US Nationalism and Peak Oil

[Admiral Valdemar]

You have it all wrong. Peak oil isn't the problem. It never was. The problem is biology, our biology, shaped by the several million years of evolution we've needed in this form, but also the billions that shaped all life. We are programmed to reproduce and it is our obligation to ensure we pass on our genes to the next generation. Whatever anyone says about altruism and mankind overcoming such animalistic tendencies, it doesn't overrule the vast amount of evidence around us.

The world is choking because of our success. No other species has ever attained this power, intelligence and wealth. They say man's reach exceeds his grasp, and civilisation stands testament to this. No matter how far we have come, we always want more and don't stop to think about that. Wars have always been caused by such thinking and the big threats today - the Carbon Twins of climate change and peak oil - are all products of what we are as a species. These massive events may not wipe us out, but they will not be the last to threaten us either unless we change our ways, which hasn't happened and likely never will. The oft out of reach utopian idealistic vision many strive for.

We have become so deluded in the last few centuries about our self-importance to the extent that it's no longer our nation states or tribes we threaten, but the species as a whole and, in fact, all species. People who do dare talk about that taboo subject of overpopulation frequently quote the calculations of some think-tank groups who say we could all live happily in the state of Texas, or on Zanzibar or whatever geographical piece of land fits such a hopelessly mathematical "solution" to the problem. These people don't get the human condition, else it would be a perfect answer to all live with the inner city density of London using only the land area of a large American state. Because of what we are, that fantasy will remain a fantasy.

Today it's rampant consumerism. You're not a person, you're a consumer. You don't want to war with Russia and China, because as bad as they were in the past, they have embraced the ideology the West brought about: that more is better and whoever dies with the most shit, wins. When you apply that psychology to the propagate at will program, you soon find less oil is but one result. Soon, it will be water, precious metals, arable land, food, the list can go on. Since only Cuba is anywhere near a sustainable level for an industrial nation, we're way too off course for anything but collapse to happen somewhere. This is why I don't really back the switching everything over to renewable or nuclear and carrying on regardless. That solves nothing. It means we just hit the wall on another limiting factor and the fall becomes that much harder, and isn't really sustainable. It's not green energy we need, it's living with the environment we have in such a way as to not ruin it beyond repair. If that means living with less shopping malls, no cars and more people working the land in agrarian communities, so be it. You will not get near 7 billion people living with anything like modern Western living standards, even with green energy and no peak oil. Something had to give, and that is a topic not even Greenpeace zealots will touch because the idea of us living at one with the biosphere we often don't factor into our future calculations means less of us need to be present. A lot less. No one wants to discuss the idea of losing the life we've had since industrialisation really got going in the 20th, and they certainly don't want to be told to limit how many kids they have (anyone who knows really rundown, state benefits funded areas of misfits stuck in a vicious circle of poverty and crime will know how this would go down).

China is the only nation to come close, and they've only managed it with massive tyranny and threat of force. Even then, there are ever more dissenting voices today as the country Westernises over the years. Soon, China will be another Europe or US and then the movement is truly unstoppable, as if China would give up now. No huge increases in wealth and living standards means nothing to back the current regime. The Party knows this. If they don't keep on this insane growth, they will lose their only get out of jail free card. They will not give up this newfound prosperity so easily, as we shall see.

I accept this. I accept that my parents, part of the baby boomers, have essentially siphoned off an equally bright future for myself and my brother by subsidising their lives with what we should have had. I may never own a house. Healthcare is less capable per person. Taxes and inflation are high. Energy is running out. Everything that my parents had is a question mark for my generation, and it's not that my parents went from poor working class to millionaires, it's that they had the chance for social mobility to become far better off that we won't have. We're starting to find this out and we're very pissed off. You can see where Tyler Durden had a point. The irony is, the free love crowd have helped more than any other generation, in screwing us over.

US nationalism? Who knows? There's something incredibly wrong with this world, though. It won't end with losing fossil fuels, it's just that this is the first of these major hurdles to come our way. I do know that the world is at a crossroads. Some nations will fall, others will not. This may not be the Olduvai Gorge, rest assured though. Sometime, the party will end unless we get off this rock and learn to deal with one another. There's no future otherwise.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think you're definitely overstating the situation. It will be a serious setback, and I'm not debating that, but once the aftershocks die down, cars will be back. If synthetics become viable, cars will be relatively unchanged. If they don't, it waits until the power grid can support electric cars, which have always existed. Planes will be much harder, if possible at all, but a world without cheap airlines is quite survivable.

Don't expect to see a resurgence of cars, which will be electric (remember global warming) until the 2060s at the earliest, though certainly by the 2080s. They will never regain their total dominance in the USA and Canada, either, but at best be used to levels like those in Europe, as there will be a massive state-funded mass transportation system ranging from streetcars in towns of 15,000 to vast interconnected networks of heavy rail, subways, elevated monorails, modern interurbans, light rail, and guided electric busways in all the large cities by then, radiating outwards and with belt lines connecting them together to provide coverage tens of miles into the countryside.

It will not be hard, for example, as things get bad, to lay heavy rail down the two interior lanes of the freeway while using the median for additional passing lanes (so the expresses can keep up speed) and also for stations (with tunnels going to entrances on either side). In areas with no median, two lanes in each direction instead of one can be eliminated; such modifications, bringing some freeways down to one lane in each direction, will be quite necessary, and easily accomplished, as a solid roadbed exists the moment the concrete is ripped up, and such trains can operate using very cheap third rail electric systems. I think I'm going to put together a few hypothetical 2050-era transportation networks for major American cities as an example of what to expect.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You have it all wrong. Peak oil isn't the problem. It never was. The problem is biology, our biology, shaped by the several million years of evolution we've needed in this form, but also the billions that shaped all life. We are programmed to reproduce and it is our obligation to ensure we pass on our genes to the next generation. Whatever anyone says about altruism and mankind overcoming such animalistic tendencies, it doesn't overrule the vast amount of evidence around us.

The world is choking because of our success. No other species has ever attained this power, intelligence and wealth. They say man's reach exceeds his grasp, and civilisation stands testament to this. No matter how far we have come, we always want more and don't stop to think about that. Wars have always been caused by such thinking and the big threats today - the Carbon Twins of climate change and peak oil - are all products of what we are as a species. These massive events may not wipe us out, but they will not be the last to threaten us either unless we change our ways, which hasn't happened and likely never will. The oft out of reach utopian idealistic vision many strive for.

We have become so deluded in the last few centuries about our self-importance to the extent that it's no longer our nation states or tribes we threaten, but the species as a whole and, in fact, all species. People who do dare talk about that taboo subject of overpopulation frequently quote the calculations of some think-tank groups who say we could all live happily in the state of Texas, or on Zanzibar or whatever geographical piece of land fits such a hopelessly mathematical "solution" to the problem. These people don't get the human condition, else it would be a perfect answer to all live with the inner city density of London using only the land area of a large American state. Because of what we are, that fantasy will remain a fantasy.

Today it's rampant consumerism. You're not a person, you're a consumer. You don't want to war with Russia and China, because as bad as they were in the past, they have embraced the ideology the West brought about: that more is better and whoever dies with the most shit, wins. When you apply that psychology to the propagate at will program, you soon find less oil is but one result. Soon, it will be water, precious metals, arable land, food, the list can go on. Since only Cuba is anywhere near a sustainable level for an industrial nation, we're way too off course for anything but collapse to happen somewhere. This is why I don't really back the switching everything over to renewable or nuclear and carrying on regardless. That solves nothing. It means we just hit the wall on another limiting factor and the fall becomes that much harder, and isn't really sustainable. It's not green energy we need, it's living with the environment we have in such a way as to not ruin it beyond repair. If that means living with less shopping malls, no cars and more people working the land in agrarian communities, so be it. You will not get near 7 billion people living with anything like modern Western living standards, even with green energy and no peak oil. Something had to give, and that is a topic not even Greenpeace zealots will touch because the idea of us living at one with the biosphere we often don't factor into our future calculations means less of us need to be present. A lot less. No one wants to discuss the idea of losing the life we've had since industrialisation really got going in the 20th, and they certainly don't want to be told to limit how many kids they have (anyone who knows really rundown, state benefits funded areas of misfits stuck in a vicious circle of poverty and crime will know how this would go down).

China is the only nation to come close, and they've only managed it with massive tyranny and threat of force. Even then, there are ever more dissenting voices today as the country Westernises over the years. Soon, China will be another Europe or US and then the movement is truly unstoppable, as if China would give up now. No huge increases in wealth and living standards means nothing to back the current regime. The Party knows this. If they don't keep on this insane growth, they will lose their only get out of jail free card. They will not give up this newfound prosperity so easily, as we shall see.

I accept this. I accept that my parents, part of the baby boomers, have essentially siphoned off an equally bright future for myself and my brother by subsidising their lives with what we should have had. I may never own a house. Healthcare is less capable per person. Taxes and inflation are high. Energy is running out. Everything that my parents had is a question mark for my generation, and it's not that my parents went from poor working class to millionaires, it's that they had the chance for social mobility to become far better off that we won't have. We're starting to find this out and we're very pissed off. You can see where Tyler Durden had a point. The irony is, the free love crowd have helped more than any other generation, in screwing us over.

US nationalism? Who knows? There's something incredibly wrong with this world, though. It won't end with losing fossil fuels, it's just that this is the first of these major hurdles to come our way. I do know that the world is at a crossroads. Some nations will fall, others will not. This may not be the Olduvai Gorge, rest assured though. Sometime, the party will end unless we get off this rock and learn to deal with one another. There's no future otherwise.

We'll never learn to deal with one another. We WILL get off this rock, because for all your pessimism, we are a bastard race of desperate survivors and innovators who don't stop fighting until long after the hope is gone, and usually manage to pull through anyway. Once we get off this rock, will have plenty of resources with which to continue the internicine feuding which will be a universal trait of human civilization for all our existence, however, and I am quite sufficiently pleased with the prospects for doing so.

I am very eager to mitigate peak oil. I do acknowledge that harsh authoritarianism is the only way forward, regardless its political bent, but I see no "necessity" in living within our "means"; our means are only limited by our sheer force of will in this universe. I will not accept an end to industrial civilization, and I will do my best to insure that it is preserved at all costs, down to the bloodiest measures. If we must go to the stars on a stairway built on the bones of our enemies, then let us kill. The survival of the species is a universal imperative and if we must grind countless multitudes under heel to accomplish it, so be it.

We are, sooner or later, doomed, doomed, doomed, damnit, as a species if we remain on this rock, subject to the energy limitations of one planet, as you well know as a biologist. What shocks me is that you can even remotely entertain the notion of de-industrializing, of "living sustainably", as anything other than the path to extinction for the human race. This rock is neither immortal, nor perfectly safe, nor infinite in its resources. Technology is required to get off it, and technology we shall have, best that the goal of species survival is accomplished even if it must be done by letting a tyrant as murderous as Stalin control us and direct us toward space merely for his aggrandizement--and, indeed, let such a man be worshipped as a God, if that be the price of freeing us from the shackles of this globe!

[Illuminatus Primus]

She is right. The sum suffering and exertions and trials of the lives of every human being that has ever lived and all pre-humans, anthropoids, primates, mammals, and so on that have struggled to survive must not be a nihilistic road to nowhere. Because they did against any and all odds I exist. Everything and anything I have and ever will known is a product of that. The evolution of life on Earth must not be a dead-end, and all life forms must not go extinct. My imperatives - and those of our entire species, of our entire biosphere - are that our sum of memetic and genetic information endure indefinitely. And that can only occur outside the Earth's gravity well. Humans must climb out of the jungle forever. I want my descendants to visit the viewports to gaze toward the sun from the asteroid belt, or toward Mars, or toward Venus. Where they will be safe from the insipid conflicts and uncertain environment of Earth's surface. Where some of them will always survive. Where the human race can spread indefinitely.

People will have to get used to collectivism, to lower life standards, to be more and more accountable to their community, to their state, to their entire world for their actions. We will not be able to breed, discard, consume, and waste as we once did. These are all noble and necessary sacrifices. We must survive and yes - the state and community must gain more power to prevent the individual from destroying the commons. That is necessary and noble. And I look forward to a world, that if more managed, less free, less plenty, will not doom my distant descendants to the consequences of their selfish and capricious forefathers. It is a worthy sacrifice.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The prospect of leaving Earth is hopelessly small at the best of times, with increases in geo-political tensions and an increasingly demoralised populace, the idea of spending precious resources on space exploration and colonisation will be even further curtailed. No one likes the idea of ensuring a future off God's planet until we fix everything in the here and now, which of course will never be attained.

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. He wasn't even a very good actor. Did no one remember the oil shocks at that time? Are we really that short on memory?

I also don't see how letting a Stalinist tyrant control the world will further anything. It sounds like you want the species to survive for the take of survival, as if the goal of life is to be the last lifeform standing, conquering as much space as possible until the end of time itself. Is that living? Are we all just cogs in a machine, shackled to our genes? I don't know about you, Marina, but I work to live, not vice versa. I sure as hell don't see the joy and achievement to be had in an empty, totalitarian society that prides itself on getting bigger at the cost of our humanity. I may hate what evolution has wrought sometimes, but removing the real purpose in life we each make seems robotic. If the future demands we sacrifice our freedoms for the questionable purpose of breeding like bacteria because it is "for the good of the people as a species", then I'll take oblivion, thanks.

Not that this means I don't want the species to last or even take to the stars, for I would gladly pay any price I conceivably could to see such sights. I wouldn't do it for the simple sake of perpetuating my genetic diversity though, since that really is just accepting that consumer and breed as bacteria is all we're good for in the end. We have civilisation that sets us apart from all other species, I'd like to think we can get out of this rut without ruining our enlightenment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The prospect of leaving Earth is hopelessly small at the best of times, with increases in geo-political tensions and an increasingly demoralised populace, the idea of spending precious resources on space exploration and colonisation will be even further curtailed. No one likes the idea of ensuring a future off God's planet until we fix everything in the here and now, which of course will never be attained.

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. He wasn't even a very good actor. Did no one remember the oil shocks at that time? Are we really that short on memory?

I also don't see how letting a Stalinist tyrant control the world will further anything. It sounds like you want the species to survive for the take of survival, as if the goal of life is to be the last lifeform standing, conquering as much space as possible until the end of time itself. Is that living? Are we all just cogs in a machine, shackled to our genes? I don't know about you, Marina, but I work to live, not vice versa. I sure as hell don't see the joy and achievement to be had in an empty, totalitarian society that prides itself on getting bigger at the cost of our humanity. I may hate what evolution has wrought sometimes, but removing the real purpose in life we each make seems robotic. If the future demands we sacrifice our freedoms for the questionable purpose of breeding like bacteria because it is "for the good of the people as a species", then I'll take oblivion, thanks.

Not that this means I don't want the species to last or even take to the stars, for I would gladly pay any price I conceivably could to see such sights. I wouldn't do it for the simple sake of perpetuating my genetic diversity though, since that really is just accepting that consumer and breed as bacteria is all we're good for in the end. We have civilisation that sets us apart from all other species, I'd like to think we can get out of this rut without ruining our enlightenment.

I don't think the two justifications are mutually exclusive at all, Valdemar, so it doesn't seem like there's really an argument.

I WISH we had some brilliantly foresighted leader like FDR who could muster the resources of the country in a substantiative fashion, but I consider the importance of getting off this fucking rock to be worth a Stalin if it comes to it. It's sure as Hell NOT my first choice, nor that of anyone sane. It is, however, a choice I would make even at the cost of my own enjoyment in life, but then, I'm an adrenaline junky, and the prospect of suffering and hardship just makes my blood hot to the challenge, so I'm by no means normal in that regard.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The rub is that we need time and resources. Time and resources are hope, are chances give us more breathing room to grow and civilize. These are not things we will find here. We need to leave Earth in order to reach our potential, and for our great, great, great grandchildren to live brighter and more optimistic lives than we. Sure there could be barbarism here, sure there could be tyranny, sure there could be death. But up there there is time, there is hope, there is a future.

I don't want to think my distant descendants must face barbarism or even extinction because I needed more freedoms for myself right now. I am not as enthusiastic as Marina about authoritarianism. But for us, right now as a people, there must be a paradigm shift. And at least for awhile, what is good for us as a nation, as a civilization cannot be trusted to whores to the electorate, who're largely stupid, selfish, and atavistic and will never sacrifice for the long term.

Humanity must survive, there must be hope of advancement and civilization and things getting better. And part of that stairwell is leaving Earth. Besides, turning Earth into a nature park would be a lot better for the more primitive species anyway.

[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!

I think you're selling yourself and your generation a little short. Yes, there are some people who just can't adapt, but they are a minority. Adjustments can be wrenching, but they can be made.

[K. A. Pital]

Hey moron, try saying that to the average chinese on the street.

I presume you have been to China and have spoken to them, no?

The massive leap includes the tiny fraction of Chinese population that is really involved in it from head to toe.

The rest are dirt-poor. What is even more appaling, the mass of extra workers _without rights_ that China is gaining are Chinese illegals - people in China proper who have been born in the village or in the city without registration, and thus have no choice but to work for outrageously low wages in factories.

Chinese workers strike from week to week even as the government tries to enforce the not-really-working ban on strikes.

"Oooh, look, China is rapidly industrializing" - yeah, right, it is. When oil runs out, China will crash and burn the hardest - only because it took a step towards copying the Industrial Age of the US and become a similar irresponsible, oil-consuming monster. China built autobahns and rapidly increases it's car park, while at the same time polluting their natural resources to shit.

Will that increase the living standards of the people? Yes, for a certain time it will (though given what small fraction of Chinese population really is receiving the most benefits of that growth, even that is debatable). But given the context of the situation, China is being forced to go down the road of becoming a warehouse of cheap shit, just to crash the hardest when fossil fuels are no more.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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.

I think you're selling yourself and your generation a little short. Yes, there are some people who just can't adapt, but they are a minority. Adjustments can be wrenching, but they can be made.

But people aren't adapting and aren't embracing reality. Most people I've tried to talk to - despite being respected by peers as an intelligent and insightful person relatively speaking, and with an education in economics, refuse to take my advice seriously. Hence the urgency.

And I'm with Stas; yeah feudalism and pauperism sucks. But at least before they didn't have a likely future of starvation on a scale exceeding the worst under Mao to look forward to.

[Guardsman Bass]

The rub is that we need time and resources. Time and resources are hope, are chances give us more breathing room to grow and civilize. These are not things we will find here. We need to leave Earth in order to reach our potential, and for our great, great, great grandchildren to live brighter and more optimistic lives than we. Sure there could be barbarism here, sure there could be tyranny, sure there could be death. But up there there is time, there is hope, there is a future.

It would definitely be the next giant step, and would guarantee long-life for the human species (and more importantly, since space-dwellers would be dependent on advanced technology, long-life for advanced technology and writing). In the long run, you would still need to get out of the solar system, though; to get true immortality on the scale of the life of the universe, you need to get space colonies in different solar systems spread far enough apart that a single badly placed supernova can't burn you off, although it would be easier to survive that if we have space capability.

I don't want to think my distant descendants must face barbarism or even extinction because I needed more freedoms for myself right now. I am not as enthusiastic as Marina about authoritarianism. But for us, right now as a people, there must be a paradigm shift. And at least for awhile, what is good for us as a nation, as a civilization cannot be trusted to whores to the electorate, who're largely stupid, selfish, and atavistic and will never sacrifice for the long term.

I think the roots are there, although they've been used mainly to build sustainable societies in the face of societal collapse from environmental disintegration. You've read Collapse; remember what Diamond says about Medieval Japan? What ultimately allowed that kind of long-term stability to make long-term decisions even in the face of severe crisises in the short term (like wiping out your forests causing your soil to erode among other things) was the trust by the leadership that they could leave what they had done to their descendants, and so forth.

In seriousness, though, I would wonder if what would be better to get people en masse off this rock would be some kind of religious push for it. If you think about it, the Puritans were religious settlers in New England, along with the Catholics in Maryland and Quakers in Pennsylvania, and they were the ones that set up stable colonies (in contrast to Jamestown, which was pretty turbulent for a long time, and far from self-sustaining). Or, to take a different tack, remember what Diamond said in Collapse about the Greenland Norse? About their willingness to sacrifice even the scarce food margins they had beyond subsistence to build cathedrals and the like? That could be a powerful motivating force for a space expansion, if you could somehow harness it, or at least direct it in that direction.

Humanity must survive, there must be hope of advancement and civilization and things getting better. And part of that stairwell is leaving Earth. Besides, turning Earth into a nature park would be a lot better for the more primitive species anyway.

That would definitely be cool if you could get space elevators and orbital colonies around Earth going, like in Arthur C. Clarke's 3001. Of course, I would still like to terraform Mars.

[TC Pilot]

While I am far too cynical to expect a solution to the problem to be put into effect before the shit hits the fan, I am confident enough to believe that the worst-case scenario will not be realized - i.e. the collapse of modern civilization and de-industrialization akin to the collapse of the Roman Empire in Western Europe.

As morbid as it may sound, I find that de-industrialization is a greater tragedy than de-population would be. Technological, social, and economic advancements have always been more important to mankind than the propogation of the species. If millions, or even billions, must perish for modern Western civilization to continue, so be it. If we de-industrialize, then nothing has been solved.

The historian in me rejoices at the coming storm. The chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy will mark a chapter in history of unprecedented possibility. Governments and states will fall, and rise, tyrants, dictators, and demagouges will come and go. Races and cultures will be reshaped, maps redrawn. "The possibilities...are limitess."

And, of course, hopefully I'll ride the storm and come out the other side on top.

[Admiral Valdemar]

But people aren't adapting and aren't embracing reality. Most people I've tried to talk to - despite being respected by peers as an intelligent and insightful person relatively speaking, and with an education in economics, refuse to take my advice seriously. Hence the urgency.

And I'm with Stas; yeah feudalism and pauperism sucks. But at least before they didn't have a likely future of starvation on a scale exceeding the worst under Mao to look forward to.

That's probably one of the biggest kickers which has now put me off explaining this to anyone else now or educating the village I live in with talks. No one listens, nor do they want to. It's the Kubler-Ross stages for the most intelligent and open minded people, I myself went through that with the denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. If someone like the head scientific officer of the UK gov't won't take this seriously until it appears in iNature or Science, how do you get Joe Sixpack to listen when the only optimistic course of action is a total paradigm shift for everyone towards the frugal, less material lifestyle everyone despises in climate change movements?

Cheney and Bush know what is heading our way, and they're well prepared. They just don't want to give everyone else the same chance, because if everyone knew, then playing the markets with what is essentially insider information of how the future will play out will cease to be as everyone panics.

So we do need good leaders to take authority and use it for our own good, not for what we think we want: more of the same. 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.

[His Divine Shadow]

This depressed the shit out of me. I could never accept authoritanism, I hate it so much, goes against everything I hold sacred. For me it's a classic case of ends not justifying the means. But I don't think we'll have to turn to authoritanism anyway and start destroying liberties. If we did, I might as well just give up hope of the future and life.

[Colonel Olrik]

This depressed the shit out of me. I could never accept authoritanism, I hate it so much, goes against everything I hold sacred. For me it's a classic case of ends not justifying the means. But I don't think we'll have to turn to authoritanism anyway and start destroying liberties. If we did, I might as well just give up hope of the future and life.

You don't need to be so melodramatic about it. My grand parents, parents and countless other people in Western and Eastern European countries have grown up, studied, worked and raised a family with authoritanian regimes in charge. People could be happy. Freedom is a great improvement, but if you kept your opinions to yourself and didn't agitate the waves complaining about the economy or the lack of fairness of the system it was more or less OK. The great majority of people had lives worth living.

[Stuart Mackey]

Free trade is not neither free nor fair. It is coerced and one-sided.

That depends on what country you come from. EU amd US subsidies cost me and everyone else in my nation personally, to say nothing of 2nd and third world nations.

[His Divine Shadow]

This depressed the shit out of me. I could never accept authoritanism, I hate it so much, goes against everything I hold sacred. For me it's a classic case of ends not justifying the means. But I don't think we'll have to turn to authoritanism anyway and start destroying liberties. If we did, I might as well just give up hope of the future and life.

You don't need to be so melodramatic about it. My grand parents, parents and countless other people in Western and Eastern European countries have grown up, studied, worked and raised a family with authoritanian regimes in charge. People could be happy. Freedom is a great improvement, but if you kept your opinions to yourself and didn't agitate the waves complaining about the economy or the lack of fairness of the system it was more or less OK. The great majority of people had lives worth living.

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.

[K. A. Pital]

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.

[Colonel Olrik]

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.

Fine, revolt and get sent to jail then. I'll likely be too busy with family, work and the occasional vacation at the beach to really want to risk it, but I wish you all the luck.

[Surlethe]

As morbid as it may sound, I find that de-industrialization is a greater tragedy than de-population would be. Technological, social, and economic advancements have always been more important to mankind than the propogation of the species. If millions, or even billions, must perish for modern Western civilization to continue, so be it. If we de-industrialize, then nothing has been solved.

I'm not sure this is completely correct. Technological, social, and economic advancements have been important to mankind because they aid the propagation of the species, or at least the propagation of the society that's advancing. Her Grace has pointed out that industrial society can be maintained on the deaths of only a few tens of millions in the first world; if it goes, we're looking at the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions from starvation because of the collapse of industrialized agriculture.

This is why I'm of the opinion that industrialization will survive in some form or another no matter what, even in the worst case scenarios: whatever faction or government manages to keep a form of industrialization will have an incredible edge over its neighbors. That edge is a big selection advantage; it's not coincidence that the only hunter-gatherers left have never been in contact with civilization, while agriculture has spread like wildfire for five thousand years.

The historian in me rejoices at the coming storm. The chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy will mark a chapter in history of unprecedented possibility. Governments and states will fall, and rise, tyrants, dictators, and demagouges will come and go. Races and cultures will be reshaped, maps redrawn. "The possibilities...are limitess."

Oh, yes. Whenever I think about it, the part of me that's not scared out of my mind is kind of sad: I won't be around in a century to see what's happened. It's kind of like someone in the 1920s who's getting a glimpse of World War II looming: he doesn't want to fight, but at the same time, he wants to see its effects very badly, and he probably won't be alive in the 1990s to see what happened in the long run.

[Surlethe]

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. Simple choice: do you submit, or do you and your family cease to exist? I know which choice I would make. "Give me freedom, or give me death!" is a lot less pithy when you're staring down a gun barrel.

[Starglider]

The problem is biology, our biology, shaped by the several million years of evolution we've needed in this form, but also the billions that shaped all life. We are programmed to reproduce and it is our obligation to ensure we pass on our genes to the next generation.

Well I'm glad you've recognised that evolution is the problem. Doesn't really tally with the apparent 'nature is worthwhile' subtext, because everything else in nature is a product of evolution too, with just as much pain and suffering and regular extinctions, just not sapient.

But anyway if you're going to accept Duchess's proposal of an unlimited amount of totalitarian oppression as long as it results in humanity surviving, how about accepting a short burst of totalitarian oppression in order to rewire everyone's brains to stop sucking as much. Not possible yet but give it a few years. Best hope the two scenarios don't get combined otherwise you will quickly discover the true meaning of 'totalitarianism'.

[K. A. Pital]

What good is freedom if you are dead? The right to live is the most fundamental, both for a human individual and for a human society. The rest, which are the humanist ethics' universal human rights, comes as a bonus pack of rights that seek to defend the human from possible hostility.

[Starglider]

What good is freedom if you are dead?

That's it. You're off the guest speaker list for the 2008 Libertarian convention ;P After all, better dead than Red!

Incidentally I just discovered that there was in fact a musical movement called Rock Against Communism, which seems to be pretty sickening bottom-of-the-barrel stuff.

[jegs2]

more likely to see them split up into smaller regions, with some of the smaller regions banding together to make little countries and some states like texas, california and hawaii becoming countries on their own. economically i don't believe it's possible for the usa to maintain as a country. Things in the mid west will go back to how they were on the frontier (sans indians).

I concur with this. It would require a nearly complete economic collapse to cause that, and small-scale civil wars would likely result. Can foresee small "confederacies" within what is now the US - some of which would be more closely aligned with other "confederacies."