Why we have to start living more like the Na'vi now
 

The System with all its evils does not need anyone "outside" to bring it down. It is about to collapse under its own weight:

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/0...alisation.html

If you, like me, have been raised to be totally dependent on the Machine, then you, like me are in trouble. Anyone still dependent on it when the Collapse comes is going to be up sh*t creek without a paddle.

Fortunately there are wilderness skills courses to take and self-sufficient intentional communities already built, or being built. So much we have to relearn in order to live without this gilded cage...

Hey hey, I'm not totally dependent on the "Machine". What do you mean by that anyway, computers? :P

"The Machine" sounds like a simile I use, too, for the world where we are currently set into as units meant to function instead of living to keep it alive - that can be applied to the capitalist system in general, or, - in detail - the world of numbers and figures when working in an office (alienated from our work, since we don't actually produce something palpable, like e.g. a carpenter or baker would) makes us follow schedules and deadlines like a small cogswheel in a giant apparatus, now most often squeaking, screeching and grinding gears, instead of running smoothly.

Wiggling bare toes,

~*Txim Asawl*~.

Old news for me, but still helpful. ;)

Hahaha I'll have to remember this one XD On a more serious note though, wilderness courses are awesome and so much fun even if the system doesn't collpase soon (which I hope it will :P) I'd recommend taking them regardless of what happens and getting a decent book or 2 on edible plants would be handy as well. Embrace Na'viness ;)

hopefully if oil does cause collapse we'll start implementing renewable energy. I think humanity is too damn tenacious for anything short of an all out nuclear war to destroy us

(I'm not against a collapse, nor for one per se, either is fine. But if I've learned anything in my life it's that humanity does not want to die, and will do anything to maintain it's day-to-day life, even if day-to-day life is what is supressing us, people will still claw there way back to it.)

Wow, a speech written on a free blog site with power-point slides. I liked the part where there wasn't even a citation. I'll file that away with the guy claiming CoD is a plot by the Jews to breed a race of super soldiers.


To be honest, stuff like this reminds me why groups like the Tea Party can exist. We're getting stupid.

It's an anarchist fantasy/belief, closely linked to so called 'conspiracy theories' - that everyone and everything is personally out to get the author.

Isard is right. This is just Harold Camping from another perspective.

Conditions are getting worse, and when people are presented with "solution" they don't usually have the resources or understanding to evaluate said "solution", so they just go with it out of desperation. People are just ignorant, because they can't know any better, and in some cases, they don't want to know, and that's when you enter the stupidity zone.

It's kind of like the Brave New World, where the alpha experiment failed, because nobody was ignorant enough to take the short end of the stick. In essence, you can't fool people who know better, unless they have deluded themselves into thinking they know stuff, and are thus more ignorant than ever.

Ah yes, Orlov. He wrote a couple of books about topics like peak oil and the collapse of superpowers. He was living in the USSR when it still existed and observed the signs of collapse and then the collapse of it. I heard a couple of interviews with him, he gives talks in conferences that deal with stuff like ecovillages and transition towns and other relocalization and "back to the land" stuff. I think he has many very good points when he compares close-to-collapse USSR with present day USA. I think what he warns about is that if the US economy will collapse for any reason (which he is convinced it will because of financial crisis and peak oil) there is big trouble for the people, because all the supermarkets operate with "just in time" delivery, people do not have any reserves or backup skills but may work in insurance companies and banks which would have to fire a lot of people. The 2008 crisis was kind of a taste of what he thinks is coming.
Interestingly he usually depicts the USSR crash as sort of a soft landing because most families there still had a house with a garden somwhere, there was already a barter economy in place (because the economy sucked and there was corruption everywhere) and people kept stuff stored or knew how to produce some things because the economy sucked and many things were not available at any time.

