Hard crash or soft landing ??

gogota · Tar Sands Joined: Aug 18, 2004 Posts: 39

Most important thing for preparation for post peak is whether it is a soft landing or hard crash. If it is a hard crash, the only strategy is playing tarzan or waiting to die. If it is a soft landing, then it will be much easier. It all depends on how much conservation we will be doing and how many people will be believing in peak oil and start conservating. So what do you think ? Soft landing or hard crash ??

Soft_Landing · Heavy Crude Joined: May 28, 2004 Posts: 377

It's definitely a good idea to have a poll like this from time to time to get a bellwether for site sentiment. But I'd recommend a little more specificity in the poll options... Maybe a more defined poll would be to ask what people they imagine world population would be 20 years after peak? <goes to post new poll> Hope you don't mind gogota... not trying to step on toes... hope you find that poll interesting also... Smile

_________________
- "I was in the unenviable position of being for the war, but, against the troops." B. Hicks.

NiKfUrY69 · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:37 am Post subject: wishy washy

gogota · Tar Sands Joined: Aug 18, 2004 Posts: 39

NiKfUrY69 · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:09 am Post subject: Me too initially . .

bart · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:32 am Post subject:

Interesting that the hard crash is defined as "(Mad Max + riot + killing). "

These call up dramatic images from the movies and TV, which is why people respond so strongly to them.

In fact, these would be the least of our problems. Riots and unorganized violence don't last long.

Much more devastating would be war and a general destruction of social structure. Society would be unable to deal with problems such as famine, plagues, and technical change (e.g. from fossil fuel to sustainable). Lawlessness and banditry would prevail as in Afghanistan.

A related problem would be the decline of democracy and the emergence of "strong leaders" ( = fascism, dictatorship). Why is democracy important for survival? A non-democratic leader can easily write off sections of the population, if he has the troops behind him. Amartya Sen, winner of the 1998 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, asserts that "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy. (See http://www.wehaitians.com/does%20democracy%20avert%20famine.html )

born2respawn · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:37 am Post subject:

I voted for a soft landing, not that soft though. I just have an inordinate amount of faith in humanity as a whole.

NiKfUrY69 · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:54 am Post subject:

PhilBiker · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 1326

Mad Max ain't going to work with no gasoline. Hey I wonder if I can install a shotgun holster on my bicycle. Yeah!

Don't mess with Phil the rampaging bicyclist! Mad

mgibbons19 · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 1065

Embedded in this discussion is the question "how robust are our social systems?"

911 happened, and while it was really ugly, the social networks around it turned out to be pretty robust. They got an emergency center running pretty quickly, Food kept coming into the city, sewage got pumped out. Even some of the business directly impacted were up and running fairly quickly.

So it turns out, New York as a system, or network, is more robust than I might have thought.

So at what point in the decline scenario, do the various interconnected systems tip from dealing with the situation, to failure?

NiKfUrY69 · Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:48 pm Post subject: Good point

Sedona · Guest

The US is about 5% of the world's population and we consume 40-50% of all the energy and resources. We have taken more than our share and set it up as a standard of living, and in terms of impact on our environment, we are the most over-populated country in the world.

If it was only about oil, it would be one thing, but our standard of living is based upon capitalistic growth, not stability. Without oil, we will overnight exceed the carrying capacity of our environment, both ecologically and financially. The first "peak" we are going to encounter is the "debt peak" and our inability to finance anything.

It is no coincidence that the three countries Bush named in his "axis of evil" speech were Iraq, Iran , and N. Korea. They are three countries that started accepting euros instead of dollars for oil. As the European Union now has a larger GNP and oil consumption than the US, the move to making the euro the "petro dollar" by OPEC is very likely. With 50% of US debt held by Japan and China banks, the move out of the dollar to the euro would crash the dollar. Iraq was the first to accept euros, so they got invaded first. Iran is next. It's all about how fast and how soon.

RIPSmithianEconomics · Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:42 am Post subject:

I think it'll hit harder in some areas than others. Close neighbours that can be traded with will become very valuable as the global economy begins to contract.
_________________
There'll be war, there'll be peace
But one day all things shall cease
All the iron turned to rust
All the proud men turned to dust
So all things time will mend
So this song will end

johnmarkos · Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:11 am Post subject:

madison · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 255

I'm envisioning several different types of crashes. A big jolt when/if Peak Oil ever goes public (ala Bush or someone in authority making a speach) - if that happens, public panic will ensue and I know what *I* did upon finding out about Peak Oil - I went on a buying spree. I bet acknowledging Peak Oil would sent folks to the stores in droves and they try to "get what they'll need" in down times, likely on credit (which just makes the problem worse). It would spur the economy momentarily in a panic of buying, but then everyone would either be out of money or credit and WHAM.

So, one big bump down initially and a slump into a plateau while we struggle with reverting to local economies, then a series of slumps and plateaus until we bottom out... wherever that will eventually be. War would depress the economy even further, wouldn't it?, spending money on disposable items (tanks, ammo, guns, training etc) - it wouldn't be going towards creating renewables or teaching Joe American how to be sufficient.

Slide, stop & catch your breath; slide, stop & catch your breath; slide, stop & catch your breath... that's what I'm imagining. Hard or soft depends on how much we slide and where we stop!