[mididoctors]

I find the survivalist bunker mentality to the issue of peak oil slightly disturbing on two broad points..
1. it is self furfilling and negative
2. it probably is useless to second guess disaster anyway..

it is a consistent fantasy to believe one could escape a global catastrophe and run to the hills... it is a preemptive escape from responsibility as a member of the human race IMO..

there is an idyll of independence from the trauma of modern life in some new homestead in a post apocalyptic western. if the worse came to worse the idea one could separate from oppressive power groupings and have a degree of freedom may be an illusion..

society could survive or recover and leave us all still with heavy stressful burdens and a massive drop in living standards. a nuclear powered state may arise with all sorts of attendant problems of personal liberty.. 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!

[rallyman]

mididoctors wrote:

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!

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.........

[mididoctors]

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.....

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. bonkers

[trespam]

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...

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.

The survivalist types can speculate and congregate on a web site for almost any apocalyptic topic: asteroid, giant volcano explodes, massive shift in earth's plates, significant quick shift in earth's temperature, etc. etc. etc.

I think the survivalist portions of a web site such as this, over time, should just shift to a survivalist web site. Keep the focus here on fossil fuel depletion, the ecomomics, geology, etc. Discussion on how to make soap could just as well be reserved for a survivalist site. I'm sure they exist. Or an organic farming, or commune site. I'm sure they exist as well.

[cthulhu]

Oh no, what I feared is beginning to happen. All the perceptive people who intuitively felt something was a miss and sought out answers are soon to be overwhelmed by the umming and arring of the great unwashed who got us into this mess in the first place.
Soon we shall be forced to flee the sneers of the idiots as they take over to provide us with a solution. Goddess help us all.

[cthulhu]

Is if funeral time for hippy down at the Haight?

[MonteQuest]

2. it probably is useless to second guess disaster anyway.

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.

Short-term is a different story, we do have a bit of history from the last gas crisis to guide us. If world oil production peaks and creates shortages, immediately we can expect:
1. Higher energy and food costs.
2. Gas rationing
3. Long lines at gas stations.
4. Isolated violence.
5. Shortage of gas containers.
6. Poor or no economic growth.
7. Inflation
8. Demonstrations
9. A media event.
10. A debate over blame.

Beyond that is pure speculation. History has shown us that all the great ancient empires of earth, from the Persian to the Roman, fell when they were at their peak; none withstanding. Roman civilization had many parallels to our own. Maybe history can give us a glimpse, but nothing more. The analogy is exceedingly imprecise, however. The U.S. is vastly more fearsome than Rome in every respect, possessing weapons no ancient emperor could have ever dreamed of.

Post-Peak oil will have its own learning curve, I am afraid

[backstop]

Boris -- I welcome your common sense in debunking the illusory glamours of survivalism. They seem to me to reflect the proponents' inadequacies rather than the inadequacies of fossil energy supply, and thus add little or nothing to the site.

Equally it seems to me pointless to try to develop responses to peak oil that fail to address the three other comparable looming crises: namely those of soil and aquifer depletion, and of climatic destabilization.

The latter is perhaps unique in exemplifying global interdependence : unless all states agree to steadily contract greenhouse gas emissions, all face the consequences in which global food supplies are liable to collapse. Without that agreement, if coal were used (by China ?) to maintain energy-supply growth during declining oil supplies, a crash program of nuclear power (by America ?) would not even halt the rise of global GHG emissions.

To put the issue into perspective, the IPCC pointed out 14 years ago that we need to cut GHG global emissions by > 60% just to stop adding to excess atmospheric carbon and making the problem worse.

Beside nuclear's plethora of problems (including the need of secret police forces) no less an authority than Dr El Baradei of the UN IAEA recently pointed out that even with steady global economic growth only a 70% rise in global nuclear capacity would be affordable by 2030, which (with related energy demand growth) would not even maintain nuclear's market share, let alone reduce present fossil fuel dependence.

Therefore, any resolution of the problems of dependence on fossil fuels appears to rest in the so-called 'renewables'. Given that these currently include both 'Battery-Chicken-Dung-Power' and the use of arable land to produce transport fuels, I'd be interested to read your ideas on a set of criteria for the selection of energy technologies for official support.

regards,

Backstop

[jato]

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?


Not everyone is a "survivalist". Not everyone is a tree hugging, hippie liberal. There is no perfect answer to surviving a power down and people will die. However, I am convinced some people will survive. I think a cross section of society emerge from the other side of the power down. Right wingers, left wingers, everyone in between & criminals, will survive by different methods and a lot of luck.

[mididoctors]

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.

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..
1. transfer of energy production to new sources
ok no Expletive deleted. sherlock! i hear you say.....

2. changing patterns of consumption
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

not

3 . dig in every man for himself firstly this simply is not a solution and secondly the ability to forage on the carcass of the old world will not be an individualistic behavior but the activity of gangs...
criticized US policy in the ME could be seen as this behavior NOW!.. (but there counter arguments to that)

maneuvering for the control of the levers of global power which include the production of petroleum etc...

survivalism is a microscopic implosion of this behavior if you like
the ME is an arena of US interest and former influence.. the war is the result of a perceived threat or loss of influence IE a war to protect status quo or hanging onto what you already have... (euro vs dollar etc etc etc)

"those damm martians ain't going to get the TV."

the end of the world is not guaranteed. simply creating the headroom for the acceptance of changes in consumption as quality issues over standard of living could allow leaders to say and do things that uptill now are vote losers.

