267 comments on DrumBeat: June 24, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
267 comments on DrumBeat: June 24, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
—JH Kunstler
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Saw SiCKO yesterday - It doesn't say anything in a broad way that one didn't already know. Gets in how the US of A has socialism, how the young are shackled by debt, how the government should fear its citizens, takes a swipe at the Micheal Moore sucks site.
The British show up and make the comment - if the US of A wants public health - they will get it.
After discussion was how, with the present money/government system change wasn't gonna happen. I brought up peak oil, and the tax rate people pay - then asked how others at the table how change was not gonna happen?
I think that what is happening in some areas of Africa is an interesting model for the US. A solution to the constant electrical blackouts in many areas is for those with the means to move to private compounds where every house has its own backup generator, so what is developing is a bifurcated electrical generating system, where the grid is becoming less and less reliable. We see the same thing happening in India and other parts of the world, especially in commercial office buildings.
Regardless of whether it's electricity, gasoline, food or health care, I expect to see an increasing division between the "haves" and "have-nots," with growing numbers of Americans falling into the FWO (Formerly Well Off) category, especially as more and more Americans--once employed in sectors dependent on discretionary spending--lose their jobs.
Hell hath no fury like a FWO who just lost his job, his SUV and his McMansion.
Edit:
The problem is that forced energy conservation is moving up the food chain.
I suppose there is a third division, which is basically what I (and many others) have been recommending, a "have" more or less living like a "have-not."
My ELP Recommendations: http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/04/elp-plan-economize-localize-prod...
We could amend ELP to read ELEP: Economize & Localize and Electrify (Re: Alan Drake) & Produce.
I wonder if Alan Drake, et al's, proposals may be the only thing that might keep us from falling into the chaotic bifurcated system that we see developing in Africa.
Probably not, because the haves mainly want to spend money only on themselves. Given the choice between self-powered gated communities and public transportation, they'll go with the gated communities.
And what many of these 'rich' people don't seem to get, is the $5000 in aid to "the poor" is better than $30,000 for jail. And a gated community is 'fine' when there is rule of law. If the worst ideas happen as some here think, no gated community will be safe. If there are 'roving mobs' - what gated community will be safe? With some of the people out there being http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html these kinds of folk...such does not end well.
In the historic gated community, there were no rifles or mortar shells. Today there are.
A gated community will simply be a big advertisement for "get your money and food here!"
If the Alps could not stop Atilla with his herd of elephants no gated 'community' is going to stop those bent on breaching the walls. History is littered with fools that thought stationary defenses would keep out the hordes.
WT hit on the correct solution for the well off that wish to retain their scalps when tshtf...stay low profile and live like the less well off. Living a 'less well off' lifestyle will also allow for the accumulation of more inflation bridges, like gold, instead of spending that discretionary income on the upkeep of a home in a gated community and keeping up appearances. Smart people have known throughout history that what is inside ones home is not obvious by the outside appearance.
Atilla the Hun didn't had any elephants, you are talking about Hannibal who lived few century earlier.
Thanks, but I believe I got my point across.
That you don't actually know history?
A note about living like the have-nots:
Generators can be heard from far away and will be a dead giveaway. Solar panels on the roof or a wind generator in the back yard can be seen from far away and will also be a dead giveaway.
On the other hand, when you get out into the small towns and countryside, poor folks are just as likely as the well-to-do to have woodstoves in their homes; maybe even more likely. There are plenty of poor salt-of-the-earth types that have always gone out into the nearby forests with a chain saw and loaded up their beat up old pickup trucks with firewood, to be piled outside their beat up old houses. Smoke coming out of the chimney of a house that is not obviously the house of a well-to-do person might be visible from far away, but does not convey the same sort of message as the above examples do.
Eric: You might be right, but the gated communities I have seen in Florida have armed guards. Currently private security is a huge and growing business in the USA and I would expect societal breakdown to help it prosper even more. You could even see large concerns like Blackwater taking over protection for larger communities. IMHO, the upper middle class and above will pay top dollar for physical protection (it is worth as least as much money per annum as healthcare).
Eric: You might be right, but the gated communities I have seen in Florida have armed guards.
And if we are at the point where there is to be 'raids' on gated communities, one has to keep in mind the difference between the old and new gated city model.
There was not .308 or .50 cal rifles. The attackers can reach out and touch someone from a long distance. Do these guards want to work when they would lack the 'protection of the state' if they start getting snipped from other urban cover?
And some of the 'members of the lower class' are being trained on how to do this under the idea that the training will result in a chance to move up the ladder.
(Again, - how does this all end well? As a species, we'd better hope that the optimists turn out right.)
Forget the great unwashed, the poor, the benighted.
Forget money sucking mercanaries from Blackwater
Think about the pissed off ex-marines and soldiers.
The legionaires who came home, avoided the mutilation of IEDs, and know how to 'clean and cock', and can lay hands on weapons.
Think Russia 1918, Germany 1921.
Think Spartans and Friekorps.
Type Friekorps into Google or Wiki
Think pissed off, let down, left in the lurch, stabbed in the back.
The USA has the largest number of ex military types in the western world. You cycle more young men and women through the armed forces than any other Western nation. Assume that they did not forget the training when de-mobbed. Assume that going through hell+ returning to a shit job+ subprime mortgage may be considered a bit of a wind-up
All can get legal access to weapons.
Disenfrachised Ex military types + over the counter weapons = civil war.
Last time these conditions occured in Britain, we chopped the head off a King.
That's exactly the sentiments expressed to me by a friend yesterday. He said, "Forget the rednecks, it's those ex marines who are going to have mutiny against their commanders, and then we'll have a bunch of pissed off guys who are practically the dregs, running around in tanks terrorising and killing as they please."
errrr, that is not sounding like 'remind me how this ends well'.
You see that now. There's often resistence to public transportation in wealthy areas because it makes it too easy for "undesirables" to get in.
Gated communities will be extremely vulnerable when TSHTF. For example, just north of the Twin Cities in Minnesota is North Oaks, the "Forbidden City," forbidden because all the roads are privately owned, and anybody except home owners and invited guests are trespassers--who will be prosecuted by the police.
Ah, the police. Where will they go to get loot and good looking women when TSHTF? Recall what many of the New Orleans police did in the aftermath of Katrina . . . . And private security? Give me a break: Those guys will be looting, raping, killing and burning if and when social order breaks down.
