How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bush Administration
by Mike GodeskyI think I’ve been pretty clear in the past regarding my intense dislike of President Bush. But lately, I’ve been doing some thinking. It occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, Bush isn’t entirely bad for America after all. Maybe he’s actually doing what he should be doing, in an evil genius sort of way. It’s no secret that my philosophy toward politics and government is extremely libertarian. As Henry David Thoreau once said, “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” But that we have a strong government that does make use of its power cannot now be changed. That is a battle that was lost a long time ago. So the question then becomes, now that we have this powerful government, what do we want it to do with all that power?
The Bush administration has been widely criticized for going to war with Iraq largely for oil. This is difficult to dispute. Iraq contains a substantial portion of the world’s oil supply. American strategists, including many of the so-called “neoconservatives” who now make up a large part of Bush’s inner circle of advisers, have been looking for a way to gain a foothold in the region since even before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as can be seen in the 2000 report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” Oil is simply the only reason that makes sense to start a war with Iraq. The justification of “liberating the Iraqi people” is a hollow one. There are plenty of countries whose people are just as, if not more, oppressed. Yet the United States does nothing to stop them. Assuming they are not actively supporting those countries. The link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida also fails to provide a suitable reason, as such a link is practically non-existent. And, in fact, Bush has admitted as much himself. Finally, the main defense for the war, that Iraq had a massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, is inadequate. The fact of the matter, as most people now know, is that Iraq did not have such stockpiles. And this is something that everyone in the know in the U.S. intelligence agencies had said even before the war began. Conservatives often claim ignorance on this issue, but it is hard to imagine the president, or at the very least his closest advisers, not knowing that Iraq did not have such weapons.
So we come back then to oil. Because oil is worth fighting a war over. All wars are basically fought not for ideology, but for resources. Whatever is the “bottleneck” resource is what people will fight over. Throughout most of human history, this resource has been land. In order to continue expanding, civilizations needed land on which to farm. This changed with the advent of petroleum-powered machinery. Oil allowed people to produce more with the land they had.
What people fail to understand is that when a country like the United States goes to war for oil, the consequences are of a far greater magnitude than merely lining the pockets of oil executives (although I’m sure that didn’t hurt Texas George’s decision-making any). It’s also about more than simply how we’re going to get to work in the morning. Civilization currently spends about 10 calories for every 1 calorie of food it produces. The reason it is able to spend so much more energy than it gets back in return is because of the use of machinery. Machinery that runs on gasoline. Machinery that makes it possible to support a population of 6 billion people. So if that oil were to suddenly go away, things would turn ugly very fast.
This is why countries are willing to go to war for oil. And then, we also must take into consideration that we are talking about a resource that is limited in supply. So as Matt Damon’s character so succinctly put in the 2005 film Syriana, “It’s running out… and ninety percent of what’s left is in the Middle East. This is a fight to the death.” By most estimates, we are either already past or are very rapidly approaching Peak Oil. So what happens in the next few years will be crucial.
Obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure what goes on behind closed doors or inside the minds of Bush administration officials. But just indulge me as I present my theory on what is really going on.
The neoconservatives recognized that the United States was fast approaching a crisis with the oil supply. They realized that if they were to have any hope of weathering the storm, they needed to gain a strategic foothold in the Middle East. If they could control what was left of the world’s oil supply, they might be able to delay catastrophe long enough to find a solution. And when the 9/11 attacks happened, they knew that this was their opportunity.
And here we come back to the issue of what we want our government to be doing. Because as callous as it may seem to start a war over oil, it is not as though the government has many options open to it. Would Gore, McCain, Kerry, or any other politician have done differently? Unlikely. The United States needs this oil if civilization is to keep going. There is no other choice.
Of course, there is a fatal flaw in the neoconservatives’ reasoning. That is that simply because we need a technological fix does not mean that one will present itself. Such thinking is merely the result of having watched too many episodes of Star Trek. I certainly will not rule out the all-powerful x factor. In fact, I probably give more weight to the x factor than most others around here. But it hardly constitutes a strategy. And given the alternatives that are currently on the table, it seems unlikely that a suitable solution to the problem of peak oil will be found in the time that is left.
However, the Bush administration might be successful in at least delaying the coming storm by a few years. Of course, some might say that by delaying it, you only make it worse when it actually does hit. But can it be delayed by so long that the amount by which the effects worsen are significant? On the other hand, how many individual people will survive because the extra time that the government bought them allowed them to prepare for what was coming?
The question then becomes how much worse would a delay make a potential collapse versus how many people would survive because of it? I don’t have any answers to these questions, but it certainly makes one stop and think.
Enjoyed your article. That is the question, delay = more time to prepare, but at what cost? I’m not sure if it matters debating it much, since its unlikely that the nations of the world, will listen to reason & work towards a economic system that leaves less of an ecological footprint upon the earth.
I’m in the camp of ‘give us some extra time’ and maybe, just maybe the landing will be a bit softer…if it lasts long enough that global-industrialism can continue for 10years+ and populations increase by another Billion (or close to it) than it will be a hard fall…but is their really anyway to insulate the masses from it? It’s kind of like Nuclear warfare discussions, the usually end as a moot point, since any large scale launching will be the Knock-out blow to the ecosystems.
Comment by Bubba — 11 April 2006 @ 2:44 PM
Mike,
It’s an interesting thought. If this is about oil (and it only makes sense that it is), then this wasn’t the best way to achieve a desired result. The best we could have hoped to get out of invading Iraq is a military base in a friendly country in the middle east. We might be able to get that in Afghanistan. We might have been able to get that in Iraq under Sadaam (for some reasonable concessions). There is no way we are going to get that in Iraq now. So, even if they are doing it for ‘all the right reasons’ they’re still doing all the wrong things.
Comment by JimFive — 11 April 2006 @ 3:10 PM
Unless they wanted Iraq to descend into civil war. Because they don’t need to control the whole country. They just need to control the oil. And as long as the country is in chaos, they can maintain a military presence in the region indefinitely.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 3:22 PM
Civil war makes it more difficult to extract the oil.
No, I will chalk this one up to simple ideologically induced blindness.
Comment by perianwyr — 11 April 2006 @ 5:19 PM
I just started to read William Clark’s book Petrodollar Warfare. He argues that not only was the war about gaining access to Iraq’s oil, but also ensuring that oil continues to be purchased in American dollars. In 2000, Hussein openly talked about selling Iraqi oil in Euros and was starting a movement within OPEC to move away from petrodollars to petroeuros. All in all, this move would be devestating for the American economy, who depend on the surplus petrodollars being invested in their country.
Comment by Peter D — 11 April 2006 @ 6:05 PM
Here is a link to Clark’s article on the Energy Bulletin:
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Comment by Peter D — 11 April 2006 @ 6:06 PM
If their strategy was really about delaying the big oil crunch, I’d expect to see more in the way of conservation efforts. But Bush can’t even get away with telling americans that our society is addicted to oil; his spin doctor had to come on and blow a bit of smoke up our collective asses to make us feel like things aren’t really so bad.
I think the administration’s actions are based around shortsighted protection of the modern American standard of living above all else. There’s been no serious effort to get people to sacrifice any part of their affluent consumerist lifestyles. I suspect that the politicians in charge are just like most people who love civilization - techno-optimists.
Comment by scruff — 11 April 2006 @ 9:17 PM
You can’t tell people that how bad the crisis is. Most people don’t realize what’s going on or the full consequences of it. They think that this is just another one of those rough periods that we’ll manage to work our way through.
This is a plan that depends on such ignorance. It depends on people doing exactly as they’ve always done. Because if you tell people how bad things are, they panic. Consumers start saving all they can rather than putting their money back into the economy. Investors pull all of their money out of the energy companies. The whole thing just collapses that much faster.
Thus, Bush will do everything he can to convince the public that there is no problem at all.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 9:44 PM
Your right, the action was about controlling Iraq’s oil. And do hope the landing is slow and methodical, allowing every human on the planet the time to think this through. Of course, they are all addicted to the power of oil and most will disagree with the premise (of collapse) to begin with, which insures collapse.
There is nothing anyone discussing this on Anthropik, nor anyone in halls of power that can do anything about the fact there are too many people because of oil, and that oil, as a resource, is finite.
Comment by Rick Larson — 11 April 2006 @ 9:46 PM
Responding to Mike Godesky’s title piece -
So Mike Godesky in their relevance or otherwise to your opinion piece on Bush’s administration, what do you make of these pieces linked to below and of Alexandra Robbins’ 2002 book “Secrets of the Tomb”?
************************************************
Skull and Bones, heart of darkness in America.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1086105944
”
Skull and Bones, heart of darkness in America.
Posted: June 01, 2004
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
SAN CARLOS, Ariz. - President George W. Bush, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry and Homeland Security counsel Ed McNally are all members of the Yale secret society Skull and Bones. So where does that leave America? San Carlos Apache elder Raleigh Thompson said the current darkness in America and the world stems from Skull and Bones, a far-reaching brotherhood of power, which defiled the remains of Geronimo.
…
”
**********************************************
Yale Bonesmen engaged in macabre business.
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1065807370
”
Yale Bonesmen engaged in macabre business.
Posted: October 10, 2003
by: David Melmer / Indian Country Today
RAPID CITY, S.D. - A secret society at Yale University boasts of harboring skulls and bones of humans and members of that society have become some of the most powerful people in America by virtue of the network established by the society.
President George W. Bush, his father and grandfather are and were members of the Skull and Bones Society.
Recent news articles in Indian Country Today, national publications and on the national CBS television program “60 Minutes” exposed some of the inner workings of the society. Books have been written about the society and the Bonesmen, as they are called. Author Alexandra Robbins told CBS correspondent Morley Safer she was threatened and harassed for asking members to reveal information about the society. Some members did open up to her.
The secrecy of the society is what prompts journalists to pry into workings of any fraternal group or organization and Ron Rosenbaum, author and columnist for the New York Observer is obsessed with finding the chink in the code of silence.
It’s because of the mistrust for anything cloaked in secrecy that America has, he said.
What is disturbing about a society that collects skulls and bones is the fact that a moral dilemma exists as to whether it is appropriate to archive someone’s ancestor as an object used in initiation rituals and then remains on display in a basement tomb for all members to casually observe.
…
”
*****************************************************
Congress petitioned for return of Geronimo’s remains
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412153
”
Congress petitioned for return of Geronimo’s remains
Posted: December 25, 2005
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
SAN CARLOS, Ariz. - American Indians are petitioning Congress to investigate the elite Skull and Bones society at Yale University and return the remains of Chiricahua Apache warrior Geronimo to Apaches for reburial.
The online petition describes the desecration of Geronimo’s grave in 1918 by members of the society, including President George W. Bush’s grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush. The men removed Geronimo’s head and a prized silver bridle, which had been buried with him.
”Using acid and amid laughter, they stripped Geronimo’s head of hair and flesh. They then took their ‘trophies’ back to Yale University and put them on display in the clubhouse of the secret fraternity ‘Skull and Bones,”’ states the petition.
Outraged American Indian tribal members from across the nation and indigenous people from around the world are signing the petition with plans to pressure Congress to act.
Apache leaders want Geronimo to be buried, as he requested, in tribal lands in the mountains of San Carlos.
”Geronimo left his rifle and peace pipe here when they took him away,” Thompson said. ”When Geronimo was taken from this land, he wanted to come back and be buried on San Carlos in the Triplet Mountains.”
Skull and Bones admitted to San Carlos Apache leaders almost 20 years ago that it was in possession of a skull it called Geronimo’s in its secret ”museum” in New Haven, Conn.
Raleigh Thompson, who served as San Carlos Apache tribal councilman for 16 years, told Indian Country Today that he was among the Apache tribal leaders with whom Skull and Bones officials met in New York in a series of meetings beginning in 1986. He said the society, of which Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, are members, admitted that it held Geronimo’s remains.
San Carlos Apache Chairman Ned Anderson and tribal attorney Joe Sparks were also members of the Apache delegation that met with the society in New York. Anderson and Thompson said the delegation met with Skull and Bones officials and Jonathan Bush, brother of George H.W. Bush.
Thompson said Prescott Bush was among a group of six Army soldiers who dug up Geronimo’s remains at Fort Sill, Okla., in 1918. The San Carlos Apache Tribe received a copy of a logbook describing the graverobbing and a photograph of a skull on display before meeting with the board in New York.
Thompson said the society attempted to return a skull - that of a child - which the Apache delegation rejected. Skull and Bones members subsequently threatened legal action if the photograph were not returned.
Attorney Endicott Davison, representing Skull and Bones, denied that the society had Geronimo’s skull. He claimed the logbook was a hoax.
Alexandra Robbins, a former staff member of The New Yorker magazine and author of ”Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power,” told ICT that her research supports the Apache leaders’ statements. Robbins believes that Geronimo’s skull is in the society’s tomb.
The petition for the return and reburial of Geronimo’s skull states that Skull and Bones is a secret society founded at Yale in 1832. Its history is intertwined with that of the German Illuminati and the Nazi Party, according to the petition.
”They maintain a windowless building called ‘The Tomb’ at 64 High Street, New Haven, Connecticut. The club’s assets are controlled by a front company, The Russell Trust Association Inc. Every year, 15 Yale juniors are ‘tapped’ for Skull & Bones membership. They are indoctrinated into the cultish society with elaborate rituals steeped in satanic theatricism and latent homosexuality.
”The goal of this fraternity is to create the ultimate network of ‘good ole boys’ around the world. Their alumni include Prescott Bush’s son [George H.W.] and grandson [George W.] as well as heads of state and leaders of numerous intelligence agencies, trading companies, business empires and law firms,” according to the petition.
…
”
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1090594169
”
Harjo: Dancing on graves of missing Native Americans
Posted: July 23, 2004
A bunch of white folks are dancing on the graves of missing Native Americans these days. The bodies are stashed in laboratories and other surrogate tombs, where adults experiment on them and use them in bizarre rituals.
…
”
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1067005491
”
Missing heads and red faces: Charges against secret society embarrass school
Posted: October 24, 2003
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Macabre stories about the ultra-secret Skull and Bones senior society have always struck the vast majority of Yale University’s ivy-encrusted campus as either an embarrassment or a joke. But no one is finding much humor in the latest round of reports that the windowless headquarters of this self-described elite holds the skulls of Apache leader Geronimo and Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa.
…
“
Comment by Jase — 12 April 2006 @ 4:39 AM
Mike, you’re right, but it doesn’t have to start with officials informing the general populace about the situation. It could have begun with fuel efficiency standards, better public transportaion, reusable product packaging laws, or any other kind of change on the supply side. That kind of thing wouldn’t have sparked a panic, and although it wouldn’t save civilization, it would have been the prudent thing to do for any forward-looking pols.
Comment by scruff — 12 April 2006 @ 8:19 AM
Re: Skull and Bones
You know, when I was in college all the conspiracy theories were about how ALL of the presidents have been Masons.
Comment by JimFive — 12 April 2006 @ 8:25 AM
Yeah, I never really put much stock into the whole Skull and Bones thing. So Bush and Kerry belonged to the same fraternity of rich white kids. Big deal.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 12 April 2006 @ 9:30 AM
Mike Wrote:
“So Bush and Kerry belonged to the same fraternity of rich white kids. Big deal.”
Along with every president since Roosevelt II.
As a side note, why do some find the idea of a conspiracy so ludicrous? Conspiracies are a part of daily life. i’ll give an example.
If you and a friend make a secret plan to get so-and-so a date with that hot lady, that is a conspiracy.
Ever thrown a suprise party? conspiracy
in the criminal justice system, conspiracy to commit X is an often used charge.
Why is it hard to imagine that powerful men make secret plans about govt policy?
seems ludicrous to me to think they DON’T do it, all the time.
Comment by Rory — 12 April 2006 @ 10:39 AM
Are you sure about that? It’s been a while since I’ve looked at their list of prominent members, but that doesn’t sound right to me.
Regardless, people on the same level, in the same fields, generally run in the same circles. They belong to the same clubs. They send their kids to the same schools. It’s not really all that surprising.
I don’t think it’s the idea of a conspiracy itself that’s ludicrous as much as it is the theories that people come up with. Usually when people give their “conspiracy theories,” they are theories that are completely off the wall with absolutely no evidence to back them up.
The fact that all of these powerful people once belonged to the same club does not, in itself, suggest anything sinister. There’s no evidence of any vast conspiracy on their part to take over the world. From what I can tell, all this Skull and Bones society does is look real cryptic while pulling a lot of stupid, fratboy pranks. Pranks that may be in incredibly poor taste, granted, but stupid, fratboy pranks nonetheless.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 12 April 2006 @ 11:08 AM
Mike wrote
“The fact that all of these powerful people once belonged to the same club does not, in itself, suggest anything sinister. There’s no evidence of any vast conspiracy on their part to take over the world.”
you are right, just b/c they are in the same club doesn’t mean it’s sinister. i will say that if it is a given that they are assholes who do “evil” things, it would be plausible their club is “evil” too.
evidence of a conspiracy to take over the world is there, if you are willing to see it.
but, this is not a conspiracy site, or even remotely connected to CTs, so i will not burden your reading public with a laundry list of information on this subject.
Keep up the good work, Mike. I mean that. I love ya’ll’s site.
Comment by Rory — 12 April 2006 @ 11:17 AM
Rory,
Er, you need to do some research outside the conspiracy theory literature. The only US presidents who belonged to Skull & Bones (real name: the Eulogian Society) are William H. Taft, George Bush, and George W. Bush. The Elks have done better (five presidents have been Elks), and the Masons better still, with fourteen. Of course the last Masonic president was Gerald Ford, which may not exactly be a feather in the cap of the Craft.
Conspiracy theory has become big business these days. I sometimes wonder why it is, if the world is supposedly run by secret societies who control the media and the big corporations, that people who bash secret societies get million-dollar book contracts and free airtime by the hour…and when’s the last time you heard something positive about secret societies on the mass media?
The sad thing is that the old secret societies were the neotribal movement of the 18th and 19th century, and did a huge amount to make life better for ordinary people in an age when industrialism hadn’t yet had a pretty face pasted on it. In 1900 more than 50% of all Americans, counting both genders and all ethnic groups, belonged to at least one secret society, and the working class had a higher percentage of membership than any other class. Bet you won’t find those facts mentioned anywhere in David Icke’s books…
Comment by John Michael Greer — 12 April 2006 @ 2:46 PM
More generally, the spread of conspiracy theories in the US recently is not a good sign. As a culture, we’re far too quick to go hunting for scapegoats; it’s a good way to try to duck out of taking responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. As we teeter further down the slope toward catabolic collapse, that’s all too likely to accelerate.
Comment by John Michael Greer — 12 April 2006 @ 2:49 PM
excellent point, Mr. Greer
Comment by Rory — 12 April 2006 @ 4:36 PM
Rory - Thank you for the kind words.
Greer - Good points. But just to play devil’s advocate for the paranoid, you could also view the spread of conspiracy theories as a sign of society maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism. And isn’t it better to err on the side of skepticism than on the side of unquestioning acceptance?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 12 April 2006 @ 5:22 PM
Interesting ideas, makes more sense than the Dubya’s a moron theory. have you considered that the primary interest in gaining control of the Iraqi oil fields by force thereby to extend America’s period of oil availability may not be so much about hoping to find a solution as hoping to outlast our international competitors and to guarrantee that for so long as any nation maintains a strong military force America can match that force.
Comment by Jake K — 12 April 2006 @ 9:49 PM
Thanks Mike Godesky and all, for your local USA responses - more local to it so more regularly exposed to a variety of info about it eg. “Skull and Bones” society at Yale Uni. etc.
On the other hand I’m really glad i live in Oz (Australia), and I’m glad i have a choice to not live in the USA - not that there’s anything entirely wrong with many people in the USA - rather because it would be alot more difficult to know who the liars & the worst liars are, hence who the few honest people are, and who is sometimes honest, sometimes half-truth telling spin or hype type people.
It seems you people such as from Anthropik who so far are seemingly good honest folks from the USA, have much more of a challenge to sort through the relativism - to climb finally all the way out of what in philosophy is called “the abyss of (absolute - in some quotes) relativism”.
Reading this group, particularly this thread, reminds me once again that it is much easier to sort out who the still existing few honest people are in the relatively less complicated lying, hype, spin and counter-lying, etc. social & media environments in Australia. For example today our Prime Miniature is appearing at the “Cole” inquiry into the Australian Wheat Board’s (AWB) kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime; He, John Howard goes on and on ad nauseum in the media on this AWB subject and many others about how he is “going to be transparent” today, how he is “honest about this subject”, etc. precisely because what Australian’s conventionally call “thinking people” have conclusively perceived years ago that John Howard and some of his key ministers such as Alexander Downer, are liars most of the time & generally, and that honesty is the exception for them. In other words currently, such as this morning on my news cast, John Howard in his public relations knows (-gives away that) and is reacting to the thinking public’s perceptions of him as a liar, by trying to get us to open back up our minds to give him a chance to be seen to be honest for his appearence today at the inquiry.
As a guess our counter politics hasn’t muddied the water so much that we don’t know if anyone can be believed! We do still know some few people who can be believed most of the time in Oz.
- Hoping Anthropik in the USA can at least keep up this good honesty.
Jase
Comment by Jase — 12 April 2006 @ 10:28 PM
Well, it is true that in civilized warfare, there seems to be a certain mentality that says the last person to die wins. But I do get the impression that the neoconservatives recognize the seriousness of the current energy crisis and are actively trying to find a technological solution. Despite appearances, these are people who think several moves ahead.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 12 April 2006 @ 11:41 PM
I guess what I was thinking about with the other comment was that perhaps the neocons are preparing for collapse.
Your article takes the position that They are aware of the problem and are desperately trying to avert it. Isn’t it also possible that They, despite Their degree of investment in the system, have come to the same conclusion as you? If that is the case, They would be now focusing on maintaining control through a collapse.
Arguably a post-collapse society might be harder to control given that people would by necesity be less invested in, and dependent on that society.
By securing access to oil the neocons perhaps are attempting to ensure that America’s borders remain secure against the new superpowers that will arrise in the turmoil of the collapse where those with oil hold the cards. While simultaniously securing the power to maintain domestic political control of the desperate and dying population.
Or this whole line of thought may just be my own fears running away with me.
Comment by Jake K — 13 April 2006 @ 1:28 AM
While I agree with Mike’s basic premis that the Iraq war is basically about oil, I disagree with the purpose behind that. I suspect that rather than trying to delay the collapse, they’re working to hasten it. They want to remain top dogs in the pile. If they can keep control long enough to remain near the top of the heap as the collapse happens, they win.
And what better way to remain on top than to be bellicose and aggressive to everyone while sucking down an incredible amount of the resource you’re fighting for? Thus you deny that resource to everyone else and you stay on top.
Just cynical speculation.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 15 April 2006 @ 12:28 AM
But, by staying on top, isn’t America in fact delaying collpase, since so much of civilization is now only being propped up by America?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 15 April 2006 @ 9:12 AM
Well there’s a novel idea. The Straussian neocons are actually the good guys doing the tough love thing to save us all, and here I thought they were just a bunch of evil bastards that would sooner destroy than world than relinquish their dominance. Full spectrum dominance in case you haven’t read the Project for A New American Century.
Oil has three functions: first as a consumption product for food and energy; secondly, through the petrodollar keeping the dollar from total collapse; and thirdly, if you control all of the oil you can turn off the power supply to every other countries military.
I don’t buy the idea that this is buying us more time to prepare. Buying more time for the transition would require conservation and stretching the oil supply out over as many years as possible. Just the opposite of using it up as fast as possible through war and SUVs.
Comment by ov — 15 April 2006 @ 12:33 PM
There will be no collapse. Science will come up with artificial photosyntethic cells that will synthetise food from CO2 and water. Or with a bioengineered super-resistant oil plants that can grow from stone.
Comment by Hermit — 20 April 2006 @ 1:06 PM
Is that before or after Jesus fills up all the oil wells with magic because he’s so gosh-darned impressed with our Protestant work ethic?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 1:11 PM
Will these photosynthetic cells be much better than currently existing biological organisms? So far, photosynthesis has not been artificially replicated with any mechanism different from ones already existing in the biosphere.
Super-resistant complex organisms will not stay super-resistant for long. Simple one-celled organisms and viruses will soon emerge to take advantage of any bio-engineered plant. Oil-producing plants already exist in large quantities. Too bad, it takes a million year’s worth of harvests to make the oil we burn in a year.
Comment by Anonymous — 20 April 2006 @ 4:09 PM
Hey everyone, I posted once a while back and figured I’d throw some ideas out as I have been keeping my eye on the whole oil/peak oil issues.
Regardless of what the neocons know or are doing to buy time is, I think, not going to help us. The reasons are;
1.Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been at odds with the US and seems to be trying to sell more and more of it’s oil to other nations(ie.India). Venezuela is also the fifth largest exporter of oil the Us.
2. If the US decides to bomb Irans nuclear facilities with their nuclear “Bunker buster” bombs(which could cause massive civilian cuasulties from the fallout), Iran could decide to shut off their oil supplies. Although this would really hurt Irans economy, they might say fuck it and try it out. It will also cause alot more shit in the middle east.
3. Saudi Arabia already had the their(and the worlds)largest oil processing complex attacked. I even think there was another attempt in the country as well.
4. With the increased amount of hurricanes(via Global Warming)in the hurrican season, our refineries can be taken out. So that doesn’t help. Also has anyone heard of the new Global warming movie coming out called An Inconvenient Truth? You can see the trailor at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSXmUWzeLjA&search=Global%20warming
5. This is taken from countercurrents.org;
“militant group calling itself the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta — MEND — announced last week to all who would listen that it was planning new violence against oil facilities in the region. Apparently unconcerned about tipping its hand to the authorities, MEND even gave a date for the start of its new campaign: April 25.”
6. U.S. has bitched at China for increasing their energy demands. China has and will increase their energy demands and I don’t see why they would stop. My Girlfriend recently went to China and was amazed at the amount of cars and craziness of the drivers/traffic. Maybe what I should have said was this; Resource Wars.
I know this is not much news to anyone here but I think if a combination of these factors take off around the same time then forget the safe landing or buying much time. Lets just get prepared and see how it rolls out.
Comment by Josh — 23 April 2006 @ 1:37 PM
The only problem is, we have had plenty of time to create humane, economically and ecologically sound, non-murderous solutions to this problem. Not only to this problem of peak oil, but also to the problems of overpopulation and global warming as well. Plenty of time. But we chose not to. Why didn’t we do it? Why did we choose instead to actually accelerate our society’s use of oil, pour money into oil-company execs’ and politicians’ pockets, encourage the ignorance and intolerance of the theocratically-challenged underclass, cluster-bomb children and destroy the very atmosphere of the earth instead?
This is the answer to your question, and is exactly how much worse this “delay” is. If this is an example of our leaders thinking “several moves ahead” then I am certainly not impressed.
Comment by puma — 26 April 2006 @ 4:49 PM
Because there is no such thing.
Sure, we’ve experimented with a lot of possibilities–hybrid cars, ethanol, biodiesel, you name it. They all have their problems. None of them scale. None of them ever really solve anything; they just move the problem around, or sweep it under the rug. It’s almost as if we live in a world where, for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. There is no free lunch, and nothing can be had without sacrifice.
You’re asking for something magical to make it all go away. There’s never been–and there never will be–any such thing. All you can do is delay the inevitable, and if that’s your goal the best thing you can do is “to actually accelerate our society’s use of oil, pour money into oil-company execs’ and politicians’ pockets, encourage the ignorance and intolerance of the theocratically-challenged underclass, cluster-bomb children and destroy the very atmosphere of the earth instead.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 April 2006 @ 4:58 PM
You could say the war was about gaining access to Iraq’s oil.
…and you would be partly right.
You could also say it was about stopping Hussein from going to the Euro.
…and you would be partly right.
But instead of simply getting more oil, the BushCabal was there to get LESS oil out of it. Meaning, through creating a bottleneck (and therefore a sense of lack) on oil production the BARONS (of which they are a part of) would quadruple oil profits. Not sure?
- Look at the profit statements.
- Remember the Barons weren’t sworn in at the hearings?
- Bush just “investigated” the potential gouging and found nothing wrong.
- Bush refuses to create a windfall tax for oil industry.
So ATTACK IRAQ mostly meant more control of OIL for the Barons, not Americans. $3+ a gallon. Mission IS Accomplished.
We are fools to think label they are incompetent.
Comment by keebler2012 — 3 May 2006 @ 10:43 AM
I’m not so sure. Iraq’s disruptions have had an impact on OPEC supply, to be sure, but … the peak is now. I agree with the editors of the Oil Drum: this is precisely the situation you’d expect at the peak. High gas prices as demand outpaces supply, and record profits for those who happen to control the increasingly scarce supply. Economics 101–no conspiracy theory. This “price gouging” nonsense is facile: we need to wake up and realize just how late in the game it already is.
Lying to a Congressional committee carries the exact same penalties as perjury–they weren’t sworn in because swearing them in is a purely ceremonial note, and a bad photo-op for them that the Democrats could play and replay endlessly through the mid-term election cycle. There’s really nothing more to it than that. And a windfall tax of the oil industry not only goes against everything Bush stands for, it’s also the worst possible thing you could do if you’re taking the technophilic approach. If you want the techno-fix to come and save us all, you want Big Oil to be having some really great profits–so that they invest those profits in discovering all those magical things you’re expecting to save us just in the nick of time.
Attacking Iraq may cause short-term instability in the OPEC markets, but as we’ve seen, non-OPEC production stepped up. There hasn’t been much of a drop in supply, it’s just plateauing as demand continues to rise. The squeeze begins. But in the longer term, control of Iraq–or, more specifically, control of Iraq’s oil–could bleed out a few more years for the U.S. (at the expense of China, India and the rest of the world), so we can “win” the oil endgame, i.e., be the last to die.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 May 2006 @ 10:54 AM
Jason said:
“Sure, we’ve experimented with a lot of possibilities–hybrid cars, ethanol, biodiesel, you name it. They all have their problems. None of them scale. None of them ever really solve anything; they just move the problem around, or sweep it under the rug.”
Depends on what you are calling “the problem.” As I see it, our problem is that we are utterly unprepared for the fact that oil is about to become too expensive to continue running our drive-in economy on - this will mean radical changes, obviously, and I do not for a minute believe that we can find an equal “replacement” for oil. It will mean a massive shift in how we structure our society, our food sources, and heat for our homes.
If however you see the problem as “finding a replacement for oil that we can continue to run our cars and trucks and planes on” then yes, there is no such thing. But we knew this was coming. We knew oil would peak, we knew global warming was happening, we knew it decades ago. This past couple of years of fooling around with hybrids is barely even relevant to what we are facing. I said nothing about a magical solution. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to sit here and wring our hands, as if it were all so sudden and unforseeable. The author muses that perhaps this “solution” that the administration has created might “not be so bad.” I am saying it is unnecessarily far worse, and far, far more violent than it could have been. Fatalism serves no purpose. Recognizing what has caused our problems and changing our behavior and way of thinking does.
Comment by puma — 3 May 2006 @ 11:36 AM
Yes, I’m looking at “the problem” from the prespective of our leaders: how to stop a massive die-off, and tipping off the process of catabolic collapse, wherein the process accelerates itself even past the points where it might otherwise have stopped. When an animal population overshoots its carrying capacity, the population crashes, and always goes well under what can be supported before it return to a dynamic equilibrium about its carrying capacity. Sometimes, it crashes so far it hits zero, and there is no rebound–only extinction. In our case, I doubt that will happen: humans are incredibly adaptable. I expect the last human to eat the last cockroach. So the question is, which group will we choose to be in?
If you’re trying to prevent that from happening, then Bush’s actions are not only understandable, but laudable. He’s trying to reach the goal that you and I agree is impossible–and while it remains impossible, what he’s done could be very effective at delaying it.
But I agree–there is little benefit to delaying the inevitable. It is a far better strategy, I think, to prepare one’s self for it: to change “our behavior and way of thinking,” as you say, to adapt to the new reality that looms before us, and thus position ourselves to be the ones who choose to survive. It is less a question of knowledge, than of imagnation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 May 2006 @ 11:45 AM
puma - You’re talking about actions that should have been taken decades ago. The thing is, Bush wasn’t in office decades ago. And my point was solely about the actions of the Bush administration.
I agree that there have been several points in the past at which something could have been done to prevent or lessen the effects of a collapse. But that doesn’t really help us now. What’s done is done, and complaining about what should have been doesn’t change that.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 3 May 2006 @ 11:57 AM
You know what really would’ve prevented collapse?
Not having the Agricultural Revolution.
Everything after that was just details. As of 10,000 years ago, it was too late to worry about prevention. Yes, we have free will–but there are also consequences. Sometimes, that creates such unfairness as our generation suffering for the lack of foresight of our distant ancestors ten millennia ago. But that’s the sad fact of it: we’re suffering the consequences of 10,000 years of civilization.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 May 2006 @ 12:03 PM
“Bush wasn’t in office decades ago.”
Read this book: Crossing The Rubicon, by Michael C. Ruppert - he details exactly how a few families, including the family Bush, have “been in office” for decades and have engineered quite directly this violent and most-certainly not “laudable” response. This rabbit hole is deep, and none of it was unforseeable.
Comment by puma — 4 May 2006 @ 5:02 PM
As long as we’re trading book titles, Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud is far more reliable, and all around better (yes, I read Rubicon some time ago).
That said–how do you deal with a geological inevitability like Peak Oil? It’s like planning for nightfall–there’s not much you can do to change it. I have no doubt that they’re aware of it, but when I put myself in the place of someone trying to avoid collapse at all costs, I can’t come up with any better plan than the one they seem to be following. Bush’s “incompetence” is perfect to delay the fateful day when people realize that it’s the system itself that’s untenable, and always was. It obfuscates the issue. Bush’s “bungling” in Iraq made the first reaction to Katrina a tirade over the president’s “incompetence,” rather than a realization that we’d passed the point of diminishing returns. Remember–the critical point isn’t when our society becomes untenable. It becomes untenable at precisely the moment that we realize it’s untenable.
It depends on your priorities. If your priority is to save civilization, then Bush’s actions are most “laudable.” Of course it was foreseeable–they foresaw it, and they’re following exactly the plan they laid down long, long ago. If I had the same goals as them (preserving civilization), then I’m not sure I could come up with anything better.
As for 9/11 being a government job … put me down for LIHOP, but I don’t see any evidence for MIHOP.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 May 2006 @ 5:27 PM
I’m well aware of of the Bush family’s long-lasting dynasty. However, that’s still not George W. He was never really the most influential member of the Bush family. Mostly just a spoiled rich kid drifting by on his family name until he became governor of Texas.
Of course, it’s true that most of Bush’s advisers have been around for decades. But assigning blame for whatever mistakes they’ve made in the past still doesn’t get us anywhere. As I said, I’m more concerned with what can be done now than I am with dwelling on what’s already done.
Besides, even going back those few decades, you’re still past the point of no return. I seriously doubt there was anything the Bushes and their allies ever could have done to accomplish anything other than delaying the inevitable, which is precisely what they’ve been doing.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 4 May 2006 @ 5:47 PM
If you folks truly believe that war, lies, corruption, and the destruction of the economy are truly the best options our leaders have, then I pity your profound lack of imagination. There were, and still are, many other avenues of action. Perhaps it makes you feel better to convince yourselves that someone in charge will take care of all of this for you, but I think you are being dangerously naive. Fatalism is a cop-out.
Comment by Puma — 15 May 2006 @ 3:19 PM
i went to this site to actually stop worrying and i guess it worked. the sad point to all this is that there was things we could have done, but didnt. perhaps like use the media to help guide people to conserve and not consume, become independent not build 140 military bases around the world and police it. keeping the true democracy we had instead now a corporate monarchy. these things cannot be changed now. i think we give to much credit to the people upstairs, i have been teaching for 8 years now and have found stupid children grow into stupid adults. whatever class they end up in doesnt increase their wisdom. because of the unthinking assholes before us we just sit, like the rest of the bewildered herd and watch the fun begin.
Comment by danger — 15 May 2006 @ 4:03 PM
“Fatalism is a cop out”?
Perhaps sometimes, but all good things come to an end, even the mighty redwoods eventually die.
Leaders like most people take the path of least resistance, and during the oil era, this has meant becoming a “good consumer/cog” in an unsustainable system. The system is unsustainable, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be reduced and dragged out for a few more decades via some MAJOR changes, but barring some type of ‘magic’ and change in the collective culture/psche–its not going to work out for most. But its worth keeping your fingers crossed, as long as that doesn’t stand in the way of using your hands to do something positive with your personal situation, and those you care to talk with.
Thats just the facts jack, not fatalism.
Comment by bubba — 15 May 2006 @ 5:11 PM
Civilization cannot be saved. Our self-styled “leaders” need to avert that fundamental fact as long as possible; otherwise, they’ll no longer have the basis to try to dominate and control us. The American “Left” is deeply misguided if they think that Bush is incompetent. Their portrait is far too simplistic. Bush & Co. are saving civilization itself–and that’s what makes them evil. Democrats talk as if a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress could suddenly transmute civilization, make it sustainable so that we can continue to serve our masters as slaves forever. Bush’s “incompetence” in Iraq was exactly what we intended from the start, and it has more benefits than just that. When Katrina hit, Democrats actually believed there was something the government could have done about it, if only the administration weren’t so “incompetent.” So he fulfills the far greater need: maintaining our faith in the system, and making sure we remain loyal and obedient to it. If it had been Kerry or someone people thought was competent, then when Katrina unfolded the exact same way, we’d need to face the fact that there’s really nothing the government can do when a global warming-fueld hurricane puts a major U.S. city into the ocean–particularly not in an era of diminishing returns on all of our complexity.
But in the end, fortunately for humanity, all their plots can never be anything but delaying the inevitable. Humanity will be free again, and there’s nothing our “leaders” can do to stop it. It simply takes too much energy to live in misery to do it for very long.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 May 2006 @ 5:27 PM
oh yeah and by the way, humans are just mold on bread. unthinking masses devouring their bread until one day whoops its gone. even if we drag this all out like some of you want their isnt going to be much left to be desired. the crusts if you may.
Comment by danger — 15 May 2006 @ 9:02 PM
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at danger, but human life wasn’t always so miserable … I see no reason why it should be in the future, either.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 May 2006 @ 9:16 PM
“If we drag this out their isn’t going to be much left to be desired”—danger.
First off, the system is so complex, and hanging precariously on one resource (oil) that can be disrupted via war, government collapse, major terrorism attacks etc–so it being “dragged out” is no guarantee in itself.
If the ‘crusts’ are whats left of the ecosystems/biosphere then you may be correct, we as humans are well on our way to ‘eating away’ at the the foundation of life itself the earth. But the earth is pretty tough, and some humans will likely survive, just as some animal species have survived since the time of the dinosaur.
Humans aren’t all unthinking, for the most part they allow themselves to become conditioned cogs in the system, most people are thinking–some are just thinking about how to survive another day, thus things like the end of the oil age may get glossed over. I’m sure those being ethnically cleansed in Africa etc, have more pressing things to think about, for those of us in the 1st world—not thinking is our own fault.
Attempting to survive is not only an innate urge for most, but part of the ‘game’ of life. If you feel the ‘crust’ isn’t worth striving for, then you can always follow the ‘drink & be merry for tomorrow we shall die” mentality. To each their own, but thats not my path.
Comment by Bubba — 16 May 2006 @ 8:56 AM
humans think but the masses do not. their are a few mold spores thinking wait a minute we shouldnt be doing this, but the other billion cant, wont, or dont know they should stop. as far as giving up i personally have not given up. i gave up on the masses, even if one could stop america from its over consumption, who will stop chinas mold spores. and by the way i love the crust, but my wife does not. i will be eating crust long after most. pun intended.
i am just torqued that with our big brains and all we could have accomplished more. in the end collectively we were no better than common mold. that is my great depression.
check the history books jason, the only ones who have had a good time were the rich.
Comment by danger — 16 May 2006 @ 9:42 AM
1. Denial–most people in this stage, or not even here yet.
2. Bargaining—IF only we did this that, or the other thing, to make the system work…
3. Depression–sadness that the “Mold masses” are pushing forth unthinking destroying the very foundation for which it will survive/thrive.
4. Acceptance–that you can’t change the masses, and your best hope is to change yourself.
Comment by Bubba — 16 May 2006 @ 10:05 AM
you are missing 8 steps of the 12 step process, is this an AA meeting?
Comment by danger — 16 May 2006 @ 10:30 AM
Check your history books–even the rich haven’t had a good time. The last 1% of human existence has pretty much been an unrelenting nightmare for everyone, but that’s exactly what’s coming to an end. For 99% of our existence on this earth–all the stuff that’s not in our history books, the “people without history,” the “prehistoric”–we lived happily and free. We’re going to live happily and free again–and there’s nothing anyone–not the rich, not our leaders, no one–can do about it.
It’s not going to be an easy transition: the bad things about the 10,000 years will become even worse. There will be a lot of pain and suffering and woe. The comfort is that on the other side, there’s a better world waiting for us. At least that dismal future hides hope on the other side–the alternative, where civilization continues, offers nothing but continuing misery forevermore.
I think one of the main reasons we at Anthropik diverge so widely from the American masses who think that “Left vs. Right” constitutes a significant political debate, is that we take the long view of history. The joke is that in the United States, 100 years is a long time; in England, 100 miles is a long way. For us, 10,000 years ago still counts as very recent events.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 May 2006 @ 10:33 AM
That’s Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief (though, you forgot anger at #2, Bubba). They have nothing to do with AA’s 12 steps. The Twelve Steps were first invented in 1935 by Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith; Elisabeth Kubler-Ross introduced the “five stages” idea in her book, On Death and Dying, first published in 1969, 34 years later.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 May 2006 @ 10:37 AM
Lol, yeah they were in reference to the stages of grief, not any 12 step process.
Death & Dying–of civlization, the psychological process of coming to this realization, and attempting to deal with it, tend to play out in a similar fashion. My early Am brain appears to be struggling a bit, thus I forgot #2! Thanks…
Maybe a 12step process should be created for TSHTF scenarios for dealing with collapse scenario’s the “magic number 12″ may help motivate folks??
Comment by Bubba — 16 May 2006 @ 10:47 AM
perfect i found a quick 12 steps to the process. this is the crust that will be left over after we draw out the remaining oil like some of you want. peak oil probably wont be the major concern. but lets just sit here and debate hours on end something that may or may not happen. why dont we debate what is happening and that is environmental degragation caused by overconsumption by the mindless masses, made that way by a corporate monarchy that controls the media and their minds. you all should write a senator or two. my work here is done. seeyas never.
Disaster warning from UN as investigation reveals half of the planet’s 500 biggest rivers are seriously depleted or polluted.
Two out of every five species on the planet that have been assessed by scientists face extinction, according to the latest World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
Global Meltdown
The catalogue of disasters that are happening right now:
Across the planet, rising temperatures are taking their toll.
Carbon Dioxide
New research has found that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main cause of global warming - are higher than at any time in the past 625,000 years. HOTTEST EVER.
This year is expected to be the warmest ever recorded; 1998 was the hottest so far, but the past three years currently occupy the next three places.
Desertification
The giant Kalahari desert, already four times the size of Britain, threatens to become larger still, covering farmland in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa.
Expanding Oceans
The level of the world’s seas and oceans is rising twice as fast as in the past, as their waters expand in rising temperatures and glaciers melt.
Ocean Exiles
The people of the Carteret Islands, a scattering of atolls off Papua New Guinea in the South Pacific, have started to leave as their homes succumb to rising seas.
Hurricanes
Hurricane Epsilon - the 14th of the year - is forming in the Atlantic, even though the worst recorded hurricane season by far formally ended on Wednesday.
Glacier Melt
Greenland glaciers have suddenly started racing towards the sea and melting. Much the same is beginning to happen to glaciers in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Water Shortage
Areas such as the western USA, which depend on mountain snows for their water supplies, are running short as less snow falls - and what does fall melts earlier.
Disappearing Species
Sealife and birdlife have declined catastrophically this year along America’s north-west Pacific coast, after a similar meltdown in the North Sea.
Coral Reefs
Corals on the Great Barrier Reef are bleaching out and dying as sea temperatures rise and scientists fear that the whole reef may perish by 2050.
Comment by danger — 16 May 2006 @ 11:23 AM
wait a second jason i thought you said it wasnt always bad now you said it is a living nightmare. i have to quit reading this page makes me angry #2, i think i will just go #2 and relieve the tension.
and bubba i was joking too
wow
Comment by danger — 16 May 2006 @ 11:31 AM