side forcing the other to not go too far off its own deep end. Beginning with Reagan, for whatever reasons, the conservative side "won" that battle and the liberals have been relegated (thanks much to their own stupidity) to being mostly spectators.
Historically, what worked for the US was a liberal trend with a strong dose of conservatism reigning its wilder impulses back into line. What we have now is dog-eat-dog capitalism of the worst sort, which is just as bad as the social apathy of tried and true communism. This is why I discount the Democrats as being worth anything if elected to office. What are they offering? Harry Reid for gosh sakes? Demagogue Chuckie Schumer? Such are just as bad in their own way as BushCo. Look at the years wasted under Clinton, a brilliant man but a moron of a politician who let his gonads do his thinking for him.
However, I doubt that we can successfully re-establish the balance between liberalism and conservatism. It's dead and while we can admire the corpse, we can't revive it. So we need to replace it. Any solution that does not automatically exclude the Demopublican/Republicrat mess is doomed to fail and any solution that is going to succeed needs to "throw the rascals out" on both sides of the aisle.
Yes, I agree. My father still thinks it will pull back to the center, because in his experience it always has. But I see nothing to pull it back - the string is broken. I do not see the present situation as stable - somehow it must change. Who knows how long that will take, or how it will be accomplished, but I do not expect to see a return to what was. Something else will form, but I do not know what it will be. Nothing says it will be good.
Well said. If consumers had to pay the full price at the pump instead of through income taxes, you would see a lot less gasoline sold, thus would hurt the oil companies. I think it is quite fair to call it an oil subsidy.
CENTCOM's budget should be funded from the gas tax, since protecting oil has become the primary mission since 1988
The strategy of the original plan called for five and two-thirds divisions to march from the Arabian Gulf to the Zagros Mountains and prevent the Red Army from seizing the oil fields of Iran. Instead, Gen. Schwarzkopf began to plan for what he thought was a far more likely situation: Iraq, emerging from eight years of war against Iran with the world's fourth-largest and most battle-hardened army, moving south to capture the rich oil fields whose output was essential to the industrial world.
Thxs for responding. The detritovores, like those abandoned men in Antarctica, were entropically hanging by a thread of Wishful Thinking, they had nothing else. 100% of the survival power set sail for distant shores-- the biosolars must do no less. The new paradigm is where the future hopes lie.
I would argue that Shackelton is a poor choice. He doggedly pursued an old paradigm. He definitely did not come up with a new survival paradigm. And, the Shackelton approach is what we are seeing to day - keep doing what we have been doing albeit with different starting materials.
I posted on another thread that what is lacking today is a philosophical basis for letting go of the old consumer paradigm. And, further, that people need to see demonstration projects showing how this new paradigm works in practice.
Someone needs to at least write a post-oil Ecotopia.
Thxs for responding. Have you read Jeff Vails's EnergyBulletin article for his version of a postPeak Ecotopia? This is possibly where we should be headed, but I am amenable to any workable alternative as well thought out. Remember, postPeak detritus entropy means NEVERMORE, ALWAYS LESS--any new paradigm must seek to optimize biosolar energy, which is unlimited.
Bob;
Don't recall whether I asked you about this yet, but have you looked into Arcosanti? Up north of you a piece, designing a 'Habitat/City' that can survive in essentially 'wastelands', with careful designs for energy and water-reclamation, etc.??
Some appeared a little grandiose, but other levels of it were already built into their 'test model'..
Also heard about Sundance or Cannes success for the film 'Who killed the Electric Car?', about the EV-1.. there's a little sub-culture for you!
It turns out I had read the article. I had forgotten the author. In fact, I had forwarded a link to it to friends in Sustainable Laytoville (a local relocalization group).
Is it a perfect concept? No. But, without efforts like his, society is going to waste time just when time is of the essence. However, I do have to say that I believe more people would be led to read it were it in the form of a novel or like Jan Lundberg's recent two part essay at Culture Change. I'd look up the URL but I need to get back outside to put in my first planting of corn.
Write a new Ecotopian novel? Now, that really sounds like a challange! However, meriad problems arise, thwarting such an undertaking. My main problem is, how do we get to Ectopia in one piece? Well, I wouldn't start from here!
I fear we may indeed be entering a new historical paradigm, I call it the move from "expansion" (which was made possible by cheap and abundent energy) to "contraction" (which results from constrained energy supplies.)
