the horror of it all is that you may get to see some catastrophe and it still doesn't release you from your 9 to 5 job!
that basically is the fantasy.. even after the crash you will have to make a living. people have attached glamour to the issue as some bold new adventure. bonkersrallyman wrote:Ahhhh, you had to go and spoil it for me didn't you?? I could live with most anything, but to see the decline of modern civilization AND still have to go to work, 9 to 5, every day?!?!?!?! Rats.....
This has been my point all along. The survivalist types think they can create their little island of stability, but the government may very well seize all of these little pockets of self-reliance and forcibly move people to them in order to work the fields. I'm making this up, but you just don't know. In addition, roving bands of thugs may very well take up residence in one survivalist home (after killing the occupants), live until the supplies run out, then move on to the next survivalist haunt. It would be a great survival mechanism for them. Survivalist love to have photos of themselves with their favorite weapon, but against a large private army of survivalist--they're toast.mididoctors wrote:2. it probably is useless to second guess disaster anyway.. --snip-- a nuclear powered state may arise with all sorts of attendant problems of personal liberty...
The thread of planning for the future has its provocative attributes, but I agree with you that trying to forcast the scenario of disaster can be futile and self-fulling, at least way into the future.mididoctors wrote: 2. it probably is useless to second guess disaster anyway.
the parameters for the scenario you vaguely outline are so vast in scope specific contingencies are almost meaningless... the trick is to realise that the solution lies in two broad areas..jato wrote:mididoctors, your post appears to be a rant and is difficult for me to follow. Do you have any questions for the group? How do you recommend people survive what is to come? --snip-- Right wingers, left wingers, everyone in between & criminals, will survive by different methods and a lot of luck.
mididoctors wrote: 1. transfer of energy production to new sources
people in the west consume too much and the developing world needs to attain a comparable standard of living lest it causes instability at a global level... wars etc.. you can apply those principles to water and food but it amounts to the same thing more or less
MonteQuest wrote:Even if you could spread all the resources evenly around the world, you would be hard to support a billion people at anything close to our standard of living. --snip-- The transition will create horror stories for the future. Again, how bad it will get, I don't have any idea. But it will be ugly.
Agreed. We will have to set the example for the world. I can see us even going so far as to help the Chinese with efficiency to reduce their consumption if we can the required reduction in standard of living. Trouble is, we are such a consumer based society that we would see a depression here before the world would even entertain listening to us about their consumption.mididoctors wrote: you just need equality which means 'we" give something up... freaky but decent
He looks happy. Must be X-mas. That going to be your avatar?mididoctors wrote: or am I wrong and ths guy has the all the answers link
cthulhu wrote:
Wow, over ten million people living in poverty on your own door step. Better start the redistribution at home immediately.
Anonymous wrote:Boris, I've been to London twice. That city can't sustain itself. I don't even think the UK can. I hired a car and drove all over Scotland and England, too many people and not enough land IMO. A postage stamp. I'd leave.
>>>Things which sent British sons and daughters out to the remotest corners of the world never to return?
cthulhu, I'm glad they did. I note "N/A" for poverty in Australia at the link http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/cou ... tralia.php
Yep, I live in Australia. I already live semi-rural as it is, farms are around me. So what Boris is talking about doesn't make sense to me. I see a load of land where I am. There's nothing that odd about having chooks, sheep (they're good lawn mowers) and riding a horse. There's organic farms not far from me either and for years I've grown my own veggies. I guess all this survivalist thing is city talk. But rural life has gone on since day dot and still goes on. The alien thing to me is cities. Noisy and conjested, yuck.
I have to laugh about all this bandit culture talk. There's no way they'll make it if they can't afford fuel, it's too far and by the time the drama sets in, the govt would have commandeered all fuel. If you're rural, you'd get a diesel allowance. And as for govts siezing the land, well what use is the land to the govt, unless the folks running the land are left to work it. Land will not magically produce, you need the people with skills to do that. The landowners are the best for the job and the govt knows it. You won't get kicked off your land, though you'll get taxed on your produce, sh*t what's new? Honestly, the worst that would happen is you're forced to billet city people. Plenty of lonely farmers would LOVE a few city gals to liven up their day.
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests