[PraiseDoom]

In the end though, any speculation about the future is just that; speculation.

Thou Shalt Not Be Reasonable!! ( 2nd Commandment, Bible Of Doom )

If we can't credit the Prophets ( Praise be to Ruppert, Heinberg, Pfeiffer and Kuntsler ) with the ability to foretell the future, then why in the hell am I hording guns, gold and MRE's?

[Ludi]

GM foods could go a long way in the future.

But they aren't necessary. There are open-pollinated or F1 hybrid plants for virtually every situation.


Far from being a no-hoper, I think there is plenty of possible hope if people are willing to become informed and make appropriate choices, rather than getting sold on something that is expensive and unnecessary such as GM crops. There's existing agricultural/horticultural technology for nearly every need from the near-arctic to the tropics and desert, they just need to be implemented. We can even avoid the "slaving in the fields" that seems so popular with doomers, if we implement these technologies.

[Pops]

Talk about me holding a newbie's feet to the fire with terse remarks.

You're right Monte; crotchety old bastards like us can’t hold their candle!

That is why youngsters are the militaries mainstay.

[Judgie]

Are you sure this isn't Aaron having a bit of fun with us again?

All of these two-post wonders are probably Aaron. I think he's testing us or something.

Does Aaron have a little white lap doggie? Does he cycle avidly?

Google is our friend.

The important thing to take away from viewing those two links, is that no matter where he goes, wahoodoggydoo is still the quintessential
Village Idiot"

[Judgie]

GM foods could go a long way in the future.

But they aren't necessary. There are open-pollinated or F1 hybrid plants for virtually every situation.


Far from being a no-hoper, I think there is plenty of possible hope if people are willing to become informed and make appropriate choices, rather than getting sold on something that is expensive and unnecessary such as GM crops. There's existing agricultural/horticultural technology for nearly every need from the near-arctic to the tropics and desert, they just need to be implemented. We can even avoid the "slaving in the fields" that seems so popular with doomers, if we implement these technologies.

When they find out that up to 1/2 still have to "sacrifice" themselves to provide a sustainable agricultural lifestyle for the other , hope will go out the window and survival will begin. Just make sure you're out of the way when that SHTF.

[PraiseDoom]

Why is it that the thrust of members responses to questions asked by newbies is "we're screwed", "die-off", "crash", "zombies", "no hope" etc?

Well...DUH! Because....uh....its true? Happening as we speak?

[Kyn]

Why is it that the thrust of members responses to questions asked by newbies is "we're screwed", "die-off", "crash", "zombies", "no hope" etc?

Well...DUH! Because....uh....its true? Happening as we speak?

The world economy is growing faster that ever before today. 5% each year. No doom/die-off I could see.

And growth will indeed solve more problems that it creates in the long run.

[Twilight]

That's because your understanding is superficial. You look at surface indicators and have no experience of the fundamentals. Economic growth stats are not a useful guide to anything.

[Ludi]

When they find out that up to 1/2 still have to "sacrifice" themselves to provide a sustainable agricultural lifestyle for the other , hope will go out the window and survival will begin. Just make sure you're out of the way when that SHTF.

That's really debatable. We don't know the carrying capacity of the Earth for humans living a different way. Some folks who have studied the issue believe the current population could possibly be maintained if we live in a way which maximizes the biotic potential of the land, rather than the way we currently live which tends to reduce the biotic potential drastically. This would mean, of course, a complete change in the way in which we live, which is not likely.


Myself, personally, don't expect to survive when times get very tough. I'll be among the "sacrificed" probably.

[Aaron]

4 pages for a troll?

You guys have too much time on your hands...

An interesting side-note:

I trained many of the folks at this trolls place of employment years ago, helping them to build their first Intranet.

Are you sure your employers would want you posting from work to this forum Mr. Troll?

I won't out you, but at least use an anon proxy to post here.

Yeesh...

[Kyn]

How the heck are solar panels going to help us make chemicals like ammounian nitrate to fertilze our fields?

Bad example. We don't need more than air, hydrogen - for example from water - and a lot of energy to make fertilizers.

Energy from cheaper solar panels would be as good for that as energy from other sources.

Due to chemical fertilizers the land can produce 6 times as much food as before.

Certainly not. Most increases in yield came from embettered agriculture techniques and higher yielding crops.

Using no chemical fertilizers at all, you'll still have 80% of the yield, as biological-farming-studies show.

[Kyn]

That's because your understanding is superficial. You look at surface indicators and have no experience of the fundamentals. Economic growth stats are not a useful guide to anything.

That's wrong.

The number of undernourished persons decreases as the economy grows, if it grows strong enough.

The percentage of undernourished persons decreases permanently, and the strongest increase typically happens when oil prices are high.

Growth is an extremly important number, even radical neo-physiocrats should accept that.

[Aaron]

4 pages for a troll?

You guys have too much time on your hands...

An interesting side-note:

I trained many of the folks at this trolls place of employment years ago, helping them to build their first Intranet.

Are you sure your employers would want you posting from work to this forum Mr. Troll?

I won't out you, but at least use an anon proxy to post here.

Yeesh...

Oh please, do tell. Is it someone I know?

I don't know who this is specifically... but I know where they work.

Think great big oil services & manufacturing company.

I've said too much already... I must AWAY!

<glancing around suspiciously, he flees the thread in most dramatic fashion)

[Kyn]

Certainly not. Most increases in yield came from embettered agriculture techniques and higher yielding crops.

are those angry plants?

Erm, thanks for correcting me. Till today I thought embettered would mean the same as to improve sth. It has such a nice sound to me. My English is horrible.

Using no chemical fertilizers at all, you'll still have 80% of the yield, as biological-farming-studies show.

Large scale organic agriculture requires more not less energy to haul around compost, manure, rock phosphate, etc. Thus more fossil fuels would be needed[/quote]

It does not. The energy necessary per ton decreases. I'll search for a source on that fact.

[wahoodoggydoo]

I'm not a troll. I do own little white lap doggies and I am an avid cyclist. I'm not trying to hide. I'm easy enough to find if you try.

I am a newbie, and of course my original post was sarcastic.

Confession: I lean toward the doom-and-gloom because human greed and laziness tend to outweigh human sensibility.

However, I believe we have the capability to dramatically change current global energy production and consumption to offset the impact of Peak Oil.

Our efforts are better spent toward conservation, reforestation, and the development of alternative energy sources than preparing for the sky to fall.