Recently I've been thinking about what it may have felt like to live in Britain when the Roman Army and administration left, and the province was no longer part of the Empire. Ostensibly everything was pretty much the same on the surface. Civilization didn't just switch-off overnight. All the trappings of Roman civilization were still there and worked; only slowly, very slowly things began to fall apart. The economic, social, political, financial, military, trade, and cultural bonds, began to breakdown. More and more links in the chain of civilization, rusted and then broke, one by one.
This was especially true of the Roman road network and the harbours and shipping routes. These things iterally held Roman society and civilization together.
It must have been strange, frustrating, and un-nerving, watching civilization slowly crumbling and not being able to do anything to reverse the process. At a local level individuals must have worked frantically to preserve as much of civilization as they could for as long as possible. But slowly these islands of civilization must have got smaller and smaller and increasingly isolated from one another. All over economic activity and wealth just kept on going down and down. Perhaps the rate of collapse was so gradual one didn't even really notice the decline? In other areas it was probably dramatic, one slipped-off civilization rapidly and forever.
I have another really big problem with the change-over from one historical paradigm to another; aren't such events usually connected to massive social disruption and usually war?
"What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another - doubtless very different - St Benedict."
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (published 1981 - and undoubtedly one of the reasons why the new Pope chose his name)
The way out of our problem is spiritual, not technical.
"Think of late antiquity," Ratzinger once told an interviewer. "Where St Benedict probably wasn't noted at all. He was also a dropout who came from noble Roman society and did something bizarre, something that later turned out to be the 'ark on which the West survived'. "
In so far as my thoughts on this have got at all specific, they can be found here.
I think your probably correct about the need for increased spirituality in relation to the problems we face. But it's not as if there's a shortage of it at the moment, is it? Aren't we almost drowning in "cod" spirituality, and "cod" religion? I hope I'm not treading on your toes here. I don't mean to appear disrepectful in any way I assure you. It's odd how many of my friends are priests, considering I have a lot of issues with the supernatural basis of religion!
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "spiritual." But I think I agree with you most of the way. Defining "spiritual" precisely is rather difficult. I think I would prefer at this jucture to opt for the word "organizational" if that isn't too "technical" for you? I think we need to develop new was to organize society. I suppose this will probably need an "ideological" or if you prefer a "spiritual" foundation. If we restrict ourselves, just because its more practical, to our part of the world, then I imagine basing our spiritual values on "Christianity" is probably a reasonable starting point. We then get into all sorts of problems as to which type of "Christianity" we plump for, there are enough to choose between!
I was the person who dubbed TOD the "cyber monastery", and increasingly, at least intellectually and "spiritually", I find this an apt metaphor. I sort of wish this wasn't the case.
Writerman,
How we understand each others' meaning around the word 'spirituality' is key, albeit paradoxical.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao" , and prohibitions in various religions about naming or taking the names of God too seriously, help to point out the limitation of language and definitions in getting Heaven properly pinned down..
That said, I think our spirits are in pretty rough shape in the wealthy western world, and under plenty of duress everywhere else, and certainly it is an area we must address in order to Heal the World, or 'Tikkun Olam' a Jewish admonishment to its people, I believe.
As far as the Moral Values of Christianity AS Spirituality is concerned, I think you run into a contradiction. Not that Christianity is inherently IMmoral, in my sight, but that 'Christian Morality', which is a code of social conduct, has been sort of equated with 'Spirituality', which I see as a person's deep connection and peacefulness with their own heart, with their people, the World, or with God, if you will.
The growth of fundamentalist cultures within the 3 great western religions has been a reaction to a long chain of historical forces (See 'The Battle for God', Karen Armstrong -Knopf), with the intention of deepening the connection of these groups with their God and their Faith Traditions, but as we have seen, has often resulted in very unreligious actions as well, whether in the direction of self-righteous violence or extreme idolatry and superstitiousness. Results I see as being as UNspiritual as you get, while there are agnostics, atheists, deists, orthodox and also pure secularists who show great examples of a people living life with a rich, healthy spirit, real love for their neighbors, and compassion for the world, in thought and in action. Isn't that Spirituality?
I wouldn't start with Christianity, either as an example or a home-base, nor would I exclude it. The American experiment has left us with many cities that function with truly great diversities of faiths and other forms of human spirit, and I simply expect that out of this, people will form new syntheses of religion and expression, which need new and flexible growth to work with new and flexible people, and the practises that get old and stiff will ultimately break-up and break down, as more helpful ways come about.
"Blessed are the Doomers, cause you just KNOW they actually do have hope.."
"In wildness is the preservation of the world"
Thoreau
"My main problem is, how do we get to Ectopia in one piece?"
You don't. The only question is how much pain there is between here and there. You don't get the option of no pain. Your choice is between some pain and more pain. We gave up the option of no pain 30 years ago. Now we are going to pay some part of the price of that decision. Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so and the longer we try to make the existing system continue working, the more painful it will be for all when it does fall.
Thxs for responding. Absolutely crucial to the new paradigm even having a chance of succeeding is universal acceptance of population control. I have no idea of what is the best method, but I surmise voluntary control by a new social norm would present the fewest violent obstacles. I feel this is the only way to convert the fast-crash scenario to a more mitigating slow-crash scenario. Otherwise, Nature, war, and genocide will reduce our numbers in the most horrific ways imagineable. EnergyBulletin has an excellent article by Heinberg:
Smart people will realize Peakoil also means Peak Procreative Sex which inevitably leads to further Overshoot and disaster-- the world needs to move in the other direction if we truly understand the Thermo-Gene Collision.
writerman wrote: "Recently I've been thinking about what it may have felt like to live in Britain when the Roman Army and administration left, and the province was no longer part of the Empire."
Jack Whyte's "Dream of Eagles" cycle of novels is an facinating attempt to recreate that period of history, giving a decidedly non-magical interpretation of the Arthurian legends. He traces over serveral generations the decline of Roman power and the evolution of new social structures in its place. While Whyte is not in the first rank as a writer, the books are still a good read and thought provoking.
The first book in the series "The Skystone" is in my permanent library. IMO, it portrays all he has to say about this era, with the bonus of being a grand adventure novel. The other cornerstone of my gloom and doom collection is "Alas Babylon", by Pat Frank, written in the sixties about a small town in Florida after a nuke strike. For whatever reason, I found these two books the most compelling explorations into the current scenario, even more so than John Brunner, who really nailed the modern American culture much more acurately.
I have the whole series (some brought over from the UK) and had I ever time to get away from this blog am looking forward to finally finishing them all - though it has been so long since I read the early ones that I will probably start over).
"political and business elite running out country that are so caught up in the ideology of the free market"
Only when it suits them... the rest of the time they are busy fixing the markets externally (and obviously in ways that aren't too too visible). This is clear in so many ways that only the MSM has the blindess to allow it to go unmentioned.
I would think that the real reason "control of markets" is not allowed is that would monkey with the controls they already have quite nicely in place, which are naturally already well suited to their best interests.
I'm not talking about the "political and business elite" who are following the agenda but the ones higher up who are fully aware of the reality of free markets and would have a fit if someone tried to mess with their stacked deck.
I'm glad you brought this up because over the weekend I thought I was hallucinating.
One of the captains of "free market" cornucopia, John Tierney --yes the same NY Times editor who made the $10,000 bet with Matt Simmons-- wrote in his editorial that the US government should raises taxes on gasoline because this would "allow" market forces to encourage conservation and it would encourage alternative energy solutions.
While I agree with Mr. Cornucopia's suggestion, I am astounded that a pundit of "free markets" is advocating the idea of any tax based control over how "The Market" behaves. After all, given that we have an uber-intelligent, albeit invisible Hand at the control stick of our Free Market sky ride, should it not be all left to the Inviso-Intelli Hand to guide our Hindenberg of State (our ship of state, namely, a full of hot air one) to a safe landing?
To suggest a tax-based re-alignment of the price point, as Mr. Tierney does, rather than to allow pure supply (Q) and demand (D) to set the "correct" price point (P) is to admit that capitalism does not work. It is hypocrasy pure and simple. Mr. Tierney probably does not see himself this way, but his action is one of a Soviet Central Planner. He is not letting The "Free" Markets work their invisible magic. He is advocating state control.
Amazing what a little bit of petro-asphyxia will do to one of the loudest advocates of "free markets".
"To suggest a tax-based re-alignment of the price point, as Mr. Tierney does, rather than to allow pure supply (Q) and demand (D) to set the "correct" price point (P) is to admit that capitalism does not work. It is hypocrasy pure and simple."
What if we indicate the pump tax is paying for the 3 aircraft carriers in the Gulf? Or the 150,000 men and women in Iraq?
