NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWTLA8WecI

Running time: 6:06

Wow... I'm pretty much at a loss for words. Scary population demographics, technological convergence, and a kickin' string soundtrack all packed into a fascinating PowerPoint presentation.

More information about the presentation, including updates, can be found here (http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2006/08/did-you-know.html).

If you for whatever reason do not want to sit through the presentation, here is all the information it gives (although I do recommend watching the movie as it has much better timing and much more dramatic impact than a laundry list like this -- not to mention great music :cool:):

Did you know?
Sometimes size does matter.

If you’re one in a million in China, there are 1,300 people just like you. In India, there are 1,100 people just like you.

The 25% of the population in China with the highest IQ’s is greater than the total population of North America. In India, it’s the top 28%. Translation for teachers: They have more honors kids than we have kids.

Did you know? China will soon become the number one English-speaking country in the world.

If you took every single job in the U.S. today and shipped it to China, China would still have a labor surplus.

During the course of this 8 minute presentation, 60 babies will be born in the U.S. 244 babies will be born in China. 351 babies will be born in India.

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that today’s learner will have 10-14 jobs by the age of 38. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 1 out of 4 workers today is working for a company they have been employed by for less than one year. More than 1 out of 2 are working for a company they have worked for for less than five years.

According to former Secretary of Education Richard Riley, the top 10 in-demand jobs in 2010 didn’t exist in 2004. We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.

Name this country:
Richest in the World
Largest Military
Center of world business and finance
Strongest education system
World center of innovation and invention
Currency the world standard of value
Highest standard of living

England. In 1900.

Did you know? The U.S. is 20th in the world in broadband Internet penetration. Luxembourg just passed us.

In 2002 alone Nintendo invested more than $140 million in research and development. The U.S. Federal Government spent less than half as much on Research and Innovation in Education.

1 out of every 8 couples married in the U.S. last year met online.

There are over 106 million registered users of MySpace, as of September 2006. If MySpace were a country, it would be the 11th-largest in the world (between Japan and Mexico). The average MySpace page is visited 30 times a day.

Did you know? We are living in exponential times.

There are over 2.7 billion searches performed on Google each month. To whom were these questions addressed B.G.? (Before Google)

The number of text messages sent and received every day exceeds the population of the planet.

There are about 540,000 words in the English language -- about 5 times as many as during Shakespeare’s time.

More than 3,000 new books are published... daily.

It’s estimated that a week’s worth of New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century.

It’s estimated that 1.5 exabytes (that’s 1.5 x 1018) of unique new information will be generated worldwide this year. That’s estimated to be more than in the previous 5,000 years.

The amount of new technical information is doubling every 2 years. That means for a student starting a four-year technical or college degree, half of what they learn in their first year of study will be outdated by their third year of study. It’s predicted to double every 72 hours by 2010.

Third generation fiber optics has recently been separately tested by NEC and Alcatel that pushes 10 trillion bits per second down one strand of fiber. That’s 1,900 CDs or 150 million simultaneous phone calls every second. It’s currently tripling about every 6 months and is expected to do so for at least the next 20 years. The fiber is already there, they’re just improving the switches on the ends. Which means the marginal cost of these improvements is effectively $0.

Predictions are that e-paper will be cheaper than real paper.

47 million laptops were shipped worldwide last year.

The $100 laptop project is expecting to ship between 50 and 100 million laptops a year to children in underdeveloped countries.

Predictions are that by 2013 a supercomputer will be built that exceeds the computation capability of the human brain. By 2023, a $1,000 computer will exceed the capabilities of the Human Brain. First grader Abby will be just 23 years old and beginning her (first) career. And while technical predictions farther out than about 15 years are hard to do, predictions are that by 2049 a $1,000 computer will exceed the computational capabilities of the human race.

What does it all mean?
Shift Happens.
Now you know...

England ceased to exist before 1900 I do believe and a $100 dollar laptop would be awesome

The Broadband thing isn't really suprising. Remember that the population of Europe (in general) is significantly more concentrated than in the United States.

the country it was describing near the beginning was the UK, not england.

England ceased to exist before 1900 I do believe and a $100 dollar laptop would be awesome

I believe you get what you pay for. It will probably be not much more then an Internet access point. Which is good but makes me think its just a access point the Chinese and Indian genius will take over the world.

I believe you get what you pay for. It will probably be not much more then an Internet access point. Which is good but makes me think its just a access point the Chinese and Indian genius will take over the world.

:eek: do you think the time warps and slow loading porn sites are the scourge of the $100 laptop?!

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

http://laptop.media.mit.edu/

it can't play minesweeper :(

Wait, what about those population demographics are supposed to scare me and why?

Wait, what about those population demographics are supposed to scare me and why?
Maybe the fact that the population in countries like China and India are growing so fast that hyperbolic phrases like "one in a million" become meaningless and our labor market could be swallowed up with room to spare? It's scary to consider that there are that many people in the world, and the enormous economic and social shifts that will occur when the world's burgeoning population collides with our exponentially growing technological base.

Wait, what about those population demographics are supposed to scare me and why?

It's supposed to remind Americans that we're not actually the best of the best like some of us wrongly think we are, and that thusly we're supposed to be scared out of our minds by it.

Or something. I don't know. I think Rhaomi just happens to be more scared than I am because he lives in Alabama.

The amount of new technical information is doubling every 2 years. That means for a student starting a four-year technical or college degree, half of what they learn in their first year of study will be outdated by their third year of study. It’s predicted to double every 72 hours by 2010.
Understatement and overstatement. What they are learning is either already out-of-date, ahead of date of companies that don't update software to keep up with changing technologies, or just plain not relevant.

Maybe the fact that the population in countries like China and India are growing so fast that hyperbolic phrases like "one in a million" become meaningless

I really can't find it in me to be disheartened by the inaccuracy of a phrase like "one in a million" meant to mean "unique."

And yeah, China and India have lots of people. Is this news to anyone?

and our labor market could be swallowed up with room to spare?

Yeah, if we lived in a world where it's possible to export the job of a custodian to across the Pacific, then this might be cause for some re-examination of the competitive edges we retain and a continued emphasis on skill development, education and business.

It's scary to consider that there are that many people in the world, and the enormous economic and social shifts that will occur when the world's burgeoning population collides with our exponentially growing technological base.

I still don't see what the scary part is, but I've never let my emotional well-being rest on whether or not there are more people in other countries than mine.

Or something. I don't know. I think Rhaomi just happens to be more scared than I am because he lives in Alabama.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/DSCN3197_pinejunction_e_600.jpg

Yes, because Pine Junction, CO is sooo much more prepared to deal with the realities of globalization. :p

It's supposed to remind Americans that we're not actually the best of the best like some of us wrongly think we are, and that thusly we're supposed to be scared out of our minds by it.

We are scared out of our minds by hyped up boogey-men, why not be scared out of our minds of actual problems? Like significantly falling behind in education because the support of education is a socialist idea and socialism is one of those evil boogey-men. Same with broadband dissemination and other technological development.

I really can't find it in me to be disheartened by the inaccuracy of a phrase like "one in a million" meant to mean "unique."

And yeah, China and India have lots of people. Is this news to anyone?

Yeah, if we lived in a world where it's possible to export the job of a custodian to across the Pacific, then this might be cause for some re-examination of the competitive edges we retain and a continued emphasis on skill development, education and business.

I still don't see what the scary part is, but I've never let my emotional well-being rest on whether or not there are more people in other countries than mine.Please do not try to imply that this is about xenophobia or a desire for American economic dominance. This just scares me because it really effectively drives in the concept of how the world's population is skyrocketing, and how fast technology is progressing, and how we have less and less time to cope with each sea change before conditions shift again. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly a very, very big thing, one whose implications are unknown and which is barreling towards us faster and faster while we twiddle our thumbs, neglect education, and worry about Britney Spears' shaved head. [/rant]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/DSCN3197_pinejunction_e_600.jpg

Yes, because Pine Junction, CO is sooo much more prepared to deal with the realities of globalization. :p

...I knew it! I knew if I picked on Rhaomi for Alabama he'd pick out that picture!

Yep, that's Pine Junction. Or rather, the tiny grouping of stores that is all of Pine Junction anyone ever sees when they pass by on 285. I live a couple miles back from the highway.

Okay, seriously though, it is a serious matter of concern that our educational system has fallen far behind, along with our inability to have decent internet service providers. It wouldn't be that hard to improve our educational system either. We just don't give anywhere near as much money to it as we used to, and it suffers thusly. We need to increase our funding, though to do so we have to move funding from something else.

How about the military? They're being overfunded as it is.

It wouldn't be that hard to improve our educational system either. We just don't give anywhere near as much money to it as we used to, and it suffers thusly
a comparison
(http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/images/edpercent.swf)
The U.K has been dropping the ball allot recently we are behind the US in another thing

I think the real frightening part about this is the runaway proliferation of technology. There has to be a certain point where the advancement of the technological cutting edge reaches a critical mass where it is developed and subsequently rendered obsolete faster than it can be implemented anywhere or be made to accomplish anything. When this happens, technological progress will become a self-perpetuating money-pit conducted out of academic curiosity or simple egocentric one-upsmanship, and all conducted without any thought to the human and environmental consequences of this profligate "progress". Because the other possibility is not an exponential curve but a bell curve, and the technology we create will eventually be our own downfall. Let's face it: the more powerful technology becomes, the more we become dependent upon it and the more unreliable it becomes (the law of complex systems: the more things that can break, the more things that will break). Eventually, our very existence may hinge upon an exceedingly sophisticated device that is guaranteed to fail. Now, I'm not against technology (I'm using the internet, after all...) but I do think that there needs to be controls and safeguards, and that we need to stop and think about what we're doing once in a while rather than just doing it faster and faster. Technology has great benefits but the danger is that we will let it control us, rather than vice-versa. Already the signs of this are everywhere. For example, look at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great tool, a convenient source of abundant and (contrary to popular belief) generally reliable information. The trouble with it is that so many people use it now and use it so often that they no longer know how or care to find information elsewhere. They have become dependent upon it for their sense of reality. Everywhere we look, we are finding that we have become so addicted to our technology that we can't make sense of anything, much less survive, without it.

