[onlooker]

Okay, touching on the last few posts. I can envision what can be termed a best case scenario. However, I disagree with Ibon. They're still will be a sizable die off in the poorer very overpopulated South. I don't know how one can avoid that when around the very populated tropical regions, water scarcity, heat intolerance for plant food, disease outbreak and unaffordable FF among other factors will gravely imperil these regions and their populations.

Howeve,r in the richer less populated North especially N. America, I think we can maintain cohesion of Society and avoid large scale die off by being diligent in preparing for the coming eventualities. I do believe it is critical though to start transitioning to non GHG energy sources as we are pushing the Climate to the brink. Now, in terms of obsessing, well yes let us not obsess with the grim aspects of all this but rather envision what silver linings they're will be in the clouds.

[vtsnowedin]

But if there's no eminent doom, there will be no basis for carbon taxes and redistribution of all that cash to faux green techie projects and yearly climate gabfests and money for tree ring and coral studies and the IPCC ......?

The governments need to raise taxes just to pay their current bills and the interest on their accumulated debts. If they raise fuel taxes both motor fuels and heating oil and coal they can depress demand for those fuels and reduce CO2 emissions.
The trick would be to get them to reduce other taxes to balance the carbon tax so their is only a slight net increase in total taxes raised. This goes against the grain of every bureaucrats and politicians soul.

[KaiserJeep]

The new cash crop for the former temperate regions of North America will be sugar cane. The demand for the natural sugar sweetener, combined with the amount used to mix the ethanol into the (new normal) E85 motor fuels will exceed the demand for the grains presently used for the animal feeds needed for pigs and cattle. (Dessert is more important than meat for 30 million type 2 diabetics).

The Kennedy/Shriver family "cottage" on Cape Cod will become an offshore retreat behind a seawall, reached only by boats and helicopters.

In the mostly abandonned Southern USA, fleets of air-conditioned mechanical harvesters are gathering the rampant Kudzu that grows where cities and suburbs once stood. This wondrous substance will be mixed with the famous "mystery meat" and used as basic "Soylent Green" staple food wafers for the hordes of Social Security pensioners esconced in the high secuity Senior Centers that are surrounded by barbed wire, watch towers, and savage guard dogs.

Meanwhile, back at the online Peak Oil ranch, the AGW/CC debate is reaching yet another frenzied peak. As is the perpetual thread on gun control, and the ever fierce debate on US Politics.

(There, I don't actually believe the above, but I wanted to wish the other members a good weekend.)

[onlooker]

There, I don't actually believe the above, but I wanted to wish the other members a good weekend.)

And to you also. Actually, your scenarios sound quite plausible K.
Now, I won't obsess anymore with future scenarios lest I incur the wrath of the real Overshoot Predator - Ibon

[Newfie]

Soooo, then the 'best' we can hope for is a small scale nuke war?

That would counter act 2-3 years of warming.

[dohboi]

Good point.

On the larger issue, last fall we had a set of weather disasters that will in retrospect will be seen as relatively mild precursors to the truly mega-storms that wipe out city after coastal city.

Meanwhile, inland, the cycle of droughts and floods will get ever more intense and nastier, making life, for humans as well as for the crops and animals that support us, less and less tenable.

Yes, there are many other threats, and we can't know if all this will lead to one sudden decisive crash or to a series of downsteps or just gradual deterioration. But it ain't gonna be pretty, and we certainly have no basis for ruling out for certain any of the above.

OL wrote: " N. America, I think we can maintain cohesion of Society..." I must admit that this made me laugh. We barely have a 'cohesive Society' (why the cap, one wonders) in these relatively good, prosperous times. Many have said the level of internal turmoil is reminiscent of the years and months before the Civil War. I don't think we will have to wait for (even more) major GW juiced disasters for this place to fly apart into chaos or into (an even more) totalitarian nightmare.