Actually, war for oil is yet another example of the failure of the free markets system.
In theory, if a given supplier, say Iran decides of its own "free" will to no longer supply oil into the global markets, then other "producers" should step in to fill the gap; or barring that, the "Market" will step in to provide alternative fuels if no more suppliers are available for providing crude.
When a "free markets" hawk like Bush goes to war in order to secure oil at the point of a gun, he is in fact and by his deeds admitting that the free market system does not work.
This is not philosophy. This is simple facts staring us in the face. If the "Free Markets" always provide, why bother going to war?
The anology to Shackleton is a powerful one. In other words, the crew he left behind was literally betting their lives that Shackleton would be able to complete a journey that no sane person would willingly undertake. The fact that they had no choice but to take those odds is quite chilling when compared to what our own society may be facing, much sooner than any of us think.
Oil is no longer a 'fungible commodity.' Fossil fuels should be considered a strategic asset, and treated as such. Saudi Arabia knows this. Russia knows this. Hugo Chavez knows this. Unfortunately, we have a political and business elite running out country that are so caught up in the ideology of the free market that to suggest the strict control and careful use of those finite resources is counter to all they hold dear.
The logical course of fossil fuel depletion is to cut down production, conserve and perhaps even ration that resource, with an eye to creating a society that can transition away to other, sustainable sources of energy. This of course includes conservation on a massive scale. You know it. I know it. And probably most of the folks who come to this site know it. It would appear the population of the first world, who have been the benefactors of cheap energy for the past century or so, do not. I suspect their education in this regard will be about as subtle as a baseball bat to the knees. With much the same effect.
Subkommander Dred
The bidding war for declining net export capacity has only begun.
https:/registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=declining+russian+oil+production& ;location=http%3A/news.ft.com/cms/s/1d5dfe3a-d653-11da-8b3a-0000779e2340.html
Venezuela buys Russian oil to avoid defaulting on deals
By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas
Published: April 28 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 28 2006 03:00
Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year.
Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts.
(Registration required for full story.)
Morales Nationalizes Natural Gas Industry
There's also this:
Venezuela buys Russian oil to avoid defaults
This military action obviously shows the amputation of the free-market invisible hand, which leaves the remaining hand--will it be a militaristic fist, or will it seek the biosolar lifestyle of actual planting something worth the later harvesting? Will parents actually send their children to foreign war to gain those resources for futile wants? How many redneck racefans recognize the energetic link between NASCAR and NO CAR? Will the NASCAR owners spraypaint the racing asphalt with the names of US military dead-- as the cars hurtled around the track over the names of these Heroes would the crowd suddenly realize the sad 'reality' and beg and cry for the race to be stopped? Or would the cheers of denial be even louder as the Circus Maximus raced to it crashing Dieoff crescendo?
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"Bolivia nationalizes petroleum industry"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_bi_ge/bolivia_gas
Absolutely correct. If the leaders of exporting countries are far-sighted, they would immediately curtail exports to the extent that the quantity retained is used to dramatically shift to building sustainable biosolar habitats. An exporting country that achieves 'first mover' status to biosolar sustainabilty will have an insurmountable advantage because they can slowly trickle out the oil to further enlarge these habitats.
Chavez, and the SA princes, among other exporters, are making a terrible mistake by not internally pricing their fossil fuels at world levels to encourage conservation and shifting to building a new paradigm.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The idealogues will undoubtedly cry and whine asking, "What do you propose to substitute for capitalism? What could possibly be more efficient? Look at all the wonderful things that capitalism had wrought."
Indeed. Look at it. No national health care. A gutted environment. A nation of sterile ugly cities. Mass transit ignored. The list is seemingly endless. The irony is that all of these things would have added to the quality of life for everyone and would have been every bit as profitable as the screwed up alternatives that industry chose. This means that the elites are essentially evil thoughtless thugs who would rather see the world go up in flames than do what must be done to ease us through this physics problem.
Oh well.
i was reading a magazine in the dr.'s office and learned that Chinese workers have lost universal health care (that right?), and now need to find a "good job" that comes with health insurance
i personally feel the US had a pretty good compromise in the 80's between our gov and non-gov institutions, but i think the fall of communism left folks here with a warped idea of what exactly worked for the last half century.
it was (to borrow from another thread) the accodation between John Kenneth Galbraith and William F. BVuckley Jr. that worked, and not the polarization/demonization that some demanded even then.
When you say 'trend' perhaps you mean that that is how financial institutions have been structured/organised with the encouragement of some very powerful organisations - eg IMF.
I saw that John Ralston-Saul has a new(ish) book out in which he argues that globalisation is over - it's just that most people don't realise it yet. He cites India and more especially China as examples of a more pragmatic approach to development - and whereas western commentators suggest that the adoption of 'western' practices has led to 'success' he argues that it is the non laisser faire policies (eg currency controls) that are responsible.
(Vale - JK Galbraith)
Also, when HO says "We currently have a small program going in biodiesel, but the plants that generate on any scale are still measuring in thousands of gallons a year, when we need millions of barrels a day." Isn't this 'need' more realistically a 'want'. Let's face it, biodiesel is not going to be able to replace current consumption - ever (or is that what you meant/mean?). It can replace some of our needs but not all of our wants and the approach should be to identify the needs that can (could/might?) be met thru biodiesel.
Historically, what worked for the US was a liberal trend with a strong dose of conservatism reigning its wilder impulses back into line. What we have now is dog-eat-dog capitalism of the worst sort, which is just as bad as the social apathy of tried and true communism. This is why I discount the Democrats as being worth anything if elected to office. What are they offering? Harry Reid for gosh sakes? Demagogue Chuckie Schumer? Such are just as bad in their own way as BushCo. Look at the years wasted under Clinton, a brilliant man but a moron of a politician who let his gonads do his thinking for him.
However, I doubt that we can successfully re-establish the balance between liberalism and conservatism. It's dead and while we can admire the corpse, we can't revive it. So we need to replace it. Any solution that does not automatically exclude the Demopublican/Republicrat mess is doomed to fail and any solution that is going to succeed needs to "throw the rascals out" on both sides of the aisle.
CENTCOM's budget should be funded from the gas tax, since protecting oil has become the primary mission since 1988
The strategy of the original plan called for five and two-thirds divisions to march from the Arabian Gulf to the Zagros Mountains and prevent the Red Army from seizing the oil fields of Iran. Instead, Gen. Schwarzkopf began to plan for what he thought was a far more likely situation: Iraq, emerging from eight years of war against Iran with the world's fourth-largest and most battle-hardened army, moving south to capture the rich oil fields whose output was essential to the industrial world.
Thxs for responding. The detritovores, like those abandoned men in Antarctica, were entropically hanging by a thread of Wishful Thinking, they had nothing else. 100% of the survival power set sail for distant shores-- the biosolars must do no less. The new paradigm is where the future hopes lie.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I would argue that Shackelton is a poor choice. He doggedly pursued an old paradigm. He definitely did not come up with a new survival paradigm. And, the Shackelton approach is what we are seeing to day - keep doing what we have been doing albeit with different starting materials.
I posted on another thread that what is lacking today is a philosophical basis for letting go of the old consumer paradigm. And, further, that people need to see demonstration projects showing how this new paradigm works in practice.
Someone needs to at least write a post-oil Ecotopia.
Thxs for responding. Have you read Jeff Vails's EnergyBulletin article for his version of a postPeak Ecotopia? This is possibly where we should be headed, but I am amenable to any workable alternative as well thought out. Remember, postPeak detritus entropy means NEVERMORE, ALWAYS LESS--any new paradigm must seek to optimize biosolar energy, which is unlimited.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az
Don't recall whether I asked you about this yet, but have you looked into Arcosanti? Up north of you a piece, designing a 'Habitat/City' that can survive in essentially 'wastelands', with careful designs for energy and water-reclamation, etc.??
Some appeared a little grandiose, but other levels of it were already built into their 'test model'..
Also heard about Sundance or Cannes success for the film 'Who killed the Electric Car?', about the EV-1.. there's a little sub-culture for you!
Bob in Maine
"Are people faster than Blackflies?"
No I hadn't seen that article. I'll check it out.
Thanks,
Todd; Are ticks more tenacious than humans? (may as well keep it going :-)
Is it a perfect concept? No. But, without efforts like his, society is going to waste time just when time is of the essence. However, I do have to say that I believe more people would be led to read it were it in the form of a novel or like Jan Lundberg's recent two part essay at Culture Change. I'd look up the URL but I need to get back outside to put in my first planting of corn.
I fear we may indeed be entering a new historical paradigm, I call it the move from "expansion" (which was made possible by cheap and abundent energy) to "contraction" (which results from constrained energy supplies.)
Recently I've been thinking about what it may have felt like to live in Britain when the Roman Army and administration left, and the province was no longer part of the Empire. Ostensibly everything was pretty much the same on the surface. Civilization didn't just switch-off overnight. All the trappings of Roman civilization were still there and worked; only slowly, very slowly things began to fall apart. The economic, social, political, financial, military, trade, and cultural bonds, began to breakdown. More and more links in the chain of civilization, rusted and then broke, one by one.
This was especially true of the Roman road network and the harbours and shipping routes. These things iterally held Roman society and civilization together.
It must have been strange, frustrating, and un-nerving, watching civilization slowly crumbling and not being able to do anything to reverse the process. At a local level individuals must have worked frantically to preserve as much of civilization as they could for as long as possible. But slowly these islands of civilization must have got smaller and smaller and increasingly isolated from one another. All over economic activity and wealth just kept on going down and down. Perhaps the rate of collapse was so gradual one didn't even really notice the decline? In other areas it was probably dramatic, one slipped-off civilization rapidly and forever.
I have another really big problem with the change-over from one historical paradigm to another; aren't such events usually connected to massive social disruption and usually war?
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (published 1981 - and undoubtedly one of the reasons why the new Pope chose his name)
The way out of our problem is spiritual, not technical.
"Think of late antiquity," Ratzinger once told an interviewer. "Where St Benedict probably wasn't noted at all. He was also a dropout who came from noble Roman society and did something bizarre, something that later turned out to be the 'ark on which the West survived'. "
In so far as my thoughts on this have got at all specific, they can be found here.
Your blog at the end of your link is the most hopeful thing that I have read in a long time. Thank you.
Jeff CC
I think your probably correct about the need for increased spirituality in relation to the problems we face. But it's not as if there's a shortage of it at the moment, is it? Aren't we almost drowning in "cod" spirituality, and "cod" religion? I hope I'm not treading on your toes here. I don't mean to appear disrepectful in any way I assure you. It's odd how many of my friends are priests, considering I have a lot of issues with the supernatural basis of religion!
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "spiritual." But I think I agree with you most of the way. Defining "spiritual" precisely is rather difficult. I think I would prefer at this jucture to opt for the word "organizational" if that isn't too "technical" for you? I think we need to develop new was to organize society. I suppose this will probably need an "ideological" or if you prefer a "spiritual" foundation. If we restrict ourselves, just because its more practical, to our part of the world, then I imagine basing our spiritual values on "Christianity" is probably a reasonable starting point. We then get into all sorts of problems as to which type of "Christianity" we plump for, there are enough to choose between!
I was the person who dubbed TOD the "cyber monastery", and increasingly, at least intellectually and "spiritually", I find this an apt metaphor. I sort of wish this wasn't the case.
How we understand each others' meaning around the word 'spirituality' is key, albeit paradoxical.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao" , and prohibitions in various religions about naming or taking the names of God too seriously, help to point out the limitation of language and definitions in getting Heaven properly pinned down..
That said, I think our spirits are in pretty rough shape in the wealthy western world, and under plenty of duress everywhere else, and certainly it is an area we must address in order to Heal the World, or 'Tikkun Olam' a Jewish admonishment to its people, I believe.
As far as the Moral Values of Christianity AS Spirituality is concerned, I think you run into a contradiction. Not that Christianity is inherently IMmoral, in my sight, but that 'Christian Morality', which is a code of social conduct, has been sort of equated with 'Spirituality', which I see as a person's deep connection and peacefulness with their own heart, with their people, the World, or with God, if you will.
The growth of fundamentalist cultures within the 3 great western religions has been a reaction to a long chain of historical forces (See 'The Battle for God', Karen Armstrong -Knopf), with the intention of deepening the connection of these groups with their God and their Faith Traditions, but as we have seen, has often resulted in very unreligious actions as well, whether in the direction of self-righteous violence or extreme idolatry and superstitiousness. Results I see as being as UNspiritual as you get, while there are agnostics, atheists, deists, orthodox and also pure secularists who show great examples of a people living life with a rich, healthy spirit, real love for their neighbors, and compassion for the world, in thought and in action. Isn't that Spirituality?