Did you know? China will soon become the number one English-speaking country in the world.

So they are learning English after all.

That bit about the advancement of technology really got to me somehow. On the one hand I think it's absolutely incredible, and the geek inside me (and outside me... basically pretty much all of me) was thinking 'awesome!' But on the other hand... I dunno it's a little bit scary isn't it - a computer that can exceed the comptational abilities of the human race? Pretty screwy stuff, for some reason that I can't quite pin down. Maybe I'm just getting Matrix-vibes r something I dunno.

Out of interest, just to contrast the Matrix situation, has anyone ever read the Asimov short 'The Last Question'? An interesting take on human dependence on computers, not to mention a very good read.

The pace of technological change is scaring me. Things are getting more and more complex and complicated things break more. It's like video game consoles. The NES is now obsolete, but mine still works after all these years. My PS2 is more advanced, but it gets disc-read errors alot. My Gamecube doesn't even work anymore. The NES is supposedly obsolete, but it has proven itself more durable and reliable than my more advanced systems.

Perhaps we should go Amish. Sure, their buggies are slow, but they're built to last. Cars nowadays begin to break down after hitting the big 2-0. Amish buggies are built to outlast the customer.

Computers are beginning to scare me. There's talk about giving computers free will. We have free will and we can't go a a second without somebody killing somebody. Now why would we want a thinking, feeling computer? What if they outsmart us and take us over? After all, everything with free will will try to survive and survival is easier when threats and competition are nearly nonexistant.

Why build nanobots? Sure, it can cure cancer but if a terrorist builds a self-replicating nanobot, we're doomed. They're hard to detect and reproduce almost like viruses. We all know the story of how a space rock killed the dinosaurs. Technology will be our space rock. We'll depend on machines that will be so complex, they'll break down. We're dooming outselves. I say we start a new society stuck the current time-frame. No nanobots. No computer overlords. No being killed by broken machines all the time.

The Broadband thing isn't really suprising. Remember that the population of Europe (in general) is significantly more concentrated than in the United States.

And the US is significantly more built up in its manner of being spread out. The difference is their government supports it where ours doesn't and lets the telecoms pull whatever shit they feel like, leaving us in the dust.

The NES is now obsolete, but mine still works after all these years. My PS2 is more advanced, but it gets disc-read errors alot. My Gamecube doesn't even work anymore. The NES is supposedly obsolete, but it has proven itself more durable and reliable than my more advanced systems.
Clean your playstation discs and stop dropping your damn Gamecube. The NES barely worked properly when it was brand-new, except for the v2.0 toploader because it got rid of the often broken insert and push down loading mechanism. And that isn't even bringing up the problems reading the cartridges.

And the US is significantly more built up in its manner of being spread out. The difference is their government supports it where ours doesn't and lets the telecoms pull whatever shit they feel like, leaving us in the dust.


Clean your playstation discs and stop dropping your damn Gamecube. The NES barely worked properly when it was brand-new, except for the v2.0 toploader because it got rid of the often broken insert and push down loading mechanism. And that isn't even bringing up the problems reading the cartridges.

I always take care of my consoles. That's why my NES, the old one where the entire cartridge goes into the console, works like it just came off the assembly line after about 20 years. I'm on my second Gamecube. My first one stopped working after 3 years and my second one went kapoot within weeks. It just won't read the discs. It's not the discs because they work perfectly on my friend's 'Cube. I think it's the sheer complexity of the system and problems associated with having small moving parts.

That's the problem with technology. The more complex it gets, the more it can do and the more that can go wrong. They're messing around with Murphy's Law (what can go wrong will go wrong) more and more. That's also probably why our world has so many problems. It has so many people and it takes just one nutjob to start a chain reaction. Murphy's Law at work.

We need to increase our funding, though to do so we have to move funding from something else.

How about the military? They're being overfunded as it is.

It's this sort of talk that imperils all our precious bodily fluids.

"The amount of new technical information is doubling every 2 years. That means for a student starting a four-year technical or college degree, half of what they learn in their first year of study will be outdated by their third year of study. It’s predicted to double every 72 hours by 2010."

Aha. The one luxury of majoring in philosophy.. not much changes.

I guess it's a good thing I'm in business...I'll be able to afford and profit off of the new technology entering the market. It'll be a good time to be in finance, to say the least.

I personally wouldn't mind a computer with more processing power than the entire human race; there's so much shit I could do with that it would be incredible. It would be even better if it were conscious. The Information Age is a glorious one...and it keeps getting better each year.

That bit about the advancement of technology really got to me somehow. On the one hand I think it's absolutely incredible, and the geek inside me (and outside me... basically pretty much all of me) was thinking 'awesome!' But on the other hand... I dunno it's a little bit scary isn't it - a computer that can exceed the comptational abilities of the human race? Pretty screwy stuff, for some reason that I can't quite pin down. Maybe I'm just getting Matrix-vibes r something I dunno.

Out of interest, just to contrast the Matrix situation, has anyone ever read the Asimov short 'The Last Question'? An interesting take on human dependence on computers, not to mention a very good read.

yes and Let There Be Light. :p

the biggest shocker of this was what they said about a $1000 dollar computer in 2023 outperforming the human brain. Now in the whole nature vs tech debate Im on the nature side but the day that happens will be a scary one indeed and I don't doubt it someday will. However I think 2023 is too soon. (If we cant even understand the brain yet no way by the time Im 33 we are gonna have computers that good.) Then again...ya never know.

Oh and the funniest thing besides the comment on shakespear, was about the Times containing more info in a single paper than information medieval european (yes arabs were actually advanced (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2097927,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532) in the mid-ages)people would have known in a lifetime. Which is very beleivable. After all the peasants lived in hovels and farmed all their lives and the nobles hung out in opium dens (well the French at least) and plotted on how to kill their father/mother/brother/next of kin/etcetera. Not to mention all the prohobitive superstitions.

So yeah Shit Happens.

The pace of technological change is scaring me. Things are getting more and more complex and complicated things break more. It's like video game consoles. The NES is now obsolete, but mine still works after all these years. My PS2 is more advanced, but it gets disc-read errors alot. My Gamecube doesn't even work anymore. The NES is supposedly obsolete, but it has proven itself more durable and reliable than my more advanced systems.

Yeah, but the games also sucked. Honestly, most of the stuff produced for the NES was pretty shitty...I'd rather keep the kick-ass titles on later consoles than be stuck with that library. You

Perhaps we should go Amish. Sure, their buggies are slow, but they're built to last. Cars nowadays begin to break down after hitting the big 2-0. Amish buggies are built to outlast the customer.

And they also have to work their entire lives on a farm with no prospects of anything different. That sucks a lot. I like my technology too much, and I like modern conveniences to even consider that one.

Computers are beginning to scare me. There's talk about giving computers free will. We have free will and we can't go a a second without somebody killing somebody. Now why would we want a thinking, feeling computer? What if they outsmart us and take us over? After all, everything with free will will try to survive and survival is easier when threats and competition are nearly nonexistant.

And a computer with free will would also be capable of thinking rationally and learning about right and wrong. A fully self-aware machine with emotional and rational capabilities would not be a psychopath; it would defend itself if it were threatened, but that's no more evil or dangerous than a human being defending themselves. I don't see why we shouldn't give our equals or superiors the same rights we have.

The benefits of self-aware machines are far greater and more profound for our species than the risks.

Why build nanobots? Sure, it can cure cancer but if a terrorist builds a self-replicating nanobot, we're doomed. They're hard to detect and reproduce almost like viruses. We all know the story of how a space rock killed the dinosaurs. Technology will be our space rock. We'll depend on machines that will be so complex, they'll break down. We're dooming outselves. I say we start a new society stuck the current time-frame. No nanobots. No computer overlords. No being killed by broken machines all the time.

Because I don't think we should allow innocent people to die because of misplaced fears and irrational neo-Luddism. Every single technology has a number of countermeasures and fail-safe measures that would prevent such a situation from ever happening; honestly, if we had to we could stop such an event from occurring. One simple way is to just engineer nano-robots capable of destroying others, with a pre-set limit that causes them to shut down after a certain target or operating life is met.

I'd rather have the benefits of technology and compensate for the risks than live in fear, suffering, and ignorance. Technology is the only way we can build a better society, and it is the only way that we can conquer the problems that have afflicted our society since we developed the means to escape the world of privation, suffering, and death that exists in nature.

Honestly, we're infinitely more likely to become extinct in a world without technology than we are in one with it; technology is the only thing that prevents nature from wiping us out. Nature is brutal, unforgiving, and hellish, and we stand to gain nothing from trying to survive in it.

Maybe the fact that the population in countries like China and India are growing so fast that hyperbolic phrases like "one in a million" become meaningless and our labor market could be swallowed up with room to spare? It's scary to consider that there are that many people in the world, and the enormous economic and social shifts that will occur when the world's burgeoning population collides with our exponentially growing technological base.

