For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:13 pm Post subject: Which place will be harder hit? The First world, or Third?
My guess is Third World will be harder hit. And Fourth World (areas worse than Third World) even worse.
So many under-developed nations are dependent upon medicines produced in the West.
As the world's system breaks down, fewer of these medicines will reach them and there would be mass epidemics, combined with wars inevitably following.
Kiss goodbye to the humanitarian aids also. Fewer people would have the stomachs for saving some third world country when chaos is happening in their backyard.
The 1.6 billion 'primitive' farmers, of which about half are in China and India would probably not know why their crops are dying and they are getting sick when water purification systems finally give way.
The world didn't have 1.6 billion two hundred years ago.
And I don't think some 'optimists' understand the damages humans inflicted to the nature over the last few hundred years.
I think that the crisis will hit hardest in the least developed regions. Unlike the better-informed first worlders, the third and fourth worlders won't really understand what caused all these mess so they will have practically no preparation.
All third world nations are not created equal. Different areas have different problems. The same thing with first world nations. The die off will not be uniform and I do believe there will be pockets of survival in both first and third. At least the third worlders are used to these problems and know how to adopt. Some first world nations such as USA are not used to this at all and will have severe problems coping.
I agree - the third world will be the first (and worst) hit.
The key issue is that if a limited supply exists, those with the most money, power, or both will get those supplies. The third world has neither.
Interestingly, the economic and political elites within third world nations will probably cause their nations to continue producing food and other resources for first world nations because they will want the flow of money and access to first world benefits for themselves.
Even today, such places as Sudan have extensive starvation; and, truth be told, nobody cares. I expect this trend to grow.
And yet...Third Worlders are so much more USED to poverty, surviving on nothing, surviving civil turmoil, rebuilding after destruction....
Yes, more PEOPLE will die. They are in dire circumstances that are about to become more dire. Yet given the lifestyle we First Worlders have enjoyed throughout the Oil Age, one wonders if, ironically, AFTER the crash and die-off, which of us who survive will fare better.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 9:01 pm Post subject:
3rd will suffer first (they already are). Then the 1st world. Reapergirl's post also applies. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Joined: Jul 07, 2004 Posts: 434 Location: Berkeley CA
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:01 am Post subject:
I agree, 3rd world countries will be hit the hardest. We have 1 billion people in the 3rd world living in absolute poverty. This means they're living in starvation like conditions, they don't get enough and or clean water to drink, no healthcare.
In the 3rd world most of the people are poor, theres those few who are rich, and those who are in government will fare well.
Other than that, there are those people in the 3rd world called subsistance farmers, they live on a small plot of land, they produce enough for themselves, and a little bit for the market, and best of all they're sustainable. I've heard subsistance farmers had been farming the land in remote parts of China for generation after generation. Those will be able to survive, if they don't have modern help, fertilizers, etc... to start out with in the first place. _________________ my page:
www.myspace.com/peakoil
Nope, its the first that will suffer bad. Cottonwool land will be rockhard without the suuuuppermaaartkets, Suuuuvvvvv's, yummmyyy goooodiies, blah, blah, blah. Don't forget, the third still uses folk remedies and all that to a large degree.
Joined: Sep 30, 2004 Posts: 975 Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:24 am Post subject: The Depression 1930
I meant to post to this thread but I couldn't find it when I came back with my new book:
The Global Impact of the Great Depression 1929-39 by Dietmar Rothermund
I was very surprised how far the Great Depression spread in 1930+ even thought the world was less globalised then, and less dependent on oil.Even as far as Burma and India which were British colonies then so didn't have their own govts.
Even back then 3rd world "subsistence farmers" had moneylenders, landlords and taxes to pay; so they had to have cash crops and couldn't just say, rip out the sugar and grow food for themselves.
Discussing Turkey and Egypt Rothermund says, for example:
Quote:
In both countries the burden imposed by the depression was shifted to the rural poor. As has been mentioned above, taxation remained at fairly high levels and a retreat into subsistence agriculture was not possible for the peasantry
He then goes on to use figures of maize and wheat consumption(the staples of the poor) going down by 26% per capita. He doesn't say, or doesn't have figures for what happened but I'd say *Ouch*. If you are not well nourished anyway and your food goes down by a quarter I'd think that would kill the old and the weak.
But also the Depression crushed people's lives too in the West: perfectly viable farming businesses went to the wall because their banks crashed.
I think it is a perfect storm and I doubt anywhere can ride it out.
Once again, I do not think there is a simple black and white answer to this question.
First world states are heavily energy users. Some use more than others, but in they all require energy to function. Eventually the crunch will impact them (the only question being before or after the third world). I am not sure all will be able to cope.
Third world states are energy wannabes. Few drive or have modern amenities, so per capita a decline shouldn't be noticable, but... Most of these countries are dependent on abundant food supplies (fossil fuel grown) and medicine (again fossil fuel dependant). A cut back in energy in those two sectors would be catestrophic to some countries. Like the first world, it is not clear who will make it or break it.
* * *
Here is what I think will be the determining factors for survivability:
TANGIBLE
* Access to fresh water without an extensive supply networks (California)
* Relatively under populated areas. Yes these exist. Think of any area that held more people before industrialization but has seen consistant pop decreases due to economic draw elsewhere (think rural areas of many countries first and third world)
* Access to renewable energy resources (wind, sun, geo-thermal, biomass) in sufficient quantities to support local population ONLY. (think remote Andean town that is powered by MicroHydro turbine)
* A non hostile climate. There will always be people living on every part of the planet BUT the best places to be are not too HOT/COLD/WET/DRY/Etc. You get the idea.
INTANGIBLE
* Educated populace. A more educated population would have a better chance of understanding why things are happening and what they can do to prevent or survive them
* Government. Either a positive or negative. The actions of the government can help a society re-allocate resource usage in an equitable power down strategy (not all governments are warmongering energy pigs) ensuring the maximum amount of survivability at the best possible standard of living. Cuba isn't quite there yet, but their handling of the artificial energy peak shows promise. Even if the national level government wont cut it, local jurisdictions might. You never know. On the other hand, bad governance can make the situation much much worse.
* Culture. Difficult to qualify but a culture based on competition/consumption will fare worse when the energy is cut off than one that is used to sharing. This is a generalization, but you get the idea.
* Luck. Sometimes luck makes all the difference. In this case I am imagining bad luck befalling your enemy allowing your survival.
Bottom line: I'd rather be in a number of third world rural areas than some US cities. Of course I would never want to be near any third world city. THat's where I think the worst will happen first. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:06 pm Post subject: Think of the folks that think they are middle class
Think how people respond to a sports team winning a great game. They riot. If folks think they will be short changed on gas after waiting hours to fill up they will get guns. Or worse they can't afford to fill their tank and they are faced with the notion of riding a bike or walking to work, it will not be taken well. Gas lines worse that what was seen in the 1970's with no hope of getting better will force the US government to declare marshall law. As food starts to become more scarce and far more difficult to transport think how a huge number of people will respond. Most folks have convinced themselves that they cannot make food from scratch. They are hooked on fast food. If there is some sharp increases in inflation and prices this will push a strained middle class to the brink. I would avoid a major city during times of food scarcity.
I agree with those that say the rural areas will fair better than any city.
What happens to this picture with high oil prices and world recession?
I would guess that exports of aircraft, capital goods, services (including entertainment royalties and software) and autos (Detroit gas guzzlers) will not do well.
Eight of the top ten trading partners are industrialized countries (the others being Mexico and China) - no OPEC countries make the list (although Canada and Mexico export oil to the US).
I had trouble finding this information. The problem is, there is too much data out there - you can download whole CDs that give trade data for every US state with every country in the world. Any suggestions?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
