Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cog wrote: I might suggest that you social engineers read the Declaration and also the Constitution. Both were written and heavily influenced by the idea that the rights of the individual are supreme to the rights of the collective.

The mob or pure democracy is that very last thing the Founders intended. The good of the individual is the good of the State. If you want a mother, I suggest giving her a call to further your need to be mothered. A free man does not desire the state to act in that role.

It would be hard to imagine the constitution and its wisdom of individual liberty having been created in an overpopulated country in the late stages of human overshoot. Again, context is important. A young nation, underpopulated, wide open potential for growth and expansion, looking across the Atlantic at Europe's poor masses and aging aristocracy and echoes of feudalism and nationalism. What gave the constitution it's substance, what allowed that wisdom to emerge, was the greater context of the untapped potential of a young nation standing in contrast to an aging system across the ocean. We can all consider ourselves deeply fortunate to have been born during a time when the fruition of personal liberty has given all of us the autonomy we enjoy. That should not however limit us into a defensive position in reference to collective responsibility going forward. And as previously stated this has nothing to do with communism. Even someone like Cog, in his love of the constitution, recognizes that it is being assaulted by the dynamics of an overcrowded world; rising China, the tide of immigrants wanting to come to our shores, climate change and resource constraints.

So what was that foundation that held up the constitution? A young country full of untapped reserves and potential, a healthy global ecosystem, lack of competition, etc.

The times they are changing. Moving forward politics and economics will adapt to the foundation that is shifting under our feet, a planet with constrained resources, over populated, unstable climate, displaced immigrants, powerful competitors on the rise, etc etc.

How does the defense of individual liberty balance itself with the personal sacrifices required to contribute to collective stability? This is not a theoretical question but one that will be increasingly real moving forward.

Cog wrote:I'd rather that humanity perish entirely, than to adopt the philosophy contained within the Georgia Guidestones. I see nothing in them that represent the supremacy of the individual but rather the complete suppression of individual freedom. What is the point of survival if I must bend every desire, want, and need to the collective? Just another name for slavery.

This sounds hollow and defensive and not adaptive. Quite binary actually. Give me liberty or give me death and all that heroic Don Quixote rhetoric sounds absurd in today's overcrowded world. You are not an island Cog and the world around you is changing faster than you realize.

Somewhat to your point Ibon it MAY be worth comparing the young USA with the BOERS with Israel. The Boers and Protestants has much in common, a very strong religious identity. I think that can also be said of the post WWII Israel, just a different religion.

The circumstances that made for the success of the USA did not occur in the other two despite the very strong desire for freedom and liberty. Not that they failed, they just were starved for land, and resources, and freedom of action.

The USA now exists in a very constrained world, the situation has changed dramatically.

Newfie wrote:
The circumstances that made for the success of the USA did not occur in the other two despite the very strong desire for freedom and liberty. Not that they failed, they just were starved for land, and resources, and freedom of action.

During the past 100 years or so Americans were born on 3rd base. They just didn't know it and thought that their exceptionalism was somehow god ordained.

Americans are still born on third base, and all other Western style Democracies on second base, at least. Now we have been joined by both China and India which will each have about 1.5B people at least on first base by 2030.

Call it peak resource demand. If we can avoid subsidizing the 3rd World with more energy, medicine, and food by 2050 we might reach a steady population and actually see a slight decline after that. By then with the decline of cheap oil, all the peoples of the world will find it harder to survive. The trick is to avoid the resource wars. Some countries are already in such distress in South and Central America, Africa, and Asia. Like I said many times, TEOTWAWKI is a process, not an event, and it began decades ago.

It is always possible that some "man on a white horse" will promise more if only you will vote for him. The USA and Russia are the most vulnerable to this, as will be the newly expanded Middle Class of China. It will be a dangerous world to live in for our kids, grandkids, and great grandkids. Very few of us will still be around by then.

Putting this thread a little more back on topic.

More disturbing: Booth’s research opens up the IPCC to charges that its policymaking decisions regarding emissions accounting have been politicized — crafted by negotiators to include built-in loopholes that allow nations to underreport certain emissions while appearing to achieve their carbon-reduction targets.

This is a message that no one has said yet. It’s what I believe to be true: there may not be a pathway to 1.5 [degrees] anymore — at all. Carbon capture and storage is a fantasy,” Booth told me in a series of interviews for Mongabay. “Growing forests may not work fast enough. We’re not reducing emissions fast enough. The sooner that story gets told, the sooner people understand what’s really required to keep the earth from burning up.” […]

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/05/un-fo ... -eu-uk-us/

Ibon wrote:what was that foundation that held up the constitution? A young country full of untapped reserves and potential, a healthy global ecosystem, lack of competition, etc.

That wasn't it.

Similar "foundations" existed in colonial regimes throughout Latin America, Canada, much of Africa and parts of Asia. They all were "young" and "full of untapped reserves and potential."

But only the Founders of the United States invented something like the US Constitution, with its division of powers and uniquely individualistic view of human rights.

And why did this happen only in the United States?

Because Thomas Jefferson was a genius, and he was surrounded by very great men like Washington, Adams and Hamilton.

Every so often the earth sees little explosions of genius in specific areas. An explosion of genius in Athens leads to the invention of philosphy. An explosion of artistic genius in Florence leads to the renaissance. An explosion of Genius in Scotland leads to the invention of the steam engine and the industrial revolution, etc. etc.

What we had in the 1770s-1780s in the US was an explosion of political genius---and the genius of Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers resulted in the invention of modern democracy, the bill of rights and the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of the press etc., the US constitution and the idea of rule by law rather then decree, the idea of the division of powers within the government, etc. etc.

That didn't happen in Canada or Mexico or Argentina because they lacked men of political genius.

Cheers!

onlooker wrote:

...there may not be a pathway to 1.5 [degrees] anymore — at all. Carbon capture and storage is a fantasy,” Booth told me in a series of interviews for Mongabay. “Growing forests may not work fast enough. We’re not reducing emissions fast enough. The sooner that story gets told, the sooner people understand what’s really required to keep the earth from burning up.” […]

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/05/un-fo ... -eu-uk-us/

Of course there's no pathway to 1.5 degrees. But its amazing how many believe the iiars who say there is a pathway, and that pathway is the Paris Accords.

Its nice that some people are finally figuring it out, but as along as the MSM and the political establishment keep pretending that the phony Paris Accords are going keep global temperatures under 1.5-2.0 degrees C., there is zero chance of moving to a better plan. The blame lies squarely on the heads of liars like Obama and the EU leaders who crafted this phony climate plan,and who are still out there supporting the Paris Accords in the MSM, crowding out any chance of even talking honestly about global change and what we need to do, much less getting a real program to mitigate climate change instituted.

Cheers!

Cog wrote:I'd rather that humanity perish entirely, than to adopt the philosophy contained within the Georgia Guidestones. I see nothing in them that represent the supremacy of the individual but rather the complete suppression of individual freedom. What is the point of survival if I must bend every desire, want, and need to the collective? Just another name for slavery.

And, so be it. I think living as a group is not bad. My dog enjoys it.

jedrider wrote: I think living as a group is not bad.

DO you actually mean living as a member of a group is not bad---or are you personally somehow subdivided into smaller pieces(?) and various bits of you are living together as a group?

????

Cheers!

onlooker quoted: "This is a message that no one has said yet. It’s what I believe to be true: there may not be a pathway to 1.5 [degrees] anymore — at all..."

Kevin Anderson has pretty much said that.

pstarr wrote:Why existential? Aren't all threats "existential?" If somebody wants to shoot me, then my existance goes away. If I am threatened, then it is my existance that is threatened. I like to exist. We like to exist. "We yap . . . therefore we exist."

Sartre said that. He was an existentialist

What if someone (like a moderator) threatened to give you a time-out for the nature of your posts? Would that threaten your existence? No. Would that be a threat to you? Yes.

But you already knew that...

Plantagenet wrote:

jedrider wrote: I think living as a group is not bad.

DO you actually mean living as a member of a group is not bad---or are you personally somehow subdivided into smaller pieces(?) and various bits of you are living together as a group?
????
Cheers!

As opposed to rampant individualism. [Promoting] the well being of the group over that of the individual is not a bad thing as all. However, even an individualistic individual is still a member of the group of individuals!

jedrider wrote:

Plantagenet wrote:

jedrider wrote: I think living as a group is not bad.

DO you actually mean living as a member of a group is not bad---or are you personally somehow subdivided into smaller pieces(?) and various bits of you are living together as a group?
????
Cheers!

As opposed to rampant individualism. [Promoting] the well being of the group over that of the individual is not a bad thing as all. However, even an individualistic individual is still a member of the group of individuals!

A healthy resource base, economy and potential for growth promotes individualism. There is no need for collective action to protect the commons. There is no self regulation mechanism in place. This is the last 200 years of growth since the beginning of industrial civilization and the use of fossil fuels.

Which is leading us to a point where we destabilize the very same resource base, energy supply, climate, food supply, etc. that provided the foundation for the individual to actualize his autonomy fully. This is human overshoot, 7 billion individuals unable to submit to any collective self regulation.

In an enlightened society this could then lead to the realization that the best way to preserve individual autonomy is to actually submit to collective limits on growth and consumption. This preserves individuality because it helps stabilize the foundation that makes it possible.

This is what could happen during the consequences of human overshoot. That society collectively chooses to put security and stability of the commons over the individual's right to consume and breed at will.

We cannot conceive of this kind of limits to individual freedom today. To the point some would rather perish than submit. But these are the individuals that only have known abundance. The generations emerging will be socialized under tightening constraints and it is totally feasible that individuals thus socialized will prioritize stability of the commons over unlimited personal liberty.

Or we could just fall in the anarchy of the individual with no regard for collective sacrifice.

We are far away from this still. This is all pure theoretical.

I am not in any way following this, neither is anyone else on this forum. We all have the good fortune at this very moment to pursue maximum personal liberty within the current structure of our laws and on the strength of the economy we live in.

In maintaining health an individual will sometimes cure an existing disease or take preventative measures to prevent disease from occurring.

Collectively, we are not really doing anything preventative let alone healing the early instabilities already present. There is no focus on healing collective imbalances.

I really doubt a future society passing through destabilizing consequences of human overshoot will continue to disregard preventative or curative measures to keep the collective resilient.

It is all about context.

PSTARR,

Consider this, having over done it in one direction is it possibly you are now over doing it in the other direction?

pstarr wrote:I have come to see global warming hysteria as a joke. After years of worry, concern and personal mitigation I now see threats of GW extinction/existential-threat/meltdown/catastrophe/disaster/fear-of-the-day/etc to be an OVERBLOW JOKE

Most of us have lived for decades of Al Gore style/democrat campaign strategies using this fear. It lines the pockets of NGO's, political parties, and the United Nations. Yet the Great California Drought is over, the hurricanes haves subsideded, the aquifers are fine, the Great South American Drought is history.

I could go on and on. So yes, I am a bit bitter having been played. Now it my turn to have fun. And make fun of you Global Warming Doomers. That would be you . . . outcaste. And dohboi. What environmental NGO do you work for?

It has become a joke because it is being used for making money or is watered down, as seen in carbon trading and agreements to cut down emission increases. And that is taking place because all sources of credit ultimately come from the rich, which in turn want only a continuation of the current global economy.

That's why the mainstream is not only critical, if not unmindful, of the threat of "global warming doomers" but also "peak oil doomers" and even "environmental disaster doomers." That's why any type of doom is laughed at by most or ignored because it's either based on hysteria or there is a belief that something magical will happen and will save us from such. That's also why forums not only about global warming but also peak oil (if not limits to growth in general) and financial collapse have little participation: more prefer light entertainment, if not depictions of disaster in a spectacular fashion through movies, TV shows, and video games.

But the underlying realities of limits to growth and damage brought about by pollution stemming from that growth remain, together with attendant issues such as increasing population, the spread of disease, and arms deployment as businesses and supporting governments fight over material resources.

It takes only common sense to realize that these crises amplify each other, making the claim that one crisis is based on hysteria and another one not irrelevant.

I wish to apologize. I just reread my post above about the American Revolution, Boers, and Israel. I just now saw what spell check did to my post. I have corrected it. HOWEVER, I should have proof read it first. My apologies to anyone who tried to understand the drivel.

It takes only common sense to realize that these crises amplify each other, making the claim that one crisis is based on hysteria and another one not irrelevant.

Absolutely. All these crisis will severely tax and debilitate global industrial civilization. We are already seeing that with "failed " countries in Africa, Middle East, South America and parts of Asia. And they will challenge the very survival of our species. It has become quite clear. But those managing the established order will understandably be the last ones to concede it. For they have been the ones most benefiting from the world order they created