I was going to add to this post to "The PO DVD" thread I made. Then decided its worthy of a thread of its own.
OK I recieved and watched the DVD's "The End of Suburbia" and "PEAK OIL Imposed by Nature" today. Yes they are interesting, but if i'm honest they are not shocking enough!!! If I were to screen them to my Paents, Girlfriend and Friends (which I will), I believe they may cause a raised eyebrow at the most. My Friends Dad who used to be a teacher, will obviously point out "The Conspiracy" section of the shady dark figures our friend Colin Campbell was visited by. Incidently this Teacher I refer to, as already claimed to me and my mate, that the markets will find a new source of energy or already have a new source to replace Oil. How do you make these sort of people understand with just DVD's that discuss a few facts. You need Shock Treatment!!! thats how.
What I mean by this, is they don't give anymore away than most sites or books. Its as if all PO awareness media are trying to keep PC, baring the book, "The Long Emergency." PO may seem topical to us, but to Joe Average its Boring, Anorak and even Conspiracy. If they were as easy to convince as us, then we wouldn't be facing the mess we are facing.
What i'm trying to say is that in the early 80's we got a few films and documentary's "pussy footing about" on the subject of Nuclear War! Then from nowere the excellent "Threads" shocked Britain in to a wake up call, possibly the World too. Shortly after its screening on TV, certain treaties were signed and suddenly the threat of Nuclear War began to disapear. Coincidence? Maybe. Effective? Yes!
The point is, is that it could be a good idea if an "In Your Face" approach on PO was taken. Give out the worst case scenrios. How? Well maybe some film maker could make a "Shocumentary" rather than a "Infomentary". Or a film in the same vein as "Threads", hard hitting. I'm sure it could pull in the profits too. So how about it? Am I right, or am I wrong?
What I understand about most people, is that they aren't going to change their ways on information alone. They need a shock! a wake up call. Its only human nature. Look at Heart Attack victims, they'll only alter their diets after the event. If they were shocked enough before, then they would more likely have reacted! This is just one example.
I've been trying to walk a line. Walking this line has gotten me in arguments with Pessimists and Optimists. Its now time I put my cards on the table. I'm a Pessimist and i'm proud!!! I'm going to re-write my site again, to follow the scare factor. Its a personal site and I only see the worst case scenrio at this moment in time. I have been censoring my views to please others. Whats the point? If PO hits and we've got nowere with awareness, then I don't want to blame myself, for not expressing myself fully.
SHOCK TAKTICS!!! work best IMO.
Your thoughts?
A new approach to PO.
Moderator: Peak Moderation
A new approach to PO.
Enjoy yourself with the time remaining, I've decided I'm going to.
Most people will not sit up and take notice about this stuff until there is a crisis. Therefore, to give society more time to prepare for the real crisis, perhaps there should be engineered ones?
I think losing the electricity supply for a day would be a good enough "shock tactic" (no pun intended) that would kick people out of their consensus trance in which they take energy for granted.
Did "The Day After Tomorrow" change anyone's behaviour? I doubt it, somehow.
I think losing the electricity supply for a day would be a good enough "shock tactic" (no pun intended) that would kick people out of their consensus trance in which they take energy for granted.
Did "The Day After Tomorrow" change anyone's behaviour? I doubt it, somehow.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Maybe you're not old enough to remember Grocer Heath and the three day week. The first energy crisis back in '73 -74?Bandidoz wrote: I think losing the electricity supply for a day would be a good enough "shock tactic" (no pun intended) that would kick people out of their consensus trance in which they take energy for granted.
A battle of wills between the NUM and the conservative government sitting on top of the Arab oil embargo. The main reason Maggie Thatcher decided to break the NUM and (largely) get rid of the coal mining industry. Had no intention of being pushed about by a bunch of commie coal miner union leaders as Heath had been.
Electricity was rationed to commercial and industrial customers - 4 days out of 7 the electricity was shut off.
Didnt make any difference. Things got back to normal, Heath got the blame then got chucked out at the next election and people forgot about it.
I've still got my petrol ration coupons in a drawer somewhere - never quite came to that , thankfully.
No! because it was Hollywood crap! With hero's and special effects! Do you remember "The Day After" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/ a rather boring made for TV "Hollywoodesque" episode of Nuclear War. Thats all "The Day After Tomorrow" is.Bandidoz wrote:
Did "The Day After Tomorrow" change anyone's behaviour? I doubt it, somehow.
Now you do it in "Shockunentary" style like "Threads" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/ and your gonna Wake People up.
Tonight I will have conducted an experiment. When my Girlfriend gets back from work. I will screen "Peak Oil imposed by nature" to her. Then ask her views on PO.
Now i'll put whatever reputation I have on the line here. I bet she says, "Yeah its somthing to think about, isn't it." Then she'll go to bed and read one of her love story books. Now when I showed her, "Threads" in 2003, even though it was 19 years old, she stayed up late, asking me questions such as "It won't happen will it?" "The russians aren't like that now are they?" "This as scared me, because Iraq and Iran, are still in the papers now!!!" She had nightmares for weeks!!! Was this wrong of me to let her watch a film this strong and realistic??? At the time I did feel guilty. Today I realise this is the only way to make the impact needed! If not then we may as well give up and enjoy whats left of The Party!!!
I will post the results of my experiment, once its concluded. Don't worry she won't suspect a thing. You see i've got to do a discussion on a movie for some homework, to do with my English course, so she won't suspect a thing!!!
Enjoy yourself with the time remaining, I've decided I'm going to.
Hi Wayne,
If it's shock you are after then I would second MacG's suggestion and purchase Matt Savinar's book. It really shook my world when I read it, more than any other book. It's short, easy to read, contains at least one conspiracy theory and takes no prisoners. OK, so it's not a DVD but still very much worth it.
Buy it here,
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/TheOilAgeIsOver.html
Don't give up on the DVD's you've just purchased though. They are a more sensitive, perhaps genteel approach, but they do contain lots of information that to the untrained individual should raise questions in their mind. In my opinion they should be viewed alongside other evidence to help reinforce the argument.
I don't think one film or one book is enough anyway, regardles of how informative or shocking it is.
As for Threads, well even though I was living in Sheffield at that time, it didn't stir me at all so be careful to assume that what works for you will work for everyone.
If it's shock you are after then I would second MacG's suggestion and purchase Matt Savinar's book. It really shook my world when I read it, more than any other book. It's short, easy to read, contains at least one conspiracy theory and takes no prisoners. OK, so it's not a DVD but still very much worth it.
Buy it here,
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/TheOilAgeIsOver.html
Don't give up on the DVD's you've just purchased though. They are a more sensitive, perhaps genteel approach, but they do contain lots of information that to the untrained individual should raise questions in their mind. In my opinion they should be viewed alongside other evidence to help reinforce the argument.
I don't think one film or one book is enough anyway, regardles of how informative or shocking it is.
As for Threads, well even though I was living in Sheffield at that time, it didn't stir me at all so be careful to assume that what works for you will work for everyone.
Cheers Bozzio
I'll get hold of that book.
Incidently I carried out my experiment, I was nearly correct. I was going to post the results but the sites been down since. I will post them later now, as i'm going out in 5 mins!
I still think a realistic, hard hitting film, one that uses fictional plot and facts, whilst covering a near worse case scenaio, would open eyes more. "Threads" did this, it got the talked about on TV on a biggish scale. I recon if someone does a film on PO in the same vein as "Threads", then the issue of awareness would go through the roof IMO.
I'll get hold of that book.
Incidently I carried out my experiment, I was nearly correct. I was going to post the results but the sites been down since. I will post them later now, as i'm going out in 5 mins!
I still think a realistic, hard hitting film, one that uses fictional plot and facts, whilst covering a near worse case scenaio, would open eyes more. "Threads" did this, it got the talked about on TV on a biggish scale. I recon if someone does a film on PO in the same vein as "Threads", then the issue of awareness would go through the roof IMO.
Enjoy yourself with the time remaining, I've decided I'm going to.
Well to be honest I don't think worst case post-peak scenarios are all that useful. Threads worked because the physical effects of thermonuclear war are hard to dispute credibly. An almost total collapse of society after a nuclear war isn't exactly a controversial idea.
When it comes to peak oil if we're honest we'll admit that we simply do not know what the outcome will be with any degree of certainty. We can put forward various scenarios and we can point to vulnerabilities in the system to peak oil but we can't say with any accuracy how bad it will be.
Major doomers like Matt Savinar suggest that peak oil will bring about total systemic failure and the collapse of civilisation. Others suggest that we'll be a bit poorer for a while but we'll get by and invent our way out of the problem as we have before. Neither position is falsifiable until after the fact, but some positions are more open to ridicule than others. That's the dilemma really - to communicate that this is a very serious problem that demands public attention while at the same time explaining how this elephant in the living room can continue to be ignored or trivialised by our leaders and the mainstream media. Explaining the former isn't that hard, explaining the latter without shattering the worldview of your average consumer-unit is the higher hurdle. Most people don't respond well to having their worldview challenged when there's a comfortable, reasurring set of widely held assumptions they can rebuff you with.
Obviously people who are inclined to let other people do their thinking for them will never 'get' peak oil until the consensus is that it's something to be worried about. Personally I think the evidence is compelling enough for any reasonably intelligent and sufficiently curious individual to realise there's a serious problem. The attention of those people might be grabbed more easily by shock tactics, but when someone really doesn't want to know you're more likely to be ridiculed or ignored.
That said, I'm a naturally cautious person so I don't like associating myself with overly hysterical or emotional arguments. That's not to say 'going for the jugular' doesn't work. Factual documentaries and works of fiction both have their place, it's just best not to get the two confused.
When it comes to peak oil if we're honest we'll admit that we simply do not know what the outcome will be with any degree of certainty. We can put forward various scenarios and we can point to vulnerabilities in the system to peak oil but we can't say with any accuracy how bad it will be.
Major doomers like Matt Savinar suggest that peak oil will bring about total systemic failure and the collapse of civilisation. Others suggest that we'll be a bit poorer for a while but we'll get by and invent our way out of the problem as we have before. Neither position is falsifiable until after the fact, but some positions are more open to ridicule than others. That's the dilemma really - to communicate that this is a very serious problem that demands public attention while at the same time explaining how this elephant in the living room can continue to be ignored or trivialised by our leaders and the mainstream media. Explaining the former isn't that hard, explaining the latter without shattering the worldview of your average consumer-unit is the higher hurdle. Most people don't respond well to having their worldview challenged when there's a comfortable, reasurring set of widely held assumptions they can rebuff you with.
Obviously people who are inclined to let other people do their thinking for them will never 'get' peak oil until the consensus is that it's something to be worried about. Personally I think the evidence is compelling enough for any reasonably intelligent and sufficiently curious individual to realise there's a serious problem. The attention of those people might be grabbed more easily by shock tactics, but when someone really doesn't want to know you're more likely to be ridiculed or ignored.
That said, I'm a naturally cautious person so I don't like associating myself with overly hysterical or emotional arguments. That's not to say 'going for the jugular' doesn't work. Factual documentaries and works of fiction both have their place, it's just best not to get the two confused.
-
PowerSwitchJames
- Posts: 934
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: London
- Contact:
Different tactics work for different people. So far I have found that a rational explanation to people about the situation works. Showing them how much they are dependent on oil, followed by the strong evidence for an imminent decline, and then looking at the problems with the alternatives and the banking system usually does the trick. Matt Savinar's book does this in the most shocking way, so the best balance of both.
I'm dubious. Most people have more important things to think about ( how to pay down a maxed out credit card, buying the kids new clothes) than the end of the world.
End of the world shock tactics will, i think get you ignored as a nutter. End of the world scenarios are outside the context of peoples worldviews, which mainly consist of 'more of the same'. Only a small minority who for a number of different reasons are unhappy with the status quo are responsive to extreme shtf scenarios.
Basically it does not fit in with people plans for next years summer holidays.If you want peoples attention, you'll have to find an approach that does, methinks.
End of the world shock tactics will, i think get you ignored as a nutter. End of the world scenarios are outside the context of peoples worldviews, which mainly consist of 'more of the same'. Only a small minority who for a number of different reasons are unhappy with the status quo are responsive to extreme shtf scenarios.
Basically it does not fit in with people plans for next years summer holidays.If you want peoples attention, you'll have to find an approach that does, methinks.
after all, we're talking energy depletion, aren't we ?
You're not comparing like with like; shutting off supply to industry is one thing, shutting off supply to everyone is something else. Workers could always go home and make their cups of tea; lack of energy didn't "hit home". It wasn't too much of an inconvenience, especially in the "union days" when people were itching to get time off work.skeptik wrote:Electricity was rationed to commercial and industrial customers - 4 days out of 7 the electricity was shut off.
Didnt make any difference.
Although I don't remember the 3-day week, I do recall there being consciousness of oil depletion, with people at school saying, "One day it will run out", as well as there being posters of "Switch off unwanted lights", which all but disappeared in the 80s.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
On the side issue of 'threads'/the nuclear issue. Some of you seem to think this issue has gone away. Well the nuclear issue is a bit like the peak oil issue, it has gone away - from the main stream media at least!!
I suggest some of you investigate what Bush and his cronies are proposing for space (believe it's called the US Air Force Transformation Flight Plan). They pretty much have decided that the US is going to take over space (even though it belongs to all of us!), stick up all kinds of high tech weapons and surveilance systems, many of which will need to be run off nuclear reactors etc, and get the US tax payer to pay for it at the same time they are cutting their social security etc! The idea is that they need to be able to react to this world 'full of enemies' (is it just me or are the US military a bit paranoid!) by having total dominance from the heavens, or could it be that the best (and cheapest) way to control the world post peak might be by being able to blast hell out of the bits you don't like from above without having to send 100,000 troops there?!!!
This site has some info on it
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 40222.html
These are links to some radio shows that any sane person should listen to, because for some reason we don't get this info from the Daily Mail!
http://www.btlonline.org/caldicott041505.ram
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... lenone.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... lentwo.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... aceone.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... acetwo.mp3
All i'm saying is that anyone who thinks the nuclear danger has passed only thinks that because they are unaware of what the US are currently up to, ring any bells with the oil issue! There's still one hell of a lot of missiles out there, most of them on hair trigger alert, the vast majority with the US and Russia and the US leadership don't seem that worried about breaking the non-proliferation treaty anymore. They are quite happy to play the nuclear card against Iran to get public support to take action against that nation, but are less prepared to explain to the world why exactly they need this many weapons themselves and why it is acceptable to use nuclear material in Iraq, putting the health of Iraqis and soldiers at risk etc. Will they ever realise that they have to apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others!
I suggest some of you investigate what Bush and his cronies are proposing for space (believe it's called the US Air Force Transformation Flight Plan). They pretty much have decided that the US is going to take over space (even though it belongs to all of us!), stick up all kinds of high tech weapons and surveilance systems, many of which will need to be run off nuclear reactors etc, and get the US tax payer to pay for it at the same time they are cutting their social security etc! The idea is that they need to be able to react to this world 'full of enemies' (is it just me or are the US military a bit paranoid!) by having total dominance from the heavens, or could it be that the best (and cheapest) way to control the world post peak might be by being able to blast hell out of the bits you don't like from above without having to send 100,000 troops there?!!!
This site has some info on it
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 40222.html
These are links to some radio shows that any sane person should listen to, because for some reason we don't get this info from the Daily Mail!
http://www.btlonline.org/caldicott041505.ram
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... lenone.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... lentwo.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... aceone.mp3
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04 ... acetwo.mp3
All i'm saying is that anyone who thinks the nuclear danger has passed only thinks that because they are unaware of what the US are currently up to, ring any bells with the oil issue! There's still one hell of a lot of missiles out there, most of them on hair trigger alert, the vast majority with the US and Russia and the US leadership don't seem that worried about breaking the non-proliferation treaty anymore. They are quite happy to play the nuclear card against Iran to get public support to take action against that nation, but are less prepared to explain to the world why exactly they need this many weapons themselves and why it is acceptable to use nuclear material in Iraq, putting the health of Iraqis and soldiers at risk etc. Will they ever realise that they have to apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others!
Can I add this to jev's list - The American Government's Star Wars programme report called 'Vision for 2020'.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/ ... isbook.pdf
This strange looking publication was produced at about the same time as the Bush administration published it's 'Rebuilding America's Defences' report ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf ) at the turn of the new millenium. These two documents are believed by many to be the critical mantra of the Neo-Cons.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/ ... isbook.pdf
This strange looking publication was produced at about the same time as the Bush administration published it's 'Rebuilding America's Defences' report ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf ) at the turn of the new millenium. These two documents are believed by many to be the critical mantra of the Neo-Cons.
Development of ballistic missile defenses using space systems and planning for precision strike from space offers a counter to the worldwide proliferation of WMD.
Why do they have to? Because a few 'liberals' here and there point out the hypocrisy of their policies? Because the odd angry suicide bomber chooses to blow up civilians in Baghdad? I don't see an incentive for them - unfortunately might is right.jev wrote:Will they ever realise that they have to apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others!