That's right. And slavery was a racially more complicated subject that the politically correct version that is taught to teens in high school. Most antebellum White farmers, as you said, did not own slaves. Blacks were among the owners as well as among the slaves. The largest slave-owner in South Carolina, for a while, was a Negro. Some Injuns also owned slaves. Not all of the slaves were Blacks - in fact, there were about as many White slaves as Black slaves between the founding of Jamestown and the signing of the Declaration of Independence.


The world in the 22nd century is likely to be fairly Darwinian. But the middle half of the 21st century will probably be very, very Darwinian. That's when the dieoff will be going at the briskest clip, the first derivative of the global population as negative as it will ever be. People will want strong leadership and will rally around anyone who seems to be a strong leader, regardless of his motives and morals. There will be several decades in which ham-fisted, loudmouthed bullies will reign supreme, though outside their window of opportunity such as they have been, and will be, generally despised.

I don't want it to occur anytime soon, and it's obvious why.
From my perspective - it shouldn't peak until I'm dead.
I want to see technoutopian dream of endless growth.
But it's a hopeless wish.

I think there is much truth to your statement.

I have tried to argue (although not very eloquently) that what we call economic liberalism (free public education, social welfare programs for the poor, etc...) was ONLY made possible by crude oil.
example
Q: Why do we have a government funded food stamp system where we literally give away "free" food to the poor?
A: Fossil fuel based agriculture has made food so ridiculously cheap that tax payers can afford to give away free food.

There are some people who want PO to happen just so we can all watch those idiotic soccer moms give up their SUV's but it is an unfortunate truth that PO is not some type of broad sword that cuts across evenly. PO will kill off the desperately poor first and the soccer moms in their SUV's will be the last ones to feel the pain.

I'm trying to point out the horrific nature of the institution and show that even though people KNEW this was a horrific crime against humanity it was seen as a lesser of two evils. Perhaps a quote from the General of the Confederate Army will set this straight:



I don't think Robert Lee was being politically correct when he wrote this. As horrific a slavery was it was viewed as necessary.

Flash forward to today. As horrific as fossil fuels are its viewed as well as a necessary evil. In fact we are fighting a war over in the middle east over this liquid gold.

If and when TSHF and we lose our liquid oil slaves you can bet that human slaves will take thier place again.

Great observation. I've noticed that it seems to be the political extremes that are sitting by eating popcorn and cheering for the collapse of our world as we know it. Whether its the extreme left who want to see the collapse of an overly greedy capitalistic society that tramples on the poor and disenfranchised or the extreme right who are cheering for the collapse of an overly powerful centralized government which tramples upon individual liberties.

What's ironic is that a hard collapse will only bring us a heavily fuedalistic and patriarchal economic system which will make 100 years ago look like the Enlightenment and an end to any type of civilized governement rule which was the only legal entity which stood by to protect our individual liberties.

My hope is it will be a soft collapse from fossil fuel if there's a collapse at all and we don't have to endure some "World Made By Hand" dystopian future.

100 years ago (1908) was pretty darn great in some ways.

Who was fighting for the interests of the wealthy.


Once again, slavery was not a necessity, except to maintain the very wealthy in their state of extreme luxury.

Looks like the yesses have taken the lead again. S'pose I couldn't have expected the no's to be on top for long.

compared to 1808, yes 1908 was a wonderful period.

I think a lot of people make the bad habit of looking at the past through the lens of 21 st century "pampered" existence. Even by 1908 there were great technological advancements like steam ships which made things like tea and spices within the financial reach of common low paying grunt workers. Way back in Marco Polo's time you had to be part of royalty to even afford such an extravagant luxury.

bumping to see what the newbies think

After having studied this topic a little more and going back and reading some history, I think a more appropriate question should be "Do you want a hard or soft crash post peak oil?". I have to admit I was a little freaked out at first when I first came across this topic.

However, I honestly don't think peak oil will result in some of the doomsday scenarios that the doomers take for granted.

If the seventies oil shortages in the USA are any guide, then cars will just get smaller, the poltical climate will change in favor of more conservation minded politicians, and regulations for private industry will attempt to address the problems.

We will probably suffer through a protracted reccession and maybe even a lite depression. No doubt it will be bad. But we are Americans, and we have always changed for the better....yes?

I think it is very difficult to comparing it to the 70s. In the 70s we knew there was enough oil to get things back to normal.

Post peak everyone will realize there is not enough oil to go around. Which will have far different results.

For example:

1970s: Fist fights in gas lines because somebody cuts

200somthing: Countries destroying each other protecting their reserves or attacking in search of new reserves.

Right now we don't have an alternative. A nation that cannot supply oil to their military will not be a nation much longer.

joeltrout

I can't respond without knowing what the consequences will be. If it means better public trans(and a whole lot less driving), not watching my neighbors drive 5 blocks to the local gym in their big SUV, no more dollar stores, no more mcdonalds on every corner, less walmarts(we all know they'll never completely die lol). Basically still having a quality life without so much wasted resources and abundance of junk, what a lot of people would call "The American Dream" then yes I do.

If it means mass die off, a lot of suffering, starvation, etc etc etc, then no, I do not. And yes I know that is happening already in a lot of countries, but that was happening long before peak oil & will continue to happen after.

I voted "Yes" but it could've just as easily been "No".


"Yes" because it may help to wake up the masses to the fact that we're making our habitat less liveable and decreasing our species chance of survival, thus also our childrens and grandchildrens, and on top of that we're driving many other species to extinction. Basicly we're as much a part of nature as anything else, but we're sooo out of touch with it, and with our excessive thinking and searching for something we cant find, we're blinded and can't seem to grasp how beautiful nature really is. At least most of us.

"No" because I would not enjoy seeing possibly billions of people in pain and dying. Only a troubled person would want people to endure that, no matter what they've done. But on the other hand, all good things have a bad side, and bad things always have a good side.

The good side about the years of struggle, pain and anguish to come, is that it might make more people acheive what I'd like to call enlightenment. Basicly accepting the fact that life is never going to be as good as it is now, there are no problems only situations, the future is not going to be any better or worse, and we can't go back to the past, so stop fixating on that and just LIVE, NOW.

However, as has been said before, it doesn't matter to the earth if we live or die, it'll still keep spinning and even if we manage to destroy most of nature, we'll end up dying and it'll eventually regenerate.

I voted "yes" because I think we can still have a "soft" landing. I think there's going to be a massive shake-up and some upset and perhaps ALL entitlement spending will be re-visited (and ultimately abandoned). I'm hoping and praying mass transportation comes back, too.

IMHO, the human race is not going to survive UNLESS we make some radical changes in our day-to-day life. In other words, if peak oil didn't get us, something else might. Life is all about balance and we've gotten out of kilter.

We can't keep sucking down the resources of our planet (water, plant and animal life, fuel, etc), without serious repercussions. We can't continue to subsidize (ie: pay for) bad behaviors and keep giving the most ill-behaved members of society all the perks (free food, welfare programs, medicare, medicaid, moneys-no-object-health-care-for-the-poor, etc) and keep the American budget afloat.

With oil going up and up and up, I think we'll be forced to redefine America's day-to-day way of doing business and social expectations. And we'll be forced to find alternatives and that's why Im hoping we have a soft landing. I think life will change dramatically, but I still believe it will be a change "for the better" (after the dust settles).

HF