Exponential growth in technology means exponential growth in jobs and the overall size of the economy.

We are talking over 2 billion people entering the world market and demanding the kinds of technology that us in the developed world already have, let alone the new stuff that is entering our markets each year. That kind of growth is going to produce massive demand for workers in virtually all aspects of the economy; China and India are producing millions of graduates, but the demand for their workers is growing far faster than they can produce them.

That's why entry-level programming positions in these countries have turnover rates greater than 100% and 30-40% wage growth; there are so many positions open that they can afford to switch jobs multiple times each year for more money.

Nature is brutal, unforgiving, and hellish

You mean like despotism, feudalism, capitalism, statism, Stalinism, fascism, theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, war, genocide, and class society and hierarchy in general?

You mean like despotism, feudalism, capitalism, statism, Stalinism, fascism, theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, war, genocide, and class society and hierarchy in general?

Yeah, but unlike nature, we can fix those problems. Nature doesn't change.

we can fix those problems.

I am incapable of seeing how, without smashing the edifice of the present system so completely that primitivist results could well ensue.

But, go on, help a disillusioned anarchist-commie before he slips completely into anarcho-primitivism: tell me how.

I am incapable of seeing how, without smashing the edifice of the present system so completely that primitivist results could well ensue.

But, go on, help a disillusioned anarchist-commie before he slips completely into anarcho-primitivism: tell me how.

Through a combination of economic globalization, closing the digital divide between rich and poor nations, creating a cohesive system of sustainable economics, and increased funding for technological research and development both in the developed world and developing world? That seems to be a pretty good start.

Technology makes people freer and circumvents traditional controls on thought and action. That's the only way we're going to be capable of solving these problems.

Through a combination of economic globalization,

Meaning that people can even more conveniently screw over others without consideration... after all, they're on the other side of the world.

Meanwhile, we smash the limited national autonomy statist democracy offers, and replace it with the global rule of capital. We worsen environmental destruction as the developing world continues to develop. We increase dependence, with its corresponding moral degradation, and competition, with its corresponding mutual Prisoner's Dilemma-style betrayal.

We repair the worst aspects of the world system... only to condemn us to more of the same, in a less deadly form.

closing the digital divide between rich and poor nations,

Yay, more poor people have Internet access. Obviously, this is a good thing... but again, what does it solve?

creating a cohesive system of sustainable economics,

Easier said than done.

and increased funding for technological research and development both in the developed world and developing world?

Because that's solved all our problems over the last few thousand years?

That seems to be a pretty good start.

At improving the world in certain ways? Sure. At solving the fundamental problems of our society? Absolutely not.

Technology makes people freer

No one objects to "technology" per se. The relevant question is the structures that underly its production.

facinating!

that must be old because India now has a larger population than China

Yeah, but the games also sucked. Honestly, most of the stuff produced for the NES was pretty shitty...I'd rather keep the kick-ass titles on later consoles than be stuck with that library. You



And they also have to work their entire lives on a farm with no prospects of anything different. That sucks a lot. I like my technology too much, and I like modern conveniences to even consider that one.



And a computer with free will would also be capable of thinking rationally and learning about right and wrong. A fully self-aware machine with emotional and rational capabilities would not be a psychopath; it would defend itself if it were threatened, but that's no more evil or dangerous than a human being defending themselves. I don't see why we shouldn't give our equals or superiors the same rights we have.

The benefits of self-aware machines are far greater and more profound for our species than the risks.



Because I don't think we should allow innocent people to die because of misplaced fears and irrational neo-Luddism. Every single technology has a number of countermeasures and fail-safe measures that would prevent such a situation from ever happening; honestly, if we had to we could stop such an event from occurring. One simple way is to just engineer nano-robots capable of destroying others, with a pre-set limit that causes them to shut down after a certain target or operating life is met.

I'd rather have the benefits of technology and compensate for the risks than live in fear, suffering, and ignorance. Technology is the only way we can build a better society, and it is the only way that we can conquer the problems that have afflicted our society since we developed the means to escape the world of privation, suffering, and death that exists in nature.

Honestly, we're infinitely more likely to become extinct in a world without technology than we are in one with it; technology is the only thing that prevents nature from wiping us out. Nature is brutal, unforgiving, and hellish, and we stand to gain nothing from trying to survive in it.

1. MOST GAMES on EVERY console are shitty. The 360, PS3, and Wii haven't been out all that long and they each have their fair share of complete garbage. You can keep your graphics and GTA. I'll stick mostly to games created back when being creative didn't have to mean less profit than more of the same.

2. We are depending on technology more and more. Yes, nature is cruel, but it's not like technology can tame it. Right when we think we have conquered Mother Nature, she sends us a huge earthquake or hurricane to show us that we just might be even more vulnerable. Yes, we were in constant danger millennia ago, but we were, on average, healthier and stronger. Plus, one of the major uses of technology is killing people. You can't tell me that we developed nuclear missiles, submachine guns, tanks, and missiles for hunting and farming, can you?

We may have been constantly more vulnerable, but when something major goes wrong now, our society grinds to a halt. When a car starts malfunctioning, a fatal crash can easily follow. When a spear broke, you would get another one. And if you couldn't, the only damage that would happen would happen to you. No spears running over pedestrians or killing passengers.

3. Who's with me that there are too many people in the world? The world can't sustain massive growth forever. There's only so much land and water available for making food. We have around 6 billion people and we can't keep all those bellies full. Plus, it only takes one nutjob to create a crisis. With more people, there's more chances of a nutjob. GMing food willynilly isn't the answer. What if pest-resistant crops produce a pesticide toxic to people? It could happen. Terrorist nutjobs might try to get this technology to help wipe out the Western world through poisoning and starvation but they prefer getting all explodey.

Yeah, but the games also sucked. Honestly, most of the stuff produced for the NES was pretty shitty...I'd rather keep the kick-ass titles on later consoles than be stuck with that library. You



And they also have to work their entire lives on a farm with no prospects of anything different. That sucks a lot. I like my technology too much, and I like modern conveniences to even consider that one.



And a computer with free will would also be capable of thinking rationally and learning about right and wrong. A fully self-aware machine with emotional and rational capabilities would not be a psychopath; it would defend itself if it were threatened, but that's no more evil or dangerous than a human being defending themselves. I don't see why we shouldn't give our equals or superiors the same rights we have.

The benefits of self-aware machines are far greater and more profound for our species than the risks.



Because I don't think we should allow innocent people to die because of misplaced fears and irrational neo-Luddism. Every single technology has a number of countermeasures and fail-safe measures that would prevent such a situation from ever happening; honestly, if we had to we could stop such an event from occurring. One simple way is to just engineer nano-robots capable of destroying others, with a pre-set limit that causes them to shut down after a certain target or operating life is met.

I'd rather have the benefits of technology and compensate for the risks than live in fear, suffering, and ignorance. Technology is the only way we can build a better society, and it is the only way that we can conquer the problems that have afflicted our society since we developed the means to escape the world of privation, suffering, and death that exists in nature.

Honestly, we're infinitely more likely to become extinct in a world without technology than we are in one with it; technology is the only thing that prevents nature from wiping us out. Nature is brutal, unforgiving, and hellish, and we stand to gain nothing from trying to survive in it.

1. MOST GAMES on EVERY console are shitty. The 360, PS3, and Wii haven't been out all that long and they each have their fair share of complete garbage. You can keep your graphics and GTA. I'll stick mostly to games created back when being creative didn't have to mean less profit than more of the same.

2. We are depending on technology more and more. Yes, nature is cruel, but it's not like technology can tame it. Right when we think we have conquered Mother Nature, she sends us a huge earthquake or hurricane to show us that we just might be even more vulnerable. Yes, we were in constant danger millennia ago, but we were, on average, healthier and stronger. Plus, one of the major uses of technology is killing people. You can't tell me that we developed nuclear missiles, submachine guns, tanks, and missiles for hunting and farming, can you?

We may have been constantly more vulnerable, but when something major goes wrong now, our society grinds to a halt. When a car starts malfunctioning, a fatal crash can easily follow. When a spear broke, you would get another one. And if you couldn't, the only damage that would happen would happen to you. No spears running over pedestrians or killing passengers.

3. Who's with me that there are too many people in the world? The world can't sustain massive growth forever. There's only so much land and water available for making food. We have around 6 billion people and we can't keep all those bellies full. Plus, it only takes one nutjob to create a crisis. With more people, there's more chances of a nutjob. GMing food willynilly isn't the answer. What if pest-resistant crops produce a pesticide toxic to people? It could happen. Terrorist nutjobs might try to get this technology to help wipe out the Western world through poisoning and starvation but they prefer getting all explodey.

1. MOST GAMES on EVERY console are shitty. The 360, PS3, and Wii haven't been out all that long and they each have their fair share of complete garbage. You can keep your graphics and GTA. I'll stick mostly to games created back when being creative didn't have to mean less profit than more of the same.

True, but there's still a lot of creativity out there. Game developers are putting out some incredible products that push the system not just technically but in terms of quality and longevity. The gaming environment has gotten more and more immersive, and that's translating in to damn good games with incredible graphics and fun gameplay. Your "average" game in a given genre today is probably far better than an "average" one on a fifth or sixth generation console, and better than many of the good games on earlier ones.

The profit motive has always been there; the NES wasn't really any different when it came to focus on sales and revenue. The developers of that system had the same business bullshit to deal with that developers do today.

2. We are depending on technology more and more. Yes, nature is cruel, but it's not like technology can tame it. Right when we think we have conquered Mother Nature, she sends us a huge earthquake or hurricane to show us that we just might be even more vulnerable. Yes, we were in constant danger millennia ago, but we were, on average, healthier and stronger. Plus, one of the major uses of technology is killing people. You can't tell me that we developed nuclear missiles, submachine guns, tanks, and missiles for hunting and farming, can you?

Yes, and we are starting to learn about how to control things like earthquakes and volcanoes; improvements in engineering make structures stronger and more capable of withstanding these kinds of disasters. I mean, earthquakes today that might have killed hundreds of thousands (as they did in Shaanxi in the 1500's) in the past now kill few or no people. We are capable of predicting storms that might have killed tens of thousands in the past and mitigating them to minimize loss of life and property.

And we can kill people just as easily without technology; if anything, nuclear weapons have been the one thing preventing a repeat of WWI or WWII for the past half century.

Technology is the only way we can make nature work for us.

We may have been constantly more vulnerable, but when something major goes wrong now, our society grinds to a halt. When a car starts malfunctioning, a fatal crash can easily follow. When a spear broke, you would get another one. And if you couldn't, the only damage that would happen would happen to you. No spears running over pedestrians or killing passengers.

3. Who's with me that there are too many people in the world? The world can't sustain massive growth forever. There's only so much land and water available for making food. We have around 6 billion people and we can't keep all those bellies full. Plus, it only takes one nutjob to create a crisis. With more people, there's more chances of a nutjob. GMing food willynilly isn't the answer. What if pest-resistant crops produce a pesticide toxic to people? It could happen. Terrorist nutjobs might try to get this technology to help wipe out the Western world through poisoning and starvation but they prefer getting all explodey.

Those are risks, but I would prefer to take them and develop these technologies than to hide behind fears that may never, ever be realized. Even so, it is a given that every new risk inspires new countermeasures to stop these apocalyptic scenarios from happening. There is simply too much potential in genetic engineering and other technologies for us to stand by and let them go untapped; every person who dies because we refuse to implement these ideas is blood on our hands, no different than simply lining them up against a way and gunning them down. Killing due to negligence and ignorance is still killing.

Now, once we get in to space this entire debate is meaningless. That would mean a complete and total end to any kind of limit on our growth; we would be talking the literal ability to grow forever without ever coming close to consuming the resources of the universe.

Technology is the only way we can make nature work for us.

I don't know... nature seems to work pretty well for pretty much every other living thing on the planet.

I don't know... nature seems to work pretty well for pretty much every other living thing on the planet.

Except when they starve, or die, or are killed, or are eaten from the inside by diseases or parasties, or are injured and left to the elements...

Except when they starve, or die, or are killed, or are eaten from the inside by diseases or parasties, or are injured and left to the elements...

It hardly seems to me that we have escaped any of those fates... except maybe the last.

And how much are you willing to pay for it?

It hardly seems to me that we have escaped any of those fates... except maybe the last.

We can escape them, though, and many scientists, doctors and engineers dedicate their entire lives to bettering the human condition through technological and biomedical research.

And how much are you willing to pay for it?

I will pay anything except my dignity and my humanity.

Did you know:

That I have a bigger penis than you?

That I am more attractive than you?

That I am one sexah ass mofo?

We can escape them, though

But why bother? It seems a fundamental misplacement of priorities to make life longer instead of better and freer.

I will pay anything except my dignity and my humanity.

I don't know about you, but sometimes I think that both have already been stolen from me... and in the guise of compensation, I have been given money and told to buy happiness.

I am lucky. Most of the world's population doesn't even get that.

But why bother? It seems a fundamental misplacement of priorities to make life longer instead of better and freer.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. A life free from involuntary death and aging is one free from the suffering those conditions bring; you would be far freer than anyone today to pursue what you want, and to shape your life at a far greater scale than we can today. It would bring at least one kind of freedom that is lacking in our world.

There is a vast amount of room for us to focus on improving our society rather than simply allowing us to stay around in the one we already have for longer.

I don't know about you, but sometimes I think that both have already been stolen from me... and in the guise of compensation, I have been given money and told to buy happiness.

I don't really know, actually. I've always felt that I have held on to my humanity no matter what has happened...although I do feel that there have been times when I've been forced to sacrifice my dignity for things that I shouldn't have.

I am lucky. Most of the world's population doesn't even get that.

True.

I am not interested in computer technology. This is what frightens me:
The carrying capacity of the earth for human population has already been far exeeded.

Think of it this way: An enclosed field of lettuce. Let a bunch of rabbits loose. Rabbits eat and multiply. Rabbits multiply exponentially, and every scrap of lettuce is eaten in the frenzy. Every rabbit dies.
I'm not saying humans are eating all the vegetation in the world, I'm talking about fossil fuels, which is not just another commodity, it is a commodity that every other commodity relys on. Food included. All fertilizers are made from oil. All pesticides are made from natural gas. The machines used to plow and harvest run on oil. All the trucks and ships used to transport the food grown across the world run on oil. World infrastructure in general depends on an adundunce of oil to function. 2007 is likely the year of peak oil production. After peak, demand will exeed supply.

Lots of people think supply and demand will fix everything on its own. It doesn't work that way. But I won't go into it. Bottom line is this: The carrying capacity of the earth for human population has already been far exeeded.
A post petroleum world's maximum human carrying capacity is 2 billion people. And that's optimism.

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

I didn't for a long time.

But, tell me: if we removed all the compulsions, all the supposed "incentives", and left people to more or less do what they wanted - not "educating" them by compulsion (economic, legal, or both), not making them work (whether by social indoctrination or threat to economic security) in the factory or the office or anywhere they don't actually want to be, do you really think that we would be able to make any of that happen?

If we can't... why should we sell our freedom to live longer? And that is what we are doing. We maintain our society by using various means of making people obey from the time they are very young to the time they die.

Perhaps the entire notion of "social improvement" is misdirected... perhaps what we really need is social emancipation.

A life free from involuntary death and aging is one free from the suffering those conditions bring;

I'll give you that.

you would be far freer than anyone today to pursue what you want,

Perhaps. Why should I content myself with "better than today"?

and to shape your life at a far greater scale than we can today.

The problem is that the economic and social system that underlies modern production prevents us to a great degree from "shap[ing] our life" as we desire.

"More of the same" may improve some of the particulars, but I have trouble seeing how the general character will be altered.

There is a vast amount of room for us to focus on improving our society rather than simply allowing us to stay around in the one we already have for longer.

I am not advocating stagnation.

I don't really know, actually. I've always felt that I have held on to my humanity no matter what has happened...

And I feel as if I lose it with regularity. I do not think I could cope otherwise.

although I do feel that there have been times when I've been forced to sacrifice my dignity for things that I shouldn't have.

We all have. That is the premise upon which our society is founded... though I suppose the "should" is contestable.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me say something more obviously relevent:

China, India, and anywhere else with a horrendously dense population, IS SCREWED. It's a DEATH TRAP. They won't live long enough to be our overlords because those nations are going to IMPLODE. :headbang:

involuntary death is needed to counter excessive population growth, dwindling supplies, and people who just can't stop humping, especially if pills and condoms aren't used and abortians aren't thought about at the time. Aging is relative to how you live. If you smoke heavily, you'll look decades older. If you retire early, you'll age faster. If you live healthy and work a moderate amount (not overworking yourself, but still working hard), you'll age less. Plus, aging tends to stop around age 95 or so. After that, it's just a matter of waiting.

You want to end involuntary death and aging? Pick a couple dozen mating pairs of people and spay/neuter the rest. The horrors of near-immortallity without the relief of death, which is always painless. Sure, getting there is often painful, but the instant isn't.

involuntary death is needed to counter excessive population growth, dwindling supplies, and people who just can't stop humping, especially if pills and condoms aren't used and abortians aren't thought about at the time. Aging is relative to how you live. If you smoke heavily, you'll look decades older. If you retire early, you'll age faster. If you live healthy and work a moderate amount (not overworking yourself, but still working hard), you'll age less. Plus, aging tends to stop around age 95 or so. After that, it's just a matter of waiting.

No, it's not. The amount of resources in the universe are infinite, and those on our own planet are far from tapped; once we are capable of developing human settlement off-planet, we can grow forever with absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Even now, we've already shown it possible to support huge numbers of people without even tapping the full potential of our science and engineering in agriculture. The places suffering from overpopulation are those with the highest death rates and lowest life expectancies. Cultures with older and richer populations have fewer kids...it's a fact.

Human sacrifice is not how we should control our population...that's really all death is, you know. It's a sacrifice on a scale that no culture in human history could rival, offered up in exchange for nothing.

You want to end involuntary death and aging? Pick a couple dozen mating pairs of people and spay/neuter the rest. The horrors of near-immortallity without the relief of death, which is always painless. Sure, getting there is often painful, but the instant isn't.

Death and aging are neither necessary nor desirable. They are nothing more than the cruelest of human sacrifices, a murderous process that steals our loved ones from us and forcing us in to a kind of torment unrivaled by anything else in existence. It is one of the most hateful and destructive things left to plague the human race. In fact, would be an unrivaled act of evil, of murder and repression, if we were to deny people the right to choose their own existence and to free them from its tyrannical grasp.

We can do it, and we can support those additional people. There is absolutely no barrier or negative consequences whatsoever to ending death, aging, and human suffering.

No, it's not. The amount of resources in the universe are infinite, and those on our own planet are far from tapped; once we are capable of developing human settlement off-planet, we can grow forever with absolutely no consequence whatsoever. Even now, we've already shown it possible to support huge numbers of people without even tapping the full potential of our science and engineering in agriculture. The places suffering from overpopulation are those with the highest death rates and lowest life expectancies. Cultures with older and richer populations have fewer kids...it's a fact.

Human sacrifice is not how we should control our population...that's really all death is, you know. It's a sacrifice on a scale that no culture in human history could rival, offered up in exchange for nothing.



Death and aging are neither necessary nor desirable. They are nothing more than the cruelest of human sacrifices, a murderous process that steals our loved ones from us and forcing us in to a kind of torment unrivaled by anything else in existence. It is one of the most hateful and destructive things left to plague the human race. In fact, would be an unrivaled act of evil, of murder and repression, if we were to deny people the right to choose their own existence and to free them from its tyrannical grasp.

We can do it, and we can support those additional people. There is absolutely no barrier or negative consequences whatsoever to ending death, aging, and human suffering.

Infinite? Bull. The only thing infinite is nothing. Finite matter and energy in a literally endless sea of nothingness. The only reason modern society has gotten so large and prosperous is because the discovery of fossil fuels, especially oil, has made the explosion in transportation possible. Once the oil reserves are dry, the gas is gone, and coal is nowhere but the polluted sky, we're back to square one.

Death leads to conflict, which we need for sanity. Take out the conflicts and risks and life is nothing but boredom, which is arguably worse than pain. Death offers relief and fear of it comes from fear of the unknown. You can say that we rot when dead, but that doesn't explain what happens to us. Take out the ultimate mystery and you take out the fear.

I'm not advocating murder. I'm just saying that getting rid of death is extremely foolish because NOBODY knows exactly what will happen. Not me. Not you. Not some Chinese guy. NOBODY. Heading towards immortality is like heading into a dark cave with a wet match and nothing else. You have some idea of what's in there, but you don't know nearly enough to understand the cave's layout.

Infinite? Bull. The only thing infinite is nothing. Finite matter and energy in a literally endless sea of nothingness. The only reason modern society has gotten so large and prosperous is because the discovery of fossil fuels, especially oil, has made the explosion in transportation possible. Once the oil reserves are dry, the gas is gone, and coal is nowhere but the polluted sky, we're back to square one.

The Kuiper belt alone can support quintillions of people with the resources present in it. This solar system can support even more, and that says nothing of the things that exist outside of our knowlege of the universe; there are literally infinite resources in this universe, and we will never be capable of tapping even a significant fraction of them.

And there are plenty of available alternatives to fossil fuels now, let alone the major improvements and new technologies coming out each year. It won't be particularly difficult to switch over when the need arises; fossil fuels had their place in our society, but as we become more advanced we're going to need better sources of energy.

Death leads to conflict, which we need for sanity. Take out the conflicts and risks and life is nothing but boredom, which is arguably worse than pain. Death offers relief and fear of it comes from fear of the unknown. You can say that we rot when dead, but that doesn't explain what happens to us. Take out the ultimate mystery and you take out the fear.

I don't live to die, and I don't live to fight. My life would be as equally interesting and fun if I knew I wasn't going to die as if I were; I don't plan my activities and interests based upon the knowledge that it will end some day. I also don That's a horrendously nihilistic philosophy that I prefer to stay well away from.

Also, I don't really need to know what happens after I die; regardless of whether I survive, or cease to exist, or any other equally probably outcome, it's not going to matter in the slightest. The kind of "relief" that death might offer is not worth the suffering and decay that is required for it to come to pass; it's like torturing yourself with the knowledge that your body will release chemicals that help to ease the pain. No matter what happens, everything you've done or accomplished on Earth will be lost, except perhaps for the memories.

Living to die is no different than living to be tortured and sacrificed or something equally horrible; frankly, the entire ridiculous idea that "death makes life meaningful" is rather sociopathic and sadistic if you remove the delusion that death is somehow noble or good. It's a cruel process no matter which way you cut it, and millions of innocent people each day either die or have to suffer the pain of losing a loved one. I don't think it's "good" or "noble" to inflict that on anyone.

And if, for some odd reason, you (a general you, not you in particular) want to die, go ahead. I'm not going to stop someone who wants to die, but I'm not going to let them force their punishment on me as well. Their decision is their own.

I'm not advocating murder. I'm just saying that getting rid of death is extremely foolish because NOBODY knows exactly what will happen. Not me. Not you. Not some Chinese guy. NOBODY. Heading towards immortality is like heading into a dark cave with a wet match and nothing else. You have some idea of what's in there, but you don't know nearly enough to understand the cave's layout.

We don't know what will happen with everything we do; I'm willing to take that risk because in reality the only drawback is what...death? That would happen anyways if we didn't try and stop it, so we really lose nothing from it either way.

Also, getting rid of death doesn't mean people can't die. If they want to, it's entirely possible for them to do so...we're just not going to fall prey to it when we don't want to. There's none of the fear, suffering, or coercion that go hand in hand with involuntary death. Involuntary death is of no benefit to our society, other than to make us afraid and unwilling to take risks that we might have taken were our physical safety ensured.

Originally Posted by Vetalia
The Kuiper belt alone can support quintillions of people with the resources present in it. This solar system can support even more, and that says nothing of the things that exist outside of our knowlege of the universe; there are literally infinite resources in this universe, and we will never be capable of tapping even a significant fraction of them.

And there are plenty of available alternatives to fossil fuels now, let alone the major improvements and new technologies coming out each year. It won't be particularly difficult to switch over when the need arises; fossil fuels had their place in our society, but as we become more advanced we're going to need better sources of energy.

Idiot. There are NO viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Ethanol? It's a sham. It's an illusion, a lie to keep the masses spending confidently in the marketplace. There's one third less energy in the stuff than in regular gasoline, and the price of corn has doubled in just the past year because some of it is being used to produce ethanol. America produces half the corn grown in the WORLD. To grow enough corn to replace oil, there would be no room left to grow food for eating.

Hydrogen? Sham. Hydrogen is a way to store energy, its not a source itself. Again, far less energy density than oil. A car full of liquid hydrogen? Yeah...who's going to do the crash tests on that? Anyway, all commerical hydrogen is made from methane, which is just a scientific name for NATURAL GAS (which is running out faster than oil). Besides, it currently takes 90 barrels of oil to manufacture ONE new car of any kind.

Need I remind you that the entire world infustructure is completely dependent on oil in abundance. The world economy is completely dependent on constant growth to function. We don't need to "run out" of oil for all this to come crashing down. A decrease of 2-4% in world oil production would be more than enough to cripple industrial economies, as happened during the 1970s artificial oil crisis, when OPEC turned off the taps.

Right now, there are price caps on oil. So it SHOULD be far more expensive than it really is. In the next 3 to 5 years, the crisis will not be artificial. There will literally not be enough oil for everyone who wants some, no matter how fast we pump or how many new wells we drill. It will IMMEDIATELY cause a global ressesion, which will quickly become a full fledged depression. Thousands, then hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, oil prices will skyrocket, truckers will go on strike and consequently the price of food and everything else will skyrocket, like they did in the UK in the 1970s. Unfortunately we apparently learned nothing from it, because nothing has been done to avoid the impending crisis. There's just too many people in the world in love with a wasteful lifestyle that we have inherited from generations who lived in a time of abundance. People just go about their lives, business as usual. When a crisis happens, it will BE TOO LATE.

Our electricity is dependent on fossil fuels too. Coal is mined using machines that guzzle 100 gallons of diesl AN HOUR. 20% of electricity in America is produced from burning natural gas. A few years ago, as output reached 100%, fuse boxes tripped in a chain reaction, which left millions of people on the east coast of America and Canada without power for several days. There was no way to heat their homes, no water, the pumps at the gas stations didn't work. Everything came grinding to a halt, and people huddled in fear. This is an example of just how fragile our system is. Three years from now, when it is clear we on the downslope of the global oil peak curve, rolling blackouts will become increasingly common. Then one day, the lights will go out....permanently.

You think everything can just suddenly "switch over" to "alternatives"?
(which, by the way, no combination of can equal the role of fossil fuels)
Yeah...NOT gonna happen that way. Wake up. OPEN YOUR EYES. Nobody's going to produce a hundred million new 'future cars', or hundreds of solar power plants, or the factories to make them, in the next five years, especially during a downspiraling economy, and especially when the vast majority of people are not even aware of the peak oil concept. People are going to wonder why there's a ressesion, and if they don't try to ignore it, they will find scapegoats. Blame the government, the republicans, the democrats, Iran, somebody, anybody. But if your looking for the guilty, you need only look in a mirror. Stop going into denial. Stop fantasying about the Kuiper belt, nobody's going to blast off to reach it on a rocket ship running on E.

You CANNOT argue against me on this subject, I have spent the past two years delving into it, reading books, scouring every bit of information, searching for every possible way out of it. It kept me up at night, a terrible doom looming right under the nose of a blind world gone mad with power, mesmerized by technology. Scientists and geologists have been screaming about this crisis for decades. Nobody listened. Now it's too late. Maybe a miracle will happen, and if it does, great. But I HIGHLY suggest you prepare for the worst, like me. First and formost, move. ESPECIALLY if you live in the suburbs. Move to a small, independant and sustainable close-knit community where you can grow your own food.

Let's just hope the government doesn't get the chance to reinstate the draft for its resourse wars, which have already begun.

