Page 1 of 1
A hard core prepper talks slow collapse...
Posted: 24 Sep 2013, 19:51
by Lord Beria3
http://shtfschool.com/general/keep-them ... tertained/
I believe government and corporations just turn off light slowly. Hand out pocket lights that people can see small area around them but not big picture. When you put people slowly in misery they think it is normal. Humen get used to everything around them if they have enough time. So they take away air to breath but leave you just enough you are still alive. What I mean is that s. already hit the fan, it hit quietly and it is slowly rumbling towards us. Most people gonna realize that only when it blows up in their face. What is the state of your local infrastructure? How about criminal in your area? Gas prices, food and utility prices? How many of you having decent jobs and if not what are the chances of getting one? How about your health care? Are more people dependent on government these days?
Is all this mentioned getting better or worse over the years? I saw a guy, few months ago. He is alcoholic and homeless. His hygiene and way of life is of course on some low level. After some time I saw that his foot is gets gangrenous. I helped him few times. He died later. He did not get proper medical care, he did not had proper social security, no money, no friends. He died on the street. Even when he died he was laying there for some time under the some rug before someone notice that he is dead not sleeping.
Good article which talks about the most likely fate of the bulk of humanity - slow collapse.
Posted: 26 Sep 2013, 09:58
by adam2
Yes, some sudden crash or disaster remains posible, but a slow crash not only seems more likely but has arguably already started.
Living standards are at least partly linked linked to oil supplies, and evidence is growing that oil production has already peaked.
Oil production PER CAPITA has undeniably peaked.
Peak oil per head=peak living standards, at least approximatly.
The link between oil and living standards is only approximate due to energy from other sources such as wind, solar, hydro, nuclear.
Improved energy efficiency achieves similar results for less fuel, thereby slightly delaying peak living standards relative to peak oil, per head.
Changes to political and economic systems may distribute rescources differently, and make better, or worse use of fuel and other resources, but dont make much difference globaly, in the long term.
Posted: 26 Sep 2013, 20:32
by westcoastreticence
I agree a fast crash is less likely than slow decent.
The infamous curve showing a nice bell does however, pun intended, not ring true. If we accept population growth with oil continues upward surely any measures that ease the efffects of constrained production will result in a curve more akin to a breaking wave. Therefore any measures taken to improve efficiency can be argued to be 'bad' as they result in more 'demand' (read people) and will do no more than make the crash worse and faster the longer we eak out finite resources.
I may well be talking nonsense or indeed repeating what has been said better previously.
Thoughts?
Posted: 26 Sep 2013, 20:55
by extractorfan
Efficiency will prolong the amazing freedom we have now, the equality we have come to enjoy, the enlightened thinking that makes life for non violent people very tolerable indeed.
Efficiency and education, if not a solution, at least keeps the wolf from the door.
Posted: 27 Sep 2013, 09:55
by emordnilap
Climate change.
Posted: 27 Sep 2013, 09:56
by extractorfan
emordnilap wrote:Climate change.
but we will burn the stuff anyway
Posted: 27 Sep 2013, 10:15
by emordnilap
extractorfan wrote:emordnilap wrote:Climate change.
but we will burn the stuff anyway
We will...till climate change gets us.
Posted: 27 Sep 2013, 23:03
by Tarrel
adam2 wrote:Yes, some sudden crash or disaster remains posible, but a slow crash not only seems more likely but has arguably already started.
Living standards are at least partly linked linked to oil supplies, and evidence is growing that oil production has already peaked.
Oil production PER CAPITA has undeniably peaked.
Peak oil per head=peak living standards, at least approximatly.
The link between oil and living standards is only approximate due to energy from other sources such as wind, solar, hydro, nuclear.
Improved energy efficiency achieves similar results for less fuel, thereby slightly delaying peak living standards relative to peak oil, per head.
Changes to political and economic systems may distribute rescources differently, and make better, or worse use of fuel and other resources, but dont make much difference globaly, in the long term.
I would add that, at the very time oil is peaking, large swathes of the world's population are seeking to raise their living standards. This has the effect of further increasing demand and, therefore, prices. The chronically high price puts a lid on the "advanced" economies, resulting in a lowering of living standard. (Witness the cost of living crisis we are experiencing in the UK currently).
So, although a fall in living standards may be delayed beyond peak oil by increased efficiency, we will probably see a "living standards transfer" between regions in the interim.
Posted: 28 Sep 2013, 23:05
by Lord Beria3
Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 06:57
by woodburner
Does anybody recognise this?
A declining economy and declining standard-of-living are even easier to hide when the decline is not smooth. Don’t expect a steady decline in the economy or standard-of-living any more than you should expect that petroleum production and consumption rates will steadily decline. I don’t even except a stair-step shaped decline—more of a saw-tooth pattern. Upward spikes in the petro-business cycle will be reported as periods of “hope,” “growth,” or “green sprouts,” even if that growth is just fake nominal growth due to money printing. Downward spikes will be reported as “temporary set-backs,” with new highs in growth just around the corner.
Or this?
A declining economy and standard-of-living are also easier to hide when different regions undergo economic decline at different points in time and at different rates. Politicians in charge of a region in steep decline will blame another region for its troubles and then foment anger and hatred of its citizens against the citizens of the other regions with softer decline, thereby deflect anger away from themselves.
The article might have been written in the US, but it looks much like the UK now.
Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 16:50
by Lord Beria3
Very true.
Falling living standards in the West is probably inevitable and as living standards rise in the rest of the world, you will see some equalisation of the world.
From a global justice perspective, isn't this good? Sure, some people in the West will need to become more frugal but maybe thats a good thing.
Just throwing that out there.
Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 17:00
by clv101
Lord Beria3 wrote:From a global justice perspective, isn't this good? Sure, some people in the West will need to become more frugal but maybe thats a good thing.
For sure - I think a lot us accept that, and have even been calling for increased western frugality.
Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 18:54
by woodburner
Call-me-Dave's take on frugality is "stuff it". He's just about to hand out 95% mortgages whilel saying it won't create a housing bubble. It's his response to Milliband's gas price freeze. What tossers we are governed by.
Posted: 30 Sep 2013, 02:13
by kenneal - lagger
The problem with having less in the west is that the banking and economic systems can't can't work with it. That's why our politicians will try to engineer growth for as long as possible. The bubbles this will cause will ensure a series of sudden collapses as the bubbles burst. The bursting of the bubbles may, or may not, be followed by a short period of slight growth but the general direction will e down.