What outback? NSW and QLD are more than 60% de-forested, and are rapidly becoming desert as we sit here and type away.

I was under the impression that the outback had pretty much always been a desert, for the most part.

I’m sure that 11 million other people haven’t thought of the same thing, and won’t get in your way in their rush to not die of thirst/starvation/cannabilism.

You’d be right, given how strongly conditioned we are to think of the wilderness as a place of danger we can only brave when we have a strong, civilized core to retreat to. Of course, your prediction is also on solid ground since it’s the same pattern we’ve seen in so many other previous collapses; We typically starve for our cultural constructions, not for lack of food.

As for the native culture, there are so few hunter/gatherers left to teach the millions of useless white people how to catch goannas and find witchety grubs that I guess I better start lining one up now to beat the rush!

There won’t be a rush, but since you have the opportunity, you should take advantage of it. We’re in the U.S. where no such teachers really exist.

Maybe you mean the Kimberlys? I’m sure that 11 million other people haven’t thought of the same thing, and won’t get in your way in their rush to not die of thirst/starvation/cannabilism.

As for the native culture, there are so few hunter/gatherers left to teach the millions of useless white people how to catch goannas and find witchety grubs that I guess I better start lining one up now to beat the rush!

The 64K question: which one would you pick?

Collapse changes the parameters of the game, but not the game itself; it’s still about adaptation. All that changes is what you’re adaptign to. The future belongs to those willing to coexist with the rest of their ecology and become part of it; the strategy of simply dominating your ecology is about to run out of steam.

You’re all crazy. If the world gets this bad, it’s over. Either people will commit suicide or turn into raging scared neanderthal beasts. How many Avian-drinking, Prada-carrying, maid-comes-on-thursdays-while-i-get-my-nails-done, soccer moms do you think will survive what you guys are discussing on this site? How many rednecks do you know who can survive in the woods without sunblock, mesquito repellent, antibiotics, bic lighters, propane cookstoves, specialty sportsware, batteries, or pre-packaged food - for the rest of their lives?

I actually do believe the world is headed into dangerous territory. We need to conserve non-renewable resources, stop having so many babies, buy a bike, plant a garden, move closer to work, and concentrate on finding more efficient alternative energy sources.

I’m sorry that there are so many stupid people taking your site seriously. Acting like the sky is gonna fall TOMORROW is unnecessarily alarmist and whacko. What basis do you have for assuming imminent collapse rather than either a hard or soft landing?

I don’t really want to get into an argument with you, because I think we agree on most things of relevance.

So I’ll ask what I should have asked in the beginning. If you think that the cities in Asia will end (which I agree with) and if you think that they will end with horrific violence, what specific mechanisms do you think will cause that violence and make it so likely?

Overnight? Not likely. But we’re not talking about overnight–we’re talking about half as much fossil fuels in the next ten years, and probably another doubling of China’s population. Not overnight, but still far too quick to do much about.

I’m not arguing that the infrastructure won’t break down. I’m saying that if it happens slowly the result won’t automatically be “horrific violence” because “humans die within a matter of days” without water.

It very well could happen, but I don’t think that it is really that likely to happen in such a short period of time, and your comments above suggest that you don’t either. Do you know what I’m trying to say? I’m trying to address the issue of “horrific violence” here, not infrastructure.

Also, do you think it’s likely at this point that China’s population will actually double in ten years? I think that without a massive increase in fossil fuel availability and with the rapid desertification that is happening now that’s unlikely. And even people who look at the issue from a purely demographic perspective believe that China’s population will actually decrease slightly in the future.

I wrote:

which could mean that … people would leave the cities and move back to their childhood villages where water is not as plentiful or clean as it once was but is still better than the cities.

You wrote:

Not true. A good hypothesis, but such things have happened in the past, and people go to the cities.

“Not true”? There are many historically documented instances of people moving back to family in the country because of problems in the cities. For example during the Great Depression in the US, or the Blitz in London. I’m not saying everyone would or could go, but it does happen. People will move back — it’s just an issue of how many people.

Your work is stimulating and I enjoy your site.

PS, I used to live in Squirrel Hill, now in Egdgewood.

Dan