Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Multiculturalism is bad for feminism.

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby BlueGhost » Fri 30 Dec 2005, 23:14:57

In working towards the goal of helping society cope and making any crash more gentle informing the public about peak oil ain't going to cut the mustard.

The best you can expect from a peak oil aware society is we find some alternative and keep on expanding our economic efficency (how rapidly we can use natural resources to up our quality of life) and our populations. This means when we finally DO hit a limiting factor which we can't wriggle past - it'll be worse.

Got some ideas on what we CAN do but its 3am right now so I'll put em up another day.
User avatar
BlueGhost
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby JayBee » Fri 30 Dec 2005, 23:19:24

"You've burned your bra, now dump that car!" :P
JayBee
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby nocar » Mon 02 Jan 2006, 12:59:51

Ladyruby quoted this
Quote:
(from gg3): Allow the death rate to increase naturally, by canceling all campaigns against risky lifestyle behaviors. Over-eating, smoking, drinking, not exercising, risky sports such as mountain climbing, etc. etc. Subtly encourage these behaviors via changes in age limits and through advertising. Most of these behaviors also have direct effects on reproduction: obesity is a sexual turn-off, nicotine lowers libido, drunkenness causes temporary impotence in males, etc., all contributing indirectly to reduced birth rates.

Legalize and promote marijuana, opium, and heroin, all of which are known to reduce ambition, striving, and competitive behavior (lengthy psychopharmacological explanation omitted to save space). This will have the effect of reducing consumption levels of other goods, and thereby reducing resource demand. It will also reduce competition for mates, causing some individuals to drop out of the running entirely.


This quote omits a more efficient way to reduce population growth, namely to omit speed limits, laws against drunken driving and teenage driving and other car traffic safety regulations.

Lots of the above deadly habits, like smoking, not exercising and drinking take decades to kill people, when they already have made babies. Traffic accidents peak in younger years, age 16-25 yrs. Risky mountain climbing - only a few deaths per year. Traffic fatalies has a much bigger potential!

But I suppose traffic will be reduced when we have progressed further into peak oil.

As for the feminist connection, it seems like young male drivers kill both themselves and their female passenger more often than the other way around.

I consider myself a feminist of sorts, wanting the same rights and resonsibilites for both men and women. But peak oil is a separate issue.
nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby EnergySpin » Mon 02 Jan 2006, 13:36:19

Kylon wrote:Think of the pre-industrial period, women will end up being reduced to that.

Very good ... it won't be just women.Minorities and disabled people will also suffer. But I guess some people (definitely not me), will welcome this culling of the human herd. :roll:
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby elroy » Mon 02 Jan 2006, 21:41:38

#2. To reduce the birth-weight of their first child (34%);
WTF ? They pick up smoking for the express purpose of damaging their child ? Who the fuck.. why... jumping jesus on a pogo stick! Someone remove them from the gene pool! :-x
Image
User avatar
elroy
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Netherlands

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby Doly » Tue 03 Jan 2006, 10:21:51

elroy wrote:Someone remove them from the gene pool! :-x


They're removing themselves from the gene pool already, don't worry.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3882
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby Jenab6 » Tue 03 Jan 2006, 20:34:02

Aaron wrote:Wow... If we are rolling back female rights, can we reinstitute smoking on airplanes please? I'm just sayin...

"We" aren't going to roll back female rights. It's not going to be a legislative or policy sort of thing. The usual historical forces will return women to their traditional role, because it was the superabundance of extrasomatic energy that let them (temporarily) climb out of it. Women will be wives because that's how they will acquire an economic niche for motherhood. Women will be mothers because every race that stubbornly persists in having a low birthrate will be wiped off the Earth by those who maintain a high birthrate.

The fact that the side having the biggest army usually wins the battle translates into a requirement for women being frequently mothers to warriors and to the next generation's mothers.

Overpopulation cannot be controlled by limiting births. An attempt to do so naturally fizzles for either of two reasons. As "responsible" people limit their family size and "irresponsible" people do not, the capacity for civic responsibility gets culled out of the population. Each generation is less inclined than its predecessor to obey calls for birth control. That's the piecemeal type of failure.

There's also a catastrophic failure mode in which a population that mostly heeds the call to limit family size finds itself, due to its smaller numbers, vulnerable to conquest by another population that did not try to limit its birthrate. The war is fought, the biggest army wins, and the losers are exterminated.

So the notion that birth control is a way to solve overpopulation is wrong.

And when a copious resource of extrasomatic energy isn't available, women can no longer be afforded careers at the expense of motherhood. If they insist on it, they will be as good as cutting the throat of their own nation. Eventually, the Earth will be the possession of those whose women "knew their places" and stayed there.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby pepper2000 » Tue 03 Jan 2006, 21:10:59

On the subject of smoking on airplanes: I'm sure it will be allowed in the future. That is, if you want to crawl through the dump to find what remains of an airplane.

I think the biggest failing of the Democratic party in recent years has been their unwillingness to make energy an issue. Energy ties into so many other issues, such as national security, environmentalism, land use, science, education, and more. John Kerry could have won in 2004 if he had make energy the center of his campaign, though he wouldn't have gotten as many corporate donations.

That said, however, I think that trying to tie energy into feminism would be problematic. I have looked at peak oil for a long time, and I feel forced to conclude that peak oil is an inherently collective issue. The subject seems to demand national and community solutions, and it damns the individualistic lifestyle that is leading to the energy crisis. Feminism, on the other hand, is a very individualistic philosophy. I think the two ideas might be incomptabile.
User avatar
pepper2000
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby ubercynicmeister » Tue 03 Jan 2006, 22:33:59

Jenab6 wrote:
Aaron wrote:Wow... If we are rolling back female rights, can we reinstitute smoking on airplanes please? I'm just sayin...

"We" aren't going to roll back female rights. It's not going to be a legislative or policy sort of thing. The usual historical forces will return women to their traditional role, because it was the superabundance of extrasomatic energy that let them (temporarily) climb out of it.


I agree....when Human Rights come into conflict with Physics, my money's on Physics.

Women will be wives because that's how they will acquire an economic niche for motherhood. Women will be mothers because every race that stubbornly persists in having a low birthrate will be wiped off the Earth by those who maintain a high birthrate.


Exactly - this is the very problem that the Israeli's are having to face. The Israeli's are all Politically Correct & having few babies - I beleive their "replacement rate" is well below 1.7 babies per couple (Ie: of 10 couples, there are 17 babies, that is, for 20 adults there are 17 offspring). The real replacement rate is 2.7, I'm told, thanks to the "accident" rate. The Palestinians (including those who have Israeli citizenship) are not Politicially Correct at all (Hamas isn't Politically Correct, no matter what anyone may tell you) . They have lots of children. So much so that, if Israel hadn't "given back" the Gaza strip, they have seen the entire Knesset (their Parliament) dominated by an Arab-elected group (or groups) who would have voted Israel into history, at this coming election.

In essence, the Arabs (who're poor) have kids, because the poor use children as their "old-age insurance". They have to. So they are out-breeding the Non-Arab Israelis, in their own country. Could be interesting in a few years, when the Arabs keep on having kids, and have enough registered Arab-Israeli voters to elect a majority Arab Govt in Israel.

The fact that the side having the biggest army usually wins the battle


No, there are countless examples of "the little guy" winning, Vietnam being the most recent. Indeed, the reply to "God is on the side of the big battalions" was "God is on the side of the most accurate shooters". The modern version is "God is on the side of those with the simplest uniforms" (does this mean that soldiers will be required to go into battle stark naked, as they did in Ancient Greece?)

translates into a requirement for women being frequently mothers to warriors and to the next generation's mothers.

Overpopulation cannot be controlled by limiting births. An attempt to do so naturally fizzles for either of two reasons. As "responsible" people limit their family size and "irresponsible" people do not, the capacity for civic responsibility gets culled out of the population. Each generation is less inclined than its predecessor to obey calls for birth control. That's the piecemeal type of failure.

There's also a catastrophic failure mode in which a population that mostly heeds the call to limit family size finds itself, due to its smaller numbers, vulnerable to conquest by another population that did not try to limit its birthrate. The war is fought, the biggest army wins, and the losers are exterminated.

So the notion that birth control is a way to solve overpopulation is wrong.


The best way to solve overpopulation is also one of the most surprising: give everyone an Old-Age pension. There is a 100% correlation between an old-age pension and population stability (ie: going up and little, then down a little). The only state in India that has an Old Age pension is also the only state in India with zero population growth, for example.

And when a copious resource of extrasomatic energy isn't available, women can no longer be afforded careers at the expense of motherhood. If they insist on it, they will be as good as cutting the throat of their own nation. Eventually, the Earth will be the possession of those whose women "knew their places" and stayed there.

Jerry Abbott


The Meek (ie: those who kept their traditional, low-Oil-use lifestyle) really will inheret the Earth.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby ubercynicmeister » Tue 03 Jan 2006, 22:58:42

elroy wrote:
#2. To reduce the birth-weight of their first child (34%);
WTF ? They pick up smoking for the express purpose of damaging their child ?


Yes.

Who the fuck.. why... jumping jesus on a pogo stick! Someone remove them from the gene pool! :-x


Because if one reduces the birthweight of their first child, it makes giving birth easier. Of course then the kid cries a lot as it has radical withdrawal symptoms from Nicotene. Ever wondered why today's kids seem a whole lot more cranky than previous generations? Ever wondereed why kids, these days, seem to have a whole lot more "emotional problems" than previosu generations? But, well, who gives a damn about Junior, or Junior's Dad? He's gonna get denounced as a "deadbeat" anyway, even if he's the most pleasant of persons, with an incredibly high levels of Social Responsibility. It's all to do with utter selfishness, elroy. "Mums First...Last...Always" and Feminism has taught them to think that way.

And when some of the "top feminists" stand up and try and change that, they get roundly ignored. So much for their supposed "influence". Whe it really matters, with helping women get better health, said "influence" is noticable by it's absence.

I gotta go.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby Jenab6 » Wed 04 Jan 2006, 08:34:11

duplicate post deleted
Last edited by Jenab6 on Wed 04 Jan 2006, 08:36:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby Jenab6 » Wed 04 Jan 2006, 08:34:56

Jenab wrote:The fact that the side having the biggest army usually wins the battle

ubercynicmeister wrote:No, there are countless examples of "the little guy" winning, Vietnam being the most recent. Indeed, the reply to "God is on the side of the big battalions" was "God is on the side of the most accurate shooters". The modern version is "God is on the side of those with the simplest uniforms" (does this mean that soldiers will be required to go into battle stark naked, as they did in Ancient Greece?)

Certainly, there are advantages that can offset some or all of a foe's numerical advantage. Better weapons, for example. Higher ground. Forcing the enemy's soldiers to march through a constricted pass. But what makes most of the high-tech advantages possible? Technology, of course. And technology depends on abundant extrasomatic energy, which eventually there won't be. So, after the powerdown, the size of the battalions will again be a very decisive factor in who wins a war.

Jenab wrote:...translates into a requirement for women being frequently mothers to warriors and to the next generation's mothers.

Overpopulation cannot be controlled by limiting births. An attempt to do so naturally fizzles for either of two reasons. As "responsible" people limit their family size and "irresponsible" people do not, the capacity for civic responsibility gets culled out of the population. Each generation is less inclined than its predecessor to obey calls for birth control. That's the piecemeal type of failure.

There's also a catastrophic failure mode in which a population that mostly heeds the call to limit family size finds itself, due to its smaller numbers, vulnerable to conquest by another population that did not try to limit its birthrate. The war is fought, the biggest army wins, and the losers are exterminated.

So the notion that birth control is a way to solve overpopulation is wrong.

ubercynicmeister wrote:The best way to solve overpopulation is also one of the most surprising: give everyone an Old-Age pension. There is a 100% correlation between an old-age pension and population stability (ie: going up and little, then down a little). The only state in India that has an Old Age pension is also the only state in India with zero population growth, for example.

A nation surrounded by enemies had better not have Old Age pensions, then. All else being equal, or even insufficient compensation, the side with the numbers in its favor will win a resource war. Though people on both sides will die, the winning nation will usually be the nation with the deepest pile of cannon fodder.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby aswerfawf » Wed 04 Jan 2006, 18:21:34

i dont think you will see a massive roll back of women's rights even in the worst peak oil senario in those places where feminism has taken hold. while there is still much progress to be made, in contemporary america society men and women are realtively equal. my generation was raised in a context where the liberals controlled the education system so on the whole gender equality, among other things, are taken as a given. there is no reason to suppose this would be clumsily forgotten. i think it is problematic to assume that if we cant continue along with the industrial experiment we will go back to something we did before. this is impossible we cant go back. whatever the future looks like it cannot escape the implications of the past. we will fashion a new society based on some of the assumptions of our old society and many new ones too. but i think the cultureal change enacted by feminism has been too thorough to be discarded. the women of my generation are not as hestant to take an active role in the world around them as preceding generations have been. they have a voice now and will continue to use it and women will cocreate the future society along with us men.

on another note, i find many peoples folks conceptions of feminism here very odd. have you ever sat down to read some feminist theory? there is some really good stuff there of tremendous importance to men as well as women. sure there are some crackpots there always will be, but is there some reason you focus on these? i know its easy to believe what the tv and pop culture tells you about annoying feminists, but i dont understand how you can assume that the tv will tell you anything about reality. you can only know reality through your own experience. so go read!
don't wake the sleeping grass
User avatar
aswerfawf
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: pittsburgh

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby The_Virginian » Mon 16 Jan 2006, 02:19:59

Wait a miniute, give the man(?) some credit...think of the possibilities!

Peak Oil Brand Tamp-ons(ins?)... "just as you have a cycle, so does OIL!

Peak Oil divorce counciling, "Just like OPEC, you have the cards, use the KIDS!"

Peak Oil Woman's University Courses: "Oil and Water" Depletion studies and Sex discrimination.

Peak Oil Femi_Bio_Deisel "This is one oil no man will tell you to cook with!"

Femi-Peak Brand T-shirts : "We've reached the Top Baby!"



Peak Oil Is far more mainstream than we ever assumed.

[smilie=5propeller.gif]
[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ai4te4daLZs&feature=related[/url] "My soul longs for the candle and the spices. If only you would pour me a cup of wine for Havdalah...My heart yearning, I shall lift up my eyes to g-d, who provides for my needs day and night."
User avatar
The_Virginian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby grabby » Wed 18 Jan 2006, 23:47:08

Kylon wrote: I have a condition which gives me superior logic abilities to the common man, however, I have emotionally stunted growth. It makes me a social outcast. It's a genetic condition. We make great engineers, researchers, and scientist however.

.


I don't think you are socially stunted, your probably just an honest guy that says what he thinks and you are probably actually right all the time.

People hate that.


Barnum once said "There is a sucker born every minute"
and also
"Give em what they want"

He, lika a lot of politicians, know the secret of politics.

People will believe exactly what they want to believe -
You just gotta make them think you came up with it.

So to make money, all you have to do is find what they WANT and then give them what they want, in a way that only you can do it.

If you tell anyone the truth 100% of the time eventually they will kill you.
So it just depends on wether you want to be honest or rich.

To make money on peak oil, you just have to get them to believe you have the answer, and you just buy this or that you'll be alright. Like how to build your own solar powered coconut grove tax free in the mariannes complete with Sailboat and surfboard and local natives to do your laundry.

Tell them the truth and there will be problems. Your circle of friends will diminish. They don't want to hear that.

You don't want to be telling them "Next year you won't be able to afford a vacation!"
Or "Better buy two pizzas and freeze one, peak oil is coming" That gets old.

People don't WANT to cut back, and they WON'T Some end up here because they believe, most do not believe. After all they can still fill up and go out to eat, why worry?


The way its going now with conservation the way it is, is maybe a small percentage delay in peak oil, hookay, so that is better than nothing.


What can you do? They don't believe you. Stay healthy, get used to being alone, and enjoying nature, be with your family and spend time with them while you ahve them. learn to be at peace with yourself and help everyone you can. To get the world to buy into lifestyle change sounds great but they won't do it if they don't want to believe it. So don't force it on family.



best way is to just point them to this web site, if they catch it, then that is great. otherwise don't worry about it, they won't believe it.
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby b0nez » Thu 19 Jan 2006, 05:23:58

Women won't be put back in the kitchen.If they can chop wood,dig coal,work the mines,work the field,bail they hay she will be just as free to do as she likes.If not the kitchen will be the answer.


Don't fret though.There are a whole helluva of alotta brave Americans left that they are going to have to kill first before anyones freedom has a hand laid on it.

Just remember this:

"The American way of life is not negotiable" and it means just that.You are trying to negotiate.

It will be a long damn time before that oil runs out because there is alot left.Alotta countries will be in really bad shape but you will not be a resident of one of them.It will be generations before we use up all that oil.Just too many vampires on 1 neck.The market has something for that.



I know,I'm blinded by patriotism so save the rant.Go back to your pity party...Peace.
b0nez
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby worrier » Thu 26 Jan 2006, 20:11:38

They tend to be overbearing zealots, capable of brainwashing people into doing things that they wouldn't usually do, as are many powerful groups.


