Bioregional Anarchism

[DEPAVER]

The twin challenges of Peak Oil and global climate change are making it
increasingly clear that our present civilization, if that's what it is,
which I doubt, will not long survive.

No human social system can long continue that exploits other species and
destroys critical habitat without regard for the needs of non-human species.
Access to land, natural resources and "labor" necessary for all species
survival cannot favor one species over all others. Humans cannot destroy the
natural habitat necessary for other species without destroying our own
ability to survive. Humans do not live in a biological vacuum. The success
of Homo sapiens depends on the success of all other species.

If humans are to take their place as co-inhabitants of this earth, rather
than rulers over all, we must extend the idea of the commons to embrace all
species. Historically, socialism was conceived of as the social system in
which the means of production are held in common by the people. A
sustainable socialism, then, would be a socialism embracing all life, with
no one species having preferential access to the necessities of life over
any other species.

This socialism, if that's what it is, cannot be conducted at the global
level of organization. It is meaningless for a local society in Botswana to
live in keeping with the biological and geophysical limits of the salmon of
the Northwest Coast of North America. It is impossible for the people of New
York City to know and live with the biological interrelationships among
species of the coastal plain of Chukotka.

This biological socialism, this all species economic system, will be
regional, living within the biological and geophysical limitations of
specific regions. Another term for this is bioregionalism.

No national, international or global political or governmental system, that
is no centralized, authoritarian, coercive political system, can deal with
the variability in requirements for living in place in bioregional
economies. Any hierarchical system creates inequality and division which
destroys stability. Hierarchy and central authority are antithetical to a
stable, diverse and living ecosystem. As cheap and easily centralized energy
sources decline, future social systems will develop in decentralized,
anti-authoritarian, non-hierarchical fashion, that is, towards anarchy, as
the decline of centralized government is precipitated by Peak Oil and global
climate change.

The Roman Empire found it increasingly difficult to supply and manage
far-flung outposts, such as what became Great Britain, especially Siluria or
Wales. Centralized authority quickly gave way to local decentralized rule,
resulting in the Roman withdrawal from the island. When the Romans withdrew
their military, social systems quickly readjusted to local decision-making
and local economies. No chaos ensued. Order was maintained through
decentralized structures in the absence of centralized, authoritarian rule.

We can expect that central authority will, over time, lose control of the
periphery, first in client states, then within its own boundaries.
Eventually, as energy continues to decline, and central authorities can no
longer organize national rule, bioregional organizations will continue to
pick up the slack left by the decline of central organization.

Bioregional anarchy mimics natural relationships among members of all
species. Interrelationships among all life on this planet are organized
through stable ecosystems in dynamic equilibrium within the range of
biological diversity. Stable, diverse species in dynamic equilibrium.
Stable, diverse societies in dynamic equilibrium. Constant change, in
balance.

How do we get there from here?

"Let our actions form our doctrine, thus ensuring precise theoretical
coherence." Doc Sarvis, in "The Monkeywrench Gang" by Ed Abbey

The Government, whatever and wherever that is, is not going to bail us out
of this one. They've opened the sea cocks and taken all the life boats,
leaving us to cling to the fantail as we sink gloriously beneath the waves.
It's think or thwim from here on out.

Since we're left to our own devices, we may as well work our own way out of
this mess. Centralization and industrialism are the core problems, so
decentralization and local, small-scale production are the answers.

We start at home. Choose a place to live that requires the smallest heating
and cooling budget. Choose or modify our homes for maximum solar gain in the
winter, minimum solar gain in the summer, well insulated with good
non-metallic double pane windows. Grow as much food as possible around and
in our homes.

Choose our work places close to home so we can walk or bicycle to and from
work, including at noon so we can enjoy a good nutritious vegetarian meal
with our loved ones, and a glass of good wine. Choose our homes within
walking or bicycling distance to markets, library, schools and live music
and entertainment.

Eschew television and other propaganda devices. Listen to local, independent
radio, read progressive journalists, cruise the internet for alternative
sources of news and information. Don't believe anything we hear and only
half what we see.

Participate in neighborhood associations, home owners associations,
volunteer fire departments, neighborhood road associations. Attend local
civic councils and assemblies and testify regularly in defense of
neighborhood and community values. Run for local office. Work for local
candidates for local office who support community values, democracy, local
self-reliance and mutual aid.

Buy what food we cannot grow at local farmers markets. Participate in food
co-ops and community supported farming programs. Buy local until it squeaks.
Do not darken the doorsteps of big box stores, food chains, fast food
emporiums or malls for any reason whatsoever.

Get rid of all but one small fuel efficient vehicle and drive it only once a
week for 10 miles or less. Make use of the wonders of electronic media to
confer with colleagues, share pictures with family and friends, visit exotic
foreign lands. Get rid of every gadget around the house and neighborhood
that has a gas motor attached to it. Yes, that includes the leaf blower.
Especially the damned leaf blower!

Get to know our neighbors, work with them on neighborhood and community
projects. Block off the street and throw a block party. Organize a child
care co-op for families where both parents work.

Learn real practical skills: plumbing, electricity, home repair, car repair,
appliance repair. Soon we won't be able to buy a new toy when the old one
breaks; we'll have to fix things instead of pitching them in the "trash."
Work on a farm, apprentice to a car mechanic, build a house, install a
toilet. It's fun, it's cheap and it's empowering!

Change our work from full-time to part time. Reduce our income drastically;
that way we won't have to give so much money to the war machine. Sell our
oversized houses and move into a rental home half its size. Hold a garage
sale and get rid of all that stuff in the garage where our cars were
supposed to park. Strive to never buy anything new except toothpaste and
underwear. Everything we really need can be found used and in great
condition at the flea market or thrift store. We'll know we're on the right
track when we don't spend any money for three to four days at a stretch.
Soon we won't know what to do with all the money that piles up around the
place. Chuck it away, invest it in a home place that produces energy and
food.

When we lower our standard of living, we increase the quality of our lives.
We don't own Things, they own us.

The process has begun. Bioregional organizations are building throughout the
world, organizing people in systems of mutual aid, community organization
and self-reliance, building tools for the people to take care of ourselves
as we turn away from centralized governmental authoritarian rule.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
The twin challenges of Peak Oil and global climate change are making it increasingly clear that our present civilization...will not long survive.

No.

First, you can forget about "peak oil" for at least another century...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL)

The evidence for global warming is quite robust...but I've seen no evidence that civilization cannot "survive" a warmer climate.

Some of the ideas in this post are pretty good ones...others are, well, not so good. And some are pretty bad.


If humans are to take their place as co-inhabitants of this earth, rather than rulers over all, we must extend the idea of the commons to embrace all species.

Species that injure us or even just annoy us cannot reasonably expect anything from us but implacable hostility.

Humans are "rulers over all" and will act as we see fit.

That our acts should be guided by reason is obvious.


A sustainable socialism, then, would be a socialism embracing all life, with no one species having preferential access to the necessities of life over any other species.

Won't happen...ever. Every species comes first in its own eyes -- and we are no exception.


Interrelationships among all life on this planet are organized through stable ecosystems in dynamic equilibrium within the range of biological diversity.

No they're not; ecosystems are not "stable" except in a very temporary way.


Choose a place to live that requires the smallest heating and cooling budget.

Nice idea...but probably impractical. When people are buying a house, they have a whole series of constraints (price of home, convenience to work, quality of neighborhood and schools, convenience to shopping, etc.).

There are some "energy efficient" homes being built...but they are pretty expensive.


Grow as much food as possible around and in our homes.

Most city-dwellers are not into gardening at this time...even if they have the space.


Choose our work places close to home so we can walk or bicycle to and from work, including at noon so we can enjoy a good nutritious vegetarian meal with our loved ones, and a glass of good wine.

I actually managed to do that once...rent an apartment close enough to walk to and from work every day -- and it was terrific! The stress of commuting is really something to avoid if possible.

But my bloodsucking employers decided that the commercial rent was too high...and the job moved beyond walking distance.

Not being a rabbit, I'll pass on the "good nutritious vegetarian meal".


Choose our homes within walking or bicycling distance to markets, library, schools and live music
and entertainment.

Well, sure...if you can. You will find in life that many times you must grab the first affordable place you can find...you need a place to live quickly.


Eschew television and other propaganda devices.

Self-evident. I have not owned a dummyvision for 20 years.


Participate in neighborhood associations, home owners associations, volunteer fire departments, neighborhood road associations. Attend local civic councils and assemblies and testify regularly in defense of
neighborhood and community values. Run for local office. Work for local candidates for local office who support community values, democracy, local self-reliance and mutual aid.

This, I'm afraid, is just reformist crap.

With very rare exceptions, these groups are dominated by careerists trying to work their way into the local power structure.


Do not darken the doorsteps of big box stores, food chains, fast food emporiums or malls for any reason whatsoever.

Utopian. Sometimes there is simply no reasonable alternative to going to those places -- though I agree that one should avoid them as much as possible.


Get rid of all but one small fuel efficient vehicle and drive it only once a week for 10 miles or less.

I'll pass that along to my friend who has to take her child to the day-care center and then drive 10 miles to work and then drive 10 miles home, stopping at the center to pick up her kid. She drives a 1981 (yes, 1981) Buick that probably gets 8 miles to the gallon...she cannot afford to get a new "fuel-efficient" car.


Get rid of every gadget around the house and neighborhood that has a gas motor attached to it. Yes, that includes the leaf blower. Especially the damned leaf blower!

Ok by me. I never understood why they didn't just leave the damn leaves on the ground to rot.


Get to know our neighbors, work with them on neighborhood and community projects.

Sociable folks already do this. The ones who don't do it probably prefer anonymity.


Learn real practical skills: plumbing, electricity, home repair, car repair, appliance repair.

Or just buy the "how-to" books and keep them around until a repair is actually needed.


Work on a farm, apprentice to a car mechanic, build a house, install a toilet. It's fun, it's cheap and it's empowering!

It's also exhausting. Ok for the young and fit...not so good for the old and feeble.


Change our work from full-time to part time.

No effort on our part required; just wait a little while and our work will be reduced (involuntarily) to "no time".


We'll know we're on the right track when we don't spend any money for three to four days at a stretch.

I'm in that category...it just means that you don't do very much at all, since doing things usually costs money.

I think younger people would find that lifestyle intolerably boring.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

First, you can forget about "peak oil" for at least another century...

There's nothing in this article that suggests peak oil isn't imminent. Peak Oil doesn't mean oil is running out. The EROI for the production in this article is very poor; therefore, the cost of the oil will be extremely high.

Of interest is the work of Wood MacKenzie analysts, Matthieu Castellani and Andrew Latham. They produced a chart illustrating that the commercial value of oil and gas discovered by the 10 largest energy groups over the last three years was well below the sums spent to find them. In 2003, for example, the top 10 oil groups spent about $8 billion hunting for oil, but only found about $4 billion worth of the oil.

Industry sources are pretty clear that cheap oil is a thing of the past:

<http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0802/p01s03-woeu.html>
<http://www.energybulletin.net/1903.html>
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=a7mHUhkB3VPE&refer=uk>

On March 16, world oil prices increased dramatically in response to an OPEC
announcement of increased oil production to meet increasing demand and bring
down prices: <http://peakoil.com/article3251.htm> This is the first overt
response from the oil industry of the arrival of Peak Oil, and the
recognition that, from here on out, global oil production will be less than
global oil demand.

Of recent interest is this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612507/

"We are in new historical territory,&#39;&#39; said Rick Mueller, an analyst with
Energy Security Analysis Inc. in Wakefield, Massachusetts. "The safety
margin that we had in the past just isn&#39;t there anymore. In the past we
could always count on the Saudis to make up for the loss of production in,
say, Iraq or Nigeria, but that&#39;s no longer the case. The capacity isn&#39;t
there and demand has risen more than we thought it would."

So there you have it, Peak Oil is here. We&#39;ll look back at March, 2005 as
the historical point of Global Peak Oil, the point at which the energy available to fuel our civilization, if that&#39;s what it is, began it&#39;s inevitable decline.


Species that injure us or even just annoy us cannot reasonably expect anything from us but implacable hostility.

Does that mean we should attempt to kill every Great White in the ocean, or does it make more sense to recognize they play an important role in oceanic ecosystems, although they may harvest a human every now and then?


Humans are "rulers over all" and will act as we see fit.

As long as people view the planet in that manner, people will continue to have problems like deforestation, dirty air, unclean water and species extinction.



Won&#39;t happen...ever. Every species comes first in its own eyes -- and we are no exception.

Well, it has happened and existed for thousands of years.


No they&#39;re not; ecosystems are not "stable" except in a very temporary way.

Ecosystems in this country were stable until man made them unstable.



Most city-dwellers are not into gardening at this time...even if they have the space.

Better late than never. Try community gardens. They&#39;re working well in my community or this:


http://www.communitysolution.org/agraria.html

[Organic Revolution]

First, you can forget about "peak oil" for at least another century...
why would we ignore somthing that is right under our noses?


Species that injure us or even just annoy us cannot reasonably expect anything from us but implacable hostility.
Humans are "rulers over all" and will act as we see fit.
That our acts should be guided by reason is obvious.

so since we are the great rulers of the land, we should be able to destroy it, and not give a fuck about it. geneticlly mutate animals and plants to fit the growing food portions of the great wonderful overlords?


No they&#39;re not; ecosystems are not "stable" except in a very temporary way.
i have to agree with this statement. climates and conditions are always shifting.



There are some "energy efficient" homes being built...but they are pretty expensive.
my home is very energy efficent. we have a fan for the summer and a blanket in the winter.


Most city-dwellers are not into gardening at this time...even if they have the space.

not true.. in my neighborhood, community gardening is done all over.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+--> (DEPAVER)We&#39;ll look back at March, 2005 as the historical point of Global Peak Oil, the point at which the energy available to fuel our civilization...began its inevitable decline.[/b]

Yea&#33;&#33;&#33; Back to feudalism&#33;


Does that mean we should attempt to kill every Great White in the ocean, or does it make more sense to recognize they play an important role in oceanic ecosystems, although they may harvest a human every now and then?

Do they eat fish that we would otherwise eat? If so, then it&#39;s curtains for the Great White shark.


As long as people view the planet in that manner, people will continue to have problems like deforestation, dirty air, unclean water and species extinction.

Not necessarily...though if people are, in some mysterious fashion, "incapable" of applying reason to their actions, then that could be the outcome.


Well, it has happened and existed for thousands of years.

Oh? What species prefers the well-being of a different species to its own?


Ecosystems in this country were stable until man made them unstable.

Ignorance.


Better late than never. Try community gardens. They&#39;re working well in my community...

The "community garden" next door to me died for lack of interest...it was eventually cleared to build a fast-food outlet but the neighborhood didn&#39;t want that...so now it&#39;s just a vacant lot.


rise up
So since we are the great rulers of the land, we should be able to destroy it, and not give a fuck about it. Genetically mutate animals and plants to fit the growing food portions of the great wonderful overlords?

We shouldn&#39;t destroy land unless there&#39;s a good reason to do so (like shale oil, for example).

I see nothing wrong with genetically modifying plants or animals if that will make them more useful to us.

Your sarcasm about "great rulers" is simply a rhetorical distraction. Whenever humans can gain control of some process that was hither-to left up to nature, we will do it...and modify nature to suit our own purposes.


My home is very energy efficient. We have a fan for the summer and a blanket in the winter.

Live in Hawaii, do you? Lucky you&#33;

Most of the earth&#39;s surface requires considerable assistance to be made comfortable. I have an air conditioner/heater window unit...and although it&#39;s possible to leave it off for a month or two in the spring and fall, it&#39;s absence in the summer/winter months would be fatal to me.

By the way, the building I live in is a 1950s-era motel converted to apartments built from concrete blocks. This is an unusually "ecological" form of construction and does have a tendency to be warmer in winter and cooler in summer.

As I noted in my earlier post, some of the practical suggestions here are not bad at all.

But the overall outlook -- prepare for the end of the world as we know it -- is just silly.

We&#39;re not going back to feudalism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Yea&#33;&#33;&#33; Back to feudalism&#33;

Who said anything about feudalism? That a non sequitor.

Please provide a definition for feudalism and describe how living sufficiently and sustainably means you live in a feudal state.



Do they eat fish that we would otherwise eat? If so, then it&#39;s curtains for the Great White shark.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.


Oh? What species prefers the well-being of a different species to its own?

I never said such a thing. Please point out where I made that statement.
But people have lived sustainably in ecosystems with other living things and did so for thousands of years.


Ignorance.

Hmmm....ad hominem attack....

The last resort of someone who has nowhere to go in their argument. By the way, "igorance" is a word, not a sentence, and therefore doesn&#39;t require a period.


The "community garden" next door to me died for lack of interest...it was eventually cleared to build a fast-food outlet but the neighborhood didn&#39;t want that...so now it&#39;s just a vacant lot.

That&#39;s a failure of your community, not a failure of the concept, since it&#39;s working all over the continent.


We shouldn&#39;t destroy land unless there&#39;s a good reason to do so (like shale oil, for example).

This is an absolutely unbelievable statement. No wonder we&#39;re in such a mess&#33;
Shale has a horrible ERoEI.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
Who said anything about feudalism?

You did...though perhaps unknowingly.

Your vision of a pre-industrial non-hierarchal society is utterly utopian, of course. What would happen after a "collapse of industrial civilization" would be a return to feudalism and possibly even slavery.

That&#39;s how agricultural societies with large populations function. Of course, if the great "die off" materializes -- according to some "peak oil" nutballs -- then we&#39;ll skip all that and go all the way back to barbarism (nomadism) and savagery.

Some fun, eh?


But people have lived sustainably in ecosystems with other living things and did so for thousands of years.

True...but there were only small numbers of them then and they were savages.

And even then they managed to do considerable damage to the "eco-system" -- although the theory remains controversial, some scientists do think that human hunters killed off most of the large mammals in the western hemisphere at the end of the last ice age. The peoples who settled New Zealand -- barely emerged from savagery -- managed to kill off all of the large and many of the smaller birds in those islands.

And the example of Easter Island is very instructive; the primitive inhabitants wrecked the place.

Early class societies in the "fertile crescent" did their best to make it as infertile as possible...with considerable "success".

In the long run, it is only a "high-tech" society with a broad base of scientific knowledge about ecology that will ever be able to manage the environment in at least a quasi-sustainable way.


This is an absolutely unbelievable statement. No wonder we&#39;re in such a mess&#33; Shale has a horrible ERoEI.

If shale oil is what&#39;s needed to keep the electricity on...then you&#39;d better believe that&#39;s what we&#39;ll do.

Get it through your head.

"High-tech" civilization is here to stay&#33;

The only options are capitalist "high-tech" or communist "high-tech".

There ain&#39;t no other horse in the race.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

You did...though perhaps unknowingly.

No, I absolutely did not&#33;

I&#39;m talking about living sustainably. Sustainable means that the society does not consume more natural resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural biological and geophysical cycles.

This says NOTHING about systems of social organization or lords and vassals. The only form of social organization I mentioned was anarchism.


Your vision of a pre-industrial non-hierarchal society is utterly utopian, of course.

No, there&#39;s no vision, but there is knowledge based on research. There is there is a huge data base of informaiton compiled by tens of thousands of field workers in anthropology over many decades.

We know such societies did exist. It&#39;s taught in freshman level anthropology classes at community colleges.


What would happen after a "collapse of industrial civilization" would be a return to feudalism and possibly even slavery.

Please provide your evidence of this. I&#39;d like to see how this "Mad Max" theory emerges.


Of course, if the great "die off" materializes -- according to some "peak oil" nutballs

No one knows if there will be a die off. What we do know is that our society is dependent on cheap fossil fuels, and there is a point where cheap fossil fuel is no longer available. What&#39;s debatable is when that occurs and what happens afterward; however, to some degree, what happens afterward is in our hands.

Why wait? Start living according to the principle of sufficiency today.


True...but there were only small numbers of them then and they were savages.

This is a preposterous statement. We know there were egalitarian societies, and the word "savage" is culturally relative. Perhaps they would see our present society as been run by savages&#33;


Early class societies in the "fertile crescent" did their best to make it as infertile as possible...with considerable "success".

Now you&#39;re talking about post-horticultural societies.

No one in anthropology is suggesting that ALL hunter-gatherer societies were PERFECTLY egalitarian, not even Boaz. That would be a dreadful oversimplification and exaggeration.


In the long run, it is only a "high-tech" society with a broad base of scientific knowledge about ecology that will ever be able to manage the environment in at least a quasi-sustainable way.

This is absurd. When does this happen? It&#39;s only getting worse, not better, and all of the evidence points to the exact opposite.

You&#39;re just throwing out your own theories with no evidence to support anything you utter.


If shale oil is what&#39;s needed to keep the electricity on...then you&#39;d better believe that&#39;s what we&#39;ll do.

Get it through your head

If it&#39;s too expensive to deliver a usable product to the consumer, it&#39;s not going to happen.

Who pays for all of this? Study the EROEI for this and get back to me.

And you should get it through your head, that no one is talking about ending technological advancement. That&#39;s not going to happen, but we do need to consider biological limits.


The only options are capitalist "high-tech" or communist "high-tech".

Again, more pontifications, but little substance. The Ohlone didn&#39;t have either. Neither did the Inuit and the Athabaskans.

[redstar2000]

This says NOTHING about systems of social organization or lords and vassals.

Yes it does. The kind of society you have depends on your level of available technology.

If "high tech" civilization "collapses" -- as you seem to predict with relish -- then we go back to "low tech"...and that means feudalism at best.


We know such societies did exist. It&#39;s taught in freshman level anthropology classes at community colleges.

Yes, they did exist...but they were hardly "societies" at all. Just small bands of humans hunting and gathering.

They had no private property -- so in that sense they were "communist".

But they were not "anarchist" -- the strongest guy in the band probably ruled "with an iron fist"...or, to be more precise, a stone fist.


Why wait? Start living according to the principle of sufficiency today.

Go out in the wilderness and find a cave.


Perhaps they would see our present society as been run by savages&#33;

No, they would see us as "gods"...everything about the way we live now would look like "magic" to them.


When does this happen? It&#39;s only getting worse, not better, and all of the evidence points to the exact opposite.

I dispute your general claim that "it&#39;s only getting worse". There are some things that are still getting worse...and other things that are getting better.


If it&#39;s too expensive to deliver a usable product to the consumer, it&#39;s not going to happen.

As the article I linked to showed, it is already happening.


And you should get it through your head, that no one is talking about ending technological advancement.

Yes you are...the "end of civilization" means the end of all but very primitive technology. All your yap about primitive societies shows the direction you really want to go in.


Again, more pontifications, but little substance. The Ohlone didn&#39;t have either. Neither did the Inuit and the Athabaskans.

Yeah...and their libraries are "the wonder of the world".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Yes it does. The kind of society you have depends on your level of available technology.

Having technology doesn&#39;t necessarily imply feudalism is how society is organized. Technology is technology and capitalism is capitalism and socialism is socialism. Technology can be produced at varying levels within any of these economic systems.

I&#39;ve never implied that I want high tech civilization to collapse, nor have I implied it will crash. I&#39;ve consistently called for a sensible "middle way," but have stated, and correctly so, that our current society is built upon the availability of cheap fossil fuel, something that is most certainly going away.


Yes, they did exist...but they were hardly "societies" at all. Just small bands of humans hunting and gathering.

By definition, they were societies. Whether their society was "better" or "worse" than our society is open to interpretation, but anthropologists could care less about such comparisons. But that&#39;s not the point. The point is that we should perhaps learn something from those societies and combine the best traits of those societies with the best traits of our own societies.


They had no private property -- so in that sense they were "communist".

But they were not "anarchist" -- the strongest guy in the band probably ruled "with an iron fist"...or, to be more precise, a stone fist.

"Big men" is a characteristic associated with post-horticultural societies, not H-G societies; however, not all H-G societies were egalitarian, but some most certainly were.


Go out in the wilderness and find a cave.

See, this is another reductive, overly simplistic and puerile response to what is otherwise a worthwhile discussion. It&#39;s also very disappointing to see a moderator of the forum use this sort of diction during an exchange of ideas.


As the article I linked to showed, it is already happening.

I don&#39;t have the article in front of me, but as I recall, it showed no such thing. It showed they were doing exploration and considering production, and it talked about the high, possibly prohibitive costs. Perhaps I&#39;m wrong, but you should re-read it as well.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+--> (DEPAVER)Having technology doesn&#39;t necessarily imply feudalism is how society is organized. Technology is technology and capitalism is capitalism and socialism is socialism. Technology can be produced at varying levels within any of these economic systems.[/b]

No it can&#39;t...at least that is how things have worked out so far. A given level of technology generates and supports a given level of social organization -- a "type" of class society.

Efforts to establish a different kind of class society in the absence of appropriate technology always fail.

Modern capitalism was not really possible without the steam engine.

Socialism is not even remotely practical without massive computerization.

And what technology we need to make communism a practical possibility remains speculative -- it may not yet have been invented or is still in the earliest stages of development.

Meanwhile, should anything happen to destroy our present level of technological development and throw the survivors back to dependence on earlier means of production, then social organization will follow that same path...back to feudalism, slavery, nomadism, or even savagery.

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything that can do that short of global nuclear war or collision with a large asteroid.


I don&#39;t have the article in front of me, but as I recall, it showed no such thing.


San Francisco Chronicle
The consortium, which includes Chevron and ConocoPhillips, is producing 155,000 barrels of high-quality synthetic crude a day. It plans to invest more than &#036;1 billion a year for the next several years to increase its output to 500,000 barrels -- an output that, at current prices, would be worth more than &#036;8 billion a year. -- emphasis added.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL)


It&#39;s also very disappointing to see a moderator of the forum use this sort of diction during an exchange of ideas.

Why?

I am scornful of primitivism and see no reason to "be polite" about that simply because I moderate this forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Socialism is not even remotely practical without massive computerization.

I don&#39;t know how you got off on this technology rant, but why all this talk of world wide systems? Ecosystems aren&#39;t organized that way, so why man feels like he has to organize worldwide systems is a mystery to me.

We&#39;ll just have to disagree on this point and move on.


Originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle
The consortium, which includes Chevron and ConocoPhillips, is producing 155,000 barrels of high-quality synthetic crude a day. It plans to invest more than &#036;1 billion a year for the next several years to increase its output to 500,000 barrels -- an output that, at current prices, would be worth more than &#036;8 billion a year.

Oh, that&#39;s encouraging&#33; Here are a few more quotes from your article:

"These oil sands are the world&#39;s most expensive, most polluting source of oil under large-scale production. Wringing four barrels of crude oil from the sands requires burning the equivalent of a fifth barrel. The mines and refineries release huge amounts of greenhouse gases -- the equivalent each day to more than a third of California&#39;s daily car emissions."

More encouraging news.

"If Americans want to keep filling their gasoline tanks at a reasonable cost, they will need the oil sands industry to push ahead on its expected path of doubling, tripling and even quadrupling production in coming years."

So fat Americans with cheetos stained fingers can continue living their consumptive way of life. By the way, I&#39;m scornful of these people, which I assume includes YOU.

"Nowhere else is the conflict between energy use and ecological cost so stark."

This article seems to make a strong case for the non-sustainability of a petro-chemical based society.

"The consortium, which includes Chevron and ConocoPhillips, is producing 155,000 barrels of high-quality synthetic crude a day. It plans to invest more than &#036;1 billion a year for the next several years to increase its output to 500,000 barrels -- an output that, at current prices, would be worth more than &#036;8 billion a year."

Says who? Robert Collier? What about the energy used to produce these 500,000 barrels? This has a very poor ERoEI. Read below:

"About 20 percent of the oil-sand deposits lie close enough to the surface that they can be strip-mined, and nearly all current production uses this process.

But as these pits are depleted, companies will be forced to go after deeper deposits. Those are extracted by a process known as "in situ," or in position, in which steam is pumped into underground deposits to dissolve the thick oil and allow it to be piped to the surface.

In-situ work is much more expensive than open-pit mining, requiring about four times as much natural gas to create the steam...the oil sands process remains inefficient. Two tons of sand yield a single barrel -- 42 gallons -- of oil. On average, each barrel creates more greenhouse gas emissions than four cars do in a day.

Negative ERoEI.

"But recently, as international prices have rocketed above &#036;50 a barrel and technology advances have pushed production costs down to about &#036;18 a barrel, the sands suddenly are stunningly attractive."

This is a non-sequitor based on everything he&#39;s written so far and continue:

"Nearly every major U.S. oil company has entered the market, despite initial investment costs that far surpass those of traditional drilling...."This is not for the faint of heart or those short on capital," said Neil Camarta, senior vice president of Shell Canada Ltd."

Investment costs go up and so does the price to the consumer and to the producers of nearly everything our current society depend upon. It goes on to mention labor shortages, delays, horrible traffic in Fort McMurray and high housing costs. All for oil.

This is the sort of society you want? You&#39;re not a communist, a socialist or an anarchist, because you apparently support the type of industrialization that requires unfair wages in a capitalist society.

No wilderness=no freedom


I am scornful of primitivism and see no reason to "be polite" about that simply because I moderate this forum.

