Post: #26

Wow, that Olduvai theory thing is embarrassing.

"Single pulse waveform". Christ.

Post: #27

This (the Olduvai theory) is why I am truly afraid of a nuclear war, since killing a very large number of humans seems to be the only way to postpone the final end of civilization (anywhere). As immoral and disturbing it is, it is simple too: either more resources, or fewer consumers of resources. Well, the rich buy land in New Zealand, which is far at the bottom of the Southern Hemisphere (save Antarctica). And in case of a nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere is still somehow protected due to patterns of air circulation.

Post: #28

I dont know about peak oil but what is actively affecting us now is the sun and poles. I've been following this guys youtube channel -

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTiL1q9...5nP2xzFTWQ


He has shown how the poles shifting has potential effects on the seismic and volcano activity we have and are currently experiencing around the globe with the ring of fire being the area affected by a South Pole shift.

Ignore the video endings where he lays on the cheese but his content is pretty good.

Post: #29

(12-30-2018 03:21 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  This (the Olduvai theory) is why I am truly afraid of a nuclear war, since killing a very large number of humans seems to be the only way to postpone the final end of civilization (anywhere). As immoral and disturbing it is, it is simple too: either more resources, or fewer consumers of resources. Well, the rich buy land in New Zealand, which is far at the bottom of the Southern Hemisphere (save Antarctica). And in case of a nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere is still somehow protected due to patterns of air circulation.

You don't need to worry about it because it's goofy pseudoscientific nonsense, a crank hypothesis dressed up in the language of science ("A single pulse waveform") to lend credibility to a theory with absolutely no data to support it.

The US spends less on energy now than we did in the 1970s, which is exactly the opposite of what the theory predicts.

Post: #30

(12-30-2018 02:55 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  When shale oil appeared, I thought that there is some respite, but now it seems there is not. Shale ole provides us with nothing but gasoline, but we need diesel, bunker fuel, kerosene etc ...

I am not sure where you got that. Shale oil is light (low viscosity) and sweet (low sulfur) and is being used as a replacement for Mid East crude (which is also light and sweet). Here on the east coast, there are daily oil trains bringing crude to the refineries. It is being made into diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, etc. What you will get less of with light crude is residuals such as No. 6 oil and asphalt. The latter used to primarily come from heavy crude out of California, Mexico, and Venezuela. During the 1990s, US refiners retooled to instead turn heavy sour crude into light distillates (i.e. gasoline).

Post: #31

(12-30-2018 04:12 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 03:21 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  This (the Olduvai theory) is why I am truly afraid of a nuclear war, since killing a very large number of humans seems to be the only way to postpone the final end of civilization (anywhere). As immoral and disturbing it is, it is simple too: either more resources, or fewer consumers of resources. Well, the rich buy land in New Zealand, which is far at the bottom of the Southern Hemisphere (save Antarctica). And in case of a nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere is still somehow protected due to patterns of air circulation.

You don't need to worry about it because it's goofy pseudoscientific nonsense, a crank hypothesis dressed up in the language of science ("A single pulse waveform") to lend credibility to a theory with absolutely no data to support it.

The US spends less on energy now than we did in the 1970s, which is exactly the opposite of what the theory predicts.

I am in Europe and energy prices here are going up not only in France.
And, well, it is not so goofy. First, GDP is just a lump sum in a given currency, all together with taxes etc. You can have high GDP, big taxes, low disposable income. It is what is happening in France now.

Second - very important and hard to understand for a lot of people who think that science of economy is as real as the invisible hand of market - there is no simple demand-production correlation between the amount of produced energy and the prices here. Peak oil theory has an explanation here, the demand destruction.
Let's say the oil price was once 140$, now it is 50$. People believing in the invisible hand of market would say that more oil is being produced, so the price went down. This is not true.
The price went down because all economic activity, which could not take the oil price in the 50-140$ brackets, simply ceased. In other words, the demand for 50-140$ oil disappeared. Hence the name for theory, the demand destruction.
Since there will be less and less oil in the 0-50 $ price brackets, there will be less and less economic activity. Of course, there will be cycles of prices going up and down, but in the end, economy (and our civilization) can only pay so much for energy. At some point this snake starts eating itself....

Post: #32

There's not less and less economic activity, though.

But yeah, if you wanna worry yourself into an early grave like the last generation of peak oilers did, go and have a good time.

Post: #33

Over the past year I have been involved in a project that involves turning waste products into liquid fuels. You can pretty much replace transportation fuels and a variety of other chemicals using bio based feed-stocks (hemp, agricultural waste, etc.), coal, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. The trick is you first have to turn the feed stock into synthesis gas (H2 & CO). Once you get 2 mols of H2 & 1 mol of CO, you can make a lot different chemicals:




It is not a question of technology replacing oil as a feed-stock, it is an issue of cost. I could replace all the gasoline used in the USA by processing 180,000 tons per day of hemp.... it wouldn't be remotely profitable given the current price of oil.

Post: #34

(12-30-2018 04:49 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 02:55 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  When shale oil appeared, I thought that there is some respite, but now it seems there is not. Shale ole provides us with nothing but gasoline, but we need diesel, bunker fuel, kerosene etc ...

I am not sure where you got that. Shale oil is light (low viscosity) and sweet (low sulfur) and is being used as a replacement for Mid East crude (which is also light and sweet). Here on the east coast, there are daily oil trains bringing crude to the refineries. It is being made into diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, etc. What you will get less of with light crude is residuals such as No. 6 oil and asphalt. The latter used to primarily come from heavy crude out of California, Mexico, and Venezuela. During the 1990s, US refiners retooled to instead turn heavy sour crude into light distillates (i.e. gasoline).

From Ugo Bardi, and some article at zerohedge which put a link between unrest in France and peak oil (however, not speaking about diesel per se). Then I watched some video from France where enraged people were complaining that suddenly, after encouraging diesels for years, the state has now started to tax them heavily under the disguise of "ecology tax". And then I put everyhing together....

From Ugo Bardi blog:

[i]Shale oil has changed a lot of things in the oil industry, but it couldn't avoid the decline of conventional oil. That, in turn, had consequences: shale oil is light oil, not easily converted to the kind of fuel (diesel) which is the most important transportation fuel, nowadays. That seems to have forced the oil industry into converting more and more "heavy" oil into diesel fuel but, even so, diesel fuel is becoming gradually more scarce and more expensive, to the point that its production may have peaked in 2015. In addition, it has created a dearth of heavy oil, the fuel of choice for marine transportation. In short, the famed "peak oil" is arriving not all together, but piecemeal -- affecting some kinds of fuels faster than others. [/i]


https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201...ebate.html


Well, he does not say that you cannot get diesel from shale oil, but that it is hard to do (i.e. either more expensive or inefficient).

Post: #35

(12-30-2018 05:06 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  Over the past year I have been involved in a project that involves turning waste products into liquid fuels. You can pretty much replace transportation fuels and a variety of other chemicals using bio based feed-stocks (hemp, agricultural waste, etc.), coal, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. The trick is you first have to turn the feed stock into synthesis gas (H2 & CO). Once you get 2 mols of H2 & 1 mol of CO, you can make a lot different chemicals:




It is not a question of technology replacing oil as a feed-stock, it is an issue of cost. I could replace all the gasoline used in the USA by processing 180,000 tons per day of hemp.... it wouldn't be remotely profitable given the current price of oil.

Yes, the price, that is the point, exactly. For the point of price, we do not recover gold from seawater even though technology exists. The trouble with hemp and Fischer-Tropf process, is that they are all endothermic processes, they need energy, energy that mostly comes from natural gas (like in fertilizer production). However, natural gas is more localized than oil, meaning it cannot be so easily transported as oil. But the natgas is also supposed to peak soon (I have read ~ 2030), and then we are left with coal, which is even more localized than natural gas. The moment we have to rely mainly on coal to carry on, the real trouble will start, I think ....Well, if coal could be so efficiently liquified, I suppose Germans would fight a bit longer in WWII.... But, in fact, they sometimes were driving tanks one way only, hoping to find retour fuel in US or Soviet fuel dumps...

Post: #36

(12-30-2018 04:58 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  There's not less and less economic activity, though.

But yeah, if you wanna worry yourself into an early grave like the last generation of peak oilers did, go and have a good time.

Maybe not, but a lot of economic activity now is flying on the magic carpet of debt.
Without debt, it would be less economic activity. The magical debt plays the role of a real, re-invested profit which did not appear due to the rising energy costs.

Truly, I would be really happy if peak oil would be a fake event, I even thought so when the shale oil was introduced, but I see that the peak comes around again.... I don't see easy solutions, should they be somewhere, they are long overdue as a lot of rich people (=people who can make themselves heard) have been losing money for some time already...

Don't know who controls the world at the highest levers of power.... but peak oil is much more real than global warming, yet we heard almost nothing about it. The world controllers of this Brave New World clearly do not think the people can take it.

In another corner, like a crazy one, Putin now shows off some Wunderwaffe to the world every few months... and all those Wunderwaffen are not for Syria battlefield, are they? They are all long range strategic weapons. Surely he knows that Russia is a premium prize for everyone thirsting for some resources...

The pattern is here, and it is not a pattern of hope. In such moments, I am actually jealous of Africans who still believe in a paradise in Europa. Faith is such a great thing, a consolation of hope it is, indeed...

All in all, like Saint Augustine, I would be a really happy to sit coming times over in some New Zealand monastery or commune... really give me a call if you know one! (unfortunately not having enough money to buy a land there and set up my own)
Monk mode for years, listening to Waltzing Mathilda...

Post: #37

(12-30-2018 02:55 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  I believe Peak Oil is real. My introduction to it was not Kunstler (BTW, in German his surname means "artist"), but the very good portal,TheOilDrum. I ventured there first time because me interest in the fall of Rome, which took me to this artcile by Ugo Bardi:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5528

When shale oil appeared, I thought that there is some respite, but now it seems there is not. Shale ole provides us with nothing but gasoline, but we need diesel, bunker fuel, kerosene etc ... This is probably the reason why Macron taxed diesels in France. He taxed diesel, as there is not enough diesel and he wants to lower the diesel usage to save it. From ecology point of view, there is nothing especially friendly in diesel tax.
Now he has a revolution crawling at his feet.

The most scary part is so called Olduvai Theory, the electric theory of civilization, according to which our civilization will be more or less dead in 20 years, so in ~ 2040:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1122

I believe the climate change is a cover story for peak oil since the climate change in itself is not so imminent as peak oil.

It is precisely the opposite, the global warming agenda is there to artificially restrict the use of so-called fossil fuels. Oil oligarchs like the Rockefellers are 100% behind this agenda, they stand to make more money through carbon trade, and want to further impoverish the middle class (especially the rural and suburban middle class, in favor of blue state urban soycialists who live in small pads - see France's Gilets Jaunes).

The term "fossil fuel" is NLP weaponized verbiage coined by JD Rockefeller in order to subconsciously promote the notion that these fuels are scarce. North America has a century or two's worth in oil reserves, and several centuries worth of coal. Cucks like Trudeau are destroying our economic potential with this globalist politically-motivated war on oil, gas and coal.

Post: #38

(12-30-2018 09:55 PM)911 Wrote:  

(12-30-2018 02:55 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  I believe Peak Oil is real. My introduction to it was not Kunstler (BTW, in German his surname means "artist"), but the very good portal,TheOilDrum. I ventured there first time because me interest in the fall of Rome, which took me to this artcile by Ugo Bardi:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5528

When shale oil appeared, I thought that there is some respite, but now it seems there is not. Shale ole provides us with nothing but gasoline, but we need diesel, bunker fuel, kerosene etc ... This is probably the reason why Macron taxed diesels in France. He taxed diesel, as there is not enough diesel and he wants to lower the diesel usage to save it. From ecology point of view, there is nothing especially friendly in diesel tax.
Now he has a revolution crawling at his feet.

The most scary part is so called Olduvai Theory, the electric theory of civilization, according to which our civilization will be more or less dead in 20 years, so in ~ 2040:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1122

I believe the climate change is a cover story for peak oil since the climate change in itself is not so imminent as peak oil.

It is precisely the opposite, the global warming agenda is there to artificially restrict the use of so-called fossil fuels. Oil oligarchs like the Rockefellers are 100% behind this agenda, they stand to make more money through carbon trade, and want to further impoverish the middle class (especially the rural and suburban middle class, in favor of blue state urban soycialists who live in small pads - see France's Gilets Jaunes).

The term "fossil fuel" is NLP weaponized verbiage coined by JD Rockefeller in order to subconsciously promote the notion that these fuels are scarce. North America has a century or two's worth in oil reserves, and several centuries worth of coal. Cucks like Trudeau are destroying our economic potential with this globalist politically-motivated war on oil, gas and coal.

I would rather not take it.

1) They surely earn a lot less with the oil price 50$ rather than with 140$. 2) And how much influence do Rockefellers have in OPEC and Russia? 3) They are all dead now, those Rockefellers. David, the last one, died last year.

Coal:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7264

Post: #39

(12-30-2018 04:58 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  There's not less and less economic activity, though.

But yeah, if you wanna worry yourself into an early grave like the last generation of peak oilers did, go and have a good time.

The psychological problem of coming to terms with peak oil is recognized:

My own sharing of discoveries, analysis and opinions about Peak Oil with friends, family and acquaintances over the past 5 years, has met with a wide disparity of reactions. There is a significant group of people that fall into the category of 'thanks, but I don't want to know anymore about this topic'. They don't often use those exact words, but might reply to an email about Cantarell decline rates with a picture of their son at baseball practice, e.g.

http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5402

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2592

This was also my experience in Poland several years ago when I tried to spread peak oil awarness. Intelligent people were falling upon economy and "market will provide" (price), less intelligent upon their hobby gardens [will provide]... Generally, total denial. And the really last thing people in Poland want to hear is that the promise of prosperity after 1989 was such a short-lived one. Contrary to mythical talks about the valiant Polish spirit, the Polish in reality became quite infantile. Despite all Polish jokes, we do have mythology in Poland, something like French "la gloire", that we are something special and "we shall overcome". In this way Poles think the communism was a problem they overcame, and they are absolutely not ready for any more problems whatsoever. They love the toys of capitalism like children in the sandbox love theirs.
BTW, as coal lovers we are (Poland has big coal deposits, as well as a bit of gas and oil of our own), we decided to close a lot of mines and currently are importing about 70% of coal we use, from Russia. So short-sighted Poles are.

Post: #40

(12-30-2018 02:55 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  The most scary part is so called Olduvai Theory, the electric theory of civilization, according to which our civilization will be more or less dead in 20 years, so in ~ 2040:

Quacks always give time predictions that are far enough that when the time comes and nothing happens no one will remember what they said, but still close enough for people to think they will be affected and to start panicking now.

Post: #41

(12-31-2018 04:14 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  BTW, as coal lovers we are (Poland has big coal deposits, as well as a bit of gas and oil of our own), we decided to close a lot of mines and currently are importing about 70% of coal we use, from Russia. So short-sighted Poles are.

If you believed that coal was going to become massively more valuable in the future due to scarcity, wouldn't it be smart to close your mines and buy it from other countries while it was still cheap, and then reopen your mines in the future when it was worth its weight in gold?

Not that any of the stuff you're saying is going to happen, but like, hypothetically.

Post: #42

Surprised, frankly, to see this topic to come up here.

I WAS one of those last generation of peak oil doomers. I studied the problem for years. There's probably nobody hanging out here who knows more about the topic than I do. Back then the red/white pill paradigm was applied to peak oil, not female nature.

I mean this as no disrespect but the demographic here is one that skews conspiratorial. The party line here is that global warming is a scam and that the gynocracy will lead to crashing birth rates...and fewer people on the earth would be a bad thing.

Peak oil is a gateway drug towards understanding limits to growth. Limits to growth came out of the Club of Rome which has been effectively demonized by Alex Jones and his ilk as part of the cabal that wants to poison the water supply or God knows what else...

I know I'm opening myself up to a lot of drive-by criticism here, but I'm telling you as someone who has invested as many hours studying this issue as Roosh has studied game...this is a big deal and everyone will be dealing with it in some respect whether they recognize it or not.

This is NOT to say that suddenly we're going to have Mad Max conditions. That was the party line 10 years ago and it didn't work out that way. What I'm saying is that the 21st century is going to be defined in terms of creeping resource constraints, all of which tracing themselves back to the root cause of overpopulation, the elephant in the room nobody (including people here) wants to face.

What I learned since then is that the system as we know it is surprisingly resilient. We got ourselves in this mess but we're also problem-solvers by nature. The fracking boom "saved" the earth from peak oil doom 10 years ago. I put saved in quotes because it merely kicked the can down the road for an indeterminate period. But luckily we're also at the bottom of the technological S-curve of electric cars and robotaxi ride-sharing. If EVs take off the way so many other technologies (like smart-phones) do then expect that to put a dent on oil supplies.

However, with every improvement like that, population growth can merely soak it all up again. Also, since we're consuming ecological services so far above replacement, ecological drawdown becomes the biggest threat above resource constraints.

I could go several paragraphs now to talk about all of the biomarkers of ecological damage and link them up to our ability to function. Damage to topsoil, damage to fisheries, damage to snowpack which millions rely upon for freshwater, damage even to the lungs of the planet responsible for us having breathable air.

If you haven't studied these issues and you have bought into the GOP stance that it's all a liberal conspiracy then none of these datapoints will make an impact. You'll shrug it all off with an animated GIF. But I'm just throwing it out there because this is what I feel I know, not based on an ideological bias, but by immersing myself in the data over several years.

And one of the ways I processed that data has been to reject or be skeptical if it came from the mouths of people who ONLY spout doom, including Kunstler, Ugo Bardi, Zerohedge etc... If your brand is doom, then that's all they're going to talk about. I went through a period where I vetted all of this sort of information based on the source and they're all saying the same thing. We're killing the planet and the rate of collapse is on a steadily acceleration.

There's a lot of talk about how women suck at managing their finances. They live for the now. Well, humans in general are like that. In total, we discount the future and live for the now because life is short. Eat drink and be merry, as it were. And I am sure a LOT of people are like me, knowing the score, and yet opting to make the most of today and not powering down our consumption to any huge extent.

This is why I don't feel that raising awareness would even matter. It's tragedy of the commons. Humans live in the now, especially more than ever thanks to social media.

I've had to partially button my lip in raising my daughter without giving her nothing to live for, but she'll probably face the worst of it. I think normal modern life will probably hang on for the next decade or two before it enters more of a musical-chairs scramble-mode. In my case, I'd like to stay as happy as possible for as long as possible, and a steady supply of quality sex would make life easier. I've gone through the stages of grief so I can hold this information and not be in a continual state of panic the way some of hardcore doomer keyboard warriors are. At some point you have to just get on with life and not just be a deer caught in the headlights and I'm not going to just disappear in a bunker. Life is meant to be lived.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...g-collapse

Quote:the University of Melbourne research has not found proof of collapse as of 2010 (although growth has already stalled in some areas). But in Limits to Growth those effects only start to bite around 2015-2030.

We're at or close to the period in which these effects begin to hit. The numbers in the LTG chart are ominous. Since people are not going to suddenly stop having babies (even if the majority of men in the developed world go MGTOW), for the total population of the planet to even start to level off, the death rate would have to skyrocket. Like multiple WWIIs scale deaths to compensate. So it's not just a cold statistic. It would be TEOTWAWKI, and those charts have things start to go bad around now or at least within the next couple decades.

Post: #43

Well, I accidentally learnt about the subject in 2009, and got so scared that the entire month was just reading about that. Got from a library Simmons' "Twilight in the desert".
Then I informed all my friends, and met with a wall. The only people who believed me said that there is nothing to be done, so we should just go on with living as previously (BAU). In a way, it is not such a big change - we are all going to die, right? We will die just a bit earlier.... But there is sense of being uneasy which stays.
I believe this is a kind of cognitive dissonance - you see a very serious problem on the horizon, you realize the society does not care, you lose faith in the society. Disengage. The problem is that you are still a part of this society. A kind of numbness follows, it is a bit harder to strive socially, professionally etc. Women also kind of lose their appeal, since they are so strongly rooted in this life of the past already (for you). I did not convince even one woman that peak oil is real (!)

The takeway is that intelligent people - people who can understand the problem- are very often simply not happy enough to really want to preserve their lifes and will not fight for them too strongly. This problem is compounded by the fact that the rest of people, who may do not understand the problem, is most of the time much more invested in the BAU status quo and thus they have strong incentives to preserve it. To sum up, the power of social inertia prevails. Even the captain of "Titanic" had denied his seamanship and did not slow down in the ice field, so strongly must he have believed in his unsinkable ship...



For all that, I was happy with shale oil. I also think that TheOilDrum (one of the best portals in the net I had chanced upon, with no women at all BTW) writers were legit, credible, and HONEST, since they suspended the portal after the shale revolution, and the lack of significant response from the public (in a way, like Roosh with ROK). As a result, at least you know that it was the real grassroots effort and not some disinformation operation of CIA or CFR.
But now shale seems to be not a final answer after all...


The psychology discussion on TOD:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2592
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4240
http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5402

Post: #44

(12-31-2018 12:11 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 04:14 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  BTW, as coal lovers we are (Poland has big coal deposits, as well as a bit of gas and oil of our own), we decided to close a lot of mines and currently are importing about 70% of coal we use, from Russia. So short-sighted Poles are.

If you believed that coal was going to become massively more valuable in the future due to scarcity, wouldn't it be smart to close your mines and buy it from other countries while it was still cheap, and then reopen your mines in the future when it was worth its weight in gold?

Not that any of the stuff you're saying is going to happen, but like, hypothetically.

I would like to think that Polish politicians are so foresighted, but I believe that it was mainly simply due to the draconian EU anticarbon measures. But well, if we preserve our reserves of ~200 years of coal, for Poland's last 200 years - all the better. Incidentally, besides Estonia, Czech Republic and Sweden, Poland is one of very few energetically self-sufficient countries of EU. Well, we even have our own (closed) uran mines... [in the past we exported uran to USSR during the build-up of its nuclear forces]

Post: #45

For those who are truly willing to become informed on these issues rather than just leaping to defensive conclusions, there are two documentaries that really spell it all out, not just peak oil or global warming, but the big picture.

The Incredible Journey of Oil (explains how peak oil and global warming are two sides of the same coin)





Earth 2100 (which, despite airing on ABC in 2009, most people forgot about by now, but things like the tension at the southern border, insect die-off, and water-rationing in southern California are already happening)





Plus Al Bartlett on the dead-simple math behind overpopulation.

https://www.albartlett.org/presentations...ideo1.html

Post: #46

The situation oddly reminds me Kavafis' poem, "Waiting for the barbarians", and its famous memento:

(...)
the barbarians have not come
(...)
They were (...) a kind of solution



Just put "shale oil/solar/windmills" instead of "barbarians". An attempt at lateral thinking, if you like..

However strange the analogy, it captures several things, all of them important but usually well hidden:

1) The sin of pride on the side of our civilization, now in the form of pride in technology, once - pride in rituals, and pride in wealth. A sense of arrogant superiority that goes with it.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.


2) A nagging sense of necessity, an urgent need to find a solution even if that means a subjugation of sort: we do not discuss a solution, we merely accept it. The citizens are not asked to fight barbarians, only to accept them. Likewise, we are not asked to develop a mass, grassroots movement to mitigate peak oil. We are actually commanded to accept shale oil and its environmental devastation, resources wars, immigration (barbarians, dazzled by our lifestyle, that will nonetheless somehow legislate towards a simpler life?!) etc.

Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating


3) The realization of the final emptiness of our life (BAU: Business as Usual) as well as of the fact that we have already been in a crisis before the "barbarian" crisis, the realization that descends upon us as an unexpected result of the disappearance of barbarians.
Nowadays, should the peak oil disappear, we would probably be left with a gnawing sense that some other disaster looms. It may be the reason why a civilization with too many contradictions/crises a kind of loses faith in itself. It is just like our life; being young we encounter things the first time and believe in them, later on, just a sigh of disappointment, "eh, again the same shit".

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.


And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.


http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1

Post: #47

(12-31-2018 07:30 PM)questor70 Wrote:  For those who are truly willing to become informed on these issues rather than just leaping to defensive conclusions, there are two documentaries that really spell it all out, not just peak oil or global warming, but the big picture.

The Incredible Journey of Oil (explains how peak oil and global warming are two sides of the same coin)





Earth 2100 (which, despite airing on ABC in 2009, most people forgot about by now, but things like the tension at the southern border, insect die-off, and water-rationing in southern California are already happening)





Plus Al Bartlett on the dead-simple math behind overpopulation.

https://www.albartlett.org/presentations...ideo1.html

Excellent, another deluded disciple of the global warming club who I won't have to compete with for resources once the Solar Minimum kicks off in force post 2025. I suggest you move as far North as possible and enjoy your global warming over the coming decade ;-)

Post: #48

(01-01-2019 11:15 AM)redpillage Wrote:  Excellent, another deluded disciple of the global warming club

I just threw in my 2c because at least a few people here have some genuine intellectual curiosity on the topic but I knew damn well responses like yours would be the order of the day. You speak your truth and I'll speak mine but I know damn well the odds of anyone changing their minds is slim to none.

I do find it sad that the manosphere for all its leaning on the weight of science in evolutionary psychology strikes a decidedly anti-intellectual stance on the environment and energy policy. It's just that I guess it feels empowering to prove why it is women (supposedly the "fairer" sex) behave badly vs. disempowering to see how fragile civilization as a whole is.

But red/blue pill really should be about people identifying and confronting their own biases but manosphere seems to be very narrow in focus and self-serving when it comes to that.

Post: #49

Meh. Tell Africa and Asia to stop breeding like rabbits and 99% of our problems are solved. In the meantime I'll still be driving my 14mpg land cruiser.

Post: #50

*cough* Oil is abiotic. *cough*