"Thinking The Unthinkable" article

acrowe · Post by **acrowe** » 18 Jul 2006, 12:00

I read the "Thinking The Unthinkable" yesterday, and I have to say its pretty damn scary, I was wondering how anyone can look at it and find some positive. If this course takes hold with systemic failure across the board, I do not think anyone is going to survive no matter what preparations we make.

I am feeling pretty bleak about things currently, finding it hard not to see a violent and painful end to my life and for all those around me. Even people who prepare would be over run by the masses, thats if we dont just nuke ourself to oblivion.

Anyone able to offer some advice or able to poke some holes in the piece?

GD · Post by GD » 18 Jul 2006, 12:43

You can probably find the other side of the arguments on www.naboo.us and http://www.naboo.us/peakoil/

Don't take anything anyone says for granted, make your own mind up.

Pippa · Post by **Pippa** » 18 Jul 2006, 13:00

Someone will survive!

We all have a choice. No matter what you believe about the future having sat down and examined the facts and then thought about human nature you will not change things by thinking alone.

When we think it can spur us on to do the most marvellous things or it can lead us to the worst pit of emotional isolation, depression and despair.
At Norman Church illustrated with his boat story, some people on hearing the bad news gave up and went to the bar (these people were stuck in their own heads), some refused to believe and the rest rallied around tending the lifeboats.

If we believe things are going to disintegrate should we be content to stand around doing nothing or should we go, all systems ahead and do our best to find the lifeboats?

Don't sit around in Cambridge on your own worrying about the future. Get out there and do something - apart from anything else its a lovely day, we only live once (unless you believe in reincarnation) and we can't really guarantee that everyone is going to turn into a herd of assholes overnight. Life isn't completely predictable.

acrowe · Post by **acrowe** » 18 Jul 2006, 13:47

Thanks for the replies peeps, while I said I was pretty down and finding it hard to see a good outcome from the article, I do not intend to do nothing

I do tend to have times where I get knocked back a little, this article inducing another such period. But I normally come out of it in a few days and continue to get on with things.

My current plan is to set-up a website on Peak Oil, but with a fairly broad and organic design structure (If I can get it working I am sure you will be hearing more about it from me)

Sorry if I sounded a little bit defeatist earlier

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 18 Jul 2006, 13:59

I think that the article is just being realistic. Every other civilization has passed away, but other things take their place. To think that ours would be any different seems a rather unreasonable hypothesis.

I suppose that you can console yourself with the thought that the UK is quite rich, so that for us, the effects are likely to be fairly drawn out.

Peter.

Pippa · Post by **Pippa** » 18 Jul 2006, 15:06

Blue Peter wrote:II suppose that you can console yourself with the thought that the UK is quite rich, so that for us, the effects are likely to be fairly drawn out.
Peter.

One of the biggest question marks for me is that we keep on saying we are rich.

What is rich? We have loads of personal debt (considerably more than our European neighbours I think) but not alot to sell that is actually worth anything.

"Poorer" more third world countries still have agricultural systems that work without huge amounts of fossil fuels, they have more cottage industry and local manufacturing, they also have more large scale manufacturing which is exported to the west, they have lower daily running costs - they don't have large mortgages etc etc.

I really struggle to understand how the effects will be more drawn out for us than for other countries. I think they will more likely be different but all played out at the same time.

I dunno.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 18 Jul 2006, 15:18

Pippa wrote:
Blue Peter wrote:II suppose that you can console yourself with the thought that the UK is quite rich, so that for us, the effects are likely to be fairly drawn out.
Peter.
One of the biggest question marks for me is that we keep on saying we are rich.

What is rich? We have loads of personal debt (considerably more than our European neighbours I think) but not alot to sell that is actually worth anything.

"Poorer" more third world countries still have agricultural systems that work without huge amounts of fossil fuels, they have more cottage industry and local manufacturing, they also have more large scale manufacturing which is exported to the west, they have lower daily running costs - they don't have large mortgages etc etc.

I really struggle to understand how the effects will be more drawn out for us than for other countries. I think they will more likely be different but all played out at the same time.

I dunno.

I think what BP might of meant is - what happens when:

a) Aid to the third world stops?

b) The major food exorting regions no longer produce enough to export (EU, US, Canada , Australia)

c) The west stops lending the developing world money?

d) What happens to the developing worlds "local" manafacturing base when demand from the west disappears (which what it is geared up for)

e) The UN stops diplomatic/military intervention in war torn x,y,z countries (although you could argue this is a mute point ! )

As for the comments about the UK economy and it producing "nothing useful", I'm sure we could do much better- but to get things in context , British manafacturing is still worth over 200 billion, which is worth more than all but the top 20 economies of the world...

Also , British exports according to the ONS , have grown consistently over time - (?11.5 Billion in 1970, ?62 Billion in 1980, ?133 billion in 1990 and ?279 billion in 2003).

Of that ?279 billion in 2003 , 67.5% was manafactured goods....

ITs just we import too much

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 18 Jul 2006, 16:01

It's worth keeping in mind that we still have a unique place in the world and will even after things start to change...there will still be the need for trade (perhaps a few less hair dryers or outside gas heaters from China) and I think we'll still be in a reasonable position for the financial services side, whatever they maybe at that point. Not suggesting we'll just drive on over the bumps without noticing but I suspect the UK might be a better place to be than Bangladesh for instance.

Unless everyone out there thinks that as well anyway...

DaBeeeenster · Post by **DaBeeeenster** » 19 Jul 2006, 00:48

Do you have a link to the original article? I cant find what you are referring to?

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 19 Jul 2006, 08:07

Here you go:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/in ... 8&Itemid=2

DaBeeeenster · Post by **DaBeeeenster** » 19 Jul 2006, 09:46

ianryder wrote:Here you go:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/in ... 8&Itemid=2

Many thanks

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 23 Jul 2006, 23:47

Just back from 2 weeks holiday on the north coast of N Ireland - thankfully the weather was kind and the sun shone.

But I have now just read this article by Norman Church and it has reminded me of how I see the future - not a lot different, although he has put it all a lot more logically and eloquently than I ever could. Oh for this to be front page of the Sunday Papers from the Times to the Sun.

Time to wake up the world..... As Norman Church said, it is too late to turn the ocean liner now, we just have to prepare as best we can. As ever, this needs to be on a personal basis, but more and more I realise the importance of preparing on a community basis - village, town, city, county, nation, continent.

Why are we being so let down by our leaders?

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » 24 Jul 2006, 12:46

a) Aid to the third world stops?
b) The major food exporting regions no longer produce enough to export (EU, US, Canada , Australia)
c) The west stops lending the developing world money?
d) What happens to the developing worlds "local" manufacturing base when demand from the west disappears (which what it is geared up for)
e) The UN stops diplomatic/military intervention in war torn x,y,z countries (although you could argue this is a mute point ! )

Interesting points!
I have long held the view that third world countries would be far better off if all these things actually happened.

a) Aid to the third world stops? - great. Aid tends to feed corruption, not the people. Aid tends to allow increased population levels, which in turn require greater aid. Aid destroys aspects of local economy. Aid undermines local governance by bypassing local 'elders' councils and other traditional ruling mechanisms.

b) The major food exporting regions no longer produce enough to export - Great: exporting food to third world countries is one of the chief reasons for hunger and deprivation. Such food allows artificially high population levels to develop, which are then that much more dependent on food imports. It undermines local agriculture as much of that food is dumped at below cost prices. It also tends to displace local varieties of both crops and animals by 'multinational' brands, which require fertilizer / supplementary food.

c) The west stops lending the developing world money? - Great: Lending money to third world countries is an unmitigated disaster. Through inexperience, corruption, leaders ego or other reasons, much of any loans are lost to the nation, but then it cripples the whole nation for generations with completely unrealistic repayments.

d) What happens to the developing worlds "local" manufacturing base when demand from the west disappears - Great: Perhaps they will start thinking about manufacturing local products for local consumption using local expertise. The sooner that happens the better.

e) The UN stops diplomatic/military intervention in war torn x,y,z countries - Well, the first point is small arms sales. Would it not be great if trade in all firearms was simply banned by an international treaty (dreamer!). The local wars that UN is quite heroically trying to stop in various countries and regions are of course fuelled by the arms trade. And that is fuelled by loans (as well as sale of raw materials)

Unfortunately, most third world countries are so tightly bound by loan repayments, so dependent on aid and so dependent on imported food that they cannot afford to do anything that would upset 'The West'.
I winder how long it will take for the 25 or so countries that had their debts wiped out, to build up new ones? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years at most.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 24 Jul 2006, 13:11

I winder how long it will take for the 25 or so countries that had their debts wiped out, to build up new ones? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years at most.

Interestingly I read an article the other day that was saying there is a real danger of this.

Guess why?

Yep - higher oil and gas prices....

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 24 Jul 2006, 13:44

Totally_Baffled wrote: What is rich?

If you'd ever been to a rich persons garden party you'd not have to ask that question.

There's the rich, and there's the rest.

Rich is not having to carry money.
Rich is never having to think about money.
Rich is earning so much that stooping to pick up a $1000 note is a waste of your time
Rich is not having to think about the price of anything. Rich can be life on a whim, but is often monmaniacal, obsessed.

Rich is Bill Gates, The Sultan of Brunei, The Waltons, House of Saud.

Rich is also often about being bored, feeling guilty and feeling isolated. Rich is being surrounded by bodyguards and gold digging insincere hangers on. Rich is always wondering if they mean it or are just flattering you because you're rich.

Rich is having your ear sliced off by kidnappers and then sent to your rich grandfather who refuses to pay the ransom.

I wouldnt be rich if you paid me. As far as Im concerned, anonymity is priceless.