Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on July 31, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Heinberg: Are We Doomed?

General Ideas


My most recent essay, in which I discussed a highly publicized controversy over the efficacy of plans for a comprehensive transition to an all-renewable energy future, garnered some strong responses. “If you are right,” one Facebook commenter opined, “we are doomed. Fortunately you are not right.” (The commenter didn’t explain why.) What had I said to provoke an expectation of cataclysmic oblivion? Simply that there is probably no technically and financially feasible energy pathway to enable those of us in highly industrialized countries to maintain current levels of energy usage very far into the future.

My piece happened to be published right around the same time New York Magazine released a controversial article titled “The Uninhabitable Earth,” in which author David Wallace Wells portrayed a dire future if the most pessimistic climate change models turn to reality. “It is, I promise, worse than you think,” wrote Wells. “If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today.” Wells’s article drew rebukes from—of all people—climate scientists, who pointed out a few factual errors, but also insisted that scaring the public just doesn’t help. “Importantly, fear does not motivate,” responded Michael Mann with Susan Joy Hassol and Tom Toles, “and appealing to it is often counter-productive as it tends to distance people from the problem, leading them to disengage, doubt and even dismiss it.”

It’s true: apocalyptic warnings don’t move most people. Or, rather, they move most people away from the source of discomfort, so they simply tune out. But it’s also true that people feel a sense of deep, unacknowledged unease when they are fed “solutions” that they instinctively know are false or insufficient.

Others came to Wells’s defense. Margaret Klein Salamon, a clinical psychologist and founder of the climate action group The Climate Mobilization, which advocates for starting a “World War II-scale” emergency mobilization to convert from fossil fuels, writes, “it is OK, indeed imperative, to tell the whole, frightening story. . . . [I]t’s the job of those of us trying to protect humanity and restore a safe climate to tell the truth about the climate crisis and help people process and channel their own feelings—not to preemptively try to manage and constrain those feelings.”

So: Are we doomed if we can’t maintain current and growing energy levels? And are we doomed anyway due to now-inevitable impacts of climate change?

First, the good news. With regard to energy, we should keep in mind the fact that today’s Americans use roughly twice as much per capita as their great-grandparents did in 1925. While people in that era enjoyed less mobility and fewer options for entertainment and communication than we do today, they nevertheless managed to survive and even thrive. And we now have the ability to provide many services (such as lighting) far more efficiently, so it should be possible to reduce per-capita energy usage dramatically while still maintaining a lifestyle that would be considered more than satisfactory by members of previous generations and by people in many parts of the world today. And reducing energy usage would make a whole raft of problems—climate change, resource depletion, the challenge of transitioning to renewable energy sources—much easier to solve.

The main good news with regard to climate change that I can point to (as I did in an essay posted in June) is that economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves are consistent only with lower-emissions climate change scenarios. As BP and other credible sources for coal, oil, and natural gas reserves figures show, and as more and more researchers are pointing out, the worst-case climate scenarios associated with “business as usual” levels of carbon emissions are in fact unrealistic.

Now, the bad news. While we could live perfectly well with less energy, that’s not what the managers of our economy want. They want growth. Our entire economy is structured to require constant, compounded growth of GDP, and for all practical purposes raising the GDP means using more energy. While fringe economists and environmentalists have for years been proposing ways to back away from our growth addiction (for example, by using alternative economic indices such as Gross National Happiness), none of these proposals has been put into widespread effect. As things now stand, if growth falters the economy crashes.

There’s bad climate news as well: even with current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, we’re seeing unacceptable and worsening impacts—raging fires, soaring heat levels, and melting icecaps. And there are hints that self-reinforcing feedbacks maybe kicking in: an example is the release of large amounts of methane from thawing tundra and oceanic hydrates, which could lead to a short-term but steep spike in warming. Also, no one is sure if current metrics of climate sensitivity (used to estimate the response of the global climate system to a given level of forcing) are accurate, or whether the climate is actually more sensitive than we have assumed. There’s some worrisome evidence the latter is case.

But let’s step back a bit. If we’re interested in signs of impending global crisis, there’s no need to stop with just these two global challenges. The world is losing 25 billion tons of topsoil a year due to current industrial agricultural practices; if we don’t deal with that issue, civilization will still crash even if we do manage to ace our energy and climate test. Humanity is also over-using fresh water: ancient aquifers are depleting, while other water sources are being polluted. If we don’t deal with our water crisis, we still crash. Species are going extinct at a thousand times the pre-industrial rate; if we don’t deal with the biodiversity dilemma, we still crash. Then there are social and economic problems that could cause nations to crumble even if we manage to protect the environment; this threat category includes the menaces of over-reliance on debt and increasing economic inequality.

If we attack each of these problems piecemeal with technological fixes (for example, with desalination technology to solve the water crisis or geo-engineering to stabilize the climate) we may still crash because our techno-fixes are likely to have unintended consequences, as all technological interventions do. Anyway, the likelihood of successfully identifying and deploying all the needed fixes in time is vanishingly small.

Many problems are converging at once because society is a complex system, and the challenges we have been discussing are aspects of a systemic crisis. A useful way to frame an integrated understanding of the 21st century survival challenge is this: we humans have overshot Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for our species. We’ve been able to do this due to a temporary subsidy of cheap, bountiful energy from fossil fuels, which enabled us to stretch nature’s limits and to support a far larger overall population than would otherwise be possible. But now we are starting to see supply constraints for those fuels, just as the side effects of burning enormous amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas are also coming into view. Meanwhile, using cheap energy to expand resource-extractive and waste-generating economic processes is leading to biodiversity loss; the depletion of soil, water, and minerals; and environmental pollution of many kinds. Just decarbonizing energy, while necessary, doesn’t adequately deal with systemic overshoot. Only a reduction of population and overall resource consumption, along with a rapid reduction in our reliance on fossil fuels and a redesign of industrial systems, can do that.

Economic inequality is a systemic problem too. As we’ve grown our economy, those who were in position to invest in industrial expansion or to loan money to others have reaped the majority of the rewards, while those who got by through selling their time and labor (or whose common cultural heritage was simply appropriated by industrialists) have fallen behind. There’s no technological fix for inequality; dealing with it will require redesigning our economic system and redistributing wealth. Those in wealthy nations would, on average, have to adjust their living standards downward.

Now, can we do all of this without a crash? Probably not. Indeed, many economists would regard the medicine (population reduction, a decline in per-capita energy use, and economic redistribution) as worse than whatever aspects of the disease they are willing to acknowledge. Environmentalists and human rights advocates would disagree. Which is to say, there’s really no way out. Whether we stick with business as usual, or attempt a dramatic multi-pronged intervention, our current “normal” way of life is toast.

Accepting that a crash is more or less inevitable is a big step, psychologically speaking. I call this toxic knowledge: one cannot “un-know” that the current world system hangs by a thread, and this understanding can lead to depression. In some ways, the systemic crisis we face is analogous to the individual existential crisis of life and death, which we each have to confront eventually. Some willfully ignore their own mortality for as long as possible; others grasp at a belief in the afterlife. Still others seek to create meaning and purpose by making a positive difference in the lives of those around them with whatever time they have. Such efforts don’t alter the inevitability of death; however, contributing to one’s community appears to enhance well-being in many ways beyond that of merely prolonging life.

But is a crash the same as doom?

Not necessarily. Our best hope at this point would seem to be a controlled crash that enables partial recovery at a lower level of population and resource use, and that therefore doesn’t lead to complete and utter oblivion (human extinction or close to it). Among those who understand the systemic nature of our problems, the controlled crash option is the subject of what may be the most interesting and important conversation that’s taking place on the planet just now. But only informed people who have gotten over denial and self-delusion are part of it.