That quote pretty much says it all. Again, as I&#39;ve repeated close to a dozen times, I haven&#39;t once said anything about primitivism. You&#39;re the only one that&#39;s talking about primitivism.

But since I now understand the standard of behavior you apparently endorse, and I have a better understanding of your cognitive dissonance, you shall henceforth be known as Brownstar 2000. Essentially, your ideas are shit.

Please spare me any additional responses and quit embarrassing yourself.

[JC1]

I would like to clear up what peak oil means.

Peak Oil does not mean the world is running out of oil&#39;s , it means oil is in declining rates of production and increasing in price. Peak Oil has already occured on a natinol level in the states , and is suspected to occur on a internatinol basis this decade.

However, peak oil does not mean " the sky is falling", or even a mild decline of technological society. However, technological society today has the abilty to be eco-friendly.

We should also clear up what the term " Savagry " means.

It should not be taken in a condensending way, but it is the scientific name of a historical stage under primitive communism. However, unlike like depaver incinuates, its not a desriable state of affairs (I , personaly, dont want to die from a tooth ache). And unike RS2k thinks, Tribe life was egalatarian. Theres no evixdence of any hiearchy or patriarchy , and when this stage of history was unfolding, there was plenty in egards to the nesseitys. Class Society Arose from the Establishment of agricultural states in the fertile cresent due to nesseity of a surplus ( The tribe was too big for hunting and gathering ) and the subjagating of neibourghing tribes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+--> (DEPAVER)Ecosystems aren&#39;t organized that way, so why man feels like he has to organize worldwide systems is a mystery to me.[/b]

Probably because "man" ate that damn apple. :lol:

Conservatives like yourself always resort to "original sin" of one sort or another...and since there are no "gods" around to "punish us", "Nature" will do the job.


So fat Americans with cheetos stained fingers can continue living their consumptive way of life. By the way, I&#39;m scornful of these people, which I assume includes YOU.

Yes, I weigh 490 pounds and devour a ton of cheetos every week. :lol:

I think this statement reveals one of your real motives -- as if you are saying "abundance is sinful" and "deprivation is virtuous".

That may possibly explain the appeal of "peak oil" to you...it will make us "fat lazy Americans" get off our couches and go outside and earn our bread "by the sweat of our brows" -- like "God" intended.


This article seems to make a strong case for the non-sustainability of a petro-chemical based society.

No one argues, at this point, that a petroleum-based energy system is indefinitely sustainable.

But what I argue is that no one knows how much oil remains beneath the earth&#39;s surface...or what costs will be involved in extracting it.

For example, given the history of the oil industry, it is almost certain that new technology will be developed to extract oil from shale that will be cheaper and more efficient than that which is presently available.


This is the sort of society you want? You&#39;re not a communist, a socialist or an anarchist, because you apparently support the type of industrialization that requires unfair wages in a capitalist society.

And this is not an argument...even remotely. At the present time, it does not matter what I "want" or what you "want". The oil corporations have decided that shale oil is now a profitable investment and they are going to do it...and are doing it.

(Note that Venezuela also has enormous deposits of shale oil...maybe as much as Canada. The Chinese are already seriously interested.)


No wilderness=no freedom

No sense = no sense. :)


But since I now understand the standard of behavior you apparently endorse, and I have a better understanding of your cognitive dissonance, you shall henceforth be known as Brownstar 2000. Essentially, your ideas are shit.

I don&#39;t see why that should bother you; isn&#39;t "shit" part of "Nature"? :lol:


Please spare me any additional responses and quit embarrassing yourself.

Rather than concern yourself with my hypothetical "embarrassment", you&#39;d be better advised to concentrate on your own.


JC1
And unlike [what] RS2k thinks, Tribe life was egalitarian.

With all due respect, no one knows that. By the time tribal life was seriously investigated (middle 19th century onwards), it was already decaying.

Further, it&#39;s now known that 19th and early 20th century anthropologists "read their own prejudices" into much of what they "observed" and reported. An "egalitarian" anthropologist saw "egalitarianism" in the tribe; a "hierarchal" anthropologist interpreted everything in tribal behavior in hierarchal terms.

It is a plausible assumption that savage life was far more egalitarian than nomadism, slavery/despotism, etc.

But that doesn&#39;t mean that savages were "anarchists"...though some might have been very close to that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Conservatives like yourself always resort to "original sin" of one sort or another...and since there are no "gods" around to "punish us", "Nature" will do the job.

A conservative, anarchistic, bioregionalist?


I think this statement reveals one of your real motives -- as if you are saying "abundance is sinful" and "deprivation is virtuous".

No, there is no such thing as "sin." This is a term you&#39;ve introduced to the discussion. Highly consumptive, non-sustainable living is destructive. Period. There&#39;s no standard of morality associated with this act or actions. They simply are what they are.

I have no motives other than discussing a more sensible way to live.


That may possibly explain the appeal of "peak oil" to you...it will make us "fat lazy Americans" get off our couches and go outside and earn our bread "by the sweat of our brows" -- like "God" intended.


What "god?" Who said anything about gods or goddesses?
There is no "appeal of peak oil." Peak Oil is what it is. People will pay attention or not.


No one argues, at this point, that a petroleum-based energy system is indefinitely sustainable.

But what I argue is that no one knows how much oil remains beneath the earth&#39;s surface...or what costs will be involved in extracting it.

There is a growing number of scientists and geologists, in the scientific, governmental and corporate communities that believe we are in fact at Peak Oil or very close to it. No one is arguing that we&#39;re running out of oil. We&#39;re not running out of oil, but it&#39;s close to the point where the energy expended and invested is greater than the energy derived. This is an extremely significant issue.


For example, given the history of the oil industry, it is almost certain that new technology will be developed to extract oil from shale that will be cheaper and more efficient than that which is presently available.

This is a completely false statement. Even your own article contridicts this point, as do hundreds of others.

Here&#39;s some information on your beloved shale "oil" theory:

"The world also has extensive deposits of shale oil – estimated at 400Gb oil equivalent. The phrase “shale oil” is to a degree a misnomer suggesting this stuff might be more useful than it’s ever likely to be. Shale oil isn’t oil at all. It’s kerogen, which in the normal course of events only becomes oil and gas after residing for a hundred million years or so in the hot underground rocks of Earth’s pressure cooker. No process has yet proved successful in turning shale oil into crude oil, though many companies have tried. Case 1 considers shale oil will never be an energy sourcece. Case 2 allows for 25% of the intrinsic energy of shale oil being someday recoverable." (see the article for an explanation of "Case 2"


Wednesday, 4 May 2005, 1:24 pm
Article: Pacific Ecologist

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00054.htm

"Production of oil from oil shale has been attempted at various times for nearly 100 years. So far, no venture has proved successful on a significantly large scale (Youngquist, 1998b). One problem is that there is no oil in oil shale. It is a material called kerogen. The shale has to be mined, transported, heated to about 4500C (8500F), and have hydrogen added to the product to make it flow. The shale pops like popcorn when heated so the resulting volume of shale after the kerogen is taken out is larger than when it was first mined. The waste disposal problem is large. Net energy recovery is low at best. It also takes several barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. The largest shale oil deposits in the world are in the Colorado Plateau, a markedly water poor region. So far shale oil is, as the saying goes: "The fuel of the future and always will be." Fleay (1995) states: &#39;Shale oil is like a mirage that retreats as it is approached.&#39; Shale oil will not replace oil." -Walter Youngquist, EnergyBulletin.net

http://www.energybulletin.net/2680.html




How much oil, energy and &#036;&#036;&#036;&#036; does it take to make your dream a reality? It&#39;s got an upside down ERoEI.

As for technology, consider this statement:

"I am not popular with the shale oil guys for saying this, but I think we are still at about where we were 30 years ago," said Robert Loucks, 68, a resident of Grand Junction and former manager of Shell&#39;s shale oil project in Colorado&#39;s Piceance Basin that was sold off in 1976. "We just don&#39;t have a viable technology that works."

People like Shale Technologies Ltd in Boulder will tell you otherwise, but guess why? They want to sell the oil companies millions of dollars of stuff to make it all happen. The good news is they don&#39;t have enough investors to prove the concept.

Let&#39;s also consider the environmental issues:

Greenhouse emissions from the production of shale oil to support the estimated energy demands would be nearly four times higher than from normal oil

Emissions from the Stuart project in Australia have repeatedly made local people sick

Shale oil produces highly toxic dioxins, which have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems and immune system defects...is this the sort of world you want?


And this is not an argument...even remotely. At the present time, it does not matter what I "want" or what you "want".

Sure it is. You support a level of industrialization that is ecologically non-sustainable, harmful to humans and non-humans and requires the exploitation of humans and non-humans.


Rather than concern yourself with my hypothetical "embarrassment", you&#39;d be better advised to concentrate on your own.

My views are supportable, and from what I can tell, I&#39;ve not been challenged by anyone but you on this forum. (which isn&#39;t an intellectual challenge by any stretch of the imagination)


With all due respect, no one knows that. By the time tribal life was seriously investigated (middle 19th century onwards), it was already decaying.Further, it&#39;s now known that 19th and early 20th century anthropologists "read their own prejudices" into much of what they "observed" and reported. An "egalitarian" anthropologist saw "egalitarianism" in the tribe; a "hierarchal" anthropologist interpreted everything in tribal behavior in hierarchal terms.

Another false statement. We do know that egalitarian societies existed, and the studies and data that support the existence of such societies have endured the scrutiny of peer review. Not all H-G societies were egalitarian, but many were and some still exist today.

Please read W. H. Edwards, An Introduction to Aboriginal Societies (1988, Social Science Press, Australia)

By your logic, the results of any study could be explained away by predudice. That&#39;s why we have peer review.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
There is a growing number of scientists and geologists, in the scientific, governmental and corporate communities that believe we are in fact at Peak Oil or very close to it.

Well, how about that&#33; Clearly, I should flop on my belly at once and beg forgiveness from all those who have a financial incentive to say those things.

They must be right; the authorities always are&#33;

But I will decline to do so nonetheless.


No process has yet proved successful in turning shale oil into crude oil, though many companies have tried.

So what are those people making up in the icy wastes of Alberta, anyway? If they&#39;re not making oil, that is?

And why are they pissing away billions of dollars to no purpose?

Your authorities are contradicted by others who are actually doing what you say can&#39;t be done.


So far, no venture has proved successful on a significantly large scale (Youngquist, 1998b).

What&#39;s a "significantly large scale"? And this is not, you may have noticed, 1998.


Greenhouse emissions from the production of shale oil to support the estimated energy demands would be nearly four times higher than from normal oil

Emissions from the Stuart project in Australia have repeatedly made local people sick

Shale oil produces highly toxic dioxins, which have been linked to cancer, reproductive problems and immune system defects...is this the sort of world you want?

They didn&#39;t ask me what sort of world I "wanted"...but since you did, I&#39;m happy to answer.

I want the fucking power to stay on no matter what it costs&#33;

Happy now?


You support a level of industrialization that is ecologically non-sustainable, harmful to humans and non-humans and requires the exploitation of humans and non-humans.

So, industrialization = exploitation of humans.

You keep verbally denying that you&#39;re a primitivist but your prejudices keep constantly breaking into the open.

Well, I have no difficulty being open about where I stand...I want more industrialization and more technology. I want abundance beyond the dreams of kings and I want that for everyone on the planet.

Centuries from now, I want people to look back at our own times and say "how the fuck could people stand living in such barbarous and primitive conditions&#33;".


We do know that egalitarian societies existed, and the studies and data that support the existence of such societies have endured the scrutiny of peer review.

Lots of crap has "endured peer review"...only to be withdrawn, leaving some very embarrassed peers.


Please read W. H. Edwards, An Introduction to Aboriginal Societies (1988, Social Science Press, Australia)

I&#39;d be glad to, but this Australian text is not available at my public library.


By your logic, the results of any study could be explained away by prejudice. That&#39;s why we have peer review.

Don&#39;t be silly. Peer review is intended to block publication of obviously faulty studies...and it doesn&#39;t always catch even those. I think any reputable anthropologist would concede that the problem of studying tribal societies through "western eyes" is a serious one.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Seeker]

Bioregional organizations are building throughout the
world, organizing people in systems of mutual aid, community organization
and self-reliance, building tools for the people to take care of ourselves
as we turn away from centralized governmental authoritarian rule.


Can you be more specific? Unfortunatly I only speak English, so that limits where I can move. I&#39;m making a little more than 2x minimum wage, and by living very frugaly (4 roomates, 4 cylinder car, no movies, malls or bars) I&#39;ve managed to become 100% debt free.

The only major expense I forsee in the future is transportation. At this point I&#39;m looking for options in case I need a new car, because I don&#39;t want to go back into debt and be set back to square one. If I could buy a piece of land in a community where driving would not be necessary, that might be a better investment.

[DEPAVER]

Well, how about that&#33; Clearly, I should flop on my belly at once and beg forgiveness from all those who have a financial incentive to say those things.

They must be right; the authorities always are&#33;

But I will decline to do so nonetheless.

Should we ignore all science, particulary science from non-profit research groups funded via grants? Please explain the financial motivation of a researcher at The University of Alaska Fairbanks that&#39;s doing global warming research in the field for &#036;35,000 per year.
If he was financially motivated, wouldn&#39;t this researcher look for a job at Shell, Exxon or Citgo for twice the pay?


So what are those people making up in the icy wastes of Alberta, anyway? If they&#39;re not making oil, that is?

And why are they pissing away billions of dollars to no purpose?

This is common in the corporate world. Large corporations make sizable investments with tremendous risk all the time, provided they have data from trusted "insiders" to make ROI calculations that work.

If they can pull it off, the payoff is enornmous, but the majority of the scientific reports I&#39;ve seen say it&#39;s not financially feasible. It&#39;s similar to Herr Bush talking about nuclear power. Sounds great except for a few problems. One, we&#39;d need about 300+ plants to take care of projected energy needs, and two, there&#39;s not enough money or trained engineers to do it in the time required. And then there&#39;s the problem of waste disposal, which still hasn&#39;t been solved.

So, people talk a big game all the time, and people believe it, whether it&#39;s true or not.

As it stands today, current technology to produce oil from shale is about &#036;9 per barrel compared to &#036;2 a barrel of Persian Gulf crude. As I stated earlier, the costs are too high. They&#39;re bettin&#39; on the come.

Here&#39;s the answer to your question:

http://hubbert.mines.edu./news/Youngquist_98-4.pdf


Your authorities are contradicted by others who are actually doing what you say can&#39;t be done.

No, my sources are saying it&#39;s too expensive, creates environmental problems, and that it seems improbable that it can realistically replace the daily consumption of 73 million barrels of oil per day. My sources say it has a negative ERoEI, and the production costs in Alberta support this statement.

Again, too expensive and environmentally damaging.


They didn&#39;t ask me what sort of world I "wanted"...but since you did, I&#39;m happy to answer.

I want the fucking power to stay on no matter what it costs&#33;

And you can have that with today&#39;s technology. If people would just reduce consumption by very small amounts, there would be a tremendous collective impact. Turn the lights off. Turn down the thermostat. Drive less and ride your bike more. Walk. Just be sensible about how you live and use your money for other things.


So, industrialization = exploitation of humans.

You keep verbally denying that you&#39;re a primitivist but your prejudices keep constantly breaking into the open.

No, now you&#39;re just being a sophist, and a very good one. I stated that "you support a LEVEL OF INDUSTRIALIZATION...." This doesn&#39;t mean or imply that all industrialized production is bad; it means that current levels are not sustainable.



Well, I have no difficulty being open about where I stand...I want more industrialization and more technology. I want abundance beyond the dreams of kings and I want that for everyone on the planet.

Nice Republican traits...Well, you&#39;re part of the problem, sir. More industrialization means more habitat destruction and environmental degradation for all species, not just man.

Abundance is a culturally relative term. Abundance to one man may be horrifying and sickening to another. What makes you think your definition of "abundance" is the same as everyone elses? You want an abundance of concrete rivers, steel, cars, plastic and silicon; others prefer trees and forests, open plains, clean air and water, species diversity and a simpler, sustainable life.

You can&#39;t have both.


Centuries from now, I want people to look back at our own times and say "how the fuck could people stand living in such barbarous and primitive conditions&#33;"

Hopefully they will say that, but it won&#39;t be for the reasons you&#39;ve envisioned&#33; If things don&#39;t change soon, they&#39;ll be looking backward and calling us a bunch of selfish motherfuckers.


Lots of crap has "endured peer review"...only to be withdrawn, leaving some very embarrassed peers.

Perhaps. I supposed Herr Bush&#39;s "science" is one such example; however, it&#39;s still the best system we&#39;ve got.


Don&#39;t be silly. Peer review is intended to block publication of obviously faulty studies...and it doesn&#39;t always catch even those. I think any reputable anthropologist would concede that the problem of studying tribal societies through "western eyes" is a serious one.

No, peer review is not necessarily intended to "block publication." There is peer review before and after publication. It&#39;s more often than not intended to refute or support already published studies. That&#39;s what is happening with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

Anthropologists are pretty much in lock step on the issue we&#39;re discussing. Boaz work, for example, is uniformly accepted as flawed. But the methodology is agreed upon.

[DEPAVER]

Seeker,
Congratulations on your frugality and for being debt free. I wish I could say the same&#33;

I&#39;m not sure you should move, but the best option is to find meaningful work as close to home as possible. Ask yourself these questions.

1. What do I really want to do? Writer? Teacher? Scientist? Own a bookstore? Work in high tech? Etc. Once you answer this, chart a plan to get there.

2. Where do I want to live and where can I affordably live and accomplish this? Is there a strong community that lives by the principles of sustainability or is working to get to that point?

Here&#39;s some interesting stuff being done on this subject:

http://www.communitysolution.org/agraria.html

And here&#39;s a website developed by a friend of mine that&#39;s interesting. Denny created a media cooperative in the basement of a church and has really developed himself as a self-sustaining professional in indy film making. He moved to Missouri not long ago, but has all sorts of great links and info on his site.

http://wherewearebound.typepad.com/

The key is to live locally and sustainably. Resist. Recycle. Refuse. Refuse to participate in the consumptive "global economy," and support local producers, particulary local, organic farming and cooperatives. Cherish what&#39;s old and worn. Ride your bike and enjoy the freedom of owning less. Bikes are easier and cheaper to maintain than cars, don&#39;t require insurance and you don&#39;t have to pay to park&#33;

I&#39;d investigate small, progressive towns with community colleges or regular universities nearby if you want to continue or expand your education for some particular field. There&#39;s money available to send lower income people to school. Lots of it.

The answer to our current situation, as Mohandis Karamchand Gandhi told us 60 years ago, is to turn society upside down and build the human world from the people up,
rather than from the ruling elite down. He was concerned at the time with
self-government and freedom from foreign oppression, using homespun khadi as
a simple of local self-reliance. When the people no longer have to turn to a
central authority for their needs, they can build their own freedom for
themselves.

A sustainable human society can never be built by a central authority. Centralization requires haves and have-nots, those who possess power and influence and those who do not. In order for a society to be sustainable, it must provide sustenance for all, else there will always be those who demand an equal share, if not more.

In order for all to be sustained, all must be able to carry on their own lives within their own traditions, based on their relationships with their own local bioregions. No sustainable society can be imposed on the people from a central authority. The relationships among humans and the world in which they live must grow of themselves from a living relationship with the local environment.

This is why localization and community is so important. People don&#39;t need large federal governments to live happy, productive lives. But people do need to be in touch with their local environment and all living things within that environment.

The coming breakdown of the dominant human society is the best thing that could happen to Homo sapiens, not to mention the millions of other species on this earth. When central authority and oppression finally and ultimately whither through lack of energy, humans will be cast into their own hands at the local level, free of imposed "help" from the central government, free to form lives in harmony in their local bioregions.

The only form of human society that has ever existed sustainably is the local community, with an economic system based on local production for local consumption, organized bioregionally. Peak Oil is taking us back to this, like it or not, and a thousand years from now, all humans will be living bioregionally or they may not be living at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
Should we ignore all science, particularly science from non-profit research groups funded via grants?

Obviously not. But science that purports to guide human behavior is, indeed, always suspicious...no matter what it says.

Bourgeois economics, for example, claims "scientific status" and they have arrayed themselves with all the paraphernalia of a "science" -- lots of charts and graphs, arcane equations, etc. They even award each other a fake "Nobel Prize" every year.

The only problem with their "science" is that it can&#39;t explain the real economic world.


Please explain the financial motivation of a researcher at The University of Alaska Fairbanks that&#39;s doing global warming research in the field for &#036;35,000 per year.

It&#39;s a "hot field" right now. Moreover, the greater the predicted "catastrophe", the "hotter" the field will get.


If he was financially motivated, wouldn&#39;t this researcher look for a job at Shell, Exxon or Citgo for twice the pay?

He probably did...unsuccessfully. The competition for good jobs in science is ferocious -- many young graduates have little choice but to take what they can get and keep trying for something better.

I&#39;m not saying that he will consciously "cheat" to make global warming look like the "final doom"...but he does have an incentive to "assume the worst" and communicate that message.

That is something that happens in science all the time -- not deliberate cheating, but always "keeping in mind" what the guy who signs your paycheck would like to hear.

Scientists don&#39;t want to end up working at Wal-Mart any more than you do.


If they can pull it off, the payoff is enormous, but the majority of the scientific reports I&#39;ve seen say it&#39;s not financially feasible.

Well, then we&#39;ll see what happens, won&#39;t we? If those corporations in Alberta give up...then your authorities will have been proven right (at least for the time being).

If the operation continues and expands...


One, we&#39;d need about 300+ plants to take care of projected energy needs, and two, there&#39;s not enough money or trained engineers to do it in the time required. And then there&#39;s the problem of waste disposal, which still hasn&#39;t been solved.

1. 300 is a large number...but it&#39;s not infinite. And it&#39;s not as if they all have to be built "at once".

2. If the ruling class gets behind a project, then the money is always found to implement it.

3. New engineers can always be trained...how many computer scientists were there in 1980 and how many are there now?

4. The problem of nuclear waste has been technically solved for decades...pick a large area that is otherwise useless and dump it. If the whole state of Nevada became a radioactive toxic wasteland, who would give a shit?


As it stands today, current technology to produce oil from shale is about &#036;9 per barrel compared to &#036;2 a barrel of Persian Gulf crude.

I don&#39;t know where your figures come from...but with spot oil prices at &#036;60 per barrel, it would seem that shale oil would be almost as profitable to produce as regular oil.

And note your phrase -- "current technology": do you think "that&#39;s it"? No more new technology will ever become available again in the field of oil extraction?

It&#39;s "the end of the line"???


No, my sources are saying it&#39;s too expensive, creates environmental problems, and that it seems improbable that it can realistically replace the daily consumption of 73 million barrels of oil per day.

When your sources say that, they&#39;re also saying something else as well: give up&#33;

Give up trying to advance the existing technological civilization and retreat to a pre-industrial society.

That&#39;s their message...and yours as well. Anything more advanced than 15th century technology is going to "cause environmental problems" somewhere.

As things stand now, we must wreck some portions of the earth in order for technological civilization to exist at all. It&#39;s unfortunate...but simply unavoidable.

If you are determined not to "wreck" anything...then you have no choice but to return to the 15th century -- which means feudalism with a little merchant capitalism on the side.

That makes you a primitivist in my book.


And you can have that with today&#39;s technology. If people would just reduce consumption by very small amounts, there would be a tremendous collective impact. Turn the lights off. Turn down the thermostat. Drive less and ride your bike more. Walk. Just be sensible about how you live and use your money for other things.

Being unable to read in the dark, I can&#39;t "turn the lights off".

If I "turn down the thermostat", my hands and feet ache with cold.

I am an old man -- my legs cannot "walk" two blocks without screaming in pain. I must take a taxi.

Being old is pretty hellish...but your prescriptions would make it even worse.


This doesn&#39;t mean or imply that all industrialized production is bad; it means that current levels are not sustainable.

Indeed they are not, but they will nevertheless continue and even increase. Perhaps when the world&#39;s population falls to a couple of billion or so (2200?), then some kinds of industrial production may be decreased.


More industrialization means more habitat destruction and environmental degradation for all species, not just man.

Habitat destruction and environmental degradation are inevitable. The priority should be to confine it as much as we can...in the context of the over-riding goal of raising 5/6ths of the population out of misery.


Abundance is a culturally relative term.

True...but there are commonalities as well. Whenever people have the chance to adopt more advanced technologies, they do it...and with alacrity. Very few people make a deliberate choice of "a simpler way of life".

And I suspect even fewer "stick with" that choice.

Still, if "wilderness" is what you really want, there are still places where you can find it...they are rather unpleasant places to live, but hey, it&#39;s wilderness.

At least for the time being.


If things don&#39;t change soon, they&#39;ll be looking backward and calling us a bunch of selfish motherfuckers.

But we&#39;ll be dead...so we won&#39;t care about their opinions of us. :lol:


The answer to our current situation, as Mohandis Karamchand Gandhi told us 60 years ago, is to turn society upside down and build the human world from the people up, rather than from the ruling elite down.

That you would turn out to be a fan of that old faker comes as no surprise.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Seeker]

The only form of human society that has ever existed sustainably is the local community, with an economic system based on local production for local consumption, organized bioregionally.


No human society has ever existed sustainably. Even before the continent we call America was invaded by Europeans, the people living here hunted some species into extinction.

We don&#39;t need "more" industrialization if we can make better use of the space we already occupy (and maybe even retreat a bit?). There is a good chance that (eventually) nanotechnology will let us fabricate just about anything using the same machine for all of it.

We can already e-mail devices made of molded plastic that are formed when the e-mail containing its shape is received. In a similar manner, new inventions could be distributed across the globe by sending blueprints to each community&#39;s (each household&#39;s?) universal fabricator, making trade a relic of the past.



*edit*

The International Comunities listing for my area . . . I was suprised, but I should not have been . . .


Men and women are different in essential ways. Men and women are not interchangeable. Men&#39;s and women&#39;s biology causes them to have different goals and abilities. Men protect women from the man&#39;s world. Women help men discover the attractions of family life and the home. Many women want to be taken care of and protected by their husband or lover. Many people believe their desire to be taken care of is a sign of either weakness or mental illness. It is neither. This desire is an aspect of femininity. These women are feminine women. Pro-fem believes in equal rights and equal opportunity for women. But Pro-fem also believes that if a woman decides she&#39;d rather focus on her femininity--as a wife and mother or as a caregiver, for instance--than on her masculinity--as a competitor in the business world, for instance-- her decision should be respected and honored. To disparage her decision is to disparage femininity. Modern Western societies have lost their respect for femininity. Pro-fem exists to help feminine women by promoting respect for femininity. The Pro-fem community offers women an environment in which their femininity is honored, respected, and celebrated and men an environment in which their responsible leadership is essential.



That sounds like it was written by a man?

[redstar2000]

Yeah, nothing too surprising about that "pro-fem" crap.

If someone were to undertake the tedious task of surveying all the primitivist sites (of various kinds), I&#39;d imagine they&#39;d find social attitudes to match.

Their "anarchism" is not even skin deep.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

No human society has ever existed sustainably. Even before the continent we call America was invaded by Europeans, the people living here hunted some species into extinction.

Wrong. Please read up on the Ohlone and other indigenous people that lived in Alaska and northern California.

[DEPAVER]

I really don&#39;t have any more time to devote to this discussion, because it&#39;s pointless. You have your views, and I have mine. We&#39;ll just have to agree to disagree.

This statement shows how far apart we are:


4. The problem of nuclear waste has been technically solved for decades...pick a large area that is otherwise useless and dump it. If the whole state of Nevada became a radioactive toxic wasteland, who would give a shit?

First of all, you&#39;re wrong about the waste problem. Secondly, the fact that you find any land "useless," is a concept I can&#39;t begin to fathom. But the statement about Nevada is as bizarre a statement as I&#39;ve ever seen on any list that is supposedly "leftist."

In fact, I don&#39;t even want to be associated with a list whose moderation is made up of people that hold these sorts of views.

You&#39;re a dangerous human being, but the good news is you apparently spend an inordinate amount of time typing away on your computer (nearly 10,000 posts on this forum alone), so that means you can&#39;t be doing a lot of damage elsewhere in society. Just keep typing away.

The sad part is that you&#39;re apparently intelligent, yet so misinformed and so misguided. Good luck living in your toxic Brave New World of concrete, steel, nuclear dumps, fast food and cancer.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
In fact, I don&#39;t even want to be associated with a list whose moderation is made up of people that hold these sorts of views.

Up to you.

But is it not inconsistent with your views to use a computer at all? Have you really considered the environmental footprint of computer manufacturing? And disposal???


You&#39;re a dangerous human being...

I hope so&#33; :lol:


Good luck living in your toxic Brave New World of concrete, steel, nuclear dumps, fast food and cancer.

Good luck in finding that cave...and a "pro-fem" female to share it with. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

My views are very consistent since I&#39;ve consistently discussed a "middle way."

I have a nice home, a wife of twenty years to share it with, lots of friends and sufficient means and time to enjoy the wilderness I love.

Bon chance, mon ami.