So if the US economy will collapse anytime soon or later is an open question but IF it does, I think his analysis is pretty fitting - the one with the river and the paddle. Because if you imagine that millions of people loose their jobs, the state has no money to pay for them, the banks try to get their houses and cars that are mortgaged back and the US-$ looses value,... that is pretty tough if your life depends basically on having a job, earning these dollars and buying your food and space to live on with these dollars...

It doesn't take a genius to connect the collapse of the Union with the USA's destabilization. They're both very similar, you have a few asshats worm their way to the top and take everything for themselves. In Russia it was the government controlling business, in the US business controlling government. I've always said libertarians (at least anarchy-capitalists) and communists are fighting for the same thing, they just have different methods of ****ing everything up.

Exactly (oh wow, I agree with Isard). I think it was either Orlov or Heinberg who said that these two states are basically the same in so many ways, that the only difference was that the USSR was marginally less efficient in exploiting human and natural resources globally and thus collapsed a few years earlier.

I wonder about Europe. Just yesterday, Germany put its signature on another 1 trillion Euro bailout program. In the US the signs of collapse are more obvious, but it is going in slow motion it seems, Europe feels like it is kicking to keep afloat - I wonder what happens if they reach the end of the ladder. I think sh*t creek here is more a sh*t river. While people still to a large part have jobs that actually produce something tangible outside of the financial industry, they also do not have many backup plans. There is in most parts some kind of government aid for jobless people, laws to prevent evictions - but also the food comes from the supermarket. And Europe is hopelessly overpopulated - if energy resources get scarce because of some deep financial crash, it will be quite tough here because life in that density depends a lot on energy from the outside :s . And survival skills wont help you a lot in western/central Europe either - there is no way you can apply them in any serious way... maybe if you go to Sweden ;)

Well, I guess those people I knew at uni who thought about going to China to work as geologists there did at least the "right decision" in terms of keeping on top of the economy a little longer.

Unlikely. Energy isn't linked to finance, it's linked to its own supply and lack of action by governments.

As I said, anyone who believes in all this is no different from Harold Camping.

Energy isn't linked to finance? WHAT!?

Energy production moves too slowly for finance to have much an impact on them?

Lol.

There's no limited amount of energy available. More energy can be produced with more investment. That only starts to break once humans pass Type 1-2 on the Kardashev scale (utilising the entire energy output of a single planet or single star respectively) and only breaks completely when significantly past Type 3. There will not be 'no energy able to be produced' even if economies collapse - just that someone might not afford it, but it's there. A lowered demand will raise prices to allow reinvestment, which increase availability and economies of scale.

More energy will always be able to be produced - whether or not it is produced and whether it is affordable to the end user are just politics.

Energy being scarce and energy not being affordable are entirely different things, and anyone who doesn't realise that does not know basic economics.

I think you lost me at Kharado...Khardes... whatever...

It does not matter if there is energy in existence somewhere, if one cannot get to it because of recession and financial calamity which in turn is caused by scarcity of energy....

If something is linked strongly in this economy it is energy and finance - which is why I am very puzzled at that statement still.

I said the collapse had similarities, not the state.

As long as there's enterprise, it's possible. Energy could theoretically be produced far more cheaply if people stopped caring about environmental standards. Ergo, it's possible, especially since if energy was unaffordable to most, profits would be reinvested to raise capacity to generate more money. That is how business works, unless you are talking about a lack of any money at all, which would not happen in a failed economy, in which case it would be the same principle with with exchange of goods.

I still dont get what you are saying. This is sort of contrary to much of what I learned about economics, energy policies etc.
I agree that there is probably a certain part of energy costs that exist because of environmental standards, but honestly I think this is in most cases and certainly on a global scale a rather small part. And even if it is 20%, with the prices of for example oil rising from $20 a barrel to well over $100 within years - that margin of 20% is minute.
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

Energy scarcity or energy price explosions do lead to recessions. Recessions usually do not lead to real profits that are easily invested. Recessions however can lead to lowered energy prices because demand drops because people cannot afford energy anymore (because they lost jobs, money,...), companies went broke and so on. And yes recessions also lead to less money. Money depends on debt and trust, if people are not trusting each other, people cannot borrow money anymore and there is less money in circulation. This happened of course since 2008, the all time high of oil prices. Ever since then, governments are trying to create trust and credit by throwing budles of money at the banks, automibile companies, etc... They lower the prime rate in order to get more money into flow. This is what they did in 2008 and the rate has hit rock bottom since then, with no margin that allows for pushing that button anymore:
http://chart2.smarthouse.de/chart.as...b2262b997c4129
As money is no longer something that exists in some real way, but is basically completely built on trust in the economy, trust in growth, progress and future profits, it is highly volatile if these things are threatened. With increasing energy prices for example, future profits and growth are in danger of declining - causing upheaval on the marketplace.

I am not saying that there will be a collapse of everything soon or that "living like the NA'Vi" will solve this for now. What I think is an accurate analysis is that of a "catabolic collapse" scenario that has been proposed by several economists. The dynamics of this is that energy prices rise, the economy gets into trouble because fo that, production goes down, people cannot afford to consume, companies go bancrupt etc - then due to all that energy prices fall, the economy picks up again, energy prices rise again and the whole things happens over and over, however each time something new is sacrificed/worsened during the recessions - for example private house ownership (USA), health insurance (UK), pensions (USA, EU), government debt (EU), democracy (EU, Hungary), infrastructure (US), education (US, EU), safety, environmental standards etc... During the times of recovery, these degradations in society will persist to a large degree, as the first profits are needed to rebuild the economy, strengthen companies and empolyers and only reach employees or the public funds at a time when the next recession hits. That way with each step the overall wealth of people declines. If the economy does not trust the growth anymore out of fear of another recession, panic can break out and there can be a more rapid collapse. A side effect of such developments that already can be seen is an increasing totalitarian attitude of the rulers. Governments try to seize control of as much as they can - controlling people by CCTV, throwing human rights issues overboard etc - the same is true for the other rulers - the ones that have money. I think it pays to look at history. The past years I usually said back then reminded me of the 1920ies in many ways from all that I have read about them. What comes after the 1920ies is the "great depression" followed by fascism, war and a "wartime economy". The last time this worked - I am not so sure this time. Maybe there will be a "sustainability dictatorship" or something that forces companies to produce solar cells and wind turbines and electric cars instead of flatscreen TVs and gasoline driven cars. I dont know if that will happen - some people advocate for such an "green dictatorship" that forces the economy and society into a more sustainable behaviour - not out of some hippie ideas about saving the planet but out of sheer necessity for continued existence of states, industry, government, capitalism and civilization.

Now these things I said are not from Orlov or any other single source. I read some books, listened to talks and interviews with a couple of people who are scientists, economists and apt observers of the global situation. I find their analysis very thorough and much more convincing than to say "the free market economy is self regulating and it will fix everything if it is only allowed to do its work unhindered by the workers, people and governments" - which is in my opinion closer to faith than to conclusive logic and analysis. Why is the "invisible hand of the market" invisibnle? Because it is not there!

...so oil is now the only available source of energy? This coming from someone who religiously believes solar will solve everything? :P

Your point about recession and prices being linked is valid if irrelevant, but nowhere, at all, does that affect the ability for it to be produced, as long as there is any source of investment which will give a return.

It is a one with running costs to it, as opposed to solar power that doesn't require any fuel to be bought afterwards, so it's a bad business model in the long run.

As long as oil and other kind of fossil fuel companies exist, they will make sure that everyone is mainly dependant of their contribution to fuel energy production. Why do you think renewable energy sources are still not fully utilized instead of fossil ones? I'll give you a hint; it's all about the money.

:S I guess at this point, I'd be up for such a thing. I don't know what else would work, other than exterminate all the humans, as some have suggested :P

Right reason, wrong rationale. Solar costs over 2x as much as medium price sources per kWh, or 3 times as much as coal. That has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with their low return per unit, high unit cost, and intermittent nature.

Nope. It will bring about economic collapse. The research and development required for accessible green energy isn't cheap or free, unless scientists and engineers are slaves. There's nothing wrong with using fossil fuels as interim solutions until other sources of energy become much cheaper.

Who ever mentioned exterminating humans? -.-

I was joking really, but the idea of exterminating humans has been mentioned many times before :P That's fair though, I'd be up for such a thing if the current government continues to disregard the environmental degradation. I should've said at "some" point.

Care to take a guess as to why it is more expensive? It's funny how technology becomes better and cheaper the further it is developed, and solar power has purposefully not been developed for the reason that fossil fuel companies want to ensure that their profits do not decline.

I don't think it's just about how much solar costs. Solar cells aren't very efficient compared to other energy sources.

In fact I "religiously believe" that there is no easy solution that will allow us to keep living the life we do now in the next 20 years. Not solar and certainly not oil. But aside of that, this civilization is hooked on oil. Nothing can easily replace it. If people would have started working on alternaitves seriously 20 years ago when peak oil and climate change were already widely discussed among scientists, maybe by now there would already be an alternative infrastructure, but right now, the "quick fixes" that are created now all aim to keep using the existing infrastructure with combustion engines and just create some oil-like-substances (biodiesel, ethanol, liquid gas) in a way that does not depend on oil. And this is just inadequate. Biofuels are a disaster and gas is just another limited fossil fuel. So the fact is, that at this time now, the western lifestyle depends 100% on oil. And thus rising prices or lowered production rates have an impact on the whole economy, finances, food safety,... I am sure that some things can be adapted to alternatives, but the alternatives are all not as great as cheap oil used to be and the switch to them will take many years, probably about 20-30 years if the markets are to regulate this. But there are no 20-30 years left. The crisis is now. Yesterday I saw the mainstream news and boy are the EU politicians worried. They just want to shove money down Greece's throat not caring if the people want to make a democratic vote on accepting that "help" or not. The numbers thrown around get larger and larger. millions, billions, now trillions. In such a situation it is hard to imagine that people will find the money and willpower to actually invest in moving away from oil. All the more so because these other forms of energy also are expensive - nothing will be as cheap as oil in the 20th century. Which also means that production of everything will never be that cheap again, which means profits are not the same which means the economy cannot grow that fast. People have been spoiled by growth rates that were only possible with cheap energy and that time is over, but the economy is adapted to that, it depends on perpetual strong growth because the alternative is collapse. The present economy cannot work at zero growth or at minimal growth or even at a decline in production - it just crashes then.

So I guess that is the problem - it certainly can be produced under two prerequisites - there have to be the industrial capacities and technologies to produce the required machines (be that oil rigs, mining trucks, solar panels or windmills) and there has to be an investor that has enough money and enough trust to invest in such energy sources. I think there is a lack in production capacities and investors in a very shaky economy are not really abundant either. Probably there will be more investors at least wanting to go there once the limitations of oil are widely accepted and people are ready to act upon that. But I think what really is worrysome about that situation is, that the whole economy is becoming volatile, which is not a good climate for people investing large sums into projects that will be finished only in 10-20 years. And there would have to be a huge investment made to move away from oil, coal and gas. Not only in production, but also in transport, storage, distribution and usage of the new energies.
And add to that the limited resources and ecological and social problems that come from large scale "alternative energy" projects if you like, but economists probably would not do that.

We are done with interim solutions that follow the old paradigm. I have been around in the alternative energy "szene" for about 20 years now and what I saw in that time is that not enough changed. People always wait for cheaper and better technologies because they compare the new technologies to the cheap oil of the 20th century and nothing can compete with that. That has to be accepted. It has to be accepted that energy will be more expensive but one has to still go for it if one wants to keep it going. It is no use to start building alternative structures for anything - be that the electric grid, the society, economy or food production - once one has reached the limits and is in decline. The year in which a drought hits a farm is probably not the best time for the farmer to think about building a new irrigation system - because he is broke, hungry and can only say "I wish I had built it last year". And we are nearing that point in some areas of this cultures. Specifically energy issues!

That is a good point. Think about just how insanely much money is put into new technologies and new production of machines that increase oil production. Those horizontal drilling technologies, the whole tar sands technology, fracking, deep sea drill rigs, movable drillrigs for the Arctic, monster pipelines,... there are HUGE investments being made into the fossil fuel extraction. I bet if these would have been made towards truely sustainable ways of living, we'd already be halfway there. And I dont even want to start to talk about military expenses and financial bailouts - both indirectly caused by the continuation of the dependence on oil. Those numbers are just unthinkable. How much could be done with that money. But that is my problem with this - it will not be done. This is my criticism, that the culture we live in is shaped in a way that will not allow any other fundamentally different course than what we see now unfolding. And this is also why I do not believe in the "techno-fix", as obviously if we as a culture would think sustainably, we would easily have invested that kind of money into at least trying some other path that looks more sustainable (and probably have discovered by now that bioethanol and palm oil diesel will not be one that leads anywhere).

I have been posting this before I think, but here it is again: Searching for a Miracle | Richard Heinberg - it is a pretty solid and comprehensive comparison of energy sources that are available now with a strong focus on EROEI, scalability and impact.

Solar power is efficient if correctly applied and refined, but the main issue with it is the inconsistency here in the cold north for example. Wind energy on the other hand could be applied better here, but I don't personally like wind energy all that much, seeing how it's more mechanically demanding and hazardous to avians, not to mention noisy.

Not all.

Airborne wind turbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All my bets are on wind and water, primarily, since they've got the lowest maintenance costs to my knowledge.

Who would have thought that flying a kite could be both fun and useful. Then again I think these are a bit too massive to be handheld.

*sadface*

They are also fairly unreliable and inefficient, power-per-area wise.

Right, but in mass quantities, that's not as much of a problem.

It also drives costs up. Maintenance of thousands of installations is far worse than a single central powerful one, even before you get to the cost of building those thousands, and finding sites to ruin with them.

These wind concepts are interesting. Also because they would not need so much material. But in any case I think what should not be done is to postpone the move away from fossil fuels and nuclear power because some future technology might be even better than what exists now. Change has to happen now (or actually 20 yearas go). To postpone this vital change any longer is not acceptable. If new and better technologies would come up later, one can still change than, but to keep going as usual in the hope of a future solution is the wrong tactics, especially if it is not absolutely certain how and when exactly(!) these new technologies will be viable.

There are also tactics to deal with the intermittency of power by solar and wind. Among them are heat storage in solar thermal plants (to keep turbines running during cloudy times or night), variable power biogas plants (that run on biogas but only when the other plants lack power), the "smart grid" approach, in which some consumer technologies are remote-controlled to use power only when it is available (washing machines, electric water heaters, chargers for batteries, ...). In any case the impact will be noticeable, it will be more expensive and we'll have to change lifestyle and work on reducing demand (also because we do not want to see so many windmills in front of our houses). Really - saving this Earth, the climate, the health of the people and Nature will not be free.

I really do think that solar power is the way forward, if we can harness it a lot more efficiently than we currently do... After all, the sun is going to be around for as long as Earth is, if not longer... and do you know how much pure energy from the sun actually hits the Earth? Hint; It's a hell of a lot.

Approximately 1000W/m^2, so 500W/m^2 when you take night into account. This is the absolutely maximum, and only goes down when you think about clouds, electrical inefficiencies, etc. It's also, AFAIK, not a lot compared to nuclear or even coal.

(If you want to think into the implausibly far future, then solar is actually the most efficient solution, even more so than nuclear fusion... but it'd have to be solar panelling on Mercury. Earth simply isn't sunny enough.)