Mostly, though, things are working pretty much as 'planned' in the good ol' US of A: The super rich are getting super richer so that they can insulate themselves ever more effectively from whatever sh!t storm is coming down the pike. Meanwhile, the rest of us are getting (mostly) ever poorer and ever more vulnerable to having whatever is left of our lives obliterated by whatever proximate disaster comes along, whether it be climatic, economic, medical, or (often) some combination of those and others, all while the already shredded safety nets get further shredded and incinerated around us.

[onlooker]

Dohboi, I guess it's all relative. I mean look at the Middle East, Africa and South/Central America. So by cohesive I mean in the bare minimum of ways. Food, some Law and Order, Shelter, some healthcare and education. But I definitely get your point. Even in the last 20 years, the descent has been dramatic in the US.

[vtsnowedin]

Mostly, though, things are working pretty much as 'planned' in the good ol' US of A: The super rich are getting super richer so that they can insulate themselves ever more effectively from whatever sh!t storm is coming down the pike. Meanwhile, the rest of us are getting (mostly) ever poorer and ever more vulnerable to having whatever is left of our lives obliterated by whatever proximate disaster comes along, whether it be climatic, economic, medical, or (often) some combination of those and others, all while the already shredded safety nets get further shredded and incinerated around us.

Your view on poverty in America is not supported by the facts.
You might find this enlightening.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/1 ... Trends.pdf

The analyses in this report show clear progress in helping to protect vulnerable children and families from the worst economic hardships associated with poverty. The full social safety net has cut poverty
substantially and its impact on poverty rates among all people and among children has grown since the start of the War on Poverty. The positive impact of the tax and transfer system was especially apparent during the Great Recession, when the safety net expanded rapidly to meet higher levels of need as families faced increased difficulties making ends meet with earnings alone.

[Ibon]

Remember when we all got to the point where we realized that science and facts are no longer decisive in moving toward action. That politics and corporate spin rules. Rules because the masses want it so. We all know this. We also know that it is all the easier to be duped when you are told no change necessary, we can cope with whatever consequences come our way.

This reinforces what was stated earlier that it is better to let lethal natural consequences decide our fate rather than human agency trying to impose it's will on individual freedom. The irony is that we all lose our personal freedom of course when constraints force a police state to regulate efficiency which is what we will see happen. It will be justified in the name of security.

And you guys all know that in the same way that the masses allowed themselves to get duped that no changes are necessary they will be equally duped into agreeing to the draconian measures coming our way by the state in order to maintain security. All in the name of efficiency and the spin will call it "environmentalism".

Those of you who stay tethered to digital devices will pay the price as you will be coerced into hive mind conformity. The political polarity we see is representative. How each side feels such a powerful tribal alliance with their own team... This is hive mind at work.

Enabled by the hive mind internet.

You guys think I am a bit over the top with my anti digital and internet tirades. Years from now you will slowly acknowledge how ahead of the curve I have been in recognizing the internet as the greatest killer of individual empowerment.

[onlooker]

Ibon, I submit to you that this hive or group mentality has been fairly pervasive since Civilization first arose. This due to the hierarchical power structure, the affinity to group ourselves and the tendency to identify with certain groups. Also, in more recent times due to overpopulation and how this tends to restrict individual freedoms as the need to regulate and adapt to this overpopulation comes into play. So, yes the Internet does coalesce people into self affirming groupings but for a minority it can liberate them from the socializing protocols that enmesh people to identify with a group and allow them to stake their own individualized customized persona as they explore the range of ideas and customs throughout the world and chose the ones they prefer.
But, ultimately the powers that be will use as they are already, the Internet to enforce a certain domination and control over the masses, no doubt.

[KaiserJeep]

<expletive deleted>

Now you wait just a G*d D*mned minute! NEVER FORGET what "ceasing to burn fossil fuels" means! It means that 3/4ths of the human race starves to death, is what it means. We DO NOT have the means to feed 7.6 Billion humans without mechanized agriculture and by applying petrochemical fertilizers, herbicdes, and pesticides.

You ivory tower academics and mental midgets are pretending that this is a lifestyle choice that the rest of the world is making. It very definately is not. There is already famine and death and disease in this world. Cheap food makes the difference between starvation and mere malnutrition for billions of Third World citizens. The HAD the means to feed themselves a century ago, they DO NOT TODAY, after we "helped them out" with medicine, nutrition, water supplies, and sanitation. After the largesse of the First World nations caused their populations to explode by 10X or more, you would prescribe starvation and death for them.

The places that have already suffered famine and disease are where the steady flow of refugees are coming from. The places where they war over too-scarce resources. The places which were only marginally habitable without cheap fuels and petrochemicals.

This is NOT an academic discussion. I say that we burn every drop of oil and lump of coal for the benefit of humans. If that impacts the climate, so be it. I personally think the climate impact is minor, and I say FEED THOSE PEOPLE, that the rest of you knuckleheads would kill for the sake of your own comfort and convenience.

Buy two A/C's for your own comfort. Generate your own power, grow your own food, and leave those people alone to live their own lives.

[Newfie]

KJ,
Frankly I find your arguments lacking understanding and humanity. In the jargon of the day they would be described as “projections.” That is to say that you have a disability in hearing and understanding others. What you “hear” is much more indicative of your internal dialog.

You are not alone, we all do this to someone me extent. You just seem a bit extreme in this reguard with respect to this topic.

I tire of explaining myself to you and others of your persuasion. It is tedious and seems to only draw more insults.

[onlooker]

I am not going to say that KJ, lacks in compassion as he demonstrates clearly he has it for those teeming masses. I am going to say that we are all here trying to discuss an impossibly disturbing topic. No viable path to avoid in my opinion a sizable die off of the human population in rather nasty ways. So, I am not on this site to critize or judge others. Just to clarify what is the probable future of our species. Why? Precisely cause I do give a damn about each and every person on this planet now and into the future and wished to explore the options and alternatives. I will eventually will retreat to my local organic surroundings and to be with those I personally care about. Finally, in fairness to Ibon, KJ, he is it seems to me referring to all of us in the rich countries who have been reluctant to in anyway embrace powerdown and lowering of our living standards (as defined in current orthodox circles)

[KaiserJeep]

Newfie,

You act as if a First World lifestyle does not impact the Third World.

Well, it does. Every time that we consume more than our proportional share of the World, the share that they have shrinks, becomes less affordable for them. I have said many times, the Slow Crash began about 1800 when the number of people exceeded the sustainable number for the planet.

In the 19th Century, advances in Agriculture produced an abundance of food, and railroads and large wooden sailing ships allowed an International trade to develop. Still, this was mainly about exotic foodstuffs for the wealthier humans. The height of luxury in Victorian England was to have a greenhouse, which was called an "Orangerie", and used to grow oranges for the consumption of wealthy urbanites. They were also the ones who could afford spices from Africa, turbinado sugar cones from Jamaica, and dried dates from Arabia and so forth. Not to mention, distilled spirits.

The average American burns the same amount of fuel in a car that would feed a family of four in the Third World. If they own an RV or a boat or an airplane, make that 8-10 people. Gasoline and diesel is a convenience for us, and a necessity for them. We spend about 6% of our income on groceries, and another 4% on restaurants. That would be 10% for us, and 100% for them. Which is why they don't own clothing or shoes or a house with central heating and a clean water supply.

You have these things, and you are not willing to give them up, because they represent conveniences and lifestyle choices for YOU. Even as oil gets harder to produce and you must spend more of your income to eat, you will still eat and complain. As oil and energy grows to 10X the cost of today, you will eat and enjoy your comforts, they will starve. As oil gets 10X as expensive, you will be spending probably 75% of your income eating, and won't have a lot for elective purchases, and will probably own less of a house, fewer toys, and use a lot less energy than before.

Are you going to mail them a check to make yourself feel better about the situation?

[Ibon]

Are you going to mail them a check to make yourself feel better about the situation?

KJ, it is unoriginal and a tired old meme to show pictures of starving Sub Saharan Africans when referring a huge part of the planet that is not "first world". This is incredibly misleading. Those of us who have traveled extensively in developing countries recognizes the foolishness of your posts.

Of course there will be marginalized parts of the planet that will experience starvation. This has always been the case. That does not disprove my point that the matrix of global civilization is far more robust and resilient than many of you assume. 3/4ths starving because of peak oil as you say is ridiculous.

Folks, it isn't going to happen. Long before contraction leads to a die-off you will see draconian measures taken to keep the matrix of civilization intact, and by that I mean economies, governments, private industries, private and public institutions. The masses themselves will capitulate.

Why? Because it is the only game in town.

This is why this whole dialogue is absurd.

As Newfie says, many of you are simply projecting your internal dialogue out into the world at large. Onlooker, you are doing this to. And also as Newfie stated, we all tend to do this to a degree. It's silly and these threads lack any real integrity when all of the posters give precedence to their projections and internal narratives over attempting objectivity.

What is objective truth in regards to human overshoot. I do not have a fxxking clue. That is why I don't engage any more. It is a waste of time. The only thing that draws me here still is to point this out.

[Ibon]

Ibon, I submit to you that this hive or group mentality has been fairly pervasive since Civilization first arose.

Yes but never with such a global reach and in such a narrow bandwidth. This makes most people ultimately dependent and compliant with the dominant status quo. Which is the only game in town. This flawed matrix of civilization. Being flawed does not mean it lacks resiliency. Some of you see all of the flaws and therefore wrongly conclude that this is all a house of cards just needing a bit of climate change or peak oil to make it collapse. This is wrong. Something deeply flawed can still be very resilient.

[dohboi]

Mostly...what Newf and baha said...

vt, yes, 50 years ago LBJ's War on Poverty helped move things in the right direction, and many of those gains are still with us. More recent trends are not looking as promising, especially how things are shaping up under the current administration. It's also not particularly surprising that a government report would declare that the gov is doing a great job!

Compared to every other industrial society and many others we are not doing very well on most of these fronts.

[KaiserJeep]

You persist in misunderstanding what I am saying. Of course a starving Ethiopian does not buy or use gasoline directly. Because he buys cheap food produced with mechanized agriculture, until he has no money left.

After the First World buys petroleum on the open oil markets at prices we can afford and they cannot, we continue to haul our fat and lazy carcasses around, and they starve.

Don't pretend that overconsumption here doesn't make for starvation there. The direct connection is the price of oil. All of us here have made and continue to make lifestyle choices that starve them. Denying this does not make it any less true.

Trying to focus discussion on CC or AGW is to deny the rights of 3/4ths or more of the humans to live. Because the circa 1800 population of about 978 million is what we can support without exploiting oil. Modern knowledge of agriculture, plant genetics, and other things might double or triple that number. But there simply is no way that 7.7 billion can live without burning oil.

Dohboi, I remember LBJ's "War on Poverty" all too well.

Have you noticed that, 50+ years from its inception, no one is suggesting that the Apollo program was a failure? The Apollo program was an unchallenged success because it accomplished its stated goal: “…to land a man on the moon, and to return him safely to the earth.”

The stated goal of the War on Poverty, as enunciated by Lyndon Johnson on January 8, 1964, was, “…not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” Measured against this objective, the War on Poverty has not just been a failure, it has been a catastrophe. It was supposed to help America’s poor become self-sufficient, and it has made them dependent and dysfunctional.

Rest of it is at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/#6fe2bb616f49

[onlooker]

Kaiser is right about the oil and in general about the gross inequality related to resources and income. "Social & Economic Injustice
Socially and economically, we have created great disparities of wealth. A minority of the world's population (17%) consume most of the world's resources (80%), leaving almost 5 billion people to live on the remaining 20%."

http://worldcentric.org/conscious-livin ... -injustice