[MonteQuest]

1. transfer of energy production to new sources

We all know that, Boris, and you won't need your flame suit for my retort, but moves in that direction will all be too little, too late. On April 18, 1977, President Jimmy Carter called for a new energy policy in America, and likened it to “the moral equivalent of war.” That ominous warning has slid into obscurity along with 55 mph speed limits, smaller vehicles, conservation, and a move towards renewable energy. Perhaps, at that time a soft-landing move towards renewable energy would have been feasible and economically possible. It's all about rate and magnitude. Too few know about the coming crisis, much less is any major government player even discussing it as a top issue. The transition you suggest is just not viable to meet the world's energy needs without a severe social-economical upheaval. How bad it will get, I have no idea.

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

A comparable standard of living? Compared to who? the US? Yes, we consume too much. We are less than 5% of the world's population in America and consume 40-50% of the world's energy and resources while contributing to 70% of the world's pollution wherever you find it.

So, let's do some raw numbers. We will use approximate numbers, ok?

5% of 6.3 billion=315 million people

315 million people =50% resource use.

315 x 2=630 million= 100% resource use.

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. Yes, there is a lot of room for conservation. Middle class America throws 50% of all food uneaten into the garbage. But our entire economy is predicated on continuing this wasteful consumption. 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.

{touch up; EE}

[mididoctors]

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.

yes hence part deux-changing patterns of consumption
you just need equality which means 'we" give something up... freaky but decent

[MonteQuest]

you just need equality which means 'we" give something up... freaky but decent

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]

i think we are done here as we are OT... planning for future is about changing the world not waiting out some storm.. or am I wrong and ths guy has the all the answers link

{touch up; EE}

[MonteQuest]

or am I wrong and ths guy has the all the answers link

He looks happy. Must be X-mas. That going to be your avatar?

[cthulhu]

UK trade data in food, feed and drink including indigeneity and degree of processing: National Food Survey: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/s ... ?vlnk=3803

Might help you decide what you want to give up so we can all sit in the same slum, cooking on our faeces fueled fire, all over the globe, together as one in dire misery. Though how you are going to manage the world into a contolled descent into an equivalence of poverty is beyond me. Do we have that many bullets?

Also notice 17% of the UK population lives below the poverty line.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/cou ... ingdom.php

Wow, over ten million people living in poverty on your own door step. Better start the redistribution at home immediately.

Remember the poor houses? Remember the filth running through the streets? The outbreaks of plague and famine that were such an essential part of British life all those years ago? Things which sent British sons and daughters out to the remotest corners of the world never to return?

What happens when more labour is needed than service? No need for all that education. Child labour, ahh, ain't that sweet. Gotta make a copper or two...

[mididoctors]

Wow, over ten million people living in poverty on your own door step. Better start the redistribution at home immediately.

you make on the surface a reasonable point..

however poverty in the Uk is not destabelising it is contained by social welfare etc...

the equivalency you need is not exactitude but min standards to avoid anarchy..

you need to have min standards in comparative terms. there is latitude globally and with-in any particular society.. success or containment is a threshold state not a universal condition

Boris
london

[Pops]

In fact the premise of this forum is not “run for the hills and stock up on ammo”. If you have read the Assessments and Plans thread you will see there are quite a few different approaches to riding out the decline, with attempting to become less dependant on existing infrastructure being only one of many. The variety of thread topics also indicates differing attitudes; increase awareness, farming in town, conversion of suburbs, etc.

One of the effects of increased oil prices almost universally agreed on (on this board at least) is increased cost of transportation and the probability that more trade will happen on a local level. Putting oneself in a locale where the population is already fairly independent and can produce sufficient food to maintain the local population seems prudent if fuel for transportation becomes scarce. And IMO storing sufficient supplies to ride out a short-term emergency – caused by whatever reason, seems even more prudent no matter what the future holds.

On the other hand, trying to hide out far from any community in a bunker filled with TP can only be a short-term solution.

At any rate, as many people as there are in the world, there will be that many solutions. If your plan is to conserve our way out of trouble, by all means post it on the plans thread here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic321-0-asc-45.html

[Guest]

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.

[Permanently_Baffled]

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.

Mr guest you are incorrect , the UK can sustain itself in food. It is just cheaper at the moment to import from poorer parts of the world or EEC. If you go to the DEFRA website you will see that the UK is 70%(was as high as 75% in early 90's) self sufficient food already and it only uses 4.5m hectares out of 18.5 hectares for crops. Aprroximately 5m are used for grazing animals the rest is set aside and unused grassland. Couple this with the fact that the average UK Consumer eats 40% too many calories and you could easily feed the population, although I concede the choice would be poorer and some meat production would have to be sacrificed. Also there will still be international trade Post peak , there will for example still be 20 billion barrels per year being produced in 2030 so assuming food production and distribution get priority, there is no need for anybody to starve to death in the UK for the foreseeable future.

In addition to this North Sea oil according to C.Campbell will supply at least half the UK's consumption levels of oil even in 2020 so need to fear starving to death just yet.

PB