Originally Posted by Vetalia


Idiot. There are NO viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Ethanol? It's a sham. It's an illusion, a lie to keep the masses spending confidently in the marketplace. There's one third less energy in the stuff than in regular gasoline, and the price of corn has doubled in just the past year because some of it is being used to produce ethanol. America produces half the corn grown in the WORLD. To grow enough corn to replace oil, there would be no room left to grow food for eating.

Hydrogen? Sham. Hydrogen is a way to store energy, its not a source itself. Again, far less energy density than oil. A car full of liquid hydrogen? Yeah...who's going to do the crash tests on that? Anyway, all commerical hydrogen is made from methane, which is just a scientific name for NATURAL GAS (which is running out faster than oil). Besides, it currently takes 90 barrels of oil to manufacture ONE new car of any kind.

Need I remind you that the entire world infustructure is completely dependent on oil in abundance. The world economy is completely dependent on constant growth to function. We don't need to "run out" of oil for all this to come crashing down. A decrease of 2-4% in world oil production would be more than enough to cripple industrial economies, as happened during the 1970s artificial oil crisis, when OPEC turned off the taps.

Right now, there are price caps on oil. So it SHOULD be far more expensive than it really is. In the next 3 to 5 years, the crisis will not be artificial. There will literally not be enough oil for everyone who wants some, no matter how fast we pump or how many new wells we drill. It will IMMEDIATELY cause a global ressesion, which will quickly become a full fledged depression. Thousands, then hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, oil prices will skyrocket, truckers will go on strike and consequently the price of food and everything else will skyrocket, like they did in the UK in the 1970s. Unfortunately we apparently learned nothing from it, because nothing has been done to avoid the impending crisis. There's just too many people in the world in love with a wasteful lifestyle that we have inherited from generations who lived in a time of abundance. People just go about their lives, business as usual. When a crisis happens, it will BE TOO LATE.

Our electricity is dependent on fossil fuels too. Coal is mined using machines that guzzle 100 gallons of diesl AN HOUR. 20% of electricity in America is produced from burning natural gas. A few years ago, as output reached 100%, fuse boxes tripped in a chain reaction, which left millions of people on the east coast of America and Canada without power for several days. There was no way to heat their homes, no water, the pumps at the gas stations didn't work. Everything came grinding to a halt, and people huddled in fear. This is an example of just how fragile our system is. Three years from now, when it is clear we on the downslope of the global oil peak curve, rolling blackouts will become increasingly common. Then one day, the lights will go out....permanently.

You think everything can just suddenly "switch over" to "alternatives"?
(which, by the way, no combination of can equal the role of fossil fuels)
Yeah...NOT gonna happen that way. Wake up. OPEN YOUR EYES. Nobody's going to produce a hundred million new 'future cars', or hundreds of solar power plants, or the factories to make them, in the next five years, especially during a downspiraling economy, and especially when the vast majority of people are not even aware of the peak oil concept. People are going to wonder why there's a ressesion, and if they don't try to ignore it, they will find scapegoats. Blame the government, the republicans, the democrats, Iran, somebody, anybody. But if your looking for the guilty, you need only look in a mirror. Stop going into denial. Stop fantasying about the Kuiper belt, nobody's going to blast off to reach it on a rocket ship running on E.

You CANNOT argue against me on this subject, I have spent the past two years delving into it, reading books, scouring every bit of information, searching for every possible way out of it. It kept me up at night, a terrible doom looming right under the nose of a blind world gone mad with power, mesmerized by technology. Scientists and geologists have been screaming about this crisis for decades. Nobody listened. Now it's too late. Maybe a miracle will happen, and if it does, great. But I HIGHLY suggest you prepare for the worst, like me. First and formost, move. ESPECIALLY if you live in the suburbs. Move to a small, independant and sustainable close-knit community where you can grow your own food.

Let's just hope the government doesn't get the chance to reinstate the draft for its resourse wars, which have already begun.

Well said. While many people live in this fantasy world where if we screw up earth enough, we can simply fly off to Mars and live there forever, people like us see and know the warning signs. You know about the Amish? If we don't get our heads out of our asses, we better know about them because we're either going to have to learn to live like them or die holding on to our fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens and the magic science fairy will take us to a magical base on Mars where the environment is magically made perfectly balanced.

Idiot. There are NO viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Solar, wind, biomass, electric vehicles, hybrids, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol, coal-to-liquids, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, passive solar and solar heating, coal. All of them either ready now or commercial in less than 5 years.

Solar alone produces more tappable energy in a single day than all of the fossil energy ever consumed in human history. Geothermal has enough potential to power the US, as does wind. Tidal energy has enough energy as well, and it's coming on line right now with the abundance wind or solar and more stability. Nuclear power is at record levels and can be expanded to far beyond its current capacity, and household solar is both economically viable and energy-positive.

Now, unless you discount all of these, all of which have EROEI better than or equal to oil, you have no argument. These energy sources are more than enough to meet our needs.

Ethanol? It's a sham. It's an illusion, a lie to keep the masses spending confidently in the marketplace. There's one third less energy in the stuff than in regular gasoline, and the price of corn has doubled in just the past year because some of it is being used to produce ethanol. America produces half the corn grown in the WORLD. To grow enough corn to replace oil, there would be no room left to grow food for eating.

Cellulosic ethanol? As far as I know, it's got as much energy as a barrel of crude oil, an 8:1 EROEI, and can be produced from anything with cellulose in it. Biobutanol? Energy content of gasoline, can be shipped in pipelines, producable from the same things as ethanol.

Both are technologically available now and can be commercially produced in 3-5 years. They produce more than enough fuel to meet our energy needs

Hydrogen? Sham. Hydrogen is a way to store energy, its not a source itself. Again, far less energy density than oil. A car full of liquid hydrogen? Yeah...who's going to do the crash tests on that? Anyway, all commerical hydrogen is made from methane, which is just a scientific name for NATURAL GAS (which is running out faster than oil). Besides, it currently takes 90 barrels of oil to manufacture ONE new car of any kind.

And how many of those barrels of oil are actually necessary? I'd really like to see a breakdown of the oil that goes in to car production, and for that matter every single product that oil provides today can be replaced with alternatives without a problem.

And natural gas is producable from non-fossil sources. Ever heard of biogas or syngas? Don't forget methane hydrates, which just had a major breakthrough that can very well lead to production in a few years; that's multiple times the amount of natgas available in conventional reserves.

Need I remind you that the entire world infustructure is completely dependent on oil in abundance. The world economy is completely dependent on constant growth to function. We don't need to "run out" of oil for all this to come crashing down. A decrease of 2-4% in world oil production would be more than enough to cripple industrial economies, as happened during the 1970s artificial oil crisis, when OPEC turned off the taps.

1970's were a 10% drop in a matter of months. Oil depletion at a rate of 2-4% per year is a hell of a lot slower.

And even so, we use far less oil for non-transportation needs as a share of total production as we did then, our economies are far less energy intensive, and we have a lot more alternatives now than we did in 1979 or 1973. Try again.

Right now, there are price caps on oil. So it SHOULD be far more expensive than it really is. In the next 3 to 5 years, the crisis will not be artificial. There will literally not be enough oil for everyone who wants some, no matter how fast we pump or how many new wells we drill. It will IMMEDIATELY cause a global ressesion, which will quickly become a full fledged depression. Thousands, then hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, oil prices will skyrocket, truckers will go on strike and consequently the price of food and everything else will skyrocket, like they did in the UK in the 1970s. Unfortunately we apparently learned nothing from it, because nothing has been done to avoid the impending crisis. There's just too many people in the world in love with a wasteful lifestyle that we have inherited from generations who lived in a time of abundance. People just go about their lives, business as usual. When a crisis happens, it will BE TOO LATE.

The market price of oil is accurate. Unless you're factoring in the cost of defending oil supplies, which is a valid complaint. Otherwise, the price of oil today accurately reflects the balance between supply and demand, and the futures market accurately prices in the long term.

There won't be a crisis because the market will see it coming in advance. Why do you think oil costs 600% more than it did in 1998?

Our electricity is dependent on fossil fuels too. Coal is mined using machines that guzzle 100 gallons of diesl AN HOUR. 20% of electricity in America is produced from burning natural gas. A few years ago, as output reached 100%, fuse boxes tripped in a chain reaction, which left millions of people on the east coast of America and Canada without power for several days. There was no way to heat their homes, no water, the pumps at the gas stations didn't work. Everything came grinding to a halt, and people huddled in fear. This is an example of just how fragile our system is. Three years from now, when it is clear we on the downslope of the global oil peak curve, rolling blackouts will become increasingly common. Then one day, the lights will go out....permanently.

Of our transportation needs, heavy vehicles consume a whole 5% of world oil demand. That's nothing, barely more than plastics and 1/10 the amount used as gasoline. If we had to we could either replace most of it with biodiesel or meet our needs with liquefied coal; the supply of fuel for coal mining is trivial and irrelevant to the amount we can produce. It's massively energy positive, even without taking in to account the hybrid and biofuel technology. Don't forget all the alternatives to coal power, or the hybrid trucks and trains being installed.

The Olduvai theory is survivalist wishful thinking combined with dubious science and idiotic apocalyptic thinking. Not one of its predictions have come true, and frankly it's complete garbage that reflects a complete and utter lack of understanding of the energy and electricity industries.


(which, by the way, no combination of can equal the role of fossil fuels)
Yeah...NOT gonna happen that way. Wake up. OPEN YOUR EYES. Nobody's going to produce a hundred million new 'future cars', or hundreds of solar power plants, or the factories to make them, in the next five years, especially during a downspiraling economy, and especially when the vast majority of people are not even aware of the peak oil concept. People are going to wonder why there's a ressesion, and if they don't try to ignore it, they will find scapegoats. Blame the government, the republicans, the democrats, Iran, somebody, anybody. But if your looking for the guilty, you need only look in a mirror. Stop going into denial. Stop fantasying about the Kuiper belt, nobody's going to blast off to reach it on a rocket ship running on E.

Peak Oil, even if it hit today, would produce almost no decline in oil supply over the next five years. That means prices would rise, but we'd still have plenty of oil...and trust me, $120 oil would get plenty of solar panels up overnight. 50% industry growth is nothing to complain about.

You also do know that EROEI is meaningless, right? If it's profitable to produce, it doesn't mean anything; that's why we use gasoline and diesel to begin with. They're energy negative, but the profits from refining them are enough to justify turning crude oil in to them. Don't forget the reality that the EROEI of oil has been falling since the 70's and is barely competitive with cellulosic or sugarcane ethanol, let alone wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, coal, tidal or hydroelectric power. The only reason why oil isn't already out of use is because it was cheaper than the alternatives...there is absolutely no energy reason whatsoever that we use fossil fuels.

Peak oil is a non-threat, or at worst a possible repeat of the 1970's. Our economies and society are far more The myth of social collapse due to fossil fuel depletion has been debunked time and again, in 1973, 1979, 1991, and the past six years.

You CANNOT argue against me on this subject, I have spent the past two years delving into it, reading books, scouring every bit of information, searching for every possible way out of it. It kept me up at night, a terrible doom looming right under the nose of a blind world gone mad with power, mesmerized by technology. Scientists and geologists have been screaming about this crisis for decades. Nobody listened. Now it's too late. Maybe a miracle will happen, and if it does, great. But I HIGHLY suggest you prepare for the worst, like me. First and formost, move. ESPECIALLY if you live in the suburbs. Move to a small, independant and sustainable close-knit community where you can grow your own food.

Oh really? Let's try it. I've spent two years as well, interestingly enough and I've been one of the most common debaters on energy topics on this board.

So far, none of your predictions have come true and, as a matter of fact oil prices are stable and supply has kept up with demand . Every single prediction of economic collapse in the 1970's and 1980's failed to pass, and every prediction of peak oil made by every single person in history has been wrong with the exception of Hubbert in 1970 and I distinctly recall that he saw the depletion of fossil fuels to be a non-threat.

I guarantee you, 100%, that there will be no societal disruption from oil depletion. Didn't happen in the 1970's, it didn't happen in the past six years, and it's never going to happen. This apocalypse is delusional wishful thinking with no ties to reality.

Let's just hope the government doesn't get the chance to reinstate the draft for its resourse wars, which have already begun.

What, Iraq? Except for the fact that we don't actually control the oil industry and we've removed the sanctions on their exports...

Well said. While many people live in this fantasy world where if we screw up earth enough, we can simply fly off to Mars and live there forever, people like us see and know the warning signs. You know about the Amish? If we don't get our heads out of our asses, we better know about them because we're either going to have to learn to live like them or die holding on to our fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens and the magic science fairy will take us to a magical base on Mars where the environment is magically made perfectly balanced.

Science has done more to solve the problems of the world than all of the prophets of doom with their lies and fearmongering. While they do nothing but profit off of fear, scientists engineering the world over are dedicating their lives to building solutions. These people are nothing but modern-day versions of the flagellants and doom preachers of the middle ages, and are even worse because there are still people delusional enough to believe them. I don't see Richard Duncan or Matt Kunstler going out and curing cancer or building solar panels on suburban homes...I see them writing for racist newsletters and making millions off of their movies and books.

And you know what's the killer: They haven't made one right prediction in their entire lives.

I'd rather have science on my side than the survivalist whackjobs.

Oh, I'm a wackjob now because I fear that we rely too heavily on technology and should try to work with nature instead of against it. Solar and Wind aren't as environmentally friendly as many people think. They both require VAST amounts of land. If nuclear was anywhere as clean as people think, Yucca wouldn't be an issue. You can't depend on science for everything. Science is alot slower and harder than people realize. Scientists can't just create a solution everytime a problem arises. We, as a whole, are getting weaker and weaker. If you're in a car that crashes in the middle of nowehere and you survive, how long could you live? How much would your life change if there was a massive power grid failure like the one years ago that affected the NorthEastern United States? There's no one you can trust more than yourself. It's not too hard to create a virus that could permamently disable your computer. It's not too hard to take down a few powerline poles. It's very easy to crash a car.

We depend too much on technology. No, not even failsafes are failsafe 100. Sure, planes rarely crash, but they still do. Nuclear power is safe, but that didn't stop Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Technology may make us feel safe, but very rare events still happen. It's better to look like a paranoid jackass preparing yourself for events that won't happen than to die because you didn't think it would happen to you.

Did you know? The U.S. is 20th in the world in broadband Internet penetration. Luxembourg just passed us.

Rock on.

Ah, a very good rebuttal, Vetalia. I was wrong, you are not an idiot. You are quite intelligent; however, you are still incorrect. These things you believe are quite deceptive. I am not accusing you of attempting to deceive, but it is you yourself who is deceived.

You overestimate society's ability to deal with this crisis. Unfortunately, society is not so adaptable or organized; it is fragmented, diverse, ill informed, and generally just a big, easily distracted blob of instant gratification.

The alternatives you mention, nuclear, electric, and so on, cannot adequately replace (quickly or easily) oil. I could go into it, but I will forgo the details, and go straight ahead into explaining the way the market works, because it would be the same even if alternatives could match what industry gets out of oil.

Generally, when a commodity becomes scarce the price goes up. This causes people to use less of the commodity and begin to look for alternatives for it. Unfortunately, energy is not just any commodity. As it is the very basis for all economic activity, including the generation of alternative sources of energy, it is nowhere near as "elastic" as most commodities.

The myth of "high prices cut demand" either directly or by dampening economic growth, simply does not happen in the real world. Since early 1999, oil prices have risen about 350%. Oil demand growth in 2004 at nearly 4% was the highest in 25 years. These are simple facts that clearly conflict with received notions about "price elasticity". World oil demand, for a host of easily described reasons, tends to be bolstered by "high" oil and gas prices until and unless "extreme" prices are attained.

This is what happened during the oil shocks of the 1970s: shortfalls in supply as little as 5% drove the price of oil up near 400%. Demand did not fall until the world was mired in the most severe economic slowdown since the Great Depression. The only thing that alleviated the economic crisis was the discovery of the world's last few "elephant" sized oil fields in the North Sea and Alaska as well as increased production from nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

As affordable oil is necessary to power any serious attempt at a global switchover to alternative sources of energy, these "extreme" prices will severely hamstring the ability of the market to handle these problems. The economic fallout from such high prices will likely raise geopolitical tensions thereby further hampering the development of large-scale alternative sources of energy. (If China and the USA begin contesting over Middle East oil fields, the USA will no longer receive their massive shipments of toilet paper, deodorant, combs, and kitchen clocks from China. War is also possible.)

Anyway, high oil prices will NOT motivate us to look for alternatives. To some degree, yes, it will, however, as I said before, we really don't have any ready-to-scale alternatives that share oil's energy density, energy portability and high energy return on energy invested. And that's a fact. And even if we did have alternatives that shared the characteristics of oil, we won't be motivated to invest them on the massive scale necessary until it's too late. To illustrate, in April 2005 a barrel of oil cost about $55. The amount of energy contained in that barrel of oil would cost between $100-$250 dollars to derive from alternative sources of energy. Thus, the market won't signal energy companies to begin aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy until oil reaches the $100-$250 mark and stays there for some time.

This does not even account for the amount of money it would take to locate and refine the raw materials necessary for a large-scale conversion, the construction and deployment of the alternatives, and finally the retrofitting of the world's $45 trillion dollar infrastructure to run on these alternative sources.

Some of the "alternatives" out there may sound cool in magazine articles, but in reality it is all still tabletop technology. Lab experiments and diagrams on paper.

If people do begin aggressively pursuing these alternatives, there will be a 25-to-50 year lag time between the initial heavy-duty research into these alternatives and their wide-scale industrial implementation. However, in order to finance an aggressive implementation of alternative energies, we need a tremendous amount of investment capital, in addition to affordable energy and raw materials, that we absolutely will not have once oil prices are permanently lodged in the $200-$300 per barrel neighborhood.

Within a few years of global oil production hitting its peak, it will become impossible to dismiss the decline in supply as a merely transitory event. Once this occurs, traders on Wall Street will quickly bid the price up to, and possibly over, the $200 per barrel range as they realize the world is now in an era of permanent oil scarcity.

With oil at or above $200 per barrel, gas prices will reach $10 per gallon inside of a few weeks. This will cause a rapid breakdown of trucking industries and transportation networks. Importation and distribution of food, medicine, and consumer goods will grind to a halt.

And there you have it. I find this to be very reliable logic.

But hey, I could be wrong. I hope I am of course. Who would want all these horrible things to happen? No one, unless your evil. But no matter what happens, I for one will continue to set up my new, independent, self-sustainable way of living. I have a few tricks up my sleeve, like the revolutionary farming technique that I like to call "forest herding", which is building a farm crop that mimics the form and function of a natural forest. It requires no fertilizer, no tractors, no irrigation, minimal care, and produces 4 times the yield of a modern monoculture farm.

I have nothing against technology, but I hate what our vain, spoiled, mad culture has made of it. So I am embracing a secure, luxurious lifestyle rich in personal and spiritual satisfaction that is surely the envy of any hard-working city folk. And when things get crazy, I'm betting others will join me, and we can have a community.

Ah, a very good rebuttal, Vetalia. I was wrong, you are not an idiot. You are quite intelligent; however, you are still incorrect. These things you believe are quite deceptive. I am not accusing you of attempting to deceive, but it is you yourself who is deceived.

As are you. ;) (The intelligent part doesn't get a wink...you're quite smart from what I've read).

It has been a long, long time since there have been any good discussions about energy on this board like the one we have now. You should keep an eye out for PsychoticDan if he's ever on; he's the other big energy poster on here and falls more to the pessimistic side of the debate while I take the optimistic side. Maybe Kyronea too, or TacticalGrace if he ever comes back on to General.

You overestimate society's ability to deal with this crisis. Unfortunately, society is not so adaptable or organized; it is fragmented, diverse, ill informed, and generally just a big, easily distracted blob of instant gratification.

Human society has shown remarkable resilience in the face of adversity; I wouldn't rule us out yet. In the face of hardship we've been capable of doing incredible things that

The alternatives you mention, nuclear, electric, and so on, cannot adequately replace (quickly or easily) oil. I could go into it, but I will forgo the details, and go straight ahead into explaining the way the market works, because it would be the same even if alternatives could match what industry gets out of oil.

Well, quickly and easily are true. They can do so, however; even if it took us two decades to build out these

Generally, when a commodity becomes scarce the price goes up. This causes people to use less of the commodity and begin to look for alternatives for it. Unfortunately, energy is not just any commodity. As it is the very basis for all economic activity, including the generation of alternative sources of energy, it is nowhere near as "elastic" as most commodities.

In the short term, yes. But the longer you stretch out the timeframe the more and more dramatic the elasticity of oil gets; for example, in 1979 we weren't able to cut demand overnight, but the effects of the oil crisis were felt in the plunge in oil demand and energy intensity over the next decade.


The myth of "high prices cut demand" either directly or by dampening economic growth, simply does not happen in the real world. Since early 1999, oil prices have risen about 350%. Oil demand growth in 2004 at nearly 4% was the highest in 25 years. These are simple facts that clearly conflict with received notions about "price elasticity". World oil demand, for a host of easily described reasons, tends to be bolstered by "high" oil and gas prices until and unless "extreme" prices are attained.

2004 was the year that oil prices really started to break out, so if we assume oil is a fairly inelastic commodity in the short run the rise in prices that year clearly affected demand. And, at the same time world oil demand only rose about 1.5 or 1.6% per year in 2005 and 2006 despite similar global growth rates; in fact, in the US oil demand actually fell in both years and miles driven fell in 2006, an event not seen since the 1970's.

Well, of course. The problem is, $60 oil is just not high enough to affect demand; people continue to buy large amounts of fuel-inefficient vehicles and waste energy like they did in the late 1990's...a look at any major highway shows that our habits haven't particularly changed despite all the griping about $2 or $3 gasoline.

We can tolerate much higher oil prices than $60 or $70 per barrel; we haven't even seen demand level off in China or India, and their ability to afford oil is a lot less than ours.

This is what happened during the oil shocks of the 1970s: shortfalls in supply as little as 5% drove the price of oil up near 400%. Demand did not fall until the world was mired in the most severe economic slowdown since the Great Depression. The only thing that alleviated the economic crisis was the discovery of the world's last few "elephant" sized oil fields in the North Sea and Alaska as well as increased production from nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

True. Of course, the 1980 recession was worsened because of the need to conquer inflation caused by the oil crisis; even at its worst unemployment and GDP contraction were only a fraction of what they were in the depression.

It's important to note, though, that our economy is far less energy intensive now than it was in 1979; we can produce a lot more for less energy than we could back then, making more of our industrial capacity insulated against energy prices. A serious crisis would hurt, but the resilience of our economy against energy prices would prevent another 1929-style crash even if oil prices continued their uptrend.

As affordable oil is necessary to power any serious attempt at a global switchover to alternative sources of energy, these "extreme" prices will severely hamstring the ability of the market to handle these problems. The economic fallout from such high prices will likely raise geopolitical tensions thereby further hampering the development of large-scale alternative sources of energy. (If China and the USA begin contesting over Middle East oil fields, the USA will no longer receive their massive shipments of toilet paper, deodorant, combs, and kitchen clocks from China. War is also possible.)

Anyway, high oil prices will NOT motivate us to look for alternatives. To some degree, yes, it will, however, as I said before, we really don't have any ready-to-scale alternatives that share oil's energy density, energy portability and high energy return on energy invested. And that's a fact. And even if we did have alternatives that shared the characteristics of oil, we won't be motivated to invest them on the massive scale necessary until it's too late. To illustrate, in April 2005 a barrel of oil cost about $55. The amount of energy contained in that barrel of oil would cost between $100-$250 dollars to derive from alternative sources of energy. Thus, the market won't signal energy companies to begin aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy until oil reaches the $100-$250 mark and stays there for some time.

This does not even account for the amount of money it would take to locate and refine the raw materials necessary for a large-scale conversion, the construction and deployment of the alternatives, and finally the retrofitting of the world's $45 trillion dollar infrastructure to run on these alternative sources.

Some of the "alternatives" out there may sound cool in magazine articles, but in reality it is all still tabletop technology. Lab experiments and diagrams on paper.

Yes, but other alternatives are ready now. Geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal are all either installed and competitive now or are being developed commercially in the coming year or two. Even cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel are in their final stages before commercialization, so we're talking a five or six year gap at most until these can be ramped up to major production levels.

This is a lot of energy, not counting the conventional sources we still have. Obviously, some things like replacements for natural gas in heating and the like are still far from ready, but if we combat the basics it will be easier to switch over once the time comes to replace other fossil fuels.

If people do begin aggressively pursuing these alternatives, there will be a 25-to-50 year lag time between the initial heavy-duty research into these alternatives and their wide-scale industrial implementation. However, in order to finance an aggressive implementation of alternative energies, we need a tremendous amount of investment capital, in addition to affordable energy and raw materials, that we absolutely will not have once oil prices are permanently lodged in the $200-$300 per barrel neighborhood.

Industrial implementation of wind/solar/tidal/geothermal/ethanol is available now; these five technologies have a lot of untapped potential and are growing at phenomenal rates of 30-50% per year. We're talking 20-25% of power generation in many places in a decade and a half or less; if oil were to peak today, it would be tough but we do have these alternatives now.

Well, the thing with capital is that it can come from many sources; even if currencies were to suffer severe depreciation because of inflation, we could still finance these projects using alternative methods of financing. Not to mention the power of governments to command these kinds of things by force.

And, of course, there's always rationing...it worked in WWII and it can easily work now.

Within a few years of global oil production hitting its peak, it will become impossible to dismiss the decline in supply as a merely transitory event. Once this occurs, traders on Wall Street will quickly bid the price up to, and possibly over, the $200 per barrel range as they realize the world is now in an era of permanent oil scarcity.

They have been doing that for the past 6 years; the futures market is tuned in to the world oil supply far better than you or I or anyone else, and they've got thousands of analysts poring over this stuff day and night. They can't easily be fooled unless OPEC artificially cuts production...and that would hurt them more than us in a time of oil scarcity.

$200 oil isn't going to come overnight. It'll come over a series of years just like the last rally in prices did.

With oil at or above $200 per barrel, gas prices will reach $10 per gallon inside of a few weeks. This will cause a rapid breakdown of trucking industries and transportation networks. Importation and distribution of food, medicine, and consumer goods will grind to a halt.

I doubt we will ever see a superspike like that. We're far more likely to see oil go to $60 one year, $70 the next, $84 the next, $100 after that, then $121, and so on. A 20-30% yearly rise in prices would be harsh, but it also gives a lot of warning time to prepare for the worst.

But hey, I could be wrong. I hope I am of course. Who would want all these horrible things to happen? No one, unless your evil. But no matter what happens, I for one will continue to set up my new, independent, self-sustainable way of living. I have a few tricks up my sleeve, like the revolutionary farming technique that I like to call "forest herding", which is building a farm crop that mimics the form and function of a natural forest. It requires no fertilizer, no tractors, no irrigation, minimal care, and produces 4 times the yield of a modern monoculture farm.

There are some very interesting alternatives to fossil-based agriculture that could work on a scale to feed our population; one might see the acres of grass planted in suburbs as perfect for farming, or urban agriculture in the style of 1940's victory gardens. If we needed to, we could make all that wasted land bloom with crops. It might be tough for a long time, but we could feed a lot of people.

Even if we don't need alternatives to fossil-based agriculture, these techniques are going to be good because they can produce better food than what commercial agriculture as offered us. As much as I support GM food and cloning, I also support finding environmentally-friendly alternatives to the system we have now.

I have nothing against technology, but I hate what our vain, spoiled, mad culture has made of it. So I am embracing a secure, luxurious lifestyle rich in personal and spiritual satisfaction that is surely the envy of any hard-working city folk. And when things get crazy, I'm betting others will join me, and we can have a community.

If that happens, I'll make sure to form a community to preserve what science and industry have labored on for generations. We might lose our TVs or SUVs, but I'd kill myself before I would allow computers or medical technology to be lost.