Wow! I must have missed out on the "brainwashing people into doing things that they wouldn't usually do" class! Where do I sign up? I wanna be able to do that!

But hang on I'm a feminist, so that must mean I already know how to do it, mustn't it?

Both women, and feminists are NOT identical clones that all hold the same opinions, and act the same. A number of people in the above quotes made sweeping generalisations and regurgitated stereotypes about what feminists are. The first thing that feminists are, is individuals with different opinions. One thing they hold in common is supporting women's rights. I'm a feminist, but there have at times been statements made by other feminists that I have disagreed with.

Oh by the way, when posters say that when there's a peak oil collapse women will be forced back into old, traditional roles I suspect that they are actually looking forward to women forced back into traditional roles. I suspect they're not being up front about what they actually want to see happen. Is this true? Do those of you who've made such posts look forward to women being forced back into traditional roles?
User avatar
worrier
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby annie » Thu 26 Jan 2006, 22:54:03

Misogyny seems alive and well on this thread. I have to wonder if some of the men or boys as the case may be aren't projecting some of their frustrations in relationships with certain women onto all females. Most feminists I know don't hate men..just male privledge. Most women in the world don't enjoy the rights men do. Now if some of you guys think that a woman who stands up and says that she wants rights is not your cup of tea, does that mean that you are just willing to enjoy your own rights and not allow others to have theirs? Maybe you need a lifetime of living with a physically abusive man, trying to get away from him and find out that you can't. Are you also saying that all men are so overcome with testosterone that if push comes to shove as the oil starts to peak, all men are going to become ape men again? I would think that you should think better of yourselves.
Annie
User avatar
annie
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri 14 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby 0mar » Fri 27 Jan 2006, 03:00:43

annie wrote:Misogyny seems alive and well on this thread. I have to wonder if some of the men or boys as the case may be aren't projecting some of their frustrations in relationships with certain women onto all females. Most feminists I know don't hate men..just male privledge. Most women in the world don't enjoy the rights men do. Now if some of you guys think that a woman who stands up and says that she wants rights is not your cup of tea, does that mean that you are just willing to enjoy your own rights and not allow others to have theirs? Maybe you need a lifetime of living with a physically abusive man, trying to get away from him and find out that you can't. Are you also saying that all men are so overcome with testosterone that if push comes to shove as the oil starts to peak, all men are going to become ape men again? I would think that you should think better of yourselves.
Annie


When food gets scarce, man turns to Beast. I know for a fact I have no qualms about putting 5 in a guy to take his sandwich.

Peak oil doesn't mean you can't get from point a to point b, it means that basic necessities like food, shelter and warmth are at an extreme premium. History is replete of examples where, when shit gets wild, people will do anything to survive.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Re: Using Feminism to Spread the Word

Unread postby crapattack » Fri 27 Jan 2006, 04:13:56

Feminism may not be talked about any more but every modern NA girl or woman enjoys it's freedoms.

annie wrote:
Most feminists I know don't hate men..just male privledge.

Women may not hate men, but men have given them every reason to. As Germaine Greer wrote, "most women vastly underestimate how much men hate them". I agree. I have seen it again and again. Man's brutality to women is staggering. Nothing women do to men even compares. I think this hatred of women comes from man's fundemental distain for things they f*ck. Women are such that they hardly ever grasp the depth of this hatred. They almost always err on the side of love. Women really do love the men who hate them.

Women will have much to loose after post-crash, but what women have to fear most from PO is lack of access to birth control. More precisely, their freedom. Without BC, they're back to being baby machines, like it or not. The phsyical limits this places on all women are real and restricting. There are many who will gleefully see this as a return to "traditional ways", forgetting that it was also "traditional" for women to self-abort - often killing themselves in the process. Toxic herbal concoctions, coat-hangers, jumps and falls. Childbirth will kill many as we have no concept any more of how to deliver babies outside of hospital settings. Midwifery will again be a highly valued occupation.

Just as the new physical challenges of heavy work will effect male mortality, women will again be at highly at risk from childbirth. Surrounded by children, pregnant again and again, many women will die young and or middle aged and worn out, just as in feudal times. Unless we are able to provide some kind of birth control to women post-crash, our societies will revert very far back. The added strain this will place on families to provide food for ever growning numbers will be endless. I suspect neither gender will enjoy it very much, aside from leading us again and again to our malthusian limit.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron