[ennui2]

Outside of worldsends like this. Like Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/we-ve-devoured-a-yea ... 1784968887

Now zoom down to the comments.

Really not that different from here. Drive-by snipes and empty displays of cynicism, followed by people going back to their daily affairs.

[GregT]

You can call "We’ve Devoured a Year’s Worth of Natural Resources in Just Seven Months" doom if you like, ennui2, most rational people would simply call it unsustainable. In other words, it isn't going to last for long before the consequences become too obvious to deny any longer.

Of course people like yourself will still believe that it's all some kind of a grand conspiracy theory.

[ennui2]

Huh? Where do I claim that such a thing is a conspiracy?

Oh, since I don't think doom is literally tomorrow I'm a corny? I'm tired of this false-dichotomy.

[Tanada]

I have always found it a bit interesting that to so many of our members if you are a not The End Is Nigh doomer then you are called a denier or a cornucopian. We used to have a dedicated cadre of cornies who were just as bad going the other way, if you saw any problem in life and pointed it out they labeled you a doomer.

How about we try sticking to what people actually post instead of how we can twist it to fit our preferred narrative?

[GregT]

How about we try sticking to what people actually post instead of how we can twist it to fit our preferred narrative?

Hmmm, I kind of thought I was sticking to the original post. I don't consider exploiting the Earth's natural resources at a rate much faster than they can replenish themselves to be doom. I consider it to be unsustainable. I also clearly see that most people are in complete denial of the reality of what unsustainable means, and the consequences of continuing down that road.

I find it quite amusing that I have been thought to be a doomer, when I have taken great strides to reduce my own personal carbon footprint, and to become as self sustainable as possible. I consider my actions to be net positive. From my point of view, it is the cornies who in reality are the real doomers. I see inaction and complacency as net negative, and not contributing anything positive towards any possible solution.

That's just my take. My bad.

[onlooker]

I do not consider many of the conclusions members have arrived at here to be doomerish but simply realistic given the available information. As for timetables that is irrelevant to the overall trajectory and dynamic that the human species finds itself in. So the flip side of criticizing premature end is nigh predictions is to assume thus that an end or doom scenario is not approaching or will not happen because it did not happen by so and so date

[GHung]

I do not consider many of the conclusions members have arrived at here to be doomerish but simply realistic given the available information. As for timetables that is irrelevant to the overall trajectory and dynamic that the human species finds itself in. So the flip side of criticizing premature end is nigh predictions is to assume thus that an end or doom scenario is not approaching or will not happen because it did not happen by so and so date

Yeah. onlooker, I think this is merely a result of our overload of binary thinkers. The whole "doom" thing is silly in that, for the most part, our lives are a process, just as decline and collapse is. It's easy to spot those who feel very secure about their futures, and those who are insecure; perhaps projecting their own inevitable "doom" on everything else. Some of us have determined that society, as it is, is in trouble, and expect that process to get worse over time. Critical inflection points may, or may not, be reached in our lifetimes, but our response is the same: Reduce one's expectations of, and reliance on, complex systems. Avoid the many traps that our current system sets; reduce one's liabilities, and embrace simplicity in ways that make one more productive in ways that matter. Above all, avoid distractions and delusionary paradigms that cloud one's vision of things. These things are meant to do only one thing; move so-called wealth around; away from you.

The age of diminishing returns.....

[forbin]

Doom ? great game

liked the followup doom II and ultimate doom

movies was predicatble hollywood trash

.....

[ennui2]

So social collapse is a game for you? I imagine you live in a high-tech incubator. Is it in your parent's basement also?

So sayeth the man who says he's only here "for the yuks".

Really, I've lost count of how many times you've stuck your foot in your own hypocrisy.

[sparky]

.
was the world doomed in the 1950 ? the energy consumption was way lower
there are plenty of countries which go along on a fraction of the West power usage

if the doom is the end of pokemon and Iphone , no kidding , make me weep .

The doom is the doom of the welfare state , bloated bureaucracy and reserve bank /wall street gang .
sure there will be plenty of misery for the average joe and jane , but that's on par for the course.
the sun will still rise and working people will still be needed to do work .

[ennui2]

...was the world doomed in the 1950 ?

Many people thought so, but it was the bomb, not peak-oil, that was going to doom us.

[ennui2]

And if you aren't prepping for the ship sinking then DOOM ON YOU!



Got melons?

[ralfy]

Doom ? great game

liked the followup doom II and ultimate doom

movies was predicatble hollywood trash

.....

So social collapse is a game for you? I imagine you live in a high-tech incubator. Is it in your parent's basement also?

He's referring to the video games and movie.

[GHung]

...was the world doomed in the 1950 ?

Many people thought so, but it was the bomb, not peak-oil, that was going to doom us.

Yeah,, well now we have alot more/bigger bombs, 3 times as many people, fewer resources, and less sanity. Throw in a couple of failed nuclear states and a little climate change, what do you get?

[sparky]

.
"now we have alot more/bigger bombs "
that's factually wrong , the number of warheads deployed or in storage has substantially decreased
there were some 60.000 in 1985 , now its 16.000

also the yield is now much smaller ,the megaton monsters have been retired , this is due to much improved accuracy .
what matter is not how big a bomb is but where it land ,it's measured in instant pressure and decrease with a square function with the distance .
a Megaton bomb falling 500 yards off is far less efficient than a 20 Kiloton falling within two feet

[GHung]

.
"now we have alot more/bigger bombs "
that's factually wrong , the number of warheads deployed or in storage has substantially decreased
there were some 60.000 in 1985 , now its 16.000

also the yield is now much smaller ,the megaton monsters have been retired , this is due to much improved accuracy .
what matter is not how big a bomb is but where it land ,it's measured in instant pressure and decrease with a square function with the distance .
a Megaton bomb falling 500 yards off is far less efficient than a 20 Kiloton falling within two feet

The date used above was 1950. We have more/bigger bombs than in 1950. Stupid argument anyway since we have more than enough to fry civilization (not so in 1950), and you ignore the gist of the comment: More people; fewer resources; less sanity. Jeez....