US Nationalism and Peak Oil

[Chris OFarrell]

I'm all for freedom. But there comes a point where you NEED someone who knows what the fuck they are doing to step in and take control. Bush shows just how badly an idiot elected by idiots can do. Then of course was reelected by the same people.

As much as I like giving everyone a voice, frankly we can't afford it over the next 3-4 decades. The right people with access to the resources of their nations can dramatically reduce the footprint of the 'twins'. Not painless, but hardly 'brave new world' by DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Something that far far too many people don't SEE either because they can't understand it, or they don't want to believe it.

Authoritarianism can be GOOD for a culture once every now and again. I look at Australia and Sydney, a lot of the major infrastructure programs we rely on today were laid down in the immediate aftermath of WW2, where the Governments of the day just GOT THINGS DONE without any of the BS of today where every God damned politician looks first at what benefit THEY can get from it, then the party, then their 'special interests' and THEN the people who voted them in.

We need Government's like that in the immediate future DESPERATELY, who can see what is coming. These Governments then CAN draw up systematic, involved and wide ranging long term plans to approach the problems with workable solutions in a calm and rational way. Do this and while the human race will be in for a hard time (especially in the third world), the First World can meet the challenge head on.

Of course I have a strong feeling this won't happen at all, instead the world will blithely ignore this until a sudden CNN report of oil tankers queuing up because suddenly there isn't enough oil, following through over the next week with every TV shouting that suddenly everyone realizes that oil is in fact a finite resource, not an infinite one and that demand is suddenly very heavily exceeding supply. Then the 1st world suddenly realizes that the supermarket is not a magical building where food appears, but it has to be trucked there from farms where fossil fueled machinery produces it...and that in human history there HAVE been events where tens of millions of people HAVE died in mass famines and disease rampages...and we're still human.

Insert 1st global panic here.

[Surlethe]

Hasn't it been recognized since Plato that the ideal government is benevolent dictatorship? Democracy is good because it minimizes tyranny of a few over many, but it seems that it's become, in most Americans' minds, at least, the ideal form of government. Of course, because democracies and republics have shitty-ass long-term planning skills, we're courting disaster.

[AniThyng]

Hasn't it been recognized since Plato that the ideal government is benevolent dictatorship? Democracy is good because it minimizes tyranny of a few over many, but it seems that it's become, in most Americans' minds, at least, the ideal form of government. Of course, because democracies and republics have shitty-ass long-term planning skills, we're courting disaster.

I dislike my authoritarian government very much, but i dislike being lectured about the glories of democracy even more - I would happily trade some public freedom for a better economy and standard of living - after all, I'm posting and freely reading this webboard, am I not? Who cares if the local newspapers are government syncophants...

Of course, my lifestyle is going to be fucked by peak oil, but such is life.

[Magus]

Hasn't it been recognized since Plato that the ideal government is benevolent dictatorship? Democracy is good because it minimizes tyranny of a few over many, but it seems that it's become, in most Americans' minds, at least, the ideal form of government. Of course, because democracies and republics have shitty-ass long-term planning skills, we're courting disaster.

The way I've always looked at democracy is that it reduces the government's effectiveness, for better or worse. Effectively, you're trading the chance for the most beneficial government (benevolent dictatorship) to prevent the chance of the worst government (malevolent dictatorship).

In short, democracies tend to suck in a crisis. That's why many presidents during major crises have shifted to more authoritarian models. Two good examples would be Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and and FDR instating a whole lot of socialist programs to pull the US out of the Depression.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'd rather not see this become difficult like Stalin, but given how it's unfolding now, I can't say I find authoritarianism unacceptable in delivering a new direction and fast.

What do you actually think an authoritarian leader like JVS will rise to lift a post PO society from the decline?

My take is that this is highly unlikely. First of all, authoritarian leaders require an idea and charisma to have people follow, they take their legitimacy from this charismatic leadership. Another thing is that such societies thrive on great task, almost mythical in their aura - the super-industrialization, super-architecture, etc. The West doesn't have such a need - it will be a malaise of a highly industrialized society, not an attempt of under-industrialized nation to gain power.

I imagine the decline of the oil-consuming countries as the rise of oligarchy and partly anarchy, division and feud - only continuing the trends that already exist in this society.