This discussion started in the 1970s, though I wasn’t part of it then; I joined a couple of decades later. There is no formal membership; the conversation takes place through and among a patchwork of small organizations and scattered individuals. They don’t all know each other and there is no secret handshake. Some have publicly adopted the stance that a global crash is inevitable; most soft-pedal that message on their organizational websites but are privately plenty worried. During the course of the conversation so far, two (not mutually exclusive) strategies have emerged.

The first strategy envisions convincing the managers and power holders of the world to invest in a no-regrets insurance plan. Some systems thinkers who understand our linked global crises are offering to come up with a back-pocket checklist for policy makers, for moments when financial or environmental crisis hits: how, under such circumstances, might the managerial elite be able to prevent, say, a stock market crash from triggering food, energy, and social crises as well? A set of back-up plans wouldn’t require detailed knowledge of when or how crisis will erupt. It wouldn’t even require much of a systemic understanding of global overshoot. It would simply require willingness on the part of societal power holders to agree that there are real or potential threats to global order, and to accept the offer of help. At the moment, those pursuing this strategy are working mostly covertly, for reasons that are not hard to discern.

The second strategy consists of working within communities to build more societal resilience from the ground up. It is easier to get traction with friends and neighbors than with global power holders, and it’s within communities that political decisions are made closest to where the impact is felt. My own organization, Post Carbon Institute, has chosen to pursue this strategy via a series of books, the Community Resilience Guides; the “Think Resilience” video series; and our forthcoming compendium, The Community Resilience Reader.  Rob Hopkins, who originated the Transition Towns movement, has been perhaps the most public, eloquent, and upbeat proponent of the local resilience strategy, but there are countless others scattered across the globe.

Somehow, the work of resilience building (whether top-down or bottom-up) must focus not just on maintaining supplies of food, water, energy, and other basic necessities, but also on sustaining social cohesion—a culture of understanding, tolerance, and inquiry—during times of great stress. While it’s true that people tend to pull together in remarkable ways during wars and natural disasters, sustained hard times can lead to scapegoating and worse.

Most people are not party to the conversation, not aware that it is happening, and unaware even that such a conversation is warranted. Among those who are worried about the state of the world, most are content to pursue or support efforts to keep crises from occurring by working via political parties, religious organizations, or non-profit advocacy orgs on issues such as climate change, food security, and economic inequality. There is also a small but rapidly growing segment of society that feels disempowered as the era of economic growth wanes, and that views society’s power holders as evil and corrupt. These dispossessed—whether followers of ISIS or Infowars—would prefer to “shake things up,” even to the point of bringing society to destruction, rather than suffer the continuation of the status quo. Unfortunately, this last group may have the easiest path of all.

By comparison, the number of those involved in the conversation is exceedingly small, countable probably in the hundreds of thousands, certainly not millions. Can we succeed? It depends on how one defines “success”—as the ability to maintain, for a little longer, an inherently unsustainable global industrial system? Or as the practical reduction in likely suffering on the part of the survivors of the eventual crash? A related query one often hears after environmental lectures is, Are we doing enough? If “Enough” means “enough to avert a system crash,” then the answer is no: it’s unlikely that anyone can deliver that outcome now. The question should be, What can we do—not to save a way of life that is unsalvageable, but to make a difference to the people and other species in harm’s way?

This is not a conversation about the long-term trajectory of human cultural evolution, though that’s an interesting subject for speculation. Assuming there are survivors, what will human society look like following the crises ensuing from climate change and the end of fossil fuels and capitalism? David Fleming’s Surviving the Future and John Michael Greer’s The Ecotechnic Future offer useful thoughts in this regard. My own view is that it’s hard for us to envision what comes next because our imaginations are bounded by the reality we have known. What awaits will likely be as far removed from from modern industrial urban life as Iron-Age agrarian empires were from hunting-and-gathering bands. We are approaching one of history’s great discontinuities. The best we can do under the circumstances is to get our priorities and values straight (protect the vulnerable, preserve the best of what we have collectively achieved, and live a life that’s worthy) and put one foot in front of the other.