When TSHTF, there will be two kinds of people--those organized into armed groups (the masters) and those who are isolated or disarmed--the slaves.
if things get that bad there will be two groups, the dead (most of us) and those who might expect a few more years. No organized society, no spare parts for generators. No cancer treatment, antibiotics or vaccines. No ammunition for the masters; when they run out they will have to hold off the slaves with black powder weapons.
One of the many reasons I do not want to weather the storm of peak oil where I currently live (Alabama).
The culture here leans heavily toward security over liberty.
They would quickly embrace an authoritarian government. (IMHO)
One of the many reasons that I would never move back to northern Louisiana. They will follow the 'war on terror' wherever it leads them even though they are the victims of the terror that their own leaders are spreading. They cannot see it. A typical response is 'the government cannot touch me as long as I have my guns.' They have read no history or they would know that there logic is as a sieve. Our cops have become a paramilitary institutions. They wear all black, the swat teams travel in armored vehicles, they deploy snipers that shoot when they shouldnt, Mayberry is dead as a doornail.
Freebooters in a post peak world :-o FKA Blackwater?
Of course, we are a lot more civilised nowadays and it could never happen again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty_Years_War#Casualties_and_disease
The devastation caused by the war has long been a subject of controversy among historians. Estimates of civilian casualties of up to thirty percent of the population of Germany are now treated with caution. The mortality rate was perhaps closer to 15 to 20 percent, with deaths due to armed conflict, famine and disease.[citation needed] Much of the destruction of civilian lives and property was caused by the cruelty and greed of mercenary soldiers. It is certain that the war caused serious dislocation to both the economy and population of central Europe, but may have done no more than seriously exacerbate changes that had begun earlier.
The destruction caused by mercenary soldiers defied description (see Schwedentrunk). The war did much to end the age of mercenaries that had begun with the first landsknechts, and ushered in the age of well-disciplined national armies.
And the Swedish Drink: :-o
The Schwedentrunk (English: Swedish drink) is a particularly disgusting and humiliating method of torture and execution. The name was invented by German victims of Swedish troops during the Thirty Years' War. This method of torture was administered by other international troops, mercenaries and marauders, and especially by civilians following the Swedish baggage train, who received no pay. It was used to force peasants or town citizens to hand over hidden money, food, animals, etc., or to extort sex from women.
Even though fifteen to twenty percent (locally up to 60%) of the German population perished due to violence, famine, and disease during the war, the memory of the Schwedentrunk was preserved. The method was immortalized in one of the first widely-read German books, the satirical Der abenteuerliche Simplicissimus published by Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen in 1668.
Den Knecht legten sie gebunden auf die Erd, stecketen ihm ein Sperrholz ins Maul, und schütteten ihm einen Melkkübel voll garstig Mistlachenwasser in Leib, das nenneten sie ein Schwedischen Trunk.
Translated into English,
They lay the bound servant on the ground, stuck a wooden wedge into his mouth, and poured into his belly a bucket full of foul manure water, which they called a Swedish Drink.
Use of the Schwedentrunk is recorded in the histories of towns throughout Southern Germany. Though specific circumstances differed, in every case a restrained and gagged victim was forced to swallow (by means of a funnel) a large amount of unappetizing, sometimes boiling liquid. Substances such as urine, excrement, liquid manure, and sullage were used for this purpose.
And if you really want a fun read, look up the sack of Magdeburg
The Baghdad Green Zone is the ultimate gated community. How long do you think it will be before it is washed away by an avalanche of humanity?
I recently read that people inside the Green Zone are afraid of going out in the evening - in case one of their guards grabs them for hostage!
I also read that they are beginning to have power cuts and water cuts - minor compared to the rest of the country. And that is for a stupendously expensive piece of folly.
We've nearly perfected a grid-free system here on the farm. We can live comfortably WITHOUT electricity.
Those with "solar" systems and back-up generators still have to nurse complex systems along. Plus, they'll be the first swamped with "refugee" friends during outages.
Living with kero-lamps, woodstoves, handpumps is the way we're going. It helps to go to bed when it's dark, and to arise when it's light.
b3NDZ3La,
That's my approach as well. The only issue might be refrigeration, but where I live, ice cutting and storing in winter is an option.
From yesterday - your answer?
http://www.thesustainablevillage.com/servlet/display/microenterprise/dis...
Up to 1000 pounds of ice per day! Low cost and reliable source of ice for situations requiring 25 to 1000 pounds of ice per day (12-450kg). 'Isaac' is the acronym for Intermittent Solar Ammonia Absorption Cycle.
One other alternative for folks is the Crosley Icy Ball (google it for more information). In any case it was a sphere that was heated on the stove and then placed in the "refrigerator." Home Power Mag had plans posted on their site on how to make one with a 5 gallon propane tank. I printed our the pdf a long time ago so I don't know if it is still available. Home Power also had an article about a home-made trough collector for an ice maker. Both of these used ammonia as the refrigerant.
Here's one Icy Ball article I had printed out: http://www.ggw.org/cac/IcyBall/crosley_icyball.html
Edit to add a few more links I found in my printouts:
http://www.ggw.org/cac/IcyBall/HomeBuit.html
http://www.ggw.org/cac/IcyBall/IB_Manual/operations_manual.html
Finally, here's a solar refrigeration machine from Bostwana:
http://www-pe.wbmt.tudelft.nl/kk/solar.htm
In any case it was a sphere that was heated on the stove
Which is fine if you have a stove that you were going to fule no matter what.
The Sun based solution doesn't need you collecting fuel, processing that fuel - the design does that for you.
Eric,
Come on. You mean it didn't cross your mind that an Icy Ball could also be heated using an enlarged solar oven? It was heated on a stove when it came out because the world was still functioning.
I think it's also necessary to consider cases on an individual basis. In my case, I have acres and acres of forest and a wood cook stove. I'm in the woods anyway since I heat with wood. For me, it's no big deal to heat it on the wood cook stove since I would be using it in any case.
Todd
Come on. You mean it didn't cross your mind that an Icy Ball could also be heated using an enlarged solar oven?
No 'large' solar over will give you 1000 lbs of ice.
And you realize that the process can provide building heat at night,
... Low cost and reliable source of ice ...
I have lived with an absorption cycle refrigerator in the distant past -- it ran on electricity, probably not very efficient. It was almost silent but made a little gurgling sound when running.
http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htmat
A neighbor of mine at the time, a geologist from Australia, asked where I grew up. When I told him the name of the town, he recognized it from the nameplate on the old kerosene refrigerator his family had in the boonies of OZ.
That was, like, 40 years ago. Nice to see that the technology is
still around. Though the kerosene thing is going to have to go...
Hi b3NDZ3La,
Living without electricity makes sense in many ways, but kerosene for the lamps may become a precious commodity in the post-peak world.
I wonder if biodiesel could fulfill that need? Are you prepared to make biodiesel on your farm?
but kerosene for the lamps may become a precious commodity in the post-peak world.....biodiesel
http://www.britelyt.com/lanterns.htm
They work with biodiesel but get the EZ pump and a bicycle pump for best use.
This is indeed our weak spot. We have a kerosene fridge that we run from May-October. The rest of the year, free cooling in the pantry (this is Maine). Somehow I don't think distillates will be scarce for awhile. I rather be reliant on kerosene than on gasoline.
The really weak spot is the freezer. We know how to salt meat, though, and if worse were to come to worse, we could can and dry everything.
We've been doing this for years, before "peak oil" was part of the vocabulary. There is something fun about the challenge of learning preservation techniques that, a hundred years ago, everyone could manage.
I lost the link in a system crash, but an Aussie turned a chest freezer into an EXTREMELY efficient refrigerator.
A small solar PV setup could cool it during daylight hours and it could coast over night and through cloudy days w/o a battery IMHO.
A bit larger solar array could handle a freezer with the understanding that it is not to be opened except when the sun is shining. Or buy batteries (I would recommend several Optima deep cycle batteries).
And/or add a small wind turbine. Any microhydro possibilities on your site ?
Best Hopes for Minimal energy impact,
Alan
I was looking at some chest freezers last week to make one of these.
link:
http://mtbest.net/chest_fridge.html
Please forward details for a 120V 60 Hz version.
Thanks,
Alan
Everyone probably already knows about these, but I will post them any way.
http://www.sundanzer.com/
http://www.sunfrost.com/
both available at
http://www.lehmans.com/index.jsp
Sunfrost yes, but not Sundanzer.
Thanks,
Alan
Naw, we could live comfortably without electricity sixty years ago. We knew how to do that back then. More people lived on small farms and trucked their produce into the city to sell to the other half that lived there. People in the country lived far enough apart so they could have water wells that were unaffected by their outhouse that sat far enough away.
Now there are no wells so hand pumps would not do you a damn bit of good. Now over 90% of the people live either in suburbia or in the cities. Electricity would leave them with no running water, (the water purification plant uses electricity), no refrigeration and there are no more ice plants.
In the south where I grew up, the ice plant was also the coal plant, they supplied both. No one has a coal stove anymore and houses are not built with chimneys anymore. Of course we could build a chimney, buy a stove, get some coal but that entire infrastructure would take years and all those chimneys belching coal soot would cause a layer of soot to descend on every major city in the world.
There are no small farms anymore and even if there were neither family nor community has the skills needed to live like that anymore. No one has milk cows, there are no blacksmiths, and the horses and mules have all gone. All the skills needed to live in the world our ancestors lived in have all disappeared.
Thomas Wolf was right, you can’t go home again.
Ron Patterson
Naw, we could live comfortably without electricity sixty years ago.
Errr 60 years ago there were less people.
As there will be 60 years from now.
Bruce,
You reminded me of something.
I can't for the life of me remember who coined this, or in which exact words, but it's a very good way to phrase it all:
In the end, solar electric or kero lamps, it all runs out, because where are you going to get more kero?
I'll start out with my solar, as I might as well enjoy it while I can. But for the "refugee" friends, if they can't pull their own weight, they can go. I've already told my friends as much. Fortunately I tend to associate with people who are able to conceive the idea of pulling your own weight, and a post-peak world. My family, however is another story. I guess they'll be SOL.
Well, if the global human population crashes, then the global whale populations should recover, and then it's back to whale oil again.
(Now diving under my desk for cover. . .)
I see that WT and Alan posted at about the same time in response to the SICKO comments.
I agree with WT that we will see the rift between the haves and the have-nots grow as energy and food costs rise. Private, personal energy systems for the wealthy and a less reliable grid for most folks.
I also see that Alan Drake's electric trains could do so much in urban areas to solve multiple problems: just getting around, improving air quality, and facilitating the other TOD -- transit-oriented development, which helps develop real heighborhoods that are walk-able and bik-able.
All of the ELP or ELEP suggestions have a very positive impact on human health!
We've been spending tons of money to make ourselves sick with auto-oriented transportation and lifestyles, then spending tons of money to make ourselves well.
We've also been spending tons of money supporting an infrastructure that atomizes society into hyper-isolated individualism as well as increasingly hostile economic classes. Then we spend tons of money on anti-depressants and on security to make life endurable.
I've been reading McKibbons new book "Deep Economy" and he comments on these very topics at some length.
A key solution McKibbons offers is -- suprise -- "Localization!" Not isolationism, but the opposite: self-sufficient local communities linked by sustainable means of communication and transport.
My main point: we pay to make our bodies and communities sick, then pay more to try to make them well -- while enriching lots of middle-men in the process.
ELEP is about health!
Beggar, your example has had a significant impact on my thinking. Bicycling will have a MUCH more significant impact in the future.
"Elasticity of Supply" for transportation is an important metric that has not been discussed.
An oil well has essentially zero elasticity (one can overpump and hurt future production) so their slaves, the automobile can rely only on current and past (SPR) production.
Rail can expand significantly when TSHTF *BUT* bicycle transportation can expand even more even faster !
I am becoming more convinced that bicycles will be the last barricade against social collapse if "we" make the wrong choices. As public transportation in New Orleans has nearly collapsed, bicycles are filling a large part of the gap (cars the rest).
Best Hopes for Better Bicycling,
Alan
BTW, Stockpiling bicycles and bike parts as trade goods seems like a good deal.
Thanks for that encouragement and insight, Alan!
Stocking up on bikes and bike parts sounds like a good plan to me, too.
I've even been saving some old chainrings and tires, tubes, and the like for future repair and re-use. The bike-shop techs know to hand me back the old parts if I take anything in for repair -- and they know why, too.
A number of folks I run into in the biking community have some awareness of the need to prepare for a world where spare parts will be harder to come by.
Let's keep on advocating for ELEP, and hope for the best while preparing for the worst!
Just yesterday myseelf and a friend were walking back to his house from the city (a 30 minute walk with a couple of pubs on the way), with traffic the way it was, even the bus was a bad option. As we were walking along, saw a man on a bike, with trailer attached, cycling around, picking up old bikes that people had left on the footpath for disposal.
I commented that apparently, he is setting himself up for an ideal post-peak business, my friend, who while aware of peak oil, is somewhat of a cornucopian and believer in techno fixes (i think he has a little too much faith in humanity), did not really see it the same as i did.
The one thing i am curious about is whether he was simply a collector of junk, unwittingly setting himself up for post-peak, or whether he is truly aware of the potential future that awaits us, and is preparing for a post-peak job. One thing i am certain of, is that either by accident or design, it is good to see someone rescuing what looked to be near perfect bikes from their probable location, scrap, or even worse, landfill.
I wonder will he be someday selling those repaired bikes back to the verry people who were simply not interested in them anymore?
Said person could have been part of one of the bike collectives that exists.
I agree bicycle use has a bright future, but an awful lot of Americans "painted themselves into a corner" with commuting missions too long to accomplish on a human driven vehicle. You'll have to get a little in shape to accomplish a 10 mile ride each way! But zillions of Americans live 20, 30, even 50 miles from work - each way. It'll sure help defeat obesity!
It's the dilemma like that coworker who quit because gas got to a mere $3/gallon. Wait until it gets WAY more expensive to make that commute. Those who live close enough will start to use bicycles en masse, and those forced to drive will find streets clogged with bikes, hurting their gas mileage more and the time will rival bike use in the first place. Bike use will reach a "critical mass" (not to be confused with the monthly protest rides) making bike use the obvious choice for short range missions. The long range commuters will just have to find work closer to home - even with a pay cut. Even with a pay cut you come out ahead if gas prices are too high. That becomes true if you can use a bicycle with the new job.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Not to mention most Americans would snap a bike into two pieces--that is, if they were to ever even try sitting on one.
As George Carlin once said... Ah, hell, I don't need to spell it out more.
WT,
It's not just the electricity, of course, it's gasoline and most of all food as well, that will be out of reach (outpriced) for increasing numbers of Americans. See The fight for the world's food in the links upstairs.
Not to mention water; US droughts are fast becoming endemic. Or medical care. Or schooling. Where will the millions of foreclosed live? Cardboard boxes on the edge of town?
Hence, you will see rising to the surface the long premeditated ways to channel the agression of the FWO's, which will direct it against that of the NBWO's(never been well off's).
Expect religion to be the rallying cry.
the agression of the FWO's,
Do ya mean like Sam Byck?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Samuel+Byck&btnG=Search
which will direct it against that of the NBWO's(never been well off's).
I don't know how true that will be, but now we are entering the 'how many rioting mobs will having dancing pinheads' debates or something like that.
Expect religion to be the rallying cry.
The? Naw, a popular one, but not 'the'.
Sam Byck was famous for trying to pull a 9/11-ish attack. A movie with Sean Penn playing the part was filmed, the Assassination of Richard Nixon. of course, the plot failed, just like Sam Byck's life overall was a failure. Sam Byck was a total loser all the way to his end, when he got whacked.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
?Sam Byck was famous for trying to pull a 9/11-ish attack.
I thought it was because he was planning on killing Nixon.
'memember where Sam was - He felt that he was "owed" a living - that a certain lifestyle was his because he was going to work, et la.
When his life 'fell apart' - he opted to blame Nixon.
How many other Sam's are out there - are going to feel cheated out of 'what they were owed' and will lash out?
Yep, he was trying to whack Nixon, by smashing a plane into the White House, hence "9/11-ish attack". But you raise a good question. There is a whole Oort Cloud of potential independent operatives waiting to lash out. We recently had the Asian student at the college with his Glock 9mm. There are 200 million guns floating around in America, and lots of vets can build IEDs. Consider Tim McVeigh as an example of having only 1 friend help out. He could have done it alone. An independent operative could build a car bomb even in a post-peak world. Even with shortages he could rent the car to load the bomb onboard. After the bomb, it'll only take a couple gallons of gas to accomplish the mission.
While the government is ferreting out Arabic terrorist cells, the independent homebrew operatives float around among us waiting to get angry enough. In a post-peak world, the government will have increasing trouble ferreting out the Arabic types and eventually, the EROEI of hunting them will become no longer worth it. Then, of course, TSHTF.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Expect religion to be the rallying cry.
I'm not sure in what context you meant this, but I think churches will help to hold communities together as PO unfolds. Churches are everywhere throughout communities. They will open soup kitchens and food pantries for the hungry and unemployed, and possibly even shelter. They do that now on a limited scale, and are unhindered by bureaucratic red tape. They are the backbone of our US refugee relocation programs now. Whether or not one has the requisite religious faith will not be an issue. This is seldom mentioned on TOD, because of the demographic of this website, but I think it's true. (And I'm not there either this morning :-)
Of course that all depends on the churches having a surplus of food. That is a far reaching assumption. Some churches will be far better off than others. But it is likely that there will be little surplus food. “Charity begins at home” will be on the lips of just about everyone. When things get really rough, churches will be just as poor as everyone else.
But WT is right, religion will be the rallying cry. It always is no hope on earth everyone turns to the supernatural for help.
Ron Patterson
WT didn't make that claim, Ron, I did. He may not agree with it at all, and that should be made clear.
Sorry SoFly, please accept my apologies. I just misread things. But as things get tough people will turn more and more to religion.
But one must wonder, will there be a point when people eventually lose their faith in "the god that failed!"
Ron Patterson
The God that has failed is economic growth embodied in values of unbridled materialism.
And just which god succeeded?
No, the god that failed was not unbridled materialism. Unbridled materialism is simply our nature. And to complain that unbridled materialism has led to our destruction is to complain that our very nature is our downfall.
Well hell, come to think of it, that’s correct.
Ron Patterson
Most premodern cultures have effectively bridled both materialism (greed) and lust. They had to so as to survive for tens of thousands of years.
The problem of social control is fundamental to all communities (and families) and societies. Many premodern societies were better at social control than are modern societies.
BTW, stone age societies were relatively free, especially for women. Nevertheless, social control was generally effective. Indeed, social control is prerequisite to freedom. Women suffered horrible declines in freedoms from agricultural and early industrial society.
Actually Don, your theory is all wet. By “premodern” I assume you are talking about hunter-gatherers and horticultural tribes. Of course they left no written record so all we have to go by is the arechological record and current, or near past, hunter-gatherers.
Such tribes as the Yanomama of the Amazon, and the !Kung of Africa, and others always have a “Big Man” who is the top dog in the tribe. And he is always a man. And as far as the rest of the tribe goes, the man who is the best hunter always gets the most women and has the most prestige.
And they were just as greedy and materialistic as modern day people except that their possessions meager of course. There was always the threat of war with other tribes.
The myth of the peaceful (non materialistic) noble savage is just that, a myth.
And they survived for tens of thousands of years because they found no detritus from past life such as coal or oil. They lived at the very limit of their existence. War, disease and famine kept their population in check.
Ron Patterson
"War, disease and famine kept their population in check."
And so it shall for all of us. The developed nations just had a short intermission as they fed off the poor and less developed nations. That option is coming to a close. Our own poor and middle class will not provide our sustinence for long. We shall next begin to feed on each other.
If you are familiar with the writings of anthropologists on the topic of nomadic hunting and gathering societies, it is obvious that they did not accumulate material goods because they could keep only what they could carry in their hands or in simple parcels made from vines, etc. See for example, Marshall Sahlins's work ("Stone Age Economics") on the affluence of stone age society based on having few possessions.
The question of whether hunters and gatherers accumulated material goods is a nonissue among anthropologists, because it is clear that the nomadic way of life means that you can own only what you can carry--which turns out to be mostly babies and water gourds, plus maybe a hand axe and a spear point or two.
By the way, the head man in these paleolithic societies had little power. Women were free to go off in the bushes with whoever appealed to them--and they did. Slavery was almost unknown among societies such as the San, because there is no way for hunters and gatherers to keep slaves enslaved.
Perhaps you are confusing hunting and gathering (nomadic) societies with horticultural or herding societies; the three kinds are very different.
Thus the idea that unbridled lust for material goods or for power existed among paleolithic socities is flat out wrong. A very good source for different kinds of societies is "Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology" by Nolan and Lenski. Elementary textbooks on cultural anthropology are also good sources, especially the ones with extensive bibliographies.
Don, you are saying that hunter-gatherer societies were not greedy and materialistic because they could not carry anything with them. Therefore you are claiming that the physical limitations of what they could carry determined their innate desire. That makes no sense whatsoever.
However the did have jewelry and other possessions that they carried with them. And just like the hunter-gatherer societies of today, and in the early part of the last century when there was a lot of study on the subject, competition existed within the tribe. The best hunter received the most rewards and that included women.
But one thing you simply do not seem to understand is we basically are hunter-gatherers. That is for 99% of our evolutionary history we were hunter-gatherers. Therefore the innate characteristics we possess today evolved as Darwinian adaptations during our hunter-gatherer history. The greed and jealously we feel today evolved during our hunter-gatherer days. So they were exactly the same as we are today.
Of course you might be among the “blank slate” crowd and believe that there are no such things as innate characteristics, that every characteristic we possess today we absorbed from our environment. If so you are among an ever shrinking minority. So if you are a “blank slate” believer then we will just have to agree to disagree for I find that position untenable due to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Ron Patterson
Humans evolved as paleolithic hunters and gatherers; I'm a big fan of evolutionary biology. Today women shop because that is as close to gathering as they can get. Men watch sports and talk endlessly about sporting events because that is as close as most men today get to hunting and talking about hunting exploits.
It is true that head men usually had more than one wife. But a big reason for this is that the head man was usually (not always) the best hunter in the group and therefore obligated to support more people with meat than were the lesser hunters. An invariable and essential function of the head man was to determine and carry out a fair distribution of meat; this trait appears to be a cultural universal for old-stone-age communities.
BTW, in hunting and gathering societies, if anybody eats, then everybody eats. If anybody starves, then everybody is starving. Though not entirely egalitarian, they are pretty close to this position in terms of material well-being.
Is there sexual jealousy in the most primitive societies? Yes, but it is generally not nearly as big a deal as it is in horticultural, agricultural, industrial and herding societies. Divorce is no big deal in paleolithic society, because if there is disagreement either the woman or the man just goes back to live with his own clan. Traits such as spouse abuse are rarely found in paleolithic societies, because women typically have nearby male kinfolk to defend their interests, and also a woman is generally free to walk out of a marriage and back to her own people.
Many of the traits assumed to be universal in modern society are not only not universal, but indeed they are not found (or found only rarely) in the most primitive of societies. Warfare, for example, requires economic surplus: You don't get this until horticulture is invented.
The paloelithic peoples did not have a pot to pee in--because they had not invented pottery. They didn't even have beer . . . .
Don, great post. I was about to agree with everything you wrote until I read this paragraph:
The rock art depicting fierce battles among the San or Bushmen of Southern Africa tell a different story. Fierce battles are depicted. Similar rock art can be found in Australia.
I cannot begin to quote all the overwhelming evidence for fighting among hunter-gathers, or “forgers” as they are often called today. LeBlanc devotes an entire chapter to it in his great work “Constant Battles’, and Pinker devotes almost as much space to the subject in “The Blank Slate". In short, hunter-gathers fought tooth and nail just like the horticultural societies that followed.
I realize that the myth of the noble savage dies hard, especially among true believers. But it is just a myth Don, nothing more.
Ron Patterson
I do not believe in noble savages. I do believe that war (as opposed to rather unorganized co-operative murder, such as chimpanzees practice, sometimes to the point of genocide) requires an economic surplus. War requires supplies, a logistic infrastructure--mere raiding does not. By definition, I believe, warfare is an organized activity that requires men, money (in some form), materials, and machines. Though old-stone-age peoples had men and some primitive machines, they most emphatically did not have money, nor did they have stockpiles of materials (such as weapons or food supplies required for warfare).
I do not assert that by NATURE the most primitive people did not fight wars--but rather that they lacked the opportunity. There is no word for "war" in the Inuit language, because the very concept is unthinkable within the context of their cultural and social and economic limitations. The Inuit language is by no means unique in this characteristic.
Hunters and gatherers can plan for a few men to co-operate on a hunt. That is the extent of their ability to mobilize resources. I recommend in the highest terms the classic film, "The Hunters," a documentary made more than sixty years ago on the San.
Thus the facts of the matter are simple. Pure hunting and gathering societies do not go to war because they cannot do so.
Well hell Don, you have your definition of warfare that does not include "raiding".
People get killed, a lot of people get killed, their food is stolen and they are driven from their territory but that is not war. Go figure!
Anyway you have it exactly backwards. Hunter-gathers did not go to war because they had a surplus, they went to war because of hunger, or they would perceive that unless they acquired more food or territory from which to gather food, there would be great hunger in the tribe. They would go to war...excuse me....they would go raiding to acquire more food and territory to stave off coming hunger.
As Matt Simmons likes to say “data trumps all theories”. You have a theory that people cannot go to war unless they have surplus. The data from rock art, human bones and weapons is hard data.
Okay Don, where is your data? If you have a theory then you must have data to support it otherwise it is only a hypothesis. And if data will trump any theory, it sure as hell will trump any hypothesis.