No, there will not be authoritarianism to help - too many would want to have their slice of the pie when it comes to dividing the remains of a highly advanced technological civilization.

I don't think there will be open civil war like Marina, nor do I think there will be Stalinism in the US. I'm not sure about tens of millions dying, but the immediate post-peak governments' reaction to the necessary pressures of collectivization and forcible resource management, rationing, and public labor mobilization, as well as population control will be immediately necessary. Sorry everyone, but eugenics needs to be implemented. We can't afford diseased, mutated, birth defected people. We can't afford the least productive members of society reproducing at rates factors larger than the propertied, educated, and landed class - who have the resources to feed and educate and raise the generation that can survive.

Depending on how urgently and quickly the government tends to these concerns - and it will be by some illiberal democratic regime, formally responsible but in reality a "national unity" government of a semi-permanent nature, probably a ruling clique or by successor-grooming like the Mexican PRI or the current situation developing in Russia, we can hopefully avert starvation on a large scale and civil war within North America. It is essential that this ruling class be concerned with the maximum survival of the maximum number of people, irrespective of the spoiled middle classes' matieral desires. It is also essential this ruling class immediately move to squash self-destructive and self-delusional political and ideological movements for risk of destabilization and noncompliance with the state recovery. It is lastly essential that the American technological, academic, and industrial base be preserved above all other concerns.

Quite frankly, a junta or informally permanent, non-electorally responsible "crisis presidency" that could strip federalism and the constitutional barriers on federal intervention would be ideal. Immediately land restrictions, freezes on undesirable manufacture, redrawing urban development codes, rationing of food and energy, heavy taxation, collectivization of the major means of transportation and food/industrial production, draconian transportation and fuel consumption law, and extremely aggressive anti-immigration efforts will be necessary. I believe this will happen in fact within or by 5 years after the first stock crash, as the inevitability and inexorible progress of the problem becomes evident. The middle class must be destroyed - their spoiled existance is the cause of the bloated vulnerability of the modern infrastructure. It is precisely their electoral influence which prevents any meaningful pre-crash mitigation, as every measure necessary for meaningful impact will directly slow the economy and devalue the ostentatious consumerist lifestyle they've hitched their wagons to their whole lives. But the sooner it is dismantled and reorganized into rural and urban communities better suited for post-crash infrastructure and transit and reorganized into a class of unskilled hard labor, skilled vocational labor, and professional engineering and civil servants sustaining the state, the better.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I dislike my authoritarian government very much, but i dislike being lectured about the glories of democracy even more - I would happily trade some public freedom for a better economy and standard of living - after all, I'm posting and freely reading this webboard, am I not? Who cares if the local newspapers are government syncophants...

Of course, my lifestyle is going to be fucked by peak oil, but such is life.

That assumes, that the authoritarian government is really doing a good job. Some authoritarian governments, are incredibly short sighted.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think there will be an open civil war, either. It is, however, possible enough that I can choose to write about it.

[Ma Deuce]

Humans just don't think very well beyond short term timescales, and that is probably as big a flaw in the species as every organism's right to self-propagate at any cost. The last American president to truly have a clue was Jimmy bloody Carter, and the voters kicked him, a nuclear engineer, out for a damn actor.

I wouldn't be so quick to put Carter up on a pedestal for sound energy policy. He was after all the one who halted nuclear fuel reprocessing in the US, a decision which continues to fuck over the US nuclear power industry to this day, and will likely have further consequences as energy becomes more scarce in the future.

[TC Pilot]

I am surprised by how many of you seem to be decidedly against authoritarianism. What's wrong with authoritarianism? An authoritarian state can still grant its citizens rights, while at the same time getting things done.

Democracy is, without question, the absolute worst form of government to ever be devised. It places the power in the hands of those least deserving, and is incapable of coping with the kind of problems and crises the future has in store.

Authoritarian states can solve the problems. Democracies can't.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I am surprised by how many of you seem to be decidedly against authoritarianism. What's wrong with authoritarianism? An authoritarian state can still grant its citizens rights, while at the same time getting things done.

Democracy is, without question, the absolute worst form of government to ever be devised. It places the power in the hands of those least deserving, and is incapable of coping with the kind of problems and crises the future has in store.

Authoritarian states can solve the problems. Democracies can't.

However, Authoritarian states can be hard to dislodge especially when it gets too entrenched.

However, I am of the opinion that the sort of government that governs a country is a reflection of what the majority of the people in a country want. If they want to screw and die, they get a government that screws and die. It is not so simple as to characterise a state as "democratic" and "authoritarian", without knowing what the dominant culture of a country is.

[TC Pilot]

However, Authoritarian states can be hard to dislodge especially when it gets too entrenched.

Authoritarian states topple all the time. Almost the entire world was authoritarian to some degree in the 19th and early 20th century, now look at it.

However, I am of the opinion that the sort of government that governs a country is a reflection of what the majority of the people in a country want. If they want to screw and die, they get a government that screws and die. It is not so simple as to characterise a state as "democratic" and "authoritarian", without knowing what the dominant culture of a country is.

People want a government that keeps them fed and safe. Rights are a small price to pay to keep the trains running on time. It's only when they've been running for so long that you forget a time when they weren't, or when they stop running, that governments change. This is universal across the world. Culture has little impact on this.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

However, Authoritarian states can be hard to dislodge especially when it gets too entrenched.

Authoritarian states topple all the time. Almost the entire world was authoritarian to some degree in the 19th and early 20th century, now look at it.

Until you actually live in one, you wouldn't know. I currently live in one, and it is near impossible to dislodge it. Authoritarian regimes in S. Korea and Taiwan took decades to dislodge for example.

People want a government that keeps them fed and safe. Rights are a small price to pay to keep the trains running on time. It's only when they've been running for so long that you forget a time when they weren't, or when they stop running, that governments change. This is universal across the world. Culture has little impact on this.

Not every one wants the Govt to run everything but rather the freedom to do what they want and without Govt interference. You are simply making too many assumptions and over generalising.

[TC Pilot]

Until you actually live in one, you wouldn't know. I currently live in one, and it is near impossible to dislodge it. Authoritarian regimes in S. Korea and Taiwan took decades to dislodge for example.

I am curious as to what nation you reside in.

And I do not consider a few decades to be a particularly long time to dislodge a government.

Not every one wants the Govt to run everything but rather the freedom to do what they want and without Govt interference. You are simply making too many assumptions and over generalising.

You are misreading my post. A government that keeps its people from starving or safe from external and internal forces does not have to be totalitarian. That's what any government exists to do. They also exist so that people don't do whatever they want. Laws are there for a reason. What you are suggesting is anarchy.

[Broomstick]

I can't see any other way for me to be about it considering how highly liberty matters to me and how much I want it for everyone else too. I will never accept any such thing. I will move to another country should mine fall, I would do anything that was not acceptance. I can live with economic hardship and decreased living standards but never that I would accept an authoritan state trying to strip the people of their liberties. Never submit.

You're far too idealistic. In the end, survival requires pragmatism, and we're really talking about survival in a crumbling world economy here. While you Fins (you're a Fin, right?) will be better off, you will still feel the effects of the US, British, Chinese, and Indian fall. If that leads to dictatorship and loss of freedom for you, then you will either accept it or you will not survive.

When you're talking about Finns you're also talking about a group of people who lived next door to the Soviet Union for its entire existance yet managed to avoid being absorbed into it. I suspect removing their freedom and independence would be a very tall order. I also suspect that when they say "Live free or die" they really mean it.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, the adults here: you found a lifestyle, you found a future, you've lived a life. You just have to try and keep it together and ride it out. Nothing can take from you the life you've already lived.

Nonesense

Plenty of secure, successful people have lost everything at mid-life, both individually and in large groups. That's part of the reason for you malaise - you are realizing that there really are NO guarantees. The universe is a hostile place that could continue to exist without us. The trick is to keep going despite all that and learn to enjoy what life offers. Not an easy trick, I know!

But you could die and know you did something with your life. We don't have that comfort. You have that, and no one can take it from you. And you say that terrible things do happen to people in mid-life and cut short tragically a promising young man or woman, and while true, now these circumstances WILL come to pass for a LARGE PROPORTION of the population to one degree or another. Before there was security in a sense, now there is not.

By what standard are you measuring the quality of a person's life? I know you don't believe me, but my generation went through quite a bit of suffering and broken promises as well.

By many peoples' standards I am a failure because I never had children, never owned the home I lived in, never climbed the corporate management ladder, and don't have a six figure income. Well, FUCK them! Most of my generation will not have that either. Define your life on YOUR terms, not someone else's. As long as the bills are paid and you aren't hurting anyone else do what you desire. If you feel that "not hurting anyone else" means leaving a smaller footprint on the earth then go for it - and feel free to convince others of your viewpoint.

My parents still do not understand that I have never had job security in the sense of "show up on time, do the work, and you'll be employed here until retirement". Our parents got pensions - we will not. But the more advantageous private options available can too late for us to get the full advantage of - assuming the stock market does not go completely >ppfffft!< before we actually retire.

I have lived in a vermin-infested slum getting food from public pantries and the bruised vegetable aisle at the grocery store, shopped at second hand stores when I wasn't raiding the neighbors' dumpsters, and otherwise dealt with poverty as necessary to survive. Quite a come-down from my suburban upbringing, don't you think? But I did climb out of the hole.

Which is why I keep saying - stay healthy, stay out of debt, and stay adaptable. I speak from experience. At a certain point I realized I hadn't been promised anything - though in my youthful arrogance I thought I had.

My generation freaked out about pollution and nuclear war. Your generation is freaking about pollution and peak oil. By all means, prepare yourself for the worst but be prepared to deal with "not so bad". I can't help but believe some of your anxiety is coming from the fact that you've never really been tested against anything. Once you have you'll have a much different perspective and list of priorities.

I really hate coming across at the grumpy elder going "When I was your age..." but I find myself doing it. Do you realize you have the luxury of worrying about peak oil? People in the Third World and laboring in Chinese factories don't - they are so strapped for resources that they are focused on today, tomorrow, and maybe the next day. Most people in history have not had the luxury of worrying beyond the next harvest.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I am curious as to what nation you reside in.

And I do not consider a few decades to be a particularly long time to dislodge a government.

A few decades is enough to do long lasting damage to a country and take many decades to recover from. Practically an entire century wasted. Hardly something that is too short. Rather, is economic development worth so much as to bury deep the excesses of the state and allow it build up to a bubble-bursting level? Especially when most authoritarian states often lapse into the paranoia mode and do what they can to maintain their power?

You are misreading my post. A government that keeps its people from starving or safe from external and internal forces does not have to be totalitarian. That's what any government exists to do. They also exist so that people don't do whatever they want. Laws are there for a reason. What you are suggesting is anarchy.

I did not suggest that there is no rule of law. Whereas indeed a government should keep its people safe from hunger and some fool's destructive ideas, I do believe that rights of a citizen should be at the least maintained and not at all costs.

[TC Pilot]

A few decades is enough to do long lasting damage to a country and take many decades to recover from. Practically an entire century wasted. Hardly something that is too short. Rather, is economic development worth so much as to bury deep the excesses of the state and allow it build up to a bubble-bursting level? Especially when most authoritarian states often lapse into the paranoia mode and do what they can to maintain their power?

You write as if these are all inherent flaws to an authoritarian system, which is certainly not the case. You speak of specific problems, caused by human error. Hypothetically, any government is capable of such excess and incompetence.

I did not suggest that there is no rule of law. Whereas indeed a government should keep its people safe from hunger and some fool's destructive ideas, I do believe that rights of a citizen should be at the least maintained and not at all costs.

And why can an authoritarian state not give its people rights? They are not mutually exclusive. Democracy does not have a monopoly on liberty or personal freedom, nor authoritarian states one of tyranny.

[Pablo Sanchez]

You write as if these are all inherent flaws to an authoritarian system, which is certainly not the case. You speak of specific problems, caused by human error. Hypothetically, any government is capable of such excess and incompetence.

Just because any government can be corrupt or incompetent, it doesn't mean that a government which has no imperative to respect the wishes of the citizens is on an equal footing with one that is. One example was WWI rationing; the nations which were most effective at managing their resources and production were also the freest and most democratic (Great Britain and France). Because the citizenry of an authoritarian nation can't effectively hold the government to account, lack the power to meaningfully petition it and inform it of their distress, and are isolated from the machinery of power, the authoritarian government is less capable of responding to their needs. This isolation also breed corruption.

And why can an authoritarian state not give its people rights? They are not mutually exclusive. Democracy does not have a monopoly on liberty or personal freedom, nor authoritarian states one of tyranny.

There's nothing preventing an authoritarian state from giving the people certain limited civil rights, as seen in the example of the Second Reich. However, the circumstances leading to the creation of an authoritarian state and even the personalities involved have a critical role in forming its relationship with its people. Otto von Bismarck was the architect of a nation in which the government and state were almost overbearing, but that was tempered with careful balancing of popular demands against traditional values. Noblesse oblige on the part of the aristocracy also played a part.

On the other hand, if we compose a list of authoritarian governments throughout recent history, we have Fascist states, Communist states, Latin American and Africa Caudillo states, and so on. The conditions in the 20th century that gave rise to authoritarian governments tended to also imbue those governments with a singular lack of respect for liberty. There is ample reason to assume that any future authoritarian state, born of peak oil crisis, will have more in common with Pinochet's Chile or Baathist Iraq than with aristocratic authoritarian states of the past (not the least reason being the total lack of any responsible aristocracy anywhere in the world at this time).

[TC Pilot]

Just because any government can be corrupt or incompetent, it doesn't mean that a government which has no imperative to respect the wishes of the citizens is on an equal footing with one that is. One example was WWI rationing; the nations which were most effective at managing their resources and production were also the freest and most democratic (Great Britain and France).

World War I is a splendid example of just how the most free and democratic countries handle these crises - by doing away with freedom and democracy. Rights suspended, government control, censors, etc. They become authoritarian with a facade of democracy.

Because the citizenry of an authoritarian nation can't effectively hold the government to account, lack the power to meaningfully petition it and inform it of their distress, and are isolated from the machinery of power, the authoritarian government is less capable of responding to their needs. This isolation also breed corruption.

Fine, if it so bothers you, give the citizenry (whatever fraction of it deserves to have such capacity) the right to vote for their leaders in this authoritarian state. Will that satisfy your concerns?

On the other hand, if we compose a list of authoritarian governments throughout recent history, we have Fascist states, Communist states, Latin American and Africa Caudillo states, and so on. The conditions in the 20th century that gave rise to authoritarian governments tended to also imbue those governments with a singular lack of respect for liberty. There is ample reason to assume that any future authoritarian state, born of peak oil crisis, will have more in common with Pinochet's Chile or Baathist Iraq than with aristocratic authoritarian states of the past (not the least reason being the total lack of any responsible aristocracy anywhere in the world at this time).

Almost all those states can be defined as either military dictatorships or totalitarian. None of this undermines the capacity for authoritarianism to be a plausible and adequate solution to the almost certain political inability to cope with the coming times.

Since it seems neccesary to say, my ideal form of government would be a meritocratic oligarchy ruling within an authoritarian state. Leaders are chosen from an electorate of those most deserving, who will in turn govern the masses, who are in turned guaranteed certain rights.

In essence, the Galactic Empire, or a Hamiltonian United States.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Fine, if it so bothers you, give the citizenry (whatever fraction of it deserves to have such capacity) the right to vote for their leaders in this authoritarian state. Will that satisfy your concerns?

Perhaps you are too naive or something, the right to vote can be perverted in many ways but just enough to give the sheep the illusion that they have rights. But at the end of the day, there is practically a de facto dictatorship under the guise of a democratic authoritarian government.

Almost all those states can be defined as either military dictatorships or totalitarian. None of this undermines the capacity for authoritarianism to be a plausible and adequate solution to the almost certain political inability to cope with the coming times.

Since it seems neccesary to say, my ideal form of government would be a meritocratic oligarchy ruling within an authoritarian state. Leaders are chosen from an electorate of those most deserving, who will in turn govern the masses, who are in turned guaranteed certain rights.

In essence, the Galactic Empire, or a Hamiltonian United States.

And yet you forget that these governments maintained internal security depts or the equivalents that not only spy on its citizens but also persecute them at the slightest hint of anti-government opposition. I suppose it is all fair and well to you, since you would stay a pliant sheep and obey the whims of the said government.

[Darth Wong]

An alternate viewpoint: throughout history it's pretty much been the case that a child could look at his/her parents and see a way to live functionally in his/her society. Maybe not the best way to live, or the way that the child would want to live, but a feasible way. At worst, you could always follow in your parents' footsteps, and you'd have a pretty good feeling for what the results would be.

Many of us in their early twenties no longer have that feeling.

That's an interesting point, but when I was a teenager, I and most of my friends really thought that a nuclear holocaust was a realistic possibility. You really can't get less secure than that, so like Broomstick, I'm having trouble mustering a lot of sympathy for your feelings of insecurity about the future.

As for economic insecurity, I lived through the introduction of the inexpensive computer to the workplace. Do you have any idea how many people were terrified that their way of life might be annihilated by these beige boxes, the same way that pre-industrial artisans and craftsmen were virtually wiped out by the advent of factory machines? It was a constant, ubiquitous theme of discussion at the time.

However, that's not to say that any of the scorn IP heaps upon the current crop of "me first" people in power is unwarranted. His charges are fairly reasonable; the Baby Boomers are a generation that has literally spent its grandchildrens' inheritance in their maniacal quest for instant self-gratification and ostentatious narcissism, and they deserve all the scorn that a thousand IPs could heap on them.

[Howedar]

I had thought about starting a thread about just that topic - the threat of nuclear war vs. (without trying to inject my own bias here) the probability of some economic shittiness from running out of oil.

My final personal thought was wondering whether it's worse to wonder if something is going to happen, or to know it's coming but have no idea when.

[Darth Wong]

I had thought about starting a thread about just that topic - the threat of nuclear war vs. (without trying to inject my own bias here) the probability of some economic shittiness from running out of oil.

Would you rather be poor, or dying slowly of radiation poisoning in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? I know what I'd fear more.

My final personal thought was wondering whether it's worse to wonder if something is going to happen, or to know it's coming but have no idea when.

You don't really know what's coming when we're talking about peak oil. Nobody really knows how bad the crash is going to be, how fast it will occur, or what society will look like afterwards. The end of cheap energy will mean a drop in our living standards, but when I grew up, each household in our neighbourhood had one car, one TV set, and one set of clothing that got handed down from sibling to sibling, growing new patches with each child. We ate sparingly, and people weren't as fat, in large part because food actually cost real money and people ate much smaller portion sizes. The present-day standard of living is already absurdly more luxurious than it was for me as a child, so when I hear people shrieking that a return to an older living standard is like the end of the world, I can't help but yawn.

[Howedar]

I had thought about starting a thread about just that topic - the threat of nuclear war vs. (without trying to inject my own bias here) the probability of some economic shittiness from running out of oil.

Would you rather be poor, or dying slowly of radiation poisoning in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? I know what I'd fear more.

Well, yeah, if the probabilities were the same. Hindsight is 20/20 on that one, of course. Well, half of hindsight. As you say, we still have no damned idea what will happen on the latter.

You don't really know what's coming when we're talking about peak oil. Nobody really knows how bad the crash is going to be, how fast it will occur, or what society will look like afterwards.

No arguments there.

The end of cheap energy will mean a drop in our living standards, but when I grew up, each household in our neighbourhood had one car, one TV set, and one set of clothing that got handed down from sibling to sibling, growing new patches with each child. We ate sparingly, and people weren't as fat, in large part because food actually cost real money and people ate much smaller portion sizes. The present-day standard of living is already absurdly more luxurious than it was for me as a child, so when I hear people shrieking that a return to an older living standard is like the end of the world, I can't help but yawn.

I've been reading a lot of AV's posts lately. I am entirely unconcerned by a return to any living conditions of the last, oh, sixty years at least. The mind tends to dwell on the less pleasant scenarios, though.

[SirNitram]

The less pleasant scenarios basically all bank on the fundamental force that's been operating the world.. Greed.. Failing. I somehow don't see it.

As I've said before, and undoutably will again, the material, tangible benefits for anyone who solves this problem will be rather insane. So as the reality becomes more obvious, the efforts will become more and more numerous and well backed.

It will not necessarily be pleasant, but the idea we're gonna drop back into the Dark Ages is not based on reality.