The Age of Chaos
by Jason GodeskyI’ve rediscovered WarCraft III recently. I spent Friday night playing a few rounds with Mike and Putorti, and after a few victories, I was feeling pretty good. I usually play Night Elves–the mystical, nature-loving tribal survivors of an ancient cataclysm that resulted in civilizational collapse, due to ecological and geological catastrophe. I wonder why I like them so much? Well, that, and I win with them pretty consistently. Anyway, with my recent gaming, when I saw Tom Engelhardt asking, “Has the Age of Chaos Begun?” my immediate thought was, “Come and gone, dude–that was the original campaign, it was awesome!” Of course, then I remembered I live in the real world, not the World of WarCraft (if ever there was a title that might tempt me into that dark sin of the MMORPG…). But in a strange case of art imitating life (or life imitating art), the article was more concerned with the question of whether we might be going the way of the Kaldorei high-horn. Speculation as to whether our cataclysm also involves demons, are left as an exercise for the reader.
Tom opens up with this sobering piece:
“Experts at the U.S. National Snow and Data Center in Colorado,” writes David Adam, environmental correspondent for the British Guardian, “fear the [Arctic] region is locked into a destructive cycle with warmer air melting more ice, which in turn warms the air further. Satellite pictures show that the extent of Arctic sea ice this month dipped some 20% below the long term average for September — melting an extra 500,000 square miles, or an area twice the size of Texas. If current trends continue, the summertime Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free well before the end of this century.”
We’ve noted a previous ecological tipping point in Siberia, so it’s interesting to note here that there are even larger deposits of frozen methane at the floor of the Arctic Ocean. This is Tom’s primary concern–not these events in and of themselves, so much, as the fact that they represent a systemic Rubicon, a tipping point that will change our entire world forever.
Conservative politicians say this is all pseudoscience, but Putorti always plays the humans in WarCraft III, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned about humans from letting some Night Elf arrows fly into those flabby pink asses, it’s that you never trust what they tell you–you take a look at what kind of units they’re building.
In this case, I might point to Bush’s ranch in Crawford–the “Western White House” where Bush spends an amount of time unprecedented in presidential history. During the election, one conservative shill made the rather silly argument that, even though Bush opposed almost every basic environmental protection, he was “green” by virtue of his ranch. But in the process, she provides some lovely details:
Let’s make a quick comparison and take a look at President Bush’s personal possessions. Back in 1999, during his second term as governor of Texas, he and Mrs. Bush purchased almost 1600 acres of land near Waco, Texas in Crawford for $1.3 million, about $500-600 an acre. This was their main and sole residence before the White House and will most likely be after their stay in Washington.
Discussions for the ranch house with associate dean of architecture at the University of Texas, David Heymann, revealed the Bushes desire and commitment for the home to fit into the landscape. He said at the time, “The Bushes told me they had this beautiful piece of land and they wanted the house to add to the land, not disrupt it. Given the complexity of their lives, they wanted a place where they could feel grounded. They wanted to be in the land and related to it.”
The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home.
In addition to this VERY environmental friendly home in Crawford, President Bush also uses a propane-fueled Ford F-250 pick-up while at the ranch. Propane burns clean, with 60 percent lower ozone forming emissions than reformulated gasoline.
One home, one car, both of which are on the forefront of environmental and ecological advances - very Green.
So if all this environmental fuss is just so much ballyhooed junk science, why did Bush invest the resources to upgrades his town hall to an eco-bunker of +5 sustainability?
Even more telling is the investments in submarine fleets that several arctic nations are indulging in, prepping for a race to control the Northwest Passage as it opens up.
In August [of 1999], a Chinese government research vessel showed up unannounced at Tuktoyaktuk for reasons neither the military nor the RCMP have figured out. Some of the passengers disembarked briefly, but then returned to the ship. In September, a submarine was reported to be cruising in Canadian waters in Cumberland Sound off Baffin Island. Col. Leblanc said it is not clear which country sent the submarine, but Prof. Huebert said descriptions dictate that it was either American or French.
The submarine sightings happened at about the time of French President Jacques Chirac’s Sept. 6 visit to Pangnirtung, Baffin Island, to look at Inuit art.
Whoever ordered the submarine mission was clearly violating Canada’s sovereignty in an act the country could have taken as a covert operation of war, Col. Leblanc said. In fact, if his troops had found the submarine, they would have forced it to the surface or attacked it.
“At one point, we will have to enforce our Canadian sovereignty by force over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago,” he said bluntly. “The discussion must take place as soon as possible. If, indeed, it will be open in 10 years time, we’re already too late.”
Or, in the words of a more recent article in The New York Times:
But if the Arctic is no longer a frozen backyard, the fences matter. For now it is not clear where those fences are. Under a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, territory is determined by how far a nation’s continental shelf extends into the sea. Under the treaty, countries have limited time after ratifying it to map the sea floor and make claims.
In 2001, Russia made the first move, staking out virtually half the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole. But after challenges by other nations, including the United States, Russia sought to bolster its claim by sending a research ship north to gather more geographical data. On Aug. 29, it reached the pole without the help of an icebreaker - the first ship ever to do so.
The United States, an Arctic nation itself because of Alaska, could also try to expand its territory. But several senators who oppose any possible infringement on American sovereignty have repeatedly blocked ratification of the treaty.
Indeed, not everyone agrees that warming of the Arctic merits concern. No one knows what share of the recent thawing can be attributed to natural cycles and how much to heat-trapping pollution linked to recent global warming, and some scientists and government officials, particularly in Russia, are dismissive of assertions that a permanent change is at hand.
“We are not going to have apple trees growing in Vorkuta,” said the mayor of that coal-mining city, Igor L. Shpektor, who is also the president of Russia’s union of Arctic cities and towns.
But the current thaw is already real enough for the four million people within the Arctic Circle, including about 150,000 Inuit. “As long as it’s ice,” said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, leader of a transnational Inuit group, “nobody cares except us, because we hunt and fish and travel on that ice. However, the minute it starts to thaw and becomes water, then the whole world is interested.”
Increasingly, big corporations, the eight countries with Arctic footholds and other nations farther south are betting on the possibility of a great transformation. Energy-hungry China has set up a research station on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and twice deployed its icebreaker Snow Dragon, which normally works in Antarctica, to northern waters to conduct climate research.
Interest in Arctic-hardy vessels has picked up so much that in January, Aker Finnyards, a giant shipbuilder based in Helsinki, created a subsidiary just to develop ice-hardened ships. Its new double-ended tanker slips smoothly through open water bow first but can spin around and use an icebreakerlike stern to smash through heavy floes. A Finnish energy company bought two for about $90 million apiece, and after buying one Russia licensed the design and is building two more.
In January, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research held a closed two-day meeting to hear from experts on the implications of a warming, opening Arctic.
It all reminds me just a little too much of Lenin’s statement, that he could sell a capitalist the very rope they’d use to hang him. Even facing the catastrophic end of civilization itself, our governments are gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation of all the trade routes that will open up….
Then there’s the hurricanes.
The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is one cyclone away from exhausting the NOAA-approved name list, and tying the record for most hurricanes in a single season–and we have 1.6 months still to go. Only twice before–most recently in 1961–have we seen two category V storms in a single season. We still haven’t beaten the 1933 season’s 21 storms, but we’ve clinched the most storms in July (five), and the most storms in August. That previous record was five, shared by 1887, 1933, 1936, 1959, 1966, and 1995 (1966 and 1995 had also previously shared the record for most July storms). 2005’s absolutely shattered that record, not with six, but seven. Katrina’s the fourth most powerful storm ever in the Atlantic, on record. And Hurricane Vince is the first time we’ve ever had to trot out the “V” name.
Speaking of Vince, he’s a tiny little storm. But he’s not where you’d expect. No, he’s careening drunkenly towards Portugal.
Might make a nice mate to last year’s Catarina–the first Atlantic hurricane ever in the southern hemisphere. It tried making its way to Brazil. I think the message is clear: G-d has recently developed a dislike for Portuguese.
Of course, that doesn’t explain this….
For reference, that’s Italy …. Greece … North Africa … and a hurricane over the Mediterranean.
Freaky weather is becoming the norm, all over the world. Nobody ever said global warming would be just a matter of things getting hotter. The prediction always was that it would make the climate, first and foremost, more chaotic. The Age of Chaos is now upon us. The tipping point is breached, the time for warning past. I’m not even sounding the alarm to reverse the trend–only the alarm to try to survive it. Humans aren’t quite as frail as the wheat we civilized folk tend to obsess over. Pandora’s Box is open, and there’s nothing we can do to save civilization. But if we’re lucky, we might be able to make like the Kaldorei, and wind up like the Night Elves. Which, frankly, would be pretty freaking awesome.
We called down the thunder–now we reap the whirlwind.
Slightly off-topic question here. Hope you won’t mind.
I’ve been reading this blog as well as some of the blogs and sites you link to. Frankly, I won’t feel that much of a sense of loss if civilization, as we know it, swirls down the drain. But I do have concerns over safety. Maybe I’ve watched too many post-apocalyptic movies? So the question is what’s to stop the bad guys from forming armed gangs to rob, rape, and murder the rest of us?
I finally saw the truly abominal Kevin Costner flick “Postman” a few months ago. If you have seen it then you know what I’m talking about: General Bethlehem and his army of brigands. (Waterworld and the Road Warrior trilogy portray the same basic threat.)
Will the good guys have to live inside of stockades and be heavily armed in order to provide a deterent to the thugs who view collapse as merely an opportunity to for getting rich quick?
If yes, then so much for returning to a foraging civilzation. It may prove too dangerous.
You people seem to be working under the assumption that these villains either won’t appear at all or will be stopped through some form of social censure.
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 10 October 2005 @ 8:23 PM
Not social censure. Social censure and memes are very weak against such mutations. No, we’re expecting them to be structurally incapable of pursuing that strategy. We’re expecting that the resources won’t be available to make that an option. Look forward to thesis #29 (”It will be impossible to rebuild civilization.”) for more on that score.
For the moment, notice that all your “bad guys” are of the same type–they’re all raiders. Ever notice that raiders only work on sedentary populations? Every historical raider has been a nomadic culture, preying upon a sedentary culture–often equestrian foragers preying upon sedentary agriculturalists. It’s only worth raiding people who have something worth taking. If they have something worth taking, then it’s probably too much to travel around with. Usually, “something worth taking” means a surplus of stored food: granaries and the like. Foragers gather enough food for themselves, for that day. Besides the fact they represent a small, moving target that’s night impossible to find, they also don’t have anything worth taking once you do find them.
And that’s why the “bad guys” won’t stand a chance. Worst case scenario–we are the “bad guys” to some poor agriculturalists trying in vain to re-start an unworkable way of life.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 October 2005 @ 9:14 PM
You have certainly given this a great deal of thought.
Let me throw two ideas back at you.
One, being a constantly moving forager without a permanent shelter will grow old after a while. Especially as one begins to age. Nothing like a rainy night under a lean-to to convince you of this. To make matters worse all of our cool REI outdoor gear will eventually wear out and have to be replaced with ill-fitting animal skins.
Two, I can accept a major die-off after collapse and a return to say a Little House of the Prairie life. But you are predicting a complete reversion to the Stone Age. I can’t see that happening. Humanity has acquired too much knowledge to sink back 100,000 years. Worst case scenario that I can see is living as the Michael Landon style pater familias of an 1850s clan.
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 10 October 2005 @ 10:35 PM
Theoretically, perhaps, but that’s not how it tends to play out in real life. Animal skins are only “ill-fitting” if no one in your tribe is very good at sewing. And our own wealthy elites often voluntarily prefer Mongolian yurts, which says something of the comfort and yes, even luxury, available to the primitive.
Again, look forward to thesis #29. For now, I can say this. Knowledge doesn’t matter much if the land is no longer arable. Agriculture has turned once fertile land into desert. There’s very little left that can still be farmed without petrochemicals. Permaculture and horticulture may be an option, but certainly not agriculture as we know it–and certainly not the 1850s style of subsistence, “organic” agriculture. That has now become precluded by the devastation we’ve wrought on the landbase. The land can no longer support it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 October 2005 @ 11:20 PM
Oh, and it’s only been 10,000 years–agriculture is a very recent innovation. And the “sinking” bit ruffles a few feathers in its implications of Victorian linear progression.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 October 2005 @ 11:22 PM
> Again, look forward to thesis #29.
Swell. I like it. It’s a bit like watching a movie mystery unfold. I’ll be there front row center, my friend.
Cheers.
:o)
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 10 October 2005 @ 11:40 PM
By the way I’m listening to Noam Chomsky on NPR. It’s a talk he gave at the UoW last spring. He mentions an Exxon paper which predicts Peak Oil will be reached within five years.
That’s Exxon, folks. Not some crack pot.
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 10 October 2005 @ 11:45 PM
Yeah, I wrote a paper on Peak Oil once. My teacher didn’t buy it until he read my bibliography. All US government sites and major oil companies.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 11 October 2005 @ 12:19 AM
Nice. I think that if I hadn’t spent about 1000 hours playing Sid Meier’s Civilization I back in the early ’90s my life would have turned out very differently.
Can’t find the link at the moment, but it’s worth pointing out that Canada and Denmark got in a minor military tiff a couple of months back about some previously unimportant rock in the arctic ocean. Canada and Denmark?? Oil does funny things to people, but if Canada and Denmark get into a shooting war, I may have to go buy some popcorn and watch the whole thing unravel…
Comment by Jeff — 11 October 2005 @ 10:54 AM
Yeah, I remember that story … I was looking for a link for the article, but I couldn’t find one, either.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 11:00 AM
So what’s you timeline for humanity becoming foragers again exclusively? Will it happen in your lifetimes? I say “your” because I’m getting on in years.
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 11 October 2005 @ 1:20 PM
Well, you’ve got Peak Oil going on about now. If the 1971 North American Hubbert Peak’s any indication, that means we’ll face the full brunt of that in about 2015. Global warming and mass extinction is supposed to pass some important thresholds by 2015. This all adds up to mean I’ll be very surprised if civilization as we know it survives to see 2020.
2005 - 2010: Recession becomes depression.
2010-2015: Depression becomes collapse.
2015-2020: All the worst parts of the Bible.
2020-2025: Cool-down.
So, by 2025, we’ll probably see full-fledged foragers inheriting the earth. I’ll be 43.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 1:44 PM
I don’t think that the next 20 years will look like the back side of a bell-curve. Rather, I think that desparate people will take desparate measures to stretch our prosperity at the expense of the future. The same kind of thing happened during the collaps of Rome: it would have been much better for the average Joe if the ruling class had just let things devolve. They didn’t because they are exactly the people who have the most to lose. So I guess I envision a more elongated plateau (say today until 2020) followed by a very punctuated collapse (by 2025. Not that the plateau will be pretty, I just don’t think that it will resemble the mechanics of collapse. The longer this plateau lasts, the more its foundations are eroded–peak oil, environmental destruction, and population growth will make it increasingly untennable, and will result in increasingly desparate measures to keep our current system in place. This will make it increasingly hard but brittle. Then some event or combination of events will bring the whole thing tumbling down very, very suddenly. Of course, the longer the plateau lasts, the more sudden and sharp the eventual collapse. It would certainly be better for most people if we could skip the plateau and begin a gentle slide today, but that won’t happen because the people that would hurt most are also the people who are currently in power.
The collapse will also be felt more intensely in some locales than in others. Places that depend heavily on petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides will see massive die off immediately (India, China, parts of Africa). Places that have their fundamental infrastructure designed around the petroleum age (US, especially places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, L.A.) will be hit hard, whereas places with a fundamental built geography leftover from simpler times will be more capable of sliding backwards gently (Parts of Europe, for example). Higher population densities will fare worse, especially cities. Most people will die of water-borne disease, not famine. Certain islands will fare the best: New Zealand, Kauai and Cuba seem like good bets, at least at first glance. My top 5 good & bad places to be for “the appocalypse”:
Good:
1. Azores
2. Salina
3. New Zealand
4. Kalalau valley (might find me here)
5. International Space Station…beautiful fireworks from here
Bad:
1. Las Vegas
2. Phoenix
3. Los Angeles
4. Any city over 500,000 people
5. Anyplace with more people/sq mile than inches of rain per year…good luck.
Comment by Jeff — 11 October 2005 @ 2:38 PM
I would say that places civilization considers undesirable or uninhabitable would be the safest. You might initially see people fleeing the deserts, but you won’t see many people heading there, as most of them would have no idea how to live in a desert without the civilizational infrastructure. But yes, places with the highest population densities will be hardest hit, especially in a more sudden collapse.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 11 October 2005 @ 3:16 PM
Then there’s the fact that a lot of places that look lush and verdant (and really are), are completely useless to civilization. The Amazon, for instance. The only reliably effective method of cultivation to ever work in the Amazon is swidden agriculture, because the soil’s about as fertile as cement. All the nutrients are locked up in all that verdant plant life.
Land grab? Every previous collapse suggests otherwise–the area under cultivation doesn’t grow, it shrinks. Dramatically.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 3:28 PM
Jason,
You’re quite an optimist! I have 2050 in my sights for the point when the engine, strained to its very limit, grinds to a halt. The funny thing is, my wife calls ME an optimist, and predicts 2075 for the end.
I’m in favor of the slow-crash scenario (a la Ran Prieur). While I think that you’re absolutely right that we WILL see some members of Homo Domesticus becoming full-fledged foragers by 2025, I can’t see them inheriting the Earth that fast. I think we’ll see people holding on to full-blown agriculture for decades, eventually sliding into horti/permaculture by necessity around 2050.
Of course, the smart people will be wearing deerskin by then, having already been practicing permaculture and/or foraging for 30 years or more by then.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 11 October 2005 @ 3:32 PM
That would be a very reasonable scenario–if we hadn’t painted ourselves into such a corner. I’m sure many people will try to turn to subsistence farming when the oil stops flowing, c. 2020. By then, the food riots in the cities will likely yield gangs fighting each other for food–and then, hunting each other for food. Many will flee the cities, and try to farm. They’ll plant a field full of corn, and wonder why it never sprouts up. And then they’ll die, not understanding why their “Little House on the Praire” scenario didn’t save them.
It didin’t save them because there’s nothing left in the soil. Even if they do manage to find some natural seed (rather than Monsanto’s stuff, genetically engineered to self-destruct to ensure next year’s market; good luck on that, their campaign has been very thorough), all the nutrients you need in the soil lare long, long gone. It’s far too acidic to nurture our crops. The seeds will simply die, and never sprout.
The only reason they’re sprouting now is because of the massive inputs we use–specifically, petrochemical fertilizers. Without oil, it’s impossible to farm, well, almost anything left on the planet.
That’s the thing about collapse–it doesn’t take long, because humans can die of hunger, thirst and exposure in less than a month.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 3:42 PM
I think that without oil it is very possible to farm quite well. Problem is that it will require two things that will be in very short supply: time and security. Give me 3 years and I’m confident that I can turn most places into a productive horitculture environment (most…). Of course, I’ll produce a lot fewer calories/acre than oil agriculture, so all those starving people out there will decide that they want to “share” in my harvest. Agriculture, I think, will work quite well in theory, but will be impractical in all but a very few environments.
Comment by Jeff — 11 October 2005 @ 4:21 PM
Well, horticulture/permaculture and agriculture are very different things. Permaculture will still be viable. Agriculture … I’m not so sure. Hard to farm a desert.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 5:15 PM
Good point… what’s the verb for horticulture? Foster? Confusing terminology is confusing the message, so maybe it should be “foster a sustaining environment”? I’ve normally said “farm according to permaculture principles,” but I think that is mixing it up too much…
One of Bill Mollison’s rules of permaculture is “everything farms.” Maybe the guidance for horticulture–to prevent it from becoming a surplus-creating engine–should be “everyone fosters.” I think that this goes back to the concepts of a “new morality” guiding the future..if everyone was morally obligated to produce their own food, and then specialize in any other way that they wanted, the foundation would be in place for a high-standard-of-living society that is also egalitarian, peaceful, etc.
I think that in the future there will be places–perhaps large parts–of the Earth that will again be able to support surplus-creating agriculture. One of our challenges will be to keep these regions voluntarily in the horticultural, non-surplus mode. That may be the deciding factor between freedom and feudalism.
Comment by Jeff — 11 October 2005 @ 5:24 PM
I usually just go with “gardening.” Sometimes the technical details of the difference between agriculture and horticulture leaves people’s heads spinning and they ask, “Then what’s the difference?” And I say, “Well, you don’t consider farming and gardening the same thing, do you?”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 5:25 PM
Let me put this idea forth to you all. Take your time before answering so that you may have a chance to be brutally honest with yourselves.
How much of this collapse fantasizing is no more than wishful thinking on your parts because you’re an outsider or simply unhappy with capitalism?
I’m an outsider. I have moved around a great deal over the decades through several countries on two continents. Being the perpetual outsider, I have this deep longing for some cataclymic event which will drive people together and create a genuine bond between us. As a result, I have always liked movies/novels about events which throw people together into true enduring friendships. (Think Million Dollar Baby as an example. Basically all war movies are about this type of bonding as well.)
I must confess to lulling myself to sleep almost every night of my teens with a fantasy about waking up the next morning to discover that everyone on earth was gone–except for myself and whatever girl I happened to have a crush on at the time.
Although in business, I’m also disillusioned by capitalism. So much time and energy has to be devoted to pointless competition. It’s a game wherein maybe 1% of the population has the personality profile necessary to succeed. The other 99% are simply not greedy or hyper-competitive enough to succeed at it.
So, I ask: are we all similar creatures sharing a circle-jerk about the demise of a culture we loathe and a fantasy about having the opportunity to live as the Noble Savage?
Are our filters screening out all the evidence that suggests civilization will slow a bit and, at worst, digress back to a Little House on the Paririe scenario–but with the “Internets” still intact.
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 11 October 2005 @ 7:56 PM
Doesn’t take much time to be brutally honest with myself on this one, but only because I spent years tormenting myself over it. Once the time’s put in to get the answer, you have that answer forevermore.
The answer is: no.
I am a white male suburbanite. I did well in school, I even had girls. I am an elite among elites. I’ve been offered positions on boards of directors. Not only was I privelaged by the system, I believed in the system.
Learning the cruelty of that system was painful for me. Learning what I was a part of–that is what I didn’t want to know. That’s what I shielded myself against. This … this is what broke into my mind, without me wanting it there. This is what robbed me of everything I had. This was the unwelcome revelation that transformed me forever.
Can’t we at least have our Little House on the Praire? No–that was stripped away from me, as well.
Feudalism? No–that was stripped away from me as well.
It didn’t stop until I reached the Stone Age–the only truly sustainable level of technology there is.
So, I would say no …. because it wasn’t something I wanted to believe. It was, in fact, the very opposite of everything I wanted to believe. But I believed it anyway, because the evidence was too overwhelming to deny.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 October 2005 @ 8:04 PM
Hello all,
Great discussion. I’m a die-off reader, Heinberg, Kunstler, Simmons, etc… reader. Found this via Oil Drum. The thing about being a misanthrope and yearning for a collapse is resonant, but not the whole picture. Yes, I’ll own up to the emptiness of suburbia. I live there. I’m a son of the place. Like Jason, I had a dream of it working and I believed in it. I’m a carpenter, I love craftsman style bungalows and all the wonderful skills that go into building houses, cabinets, furniture etc… I’m also a musician. I play guitar (who doesn’t) and fiddle. The music is my main love, along with my family. I have 2 kids, I love my wife, love my job, people love me, etc… I’m normal, creative, smart, educated.
I also can see that my world is built on sand. All of the practical skills that I have–and I’m known as one of those “guys” who can fix anything, build stuff, a suburban hero in the workshop–all my skills are predicated on power, oil, gas, transport, freedom of time from not having to create food, plastics, metallurgy, duct tape, epoxy, and a thousand thousand other things that will not be in 15 years or so.
I’ll add one other brick to the decline scenario. It seems to me in this moment that the globe is going to be strangled in a sequence of sorts that will involve poorer countries slipping over an economic threshhold that makes it impossible to import oil/gas. The poorer countries are already much closer than the rich countries to a post-oil way of living, though population densities are high and the cities like Lagos and Mexico City are just as oil dependent as any American city. This will be coupled by many poorer countries’ inability to refine products themselves. This “sequential demand destruction” will provide miniscule uptics in the inevitable decline for the richer countries. The WTO mindset will do nothing to restrain this as it will be perceived as the market doing its thing. This trend will march around the globe, nation by nation, until there are only the mega-militaries and the mega-suppliers left standing. This has already started in Africa, Cuba, Haiti. Basically, the White people–I’m white, btw, not particularly proud of that–will see to it that the dark skinned races will explore and experience post peak first. We’ll get to watch it all on CNN
Comment by Matt — 12 October 2005 @ 9:35 AM
Nevermind Peak Oil. The entire system is rotten to the core.
These are each one hour long but worth watching or at least listening to while multitasking.
http://1984videos.com/
http://1984videos.com/money/Money_Masters_Tape1_International_Banking_Cartel.wmv
http://1984videos.com/money/Money_Masters_Tape2_International_Banking_Cartel.wmv
http://1984videos.com/money/Corporations_Are_Legal_Psychopaths__The_Corporation_P1.mpg
http://1984videos.com/money/Corporations_Are_Legal_Psychopaths__The_Corporation_P2.mpg
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 12 October 2005 @ 9:18 PM
Amen, brutha.
And even that’s still the tip of the iceberg….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 October 2005 @ 9:23 PM
I’m a big believer in communities creating their own localized currencies. At first they run in parallel with the Fed’s money and then eventually replace it after collapse.
Anyone interested in this should do a search on “local currency”.
Comment by Mad Max Jr — 12 October 2005 @ 10:14 PM
That’s something Steve just touched on.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 October 2005 @ 10:48 PM