The conversation I’m pointing to here is about fairly short-term actions. And it doesn’t lend itself to building a big movement. For that, you need villains to blame and promises of revived national or tribal glory. For those engaged in the conversation, there’s only hard work and the satisfaction of honestly facing our predicament with an attitude of curiosity, engagement, and compassion. For us, threats of doom or promises of utopia are distractions or cop-outs.

Only those drawn to the conversation by temperament and education are likely to take it up. Advertising may not work. But having a few more hands on deck, and a few more resources to work with, can only help.


41 Comments on "Heinberg: Are We Doomed?"

  1. MASTERMIND on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 12:41 pm 

    Saudi Aramco CEO believes oil shortage coming despite U.S. shale boom

    The Oil Age may come to an end for a shortage of oil.

    -Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Yamani

  2. MASTERMIND on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 12:43 pm 

    Better sell that I-Toy and buy some preps! Once the shortages come gas stations only have a few days supplies. And that will be gone in a few hours with Preppers fueling up bug out trucks and bankers fueling up their private jets!

  3. CAM on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 12:59 pm 

    Heinberg is most certainly right. The die is cast. We are moving inexorably toward a catastrophic outcome. We face multiple existential problems for which we have no plausible solutions, and all of which seem to be converging at once. And worse, we remain paralyzed, socially and politically, at the most critical of moments.

  4. onlooker on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 1:03 pm 

    Well nice to hear from someone who got me originally interested in Peak Oil with his book “When the Party is Over”. Well very revealing what Heinberg is saying. First, that right now all that is happening is discreet conversation and that this conversation does not involve very many people. And so, meantime, the masses of the world go about oblivious to the gathering gigantic storm of consequences to overshoot. Mr. Heinberg from all accounts is a very sober cautious follower of all this. The fact that he is asking if we are doomed points to how he has come to realize that solutions per say do NOT exist. We are truly in an existential dilemma. The plan he mentioned and its intended outcome of a partial recovery with a smaller population and resource use is a best case scenario. It would almost certainly involve only certain countries whose population to resource ratio is more manageable and it may involve the seizing of land and resources by the more militarily potent countries. In order for it to work, a grassroots movement must be on board and must in advance plan meticulously how to respond to the cascading discontinuities and chaos that will ensue. And even if all this ends up working almost as best as possible, humanity and what is left of it in terms of complexity, modernity and size must still deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change. Hard to be optimistic about a long term prognosis given the nature of climatic change and in the relatively short term, total collapse also threatens many regions and societies. That is how I see it.

  5. Hubert on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 1:05 pm 

    Real difference may come when we run out of water. World may run out of groundwater by 2050.

  6. dave thompson on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 2:06 pm 

    Back in the early 70’s the Club of Rome got it right with the publication of “The Limits to Growth.”

  7. MASTERMIND on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 5:05 pm 

    Saudi Aramco CEO believes oil shortage coming despite U.S. shale boom

    Better sell that I-Toy and buy some preps! Once the shortages come gas stations only have a few days supplies. And that will be gone in a few hours with Preppers fueling up bug out trucks and bankers fueling up their private jets!

    Collapse of Global Civilization Starter Pack

  8. Makati1 on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 9:28 pm 

    dave, yes, that is a good book and also the one about cycles, “The Forth Turning” by Howe & Strauss. The next decade will see very drastic changes in many parts of the world. Or so it seems to me.

  9. Makati1 on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 9:31 pm 

    onlooker, I agree. The degrees of pain to come is not yet obvious to most, but to those who know and prepare, the pain can be lessened.

  10. AM on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 9:32 pm 

    I’m a fan of Prof. Heinberg. I was the first to line up at my university bookstore and got his book “The Party’s Over”. Then why is this member of the committee censoring my comments?

  11. AM on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 9:41 pm 

    I’m a recovered Paultard. Now I’m an empire kind of man. I think we should enlist women to fight and kill extremist tard preachers the way to kill ISIS leadership. This solves my most passionate subject which is to alleviate poverty by empowering women. Men have been fighting for generations to escape poverty. Just look at the French’s Legion.

    Why is a nazi allowed on here and I’m not?

    Senator McCain said our (Senate) dysfunction is their livelihood. Extremist tard preachers are bottom feeders and we need to get rid of them. Kill them.

  12. Makati1 on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 10:14 pm 

    AM, can you use proper English? Tard? WTF?

    And referencing brain damaged McCain is like quoting Hitler, Genghis Kahn and Caligula.

  13. Bloomer on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 10:28 pm 

    The free market will solve all of our global issues. Throw in some tax cuts for good measures and everything will work out just fine…..

  14. JuanP on Mon, 31st Jul 2017 10:56 pm 

    “Still others seek to create meaning and purpose by making a positive difference in the lives of those around them with whatever time they have.” I couldn’t help but feel defined. This is a good article. I focus on the bottom up approach, the top down approach is definitely not working right now.

  15. onlooker on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 1:07 am 

    The top down approach will never work, the high ups are the ones who most benefit from the system and will be the last thus to feel the pain. They also exemplify the worse in us in terms of greed, selfishness and power lust, So do not expect them to be good team players. This is already evident in their prepping ie, fancy hideaways in remote locations

  16. peakyeast on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 3:05 am 

    The limits to growth 30 year update says it all:

    “population grew not only exponentially from 1650, but in fact super exponentially”

    “The warning was even supported by a 2001 report authored within the World Bank: an alarming rate of environmental degradation has occurred and in some cases is accelerating. Across the developing world, environmental problems are imposing severe human, economic, and social costs and threatening the foundation upon which growth and, ultimately, survival depend.”

    “Levels of affluence we might have provided sustainably to all the globe’s people are no longer attainable; ecosystems we might have preserved have been extinguished; resources that might have given wealth to future generations have been consumed. ”

    We may still have the possibility to avert complete disaster, but history shows clearly that our leaders are not capable of rational thought or planning that includes all of humanity. Its all pretend.

  17. underhandoverarm on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 7:06 am 

    Brilliant piece. I wholeheartedly endorse his recommendation of David Fleming’s ‘Surviving the Future’ for thinking through what makes sense in both present and future:

  18. pointer on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 9:58 am 

    What’s there to get all excited about? In not too many decades, we’ll all be dead. You, me, the “high ups”, the “low downs”, everyone, at least everyone here. Maybe your COD will have something to do with climate change, or it might have to do with a bus. No one knows in advance.

    So what’s important? The preservation of the species? Why will you care if the species is still around when you’re dead? Believing what you believe, and defending it, it seems, is just a diversion from that truth that everyone desperately avoids, namely that nothing will matter to you in the long run, that there is no meaning in the long run. For amusement sometime, bring this up at a cocktail party.

    Arguing about climate change, peak oil, collapse, buffoonish leaders, etc., stating your opinions, trying to be clever, putting others down, and so on, serves only to temporarily drive this truth out from your awareness. Heck, writing this is my version of the diversion. If you’re lucky, the diversion is 100% effective for the bulk of your life, and you’re rarely bothered by the truth. The best part of the diversion? It’s easy to trick yourself into believing that you’re going to live forever, at whatever age you’re currently at. I do it all the time. Don’t you? Be honest.

    Now all this teeth gnashing about ruining the planet would make sense if you did live forever — creating a hell on the planet would mean creating a hell for yourself that lasts forever. But you aren’t going to live forever. Even the species won’t last forever. In 100 years, you’ll be gone, the species might be gone, and even if not, there’s a good chance no one — not even your descendants — will even know you existed.

    What? You want to be some kind of hero whose opinion is some sort of “right answer” that saved the world and thereby immortalized you? It is a fool’s errand. Will you really care that statues are built to honor you? Remember you won’t be around to bask in your glory. So what to do?

    The answer is that there is no answer. Continue BAU if that’s your pleasure. If you get caught on the wrong side of the consequences, fear not, the discomfort is temporary (if you don’t believe that, visit a graveyard). If you want to try to “save the world”, by all means do that. If you want to wallow in that giddy feeling of believing you are right and others are wrong, go ahead. And prep away as long as you don’t let yourself realize that the supplies and replacement parts run out at some point, and that there will be roving motorcycle gangs who might eventually figure out where you are and that you still have food, booze and women.

    Perhaps the smart thing to do is make like a rat and get off the ship sooner rather than later. What does it benefit a rat to prolong its stay on the ship? Perhaps a few more morsels of cheese?

    Enjoy the despair!

  19. Makati1 on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 7:02 pm 

    “Global Polling: Which Nations Are Happiest? Unhappiest?”

    “Results have recently been published from surveys of 68,759 people in 69 countries around the world during 2016 by WIN/Gallup International, which organization had asked each of these scientifically sampled persons:

    “In general, do you personally feel very happy, happy, neither happy nor unhappy, unhappy, or very unhappy about your life?”

    #1 Fiji
    #2 Colombia
    #3-4 Philippines
    #3-4 China

    #29 Russia
    #30 Canada

    #34 US

    When looking at the other such polls, paid for or influenced by the US, the numbers are somewhat different, skewing towards improving the U$ position, but the U$ is never even close to the top 10 in any of them. Nuff said.

  20. Makati1 on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 7:12 pm 

    pointer, despair? What despair? If you are not resigned to your eventual death, it may be despair but if you are, it is just an experience we will all have at some point.

    Sites such as this provide a chance to share thoughts, views and experiences. It will never solve anything, like you said. Another form of mental entertainment and education.

    But, to not try to ease the pain that is coming, is just another form of masochistic, or suicidal thought. The huge market for painkillers makes it obvious that we like to ease pain when possible. Prepping is another form of “pain killer” we can all do, and should.

    Will we all die someday? Yep! Do we know when? Nope! Unless we commit suicide. Are you volunteering to go first?

  21. onlooker on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 7:23 pm 

    Despair. Is like everything else a state of mind. I do not think in terms of prolonging survival but of trying to live some measure of a worthwhile life. As for this site, it is informative and entertaining for me as I am intrigued by the trajectory of our species and by our varied individual reactions to it. Beyond that nothing is very important. Practically, avoiding pain is something we all seem to wish for.

  22. Wolfie52 on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 8:21 pm 

    Yes, same old doomers arguing with each other. Same crap you’ve been reading ad naseum since 2003. Heinberg may be right someday. But in the lifetime of you douchebags you won’t be fighting “preppers” for gas. Haven’t you guys figured out that these guys keep saying the same thing over and over for 20 years now, and it isn’t close to becoming reality. They like to keep you “there”, just like people like Trump like to keep the ignorant “there”.

    Are there problems? Sure. You can live in your mom’s basement and argue with the same morons day after day, or you can get out and live your life and try to be positive. Your choice.

    Maybe next time I come by here, I won’t see the same idiots arguing/agreeing with the same idiots. #sad

  23. Davy on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 8:31 pm 

    wolfie, so the world is no different than 20 years ago? I think maybe you need to get out of mom’s basement and off the x-box. How old are you?

  24. onlooker on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 9:03 pm 

    Wolfie go back to sleep

  25. MASTERMIND on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 11:53 pm 


    Notice in your polling data that the happiest countries are also the lowest IQ countries as well?

    “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know” -Ernest Hemingway

  26. MASTERMIND on Tue, 1st Aug 2017 11:55 pm 

    Collapse of Global Civilization (starter pack)

  27. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 12:24 am 

    Really? Mastermind? Then you better be careful who is your doctor or nurse the next time you need medical help. You might just find out that they are Filipino or Filipina. Your dentist? Mine worked in the US for 10 years after her degree. My doctor here also worked in the US as an intern and later in practice with his Filipina doctor wife.

    AS for the average person here, maybe you need to come and visit and see for yourself before you judge. Or should I brong up the declining IQ of most Americans? How do you explain “snowflakes”? Davy? Boat? LOL

    Low IQ? I think yours may be in the double digits. Or is it that American brainwashed mindset? Or both? LMAO

  28. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 12:28 am 

    OH, and BTW, Mastermind, how many “intelligent” Americans voted for Trump? Killary? I rest my case.

  29. Davy on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 5:47 am 

    Spare me the drama makat, you are looking like a ridiculous old man again. You never answer why the P’s is so much better than my little Missouri. We have a similar GDP to you so called magnificent P’s but you have 10 times the people….yea you growing but you have a long ways to go…Ops the dumbass place is all full up…darn. Looks like you are growing the wrong way now. LMFAO

  30. MASTERMIND on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 6:05 am 


    The US has one of the highest IQ rates in the entire world. And we also write the most scientific papers in the world as well. Almost 90% of all the scientific papers published every year come from the US,Europe, and Israel. What do they all have in common? Oh yes. White people!

  31. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:06 am 

    I guess PO is fucked up. It will not accept my rebuttal to MM. But, I will post it in another place here. lol

  32. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:08 am 

    MM, the US is at best #19 on the list of IQ by country. The top 3 are always Asian countries. Do a search before you open your uneducated mouth and save us all some of your bullshit.

  33. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:13 am 

    MM, need more proof?

    98 seems to be the best Americans can do. LOL

  34. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:14 am 

    Potty mouth Davy is back! LOL

  35. Hello on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:19 am 

    >>> the US is at best #19 on the list of IQ by country

    Funny, how the lowest IQ nations are negros. Why am I told by my beloved governemnet that import negros are no less intelligent than natives?

    The US is what? About 30% negros and 30% mexicans? Them whites must be very smart in the US to still be able to pull the nation to rank 19. Kudos! (Of course, the absence of makati does help, indeed).

  36. Davy on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:20 am 

    “Potty mouth Davy is back! LOL”
    You know when makat is unable to argue facts he comments like above. LMFAO

  37. Davy on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:21 am 

    makat, the smartest people in the world live in the US including all nationalities. Good thing you moved out that upped our percentages. Intellectually lazy people generally have lower IQ’s

  38. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:38 am 

    Makat….hmm, I like that name. I may change my Avatar. lol

    Actually, EVERY IQ chart I looked at placed the U$ way down the list. Your prejudice prevent you from seeing reality. Asians are at the op everywhere. It is the AVERAGE that counts, not the exception. Flyover land takes the U$ levels down. Where they teach creationism and such to the future snowflakes.

    The Ps is not at the top, but I’ll take the people here over Americans any day. They are better in so many ways not on any charts. AND, the American IQ is slipping down the slope with everything else. Thanks to fluoride and lead in the water. Don’t have that government interference here. LOL

  39. Makati1 on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 7:39 am 

    “Intellectually lazy people generally have lower IQ’s”

    Is yours still measurable Davy? I understand the test doesn’t go that low. LOL

  40. Davy on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 8:04 am 

    The US has the smartest people in the world makat. You can’t deny that. We are a 3rd world and 1st world country. This is the reason for our productive diversity. People are beating down the walls to get in because of that. We are a leader in every business category. This is fact makat not agenda. We have some stupid people here also. So what. They do stupid people things. Many are on welfare. That is just the nature of being a hybrid 1st/3rd country. Go pee down your leg so where else old man.

  41. MASTERMIND on Wed, 2nd Aug 2017 10:32 am 


    All that high intelligence in Asian countries and yet almost no significant scientific papers published? Why? CONTROL! Big government authoritarianism brainwashing and censorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *