Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Globalists Want To Cull 90% Of World’s Population

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sat 29 Sep 2007, 19:24:44

Ferretlover wrote:When TSHTF, I think we are all going to be surprised, even those of us who have been trying to determine the when, how and what-then of it...


You are correct, but it's certainly better to have some idea of what might work. That's what I'm hoping to get from this thread.

The choices are clear to anyone who has eyes to see, and trust me that many have seen them quite clearly especially among the so-called "planners":

-massive population crashes in the 3rd world combined with global resource wars. This means mass mobilization/rationing/high level of societal control in the first world. The highest risk along this path is nuclear war (followed by Mad Max), because the third world will not just sit down and be content to die off so that we can continue our lifestyle.

-massive global unrest, including in the first world, followed either by martial law and something akin to a panopticon version of the Third Reich or by collapse of governments and a Mad Max scenario.

-a move towards authoritarianism, with imposition of the measures needed to insure survival, with cooperation from as many sectors of the population as possible and with repression of those sectors who insist on living in the clouds.

Pick your poison.

One more thing. The current left/right paradigm is obsolete and utterly incapable of producing any useful political framework for dealing with this sort of problem. That's why I fully expect that the asinine representatives of both sides will be shoved aside by the people once TSHTF.

Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby hi-fiver » Sat 29 Sep 2007, 22:52:28

One giant step for mankind would be for Catholicism to embrace birth control.
User avatar
hi-fiver
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Soldotna, Alaska

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 01:37:46

hi-fiver wrote:One giant step for mankind would be for Catholicism to embrace birth control.


It would also be nice of them to give up their luxurious residences in Rome, it's a disgrace to see the so-called followers of Jesus displaying such opulence.
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby gg3 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 05:13:12

Start here: human ecological footprint (see WWF, "ecological footprint") is presently 2.1 Earths. Thus we are already in overshoot. Sutainability is a tradeoff between population and consumption (resource throughput per person). At 2 - 3 billion humans we can have an approximately European standard of living: fully comfortable but highly efficient. The USA standard of living (slightly more comfortable, highly wasteful) is sustainable for a total population of about 1/2 billion. For a population of 6.5 billion, Cuba of all places, is exactly on target (tolerable considering some of the alternatives, even acceptable, and even acceptable to folks like me who find communism a bad dream). Get to around 8 billion and we are looking at Somalia, and much beyond that, we are looking at something far worse we don't even have a name for yet.

So let's assume that the goal is 2.5 billion at a European standard of living. The world at-large has to get its population level down by half, and the USA has to get its resource throughput per person down by half. These two need to go hand-in-hand for practical reasons, and doing so will also meet ethical criteria whereby substantial efforts are made on all sides rather than on one side only.

And here also, defining values include minimizing the degree of intrusiveness of the various measures. Note that control of reproduction in and of itself is not as highly intrusive as any number of other measures such as reduction in citizenship rights as a function of number of offspring. There is no right to reproduce, period. Another defining value is that a living person is of near-infinite value but a blastocyst is of zero value. That is, we want to treat living persons as if their lives are worth preserving if at all possible, but "potential persons" (the "unborn child," the "unconceived child," and also the "inconceivable child") are not living persons and thus have no rights or moral standing.

So, onward toward the means.

Means vary by local conditions; what works in one place may not in another.

1) For the "third world" particularly the places with higest birth rates:

Education for female humans past the 6th grade results in a 50% reduction in birth rate, purely voluntarily. Thus, globally, full legal and cultural equality for females, including education commensurate with that available to males. This will have to be enforced with trade incentives and sanctions, embargoes where needed, and in some places by military means, and by the latter I mean international allied attacks & occupations, and cultural change imposed from the outside if needed (it worked in Japan after WW2, preserving what could be preserved of existing Japanese culture and radically overhauling the aspects that had become a threat to world peace).

International economic aid should be contingent upon negative population growth, and the message made clear, via means that governments cannot censor (long technical digression omitted to save space): "If you breed like mice, you will starve like mice and no help will be forthcoming. If you want to eat, you must reduce your population, and then you will get all the help that can be mustered."

This will of course cause social upheavals. However social upheavals are inevitable one way or the other; better to have them along the route to sustainability than along the route back to the caves.

2) For the "developed" world:

And here I am focusing on the US since that's what I know best. We too have to bring down our numbers, because every child born here presently consumes as much as ten born in India. And so....

--

Free contraception, family planning, and abortion on demand, for anyone and everyone who asks. Condoms and pills etc. etc. made available at zero cost in every pharmacy, government-subsidized (and rendered revenue-neutral via the baby tax).

Sex ed in schools to include strong focus on "which method of birth control each of you will choose and why," and the technical details of using the various methods. Also teach the technicalities of non-P/V forms of intercourse: masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and sex with whatever other body parts won't cause a pregnancy.

The puritans are going to have a cow over this. Fine, let 'em. Come right back with an in-your-face campaign to explain that puritanism is a psychiatric disturbance of people who are sexually repressed. One thing that will also help is to decriminalize and then legalize recreational marijuana because it will create a culture of sensual hedonism that will effectively take over and leave the puritans as a tiny and ineffective minority. Legalizing recreational marijuana will also have the effect of reducing consumption levels: people who are high tend to loll around and enjoy whatever is present in their immdiate surroundings, and aren't motivated to go shopping for recreation.

--

Tax policy.

You have no children during your working life, you get a much bigger pension when you retire, to compensate for the "retirement survival value" of offspring.

You can have as many children by adoption as you can reasonably support. Economic means-testing is relevant here to prevent abuse.

You have one child by reproduction, you are tax-neutral: no benefits, no additional taxes.

For the second child and beyond, an exponentially increasing tax burden to the point where it becomes simply unaffordable to have more.

--

Incentives for voluntary sterilization.

These incentives should be designed to appeal first and foremost to people who are short-sighted, venal, and of below-average intelligence and physical stamina. In other words, those who are both lazy and stupid. Yes, voluntary eugenics, the reason being that ordinarily it's the smarter and more farsighted who voluntarily limit their breeding, and it's the lazy and stupid who multiply like mice; thus the policy needs to offest for this factor.

Thereby, The Dude is right on target about giving away an iPhone for every vasectomy or tubal ligation. iPhones however appeal to people who are technologically aware, so the incentives to get the multiplying morons to line up for the snip-snip have to be geared to their existing lifestyles. Overt status symbols might work well here, so long as they don't result in greatly increased consumption levels (e.g. giving away SUVs won't do).

Over time the incentives can be increased to attract more and more people. Ultimately it might be necessary to bid up the rate to a year's income at middle-class wages. That's still a hell of a lot more affordable than breeding ourselves over a cliff.

--

Mandatory measures:

There is no need to strip people of their rights, though evading paternity should be criminalized, with appropriate penalties applied by judges at trial (e.g. 5 years in prison, or get sterilized and walk free).

What I would really like to see: Universal aptitude testing and reproduction licensing.

Starting in the first grade, you are tested on every measurable element of human performance: physical, intellectual, and whatever else can be measured. If you can consistently perform at the 75th percentile or higher on any one thing, you get to keep your reproductive capacity. That means the smart, strong, creative, and capable, will all be able to reproduce. Someone who is none of the above, will not.

Then at the age of puberty, everyone gets reversibly sterilized. This would be the age of first menstrual period for females, and the age of first ejaculation for males, or by default at age 12.

Now in order to get the permit to make a baby, your test scores get pulled up and used to make the determination. If you're below the 75th percentile on everything, no permit, no baby. If you're above the 75th percentile on anything at all, you get the permit, and your similarly-screened partner also gets the permit. You both get your respective tubes reconnected until the baby is delivered, and then you both get your tubes disconnected again.

The only way to get a reconnect after that, is if your kid dies via means that are ruled to have been truly beyond your control, e.g. run over by a car driven by a stranger. Parents who are found to have killed one kid in order to have a chance at having another, would be permanently sterilized in addition to whatever other criminal penalties they faced.

Realistically...

None of the above is likely (grammar note: "none" = "not one," which is singular, thus "none is..." rather than "none are"), and so each of us should be preparing for life in a period of the type of collapse that necessarily follows overshoot: a nasty, violent, disease-infested dark age that lasts for a century or longer.

Get yourself to a place that you can reasonably expect will be one of the numerous but relatively small areas of light amidst the prevailing darkness. Do it as soon as possible.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: population control options

Unread postby Zardoz » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 06:39:55

Ludi wrote:That's a weird idea. Generally folks in villages are very community oriented...

Ludi, you live in tiny little community of something less than 200 people, I believe. Did you say there were only 63 permanent residents around you?

I think perhaps your opinions on many subjects would change very drastically if you lived like the majority of the people of the world live now, in communities many thousands of times larger than yours.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: population control options

Unread postby Egomancer » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 08:10:05

btu2012 wrote:I have to agree with this. I bet Egomancer has no direct experience of the military or of war, that's why it's so easy for him to say such things.

Egomancer, nowadays they kill people with missiles and with bombs/rockets from airplanes, helicopters and tanks. Or from 40 miles away with projectiles from ship cannons. What does that have to do with fitness ?

No level of fitness will enable you to survive carpet bombing. Trust me, it's just blind luck.

Btu


The best fit society, not the best persons. I prefer to live in a world where the selection is based on war not on pills or some other insane control population scheme.

Look at the Russians into ww2. While they started as society with huge problems they finished it as a better one. I won't get into a lengthy explanation about how the social organization influence the course of a war and so on. Think at the war like a cleansing process of all the bad things that accumulate during peace. True, a lot of good things are lost, but the bad ones are eliminated for a long period of time.

Anyway, regardless of what we write on this forum, war was, is and will be the best way to reduce population fast.

Egomancer
User avatar
Egomancer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2007, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby Jack » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 09:54:24

btu2012 wrote:because the third world will not just sit down and be content to die off so that we can continue our lifestyle.


You don't need nuclear weapons to deal with the third world. Biological weapons are cheap, effective, and don't damage the real estate.

Smallpox comes to mind, as does influenza. Vaccinate those to be kept alive, spread the disease, and watch the fun begin. Keep a few nuclear weapons for high-value targets - a 5000 ft. airburst is a beautiful thing. The beauty of this is that they cannot shoot back.

That's right - just because a nation has a primitive nuclear weapon, it does not necessarily have an effective delivery system.

Once the foregoing is implemented, clean-up becomes relatively easy. Think of lots of long-range predator drones with IR capability, searching for biological heat sources.

I'd be glad to pilot one of those devices. 8)
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 10:45:35

Egomancer wrote:The best fit society, not the best persons.


Egomancer,

Hope you won't take this too badly but I really think that you don't know what you are talking about. Ask any Veteran, they will all tell you the same: modern War is Hell, and fitness has nothing to do with it. It's sheer, blind luck (plus technology).

By the way, the Russians could nuke the US at any time (true the US would nuke them back). Who would be the best fit society after such a mutually-suicidal exchange ?

You can't apply this sort of reasoning to modern war, any sufficiently large and sufficiently rich society can now commit genocide at the push of a few buttons. That tells us nothing about fitness.

Also consider this. The US never fought a really powerful adversary since WWII. You can't extrapolate from Panama to a final, genocidal war of survival over resources. It won't be a videogame this time, because the likely adversaries have quite a few toys of their own. Take a look at the Russian and Chinese arsenals (say at globalsecurity.org) and do the math. They can give anyone a run for their money.

Btu
Last edited by btu2012 on Sun 30 Sep 2007, 11:10:28, edited 1 time in total.
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 10:58:06

Jack wrote:You don't need nuclear weapons to deal with the third world. Biological weapons are cheap, effective, and don't damage the real estate.

Smallpox comes to mind, as does influenza. Vaccinate those to be kept alive, spread the disease, and watch the fun begin. Keep a few nuclear weapons for high-value targets - a 5000 ft. airburst is a beautiful thing. The beauty of this is that they cannot shoot back.


Jack, you are assuming that you will only have to deal with the Third World. Likely you will have to deal with shifting alliances between large developing countries, Russia and/or China, and smaller poor countries. This won't be a walk in the park.

Also consider that there is enough weaponry (including biological and chemical) and delivery vector technology in the developing world which could be shared very fast among the players of such alliances if they face an existential threat. Think China and Russia sharing part of their military technology with India, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and smaller players. You would be fighting such a block and not isolated 3rd world countries.

The scenario you are proposing could only work if you could perform say a stealthy biological first strike, with complete deniability as to the origin of the pathogen.

Did I mention that I find genocide and ethnicide to be a tad morally problematic ? Well, I didn't think you would care :)


Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 11:09:09

Egomancer wrote:I prefer to live in a world where the selection is based on war not on pills or some other insane control population scheme.


You know Egomancer, you have to be careful what you wish for because the way things are going you might just get your wish. You better bite your tongue when you write such things.

About the Soviet Union in WW2, with all due respect, I think that again you have no idea what you are talking about. Ask the Russians if they think that that carnage increased their society's "fitness".

Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby HEADER_RACK » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 11:54:46

I say do nothing.Nature will dispense it's on population control in time.
I see no problem what so ever with a couple having 10 kids on their 40 acre farm. They have enough land to grow their own food to support those 10 kids. If I have enough land to support me and mine, what difference does it make to me that someone else doesn't? I'm not in overshoot. They are!
It seems to me implementing forced population controls just allows people to live in a unsustainable habitat and in overshoot. Take the 10 kids on the 40 acre farm. They are sustainable, but if we limit the number of children that couple can have to only two then all that excess food that would naturaly go to them is freed up to get shipped to somewhere where someone isn't able to grow the food that they need to survive and allow them to have their two kids.
I say have as many kids as you can sustain yourself. If you can't sustain any then don't have any. If you have more than what you can support, oh well you will have to pay the piper. Don't make someone else pay to get you out of the fix you put yourself in and don't cry that it's not fair bullsh#t . Life isn't fair
Nothing is more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose but has everything left to gain.
User avatar
HEADER_RACK
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu 15 Feb 2007, 04:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby Jack » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 13:50:53

btu2012 wrote:Jack, you are assuming that you will only have to deal with the Third World. Likely you will have to deal with shifting alliances between large developing countries, Russia and/or China, and smaller poor countries. This won't be a walk in the park.


I suppose my working model is Poland, circa 1939, and the arrangement between Germany and the USSR. Further back, European nations carved up the developing nations. One must simply come to some sort of agreement.

btu2012 wrote:
Did I mention that I find genocide and ethnicide to be a tad morally problematic ? Well, I didn't think you would care :)


Oh, but I do care. The moral and ethical constructs people adopt is an important variable in my calculations. Thank you for the information. 8)
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby Egomancer » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 15:36:52

btu2012 wrote:You know Egomancer, you have to be careful what you wish for because the way things are going you might just get your wish. You better bite your tongue when you write such things.

About the Soviet Union in WW2, with all due respect, I think that again you have no idea what you are talking about. Ask the Russians if they think that that carnage increased their society's "fitness".

Btu


Well, I do not want to get into a flame war, but believe me, you do not want to be put into a birth control schema - think how it is to live being a jew under the nazi regime, or a Cambodgian under Pol Pot. Or being an armean in turkey. There is a long history of 'birth control' schemes in the world all ment to reduce population.

Going to soviet union, before ww2 it was not exactly a nation - I am talking about the whole soviet union, not Russia only. The war just tied the connections between the various nations that were forming it. Also the USSR government was a lot more efficient in 45 than in 39. The same ruthlessness was present, but the government was more efficient and the life for the people was better because the country went from a regime of terror to a meritocracy. This is really a long discussion about USSR in 39 and USSR in 45. There are a few russians here and they can confirm or not my theory.

Egomancer
User avatar
Egomancer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2007, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 16:47:41

Egomancer wrote:Well, I do not want to get into a flame war, but believe me, you do not want to be put into a birth control schema - think how it is to live being a jew under the nazi regime, or a Cambodgian under Pol Pot. Or being an armean in turkey. There is a long history of 'birth control' schemes in the world all ment to reduce population.


You are confusing contraception with genocide.

Egomancer wrote:There are a few russians here and they can confirm or not my theory.


Well I certainly look forward to input on this from people who were born in the former USSR.

Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 16:56:05

Jack wrote:I suppose my working model is Poland, circa 1939, and the arrangement between Germany and the USSR. Further back, European nations carved up the developing nations. One must simply come to some sort of agreement.


You are assuming that the US will be in the position of one of the successful aggressors, rather than in that of victim. I hate to break it to you, but there is no such assurance. History is full of surprises.


Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby Egomancer » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 17:13:42

btu2012 wrote:Egomancer,

Hope you won't take this too badly but I really think that you don't know what you are talking about. Ask any Veteran, they will all tell you the same: modern War is Hell, and fitness has nothing to do with it. It's sheer, blind luck (plus technology).

By the way, the Russians could nuke the US at any time (true the US would nuke them back). Who would be the best fit society after such a mutually-suicidal exchange ?

You can't apply this sort of reasoning to modern war, any sufficiently large and sufficiently rich society can now commit genocide at the push of a few buttons. That tells us nothing about fitness.

Also consider this. The US never fought a really powerful adversary since WWII. You can't extrapolate from Panama to a final, genocidal war of survival over resources. It won't be a videogame this time, because the likely adversaries have quite a few toys of their own. Take a look at the Russian and Chinese arsenals (say at globalsecurity.org) and do the math. They can give anyone a run for their money.

Btu


You start with the assumption that you are going to have a 100% delivery of the nuclear missiles to the target which is false. Furthermore you assume that the current delivery rate of the missiles will remain the same. But the technology advances and I can bet that in 10 years at most the curent ICBMs won't have a 100% delivery rate, more a 5-10% one at best. This is because the AA rockets will be more efficient and an umbrella will be put over the developed countries.

I have posted here (in this forum) that there will be 2 elements that will trigger ww3 - and they are an efficient anti ICBM missile system to protect the country against nukes and an electrical tank to invade another country and not to depend on oil. From what I know US is working on both systems and the same do EU.

Going back to the 'best fit society' thing the main idea is that after a war generally survive only the ones that allocate the resources in the most efficient way. I am not talking about the one with the richest people, or with the smartest people or the most beautiful ones, I am talking about the one that puts the right people in the right places and that spends the money the right way. Of course there isn't a clear definition about how to spend money or how to assign people to jobs but I am sure you know what i am talking about.

To develop advanced defence systems you need a lot of money - so you country must have the money and the people (knowledge) to produce them. Also you need stability so you can finish the projects. The list of requirements is long. You do not need to be a democracy to have a functional society (this is one myth propagated now by the US goverment). I will post more about this tomorrow, I go watch a movie now :P

Egomancer
User avatar
Egomancer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2007, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby Egomancer » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 17:16:26

btu2012 wrote:
You are confusing contraception with genocide.



Killing the parents is a form of contraception. The idea of the thread was population reduction not contraception - at least in my mind.

Egomancer
User avatar
Egomancer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2007, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 17:32:07

Egomancer wrote:Going back to the 'best fit society' thing the main idea is that after a war generally survive only the ones that allocate the resources in the most efficient way.


By your argument, Nazi Germany should have won WW2.

I think that most historians would agree that their military machine was the most modern and efficient in that conflict. One can see this by looking at the kill ratio of German soldiers (I think it was something like 20:1 versus the Russians). Also German tanks, airplanes etc were technically superior to anything produced by the allies until late 1944. Their military organization and training were superb. They were the best "fit" of the combatant societies according to your criteria.

Why did Germany loose given that its military machine was qualitatively superior ?

One word: size. German economy was too small compared to the combined Allied economies. The US, British, Russian military machines were qualitatively inferior, but they were larger when combined and thus overproduced the Germans. That's all. Sheer quantity.

Anyway, this is getting way out of topic. Unfortunately one can't engage everybody so I will have to assume that people who are interested in this thread at least recognize the validity of its premise, namely that genocidal wars aren't a good thing and that we ought to avoid them. Ultimately it's a moral call as Jack says, so if someone doesn't share this premise then they should be free to bet their survival on their Darwinian fitness. I wish them good luck.

Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

Re: population control options

Unread postby Jack » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 18:50:04

btu2012 wrote:You are assuming that the US will be in the position of one of the successful aggressors, rather than in that of victim. I hate to break it to you, but there is no such assurance. History is full of surprises.


Good point. Still, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: population control options

Unread postby btu2012 » Sun 30 Sep 2007, 20:21:11

Jack wrote:Good point. Still, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.


Well this thread is about ways to reduce the number of global deaths as much as possible. Unfortunately this must involve a certain level of coercion, which is unavoidable when faced with a survival-level threat (and of course there is no society which is completely free of coercion, though coercion mutually agreed upon -- what we usually call laws -- is considered ethically acceptable by most people).

Since I've been lurking on this site for years, I know that you don't believe any mitigation is possible or even advisable and that you prefer the way of war. I respect that choice even though I do not agree with it. However notice that societies at war are usually much more coercive than peaceful ones. The same is true of a Mad Max scenario which would be dominated by warlords as we see in Somalia. Warlords tend to be very coercive people, they punish disobedience by death.

But then I guess you'd expect to become one of the warlords so maybe that's not a concern for you. It's a very risky bet though.


Btu
only the paranoid survive
User avatar
btu2012
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: third from the sun

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests