(no subject)
Feb. 19th, 2004 12:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaI don't tend to buy into "end of the world" theories. Five years ago of course it was Y2K. Today the warning deals with "peak oil," the suggestion that the world's oil supply (which of course is finite) will be exhausted within a generation and will be followed inexorably by the fall of civilization. For a sample of the arguments related to this, see:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alobar/747883.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alobar/747302.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/omegabaphomet/25133.html
I'm far from convinced. But I wonder if "end of the world" predictions have been off base -- or we've just been lucky. The observation that other predictions in the past have been off, does not in itself logically imply that warnings with dire consequences should just be brushed off.
"Peak Oil" is not the only dilemma that is starting to concern me. Add to this ongoing environmental upheaval on massive scales -- global warming, perhaps, but much scarier than that is a process that has received far too little attention -- the massive upheavals humanity has wreaked on ocean life. Undersea life has been drastically altered in the last 400-500 years as a result of farm runoff, over-fishing, and pollution; there have been oceanic changes on an insane scale in that time.
The Bush Administration is replying by sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "La la la la I do not hear you!" I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a Kerry or Edwards Administration would act any differently.
Suppose there is some truth to the warnings, and what we get instead is an economic disruption on the order of the great 10-year worldwide depression which began 75 years ago. Even that would ruin lives, and is stupid if we can act to avoid it now.
It is well past time that the American public begin discussing radical changes to the way government and business operates. The two main political parties that dominate American life, the Republicans and Democrats, are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations, and while they dither about this social policy or relations with that country, neither party is going to lift a finger to address the ongoing problems.
I don't have solutions yet; I just know that there are big problems and something has to be done. But I'm looking for answers. I'll post here as that quest proceeds.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alobar/747883.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/alobar/747302.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/omegabaphomet/25133.html
I'm far from convinced. But I wonder if "end of the world" predictions have been off base -- or we've just been lucky. The observation that other predictions in the past have been off, does not in itself logically imply that warnings with dire consequences should just be brushed off.
"Peak Oil" is not the only dilemma that is starting to concern me. Add to this ongoing environmental upheaval on massive scales -- global warming, perhaps, but much scarier than that is a process that has received far too little attention -- the massive upheavals humanity has wreaked on ocean life. Undersea life has been drastically altered in the last 400-500 years as a result of farm runoff, over-fishing, and pollution; there have been oceanic changes on an insane scale in that time.
The Bush Administration is replying by sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "La la la la I do not hear you!" I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a Kerry or Edwards Administration would act any differently.
Suppose there is some truth to the warnings, and what we get instead is an economic disruption on the order of the great 10-year worldwide depression which began 75 years ago. Even that would ruin lives, and is stupid if we can act to avoid it now.
It is well past time that the American public begin discussing radical changes to the way government and business operates. The two main political parties that dominate American life, the Republicans and Democrats, are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations, and while they dither about this social policy or relations with that country, neither party is going to lift a finger to address the ongoing problems.
I don't have solutions yet; I just know that there are big problems and something has to be done. But I'm looking for answers. I'll post here as that quest proceeds.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 10:18 am (UTC)That really made me think a lot about end of the world theories. If you view that as end of 'a' world, well that's something that happens cyclically in human history when a form of living has outlived it's usefulness. The world ended when Rome fell and when the Reformation came about and when the New World was discovered and so on. The End of the World for the Indians happened at Wounded Knee and other various sites around that time.
Right now what we're doing in this society isn't sustainable whatsoever and it's oppressing increasingly vast numbers of people. I keep getting the feeling that the end of -a- world is at hand, and I'm kinda ok with that. I know that it'll mean hardship for me, personally, when the systems supporting things I happen to enjoy like electricity and readily available strawberries in the winter fall down, but overall I can't hold up my lavish American lifestyle as something that -should- be sustained. We're poisoning our food supplies and indenturing the rest of the world. We've got to either evolve past this mindset (which we show no sign of doing, as a nation) or we've gotta go.
Either way, a world will end.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 10:38 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 02:25 pm (UTC)Wile I would not look foward to being a hunter-gatherer, or even a peasant in Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago, at least they had access to land which yieled eatable food, wild game to eat, and water which was both available & clean. Now the toxins in the water & land are such that they do not kill right away. They cause cancers & immune system failure over decades. Hard to know what to avoid even if people are dying left & right.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 02:29 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 10:26 am (UTC)See my latest posts, too...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:24 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 10:34 am (UTC)This guy has an entire website dedicated to the pole shift theory, which he believes was predicted in the Bible:
http://wrightworld.net/poleshiftnews.htm
There are so many end-of-the-world theories though. I guess all we can do is improve the way we're living now and hope for the best.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 11:12 am (UTC)Still, I look forward to 2012. I wonder what their calendar said about the end of their own civilization?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:27 pm (UTC)Hah! Indeed. I kind of like that attitude. Like Jethro Tull said, "she's wounded, old, and treacherous."
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:28 pm (UTC)"Living mountains going to shake that town --
Big mother calling you from underground.
She don't want trouble, she don't need no fuss.
But she's wounded, old and treacherous!"
waiting for the vandals
Date: 2004-02-19 11:32 am (UTC)Re: waiting for the vandals
Date: 2004-02-19 12:29 pm (UTC)Re: waiting for the vandals
Date: 2004-02-19 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 11:50 am (UTC)there are two topics in the field that are of interest to me. the first is concerning oil. it is not how much oil remains in the ground that ultimately determines the long term cost, but the cost in energy equivalents, for instance, barrels of oil, that it takes to extract any particular deposit and to make it useful. using this idea it is a matter of years not generations before we run out of usefully extracted oil.
the second idea is that of technological fix. most people if pressed on the issue believe that technology will come up with an alternative fuel. there response is "happened before, it will happen again". this is a question of historical research. in fact, studying history on the topic leads me to believe that this period of history, from the first commercial well to today is extremely unusual in human history and is due for a big downdraft in human population, soon. again in terms of decades not human generations.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:36 pm (UTC)Just because technology came through in the past, though, does not mean we can afford to take for granted that it will save our asses again.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 12:56 pm (UTC)firewood to coal transition in England in particular but europe as a whole. i have an interesting book entitled 'firewood the other energy crisis' it must be 20 years old now, but it discusses the modern problem of firewood for cooking and heat in the 3rd world.
whale oil to petroleum for lighting.
is likewise a potential area for research.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-19 02:13 pm (UTC)Outright forbidding the kind of corporate and union sponsorship ("donation") of politicians would be an excellent first step, I think.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 03:56 pm (UTC)On the other hand, saying that we can destroy the world is simply ludicrous. There have been mass extinctions over and over and over again, and life has always bounced back. So even if we drive ourselves into extinction, life will go on.