I wouldn't start with Christianity, either as an example or a home-base, nor would I exclude it. The American experiment has left us with many cities that function with truly great diversities of faiths and other forms of human spirit, and I simply expect that out of this, people will form new syntheses of religion and expression, which need new and flexible growth to work with new and flexible people, and the practises that get old and stiff will ultimately break-up and break down, as more helpful ways come about.
"Blessed are the Doomers, cause you just KNOW they actually do have hope.."
"In wildness is the preservation of the world"
Thoreau
You don't. The only question is how much pain there is between here and there. You don't get the option of no pain. Your choice is between some pain and more pain. We gave up the option of no pain 30 years ago. Now we are going to pay some part of the price of that decision. Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so and the longer we try to make the existing system continue working, the more painful it will be for all when it does fall.
Thxs for responding. Absolutely crucial to the new paradigm even having a chance of succeeding is universal acceptance of population control. I have no idea of what is the best method, but I surmise voluntary control by a new social norm would present the fewest violent obstacles. I feel this is the only way to convert the fast-crash scenario to a more mitigating slow-crash scenario. Otherwise, Nature, war, and genocide will reduce our numbers in the most horrific ways imagineable. EnergyBulletin has an excellent article by Heinberg:
http://energybulletin.net/15480.html
Malthus, Paul Erhlich, and Garrett Hardin have very interesting perspectives on this:
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/
Smart people will realize Peakoil also means Peak Procreative Sex which inevitably leads to further Overshoot and disaster-- the world needs to move in the other direction if we truly understand the Thermo-Gene Collision.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Jack Whyte's "Dream of Eagles" cycle of novels is an facinating attempt to recreate that period of history, giving a decidedly non-magical interpretation of the Arthurian legends. He traces over serveral generations the decline of Roman power and the evolution of new social structures in its place. While Whyte is not in the first rank as a writer, the books are still a good read and thought provoking.
Only when it suits them... the rest of the time they are busy fixing the markets externally (and obviously in ways that aren't too too visible). This is clear in so many ways that only the MSM has the blindess to allow it to go unmentioned.
I would think that the real reason "control of markets" is not allowed is that would monkey with the controls they already have quite nicely in place, which are naturally already well suited to their best interests.
I'm not talking about the "political and business elite" who are following the agenda but the ones higher up who are fully aware of the reality of free markets and would have a fit if someone tried to mess with their stacked deck.
I'm glad you brought this up because over the weekend I thought I was hallucinating.
One of the captains of "free market" cornucopia, John Tierney --yes the same NY Times editor who made the $10,000 bet with Matt Simmons-- wrote in his editorial that the US government should raises taxes on gasoline because this would "allow" market forces to encourage conservation and it would encourage alternative energy solutions.
While I agree with Mr. Cornucopia's suggestion, I am astounded that a pundit of "free markets" is advocating the idea of any tax based control over how "The Market" behaves. After all, given that we have an uber-intelligent, albeit invisible Hand at the control stick of our Free Market sky ride, should it not be all left to the Inviso-Intelli Hand to guide our Hindenberg of State (our ship of state, namely, a full of hot air one) to a safe landing?
To suggest a tax-based re-alignment of the price point, as Mr. Tierney does, rather than to allow pure supply (Q) and demand (D) to set the "correct" price point (P) is to admit that capitalism does not work. It is hypocrasy pure and simple. Mr. Tierney probably does not see himself this way, but his action is one of a Soviet Central Planner. He is not letting The "Free" Markets work their invisible magic. He is advocating state control.
Amazing what a little bit of petro-asphyxia will do to one of the loudest advocates of "free markets".
"To suggest a tax-based re-alignment of the price point, as Mr. Tierney does, rather than to allow pure supply (Q) and demand (D) to set the "correct" price point (P) is to admit that capitalism does not work. It is hypocrasy pure and simple."
What if we indicate the pump tax is paying for the 3 aircraft carriers in the Gulf? Or the 150,000 men and women in Iraq?
Would that make it philosophically acceptable?
In theory, if a given supplier, say Iran decides of its own "free" will to no longer supply oil into the global markets, then other "producers" should step in to fill the gap; or barring that, the "Market" will step in to provide alternative fuels if no more suppliers are available for providing crude.
When a "free markets" hawk like Bush goes to war in order to secure oil at the point of a gun, he is in fact and by his deeds admitting that the free market system does not work.
This is not philosophy. This is simple facts staring us in the face. If the "Free Markets" always provide, why bother going to war?