Oil & Gas shortages will lead to poverty and fascism

[Barking_Mad]

Capitalism in a nutshell.

teh!

 

[TAE]

Bullets are extremely easy to make with materials on hand. I have a full set of bulletmaking plates and reloading equipment in my garage. You only need about 600 degrees F to melt the shot. That can be done with a woodburning stove or brick kiln.

Ok, where are you going to get the metal and gun-powder from?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Thing is, ideology can be a strong driving force in the human mind, but its not the only one, and sometimes not the strongest. Revenge, family, love, greed - all can very easily override the very decent and sensible plans we have made for ourselves.

And to a large degree, I would say that theology trumps ideology as well as the other factors that you note. To certain of our religious brethren, the impending end of the world is, quite literally to them, a godsend.

 

[kyser_soze]

Let's say there is a group of 100 people, they form a village. Why would 99 work for 1 of them ? And let him give them a little of their work in return ?

Because he's older, has transferrable skills to the other 99 people, because he's used knowledge you don't posess to save your other 99 people...there are 00s, if not 000s of reasons those 99 might be willing to give up their energy to him.

Let's face it, any anarchist/communist communities - indeed, any community - may have to be exceptionally good at defending itself in any kind of post-ecopocalypse world. Good defence requires organisation, infrartructure, indeed, you may well be up against actual armies, or communities who base themselves around fighting (neo-spartans). It'll be in crisis situations like this that such forms will receive a true reckoning - all forms of society in fact.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Ok, where are you going to get the metal and gun-powder from?

Well, you would reuse the brass. The slug can be made out of any metal, which is really common in the environment and will remain so for a long time. It could even be made of wood, but most international treaties banned it around WWI as inhumane, because it splinters inside a person and causes massive infections.

The most problematic would be the gun powder. I know several people who have entire barrels of the stuff (yes, I have interesting friends). Gun powder is this mixture:

15% Charcoal
10% Sulfur
75% Potassium Nitrate

All of them are naturally occurring substances.

Potassium Nitrate is a byproduct of decomposing organic matter. You could probably get it from dung heaps, after it had decomposed for a while. The bacterial action on the ammonia and urea in the dung produces potassium nitrate. And then you could also get it as a component of fertilizer, that is, if you could find it.

It would be work, but it could be done.

 

[fishfinger]

.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

.

Not certain what you posted here.

Admittedly, i'm working from theory here. Actual practice would get me a visit from the BATF and 10-20 in prison. Therefore, I'm naturally reluctant to experiment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, you would reuse the brass. The slug can be made out of any metal, which is really common in the environment and will remain so for a long time. It could even be made of wood, but most international treaties banned it around WWI as inhumane, because it splinters inside a person and causes massive infections.

The most problematic would be the gun powder. I know several people who have entire barrels of the stuff (yes, I have interesting friends). Gun powder is this mixture:

15% Charcoal
10% Sulfur
75% Potassium Nitrate

All of them are naturally occurring substances.

Potassium Nitrate is a byproduct of decomposing organic matter. You could probably get it from dung heaps, after it had decomposed for a while. The bacterial action on the ammonia and urea in the dung produces potassium nitrate. And then you could also get it as a component of fertilizer, that is, if you could find it.

It would be work, but it could be done.

Thing is, there are going to be thousands of tonnes of kegs of smokeless lying around in warehouses, gunshops and the like for years. No need to worry about black powder for a while.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Thing is, there are going to be thousands of tonnes of kegs of smokeless lying around in warehouses, gunshops and the like for years. No need to worry about black powder for a while.

Especially in the US, with our 300 million handguns.

 

[Crispy]

yep, USA after the oil crash will be fun!

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

yep, USA after the oil crash will be fun!

I'm sure the fact that I'm the offspring of Depression era parents is showing, but I think that after the initial shock, people would work together. Most people will find that suvival is easier with a bit of help from your neighbors. Its only the modern age that makes neighbors disposable.

)I suspect the Mormons would come out rather well. Their religion requires a years supply of food in each family home. That could be a huge powerbase in that kind of situation.)

 

[Crispy]

True that. It'll be a longer term (and harder) project than coming out of the depression though...

 

[CyberRose]

I suspect the Mormons would come out rather well. Their religion requires a years supply of food in each family home. That could be a huge powerbase in that kind of situation.)

Ha! Well the Mormon villages are gonna be the first place my tribe's gonna ransack!

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Ha! Well the Mormon villages are gonna be the first place my tribe's gonna ransack!

I'm sure that God has instructed them to stockpile weapons too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Especially in the US, with our 300 million handguns.

And thats just Peebs, too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sure that God has instructed them to stockpile weapons too.

Or at least that Moroni chap, anyway.

Would you trust an angelic being named Moroni? I'd be suspicious that he was either Italian (and therefore a papist), stupid or both.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

And thats just Peebs, too.

I'm sure he's got the snakeskin Tony Lama boot market covered as well.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm sure he's got the snakeskin Tony Lama boot market covered as well.

Somehow that worries me far more than the guns.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Or at least that Moroni chap, anyway.

Would you trust an angelic being named Moroni? I'd be suspicious that he was either Italian (and therefore a papist), stupid or both.

No, but I'm generally suspicious of men in flowing robes making impossible promises.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, but I'm generally suspicious of men in flowing robes making impossible promises.

Very sensible. I'm generally suspicious of men in robes full stop (or "period" as I believe you say "over there" ).

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Very sensible. I'm generally suspicious of men in robes full stop (or "period" as I believe you say "over there" ).

You just know that they arn't wearing any underwear and are waiting to flash you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You just know that they arn't wearing any underwear and are waiting to flash you.

I'm always worried about the degree of decoration on the robes too, all that emboidery and gold braid. Why can't they be like normal transvestites and wear ordinary womens' clothes? Why (pardon the pun) dress it all up in religious mumbo-jumbo?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I'm always worried about the degree of decoration on the robes too, all that emboidery and gold braid. Why can't they be like normal transvestites and wear ordinary womens' clothes? Why (pardon the pun) dress it all up in religious mumbo-jumbo?

Its all for the kiddies.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

It's all about efficiency though. The planet cannot support a subsistence farming lifestyle for everyone now alive - there just isn't enough land. Mechanised farming has allowed global population to soar so high.

I've read a few articles lately that challenge that assumption, Crispy:

Source: University of Michigan

Date: July 13, 2007

Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests

Science Daily — Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing assumption that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said.

In addition to equal or greater yields, the authors found that those yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, and without putting more farmland into production.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm

Published on 29 Jan 2007 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 29 Jan 2007.

How Much Did the Green Revolution Matter? or Can We Feed the World Without Industrial Agriculture?

by Sharon Astyk
Is Sustainable Agriculture an Oxymoron?...

"It is well that thou givest bread to the hungry, better were it that none hungered and that thou haddest none to give."
– St. Augustine

There are many questions that have come up for me in writing a book about food, energy and climate, but the one that I find most engaging is the question of exactly what was gained and lost in the transition to industrial agriculture and the green revolution. While there have long been critiques of the Green Revolution, many, many people assume that without the work of Norman Borlaug and the other scientists who brought us new hybrids and who convinced much of the world to convert to nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides based on fossil fuels, we cannot feed the world. I am suspicious of this claim, and have been musing on it for some time. It is certainly true that grain yields rose dramatically during the Green Revolution, but how much does and did that actually matter?

Now some of this, all of us interested in the subject already know. We all know that the introduction of massive quantities of fertilizer, the replacement of traditional staple crops with hybrids and the rest of the Green Revolution meant total grain yield increase of 250% over 35 years, with an increase in fossil energy inputs of 50% over traditional agriculture. It would seem that that rate of return was quite gratifying – put in some energy and get five times the total food. That was, however, a short term success, one that couldn't be sustained. The quantity of fossil fuel inputs required to maintain these increased yields and keep up with population growth have grown steadily, and as Dale Allen Pfeiffer observes in Eating Fossil Fuels "Yet, due to soil degradation, the increased demands of pest management, and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt." (Pfeiffer, 9) For those who don't think much about agriculture, the last bit of information should disturb you. The world's population is set to grow for some time (by close to 1/3 before it levels off and begins declining towards the middle of the century, all factors being equal), and we are only just holding steady (actually, there's been a bit of a decline lately) in the amount of food we're able to grow, despite our best efforts. This matters – right now we still produce more than we need. But population is growing steadily, and the climate is changing steadily, and the day is not so far away when our total food yields may not feed the world. And if oil and natural gas peak soon, as seems not unlikely, yields will decline still further. That's a scary prospect.

But there's more to say about those Green Revolution numbers, because they leave out something very important – how much food was actually lost due to the green revolution. Look at the above numbers, the 2.5 fold increase in grain yields, and the situation will look hopeless. But that's not quite the end of the story. Because the Green Revolution actually cost us something too – and not just the costs that all environmentalists are familiar with in fertility, soil erosion, aquifer depletion, etc... but a whole realm of food that we once used to grow and eat that we didn't anymore after the Green Revolution. While the Green Revolution increased grain yields, it also cut back on other food sources.

http://nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1660


We also have the example of Cuba to look at, in terms of 'energy crash' scenarios and how to cope with some of the consequences.

A short documentary (The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil) I posted before deals with how they managed through the 'special period' after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, people went hungry for a while until they got localised organic food production sorted, but they got through it and now appear to be thriving.

What seems pretty clear from their experience is that it is the human relationships that matter much more than 'technology'.

Another thing from that doco that made me think was that in terms of 'food production per square metre', Private (usufruct?) producers top the tables, co-operative ventures next, then 'state-owned' farms.

This wouldn't have made sense to me a few years ago, but these days I see the fault in the fundamental metaphysical nature of our 'money' that ensures that it defines the terms and nature of our human relationships (rather than the conclusions a 'class based' analysis affords).

Anyway, 'Food for Thought'.

 

[Fruitloop]

For exactly the same reason they always have in feudal societies, because he's got bigger muscles, more weapons or is more persuasive and smarter. Or a combination of the above.

Well, quite. That's why such plans so often fail, because it assumes human nature is more malleable than it actually is. Humans take advantage of the conditions they find themselves in best to further themselves.

Slaar, I have a lot of repect for you opinions in the general course of things, but these are tired old arguments that need to be consigned to the dustbin.

Let's get a few things straight:

Capitalism is not the result of 'human nature', but of historical circumstance. In the long march from the stone age - both technologically and socially - a large number of power structures have arisen and fallen, of which capitalism is only the most recent and is certainly not the most long-lasting. The 'end of history' view is absurdly myopic, and is already being undermined by political changes that have occured since the idea was first proposed.

How many people genuinely owe their status to bigger muscles in this day and age? Maybe the governor of California I guess. The idea that 'Humans take advantage of the conditions they find themselves in best to further themselves' is true but incredibly general, and to conflate this with a capitalistic individualism that is an incredibly recent historical development is just lousy social history. Is it not possible to see that this is propaganda in its purest sense - it is bad reconciliation in that it reconciles you to things that should be struggled against; the wholly artificial legal status of corperate entities as individual agents of emormous social power, and the role of historically recent nation-states as the referees of the great game of capitalist expansionism?

There's no need for us to agree on what the necessary courses of action are, but it would please me greatly if we could at least agree on some kind of analysis of the situation as it stands that moves beyond a relatively more refined version of the transparent propaganda that idiots repeat with near-hypnopeadic consistency. Fuck knows there's enough of that about already.

 

[jæd]

A short documentary (The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil) I posted before deals with how they managed through the 'special period' after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, people went hungry for a while until they got localised organic food production sorted, but they got through it and now appear to be thriving.

People in Cuba are in incredible poverty because of "Communism". If they got rid of Castro and his cronies they would be able to significantly modernise their society and bring it into the 21st C...

 

[Fruitloop]

Bit of context missing from your analysis there methinks.

 

[nino_savatte]

People in Cuba are in incredible poverty because of "Communism". If they got rid of Castro and his cronies they would be able to significantly modernise their society and bring it into the 21st C...

They were suffering incredible privations under Batista too (ah, selective memory - nothing like it). There is nothing to suggest that US dominance of Cuba will result in anything other than poverty for the majority, while the picked men of the State Department will aggrandise themselves on the misery of others.

 

[Fruitloop]

I bet they just can't wait to go back to watching the yanqui using their country as a floating brothel and gambling den, while they live in poverty and political repression.

Fuck me, it must be historical amnesia day or summat.

 

[jæd]

I bet they just can't wait to go back to watching the yanqui using their country as a floating brothel and gambling den, while they live in poverty and political repression.

I would guess people would rather have the risks of self-determination than live in a country that will never develop because of the thugs in charge, no matter how "benevolent" they may be...