Ron Patterson
Like many debates, you guys are just arguing over a definition. I doubt Don disputes Pinker's claims, but he probably wouldn't consider the examples given "warfare".
There is obviously a significant difference in scale between the 'wars' organised in a post-HG world and those before, but in the sense that they are both armed hostile conflicts, there's not much semantic distinction.
Don presumably sees warfare as hostile conflict involving dedicated fighters (i.e. people whose livelihood is fighting wars/manufacturing weapons and little else), in which case obviously it's not possible in a H-G society.
Wiz, let us not get ridiculous. Both Don and I are talking about hunter-gatherers. They did not have dedicated soldiers; thy only had hunters and gatherers.
Hunter gatherers raided other hunter gatherers, killed them and took their food and territory. That is war by any definition.
That is the way Homo sapiens lived for about 100,000 years, give or take or take a few thousand years. Dedicated soldiers did not appear until the evolution of much larger societies such as cities and states evolved. These did not exist for hunter-gatherers.
Ron Patterson
I don't particularly care what you call war or not.
If I get 50 of my friends together with some sharpened spears, and raid my next-door neighbours' house, few would call it an act of warfare. In the context of an H-G society, then such an act could reasonably be called an act of warfare, as it's the most violent, large-scale conflict that is even possible. Words are slippery things, and not generally worth arguing over...but we still all do it.
I hate to quibble about words, but let us take a look at Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of "war."
1. A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.
2. A period of such armed conflict.
(There are other usages but none relevant to our debate.)
Without exception and with 100% certainty I can be sure that no hunting and gathering society ever--anywhere--was organized into a nation or a state or even anything remotely like a nation or a state. Thus, by definition, paleolithic societies do not have the capacity to wage war. Period. Exclamation point.
Now you may not like the definitions found in dictionaries. If that is the case, then you find yourself in the character of Humpty Dumpty debating Alice in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." (Or maybe it was "Through the Looking Glass.)
Don, now you are getting ridiculous. Here is what you said pure and simple:
So I presented evidence that hunter gatherers were almost constantly at war. But you say “Oh, but that doesn’t count because that was not an armed conflict between nations.”
Good lord, I give up. Have it your way Don, the hunter-gathers did not go to war because they did not have standing armies or whatever.
Someone needs to write Pinker and all those anthropologists who supplied him that data and tell him all those deaths were due to raids, not war.
Ron Patterson
If you are familiar with the cultures of the societies you list, I think you will find that not a single one is a nomadic purely hunting and gathering society.
As I've stated ad nauseum, paleolithic societies (typically only a few dozen men women and children, seldom much more than a hundred) simply do not have the resources to wage either offensive or defensive war.
BTW, that is what makes old-stone-age societies so easy to destroy by horticultural or herding societies: The pure hunters and gatherers simply have no way to wage defensive warfare. Horticultural societies (e.g. ancient China before the invention of plow agriculture) can accumulate large economic surpluses and make highly effective warfare with armies of thousands or even tens of thousands of trained soldiers.
By way of contrast, the typical hunting and gathering society has no training whatsoever in skills needed for warfare and can muster perhaps thirty men and boys with spears or bows and arrows. Note that all their training has been in terms of hunting expeditions of (typically) two to six men. In paleolithic societies you will find no sergeants.
Whatever you want to call it, conflict between tiny societies (essentially extended families or clans) is far from any reasonable definition of war.
(And by the way, please feel free to cite dictionaries other than Merriam Webster's.)
The incidence of interpersonal violence is high in some primitive societies, but that fact does not bear on the issue of whether or not hunting and gathering societies can wage war.
The Australian Aboriginals did no farming. They were pure hunter-gatherers.
Okay Don, this wasn’t warfare because they did not have swords and shields and did not employ standing armies between states. But the rest of the entire world calls it warfare except for Don Sailorman.
Okay, hunter-gatherers engaged in almost constant battles but these battles are not to be called war, (according to the rule of Sailorman), they are to be called raids or anything except war.
Trouble is Don, the world will go on finding evidence of hunter-gather conflict where a very high percentage of the men died in battle. And they will call this conflict, these battles warfare whether you agree with them or not.
Enough of this stupid nonsense. Hunter-gatherers lived in constant fear of being raided by neighboring tribes. Warfare was simply a way of life with them. And I am sure they had a word for it, a word that today we would call war.
I am going to bed now.
Goodnight,
Ron Patterson
Well there is evidence that some Aboriginal tribes developed certain crop cultivation practices, and although it would probably be an exaggeration to call it farming, Don did specifically say "horticulture". But it makes little difference to what you are quibbling over, which is basically what the definition of 'warfare' is.
Can you imagine what a modern C21st military power "going to war" against a H-G society would look like?
One sufficiently-equipped and trained C21st foot soldier could easily take out a tribe of 100 spear-wielding tribal warriors - you'd hardly call that a war.
Don:
It's time to go to bed.
Just in case if you smoke make sure you didn't put ashes in the wrong beer can.
Also if you ran out of cold beer make sure you didn't leave any warm beers in the freezer.
Also did you secure everything on the boat properly and have all the securing lines tied down well?
BTW: I haven't read most of this drum beat, but what I have read has put me in a state of deep depression.
I understand why Leanan thinks the staff is embarrassed. I may go down unprepared but so far I have lived the best years this world has ever provided.
I do not think that reading TOD should cause a person to become depressed. Depression is characterized by apathy, by despair, by a sense of powerlessness and meaninglessness. Simply by the acts of posting and making comments one is taking action that may be constructive--just the opposite of the inaction of depression.
When I take a vacation from TOD, it is not because reading it depresses me but rather because I've found a writing project that or a woman who occupies most of my time and energies. My own take on TOD is that it is education, stimulation and (Dare I say it?) entertainment.
''...Therefore you are claiming that the physical limitations of what they could carry determined their innate desire. That makes no sense whatsoever.''..
Err a little bit wrong actually.
How to Flee a country 101:
1. Shove diamond rings, earings, necklaces up your ass, clip gold rings and bend them round your toes.Cover the toes with plasters. Leave something in the pockets for the militia to find
2. Forget the bed-linen, the antique roll top desk, the tableware, the paintings, the family album /whatever.
3. Wrap your Doctorate and other qualifications round your thigh or chest. You may need them as bona-fides when you arrive in your (hopefully) adopting country. If nothing else they may keep you warm.
Apparently, some of our Grandmothers did more than make jam...
True, in pre agriculture groups women were basically equal members(sans the fact men could not give birth :P ), they had to help hunt and gather food. when agriculture came about they were regulated to baby making machines. the social effects of which last to this day. except that the century's of second class or third class citizen treatment have spawned such things as the so called feminazi's on the one hand and the misconception that a woman would be a better ruler/queen/president etc then a man.
''...called feminazi's on the one hand and the misconception that a woman would be a better ruler/queen/president etc then a man...''
Err we got one,... Err she is actually quite good. She is called Queeen Elizabeth II. Actually we have had a few: QE1, Boudicca, Thatcher, Queen Anne...
You got Confused Monkey Bush and Angry Hog Cheney. (and you spent all that money...why?). And then you gotta do it all again in 2009 (unless elections are waived due to an emergency...:-()
Lets face it, what the USA really needs is some European Royalty. You know you want it. You really do. You are just a bunch of peasants. Incapable of governing yourselves properly, you keep electing fuck-wits, psychos and morons.
Go on, give it a try: King Harry of USA.
Nice ring to it. He could marry Paris Hilton
We can also give you a free dog:
As of 27th June we have an ex-prime minister. He is looking for a job. Answers to the name 'poodle' or 'yo Blair'.
Slightly soiled...
i meant always better.
"Many premodern societies were better at social control than are modern societies."
Semantics. To pull a Clinton, how are you defining "control" here? Modern American society is frighteningly controlled. Controlled to such an extent that an illegal war is being fought in a desert packed with fundamentalists who hate each other--not to mention who also both hate us, who happen to live on the 2/3rds of world's remaining (but heavily disputed) oil reserves. Thousands of US troops dead, the military run overtime and being torn to shreds by an overreaching Executive Branch. 30% of the population loves the war. It couldn't be better, lets go get some more! 60% say "eh, it's going okay, maybe we're facing a little difficulty but mostly its going okay I guess?" 40% say, it was stupid--the democratic base, who don't even understand why the war is being fought... If they did, perhaps we could have some real debate in this country... [I know, I know, the numbers don't add up--do they ever?]
Hundreds of billions of deficit crunching dollars, yet a substantial portion of America.... Ah, you know the drill, the statistics are staggering, all the way from "Where does milk come from?" asked to high schoolers, to "Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?" is queried to the average American and the results are horrendous, universally.
My point is, I'm no Marxist, but people are a product of their environments. Our bodily genetics interacts with the environment in a myriad of interesting, almost inexplicable--but in the end classifiable, phenomenon. That's why we have culture, language, abstract symbolic thinking... We invent our environments--or are simply exposed to them, and then our genetics and happenstance does its thing, makes us happy when we eat a twinkie, soothes us at night with EM radiation from the TV, makes our stomach growl when we're starving. Right now, we are very very very comfortable. Our environments are the product of 100 years of building a roaring industrialized economy on top of a cheap energy foundation which is about to go kaput. I cannot imagine a society where anyone has ever had more "freedom" than in the highly industrially developed, democratically run countries of the 20th century. I hate to sound like a patriotic American (because I'm a self-hating liberal) but it is the god's honest truth. Perhaps this is simply a result of luck, much like a game of Risk. However, it is not completely random. It is a truism that ideas affect the world in very powerful ways. Political philosophy, technological inventions, energy capture ability and the right-time/right-place dynamics of how human history unfolded has led us to this moment in time.
"Women suffered horrible declines in freedoms from agricultural and early industrial society."
Early industrial society sucked for everyone except the upper classes, just like for mostly all of time preceding cheap energy. The problem PO poses, is that it will degrade the average, status quo, petit bourgeois standard of living for Americans year by year once we can no longer make up for 2-6% (or higher) global annual declines. For a superpower, built up over a century, that is at least used to coasting since the early 70s on abundant imports with a slight hiccup again in the early 80s, this is big. Yes, we will try to adapt by all the usual 'fixes' that TOD looks into and then says "bronze bb"... My point is, that "social control" is the problem in America, a century old problem that was resolved by Freud's cousin. It is still operating, and it is very difficult to feed "truth" into it, because the truth shall not set you "free"--in the sense that Americans would like to understand it... Free to drive my big SUV, free to invade other countries with faulty intelligence, free to debase culture & science, free to drink tubs of sugar water and eat grotesque, copious amounts of food, free to make profits by exploitation and environmental degradation, free to procreate endlessly, free to worship "God" with a delusion fervor, free to enjoy infinite economic growth, and this could go on all day. Freedom is great. Too bad we squandered it.
[edit: I do realize the stark contradiction inherent in my statement that we're so "free" yet at the same time "controlled". Alas, I admit, it is distressing and nonsensical... And for the hell of me I can't explain it.]
See, I knew we agreed more than we disagreed (re the whole Islam is inherently more violent thing). Every time someone complains that materialism is somehow something imposed on us by large corporations (we're all "consumerbots") I fire back with obvious response that wealthy people have ALWAYS had more material possessions.
Unless we're able to better recognise our own self-destructive tendencies, and learn ways to help keep them in check, the human race simply isn't going to last all that long (but the economic consequences of Peak Oil will hopefully give us a sufficient kick-in-the-rear that we'll learn something from it).
Ron,
No apologies needed, at least not to me. Just wanted to make sure Jeffrey doesn't get 'labeled' with, or attacked for, far-reaching statements he never made.
As for me, I have no doubt religion will play an awful role in the future, if not the present. And again, that is not to say that no good is done in the name of G-d.
Judging from what happened in previous calamities (the Black Death, etc.) - existing religions will not do well. People will turn against them when they "fail."
However, I fully expect new and more radical religions to take over. Flagellants, the Ghost Dance, and that kind of thing.
Scanning behavior...
Actually, Leanan, I think there is still a lot of growth potential in religion. The wierder, the better I say. Personally, I plan on starting my own religious cult. That model seems to have worked out well so far for Sun Yung Moon. If I could some kind of corporate sponsorship, I'd be golden! Then again, there is always the warlord route.
If you can combine being a religious cult leader with being a warlord, then you're really all set. :-)
if you can combine religious cult leader, warlord, and "get-rich quick" guru all at the same time, you're really set here in the STates.
By george, I think you've got it!
Must start recruiting minions now...
I recall Alvin Toffler in the Third Wave said that industrial society hadn't created a religon with industrial metaphors for God. Agricultural societies gave us Judiaism and its offshoots of Christianity and Islam. These people had daily contact with sheep, goats, and cattle and metaphors like the Lamb of God made sense to them. So few of of us have ever brought in a sheave. Even fewer depend on fishing as a livelihood. In 21st century America only 1% of the people have daily contact with living farm animals and the mystery of life and death. The forms of worship which evolved in pastoral societies and the moral code it gave us is found lacking the emotional satisfaction it gave the ancients. What is mysterious to modern man is how television and indoor plumbing work. Our Churches are relics of a world where half of the children died before age 5 and everybody knew women who died giving birth. A man who lived long enough to see his grandchildren was unusual. Famines were all too common and only the priviliged owned a chair.
I think a religon for the 21st century would involve sun worship of some sort. What are needed are good stories to teach to our children about the wonders of evolution and thermodynamics.
I fear we're more likely to burn the "evolutionists" in the town square.
I could see people turning against science and technology, just as people in times past turned against the established religions.
As our Druid friend has pointed out, "science and technology" is essentially a religion. Carl Sagan was one of the saints.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
Couldn't see exactly in that article what you were referring to, but I'm quite prepared to fight the notion that science is essentially a religion. There are absolutely fundamental differences between them.
About the only shared context is the fact that most of us simply have to take scientists' word for it when they proclaim such and such to be the case, because there simply isn't the time (or even intellectual capacity) for the majority of the population to genuinely understand the reasoning and research that's behind modern scientific theories. And of course, there are examples of scientists hanging on to "scientific dogma" even when plenty of evidence existed to indicate a problem, but it never lasts - and it certainly doesn't occur to the anything like the degree that it does wrt religious belief.
The process of scientific thought is about as diametrically opposed to religious thought as is imaginable.
Technology is a slightly different story - I accept that many people have less-than-well-justified "faith" that technology will always be able to make things better for us, no matter what the situation.
My personal take on technology is that, over the long term (centuries), yes, it will inevitably continue to advance as it is has in the past, but it is no guarantee against significant setbacks, and is just as likely to exacerbate a problem than make it better. Certainly this will be case wrt Peak Oil and climate change.
The essay is here. That other was just a link to his site.
His point being that despite the empirical methods used to acquire much of science, people cling to its teachings as they would to religious dogma.
And in all likelihood will turn away from it when it no longer provides so bountifully.
Clinging to "teachings" despite evidence to the contrary is obviously just part of human nature. Religions BASE themselves around this, whereas science is an attempt to advance past that.
I'm an atheist, but i admire the togetherness and support of my brother-in-law's baptist church. They will probably be a community that sticks together and shares their skills, if not their material possessions. I suspect most of them have guns, and a lot of them work in the nondiscretionary economy.
Hallelujah.
This atheist will be born again before the shootin' starts. As Mr. Spock might say, to behave in a way which will predictably place one in danger would be illogical.
Kalpa,
I don't in any way mean to discredit the good work done in name of churches, mosques and synagogues. Fact is, though, that religion has historically always been the main way to get people out into the battle zone. A religious leader who convinces people that it's G-d's will that they kill, is more convincing than a political leader.
Yes, and those are 2 different subjects: 1) the good that churches do--seldom mentioned on TOD and the 2) evil that some churches do --frequently mentioned here on TOD. Altruism is found throughout the populations of local churches in America. They contribute to oversees welfare programs, as well. As for the psychological impacts that churches have, I'll hope for more peaceful sangas. I have seen it said that Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in America, another fact that the MSM would not have Europeans and American haters believe. Go to Barnes and Nobel and look at the religion section of the magazines sold and you will see this.
Gott mit uns!
When the church saw that sending crusaders to the holy lands was a losing proposition they decided to work closer to home with an inquisition. Busy, busy, busy...
True, but I'd submit the religious argument is usually just that - a way to "get people out into the battle zone", not the real reason for starting the war in the first place, which 9 times out of 10 would be a land/resource issue, just as it is with aggression among other species. E.g. the Spanish Christians when 'reclaiming' Moorish Spain for themselves were probably convinced by the powers that be that they were doing it in the name of God, but in reality they wanted their land back. That line of reasoning doesn't hold so well for the Crusaders that fought the Moslems in Jerusalem - most likely that was an issue of "let's not just protect our current land from invading Moslems, let's get rid of them altogether". Of course, the religion was also important in the sense that it defined to a degree what separated one tribe from another (especially in the case of Spain, where there wasn't a great deal of genetic difference).
I just received a letter from my utility supplier (SRP- Salt River Project) in the Phoenix metro area
It says "Since SRP first introduced the EarthWise Solar Energy progam in 2004
the program has continued to grow in popularity. Today we have over 180 customers taking advantage of this program".
This program includes solar hot water systems as well as PV systems.
Some basic info about SRP. They serve 15 cities in the Phoenix metro area.
They can generate up to 2949 Mwts with gas fired plants, 2566 Mwts from coal fired plants, 654 Mwts from their share of the Palo Verde Nuclear plant, and 421 Mwts from hydroelectric plants.
This info can be found at http://srpnet.com
Over 180 solar customers after a 2 1/2 year period out of several 100K
users in the middle of a desert with highest level of solar activity in the USA!!!!
When the first extended mass blackout (>12hrs) hits there will be a "stampede" for PV systems. I'm afraid that if the blackout goes beyond 24 hrs over 180 customers will become much to popular.
DD
"Hell hath no fury like a FWO who just lost his job, his SUV and his McMansion."
You mean like this?
In her book, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, Barbara Tuchman writes about a peasant revolt in 1358 that began in the village of St. Leu and spread throughout the Oise Valley. At one estate, the serfs sacked the manor house, killed the knight, and roasted him on a spit in front of his wife and kids. Then, after ten or twelve peasants violated the lady, with his children watching, they forced her to eat the roasted flesh of her husband and then killed her.
No he shows he practices what he learned and that was to be nice even to his enemys otherwise he would not of sent that check without his name on it to help that person with his wife's medical problems.
as for the change not going to happen. i agree with you and i will go one step further. all the places he visted will once the full effects of peak oil will get worse. even cuba who while uses little oil, is far from using NO oil. the oil they get is from venesulia in exchange for their doctors.
all the places he visted will once the full effects of peak oil will get worse.
Remember, its not the fall that kills you, it is the sudden stop at the bottom.
Moore is pointing out the obvious, to anyone paying attention.
Moot point, argument is over and settled:
All first world democracies have universal health care, they live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate, and do it for half the cost.
Europeans are getting taller (universally a sign of better health and nutrition), while we in the USA are getting shorter (this is across class lines).
So, what shall we do, let the insurance companies keep taking their third off the top? Or suffer in the name of idology of the free market, and our god capital? (Well, it is actually monopoly capitalism, but that is another story----)